Stanton City Council
June 24, 2025

Mitigation Measures
Construction
AQ-1 The City of Stanton (City) shall specify in the construction bid that the construction contractor(s) shall water exposed ground surfaces and disturbed areas three times per day during earthmoving activities (i.e., site preparation, rough grading, and fine grading) to minimize fugitive dust. Prior to construction, the construction contractor(s) shall ensure that all construction plans clearly show the watering requirement to control fugitive dust.

Table 5 Localized Construction Emissions with Mitigation Incorporated Construction Activity
Pollutants(lbs/day)1
NOX CO PM102 PM2.52
South Coast AQMD 3.50-Acre LSTs 149 984 9.50 5.50
Site Preparation 37 34 7.85 4.25
Exceeds LST? No No No No
Source: CalEEMod Version 2022.1. South Coast AQMD 2008, 2011, and 2023.

Notes: In accordance with South Coast AQMD methodology, only onsite stationary sources and mobile equipment are included in the analysis. Screening level LSTs are based on receptors within 82 feet (25 meters) in SRA 17. 1 Where specific information for project-related construction activities or processes was not available modeling was based on CalEEMod defaults. These defaults are based on construction surveys conducted by the South Coast AQMD. 2 Includes fugitive dust control measures required by South Coast AQMD under Rule 403, such as reducing speed limit to 25 miles per hour on unpaved surfaces, replacing ground cover quickly, and street sweeping with Rule 1186–compliant sweepers. Modeling also includes Mitigation Measure AQ-1, which would entail watering exposed areas a minimum of three times per day during earthmoving activities.

Construction Health Risk
Emissions from construction equipment primarily consist of diesel particulate matter (DPM). In 2015, the Office of Environmental Health Hazards Assessment adopted guidance for preparation of health risk assessments, which included the development of a cancer risk factor and non-cancer chronic reference exposure level for DPM over a 30-year time frame (OEHHA 2015). Currently, South Coast AQMD does not require the evaluation of long-term excess cancer risk or chronic health impacts for a short-term project. The proposed project is anticipated to be completed in approximately 11 months, which would limit the exposure to onsite and offsite receptors. Furthermore, construction activities would not generate onsite exhaust emissions that would exceed the screening-level construction LSTs. Thus, construction emissions would not pose a health risk to onsite and offsite receptors, and project-related construction health impacts would be less than significant.

Operation LSTs
Operation of the proposed project would not generate substantial emissions from onsite stationary sources.

Land uses that have the potential to generate substantial stationary sources of emissions include industrial land uses, such as chemical processing and warehousing operations where truck idling would occur onsite and would require a permit from South Coast AQMD. The proposed project involves redevelopment of a park and would not fall within these categories of uses. Localized air quality impacts related to operation-related emissions would be less than significant.

N O R M R O S S S P O R T S P A R K I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N

C I T Y O F S T A N T O N

3. Environmental Analysis
April 2025 Page 45
Carbon Monoxide Hotspots
Vehicle congestion has the potential to create pockets of CO called hotspots. Hotspots are typically produced at intersections, where traffic congestion is highest because vehicles are backed-up and idle for longer periods and are subject to reduced speeds. These pockets could exceed the state one-hour standard of 20 parts per million (ppm) or the eight-hour standard of 9.0 ppm. Because CO is produced in greatest quantities from vehicle combustion and does not readily disperse into the atmosphere, adherence to AAQS is typically demonstrated through an analysis of localized CO concentrations.

The SoCAB has been designated attainment under both the national and California AAQS for CO. Under existing and future vehicle emission rates, a project would have to increase traffic volumes at a single intersection to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour—or 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited—in order to generate a significant CO impact (BAAQMD 2023). As shown in Appendix F, the project-related 19 peak hour AM and 83 PM peak hour vehicle trips would be minimal compared to the AAQS screening levels (Garland and Associates 2023). The proposed project would not substantially increase CO hotspots at intersections and impacts would be less than significant. d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not result in objectionable odors. The threshold for odor is if a project creates an odor nuisance pursuant to South Coast AQMD Rule 402, Nuisance, which states:

A person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. The provisions of this rule shall not apply to odors emanating from agricultural operations necessary for the growing of crops or the raising of fowl or animals.

The type of facilities that are considered to have objectionable odors include wastewater treatments plants, compost facilities, landfills, solid waste transfer stations, fiberglass manufacturing facilities, paint/coating operations (e.g., auto body shops), dairy farms, petroleum refineries, asphalt batch plants, chemical manufacturing, and food manufacturing facilities. The proposed project involves construction and improvements to an existing park and would not fall within the objectionable odors land uses. Emissions from construction equipment, such as diesel exhaust and volatile organic compounds from architectural coatings and paving activities may generate odors. However, these odors would be low in concentration, temporary, and would not affect a substantial number of people. Odor impacts would be less than significant.

N O R M R O S S S P O R T S P A R K I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N

C I T Y O F S T A N T O N

3. Environmental Analysis

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
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 Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
X
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
X
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?
X
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?
X
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
X
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?
X
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 Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is developed as a joint-use sports park and is part of an existing elementary school. The project site contains disturbed natural grass field and mature ornamental trees and vegetation. Sixteen trees line the perimeter of the project site: four chinaberry trees (Melia Azedarach), three melaleuca species, one Tulip Tree (Liriodendron Tulipifera), two pinus species, four Holly oaks (Quercus Ilex), one orchard tree (Baudinia), and one dead tree. None of these trees are identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species (CNDDB 2024). Though the proposed project may require tree removal, the proposed project would not impact any special status tree species.

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) BIOS mapper identified the project site as a limited habitat terrestrial connectivity area with no riparian corridors (CDFW 2024a). However, the project site is fully

N O R M R O S S S P O R T S P A R K I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N

C I T Y O F S T A N T O N

3. Environmental Analysis
April 2025 Page 47
developed as a park and would continue to operate as a park. Additionally, the project site is surrounded by various urban uses, and there is no native habitat or no habitat suitable for candidate, sensitive, or special status species on-site. The project site is in the Anaheim Quad of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), which has 27 special status species, including 11 birds, one fish, one amphibian, two insects, one mammal, two reptiles, and nine plant species (CDFW 2022).

Considering the disturbed nature of the project site, the project site does not provide native habitat for candidate, sensitive, or special status species. The project site is heavily disturbed by human activities, and any use of the site by sensitive species would be incidental foraging, which does not constitute habitat use.

The Stanton storm channel, which runs along the north side of the project site is identified as riverine habitat by the National Wetlands Mapper (USFWS 2024). As discussed in Section 3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, the proposed project includes the construction of a new pedestrian bridge over the existing stormwater channel along the northern side of the project site; however, the footings for the pedestrian bridge would be entirely outside of the channel and the bridge would extend over the channel. Therefore, the proposed project would not interfere with water flows within the existing drainage channel nor potential riparian wildlife movement.

Further, construction and operation of the proposed project would be required to comply with applicable permits that regulate stormwater runoff and incorporate best management practices (BMPs) consistent with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program, Construction General Permit (CGP), Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit, and City regulations. Further, as discussed in Section

1.4, Project Description, the proposed project would include stormwater infrastructure onsite, and operation of the proposed project would not direct stormwater runoff to the channel. As a result of compliance with regulations, implementation of BMPs, and stormwater infrastructure onsite, the proposed project will not directly or indirectly affect species that may use the channel. Impacts would be less than significant. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Less than Significant Impact. The project site is developed as a joint-use sports park and is part of an existing elementary school. The project site is currently unused with the exception of the community garden. The Stanton storm channel, which runs along the north side of the project site is identified as riverine habitat by the National Wetlands Mapper, with a classification of “R4SBAr” (USFWS 2024). Riverine (R) is defined as “The Riverine System includes all wetlands and deepwater habitats contained within a channel, with two exceptions: (1) wetlands dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, emergent mosses, or lichens, and (2) habitats with water containing ocean-derived salts of 0.5 ppt or greater. A channel is an open conduit either naturally or artificially created which periodically or continuously contains moving water, or which forms a connecting link between two bodies of standing water” (USFWS 2024). The “4” designation indicates that the channel contains flowing water only part of the year (intermittent). When the water is not flowing, the channel may contain water in isolated pools or surface water may be absent. The “SB” designation indicates “Includes all wetlands contained within the Intermittent Subsystem of the Riverine System and all channels of the Estuarine System or of the Tidal Subsystem of the Riverine System that are completely dewatered at low tide.”

N O R M R O S S S P O R T S P A R K I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N

C I T Y O F S T A N T O N

3. Environmental Analysis

The “A” and “r” designations indicate that the channel temporarily floods, but the groundwater lies well below the ground surface for most of the season and that the channel is concrete lined drainage way (USFWS 2024).

As discussed in Section 3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, the proposed project includes the construction of a new pedestrian bridge over the existing stormwater channel along the northern side of the project site; however, the footings for the pedestrian bridge would be entirely outside of the channel and the bridge would extend over the channel. Therefore, the proposed project would not interfere with water flows within the existing drainage channel nor interfere with the riverine habitat. Further, construction and operation of the proposed project would be required to comply with applicable permits that regulate stormwater runoff and incorporate BMPs consistent with the NPDES program, CGP, MS4 permit, and City regulations. Further, as discussed in Section 1.4, Project Description, the proposed project would include stormwater infrastructure onsite and operation of the proposed project would not direct stormwater runoff to the channel. Compliance with regulations, implementation of BMPs, and stormwater infrastructure ensure, the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community. Less than significant impact would occur.
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. The project site is developed as a joint-use sports park and is part of an existing school. As discussed under Section 3.4(b), above, the Stanton storm channel runs along the northern side of the project site and is identified as riverine habitat (USFWS 2024). As discussed in Section 3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, the proposed project includes the construction of a new pedestrian bridge over the existing stormwater channel along the northern side of the project site; however, the footings for the pedestrian bridge would be entirely outside of the channel and the bridge would extend over the channel. Therefore, the proposed project would not interfere with water flows within the existing drainage channel nor interfere with the riverine habitat. Further, construction and operation of the proposed project would be required to comply with applicable permits that regulate stormwater runoff and incorporate BMPs consistent with the NPDES program, CGP, MS4 permit, and City regulations. Further, as discussed in Section 1.4, Project Description, the proposed project would include stormwater infrastructure onsite and operation of the proposed project would not direct stormwater runoff to the channel. Compliance with regulations, implementation of BMPs, and stormwater infrastructure onsite, proposed project would not impact the drainage channel, and no substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands would occur. Less than significant impact would occur. 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 With Mitigation Incorporated. Wildlife movement corridors facilitate the movement of species between large patches of natural habitat. As previously discussed, CDFW BIOS mapper identified the project site as a limited habitat terrestrial connectivity area with no riparian corridors (CDFW 2024a). However, the project site is already developed as a joint-use sports park and is part of an existing

N O R M R O S S S P O R T S P A R K I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N

C I T Y O F S T A N T O N

3. Environmental Analysis
April 2025 Page 49
elementary school campus; and would continue to operate as a park. The project site contains disturbed habitat comprised of natural grass turf athletic field and nonnative landscaping and ornamental trees, and therefore lacks suitable habitat for wildlife species and is not a native wildlife nursery site. Based on the existing developed condition of the project site and the surrounding area, the project site does not meet the definition of a wildlife corridor and is not expected to serve or contribute to a wildlife movement corridor. As discussed in Section

3.4(b) and (c) above, a Stanton storm drain channel runs along the northern side of the project site, and the construction and operation of the proposed project would not affect the channel, which could be used by fish and other wildlife species.

There are ornamental trees on-site that could be used for nesting by birds. However, when removing trees or vegetation, in compliance with California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, 3513, and 3800, the proposed project is required to avoid the incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings or nest abandonment. The proposed project would be required to comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (US Code, Title 16, §§ 703 to 712), which governs the taking, killing, possession, transportation, and importation of migratory birds, their eggs, parts, and nests. It prohibits the take, possession, import, export, transport, sale, purchase, barter, or offering of these activities, except under a valid permit or as permitted in the implementing regulations. USFWS administers permits to take migratory birds in accordance with the MBTA. Unlike the federal Endangered Species Act, which clearly applies to the incidental and unintentional take of listed species, neither the MBTA nor its legislative history addresses whether the law was intended to prohibit the incidental and unintentional take of migratory birds, or only hunting and other forms of direct, intentional take. As of December 3, 2021, the incidental take of protected migratory birds is prohibited, and violations are subject to discretionary enforcement by the USFWS. The proposed project would implement Mitigation Measure BIO-1, which would require the preparation of preconstruction avian surveys. This requirement is included as a mitigation measure to ensure that the proposed project does not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors.

Construction outside the nesting season (between September 1 and January 31) does not require preconstruction nesting bird surveys. The project site contains trees and grasslands expected to provide nesting habitat for birds, and implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would ensure that impacts are reduced to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measure
BIO-1 Preconstruction Avian Survey. If project construction-related activities take place during the nesting season (February through August), preconstruction surveys for nesting birds and raptors (birds of prey) within the existing trees onsite, which would be removed during construction, shall be conducted by a qualified biologist 14 days prior to the commencement of the tree removal or site grading activities. If any bird listed under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act is found to be nesting within the project site or within the area of construction-related activities, an adequate protective buffer zone shall be established by a qualified biologist to protect the nesting site. This buffer shall be a minimum of 75 feet from the project activities for passerine birds and a minimum of 200 feet for raptors. The distance shall be determined by a qualified biologist based on the site conditions (topography, if the nest is in a line of sight of the construction, and the sensitivity of the birds nesting). Additional protective measures

N O R M R O S S S P O R T S P A R K I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N

C I T Y O F S T A N T O N

3. Environmental Analysis

shall include establishment of clearly delineated exclusion zones (i.e., demarcated by identifiable fencing, such as orange construction fencing or equivalent) around each nest location as determined by a qualified biologist, taking into account the species of birds nesting, their tolerance for disturbance, and proximity to existing development. The nest site(s) shall be monitored by a qualified biologist periodically to see if the birds are stressed by the construction activities and if the protective buffer needs to be increased. Once the young have fledged and are flying well enough to avoid project construction zones (typically by August), the project can proceed without further regard to the nest site(s). e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
No Impact. The City of Stanton does not have any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources such as trees within the City General Plan nor municipal code that are applicable to the proposed project. The City of Stanton Parks Master Plan does contain Goal 6.1, which seeks to increase the urban canopy to provide shade and reduce heat island effect within existing parks and other areas within the City (Stanton 2023a).

Although all sixteen trees on the project site could be removed, a total of 73 various trees would be planted thereby addressing Goal 6.1 by adding to the urban campy in the City. Therefore, no impact would occur. 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. The project site is within the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP) (CDFW 2024b). The project site is not in the oversight of OCTA, and the NCCP/HCP would not apply. The project site contains disturbed natural grass field, mature ornamental trees and vegetation, which do not constitute native habitat nor high quality habitat. No impact would occur.

3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
The analysis in this section is based in part on the following technical studies, included as Appendix B to this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND):
▪ Record Search Results for the Norm Ross Sports Park Joint Use Project, South Central Coastal Information Center, April 26, 2023
Would the project:

Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to § 15064.5? X

N O R M R O S S S P O R T S P A R K I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N

C I T Y O F S T A N T O N

3. Environmental Analysis
April 2025 Page 51
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? X
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? X
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
No Impact. Section 15064.5 defines historic resources as resources listed or determined to be eligible for listing by the State Historical Resources Commission, a local register of historical resources, or the lead agency.

Generally a resource is considered “historically significant” if it meets one of the following criteria:
i) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage;
ii) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; iii) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; iv) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

The project site is within the Carver Early Education Center and was developed as a joint use sports park in 1983. A records search of files and maps was performed by the South-Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC). The records search indicated the project site is not listed in the Office of Historic Preservation’s Listed California Historical Resources, California Points of Historical Interest, California Historical Landmarks, California Register of Historical Resources, and not in the National Register of Historic Places (SCCIC 2023).

Implementation of the proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. No impact would occur.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Based on the SCCIC record search, the project site does not contain any known archaeological resources. However, two built environmental resources and three resources listed on the Office of Historic Preservation Built Environment Resources Directory listings exist within a quarter-mile of the project site (SCCIC 2023). Project construction would occur within the boundaries of the project site and would not impact the identified resources. Implementation of the proposed project would require ground-disturbing activities. New ground-disturbing activities could have the potential to uncover previously unknown archaeological resources, and therefore, could result in a potentially significant impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would ensure that if resources are discovered

N O R M R O S S S P O R T S P A R K I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N

C I T Y O F S T A N T O N

3. Environmental Analysis

during ground disturbing activities, that resources would be recovered in accordance with state and federal requirements. In the event that archaeological resources are discovered, a halt-work condition would be implemented, and a qualified archaeologist would be retained to assess such findings. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would reduce impacts to archaeological resources to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measure
CUL-1 Prior to issuance of grading permits, a qualified archaeological monitor shall be identified to be on call during ground-disturbing activities. If archeological resources are discovered during excavation and/or construction activities, construction shall stop within 25 feet of the find, and the qualified archaeologist shall be consulted to determine whether the resource requires further study. The archaeologist shall make recommendations to the applicant to protect the discovered resources. Archaeological resources recovered shall be provided to the South Central Coast Information Center (SCCIC) or any other local museum or repository willing and able to accept and house the resource to preserve for future scientific study. c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? Less Than Significant Impact. There are no known human remains or cemeteries on the project site or adjoining properties. As described previously, the project site has been previously developed and disturbed with park uses and the surrounding land uses are fully developed; the likelihood that human remains would be discovered during site clearing and grading activities is low. Nonetheless, due to ground-disturbing activities, there could be a potential for discovering unknown human remains.

In the unlikely event that the project applicant discovers human remains during ground-disturbing activities, California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that disturbance of the site shall be halted. The County Coroner shall investigate the circumstances, manner, and cause of any death and recommend the treatment and disposition of the human remains to the person responsible for the excavation or to his or her authorized representative, in the manner provided in Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code.

The coroner is required to determine within two working days of notification of the discovery of the human remains. If the coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his or her authority or has reason to believe the human remains to be those of a Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) so that NAHC can contact the “most likely descendant.” The most likely descendant shall receive access to the discovery and will provide recommendations or preferences for treatment of the remains within 48 hours of accessing the discovery site. Disposition of human remains and any associated grave goods, if encountered, shall be treated in accordance with procedures and requirements set forth in Sections 5097.94 and 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code; Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code; and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. Compliance with existing law regarding the discovery of human remains would ensure that potential impacts would be less than significant.

