Att #11 CEQA Environmental Compliance Checklist 2-2026 — City Council/Public Financing Authority, March 3, 2026 (part 1 of 3)

CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST
Edison Park Reconfiguration
and Improvements Project
Lead Agency:

CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Contact: Ashley Wysocki
714.374.5302
Prepared By:

MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL
5 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 500
Santa Ana, CA 92707
Contact: Alan Ashimine
949.472.3505
February 2026
JN 208581
This document is designed for double-sided printing to conserve natural resources.

Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 i Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 Project Description ..................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Project Location .................................................................................................................. 1-1

1.2 Environmental Setting ....................................................................................................... 1-1

1.3 Project Characteristics ........................................................................................................ 1-6

1.4 Phasing and Construction ............................................................................................... 1-10

1.5 Permits and Approvals..................................................................................................... 1-10

2.0 CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Checklist ................................................................. 2-1

2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 2-1

2.2 Project Background ............................................................................................................ 2-3

2.3 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected .................................................................. 2-4

2.4 Environmental Determination ......................................................................................... 2-5 Environmental Analysis.......................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Aesthetics ............................................................................................................................. 3-1

3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ................................................................................. 3-7

3.3 Air Quality ......................................................................................................................... 3-11

3.4 Biological Resources ......................................................................................................... 3-29

3.5 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................ 3-36

3.6 Energy ................................................................................................................................ 3-41

3.7 Geology and Soils ............................................................................................................. 3-47

3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................................ 3-56

3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials .................................................................................. 3-69

3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ......................................................................................... 3-80

3.11 Land Use and Planning .................................................................................................... 3-88

3.12 Mineral Resources ............................................................................................................ 3-92

3.13 Noise ................................................................................................................................... 3-94

3.14 Population and Housing ................................................................................................ 3-113

3.15 Public Services ................................................................................................................. 3-116

3.16 Recreation ....................................................................................................................... 3-120

3.17 Transportation................................................................................................................. 3-122

3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources .............................................................................................. 3-128

3.19 Utilities and Service Systems ......................................................................................... 3-131

3.20 Wildfire ............................................................................................................................. 3-137

4.0 Determination/Checklist Conclusion ........................................................................ 4-1

5.0 References ................................................................................................................... 5-1

6.0 Report Preparation Personnel ..................................................................................... 6-1 Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 ii Table of Contents

EXHIBITS
1 Regional Vicinity............................................................................................................................... 1-2 2 Site Vicinity ....................................................................................................................................... 1-3 3 Conceptual Reconfiguration Plan .................................................................................................. 1-7 4 Proposed Phasing Plan.................................................................................................................... 1-8 TABLES
1-1 On-Site and Surrounding Land Uses ............................................................................................ 1-5

3.3-1 Maximum Daily Construction Air Emissions............................................................................ 3-19

3.3-2 Maximum Daily Operational Air Emissions.............................................................................. 3-22

3.3-3 Localized Emissions Significance During Construction .......................................................... 3-26

3.6-1 Project and Countywide Energy Consumption......................................................................... 3-43

3.8-1 Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions....................................................................................... 3-60

3.8-2 Consistency with the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS ............................................................................... 3-63

3.8-3 Consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan.................................................................................... 3-66

3.8-4 Consistency with the General Plan.............................................................................................. 3-67

3.11-1 General Plan Consistency Analysis.............................................................................................. 3-90

3.13-1 City of Huntington Beach Land Use Compatibility Standards............................................... 3-97

3.13-2 Exterior Noise Standards.............................................................................................................. 3-99

3.13-3 Short-Term Noise Measurements.............................................................................................. 3-102

3.13-4 Construction Noise Levels at the Nearest Residential Receptors......................................... 3-104

3.13-5 Pickleball Daytime Noise Impact - Leq...................................................................................... 3-108

3.13-6 Pickleball Daytime Noise Impact – Lmax ................................................................................... 3-109

3.13-7 Vibration Levels of Construction Equipment ......................................................................... 3-111

3.17-1 Project Trip Generation .............................................................................................................. 3-127

APPENDICES
Appendix A Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas/Energy Data
Appendix B Biological Resources Assessment
Appendix C Cultural Resources Assessment
Appendix D Geotechnical Report
Appendix E Noise Data and Report
Appendix F VMT Analysis
Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 1-1 Project Description

1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

1.1 PROJECT LOCATION
The City of Huntington Beach (City) is regionally located in the northwestern portion of Orange County, approximately 37 miles southeast of downtown Los Angeles; refer to Exhibit 1, Regional Vicinity. Regional access to the City is provided via the San Diego Freeway (Interstate 405 [I-405]) and Pacific Coast Highway (State Route 1 [SR-1]). Surrounding communities and areas include the City of Seal Beach to the northwest, the City of Westminster to the north, the City of Fountain Valley to the northeast, cities of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa to the east; and the Pacific Ocean to the southwest.

The proposed Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project (project) site is located in the southeastern portion of the City within Edison Community Park (Edison Park, or park) at 21377 Magnolia Street. As shown on Exhibit 2, Site Vicinity, the approximately 35.5-acre site encompasses four parcels (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers [APNs] 148-012-04, 06, -12, and 148-071-29) and is generally bound by Stilwell Drive to the north, Magnolia Street to the east, Hamilton Avenue to the south, and a portion of Seaforth Lane to the west. The southern portion of the site (inclusive of parcels with APNs 148-012-06 and 148-071-29) is owned and operated by Southern California Edison (SCE). It should be acknowledged that the approximately 4.5-acre lot with three ball fields to the northwest of the site is owned and operated by the Huntington Beach City School District (HBCSD) and is not part of the project site; refer to Exhibit 2.

Regional access to the site is provided via SR-1 and SR-39 (Beach Boulevard). Local access to the site is provided via Hamilton Avenue, Magnolia Street, and Stilwell Drive.

1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Edison Community Park is an existing public park owned and operated by the City of Huntington Beach. Existing amenities at the park include the following:
• Two lighted softball fields;
• Four tennis courts;
• Four full and four half-court basketball courts;
• Six outdoor racquetball courts;
• Seven temporary pickleball courts;
• Sand and rubber surfaced tot lot;
• Skate spot;
• Open turf areas;
• Walkways; and
• The 17,361-square foot Edison Community Center (also known as Edition Recreation Center) building.

Additionally, the Huntington Beach Fire Department – Magnolia Station 4 is located within the southeastern portion of the site with the address 21441 Magnolia Street.

EDISON PARK RECONFIGURATION AND IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
CEQA 15183 EXEMPTION CHECKLIST
Exhibit 1
Regional Vicinity NOT TO SCALE
07/2025 • JN 208581

P A C I F I C O C E A N
USMC
Camp Pendleton
101
395
405
405
605
105
210
210
710
110
215
215
5 5
5 15
15 15
15 10
10 10
73 55
57 91 91
90 60
71 83
66 91
60 38
18 18
22 39
1 2
14 18
18 138
138 173
247
74 74
1 1
133
261
241
330
241

SAN BERNARDINO
COUNTY

RIVERSIDE
COUNTY

SAN DIEGO
COUNTY

LOS ANGELES
COUNTY
ORANGE
COUNTY
Victorville
Adelanto
Hesperia
Apple Valley
San
Bernardino
Lake
Arrowhead
Running
Springs
Riverside
Fontana
Ontario Pomona
Rancho
Cucamonga
Chino
Rialto
Corona
Norco
Lake
Elsinore
Hemet
Beaumont
Redlands
Temecula
Fallbrook
Oceanside
Murrieta
Palmdale
Lancaster
San
Fernando
Pasadena
West
Covina
Whittier
Burbank
Glendora
Los
Angeles
Torrance
Long
Beach
Newport
Beach
Huntington
Beach
San
Clemente
Dana
Point
Laguna
Beach San Juan
Capistrano
Santa
Ana
Costa
Mesa
Garden
Grove
Fullerton
Yorba
Linda
Irvine
Moreno
Valley
Sun
City
Perris

PROJECT
SITE
Exhibit 2
Site Vicinity
Source: Google Earth Pro, July 2025

NOT TO SCALE
07/2025 • JN 208581

HAMILTON AVE

STILWELL DR

SABLE DR

ST AUGUSTINE DR

BRETON LN

YARMOUTH LN MIRMAR LN

WHITE HORSE LN

GREENBORO LN

SHEPERD LN

SEAFORTH LN

SAND DOLLAR LN

NEWLAND ST

ANTIGUA LN

MAGNOLIA ST

DORSET DR

REGATTA DR

BOBBIE CIR

POLYNESIAN LN

NIGUEL CIR

KROLL LN

POSTON LN

SHAW LN

PROJECT SITE

EDISON PARK RECONFIGURATION AND IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
CEQA 15183 EXEMPTION CHECKLIST
Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 1-4 Project Description
The topography of the park is generally flat, with the majority of the park composed of a natural grass surface. A network of meandering concrete pathways traverses the park for pedestrian connectivity.

An SCE utility corridor exists within the southern portion of the park, where SCE maintains electrical utility towers and east-west trending high-voltage overhead utility lines. Surface parking spaces are scattered throughout the eastern portion of the site, accessible via two driveways along Magnolia Street and another driveway along Stilwell Drive. Access to the fire station is provided via a separate driveway along Magnolia Street. There are approximately 234 existing trees on-site.

Two capped and abandoned oil wells are located within the northwest portion of the park. The first well is located directly south of Poston Lane in a grassy area. The second well is located directly south of Shaw Lane, also in a grassy area.

The park hosts over 200 recreation classes and activities for adult, teen, youth, and preschool ages; activities include Zumba, tennis, karate, fitness classes, boot camps, ballet, gymnastics, Pilates, guitar, yoga, baby classes, dog training, tot classes, tai chi, cooking, preschool program, surfing lessons, volleyball, basketball, football, softball, dance, summer camps, and skating. The Edison Community Center is open Monday through Thursday from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., and Saturday from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.; it is closed on Sundays. The sport courts and softball fields are illuminated until 10:00 p.m. every night.

1.2.1 Existing Land Use Designation and Zoning
According to the City of Huntington Beach General Plan (General Plan), the majority of the project site is designated as Open Space – Park (OS-P), with the southwestern portion of the site (APN 148-071- 29 owned by SCE) designated as Public (P).1 The OS-P designation provides for public parks and recreational facilities and supporting ancillary uses (e.g., maintenance equipment storage). The P designation provides for public and private schools, hospitals, churches, cultural facilities, institutional, and similar semi-public community service uses.

According to the City of Huntington Beach Zoning Map (Zoning Map), the majority of project site is zoned Open Space – Parks and Recreation Subdistrict (OS-PR), and the southwestern corner (parcel with APN 148-071-29, owned by SCE) and the fire station area in the southeastern corner of the site are zoned Public-Semipublic (PS).2 The OS District provides areas for public or private use and areas for preservation and enhancement. The PS District provides areas for large public or semipublic uses.

1.2.2 Surrounding Land Uses
The project is located within a highly developed and urbanized area with primarily residential, recreational, and educational facilities. Table 1-1, On-Site and Surrounding Land Uses, summarizes the on-site and surrounding land uses.
1 City of Huntington Beach, General Plan, City of Huntington Beach, General Plan Designations, August 2022. 2 City of Huntington Beach, City of Huntington Beach Zoning, https://huntingtonbeach.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=7ab822c02ded4940acd7e4593bba7c b7, accessed July 22, 2025.

Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 1-5 Project Description
Table 1-1
On-Site and Surrounding Land Uses
Description Existing Land Uses Land Use Designation Zoning Project Site Community Park; Utilities Open Space – Park (OS-P); Public (P)
Open Space – Parks and
Recreation Subdistrict (OS-PR);
Public-Semipublic (PS)
North
Huntington Beach City School
District offices and sports fields;
residential uses
Public/Semipublic, with
Residential Low Density as
underlying designation (PS [RL])1;
Residential Low Density (RL)
PS;
Residential Low Density (RL)
East Edison High School; SCE utility
corridor/open space
PS (RL);
OS-P
PS;
Open Space – Parks and
Recreation Subdistrict with Oil
Overlay (OS-PR-O)
South Ascon Landfill site; industrial uses
RM-sp (Residential Medium
Density– Specific Plan Overlay);
Industrial (I)
Magnolia Pacific Specific Plan
with Coastal Zone Overlay (SP10-
CZ);
Industrial Limited with Coastal
Zone Overlay and Oil Overlay (ILCZ-O)
West Residential homes RL RL
Notes:

1. Most land use properties with a Public-Semipublic designation have an underlying designation shown in parentheses on the Land Use Map.

The underlying designation indicates the preferred land use in the event the sites permanently transition to another use.

Sources:

City of Huntington Beach, General Plan, City of Huntington Beach, General Plan Designations, August 2022. City of Huntington Beach, City of Huntington Beach Zoning, https://huntingtonbeach.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=7ab822c02ded4940acd7e4593bba7cb7, accessed July 22, 2025.

1.2.2 Background and History
The park site was originally used by SCE as a sand and gravel pit in the 1950s. It was later used as the Cannery Street Refuse Disposal Station (also known as the Cannery Street Landfill [CSL]) in the 1950s through 1960s. This former landfill was approximately 27.5 acres in size (63.3 percent of the park) and encompassed the west side of the current park site. The former landfill received non-hazardous waste materials such as construction debris, stumps, logs, and large timber. Upon completion of waste placement activities, the former owner of CSL (County of Orange) dedicated the site to the City in 1974. To comply with the park restriction zoning, the City developed the area into the public park that is now the Edison Community Park in the same year (1974).

Some of the existing facilities/amenities at the park are constructed on top of waste material deposited at the former CSL, and some park facilities have been affected by land settlement over the years. The effect of settlement, differential settlement and/or a combination of both are observed at the existing tennis courts, sidewalks, open park areas and other hardscape/amenities at the site. Specifically, the existing tennis courts are located within the landfill limits and were constructed with a post-tension slab design in an effort to minimize settlement issues. However, two of the four courts have shifted to the point of creating severe grade changes and developing cracks in the concrete playing surface.

These two courts are no longer in use by the public. Sections of the tot playground and softball field areas have also shown significant settling. As discussed, two capped and abandoned oil well sites are Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 1-6 Project Description
located on the northwest corner of the park; both wells are located outside of the former 27.5-acre CSL site that the park was built over.

In 2009, a park master plan was proposed for the reconfiguration of the park. The master plan proposed to reconfigure the existing open space areas; add recreational amenities including bocce ball courts, and a skate park; reconfigure and expand the existing parking facility by adding 244 parking spaces for a total of 376 on-site parking spaces; install new landscape and hardscape improvements; and install four lighted practice soccer fields and a lighted multi-purpose field. The master plan was proposed to be carried out in four phases over approximately eight years. The proposed master plan and the associated Mitigation Negative Declaration (MND) No. 08-001 were approved by the City’s Planning Commission on June 9, 2009, and a Conditional Use Permit was granted for the project.

However, only a portion of the proposed improvements (parking lot and lighted fields) were constructed following the 2009 approval.

A former landfill (Ascon Landfill) is located to the south of the site across Hamilton Avenue. Ascon Landfill operated as an active landfill from around 1938 to 1984. In the early years of operation, the landfill received waste from oil drilling such as waste drilling muds, waste water brines, and other drilling waste. In later years, it received construction debris such as asphalt, concrete, and metal. This former landfill is currently undergoing cleanup work under the oversight of the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). No leaching or contamination has been detected from this former adjacent landfill to date.

The current condition of the park is largely similar to what was originally constructed in 1974. Key upgrades and modifications to the park over the years have included:
• Parking lot improvements;
• Lighting enhancements;
• Playground modifications;
• Replacement of picnic shelters with a skate spot; and • Replacement of hardscape and construction of temporary pickleball courts.

1.3 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
This City-initiated project proposes to reconfigure the park and create new park amenities over nonlandfill land; refer to Exhibit 3, Conceptual Reconfiguration Plan. The various new and upgraded amenities, including new sports courts, wheel sports, playground, trees, walkways, parking lot, and access, would offer diversified recreation and allow for more park engagement. The resettling and sinking amenities would be cleared under the project to allow for more open space.

The project is proposed to be constructed in three phases to allow portions of the park to remain open during construction; refer to Exhibit 4, Proposed Phasing Plan. Proposed improvements outlined by phases are shown on Exhibit 4 and detailed as follows:

Exhibit 3
Conceptual Reconfiguration Plan
Source: RJM Design Group, 2026

NOT TO SCALE
01/2026 • JN 208581

EDISON PARK RECONFIGURATION AND IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
CEQA 15183 EXEMPTION CHECKLIST

OWNED AND OPERATED

BY SCHOOL DISTRICT

OPEN TO THE PUBLIC
(5 ACRES)
Not a Part of the Proposed Project Not a Part of the Proposed Project Project Site

PHASING PLAN
A
B
C
Exhibit 4
Proposed Phasing Plan
Source: RJM Design Group, 2026

NOT TO SCALE
01/2026 • JN 208581

EDISON PARK RECONFIGURATION AND IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
CEQA 15183 EXEMPTION CHECKLIST

OWNED AND OPERATED

BY SCHOOL DISTRICT

OPEN TO THE PUBLIC
(5 ACRES)
Project Site
Not a Part of the Proposed Project Not a Part of the Proposed Project Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 1-9 Project Description
Phase A
• Demolition of two condemned tennis courts, tot lot, skate spot, and pickleball courts; • Conversion of two tennis courts (#3 and #4) into eight pickleball courts; • Installation of new pickleball courts west of the fire station; • Construction of new all-inclusive tot lot/playground with rubber surfacing, equipment, and shade southwest of Edison Community Center;
• Construction of an enlarged all-wheel plaza south of new tot lot; • Installation of new turf community open space;
• Installation of new mounded lawn for spectator seating; and • Minor expansion of exterior park restrooms at Edison Community Center to meet park needs and Americans with Disabilities (ADA) requirements.

Phase B
• Demolition of handball courts/walls, basketball courts, existing parking, and existing driveway at Stilwell Drive;
• Reconfiguration and expansion of parking lot to add additional parking spaces with new driveway constructed at Poston Lane;
• Installation of sport court plaza with seating and shade; • Installation of six full basketball courts;
• Installation of two new tennis courts with new practice hitting walls; • Installation of four new bocce ball courts; and
• Construction of a new shade shelter between the new tot lot and all-wheel plaza.

Phase C
• Demolition of existing walkways; and
• Installation of new 50 yards wide and 70 yards long soccer field overlay, pending SCE’s review and approval.

Proposed pickleball courts would be operational between 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.

The project would construct approximately 44 new parking spaces. Upon construction, a total of 245 parking spaces would be provided throughout. Additionally, approximately 50 existing trees would be removed due to hazardous health. The project would follow the City’s typical tree replacement process of a 1:2 ratio; for every one tree removed, two would be planted. As such, over 123 new mature trees would be planted during Phase A and Phase B construction.

Both abandoned oil wells on-site would remain undisturbed and avoided during all proposed development and improvements.

Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 1-10 Project Description
It should be noted that two variations of the conceptual reconfiguration plan are under consideration by the City. These two variations of the plan include minor differences related to phasing and improvements, with the most substantive change being the proposed location of new pickleball courts.

The first variation of the conceptual reconfiguration plan included the conversion of two existing tennis courts into eight pickleball courts within the central portion of the site, and the creation of eight new pickleball courts within the northeastern portion of the site. The second variation of the conceptual reconfiguration plan (depicted within Exhibit 3) modified the design to shift the creation of the eight new pickleball courts to the southeastern corner of the project site, immediately west of the existing Huntington Beach Fire Station. The impact analysis within this document would apply to either variation of the conceptual reconfiguration plan; moreover, noise impacts specific to pickleball activities are considered for both variations within Section 3.13, Noise.

1.4 PHASING AND CONSTRUCTION
As discussed above, the project is expected to be constructed over three phases. However, there is a possibility that the project may be constructed in a single phase. In this scenario, single-phase project construction would occur for a duration of approximately 13 months and the project is anticipated to be operational by September 2027. To provide a conservative analysis of the project’s construction impacts (i.e., analyze the most intensive construction scenario), single phase construction has been assumed and analyzed within this Exemption Checklist.

1.5 PERMITS AND APPROVALS
The proposed project would require permits and approvals from the City of Huntington Beach as well as other agencies, as applicable. Applicable permits and approvals may change as the project entitlement process proceeds.

Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 2-1 CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Checklist

2.0 CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15183 CHECKLIST

2.1 INTRODUCTION

2.1.1 City of Huntington Beach General Plan Update EIR
The City of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program Environmental Impact Report (General Plan Update EIR; SCH No. 2015101032 ) was certified by the City Council in 2017 and analyzed potential environmental impacts associated with the City of Huntington Beach General Plan Update (General Plan Update). The General Plan is a statement of long-range public policy to guide the use of private and public lands within the City and the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI). The General Plan Update establishes an overall development capacity for the City and serves as a policy guide for determining the appropriate physical development and character of Huntington Beach over an approximate 25- year planning horizon (to 2040). The General Plan Update includes a GHG Reduction Program, a Coastal Resiliency Program (CRP) as well as identifies preparedness goals, actions and an implementation strategy. The General Plan Update provides updates to nine elements of the General Plan, which include Land Use, Circulation, Environmental Resources/Conservation, Natural and Environmental Hazards, Noise, Infrastructure/Public Services, Historic/Cultural Resources, Housing, and Coastal.

The General Plan Update EIR analyzes the environmental impacts associated with buildout of the General Plan Update in accordance with CEQA. As noted in the General Plan Update EIR, implementation of the General Plan Update would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to air quality, cultural resources, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and utilities and service systems. All other potentially significant impacts were determined to be less than significant upon compliance with existing regulations and implementation of mitigation measures.

2.1.2 Applicability of CEQA Streamlined Review Exemption Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(d), this section shall only apply to projects which meet the following conditions:

1. The project is consistent with:
a. A community plan adopted as part of the general plan, b. A zoning action which zoned or designated the parcel on which the project would be located to accommodate a particular density of development, or c. A general plan of a local agency, and

2. An EIR was certified by the lead agency for the zoning action, the community plan, or the general plan.

The streamlined review exemption pursuant to Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines applies only to the extent that all feasible mitigation measures for a significant effect specified in the EIR are or will be undertaken by the public agency having jurisdiction to implement such mitigation measures (CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(e)(1) and (2)).

Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 2-2 CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Checklist As required by CEQA, the City prepared the Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the City of Huntington Beach General Plan Update (General Plan Update EIR) which analyzed the environmental impacts of the General Plan Update. The City of Huntington Beach City Council certified the General Plan Update EIR on October 2, 2017.

Accordingly, the Section 15183 streamlined review exemption applies because the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan Update, the General Plan Update EIR was certified for the General Plan Update, and all feasible mitigation measures identified in the General Plan Update EIR MMRP as being applicable to the proposed project would be implemented, as further discussed in this CEQA Environmental Compliance Checklist.

2.1.3 Scope of CEQA Streamlined Review Exemption
In evaluating whether a project is exempt from further environmental review, CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b) specifies that a public agency shall limit its examination of environmental effects to those which the agency determines, in an initial study or other analysis:

1. Are peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project would be located,

2. Were not analyzed as significant effects in a prior EIR on the zoning action, general plan, or community plan, with which the project is consistent,

3. Are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts which were not discussed in the prior EIR prepared for the general plan, community plan or zoning action, or

4. Are previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information that was not known at the time the EIR was certified, are determined to have a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the prior EIR.

An additional EIR, or other environmental document, need not be prepared for a project solely on the basis of an impact that is not peculiar to the parcel or to the project, has been addressed as a significant effect in the prior EIR, or can be substantially mitigated by the imposition of uniformly applied development policies or standards (CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(c)). An impact is not peculiar if uniformly applied development standards or procedures have been previously adopted by the city or county with a finding that the development standards or procedures will substantially mitigate that environmental impact (CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(f)). The finding shall be based on substantial evidence which does not need to be addressed in an EIR and such uniformly adopted policies or procedures does not need to be included in the general plan or any community plan.

Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 2-3 CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Checklist

2.2 PROJECT BACKGROUND

1. Project Title: Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project

2. Lead Agency Name and Address:

City of Huntington Beach
Community & Library Services Department
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648

3. Contact Person and Phone Number:

Ashley Wysocki, Director of Community & Library Services Community & Library Services Department
(714) 374-5302
[email protected]

4. Project Location:

The project site consists of Edison Community Park located at 21377 Magnolia Street. The approximately 35.5-acre site encompasses four parcels (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers [APNs] 148-012-04, 06, -12, and 148-071-29) and is generally bound by Stilwell Drive to the north, Magnolia Street to the east, Hamilton Avenue to the south, and a portion of Seaforth Lane to the west. The approximately 4.5-acre lot with three ball fields to the northwest of the site is owned and operated by the Huntington Beach City School District (HBCSD) and is not part of the project site.

5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:

City of Huntington Beach
Community & Library Services Department
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648

5. General Plan Designation:

The majority of project site is designated Open Space – Park (OS-P), with the southwestern portion of the site (APN 148-071-29, owned by Southern California Edison [SCE]) designated as Public (P).

7. Zoning:

The majority of project site is zoned Open Space – Parks and Recreation Subdistrict (OSPR), while the southwestern corner (parcel with APN 148-071-29, owned by SCE) and the fire station area in the southeastern corner of the site are zoned Public-Semipublic (PS).

Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 2-4 CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Checklist

8. Description of the Project:

The west side of the current park site was previously used as a sand and gravel pit and a landfill in the 1950s through 1960s. As such, some of the existing facilities/amenities at the park constructed on top of waste material have been affected by land settlement over the years.

The project proposes to reconfigure the park and create new park amenities over nonlandfill land. The various new and upgraded amenities, including new sports courts, wheel sports, playground, trees, walkways, parking lot, and access, would offer diversified recreation and allow for more park engagement. The resettling and sinking amenities would be cleared under the project to allow for more open space. Additional details regarding the proposed project are provided in Section 1.3, Project Characteristics.

9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:

The project is located within a highly developed and urbanized area surrounded by primarily residential, recreational, and educational facilities. Refer to Table 1-1, On-Site and Surrounding Land Uses, that summarizes the on-site and surrounding land uses.

10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval or participation agreement):

Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (General Construction Permit)

2.3 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The project would potentially affect the environmental factors checked below, involving at least one impact that is 1) a peculiar impact that was not identified as a significant impact under the General Plan Update EIR, 2) a significant impact that was not analyzed as significant in the General Plan Update EIR, 3) a potentially significant off-site impact or cumulative impact not discussed in the General Plan Update EIR, or 4) a more severe impact due to substantial new information that was not known at the time the General Plan Update EIR was certified. Impacts would be mitigated to a less than significant level as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

Aesthetics Land Use and Planning
Agriculture and Forestry Resources Mineral Resources
Air Quality Noise
Biological Resources Population and Housing
Cultural Resources Public Services
Energy Recreation
Geology and Soils Transportation
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Tribal Cultural Resources
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Utilities and Service Systems Hydrology and Water Quality Wildfire

Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 2-6 CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Checklist This page intentionally left blank.

Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-1 Environmental Analysis

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

3.1 AESTHETICS
Except as provided in Public Resources Code
Section 21099, would the project:

Prior EIR
Determination
CEQA Section 15183(b) Criteria
Effect
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Off-Site/
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More
Severe
Adverse
Impact?
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista?
Less Than
Significant No No No No
b. Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway?
Less Than
Significant No No No No
c. In non-urbanized areas, substantially
degrade the existing visual character or
quality of public views of the site and its
surroundings? (Public views are those that
are experienced from publicly accessible
vantage point). If the project is in an
urbanized area, would the project conflict
with applicable zoning and other regulations
governing scenic quality?
Less Than
Significant No No No No
d. Create a new source of substantial light or
glare, which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
Less Than
Significant No No No No

3.1.1 General Plan Update EIR Summary
As concluded on the General Plan Update EIR, upon compliance with identified goals and policies of the General Plan Update and the regulations of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (Zoning Code), adopted Citywide Design Guidelines, and applicable state and City regulations, implementation of development associated with the General Plan Update would result in a less than significant impact on scenic vistas.

As concluded on the General Plan Update EIR, adherence to and implementation of the General Plan Update policies and compliance with state and local regulations would reduce potential impacts from new development on scenic resources to less than significant levels.

According to the General Plan Update EIR, the most substantial growth and development would occur within the areas designated as Transform, which focus any intensification of uses and an associated change in visual character in specific areas of the City. This would ensure that the majority of the City, including the City’s identified aesthetic and scenic resources, will not be affected by the future growth. As such, the aesthetic and visual character of the City would not be substantially altered as a result of growth associated with the General Plan Update. Further, the visual character and quality Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-2 Environmental Analysis
of the City would be preserved through the application of various policies aimed at enhancing the distinct aesthetic identity of existing and future areas and districts. The General Plan Update policies would ensure that unique neighborhoods and districts would be preserved and plans would enhance the character and appearance of these areas. As concluded on the General Plan Update EIR, implementation of development allowed by the General Plan Update would have a less than significant impact on to the substantial degradation of the visual character and quality of the City and its surroundings.

According to the General Plan Update EIR, adherence to and implementation of the General Plan Update policies, Specific Plan development standards and design guidelines, and compliance with the City’s Zoning Code and all applicable state and local regulations would reduce potential impacts from new development light and glare on day or nighttime views.

3.1.2 Project-Specific Impacts
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? According to the General Plan Update EIR, scenic vistas within the City include views of the Pacific Ocean and the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve, which covers approximately 1,400 acres. The Pacific Ocean is considered the most prominent visual asset in the City and the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve provides quality views of wetland marshes and wildlife. The General Plan Update EIR identified three categories of character changes proposed throughout the City: preserve, conserve and transform. As shown on the General Plan Update EIR Figure 4.1-3, Character Change, Edison Community Park is considered a “Conserve” land use and is not anticipated to undergo transformational changes due to development. Further, the project site is located 0.6-mile from the Pacific Ocean and 3.9 miles from the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve; with this distance and intervening development, structures, and vegetation in between, the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on these scenic vistas. Overall, as a park reconfiguration project that would not include any new habitable structures, the proposed project would not substantially impact a scenic vista.

As analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR, impacts related to scenic vistas were analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR and found to be less than significant. No substantial new information shows that project impacts related to scenic vistas would be more significant than described in the General Plan Update EIR because project impacts related to scenic vistas are less than significant. Therefore, there are no impacts peculiar to the project site related to scenic vistas that would exceed what was previously disclosed in the General Plan Update EIR. Further, there are no direct or cumulativelyconsiderable impacts of the proposed project related to scenic vistas that were not already evaluated by the General Plan Update EIR. Therefore, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, no further environmental review is required. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? According to California Department of Transportation’s (Caltrans’) California State Scenic Highway System Map, no officially designated State scenic highway is located within site vicinity and the Pacific Coast Highway (eligible for designation) is located 0.45-mile southwest; due to the distance and Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-3 Environmental Analysis
intervening topography, there are no views available between Pacific Coast Highway and the project site. As such, no impacts would occur in this regard.

With regard to local scenic corridors, the City organizes corridors into two categories: 1) major corridors, which carry larger volumes of traffic, typically crossing municipal boundaries, and often are lined by commercial and multiple-family residential uses; and 2) minor corridors, which carry less traffic, often originate and terminate within the city boundaries, and are predominantly lined by perimeter tract walls that line single-family residential neighborhoods. According to General Plan Update EIR Figure 4.1-1, Scenic Corridors, Magnolia Street, which borders the site to the east, is considered a Minor Urban Scenic Corridor by the City.

The most prominent scenic resources within the City are the Pacific Ocean and associated beaches.

However, no view of the Pacific Ocean and beaches is afforded at or adjacent to the project site.

Given the project would involve reconfiguration of park amenities and would not result in the construction of any permanent buildings, the project would not be distinguishable from the existing park nor would they adversely impact existing scenic vistas from Magnolia Street. As such, no scenic resources along Magnolia Street would be impacted, and no impacts would occur in this regard.

As analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR, no impacts related to scenic resources within a State scenic highway were found to occur. No substantial new information shows that project impacts related to scenic resources within a State scenic highway would be more significant than described in the General Plan Update EIR because no impacts related to scenic resources within a State scenic highway would occur. Therefore, there are no impacts peculiar to the project site related to scenic resources within a State scenic highway that would exceed what was previously disclosed in the General Plan Update EIR. Further, there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project related to scenic resources within a State scenic highway that were not already evaluated by the General Plan Update EIR. Therefore, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, no further environmental review is required.

c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?

The proposed project is located within an urban and developed area of the City. As such, the following analysis focuses on evaluating the project’s consistency with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality.

CONSTRUCTION
Project construction would occur for a duration of approximately 13 months. During this time, construction of the project could result in short-term visible construction activities, equipment, and staging areas, all of which would temporarily impact the visual character and quality of the project site and surrounding area. However, given the nature of project improvements (reconfiguration of existing park improvements), the intensity of construction activities would be relatively limited. The project Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-4 Environmental Analysis
would not require substantial earthwork, and the stockpiling of soils, equipment, and building materials would be minimal. Moreover, project construction activities would adhere to the City’s Municipal Code Section 8.40.090, Special Provisions, that prohibits construction during the hours of 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. during the week and prohibited at any time on Sunday or a Federal holiday unless otherwise permitted by the City. Following construction, the character of the project site would be similar to existing conditions. As such, temporary construction related activities would not conflict with zoning or other regulations governing scenic quality, and impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

OPERATIONS
According to the City of Huntington Beach Zoning Map (Zoning Map), the majority of project site is zoned Open Space – Parks and Recreation Subdistrict (OS-PR), and the southwestern corner (parcel with APN 148-071-29, owned by SCE) and the fire station area in the southeastern corner of the site are zoned Public-Semipublic (PS).3 The OS District provides areas for public or private use and areas for preservation and enhancement. The PS District provides areas for large public or semipublic uses.

The proposed project would reconfigure existing park facilities within existing park boundaries. The project does not propose any change in land use or operations, and would be consistent with the existing zoning of OS-PR and PS. Further, the proposed project would not conflict with applicable requirements for minimal lot area; minimum lot width; minimum setbacks to the front, side, street side, and back side (rear); maximum height of structures; or maximum lot coverage specific to the OSPR district in accordance with Municipal Code Section 213.08, Development Standards. The project would also comply with design standards for minimum site landscaping, fences and walls, outdoor facilities, screening of mechanical equipment, refuse storage areas, underground utilities, performance standards applicable to the OS-PR zoning located in other sections of the Municipal Code. Upon project completion, the park would continue to be compatible with the established physical scale of the area and would not encroach on major view corridors. The project is not located within the coastal zone. No building design standards for OS-PR would apply to the project as the project does not propose any permanent buildings or structures; none of the proposed improvements would exceed maximum height.

No improvements or modifications are proposed to areas zoned PS. As such, no impacts would occur in these areas.

Overall, the project would consist of relocated or new park amenities and would look similar to the existing park. The project would be designed to be compatible with existing zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. As such, long-term visual impacts would be minimal and would not conflict with zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard.
3 City of Huntington Beach, City of Huntington Beach Zoning, https://huntingtonbeach.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=7ab822c02ded4940acd7e4593bba7c b7, accessed July 22, 2025.

Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-5 Environmental Analysis
Impacts related to project consistency with regulations governing scenic quality were analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR and found to be less than significant. No substantial new information indicates that project impacts related to regulations governing scenic quality would be more significant than described in the General Plan Update EIR because project impacts related to regulations governing scenic quality are less than significant. Therefore, there are no impacts peculiar to the project site related to regulations governing scenic quality that would exceed what was previously disclosed in the General Plan Update EIR. Further, there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project related to regulations governing scenic quality that were not already evaluated by the General Plan Update EIR. Therefore, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, no further environmental review is required.

d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Glare results from reflected light caused by sunlight or artificial light reflecting from highly finished surfaces (e.g., window glass, mirrored finishes, or brightly colored surfaces). Land uses that are typically sensitive to excess light and glare include residential, hospitals, senior housing, and other types of uses where excessive light and glare may disrupt sleep. In addition, light and glare may interfere with the vision of drivers.

The proposed project is located within an urban and developed area of the City; as such, areas surrounding the project site are urbanized and contain various sources of light and glare. Currently, the sport courts (including tennis courts, basketball courts, and racquetball courts) and softball fields are illuminated until 10:00 p.m. every night, and there is security lighting interspersed throughout open space areas and the parking lot.

The project is not anticipated to result in substantial light or glare during the short-term construction process. Given the minimal nature of grading and earthwork required for project improvements, it is not anticipated that construction equipment capable of generating significant daytime glare will be required. In addition, based on the Municipal Code Section 8.40.090, Special Provisions, construction activities are limited to occur only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, and prohibited at any time on Sunday or a Federal holiday unless otherwise permitted by the City. Therefore, construction of the proposed project would occur primarily during daylight hours.

Light and glare impacts related to construction activities would be less than significant in this regard.

At project completion, the new sports courts and practice fields would introduce additional sport lights to the project site. Security lighting would also be provided for the reconfigured open space areas and parking lot. As such, implementation of the proposed project would result in additional nighttime lighting with a potential for glare impacts to adjacent uses.

Based on existing conditions, the closest sport light(s) to an adjacent sensitive receptor is associated with the baseball fields in the western portion of the park, located approximately 80 feet from the nearest sensitive receptors (single-family residences to the west). Based on the proposed site plan, the closest newly proposed sport light(s) to an adjacent sensitive receptor is associated with the tennis courts in the northeastern portion of the park, which is approximately 300 feet from the nearest sensitive receptors (single-family residences to the north). As such, the new sport lights would not be Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-6 Environmental Analysis
closer to any adjacent receptor than the existing light(s) discussed above. Proposed lighting would also be similar in lighting intensity as compared to existing conditions and would be directed, shielded, and of the appropriate intensity to minimize impacts to adjacent receptors, consistent with the City’s Municipal Code. Furthermore, the project would not introduce highly reflective building materials (such as large expanses of glass or windows) and would therefore result in minimal glare impacts.

Overall, compliance with applicable regulations would ensure light and glare impacts associated with construction and operations of the project are minimized to less than significant levels.

Impacts related to light and glare were analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR and found to be less than significant. No substantial new information shows that project impacts related to light and glare would be more significant than described in the General Plan Update EIR because project impacts related to light and glare are less than significant. Therefore, there are no impacts peculiar to the project site related to light and glare that would exceed what was previously disclosed in the General Plan Update EIR. Further, there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project related to light and glare that were not already evaluated by the General Plan Update EIR. Therefore, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, no further environmental review is required.

Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-7 Environmental Analysis

3.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
In determining whether impacts to agricultural
resources are significant environmental effects,
lead agencies may refer to the California
Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment
Model (1997) prepared by the California
Department of Conservation as an optional model
to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and
farmland. Would the project:

Prior EIR
Determination
CEQA Section 15183(b) Criteria
Effect
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Off-Site/
Cumulativ
e Impact?
New
Information,
More Severe
Adverse
Impact?
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
No Impact No No No No
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact No No No No c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 122220(g)),
timberland as defined by Public Resources
Code section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code section 51104(g))?
No Impact No No No No
d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion
of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact No No No No e. Involve other changes in the existing
environment, which due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland to non-agricultural use or forest
land to non-forest use?
No Impact No No No No

3.2.1 General Plan Update EIR Summary
As detailed in the General Plan Update EIR, there are approximately 81 acres (less than 1 percent of the City) of agricultural land, primarily nurseries located in the southeastern portion of the City within SCE rights-of-way and designated as Public on the General Plan Update Land Use Map. The Zoning Code previously identified a residential agricultural (RA) district to serve as a transition or holding zone for property with existing agricultural activities, and as a zone where restricted residential development is permitted. Although this zone is no longer part of the Zoning Code, there are several locations throughout the City that still have an RA zoning designation, with the largest concentration of RA-zoned parcels occurring in the southeastern portion of the City. It should be noted that there is no RA designation under the existing General Plan Update. Also, there are no areas zoned for forestry purposes within the City. No federal plans, policies, regulations, or laws related to agricultural resources apply to the City. Therefore, the buildout of the General Plan Update would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or Williamson Act contract land. No portion of the City is designated or zoned as forestry land or timberland and would not result in the conversion of forest land to non-forestry use; therefore, no impact would occur. The General Plan Update does not include changes to any current agricultural or forestry resources; therefore, the effects of the General Plan Update were found not to be significant.

Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-8 Environmental Analysis

3.2.2 Project-Specific Impacts
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? The project site is an existing park use and has been previously disturbed and does not contain any farmland. According to the California Department of Conservation’s online mapping tool, the project site is not associated with an area designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance.4 Thus, no impacts would occur in this regard.

As analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR, no impacts related to converting farmland to nonagricultural use were found to occur. No substantial new information shows that project impacts related to converting farmland to non-agricultural use would be more significant than described in the General Plan Update EIR because no project impacts related to converting farmland to nonagricultural use would occur. Therefore, there are no impacts peculiar to the project site related to converting farmland to non-agricultural use that would exceed what was previously disclosed in the General Plan Update EIR. Further, there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project related to converting farmland to non-agricultural use that were not already evaluated by the General Plan Update EIR. Therefore, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, no further environmental review is required. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? The project site is zoned Open Space – Parks and Recreation Subdistrict (OS-PR) and PublicSemipublic (PS). No zoning for agricultural use currently applies to the project site and surrounding areas. Additionally, according to the General Plan Update EIR, no Federal plans, policies, regulations, or laws related to agricultural resources (including Williamson Act contracts) apply to the City, which includes the project site. Thus, no impacts would occur in this regard.

As analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR, no impacts related to agricultural zoning or Williamson Act contracts were found to occur. No substantial new information shows that project impacts related to agricultural zoning or Williamson Act contracts would be more significant than described in the General Plan Update EIR because no project impacts related to agricultural zoning or Williamson Act contracts would occur. Therefore, there are no impacts peculiar to the project site related to agricultural zoning or Williamson Act contracts that would exceed what was previously disclosed in the General Plan Update EIR. Further, there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project related to agricultural zoning or Williamson Act contracts that were not already evaluated by the General Plan Update EIR. Therefore, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, no further environmental review is required. c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 122220(g)), timberland as defined by Public Resources Code 4 California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, California Important Farmland Finder, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/, accessed on September 10, 2025.

Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-9 Environmental Analysis
section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
Refer to Responses 3.2.2(a) and (b). No zoning for forest land or timberland exists within the project site, and no impacts would occur in this regard.

As analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR, no impacts related to zoning for forest land or timberland were found to occur. No substantial new information shows that project impacts related to zoning for forest land or timberland would be more significant than described in the General Plan Update EIR because no project impacts related to zoning for forest land or timberland would occur.

Therefore, there are no impacts peculiar to the project site related to zoning for forest land or timberland that would exceed what was previously disclosed in the General Plan Update EIR. Further, there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project related to zoning for forest land or timberland that were not already evaluated by the General Plan Update EIR. Therefore, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, no further environmental review is required.

d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Refer to Responses 3.2.2(a) through (c). No impacts would occur in this regard.

As analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR, no impacts related to conversion of forest land to nonforest use were found to occur. No substantial new information shows that project impacts related to conversion of forest land to non-forest use would be more significant than described in the General Plan Update EIR because no project impacts related to conversion of forest land to non-forest use would occur. Therefore, there are no impacts peculiar to the project site related to conversion of forest land to non-forest use that would exceed what was previously disclosed in the General Plan Update EIR. Further, there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project related to conversion of forest land to non-forest use that were not already evaluated by the General Plan Update EIR. Therefore, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, no further environmental review is required. e) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
As stated above in Responses 3.2.2(a) through (c), the project site occurs within an urbanized area and is void of any agricultural or forest resources. Thus, there is no potential for the conversion of these resources and no impacts would occur in this regard.

As analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR, no impacts related to conversion of farmland to nonagricultural use were found to occur. No substantial new information shows that project impacts related to conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use would be more significant than described in the General Plan Update EIR because no project impacts related to conversion of farmland to nonagricultural use would occur. Therefore, there are no impacts peculiar to the project site related to conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use that would exceed what was previously disclosed in Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-10 Environmental Analysis
the General Plan Update EIR. Further, there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project related to conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use that were not already evaluated by the General Plan Update EIR. Therefore, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, no further environmental review is required.

Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-11 Environmental Analysis

3.3 AIR QUALITY
Where available, the significance criteria
established by the applicable air quality
management district or air pollution control district
may be relied upon to make the following
determinations. Would the project:

Prior EIR
Determination
CEQA Section 15183(b) Criteria
Effect
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Off-Site/
Cumulativ
e Impact?
New
Information,
More Severe
Adverse
Impact?
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
the applicable air quality plan?
Significant and
Unavoidable
Impact
No No No No
b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which
the project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or State ambient air
quality standard?
Significant and
Unavoidable
Impact
No No No No
c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
Significant and
Unavoidable
Impact
No No No No
d. Result in other emissions (such as those
leading to odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of people?
Less Than
Significant Impact No No No No

3.3.1 General Plan Update EIR Summary
As detailed in the General Plan Update EIR, the General Plan Update would be consistent with South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD) 2012 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) and 2016 AQMP in the reduction of vehicle miles traveled and the 2012 and 2016 AQMP forecasts for population/employment/housing levels. As such, implementation of the General Plan Update would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of the AQMP and/or applicable portions of the State Implementation Plan (SIP), and impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

As discussed in the General Plan Update EIR, implementation of the General Plan Update would potentially violate air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation even with adherence to the General Plan policies, Specific Plan development standards, compliance with state and local regulations, and identified mitigation measures; therefore, impacts on air quality would be significant and unavoidable. Implementation of future development projects under the General Plan Update would result in construction activities that generate emissions of criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants (TACs), including diesel particulate matter and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). While these emissions have the potential to exceed SCAQMD thresholds, a comprehensive suite of mitigation measures have been identified to reduce air quality impacts associated with construction activities.

Specifically, General Plan Update EIR mitigation measures (MM) 4.2-1 through MM4.2-11 require project applicants to incorporate contract specifications that mandate the use of diesel retrofit technologies (e.g., engine catalysts), low nitrogen oxides diesel fuel where feasible, proper engine maintenance, reliance on grid electricity over combustion-powered generators, and extensive fugitive dust control measures consistent with SCAQMD Rule 403. Additional measures require construction Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-12 Environmental Analysis
equipment to be turned off when idle, traffic interference to be minimized through parking and scheduling strategies, and the use of temporary traffic controls and designated haul routes to reduce emissions and congestion. Project applicants of future development would also be responsible to for providing community notification and on-site construction management protocols to ensure compliance and transparency throughout the construction period.

Furthermore, VOC emissions associated with architectural coatings during the operational phase of future development may exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds. To address this, MM4.2-12 through MM4.2-14 requires the use of low-VOC coatings (125 grams per liter or less) and encourages the use of pre-painted or paint-free construction materials to the extent feasible.

Although these mitigation measures would substantially reduce emissions of criteria pollutants and TACs during both construction and operation, the General Plan Update EIR acknowledges that future project-specific development scenarios cannot be fully quantified at this time. As such, in the absence of detailed project-level data to confirm a less than significant impact, and in an abundance of caution, the General Plan Update EIR concludes that potential air quality impacts—including those related to construction emissions, operational VOCs, and cumulative effects—would remain significant and unavoidable.

Further, according to the General Plan Update EIR, implementation of the General Plan Update would potentially expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, specifically fueling stations and distribution centers, and no mitigation measures are feasible; therefore, impacts on air quality would be significant and unavoidable.

The General Plan Update EIR determined that impacts from potential odors generated from land uses associated with the General Plan Update are considered less than significant.

3.3.2 Project-Specific Impacts
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? The General Plan Update EIR analyzed consistency with SCAQMD’s 2012 and 2016 AQMP, which were the latest AQMPs when the General Plan Update EIR was prepared. The 2012 AQMP and 2016 AQMP incorporated scientific and technological information and planning assumptions from the Southern California Association of Governments’ (SCAG’s) 2012–2035 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (2012–2035 RTP/SCS) and 2016-2040 RTP/SCS, respectively.

However, these documents have since been updated.

On December 2, 2022, the SCAQMD Governing Board adopted the 2022 AQMP. The 2022 AQMP incorporates the latest scientific and technical information as well as planning assumptions, including the latest applicable growth assumptions and updated emission inventory methodologies for various source categories. While SCAG has recently updated and adopted its RTP/SCS, SCAQMD has not released an updated AQMP that utilizes information and data from Connect SoCal 2024. As such, this consistency analysis is based on the 2022 AQMP and the RTP/SCS that was adopted at the time.

Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-13 Environmental Analysis
The SCAQMD considers projects that are consistent with the AQMP, which is intended to bring the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) into attainment for all criteria pollutants, to also have less than significant cumulative impacts. The SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook provides the following criteria to evaluate the consistency of a project with applicable air quality plans:5 • Criterion 1: Will the project result in any of the following:
o An increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations; o Cause or contribute to new air quality violations; or o Delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQMP?
• Criterion 2: Will the project exceed the assumptions utilized in preparing the AQMP? o Would the project be consistent with the population, housing, and employment growth projections utilized in the preparation of the AQMP? o Would the project implement all feasible air quality mitigation measures? o Would the project be consistent with the land use planning strategies set forth in the AQMP?
CRITERION 1
With respect to the first criterion, SCAQMD methodologies require that an air quality analysis for a project include forecasts of project emissions in relation to contributing to air quality violations and delay of attainment.
a) Would the project result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations? Since the consistency criteria identified under the first criterion pertains to pollutant concentrations, rather than to total regional emissions, an analysis of the project’s pollutant emissions relative to localized pollutant concentrations is used as the basis for evaluating project consistency. As discussed in Response 3.3.2(c), localized concentrations of CO, nitrogen oxides (NOX), particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10), and particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5) would be less than significant during project construction and operations. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations.6 b) Would the project cause or contribute to new air quality violations? As discussed in Response 3.3.2(b), the proposed project would result in emissions that are below the SCAQMD thresholds. Therefore, the project would not have the potential to cause or affect a violation of the ambient air quality standards. 5 SCAQMD is in the process of developing an Air Quality Analysis Guidance Handbook to replace the 1993 CEQA Air Quality Handbook. SCAQMD has not provided supplemented information regarding consistency analysis while the new handbook is being prepared, therefore the criteria in the 1993 CEQA Air Quality Handbook are used. 6 Due to the role reactive organic gases (ROGs) plays in ozone formation, it is classified as a precursor pollutant and only a regional emissions threshold has been established.

Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-14 Environmental Analysis
c) Would the project delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP?
The proposed project would result in less than significant impacts with regard to regional and localized concentrations during project construction and operations; refer to Responses

3.3.2(b) and 3.3.2(c). As such, the project would not delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or 2022 AQMP emissions reductions.

CRITERION 2
With respect to the second criterion for determining consistency with SCAQMD and SCAG air quality policies, it is important to recognize that air quality planning within the SCAB focuses on attainment of ambient air quality standards at the earliest feasible date. Projections for achieving air quality goals are based on assumptions regarding population, housing, and growth trends. Thus, the SCAQMD’s second criterion for determining project consistency focuses on whether the proposed project exceeds the assumptions utilized in preparing the forecasts presented in the 2022 AQMP. Determining whether a project exceeds the assumptions reflected in the 2022 AQMP involves the evaluation of the three criteria outlined below. The following discussion provides an analysis of each of these criteria. a) Would the project be consistent with the population, housing, and employment growth projections utilized in the preparation of the AQMP?
Consistency Criterion No. 2 refers to SCAG’s growth forecasts and associated assumptions included in the 2022 AQMP. The future air quality levels projected in the 2022 AQMP are based on SCAG’s growth projections, which are based, in part, on the general plans of cities located within the SCAG region. Therefore, projects that are consistent with the applicable assumptions used in 2022 AQMP development would not jeopardize attainment of the air quality levels identified in the 2022 AQMP, even if they exceed the SCAQMD’s recommended daily emissions thresholds.

Regarding Consistency Criterion No. 2, the AQMP contains air pollutant reduction strategies based on SCAG’s latest growth forecasts; SCAG’s growth forecasts were defined in consultation with local governments and with reference to local general plans. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that if a project is consistent with the applicable general plan land use designation, and if the general plan was adopted prior to the applicable AQMP, then the increase in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and/or population generated by said project would have been included in the applicable AQMP’s assumed VMT and population growth.

The project proposes to reconfigure the park and create new park amenities over non-landfill land. The various new and upgraded amenities, including new sports courts, wheel sports, playground, trees, walkways, parking lot, and access, would offer diversified recreation and allow for more park engagement. According to the City of Huntington Beach General Plan (General Plan), the majority of project site is designated as Open Space – Park (OS-P), with the southwestern portion of the site (APN 148-071-29 owned by Southern California Edison [SCE]) designated as Public (P).7 The OS-P designation provides for public parks and 7 City of Huntington Beach, General Plan, City of Huntington Beach, General Plan Designations, August 2022.

Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-15 Environmental Analysis
recreational facilities and supporting ancillary uses (e.g., maintenance equipment storage). The P designation provides for public and private schools, hospitals, churches, cultural facilities, institutional, and similar semi-public community service uses. According to the City of Huntington Beach Zoning Map (Zoning Map), the majority of project site is zoned Open Space – Parks and Recreation Subdistrict (OS-PR), and the southwestern corner (parcel with APN 148-071-29, owned by SCE) and the fire station area in the southeastern corner of the site are zoned Public-Semipublic (PS).8 The OS District provides areas for public or private use and areas for preservation and enhancement. The PS District provides areas for large public or semipublic uses. As such, the project is consistent with the General Plan designation and zoning.

The project involves redeveloping and reconfiguring the existing park use and would not generate additional employment over the existing conditions. Therefore, given the nature of the project, the project (park use) would not induce substantial unplanned population growth within the City and would be consistent with the development assumptions in the General Plan Update. Further, as detailed in Section 3.14, Population and Housing, the project would not result in substantial increase in employment or population. Therefore, the proposed project’s forecast population growth and VMT would be consistent with the 2022 AQMP’s assumed population growth and VMT for the proposed project site. It is also noted that the project’s construction and operational air emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD regional thresholds, and localized emissions during construction and operations would not exceed SCAQMD localized significance thresholds (LST); refer to Responses 3.3.2(b) and 3.3.2(c) below for further analysis. As such, the proposed project would be consistent with this criterion.
b) Would the project implement all feasible air quality mitigation measures? Compliance with all feasible emission reduction rules and measures identified by the SCAQMD would be required as identified in Responses 3.3.2(b) and 3.3.2(c), and impacts would be less than significant without implementation of mitigation measures. As such, the proposed project meets this 2022 AQMP consistency criterion and no mitigation measures are required.
c) Would the project be consistent with the land use planning strategies set forth in the AQMP? Land use planning strategies set forth in the 2022 AQMP are primarily based on the 2020- 2045 RTP/SCS. The project site is located less than 0.1-mile from a bus stop located along Magnolia Street operated by Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). Further, the project would also provide electric vehicle (EV) parking spaces to promote alternative transportation options. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the actions and strategies of the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS.
8 City of Huntington Beach, City of Huntington Beach Zoning, https://huntingtonbeach.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=7ab822c02ded4940acd7e4593bba7c b7, accessed July 22, 2025.

Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-16 Environmental Analysis
In conclusion, the determination of 2022 AQMP consistency is primarily concerned with the longterm influence of a project on air quality in the SCAB. The proposed project would not result in a long-term impact on the region’s ability to meet State and federal air quality standards. Further, the proposed project’s long-term influence on air quality in the SCAB would also be consistent with the SCAQMD and SCAG’s goals and policies and is considered consistent with the 2022 AQMP. Project impacts related to consistency with the 2022 AQMP are less than significant.

Impacts related to consistency with applicable air quality plans were analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR and found to be less than significant. No substantial new information shows that project impacts related to consistency with air quality plans would be more significant than described in the General Plan Update EIR because project impacts related to consistency with air quality plans are less than significant. Therefore, there are no impacts peculiar to the project site related to consistency with air quality plans that would exceed what was previously disclosed in the General Plan Update EIR.

Further, there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project related to consistency with air quality plans that were not already evaluated by the General Plan Update EIR.

Therefore, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, no further environmental review is required.
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard?

CRITERIA POLLUTANTS
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
CO is an odorless, colorless toxic gas that is emitted by mobile and stationary sources as a result of incomplete combustion of hydrocarbons or other carbon-based fuels. In cities, automobile exhaust can cause as much as 95 percent of all CO emissions. CO replaces oxygen in the body’s red blood cells. Individuals with a deficient blood supply to the heart, patients with diseases involving heart and blood vessels, fetuses (unborn babies), and patients with chronic hypoxemia (oxygen deficiency) as seen in high altitudes are most susceptible to the adverse effects of CO exposure. People with heart disease are also more susceptible to developing chest pain when exposed to low levels of carbon monoxide.

Ozone (O3)
O3 occurs in two layers of the atmosphere. The layer surrounding the Earth’s surface is the troposphere. The troposphere extends approximately 10 miles above ground level, where it meets the second layer, the stratosphere. The stratosphere (the “good” ozone layer) extends upward from about 10 to 30 miles and protects life on Earth from the sun’s harmful ultraviolet rays. “Bad” O3 is a photochemical pollutant, and needs volatile organic compounds (VOCs), NOx, and sunlight to form; therefore, VOCs and NOx are O3 precursors. To reduce O3 concentrations, it is necessary to control the emissions of these O3 precursors. Significant O3 formation generally requires an adequate amount of precursors in the atmosphere and a period of several hours in a stable atmosphere with strong Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-17 Environmental Analysis
sunlight. High O3 concentrations can form over large regions when emissions from motor vehicles and stationary sources are carried hundreds of miles from their origins.

While O3 in the upper atmosphere (stratosphere) protects the Earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation, high concentrations of ground-level O3 (in the troposphere) can adversely affect the human respiratory system and other tissues. O3 is a strong irritant that can constrict the airways, forcing the respiratory system to work hard to deliver oxygen. Individuals exercising outdoors, children, and people with preexisting lung disease such as asthma and chronic pulmonary lung disease are considered to be the most susceptible to the health effects of O3. Short-term exposure (lasting for a few hours) to O3 at elevated levels can result in aggravated respiratory diseases such as emphysema, bronchitis and asthma, shortness of breath, increased susceptibility to infections, inflammation of the lung tissue, increased fatigue, as well as chest pain, dry throat, headache, and nausea.

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
NOx are a family of highly reactive gases that are a primary precursor to the formation of ground-level ozone and react in the atmosphere to form acid rain. NO2 (often used interchangeably with NOx) is a reddish-brown gas that can cause breathing difficulties at elevated levels. Peak readings of NO2 occur in areas that have a high concentration of combustion sources (e.g., motor vehicle engines, power plants, refineries, and other industrial operations). NO2 can irritate and damage the lungs and lower resistance to respiratory infections such as influenza. The health effects of short-term exposure are still unclear. However, continued or frequent exposure to NO2 concentrations that are typically much higher than those normally found in the ambient air may increase acute respiratory illnesses in children and increase the incidence of chronic bronchitis and lung irritation. Chronic exposure to NO2 may aggravate eyes and mucus membranes and cause pulmonary dysfunction.

Coarse Particulate Matter (PM10)
PM10 refers to suspended particulate matter, which is smaller than 10 microns or ten one-millionths of a meter. PM10 arises from sources such as road dust, diesel soot, combustion products, construction operations, and dust storms. PM10 scatters light and significantly reduces visibility. In addition, these particulates penetrate into the lungs and can potentially damage the respiratory tract. On June 19, 2003, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted amendments to the Statewide 24-hour particulate matter standards based upon requirements set forth in the Children’s Environmental Health Protection Act (Senate Bill 25).

Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5)
Due to recent increased concerns over health impacts related to PM2.5, both State and federal PM2.5 standards have been created. Particulate matter impacts primarily affect infants, children, the elderly, and those with pre-existing cardiopulmonary disease. In 1997, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced new PM2.5 standards. Industry groups challenged the new standard in court and the implementation of the standard was blocked. However, upon appeal by the EPA, the United States Supreme Court reversed this decision and upheld the EPA’s new standards. On January 5, 2005, the EPA published a final rule in the Federal Register that designates the basin as a nonattainment area for federal PM2.5 standards. On June 20, 2002, CARB adopted amendments for Statewide annual Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-18 Environmental Analysis
ambient particulate matter air quality standards. These standards were revised and established due to increasing concerns by CARB that previous standards were inadequate, as almost everyone in California is exposed to levels at or above the current State standards during some parts of the year, and the Statewide potential for significant health impacts associated with particulate matter exposure was determined to be large and wide-ranging.

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
SO2 is a colorless, irritating gas with a rotten egg smell; it is formed primarily by the combustion of sulfur-containing fossil fuels. SO2 is often used interchangeably with SOx. Exposure of a few minutes to low levels of SO2 can result in airway constriction in some asthmatics.

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)
VOCs are hydrocarbon compounds (any compound containing various combinations of hydrogen and carbon atoms) that exist in the ambient air. VOCs contribute to the formation of smog through atmospheric photochemical reactions and may be toxic. Compounds of carbon (also known as organic compounds) have different levels of reactivity; that is, they do not react at the same speed or do not form O3 to the same extent when exposed to photochemical processes. VOCs often have an odor, and some examples include gasoline, alcohol, and the solvents used in paints. Exceptions to the VOC designation include: CO, CO2, carbonic acid, metallic carbides or carbonates, and ammonium carbonate. VOCs are a criteria pollutant since they are a precursor to O3, which is a criteria pollutant.

The SCAQMD uses the terms VOC and ROG interchangeably (see below).

Reactive Organic Gases (ROG)
Similar to VOC, ROG are also precursors in forming O3 and consist of compounds containing methane, ethane, propane, butane, and longer chain hydrocarbons, which are typically the result of some type of combustion/decomposition process. Smog is formed when ROG and NOx react in the presence of sunlight. ROGs are a criteria pollutant since they are a precursor to O3, which is a criteria pollutant.

CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
Project construction activities would generate short-term criteria air pollutant emissions. The criteria air pollutants of primary concern at the proposed project site include ozone-precursor pollutants (i.e., ROG and NOx) and PM10 and PM2.5. Construction-related emissions are short term and temporary, lasting only while construction activities occur, but would be considered a significant air quality impact if the volume of pollutants generated exceeds the SCAQMD’s thresholds of significance.

Project construction would primarily generate temporary criteria pollutants from construction equipment operation on-site and construction worker vehicle trips to and from the project site, and from construction material deliveries to and from the project site. Construction input data for California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2022.1 include, but are not limited to, (1) the anticipated start and finish dates of construction activity; (2) inventories of construction Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-19 Environmental Analysis
equipment to be used; and (3) areas to be excavated and graded. Construction emissions were quantified by estimating the types and quantity of equipment that would be used on-site during each construction phase, as provided by the model defaults. CalEEMod also estimates off-site emissions from worker, vendor, and hauling truck trips.

The project involves construction activities associated with demolition (of existing tennis and handball courts), grading, building construction (improvements to existing community center and restrooms), paving, and architectural coating applications. The project would be constructed over approximately 13 months and would not require import/export of soil. It should be noted that, although the project proposes improvements to the existing park amenities, for the purpose of this analysis, it is conservatively modeled in CalEEMod as a new park. The proposed project would demolish the existing tennis and handball courts and generate approximately 402 tons of debris during demolition.9
The analysis of daily construction emissions has been prepared utilizing CalEEMod. Refer to Appendix A, Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas/Energy Data, for the CalEEMod outputs and results. Table

3.3-1, Maximum Daily Construction Air Emissions, presents the anticipated daily short-term construction emissions.

Table 3.3-1
Maximum Daily Construction Air Emissions
Year Pollutant (pounds per day)1,2
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Year 1 Emissions 3.11 27.30 28.50 0.06 3.78 2.04
Year 2 Emissions 1.03 9.39 12.9 0.02 0.49 0.32
Maximum Daily Emissions 3.11 27.30 28.50 0.06 3.78 2.04 SCAQMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Notes: ROG = reactive organic gases; NOX = nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; SO2 = Sulfur Dioxide; PM10 = particulate matter smaller than 10 microns; PM2.5 = particulate matter smaller than 2.5 microns Notes:

1. Emissions were calculated using CalEEMod version 2022.1. Higher emissions between winter and summer are represented as the worst-case scenario.

2. The reduction/credits for construction emissions are based on “mitigation” included in CalEEMod and are required by the SCAQMD Rules. The adjustments applied in CalEEMod include the following: properly maintain mobile and other construction equipment; replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly; water exposed surfaces three times daily; cover stockpiles with tarps; and limit speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour. The emissions results in this table represent the “mitigated” emissions shown in Appendix A.

Source: Refer to Appendix A, Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas/Energy Data. 9 To estimate the amount of demolished materials (asphalt weight) anticipated from demolition, the depth (thickness) of the asphalt layer and the weight of asphalt per cubic foot are considered. A standard depth of one-inch is assumed for this analysis. The industry standard weight of asphalt is 145 pounds (lbs) per cubic foot. The proposed project would remove existing tennis and handball courts (approximately 66,500 square feet; based on Google Earth) of asphalt surface area. Area x depth/12 lbs*145 = 5,503 lbs (402 tons). As such, 402 tons of demolished materials has been considered in CalEEMod.

Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-20 Environmental Analysis
Fugitive Dust Emissions
Construction activities are a source of fugitive dust emissions that may have a substantial, temporary impact on local air quality. In addition, fugitive dust may be a nuisance to those living and working in the project area. Fugitive dust emissions are associated with land clearing, ground excavation, cut-andfill, and truck travel on unpaved roadways (including demolition as well as construction activities).

Fugitive dust emissions vary substantially from day to day, depending on the level of activity, specific operations, and weather conditions. Fugitive dust from grading, excavation and construction is expected to be short-term and would cease upon project completion. Most of this material is inert silicates, rather than the complex organic particulates released from combustion sources, which are more harmful to health.

Dust (larger than 10 microns) generated by such activities usually becomes more of a local nuisance than a serious health problem. Of particular health concerns is the amount of PM10 generated as part of fugitive dust emissions. PM10 poses a serious health hazard alone or in combination with other pollutants. PM2.5 is mostly produced by mechanical processes. These include automobile tire wear, industrial processes such as cutting and grinding, and re-suspension of particles from the ground or road surfaces by wind and human activities such as construction or agriculture. PM2.5 is mostly derived from combustion sources, such as automobiles, trucks, and other vehicle exhaust, as well as from stationary sources. These particles are either directly emitted or are formed in the atmosphere from the combustion of gases such as NOX and SOX combining with ammonia. PM2.5 components from material in the Earth’s crust, such as dust, are also present, with the amount varying in different locations.

The project would implement required SCAQMD dust control techniques (i.e., daily watering), limitations on construction hours, and adhere to SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403 (which require watering of inactive and perimeter areas, track out requirements, etc.), to reduce PM10 and PM2.5 emissions.

Compliance with applicable SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403 are accounted for in the CalEEMod results.

As depicted in Table 3.3-1, total PM10 and PM2.5 emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD thresholds during construction. Thus, PM10 and PM2.5 emissions impacts associated with project construction would be less than significant.

Construction Equipment and Worker Vehicle Exhaust
Exhaust emissions from construction activities include emissions associated with the transport of machinery and supplies to and from the project site, construction worker commutes to the project site, emissions produced on-site as the equipment is used, and emissions from trucks transporting materials to/from the site. As presented in Table 3.3-1, construction equipment and worker vehicle exhaust emissions (i.e., ROG, NOX, CO, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5) would not exceed the established SCAQMD thresholds for all criteria pollutants. Therefore, impacts in this regard would be less than significant.

ROG Emissions

In addition to gaseous and particulate emissions, the application of asphalt and surface coating creates ROG emissions, which are O3 precursors. In accordance with the methodology prescribed by the Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-21 Environmental Analysis
SCAQMD, ROG emissions associated with paving have been quantified with the CalEEMod model.

As previously stated, the project primarily involves redeveloping and reconfiguring the existing park amenities, with the expansion of the exterior park restrooms at Edison Community Center being the only building modification involved. The additional new restroom/building square footage is unknown at this time; as such, this improvement was not quantified in CalEEMod. However, as the additional restroom/building area (for the purpose of meeting ADA requirements and provide additional stalls to meet park needs) is expected to be nominal, ROG emissions associated with architectural coating on new restroom areas are anticipated to be negligible. Further, as required by SCAQMD Rule 1113, all architectural coatings would comply with specifications on painting practices as well as regulation on the ROG content of paint. Overall, ROG emissions associated with the proposed project would be less than significant; refer to Table 3.3-1.

Total Daily Construction Emissions

As indicated in Table 3.3-1, criteria pollutant emissions during construction of the proposed project would not exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds. Thus, total construction related air emissions would be less than significant.

NATURALLY OCCURRING ASBESTOS
Asbestos is a term used for several types of naturally occurring fibrous minerals that are a human health hazard when airborne. The most common type of asbestos is chrysotile, but other types such as tremolite and actinolite are also found in California. Asbestos is classified as a known human carcinogen by State, federal, and international agencies and was identified as a toxic air contaminant by CARB in 1986.

Asbestos can be released from serpentinite and ultramafic rocks when the rock is broken or crushed.

At the point of release, the asbestos fibers may become airborne, causing air quality and human health hazards. These rocks have been commonly used for unpaved gravel roads, landscaping, fill projects, and other improvement projects in some localities. Asbestos may be released to the atmosphere due to vehicular traffic on unpaved roads, during grading for development projects, and at quarry operations. All of these activities may have the effect of releasing potentially harmful asbestos into the air. Natural weathering and erosion processes can act on asbestos bearing rock and make it easier for asbestos fibers to become airborne if such rock is disturbed. According to the California Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology, serpentinite and ultramafic rocks are not known to occur within the project area.10 Thus, no impacts would occur in this regard.

OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
Long-term operational air quality impacts consist of mobile source emissions generated from projectrelated traffic and emissions from area and energy sources. It should be noted that, although the project proposes improvements to the existing park amenities, for the purpose of this analysis, it is conservatively modeled in CalEEMod as a new park. Emissions associated with each source area detailed in Table 3.3-2, Maximum Daily Operational Air Emissions, are discussed below. 10 California Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology, A General Location Guide for Ultramafic Rocks in California – Areas More Likely to Contain Naturally Occurring Asbestos Report, August 2000.

Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-22 Environmental Analysis
Table 3.3-2
Maximum Daily Operational Air Emissions
Emissions Source Pollutant (pounds per day)
ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Summer Operational Emissions
Mobile 0.10 0.09 1.07 <0.01 0.29 0.08
Area 0.86 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Emissions 0.96 0.09 1.07 <0.01 0.29 0.08
SCAQMD Significance Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Winter Operational Emissions
Mobile 0.10 0.10 0.98 <0.01 0.29 0.08
Area 0.86 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Emissions 0.96 0.10 0.98 <0.01 0.29 0.08
SCAQMD Significance Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Notes: CO = carbon monoxide; ROG = reactive organic gases; NOX = nitrogen oxides; PM10 = particulate matter smaller than 10 microns; PM2.5 = particulate matter smaller than 2.5 microns Source: Refer to Appendix A, Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas/Energy Data.

Mobile Source Emissions
Mobile sources are emissions from motor vehicles, including tailpipe and evaporative emissions.

Depending upon the pollutant being discussed, the potential air quality impact may be of either regional or local concern. For example, ROG, NOX, SOX, PM10, and PM2.5 are all pollutants of regional concern (NOX and ROG react with sunlight to form O3 [photochemical smog], and wind currents readily transport SOX, PM10, and PM2.5). However, CO tends to be a localized pollutant, dispersing rapidly at the source.

Area Source Emissions
Area source emissions would be generated from consumer products, architectural coatings, and landscaping. The project’s criteria pollutant emissions from area sources would not exceed the established thresholds; refer to Table 3.3-2.

Energy Source Emissions
In terms of emissions from energy consumption, the primary use of electricity by the project would be for space heating and cooling, water heating, ventilation, lighting, appliances, landscaping Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-23 Environmental Analysis
equipment, and electronics. Criteria air pollutant emissions from electricity use were not quantified since criteria pollutants emissions occur at the site of the power plant, which is off-site. Therefore, only emissions associated with on-site natural gas consumption are qualified in CalEEMod. However, the proposed project would not introduce a new structure or facilities that would require additional natural gas usage. As shown in Table 3.3-2, the project’s criteria pollutant emissions associated with energy sources would be zero and would not exceed established thresholds.

Total Daily Operational Emissions
Based on the proposed land uses and operational characteristics, Table 3.3-2, summarizes the CalEEMod estimated emissions from proposed project operations and indicates the proposed project’s area, energy, and mobile source emissions combined would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds for maximum daily emissions for any criteria air pollutants. As such, the proposed project would not violate any air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. The proposed project’s operational air quality impacts would be less than significant.

AIR QUALITY HEALTH IMPACTS
Adverse health effects induced by criteria pollutant emissions are highly dependent on a multitude of interconnected variables (e.g., cumulative concentrations, local meteorology and atmospheric conditions, and the number and character of exposed individual [e.g., age, gender]). In particular, ozone precursors VOCs and NOx affect air quality on a regional scale. Health effects related to ozone are therefore the product of emissions generated by numerous sources throughout a region. Existing models have limited sensitivity to small changes in criteria pollutant concentrations, and, as such, translating project-generated criteria pollutants to specific health effects or additional days of nonattainment would produce meaningless results. In other words, the project’s less than significant increases in regional air pollution from criteria air pollutants would have nominal or negligible impacts on human health.

As noted in the Brief of Amicus Curiae by SCAQMD, the SCAQMD acknowledged it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible to quantify health impacts of criteria pollutants for various reasons including modeling limitations as well as where in the atmosphere air pollutants interact and form.11 Further, as noted in the Brief of Amicus Curiae by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD), SJVAPCD has acknowledged that currently available modeling tools are not equipped to provide a meaningful analysis of the correlation between an individual development project’s air emissions and specific human health impacts.12 The SCAQMD acknowledges that health effects quantification from ozone, as an example is correlated with the increases in ambient level of ozone in the air (concentration) that an individual person breathes. SCAQMD’s Brief of Amicus Curiae states that it would take a large amount of 11 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Application of the South Coast Air Quality Management District for Leave to File Brief of Amicus Curiae in Support of Neither Party and Brief of Amicus Curiae. In the Supreme Court of California. Sierra Club, Revive the San Joaquin, and League of Women Voters of Fresno v. County of Fresno, April 3, 2015. 12 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, Application for Leave to File Brief of Amicus Curiae Brief of San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District in Support of Defendant and Respondent, County of Fresno and Real Party In Interest and Respondent, Friant Ranch, L.P. In the Supreme Court of California. Sierra Club, Revive the San Joaquin, and League of Women Voters of Fresno v. County of Fresno, April 13, 2015.

Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-24 Environmental Analysis
additional emissions to cause a modeled increase in ambient ozone levels over the entire region. The SCAQMD states that based on their own modeling in the SCAQMD’s 2012 Air Quality Management Plan, a reduction of 432 tons (864,000 pounds) per day of NOX and a reduction of 187 tons (374,000 pounds) per day of VOCs would reduce ozone levels at highest monitored site by only nine parts per billion. As such, the SCAQMD concludes that it is not currently possible to accurately quantify ozonerelated health impacts caused by NOX or VOC emissions from relatively small projects (defined as projects with regional scope) due to photochemistry and regional model limitations. As such, for the purpose of this analysis, since the project would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds for construction and operational air emissions, the project would have a less than significant impact for air quality health impacts as well.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
With respect to the proposed project’s construction-related air quality emissions and cumulative Basin-wide conditions, the SCAQMD has developed strategies to reduce criteria pollutant emissions outlined in the 2022 AQMP pursuant to FCAA mandates. As such, the proposed project would comply with SCAQMD Rule 403 requirements and the adopted 2022 AQMP emissions control measures. Rule 403 requires that fugitive dust be controlled with the best available control measures in order to reduce dust so that it does not remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the proposed project. Per SCAQMD rules and mandates, as well as the CEQA requirement that significant impacts be mitigated to the extent feasible, these same requirements (i.e., Rule 403 compliance, the implementation of all feasible mitigation measures, and compliance with adopted 2022 AQMP emissions control measures) would also be imposed on construction projects throughout the Basin, which would include related projects.

According to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, project-related emissions that fall below the established construction and operational thresholds should be considered less than significant unless there is pertinent information to the contrary. As discussed previously, the proposed project would not result in short- or long-term air quality impacts, as emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD adopted construction or operational thresholds. Additionally, adherence to SCAQMD rules and regulations would alleviate potential impacts related to cumulative conditions on a projectby-project basis. As a result, the proposed project would not contribute a cumulatively considerable net increase of any nonattainment criteria pollutant. Therefore, the project’s incremental construction and operational impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable and impacts in this regard are less than significant.

CONCLUSION
Overall, as discussed above, the General Plan Update EIR determined that the General Plan Update would result in significant short- and long-term air quality impacts, and the General Plan Update would result in significant and unavoidable impacts in this regard. As shown in Table 3.3-1 and Table 3.3-2, the project’s emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD adopted construction and operational thresholds. As such, the proposed project would not violate any air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, and would not result in significant short- Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-25 Environmental Analysis
or long-term air quality impacts. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard, and the project would result in less impacts than those identified for the General Plan Update.

Impacts related to criteria air pollutants were analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR and found to be significant and unavoidable. No substantial new information shows that project impacts related to criteria air pollutants would be more significant than described in the General Plan Update EIR because project impacts related to criteria air pollutants are less than significant. Therefore, there are no impacts peculiar to the project site related to criteria air pollutants that would exceed what was previously disclosed in the General Plan Update EIR. Further, there are no direct or cumulativelyconsiderable impacts of the proposed project related to criteria air pollutants that were not already evaluated by the General Plan Update EIR. Therefore, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, no further environmental review is required. c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?

LSTs were developed in response to SCAQMD Governing Boards’ Environmental Justice Enhancement Initiative (I-4). The SCAQMD provided the Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology for guidance. The LST methodology assists lead agencies in analyzing localized air quality impacts. The SCAQMD provides the LST lookup tables for one-, two-, and five-acre projects emitting CO, NOX, PM2.5, and/or PM10. The project is located within Source Receptor Area (SRA) 18, North Orange County Coastal.

CONSTRUCTION LST
The SCAQMD guidance on applying CalEEMod to LSTs specifies the number of acres a particular piece of equipment would likely disturb per day.13 SCAQMD provides LST thresholds for one-, two- , and five-acre site disturbance areas; SCAQMD does not provide LST thresholds for projects over five acres. The project would actively disturb approximately three acres per day during the grading phase of construction. However, because SCAQMD does not provide LST thresholds for intermediate acreages such as three acres, the two-acre LST thresholds were conservatively applied in this analysis. Therefore, by applying thresholds for a smaller disturbance area than what is actually expected, the analysis provides a more conservative assessment of potential air quality impacts on nearby sensitive receptors.

The SCAQMD recommends that the nearest sensitive receptor be considered when determining a project’s localized air quality impacts. Sensitive receptors are defined as facilities or land uses that include members of the population that are particularly sensitive to the effects of air pollutants, such as children, the elderly, and people with illnesses. Examples of these sensitive receptors are residences, schools, hospitals, and daycare centers. CARB has identified the following groups of individuals as the most likely to be affected by air pollution: the elderly over 65, children under 14, athletes, and persons with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases such as asthma, emphysema, and bronchitis.
13 The number of acres represent the total acres traversed by grading equipment. To properly grade a piece of land, multiple passes with equipment may be required. The disturbance acreage is based on the equipment list and days of the grading phase according to the anticipated maximum number of acres a given piece of equipment can pass over in an 8-hour workday.

Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-26 Environmental Analysis
The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site are the existing single-family residences located immediately adjacent to the west of the project site. These sensitive land uses may be potentially affected by air pollutant emissions generated during on-site construction activities. LST thresholds are provided for distances to sensitive receptors of 25, 50, 100, 200, and 500 meters. The nearest sensitive receptors (single-family residences) are located adjacent to the project site to the west. Although construction activities would occur further away from these sensitive receptors to the west, as a conservative analysis, the LST values for 25 meters were used.

Table 3.3-3, Localized Emissions Significance During Construction, shows the localized construction-related emissions for NOX, CO, PM2.5, and PM10 compared to LSTs for SRA 18. It is noted that the localized emissions presented in Table 3.3-3 are less than those in Table 3.3-1 because localized emissions include only on-site emissions (e.g., from construction equipment and fugitive dust) and do not include off-site emissions (e.g., from hauling activities). As shown in Table 3.3-3, the project’s localized construction emissions would not exceed the LSTs for SRA 18. Therefore, the localized significance impacts from project-related construction activities would be less than significant.

Table 3.3-3
Localized Emissions Significance During Construction
Source Pollutant (pounds/day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Maximum Daily Emissions1 27.2 27.6 3.51 1.98
Localized Significance Threshold2 131.0 962.0 7.0 5.0
Thresholds Exceeded? No No No No
Notes:

1. The grading phase emissions would present the worst-case scenario for NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5.

2. The Localized Significance Threshold (LST) was determined using Appendix C of the SCAQMD’s Final Localized Significant Threshold Methodology guidance document for pollutants NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. The LST was based on the anticipated daily acreage disturbance for construction (two acres) and distance to sensitive receptor (25 meters) for SRA 18, North Orange County Coastal.

Source: Refer to Appendix A, Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas/Energy Data.

OPERATIONS LST
According to SCAQMD LST methodology, LSTs would apply to operational activities if the project includes stationary sources or attracts mobile sources that may spend extended periods queuing and idling at the site (e.g., warehouse or transfer facilities). The proposed project is a park use and would not attract mobile sources that would spend extended periods queuing and idling at the site. Therefore, no substantial vehicle queuing or idling on-site for extended periods of time are anticipated. Thus, due to the lack of such emissions, no long-term LST analysis is needed. Operational LST impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

CARBON MONOXIDE HOTSPOTS
CO emissions are a function of vehicle idling time, meteorological, and traffic flow. Under certain extreme meteorological conditions, CO concentrations near a congested roadway or intersection may Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-27 Environmental Analysis
reach unhealthful levels (e.g., adversely affecting residents, school children, hospital patients, and the elderly).

The SCAB is designated as an attainment/maintenance area for the federal CO standards and an attainment area under State standards. There has been a decline in CO emissions even though VMT on U.S. urban and rural roads have increased; estimated anthropogenic CO emissions have decreased 68 percent between 1990 and 2014. In 2014, mobile sources accounted for 82 percent of the nation’s total anthropogenic CO emissions.14 Three major control programs have contributed to the reduced per-vehicle CO emissions, including exhaust standards, cleaner burning fuels, and motor vehicle inspection/maintenance programs. According to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, a potential CO hotspot may occur at any location where the background CO concentration already exceeds 9.0 parts per million (ppm), which is the 8-hour California ambient air quality standard, the closest monitoring station to the project site that monitors CO concentration is the Anaheim – 812 West Vermont Street, located approximately 11.9 miles north of the project site. The most recent maximum one-hour average CO concentration at this monitoring station is available for 2024 and was measured at 3.326 ppm.15 Given that the background CO concentration does not currently exceed 9.0 ppm, a CO hotspot would not occur at the project site. Therefore, CO hotspot impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

CONCLUSION
Overall, as discussed above, the General Plan Update EIR determined that the General Plan Update would result in significant localized air quality impacts, and the General Plan Update would result in significant and unavoidable impacts in this regard. As discussed above and as shown in Table 3.3-3, the project’s localized air quality emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD adopted construction and operational localized thresholds. As such, the proposed project would not result in significant localized air quality impacts. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard, and the project would result in less impacts than those identified in the General Plan Update EIR.

Impacts related to localized pollution were analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR and found to be significant and unavoidable. No substantial new information shows that project impacts related to localized pollution to sensitive receptors would be more significant than described in the General Plan Update EIR because project impacts related to localized pollution to sensitive receptors are less than significant. Therefore, there are no impacts peculiar to the project site related to localized pollution to sensitive receptors that would exceed what was previously disclosed in the General Plan Update EIR.

Further, there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project related to localized pollution to sensitive receptors that were not already evaluated by the General Plan Update EIR. Therefore, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, no further environmental review is required.
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
14 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Carbon Monoxide Emissions, https://cfpub.epa.gov/roe/indicator_pdf.cfm?i=10, accessed August 21, 2025. 15 California Air Resources Board, Air Quality Data, https://www.arb.ca.gov/aqmis2/aqdselect.php?tab=specialrpt, accessed August 21, 2025.

Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-28 Environmental Analysis
According to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, land uses associated with odor complaints typically include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding.

The project does not contain land uses typically associated with emitting objectionable odors. Potential odor sources associated with the project may result from construction equipment exhaust and the application of asphalt and architectural coatings during construction activities and the temporary storage of typical solid waste (refuse) associated with the project’s (long-term operational) uses.

Standard construction requirements would minimize odor impacts from construction. The construction odor emissions would be temporary, short-term, and intermittent in nature and would cease upon completion of the respective phase of construction and is thus considered less than significant. It is expected that project-generated refuse would be stored in covered containers and removed at regular intervals in compliance with current solid waste regulations. The project would also be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 to prevent occurrences of public nuisances.

Therefore, odors and other emissions (such as those leading to odors) associated with construction and operations activities of the project would be less than significant.

Impacts related to odors were analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR and found to be less than significant. No substantial new information shows that project impacts related to odors would be more significant than described in the General Plan Update EIR because project impacts related to odors are less than significant. Therefore, there are no impacts peculiar to the project site related to odors that would exceed what was previously disclosed in the General Plan Update EIR. Further, there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project related to odors that were not already evaluated by the General Plan Update EIR. Therefore, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, no further environmental review is required.

Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-29 Environmental Analysis

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project: Prior EIR
Determination
CEQA Section 15183(b) Criteria
Effect
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Off-Site/
Cumulativ
e Impact?
New
Information,
More Severe
Adverse
Impact?
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by
the California Department of Fish and Game
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Less Than
Significant Impact
with Mitigation
Measures
Incorporated
No No No No
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Less Than
Significant Impact No No No No
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on State
or Federally protected wetlands (including,
but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means?
Less Than
Significant Impact
with Mitigation
Measures
Incorporated
No No No No
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
Less Than
Significant Impact No No No No
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a
tree preservation policy or ordinance?
No Impact No No No No
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
No Impact No No No No

3.4.1 General Plan Update EIR Summary
As detailed in the General Plan Update EIR, the City’s planning area supports suitable habitats for a variety of special-status plant and animal species. However, implementation of the General Plan Update would not directly convert any existing open space areas containing native vegetation and/or habitat for special-status species to developed uses. Nevertheless, buildout of the General Plan Update has the potential to indirectly impact habitat for special-status species by increasing environmental pollutants, promoting habitat fragmentation, and introducing invasive species. As such, the General Plan Update EIR recommended that all future development within the City would comply with all federal and state regulations and General Plan Update policies enacted to protect special-status species.

Additionally, the General Plan Update EIR determined that while the General Plan Update would Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-30 Environmental Analysis
result in less than significant impacts on migratory birds, they recommend the implementation of mitigation measure MM4.3-1 which would require a preconstruction nesting bird survey at development sites 14 days prior to construction activities. If an active nest of a Migratory Bird Treaty Act protected species is located, a 100-foot no-work buffer would be established around the nest.

With implementation of mitigation measure MM4.3-1, the General Plan Update EIR determined that implementation of the General Plan Update would not have a substantial adverse effect on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

The General Plan Update EIR identified that the City contains a total of 1,171 acres of sensitive natural communities within its planning areas. As stated above, the General Plan Update would not propose any land use changes that would directly convert riparian habitat or other sensitive vegetation communities to developed use. However, future development could potentially result in indirect loss or degradation of riparian habitat or sensitive communities through increased pollutants through urban runoff, introduction of invasive species, and habitat fragmentation. The General Plan Update EIR states that implementation of General Plan Update policies would reduce the potential direct and indirect impacts on riparian habitat and sensitive natural communities. Upon compliance with General Plan Update policies aimed at reducing potential impacts to riparian habitats and sensitive natural communities, impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

The General Plan Update EIR identified that the City’s planning area supports riparian and wetland plant communities. As stated above, the General Plan Update would not propose any land use changes that would directly convert protected wetlands to developed use. However, future development could potentially result in the indirect loss or degradation of wetlands. The General Plan Update EIR stated that implementation of General Plan Update policies would reduce the potential indirect impacts on protected wetlands. Additionally, future development would comply with all applicable state and federal regulations governing protected wetlands. While the General Plan Update EIR stated that the General Plan Update would result in less than significant impacts on wetland habitats, they recommend the implementation of mitigation measure MM4.3-2 which would further reduce potential impacts. Mitigation measure MM4.3-2 would require a wetland delineation to be conducted prior to the development of any vacant (nondeveloped) land. If wetlands are found, the project applicant will be required to obtain all necessary wetland permits and mitigate for impacts to wetland habitats. Upon compliance with federal, state, and local regulations and incorporation of mitigation measure MM4.3- 2, as applicable, impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

The General Plan Update EIR acknowledged that the City’s planning areas contain several linkages that serve as wildlife corridors. Implementation of the General Plan Update would not propose any land use changes that would directly convert existing open space areas containing wildlife connections, corridors, and habitat into developed uses. Nevertheless, future development may result in indirect loss or degradation of wildlife corridors. The General Plan Update EIR stated that implementation of General Plan Update polices would ensure wildlife corridors would be preserved and enhanced. Upon compliance with General Plan Update policies aimed at preserving wildlife corridors, impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

As detailed in the General Plan Update EIR, the City adopted two local policies protecting biological resources: the Local Costal Program and the City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code Chapter 13.50, Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-31 Environmental Analysis
Regulations of Trees. All future development anticipated under the General Plan Update would be required to comply with these local policies. As such, the General Plan Update EIR determined that implementation of the General Plan Update would not conflict with any local policy or ordinance protecting biological resources and no impacts would occur.

As discussed in the General Plan Update EIR, the City’s planning area is not located within an adopted Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), nor any other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. As such, implementation of the General Plan Update would not conflict with such plans and no impacts would occur.

3.4.2 Project-Specific Impacts

This section is based on the Biological Resources Assessment for the Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project in the City of Huntington Beach, Orange County, California (Biological Resources Assessment), prepared by Michael Baker International and date September 8, 2025; refer to Appendix B, Biological Resources Assessment.
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
As detailed in the Biological Resources Assessment, the project site is developed and supports ornamental landscaping which is not a suitable habitat for most special-status plant or wildlife species.

As a result of the lack of suitable habitat, no special-status plants are expected to be located on the project site. Additionally, the Biological Resources Assessment acknowledges that monarch butterflies may utilize the existing trees on-site to roost temporarily. However, if monarch butterflies occur on the project site, they are expected to occur in very low numbers due to the developed and urbanized nature of the site and surrounding area.

During the biological survey conducted for the project, suitable burrowing owl burrows and habitats were observed. However, no signs of burrowing owls (i.e., whitewash, pellets, and feathers) were located on the project site. Nevertheless, to further minimize the project’s potential impact on burrowing owls, the proposed project would implement Standard Conditions of Approval (SCA) BIO-1 which would require a preconstruction burrowing owl clearance survey as recommended by the Biological Resource Assessment. The preconstruction burrowing owl clearance survey would be conducted 14 days prior to any vegetation removal or ground disturbing activities and would be conducted with the methods outlined by the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation.16 If no burrowing owls or occupied owls are located, construction activities may commence. In the event that burrowing owls or an occupied burrow is located on the project site, a burrowing owl exclusion and mitigation plan would be prepared in coordination with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). If an occupied burrow is located outside, but within 500 feet of the project site, a “no disturbance” buffer would be established around the burrow. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard.
16 California Department of Fish and Game, Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation, 2012.

Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-32 Environmental Analysis
Impacts related to special-status species were analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR and found to be less than significant with mitigation measures incorporated. No substantial new information shows that project impacts related to special-status species would be more significant than described in the General Plan Update EIR because project impacts related to special-status species are less than significant. Therefore, there are no impacts peculiar to the project site related to special-status species that would exceed what was previously disclosed in the General Plan Update EIR. Further, there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project related to special-status species that were not already evaluated by the General Plan Update EIR. Therefore, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, no further environmental review is required.

Project Condition:

SCA BIO-1 Pre-construction Surveys. No more than 14 days before any vegetation removal or ground disturbing activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction clearance survey to determine if any burrowing owls are located on the project site. If no burrowing owls or occupied burrows are detected, project activities may begin, and no additional avoidance or minimization measures are required.

If burrowing owls are located on the project site, a burrowing owl exclusion and mitigation plan shall be prepared in coordination with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and approved prior to project activities. If an occupied burrow is detected outside but within 500 feet of the project site, a “no disturbance” buffer shall be established around the burrow locations. The size of the buffer shall be determined in coordination with CDFW.

b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? According to the Biological Resources Assessment, the project site is completely developed and only supports ornamental landscaping and weedy vegetation. There are no riparian habitats, wetlands, or other sensitive natural communities present within the project site boundaries. Therefore, development of the proposed project is not expected to result in impacts to State or federal jurisdictional areas or require regulatory approvals/permits from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), or the California Coastal Commission (CCC). As such, no impact would occur in this regard.

Impacts related to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community were analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR and found to be less than significant. No substantial new information shows that project impacts related to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community would be more significant than described in the General Plan Update EIR because no project impacts related to the riparian habitats or other sensitive natural communities would occur. Therefore, there are no impacts peculiar to the project site related to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community that would exceed what was previously disclosed in the General Plan Update EIR. Further, there are no direct or Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-33 Environmental Analysis
cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project related to riparian habitats or other sensitive natural communities that were not already evaluated by the General Plan Update EIR.

Therefore, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, no further environmental review is required.

c) Have a substantial adverse effect on State or Federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
Refer to Response 3.4.2(b) above. No impacts would occur in this regard.

As analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR, impacts related to State or federally protected wetlands were found to less than significant with mitigation measures incorporated. No substantial new information shows that project impacts related to State or federally protected wetlands would be more significant than described in the General Plan Update EIR because no project impacts related to State or Federally protected wetlands would occur. Therefore, there are no impacts peculiar to the project site that would exceed what was previously disclosed in the General Plan Update EIR. Further, there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project related to State or Federally protected wetlands that were not already evaluated by the General Plan Update EIR. Therefore, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, no further environmental review is required.
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
According to the Biological Resources Assessment, the project site is within a developed urban area and is completely surrounded by existing development. Additionally, the project site does not have any connectivity to any natural habitats that would serve as migratory corridors. As such, impacts on the movement along migratory corridors would be less than significant in this regard.

Nesting birds are protected pursuant to the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 and the California Fish and Game Code (CFGC). To maintain compliance with the MBTA and CFGC, clearance surveys are typically required prior to any ground disturbance or vegetation removal activities to avoid direct or indirect impacts to active bird nests and/or nesting birds. Consequently, if an active bird nest is destroyed or if project activities result in indirect impacts (e.g., nest abandonment, loss of reproductive effort) to nesting birds, it is considered “take” and is potentially punishable by fines and/or imprisonment.

To minimize the project’s potential impacts on nesting birds, the project would be required to comply with General Plan Update EIR mitigation measure MM4.3-1. General Plan Update EIR mitigation measure MM4.3-1 would require a nesting bird survey to be conducted if construction activities or vegetation removal occurs between February 15 and August 31. Nesting Bird Surveys would also be conducted no less than 14 days and no more than 30 days prior to the commencement of any construction activities. If no active nests are identified on or within 250 feet of the construction site, no further mitigation is required. If an active bird nest is found, a 100 foot “no-disturbance” buffer Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-34 Environmental Analysis
shall be established around the active nest and shall be monitored until the young have fledged and left the nest or the nest otherwise becomes inactive under natural conditions. The buffer size would be determined based on consultation with the CDFW and/or United States Fish and Wildlife Service.

Upon implementation of General Plan Update EIR mitigation measure MM4.3-1 and compliance with existing regulations pertaining to nesting birds protected by the MBTA, impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

Impacts related to wildlife corridors were analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR and found to be less than significant. No substantial new information shows that project impacts related to wildlife corridors would be more significant than described in the General Plan Update EIR because project impacts related to wildlife corridors are less than significant. Therefore, there are no impacts peculiar to the project site related to wildlife corridors that would exceed what was previously disclosed in the General Plan Update EIR. Further, there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project related to wildlife corridors that were not already evaluated by the General Plan Update EIR. Therefore, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, no further environmental review is required. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
The City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code Chapter 13.50, Regulation of Trees, contains regulations on tree removal, and maintenance, including the protection of all trees located along streets, alleys, courts, or other public places during construction activities. Specifically, City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code Section 13.50.120 requires that removal of any trees would require a permit. As discussed in Section 1.0, Project Description, the proposed project would require the removal of existing trees and vegetation. Additionally, the proposed project would install new trees on-site; refer to Exhibit 3. Nevertheless, the proposed project would comply with all applicable local policies and ordinance regarding the removal, maintenance, and protection of trees during construction activities.

Consequently, the proposed project would not conflict with any local policies protecting biological resources. No impacts would occur in this regard.

Impacts related to local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources were analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR and were determined to have no impacts. No substantial new information shows that project impacts related to local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources would be more significant than described in the General Plan Update EIR because the project would have no impact related to potential conflicts with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. Therefore, there are no impacts peculiar to the project site related to local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources that would exceed what was previously disclosed in the General Plan Update EIR. Further, there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project related to local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources that were not already evaluated by the General Plan Update EIR. Therefore, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, no further environmental review is required.

f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-35 Environmental Analysis
According to the Biological Resources Assessment, the project site is not located within an adopted NCCP, HCP, nor any other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Additionally, the General Plan Update EIR states that the City of Huntington Beach does not have an NCCP, HCP, nor any other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan within its planning area. As such, there would be no impact in this regard.

As analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR, no impacts related to approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans were found to occur. No substantial new information shows that project impacts related to approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans would be more significant than described in the General Plan Update EIR because no project impacts related to approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans would occur. Therefore, there are no impacts peculiar to the project site related to approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans that would exceed what was previously disclosed in the General Plan Update EIR. Further, there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project related to approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans that were not already evaluated by the General Plan Update EIR. Therefore, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, no further environmental review is required.

Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-36 Environmental Analysis

3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project: Prior EIR
Determination
CEQA Section 15183(b) Criteria
Effect
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Off-Site/
Cumulativ
e Impact?
New
Information,
More Severe
Adverse
Impact?
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource pursuant
to CEQA Guidelines §15064.5?
Less Than
Significant Impact
with Mitigation
Measures
Incorporated
No No No No
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15064.5?
Less Than
Significant Impact
with Mitigation
Measures
Incorporated
No No No No
c. Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Less Than
Significant Impact
with Mitigation
Measures
Incorporated
No No No No

3.5.1 General Plan Update EIR Summary
The General Plan Update EIR concluded that construction activities associated with the implementation of the General Plan Update would potentially cause substantial adverse changes in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines.

Specifically, the General Plan Update EIR stated that this would occur within the area designated by the City as transformation areas. A total of 17 properties listed as eligible for local landmarks are located within the transformation areas. Additionally, four known historic age sites and one multicomponent site that includes historic and prehistoric era cultural resources are located within the City’s planning area. As such, future development under the General Plan Update would have the potential to disturb unknown historical resources. All future projects would be required to complete environmental review, in order to prevent damage and disruption of unknown historical resources while construction activities take place.

With regard to historic resources, the General Plan Update EIR include mitigation measure MM4.4-1 which would require the retention of a cultural resource professional to prepare a cultural resource investigation for any buildings or structures that are 45 years old or older. Additionally, the General Plan Update include objectives and policies which would minimize impacts to historic resources. As such, upon compliance with the City’s General Plan Update policies, State and City regulations, and incorporation of mitigation measure MM4.4-1, impacts on historical resources would be less than significant.

The General Plan Update EIR also concluded that the presence of known and previously recorded cultural resources in close proximity of the City indicates an increased sensitivity for cultural resources within the planning area. The City contains three prehistoric cultural resource sites and one multicomponent site. As such, construction activities associated with the implementation of the General Plan Update may uncover presently buried and previously unknown cultural resources. With regards Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-37 Environmental Analysis
to archaeological resources, the General Plan Update EIR includes mitigation measure MM4.4-2 which would require the retention of an archaeologist to prepare a technical report or memorandum which determines if site-specific development would result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines or human remains. The technical report or memorandum would also include recommendations or methods for elimination or avoiding impacts on archaeological resources or human remains.

Additionally, the General Plan Update EIR also includes mitigation measure MM4.4-3 which would require all earth-disturbing activities to cease within 100 feet of a discovered archaeological site or suspected historical resources. The discovered archaeological site or suspected historical resources would be assessed by an archaeologist and handled in accordance with established regulations. As such, the General Plan Update EIR concluded that compliance with the General Plan Update policies, State and City regulations, and incorporation of mitigation measure MM4.4-2 and mitigation measure MM4.4-3 would ensure adverse impacts on archaeological resources are reduced to less than significant levels.

The General Plan Update EIR stated that while there are no known human remains within the City’s planning area, there are previously recorded archaeological sites outside of the City’s planning area which contain human remains. Due to known archaeological sites within the City, there is an increased sensitivity for unknown informal cemeteries which could be located within the City’s planning area.

Future construction activities (i.e., grading, excavation, utilities installation) would have the potential to cause adverse impacts to undiscovered remains. Adherence to and implementation of the General Plan Update policies, Specific Plan development standards, and compliance with existing State and local regulations, specifically California State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, would reduce potential impacts to human remains in areas where soil has not been previously disturbed.

Additionally, the General Plan Update EIR recommends the implementation of mitigation measure MM4.4-2 and MM4.4-3 which would further prevent impacts to any potential human remains.

3.5.2 Project-Specific Impacts
This section is based on the Cultural Resources Assessment for the Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvement Project, City of Huntington Beach, Orange County, California (Cultural Resources Assessment), prepared by Michael Baker International and date September 9, 2025; refer to Appendix C, Cultural Resources Assessment.
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15064.5?
Edison Park was developed in 1974. According to the Cultural Resources Assessment, a South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) records search, literature review, field survey, Native American Heritage Commission Sacred Lands File search, and tribal outreach identified one cultural resource (Edison Community Park) within the project area. To be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), a property must be at least 50 years of age and possess significance at the local, State, or national level, under one or more of the following criteria:
• Criterion 1. It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage; Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-38 Environmental Analysis
• Criterion 2. It is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; • Criterion 3. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic value;
• Criterion 4. It has yielded, or may yield, information important in history or prehistory.

According to the Cultural Resources Assessment, the existing Edison Community Park was determined to be ineligible for listing in the CRHR and would not be classified as a historical resource as defined by CEQA Section 15064.5(a). The evaluation of the project’s eligibility is discussed below:
• Criterion 1. The park was developed between 1972 and 1974 but was not one of the area’s first parks, does not have any development features that influence park or landscape design, and did not contribute to recreation development of the City, county, State, or nation in a important way. As such, the project does not meet the threshold for historical significance under California Register Criterion 1.
• Criterion 2. The Cultural Resources Assessment failed to identify significant individuals associated with the park. Therefore, the subject property does not meet the threshold for historical significance under California Register Criterion 2. • Criterion 3. The park was developed with the generic layout of post-World War II era community park. However, while this park follows the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, and method of construction, this park was one of thousands of parks developed with this style. Additionally, the landscape architect, Richard Bigler, was not considered as a master landscape architect. As such, the existing park does not embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, nor are they known to be the work of a master architect or craftsman. Therefore, Edison Community Park does not meet the threshold for historical significance under California Register Criteria 3. • Criterion 4. The site is not expected to yield important information pertaining to prehistory or history since the park is not a principal source of important information pertaining to park development. The subject property does not meet the threshold for historical significance under California Register Criteria 4.

Thus, less than significant impacts would occur in this regard.

Impacts related to historical resources were analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR and found to be less than significant with mitigation measures incorporated. No substantial new information shows that project impacts related to historical resources would be more significant than described in the General Plan Update EIR because project impacts related to historical resource are less than significant. Therefore, there are no impacts peculiar to the project site related to historical resources that would exceed what was previously disclosed in the General Plan Update EIR. Further, there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project related to historical resources that were not already evaluated by the General Plan Update EIR. Therefore, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, no further environmental review is required.

Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-39 Environmental Analysis
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15064.5?
As detailed in the Cultural Resources Assessment, no archaeological remains or prehistoric cultural resources were identified within the project site during the records search or pedestrian survey, and the project site is not considered sensitive for buried archaeological resources. Additionally, the soils at the project site have been heavily disturbed from the development of the existing park, sport amenities, and parking lot. Due to the developed and disturbed nature of the project site, the archaeological sensitivity of prehistoric and historic-period archaeological sites is low. However, it should be noted that the sensitivity for archaeological resources increases with depth, especially if earthwork extends beyond the previously disturbed soil depth.

Most of the proposed park reconfiguration and improvement activities would occur within the existing previously disturbed soils and would extend to a maximum of eight feet below grade surface.

According to the Cultural Resources Assessment, sensitivity for archaeological resources would increase if disturbance extends to depths greater than 10 feet. However, since earthwork activities associated with the proposed project would only extend to a maximum depth of eight feet below grade surface, it is not anticipated that the project would adversely impact previously undiscovered archaeological resources. Therefore, it is not expected that archaeological resources would be encountered during project construction and a less than significant impact would occur in this regard.

Impacts related to archaeological resources were analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR and found to be less than significant with mitigation measures incorporated. No substantial new information shows that project impacts related to archaeological resources would be more significant than described in the General Plan Update EIR because project impacts related to archaeological resources are less than significant. Therefore, there are no impacts peculiar to the project site related to archaeological resources that would exceed what was previously disclosed in the General Plan Update EIR. Further, there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project related to archaeological resources that were not already evaluated by the General Plan Update EIR.

Therefore, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, no further environmental review is required.
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? As discussed above, the project site has been subject to substantial disturbance due to previous use as a landfill and current use as a park. As such, it is not anticipated that human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries, would be encountered during earth removal or grounddisturbing activities. While grading and excavation would occur, these activities would occur within the existing previously disturbed soils and would extend to a maximum of eight feet below grade surface.

Due to the level of disturbance on the project site and in the site vicinity, it is not anticipated that human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries, would be encountered during earth removal or ground-disturbing activities. Nonetheless, if human remains are found, those remains would require proper treatment, in accordance with applicable laws. State of California Public Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-40 Environmental Analysis
Resources Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 through 7055 describe the general provisions for human remains. Specifically, Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 describes the requirements if any human remains are accidentally discovered during excavation of a site. As required by State law, the requirements and procedures set forth in Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code would be implemented, including notification of the County Coroner, notification of the Native American Heritage Commission, and consultation with the individual identified by the Native American Heritage Commission to be the most likely descendant. If human remains are found during excavation, excavation must stop near the find and any area that is reasonably suspected to overlay adjacent remains until the County Coroner has been called out, the remains have been investigated, and appropriate recommendations have been made for the treatment and disposition of the remains.

Following compliance with the aforementioned regulations, impacts related to the disturbance of human remains are less than significant.

Impacts related to human remains were analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR and found to be less than significant with mitigation measures incorporated. No substantial new information shows that project impacts related to human remains would be more significant than described in the General Plan Update EIR because project impacts related to human remains are less than significant.

Therefore, there are no impacts peculiar to the project site related to human remains that would exceed what was previously disclosed in the General Plan Update EIR. Further, there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project related to human remains that were not already evaluated by the General Plan Update EIR. Therefore, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, no further environmental review is required.

Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-41 Environmental Analysis

3.6 ENERGY
Would the project: Prior EIR
Determination
CEQA Section 15183(b) Criteria
Effect
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Off-Site/
Cumulativ
e Impact?
New
Information,
More Severe
Adverse
Impact?
a. Result in potentially significant
environmental impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of
energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
Not Analyzed No No No No
b. Conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan
for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Not Analyzed No No No No

3.6.1 General Plan Update EIR Summary
The General Plan Update EIR did not address impacts to energy resources as thresholds related to energy resources were added to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines after certification of the General Plan Update EIR. However, energy use and infrastructure considerations were evaluated under Chapter

4.15, Utilities and Service Systems, consistent with the requirements of Appendix F, which has long mandated the analysis of energy consumption and conservation. The General Plan Update EIR acknowledged that implementation of the General Plan Update would result in increased energy use within the City, thereby increasing the demand for energy services. However, no proposals for energy production facilities or transmission facilities are included as part of the General Plan Update.

According to the General Plan Update EIR, increased motor vehicle travel within the City resulting from buildout of the General Plan Update would also be accompanied by increased consumption of petroleum products. The General Plan Update EIR concluded that implementation of the General Plan Update could potentially result in the need for new energy infrastructure. Should Southern California Edison (SCE) or Southern California Gas (SCG) determine that additional energy production or transmission facilities are required in the future, such projects would be subject to separate CEQA review, and their environmental impacts would be assessed at that time.

Implementation of General Plan Update policies, combined with the requirement for future CEQA compliance for any new energy infrastructure, would ensure that potential impacts related to the construction or expansion of energy facilities are reduced to a less-than-significant level.

3.6.2 Project-Specific Impacts
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-42 Environmental Analysis
Per CEQA Guidelines Appendix F, Energy Conservation, in order to ensure energy implications are considered in project decisions, CEQA requires that EIRs include a discussion of the potential energy impacts of proposed projects, with particular emphasis on avoiding or reducing inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary energy consumption (Public Resources Code Section 21100(b)(3)). Environmental effects may include:
• The proposed project’s energy requirements and its energy use efficiencies by amount and fuel type during demolition, construction, and operation; (Criterion 1) • The effects of the proposed project on local and regional energy supplies; (Criterion 2) • The effects of the proposed project on peak and base period demands for electricity and other forms of energy; (Criterion 3)
• The degree to which the proposed project complies with existing energy standards; (Criterion 4)
• The effects of the proposed project on energy resources; (Criterion 5) and • The proposed project’s projected transportation energy use requirements and its overall use of efficient transportation alternatives, if applicable. (Criterion 6) The following impact analysis focuses on the two sources of energy that are relevant to the proposed project: electricity and transportation fuel for vehicle trips associated with project operations as well as the fuel necessary for project construction. The project would not introduce new land uses that would consume natural gas. The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2022.1 was utilized to calculate the project’s construction and operational energy consumption. CalEEMod modeling assumes that the proposed project would construct a new park which presents a more conservative estimate on construction and operational energy consumptions, as in reality, the project proposes improvements to the existing park use. The project’s estimated energy consumption is summarized in Table 3.6-1, Project and Countywide Energy Consumption. Refer to Appendix A for CalEEMod output and energy calculations.

CONSTRUCTION ENERGY CONSUMPTION
During construction, the project would consume energy in two general forms: (1) the fuel energy consumed by construction vehicles and equipment; and (2) bound energy in construction materials, such as asphalt, steel, concrete, pipes, and manufactured or processed materials such as lumber and glass.

Fossil fuels used for construction vehicles and other energy-consuming equipment would be used during demolition, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coatings. Fuel energy consumed during construction would be temporary and would not represent a significant demand on energy resources. In addition, some incidental energy conservation would occur during construction through compliance with State requirements that heavy-duty diesel equipment not in use for more than five minutes be turned off. Project construction equipment would also be required to comply with the latest U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and California Air Resources Board (CARB) engine emissions standards. These emissions standards require highly efficient combustion systems that maximize fuel efficiency and reduce unnecessary fuel consumption. Due to increasing Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-43 Environmental Analysis
transportation costs and fuel prices, contractors and owners have a strong financial incentive to avoid wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy during construction (Criterion 4).

Table 3.6-1
Project and Countywide Energy Consumption
Energy Consumption Type Project Annual
Energy Consumption1
Orange County Annual
Energy Consumption2
Percentage
Increase Countywide
Construction
Construction Off-Road Fuel Consumption 27,613 gallons 15,230,871 gallons 0.1813% Construction On-Road Fuel Consumption 2,786 gallons 1,056,094,532 gallons 0.0003% Operation
Electricity Consumption3 25 MWh 18,759,229 MWh 0.0001%
Operational Automotive Fuel Consumption 628 gallons 1,012,273,716 gallons 0.0001% Notes:

1. Project electricity consumptions as modeled in California Emissions Estimator Model Version 2022.1 (CalEEMod) computer model. Project fuel consumption calculated based on CalEEMod results. Countywide operational fuel consumption, off-road construction equipment diesel fuel consumption, and on-road fuel consumption are from CARB EMFAC2021.

2. The project’s increase in electricity consumption is compared to the total consumption in Orange County in 2023 (latest year where data is available). Construction on-road and off-road fuel consumption was compared with the projected Orange Countywide off-road and on-road fuel consumption in 2026 (first year of construction). The project increases in operational automotive fuel consumption is compared with the projected Countywide on-road fuel consumption in 2027 (first year of operation).

3. Orange County electricity consumption data source: California Energy Commission, Electricity Consumption by County, https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/california-electricity-data/california-energy-consumptiondashboards-0, accessed August 25, 2025.

Source: Refer to Appendix A, Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas/Energy Data.

The project-related incremental increase in the use of energy bound in construction materials, such as asphalt, steel, concrete, pipes and manufactured or processed materials (e.g., lumber and gas), would not substantially increase demand for energy compared to overall local and regional demand for construction materials. As indicated in Table 3.6-1, the proposed project’s construction off-road fuel consumption would be approximately 27,613 gallons, which would account for 0.1813 percent of the County’s annual off-road construction fuel consumption, and on-road fuel consumption from construction would be approximately 2,786 gallons, which would account for approximately 0.0003 percent of the County’s annual on-road fuel consumption. As previously stated, CalEEMod modeling assumes that the proposed project would construct a new park which presents a more conservative estimate on construction energy consumption, as in reality, the project proposes improvements to the existing park use. Therefore, project related construction energy consumption would be lower than what is shown in Table 3.6-1. As such, project construction would have a minimal effect on the local and regional energy supplies and would not require additional capacity (Criterion 2).

Construction fuel use is temporary and would cease upon completion of construction activities.

Construction activities would be planned and sequenced to maximize the efficiency of construction.

Therefore, there are no unusual project characteristics that would necessitate the use of construction equipment that would be less energy-efficient than at comparable construction sites in the region or State (Criterion 5). Additionally, construction contractors would be required to comply with the provisions of California Code of Regulations Title 13, Sections 2449 and 2485, which prohibit dieselfueled commercial motor vehicles and off-road diesel vehicles from idling for more than five minutes Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-44 Environmental Analysis
and would minimize unnecessary fuel consumption. Construction equipment would be subject to the EPA Construction Equipment Fuel Efficiency Standard, which would also minimize inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary fuel consumption. Furthermore, the project would comply with applicable regulatory requirements and the City’s Construction and Demolition Recycling Program, which require compliance with waste reduction measures throughout construction activities. Therefore, construction fuel consumption would not be any more inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary than other similar development projects, and a less than significant impact would occur in this regard during project construction.

OPERATIONAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION
Transportation Energy Demand. Pursuant to the Federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration is responsible for establishing additional vehicle standards and for revising existing standards. Compliance with Federal fuel economy standards is not determined for each individual vehicle model. Rather, compliance is determined based on each manufacturer’s average fuel economy for the portion of their vehicles produced for sale in the United States.

Project-generated vehicle emissions have been estimated using CalEEMod. Based on the Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements – Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT Analysis), prepared by Michael Baker International and dated August 22, 2025, the project would generate a total of 31 average daily trips (ADT). As indicated in Table 3.6-1, the project’s operational automotive transportation at buildout is estimated to consume approximately 628 gallons of fuel per year. As such, project-related mobile sources would account for approximately 0.0001 percent of the County’s forecasted annual consumption of fuel starting in 2027 (first year of operation). The proposed project would account for a nominal percentage of the forecasted annual operational automotive fuel consumption for the County and, thus, would have a nominal effect on the local and regional energy supplies. (Criterion 1 and Criterion 2).

The key drivers of transportation-related fuel consumption rely on many personal choices on when and where to drive for various purposes. The project site would be located within 0.25 mile of the nearest bus stop and the project would also provide electric vehicle (EV) parking spaces, which would promote an alternative mode of transportation and reduce fuel consumption (Criterion 4 and Criterion 6). Therefore, fuel consumption associated with vehicle trips generated by the project would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary in comparison to other similar developments in the region. A less than significant impact would occur.

Stationary Energy Demand. The CEC developed 2024 to 2040 forecasts for energy consumption and peak demand in support of the 2023 Integrated Energy Policy Report (2023 IEPR) for each of the major electricity and natural gas planning areas and the State based on the economic and demographic growth projections. CEC forecasted baseline electricity consumption grows at a rate of about 1.7 Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-45 Environmental Analysis
percent annually through 2040.17 The natural gas consumption grows at a rate of about 0.2 percent annually through 2035.18
It should be acknowledged that the project is not proposing to introduce land uses that would consume natural gas. As shown in Table 3.6-1, operational energy consumption of the project would represent approximately a 0.0001 percent increase in electricity consumption over the current Countywide usage, which would be significantly below CEC’s forecasts and the current Countywide usage. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the CEC’s energy consumption forecasts and would not require additional energy capacity or supplies (Criterion 1 and Criterion 2). The project would also consume energy during the same time periods as other surrounding residential and commercial developments. As a result, the project would not result in unique or more intensive peak or base period electricity demand (Criterion 3).

Furthermore, the electricity provider, SCE, is subject to California’s Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS). The RPS requires investor-owned utilities, electric service providers, and community choice aggregators to increase procurement from eligible renewable energy resources to 60 percent of total procurement by 2030 and 100 percent of total procurement by 2045. Renewable energy is generally defined as energy that comes from resources which are naturally replenished within a human timescale such as sunlight, wind, tides, waves, and geothermal heat. The increase in the reliance of such energy resources further ensures that new development projects will not result in the waste of the finite energy resources. (Criterion 4).

Based on the analysis above, the project would not cause wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy during project operation, or preempt future energy development or future energy conservation. Further, implementation of the proposed project would not warrant new energy production facilities or transmission facilities. As such, impacts resulting from the proposed project would be less than significant.

CONCLUSION
Impacts related to energy consumption were analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR and found to be less than significant. No substantial new information shows that project impacts related to energy consumption would be more significant than described in the General Plan Update EIR because project impacts related to energy consumption would be less than significant. Therefore, there are no impacts peculiar to the project site related to energy consumption that would exceed what was previously disclosed in the General Plan Update EIR. Further, there are no direct or cumulativelyconsiderable impacts of the proposed project related to energy consumption that were not already evaluated by the General Plan Update EIR. Therefore, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, no further environmental review is required.

17 California Energy Commission, 2023 Integrated Energy Policy Report, page 130, July 14, 2024. 18 Based on the 2023 Integrated Energy Policy Report, the gas forecast is updated every two years, in odd years. As such, the natural gas consumption shown here is based on the California Energy Commission, Final 2022 Integrated Energy Policy Report Update, page 140, May 10, 2023.

Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-46 Environmental Analysis
b) Conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? As discussed above, operational energy consumption of the proposed project would be a nominal fraction of County’s projected energy consumption and substantially below CEC’s forecasts in the 2023 IEPR (i.e., Statewide annual average growth rates of energy demand would be 1.7 percent for electricity); refer to Table 3.6-1. The proposed project supports energy efficiency and sustainability objectives by maintaining low operational energy demand, promoting transit use, and avoiding the need for new energy infrastructure. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the CEC’s 2023 IEPR. Further, the City of Huntington Beach General Plan includes goals and policies regarding energy reduction/efficiency. However, these only apply to new and existing buildings. The proposed project would reconfigure the existing park and would not result in any new structures that would consume additional energy. As such, these goals are not applicable to the proposed project.

Impacts related to consistency with State or local plans pertaining to renewable energy or energy efficiency were analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR and found to be less than significant. No substantial new information shows that project impacts related to energy consumption would be more significant than described in the General Plan Update EIR because project impacts related to energy consumption are less than significant. Therefore, there are no impacts peculiar to the project site related to energy consumption that would exceed what was previously disclosed in the General Plan Update EIR. Further, there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project related to energy consumption that were not already evaluated by the General Plan Update EIR.

Therefore, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, no further environmental review is required.

Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-47 Environmental Analysis

3.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project: Prior EIR
Determination
CEQA Section 15183(b) Criteria
Effect
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Off-Site/
Cumulativ
e Impact?
New
Information,
More Severe
Adverse
Impact?
a. Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk
of loss, injury, or death involving:
1) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent AlquistPriolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the
area or based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.

Less Than
Significant Impact
with Mitigation
Measures
Incorporated
No No No No
2) Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less Than
Significant Impact
with Mitigation
Measures
Incorporated
No No No No
3) Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
Less Than
Significant Impact
with Mitigation
Measures
Incorporated
No No No No
4) Landslides?
Less Than
Significant Impact
with Mitigation
Measures
Incorporated
No No No No
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss
of topsoil?
Less Than
Significant Impact No No No No
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as
a result of the project, and potentially result
in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Less Than
Significant Impact
with Mitigation
Measures
Incorporated
No No No No
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the California Building Code
(2001), creating substantial direct or indirect
risks to life or property?
Less Than
Significant Impact
with Mitigation
Measures
Incorporated
No No No No
e. Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
No Impact No No No No
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geological feature?
Less Than
Significant Impact
with Mitigation
Measures
Incorporated
No No No No
Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-48 Environmental Analysis

3.7.1 General Plan Update EIR Summary
As detailed in the General Plan Update EIR, the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone runs directly through the western part of the City, with other active faults (San Andreas Fault, San Jacinto Fault, San Joaquin Hills Thrust Fault, and Puente Hills Thrust Fault) located within approximately 50 miles; refer to General Plan Update EIR Figure 4.5-2, Local Fault Locations. The General Plan Update EIR concluded that the City’s planning area would be subjected to strong seismic ground shaking and the intensity would vary based on the magnitude of the earthquakes. Ground shaking from earthquakes would potentially cause landslides and liquefaction events from various factors such as steep topography, unstable terrain, and proximity to fault lines. The General Plan Update EIR stated that there are small areas along coastal bluffs that have the potential for earthquake-induced landslides and parts of the City’s planning area that are at an elevated risk for liquefaction. Nevertheless, implementation of land use policies from the General Plan Update would reduce the exposure of people or new structures to hazards associated with fault ruptures. Additionally, implementation of Mitigation measures MM4.5- 1 and MM4.5-2 would reduce impacts associated with fault ruptures, landslides, liquefaction, expansive soils, and faulting. Mitigation measure MM4.5-1 would require the preparation of a detailed soil and geotechnical analysis which includes soil sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide recommendations for grading, chemical and fill properties, liquefaction, expansive soil, soil erosion, earthquake faulting, and landscaping. Mitigation measure MM4.5-2 would require any future development to comply with recommendations from a final soil and geotechnical report (mitigation measure MM4.5-1). The General Plan Update EIR recommended the implementation of mitigation measure MM4.5-3 which require a site-specific evaluation of soil conditions with the submittal of grading plans. The submittal would also require recommendations for ground preparation and earthwork specific to the construction site.

As detailed in the General Plan Update EIR, new construction activities within the City’s planning area would potentially induce erosion. Construction activities would be conducted consistent with existing regulations (i.e., building code requirements, National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permits, Regional Water Quality Control Board Water Quality Control Plan, etc.) which would minimize polluting effects of erosion. Additionally, construction activities would implement standard best management practices regarding post-erosion and sediment control. The General Plan Update EIR concluded that upon compliance with the General Plan Update policies as well as applicable regulations and requirements, impacts associated with erosion and loss of topsoil would be less than significant.

With the exception of the Sunset Beach area, the City’s existing sewer system is operated and maintained by two different agencies: the City of Huntington Beach and the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD). Sewer collection pipelines in the Sunset Beach area are owned and maintained by the Sunset Beach Sanitary District. All sewage collected by the Sunset Beach Sanitary District is conveyed through the City’s pipelines to the OCSD. No new septic tanks or alternative waste systems are proposed as part of the General Plan Update.

As detailed in the General Plan Update EIR, future development allowed under the General Plan Update would result in potentially significant direct and indirect impacts on known and unknown paleontological resources. Subsequent construction activities resulting from development allowed under the General Plan Update would have the possibility to damage or destroy fossils in the Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-49 Environmental Analysis
underlying rock units. Ground-disturbing activities in high or moderate sensitivity fossil-bearing geologic formations have the potential to damage or destroy paleontological resources that may be present below the ground surface. With regards to paleontological resources, the General Plan Update EIR included mitigation measure MM4.4-4 which requires construction activities to cease within 100 feet of a discovered paleontological resource. The paleontological resource would be evaluated by a qualified professional and mitigated based on consultation with institutional/academic paleontologists and researchers. With compliance with applicable General Plan Update policies, state and City regulations, and incorporation of mitigation measure MM4.4-4, impacts relating to paleontological resources would be less than significant.

3.7.2 Project-Specific Impacts

This section is based on the Geotechnical Report Proposed Improvements Edison Park, Huntington Beach, California (Geotechnical Report), prepared by Geosyntec Consultants and date November 30, 2025; refer to Appendix D, Geotechnical Report.

a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

1) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent AlquistPriolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

Southern California, including the project area, is subject to the effects of seismic activity due to the active faults that traverse the area. Active faults are defined as those that have experienced surface displacement within Holocene time (approximately the last 11,000 years) and/or are in a Statedesignated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone.

According to the Geotechnical Report, the project site does not lie within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The nearest identified fault zone (Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone) is located approximately 1.2 miles to the northeast of the project site. Therefore, the Geotechnical Report concluded that the potential for surface rupture occurring on-site from earthquake-induced fault displacements propagating to the surface is very low. Thus, impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

Impacts related to surface ground rupture were analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR and found to be less than significant with mitigation measure incorporated. No substantial new information shows that project impacts related to surface ground rupture would be more significant than described in the General Plan Update EIR because project impacts related to surface ground rupture would be less than significant. Therefore, there are no impacts peculiar to the project site related to surface ground rupture that would exceed what was previously disclosed in the General Plan Update EIR.

Further, there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project related to surface ground rupture that were not already evaluated by the General Plan Update EIR. Therefore, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, no further environmental review is required.

Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-50 Environmental Analysis
2) Strong seismic ground shaking?
Southern California has numerous active seismic faults subjecting residents to potential earthquake and seismic-related hazards. Seismic activity poses two types of potential hazards for residents and structures, categorized either as primary or secondary hazards. Primary hazards include ground rupture, ground shaking, ground displacement, subsidence, and uplift from earth movement. Primary hazards can also induce secondary hazards such as ground failure (lurch cracking, lateral spreading, and slope failure), liquefaction, water waves (seiches), movement on nearby faults (sympathetic fault movement), dam failure, and fires. Both primary and secondary hazards pose a threat to the community as a result of the project’s proximity to active regional faults.

The region surrounding the City’s planning area is characterized by a relatively high seismic activity.

The greatest damage from earthquakes results from ground shaking. Ground shaking is generally most severe near quake epicenters and generally become weaker further out from the epicenter. According to the Geotechnical Report, the Newport-Inglewood Fault, located approximately 1.2 northeast of the site, is the closest known active fault. As such, the Geotechnical Report noted that seismic risk is considered relatively high at the project site compared to other Californian areas because of the proximity to active faulting activities.

The proposed project would not comprise of any permanent habitable structures. Nevertheless, the proposed project would still be subject to any required seismic design parameters pertaining to structures in conformance with the City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code and California Building Code (CBC) in order to reduce potential geotechnical hazards including seismic shaking. Additionally, the proposed project would implement recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Report; refer to Section 5, Geotechnical Engineering Assessments and Recommendations, of the Geotechnical Report.

Recommendations from the Geotechnical Report include the proper removal of debris and organic material at grading areas, over excavation of existing subgrade materials at proposed concrete slab locations, the use of concrete slabs-on-grade for hardscape, subgrade soil recommendations, drainage recommendations, and utilization of fill materials that meet the requirements outlined in the Geotechnical Report; refer to Appendix D for the full discussion of recommendations.. The Geotechnical Report also recommends that an engineering representative with experience in landfill engineering review be present full-time for construction quality assurance during earthwork operations. Adherence to existing State and local building standards and implementation of recommendations would minimize potential impacts related to seismic ground shaking to less than significant levels.

Impacts related to seismic ground shaking were analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR and found to be less than significant with mitigation measures incorporated. No substantial new information shows that project impacts related to seismic ground shaking would be more significant than described in the General Plan Update EIR because project impacts related to seismic ground shaking are less than significant. Therefore, there are no impacts peculiar to the project site related to seismic ground shaking that would exceed what was previously disclosed in the General Plan Update EIR. Further, there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project related to seismic ground shaking that were not already evaluated by the General Plan Update EIR. Therefore, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, no further environmental review is required.

Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-51 Environmental Analysis
3) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?

Liquefaction of cohesionless soils can be caused by strong vibratory motion due to earthquakes.

Liquefaction is characterized by a loss of shear strength in the affected soil layers, thereby causing the soils to behave as a viscous liquid. Susceptibility to liquefaction is based on geologic and geotechnical data. River channels and floodplains are considered most susceptible to liquefaction, while alluvial fans have a lower susceptibility. Depth to groundwater is another important element in the susceptibility to liquefaction. Groundwater shallower than 30 feet results in high to very high susceptibility to liquefaction, while deeper water results in low and very low susceptibility.