3.6 ENERGY
Would the project:

N O R M R O S S S P O R T S P A R K I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N

C I T Y O F S T A N T O N

3. Environmental Analysis
April 2025 Page 53
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VI. ENERGY. Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
X
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? X
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Less Than Significant Impact. The following discusses the potential energy demands from construction activities associated with the construction and operation of the proposed project.

Short-Term Construction Impacts
Construction of the proposed project would create temporary increased demands for electricity and vehicle fuels compared to existing conditions and would result in short-term transportation-related energy use.

Electrical Energy
The majority of construction equipment would be gas- or diesel-powered, and electricity would not be used to power most of the construction equipment. Electricity use during construction would vary during different phases of construction. Later construction phases could result in the use of electric-powered equipment for interior construction and architectural coatings (if applicable). It is anticipated that the majority of electricpowered construction equipment would be hand tools (e.g., power drills, table saws) and lighting, which would result in minimal electricity usage during construction activities. Therefore, project-related construction activities would not result in wasteful or unnecessary electricity demands, and impacts would be less than significant.

Natural Gas Energy
It is not anticipated that construction equipment used for the proposed project would be powered by natural gas, and no natural gas demand is anticipated during construction. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with respect to natural gas usage.

Transportation Energy
Transportation energy use during construction of the proposed project would come from delivery vehicles, haul trucks, and construction employee vehicles. In addition, transportation energy demand would come from use of off-road construction equipment. It is anticipated that the majority of off-road construction equipment, such as those used during demolition and grading, would be gas or diesel powered.

N O R M R O S S S P O R T S P A R K I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N

C I T Y O F S T A N T O N

3. Environmental Analysis

The use of energy resources by vehicles and equipment would fluctuate according to the phase of construction and would be temporary. In addition, all construction equipment would cease operating upon completion of project construction. Thus, impacts related to transportation energy use during construction would be temporary and would not require expanded energy supplies or the construction of new infrastructure.

Furthermore, to limit wasteful and unnecessary energy consumption, the construction contractors are anticipated to minimize nonessential idling of construction equipment during construction, in accordance with Section 2449 of the California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Article 4.8, Chapter 9.

Construction trips would also not result in unnecessary use of energy since the project site is centrally located and is served by numerous regional freeway systems (e.g., I-5, I-405, SR 91, SR22) that provide the most direct routes from various areas of the region. Thus, energy use during construction of the project would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary. Impacts would be less than significant.

Long-Term Impacts During Operation
Operation of the proposed project would generate new demand for electricity, natural gas, and transportation energy on the project site. Operational use of energy would include heating, cooling, and ventilation of buildings; water heating; operation of electrical systems, use of on-site equipment and appliances; and indoor and outdoor lighting.

Electrical Energy
Operation of the proposed project would consume electricity for various purposes, including, but not limited to heating, cooling, and ventilation of buildings as well as operation of electrical systems, lighting, and use of on-site equipment and appliances. Electrical service to the proposed project would be provided by Southern California Edison (SCE) through connections to existing off-site electrical lines and new on-site infrastructure.

As shown in Table 6, Electricity Consumption, implementation of the proposed project would result in a new electricity demand of 82,467 kilowatt hours (kWh) of electricity use per year from use of the community building and field lighting.

N O R M R O S S S P O R T S P A R K I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N

C I T Y O F S T A N T O N

3. Environmental Analysis
April 2025 Page 55
Table 6 Electricity Consumption
Land Use Electricity (kWh/year)
Community Building1,2, 3 47,964
Field Lighting 34,503
Electricity Consumption 82,467
Source: CalEEMod Version 2022.1. Appendix A.

Note: kWh = kilowatt hour(s)
1 Estimated electricity consumption based on health club energy rates from EDFZ 7 from CalEEMod Appendix G, Default Data Tables, as an approximation since CalEEMod "City Park" land use default rates do not account for electricity use. 2 Calculations based on Musco Lighting Plan for the proposed field lighting as provided by the City. Modeling assumes field lighting will be used every day of the year (365 days) for an average of 3 hours per day.
3 For CalEEMod modeling, a 5,000-square-foot building was modeled which is larger than the proposed 3,588-square-foot buildings (2,533-square-foot park building and 1,055-square-foot garden storage building) and provides a conservative analysis.

While the proposed project would result in new electricity demand on the project site, it would be required to comply with the applicable Building Energy Efficiency Standards and California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) requirements. In addition, the Building Energy Efficiency Standards mandate an increase in building energy efficiency every three years, therefore the new building would be designed to be more energy efficient.

In addition to the proposed building energy efficiency, SCE is required to comply with the state’s renewable portfolios standard (RPS), which mandates utilities to procure a certain proportion of electricity from eligible renewable and carbon-free sources and increasing the proportion through the coming years with an ultimate procurement requirement of 100 percent by 2045. The RPS requirements would support use of electricity by the proposed project that is generated from renewable or carbon-free sources. Overall, the proposed project would generally be consistent with the goals outlined in Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines regarding increasing energy efficiency, decreasing reliance on fossil fuels, and increasing renewable energy sources.

Compliance with these standards would contribute to minimizing inefficient energy use by the proposed community building and field lighting. Therefore, operation of the proposed project would not result in wasteful or unnecessary electricity demands and would not result in a significant impact related to electricity.

Natural Gas Energy
Table 7, Operation-Related Natural Gas Consumption, shows the natural gas demand associated with the proposed project would be 214,010 kilo-British thermal units per year. While the proposed project would result in new natural gas demand on the project site, the proposed community building would be consistent with the requirements of the Building Energy Efficiency Standards. Compliance with the Building Energy Efficiency Standards would include installation of a high efficiency heating, ventilation, and air conditioning system and thermal envelope (e.g., insulation materials), which would contribute to reducing natural gas demands and decreasing overall reliance on fossil fuels. Therefore, operation of the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts with respect to natural gas usage.

N O R M R O S S S P O R T S P A R K I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N

C I T Y O F S T A N T O N

3. Environmental Analysis

Table 7 Operation-Related Natural Gas Consumption
Land Use Natural Gas (kBTU/year)1, 2
Community Building 214,010
Source: CalEEMod Version 2022.1. Appendix A.

Note: kBTU=kilo-British thermal units.
1 Estimated natural gas consumption based on health club energy rates from EDFZ 7 from CalEEMod Appendix G, Default Data Tables, as an approximation since CalEEMod "City Park" land use default rates do not account for natural gas use. 2 For CalEEMod modeling, a 5,000-square-foot building was modeled which is larger than the proposed 3,588-square-foot buildings (2,533-square-foot park building and 1,055-square-foot garden storage building) and provides a conservative analysis.

Transportation Energy
The proposed project would consume transportation energy during operations from the use of motor vehicles associated with visitors to the proposed project. The efficiency of the motor vehicles in use (average miles per gallon) is unknown and highly variable. Thus, estimates of transportation energy use are based on the overall VMT and related transportation energy use. The project-related VMT would primarily come from visitors. The proposed project would redevelop the existing Norm Ross Sports Park and would continue to be a locally serving use.

Fuel efficiency of vehicles after buildout would on average improve compared to vehicle fuel efficiencies experienced under existing conditions, thereby resulting in a lower per capita fuel consumption assuming travel distances, travel modes, and trip rates remain the same. The improvement in fuel efficiency would be attributable to the statewide fuel reduction strategies and regulatory compliances (e.g., CAFE standards), resulting in new cars that are more fuel efficient and the attrition of older, less fuel-efficient vehicles. The CAFE standards are not directly applicable to land use development projects, but to car manufacturers. Thus, the visitors do not have direct control in determining the fuel efficiency of vehicles manufactured and that are made available.

However, compliance with the CAFE standards by car manufacturers would ensure that vehicles produced in future years have greater fuel efficiency and would generally result in an overall benefit of reducing fuel usage by providing the population of the project site’s region more fuel-efficient vehicle options.

Lastly, as electricity consumed in California is required to meet the increasing renewable energy mix requirements under the State’s RPS and accelerated by SB 100, greater and greater proportions of electricity consumed for transportation energy demand envisioned under the proposed project would continue to be sourced from renewable energy sources rather than fossil fuels. Since vehicle fuel efficiencies would improve year over year through the buildout and result in a decrease in overall per capita transportation energy consumption, impacts would be less than significant with respect to operation-related fuel usage. b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Less Than Significant Impact. The following evaluates consistency of the proposed project with California’s Renewables Portfolio Standard program and the SCAG’s RTP/SCS.

N O R M R O S S S P O R T S P A R K I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N

C I T Y O F S T A N T O N

3. Environmental Analysis
April 2025 Page 57
California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program
The state’s electricity grid is transitioning to renewable energy under California’s Renewable Energy Program.

Renewable sources of electricity include wind, small hydropower, solar, geothermal, biomass, and biogas.

Electricity production from renewable sources is generally considered carbon neutral. Executive Order S-14- 08, signed in November 2008, expanded the state’s (RPS to 33 percent renewable power by 2020. This standard was adopted by the legislature in 2011 (SB X1-2). Senate Bill 350 (de Leon) was signed into law September 2015 and establishes tiered increases to the RPS—40 percent by 2024, 45 percent by 2027, and 50 percent by 2030.

Senate Bill 350 also set a new goal to double the energy-efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas through energy efficiency and conservation measures.

On September 10, 2018, Governor Brown signed SB 100, which supersedes the SB 350 requirements. Under SB 100, the RPS for public owned facilities and retail sellers consist of 44 percent renewable energy by 2024, 52 percent by 2027, and 60 percent by 2030. Additionally, SB 100 also established a new RPS requirement of 50 percent by 2026. The bill also established a state policy that eligible renewable energy resources and zerocarbon resources supply 100 percent of all retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers and 100 percent of electricity procured to serve all state agencies by December 31, 2045. Under SB 100 the state cannot increase carbon emissions elsewhere in the western grid or allow resource shuffling to achieve the 100 percent carbon-free electricity target.

The statewide RPS goal is not directly applicable to individual development projects, but to utilities and energy providers such as SCE, which is the utility that would provide all of electricity needs for the proposed project.

Compliance of SCE in meeting the RPS goals would ensure the State in meeting its objective in transitioning to renewable energy. In addition, the proposed project would be required to comply with the applicable Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen requirements. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of California’s RPS Program and impacts would be less than significant.

SCAG’s Regional Transportation Plan / Sustainable Communities Strategy SCAG adopted the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, Connect SoCal, in September 2020 (SCAG 2020). Connect SoCal finds that land use strategies that focus on new housing and job growth in areas rich with destinations and mobility options would be consistent with a land use development pattern that supports and complements the proposed transportation network. The overarching strategy in Connect SoCal is to plan for the southern California region to grow in more compact communities in transit priority areas and priority growth areas; provide neighborhoods with efficient and plentiful public transit; establish abundant and safe opportunities to walk, bike, and pursue other forms of active transportation; and preserve more of the region’s remaining natural lands and farmlands (SCAG 2020). Connect SoCal’s transportation projects help more efficiently distribute population, housing, and employment growth, and forecast development is generally consistent with regionallevel general plan data to promote active transportation and reduce energy consumption.

As described in Section 3.14, Population and Housing, the proposed project would not propose new homes and would serve the existing population in Stanton. Therefore, the proposed project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in the area directly or indirectly. Thus, the proposed project would not exceed

N O R M R O S S S P O R T S P A R K I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N

C I T Y O F S T A N T O N

3. Environmental Analysis

the growth projections described in SCAG’s RTP/SCS. Furthermore, the proposed project would continue to be a locally serving land use and would bring greater efficiency to the existing transportation network by redirecting the existing baseball-related traffic to one location in the City. As shown in Section 3.17, Transportation, the proposed project would generate up to 438 trips per day, which would be below the VMT threshold of 500 trips per day from the Orange County Transportation Implementation Manual. Therefore, impacts to VMT would be less than significant and implementation of the proposed project would not interfere with implementation of Connect SoCal, and impacts would be less than significant.

3.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
The analysis in this section is based in part on the following technical studies, included as Appendix C and D to this IS/MND:
▪ Geotechnical Investigation, Norm Ross Sports Park Proposed Park Building and Bridge Over Storm Channel, John R.

Byerly Inc., April 14, 2023 (Appendix C)
▪ Geologic Hazards Report, Proposed Park Building and Storm Channel Bridge Norm Ross Park, Terra Geosciences, April 11, 2023. (Appendix C)
▪ Paleontological Resources Records Search, Paleontological resources for the Norm Ross Sports Park Joint Use Project. March 26, 2023. (Appendix D)
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

X
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? X iv) Landslides? X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 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?
X
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
X

N O R M R O S S S P O R T S P A R K I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N

C I T Y O F S T A N T O N

3. Environmental Analysis
April 2025 Page 59
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
X
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? X
Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

No Impact. Fault rupture occurs when an active fault displaces during an earthquake. Fault rupture hazards depend on a property’s proximity to an active or potentially active fault and the designation of the site in an Alquist-Priolo Special Study Zone, as defined by the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Act of 1962. The project site is not located within a fault-rupture hazard zone and there are no Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones located within the City of Stanton (DOC 2021, Stanton 2008). Surface rupture on the project site is unlikely to occur since no faults have been identified in the City’s boundaries. The nearest mapped fault that is not zoned as “active” is the Anaheim Fault approximately 0.9 miles to the northeast of the project site (Terra Geosciences 2023). Therefore, project development would not subject people or structures to hazards arising from surface rupture of a known active fault. No impact would occur. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less Than Significant Impact. As stated in the City of Stanton General Plan’s Community Health & Safety Element, there are no Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones located within the City, but there are several potentially active faults within proximity of the City (Stanton 2008). As is typical of Southern California, the proposed project is anticipated to experience ground shaking due to earthquakes. It is anticipated that major earthquake ground shaking would occur during the lifetime of the proposed project from the seismically active Newport-Inglewood fault located approximately 6.5 miles southwest of the project site (John R. Byerly Inc. 2023). The intensity of ground shaking on the project site would depend on the magnitude of the earthquake, the distance to the epicenter, and the geology of the area between the epicenter and the project site.

The proposed project would be designed in accordance with the seismic requirements of the California Building Code (CBC) (California Code of Regulations, Title 24), including a development-specific

N O R M R O S S S P O R T S P A R K I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N

C I T Y O F S T A N T O N

3. Environmental Analysis

subsurface exploration and laboratory testing prior to the design and construction of any structures, and recommendations contained therein would be implemented as required. Additionally, the proposed project would not include any habitable structures other than a community building. Compliance with the requirements of the CBC for structural safety during a seismic event would reduce hazards from strong seismic ground shaking. Impacts from strong seismic ground shaking would be less than significant. iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less Than Significant Impact. Liquefaction is a phenomenon that occurs when soil undergoes a transformation from a solid state to a liquified condition. It refers to loose, saturated sand or silt deposits that behave as a liquid and lose their load-supporting capability when strongly shaken. Loose granular soils and silts that are saturated by relatively shallow groundwater are susceptible to liquefaction. When subjected to seismic ground shaking, affected soils lose strength during liquefaction and foundation failure can occur.

According to the California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, and the Anaheim and Newport Beach 7.5 Minute Quadrangle, the entire city is in a liquefaction hazard zone (Stanton 2008, DOC 2021). According to the geotechnical study, free groundwater was encountered at depths of 18.8 feet, 19.9 feet, and 24.7 feet during borings. Historic high ground water level is estimated to be at a depth of approximately 8 feet below surface grade (John R. Byerly Inc. 2023). The geotechnical study assumed that the upper seven feet of soil would be over excavated and replaced with engineered fill and that the bottom of over excavation would be scarified to a depth of 12 inches. The geotechnical study determined that the silts would behave as clay under seismic conditions and neither liquefaction nor seismically induced dry settlement would result from the construction of the proposed community building (John R. Byerly Inc. 2023). The proposed project would be subjected to the seismic requirements of the CBC. Therefore, compliance with the established standards and implementation of the recommendations based on the geotechnical investigation would ensure that impacts from liquefaction are less than significant.
iv) Landslides?
No Impact. Landslides are the downslope movement of geologic materials. Slope failures in the form of landslides are common during strong seismic shaking in areas of steep hills. The potential for landslides to occur at the project site is very low, since the project site and its surroundings are relatively flat and not within a landslide hazard area as identified by the California Geologic Survey (DOC 2021). Therefore, geologic hazards associated with landslides are not anticipated at the project site. No impact would occur. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less Than Significant Impact. Soil erosion increases substantially by earth-moving activities if erosion control measures are not used. The following is a discussion of the potential erosion impacts resulting from the proposed project’s construction and operational phases.

N O R M R O S S S P O R T S P A R K I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N

C I T Y O F S T A N T O N

3. Environmental Analysis
April 2025 Page 61
Construction
Construction of the proposed project would result in excavation and exposure of underlying soils that could result in soil erosion. Construction of the proposed project would involve earthwork, such as grading and excavating, and construction equipment and vehicle use that could track soil off-site. Additionally, natural processes, such as wind and rain, could further lead to soil erosion during construction. However, construction of the proposed project would be required to comply with federal, state, and local codes regulating construction activities and soil erosion.

The proposed project would be required to obtain a CGP issued by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). The CGP is a requirement that minimizes water pollution from construction activities, including erosion. Since the proposed project activities would occur on greater than 1 acre (approximately 4.2 acres) of land, the proposed improvements at the project site would be subject to the NPDES permitting regulations, including the development and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The proposed project’s construction contractor would be required to prepare and implement a SWPPP and associated BMPs in compliance with the CGP during grading and construction. Further, consistent with Stanton Municipal Code Section 6.20.040, Control of Urban Runoff, the proposed project would be required to adhere to the Orange County drainage area management plan (DAMP), which includes BMPs for nonresidential construction projects, and any conditions or requirements established by the planning department.

Adherence with existing state and local laws regulating construction activities would minimize soil erosion from project-related construction activities. Therefore, soil erosion impacts from project construction would be less than significant.

Operation
The proposed project includes the operation of a park with sport fields, landscaping, hard top courts, dog park, community building, community garden, walking paths, and pedestrian bridge. The proposed project would include pervious and impervious surfaces and would include a infiltration basin or a bioretention basin without underdrain onsite that would capture and treat stormwater runoff. Compared to existing conditions, the proposed project would increase impervious surfaces on the project site. With the development of the proposed project, the project site would not contain unmaintained, bare soil that would have the potential for erosion. The onsite treatment system would be sized according to County low impact development requirements. With the incorporation of stormwater infrastructure onsite, impervious surfaces, maintained landscaping and turf areas, and compliance with applicable permits (such as MS4 permit), operation of the proposed project would not result in substantial erosion. Therefore, potential impacts related to potential for soil erosion would be less than significant.
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. As discussed in Section 3.7(a)(iii) and (a)(iv), impacts from liquefaction and landslide would result in less than significant impact.

N O R M R O S S S P O R T S P A R K I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N

C I T Y O F S T A N T O N

3. Environmental Analysis

Lateral spreading is a phenomenon where large blocks of intact, non-liquefied soil move downslope on a large, liquefied substratum. The mass moves toward an unconfined area, such as a descending slope or stream-cut bluff and has been known to move on slope gradients as little as one degree. The potential for lateral spreading or lurching is highest in areas underlain by soft, saturated materials, especially where bordered by steep banks or adjacent hard ground. The topography of the site is relatively flat, with no embankments within the vicinity; therefore, there is no potential for lateral spreading (Terra Geosciences 2023). No impact would occur.

Subsidence of basins attributed to overdraft of groundwater aquifers or over pumping of petroleum reserves has been reported in various parts of southern California. The project site is located in the areas of recorded subsidence (USGS 2023). However, subsidence is not expected to be an issue for the project site, as discussed below. Additionally, the proposed project would be designed to achieve seismic safety as required by CBC, including design recommendations contained in the geotechnical study. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant level.

According to the geotechnical study, the project site has a potential for 2.5 to 3.2 percent hydroconsolidation in the upper soil, which is considered to have a very low expansion potential (John R. Byerly 2023). Typically, soil collapse occurs when loose, dry, sandy soils become saturated and settle. The upper soil includes soft sandy silts with clay, loose to medium dense silty sands with variable amounts of clay, sand, and gravel (Terra Geosciences 2023). Underlying these surficial sediments are medium dense to very dense silty sands and sands, and medium stiff to very stiff sandy silts with clay and clayey silts with sand, to a depth of at least 76 feet.

Therefore, the potential for chemically induced soil collapse to occur exists. The geotechnical study assumed that the upper seven feet of soil would be over excavated and replaced with engineered fill and that the bottom of over excavation would be scarified to a depth of 12 inches in the area of the community building and pedestrian bridge. The geotechnical study determined that the silts would behave as clay under seismic conditions and seismically induced dry settlement would result from the construction of the proposed community building (John R. Byerly Inc. 2023). Additionally, the proposed project would be designed to achieve seismic safety as required by CBC, including design recommendations contained in the geotechnical study.

Therefore, impacts from collapsible soil would be reduced to a less than significant level. d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Less Than Significant Impact. Expansive soils are characterized by their ability to undergo significant volume change (shrink or swell) due to variations in moisture content. The geotechnical study indicates that the nearsurface soils are granular and non-plastic and are considered to have a very low expansion potential (John R Byerly 2023). Furthermore, it is anticipated that the upper seven feet of soil would be over excavated and replaced with engineered fill for the community building and pedestrian bridge construction to ensure safety from any unstable soil, including expansive soil. The proposed project would also be required to comply with the requirements of the CBC. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

N O R M R O S S S P O R T S P A R K I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N

C I T Y O F S T A N T O N

3. Environmental Analysis
April 2025 Page 63
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? No Impact. The project site would be served by the existing sewer system and would not use septic tanks or other alternative wastewater disposal systems. No impact would occur. f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. According to a paleontological resources search conducted by the Los Angeles County Natural History Museum (see Appendix D), there are no fossil localities that lie directly on the project site, but there are fossil localities nearby from the same sedimentary deposits, within the project site. As the proposed project would include ground disturbing activities, Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would be implemented to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measure
GEO-1 Prior to construction, the City shall identify a qualified paleontologist to be on-call. If unique paleontological resources are discovered during excavation and/or construction activities, construction shall stop within 25 feet of the find, and the qualified paleontologist shall be consulted to determine whether the resource requires further study. The paleontologist shall make recommendations to the City to protect the discovered resources. Any paleontological resources recovered shall be provided to the South-Central Coastal Information Center, Los Angeles County Natural History Museum, or repository willing and able to accept and house the resource to preserve for future scientific study.

3.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Scientists have concluded that human activities are contributing to global climate change by adding large amounts of heat-trapping gases, known as greenhouse gases (GHGs), into the atmosphere. The primary source of these GHG is fossil fuel use. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has identified four major GHGs—water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and O3—that are the likely cause of an increase in global average temperatures observed within the 20th and 21st centuries. Other GHG identified by the IPCC that contribute to global warming to a lesser extent include nitrous oxide (N2O), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and chlorofluorocarbons2. 2 Water vapor (H2O) is the strongest GHG and the most variable in its phases (vapor, cloud droplets, ice crystals). However, water vapor is not considered a pollutant, but part of the feedback loop rather than a primary cause of change.

N O R M R O S S S P O R T S P A R K I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N

C I T Y O F S T A N T O N

3. Environmental Analysis

Information on manufacture of cement, steel, and other “life cycle” emissions that would occur as a result of the project are not applicable and are not included in the analysis3. Black carbon emissions are not included in the GHG analysis because the CARB does not include this pollutant in the state’s Senate Bill 32 (SB 32) and Assembly Bill 1279 (AB 1279) inventory and treats this short-lived climate pollutant separately4. A background discussion on the GHG regulatory setting and GHG modeling can be found in Appendix A to this IS/MND.

Would the project:

Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
X
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
X
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Less Than Significant Impact. Global climate change is not confined to a particular project area and is generally accepted as the consequence of global industrialization over the last 200 years. A typical project, even a very large one, does not generate enough greenhouse gas emissions on its own to influence global climate change significantly; hence, the issue of global climate change is, by definition, a cumulative environmental impact.
3 Life cycle emissions include indirect emissions associated with materials manufacture. However, these indirect emissions involve numerous parties, each of which is responsible for GHG emissions of their particular activity. The California Resources Agency, in adopting the CEQA Guidelines Amendments on GHG emissions found that lifecycle analyses was not warranted for projectspecific CEQA analysis in most situations, for a variety of reasons, including lack of control over some sources, and the possibility of double-counting emissions (CNRA 2018). Because the amount of materials consumed during the operation or construction of the proposed project is not known, the origin of the raw materials purchased is not known, and manufacturing information for those raw materials are also not known, calculation of life cycle emissions would be speculative. A life-cycle analysis is not warranted (OPR 2008).
4 Particulate matter emissions, which include black carbon, are analyzed in Section 3.3, Air Quality. Black carbon emissions have sharply declined due to efforts to reduce on-road and off-road vehicle emissions, especially diesel particulate matter. The state's existing air quality policies will virtually eliminate black carbon emissions from on-road diesel engines within 10 years (CARB 2017).

N O R M R O S S S P O R T S P A R K I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N

C I T Y O F S T A N T O N

3. Environmental Analysis
April 2025 Page 65
Project-related construction and operation-phase GHG emissions are shown in Table 8, Project-Related Operation GHG Emissions. As identified in Section 3.17, Transportation, and in Appendix F, the proposed project would generate 279 non-summer weekday vehicle trips and 415 summer weekday vehicle trips5 and 438 weekend vehicle trips (Garland and Associates 2023). Furthermore, operation of the proposed project would result in additional water demand, wastewater and solid waste generation, refrigerant use, area sources (e.g., consumer cleaning products), and energy usage (i.e., electricity and natural gas). Annual average construction emissions from construction activities were amortized over 30 years and included in the emissions inventory to account for one-time GHG emissions from the construction phase of the proposed project. Overall, development and operation of the proposed project would not generate annual GHG emissions that exceed the South Coast AQMD Working Group bright-line threshold of 3,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) per year for development projects (South Coast AQMD 2010). In addition, GHG emissions from building energy use would be minimized because the proposed community building would be designed to be more energy-efficient in order to meet the current California Building and Energy Efficiency Standards. Therefore, the proposed project’s cumulative contribution to GHG emissions would be less than significant.

Table 8 Project-Related Operation GHG Emissions
Source1 GHG Emissions (MTCO2e/Year) Percentage of Total Emissions
Mobile2 376 90%
Area <1 <1%
Energy3 24 6%
Water4 3 1%
Solid Waste <1 <1%
Refrigerants <1 <1%
Amortized Construction Emissions5 12 3%
Total 416 100%
South Coast AQMD Bright-Line Threshold 3,000 MTCO2e/Yr NA Exceeds Bright-Line Threshold? No NA
Source: CalEEMod, Version 2022.1.

Notes: MTCO2e: metric ton of carbon dioxide equivalent
1 For CalEEMod modeling, a 5,000-square-foot building was modeled which is larger than the proposed 3,588-square-foot buildings (2,533-square-foot park building and 1,055-square-foot garden storage building) and provides a conservative analysis. 2 Vehicle trips provided by Garland and Associates in Appendix E (Garland and Associates 2023). 3 Estimated electricity and natural gas consumption based on health club energy rates from EDFZ 7 from CalEEMod Appendix G, Default Data Tables, as an approximation since CalEEMod "City Park" land use default rates do not account for electricity or natural gas use. 4 Estimated indoor water use based on health club water rates from EDFZ 7 from CalEEMod Appendix G, Default Data Tables, as an approximation since CalEEMod "City Park" land use default rates do not account for indoor water use. 5 Total construction emission are amortized over 30 years per South Coast AQMD Working Group methodology. 5 Modeling assumed an average of 313 weekday vehicle trips based on summer weekday trips occurring during 25 percent of the year and non-summer weekday trips occurring over 75 percent of the year.

N O R M R O S S S P O R T S P A R K I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N

C I T Y O F S T A N T O N

3. Environmental Analysis

b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less Than Significant Impact. Applicable plans adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions include CARB’s Scoping Plan and the SCAG's RTP/SCS. A consistency analysis with these plans is presented below.

CARB Scoping Plan
CARB’s latest Climate Change Scoping Plan (2022) outlines the State’s strategies to reduce GHG emissions in accordance with the targets established under AB 32, SB 32, and AB 1279 (CARB 2022). The Scoping Plan is applicable to State agencies and is not directly applicable to cities/counties and individual projects. Nonetheless, the Scoping Plan has been the primary tool that is used to develop performance-based and efficiency-based CEQA criteria and GHG reduction targets for climate action planning efforts.

Statewide strategies to reduce GHG emissions in the 2022 Climate Change Scoping Plan include: implementing SB 100, which expands the RPS to 60 percent by 2030; expanding the Low Carbon Fuel Standards (LCFS) to 18 percent by 2030; implementing the Mobile Source Strategy to deploy zero-electric vehicle buses and trucks; implementing the Sustainable Freight Action Plan; implementing the Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy, which reduces methane and hydrofluorocarbons to 40 percent below 2013 levels by 2030 and black carbon emissions to 50 percent below 2013 levels by 2030; continuing to implement SB 375; creating a post2020 Cap-and-Trade Program; and developing an Integrated Natural and Working Lands Action Plan to secure California’s land base as a net carbon sink.

Statewide strategies to reduce GHG emissions include the low carbon fuel standards, California Appliance Energy Efficiency regulations, California Renewable Energy Portfolio standard, changes in the CAFE standards, and other early action measures as necessary to ensure the State is on target to achieve the GHG emissions reduction goals of AB 32, SB 32, and AB 1279. In addition, new developments are required to comply with the current Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen. The proposed project would comply with these GHG emissions reduction measures since they are statewide strategies. The proposed project GHG emissions would be further reduced from compliance with statewide measures that have been adopted since AB 32, SB 32, and AB 1279 were adopted. Therefore, the proposed project would not obstruct implementation of the 2022 Scoping Plan, and impacts would be less than significant.

SCAG’s Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy SCAG adopted the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS (Connect SoCal) in September 2020 (SCAG 2020). Connect SoCal identifies that land use strategies that focus on new housing and job growth in areas rich with destinations and mobility options are consistent with a land use development pattern that supports and complements the proposed transportation network. The overarching strategy in Connect SoCal is to plan for the southern California region to grow in more compact communities in transit priority areas and priority growth areas; provide neighborhoods with efficient and plentiful public transit; establish abundant and safe opportunities to walk, bike, and pursue other forms of active transportation; and preserve more of the region’s remaining natural lands and farmlands (SCAG 2020). Connect SoCal’s transportation projects help more efficiently distribute

N O R M R O S S S P O R T S P A R K I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N

C I T Y O F S T A N T O N

3. Environmental Analysis
April 2025 Page 67
population, housing, and employment growth, and forecast development is generally consistent with regionallevel general plan data to promote active transportation and reduce GHG emissions. The projected regional development, when integrated with the proposed regional transportation network in Connect SoCal, would reduce per-capita GHG emissions related to vehicular travel and achieve the GHG reduction per capita targets for the SCAG region.

The Connect SoCal Plan does not require that local general plans, specific plans, or zoning be consistent with the SCS, but provides incentives for consistency for governments and developers. The proposed project would continue to be a local-serving land use and would provide new internal circulation improvements throughout for pedestrians and emergency vehicles. Furthermore, as stated in Section 3.17, Transportation, the proposed project would generate up to 438 trips per day, which would be below the VMT threshold of 500 trips per day from the Orange County Transportation Implementation Manual. In addition, the proposed project would bring greater efficiency to the existing transportation network by redirecting the existing baseball-related traffic to one location in the City. The proposed project would also improve coordination of land uses, which would reduce average distance traveled and VMT. As the proposed project would allow little league games to occur regularly on site compared to hosting these games across various locations throughout the Stanton area, it would create greater efficiency of land uses. In addition, the proposed project would include multiple features at and near the project site that can accommodate bicycle and pedestrian travel, such as bike racks and improved pedestrian paths to promote non-motorized means of travel to the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not interfere with SCAG’s ability to implement the regional strategies outlined in the Connect SoCal Plan, and impacts would be less than significant.

3.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project:

Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
X
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?
X
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
X
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code
§ 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
X

N O R M R O S S S P O R T S P A R K I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N

C I T Y O F S T A N T O N

3. Environmental Analysis

Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?
X
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
X
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? X a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials?
Less Than Significant Impact.

Construction of the proposed project would require small amounts of hazardous materials during construction, such as vehicle fuels, lubricants, grease and transmission fluids, and paints and coatings. The handling, use, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials during the construction phase of the proposed project would comply with existing regulations of several agencies—the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), California Division of Occupational Safety and Health, US Occupational Safety and Health Administration , and US Department of Transportation ).

Operation of the proposed project would transport, use, store and dispose of small amounts of hazardous materials typical of park facilities such as cleaning and maintenance supplies (cleaners, gasoline, paint and pesticides). The proposed project includes a community building, community garden and a large and small dog park that would use cleaners and other chemicals in relatively small quantities, which is not typically considered hazardous materials that could result in a significant hazard to the public or the environment. No manufacturing, industrial, or other uses utilizing large amounts of hazardous materials would occur within the campus. Compliance with applicable federal and state laws and regulations governing the use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials would ensure that all potentially hazardous materials are used and handled in an appropriate manner and would minimize the potential for safety impacts to occur. Therefore, the proposed project would not create substantial hazards to the public or the environment. Impacts would be less than significant.
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 Impact. The project site is currently developed with the existing Norm Ross Sports Park. Five environmental lists were searched for hazardous materials site on the project site (listed below). Table 9, Hazardous Waste Sites within 0.25 Mile, shows results from the database search.

N O R M R O S S S P O R T S P A R K I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N

C I T Y O F S T A N T O N

3. Environmental Analysis
April 2025 Page 69
▪ GeoTracker. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB 2024) ▪ EnviroStor. Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC 2024) ▪ EJScreen. US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA 2024a) ▪ EnviroMapper.US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA 2024b) ▪ Solid Waste Information System (SWIS). California Department of Resources Recovery and Recycling (Cal Recycle 2024a).

N O R M R O S S S P O R T S P A R K I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N

C I T Y O F S T A N T O N

3. Environmental Analysis

According to Geotracker, two Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST) cleanup are sites are located within

0.25 miles of the project site. However, both are considered completed-case closed meaning they no longer pose a potential risk to the area or project site. According to Enviromapper there are a total of three active hazardous sites within 1,200 feet of the project site. The active hazardous waste site at 7910 Katella Avenue, is a Food 4 Less a grocery store, which has a permanent ID to dispose of the typical hazardous consumer product waste the store sells. These active sites are permitted uses and dispose of hazardous waste in accordance to state and federal policy. Thus these sites would not affect the proposed project. The project site and its surroundings are not identified in any of the other databases and are not identified as a hazardous materials site.

As discussed in Section 3.9(a), construction activities would require small amounts of hazardous materials; which include vehicle fuels, lubricants, grease and transmission fluids as well as paints and coatings. The use, transportation and disposal of hazardous materials would be in accordance with regulatory standards and manufactures’ specifications. Hazardous materials would be used in small quantities and properly stored, so they do not pose health and safety hazards. Operation of the proposed project would transport, use, store and dispose of small amounts of hazardous materials typical of parks and community gardens such as cleaning and Table 9 Hazardous Waste Sites within 0.25 Mile
Site Address Database Identifier Cleanup Status Proximity to Site 11151 Beach Boulevard
Staton, CA 90680
Geo Tracker LUST Cleanup Site Completed – Case Closed 100 feet East 11100 Cedar Staton Street
Stanton, CA 90680
Geo Tracker LUST Cleanup Site Completed – Case Closed 390 feet Northwest 7910 Katella Avenue,
Stanton, CA 90680
(Food 4 Less)
Enviromapper Waste Aerosols, NonRCRA Hazardous Waste
(consumer Products)
Active 500 feet North
7752 Ruthmann Ave,
Stanton, CA 90680
Enviromapper Asbestos Inactive (11/14/2018) 850 feet Southwest 7850 Katella Avenue,
Stanton, CA 90680
Enviromapper N/A Inactive (5/6/2019) 925 feet Northwest 11001 Beach Boulevard,
Stanton, CA 90680
(Dental office of
Sahawneh Dental group)
Enviromapper N/A Active 950 feet Northeast
26 Greenbrier Court,
Stanton, CA 90680
Enviromapper N/A Inactive (6/30/2009) 1,050 feet Northwest 10961 Beach Boulevard,
Stanton, CA 90680
(G&M Oil Co 50)
Enviromapper Non-RCRA Hazardous
Waste (Rags absorbent
and debus impacted with
petroleum hydrocarbons
Active 1,200 feet
Northwest
11250 Beach Boulevard,
Stanton, CA 90680
Enviromapper NA Inactive (6/30/2018) 1,200 feet west
Source: SWRCB 2024, USEPA 2024b

N O R M R O S S S P O R T S P A R K I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N

C I T Y O F S T A N T O N

3. Environmental Analysis
April 2025 Page 71
maintenance supplies (such as cleaners, gasoline, paint and pesticides). Operation of the proposed project would use cleaners and other chemicals in relatively small quantities, which is not typically considered hazardous materials that could result in a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Compliance with applicable federal and state laws and regulations governing the use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials would ensure impacts would be less than significant.