According to the Geotechnical Report, the project site is located within a Liquefaction Seismic Hazard Zone, and groundwater was encountered at a depth of approximately eight to 12 feet below the existing ground surface (bgs). However, the Geotechnical Report concluded that due to the project site use (open space) and proposed range of improvements (park amenities), no liquefaction mitigation improvements are recommended. Specifically, the proposed project would not construct any permanent habitable structures, and only minimal grading is proposed. Nonetheless, as stated above, the proposed project would still be subject to any required seismic design parameters pertaining to structures in conformance with the City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code and CBC in order to reduce potential geotechnical hazards. The design measures are intended to maximize stability in the event of liquefaction hazards. Additionally, the proposed project would implement recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Report; refer to Section 5, Geotechnical Engineering Assessments and Recommendations, of the Geotechnical Report. Adherence to existing State and local building standards and implementation of recommendations would minimize potential impacts related to liquefaction to less than significant levels.

Impacts related to liquefaction were analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR and found to be less than significant with mitigation measures incorporated. No substantial new information shows that project impacts related to liquefaction would be more significant than described in the General Plan Update EIR because project impacts related to liquefaction are less than significant. Therefore, there are no impacts peculiar to the project site related to liquefaction that would exceed what was previously disclosed in the General Plan Update EIR. Further, there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project related to liquefaction that were not already evaluated by the General Plan Update EIR. Therefore, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, no further environmental review is required.

4) Landslides?

Landslides are a geologic hazard, with some moving slowly and causing damage gradually, and others moving rapidly and causing unexpected damage. Gravity is the force driving landslide movement.

Factors that commonly allow the force of gravity to overcome the resistance of earth material to landslide movement include saturation by water, steepening of slopes by erosion or construction, alternate freezing or thawing, and seismic shaking.

The project site is relatively flat with no steep slopes located on-site or nearby. Based on the California Geological Survey’s Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation interactive map, the project site is not Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-52 Environmental Analysis
located in an area susceptible to seismically-induced landslides.19 Consequently, there is a low potential for landslides to occur on or near the project site as a result of the proposed project. Less than significant impacts would occur in this regard.

Impacts related to landslides were analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR and found to be less than significant with mitigation measures incorporated. No substantial new information shows that project impacts related to landslides would be more significant than described in the General Plan Update EIR because project impacts related to landslides would be less than significant. Therefore, there are no impacts peculiar to the project site related to landslides that would exceed what was previously disclosed in the General Plan Update EIR. Further, there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project related to landslides that were not already evaluated by the General Plan Update EIR. Therefore, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, no further environmental review is required.

b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? The primary concern with regard to soil erosion or loss of topsoil would be during the construction phase of the project. Grading and earthwork activities associated with construction of the proposed project and its improvements would be minimal. Additionally, earthwork and grading associated with the proposed project would be conducted in accordance with geotechnical recommendations, the project specifications, applicable sections of the California Building Code, applicable Orange County grading regulations, and other applicable regulations and rules.

The project would also be required to adhere to construction standards related to erosion control and comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program’s General Construction Permit. The General Construction Permit requires the development and implementation of a project-specific Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which would identify specific erosion and sediment control best management practices (BMPs) to be implemented in order to minimize potential impacts related to soil erosion and the loss of topsoil. Overall, adherence to existing State and local building standards and NPDES requirements would minimize potential soil erosion impacts during construction to less than significant levels.

Impacts related to soil erosion or loss of topsoil were analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR and found to be less than significant. No substantial new information shows that project impacts related to soil erosion or loss of topsoil would be more significant than described in the General Plan EIR because project impacts related to soil erosion or loss of topsoil are less than significant. Therefore, there are no impacts peculiar to the project site related to soil erosion or loss of topsoil that would exceed what was previously disclosed in the General Plan EIR. Further, there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project related to soil erosion or loss of topsoil that were not already evaluated by the General Plan EIR. Therefore, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, no further environmental review is required.

19 Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey, Earthquake Zone of Required Investigation, Interactive Map, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/eqzapp/#data_s=id%3AdataSource_4- 191d8e4b825-layer-21%3A1165, accessed September 10, 2025.

Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-53 Environmental Analysis
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Refer to Responses 3.7.2(a)(3) and 3.7.2(a)(4) regarding liquefaction and landslide impacts, respectively.

Lateral spreading occurs when the surficial soil moves parallel to the ground surface due to the liquefaction of underlying subsurface soil layers. It usually occurs where the ground surface has a slope of less than six percent and may damage structures or other improvements due to differential lateral movements. According to the Geotechnical Report, the potential for lateral spreading at the project site during seismic events is considered low due to the lack of a steel slope or vertical face. Less than significant impacts would occur in this regard.

As detailed above, the project does not propose any permanent habitable structures, and only minimal grading associated with the proposed improvements would occur. Nevertheless, the proposed project would be subject to any required seismic design parameters pertaining to structures in conformance with City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code and CBC in order to reduce potential geotechnical hazards and maximize structural stability. Additionally, the proposed project would implement recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Report; refer to Section 5, Geotechnical Engineering Assessments and Recommendations, of the Geotechnical Report. The design measures are intended to minimize the potential for impacts related to subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. Adherence to existing State and local building standards and implementation of recommendations would minimize risks related to unstable soils to less than significant levels.

Impacts related to unstable soils were analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR and found to be less than significant with mitigation measures incorporated. No substantial new information shows that project impacts related to unstable soils would be more significant than described in the General Plan Update EIR because project impacts related to unstable soils are less than significant. Therefore, there are no impacts peculiar to the project site related to unstable soils that would exceed what was previously disclosed in the General Plan Update EIR. Further, there are no direct or cumulativelyconsiderable impacts of the proposed project related to unstable soils that were not already evaluated by the General Plan Update EIR. Therefore, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, no further environmental review is required.

d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the California Building Code (2001), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?

Expansive soils are defined as soils possessing clay particles that react to moisture changes by shrinking (when dry) or swelling (when wet). As discussed above, the proposed project would not construct any permanent habitable structures. Nevertheless, the Geotechnical Report recommends that fill material within five feet of retaining walls would consist of fill with an expansion index of less than 20 (classified as “Very Low”) and all other fill areas would consist of fill with an expansion index of less than 50 (classified as “Low). Therefore, less than significant impacts would occur in this regard.

Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-54 Environmental Analysis
Impacts related to expansive soil were analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR and found to be less than significant with mitigation measures incorporated. No substantial new information shows that project impacts related to expansive soil would be more significant than described in the General Plan Update EIR because project impacts related to expansive soil are less than significant. Therefore, there are no impacts peculiar to the project site related to expansive soil that would exceed what was previously disclosed in the General Plan Update EIR. Further, there are no direct or cumulativelyconsiderable impacts of the proposed project related to expansive soil that were not already evaluated by the General Plan Update EIR. Therefore, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, no further environmental review is required.

e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?

No septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems would be constructed as part of the project.

Thus, no impacts would occur in this regard.

As analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR, no impacts related to septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems were found to occur. No substantial new information shows that project impacts related to septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems would be more significant than described in the General Plan Update EIR because no project impacts related to septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems would occur. Therefore, there are no impacts peculiar to the project site related to septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems that would exceed what was previously disclosed in the General Plan Update EIR. Further, there are no direct or cumulativelyconsiderable impacts of the proposed project related to septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems that were not already evaluated by the General Plan Update EIR. Therefore, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, no further environmental review is required.

f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature?
Earthwork associated with the proposed project would include minor grading, limited excavation, and subgrade preparation. The majority of the project site was originally a sand and gravel pit which was then later used as a landfill from the 1950s through the 1960s. The entirety of the project site has been previously disturbed by earthwork and grading due to its current use as a park. Given the previous amount of disturbance on-site, it is not anticipated that proposed construction activities would directly or indirectly impact paleontologically sensitive sedimentary deposits or unique geologic features. Nevertheless, to minimize the potential adverse impact on paleontological resources, the project would be require to comply with General Plan Update EIR mitigation measure MM4.4-4 which would require construction activities to cease within 100 feet of a discovered paleontological resource. The paleontological resource would be evaluated by a qualified professional and mitigated based on consultation with institutional/academic paleontologists and researchers. With incorporation with General Plan Update EIR mitigation measure MM4.4-4, impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-55 Environmental Analysis
Impacts related to paleontological resources and geologic features were analyzed in the General Plan EIR and found to be less than significant with mitigation measures incorporated. No substantial new information shows that project impacts related to paleontological resource would be more significant than described in the General Plan Update EIR because project impacts related to paleontological resources are less than significant with mitigation measures incorporated. Therefore, there are no impacts peculiar to the project site related to paleontological resource that would exceed what was previously disclosed in the General Plan Update EIR. Further, there are no direct or cumulativelyconsiderable impacts of the proposed project related to paleontological resource that were not already evaluated by the General Plan Update EIR. Therefore, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, no further environmental review is required.

Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-56 Environmental Analysis

3.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the project: Prior EIR
Determination
CEQA Section 15183(b) Criteria
Effect
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Off-Site/
Cumulativ
e Impact?
New
Information,
More Severe
Adverse
Impact?
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
Less Than
Significant Impact No No No No
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or
regulations adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse
gases?
Significant and
Unavoidable
Impact
No No No No

3.8.1 General Plan Update EIR Summary
According to the General Plan Update EIR, since the issuance of the Notice of Preparation for the General Plan Update EIR, California has adopted Senate Bill (SB) 32, which mandates a statewide reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. In alignment with this legislation, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) developed the 2030 Target Scoping Plan Update, which recommends—but does not require—local governments to achieve per capita GHG emissions targets of 6.0 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO₂e) by 2030 and 2.0 MTCO₂e by 2050. The City of Huntington Beach prepared a draft Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan (GGRP) that outlines strategies to reduce GHG emissions consistent with the State’s long-term reduction trajectory. Although the measures in the draft GGRP were not specifically evaluated for 2030, they are projected to achieve a 53.33 percent reduction below 2020 levels by 2040, resulting in approximately 1.87 MTCO₂e per capita which would surpass the recommended 2030 and 2050 targets identified in the Scoping Plan Update.

It is important to note that GHG emissions are inherently cumulative in nature. While full implementation of the draft GGRP strategies is expected to reduce emissions below the recommended thresholds, uncertainties remain regarding the feasibility and effectiveness of these strategies. Many of the proposed measures require future action by City staff and elected officials, and their implementation is subject to variables such as economic conditions, technological advancements, and evolving community and political priorities. Moreover, the City is not legally obligated—under State, federal, or local law—to implement the draft GGRP strategies, and the plan does not include projectspecific GHG emissions analyses. As a result, actual future emissions may vary due to factors such as accelerated growth or underperformance of reduction measures.

Given these uncertainties, and in the absence of enforceable mechanisms to ensure full implementation of the draft GGRP, the implementation of the General Plan Update is anticipated to result in a potentially significant cumulative impact related to GHG emissions. No additional feasible mitigation measures beyond those identified in the draft GGRP are available at this time. Therefore, despite the City’s efforts to align with State climate goals, cumulative GHG impacts due to the implementation of the General Plan Update would remain significant and unavoidable.

Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-57 Environmental Analysis

3.8.2 Project-Specific Impacts
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?

GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
The natural process through which heat is retained in the troposphere is called the “greenhouse effect.”20The greenhouse effect traps heat in the troposphere through a threefold process as follows:
short wave radiation emitted by the sun is absorbed by the Earth; the Earth emits a portion of this energy in the form of long wave radiation; and GHGs in the upper atmosphere absorb this long wave radiation and emit this long wave radiation into space and toward the Earth. This “trapping” of the long wave (thermal) radiation emitted back toward the Earth is the underlying process of the greenhouse effect.

California is a substantial contributor of global GHGs, emitting approximately 371.1 million MTCO2e in 2022.21 A carbon dioxide equivalent is defined as the number of metric tons of CO2 emissions with the same global warming potential as one metric ton of another GHG. Methane (CH4) is also an important GHG that potentially contributes to global climate change. GHGs are global in their effect, which is to increase the earth’s ability to absorb heat in the atmosphere. As primary GHGs have a long lifetime in the atmosphere, accumulate over time, and are generally well-mixed, their impact on the atmosphere is mostly independent of the point of emission. Every nation emits GHGs and as a result makes an incremental cumulative contribution to global climate change; therefore, global cooperation will be required to reduce the rate of GHG emissions enough to slow or stop the humancaused increase in average global temperatures and associated changes in climatic conditions.

The impact of human activities on global climate change is apparent in the observational record. Air trapped by ice has been extracted from core samples taken from polar ice sheets to determine the global atmospheric variation of CO2, CH4, and nitrous oxide (N2O) from before the start of industrialization (approximately 1750), to over 650,000 years ago. For that period, it was found that CO2 concentrations ranged from 180 to 300 parts per million (ppm). For the period from approximately 1750 to the present, global CO2 concentrations increased from a pre-industrialization period concentration of 280 to 379 ppm in 2005, with the 2005 value far exceeding the upper end of the pre-industrial period range. As of August 2025, the highest monthly average concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was recorded at 424.87 ppm.22
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) constructed several emission trajectories of GHGs needed to stabilize global temperatures and climate change impacts. It concluded that a 20 The troposphere is the bottom layer of the atmosphere, which varies in height from the Earth’s surface to 10 to 12 kilometers. 21 California Air Resources Board, California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000 to 2022, Trends of Emissions and Other Indicators, September 20, 2024, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2024-09/nc2000_2022_ghg_inventory_trends.pdf, accessed August 21, 2025. 22 Scripps Institute of Oceanography, Carbon Dioxide Concentration at Mauna Loa Observatory, https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/, accessed August 24, 2025.

Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-58 Environmental Analysis
stabilization of GHGs at 400 to 450 ppm CO2e23 concentration is required to keep global mean warming below 2 degrees Celsius (ᵒC), which in turn is assumed to be necessary to avoid dangerous climate change.

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Amendments to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4 were adopted to assist lead agencies in determining the significance of the impacts of GHG emissions. Consistent with existing CEQA practice, Section 15064.4 gives lead agencies the discretion to determine whether to assess those emissions quantitatively or qualitatively. This section recommends certain factors to be considered in the determination of significance (i.e., the extent to which a project may increase or reduce GHG emissions compared to the existing environment; whether the project exceeds an applicable significance threshold; and the extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHGs). The amendments do not establish a quantified or performance-based threshold of significance; rather, lead agencies are granted discretion to establish significance thresholds for their respective jurisdictions, including looking to thresholds developed by other public agencies or suggested by other experts, such as the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), so long as any threshold chosen is supported by substantial evidence (see CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7(c)).

The California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA) has also clarified that the CEQA Guidelines amendments focus on the effects of GHG emissions as cumulative impacts, and therefore GHG emissions should be analyzed in the context of CEQA’s requirements for cumulative impact analyses (see CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h)(3)). A project’s incremental contribution to a cumulative impact can be found not cumulatively considerable if the project would comply with an approved plan or mitigation program that provides specific requirements to avoid or substantially lessen the cumulative problem within the geographic area of the project (see 14 CCR Section 15064[h][3].) However, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4 does not establish a threshold of significance. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.6 provides lead agencies the discretion to establish significance thresholds for their respective jurisdictions, and in establishing those thresholds, a lead agency may appropriately look to thresholds developed by other public agencies or suggested by other experts, if any threshold chosen is supported by substantial evidence.

The City has not adopted a numerical significance threshold for assessing impacts related to GHG emissions nor, California Air Resources Board (CARB), or any other State or regional agency adopted a numerical significance threshold for assessing GHG emissions that is applicable to the proposed project. However, it should be noted that the General Plan Update EIR discussed that SCAQMD adopted a 10,000 MTCO2e per year threshold for permitted stationary sources. Additionally, SCAQMD was in the process of adopting a “bright-line” screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e for all land use types for any projects that are not exempt from CEQA or where no qualifying GHG reduction plans are applicable. For any project that exceeds the “bright-line” screening threshold, the SCAQMD proposes an efficiency threshold per service population. Specifically, SCAQMD proposes an efficiency threshold of 4.8 MTCO2e per year per service population (SP) for project level analysis 23 Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (CO2e) – A metric measure used to compare the emissions from various greenhouse gases based upon their global warming potential.

Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-59 Environmental Analysis
and 6.6 MTCO2e per year per SP for plan level projects. The General Plan Update EIR utilized the efficiency threshold of 6.6 MTCO2 per year per SP for the year 2020 and 4.0 MTCO2 per year per SP for the year 2035.

However, it should be noted that the General Plan Update EIR included this “bright-line” threshold in May 2017. As previously discussed, the SCAQMD has yet to adopt this GHG threshold. The proposed project would reconfigure and redevelop the existing park use and does not introduce new land uses that would result in substantial GHG emissions due to construction and operation over the existing conditions. Therefore, the project’s GHG emissions would be minimal and would not warrant a detailed quantitative analysis. However, for the purpose of this analysis, quantitative GHG emissions have been provided below. The project’s consistency with Statewide, regional, and local plans adopted for reducing GHG emissions is also discussed to determine the significance of the project’s GHGrelated impacts on the environment.

PROJECT-RELATED SOURCES OF GREENHOUSE GASES
The proposed project would result in direct and indirect GHG emissions. Direct project-related GHG emissions would include emissions from construction activities, area sources, mobile sources, and refrigerants, while indirect sources would include emission from energy consumption, water demand, and solid waste generation. The most recent version of the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), version 2022.1 was used to calculate project-related GHG emissions; refer to Appendix A. CalEEMod modeling assumes that the proposed project would construct a new park which presents a more conservative estimate on construction and operational emissions, as in reality, the project proposes improvements to the existing park use. As a conservative estimate, emissions from the existing uses on-site were not modeled or deducted from project-generated emissions.

CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
Construction sources of GHG emissions include GHG emissions from construction equipment operation on-site and construction worker vehicle trips to and from the project site, and from construction material deliveries to and from the project site. Construction input data for CalEEMod include, but are not limited to, (1) the anticipated start and finish dates of construction activity; (2) inventories of construction equipment to be used; and (3) trips associated with construction activities (i.e., hauling, vendor, and worker trips). Construction GHG emissions were quantified by estimating the types and quantity of equipment that would be used on-site during each construction phase, as provided by the model defaults. CalEEMod also includes off-site GHG emissions from worker, vendor, and hauling truck trips. Construction of the proposed project is anticipated to take approximately 13 months. The default number of trips and lengths were used for hauling, worker, and vendor trips. Project construction would consist of demolition, grading, building construction, paving, and the application of architectural coatings.

Construction GHG emissions are amortized (i.e., total construction emissions divided by the lifetime of the project, assumed to be 30 years),24 then added to the operational emissions. As shown in Table 24 In accordance with the SCAQMD guidance, projected GHGs from construction have been quantified and amortized over 30 years, which is the number of years considered to represent the life of the project. The amortized construction emissions are added to the annual average operational emissions.

Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-60 Environmental Analysis

3.8-1, Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions, construction of the proposed project would result in a total of 12.73 MTCO2e per year when amortized over 30 years. This would represent a total of approximately 382 MTCO2e from all construction activities.

Table 3.8-1
Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Source CO2 CH4 N2O Refrigerants CO2e
Metric Tons/year1
Direct Emissions
Construction (amortized over 30 years) 12.67 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 12.73 Area Source 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mobile Source 49.30 0.01 0.01 0.07 50.00
Refrigerants -- -- -- 0.00 0.00
Total Direct Emissions2 61.97 0.01 0.01 0.07 62.73
Indirect Emissions
Energy 6.13 <0.01 <0.01 0.00 6.16
Water Demand 0.27 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.95
Solid Waste 55.40 <0.01 <0.01 0.00 55.60
Total Indirect Emissions2 61.80 0.05 0.02 0.00 62.71
Total Project-Related Emissions2 125.44 MTCO2e/year
Notes:

1. Emissions calculated using California Emissions Estimator Model Version 2022.1 (CalEEMod) computer model.

2. Totals may be slightly off due to rounding.

Source: Refer to Appendix A, Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas/Energy Data.

Mobile Source Emissions
Mobile source GHG emissions are estimated by multiplying the project’s total vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by the vehicle emission factors. The vehicle emission factors were CalEEMod default values for the Orange County. Project-generated vehicle emissions have been estimated using CalEEMod.

Based on the Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements – Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT Analysis), prepared by Michael Baker International and dated August 22, 2025, the project would generate a total of 31 average daily trips (ADT). It should be noted that reconfiguration and redevelopment of the proposed project would not introduce new land uses that would generate additional traffic over the existing conditions. As such, this analysis assumes a conservative approach by including emissions from mobile sources that currently exist on-site. The proposed project would result in approximately

50.00 MTCO2e per year of mobile source-generated GHG emissions as modeled in CalEEMod; refer to Table 3.8-1.

Area Source Emissions
GHG emissions associated with area sources include consumer products, landscape maintenance, and architectural coating. Area source GHG emissions were calculated using standard emission rates from CARB, EPA, SCAQMD, and CalEEMod model defaults. As previously stated, the project primarily involves redeveloping and reconfiguring the existing park use amenities, with the expansion of the exterior park restrooms at Edison Community Center being the only building modification involved.

The additional new restroom/building square footage is unknown at this time; as such, the land use Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-61 Environmental Analysis
(and associated area source GHG emissions) was not quantified in CalEEMod. However, as the additional restroom/building area (for the purpose of meeting ADA requirements and providing additional stalls to meet park needs) is expected to be nominal in square footage, GHG emissions from new restroom areas would be negligible; refer to Table 3.8-1.

Refrigerants
Refrigerants are substances used in equipment for air conditioning and refrigeration. Most of the refrigerants used today are hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HFCs) or blends thereof, which can have high global warming potential (GWP) values. All equipment that use refrigerants have a charge size (i.e., quantity of refrigerant the equipment contains), and an operational refrigerant leak rate, and each refrigerant has a GWP that is specific to that refrigerant. CalEEMod quantifies refrigerant emissions from leaks during regular operation and routine servicing over the equipment lifetime and then derives average annual emissions from the lifetime estimate. The proposed project consists of improving an existing park use and does not propose permanent structures with air conditioning or refrigeration units. Therefore, the project would not generate GHG emissions from refrigerants; refer to Table 3.8-

1. Energy Consumption
Energy consumption emissions were calculated using CalEEMod and project-specific land use data.

SCE would provide electricity to the project site. The proposed project would not introduce new land uses that would result in natural gas consumption during operation. The project would indirectly result in 6.16 MTCO2e per year of GHG emissions due to energy consumption; refer to Table 3.8-1.

Water Demand
Water consumption from the proposed project was calculated using CalEEMod default values for the entire park. Emissions from indirect energy impacts due to water supply would result in 0.95 MTCO2e/year; refer; refer to Table 3.8-1.

Solid Waste
CalEEMod quantifies GHG emissions associated with solid waste in landfills. While the proposed project would not directly emit GHG emissions from solid waste, CalEEMod quantifies the GHG emissions from the decomposition over a span of 20 to 30 years of solid waste generated from a project. Solid waste associated with operations of the proposed project would result in 55.60 MTCO2e per year; refer to Table 3.8-1.

CONCLUSION
As shown in Table 3.8-1, the total amount of project-related GHG emissions from direct and indirect sources combined would total 125.44 MTCO2e per year. This estimate is based on CalEEMod modeling assumptions that conservatively analyzed the project as new park construction. In reality, Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-62 Environmental Analysis
the project involves improvements or reconfiguration to an existing park facility, which would result in substantially lower construction-related emissions.

Furthermore, as the proposed improvements would not generate additional vehicle trips beyond existing baseline conditions and emissions from existing uses were not modeled or subtracted from the project-generated totals, the emissions presented in Table 3.8-1 are therefore intended for informational purposes only, as the net change in GHG emissions attributable to the proposed project is expected to be negligible relative to existing conditions. As such, the proposed project would not result in a significant impact.

Impacts related to GHG emissions were analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR and found to be significant and unavoidable. No substantial new information shows that project impacts related to GHG emissions would be more significant than described in the General Plan Update EIR because project impacts to GHG emissions are less than significant. Therefore, there are no impacts peculiar to the project site related to GHG that would exceed what was previously disclosed in the General Plan Update EIR. Further, there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project-related GHG that were not already evaluated by the General Plan Update EIR. Therefore, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, no further environmental review is required.
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
The GHG plan consistency analysis for the project is based on the project’s consistency with SCAG’s 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (2020-2045 RTP/SCS), CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan, and the City of Huntington Beach General Plan goals. The 2020-2045 RTP/SCS is a regional growth management strategy that targets per-capita GHG reduction from passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks in the Southern California region. The 2020-2045 RTP/SCS incorporates local land use projections and circulation networks in city and county general plans. The 2022 Scoping Plan describes the approach California will take to reduce GHG emissions by 40 percent below 1990 levels by the year 2030.

SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
The latest 2024-2050 RTP/SCS was adopted on April 4, 2024. However, CARB concluded that the technical methodology SCAG used to quantify the GHG emission reductions for the 2024-2050 RTP/SCS does not operate accurately. SCAG resubmitted the Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) Submittal Package for CARB’s review in June 2024. Review by CARB is limited to acceptance or rejection of SCAG’s determination that its SCS would, if implemented, achieve the region’s GHG emission reduction target. If CARB rejects SCAG’s determination of meeting the GHG emission target, SCAG will need to revise the SCS or adopt an alternative planning strategy demonstrating the ability to achieve the target. As such, until CARB makes the decision, 2024-2050 RTP/SCS is not a fully adopted document and is potentially subject to further updates, especially from the GHG reduction perspective of the methods and assumptions of the calculation of Auto Operating Costs (AOC), induced travel, electric vehicle incentives, job center parking and parking deregulation, offmodel strategy assumptions, and emissions factors. As CARB has not made the decision at the time Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-63 Environmental Analysis
of preparation of this document, the consistency analysis relies upon the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. Table

3.8-2, Consistency with the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, shows the project’s consistency with the five strategies found within the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. As shown therein, the proposed project would be consistent with the GHG emission reduction strategies contained in the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS.

Table 3.8-2
Consistency with the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS
Reduction Strategy
Applicable
Land Use
Tools
Project Consistency Analysis
Focus Growth Near Destinations and Mobility Options
• Emphasize land use patterns that
facilitate multimodal access to work,
educational and other destinations
Center
Focused
Placemaking,
Priority
Growth Areas
(PGA), Job
Centers, High
Quality
Transit Areas
(HQTAs),
Transit
Priority Areas
(TPA),
Neighborhood
Mobility Areas
(NMAs),
Livable
Corridors,
Spheres of
Influence
(SOIs), Green
Region, Urban
Greening.

Consistent. Although the project is not located in a HQTA or TPA, the project is located within close proximity to existing bus stops.

Existing bus stops are located less than 0.25 miles to the east of the project site along Magnolia Street. Furthermore, the project site is surrounded by existing residential uses. Based on the VMT Screening Memo, the project meets the “Municipal/Public Service Land Use” Screening Criteria for land uses which means the proposed project is mostly used by the residents surrounding the park and would result in less VMT. Therefore, the project would focus growth near destinations and mobility options.
• Focus on a regional jobs/housing
balance to reduce commute times and
distances and expand job
opportunities near transit and along
center-focused main streets
• Plan for growth near transit
investments and support
implementation of first/last mile
strategies
• Promote the redevelopment of
underperforming retail developments
and other outmoded nonresidential
uses
• Prioritize infill and redevelopment of
underutilized land to accommodate
new growth, increase amenities and
connectivity in existing neighborhoods
• Encourage design and transportation
options that reduce the reliance on
and number of solo car trips (this
could include mixed uses or locating
and orienting close to existing
destinations)
• Identify ways to “right size” parking
requirements and promote alternative
parking strategies (e.g. shared
parking or smart parking)
Promote Diverse Housing Choices
• Preserve and rehabilitate affordable
housing and prevent displacement
PGA, Job
Centers,
HQTAs, NMA,
TPAs, Livable
Corridors,
Green Region,
Urban
Greening.

Not Applicable. The proposed project is not a residential project nor is the site designated or zoned for residential use. Thus, the project would not displace existing affordable housing. • Identify funding opportunities for new
workforce and affordable housing
development
Not Applicable. This strategy only pertains to governmental agencies and would not be applicable to development projects. • Create incentives and reduce
regulatory barriers for building context
sensitive accessory dwelling units to
Not Applicable. The proposed project is not a residential development and does not include accessory dwelling units.

Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-64 Environmental Analysis
Reduction Strategy
Applicable
Land Use
Tools
Project Consistency Analysis
increase housing supply
Leverage Technology Innovations
• Promote low emission technologies
such as neighborhood electric
vehicles (EV), shared rides hailing, car
sharing, bike sharing and scooters by
providing supportive and safe
infrastructure such as dedicated
lanes, charging and parking/drop-off
space
HQTA, TPAs,
NMA, Livable
Corridors.

Consistent. The proposed project would include various new and upgraded amenities (sports courts, wheel sports, playground, trees, walkways, parking lot, and access) to allow for more park use (by offering diversified recreation) as well as opportunities for more open space, by clearing the currently resettling and sinking amenities that are becoming unusable. Further, the proposed project would include bicycle parking spaces and EV parking spaces in accordance with Title 24 standards. Therefore, incorporation of the features and technology would reduce overall GHG emissions from transportation related emissions.
• Improve access to services through
technology—such as telework and
telemedicine as well as other
incentives such as a “mobility wallet,”
an app-based system for storing
transit and other multi-modal
payments
Not Applicable. This strategy focuses on SCAG’s support on technology which may reduce VMT or allow for easier access to transportation options.
• Identify ways to incorporate “micropower grids” in communities, for example solar energy, hydrogen fuel
cell power storage and power
generation
Not Applicable. This strategy focuses on SCAG’s support on promoting “micro-power grids”.

Support Implementation of Sustainability Policies
• Pursue funding opportunities to
support local sustainable
development implementation projects
that reduce greenhouse gas
emissions
Center
Focused
Placemaking,
PGA, Job
Centers,
HQTAs, TPA,
NMAs, Livable
Corridors,
SOIs, Green
Region, Urban
Greening.

Consistent. As previously discussed, the proposed project would be located close to bus stops which would promote alternative modes of transportation. Additionally, the project would provide EV parking spaces. The project would include outdoor areas with landscaped planters, trees, recreational facilities, and seating.

Further, the project would comply with sustainable practices included in the CALGreen Code and Title 24 standards. Thus, the project would be consistent with this reduction strategy. • Support Statewide legislation that
reduces barriers to new construction
and that incentivizes development
near transit corridors and stations
Not Applicable. This strategy focuses on SCAG’s support on Statewide legislation.
• Support local jurisdictions in the
establishment of Enhanced
Infrastructure Financing Districts
(EIFDs), Community Revitalization
and Investment Authorities (CRIAs),
or other tax increment or value
capture tools to finance sustainable
infrastructure and development
projects, including parks and open
space
Not Applicable. This strategy focuses on SCAG’s support of local jurisdictions to establish financing tools for sustainable infrastructure.
• Work with local jurisdictions/
communities to identify opportunities
and assess barriers to implement
Consistent. The project would comply with sustainable practices included in the CALGreen Code and Title 24 standards. Thus, the project would be consistent with this reduction strategy.

Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-65 Environmental Analysis
Reduction Strategy
Applicable
Land Use
Tools
Project Consistency Analysis
sustainability strategies
• Enhance partnerships with other
planning organizations to promote
resources and best practices in the
SCAG region
Not Applicable. This strategy focuses on SCAG’s support of local planning organizations.
• Continue to support long range
planning efforts by local jurisdictions
Not Applicable. This strategy focuses on SCAG’s support of local jurisdictions long range planning efforts.

Promote a Green Region
• Support development of local climate
adaptation and hazard mitigation
plans, as well as project
implementation that improves
community resiliency to climate
change and natural hazards
Green Region,
Urban
Greening,
Greenbelts
and
Community
Separators.

Not Applicable. This strategy focuses on SCAG’s support of local climate and hazard mitigation plans.
• Support local policies for renewable
energy production, reduction of urban
heat islands and carbon sequestration
Consistent. As discussed, the proposed project would redevelop existing park use with more trees and thus help reduce heat islands and promote carbon sequestration.
• Integrate local food production into the
regional landscape
Not Applicable. This strategy focuses on incorporation of food production (community gardens) into the regional landscape. • Promote more resource efficient
development focused on
conservation, recycling and
reclamation
Consistent. As discussed, the project would comply with sustainable practices included in the CALGreen Code and Title 24 standards. The project would also comply with local and regional regulations for recycling and composting.
• Preserve, enhance and restore
regional wildlife connectivity
Not Applicable. The project is located within an urbanized and built environment with no existing regional wildlife corridors in the area.
• Reduce consumption of resource
areas, including agricultural land
Not Applicable. The project is located within an urbanized and built environment. Project development would not remove any agricultural land.
• Identify ways to improve access to
public park space
Consistent. The proposed project would include various new and upgraded amenities (sports courts, wheel sports, playground, trees, walkways, parking lot, and access) to allow for more park use (by offering diversified recreation). Thus, the project would be consistent with this reduction strategy.

Source: Southern California Association of Governments, 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy – Connect SoCal, September 3, 2020.
2022 SCOPING PLAN CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
The CARB 2022 Scoping Plan (2022 Scoping Plan) identifies reduction measures necessary to achieve the goal of carbon neutrality by 2045 or earlier. Actions that reduce GHG emissions are identified for each Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) inventory sector. Provided in Table 3.8-3, Consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan, is an evaluation of applicable reduction actions/strategies by emissions source category to determine how the project would be consistent with or exceed reduction actions/strategies outlined in the 2022 Scoping Plan.

Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-66 Environmental Analysis
Table 3.8-3
Consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan
Actions and Strategies Project Consistency Analysis
Smart Growth / Vehicles Miles Traveled (VMT)
Reduce VMT per capita to 25% below
2019 levels by 2030, and 30% below
2019 levels by 2045
Consistent. As previously stated, the project is located within close proximity to existing bus stops. Existing bus stops are located less than 0.25 miles to the east of the project site along Magnolia Street. Furthermore, the project site is surrounded by existing residential developments. Based on the VMT Screening Memo, the project meets the “Municipal/Public Service Land Use” Screening Criteria for land uses which means the proposed project is mostly used by the residents surrounding the park and would result in less VMT. Therefore, the project would focus growth near destinations and mobility options.

New Residential and Commercial Buildings
All electric appliances beginning 2026
(residential) and 2029 (commercial),
contributing to 6 million heat pumps
installed statewide by 2030
Not Applicable. The proposed project would not consume natural gas during operation. Additionally, the proposed project would not develop any new structures that would utilize electrical appliances. Also, the proposed project would not construct any new residential or commercial buildings.

Construction Equipment
Achieve 25% of energy demand
electrified by 2030 and 75% electrified by
2045
Not Applicable. It should be noted that project construction would be completed prior to 2030. As such, the project would not be required to have 25 percent of construction equipment energy demand electrified. Additionally, the City of Huntington Beach has not adopted an ordinance or program requiring electricitypowered construction equipment which would be consistent with the 2022 Scoping Plan. However, if such programs or ordinances are adopted in the future, the project would be required to comply with the applicable goals or policies requiring the use of electric construction equipment in the future.

Non-combustion Methane Emissions
Divert 75% of organic waste from landfills
by 2025
Consistent. SB 1383 establishes targets to achieve a 50 percent reduction in the level of Statewide disposal of organic waste to a 75 percent reduction by 2025.

The law establishes an additional target that not less than 20 percent of currently disposed edible food is recovered for human consumption by 2025. The project would comply with local and regional regulations and recycle or compost 75 percent of waste by 2025 pursuant to SB 1383.

Source: California Air Resources Board, 2022 Scoping Plan, November 16, 2022.

CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN
The City of Huntington Beach General Plan includes Goal ERC-5, which seeks to reduce GHG emissions from activities occurring in Huntington Beach to levels consistent with state goals. Table

3.8-4, Consistency with the General Plan evaluates the proposed project’s consistency with Goal ERC-5 and demonstrates how the project’s design and operational characteristics contribute to the City’s long-term GHG reduction objectives.

Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-67 Environmental Analysis
Table 3.8-4
Consistency with the General Plan
Actions and Strategies Project Consistency Analysis
Goal ERC-5. Greenhouse gas emissions from activities occurring in Huntington Beach are reduced to levels consistent with state goals.

A. By 2020, reduce community-wide
greenhouse gas emissions to 15 percent
below 2005 levels. By 2040, reduce
greenhouse gas emissions by 53.33
percent below the 2020 target, placing
the community on a path to meet the
state’s 2050 greenhouse gas emissions
reduction goals.

B. Encourage oil drilling operators to
implement cost-effective best practices
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
associated with oil extraction.

C.Explore strategies to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions from off-road
construction and landscaping
equipment.

D.Support efforts by the South Coast Air
Quality Management District and the
California Air Resources Board to
decrease greenhouse gas emissions
from large industrial facilities and other
stationary sources.

E. Pursue funding sources to develop and
implement programs and projects
identified in the Greenhouse Gas
Reduction Program
Consistent. As previously stated, the proposed project would only result in nominal increase in GHG emissions over the existing conditions. The redevelopment and reconfiguration of the proposed project would not introduce land uses that would result in substantial increase in GHG emissions. Further, the project site is located within close proximity to existing bus stops. Existing bus stops are located less than 0.25 miles to the east of the project site along Magnolia Street. Furthermore, the project site is surrounded by existing residential developments. Based on the VMT Screening Memo, the project meets the “Municipal/Public Service Land Use” Screening Criteria for land uses which means the proposed project is mostly used by the residents surrounding the park and would result in less VMT. Therefore, by limiting new emissions sources, enhancing transit accessibility, and maintaining low VMT, the proposed project supports the City’s efforts to meet Goal ERC-5 and contributes to broader state climate objectives. The project’s negligible net increase in GHG emissions and its alignment with sustainable land use practices demonstrate consistency with the General Plan’s environmental resource and conservation policies.

Source: City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Adopted October 2, 2017).

CONCLUSION
Overall, as discussed above, the General Plan Update EIR determined that despite the City’s efforts to align with State climate goals, cumulative GHG impacts due to the implementation of the General Plan Update would remain significant and unavoidable. As shown in Tables 3.8-2, 3.8-3, and 3.3-4, the project would be consistent with SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan, and the City of Huntington Beach General Plan goals. As such, the project would result in less impacts than those identified for the General Plan Update.

Impacts related to consistency with applicable plans, policies, or regulations adopted to reduce GHG emissions were analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR and found to be significant and unavoidable.

No substantial new information shows that project impacts related to GHG emissions would be more significant than described in the General Plan Update EIR because project impacts related to GHG emissions are less than significant. Therefore, there are no impacts peculiar to the project site related to GHG emissions that would exceed what was previously disclosed in the General Plan Update EIR.

Further, there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project-related Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-68 Environmental Analysis
GHG emissions that were not already evaluated by the General Plan Update EIR. Therefore, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, no further environmental review is required.

Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-69 Environmental Analysis

3.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project: Prior EIR
Determination
CEQA Section 15183(b) Criteria
Effect
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Off-Site/
Cumulativ
e Impact?
New
Information,
More Severe
Adverse
Impact?
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
No No No No
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials
into the environment?
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
No No No No
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile
of an existing or proposed school?
Less Than
Significant No No No No
d. Be located on a site which is included on a
list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
Less Than
Significant No No No No
e. For a project located within an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the project result
in a safety hazard or excessive noise for
people residing or working in the project
area?
No Impacts No No No No
f. Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
No No No No
g. Expose people or structures, either directly
or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury
or death involving wildland fires?
Less Than
Significant No No No No

3.9.1 General Plan Update EIR Summary
As detailed in the General Plan Update EIR, although the overall quantity of hazardous materials and waste generated in the City could increase as a result of the land use changes in the General Plan Update, all new developments that handle or use hazardous materials would be required to comply with the regulations, standards, and guidelines related to storage, use, and disposal of hazardous materials established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the State, and local agencies.

Transportation of hazardous materials on roadways is regulated by the California Highway Patrol and Caltrans, and use of these materials is regulated by the Department of Toxic Substances Control. As such, the General Plan Update EIR concluded that compliance with and enforcement of existing Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-70 Environmental Analysis
Federal, State, and local laws and regulations, supported by implementation of the General Plan Update policies (policies HAZ-5.A through HAZ-5.C and HAZ-6.A through HAZ-6.D), would ensure that impacts to the public and the environment concerning the routine transport, use, storage, or disposal of hazardous materials would be less than significant. Nonetheless, portions of the City are located within a methane district and impacts from development accommodated through the General Plan Update could potentially be significant. As such, the City has set minimum requirements for new building construction within the methane overlay districts to reduce the hazards presented from accumulations of methane gas by requiring the appropriate testing and mitigation measures for all new buildings within the methane districts. Specifically, implementation of General Plan Update EIR mitigation measure MM4.7-1 (testing of soils for the presence of methane gas) would further reduce the scale of the identified less than significant impact.

As detailed in the General Plan Update EIR, future development in accordance with the General Plan Update may expose construction workers and the public to hazardous materials, such as contaminated soils, lead, or asbestos. In addition, there is the possibility that future development may also uncover previously undiscovered soil contamination and impacts could potentially be significant. Nonetheless, the routine transport, storage, and use of hazardous substances during construction of future development would be regulated (i.e., SCAQMD Rules and Regulations [including Rule 1403]; Construction Safety Orders 1529 and 1532.1 from Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations; Part 61, Subpart M of the Code of Federal Regulations; and lead exposure guidelines provided by the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD]; State Department of Health Services overseeing asbestos and lead abatements; and the California Department of Occupational Safety and Health [Cal OSHA] regulations concerning the use of hazardous materials, including requirements for safety training, availability of safety equipment, hazardous materials exposure warnings, and emergency action and fire prevention plan preparation) and assessed for all future development. As such, a significant hazard is not expected with regard to the public or the environment during construction. During operations of future development under the General Plan Update, common maintenance products and chemicals would be consumed through moderate use and with adherence to warning labels and storage recommendations from individual manufacturers, so these hazardous materials would not pose any greater risk compared to existing conditions. Overall, compliance with applicable laws and regulations would ensure that impacts associated with hazards to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving hazardous materials would be less than significant. Although development under the General Plan is anticipated to result in a less than significant impact due to the foreseeable release of hazardous materials into the environment, implementation of General Plan Update EIR mitigation measures MM4.7-2 (preparation of a preliminary environmental site assessment) and MM4.7-3 (procedures for uncovering unknown contamination and development of a Risk Management Plan) would further reduce impacts in this regard.

As detailed in the General Plan Update EIR, the City is served primarily by Huntington Beach Union High School, Huntington Beach City School, and Ocean View School Districts, as well as portions of the Westminster School and Fountain Valley School Districts. Although hazardous materials and waste generated by future development may pose a health risk to nearby schools, all businesses that handle or have on-site transportation of hazardous materials would be required to comply with the provisions of Federal, State, and local regulations for hazardous wastes. Specifically, Chapter 6.95 of the California Health and Safety Code requires businesses that handle more than a specified amount Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-71 Environmental Analysis
of hazardous materials on-site to submit a Hazardous Materials Business Plan. The business plan would include an inventory of the hazardous materials handled, facility floor plans showing where hazardous materials are stored, an emergency response plan, and provisions for employee safety and emergency response training. In addition, the California Education Code (Section 17210) outlines the requirements of siting school facilities near or on known or suspected hazardous materials sites, or near facilities that emit hazardous air emissions or handle hazardous materials, substances, or waste.

Overall, compliance with Federal, State, and local regulations would minimize the risks associated with the exposure of school children to hazardous materials. Therefore, future development under the General Plan Update would result in a less than significant impact related to the emissions or handling of hazardous materials within one-quarter mile of school facilities.

As detailed in the General Plan Update EIR, the City contains sites that historically have been contaminated by the release of hazardous substances into the soil or groundwater, including sites containing leaking underground storage tanks and cleanup sites. However, compliance with existing Federal, State, and local regulations, supported by implementation of the identified General Plan Update policies, would ensure that impacts to the public and environment associated with sites on the Cortese List within the City would be less than significant.

As detailed in the General Plan Update EIR, the Huntington Beach Emergency Operations Plan and Hazard Mitigation Plan directs the municipal government’s emergency preparation, response, and recovery activities. Future land uses consistent with the General Plan Update may create additional traffic and result in new residences requiring evacuation in the event of an emergency. However, the General Plan Update policies (HAZ-8.A, HAZ-8.B, HAZ-9.B, and AZ-9.C) as well as policies for traffic management are proposed to reduce impacts to emergency response and evacuation (including traffic) to the maximum extent possible. The General Plan Update EIR concluded that compliance with existing Federal, State, and local laws and regulations, supported by implementation of the General Plan Update policies, would ensure that impacts to the public and environment due to interference with emergency response or evacuation plans would be less than significant. Although development under the General Plan would result in a less than significant impact due to the impacts to emergency response and evacuation plans, to further reduce the scale of the identified less than significant impact, General Plan Update EIR mitigation measure MM4.7-4 (temporary lane or roadway closures management) shall be implemented.

The General Plan Update EIR determined that as the City is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public use airport, implementation of the General Plan Update would have no impact.

As detailed in the General Plan Update EIR, the City is not located within at-risk areas designated as Fire Hazard Severity Zones (moderate, high, and very high) according to Cal Fire. The General Plan Update Natural and Environmental Hazards Element includes policies (HAZ-4.A, HAZ-4.B) to reduce risk of urban fires in the City. Overall, the General Plan Update EIR concluded that compliance with existing Federal, State, and local laws and regulations, supported by implementation of the General Plan Update policies, would ensure that impacts to the public and environment related to risk of hazards due to wildland fire would be less than significant.

Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-72 Environmental Analysis

3.9.2 Project-Specific Impacts
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?

Project construction could expose construction workers and the public to temporary hazards related to the transport, use, and maintenance of construction materials (i.e., oil, diesel fuel, transmission fluid, etc.). These activities would be short-term, and the materials used would not be in such quantities or stored in such a manner as to pose a significant safety hazard. All project construction activities would demonstrate compliance with the applicable laws and regulations governing the use, storage, and transportation of hazardous materials, ensuring that all potentially hazardous materials are used and handled in an appropriate manner. As such, impacts concerning the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during project construction would be less than significant.

Typical hazardous materials to be used during long term operations would primarily involve, but not limited to, petroleum-based fuels and hydraulic fluids for landscape maintenance, and/or cleaning solvents. The level of risk associated with the accidental release of hazardous substances during project operation is not considered significant due to the small volume and low concentration of hazardous materials utilized. 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 hazardous impacts to occur. Therefore, impacts concerning the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during project operations would be less than significant.

As analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR, impacts related to the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials were found to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. No substantial new information shows that project impacts related to the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials would be more significant than described in the General Plan Update EIR because project impacts related to the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials would be less than significant. Therefore, there are no impacts peculiar to the project site related to the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials that would exceed what was previously disclosed in the General Plan Update EIR. Further, there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project related to the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials that were not already evaluated by the General Plan Update EIR. Therefore, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, no further environmental review is required.

b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?

CONSTRUCTION
During project construction, there is a possibility of accidental release of hazardous substances such as petroleum-based fuels or hydraulic fluid used for construction equipment. The level of risk associated with the accidental release of hazardous substances is not considered significant due to the Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-73 Environmental Analysis
small volume and low concentration of hazardous materials utilized during construction. The construction contractor would be required to use standard construction controls and safety procedures that would avoid and minimize the potential for accidental release of such substances into the environment. Standard construction practices would be observed such that any materials released are appropriately contained and remediated as required by local, State, and Federal law. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant.

Historical Oil Production Use
According to the General Plan Update, Huntington Beach Oil Field was the first of the Los Angeles basin oil fields discovered in Southern California in the 1920s, transforming the area into an urban oil boom town. The maximum production of Huntington Beach Field was reached on July 13, 1923 at 127,163 barrels per day from 199 wells. By early 1929, the major oil companies were suffering from an oversupply of oil. Standard Oil shut down 30 producing wells in Huntington Beach, which marked the end of the era of the early oil booms.

The project site is located within an area historically associated with oil production. Accordingly, a Letter Report – Geophysical Oil Well Locating Survey Edison Park, Huntington Beach, California (Geophysical Testing Report), prepared by Geosyntec Consultants, Inc. and dated July 27, 2023 was previously prepared for the project.25 According to the Geophysical Testing Report, two historical oil wells [Aldrich Fee #1 (API: 0405905847) and Aldrich #2 (API: 0405901101)] are potentially located at the northeast corner of the site. The status of the two oil wells were listed as “plugged” per the State of California Geologic Energy Management Division’s (CalGEM’s) database. While CalGEM records provide the approximate locations of the wells, the exact locations of these oil wells were unknown and needed to be confirmed to avoid potential disturbance to the wells. Accordingly, a non-intrusive geophysical survey was conducted to attempt to identify the interpreted locations of the two oil wells at the site. Based on the results of Geophysical Testing Report, both wells are located outside of the former 27.5-acre CSL site that the park was built over, generally in the northeast corner of the park; refer to Exhibit 3.

The proposed project would protect these two existing plugged wells in place, and no disturbance to these wells would occur. Therefore, less than significant impacts would occur in this regard.

Historical Landfill Uses
As detailed in Section 1.2.2, Background and History, the park site was originally used by SCE as a sand and gravel pit in the 1950s, and later used as CSL in the 1950s through 1960s. CSL was approximately

27.5 acres in size (63.3 percent of the park) and encompassed the west side of the current park site.

The former landfill received non-hazardous waste materials such as construction debris, stumps, logs, and large timber. Upon completion of waste placement activities, the former owner of CSL (County of Orange) dedicated the site to the City in 1974. To comply with the park restriction zoning, the City developed the area into the public park that is now the Edison Community Park in the same year (1974).
25 Geosyntec Consultants, Inc., Letter Report – Geophysical Oil Well Locating Survey Edison Park, Huntington Beach, California, July 27, 2023.

Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-74 Environmental Analysis
The Geotechnical Report, Proposed Improvements, Edison Park, Huntington Beach, California (Geotechnical Report) prepared by Geosyntec Consultants, Inc. and dated November 30, 2023, was prepared for the project. The Geotechnical Report documents available geotechnical subsurface information from previous field investigations, geotechnical engineering assessment, and provides preliminary geotechnical recommendations.26
According to the Geotechnical Report, the waste disposed of at the site was placed directly into standing water in the landfill (pit). Liners were not placed, nor were leachate or gas collection systems installed, at the site. The waste was confined to the rectangular westerly 20.5 acres of the site. The edge of native soils around the waste varies from 20 feet in width to less than 12 feet at some points along the west and north boundaries. Further, a groundwater Solid Waste Assessment Test (SWAT) was conducted in 1989, and the results indicated the need for quarterly groundwater monitoring at the site. Six groundwater monitoring wells were installed in June 1990 and monitored from 1990 to 1994.

The results of groundwater monitoring indicated that groundwater quality was naturally poor both upgradient and downgradient of the site due to saltwater intrusion. No organic compounds were detected in the wells at the site during monitoring. The California Regional Water Quality Control Board (CRWQCB) approved the termination of the groundwater monitoring program in 1994.

Further a previous Environmental Assessment report conducted in 2001 notes that “boundaries of the refuse prism remained constant during its construction based on a review of aerial photographs dated 1953, 1959, and 1967 and project documents. Thus, the refuse appears to have been placed within reasonably well-defined limits within the site.”27 According to the Geotechnical Report, the waste materials uncovered during the field investigation did not have any unusual odor, and characteristics of the waste material was consistent throughout the investigation locations. Composite samples of drill cuttings were collected and sent to laboratory for analytical testing for Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH), Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), Title 22 Metals, and Lead. Results of the testing indicated that the waste was non-hazardous.

In addition, excavation associated with the project would be minimal (anticipated to be a maximum of eight feet). The current condition of the park is largely similar to what was originally constructed in 1974 and no other land uses would be introduced that may result in contamination to soil, soil gas, and/or groundwater. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant.

A former landfill (Ascon Landfill) is located to the south of the site across Hamilton Avenue. Ascon Landfill operated as an active landfill from around 1938 to 1984. In the early years of operation, the landfill received waste from oil drilling such as waste drilling muds, wastewater brines, and other drilling waste. In later years, it received construction debris such as asphalt, concrete, and metal. This former landfill is currently undergoing cleanup work under the oversight of the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD).

Historic landfills have a potential of leaching chemicals into soil, soil gas, and/or groundwater. The adjoining Ascon Landfill is currently undergoing cleanup work under the oversight of the DTSC and the SCAQMD. As such, it is not anticipated that accidental release of hazardous materials into the 26 Geosyntec Consultants, Inc., Geotechnical Report, Proposed Improvements, Edison Park, Huntington Beach, California, November 30, 2023. 27 TRC, Environmental Site Assessment Report, Former Cannery Street Refuse Disposal Station, January 2001.

Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-75 Environmental Analysis
environment from these historical on-site and adjoining uses during project construction and operations would occur.

Nonetheless, proposed excavation activities of up to eight feet below ground surface could result in the disturbance of existing landfill materials and could expose construction workers to hazardous materials during site disturbance activities. To minimize potential impacts related to methane gas, the project would be subject to General Plan Update EIR mitigation measure MM4.7-1. In accordance with General Plan Update EIR mitigation measure MM4.7-1, a plan for the testing of soils for the presence of methane gas shall be prepared and submitted to the Huntington Beach Fire Department for review and approval, prior to the commencement of sampling. To minimize the potential for construction workers to uncover contaminated materials, the project would be required to comply with General Plan Update EIR mitigation measures MM4.7-2 and MM4.7-3. General Plan Update EIR mitigation measure MM4.7-2 would require the City to investigate the project site to determine whether it or immediately adjacent areas have a record of hazardous material contamination via the preparation of a preliminary environmental site assessment, which shall be submitted to the City for review prior to the issuance of grading permits. If contamination is found, the report shall characterize the site according to the nature and extent of contamination that is present before development activities precede at that site. If contamination is determined to be on site, the City, in accordance with appropriate regulatory agencies, shall determine the need for further investigation and/or remediation of the soil’s conditions on the contaminated site. If further investigation or remediation is required, it shall be the responsibility of the City to complete such investigation and/or remediation prior to construction of the project. General Plan Update EIR mitigation measure MM4.7-3 would require construction activities to halt in the immediate vicinity of the contamination in the event that previously unknown or unidentified soil and/or groundwater contamination that could present a threat to human health or the environment is encountered during construction. If contamination is encountered, a Risk Management Plan shall be prepared and implemented that (1) identifies the contaminants of concern and the potential risk each contaminant would pose to human health and the environment during construction and post-development and (2) describes measures to be taken to protect workers, and the public from exposure to potential site hazards. Upon implementation of applicable General Plan Update EIR mitigation measures and compliance with existing regulations pertaining to hazardous materials, impacts from the historic oil and landfill uses of the site and adjoining landfill site would be reduced to less than significant levels.

OPERATIONS
Typical hazardous materials to be used during long term operations would primarily involve, but not limited to, petroleum-based fuels and hydraulic fluids for landscape maintenance, and/or cleaning solvents. The level of risk associated with the accidental release of hazardous substances during project operation is not considered significant due to the small volume and low concentration of hazardous materials utilized. 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 hazardous impacts to occur. Therefore, impacts concerning accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment during project operations would be less than significant.

As analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR, impacts pertaining to reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions were found to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. No substantial Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-76 Environmental Analysis
new information shows that project impacts related to reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions would be more significant than described in the General Plan Update EIR because project impacts related to reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions are less than significant.

Therefore, there are no impacts peculiar to the project site related to reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions that would exceed what was previously disclosed in the General Plan Update EIR.

Further, there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project related to reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions that were not already evaluated by the General Plan Update EIR. Therefore, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, no further environmental review is required.

c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?

The closest school to the project site is Edison High School located immediately east of the project site across Magnolia Avenue. As detailed under Impact 3.9[b], the project would be required to implement General Plan Update EIR mitigation measures MM4.7-2 (preparation of a preliminary environmental site assessment) and MM4.7-3 (procedures for uncovering unknown contamination and the development of a Risk Management Plan) to minimize potential risks pertaining to the disturbance of existing landfill materials and exposure of construction workers to hazardous materials during site disturbance activities. Upon implementation of applicable General Plan Update EIR mitigation measures and compliance with existing regulations pertaining to hazardous materials, less than significant impacts would occur in this regard.

The project does not propose new structures or uses that would emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials (other than common chemicals used for maintenance as detailed in Impact 3.9[b] above). As a park reconfiguration project, the project would result in no change in use upon project completion. As such, less than significant impacts would occur in this regard.

As analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR, less than significant impacts related to emitting hazardous emissions within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school were found to occur.

No substantial new information shows that project impacts related to emitting hazardous emissions within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school would be more significant than described in the General Plan Update EIR because no project impacts related to emitting hazardous emissions within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school would occur. Therefore, there are no impacts peculiar to the project site related to emitting hazardous emissions within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school that would exceed what was previously disclosed in the General Plan Update EIR. Further, there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project related to emitting hazardous emissions within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school that were not already evaluated by the General Plan Update EIR. Therefore, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, no further environmental review is required.

d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-77 Environmental Analysis

Government Code Section 65962.5 requires the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to compile and update a regulatory site listing (per the criteria of the Section). The California Department of Health Services is also required to compile and update, as appropriate, a list of all public drinking water wells that contain detectable levels of organic contaminants and that are subject to water analysis pursuant to Section 116395 of the Health and Safety Code. Government Section 65962.5 requires the local enforcement agency, as designated pursuant to Section 18051 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), to compile, as appropriate, a list of all solid waste disposal facilities from which there is a known migration of hazardous waste. The project site is not listed pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.28 However, as detailed above, a portion of the site was used as landfill until the late 1960’s.

As detailed under Impact 3.9[b], the project would be required to implement General Plan Update EIR mitigation measures MM4.7-2 (preparation of a preliminary environmental site assessment) and MM4.7-3 (procedures for uncovering unknown contamination and the development of a Risk Management Plan) to minimize potential risks pertaining to the disturbance of existing landfill materials and exposure of construction workers to hazardous materials during site disturbance activities. Upon implementation of applicable General Plan Update EIR mitigation measures and compliance with existing regulations pertaining to hazardous materials, less than significant impacts would occur in this regard.

As analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR, less than significant impacts related to listed hazardous materials sites were found to occur. No substantial new information shows that project impacts related to listed hazardous materials sites would be more significant than described in the General Plan Update EIR because no project impacts related to listed hazardous materials sites would occur.

Therefore, there are no impacts peculiar to the project site related to listed hazardous materials sites that would exceed what was previously disclosed in the General Plan Update EIR. Further, there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project related to listed hazardous materials sites that were not already evaluated by the General Plan Update EIR. Therefore, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, no further environmental review is required.

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?

The nearest airport to the project site is the John Wayne Airport in Santa Ana, located approximately

5.45 miles northeast of the project site. Due to the distance and according to the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County, the project site is located outside of the John Wayne Airport Influence Area.29 Further, the proposed park reconfiguration project does not propose new structures that would expose people to aircraft-related safety or noise hazards. Therefore, less than significant impacts would occur in this regard.
28 California Environmental Protection Agency, Cortese Listing, https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/, accessed January 27, 2025. 29 Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County, Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport, April 17, 2008.

Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-78 Environmental Analysis
Impacts regarding airport-related safety and noise were analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR and no impacts were found to occur. No substantial new information shows that project impacts regarding airport-related safety and noise would be more significant than described in the General Plan Update EIR because no project impacts regarding airport-related safety and noise would occur. Therefore, there are no impacts peculiar to the project site regarding airport-related safety and noise that would exceed what was previously disclosed in the General Plan Update EIR. Further, there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project regarding airport-related safety and noise that were not already evaluated by the General Plan Update EIR. Therefore, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, no further environmental review is required.

f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

According to the City’s Tsunami Evacuation Routes map, Magnolia Street that bounds the project site to the east is a designated evacuation route during tsunami events.30 The project does not propose any modifications to Magnolia Street; as such, project operations would not impact an existing evacuation route on an adopted emergency evacuation plan. While project construction activities occurring adjacent to Magnolia Street may require a partial lane closure along the roadway, any such closure would be short-term in nature and traffic lanes in the inland direction would be unaffected. Thus, impacts in this regard would be less than significant.

Impacts related to an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan were analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR and found to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. No substantial new information shows that project impacts related to an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan would be more significant than described in the General Plan Update EIR because project impacts related to an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan are less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Therefore, there are no impacts peculiar to the project site related to an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan that would exceed what was previously disclosed in the General Plan Update EIR. Further, there are no direct or cumulativelyconsiderable impacts of the proposed project related to an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan that were not already evaluated by the General Plan Update EIR. Therefore, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, no further environmental review is required.

30 City of Huntington Beach, Tsunami Evacuation Routes, 2023, https://cms3.revize.com/revize/huntingtonbeachca/Documents/Departments/Fire/Our%20Community%20and %20Risk%20Reduction/Emergency%20Preparedness/Tsunami%20Evacuation%20Map.pdf, accessed September 14, 2025.

Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-79 Environmental Analysis
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
The project site is located within an urbanized area and the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection does not map any part of site as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone.31 The project would include the reconfiguration of existing park facilities and would not have the capacity to expose people or structures to wildland fire risks. Thus, no impacts would occur in this regard.

As analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR, less than significant impacts related to the wildland fires were found to occur. No substantial new information shows that project impacts related to wildland fires would be more significant than described in the General Plan Update EIR because no project impacts related to wildland fires would occur. Therefore, there are no impacts peculiar to the project site related to wildland fires that would exceed what was previously disclosed in the General Plan Update EIR. Further, there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project related to wildland fires that were not already evaluated by the General Plan Update EIR. Therefore, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, no further environmental review is required.
31 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, City of Huntington Beach – Orange County, Local Responsibility Area Fire Hazard Severity Zones, March 24, 2025.

Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-80 Environmental Analysis

3.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project: Prior EIR
Determination
CEQA Section 15183(b) Criteria
Effect
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Off-Site/
Cumulativ
e Impact?
New
Information,
More Severe
Adverse
Impact?
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or
groundwater quality?
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
No No No No
b. Substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the project
may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
No No No No
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of stream or river
or through the addition of impervious
surfaces, in a manner which would:
1) Result in substantial erosion or siltation
on- or off-site?
Less Than
Significant No No No No
2) Substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner
which would result in flooding on- or offsite?
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
No No No No
3) Create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned storm water drainage systems
or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff?
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
No No No No
4) Impede or redirect flood flows? Less Than
Significant No No No No
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones,
risk release of pollutants due to project
inundation?
Less Than
Significant No No No No
e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a
water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
Not a Required
Topic Previously No No No No

3.10.1 General Plan Update EIR Summary
The General Plan Update EIR determined that impacts related to water quality would be less than significant because of compliance with regulatory requirements and adherence to policies that aim to maintain high water quality standards despite population and buildout increases from implementation of the General Plan Update. Although development under the General Plan is anticipated to result in a less than significant impact to water quality, implementation of mitigation measure MM4.8-1 (preparation of a preliminary Water Quality Management Plan [WQMP]), in conjunction with existing regulatory requirements, would ensure that impacts on water quality are further reduced to a less than significant level.

Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-81 Environmental Analysis
The General Plan Update EIR determined that impacts related to groundwater supply and recharge would be less than significant because of mandatory compliance with the Orange County Water District (OCWD) groundwater management plan and adherence to the water resources protection and conservation goals outlined in the Environmental Resources and Conservation Element of the General Plan Update would ensure that groundwater supply and recharge are maintained, despite population and buildout increases from implementation of the General Plan Update. The General Plan Update EIR concluded impacts to groundwater would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

The General Plan Update notes that as the City is a developed, urban landscape, and that future development under the General Plan Update, particularly in focused areas, would not substantially alter the existing drainage patterns within the City such that significant increases in erosion would be expected. Further, the General Plan Update does not include proposals for the alteration of existing watercourses and streams, thereby reducing impacts to erosion. As such, the General Plan Update EIR concluded that implementation of the General Plan Update would not substantially alter the existing drainage patterns of the City or Santa Ana River Basin and would not result in substantial erosion or siltation activities and impacts would be less than significant.

The General Plan Update EIR concluded that implementation of the General Plan Update would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the City or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff such that it would result in flooding on- or off-site, exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems, or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.

Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Although development under the General Plan Update is anticipated to result in a less than significant impact to the stormwater drainage systems, implementation of General Plan Update EIR mitigation measure MM4.8-3 would require the assessment of each future, project-level development application for the contribution to potential system capacity constraints and provide for mitigation of constraints such that impacts to storm drain system capacities would be less than significant.

As detailed in the General Plan Update EIR, approval of the General Plan Update would not result in the alteration of existing drainage patterns leading to substantial erosion or redirect flood flow, or result pollution from flood/tsunami/seiche. As such, the General Plan Update EIR concluded that impacts in this regard would be less than significant.

Threshold (e) regarding potential conflicts with a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan was not a required topical area of discussion under CEQA when the General Plan Update EIR was prepared. Nonetheless, impacts pertaining to a groundwater management plan were discussed alongside discussions pertaining to groundwater supply and recharge. The General Plan Update EIR determined that impacts on groundwater supply and recharge would be less than significant because of compliance with the OCWD groundwater management plan and adherence to the water resources protection and conservation goals outlined in the Environmental Resources and Conservation Element of the General Plan Update despite population and buildout increases from implementation of the General Plan Update. Although development under the General Plan Update is anticipated to result in a less than significant impact to groundwater, implementation of General Plan Update EIR mitigation measure MM4.8-2 (preparation of a groundwater hydrology study) would Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-82 Environmental Analysis
ensure that permanent groundwater dewatering does not cause or contribute to a lowering of the local groundwater table that would affect nearby water supply wells.

3.10.2 Project-Specific Impacts
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?

As part of Section 402 of the Clean Water Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established regulations under the NPDES program to control direct stormwater discharges. In California, the SWRCB administers the NPDES permitting program and is responsible for developing NPDES permitting requirements. The NPDES program regulates industrial pollutant discharges, which include construction activities. The SWRCB works in coordination with the RWQCB to preserve, protect, enhance, and restore water quality. The City of Huntington Beach is within the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana RWQCB.

Water quality standards and water discharger requirements would be addressed in the project design and development phase pursuant to a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) prepared in accordance with NPDES regulations and approved by the City of Huntington Beach Department of Public Works. The SWPPP is required to include a site map(s) that shows the construction site perimeter, existing buildings, lots, roadways, stormwater collection and discharge points, general topography both before and after construction, and drainage patterns across the project. The SWPPP and WQMP would identify Best Management Practices (BMPs) for construction and post-construction operation of the facility, including source, site and treatment controls to be installed and maintained at the site. Compliance with applicable State and local requirements would reduce project-related water quality impacts to a less than significant level.

Impacts related to water quality were analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR and found to be less than significant. No substantial new information shows that project impacts related to water quality would be more significant than described in the General Plan Update EIR because project impacts related to water quality are less than significant. Therefore, there are no impacts peculiar to the project site related to water quality that would exceed what was previously disclosed in the General Plan Update EIR. Further, there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project related to water quality that were not already evaluated by the General Plan Update EIR. Therefore, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, no further environmental review is required.
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?

Groundwater extraction or recharge activities do not occur on-site; the project site does not currently affect groundwater directly (through pumping, wells, or injection) nor would the proposed project include any components that would directly affect groundwater supplies. Further, the project does not propose any habitable structures that may have the potential to increase demand for water supply that could be sourced from groundwater supplies. As a park reconfiguration project, some components of Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-83 Environmental Analysis
the project (e.g., reconfigured parking lots and sports courts) could result in an increase in impervious area. However, any such increase in impervious area would be nominal and would not be of the scope or nature to affect groundwater supplies in the project area. As such, project implementation would not decrease groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge in a way that could impede sustainable groundwater management. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant.

Impacts related to groundwater were analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR and found to be less than significant. No substantial new information shows that project impacts related to groundwater would be more significant than described in the General Plan Update EIR because project impacts related to groundwater are less than significant. Therefore, there are no impacts peculiar to the project site related to groundwater that would exceed what was previously disclosed in the General Plan Update EIR. Further, there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project related to groundwater that were not already evaluated by the General Plan Update EIR. Therefore, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, no further environmental review is required.
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:

1) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? Refer to Response 3.10.2(a) for a discussion of short-term construction impacts. The project would be subject to compliance with the requirements set forth in the NPDES Stormwater Construction General Permit for construction activities. Compliance with the NPDES requirements, including preparation of a SWPPP, would reduce the volume of sediment-laden runoff discharging from the site during construction. Implementation of BMPs, such as storm drain inlet protection and fiber rolls, would reduce the potential for sediment and stormwater runoff containing pollutants from entering receiving waters. Therefore, project implementation would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site during the construction process such that substantial erosion or siltation would occur.

For long-term operation of the park, a WQMP prepared in accordance with NPDES regulations and approved by the City of Huntington Beach Department of Public Works would identify BMPs, including source, site and treatment controls, and have them installed and maintained at the site.

Implementation of BMPswould reduce the potential for sediment and stormwater runoff containing pollutants from entering receiving waters. Compliance with applicable State and local requirements would ensure impacts related to erosion or siltation due to changes in drainage patterns would be minimized. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

Impacts related to erosion or siltation due to changes in drainage patterns were analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR and found to be less than significant. No substantial new information shows that project impacts related to erosion or siltation due to drainage pattern change would be more significant than described in the General Plan Update EIR because project impacts related to erosion or siltation due to drainage pattern change are less than significant. Therefore, there are no impacts peculiar to the project site related to erosion or siltation due to drainage pattern change that would exceed what Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-84 Environmental Analysis
was previously disclosed in the General Plan Update EIR. Further, there are no direct or cumulativelyconsiderable impacts of the proposed project related to flooding due to drainage pattern change that were not already evaluated by the General Plan Update EIR. Therefore, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, no further environmental review is required.

2) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
Refer to Response 3.10.2(b). There are no streams or rivers on the project site or in the surrounding area. The project proposes to reconfigure an existing park and add new amenities. Although areas of hardscape may increase upon project completion, any increase in hardscape would be nominal and would not have the capacity to substantially alter the drainage pattern of the project site. Further, the project would be subject to compliance with the requirements set forth in the NPDES Stormwater Construction General Permit for construction activities. Compliance with the NPDES requirements would also include preparation of a SWPPP and WQMP. The SWPPP is required to include a site map(s) that shows the construction site perimeter, existing buildings, lots, roadways, stormwater collection and discharge points, general topography both before and after construction, and drainage patterns across the project. The SWPPP and WQMP would identify BMPs for construction and postconstruction operation of the facility, including source, site and treatment controls to be installed and maintained at the site. Specifically, BMPs such as storm drain inlet protection and fiber rolls would reduce the potential for sediment and stormwater runoff containing pollutants from entering receiving waters. Therefore, project implementation would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site during the construction process such that flooding on- or off-site would occur. Less than significant impact would occur in this regard.

Impacts related to flooding due to drainage pattern changes were analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR and found to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. No substantial new information shows that project impacts related to flooding due to drainage pattern changes would be more significant than described in the General Plan Update EIR because project impacts related to flooding due to drainage pattern changes are less than significant. Therefore, there are no impacts peculiar to the project site related to flooding due to drainage pattern changes that would exceed what was previously disclosed in the General Plan Update EIR. Further, there are no direct or cumulativelyconsiderable impacts of the proposed project related to flooding due to drainage pattern changes that were not already evaluated by the General Plan Update EIR. Therefore, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, no further environmental review is required.

3) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
Refer to Response 3.10.2(b), 3.10.2(c)(1), and 3.10.2(c)(2). The drainage pattern of the project site would be similar to the existing site upon project completion, as the project would consist of the reconfiguration of existing park facilities and grading would be minimal. The project would be subject to compliance with the requirements set forth in the NPDES requirements, including compliance with Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-85 Environmental Analysis
the General Construction Permit and preparation of a SWPPP and WQMP, which would identify BMPs for construction and post-construction operation of the facility. Overall, adherence to existing State and local standards and NPDES requirements would minimize potential impacts in regard to stormwater drainage systems and water quality to less than significant levels.

Impacts related to substantial additional sources of polluted runoff were analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR and found to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. No substantial new information shows that project impacts related to substantial additional sources of polluted runoff would be more significant than described in the General Plan Update EIR because project impacts related to substantial additional sources of polluted runoff are less than significant. Therefore, there are no impacts peculiar to the project site related to substantial additional sources of polluted runoff that would exceed what was previously disclosed in the General Plan Update EIR. Further, there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project related to substantial additional sources of polluted runoff that were not already evaluated by the General Plan Update EIR.

Therefore, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, no further environmental review is required.

4) Impede or redirect flood flows?
Refer to Response 3.10.2(c)(2). As detailed above, the project proposes park reconfiguration improvements, and stormwater drainage in the project area would be similar to existing conditions upon project implementation. At project completion, no substantial changes would occur to the existing topography or drainage pattern of the site and surrounding area in a manner that would impede or redirect flood flows. As such, impacts in this regard would be less than significant.

Impacts related to flood flows were analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR and found to be less than significant. No substantial new information shows that project impacts related to flood flows would be more significant than described in the General Plan Update EIR because project impacts related to flood flows are less than significant. Therefore, there are no impacts peculiar to the project site related to flood flows that would exceed what was previously disclosed in the General Plan Update EIR. Further, there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project related to flood flows that were not already evaluated by the General Plan Update EIR. Therefore, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, no further environmental review is required.

d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
Flood Hazard
According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA’s) Flood Insurance Rate Maps for the project area, the project site is located within “Zone X”, an area with one percent annual chance flood.32 As such, no impacts would occur in this regard. 32 Federal Emergency Management Agency, National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette, https://msc.fema.gov/portal/home, accessed September 12, 2025.

Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-86 Environmental Analysis
Tsunami
A tsunami is a great sea wave, commonly referred to as a tidal wave, produced by a significant undersea disturbance such as tectonic displacement of a sea floor associated with large, shallow earthquakes.

According to the City’s Tsunami Evacuation Routes map, the project site is not located within identified tsunami advisory evacuation area or tsunami warning evacuation area.33 As such, no impacts would occur in this regard.

Seiche
A seiche is an oscillation of a body of water in an enclosed or semi-enclosed basin, such as a reservoir, harbor, lake, or storage tank. No water body is located on-site. Although the Huntington Beach Channel is situated southwest of the project site, it is not anticipated to have the capacity to result in substantive seiche impacts and is located approximately 600 feet away from the project site. As such, no impacts would occur in this regard.

Impacts related to pollution from a flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche were analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR and found to be less than significant. No substantial new information shows that project impacts related to pollution from a flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche would be more significant than described in the General Plan Update EIR because no project impacts related to pollution from a flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche would occur. Therefore, there are no impacts peculiar to the project site related to pollution from a flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche that would exceed what was previously disclosed in the General Plan Update EIR. Further, there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project related to pollution from a flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche that were not already evaluated by the General Plan Update EIR. Therefore, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, no further environmental review is required.

e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
The Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) establishes water quality standards for ground and surface waters within the Santa Ana River Basin, which includes the City, and is the basis for the Santa Ana RWQCB’s regulatory programs.

The 2014 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act requires local public agencies and groundwater sustainability agencies in high- and medium-priority basins to develop and implement groundwater sustainability plans (GSPs) or prepare an alternative to a GSP. The City is located within the Orange County groundwater basin, which is designated as a medium-priority basin and regulated by the OCWD. OCWD, in conjunction with the City of La Habra and Irvine Ranch Water District, prepared the Basin 8-1 Alternative, which is functionally equivalent to a GSP and sets forth basin management goals and objectives and describes how the basin is managed, including a description of basin hydrogeology, water supply monitoring programs, management and operation of recharge facilities, 33 City of Huntington Beach, Tsunami Evacuation Routes, 2023, https://cms3.revize.com/revize/huntingtonbeachca/Documents/Departments/Fire/Our%20Community%20and %20Risk%20Reduction/Emergency%20Preparedness/Tsunami%20Evacuation%20Map.pdf, accessed September 14, 2025.

Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-87 Environmental Analysis
water quality protection and management, and natural resource and collaborative watershed programs.

Specifically, the City of Santa Ana and project site are located within the OCWD Management Area of the Coastal Plan of Orange County groundwater basin. According to the Basin 8-1 Alternative, the Sustainability Goal for the OCWD Management Area is to continue to sustainably manage the groundwater basin to prevent conditions that would lead to significant and unreasonable (1) lowering of groundwater levels, (2) reduction in storage, (3) water quality degradation, (4) seawater intrusion, (5) inelastic land subsidence and (6) adverse impacts on hydrologically connected surface water.

Project construction and operations would comply with existing NPDES program requirements established by the Santa Ana RWQCB; refer to Response 3.10.2(a). As indicated in Response 3.10(b), the project site does not currently affect groundwater directly (through pumping, wells, or injection) nor would the proposed project include any components that would directly affect groundwater. As such, the proposed project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge. For these reasons, the proposed project is not anticipated to conflict with or obstruct the Santa Ana RWQCB’s Basin Plan or Basin 8-1 Alternative. Accordingly, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-88 Environmental Analysis

3.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project: Prior EIR
Determination
CEQA Section 15183(b) Criteria
Effect
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Off-Site/
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More Severe
Adverse
Impact?
a. Physically divide an established community? Less Than Significant No No No No
b. Cause a significant environmental impact
due to a conflict with any land use plan,
policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose
of avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect?
Less Than
Significant No No No No

3.11.1 General Plan Update EIR Summary
The General Plan Update EIR notes that while most of the City would be preserved in its existing land use type, the majority of planned development and change would occur within certain transform areas. The General Plan Update Land Use Plan focuses on these areas specifically. In these transform areas, the land use policies provide for contextual infill and redevelopment, which builds upon the existing development landscape in accordance with long-term goals of the City. Thus, the General Plan Update EIR determined that implementation of the General Plan Update would not physically divide or conflict with an established community as development would occur within existing urbanized areas. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

The General Plan Update EIR also determined, implementation of the General Plan Update would not conflict with the objectives or goals contained within the Southern California Association of Governments’ (SCAG) 2008 Regional Comprehensive Plan (2008 RCP), SCAG’s 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (2016-2040 RTP/SCS), SCAG’s Compass Growth Visioning Plan (CGVP), the Municipal Code, Zoning Code, Local Coastal Program or other applicable land use plans. Therefore, impacts due to inconsistencies with land use plans were determined to be less than significant.

3.11.2 Project-Specific Impacts
a) Physically divide an established community?
Factors that could physically divide a community include, but are not limited to:
• Construction of major highways or roadways;
• Construction of storm channels;
• Closing bridges or roadways; and
• Construction of utility transmission lines.

The key factor with respect to this threshold is the potential to create physical barriers that change the connectivity between areas of a community to the extent that persons are separated from other areas Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-89 Environmental Analysis
of the community. The project does not propose to construct any major highways or roadways, storm channels, bridges or roadways, utility transmission lines, or any other linear facilities that would physically divide a community. The project site is an existing park and the project would reconfigure facilities within existing park boundaries. As such, the proposed project would not physically divide the existing community nor change the connectivity between the community and the surrounding uses. No impacts would result in this regard.

Impacts regarding the division of an established community were analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR and found to be less than significant. No substantial new information shows that project impacts regarding the division of an established community would be more significant than described in the General Plan Update EIR because no impacts regarding the division of an established community would occur. Therefore, there are no impacts peculiar to the project site regarding the division of an established community that would exceed what was previously disclosed in the General Plan Update EIR. Further, there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project regarding the division of an established community that were not already evaluated by the General Plan Update EIR. Therefore, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, no further environmental review is required.

b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
According to the City of Huntington Beach General Plan (General Plan), the majority of project site is designated as Open Space – Park (OS-P), with the southwestern portion of the site (APN 148-071- 29 owned by SCE) designated as Public (P).34 The OS-P designation provides for public parks and recreational facilities and supporting ancillary uses (e.g., maintenance equipment storage). The P designation provides for public and private schools, hospitals, churches, cultural facilities, institutional, and similar semi-public community service uses.

The project proposes to reconfigure and improve recreational uses within existing park boundaries.

Thus, the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation and would not require a General Plan Amendment. The subject site has operated as a community park since 1974.

The proposed park improvements would be similar in nature to the activities presently occurring on the site and other community parks within the City. Throughout the City, OS-PR zones are situated amidst residential zones in order to provide needed recreational amenities to the surrounding neighborhoods. The proposed park improvements would provide modern park amenities and sport fields for the community. The park improvements (including practice fields and parking areas) are situated on the site where adequate buffer would be provided between park amenities and nearby residential uses.

Furthermore, the project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the General Plan; refer to Table

3.11-1, General Plan Consistency Analysis. As such, no impacts would occur in this regard. 34 City of Huntington Beach, General Plan, City of Huntington Beach, General Plan Designations, August 2022.

Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-90 Environmental Analysis
Table 3.11-1
General Plan Consistency Analysis
Applicable General Plan
Goals And Policies Project Consistency Analysis

LAND USE ELEMENT
Goal LU-3. Neighborhoods and attractions are connected and accessible to all residents, employees, and visitors.

Policy A. Ensure that future development and reuse
projects are consistent with the Land Use Map to provide connections between existing neighborhoods and city
attractions.

Consistent. The proposed project would be consistent with the OS-P and P land use designations and would not require a General Plan Amendment. The project would reconfigure the existing park to provide space for additional amenities and relocate existing ones that are resettling and sinking. Such improvements would allow the City to provide additional recreational opportunities.

B. Improve trail, bicycle pathway, roadway, sidewalk, and transit connections to new development and reuse projects.

Consistent. As part of the project, existing trails, bicycle pathways, and sidewalks within the site would be improved.

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION
Goal ERC-1. Adequately sized and located parks meet the changing recreational and leisure needs of existing and future residents.

D. Require all park improvement projects to consider ways to improve access to park facilities by foot and bicycle.

Consistent. Refer to response to Goal LU-3 Policy B.

F. Continue to balance and maintain a mix of recreational focused and passive and natural environment areas that
preserve and protect special-status species within open spaces.

Consistent. As detailed in Section 3.4, Biological Resources, the proposed park reconfiguration project would not result in significant impacts to special-status species.

G. Develop a comprehensive trails network linking hiking, biking, and equestrian trails to parks, beaches, recreation facilities, and open spaces both within and outside the City.

Consistent. Refer to response to Goal LU-3 Policy B.

Goal ERC-2. Diverse recreational and sports facilities provide active and educational opportunities that meet the changing needs of residents and visitors of all ages.

A. Enhance and expand accessible and affordable
recreation programs and sports facilities, providing new programs and adaptive facilities that respond to changing community demographics and needs.

Consistent. This City-initiated project proposes to reconfigure the park and create new park amenities over non-landfill land; refer to Exhibit 3, Conceptual Reconfiguration Plan. The various new and upgraded amenities, including new sports courts, wheel sports, playground, trees, walkways, parking lot, and access, would offer diversified recreation and allow for more park engagement. The resettling and sinking amenities would be cleared under the project to allow for more open space. Overall, the project would enhance and expand
accessible and affordable recreation programs and sports facilities.

B. Ensure that buildings, equipment, fields, and other
recreation amenities are in full use and capable of
accommodating changing program demands.

Consistent. Refer to response to Goal LU-3 Policy B. As detailed throughout this Checklist, the project proposes to clear some of the existing park facilities that have been affected by land settlement over the years. Specifically, two of the four existing tennis courts located within the landfill limits have shifted to the point of creating severe grade changes and developing cracks in the concrete playing surface; these two Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-91 Environmental Analysis
courts are no longer in use by the public. Sections of the tot playground and softball field areas have also shown significant settling. Upon project implementation, the fulL use of the park land would be utilized.

Source: City of Huntington Beach, City of Huntington Beach General Plan, 2017.

ZONING CODE CONSISTENCY
According to the City of Huntington Beach Zoning Map (Zoning Map), the majority of project site is zoned Open Space – Parks and Recreation Subdistrict (OS-PR), and the southwestern corner (parcel with APN 148-071-29, owned by SCE) and the fire station area in the southeastern corner of the site are zoned Public-Semipublic (PS).35 The OS District provides areas for public or private use and areas for preservation and enhancement. The PS District provides areas for large public or semipublic uses.

Impacts related to land use plan consistency were analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR and found to be less than significant. No substantial new information shows that project impacts related to land use plan consistency would be more significant than described in the General Plan Update EIR because no impacts related to land use plan consistency would occur. Therefore, there are no impacts peculiar to the project site related to land use plan consistency that would exceed what was previously disclosed in the General Plan Update EIR. Further, there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project related to land use plan consistency that were not already evaluated by the General Plan Update EIR. Therefore, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, no further environmental review is required. 35 City of Huntington Beach, City of Huntington Beach Zoning, https://huntingtonbeach.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=7ab822c02ded4940acd7e4593bba7c b7, accessed July 22, 2025.

Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-92 Environmental Analysis

3.12 MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project: Prior EIR
Determination
CEQA Section 15183(b) Criteria
Effect
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Off-Site/
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More Severe
Adverse
Impact?
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to
the region and the residents of the state?
Less Than
Significant No No No No
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locallyimportant mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific
plan or other land use plan?
Less Than
Significant No No No No

3.12.1 General Plan Update EIR Summary
Mineral resources are discussed in Section 4.5, Geology, Soils, and Minerals of the General Plan Update EIR. The General Plan Update EIR notes that although mineral resources may be present within the City, no mining has occurred in areas designated Mineral Resource Zone 3 (MRZ-3), and active mining no longer occurs and new uses have been introduced to areas designated MRZ-2, which deters future mining activities. Additionally, the urbanized character of the City generally precludes mining activities.

Overall, the General Plan Update EIR determined that implementation of the General Plan Update would not cause a loss of availability of known mineral resources or locally-important mineral resource recovery sites within the City. As such, less than significant impact would occur in this regard.

3.12.2 Project-Specific Impacts
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
As detailed in Section 1.2.2, Background and History, the park site was originally used by SCE as a sand and gravel pit in the 1950s. However, no mining activities has occurred on-site since the 1950s, and the site was developed into the current use (public park) in 1974.