The proposed project would be required to be constructed in accordance with the SWPPP which includes BMPs to reduce or eliminate pollutants in stormwater discharges. BMPs for hazardous materials may include, but are not limited to, offsite refueling, placement of generators on impervious surfaces, establishing cleanout areas for cement, etc. Adherence to existing regulations would ensure compliance with safety standards related to the use and storage of hazardous materials and with the safety procedures mandated by applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. 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 Impact. The project site is part of an existing Early Education Center and is already developed as a joint use park. The project site is currently developed as a park/sports complex and is not currently in use with the exception of the community garden. The proposed project would use typical chemicals and materials typical of construction (during the construction phase) and typical of park use and maintenance (during the operation phase). As discussed under Section 3.9(a), construction and operation of the proposed project would handle small amounts of hazardous materials typical of construction activities and those used in the operation of school facilities. The use, transport, and storage of such hazardous materials would be required to comply with all applicable state and federal regulations that would ensure the proper handling of such materials. As discussed under Section 3.9(b), there is no evidence that a hazardous materials release or threatened release has occurred on the project site. No significant hazard from hazardous materials is expected at the project site. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. 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 Impact. As discussed in Section 3.9(b), the project site is not listed on GeoTracker, EnviroStor, EJScreen, EnviroMapper, nor SWIS databases. The nearest listing to the project site, is a LUST Cleanup Site at 11151 Beach (approximately 100 feet northeast of the project site), is identified as case closed/completed as of 1994 (SWRCB 2024). As the project site is not listed on a hazardous materials site, a less than significant impact would occur.

N O R M R O S S S P O R T S P A R K I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N

C I T Y O F S T A N T O N

3. Environmental Analysis

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles or 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 Impact. The nearest public use airport to the project site is the Fullerton Municipal Airport, approximately

4.8 miles north of the project site. As such, the proposed project would not result in safety hazards or excessive noise. No impact would occur.
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less than Significant Impact. The City has an Emergency Operations Plan that establishes policies and procedures that guide the City during emergency situations and provides coordination between various members of emergency staff and service elements. Further, emergency evacuations are coordinated by the Orange County Sheriff ’s Department, which would provide law enforcement, traffic controls, and activation of any public warning system (Stanton 2008). The proposed project would not conflict with adopted emergency response or evacuation plans. The surrounding roadways would continue to provide emergency access to the project site and surrounding properties during construction and operation. As discussed in Section 3.17(d), emergency access will continue to be provided by an existing gated driveway located at the southeast corner of the project site that connects to Ruthann Avenue. The existing and proposed access and circulation features at the project site would continue to accommodate emergency ingress and egress by fire trucks, police units, and ambulance/paramedic vehicles. The proposed project would improve emergency access by developing concrete paved path from the southwest corner of the project site along the eastern boundary to the northern portion of the project site (see Figure 4, Proposed Site Plan). The proposed project would improve emergency access compared to existing conditions; therefore, a less than significant impact shall occur. g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
No Impact. The project site and surroundings are not within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHZ) (CAL FIRE 2022). The project site is located in an urbanized area. As such, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to wildland fires. No impact would occur.

3.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project:

Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
X

N O R M R O S S S P O R T S P A R K I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N

C I T Y O F S T A N T O N

3. Environmental Analysis
April 2025 Page 73
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the
basin?
X
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i) result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; X ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite;
X
iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
X
iv) impede or redirect flood flows? X
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? X
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? X a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is within the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board . Drainage and surface water discharge during construction and operation of the proposed project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements.

Construction
Site preparation and other soil-disturbing activities during construction of the proposed project could temporarily increase the amount of soil erosion and siltation entering the local stormwater drainage system.

Clearing, grading, excavation, and construction activities associated with the proposed project have the potential to impact water quality through soil erosion and increasing the amount of silt and debris carried in runoff.

Additionally, the use of construction materials such as fuels, solvents, and paints may present a risk to surface water quality.

The proposed project would disturb approximately 4.2 acres. Pursuant to Section 402 of the Clean Water Act, the EPA has established regulations under the NPDES program and is responsible for developing permitting requirements. The NPDES program regulates industrial pollutant discharges, including construction activities for sites larger than one acre. Since implementation of the proposed project would disturb more than one acre, the proposed project would be subject to the NPDES CGP requirements (Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ). As

N O R M R O S S S P O R T S P A R K I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N

C I T Y O F S T A N T O N

3. Environmental Analysis

part of the NPDES permit, the proposed project would be required to develop and implement a SWPPP. The proposed project’s construction contractor would be required to prepare and implement a SWPPP and associated BMPs in compliance with the CGP during grading and construction. The proposed project would be required to comply with the MS4 permit. The MS4 permit requires implementation of a stormwater management program to control the quality of stormwater discharged into the storm drains. Further, consistent with Stanton Municipal Code Section 6.20.040, Control of Urban Runoff, the proposed project would be required to adhere to the Orange County DAMP, which includes BMPs for non-residential construction projects, and any conditions or requirements established by the planning department. With adherence to regulatory requirements and incorporation of BMPs, the proposed project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface water. A less than significant impact would occur.

According to the geotechnical study, free groundwater was encountered at depths of 18.8 feet, 19.9 feet, and

24.7 feet during borings. The three borings took place in the immediate vicinity of the proposed new garden storage building, park building, and bridge site on Stanton Park, respectively. Historic high ground water level is estimated to be at a depth of approximately 8 feet below surface grade (John R. Byerly 2023). The geotechnical study identifies earth work to a maximum depth of up to 16 feet for the pier-type foundations for the pedestrian bridge. Other earthwork includes removal of artificial fill and loose soils to provide the proper base and foundation for the proposed building and hardscape/paved walkways and anticipates earthwork, including overexcavation, to depths between 1 to 7 feet (see Appendix C). Therefore, there is a potential that that earthwork may encounter groundwater in the area of the community building and pedestrian bridge. However, construction of the proposed project would be required to adhere to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) General Waste Discharge Requirements for discharges to land with a low threat to water quality.

SWRCB Order No. 2003-0003-DWQ establishes minimum standards for discharges to land with a low threat to water quality (such as small/temporary dewatering projects). Dischargers are also required to file a report of waste discharge. Additionally, construction activities would be required to adhere to the DAMP, which outlines various construction BMPs, including a BMP for dewatering operations. In accordance with the DAMP, the construction contractor must select, install, and maintain appropriate BMPs. The use and selection of BMPs is site specific to address the conditions of the site. Consistent with Stanton Municipal Code Section 6.20.040, prior to the issuance of a grading permit or building permit, the engineering department shall review the project plans and impose terms, conditions, and requirements on the project in accordance with the DAMP and any conditions or requirements established by the planning department. All construction work would be required to adhere to NPDES CGP, SWPPP, and implement BMPs. With adherence with regulatory requirements, the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact related to groundwater quality.

Operation
Activities typical of parks are anticipated for the proposed project during operation. These include day-to-day activities, such as recreation, lounging, gardening, sports, exercising, landscaping/irrigation, and other parkrelated activities. Also, the proposed project would daily generate typical park-related waste, such as landscaping/gardening debris, food, paper and plastic wrappers/products, and recyclable materials. These materials would be disposed of in on-site trash enclosures and removed for disposal. Considering these typical park activities, potential pollutants generated by the proposed project could include suspended-solid/sediments,

N O R M R O S S S P O R T S P A R K I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N

C I T Y O F S T A N T O N

3. Environmental Analysis
April 2025 Page 75
nutrients, heavy metals, pathogens (bacteria/virus), pesticides, oil and grease, and trash and debris, which is typical of park uses. As discussed in Section 1.4, Project Description, the majority of stormwater generated by the proposed project would either be captured and treated in an onsite infiltration basin or a bioretention basin without underdrain or, similar to existing conditions, percolate into pervious ground surfaces. With the use of the proposed stormwater infrastructure and typical best management practices (such as maintaining appropriate trash enclosures), the proposed project would not violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality. Further, the proposed project would also be required to comply with applicable federal, state, and local regulations. Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially degrade water quality. Therefore, operational impacts related to water quality standards would be less than significant.
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 Impact. According to the geotechnical study, free groundwater was encountered at depths of 18.8 feet, 19.9 feet, and 24.7 feet during borings. Historic high ground water level is estimated to be at a depth of approximately 8 feet below surface grade (John R. Byerly 2023). The geotechnical study assumed that the upper seven feet of soil would be over excavated and replaced with engineered fill and that the bottom of over excavation would be scarified to a depth of 12 inches in the area of the proposed community building and pedestrian bridge. Therefore, there is a potential that that groundwork may encounter groundwater the area of the community building and pedestrian bridge. However, as discussed above under Section (a) in this section, construction of the proposed project would be required to adhere to the SWRCB General Waste Discharge Requirements for discharges to land with a low threat to water quality and comply with DAMP which requirements implementation of BMPs. All construction work would be required to adhere to NPDES CGP and implement BMPs. With adherence with regulatory requirements, construction in this area would not substantially decrease or interfere with groundwater recharge compared to existing conditions.

Further, while the proposed project would increase the imperviousness of the project site, most of the project site would remain pervious. The proposed project does not propose groundwater wells that would extract groundwater from an aquifer, nor would the proposed project affect recharge capabilities for the basin, as there are no wetlands onsite. The proposed project would not impact the drainage channel to the north of the site.

The proposed project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. As such, less than significant impact would occur.
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i) Result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not alter the course of a stream or river.

The proposed project includes the construction of a new pedestrian bridge over the existing stormwater channel along the northern side of the project site; however, the footings for the pedestrian bridge would

N O R M R O S S S P O R T S P A R K I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N

C I T Y O F S T A N T O N

3. Environmental Analysis

be entirely outside of the channel and the bridge would extend over the channel. Construction of the proposed project would increase the potential for erosion and siltation during construction and operation.

As discussed above, the proposed project would be required to comply with the NPDES program, MS4, and DAMP requirements during construction and operation. Compliance with these regulations would ensure that substantial erosion or siltation would not occur during the construction and operation of the proposed project. The construction and operation of the proposed project would include BMPs, which would reduce runoff. Further, during operation, the proposed project would capture and treat stormwater runoff in an onsite infiltration basin or a bioretention basin without underdrain, which would maintain a portion of stormwater runoff onsite. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in substantial erosion on or offsite. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur. ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is developed with the existing Norm Ross Sports Park and is within Zone X (FEMA Map ID # 06059C0136J) (FEMA 2009). Zone X are areas of 0.2 percent annual chance of flood, areas of 1 percent change of flood with an average depth of less than one foot or with drainage areas of less than one square mile. As such, the proposed project is not within the boundaries of a designated 100-year flood zone. As discussed in Section 1.4, Project Description, the proposed project would increase impervious surfaces on the project site, which could increase the amount of runoff compared to existing conditions. However, as discussed above, the proposed project would be required to comply with the NPDES program, MS4 permit, and DAMP requirements during construction and operation. Compliance with these regulations would ensure that substantial runoff would not occur during the construction and operation of the proposed project. The construction and operation of the proposed project would include BMPs, which would reduce runoff. Further, during operation, the proposed project would capture and treat stormwater runoff in an onsite infiltration basin or a bioretention basin without underdrain, which would maintain a portion of stormwater runoff onsite. Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur. iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in Section 1.4, Project Description, the proposed project would increase impervious surfaces on the project site, which could increase the amount of runoff compared to existing conditions. However, as discussed above, the proposed project would be required to comply with the NPDES program, MS4 permit, and DAMP requirements during construction and operation.

Compliance with these regulations would ensure that substantial runoff would not occur during the construction and operation of the proposed project. The construction and operation of the proposed project would include BMPs, which would reduce runoff. Further, during operation, the proposed project would capture and treat stormwater runoff in an onsite infiltration basin or a bioretention basin without underdrain. Therefore, the proposed project would not create or contribute runoff water which would

N O R M R O S S S P O R T S P A R K I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N

C I T Y O F S T A N T O N

3. Environmental Analysis
April 2025 Page 77
exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur. iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is developed with the existing Norm Ross Sports Park and is within Zone X (FEMA Map ID # 06059C0136J) (FEMA 2009). Zone X are areas of 0.2 percent annual chance of flood, areas of 1 percent change of flood with an average depth of less than one foot or with drainage areas of less than one square mile. As such, the proposed project is not within a 100-year flood zone. The proposed project includes the construction of a new pedestrian bridge over the existing stormwater channel along the northern side of the project site; however, the footings for the pedestrian bridge would be entirely outside of the channel and the bridge would extend over the channel. Therefore, the proposed project would not interfere with water flows within the existing drainage channel. Since the likelihood of floods in the project site is low and the proposed project would not interfere with the drainage channel, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on impeding or redirecting flood flows.
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not keep substantial amounts of hazards materials; potentially hazards materials (such as gasoline and fertilizer for landscaping and gardening needs and park maintenance) would be stored and handled in accordance with manufacturer instructions, which would not pose a risk to the accidental release of pollutants.

As discussed under Section 3.10(c)(iv), the project site is located within a FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map Zone X, which has a low risk of flooding. Less than significant impact would occur. According to the Terra Geosciences report (contained in Appendix C) and based on the City of Stanton “Prado Dam Potential Inundation Areas” map, the project site is shown to be located within the flooding limits for the Prado Dam failure, which is located approximately 21 miles to the east-northeast of the project site. Additionally, the Terra Geosciences report further indicates that the project site is within the potential inundation occurring from failure of the Carbon Canyon Dam, approximately 12 miles northeast of the project site. While the project site could experience inundation due to dam failure (in extremely rare conditions), the proposed project would be required to be designed to comply with the CBC, and the project civil engineer and City engineer would require appropriate site-specific measures to reduce flood impacts to the project site. While the proposed project is expected to use small amounts of hazardous materials during construction and operation (e.g., paints, cleaners, oils, etc.), the construction and operation of the proposed project would be required to comply with applicable regulations for proper handling, usage, and storage of potentially hazardous materials (see Section 3.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials). Therefore, the proposed project would not release pollutants due to project inundation.

A seiche is a surface wave created when a body of water is shaken, usually by earthquake activity. Seiches are of concern relative to water storage facilities because inundation from a seiche can occur if the wave overflows a containment wall, such as the wall of a reservoir, water storage tank, dam, or other artificial body of water.

Although there are no large water tanks in the area that could impact the project site, there are dams in the region that could create flooding impacts. The nearest dam to the project site is the Yorba Dam approximately

N O R M R O S S S P O R T S P A R K I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N

C I T Y O F S T A N T O N

3. Environmental Analysis

11.4 miles northeast of the project site (DWR 2023). Based on the far distance of large, open bodies of water and the elevation of the site with respect to sea level, the possibility of seiches is considered nil. No impact would occur related to seiches.

A tsunami is earthquake-induced flooding that is created from a large displacement of the ocean flood. The project site is 7.2 miles northeast of the Pacific Ocean; therefore, the likelihood of a tsunami impacting the project site is not likely. No impact would occur related to tsunami.

Given that standard BMPs will be implemented and the proposed project will adhere to proper handling and storage of hazardous materials, the proposed project would not substantially degrade water quality. As such, no impact would occur related to release of pollutants due to project inundation from flood, tsunami or seiches. e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not obstruct or conflict with the implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable water management plan. The proposed project would comply with the water quality and use requirements of these plans, such as the DAMP, through the implementation of BMPs. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

3.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project:

Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? X
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? X
a) Physically divide an established community?
No Impact. The project site is part of an existing Early Education Center and is already developed as a joint use park. The proposed project would occur within these existing sport park boundaries and no established community would be physically divided. No impact would occur. 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 Impact. The project site is part of an existing Early Education Center and is already developed as a joint use park. The proposed project would extend the hours used by the public per the updated

N O R M R O S S S P O R T S P A R K I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N

C I T Y O F S T A N T O N

3. Environmental Analysis
April 2025 Page 79
joint use agreement, but would not change the current use of the project site as a joint use park. It would rehabilitate and improve the existing park amenities. The proposed project would not require any amendments to applicable land use plan, policy, or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Impacts would be less than significant.

3.12 MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state?
X
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?
X
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state?
No Impact. The project site is part of an existing Early Education Center and is already developed as a joint use park. The project site is not used for mineral extraction. According to the California Division of Mines and Geology the project site is within Mineral Resource Zone 4 (MRZ-4), areas where available information is inadequate for assignment to any other MRZ zone (California Division of Mines and Geology 1975). The City of Stanton is in an urban environment and does not have any zoned areas for mineral resource extraction (i.e. mining sites) (Staton 2008). Therefore, there is no known area of mineral resources within the City of Stanton.

The proposed project would not change the existing recreational use of the project site and would not result in a loss of any known mineral resources. No impact would occur. 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? No Impact. The City of Stanton General Plan does not designate any locally important mineral resource recovery site within the city (Stanton 2008). The project site is part of an existing Early Education Center and is already developed as a joint use park; therefore, no locally important mineral resource recovery site would be lost due to implementation of the proposed project. No impact would occur.

N O R M R O S S S P O R T S P A R K I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N

C I T Y O F S T A N T O N

3. Environmental Analysis

3.13 NOISE
Would the project result in:

Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIII. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
X
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels? X
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?
X
Noise Fundamentals
Noise is defined as unwanted sound and, when over-exposed to it, is known to have several adverse effects on people, including hearing loss, speech and sleep interference, physiological responses, and annoyance. Based on these known adverse effects of noise, federal, state, and city governments have established criteria to protect public health and safety and to prevent the disruption of certain human activities, such as classroom instruction, communication, or sleep. Additional information on noise and vibration fundamentals and applicable regulations are contained in Appendix E.

Environmental Setting
The proposed project site is an existing recreational Stanton Community Garden and Norm Ross Sports Park.

Single-family residences are located directly south, adjacent to the project site. Additionally, adjacent to the project site to the southeast is the Jade Palace Hotel, and approximately 43 feet to the north of the project site across the Stanton Storm Channel is Stanton Park. Carver Early Education Center bounds the project site to the west.