According to the General Plan Update Environmental Resources and Conservation Element Figure ERC-5, Mineral Resource Zones, the project site is designated MRZ-3, which indicates information is unavailable or historic mining has not occurred, and therefore the significance of mineral resources is unknown. Furthermore, the site is not designated for mineral resource recovery in the General Plan Update.

The project proposes reconfiguration of recreational facilities within an existing park, and operation of the proposed project would not involve mineral resource extraction activities, and there are no existing or proposed mineral resource extraction activities occurring in the vicinity. Thus, development of the proposed project would not result in a loss of availability of the identified mineral resources and no impacts would occur.

Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-93 Environmental Analysis
As analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR, less than significant impacts related to the loss of availability of identified mineral resources were found to occur. No substantial new information shows that project impacts related to the loss of availability of identified mineral resources would be more significant than described in the General Plan Update EIR because no impacts related to mineral resources would occur. Therefore, there are no impacts peculiar to the project site related to the loss of availability of identified mineral resources that would exceed what was previously disclosed in the General Plan Update EIR. Further, there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project related to the loss of availability of identified mineral resources that were not already evaluated by the General Plan Update EIR. Therefore, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, no further environmental review is required. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Refer to Response 3.12.2(a). No impacts would occur in this regard.

As analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR, less than significant impacts related to the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site were found to occur. No substantial new information shows that project impacts related to the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site would be more significant than described in the General Plan Update EIR because no impacts related to mineral resources would occur. Therefore, there are no impacts peculiar to the project site related to the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site that would exceed what was previously disclosed in the General Plan Update EIR.

Further, there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project related to the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site that were not already evaluated by the General Plan Update EIR. Therefore, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, no further environmental review is required.

Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-94 Environmental Analysis

3.13 NOISE
Would the project result in: Prior EIR
Determination
CEQA Section 15183(b) Criteria
Effect
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Off-Site/
Cumulativ
e Impact?
New
Information,
More Severe
Adverse
Impact?
a. Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels
in in the vicinity of the project excess of
standards established in the local general
plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
Significant and
Unavoidable No No No No
b. Generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Significant and
Unavoidable No No No No
c. For a project located within the vicinity of a
private airstrip or an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public
use airport, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
No Impact No No No No

3.13.1 General Plan Update EIR Summary
As detailed in the General Plan Update EIR, construction activities associated with development allowed under the General Plan Update could result in substantial increases in ambient noise levels that could potentially exceed permitted noise levels on a temporary basis. However, under the City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code Section 8.40.090, Special Provisions, construction noise is exempt from noise standards if the project is granted a permit from the City and adheres to allowed construction hours. Nevertheless, while construction may occur adjacent to sensitive receptors, the General Plan Update EIR states that construction noise is a necessary part of new development and would not create an unacceptable public nuisance when conducted during the least noise-sensitive hours of the day.

The General Plan Update EIR considers any construction activities occurring outside the allowed hours for construction as significant. While construction activities with permits granted by the City and occurring within the allowed hours of construction are less than significant, the General Plan Update EIR recommends the implementation of General Plan Update EIR mitigation measure MM4.10-1 to MM4.10-3. General Plan Update EIR mitigation measure MM4.10-1 would require the implementation of best management practices to reduce noise (i.e., properly muffled equipment, locating staging grounds away from receptors, adhering to recommended hours for high noiseproducing activities, etc.). General Plan Update EIR mitigation measure MM4.10-2 would require contract specifications that would require locating staging grounds away from receptors which would be reviewed by the City. General Plan Update EIR mitigation measure MM4.10-3 would require routing loaded trucks away from residential streets. To further reduce construction-related noise impacts to sensitive receptors, General Plan Update EIR mitigation measure MM4.10-5 requires any Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-95 Environmental Analysis
construction activities within 500 feet of a sensitive receptor to implement best management practices (i.e., consideration of temporary noise walls, properly muffled equipment, restricting of haul routes, etc.). With the implementation of mitigation measures, the General Plan Update EIR concluded that implementation of the General Plan Update would result in less than significant impacts for construction-related noise.

With adherence to and implementation of the General Plan Update policies, stationary noise sources would not exceed the Municipal Code thresholds at noise sensitive receptors. Similarly, new residential uses that would be constructed under the General Plan Update would be required to reduce interior and exterior noise levels to meet the standards established by the City. The General Plan Update EIR also recommends the implementation of General Plan Update EIR mitigation measure MM4.10-4 which requires the preparation of an acoustical study for each development ensuring that exterior and interior noise adheres with the City’s standards. As such, impacts associated with stationary operational noise levels in excess of established standards would be less than significant.

The General Plan Update EIR determined that implementation of the policies within the General Plan Update would reduce roadway noise levels. However, community ambient noise levels would increase substantially by the 2040 horizon year. Because the increase in ambient noise levels would result from vehicle-related noise, the General Plan Update EIR could not identify any available or feasible mitigation measures that would reduce ambient noise levels and exposure below thresholds.

Therefore, vehicular-related noise impact would remain significant and unavoidable.

The General Plan Update EIR determined that adherence to the General Plan Update Policies N-4.A and N-4.D and implementation of General Plan Update EIR mitigation measure MM4.10-5 would help reduce potential groundborne vibration impacts from future construction activities. Nevertheless, even with adherence to applicable policies and recommended mitigation measures, the General Plan Update EIR determined that construction-related vibration impacts would be significant due to the proximity to nearby receptors. As such, impacts associated with construction-related vibrations would be significant and unavoidable. The General Plan Update EIR also determined that operation of land uses consistent with the General Plan Update would not expose sensitive receptors to excessive groundborne vibration levels and impacts would be less than significant.

According to the General Plan Update EIR, the City of Huntington Beach does not contain any airports within its planning area. The closest airport to the City is the Long Beach Airport, approximately 12.5 miles northwest of the City, and John Wayne Airport, approximately 3.5 miles southeast of the City. The City is still exposed to airplane noise since flights approaching the Long Beach Airport regularly pass over the City at an altitude ranging from 1,600 feet and 2,100 feet.

Residents of the City may experience noise levels up to 72 dBA from these airplanes. Nevertheless, the City has no control of these airplane operations since they are under the jurisdiction of the Federal Aviation Administration. Since the City does not have an airport and is not within two miles of a public airport, public use airport, or private airstrip, the General Plan Update EIR concludes that no impacts would occur regarding the exposure of sensitive receptors to excessive noise levels from aircraft noise sources.

3.13.2 Project-Specific Impacts
Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-96 Environmental Analysis

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
State
The State Office of Planning and Research Noise Element Guidelines include recommended exterior and interior noise level standards for local jurisdictions to identify and prevent the creation of incompatible land uses due to noise. The Noise Element Guidelines contain a land use compatibility table that describes the compatibility of various land uses with a range of environmental noise levels in terms of the CNEL.

A noise environment of 50 CNEL to 60 CNEL is “normally acceptable” for residential uses. The Office of Planning and Research recommendations also note that, under certain conditions, more restrictive standards than the maximum levels cited may be appropriate.

Local
City of Huntington Beach General Plan
The City of Huntington Beach General Plan (General Plan) consists of nine elements: Land Use Element, Circulation Element, Environmental Resources and Conservation Element, Natural and Environmental Hazards Element, Noise Element, Public Services and Infrastructure Element, Housing Element, and Coastal Element. On October 2, 2017, the City Council adopted a comprehensive update to the General Plan, including the Noise Element. The Noise Element describes how the City considers noise control in the planning process. The element identifies noisesensitive land uses and noise sources, evaluates existing noise issues, defines potential noise impact areas, and advocates creative methods to protect the community from excessive noise, and provides proactive solutions to noise problems varying from construction noise and clamoring mechanical equipment to roadway noise and the cacophony of barking dogs, and describes noise control measures designed to avoid noise problems before they occur.

The General Plan includes noise standards for various land use categories in the City as show in Table

3.13-1, City of Huntington Beach Land Use Compatibility Standards.

Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-97 Environmental Analysis
Table 3.13-1
City of Huntington Beach Land Use Compatibility Standards General Plan Land Use
Designation Proposed Uses
Community Noise Exposure (CNEL, dBA)
Normally
Acceptable
Conditionally
Acceptable
Normally
Unacceptable
Clearly
Unacceptable
Residential
Low Density Single-family, mobile home,
senior housing Up to 60 61-65 ≥ 66 45
Medium Density, Medium
High Density, High
Density
Attached single-family, Up to 65 66-70 ≥ 71 45
Mixed-Use
Mixed-Use Combination of commercial and
residential uses Up to 70 71-75 ≥ 76 45
Commercial
Neighborhood
Commercial, General
Commercial
Retail, professional office, health
services, restaurant, government
offices, hotel/motel
Up to 70 71-75 ≥ 76 45
Visitor Commercial
Hotel/motel, timeshares,
recreational commercial, cultural
facilities
Up to 65 66-75 ≥ 75 45
Office Office, financial institutions NA NA NA NA
Public/Semi-public
Semi-public (School) Schools Up to 60 61-65 ≥ 66 45
Semi-public (Other) Hospitals, churches, cultural
facilities Up to 65 66-70 ≥ 71 45
Public Public utilities, parking lot NA NA NA NA
Industrial
Research and Technology
Research and development,
technology, warehousing,
business park

NA NA NA NA
Industrial
Manufacturing, construction,
transportation, logistics, auto
repair

NA NA NA NA
Open Space and Recreational
Conservation Environmental resource
conservation

NA NA NA NA
Park Public Park Up to 65 65-75 ≥ 76 NA
Recreation Golf courses, recreational water
bodies Up to 65 66-75 ≥ 76 NA
Shore City and state beaches NA NA NA NA
CNEL = community noise equivalent level; NA = not applicable Notes:

1. Normally acceptable means that land uses may be established in areas with the stated ambient noise level, absent any unique noise circumstances.

2. Conditionally acceptable means that land uses should be established in areas with the stated ambient noise level only when exterior areas are omitted from the project or noise levels in exterior areas can be mitigated to the normally acceptable level. Where the location of outdoor activity areas is unknown, the exterior noise level standard shall be applied to the property line of the receiving land use. Where it is not practical to mitigate exterior noise levels at patio or balconies of apartment complexes, a common area such as a pool or recreation area may be designated as the outdoor activities area.

3. Normally unacceptable means that land uses should generally not be established in areas with the stated ambient noise level. If the benefits Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-98 Environmental Analysis
The Noise Element includes the following goals and policies related to the proposed project:

Goal N-1: Noise-sensitive land uses are protected in areas with acceptable noise levels.

Policy A: Maintain acceptable stationary noise levels at existing noise-sensitive land uses such as schools, residentials areas, and open spaces.

Policy B: Incorporate design and construction features into residential, mixed-use, commercial, and industrial projects that shield noise-sensitive land uses from excessive noise.

Goal N-2: Land use patterns are compatible with current and future noise levels.

Policy A: Require an acoustical study for proposed projects in areas where the existing or projected noise level exceeds or would exceed the maximum allowable levels identified in Table N-2 (Table 3 above). The acoustical study shall be performed in accordance with requirements set forth in the Noise Element.

Goal N-3: The community is not disturbed by excessive noise from mobile sources such as vehicles, rail traffic, and aircraft.

Policy B: Prioritize use of site planning and project design techniques to mitigate excessive noise. The use of noise barriers shall be considered as a means of achieving the noise standards only after all other practical design-related noise mitigation measures have been integrated into the project.

Goal N-4: Noise from construction activities associated with discretionary projects, maintenance vehicles, special events, and other nuisances is minimized in residential areas and near noise-sensitive land uses.

Policy A: Reduce construction, maintenance, and nuisance noise at the source as the first and preferred strategy to reduce noise conflicts.

Policy B: Require that new discretionary uses and special events such as restaurants, bars, entertainments, parking facilities, and other commercial uses or beach events where large numbers of people may be present adjacent to sensitive noise receptors comply with the noise standards in Table N-2 (Table 3 above) and the City Noise Ordinance.

Policy C: Encourage shielding for construction activities to reduce noise levels and protect adjacent noise-sensitive land uses.

General Plan Land Use
Designation Proposed Uses
Community Noise Exposure (CNEL, dBA)
Normally
Acceptable
Conditionally
Acceptable
Normally
Unacceptable
Clearly
Unacceptable
of the project in addressing other General Plan goals and policies outweigh concerns about noise, the use should be established only where exterior areas are omitted from the project or where exterior areas are located and shielded from noise sources to mitigate noise to the maximum extent feasible. Where the location of outdoor activity areas is unknown, the exterior noise level standard shall be applied to the property line of the receiving land use. Where it is not practical to mitigate exterior noise levels at patio or balconies of apartment complexes, a common area such as a pool or recreation area may be designated as the outdoor activity area.

4. Interior acceptable means that the building must be constructed so that interior noise levels do not exceed the stated maximum, regardless of the exterior noise level. Stated maximums are as determined for a typical worst-case hour during periods of use.

Sources: City of Huntington Beach, City of Huntington Beach General Plan, Noise Element, adopted October 2, 2017.

Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-99 Environmental Analysis
Policy D: Limit allowable hours for construction activities and maintenance operations located adjacent to noise-sensitive land uses.

Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance
The City’s Municipal Code, Title 8, Chapter 8.40, Noise Control, contains the City’s noise standards and regulations. As outlined in Section 8.40.050, Exterior Noise Standards, maximum exterior noise levels are based on land uses. Table 3.13-2, Exterior Noise Standards, summarizes the exterior noise limits for the various land uses within the City.

Table 3.13-2
Exterior Noise Standards
Land Use Leq Noise
Level dBA
Lmax Noise
Level dBA Time Period
Low Density Residential 55 75 7 a.m. – 10 p.m.
50 70 10 p.m. – 7 a.m.

Medium, Medium High Density Residential, Hotels, Motels 60 80 7 a.m. – 10 p.m. 50 70 10 p.m. – 7 a.m.

Schools 55 75 Hours of Operation
Hospitals, Churches, Cultural, Museum, Library, Public Park, Recreational 60 80 Hours of Operation Commercial/Office 65 85 Hours of Operation
Sources: City of Huntington Beach, City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code Section 8.40.050, Exterior Noise Standards, adopted July 1, 2025.

The following noise regulations contained in the City’s Noise Ordinance are applicable to the project:

Section 8.40.090, Special Provisions:

D. Noise sources associated with construction, repair, remodeling, or grading of any real property, provided that: (1) the City has issued a building, grading or similar permit for such activities; (2) said activities do not take place between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., Monday through Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a Federal holiday; and (3) the average construction noise levels do not exceed 80 dBA Leq at nearby noise-sensitive land uses. If outdoor construction activities are permitted by the City after 7:00 p.m. or before 7:00 a.m., the average construction Noise Levels at nearby noisesensitive land uses shall be limited to 50 dBA Leq.

F. Noise sources associated with the maintenance of real property and use of domestic power tools provided said activities take place between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday or between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Sunday or a Federal holiday. Noise from typical and occasional property maintenance and the use of domestic power tools which does not require a building permit shall not be subject to the noise limits in subsection D of this section.

Section 8.40.095, Leaf Blowers:

Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-100 Environmental Analysis
A. Unlawful to Propel Debris Beyond Parcel Boundary. It is unlawful for any person to use or operate any leaf blower in such a manner as to blow, dispel or make airborne, dust, leaves, grass cuttings, paper, trash or any other type of unattached debris or material, beyond the parcel boundaries of the parcel being cleaned, unless the consent of the adjoining owner or person in possession is obtained.

It is unlawful for any person to use or operate any leaf blower within the City in such a way as to blow leaves, dirt and other debris onto the public rights-of-way or private property and to allow such debris to remain there in excess of 30 minutes.

B. Special Prohibitions. It is unlawful for any person to operate a leaf blower within a residential zone or within 100 feet of a residential zone of the City of Huntington Beach, except under the following conditions:

1. Time Restriction. Noise sources associated with the maintenance of real property provided said activities take place between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday or between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Sunday or a Federal holiday.

2. Distance Restriction. Leaf blowers shall not be operated within a horizontal distance of 10 feet of any operable window, door, or mechanical air intake opening or duct.

3. Duration of Use Restriction. Leaf blowers shall not be operated for more than 15 minutes per hour, per day, on parcels less than one-half acre and no more than 30 minutes per hour on parcels greater than one-half acre up to one acre. Leaf blowers shall not be operated for more than two hours on parcels of one acre or more.

4. Number Restriction. No person shall operate more than one leaf blower per parcel on onehalf acre, no more than two leaf blowers on parcels greater than one-half acre and no more than three leaf blowers on parcels greater than one acre or more.

5. The maximum decibel level of 70 dBA as measured 10 feet from the leaf blower shall not be exceeded.

Section 8.40.113, Vibration:

Notwithstanding other sections of this chapter, it is unlawful for any person to create, maintain or cause any operational ground vibration on any property which exceeds 72 VdB at nearby vibrationsensitive land uses. The vibration limit at vibration-sensitive uses with high sensitivity such as operations conducting medical research and imaging shall be 65 VdB.

EXISTING NOISE SETTING
Noise Sensitive Receptors
Noise-sensitive land uses are generally considered to include those uses where noise exposure could result in health-related risks to individuals, as well as places where quiet is an essential element of their intended purpose. Residential dwellings are of primary concern because of the potential for increased and prolonged exposure of individuals to both interior and exterior noise levels. Additional land uses Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-101 Environmental Analysis
such as parks, historic sites, cemeteries, and recreation areas are considered sensitive to increases in exterior noise levels. Schools, places of worship, hotels, libraries, and other places where low interior noise levels are essential are also considered noise-sensitive land uses. The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site are the single-family residential dwellings adjacent to the project site to the west.

Additionally, single-family dwellings are also located north of the project site, approximately 20 feet away. Edison High School is also located to the east of the project site, approximately 65 feet away.

Existing Stationary Noise Levels
The primary sources of stationary noise in the project vicinity are urban-related activities (i.e., mechanical equipment). The noise associated with these sources may represent a single-event noise occurrence, short-term, or long-term/continuous noise.

Mobile Sources
Most of the existing noise in the project area is generated from traffic along surrounding roadways, including Stilwell Drive, Magnolia Street, and Hamilton Avenue.

Existing Ambient Noise Levels
To quantify existing ambient noise levels in the project area, four short-term noise measurements were conducted in the project vicinity on July 31, 2025; refer to Appendix E, Noise Data and Report. The noise measurement locations are representative of the typical existing noise exposure at the nearest sensitive receptors. The 10-minute measurements were taken between 10:30 a.m. and 12:00 p.m.

Short-term (Leq) measurements are considered representative of the noise levels throughout the day.

The noise measurements were taken during “off-peak” (9:00 a.m. through 3:00 p.m.) traffic noise hours as this provides a more conservative baseline. During rush hour traffic, vehicle speeds and heavy truck volumes are often low. Free-flowing traffic conditions just before or after rush hour often yield higher noise levels. The noise levels measured near the project site are identified in Table 3.13-3, ShortTerm Noise Measurements.

Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-102 Environmental Analysis
Table 3.13-3
Short-Term Noise Measurements
Site
No. Location Land Use1 Leq(dBA)
Lmin
(dBA)
Lmax
(dBA) Start Time
NM-1 In front of the single-family residence
at 21362 Breton Lane
Low Density
Residential 50.4 35.4 74.6 10:54 a.m.

NM-2 In front of the single-family residence
at 8931 Stilwell Drive
Low Density
Residential 53.3 41.2 67.8 11:11 a.m.

NM-3 In Front of Edison High School School 68.1 49.9 82.5 11:25 a.m.

NM-4 In between single-family residences at
9001 and 9021 Regatta Drive
Low Density
Residential 53.7 45.1 63.3 11:41 a.m.

Notes: dBA = A-weighted decibels; Leq = Average Sound Level; Lmin = Lowest time-weighted sound level measured; Lmax = Highest timeweighted sound level measured

1. Land uses of the closest sensitive receptor based on the land use designation for exterior noise standards; refer to Table 3.13-2.

Source: Michael Baker International, July 31, 2025; refer to Appendix E, Noise Data and Report.

Meteorological conditions were cloudy, cool temperatures (71 degrees Fahrenheit [°F]), and wind speeds of approximately 6 miles per hour. Noise monitoring equipment used for the short-term noise survey consisted of a Brüel & Kjær Hand-held Analyzer Type 2250 equipped with a Type 4189 prepolarized microphone. The monitoring equipment complies with applicable requirements of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) for Type I (precision) sound level meters. Refer to Appendix E for the results of the field measurement.
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in in the vicinity of the project excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?

CONSTRUCTION NOISE
Construction Equipment Noise
Ground-borne noise and other types of construction-related noise impacts typically occur during the initial grading phase, which has the potential to create the highest levels of noise. Construction equipment produces maximum noise levels when equipment is operating under full power conditions (i.e., the equipment engine at maximum speed). However, equipment used on construction sites typically operates under less than full power conditions, or part power. To characterize constructionperiod noise levels more accurately, the average (Leq) noise level associated with each construction stage is 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 simultaneously operating on part power.

The project proposes to reconfigure the park and create new park amenities over non-landfill land.

The various new and upgraded amenities, including new sports courts, wheel sports, playground, trees, walkways, parking lot, and access, would offer diversified recreation and allow for more park engagement. It should be noted that, although the project proposes improvements to the existing park amenities, for the purpose of this analysis, it is conservatively modeled as a new park. The reconfiguration of the existing park and creation of new park amenities would involve construction Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-103 Environmental Analysis
activities associated with demolition of existing asphalt pavement, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating applications. The project would be constructed over approximately 13 months and would not require import/export of soil. The proposed project would demolish the existing tennis and handball courts and generate approximately 402 tons of debris during demolition.36
The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site are the existing single-family residences located immediately adjacent to the west of the project site. However, it should be noted that the improvements and construction associated with the proposed project would be focused primarily within the eastern portion of the site; refer to Exhibit 3. The portions of the site bordering the sensitive receptors to the west would generally be undisturbed. As such, the following evaluation would utilize the sensitive receptors to the north to evaluate construction noise impacts associated with the proposed project.

Additionally, construction activities would occur throughout the eastern portion of the project site, and it should also be noted that the maximum construction noise levels would intermittently occur for a few days when construction equipment is operating closest to the nearest sensitive uses. The remainder of the time, the construction noise levels would be much lower because the equipment would be working in an area farther away from the existing sensitive uses. The following evaluation utilizes a construction noise threshold of 80 dBA at the nearest residential receptor to the north pursuant to the City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code Section 8.40.090. As such, the project would result in a significant impact if project-related construction noise levels exceed this established noise level threshold.

The General Noise Assessment methodology prescribed in the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Manual recommends evaluating construction noise from the center of the site, stating under the variable distance in its construction noise calculation to “assume that all equipment operates at the center of the project.” As such, the construction noise levels shown in Table 3.13-4, Construction Noise Levels at the Nearest Residential Receptors are estimated using the distance from the center of the eastern portion of the project site to the property line of the existing sensitive receptors, which is approximately 685 feet to the closest sensitive receptors to the north. As previously discussed, while the sensitive receptors to the west would be closest to the project site, improvements associated with the proposed project would be constructed on the eastern portion of the site, and the sensitive receptors to the north would be the closest to the construction activities. Noise levels from construction equipment and activities were modeled using the Federal Highway Administration’s Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM). To present a conservative impact analysis, the estimated noise levels were calculated for a scenario in which all heavy construction equipment were assumed to operate simultaneously; refer to Appendix E. 36 To estimate the amount of demolished materials (asphalt weight) anticipated from demolition, the depth (thickness) of the asphalt layer and the weight of asphalt per cubic foot are considered. A standard depth of one-inch is assumed for this analysis. The industry standard weight of asphalt is 145 pounds (lbs) per cubic foot. The proposed project would remove existing tennis and handball courts (approximately 66,500 square feet; based on Google Earth) of asphalt surface area. Area x depth/12 lbs*145 = 5,503 lbs (402 tons). As such, 402 tons of demolished materials has been considered in CalEEMod.

Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-104 Environmental Analysis
Table 3.13-4
Construction Noise Levels at the Nearest Residential Receptors Phase
Estimated Exterior Construction Noise Level at 685 feet (Center of the Eastern Portion of the Project Site to the Northern Receptors) (dBA Leq)1
Construction Noise
Threshold2
Demolition 63.7
80 dBA Leq for residential
uses during daytime hours
Grading 65.5
Building Construction 63.6
Paving 58.9
Architectural Coating 51.0
Notes:

1. These noise levels conservatively assume the simultaneous operation of all heavy construction equipment at the same precise location.

Refer to Appendix E for modeled construction equipment.

2. Construction noise threshold pursuant to Section 8.40.090, Special Provisions.

Source: Federal Highway Administration, Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM), 2006; refer to Appendix E, Noise Data and Report, for modeling outputs.

City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code Section 8.40.090, Special Provisions, states that noise sources associated with construction activities are exempt from the provisions of the Noise Ordinance provided that they adhere to the following:

1. The City of Huntington Beach has issued a building, grading, or similar permit for such construction activities;

2. Construction adheres to the allowed hours of construction (i.e., 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday with construction being prohibited on Sundays and on federal holidays);

3. Construction noise levels does not exceed 80 dBA at the nearest noise-sensitive land use; and

4. If construction activities are permitted by the City outside of the allowed hours of construction, construction noise levels shall not exceed 50 dBA.

As shown in Table 3.13-4, construction-generated noise levels would range from 51.0 dBA Leq to 65.5 dBA Leq at the nearest sensitive receptor property boundary located approximately 685 feet north from the geographic center of the eastern portion of the project site and would not exceed the applicable threshold of 80 dBA. As such, project construction would not exceed the City’s noise threshold of 80 dBA for construction activities, and impacts related to construction noise would be less than significant.

Further, all construction activities would be conducted in accordance with the City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code Section 8.40.090, which limits construction activities to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on Monday to Saturday. Construction activities are prohibited on Sunday and federal holidays. Additionally, construction activities would require either a building, grading or similar permit prior to construction. Construction of the proposed project would not require any nighttime construction activities.

The proposed project would also incorporate the General Plan Update EIR mitigation measures MM4.10-1 to MM4.10-3 which are recommended construction-related noise mitigation measures (i.e., routing loaded construction trucks away from residential streets, locating staging grounds away from receptors, adherence to construction hours, prohibiting idling of equipment, etc.) Since the closest Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-105 Environmental Analysis
sensitive receptor is within 500 feet, the project would also comply with the General Plan Update EIR mitigation measure MM4.10-5 by implementing best management practices to further reduce potential construction-period noise impacts for nearby sensitive receptors. Specifically, General Plan Update EIR mitigation measure MM4.10-5 would consider the installation of temporary sound barriers for construction activities adjacent to sensitive structures, equip construction equipment with mufflers, restrict haul routes and construction-related traffic, reduce nonessential idling, and submitting best management practice on all site plans/construction management plans to the City’s Planning Division for approval.

Construction Mobile Noise
Construction activities would also cause increased noise along access routes along Magnolia Street and Hamilton Avenue due to the movement of equipment and workers, as well as haul trips. Pursuant to the General Plan Update EIR mitigation measure MM4.10-3, construction trucks would be routed away from residential streets. As such, local residential streets such as Stilwell Drive and Seaforth Lane would not be used. According to Caltrans, a doubling of traffic (100 percent increase) on a roadway would result in a perceptible increase in traffic noise levels (3 dBA).37 As such, a significant impact would occur if construction-related trips double existing traffic volumes.

According to Appendix A, Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas/Energy Data, it is anticipated that project construction would generate a total maximum of 60 two-way trips per day, including 40 two-way worker trips per day and 10 two-way hauling trips per day. Per the City of Huntington Beach Circulation Element EIR, 2012 traffic counts along Magnolia Street and Hamilton Avenue are 17,000 and 9,000 average daily trips (ADTs), respectively.38 As such, project-related construction trips would not result in a doubling of the traffic volumes along Magnolia Street and Hamilton Avenue, and therefore, would not be a perceptible increase (3 dBA) in traffic noise. Additionally, mobile traffic noise from construction trips would be temporary and would cease upon project construction completion. Thus, impacts in this regard would be less than significant.

OPERATIONAL NOISE
Off-Site Mobile Noise
The proposed project would result in additional traffic on adjacent roadways, thereby increasing vehicular noise in the vicinity of existing land uses. As discussed above and according to Caltrans, a doubling in roadway traffic volumes is required to generate any noticeable increase in roadway noise levels. Based on the Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements – Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT Analysis), prepared by Michael Baker International and dated August 22, 2025, the project would generate a total of 31 ADTs. As previously stated, the ADTs along Magnolia Street and Hamilton Avenue are 17,000 and 9,000 ADTs, respectively. As such, the project’s trip generation (approximately 31 ADTs) would not double existing traffic volumes along Magnolia Street or Hamilton Avenue. Impacts would remain less than significant.
37 California Department of Transportation, Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, September 2013. 38 City of Huntington Beach, Huntington Beach Circulation Element EIR, Exhibit 4.8-2, Existing Averaghe Daily Traffic Volumes, https://cms3.revize.com/revize/huntingtonbeachca/Documents/Business/Demographics/traffic-counts-map.pdf.

Accessed August 28, 2025.

Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-106 Environmental Analysis
Mechanical Equipment
Stationary noise sources associated with the existing condition include the use of HVAC units on top of the existing Edison Community Center and existing Fire Station. However, it should be noted that the proposed project would only construct exterior restrooms at the Edison Community Center. This improvement would not require additional HVAC units on the Edison Community Center, and no improvements to the fire station are proposed. Since HVAC units are already present on the project site and the proposed project would not construct any new additional HVAC units, no impact would occur in this regard.

Outdoor Gathering Area Noise
The project would reconfigure the existing park and construct new facilities. The park has the potential to be accessed by groups of people intermittently for various occasions (e.g., events, other social gatherings, etc.). Noise generated by groups of people (i.e., crowds) is dependent on several factors including vocal effort, impulsiveness, and the random orientation of the crowd members. Crowd noise is estimated at 60 dBA at one meter (3.28 feet) away for raised normal speaking.39 This noise level would have a +5 dBA adjustment for the impulsiveness of the noise source, and a -3 dBA adjustment for the random orientation of the crowd members.40 Therefore, crowd noise would be approximately 62 dBA at one meter from the source (i.e., open space).

The proposed project would include various facilities that would be accessed by large groups of people. Such facilities include soccer fields, tennis courts, basketball courts, sport court plaza that includes crowd seating, etc. The closest facility would be the soccer courts along the southern portion of the project site which are within the Southern California Edison Corridor; refer to Exhibit 3. At approximately 75 feet, the distance from the potential soccer field (pending Southern California Edison review and approval) to the property line of the sensitive receptor to the west, crowd noise levels would be approximately 35 dBA; refer to Exhibit 3. According to the City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code Section 8.40.050, if a noise source comprises of impact noise, simple tone noise, speech, music, or of any combination of sources mentioned, noise standards would be reduced by 5 dBA. As such, the following evaluation would analyze the project’s impact to a more stringent threshold of 50 dBA(55 dBA threshold for low density residential minus 5 dBA). Nevertheless, crowd noise from the proposed project would not exceed the more stringent threshold of 50 dBA.

Additionally, a solid masonry wall is located at the project boundary along the western property line which would help attenuate crowd noise by 8 dBA.41 As such, crowd noise would be approximately 27 dBA which would not be audible over the existing ambient noise level of 50.4 dBA; refer to Table

3.13-3. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

Pickleball Noise
The proposed project would include pickleball courts that may result in potential noise impacts to surrounding sensitive receptors. A pickleball noise impact study was previously conducted for the 39 M.J. Hayne, et al, Prediction of Crowd Noise, Acoustics, November 2006. 40 Ibid. 41 Federal Highway Administration, Roadway Construction Noise Model Users’ Guide, January 2006.

Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-107 Environmental Analysis
proposed project – Edison Park Pickleball Courts Noise Impact Study (Pickleball Noise Study) prepared by RK Engineering Group, Inc. and dated December 15, 2023, refer to Appendix E. This Pickleball Noise Study analyzed the first variation of the conceptual plan for the project that included the conversion of two existing tennis courts into eight pickleball courts within the central portion of the site, and the creation of eight new pickleball courts within the northeastern portion of the site (Option 1). Since that time, the City has considered a second variation of the conceptual plan where the creation of eight new pickleball courts would instead be located within the southeastern corner of the project site immediately west of the existing Huntington Beach Fire Station (Option 2); refer to Exhibit 3. At this time, these new pickleball court locations have not been finalized and both options are being considered. As such, pickleball noise for both configurations is analyzed below.

According to the City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code Section 8.40.050, if a noise source comprises of impact noise, simple tone noise, speech, music, or of any combination of sources mentioned, noise standards would be reduced by 5 dBA. As such, the following evaluation would analyze the project’s impact to a more stringent threshold of 50 dBA Leq and 70 dBA Lmax.

Option 1. According to the Pickleball Noise Study, proposed pickleball courts would generate noise from the movement of players and the connection of the paddle to the ball; refer to Appendix E.

Reference data of four pickleball courts was collected at the Bonita Canyon Pickleball Courts in the City of Newport Beach and was used to model the potential impacts from the proposed project.

Additionally, due to the nature of pickleball activities (instantaneous impact noise), the Pickleball Noise Study also analyzed the project’s noise impact to the City’s Lmax threshold of 75 dBA in addition to the exterior noise standard of 55 dBA. As shown in Table 3.13-5, Pickleball Daytime Noise Impact - Leq and Table 3.13-6, Pickleball Daytime Noise Impact – Lmax, activities at the proposed pickleball courts would not exceed the more stringent threshold of 50 dBA Leq and 70 dBA Lmax. Additionally, the operation of pickleball courts would be restricted to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. As such, impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

Option 2. To analyze potential noise impacts from the proposed pickleball courts at the alternate location (at the southeastern corner of the project site immediately west of the existing fire station), updated SoundPLAN noise modeling was prepared by Michael Baker International; refer to Appendix E. In order to be consistent, the updated SoundPLAN modeling utilized the same methodology, reference noise levels and sensitive receptor locations as those identified in the Pickleball Noise Study.

As shown in Table 3.13-5 and Table 3.13-6, activities at the proposed pickleball courts for Option 2 would not exceed the more stringent threshold of 50 dBA Leq and 70 dBA Lmax. As discussed above, the operation of pickleball courts would be restricted to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. As such, impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-108 Environmental Analysis
Table 3.13-5
Pickleball Daytime Noise Impact - Leq
Receptors
Distance
Receiver
Number
Daytime Exterior Noise Level (dBA)
Option 1 Option 2
Project Noise Contribution
(Leq)
Noise Level
Criteria
(Leq)1
Exceedance? Option 1 Option 2
Northern
Receptors
(Single
Family
Residential)
Approx. 244
feet away
from the
closest
pickleball
court study
Approx. 500 feet
away from the
closest pickleball
court
1 43.6 45.1
Noise
Standard of
50 dBA Leq
No
2 45.6 45.2 No
3 46.9 44.5 No
Western
Receptors
(Single
Family
Residential)
Approx. 600
feet away
from the
closest
pickleball
court
Approx. 600 feet
away from the
closest pickleball
court
4 38.5 41.7 No
5 42.4 43.8 No
6 38.0 42.7 No
Eastern
Receptors
(Edison High
School)
Approx. 360
feet away
from the
closest
pickleball
court
Approx. 360 feet
away from the
closest pickleball
court
7 43.9 45.5 No
Southern
Receptors
(Single
Family
Residential)
N/A
Approx. 500 feet
away from the
closest pickleball
court
8 N/A 44.7 No
Note: Pursuant to the City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code Section 8.40.050, if a noise source comprises of impact noise, simple tone noise, speech, music, or of any combination of sources mentioned, noise standards would be reduced by 5 dBA. As such, the City’s exterior noise standard of 55 dBA Leq for low density residential uses would be reduced to a more stringent threshold of 50 dBA Leq.

Source: RK Engineering Group, Inc., Edison Park Pickleball Courts Noise Impact Study, December 15, 2023; refer to Appendix E, Noise Data and Report. Michael Baker International, Sound PLAN, January 2026; refer to Appendix E.

Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-109 Environmental Analysis
Table 3.13-6
Pickleball Daytime Noise Impact – Lmax
Receptors
Distance
Receiver
Number
Daytime Exterior Noise Level (dBA)
Option 1 Option 2
Project Noise
Contribution (Leq)
Noise Level
Criteria
(Leq)1
Exceedance? Option 1 Option 2
Northern
Receptors
(Single
Family
Residential)
Approx. 244
feet away from
the closest
pickleball court
Approx. 500
feet away from
the closest
pickleball court
1 57.9 59.4
Noise
Standard of
70 dBA Lmax
No
2 59.9 59.5 No
3 61.2 58.8 No
Western
Receptors
(Single
Family
Residential)
Approx. 600
feet away from
the closest
pickleball court
Approx. 600
feet away from
the closest
pickleball court
4 52.8 56.0 No
5 56.7 58.1 No
6 52.3 57.0 No
Eastern
Receptors
(Edison High
School)
Approx. 360
feet away from
the closest
pickleball court
Approx. 360
feet away from
the closest
pickleball court
7 58.2 59.8 No
Southern
Receptors
(Single
Family
Residential)
N/A
Approx. 500
feet away from
the closest
pickleball court
8 N/A 59.0 No
Note: Pursuant to the City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code Section 8.40.050, if a noise source comprises of impact noise, simple tone noise, speech, music, or of any combination of sources mentioned, noise standards would be reduced by 5 dBA. As such, the City’s Lmax noise standard of 75 dBA Lmax would be reduced to a more stringent threshold of 70 dBA Lmax.

Conclusion
As previously discussed, the General Plan Update EIR concluded that the General Plan Update would result in less than significant impact in regard to construction noise with implementation of General Plan Update EIR mitigation measures MM4.10-1 to MM4.10-3 and MM4.10-5. Additionally, it determined that operational noise (new stationary source noise and new residential uses) would be less than significant upon adherence to applicable General Plan Update policies and implementation of MM4.10-4. The General Plan Update EIR also determined that vehicular-related noise impacts would be significant and unavoidable with the implementation of the General Plan Update.

Impacts related to a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels were analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR and found to be less than significant with mitigation measures incorporated. No substantial new information shows that project impacts related to substantial Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-110 Environmental Analysis
temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels would be more significant than described in the General Plan Update EIR because project impacts related to noise are less than significant.

Therefore, there are no impacts peculiar to the project site related to noise that would exceed what was previously disclosed in the General Plan Update EIR. Further, there are no direct or cumulativelyconsiderable impacts of the proposed project related to noise that were not already evaluated by the General Plan Update EIR. Therefore, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, no further environmental review is required. b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?

Project construction can generate varying degrees of groundborne vibration, depending on the construction procedure and the construction equipment used. Operation of some heavy-duty construction equipment generates vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish in amplitude with distance from the source. The effect on buildings located in the vicinity of the construction site often varies depending on soil type, ground strata, and construction characteristics of the receiver building(s). The results from vibration can range from no perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibration at moderate levels, to slight damage at the highest levels. Groundborne vibrations from construction activities rarely reach levels that damage structures.

The types of construction vibration impacts include human annoyance and building damage. Human annoyance occurs when construction vibration rises significantly above the threshold of human perception for extended periods of time. Building damage can be cosmetic or structural. The Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual identifies various vibration damage criteria for different building classes. The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site are the single-family dwellings located immediately adjacent to the west of the project site, approximately 25 feet away when measured from the building façade to the project’s property line. However, it should be noted that construction would not occur along the western part of the site and would be localized along the eastern portion instead. Nevertheless, to present a more conservative analysis, the following evaluation would utilize the 25 feet distance to determine potential vibratory impacts. Additionally, the proposed project may utilize vibratory rollers during the pavement of the new reconfigured parking lot; refer to Exhibit 3. The new reconfigured parking lot would be located along the eastern portion of the project site. As such, the closest sensitive receptor would be the single-family residential dwellings to the north, approximately 65 feet away when measured from the sensitive receptor’s building façade to the project’s northern property line. Since the sensitive receptors (single-family dwelling) to the north and west are likely to be older residential structure, a significant vibration impact pertaining to building damage would occur if the project resulted in an exceedance of 0.3 in/sec PPV at this nearest sensitive receptor structure.

Table 3.13-7, Vibration Levels of Construction Equipment shows the reference vibration levels of construction equipment at 25 feet which would also represent the vibration levels of construction equipment from the closest sensitive receptor structure.

As indicated in Table 3.13-7, vibration velocities from typical heavy construction equipment used during project construction would range from 0.003 to 0.089 in/sec PPV at 25 feet from the source of activity (property line of the proposed project), which would not exceed the Caltrans’s significant Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-111 Environmental Analysis
vibration threshold of 0.3 in/sec PPV for older residential structures. Additionally, the use of vibratory rollers would result in vibration velocities of approximately 0.0734 in/sec PPV at 65 feet. Since construction related activities do not exceed the applicable significance threshold, impacts are less than significant in this regard.

Table 3.13-7
Vibration Levels of Construction Equipment
Equipment Approximate peak particle velocity at
25 feet (in/sec)1
Approximate peak particle velocity at 65 feet
(in/sec)1
Large bulldozer 0.089 -
Loaded trucks 0.076 -
Small bulldozer 0.003 -
Vibratory Rollers - 0.0734
Notes:

1. Calculated using the following formula:

PPV equip = PPVref x (25/D)1.1
where: PPV equip = the peak particle velocity in in/sec of the equipment adjusted for the distance PPV ref = the reference vibration level in in/sec from Table 7-4 of the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual.

D = the distance from the equipment to the receiver
Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, Table 7-4 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment, September 2018.

Pursuant to the City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code Section 8.40.113, operational ground vibrations that exceed 72 Vdb (or 0.016 in/sec PPV) at any nearby sensitive receptors are prohibited.

However, the project would construct new facilities and improvements to the existing park which would not include railroads operations or heavy truck activities. As such, the operation of the park and its associated facilities would not generate groundborne vibration that could be felt by surrounding uses. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in any operational vibrations and impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

Conclusion
As discussed above, the proposed project would not expose persons to construction and operational vibration levels in excess of Caltrans’ construction threshold and the City’s operational threshold, and the project would result in less impacts compared to the conclusion identified in the General Plan Update EIR, which was determined to be a significant and unavoidable even with the incorporation of General Plan Update EIR mitigation measure MM4.10-5. However, it should be noted that General Plan Update EIR mitigation measure MM4.10-5 would only apply to projects that require pile driving activities. As discussed above, the proposed project would reconfigure the existing park and construct new facilities which would not require pile driving.

Impacts related to vibration were analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR and found to be significant and unavoidable. No substantial new information shows that project impacts related to vibration would be more significant than described in the General Plan Update EIR because project impacts related to vibration are less than significant. Therefore, there are no impacts peculiar to the project site related to vibration that would exceed what was previously disclosed in the General Plan Update Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-112 Environmental Analysis
EIR. Further, there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project impacts related to vibration that were not already evaluated by the General Plan Update EIR.

Therefore, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, no further environmental review is required.
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
The proposed project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. The nearest airport to the project site is John Wayne Airport, located approximately 5.60 miles to the northeast of the project site. According to John Wayne Airport, the project site is located outside of the airport’s noise contours.42 Therefore, no impact would occur in this regard.

As analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR, no impacts related to the exposure of sensitive receptors to aircraft noise were found to occur No substantial new information shows that project impacts related to the exposure of sensitive receptors to aircraft noise would be more significant than described in the General Plan Update EIR because project impacts are less than significant. Therefore, there are no impacts peculiar to the project site related to the exposure of sensitive receptors to aircraft noise that would exceed what was previously disclosed in the General Plan Update EIR. Further, there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project related to the exposure of sensitive receptors to aircraft noise that were not already evaluated by the General Plan Update EIR.

Therefore, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, no further environmental review is required.
42 John Wayne Airport, John Wayne Airport Orange County – 2024 Annual Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) Contours, https://files.ocair.com/media/2025-
03/CNEL%20Noise%202024.pdf?VersionId=sP5JZJ.HJkeYtq9jJslfTN9s.mUL.i1n, accessed August 28, 2025.

Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-113 Environmental Analysis

3.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project: Prior EIR
Determination
CEQA Section 15183(b) Criteria
Effect
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Off-Site/
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More Severe
Adverse
Impact?
a. Induce substantial unplanned population
growth in an area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
Less Than
Significant No No No No
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing
people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
Less Than
Significant No No No No

3.14.1 General Plan Update EIR Summary
The General Plan Update would allow for the construction of an additional 7,228 dwelling units throughout the City by 2040. The General Plan Update Land Use Plan builds upon the existing land uses and patterns established throughout the City. However, no lands that are designated as a residential land use are proposed to be changed to a different (non-residential land use designation) under the General Plan Update. Further, the General Plan Update allows for new residential and nonresidential growth throughout the City as indicated on the Land Use Plan, via General Plan Update goals and policies. However, the General Plan Update does not directly propose new development or construction that would displace existing housing or residents. As such, implementation of the General Plan Update would not result in the loss or demolition of any residential land uses or the displacement of substantial numbers of existing residents. Further, implementation of the General Plan Update would provide a wide range of housing types within the City to accommodate the anticipated population growth and changing housing demographics. As such, the General Plan Update EIR determined that implementation of the General Plan Update would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in the City. The General Plan Update EIR concluded that less than significant impacts would occur in this regard.

The General Plan Update EIR notes that implementation of the General Plan Update would result in an increase in housing and population growth; however, the General Plan Update outlines goals and policies to manage this growth. Further, this growth is consistent with the County and other regional projections, and would be reconciled as/when SCAG next updates their forecasts (to include the growth and population projections proposed under the General Plan Update). As such, the General Plan Update EIR determined that the General Plan Update would result in a less than significant impact with regard to the induction of population growth.

Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-114 Environmental Analysis

3.14.2 Project-Specific Impacts
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
A project could induce population growth in an area either directly, through the development of new residences or businesses, or indirectly, through the extension of roads or other infrastructure. No residential uses would be developed as part of the project. Therefore, the project would not induce direct population growth in the City through new housing development.

As a park reconfiguration project, the project would not result in a change in use upon project completion; the project site would continue to be a park. Proposed park improvements are not of the scope or magnitude to require additional maintenance staffing that could result in a substantial number of new employees relocating to the City. Additionally, while the project’s construction phase would result in the need for construction workers, given the short-term nature of construction it is not anticipated that workers would relocate to the City as a result of the project. Given the nature of the project, the proposed park reconfiguration would not induce substantial unplanned population growth within the City and would be consistent with the development assumptions in the General Plan Update. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

Impacts related to unplanned population growth were analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR and found to be less than significant. No substantial new information shows that project impacts related to unplanned population growth would be more significant than described in the General Plan Update EIR because less than significant impacts related to unplanned population growth would occur.

Therefore, there are no impacts peculiar to the project site related to unplanned population growth that would exceed what was previously disclosed in the General Plan Update EIR. Further, there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project related to unplanned population growth that were not already evaluated by the General Plan Update EIR. Therefore, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, no further environmental review is required.

b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
The project site is currently an existing park; no housing exists on-site and no people or housing would be displaced. No impact would result in this regard.

Impacts related to the displacement of existing people or housing were analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR and found to be less than significant. No substantial new information shows that project impacts related to the displacement of existing people or housing would be more significant than described in the General Plan Update EIR because less than significant impacts related to the displacement of existing people or housing would occur. Therefore, there are no impacts peculiar to the project site related to the displacement of existing people or housing that would exceed what was previously disclosed in the General Plan Update EIR. Further, there are no direct or cumulativelyconsiderable impacts of the proposed project related to the displacement of existing people or housing Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-115 Environmental Analysis
that were not already evaluated by the General Plan Update EIR. Therefore, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, no further environmental review is required.

Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-116 Environmental Analysis

3.15 PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project: Prior EIR
Determination
CEQA Section 15183(b) Criteria
Effect
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Off-Site/
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More Severe
Adverse
Impact?
a. Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities,
the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response
times or other performance objectives for
any of the public services:
1) Fire protection? Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
No No No No
2) Police protection? Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
No No No No
3) Schools? Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
No No No No
4) Parks? Less Than
Significant No No No No
5) Other public facilities? Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
No No No No

3.15.1 General Plan Update EIR Summary
The General Plan Update EIR determined that implementation of the General Plan Update policies, General Plan Update EIR mitigation measures MM4.12-1 (use of General Fund monies to maintain the City’s standard, average level of service) and MM4.12-2 (payment of fire facilities development impact fees), and future requirement to comply with CEQA (for the construction of new fire facilities), would reduce impacts related to the construction and expansion of fire protection facilities to a less than significant level.

The General Plan Update EIR determined that implementation of the General Plan Update policies, General Plan Update EIR mitigation measures MM4.12-1 and MM4.12-3 (payment of police facilities development impact fees), and future requirement to comply with CEQA (for the construction of new police facilities), would reduce impacts related to the construction and expansion of police protection facilities to a less than significant level.

Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-117 Environmental Analysis
The General Plan Update EIR determined that implementation of the General Plan Update policies, implementation of General Plan Update EIR mitigation measures MM4.12-4 through MM4.12-8 (payment of development impact fees to Huntington Beach City School District , Ocean View School District, Huntington Beach Union High School District, Westminster School District, and Fountain Valley School District), and future requirement to comply with CEQA (for the construction of new school facilities), would result in a less than significant impact related to school facilities.

The General Plan Update EIR determined that implementation of the General Plan Update would not result in a significant impact because library service needs would be met with the policy goals laid out in the General Plan Update and therefore would not require the construction of additional library facilities that could cause significant environmental impacts. Further, as outlined in General Plan Update EIR mitigation measure MM4.12-9, the development of any new housing units under the General Plan Update would be required to pay library development impact fees that would ensure any necessary improvements to library facilities and collections can take place as growth occurs. As such, impacts related to the construction and expansion of library facilities would be reduced to a less than significant level.

Refer to Section 3.16, Recreation, for a summary of the General Plan Update EIR’s analysis regarding parks and other recreational facilities.

3.15.2 Project-Specific Impacts
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

1) Fire protection?
Project implementation would not induce substantial unplanned growth; refer to Section 3.14, Population and Housing. The proposed project would include reconfiguration of existing park facilities that would not result in a substantive increase in intensity and the range of recreational facilities would be similar in scope and scale to the existing condition. Thus, the proposed project is not anticipated to create an increased demand for fire protection services, and payment of the fire facilities development impact fees would not be required. As with the existing park, any fire services required for future users of the park would be adequately provided by the Huntington Beach Fire Department (HBFD). As such, project implementation is not anticipated to adversely impact existing fire protection services upon compliance with existing regulations. No impacts would occur in this regard.

Impacts related to fire protection services were analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR and found to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. No substantial new information shows that project impacts related to fire protection services would be more significant than described in the General Plan Update EIR because no impacts related to fire protection services would occur.

Therefore, there are no impacts peculiar to the project site related to fire protection services that would exceed what was previously disclosed in the General Plan Update EIR. Further, there are no direct or cumulatively considerable impacts of the proposed project related to fire protection services that were Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-118 Environmental Analysis
not already evaluated by the General Plan Update EIR. Therefore, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, no further environmental review is required. 2) Police protection?
Project implementation would not induce substantial unplanned growth; refer to Section 3.14. The proposed project would include reconfiguration of existing park facilities that would not result in a substantive increase in intensity and the range of recreational facilities would be similar in scope and scale to the existing condition. Thus, the proposed project is not anticipated to create an increased demand for police protection services, and payment of the police facilities development impact fees would not be required. As with the existing park, any police services required for future users of the park would be adequately provided by Huntington Beach Police Department (HBPD). As such, project implementation is not anticipated to adversely impact existing HBFD services upon compliance with existing regulations. No impacts would occur in this regard.

Impacts related to police protection services were analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR and found to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. No substantial new information shows that project impacts related to police protection services would be more significant than described in the General Plan Update EIR because no impacts related to police protection services would occur.

Therefore, there are no impacts peculiar to the project site related to police protection services that would exceed what was previously disclosed in the General Plan Update EIR. Further, there are no direct or cumulatively considerable impacts of the proposed project related to police protection services that were not already evaluated by the General Plan Update EIR. Therefore, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, no further environmental review is required.
3) Schools?
Project implementation would not induce substantial unplanned growth; refer to Section 3.14. Given the nature of the project, it is not anticipated that permanent residents would be generated by the project that could result in increased student population within service areas of the Huntington Beach City School District, Westminster School District, Ocean View School District, Westminster School District, and Fountain Valley School District. As such, payment of the applicable school development impact fees would not be required, and no impacts would result in this regard.

Impacts related to school services were analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR and found to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. No substantial new information shows that project impacts related to school services would be more significant than described in the General Plan Update EIR because no impacts related to school services would occur. Therefore, there are no impacts peculiar to the project site related to school services that would exceed what was previously disclosed in the General Plan Update EIR. Further, there are no direct or cumulatively considerable impacts of the proposed project related to school services that were not already evaluated by the General Plan Update EIR. Therefore, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, no further environmental review is required.

Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-119 Environmental Analysis
4) Parks?
Refer to Section 3.16, Recreation, for an analysis regarding parks and other recreational facilities. The proposed project would result in beneficial impacts related to the provision of recreational facilities to the local community. Less than significant impacts would occur in this regard.

Impacts related to parks and recreational facilities were analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR and found to be less than significant. No substantial new information shows that project impacts related to parks and recreational facilities would be more significant than described in the General Plan Update EIR because no project impacts related to parks and recreational facilities would occur.

Therefore, there are no impacts peculiar to the project site related to parks and recreational facilities that would exceed what was previously disclosed in the General Plan Update EIR. Further, there are no direct or cumulatively considerable impacts of the proposed project related to parks and recreational facilities that were not already evaluated by the General Plan Update EIR. Therefore, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, no further environmental review is required.
5) Other public facilities?
Project implementation would not induce significant unplanned growth; refer to Section 3.14. Given the nature of the project, it is not anticipated that permanent residents would be generated by the project that could result in a substantial increase in demand for library facilities or any other public facilities. As such, payment of the library development impact fees would not be required, and no impacts would result in this regard.

Impacts related to libraries and other public facilities were analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR and found to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. No substantial new information shows that project impacts related to libraries and other public facilities would be more significant than described in the General Plan Update EIR because no impacts related to libraries and other public facilities would occur. Therefore, there are no impacts peculiar to the project site related to libraries and other public facilities that would exceed what was previously disclosed in the General Plan Update EIR. Further, there are no direct or cumulatively considerable impacts of the proposed project related to libraries and other public facilities that were not already evaluated by the General Plan Update EIR. Therefore, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, no further environmental review is required.

Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-120 Environmental Analysis

3.16 RECREATION
Would the project: Prior EIR
Determination
CEQA Section 15183(b) Criteria
Effect
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Off-Site/
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More Severe
Adverse
Impact?
a. Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
Less Than
Significant No No No No
b. Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
Less Than
Significant No No No No

3.16.1 General Plan Update EIR Summary
The General Plan Update EIR determined that although the General Plan Update EIR would result in population increase through 2040, the level of service for parkland would remain above the established service level of 5.0 acres per 1,000 residents. Therefore, no new or expanded recreational facilities would be required to maintain service levels. Additionally, implementation of development allowed under the General Plan Update would not result in the substantial physical deterioration of existing parks and other recreational facilities. Impacts were determined to be less than significant in this regard.

3.16.2 Project-Specific Impacts
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?

The proposed project does not involve the creation of new homes or businesses that would result in permanent population growth and thereby increase the use of existing parks and recreational facilities.

Rather, the project proposes to reconfigure and improve the existing Edison Park; these improvements would enhance an existing community park located within the City, resulting in beneficial impacts. Less than significant impacts would occur in this regard.

Impacts related to parks and other recreational facilities were analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR and found to be less than significant. No substantial new information shows that project impacts related to parks and other recreational facilities would be more significant than described in the General Plan Update EIR because project impacts related to parks and other recreational facilities would also be less than significant. Therefore, there are no impacts peculiar to the project site related to parks and other recreational facilities that would exceed what was previously disclosed in the General Plan Update EIR. Further, there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project related to parks and other recreational facilities that were not already evaluated by Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-121 Environmental Analysis
the General Plan Update EIR. Therefore, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, no further environmental review is required. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
The project itself involves the construction of new recreational amenities within Edison Community Park in addition to reconfiguration of existing amenities. Project-related physical effects on the environment are discussed throughout this Checklist. As demonstrated, the project would not result in significant environmental impacts or result in impacts that are more significant than what was analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR. As such, impacts in this regard would be less than significant.

Impacts related to new or expanded recreational facilities were analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR and found to be less than significant. No substantial new information shows that project impacts related to new or expanded recreational facilities would be more significant than described in the General Plan Update EIR because project impacts related to new or expanded recreational facilities are less than significant. Therefore, there are no impacts peculiar to the project site related to new or expanded recreational facilities that would exceed what was previously disclosed in the General Plan Update EIR. Further, there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project related to new or expanded recreational facilities that were not already evaluated by the General Plan Update EIR. Therefore, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, no further environmental review is required.

Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-122 Environmental Analysis

3.17 TRANSPORTATION
Would the project: Prior EIR
Determination
CEQA Section 15183(b) Criteria
Effect
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Off-Site/
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More Severe
Adverse
Impact?
a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or
policy addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadways, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities?
Less Than
Significant No No No No
b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision
(b)?
Not a Required
Topic Previously No No No No
c. Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves
or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Less Than
Significant No No No No
d. Result in inadequate emergency access? Less Than
Significant No No No No

3.17.1 General Plan Update EIR Summary
It should be noted that, since the General Plan Update EIR was certified in 2017 (prior to Senate Bill 743 taking effect), it utilized level of service (LOS) as the metric of significance impacts related to potential project conflicts with applicable transportation plans, ordinances and policies and also for potential conflicts with an applicable congestion management program. The LOS metric of significance has been replaced by vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Based on the analysis related to LOS within the General Plan Update EIR, the EIR concluded that buildout of the General Plan Update would result in traffic that could exceed the City’s identified LOS thresholds. However, upon implementation of planned transportation improvements within the City and General Plan Update goals and policies related to the circulation system, impacts were determined to be less than significant.

The General Plan Update EIR also notes that the General Plan Update would not change any roadway, pedestrian or bicycle facilities within the City. Additionally, future projects, particularly commercial and residential, would be required to integrate with pedestrian and bicycle networks adjacent and nearby to project locations, and provide for the necessary space within a project to allow for this type infrastructure. Therefore, the General Plan Update EIR determined that implementation of General Plan Update goals and policies and compliance with existing development regulations would reduce impacts to alternative transportation plans and policies to a less than significant level.

The threshold (b) regarding VMT/CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b) consistency was not a required topical area of discussion when the General Plan Update EIR was prepared.

The General Plan Update EIR determined that with implementation of applicable General Plan Update Circulation Element goals and policies and compliance with existing design regulations, the General Plan Update would not result in substantially increased hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses or result in inadequate emergency access. Impacts were determined to be less than significant in this regard.

Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-123 Environmental Analysis
The General Plan Update EIR determined that with implementation of General Plan Update goals and policies and compliance with existing regulations, impacts to emergency access from implementation of the General Plan Update would be less than significant.

3.17.2 Project-Specific Impacts
The information presented in this analysis is based in part on Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements – Vehicle Miles Traveled Assessment (VMT Assessment), prepared by Michael Baker International and dated August 22, 2025; refer to Appendix F, VMT Assessment. a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadways, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? The project would not conflict with any established program, plan, ordinance or policy supporting transit, roadways, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Short-term project construction would not result in significant impacts to established programs, plans, ordinances or policies addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadways, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, as these plans typically address long-term changes to the environment. Moreover, the proposed project does not propose highlyintensive construction activities requiring substantial soil import or export that would generate high volumes of truck trips.

The proposed park reconfiguration project would involve improvements within an existing park, and no new land uses would be introduced. A portion of future park users may utilize alternative modes of transportation, including bicycle facilities and pedestrian facilities. Existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities (i.e., walkways, bike racks, etc.) on-site would remain upon project completion. No impacts would occur in this regard.

As noted above, since the General Plan Update EIR was certified in 2017 (prior to Senate Bill 743 taking effect), it utilized LOS as the metric of significance impacts related to potential project conflicts with applicable transportation plans, ordinances and policies and also for potential conflicts with an applicable congestion management program. Based on the analysis related to LOS within the General Plan Update EIR, the EIR concluded that buildout of the General Plan Update would result in traffic that could exceed the City’s identified LOS thresholds. However, upon implementation of planned transportation improvements within the City and General Plan Update goals and policies related to the circulation system, impacts were determined to be less than significant. As shown below in Response 3.17(b), the project would result in a minimal trip generation since it would include recreational improvements within the existing Edison Park. The project would result in 31 weekday vehicle trips, which is considered highly conservative since this trip generation estimate assumes all new park facilities, and does not account for the fact that many project components would replace or relocate existing components within the existing park. Moreover, the project would result in only one AM peak hour trip and four PM peak hour trips, which means that the majority of project-generated trips would occur outside of the AM and PM peak hours, further minimizing impacts related to congestion and potential impacts related to LOS. As such, given the project’s minimal trip generation, project impacts related to traffic and LOS are anticipated to be less than significant.

Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-124 Environmental Analysis
Impacts related to conflicts with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system were analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR and found to be less than significant. No substantial new information shows that project impacts related to conflicts with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system would be more significant than described in the General Plan Update EIR because no impacts in regard to consistency with applicable programs, plans, ordinances, and policies related to transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities would occur. Therefore, there are no impacts peculiar to the project site related to conflicts with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system that would exceed what was previously disclosed in the General Plan Update EIR. Further, there are no direct or cumulatively considerable impacts of the proposed project related to conflicts with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system that were not already evaluated by the General Plan Update EIR.

Therefore, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, no further environmental review is required.

b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? To assist in determining which development projects would conflict with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)(1), the City of Huntington Beach utilizes VMT thresholds in its Vehicle Miles Traveled Guidelines in October 2023 (City Guidelines). Land use projects that meet one or more of the screening thresholds documented in the City Guidelines can be presumed to result in a less than significant transportation impact under CEQA, without conducting a detailed VMT study. For land development projects, these criteria include proximity to transit, location, or project type; each of the screening criteria and the individual project evaluation and results are detailed in the VMT Assessment Table 4, VMT Screening Criteria Summary, and summarized below.

TRANSIT PRIORITY AREA SCREENING
A Transit Priority Area (TPA) is defined as a 0.5-mile area around an existing major transit stop or an existing stop along a high-quality transit corridor. Projects located within a TPA may be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary.

Based on the TPA Screening Maps provided in the City Guidelines, the project is not within a TPA.

As such, this criterion is not satisfied.

LOW VMT AREA SCREENING
A low VMT-generating area is defined as a traffic analysis zone (TAZ) where VMT per capita or VMT per employee is 15 percent below the City of Huntington Beach’s average VMT per capita or VMT per employee. If a project is located in a low VMT-generating area, then the project may be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. To qualify for this screening, the project must be within a low VMT-generating area and be consistent with the SCAG RTP/SCS, as confirmed by the City of Huntington Beach. Additionally, the analyst shall confirm if the project is consistent with the existing land uses within that TAZ and use engineering judgement to verify that there is nothing unique about the project when compared to the existing land uses.

Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-125 Environmental Analysis
Based on the Low VMT Screening Maps provided in the City Guidelines, the project is not within a Low VMT area. As such, this criterion is not satisfied.

PROJECT TYPE SCREENING
Some project types have been identified as having the presumption of a less than significant impact as listed below, absent substantial evidence to the contrary.

Project Generating less than 110 net Daily Vehicle Trips A project that generates less than 110 net daily vehicle trips (less pass-by, diverted and/or internal capture vehicle trips) is presumed to have a less than significant transportation impact, absent substantial evidence to the contrary.

Affordable Housing
If a project is 100% affordable-housing units, it is presumed to have a less than significant impact, absent substantial evidence to the contrary.

Local Serving Retail
If a project is a local-serving retail use of less than 50,000 square-feet (SF), it is presumed to have a less than significant impact, absent substantial evidence to the contrary. If the retail project is greater than 50,000 SF in total, each building size less than 50,000 SF shall be screened out. Local-serving retail generally reduces VMT by shortening trips that would occur. The final determination of whether the development is local serving would be made by the City Engineer on a case-by-case basis.

Educational/Institutional Land Use
If a project is an educational or institutional land use, it is presumed to have a less than significant impact, absent substantial evidence to the contrary.

Municipal/Public Service Land Use
If a project is a municipal/public service land use, it is presumed to have a less than significant impact, absent substantial evidence to the contrary.

Transit and Active Transportation Projects
Transit and active transportation projects generally reduce VMT and therefore are presumed to cause a less than significant impact on transportation. This presumption may apply to all passenger rail projects, bus and bus rapid transit projects, and bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure projects.

PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-126 Environmental Analysis
As detailed in Table 3.17-1, Project Trip Generation, the project is forecast to generate 31 weekday vehicle trips. This trip generation estimate is considered highly conservative since it assumes all new park facilities, and does not account for the fact that many project components would replace or relocate existing components within the existing park.

Table 3.17-1
Project Trip Generation
Land Use Intensity Weekday
Trips
AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips Saturday Peak Hour Trips
Total In / Out Total In / Out Total In / Out
Public
Park (ITE
Code 411)

39.69 acres
31 1 1 / 0 4 2 / 2 11 6 / 5
Source: Michael Baker International, Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements – Vehicle Miles Traveled Assessment, prepared by Michael Baker International and dated August 22, 2025; refer to Appendix F, VMT Assessment.

VMT SCREENING FINDING AND CONCLUSION
As shown in Table 3.17-1 above, the project is anticipated to generate 31 weekday vehicle trips, which is less than 110 daily trips. Additionally, as a public park project, it falls under a “typical” development for municipal/public service land uses. Therefore, the project satisfies the Project Type screening threshold. A detailed VMT analysis for the project is therefore not required and the project is presumed to have a less than significant impact on CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b).

c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? The project proposes recreational improvements within an existing park, and would not introduce any new land uses to the site. The project does not propose changes to the City’s circulation system, such as sharp curves or dangerous intersections, and would not introduce incompatible uses to area roadways (e.g., farm equipment). However, the project does propose reconfiguration of the vehicular access point to the park from Poston Lane; refer to Exhibit 3. The new driveway would be constructed in accordance with applicable City standards and would not result in increased hazards to traffic along Poston Lane or Stilwell Drive. Thus, the project would not increase hazards due to geometric design features or incompatible uses and impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

Impacts related to geometric design feature hazards or incompatible uses were analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR and found to be less than significant. No substantial new information shows that project impacts related to geometric design feature hazards or incompatible uses would be more significant than described in the General Plan Update EIR because project impacts related to geometric design feature hazards or incompatible uses would also be less than significant. Therefore, there are no impacts peculiar to the project site related to geometric design feature hazards or incompatible uses that would exceed what was previously disclosed in the General Plan Update EIR.

Further, there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project related to geometric design feature hazards or incompatible uses that were not already evaluated by the General Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-127 Environmental Analysis
Plan Update EIR. Therefore, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, no further environmental review is required. d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
The project does not propose changes to the City’s circulation system; as such, project operation would not impact emergency access. The project's proposed on-site circulation network would be consistent with City standards for emergency access and circulation.

While project construction activities occurring adjacent to Poston Lane and Stilwell Drive (e.g., driveway improvements associated with the reconfigured parking lot) and park improvements occurring along Magnolia Street may require a partial lane closure along the roadway, any such closure would be short-term in nature and traffic in both directions would be maintained at all times. Thus, impacts in this regard would be less than significant. Overall, project implementation is not anticipated to result in inadequate emergency access, and impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

Impacts related to emergency access were analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR and found to be less than significant. No substantial new information shows the project impacts related to emergency access would be more significant than described in the General Plan Update EIR because project impacts related to emergency access would also be less than significant. Therefore, there are no impacts peculiar to the project site related to emergency access that would exceed what was previously disclosed in the General Plan Update EIR. Further, there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project related to emergency access that were not already evaluated by the General Plan Update EIR. Therefore, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, no further environmental review is required.

Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-128 Environmental Analysis

3.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project: Prior EIR
Determination
CEQA Section 15183(b) Criteria
Effect
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Off-Site/
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More Severe
Adverse
Impact?
a. Would the project cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of a tribal
cultural resource, defined in Public
Resources Code section 21074 as either a
site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is
geographically defined in terms of the size
and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or
object with cultural value to a California
Native American tribe, and that is:
1) 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
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated

NA NA NA NA
2) A resource determined by the lead
agency, in its discretion and supported
by substantial evidence, to be
significant pursuant to criteria set forth
in subdivision (c) of Public Resources
Code Section 5024.1. In applying the
criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of
Public Resource Code Section 5024.1,
the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a
California Native American tribe.

Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated

NA NA NA NA

3.18.1 General Plan Update EIR Summary
Although the General Plan Update EIR did not analyze tribal cultural resources as a standalone topical area, tribal cultural resources impacts associated with the General Plan Update were analyzed in General Plan Update EIR Section 4.4, Cultural Resources. The City of Huntington Beach has undertaken the consultation with local tribes required as part of Assembly Bill 52 by submitting a request for a Local Government Tribal Consultation List in October 2015. The City also sent consultation letters to the following tribes requesting notice of consultation: the Gabrielino Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation, Gabrielino – Tongva Band of Mission Indians, Juaneno Band of Mission Indians – Acjachemen Nation, and the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians specifically, with a notice of the opportunity to engage in early consultation with the city regarding the General Plan Update. The City received one response in relation to these notices, from the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation. In general, their letter recognized the changing requirements of excavation during construction, noting that advances in geotechnical science now require greater depths of excavation to ensure stability of construction. As such, there is the potential for discovery of archaeological resources that have not previously been uncovered and they request that tribal monitors be on site for future projects, especially those tiered off of the General Plan Update EIR.

Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-129 Environmental Analysis
However, the General Plan Update EIR determined that adherence to and implementation of the General Plan Update policies, development standards, General Plan Update EIR mitigation measures MM4.4-2 (cultural resources investigation) and MM4.4-3 (procedure in the event of uncovering potential cultural resources), and compliance with state and local regulations would reduce potential impacts of tribal cultural resources to a less than significant level.

3.18.2 Project-Specific Impacts
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:

1) 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
2) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

With respect to tribal consultation for the proposed project, AB 52 states that prior to the release of a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or environmental impact report for a project, a lead agency shall begin consultation with a California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project, if the tribe requested to the lead agency, in writing, to be informed by the lead agency of proposed projects in that geographic area and the tribe requests consultation. As this environmental document (i.e., a CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Compliance Checklist) is not a Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or Environmental Impact Report, AB 52 consultation would not apply to the proposed project.

Additionally, as detailed in Section 3.5, Cultural Resources, the existing Edison Community Park was determined to be ineligible for listing in the California Register and would not be classified as a historical resource as defined by CEQA Section 15064.5(a); no archaeological remains or prehistoric cultural resources were identified within the project site during the records search or pedestrian survey, and the project site is not considered sensitive for buried archaeological resources. The project site has been heavily disturbed as part of previous uses as a sand and gravel pit, landfill, and through its current use as a park. Moreover, earthwork associated with the proposed recreational improvements would be minimal, with an anticipated maximum depth of disturbance of eight feet. Although impacts to potential tribal cultural resources are not expected, General Plan Update mitigation measure MM4.4-3 would minimize impacts in this regard by requiring earth-disturbing activities within 100 feet of an unexpected discovery of cultural resource to be halted, City notified, and such find assessed by a qualified archaeologist. Thus, similar to the General Plan Update EIR, impacts in this regard would be less than significant with mitigation.

Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-130 Environmental Analysis
No substantial new information shows that project impacts related to tribal cultural resources would be more significant than described in the General Plan Update EIR because the proposed project would not be subject to AB 52 and SB 18 consultation requirements. Therefore, there are no impacts peculiar to the project site related to tribal cultural resources that would exceed what was previously disclosed in the General Plan Update EIR. Further, there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project related to tribal cultural resources that were not already evaluated by the General Plan Update EIR. Therefore, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, no further environmental review is required.

Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-131 Environmental Analysis

3.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project: Prior EIR
Determination
CEQA Section 15183(b) Criteria
Effect
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Off-Site/
Cumulativ
e Impact?
New
Information,
More Severe
Adverse
Impact?
a. Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment, or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunication facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated/Not a
Required Topic
Previously
No No No No
b. Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project and reasonably
foreseeable future development during
normal, dry, and multiple dry years?
Significant And
Unavoidable No No No No
c. Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may
serve the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
No No No No
d. Generate solid waste in excess of State or
local standards, or in excess of the capacity
of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair
the attainment of solid waste reduction
goals?
Less Than
Significant No No No No
e. Comply with federal, State, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
Less Than
Significant No No No No

3.19.1 General Plan Update EIR Summary

WATER FACILITIES
The General Plan Update EIR determined that implementation of goals, policies, and implemented programs identified in the General Plan Update as well as standard conditions of approval would guide the development of water facilities and infrastructure as development occurs, thus reducing the demand for use of water facilities and infrastructure. Therefore, impacts to water from implementation of the General Plan Update would be less than significant.

WASTEWATER FACILITIES
The General Plan Update EIR determined that implementation of goals, policies, and implemented programs identified in the General Plan Update as well as standard conditions of approval would guide the development of wastewater facilities and infrastructure as development occurs, thus reducing the demand for use of wastewater facilities and infrastructure. Therefore, impacts to wastewater facilities from implementation of the General Plan Update would be less than significant.

Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-132 Environmental Analysis

STORMWATER FACILITIES
Impacts to stormwater facilities were detailed in the General Plan Update EIR Section 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality. The General Plan Update EIR noted that, although impervious surfaces would be added to the planning area as part of implementation of the General Plan Update, due to the extent of the existing developed and urban nature of the planning area, this increase in impervious areas would be a small fraction of the overall impervious area across the city. The General Plan Update EIR concluded that implementation of the General Plan Update would not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff such that it would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Although development under the General Plan Update is anticipated to result in a less than significant impact to the stormwater drainage systems, implementation of General Plan Update EIR mitigation measure MM4.8-3 would require the assessment of each future, project-level development application for the contribution to potential system capacity constraints and provide for mitigation of constraints such that impacts to storm drain system capacities would be less than significant.

The General Plan Update EIR determined that storm water treatment control BMPs would have to be designed and implemented on a site-specific and project-specific basis. The General Plan Update, and potential growth allowed by the General Plan Update, would not affect or prohibit the design or installation of BMPs and would therefore result in no impact.

ELECTRIC AND NATURAL GAS FACILITIES
The General Plan Update EIR determined that implementation of the General Plan Update could result in a need for new energy infrastructure; however, no proposals for energy production facilities or transmission facilities are included as part of the General Plan Update. The General Plan Update EIR noted that if Southern California Edison (SCE) or Southern California Gas Company (SCG) determine that energy production facilities or transmission facilities are needed at a later date, such projects would be required to undergo separate CEQA review, and their impacts assessed at that time.

The General Plan Update EIR determined that implementation of the General Plan Update policies and the future requirement to comply with CEQA (for the construction of new energy production or transmission facilities), would reduce impacts related to the construction and expansion of energy infrastructure to a less than significant level.

TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITIES
Discussion on telecommunication facilities required as part of Thresholds (a) was not a required topical area of discussion when the General Plan Update EIR was prepared.

WATER SUPPLIES
The General Plan Update EIR determined adherence to and implementation of the General Plan Update policies and compliance with state and local regulations would reduce potential impacts from implementation of the General Plan Update on existing water supplies. However, given the uncertainty of water supply across the western United States and throughout the State of California, a supply deficit could extend into the next decade that would result in a significant and unavoidable impact. Although the City has demonstrated significant water conservation over the last 10 years, and Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-133 Environmental Analysis
Orange County Water District (OCWD)’s Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) approved in 2016 indicates sufficient water supply, until such time as greater confidence in and commitment from water suppliers can be made, or the water supply situation improves, the General Plan Update could result in a significant and unavoidable impact.

WASTEWATER TREATMENT CAPACITIES
The General Plan Update EIR determined that development under the General Plan is anticipated to result in a less than significant impact related to wastewater capacities. Although development under the General Plan Update is anticipated to result in a less than significant impact to wastewater and associated capacities, implementation of General Plan Update EIR mitigation measure MM4.15-1 would require future, project-level development to demonstrate that adequate capacity remains in the wastewater collection system in Orange County Sanitary District main or trunk line to accommodate discharges from the specific development project.

SOLID WASTE CAPACITIES AND REGULATIONS
The General Plan Update EIR determined that the existing landfill facilities that serve the City have the capacity to accommodate the solid waste disposal needs of the General Plan Update and therefore, with compliance with existing solid waste regulations and implementation of the current City policies and programs to reduce solid waste, the General Plan Update would result in less than significant impacts in this regard.

3.19.2 Project-Specific Impacts
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
The project site is currently served by existing water, wastewater treatment, stormwater, electricity, natural gas, and telecommunication facilities. The project proposes recreational improvements and a reconfiguration of facilities within the existing park. All proposed recreational improvements would be similar in scope and nature to what exists today, and no new land uses or habitable buildings are proposed. While the project would include an expansion of the exterior restrooms at the existing community center, this expansion would not require the construction of new water or wastewater facilities that could cause significant environmental effects. As such, less than significant impacts would occur in this regard.

The General Plan Update EIR analyzed impacts related to the relocation or construction of new or expanded utility facilities and found such impacts to be less than significant. No substantial new information shows that impacts related to the relocation or construction of new or expanded utility facilities would be more significant than described in the General Plan Update EIR because the project impacts related to relocation or construction of new or expanded utility facilities would be less than significant. Therefore, there are no impacts peculiar to the project site related to the relocation or construction of new or expanded utility facilities that would exceed what was previously disclosed in the General Plan Update EIR. Further, there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-134 Environmental Analysis
the proposed project related to the relocation or construction of new or expanded utility facilities that were not already evaluated by the General Plan Update EIR. Therefore, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, no further environmental review is required.
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years?

Refer to Response 3.19.2(a). The project site is currently served by existing water facilities. Specifically, the project site is equipped with existing water connections for potable, irrigation, and fire protection uses. Project implementation would not induce substantial unplanned growth; refer to Section 3.14.

As a park reconfiguration project, the proposed project is not anticipated to substantially increase demand for water. While the project would include an expansion of the exterior restrooms at the existing community center, this expansion would not have the capacity to increase water demand such that future water supplies to the City would be affected. No impacts would occur in this regard.

Impacts related to sufficient water supplies were analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR and found to be less than significant and unavoidable. No substantial new information shows the project impacts related to sufficient water supplies would be more significant than described in the General Plan Update EIR because no project impacts related to sufficient water supplies would occur. Therefore, there are no impacts peculiar to the project site related to sufficient water supplies that would exceed what was previously disclosed in the General Plan Update EIR. Further, there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project related to sufficient water supplies that were not already evaluated by the General Plan Update EIR. Therefore, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, no further environmental review is required.

c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?

Refer to Response 3.19.2(a). The project site is currently served by existing wastewater treatment facilities. Project implementation would not induce substantial unplanned growth; refer to Section

3.14. As a park reconfiguration project, the proposed project is not anticipated to create an increased demand for wastewater treatment. While the project would include an expansion of the exterior restrooms at the existing community center, this expansion would not be of the scope or magnitude to exceed wastewater treatment demand. No impacts would occur in this regard.

Impacts related to wastewater treatment provider capacities were analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR and found to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. No substantial new information shows the project impacts related to wastewater treatment provider capacities would be more significant than described in the General Plan Update EIR because project impacts related to wastewater treatment provider capacities would also be less than significant. Therefore, there are no impacts peculiar to the project site related to wastewater treatment provider capacities that would exceed what was previously disclosed in the General Plan Update EIR. Further, there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project related to wastewater treatment provider Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-135 Environmental Analysis
capacities that were not already evaluated by the General Plan Update EIR. Therefore, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, no further environmental review is required.
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?

Project construction is not anticipated to generate significant quantities of solid waste with the potential to affect the capacity of regional landfills. Further, all construction activities would be subject to conformance with relevant federal, State, and local requirements related to solid waste disposal.

Specifically, the project would be required to demonstrate compliance with the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939), which requires all California cities to “reduce, recycle, and re-use solid waste generated in the State to the maximum extent feasible.” The 2022 CALGreen standards requires that demolition and construction activities to recycle or reuse a minimum of 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste. CALGreen also includes design and construction measures that act to reduce construction-related waste through material conservation and other construction-related efficiency measures. Compliance with these regulations would ensure the project’s construction-related solid waste impacts would be less than significant.

Project implementation would not induce substantial unplanned growth that could result in the indirect generation of solid waste; refer to Section 3.14. As noted above, the project proposes recreational improvements and a reconfiguration of facilities within the existing park. All proposed recreational improvements would be similar in scope and nature to what exists today, and no new land uses or habitable buildings are proposed. Thus, it is not anticipated that a substantial increase in solid waste generation would occur.

Furthermore, the nearest landfill (Frank R. Bowerman Sanitary Landfill located in the City of Irvine) has a remaining capacity of 160,896,082 tons (maximum permit capacity is 266,000,000 tons). 43 In a
recent inspection, the highest daily tonnage (from July 2025 to August 2025) was 8,952.47 tons, which was below the maximum 11,500 tons per day permitted in the facility’s Solid Waste Facility Permit.44 Overall, the project would not substantively impact the capacity of the existing landfill as a result of construction or operations. Less than significant impacts are anticipated.

The General Plan Update EIR analyzed impacts related to solid waste and found such impacts to be less than significant. No substantial new information shows that impacts related to solid waste would be more significant than described in the General Plan Update EIR because the project impacts related to solid waste would also be less than significant. Therefore, there are no impacts peculiar to the project site related to solid waste that would exceed what was previously disclosed in the General Plan Update EIR. Further, there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project related to solid waste that were not already evaluated by the General Plan Update EIR. Therefore, 43 CalRecycle, SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details, Frank R. Bowerman Landfill (30-AB-0360), Activities, https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/2767?siteID=2103, accessed September 15, 2025. 44 CalRecycle, SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details, Frank R. Bowerman Landfill (30-AB-0360), Inspections, August 18, 2025,https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteInspection/Index/2103, accessed September 15, 2025.

Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-136 Environmental Analysis
pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, no further environmental review is required.
e) Comply with federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
The proposed park reconfiguration project would not impact solid waste management associated with the existing park. The project would continue to be required to demonstrate compliance with the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939), which requires all California cities to reduce, recycle, and re-use solid waste generated in the State to the maximum extent feasible.

Specifically, AB 939 requires that at least 50 percent of waste produced is recycled, reduced, or composted. The project would also be required to demonstrate compliance with the 2022 Green Building Code, which includes design and construction measures that act to reduce constructionrelated waste though material conservation and other construction-related efficiency measures.

Additionally, compliance with these existing regulations would ensure the project would comply with Federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste. No impacts would occur in this regard.

Impacts related to complying with solid waste regulations were analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR and found to be less than significant. No substantial new information shows the project impacts related to complying with solid waste regulations would be more significant than described in the General Plan Update EIR because no project impacts related to complying with solid waste regulations would occur. Therefore, there are no impacts peculiar to the project site related to complying with solid waste regulations that would exceed what was previously disclosed in the General Plan Update EIR. Further, there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project related to complying with solid waste regulations that were not already evaluated by the General Plan Update EIR. Therefore, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, no further environmental review is required.

Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-137 Environmental Analysis

3.20 WILDFIRE
If located in or near State responsibility areas or
lands classified as very high fire hazard
severity zones, would the project:

Prior EIR
Determination
CEQA Section 15183(b) Criteria
Effect
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Off-Site/
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More Severe
Adverse
Impact?
a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
Less Than
Significant No No No No
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and
thereby expose project occupants to,
pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the
uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
Less Than
Significant No No No No
c. Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads,
fuel breaks, emergency water sources,
power lines or other utilities) that may
exacerbate fire risk or that may result in
temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment?
Less Than
Significant No No No No
d. Expose people or structures to significant
risks, including downslope or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff,
post-fire slope instability, or drainage
changes?
Less Than
Significant No No No No

3.20.1 General Plan Update EIR Summary
Although the General Plan Update EIR did not analyze wildfire as a standalone topical area, wildfire impacts associated with the General Plan Update were analyzed in General Plan Update EIR Section

4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. As detailed in the General Plan Update EIR, the City is not located within at-risk areas designated as Fire Hazard Severity Zones (moderate, high, and very high) according to Cal Fire. The General Plan Update Natural and Environmental Hazards Element includes policies (HAZ-4.A, HAZ-4.B) to reduce risk of urban fires in the City. Overall, the General Plan Update EIR concluded that compliance with existing Federal, State, and local laws and regulations, supported by implementation of the General Plan Update policies, would ensure that impacts to the public and environment related to risk of hazards due to wildland fire would be less than significant.

Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-138 Environmental Analysis

3.20.2 Project-Specific Impacts
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
The project site is located within an urbanized area and the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection does not map any part of site as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone.45 Thus, no impacts would occur in this regard.

As analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR, less than significant impacts related to the wildland fires were found to occur. No substantial new information shows that project impacts related to wildland fires would be more significant than described in the General Plan Update EIR because no project impacts related to wildland fires would occur. Therefore, there are no impacts peculiar to the project site related to wildland fires that would exceed what was previously disclosed in the General Plan Update EIR. Further, there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project related to wildland fires that were not already evaluated by the General Plan Update EIR. Therefore, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, no further environmental review is required.
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
Refer to Response 3.20.2(a). No impact would occur in this regard.

As analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR, less than significant impacts related to the wildland fires were found to occur. No substantial new information shows that project impacts related to wildfires would be more significant than described in the General Plan Update EIR because no impacts related to wildfires would occur. Therefore, there are no impacts peculiar to the project site related to wildfires that would exceed what was previously disclosed in the General Plan Update EIR. Further, there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project related to wildland fires that were not already evaluated by the General Plan Update EIR. Therefore, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, no further environmental review is required.

c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
Refer to Response 3.20.2(a). No impact would occur in this regard.

As analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR, less than significant impacts related to the wildland fires were found to occur. No substantial new information shows that project impacts related to wildfires 45 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, City of Huntington Beach – Orange County, Local Responsibility Area Fire Hazard Severity Zones, March 24, 2025.

Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-139 Environmental Analysis
would be more significant than described in the General Plan Update EIR because no impacts related to wildfires would occur. Therefore, there are no impacts peculiar to the project site related to wildfires that would exceed what was previously disclosed in the General Plan Update EIR. Further, there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project related to wildland fires that were not already evaluated by the General Plan Update EIR. Therefore, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, no further environmental review is required.

d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
Refer to Response 3.20.2(a) regarding wildfire hazard, Response 3.7(a)(iv) regarding landslides, Response 3.7(c) regarding unstable soils, and Response 3.10(c)(ii) regarding flooding. No impact would occur in this regard.

As analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR, less than significant impacts related to the wildland fires were found to occur. No substantial new information shows that project impacts related to wildfires would be more significant than described in the General Plan Update EIR because no impacts related to wildfires would occur. Therefore, there are no impacts peculiar to the project site related to wildfires that would exceed what was previously disclosed in the General Plan Update EIR. Further, there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project related to wildland fires that were not already evaluated by the General Plan Update EIR. Therefore, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, no further environmental review is required.

Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 3-140 Environmental Analysis
This page intentionally left blank.

Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 4-1 Determination/Checklist Conclusion

4.0 DETERMINATION/CHECKLIST CONCLUSION
Based on the analysis contained in this CEQA Environmental Compliance Checklist, the proposed project is consistent with the development density established by the General Plan for which an EIR (i.e., the General Plan Update EIR) was certified. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b), there are no project specific effects which are peculiar to the project or its site. There are no project specific impacts which the General Plan Update EIR failed to analyze as significant effects. Further, there are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which the General Plan Update EIR failed to evaluate. Furthermore, there is no substantial new information which results in more severe impacts than discussed in the General Plan Update EIR. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, no further environmental review is required.

Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 4-2 Determination/Checklist Conclusion
This page intentionally left blank.

Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 5-1 References

5.0 REFERENCES
Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County, Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport, April 17, 2008.

California Air Resources Board, 2022 Scoping Plan, November 16, 2022.

California Air Resources Board, Air Quality Data,
https://www.arb.ca.gov/aqmis2/aqdselect.php?tab=specialrpt, accessed August 21, 2025.

California Air Resources Board, California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000 to 2022, Trends of Emissions and Other Indicators, September 20, 2024, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2024-09/nc2000_2022_ghg_inventory_trends.pdf, accessed August 21, 2025.

Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey, Earthquake Zone of Required Investigation, Interactive Map,
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/eqzapp/#data_s=id%3AdataSou rce_4-191d8e4b825-layer-21%3A1165, accessed September 10, 2025.

California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, California Important Farmland Finder, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/, accessed on September 10, 2025.

California Department of Fish and Game, Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation, 2012.

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, City of Huntington Beach – Orange County, Local Responsibility Area Fire Hazard Severity Zones, March 24, 2025.

California Department of Transportation, Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, September 2013.

California Energy Commission, 2023 Integrated Energy Policy Report, page 130, July 14, 2024.

California Energy Commission, Electricity Consumption by County, https://www.energy.ca.gov/datareports/energy-almanac/california-electricity-data/california-energy-consumption-dashboards-0, accessed August 25, 2025.

California Energy Commission, Final 2022 Integrated Energy Policy Report Update, page 140, May 10, 2023.

California Environmental Protection Agency, Cortese Listing, https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/, accessed January 27, 2025.

Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 5-2 References
CalRecycle, SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details, Frank R. Bowerman Landfill (30-AB-0360), Activities, https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/2767?siteID=2103, accessed September 15, 2025.

CalRecycle, SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details, Frank R. Bowerman Landfill (30-AB-0360), Inspections, August 18, 2025, https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteInspection/Index/2103, accessed September 15, 2025.

City of Huntington Beach, City of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program Environmental Impact Report, SCH No. 2015101032, Volume II, Final Program Environmental Impact Report, August 2017.

City of Huntington Beach, City of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program Environmental Impact Report, SCH No. 2015101032, Volume II, Final Program Environmental Impact Report, Chapter 11, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, September 2017.

City of Huntington Beach, City of Huntington Beach General Plan, October 2017.

City of Huntington Beach, City of Huntington Beach Zoning, https://huntingtonbeach.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=7ab822c02ded4 940acd7e4593bba7cb7, accessed July 22, 2025.

City of Huntington Beach, General Plan, City of Huntington Beach, General Plan Designations, August 2022.

City of Huntington Beach, Huntington Beach Circulation Element EIR, Exhibit 4.8-2, Existing Averaghe Daily Traffic Volumes,
https://cms3.revize.com/revize/huntingtonbeachca/Documents/Business/Demographics/traf fic-counts-map.pdf. Accessed August 28, 2025.

City of Huntington Beach, Huntington Beach Municipal Code, current through Ord. No. 2025-49 adopted July 1, 2025.

City of Huntington Beach, Tsunami Evacuation Routes, 2023, https://cms3.revize.com/revize/huntingtonbeachca/Documents/Departments/Fire/Our%20C ommunity%20and%20Risk%20Reduction/Emergency%20Preparedness/Tsunami%20Evacuati on%20Map.pdf, accessed September 14, 2025.

Federal Emergency Management Agency, National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette, https://msc.fema.gov/portal/home, accessed September 12, 2025.

Federal Highway Administration, Roadway Construction Noise Model Users’ Guide, January 2006.

Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018.

Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 5-3 References
Geosyntec Consultants, Inc., Geotechnical Report, Proposed Improvements, Edison Park, Huntington Beach, California, November 30, 2023.

Geosyntec Consultants, Inc., Letter Report – Geophysical Oil Well Locating Survey Edison Park, Huntington Beach, California, July 27, 2023.

John Wayne Airport, John Wayne Airport Orange County – 2024 Annual Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) Contours, https://files.ocair.com/media/2025-
03/CNEL%20Noise%202024.pdf?VersionId=sP5JZJ.HJkeYtq9jJslfTN9s.mUL.i1n, accessed August 28, 2025.

M.J. Hayne, et al, Prediction of Crowd Noise, Acoustics, November 2006.

Michael Bkaer Internation, Biological Resources Assessment for the Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project in the City of Huntington Beach, Orange County, California, September 8, 2025.

Michael Baker International, Cultural Resources Assessment for the Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvement Project, City of Huntington Beach, Orange County, California, September 9, 2025 RK Engineering Group, Inc., Edison Park Pickleball Courts Noise Impact Study, December 15, 2023 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, Application for Leave to File Brief of Amicus Curiae Brief of San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District in Support of Defendant and Respondent, County of Fresno and Real Party In Interest and Respondent, Friant Ranch, L.P. In the Supreme Court of California.

Sierra Club, Revive the San Joaquin, and League of Women Voters of Fresno v. County of Fresno, April 13, 2015.

Scripps Institute of Oceanography, Carbon Dioxide Concentration at Mauna Loa Observatory, https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/, accessed August 24, 2025.

South Coast Air Quality Management District, Application of the South Coast Air Quality Management District for Leave to File Brief of Amicus Curiae in Support of Neither Party and Brief of Amicus Curiae. In the Supreme Court of California. Sierra Club, Revive the San Joaquin, and League of Women Voters of Fresno v.

County of Fresno, April 3, 2015.

Southern California Association of Governments, 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy – Connect SoCal, September 3, 2020.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Carbon Monoxide Emissions, https://cfpub.epa.gov/roe/indicator_pdf.cfm?i=10, accessed August 21, 2025.

Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 5-4 References
This page intentionally left blank.

Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 6-1 Report Preparation Personnel

6.0 REPORT PREPARATION PERSONNEL

LEAD AGENCY

CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Community & Library Services Department
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Ashley Wysocki, Director of Community & Library Services Frank Drevdahl, Community & Library Services Capital Projects Administrator Jill Bos, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS

MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL
5 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 500
Santa Ana, California 92707
949.472.3505
Alan Ashimine, Project Manager
Winnie Woo, Environmental Analyst
Dennis Dinh, Environmental Analyst/Technical Specialist Eddie Torres, Technical Manager
Darshan Shivaiah, Technical Specialist
Jeanette Cappiello, Graphic Artist
Paige Kohler, MA, RPA, Senior Archaeologist
Susan Wood, PhD, Senior Architectural Historian
Alejandro Tapia, PE, Traffic Engineer
Jake Swim TE, Senior Transportation Planner
Stephen Anderson, Senior Biologist
GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS (Geotechnical)
3530 Hyland Avenue, Suite 100
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Sneha Upadhyaya, PhD, PE, Senior Staff Profesional
Yonas Zemuy, PE, Senior Principal Engineer
Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements Project
CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist
February 2026 6-2 Report Preparation Personnel
This page intentionally left blank.

Edison Park Improvements Detailed Report, 8/27/2025
1 / 74
Edison Park Improvements Detailed Report
Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated

2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (2026) - Unmitigated

3.2. Demolition (2026) - Mitigated

3.3. Grading (2026) - Unmitigated
Edison Park Improvements Detailed Report, 8/27/2025
2 / 74

3.4. Grading (2026) - Mitigated

3.5. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated

3.6. Building Construction (2026) - Mitigated

3.7. Building Construction (2027) - Unmitigated

3.8. Building Construction (2027) - Mitigated

3.9. Paving (2027) - Unmitigated

3.10. Paving (2027) - Mitigated

3.11. Architectural Coating (2027) - Unmitigated

3.12. Architectural Coating (2027) - Mitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

4.1.2. Mitigated

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Edison Park Improvements Detailed Report, 8/27/2025
3 / 74

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated

4.3.2. Mitigated

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated

4.4.2. Mitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated

4.5.2. Mitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated

4.6.2. Mitigated

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated

4.7.2. Mitigated

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated

4.8.2. Mitigated
Edison Park Improvements Detailed Report, 8/27/2025
4 / 74

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated

4.9.2. Mitigated

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated

4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated

4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated

5.2.2. Mitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated

5.3.2. Mitigated
Edison Park Improvements Detailed Report, 8/27/2025
5 / 74

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies

5.5. Architectural Coatings

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies

5.7. Construction Paving

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated

5.9.2. Mitigated

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.1.2. Mitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment

5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated
Edison Park Improvements Detailed Report, 8/27/2025
6 / 74

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated

5.11.2. Mitigated

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated

5.12.2. Mitigated

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated

5.13.2. Mitigated

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated

5.14.2. Mitigated

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated

5.15.2. Mitigated

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps

5.16.2. Process Boilers
Edison Park Improvements Detailed Report, 8/27/2025
7 / 74

5.17. User Defined

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1.2. Mitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1.2. Mitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2.2. Mitigated

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
Edison Park Improvements Detailed Report, 8/27/2025
8 / 74

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores

7.4. Health & Equity Measures

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures

8. User Changes to Default Data
Edison Park Improvements Detailed Report, 8/27/2025
9 / 74

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Edison Park Improvements
Construction Start Date 9/1/2026
Operational Year 2027
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.50
Precipitation (days) 19.2
Location Edison Pk, 21377 Magnolia St, Huntington Beach, CA 92646, USA County Orange
City Huntington Beach
Air District South Coast AQMD
Air Basin South Coast
TAZ 5801
EDFZ 7
Electric Utility Southern California Edison
Gas Utility Southern California Gas
App Version 2022.1.1.30

1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
City Park 35.5 Acre 35.5 0.00 1,500,000 1,500,000 — —
Edison Park Improvements Detailed Report, 8/27/2025
10 / 74
Parking Lot 74.0 Space 0.67 0.00 1,000 — — —
Other Asphalt
Surfaces

30.0 1000sqft 0.69 0.00 1,000 — — —

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector Sector # Measure Title
Construction C-10-A Water Exposed Surfaces
Construction C-10-B Water Active Demolition Sites
Construction C-10-C Water Unpaved Construction Roads
Construction C-11 Limit Vehicle Speeds on Unpaved Roads

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 2.81 2.34 21.1 20.0 0.03 0.85 0.67 1.52 0.78 0.13 0.91 — 3,937 3,937 0.17 0.08 1.32 3,967 Mit. 2.81 2.34 21.1 20.0 0.03 0.85 0.53 1.38 0.78 0.11 0.89 — 3,937 3,937 0.17 0.08 1.32 3,967 %
Reduced
— — — — — — 21% 9% — 17% 2% — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 3.69 3.11 27.3 28.5 0.06 1.12 9.47 10.6 1.03 3.72 4.75 — 6,846 6,846 0.27 0.06 0.02 6,872 Mit. 3.69 3.11 27.3 28.5 0.06 1.12 2.65 3.78 1.03 1.01 2.04 — 6,846 6,846 0.27 0.06 0.02 6,872 %
Reduced
— — — — — — 72% 64% — 73% 57% — — — — — — —
Edison Park Improvements Detailed Report, 8/27/2025
11 / 74
Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.68 0.57 5.09 6.08 0.01 0.21 1.16 1.36 0.19 0.45 0.63 — 1,189 1,189 0.05 0.01 0.08 1,195 Mit. 0.68 0.57 5.09 6.08 0.01 0.21 0.34 0.55 0.19 0.13 0.32 — 1,189 1,189 0.05 0.01 0.08 1,195 %
Reduced
— — — — — — 70% 60% — 72% 50% — — — — — — —
Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.12 0.10 0.93 1.11 < 0.005 0.04 0.21 0.25 0.03 0.08 0.12 — 197 197 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 198 Mit. 0.12 0.10 0.93 1.11 < 0.005 0.04 0.06 0.10 0.03 0.02 0.06 — 197 197 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 198 %
Reduced
— — — — — — 70% 60% — 72% 50% — — — — — — —

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 2.81 2.34 21.1 20.0 0.03 0.85 0.67 1.52 0.78 0.13 0.91 — 3,937 3,937 0.17 0.08 1.32 3,967 2027 1.23 1.03 9.39 12.9 0.02 0.34 0.20 0.49 0.31 0.05 0.32 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 0.61 2,405 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 3.69 3.11 27.3 28.5 0.06 1.12 9.47 10.6 1.03 3.72 4.75 — 6,846 6,846 0.27 0.06 0.02 6,872 2027 1.23 1.03 9.39 12.9 0.02 0.34 0.00 0.34 0.31 0.00 0.31 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 0.00 2,405 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 0.68 0.57 5.09 5.34 0.01 0.21 1.16 1.36 0.19 0.45 0.63 — 1,189 1,189 0.05 0.01 0.08 1,195 2027 0.58 0.49 4.37 6.08 0.01 0.16 0.01 0.17 0.15 < 0.005 0.15 — 1,105 1,105 0.04 0.01 0.02 1,109 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Edison Park Improvements Detailed Report, 8/27/2025
12 / 74
2026 0.12 0.10 0.93 0.98 < 0.005 0.04 0.21 0.25 0.03 0.08 0.12 — 197 197 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 198 2027 0.11 0.09 0.80 1.11 < 0.005 0.03 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.03 — 183 183 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 184

2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 2.81 2.34 21.1 20.0 0.03 0.85 0.53 1.38 0.78 0.11 0.89 — 3,937 3,937 0.17 0.08 1.32 3,967 2027 1.23 1.03 9.39 12.9 0.02 0.34 0.20 0.49 0.31 0.05 0.32 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 0.61 2,405 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 3.69 3.11 27.3 28.5 0.06 1.12 2.65 3.78 1.03 1.01 2.04 — 6,846 6,846 0.27 0.06 0.02 6,872 2027 1.23 1.03 9.39 12.9 0.02 0.34 0.00 0.34 0.31 0.00 0.31 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 0.00 2,405 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 0.68 0.57 5.09 5.34 0.01 0.21 0.34 0.55 0.19 0.13 0.32 — 1,189 1,189 0.05 0.01 0.08 1,195 2027 0.58 0.49 4.37 6.08 0.01 0.16 0.01 0.17 0.15 < 0.005 0.15 — 1,105 1,105 0.04 0.01 0.02 1,109 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 0.12 0.10 0.93 0.98 < 0.005 0.04 0.06 0.10 0.03 0.02 0.06 — 197 197 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 198 2027 0.11 0.09 0.80 1.11 < 0.005 0.03 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.03 — 183 183 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 184

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Edison Park Improvements Detailed Report, 8/27/2025
13 / 74
Unmit. 0.97 0.96 0.09 1.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.29 0.29 < 0.005 0.07 0.08 1.65 678 679 0.20 0.01 0.97 689 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.97 0.96 0.10 0.98 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.29 0.29 < 0.005 0.07 0.08 1.65 666 668 0.20 0.01 0.03 677 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.97 0.96 0.10 1.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.29 0.29 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 1.65 669 671 0.20 0.01 0.42 680 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.18 0.17 0.02 0.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 0.27 111 111 0.03 < 0.005 0.07 113

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.12 0.10 0.09 1.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.29 0.29 < 0.005 0.07 0.08 — 306 306 0.01 0.01 0.97 311 Area 0.86 0.86 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 37.0 37.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 37.2 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 334 334 0.02 < 0.005 — 336 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 1.65 0.00 1.65 0.16 0.00 — 5.76 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total 0.97 0.96 0.09 1.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.29 0.29 < 0.005 0.07 0.08 1.65 678 679 0.20 0.01 0.97 689 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.98 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.29 0.29 < 0.005 0.07 0.08 — 295 295 0.01 0.01 0.03 298 Area 0.86 0.86 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Edison Park Improvements Detailed Report, 8/27/2025
14 / 74
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 37.0 37.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 37.2 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 334 334 0.02 < 0.005 — 336 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 1.65 0.00 1.65 0.16 0.00 — 5.76 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total 0.97 0.96 0.10 0.98 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.29 0.29 < 0.005 0.07 0.08 1.65 666 668 0.20 0.01 0.03 677 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.11 0.10 0.10 1.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.29 0.29 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 — 298 298 0.01 0.01 0.42 302 Area 0.86 0.86 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 37.0 37.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 37.2 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 334 334 0.02 < 0.005 — 336 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 1.65 0.00 1.65 0.16 0.00 — 5.76 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total 0.97 0.96 0.10 1.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.29 0.29 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 1.65 669 671 0.20 0.01 0.42 680 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 49.3 49.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 50.0 Area 0.16 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 6.13 6.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.16 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 55.4 55.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 55.6 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 0.27 0.00 0.27 0.03 0.00 — 0.95 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total 0.18 0.17 0.02 0.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 0.27 111 111 0.03 < 0.005 0.07 113

2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Edison Park Improvements Detailed Report, 8/27/2025
15 / 74
Mobile 0.12 0.10 0.09 1.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.29 0.29 < 0.005 0.07 0.08 — 306 306 0.01 0.01 0.97 311 Area 0.86 0.86 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 37.0 37.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 37.2 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 334 334 0.02 < 0.005 — 336 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 1.65 0.00 1.65 0.16 0.00 — 5.76 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total 0.97 0.96 0.09 1.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.29 0.29 < 0.005 0.07 0.08 1.65 678 679 0.20 0.01 0.97 689 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.98 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.29 0.29 < 0.005 0.07 0.08 — 295 295 0.01 0.01 0.03 298 Area 0.86 0.86 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 37.0 37.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 37.2 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 334 334 0.02 < 0.005 — 336 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 1.65 0.00 1.65 0.16 0.00 — 5.76 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total 0.97 0.96 0.10 0.98 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.29 0.29 < 0.005 0.07 0.08 1.65 666 668 0.20 0.01 0.03 677 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.11 0.10 0.10 1.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.29 0.29 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 — 298 298 0.01 0.01 0.42 302 Area 0.86 0.86 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 37.0 37.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 37.2 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 334 334 0.02 < 0.005 — 336 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 1.65 0.00 1.65 0.16 0.00 — 5.76 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total 0.97 0.96 0.10 1.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.29 0.29 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 1.65 669 671 0.20 0.01 0.42 680 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 49.3 49.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 50.0 Area 0.16 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Edison Park Improvements Detailed Report, 8/27/2025
16 / 74
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 6.13 6.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.16 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 55.4 55.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 55.6 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 0.27 0.00 0.27 0.03 0.00 — 0.95 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total 0.18 0.17 0.02 0.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 0.27 111 111 0.03 < 0.005 0.07 113

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

2.72 2.29 20.7 19.0 0.03 0.84 — 0.84 0.78 — 0.78 — 3,427 3,427 0.14 0.03 — 3,438 Demoliti
on
— — — — — — 0.39 0.39 — 0.06 0.06 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.16 0.14 1.24 1.15 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 207 207 0.01 < 0.005 — 207 Edison Park Improvements Detailed Report, 8/27/2025
17 / 74
Demoliti — — — — — — 0.02 0.02 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — on
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.03 0.03 0.23 0.21 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 34.2 34.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 34.3 Demoliti
on
— — — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.79 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 195 195 < 0.005 0.01 0.68 198 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.03 < 0.005 0.38 0.17 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 0.09 < 0.005 0.02 0.03 — 315 315 0.02 0.05 0.64 331 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.4 11.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 11.5 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 19.0 19.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 19.9 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.88 1.88 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.91 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.14 3.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.30 Edison Park Improvements Detailed Report, 8/27/2025
18 / 74

3.2. Demolition (2026) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

2.72 2.29 20.7 19.0 0.03 0.84 — 0.84 0.78 — 0.78 — 3,427 3,427 0.14 0.03 — 3,438 Demoliti
on
— — — — — — 0.25 0.25 — 0.04 0.04 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.16 0.14 1.24 1.15 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 207 207 0.01 < 0.005 — 207 Demoliti
on
— — — — — — 0.02 0.02 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.03 0.03 0.23 0.21 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 34.2 34.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 34.3 Demoliti
on
— — — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — Edison Park Improvements Detailed Report, 8/27/2025
19 / 74
Onsite
truck

3.3. Grading (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Edison Park Improvements Detailed Report, 8/27/2025
20 / 74
Off-Roa
Equipment

3.62 3.04 27.2 27.6 0.06 1.12 — 1.12 1.03 — 1.03 — 6,599 6,599 0.27 0.05 — 6,621 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 9.20 9.20 — 3.65 3.65 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.43 0.36 3.21 3.25 0.01 0.13 — 0.13 0.12 — 0.12 — 777 777 0.03 0.01 — 780 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 1.08 1.08 — 0.43 0.43 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.08 0.07 0.59 0.59 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 129 129 0.01 < 0.005 — 129 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.20 0.20 — 0.08 0.08 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Edison Park Improvements Detailed Report, 8/27/2025
21 / 74
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Worker 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.26 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 248 248 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 251 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 29.6 29.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 30.0 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.90 4.90 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.96 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.4. Grading (2026) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

3.62 3.04 27.2 27.6 0.06 1.12 — 1.12 1.03 — 1.03 — 6,599 6,599 0.27 0.05 — 6,621 Edison Park Improvements Detailed Report, 8/27/2025
22 / 74
Dust — — — — — — 2.39 2.39 — 0.95 0.95 — — — — — — —
From
Material
Movement
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.43 0.36 3.21 3.25 0.01 0.13 — 0.13 0.12 — 0.12 — 777 777 0.03 0.01 — 780 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.28 0.28 — 0.11 0.11 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.08 0.07 0.59 0.59 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 129 129 0.01 < 0.005 — 129 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.05 0.05 — 0.02 0.02 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.26 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 248 248 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 251 Edison Park Improvements Detailed Report, 8/27/2025
23 / 74
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 29.6 29.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 30.0 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.90 4.90 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.96 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.5. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

1.28 1.07 9.85 13.0 0.02 0.38 — 0.38 0.35 — 0.35 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Edison Park Improvements Detailed Report, 8/27/2025
24 / 74
Off-Roa 0.08 0.06 0.60 0.79 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 145 145 0.01 < 0.005 — 146 d
Equipm
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.01 0.01 0.11 0.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 24.1 24.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 24.2 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Edison Park Improvements Detailed Report, 8/27/2025
25 / 74

3.6. Building Construction (2026) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

1.28 1.07 9.85 13.0 0.02 0.38 — 0.38 0.35 — 0.35 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.08 0.06 0.60 0.79 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 145 145 0.01 < 0.005 — 146 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.01 0.01 0.11 0.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 24.1 24.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 24.2 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Edison Park Improvements Detailed Report, 8/27/2025
26 / 74
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.7. Building Construction (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

1.23 1.03 9.39 12.9 0.02 0.34 — 0.34 0.31 — 0.31 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Edison Park Improvements Detailed Report, 8/27/2025
27 / 74
Off-Roa
Equipment

1.23 1.03 9.39 12.9 0.02 0.34 — 0.34 0.31 — 0.31 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.51 0.43 3.90 5.37 0.01 0.14 — 0.14 0.13 — 0.13 — 994 994 0.04 0.01 — 998 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.09 0.08 0.71 0.98 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.02 — 0.02 — 165 165 0.01 < 0.005 — 165 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Edison Park Improvements Detailed Report, 8/27/2025
28 / 74
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.8. Building Construction (2027) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

1.23 1.03 9.39 12.9 0.02 0.34 — 0.34 0.31 — 0.31 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

1.23 1.03 9.39 12.9 0.02 0.34 — 0.34 0.31 — 0.31 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Edison Park Improvements Detailed Report, 8/27/2025
29 / 74
Off-Roa 0.51 0.43 3.90 5.37 0.01 0.14 — 0.14 0.13 — 0.13 — 994 994 0.04 0.01 — 998 d
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.09 0.08 0.71 0.98 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.02 — 0.02 — 165 165 0.01 < 0.005 — 165 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Edison Park Improvements Detailed Report, 8/27/2025
30 / 74
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.9. Paving (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.88 0.74 6.94 9.95 0.01 0.30 — 0.30 0.27 — 0.27 — 1,511 1,511 0.06 0.01 — 1,516 Paving 0.16 0.16 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.05 0.04 0.42 0.60 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 91.1 91.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 91.4 Paving 0.01 0.01 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.01 0.01 0.08 0.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 15.1 15.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.1 Paving < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Edison Park Improvements Detailed Report, 8/27/2025
31 / 74
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.74 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 192 192 < 0.005 0.01 0.61 195 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.2 11.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 11.3 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.85 1.85 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.87 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.10. Paving (2027) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Edison Park Improvements Detailed Report, 8/27/2025
32 / 74
Off-Roa 0.88 0.74 6.94 9.95 0.01 0.30 — 0.30 0.27 — 0.27 — 1,511 1,511 0.06 0.01 — 1,516 d
Equipm
ent
Paving 0.16 0.16 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.05 0.04 0.42 0.60 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 91.1 91.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 91.4 Paving 0.01 0.01 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.01 0.01 0.08 0.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 15.1 15.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.1 Paving < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.74 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 192 192 < 0.005 0.01 0.61 195 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Edison Park Improvements Detailed Report, 8/27/2025
33 / 74
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.2 11.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 11.3 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.85 1.85 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.87 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.11. Architectural Coating (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.14 0.11 0.83 1.13 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Edison Park Improvements Detailed Report, 8/27/2025
34 / 74
Off-Roa 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 8.05 8.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.07 d
Equipm
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.33 1.33 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.34 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Edison Park Improvements Detailed Report, 8/27/2025
35 / 74

3.12. Architectural Coating (2027) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.14 0.11 0.83 1.13 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Onsite
truck

0.01 0.01 0.05 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 8.05 8.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.07 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Edison Park Improvements Detailed Report, 8/27/2025
36 / 74
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City
Park

0.12 0.10 0.09 1.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.29 0.29 < 0.005 0.07 0.08 — 306 306 0.01 0.01 0.97 311 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Edison Park Improvements Detailed Report, 8/27/2025
37 / 74
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.12 0.10 0.09 1.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.29 0.29 < 0.005 0.07 0.08 — 306 306 0.01 0.01 0.97 311 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City
Park

0.11 0.10 0.10 0.98 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.29 0.29 < 0.005 0.07 0.08 — 295 295 0.01 0.01 0.03 298 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.98 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.29 0.29 < 0.005 0.07 0.08 — 295 295 0.01 0.01 0.03 298 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City
Park

0.02 0.02 0.02 0.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 49.3 49.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 50.0 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 49.3 49.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 50.0

4.1.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City
Park

0.12 0.10 0.09 1.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.29 0.29 < 0.005 0.07 0.08 — 306 306 0.01 0.01 0.97 311 Edison Park Improvements Detailed Report, 8/27/2025
38 / 74
Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.11 0.10 0.10 0.98 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.29 0.29 < 0.005 0.07 0.08 — 295 295 0.01 0.01 0.03 298 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.02 0.02 0.02 0.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 49.3 49.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 50.0 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 49.3 49.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 50.0

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Edison Park Improvements Detailed Report, 8/27/2025
39 / 74
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 37.0 37.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 37.2 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 37.0 37.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 37.2 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 37.0 37.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 37.2 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 37.0 37.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 37.2 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 6.13 6.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.16 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 6.13 6.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.16

4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Edison Park Improvements Detailed Report, 8/27/2025
40 / 74
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 37.0 37.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 37.2 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 37.0 37.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 37.2 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 37.0 37.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 37.2 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 37.0 37.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 37.2 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 6.13 6.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.16 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 6.13 6.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.16 Edison Park Improvements Detailed Report, 8/27/2025
41 / 74

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City
Park

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City
Park

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City
Park

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Edison Park Improvements Detailed Report, 8/27/2025
42 / 74
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00

4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City
Park

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Edison Park Improvements Detailed Report, 8/27/2025
43 / 74
Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Asphalt
Surfaces
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Product
s

0.86 0.86 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.86 0.86 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Product
s

0.86 0.86 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 0.86 0.86 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Product
s

0.16 0.16 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Edison Park Improvements Detailed Report, 8/27/2025
44 / 74
Landsca
Equipment

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.16 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00

4.3.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Product
s

0.86 0.86 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent

0.16 0.16 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Edison Park Improvements Detailed Report, 8/27/2025
45 / 74
Total 0.16 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 334 334 0.02 < 0.005 — 335
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.10 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.10 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.10 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.10 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 334 334 0.02 < 0.005 — 336 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 334 334 0.02 < 0.005 — 335
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.10 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.10 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.10 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.10 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 334 334 0.02 < 0.005 — 336 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 55.3 55.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 55.5 Edison Park Improvements Detailed Report, 8/27/2025
46 / 74
Parking — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.02 Lot
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.02 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 55.4 55.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 55.6

4.4.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 334 334 0.02 < 0.005 — 335
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.10 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.10 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.10 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.10 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 334 334 0.02 < 0.005 — 336 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 334 334 0.02 < 0.005 — 335
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.10 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.10 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.10 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.10 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 334 334 0.02 < 0.005 — 336 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Edison Park Improvements Detailed Report, 8/27/2025
47 / 74
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 55.3 55.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 55.5 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.02 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.02 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 55.4 55.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 55.6

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 1.65 0.00 1.65 0.16 0.00 — 5.76
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 1.65 0.00 1.65 0.16 0.00 — 5.76 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 1.65 0.00 1.65 0.16 0.00 — 5.76
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Edison Park Improvements Detailed Report, 8/27/2025
48 / 74
Other — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Asphalt
Surfaces
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 1.65 0.00 1.65 0.16 0.00 — 5.76 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.27 0.00 0.27 0.03 0.00 — 0.95
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.27 0.00 0.27 0.03 0.00 — 0.95

4.5.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 1.65 0.00 1.65 0.16 0.00 — 5.76
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 1.65 0.00 1.65 0.16 0.00 — 5.76 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 1.65 0.00 1.65 0.16 0.00 — 5.76
Edison Park Improvements Detailed Report, 8/27/2025
49 / 74
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 1.65 0.00 1.65 0.16 0.00 — 5.76 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.27 0.00 0.27 0.03 0.00 — 0.95
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.27 0.00 0.27 0.03 0.00 — 0.95

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Edison Park Improvements Detailed Report, 8/27/2025
50 / 74
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00

4.6.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Edison Park Improvements Detailed Report, 8/27/2025
51 / 74
Equipm TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e ent
Type
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.7.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
Edison Park Improvements Detailed Report, 8/27/2025
52 / 74

4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.8.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Edison Park Improvements Detailed Report, 8/27/2025
53 / 74

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.9.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Edison Park Improvements Detailed Report, 8/27/2025
54 / 74
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetati
on
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Edison Park Improvements Detailed Report, 8/27/2025
55 / 74
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Edison Park Improvements Detailed Report, 8/27/2025
56 / 74
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetati
on
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Edison Park Improvements Detailed Report, 8/27/2025
57 / 74
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Edison Park Improvements Detailed Report, 8/27/2025
58 / 74
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Demolition Demolition 9/1/2026 9/30/2026 5.00 22.0 —
Grading Grading 10/1/2026 11/30/2026 5.00 43.0 —
Building Construction Building Construction 12/1/2026 7/31/2027 5.00 174 — Paving Paving 8/1/2027 8/31/2027 5.00 22.0 —
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 9/1/2027 9/30/2027 5.00 22.0 —

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Edison Park Improvements Detailed Report, 8/27/2025
59 / 74
Demolition Excavators Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 367 0.40 Grading Excavators Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Grading Scrapers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 423 0.48
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 3.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Paving Pavers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48

5.2.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Demolition Excavators Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 367 0.40 Grading Excavators Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Grading Scrapers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 423 0.48
Edison Park Improvements Detailed Report, 8/27/2025
60 / 74
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Back Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37 Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 3.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Paving Pavers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition — — — —
Demolition Worker 15.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 4.59 20.0 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 20.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 0.00 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 0.00 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Edison Park Improvements Detailed Report, 8/27/2025
61 / 74
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 15.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating — — — —
Architectural Coating Worker 0.00 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.3.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition — — — —
Demolition Worker 15.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 4.59 20.0 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 20.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 0.00 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 0.00 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Edison Park Improvements Detailed Report, 8/27/2025
62 / 74
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 15.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating — — — —
Architectural Coating Worker 0.00 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.

5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (cy) Material Exported (cy) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (Ton of Debris)
Acres Paved (acres)
Demolition 0.00 0.00 0.00 402 —
Grading — — 129 0.00 —
Edison Park Improvements Detailed Report, 8/27/2025
63 / 74
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.35

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.

5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
City Park 0.00 0%
Parking Lot 0.67 100%
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.69 100%

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
2026 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005
2027 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year City Park 31.0 31.0 31.0 11,314 412 412 412 150,483
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

5.9.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Edison Park Improvements Detailed Report, 8/27/2025
64 / 74
City Park 31.0 31.0 31.0 11,314 412 412 412 150,483
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.1.2. Mitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
— — — — —

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 250

5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 250

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
Edison Park Improvements Detailed Report, 8/27/2025
65 / 74

5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) City Park 0.00 532 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
Parking Lot 25,414 532 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 532 0.0330 0.0040 0.00

5.11.2. Mitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) City Park 0.00 532 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
Parking Lot 25,414 532 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 532 0.0330 0.0040 0.00

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) City Park 0.00 43,201,242
Parking Lot 0.00 12,960
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 12,960

5.12.2. Mitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) City Park 0.00 43,201,242
Parking Lot 0.00 12,960
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 12,960
Edison Park Improvements Detailed Report, 8/27/2025
66 / 74

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
City Park 3.05 —
Parking Lot 0.00 —
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 —

5.13.2. Mitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
City Park 3.05 —
Parking Lot 0.00 —
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 —

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced City Park Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
City Park Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00

5.14.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced City Park Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Edison Park Improvements Detailed Report, 8/27/2025
67 / 74
City Park Stand-alone retail R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00 refrigerators and
freezers

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor

5.15.2. Mitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Year Horsepower Load Factor

5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr)

5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Edison Park Improvements Detailed Report, 8/27/2025
68 / 74
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

5.18.2.2. Mitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.

Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Edison Park Improvements Detailed Report, 8/27/2025
69 / 74
Temperature and Extreme Heat 8.74 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 3.50 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise 0.84 meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 0.00 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (Radke et al., 2017, CEC-500-2017-008), and consider inundation location and depth for the San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and California coast resulting different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four scenarios to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four scenarios are: No rise, 0.5 meter, 1.0 meter, 1.41 meters Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 1 0 0 N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 0 0 N/A
Wildfire 1 0 0 N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 0 0 0 N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Edison Park Improvements Detailed Report, 8/27/2025
70 / 74
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 1 1 1 2
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 1 1 2
Wildfire 1 1 1 2
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 1 1 1 2
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 37.6
AQ-PM 55.4
AQ-DPM 30.8
Drinking Water 36.2
Lead Risk Housing 25.6
Pesticides 0.00
Toxic Releases 84.9
Edison Park Improvements Detailed Report, 8/27/2025
71 / 74
Traffic 51.3
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 74.9
Groundwater 14.3
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 35.6
Impaired Water Bodies 23.9
Solid Waste 89.3
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 22.9
Cardio-vascular 30.5
Low Birth Weights 23.9
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 40.1
Housing 34.2
Linguistic 15.6
Poverty 25.3
Unemployment 53.9

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 93.14769665
Employed 58.62953933
Median HI 75.32400873
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 64.96856153
High school enrollment 100
Edison Park Improvements Detailed Report, 8/27/2025
72 / 74
Preschool enrollment 39.48415244
Transportation —
Auto Access 83.51084306
Active commuting 23.08481971
Social —
2-parent households 73.87398948
Voting 38.00846914
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 37.20005133
Park access 45.96432696
Retail density 23.27730014
Supermarket access 65.72565123
Tree canopy 19.87681252
Housing —
Homeownership 70.64031823
Housing habitability 80.95726934
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 80.803285
Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 69.40844347
Uncrowded housing 68.66418581
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 91.7875016
Arthritis 63.4
Asthma ER Admissions 86.6
High Blood Pressure 81.4
Cancer (excluding skin) 29.3
Asthma 58.2
Coronary Heart Disease 74.7
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 68.2
Edison Park Improvements Detailed Report, 8/27/2025
73 / 74
Diagnosed Diabetes 90.6
Life Expectancy at Birth 36.8
Cognitively Disabled 74.6
Physically Disabled 73.0
Heart Attack ER Admissions 89.6
Mental Health Not Good 68.6
Chronic Kidney Disease 85.5
Obesity 80.7
Pedestrian Injuries 95.6
Physical Health Not Good 82.3
Stroke 84.7
Health Risk Behaviors—
Binge Drinking 2.1
Current Smoker 61.3
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 85.5
Climate Change Exposures—
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 3.5
Children 91.6
Elderly 56.5
English Speaking 98.1
Foreign-born 7.8
Outdoor Workers 48.6
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity—
Impervious Surface Cover 14.4
Traffic Density 34.4
Traffic Access 64.5
Other Indices—
Edison Park Improvements Detailed Report, 8/27/2025
74 / 74
Hardship 5.2
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 74.5

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 28.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 74.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) No Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) No Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Construction: Construction Phases In this scenario, single-phase project construction would occur for a duration of approximately 13 months and the project is anticipated to be operational by September 2027.

Operations: Vehicle Data Based on the Edison Park Reconfiguration and Improvements – Vehicle Miles Traveled Assessment
Edison Park Improvement
Energy Calculations
(kWh/yr) (MWh/yr)
Park Use 25,414 25
Totals 25,414 25
1 kBTU = 0.01 therms
Electricity (MWh) 25 276,212,886 0.00001%
Land Use Electricity Use
Percentage Increase
Countywide
Energy Type
Orange County
Annual Energy
Consumption
(2021) Project Annual
Energy
Consumption
Edison Park Improvement
Energy Calculations
Vehicle Type Percent of Vehicle Trips1 Daily Trips2 Annual Vehicle Miles Traveled Average Fuel
Economy (miles per
gallon)3
Total Annual Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)4
Passenger Cars 0.50 15 5,614 22 255
Light/Medium Trucks 0.46 14 5,258 17.3 304 County On-Road Heavy Trucks/Other 0.04 1 443 6.4 69 2026
TOTAL 6 1.00 31 11,314 -- 628 1,012,273,716

0.0001%

5. Values may be slightly off due to rounding.

Source: Refer to CalEEMod outputs for assumptions used in this analysis.

Notes:

1. Percent of Vehicle Trip distribution based on trip characteristics within the CalEEMod model.

2. Daily Trips taken from ITE manual.

3. Average fuel economy derived from the Department of Transportation.

4. Total Daily Fuel Consumption calculated by dividing the daily VMT by the average fuel economy (i.e., VMT/Average Fuel Economy).

Edison Park Improvement
Energy Calculations
Phase Phase Length
(# days) # Worker Trips Worker Trip Length Total VMT Fuel Consumption Factor (Miles/Gallon/Day) Total Fuel Consumption
Demolition 22 30 18.5 12,210 490.31
Grading 43 40 18.5 31,820 1,277.77
Building Construction 174 0 18.5 0 0.00
Paving 22 30 18.5 12,210 490.31
Architectural Coating 22 0 18.5 0 0.00
2,258.38
Phase Phase Length
(# days) # Vendor Trips Vendor Trip Length Total VMT Fuel Consumption Factor (Miles/Gallon/Day) Total Fuel Consumption
Demolition 22 0 10.2 0 0.00
Grading 43 0 10.2 0 0.00
Building Construction 174 0 10.2 0 0.00
Paving 22 0 10.2 0 0.00
Architectural Coating 22 0 10.2 0 0.00

0.00 Phase Phase Length
(# days) # Hauling Trips Hauling Trip Length Total VMT Fuel Consumption Factor (Miles/Gallon/Day)1 Total Fuel Consumption
Demolition 22 10 20 4,400 527.33
Grading 43 0 20 0 0.00
Building Construction 174 0 20 0 0.00
Paving 22 0 20 0 0.00
Architectural Coating 22 0 20 0 0.00
527.33
2,785.71
County On-road Gallons 1,056,094,532
2026 0.0003%

TOTAL OFF-SITE MOBILE GALLONS CONSUMED DURING CONSTRUCTION

WORKER TRIPS

VENDOR TRIPS

HAULING TRIPS

24.90284233

8.343886151

8.343886151
Edison Park Improvement
Energy Calculations
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Consumption Rate (gallons per hour)
Duration (total
hours/day) # days Total Fuel Consumption (gallons)
Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8 33 0.73 0.9636 8 22 169.59 Demolition Excavator 3 8 36 0.38 0.5472 24 22 288.92
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8 367 0.40 5.872 16 22 2066.94 Grading Excavator 2 8 36 0.38 0.5472 16 43 376.47
Grading Graders 1 8 148 0.41 2.4272 8 43 834.96
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8 367 0.40 5.872 8 43 2019.968 Grading Scrapers 2 8 423 0.48 8.1216 16 43 5587.66
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8 84 0.37 1.2432 16 43 855.32 Building Construction Cranes 1 7 367 0.29 4.2572 7 174 5185.27 Building Construction Forklifts 3 8 82 0.20 0.656 24 174 2739.46 Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8 14 0.74 0.4144 8 174 576.84 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7 84 0.37 1.2432 21 174 4542.65 Building Construction Welders 1 8 46 0.45 0.828 8 174 1152.58 Paving Pavers 2 8 81 0.42 1.3608 16 22 479.00
Paving Paving Equipment 2 8 89 0.36 1.2816 16 22 451.12 Paving Rollers 2 8 36 0.38 0.5472 16 22 192.61
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6 37 0.48 0.7104 6 22 93.77 Total: 27,613.15
Notes:

City Council/Public Financing AuthorityMarch 3, 2026

City Council/Public Financing Authority
March 3, 2026