Existing Noise Traffic Modelling Setting
Existing traffic noise conditions were modeled using a version of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) RD-77-108 Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model. Average daily traffic (ADT) was obtained from the Website provided by Caltrans. Existing 24-hour community noise equivalent levels (CNEL) at 50 feet and the distances to the 60, 65, and 70 dBA CNEL contours along State Route 39 (Beach Boulevard) from the model are tabulated in Table 10, Existing Traffic Noise Levels, to present existing noise levels from major roadways.

Detailed calculations can be found in Appendix E.

N O R M R O S S S P O R T S P A R K I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N

C I T Y O F S T A N T O N

3. Environmental Analysis
April 2025 Page 81
Table 10 Existing Traffic Noise Levels
Roadway Segment Existing ADT
CNEL at 50 feet,
dBA
Distance to Noise Contour in Feet
70 CNEL Contour 65 CNEL Contour 60 CNEL Contour
SR 39 – south of Katella Avenue 64,600 81.3 283 610 1315 Source: Caltrans Annual Average Daily Traffic, 2019.

The edge of the project site to the centerline of State Route 39 (Beach Boulevard) is approximately 280 feet west with the furthest edge of the project site from the centerline being approximately 687 feet west. Therefore, residences adjacent to the project site as well as the project site itself, without considering any natural or manmade obstruction, would face noise levels of approximately 64.0 to 70.99 dBA CNEL as they approach closer to Beach Boulevard. The Jade Palace Hotel is within the 70 dBA CNEL contour of SR-39.

Ambient Noise Monitoring
Short Term
To determine a baseline noise level at different environments within the project area, ambient noise monitoring was conducted in the vicinity of Norm Ross and Stanton Park. Staff conducted noise monitoring at a nearby neighborhoods of the project site on June 6, 2023. Noise measurements consisted of three short-term (15- minute each) measurements at representative noise-sensitive receiver locations.

The primary noise source at all measurement locations is traffic or park activity. Urban, school, and residential activity (such as barking dogs, car doors shutting, and conversations of passersby) also contributed to the overall noise environment. Meteorological conditions during the measurement periods were favorable for outdoor sound measurements and were noted to be representative of the typical conditions for the season. Generally, conditions included clear skies with temperatures varying between 78-85 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) with winds ranging between 3 and 6 miles per hour (mph). The sound level meter was equipped with a windscreen during all measurements.

The short-term sound level meter used (Larson Davis LxT) for noise monitoring satisfies the American National Standards Institute standard for Type 1 instrumentation. The short-term sound level meter was set to “slow” response and “A” weighting (dBA). The meter was calibrated prior to and after each monitoring period.

All measurements were at 5 feet above the ground and away from reflective surfaces. Short-term measurement locations are described below and shown in Figure 8, Approximate Noise Monitoring Locations, and results are summarized in Table 11, Short-Term Noise Measurements Summary in A-weighted Sound Levels. • Short-Term Location 1 (ST-1) was conducted in the parking lot in front of Stanton Park behind the Food 4 Less. A 15-minute noise measurement began at 12:06 PM on Tuesday, June 6, 2023. The noise environment is characterized primarily by cars passing by as well as children playing within Stanton Park.
• Short-Term Location 2 (ST-2) was next to 7901 Ruthann Avenue (residence). A 15-minute noise measurement began at 12:51 PM on Tuesday, June 6, 2023. The noise environment is characterized

N O R M R O S S S P O R T S P A R K I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N

C I T Y O F S T A N T O N

3. Environmental Analysis

primarily by residential noise and bird chirping activity within the neighborhood and traffic along Beach Boulevard.
• Short-Term Location 3 (ST-3) was in front of 11226 Ale Lane (residence). A 15-minute noise measurement began at 1:13 PM on Tuesday, June 6, 2023. The noise environment is characterized primarily by cars passing by.

Table 11 Short-Term Noise Measurements Summary in A-weighted Sound Levels Monitoring
Location Description
15-minute Noise Level, dBA
Leq Lmax Lmin L50 L25 L8 L2
ST-1
Located in the Stanton Park - Parking
Lot behind the Food 4 Less
6/06/2023, 12:06 PM

53.4 94.0 45.8 52.6 54.4 58.4 67.5
ST-2
Next to 7901 Ruthann Avenue
(residence)
6/06/2023, 12:51 PM

54.1 65.5 47.6 52.9 54.3 56.6 60.8
ST-3
Next to 11226 Ale Lane (residence)
6/06/2023, 1:13 PM 51.7 74.0 45.0 50.0 51.4 53.4 55.2
Sensitive Receptors
Certain land uses are particularly sensitive to noise and vibration. These uses include residences, schools, hospital facilities, houses of worship, and open space/recreation areas where quiet environments are necessary for the enjoyment, public health, and safety of the community. The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site include the Stanton Park located 43 feet north, the single-family residences located directly adjacent to the project site immediately to the south, and the Jade Palace Hotel which is located immediately to the southeast of the project site. Additionally, to the immediate west of the project site is the Carver Early Education Center.

Applicable Standards
California Building Code
The State of California’s noise insulation standards for non-residential uses are codified in the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Building Standards Administrative Code, Part 11, CALGreen. CALGreen noise standards are applied to new or renovation construction projects in California to control interior noise levels resulting from exterior noise sources. Proposed projects may use either the prescriptive method (Section

5.507.4.1) or the performance method (Section 5.507.4.2) to show compliance. Under the prescriptive method, a project must demonstrate transmission loss ratings for the wall and roof-ceiling assemblies and exterior windows when located within a noise environment of 65 dBA CNEL or higher. Under the performance method, a project must demonstrate that interior noise levels do not exceed 50 dBA Leq(1hr).

N O R M R O S S S P O R T S P A R K I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N

C I T Y O F S T A N T O N

3. Environmental Analysis
April 2025 Page 83
City of Stanton Municipal Code
Exterior/Stationary Noise Standards
Stationary sources of noise are governed under Stanton Municipal Code, Chapter 9.28, Noise Control (Stanton 2023b). Section 9.28.050 states that no person shall, within the City, create any sound, radiated for extended periods from any premises which produces a sound pressure level at any point on the property in excess of 55 dBA from the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and 50 dBA from the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. to any residential property. Section 9.28.070 of the municipal code also exempts certain noise sources from the provisions of this code, including activities conducted on any park or playground if it is a publicly owned entity, sound created by emergency activities and sound created by governmental units, and noise from temporary construction, repair, or demolition from this chapter’s noise standards between the hours of 7:00 am and 8:00 pm. Section 9.28.080 states it is unlawful for any person to create any noise that would cause noise levels to exceed noise levels standards in 9.28.050 which are applied to residences to also now be applied to nearby schools, churches, and hospitals when they are in use.

Vibration
The City of Stanton does not have specific limits or thresholds for vibration. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) provides criteria for acceptable levels of ground-borne vibration for various types of buildings. The FTA criteria were utilized for this analysis. Structures that amplify groundborne vibration and wood-frame buildings, such as typical residential structures, are more affected by ground vibration than heavier buildings. The level at which groundborne vibration is strong enough to cause architectural damage has not been determined conclusively. The most conservative estimates are reflected in the FTA standards, shown in Table 12, Groundborne Vibration Criteria.

Federal Transit Administration
The City of Stanton does not have a quantified threshold for temporary construction noise. Therefore, to determine impact significance, the FTA criterion of 80 dBA Leq for daytime residential uses is used in this analysis.

Table 12 Groundborne Vibration Criteria
Building Category PPV (in/sec)
I. Reinforced concrete, steel, or timber (no plaster) 0.5 II. Engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster) 0.3
III. Nonengineered timber and masonry buildings 0.2
IV. Buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage 0.12 Source: FTA 2018.

PPV = peak particle velocity
Figure 8 - Approximate Noise Monitoring Locations
Source: NearMap 2023.

1. Introduction
0 Scale (Feet)
170
Beach Blvd
Ruthann Ave
Joel Ave
Stanton Ave
Ale Ln
Residential
Commercial
Residential
Commercial
Carver Preschool
Stanton Storm Channel
Stanton Park
39 CALIFORNIA
Project Boundary

NORM ROSS SPORTS PARK IMPROVEMENT P ROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

CITY OF STANTON
ST-X Short-Term Noise Measurement Locations (3)
ST-1
ST-2
ST-3

N O R M R O S S S P O R T S P A R K I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N

C I T Y O F S T A N T O N

3. Environmental Analysis
April 2025 Page 85
This page intentionally left blank.

N O R M R O S S S P O R T S P A R K I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N

C I T Y O F S T A N T O N

3. Environmental Analysis

Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Less Than Significant Impact. Following is a discussion of the temporary and permanent noise impacts as a result of the proposed project’s construction and operational phases.

Construction Noise
Two types of short-term noise impacts could occur during construction: (1) mobile-source noise from transport of workers, material deliveries, and debris and soil haul and (2) stationary-source noise from use of construction equipment on the project site.

Construction Vehicles
The transport of workers and materials to and from the construction site would incrementally increase noise levels along site access roadways. Individual construction vehicle pass-bys may create momentary noise levels of up to approximately 85 dBA Lmax at 50 feet from the worker and vendor vehicles. However, these occurrences would generally be infrequent and lasting only a short period of time.

Worker and vendor trips would total a maximum of approximately 97 daily trips and a total of 2 haul trips during overlapping construction activity phases. Site access would be through Ruthann Avenue, which currently has an existing ADT volume of more than 2,000. The addition of 99 daily construction trips would result in a temporary noise increase of 0.2 dBA CNEL or less, which would not be substantial nor permanent. The proposed project would limit construction vehicles traversing residential streets to the extent feasible, to limit the disturbances to nearby residential uses. Therefore, construction-vehicle noise impacts would be considered less than significant, and no mitigation measures are necessary.

Construction Equipment
Noise generated by onsite construction equipment is based on the type of equipment used, its location relative to sensitive receptors, and the timing and duration of noise-generating activities. Each stage of construction involves different kinds of equipment and has distinct noise characteristics. Noise levels from construction activities are typically dominated by the loudest equipment. The dominant equipment noise source is typically the engine, although work-piece noise (such as dropping of materials) can also be noticeable.

The noise produced at each construction stage is determined by combining the Leq contributions from each piece of equipment used at a given time while accounting for the ongoing time-variations of noise emissions.

Heavy equipment, such as a dozer or a loader, can have maximum, short-duration noise levels of up to 85 dBA Lmax at 50 feet. However, overall noise emissions vary considerably, depending on the specific activity performed at any given moment. Noise attenuation due to distance, the number and type of equipment, and the load and power requirements to accomplish tasks at each construction phase would result in different noise levels from construction activities at a given receptor. Since noise from construction equipment is intermittent and

N O R M R O S S S P O R T S P A R K I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N

C I T Y O F S T A N T O N

3. Environmental Analysis
April 2025 Page 87
diminishes at a rate of at least 6 dBA per doubling of distance (conservatively ignoring other attenuation effects from air absorption, ground effects, and shielding effects), the average noise levels at noise-sensitive receptors could vary considerably, because mobile construction equipment would move around the project site with different loads and power requirements.

On-site Construction Noise
Average noise levels from project-related construction activities are calculated by modeling the three loudest pieces of equipment per activity phase. Equipment for grading, site preparation, and demolition is modeled at spatially averaged distances (i.e., from the acoustical center of the general construction site to the property line of the nearest receptors) because the area around the center of construction activities best represents the potential average construction-related noise levels at the various off-site sensitive receptors for mobile equipment. Similarly, construction noise from paving activities is modeled from the center of proposed hardcourt areas. Construction equipment for building construction and architectural coating is modeled from the edge of the proposed building to the nearest sensitive receptors. Lastly, finishing and landscaping finishing could occur throughout the project site, and so it is measured from the center of the project site.

The proposed project’s expected construction equipment mix was categorized by construction activity using the FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM). The associated, aggregate sound levels—grouped by construction activity—are summarized in Table 13, Project-Related Construction Noise, dBA Leq. RCNM modeling input and output worksheets are included in Appendix E.

As shown in Table 13, on-site construction-related noise levels would not exceed the 80 dBA Leq threshold at the nearest off-site sensitive receptors. Therefore, construction-equipment noise impacts would be considered less than significant.

Table 13 Project-Related Construction Noise, dBA Leq
Construction
Activity Phase
RCNM Reference
Noise Level
Residence at 35
Juniper Court
Jade Palace Motel to
the east at 11231
Beach Boulevard
Residence at 7872
Ruthann Avenue
Residence at 11205
Mario Lane
Distance in feet 50 710 260 225 540

N O R M R O S S S P O R T S P A R K I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N

C I T Y O F S T A N T O N

3. Environmental Analysis

Table 13 Project-Related Construction Noise, dBA Leq
Construction
Activity Phase
RCNM Reference
Noise Level
Residence at 35
Juniper Court
Jade Palace Motel to
the east at 11231
Beach Boulevard
Residence at 7872
Ruthann Avenue
Residence at 11205
Mario Lane
Demolition 85 62 71 72 64
Site Preparation 83 60 69 70 62
Rough Grading 85 62 71 72 64
Distance in feet 50 470 420 350 510
Building Construction 83 64 65 66 63
Architectural Coating 74 55 56 57 54
Distance in feet 50 570 410 320 500
Paving 85 64 67 69 65
Distance in feet 50 710 260 225 540
Finish and Landscaping 77 54 63 64 56
Utility Trenching 82 59 68 69 61
Maximum dBA Leq 64 71 72 65
Exceed 80 Leq dBA Threshold? No No No No
Notes: Calculations performed with the FHWA RCNM software are included in Appendix E.

Operational Noise
Mobile Noise
A project will normally have a significant effect on the environment related to noise if it substantially increases the ambient noise levels for adjoining areas. Most people can detect changes in sound levels of approximately 3 dBA under normal, quiet conditions, and changes of 1 to 3 dBA under quiet, controlled conditions. Changes of less than 1 dBA are usually indiscernible. A change of 5 dBA is readily discernible to most people in an outdoor environment. Noise levels above 65 dBA CNEL are normally unacceptable at sensitive receptor locations such as residences, and noise environments in these areas would be considered degraded. Based on this, a significant impact would occur if the following traffic noise increases occur relative to the existing noise environment:
• For project-related traffic noise, the proposed project causes the ambient noise levels measured at the property line of affected uses to increase by 3 dBA to or within the “normally unacceptable” or “clearly unacceptable” categories; or
• The proposed project causes the ambient noise levels measured at the property line of affected uses to increase by 5 dBA or more within the “normally acceptable” or “conditionally acceptable” categories.

ADT was provided by Garland Associates (2023) for two roadways which include Beach Boulevard and Katella Avenue. ADT data provided existing, existing plus project, future, and future plus project. Modelling for the four scenarios as shown in Table 14, Project Net Traffic Noise Increases, the noise increase from the proposed project would result in less than one dBA increase in existing and future conditions. A 1 dBA increase as stated before is barely perceptible as the human ear can only detect changes at 3 dBA or more in an outdoor

N O R M R O S S S P O R T S P A R K I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N

C I T Y O F S T A N T O N

3. Environmental Analysis
April 2025 Page 89
environment. Therefore, impacts related to traffic increase from the proposed project would be less than significant.

Table 14 Project Net Traffic Noise Increases
Roadway Segment
Average Daily Traffic Volumes dBA CNEL Increase
Existing No
Project
Existing
Plus
Project
Future
No
Project
Future
Plus
Project
Project
Noise
Increase
Cumulative
Increase
Project
Cumulative
Contribution
Beach Boulevard - North of Katella Avenue 66,000 66,104 66,700 66,804 0.01 0.05 0.01 Beach Boulevard - South of Katella Avenue
to Park Exit
66,000 66,208 66,700 66,908 0.01 0.06 0.01
Beach Boulevard - South of Park Exit to Uturn
66,000 66,415 66,700 67,115 0.03 0.07 0.03
Beach Boulevard - North of Orangewood
Avenue
66,000 66,104 66,700 66,804 0.01 0.05 0.01
Katella Avenue - West of Cedar Street 31,200 31,304 31,500 31,604 0.01 0.06 0.01 Katella Avenue - Cedar Street to Beach
Boulevard
31,200 31,408 31,500 31,708 0.03 0.07 0.03
Katella Avenue - East of Beach Boulevard 25,000 25,104 31,500 31,604 0.02 1.02 0.01 Source: Garland Associates 2023
Mechanical Equipment Noise
Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems are anticipated to be installed on the roof of the proposed building. The nearest sensitive receptor property line to the new proposed community building is approximately 360 feet to the south. Typical HVAC equipment generates noise levels ranging up to 72 dBA at distance of 3 feet. At a distance of 360 feet from the proposed building, noise levels would attenuate to 30 dBA and would, therefore, not exceed the City of Stanton’s stationary noise standard of 55 dBA or 50 dBA at daytime or nighttime hours, respectively. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant impact and no mitigation measures are necessary.

Outdoor Recreational Noise
The proposed project includes reconfiguration of the existing community garden and the little league baseball field. The proposed project would include new hardcourts and dog park on the northern portion of the project site, and a new playground on the northwest portion (see Figure 4, Proposed Site Plan).

Outdoor recreational noise that characterizes the area includes the community gardens uses on-site, and surrounding playfields/hardcourts at Carver Early Education Center and Stanton Park to the west and the north, respectively. . Reconfiguration of existing outdoor recreational spaces under the proposed project would not result in a significant noise increase above existing conditions. However, the basketball court and the little league baseball field would include field lighting which would mean these areas would potentially operate into the nighttime hours.

Reference noise measurements were conducted in the past to record noise levels from typical outdoor activities.

A baseball/softball game typically produces noise levels of 52 dBA Leq at 72 feet, and a basketball game produces 60 dBA Leq at 20 feet. Therefore, when measuring from the edge of the basketball court to the nearest

N O R M R O S S S P O R T S P A R K I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N

C I T Y O F S T A N T O N

3. Environmental Analysis

residences approximately 330 feet to the south, noise levels would approach 35 dBA Leq. Thus, noise associated with the basketball court would be below the City of Stanton’s 55 dBA Leq daytime threshold and nighttime 50 dBA Leq threshold at the nearest off-site residences. When measuring noise level at the proposed batting area of the little league field to the nearest residence approximately 85 feet to the south, noise levels would approach up to 55 dBA Leq. This would meet the City of Stanton daytime stationary threshold of 55 dBA Leq but would exceed the nighttime threshold of 50 dBA Leq. However, the residences to the south have a 6-foot-high backyard wall abutting the property boundary, and the proposed project would replace the southern wall with a 8-foot high CMU wall to the south and the east; typically, an 8foot-high wall provides a 6 dBA reduction.

Therefore, the actual exterior noise the residents to the south may experience from the baseball field is 49 dBA Leq and 29 dBA Leq from the basketball court. Therefore, the operation of the proposed park would be below the City of Stanton’s stationary noise threshold of 55 dBA Leq for daytime and 50 dBA Leq for nighttime noise sources.
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated.

Construction Vibration
Construction operations can generate varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the construction procedures and equipment. The operation of construction equipment generates vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish with distance from the source. The effect on buildings in the vicinity of the construction site varies depending on soil type, ground strata, and receptor-building construction. The effects from vibration can range from no perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibrations at moderate levels, to slight structural damage at the highest levels. Vibration from construction activities rarely reaches the levels that can damage structures.

For reference, a vibration level of 0.20 in/sec peak velocity (PPV) is used as the limit for non-engineered timber and masonry buildings, which would conservatively apply to the surrounding residential structures, and the 0.30 in/sec PPV is used as the limit for engineered concrete and masonry structures which will apply to the surrounding commercial buildings (FTA 2018). To determine potential vibration-induced architectural damage, the distance from the vibration source (construction equipment) to the vibration-sensitive structures is measured from the edge of the construction site to the nearest building façade. Vibration-induced architectural damage is assessed in terms of PPV. As shown in Table 15, Vibration Damage levels for Typical Construction Equipment, PPV levels for typical construction equipment would not exceed the 0.20 in/sec PPV standard at the nearest residences to the south of the project site. However, the 0.30 in/sec PPV threshold for commercial buildings would be exceeded for the commercial building approximately 10 feet to the east. At that distance, a vibratory roller and a large bulldozer would exceed the applicable threshold. However, with the incorporation of mitigation measure N-1, vibration impacts would be below the applicable threshold, and vibration damage impacts would be reduced to less than significant.

N O R M R O S S S P O R T S P A R K I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N

C I T Y O F S T A N T O N

3. Environmental Analysis
April 2025 Page 91
Table 15 Vibration Damage Levels for Typical Construction Equipment Equipment
PPV (in/sec)
FTA Reference at
25 feet
Commercial Building
to the North at 50
feet
Commercial Building
to the East at 10 feet
Residence to the South
at 30 feet
Institutional Building to
the West at 50 feet
Vibratory Roller 0.21 0.074 0.830 0.160 0.074
Static Roller 0.05 0.018 0.198 0.038 0.018
Large Bulldozer 0.089 0.031 0.352 0.068 0.031
Loaded Trucks 0.076 0.027 0.300 0.058 0.027
Jackhammer 0.035 0.012 0.138 0.027 0.012
Small Bulldozer 0.003 0.001 0.012 0.002 0.001
Sources: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018.

NA= Not Applicable
Bold = Threshold exceedance
Implementation of Mitigation Measure N-1 would reduce project-related construction vibration impacts to the surrounding structures to a less than significant level. Specifically, alternative gravel compaction methods and the use of a static roller would reduce vibration levels associated with paving. A static roller is estimated to generate vibration levels of approximately 0.05 in/sec PPV at a distance of 25 feet (New Zealand Transport Agency 2012). Earthwork equipment used for grading shall be limited to equipment with 100 horsepower or less as detailed in Mitigation Measure N-1. With incorporation of Mitigation Measure N-1, the proposed projects construction groundborne vibration and groundborne noise levels shall be reduced to a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.

Mitigation Measure:

N-1 The City and its construction contractor shall implement the following measures during all grounddisturbing activities:
▪ Vibratory compaction that is within 10 to 25 feet of any surrounding structure shall be conducted with the use of a static roller in lieu of a vibratory roller. At a distance greater than 25 feet, a vibratory roller would no longer exceed 0.20 inches per second (in/sec) peak particle velocity PPV and would be allowed for use. Therefore, a static roller shall be used within 25 feet where levels would be reduced to 0.20 in/sec PPV or less and mitigate vibration damage.
▪ Paving activities within 10 feet of a structure shall employ self-compacting pea gravel for the base and a concrete finish as to not require vibratory compaction. ▪ Demolitions activities within 10 feet of adjacent structures shall be conducted with offroad equipment that is limited to 100 horsepower or less and the use of small dozer/tractor is to be used in lieu of a larger dozer.

N O R M R O S S S P O R T S P A R K I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N

C I T Y O F S T A N T O N

3. Environmental Analysis

Vibration Annoyance
Groundborne vibration is rarely annoying to people who are outdoors, so it is usually evaluated in terms of indoor receivers. For annoyance, vibration is typically noticed nearby when objects in a building generate noise from rattling windows or picture frames. Since construction activities are distributed throughout the project site, vibration annoyance impacts are typically based on average vibration levels (levels that would be experienced by sensitive receptors most of the time). Unlike vibration damage where exceedance of thresholds is measured from the edge of the project site; vibration annoyance is measured from the center of the project site to the nearest sensitive receptor (residences) in order to determine if the project would cause long term annoyance. For vibration annoyance the FTA set forth a vibration limit of 72 velocity decibels (VdB) as the max threshold for daily events at a residence. As shown in the modeling which can be found in Appendix E, the nearest residence is approximately 240 feet to the south from the center of the existing Norm Ross Park.

At that distance, the vibration annoyance levels would range anywhere from 28.5 up to 64.5 VdB. This represents a highly conservative calculation, as the southern area closest to the residences would remain largely untouched except for new walking paths, landscaping, and field light installation. Therefore, vibration annoyance thresholds would be below those set forth by the FTA and would be considered less than significant.

Operational Vibration
The proposed project is not the type of project that would generate extensive vibration (such as certain industrial uses or result in an installation or increased usage of railroads). The operation of the proposed project would not include any substantial long-term vibration sources. Further, any minor vibrations, such as walking, would quickly dissipate and would not expand beyond the project site. Thus, no significant vibration impacts from operation of the proposed project would occur.
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. The nearest public airport to the project site is Fullerton Municipal Airport, approximately 4.8 miles to the northeast. Additionally, the nearest private airstrip is the Los Alamitos Army Airfield which is located approximately 2.15 miles to the west of the project site. The proposed project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive aircraft noise levels. Therefore, no impact would occur, and no mitigation measures are necessary.

3.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project:

N O R M R O S S S P O R T S P A R K I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N

C I T Y O F S T A N T O N

3. Environmental Analysis
April 2025 Page 93
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
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)?
X
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
X
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)?
No Impact. The proposed project would redevelop an existing joint-use sports park in an urbanized area. The project site is already served with roads and other infrastructure. The proposed project would serve the existing population in Stanton and would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in the area directly or indirectly. No impact would occur.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. The proposed project would redevelop the existing joint-use sports park in an urbanized area. No housing or people would be displaced, and no replacement housing construction would be necessary. No impact would occur.

3.15 PUBLIC SERVICES
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:

N O R M R O S S S P O R T S P A R K I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N

C I T Y O F S T A N T O N

3. Environmental Analysis

Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project:
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

Fire protection? X
Police protection? X
Schools? X
Parks? X
Other public facilities? X
Service informational request letters and questionnaires were mailed to Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) and Orange County Sheriff ’s Department (OCSD) on January 5, 2024. No responses were received. a) Fire protection?
Less Than Significant Impact. Fire protection and emergency medical services are provided to the City by the OCFA. The City is served by one fire station, which is Station 46 at 7871 Pacific Street, approximately 0.7 miles north of the project site. Daily staffing of Station 46 includes one fire captain, one fire apparatus engineer, and three firefighters. Total staffing of Station 46 includes 15 firefighters. Station 46 has one fire engine and one medical apparatus (OCFA 2023).

As discussed in Section 3.14(a), the proposed project would not directly or indirectly increase population within the City of Station. The proposed project would serve existing populations of the City. However, since the project site is currently closed and not in use (except for the community garden), the proposed project could result in a slight increase in calls for fire protection and emergency medical service at the project site due to the increase of people onsite. Nevertheless, since the proposed project would not affect population growth in the city, the proposed project’s demand for fire protection services would be within OCFA Station 46’s existing service capacity. Further, the proposed project would maintain the existing fire access point on the southeast corner of the project site off of Ruthann Avenue. Emergency access can also be provided from the parking lot on in Stanton Park. Development of the proposed project is required to comply with the most current adopted fire codes, building codes, and nationally recognized fire and life safety standards, which impose design standards and requirements that seek to minimize and mitigate fire risk. As part of the project design review process, OCFA and DSA would review and approve project plans to ensure adequate fire access. Therefore, since proposed project is not a growth-inducing project, and it would not adversely affect OCFA’s ability to provide adequate service nor require new or expanded fire facilities that could result in adverse environmental impacts, impacts would be less than significant.

N O R M R O S S S P O R T S P A R K I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N

C I T Y O F S T A N T O N

3. Environmental Analysis
April 2025 Page 95
b) Police protection?
Less Than Significant Impact. The OCSD has provided police protection services to the City of Stanton since 1988. The OCSD Stanton Station is located at 11100 Cedar Street in the City of Stanton, approximately

0.1 mile north of the project site (OCSD 2023). Stanton Station is equipped with five sergeants, 20 patrol deputies, one motor deputy, two deputies assigned to the City’s Community Enhancement Team, two investigators, two investigative assistants, two office specialists, and a part time cadet. Community programs provided by the Stanton Station include gang reduction and intervention partnership program, neighborhood watch, business watch, homeless outreach and community events. The OCSD also provides street and regional narcotics suppression programs, a gang enforcement team, a mounted unit, a special weapons and tactics team, the hazardous devices squad, hostage negotiations, numerous special investigation units, helicopter patrols, the “drug use is life abuse” drug education program, Stanton sheriff’s explorers, and a large complement of professional service and patrol trained reserve deputy sheriffs that are available to serve the City (OCSD 2023).

The project site is within the boundaries of the existing Carver Early Education Center and currently is developed as a sports complex that is not currently in use with the exception of the community garden. As discussed in Section 3.14(a), the proposed project would not directly or indirectly increase population within the City of Station. The proposed project would serve existing populations of the City. However, since the project site is currently closed and not in use (except for the community garden), the proposed project could result in a slight increase in calls for police protection services at the project site due to the increase of people onsite. Nevertheless, since the proposed project would not affect population growth in the city, the proposed project’s demand for police protection services would be within Stanton Station’s existing service capacity.

Therefore, since proposed project is not a growth-inducing project, and it would not adversely affect OCSD’s ability to provide adequate service nor require new or expanded police facilities that could result in adverse environmental impacts, impacts would be less than significant. c) Schools?
Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in Section 3.14(a), the proposed project would not directly or indirectly increase population within the City of Station. As such, the proposed project would not increase the demand for schools and would not require construction of new or expanded school facilities. The proposed project is a joint-use park on the Garden Grove USD’s Carver Early Childhood Center property. The project site has been used as a joint use sports park since the agreement was signed in 1983. The project site has been closed and is not currently in use. The proposed project would not impact the existing operation of the Carver Early Childhood Center and would not increase or otherwise impact demand for school services. The proposed project would not induce population growth in the area, either directly or indirectly. The proposed project would be a benefit to the city residents and students. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. d) Parks?
Less Than Significant Impact. Demand for parks and recreational facilities in an area are usually determined by the area’s population. The proposed project does not include the development of new homes, which typically results in the need for additional park and recreational amenities. The proposed project would provide necessary improvements to the existing Norm Ross Sports Park which has not been in use due to its dilapidated condition.

N O R M R O S S S P O R T S P A R K I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N

C I T Y O F S T A N T O N

3. Environmental Analysis

The proposed project would not create demands for parks, but instead provide and improve amenities. Physical impacts from development of the proposed project are addressed in this IS/MND, and no additional impacts beyond what is addressed in this IS/MND would occur. Impacts would be less than significant. e) Other public facilities?
Less than Significant Impact. Physical impacts to public services are usually associated with population inmigration and growth, which increase the demand for public services and facilities. As discussed in Section

3.14(a), the proposed project would not directly or indirectly increase population within the City of Station.

The project would not result in impacts associated with the provision of other new or physically altered public facilities (e.g., libraries, hospitals, childcare, teen or senior centers). The project would not induce population growth. Less than significant impacts to other public facilities would occur.

3.16 RECREATION
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVI. RECREATION.
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?
X
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?
X
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 Impact. Demand for parks and recreational facilities in an area are usually determined by the area’s population. As stated in Section 3.14(a), the proposed project does not include the development of new homes and would not generate population growth, which typically result in the need for additional park and recreation facilities. The project site, which is currently developed with the Norm Ross Sports Park is closed and not currently in use with the exception of the community garden. The existing Norm Ross Sports Park is on the Carver Early Education Center property and operates under a joint-use agreement with the City of Stanton. The proposed project would continue to have a joint-use agreement between both agencies, and with development of the proposed project, the project site would be reopened for general use. Therefore, since the proposed project would not induce population growth, the proposed project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that physical deterioration of the facility would occur. The proposed project would be beneficial for the existing neighborhood recreational facilities by increasing park amenities in the area. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

N O R M R O S S S P O R T S P A R K I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N

C I T Y O F S T A N T O N

3. Environmental Analysis
April 2025 Page 97
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 Impact. As discussed under Threshold 3.16(a), above, the proposed project involves the redevelopment of a joint-use park to serve the existing community. The environmental effects associated with construction and operation of the proposed project are evaluated throughout this IS/MND. The proposed project would not result in physical environmental impacts to other recreational facilities. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

3.17 TRANSPORTATION
The analysis in this section is based in part on the following technical studies, included as Appendix F to this IS/MND:
▪ Traffic/Transportation Analysis, For the proposed Norm Ross Sports Park Improvement Project, Garland Associates., December, 2023
Would the project:

Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVII. TRANSPORTATION. Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
X
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b)? X
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
X
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? X
Street, Sidewalk and Crosswalk Networks
The streets that provide access to the park site include Katella Avenue, Beach Boulevard, Cedar Street, and Ruthann Avenue. The following paragraphs provide a brief description of the characteristics of these streets.

Street Network
Katella Avenue
Katella Avenue is a six lane east-west arterial street located approximately 800 feet north of the park site. It has sidewalks on both sides of the street and parking is prohibited on both sides of the street in the vicinity of the project site. Katella Avenue is a divided highway with raised medians. Access to the park site is provided from Katella Avenue via Cedar Street. The speed limit on Katella Avenue is 45 miles per hour (mph).

N O R M R O S S S P O R T S P A R K I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N

C I T Y O F S T A N T O N

3. Environmental Analysis

Beach Boulevard/State Route 39
Beach Boulevard/State Route 39 is an eight lane north-south arterial street located approximately 200 feet east of the park site. It has sidewalks on both sides of the street and parking is prohibited on both sides of the street in the vicinity of the project site. Beach Boulevard is a divided highway with raised medians. Egress from the parking lot on the north side of the park site is provided on Beach Boulevard. The speed limit on Beach Boulevard is 45 mph.

Cedar Street
Cedar Street is a two lane north-south street that provides a link between Katella Avenue and the parking lot on the north side of the project site. It has sidewalks on both sides of the street and parking is provided on the west side of the street. The speed limit on Cedar Street is 25 mph.

Ruthann Avenue
Ruthann Avenue is a two lane east-west local residential street located approximately 60 feet south of the park site. It has sidewalks and parking on both sides of the street. A gated emergency access driveway is provided from Ruthann Avenue to the park on the southeast corner of the project site. The speed limit on Ruthann Avenue is 25 mph.

Intersections Near the Park Site
The intersections that are near the park site and the types of traffic control at each intersection are shown in Table 16, Intersections near the Project Site. The locations of the existing crosswalks are also shown. The crosswalks at the signalized intersections are equipped with pedestrian push buttons and pedestrian WALK signals.

N O R M R O S S S P O R T S P A R K I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N

C I T Y O F S T A N T O N

3. Environmental Analysis
April 2025 Page 99
Table 16 Intersections near the Project Site
Intersection Traffic Control Crosswalks
Beach Boulevard at Katella Avenue Traffic Signal On All Four Sides Katella Avenue at Rose Street Traff Signal On North & East Sides Katella Avenue at Cedar Street Traffic Signal On East & South Sides Cedar Street at Parking Garage North Driveway 3-Way Stop Signs On South & West Sides Cedar Street at Parking Garage North Driveway Stop Sign at Driveway Exit On West Side at Driveway Sources: Garland Associates, 2023 (See Appendix E)
Bike Lanes
There are no marked bike lanes on the streets in the immediate vicinity of the project site. Bike racks are provided at the Stanton City Hall on the west side of Cedar Street and at the Stanton Branch of the Orange County Library on the east side of Cedar Street.

Public Transportation
OCTA operates Routes 29, 29A, and 529 on Beach Boulevard. Routes 29 and 29A run from Huntington Beach to La Habra. Route 529 is a weekday-only express bus that runs from Huntington Beach to Fullerton. These bus routes have northbound and southbound bus stops at Katella Avenue. OCTA also operates Route 50 on Katella Avenue. It runs from Long Beach to Orange and has eastbound and westbound bus stops at Beach Boulevard and Cedar Street. These bus routes offer a convenient public transportation option for patrons of the park.
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
Less Than Significant Impact.

Construction
Construction of the project would entail large construction equipment, transportation of equipment to and from the project site, and worker vehicles. Construction vehicles would access the project site from the existing driveway on Ruthann Avenue. Construction work and vehicle on and to the project site would be temporary, and all construction activity and staging areas would be on the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not obstruct traffic lanes and would not conflict with the circulation system. A less than significant impact would occur during construction.

Operation
Project Generated Vehicle Trips
The volumes of traffic expected to be generated by the proposed sports park were determined in order to estimate the impacts of the project on the study area streets. Table 17, Project-Generated Traffic, shows the

N O R M R O S S S P O R T S P A R K I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N

C I T Y O F S T A N T O N

3. Environmental Analysis

estimated volumes of project generated traffic for the morning and afternoon peak hours and for an entire day and shows the anticipated traffic volumes for three scenarios: a weekday during non-summer times of the year when there would be two little league games on a given day, a weekday during the summer months when there would be four games per day, and a Saturday when there would be five games per day. The trip generation rates for the park are from the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual (2021). The trip rates for the little league games are based on the assumption that each team will have 15 players and two coaches and that each of them will travel to and from the sports park in a single vehicle (with players driven by parents). It is highly likely that there would be multiple players traveling in many of the vehicles, which would reduce the traffic volumes shown in the table. The numbers shown in the table, therefore, represent a worst-case scenario.

Table 17 shows the anticipated traffic volumes for three scenarios: a weekday during non-summer times of the year when there would be two little league games on a given day, a weekday during the summer months when there would be four games per day, and a Saturday when there would be five games per day.

Table 17 Project-Generated Traffic
Land Use AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily
Total In Out Total In Out Traffic
Trip Generation Rates
Public Park (trips per acre) 4.50 59% 41% 3.50 55% 45% 34.0 Little League Baseball (trips per player and
coach per game) 0 0 0 2 1 1 2
Generated Traffic Volumes
Public Park – 4.2 acres 19 11 8 15 8 7 143
Baseball – Weekday Non-Summer (2 games,
15 players & 2 coaches per team = 60 players
& 8 coaches per day)
0 0 0 68 34 34 136
Baseball – Weekday Summer (4 games, 15
players & 2 coaches per team = 120 players &
16 coaches per day)
0 0 0 68 34 34 272
Baseball – Saturday (5 games, 15 players & 2
coaches per team = 150 players & 20 coaches
per day)
0 0 0 68 34 34 340
TOTAL – Park + Baseball
Weekday Non-Summer
Weekday Summer
Saturday
19 19
19 11
11 11
8 8
8 83
83 83
42 42
42 41
41 41
279
415
483
NOTE: The trip generation rates for little league baseball are based on the worst-case assumption that each player will be driven to the park in a separate vehicle by parents.

The PM peak hour traffic volumes for the baseball games involves two teams arriving and two teams departing during the one-hour period.

Sources: Garland Associates, 2023 (See Appendix E)
Table 17 indicates that the public park (exclusive of the baseball games) would generate an estimated 19 vehicle trips during the morning peak hour (11 inbound and 8 outbound), 15 trips during the afternoon peak hour (8 inbound and 7 outbound), and approximately 143 vehicle trips per day. On weekdays when little league baseball games would occur, the project site would generate an estimated 83 trips during the afternoon peak hour (42 inbound and 41 outbound). This level of project generated traffic is applicable to non-summer and summer times of year as well as Saturdays. The morning peak hour would remain unchanged and would only involve

N O R M R O S S S P O R T S P A R K I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N

C I T Y O F S T A N T O N

3. Environmental Analysis
April 2025 Page 101
park traffic because little league games would not occur at that time of day. Table 17 indicates that the proposed project would generate 279 daily trips on non-summer weekdays, 415 daily trips on a summer weekday, and 483 daily trips on a Saturday.

It should be noted that the traffic volumes shown in Table 17 do not necessarily introduce new traffic to the overall roadway network but instead represent the traffic that would be re-directed to the project site from other existing parks, because the little league games take place at other locations in the Stanton area. Most of the baseball-related traffic would be traveling on the roadway network regardless of the proposed project. It has been assumed for the traffic analysis, however, that the additional site-generated traffic would be new traffic on the roadway network.

To quantify the increases in traffic volumes on each of the most-directly affected arterial streets resulting from the proposed project, the project generated traffic was geographically distributed onto the street network using directional percentages that are based on the layout of the street network, the existing traffic patterns, and the anticipated geographical distribution of the patrons of the park facilities.

Table 18, Project Impacts on Daily Traffic Volumes, shows the existing and projected daily traffic volumes on various segments of Beach Boulevard and Katella Avenue. The table shows the existing traffic volume, the anticipated volume of project generated traffic, the “existing plus project” traffic volume, the projected future traffic volume for the year 2024 (without the project), and the “future with project” traffic volume for each street segment.

Table 18 Project Impacts on Daily Traffic Volumes
Street Segment Existing ADT Project Traffic Existing + Project Future with Project Beach Boulevard
North of Katella Avenue 66,000 104 66,104 66,808
South of Katella Avenue to Park Exit 66,000 208 66,208 66,908 South of Park Exit to U-Turn 66,000 415 66,415 67,115
North of Orange wood Avenue 66,000 104 66,104 66,804
Katella Avenue
West of Cedar Street 31,200 104 31,304 31,604
Cedar Street to Beach Boulevard 31,200 208 31,408 31,708 East of Beach Boulevard 25,000 104 25,104 31,604
Sources: Garland Associates, 2023 (See Appendix E)
Table 18 indicates that the increases in daily traffic volumes generated by the proposed park would be negligible compared to the existing and projected traffic volumes on Beach Boulevard and Katella Avenue. The proposed project would not generate an inefficient transportation network. The proposed project would support Stanton General Plan Goal ICS-1.1, “Provide an efficient, coherent, and well-maintained transportation network that supports the General plan Land Use Concept.”
Further, the proposed project would support Goal ICS-1.2, “Encourage alternatives to the private automobile by increasing access and opportunities to public transit, as well as to other alternative modes of transportation,

N O R M R O S S S P O R T S P A R K I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N

C I T Y O F S T A N T O N

3. Environmental Analysis

such as biking and walking” (Stanton 2008). The proposed project would bring greater efficiency to the existing transportation network by redeveloping the Norm Ross Sports Park with new facilities and reopening the park to the public. The proposed project would provide park facilities and recreational opportunities near walking distance of residences and commercial uses which would promote walking and biking.

Non-Motorized Transportation and Transit
The proposed project would generate an increased demand for non-motorized travel as some park patrons and little league participants would travel to and from the project site as pedestrians or on bicycles. The streets in the vicinity of the park site have sidewalks along both sides of the street and the nearby intersections are equipped with painted crosswalks. The signalized intersections have pedestrian push buttons and pedestrian WALK signals. While there are no bike lanes on the nearby streets, little league players could potentially ride their bikes on the sidewalks of these major arterial routes. Nearby bike racks are available at City Hall and the Stanton Branch of the Orange County Library and bike racks would be provided at the project site. So there are multiple features at and near the project site that can accommodate bicycle and pedestrian travel.

With regard to public transit, some park patrons, little league baseball players, and coaches could potentially use the OCTA buses to travel to and/or from the park site. OCTA operates Routes 29, 29A, and 529 on Beach Boulevard and Route 50 on Katella Avenue in the vicinity of the project site. The project’s impact on the operation and ridership levels on these bus routes would be negligible.

The proposed project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. The Infrastructure and Community Services Element of the Stanton General Plan includes various goals and policies to maintain and improve the infrastructure and public service systems (i.e. parks) within the City to ensure community safety and public health (Stanton 2008). As discussed above, the proposed project would support Goal ICS 1.2, which encourages use of public transit and non-motorized transit (i.e. biking and walking), and Goal ICS 4.1, which aims to maintain public parks and ensure they are accessible to all residents. The project site is not currently in use with the exception of the community garden; however, the proposed project would improve park facilities and install a new pedestrian bridge, so residents are able to use and access the park. The proposed project will be accessible to the public and host little league baseball games, which would use existing bike racks and pedestrian paths for non-motorized transportation to and from the project site.

Additionally, the SCAG’s Connect SoCal plan connects land use and transportation to increase mobility options and achieve a more sustainable growth patten within the SCAG region (SCAG 2020). Connect SoCal includes 10 goals and 7 guiding principles to implement the Connect SoCal plan. While Connect SoCal is not directly applicable to a single park project, the proposed project would support SCAG’s Connect SoCal goals. The proposed project would redevelop an existing sports complex that has been closed to the public and reopen the park. This would provide park and recreational opportunities within walking distance of surrounding residential, commercial, and academic uses, which reduces the need for single-occupancy vehicles and encourages alternatives forms of transportation (such as walking and bicycling). Thus, the proposed project would support Connect SoCal Goals 4, “increase person and goods movement and travel choices within the

N O R M R O S S S P O R T S P A R K I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N

C I T Y O F S T A N T O N

3. Environmental Analysis
April 2025 Page 103
transportation system”, 5, “reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve air quality”, and 6, “support healthy and equitable communities” (SCAG 2020).

The proposed project would not adversely affect traffic conditions on the study area roadway network or the performance of any transit, pedestrian, or bicycle facilities. The proposed project would support the goals and policies related to transit, pedestrian, and bicycle travel within Stanton’s General Plan and SCAG’s Connect SoCal plan. The proposed project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities; thus, a less than significant impact would occur.
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b)? Less Than Significant Impact. Vehicle delays and levels of service (LOS) have historically been used as the basis for determining the significance of traffic impacts as standard practice in CEQA documents. On September 27, 2013, SB 743 was signed into law, starting a process that fundamentally changed transportation impact analyses as part of CEQA compliance. SB 743 eliminates auto delay, LOS, and other similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion as the sole basis for determining significant impacts under CEQA.

As part of the new CEQA Guidelines, the new criteria “shall promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses” (Public Resources Code Section 21099(b)(1)). Pursuant to SB 743, the California Natural Resources Agency adopted revisions to the CEQA Guidelines on December 28, 2018, to implement SB 743. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 describes how transportation impacts are to be analyzed after SB 743. Under the new Guidelines, metrics related to VMT are required beginning July 1, 2020, to evaluate the significance of transportation impacts under CEQA for development projects, land use plans, and transportation infrastructure projects. The State provided an “opt-in period” and did not require lead agencies to apply a VMT metric until July 1, 2020.

However, in January 2020, State courts stated that under the Public Resources Code Section 21099, subdivision (b)(2), “automobile delay, as described solely by level of service or similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment” under CEQA, except for roadway capacity projects.

As stated in the Orange County “Transportation Implementation Manual” and the “Guidelines for Evaluating Vehicle Miles Traveled Under CEQA”, a project that generates 500 or fewer ADT may be assumed to result in a less than significant transportation impact and can be screened from a CEQA VMT analysis because it falls into the small project category (Garland 2023). As the traffic that would be generated by the proposed project is below the VMT threshold of 500 trips per day (see Table 17, Project-Generated Traffic), it can be screened from any further CEQA VMT analysis and would not result in a significant impact relative to VMT.

In addition, the Orange County guidelines state that the development of public facilities, which includes institutional/government and public service uses, can be screened from a CEQA VMT analysis. As the proposed sports park project is included in the public facilities category, it can be screened in accordance with the Orange County guidelines. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b), and impacts would be less than significant.

N O R M R O S S S P O R T S P A R K I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N

C I T Y O F S T A N T O N

3. Environmental Analysis

c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? No Impact. The proposed project would not provide any on- or off-site access or circulation features that would create or increase any design hazards or incompatible uses. Access to the park site for vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians would continue to occur via properly designed streets, driveways, sidewalks, and on-site pedestrian pathways and a new pedestrian bridge would be constructed across the Stanton Storm Channel to improve pedestrian access to the proposed project. The streets, intersections, driveways, and on-site circulation system are designed to accommodate the anticipated levels of vehicular and pedestrian activity and have historically been accommodating park-related traffic on a daily basis. These facilities would continue to be compatible with the design and operation of a park.

As the proposed project would not result in any adverse changes to the access or circulation features at the project site or on the surrounding streets, there would be no increased hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible uses. No impact would occur.
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
No Impact. Emergency access will continue to be provided by an existing gated driveway located at the southeast corner of the project site that connects to Ruthann Avenue. In addition, emergency vehicles can also access the parking lot to the north side of the project site via Cedar Street. The existing and proposed access and circulation features at the project site would continue to accommodate emergency ingress and egress by fire trucks, police units, and ambulance/paramedic vehicles. The proposed project would improve emergency access by developing concrete paved path from the southwest corner of the project site along the eastern boundary to the northern portion of the project site (see Figure 4, Proposed Site Plan). The proposed project would improve emergency access compared to existing conditions; therefore, a less than significant impact shall occur.

3.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES.
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code § 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section
5020.1(k), or
X

N O R M R O S S S P O R T S P A R K I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N

C I T Y O F S T A N T O N

3. Environmental Analysis
April 2025 Page 105
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code § 5024.1. In applying the
criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code § 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a California Native
American tribe.

X
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or Less than Significant Impact. The project site is within the Carver Early Education Center and is currently developed with an existing sports complex. The project site is not listed as a historical resource in the Office of Historic Preservation’s Listed California Historical Resources, California Points of Historical Interest, California Historical Landmarks, California Register of Historical Resources, and is not in the National Register of Historic Places (SCCIC 2023). Implementation of the proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. The project site does not meet the historic resource criteria and does not meet the definition of a historic resource pursuant to CEQA. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in any substantial adverse change in a tribal cultural resource defined pursuant to PRC Section 5024.1 or PRC Section 5020.1(k). A less than significant impact would occur.
ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The records search performed by the South-Central Coastal Information Center indicated the project site is not listed in the Office of Historic Preservation’s Listed California Historical Resources, California Points of Historical Interest, California Historical Landmarks, California Register of Historical Resources, or in the National Register of Historic Places (SCCIC 2023). The project site does not contain any known tribal resources pursuant to PRC section 5024.1.

N O R M R O S S S P O R T S P A R K I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N

C I T Y O F S T A N T O N

3. Environmental Analysis

In accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21080.1(d), and pursuant to AB 52, the City mailed and emailed tribal consultation letters to the following tribes: Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation, Manzanita Band of Kumeyaay Nation, Cahuilla Band of Indians, Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe, Juaneño Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation, Juaneño Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation – Belardes, Juaneño Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation 84A, Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council, Ewiiaapaayp Tribal Office, Pala Band of Mission Indians, Gabrielino/Tongva nation, Mesa Grande Band of Diegueno Mission Indians, Sycuan Band of Kumeyaay Nation, Campo Band of Diegueno Mission Indians, Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians, La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians, Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians, and Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians.

The Pala Band of Mission Indians, Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians, and the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation responded. The Pala Band of Mission Indians notified the City that the project site is not within the boundaries of the recognized Pala Indian Reservation, and beyond the territory that the tribe considers its traditional use area. The Pala Band of Mission Indians have declined AB-52 consultation. The Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians declined consultation. The Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation requested consultation with the City in accordance with AB 52. The City and the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation conducted consultation and agreed to mitigation measures TCR-1 though TCR-3, which require the presence of a tribal monitor during earthwork activities and provides procedures in the event that a tribal cultural resources is encountered during construction. The mitigation measures would ensure that impacts to tribal cultural resources are less than significant. With the incorporation of mitigation measures TCR-1 through TCR-3, a less than significant impact would occur.

Mitigation Measure
TCR-1 Retain a Native American Monitor Prior to Commencement of Ground-Disturbing Activities A. The City shall retain a Native American Monitor from or approved by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation. The monitor shall be retained prior to the commencement of any “ground-disturbing activity” for the subject project at all project locations (i.e., both on-site and any off-site locations that are included in the project description/definition and/or required in connection with the project, such as public improvement work). “Grounddisturbing activity” shall include, but is not limited to, demolition, pavement removal, potholing, auguring, grubbing, tree removal, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching.

B. A copy of the executed monitoring agreement shall be submitted to the City prior to the earlier of the commencement of any ground-disturbing activity, or the issuance of any permit necessary to commence a ground-disturbing activity.

C. The monitor will complete daily monitoring logs that will provide descriptions of the relevant ground-disturbing activities, the type of construction activities performed, locations of ground-disturbing activities, soil types, cultural-related materials, and any other facts, conditions, materials, or discoveries of significance to the Tribe. Monitor logs will identify and

N O R M R O S S S P O R T S P A R K I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N

C I T Y O F S T A N T O N

3. Environmental Analysis
April 2025 Page 107
describe any discovered TCRs, including but not limited to, Native American cultural and historical artifacts, remains, places of significance, etc., (collectively, tribal cultural resources, or “TCR”), as well as any discovered Native American (ancestral) human remains and burial goods. Copies of monitor logs will be provided to the City upon written request to the Tribe.

D. On-site tribal monitoring shall conclude upon the earlier of the following (1) written confirmation to the Kizh from a designated point of contact for the City that all grounddisturbing activities and phases that may involve ground-disturbing activities on the project site or in connection with the project are complete; or (2) a determination and written notification by the Kizh to the City that no future, planned construction activity and/or development/construction phase at the project site possesses the potential to impact Kizh TCRs.

TCR-2 Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resources Objects (Non-Funerary/Non-Ceremonial) Upon discovery of any TCRs, all construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall cease (i.e., not less than the surrounding 50 feet) and shall not resume until the discovered TCR has been assessed by the Kizh monitor or Kizh archaeologist. The Kizh will recover and retain all discovered TCRs in the form and/or manner the Tribe deems appropriate, in the Tribe’s sole discretion, and for any purpose the Tribe deems appropriate, including for educational, cultural and/or historic purposes.

TCR-3 Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains and Associated Funerary or Ceremonial Objects A. Native American human remains are defined in PRC 5097.98 (d)(1) as an inhumation or cremation, and in any state of decomposition or skeletal completeness. Funerary objects, called associated grave goods in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, are also to be treated according to this statute.

B. If Native American human remains and/or grave goods are discovered or recognized on the project site, then Public Resource Code 5097.9 as well as Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 shall be followed.

C. Human remains and grave/burial goods shall be treated alike per California Public Resources Code section 5097.98(d)(1) and (2).

D. Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment for discovered human remains and/or burial goods.

E. Any discovery of human remains/burial goods shall be kept confidential to prevent further disturbance.

N O R M R O S S S P O R T S P A R K I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N

C I T Y O F S T A N T O N

3. Environmental Analysis

3.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project:

Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
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 telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
X
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during
normal, dry and multiple dry years?
X
c) Result in a determination by the waste water 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?
X
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?
X
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? X 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 telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project involves the redevelopment of the Norm Ross Sports Park. The project site is on a school campus in an urbanized area. The project site is presently served by water, stormwater, electrical power and telecommunication facilities. Since there are no restrooms or buildings onsite, the project site is not currently served by wastewater infrastructure. Since park uses do not have a need for natural gas, the project site is also not currently served by natural gas. The proposed project would include the construction of park and sport facilities that would connect to existing utility lines, including water, wastewater, electric power, and natural gas, that currently serve the school campus and surrounding urban area. The connection and extension of the utility lines would not cause significant environmental effects since the project site is in a highly urbanized area.

As discussed in Section 1.4, Project Description, the proposed project includes new stormwater infrastructure, such as a infiltration basin or a bioretention basin without underdrain. The implementation of the stormwater infrastructure onsite would ensure that the proposed project’s stormwater does not exceed the capacity of the stormwater infrastructure on public rights of way and Carver Elementary School.

N O R M R O S S S P O R T S P A R K I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N

C I T Y O F S T A N T O N

3. Environmental Analysis
April 2025 Page 109
Further, the proposed project includes the construction and operation of a sports park that would serve the existing community. The proposed project would not increase population growth in the city. The proposed project would also be designed in accordance with the latest CBC, which includes requirements for water flow and energy use. Therefore, the proposed project would be adequately served by existing utilities. The proposed project would not require the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is currently not in use except for the community garden, and the proposed project would increase park goers to the project site. As such the proposed project would be expected to result in a slight increase in water demand at the project site. However, the proposed project would not result in direct or indirect population growth. Further, compared to existing conditions, the proposed project would increase the amount of hardscape surfaces, which does not need to be watered. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a substantial increase in water demand. The project site is within the service boundary of the Golden State Water Company (GSWC) – West Orange. According to the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, GSWC – West Orange has reliable supplies to meet its retail customer demands in normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry years through 2045 (GSWC 2021). GSWC’s contract with Municipal Water District of Orange County and groundwater supplies from the Orange County Groundwater Basin ensure resiliency during dry conditions. As such, GSWC – West Orange would not be faced with shortages during normal or dry years through the planning horizon of the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (GSWC 2021).

The project site is currently developed with the Norm Ross Sports Park, and the proposed project would improve the facilities onsite. While the proposed project may result in a minimal increase in water use, it would not generate population growth and would be within the projections of the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. GSWC – West Orange would not have water supply shortages through the planning horizon of the plan.

Therefore, the proposed project’s impact would be less than significant. c) Result in a determination by the waste water 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 Impact. Wastewater is collected by the City of Stanton Public Works Department and then treated by the Orange County Sanitation District (OC SAN). OC SAN has two operating facilities that treat wastewater from residential, commercial, and industrial sources, which treated approximately 179 million gallons per day in the 2021-2022 year (OC SAN 2023). The proposed project would improve an existing sports complex. The project site is currently not in use except for the community garden, and the proposed project would increase park goers to the project site. As such the proposed project would be expected to result in an increase in wastewater generation at the project site. However, the proposed project would not result in direct or indirect population growth and would not result in a substantial increase in wastewater generation. The increase would be nominal and would not exceed the capacity of the existing treatment facilities. Therefore, impact would be less than significant.

N O R M R O S S S P O R T S P A R K I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N

C I T Y O F S T A N T O N

3. Environmental Analysis

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 Impact. The project site is currently not in use except for the community garden, and the proposed project would increase park goers to the project site. As such the proposed project would be expected to result in an increase in solid waste generation at the project site. However, the proposed project would not result in direct or indirect population growth and would not result in a substantial increase in solid waste generation. Solid waste generation from the proposed project would be similar to existing conditions, as the proposed project would not result in a change in the use of the site. Solid waste from the project site would be transferred to the Frank R. Bowerman Sanitary Landfill located at 11002 Bee Canyon Access Road in Irvine.

The landfill has a maximum permitted throughput of 11,500 tons per day, a remaining capacity of 205,000,000 cubic yards, and a cease date of December 31, 2053 (CalRecycle 2024b). Since the proposed project would not generate substantial amounts of solid waste, the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact. e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Less Than Significant Impact. Solid waste would be generated during construction and operation of the proposed project. The Solid Waste Ruse and Recycling Access Act of 1991 requires that adequate areas be provided for collecting and loading recyclable materials such as paper, products, glass, and other recyclables.

Chapter 6.04, Integrated Waste Management, of the City’s Municipal Code, provides provisions for the collection and storage of solid waste, including construction and demolition waste management. Additionally, the proposed project would comply with solid waste disposal requirements, including requirements to divert solid waste to landfills through recycling. During construction, the proposed project would comply with CALGreen, which requires recycling and/or salvaging for reuse a minimum of 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste generated during most “new construction” projects (CALGreen Sections

4.408 and 5.408). As such, the impact would be less than significant.

3.20 WILDFIRE
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:

Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XX. WILDFIRE. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? X
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?
X

N O R M R O S S S P O R T S P A R K I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N

C I T Y O F S T A N T O N

3. Environmental Analysis
April 2025 Page 111
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?
X
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? X
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact. The project site and surroundings are in a heavily urbanized area and are not within nor near a VHFHSZ (CAL FIRE 2022). The nearest VHSHSZ is approximately 7 miles to the north of the project site.

The OCFA would review development plans to ensure adequate emergency access. Emergency access to the site would continue to be provided via Ruthann Avenue. Additionally, the proposed project would be required to comply with the most current CBC and CFC regulations, which would ensure adequate access. The proposed project would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. No impact would occur.
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?
No Impact. The project site is not in, adjacent to, nor within proximity of a VHFHSZ. The nearest VHSHSZ is approximately 7 miles to the north of the project site. The project site and its surroundings are in a heavily urbanized area. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. No impact would occur. 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? No Impact. The project site is not in, adjacent to or within proximity of a VHFHSZ. The nearest VHSHSZ is approximately 7 miles to the north of the project site. The project site is in an urbanized area with existing utilities lines onsite and surrounding the site. New utility lines would be installed per the requirements of the utility providers. Therefore, the proposed project would not require the installation of new infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risk. No impact would occur.

N O R M R O S S S P O R T S P A R K I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N

C I T Y O F S T A N T O N

3. Environmental Analysis

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? No Impact. The project site is not in, adjacent to or within proximity of a VHFHSZ. The nearest VHSHSZ is approximately 7 miles to the north of the project site. The project site is already developed with a sports complex and is currently unused. As indicated in Section 3.7 and Section 3.10, above, the project site is not within a landslide hazard zone and the site is within flood Zone X. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in runoff, postfire slope instability, or drainage changes (see Section 3.7, Geology and Soils, and Section

3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, respectively. No impact would occur.

3.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
X
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)
X
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
X
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in Section 3.4, Biological Resources, the proposed project site is currently developed with park/sport complex uses that is closed and unused with the exception of the community garden. It does not contain any special-status or sensitive biological resources. The proposed project would not substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a sensitive plant or animal community, or substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal.

N O R M R O S S S P O R T S P A R K I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N

C I T Y O F S T A N T O N

3. Environmental Analysis
April 2025 Page 113
As discussed in Section 3.5, Cultural Resources, and Section 3.18, Tribal Cultural Resources, the proposed project site is currently developed with park/sport complex uses that is closed and unused with the exception of the community garden. The project site does not contain built environment resources and no known archaeological nor tribal cultural resources. The proposed project therefore would not eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history and would not have an adverse impact on California’s prehistoric cultural resources. Further, the proposed project would incorporate Mitigation Measures CUL-1, TCR-1, TCR-2, and TCR-3, which provides procedures in the event of an accidental archaeological find, which would ensure that impacts related to cultural and tribal cultural resources are less than significant. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would redevelop an existing sports complex/park. As discussed throughout this Initial Study, the proposed project would have no impact, a less than significant impact, or a less than significant with mitigation measures to aesthetics, agricultural/forestry resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology/soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology/water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation, tribal cultural resources, utilities and service systems, and wildfire. For this reason, the proposed project would not result in significant cumulative impacts to any resources. Therefore, all impacts are individually limited and would not result in any cumulatively significant impact. Impacts would be less than significant.
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would redevelop an existing sports complex/park.

Thus, the proposed project would provide opportunities for recreation, exercise, and gathering. As discussed in the previous analyses, the proposed project would not result in significant direct or indirect adverse impacts or result in substantial adverse effects on human beings. Impacts would be less than significant.

April 2025 Page 114

4. References
AirNav.com. 2023. Airports. https://www.airnav.com/airports/.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2023, May. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. https://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/california-environmentalquality-act-ceqa/updated-ceqa-guidelines.

California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2022. California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod). Version 2022.1. Prepared by: ICF in collaboration with Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District.

California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2017, March 14. Final proposed Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/shortlived/shortlived.htm. ———. 2022, 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-12/2022-sp.pdf. ———. 2024, January 2 (accessed). Area Designations Maps/State and National. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/maps-state-and-federal-area-designations.

California Department of Conservation (DOC). 2021, September 23 (updated). EQ Zapp: California Earthquake Hazards Zone Application. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/geohazards/eq-zapp. ______. 2022, November 10 (accessed). California Important Farmland Finder. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2022, November 11 (accessed). California Natural Diversity Database, CNDDB QuickView Tool in BIOS 6.
https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/bios6/?tool=cnddbqv
______. 2024a, January 19 (accessed). Habitat Connectivity Viewer. https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/Analysis/Connectivity.
______. 2024b, January 19 (accessed). NCCP Plan Summary – Orange County Transportation Authority NCCP/HCP. https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Planning/NCCP/Plans/OCTA.

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2022, November 14 (accessed). Fire Hazard Severity Zones Maps, FHSZ Viewer. https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/ California Division of Mines and Geology. 1975. Mineral Land Classification Map. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/index.html?map=mlc.

N O R M R O S S S P O R T S P A R K I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y / / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N

C I T Y O F S T A N T O N

4. References
April 2025 Page 115
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).2023 (accessed). California State Scenic Highway System Map.
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f 1aacaa.

California Department of Resources and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2024a. SWIS Facticity/Site Search. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/Search
______. 2024b. SWIS Facility Detail: Frank R. Bowerman Sanitary Landfill (30-AB-0360). https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/2767?siteID=2103 California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2023. Envirostor. Database. https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/.

California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2023. Dam Breach and Inundation Maps. https://fmds.water.ca.gov/webgis/?appid=dam_prototype_v2 California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). January 2024. State and Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Plants of California. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Sacramento, CA.

California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA). 2018, November. Final Statement of Reasons for Regulatory Action. https://resources.ca.gov/CNRALegacyFiles/ceqa/docs/2018_CEQA_Final_State ment_of%20Reasons_111218.pdf.

Department of Transportation, California. 2024, September 20. (accessed). California State Scenic Highway System Map.
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f 1aacaa
Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2024. EnviroStor. http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2009, December 3. FEMA Flood Map Service Center.

Flood ID Map #06053C0136J.
https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=11150%20Santa%20Rosalia%20St%2C%20Sta nton%2C%20CA%2090680#searchresultsanchor
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2006, August. Construction Noise Handbook. ______. 2006, January. FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM) User’s Guide.

Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2018, September. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment.

N O R M R O S S S P O R T S P A R K I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N

C I T Y O F S T A N T O N

4. References

Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). 2008, June. CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing Climate Change through CEQA Review. Technical Advisory. http://www.opr.ca.gov/ceqa/pdfs/june08-ceqa.pdf.

Garland Associates. December 2023. Norm Ross Park ADT and VMT Study.

Golden State Water Company (GSWC). 2021, July 15. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan – West Orange Service Area.
https://wuedata.water.ca.gov/getfile?filename=/public%2Fuwmp_attachments%2F1441205680%2 FGSWC-West%20Orange%202020%20UWMP%20Final.pdf
Institution of Lighting Engineers (ILE). 2003, May. Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Light Pollution. https://www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Planning%20and%20building/SPG%20Lightpollutio n%202002.pdf.

Institute of Transportation Engineers. 2021, September. Trip Generation Manual, 11th edition. https://www.ite.org/ITEORG/assets/File/ITEJ%20Published/2021/ITE_ITE_October2021.pdf John R. Byerly Inc. 2023, April 14. Geotechnical Investigation, Norm Ross Sports Park Proposed Park Building and Bridge Over Storm Channel.

New Zealand Transport Agency 2012. Ground Vibration from Road Construction.

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). 2015, February. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. http://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/2015/2015GuidanceManual.pdf.

Orange County Sanitation District (OC SAN). 2023, May 11 (accessed). Regional Sewer Service. https://www.ocsan.gov/services/regional-sewer-service
Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA). 2023, March (accessed). Fire Stations. https://ocfa.org/AboutUs/FireStations.aspx.

Orange County Sheriff ’s Department (OCSD). 2023, March (accessed). Stanton. https://ocsheriff.gov/patrol-areas/stanton.

Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2020, September 20 (adopted). Connect SoCal (2020–2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy). https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/0903fconnectsocal-plan_0.pdf?1606001176 South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC). 2023, April 26. Record Search Results for the Norm Ross Sports Park Joint Use Project, South Central Coastal Information Center.

South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD). 2008, July. Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localizedsignificance-thresholds/final-lst-methodology-document.pdf.

N O R M R O S S S P O R T S P A R K I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y / / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N

C I T Y O F S T A N T O N

4. References
April 2025 Page 117
———. 2010, September 28. Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group #15. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)- ceqa-significance-thresholds/year-2008-2009/ghg-meeting-15/ghg-meeting-15-minutes.pdf. ———. 2011. Fact Sheet for Applying CalEEMod to Localized Significance Thresholds. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significancethresholds/caleemod-guidance.pdf ———. 2022, December. 2022 Air Quality Management Plan. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/clean-air-plans/air-quality-management-plans/2022-air-quality-management-plan/final-2022- aqmp/final-2022-aqmp.pdf?sfvrsn=10.
———. 2023, March. South Coast AQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds. https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/south-coast-aqmd-air-qualitysignificance-thresholds.pdf?sfvrsn=25.

Stanton, City of. 2008, September. City of Stanton General Plan. https://cms9files.revize.com/stantonca/Document_center/Department/Community%20Developm ent/Adopted%20General%20Plan.pdf.
______. 2023a. Parks Master Plan.
https://cms9files.revize.com/stantonca/Document_center/Department/Community%20Services/7 89-05%20Stanton%20Parks%20Master%20Plan%20Report%202023-Final%20Draft%2009-28-

23.pdf
______. Accessed December 12, 2023b. Stanton, California Noise Ordinance. https://library.qcode.us/lib/stanton_ca/pub/municipal_code/item/title_9-chapter_9_28?view=all ______. Accessed January 19, 2024. Stanton, Municipal Code. Chapter 19.12, Standards of Design. https://ecode360.com/ST5018.

State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2024. Geotracker. Database. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/.

Terra Geosciences. 2023, April 11. Geologic Hazards Report, Norm Ross Sports Park.

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2024a. EJScreen. https://ejscreen.epa.gov/mapper/. ______. 2024b. EnviroMapper. https://enviro.epa.gov/enviro/em4ef.home.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2024, January 15 (accessed). National Wetlands Inventory. https://fwsprimary.wim.usgs.gov/wetlands/apps/wetlands-mapper/ United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2023, April 1 (accessed). Land Subsidence in California, Areas of Land Subsidence in California. https://ca.water.usgs.gov/land_subsidence/california-subsidenceareas.html

N O R M R O S S S P O R T S P A R K I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N

C I T Y O F S T A N T O N

4. References

April 2025 Page 119

5. List of Preparers

CITY OF STANTON, LEAD AGENCY
Cesar Rangel, Public Works Director/City Engineer
Elias Garcia, Assistant City Engineer

PBK ARCHITECTS
Jose Vallarta, Associate Principal
Arielle Mascarinas, Project Manager

N O R M R O S S S P O R T S P A R K I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N

C I T Y O F S T A N T O N

5. List of Preparers

This page intentionally left blank.

N O R M R O S S S P O R T S P A R K IMPROVEMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUD Y/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

CITY OF STANTON
Appendix
January 2024
Appendix A Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and
Energy

Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and
Modeling Data

AIR QUALITY
Air Quality Regulatory Setting
The proposed project has the potential to release gaseous emissions of criteria pollutants and dust into the ambient air; therefore, it falls under the ambient air quality standards promulgated at the local, state, and federal levels. The project site is in the SoCAB and is subject to the rules and regulations imposed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD). However, South Coast AQMD reports to California Air Resources board (CARB), and all criteria emissions are also governed by the California and national Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS). Federal, state, regional, and local laws, regulations, plans, or guidelines that are potentially applicable to the proposed project are summarized below.

AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
The Clean Air Act (CAA) was passed in 1963 by the US Congress and has been amended several times. The 1970 Clean Air Act amendments strengthened previous legislation and laid the foundation for the regulatory scheme of the 1970s and 1980s. In 1977, Congress again added several provisions, including nonattainment requirements for areas not meeting National AAQS and the Prevention of Significant Deterioration program.

The 1990 amendments represent the latest in a series of federal efforts to regulate the protection of air quality in the United States. The CAA allows states to adopt more stringent standards or to include other pollution species. The California Clean Air Act (CCAA), signed into law in 1988, requires all areas of the state to achieve and maintain the California AAQS by the earliest practical date. The California AAQS tend to be more restrictive than the National AAQS, based on even greater health and welfare concerns.

These National AAQS and California AAQS are the levels of air quality considered to provide a margin of safety in the protection of the public health and welfare. They are designed to protect “sensitive receptors” most susceptible to further respiratory distress, such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by other disease or illness, and persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise. Healthy adults can tolerate occasional exposure to air pollutant concentrations considerably above these minimum standards before adverse effects are observed.

Both California and the federal government have established health-based AAQS for seven air pollutants. As shown in Table 1, Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants, these pollutants include ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), coarse inhalable particulate matter (PM10), fine inhalable particulate matter (PM2.5), and lead (Pb). In addition, the state has set standards for

AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS BACKGROUND AND MODELING DATA

sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride, and visibility-reducing particles. These standards are designed to protect the health and welfare of the populace with a reasonable margin of safety.

Table 1 Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants Pollutant Averaging Time
California
Standard1
Federal Primary
Standard2 Major Pollutant Sources
Ozone (O3)3 1 hour 0.09 ppm * Motor vehicles, paints, coatings, and solvents. 8 hours 0.070 ppm 0.070 ppm
Carbon Monoxide
(CO)
1 hour 20 ppm 35 ppm Internal combustion engines, primarily gasoline-powered motor vehicles.
8 hours 9.0 ppm 9 ppm
Nitrogen Dioxide
(NO2)
Annual Arithmetic
Mean

0.030 ppm 0.053 ppm Motor vehicles, petroleum-refining operations, industrial sources, aircraft, ships, and railroads.
1 hour 0.18 ppm 0.100 ppm
Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2)
Annual Arithmetic
Mean
* 0.030 ppm Fuel combustion, chemical plants, sulfur recovery plants, and metal processing.
1 hour 0.25 ppm 0.075 ppm
24 hours 0.04 ppm 0.14 ppm
Respirable Coarse
Particulate Matter
(PM10)
Annual Arithmetic
Mean
20 µg/m3 * Dust and fume-producing construction, industrial, and agricultural operations, combustion, atmospheric
photochemical reactions, and natural activities (e.g., wind24 hours 50 µg/m raised dust and ocean sprays). 3 150 µg/m3 Respirable Fine
Particulate Matter
(PM2.5)4
Annual Arithmetic
Mean
12 µg/m3 12 µg/m3 Dust and fume-producing construction, industrial, and agricultural operations, combustion, atmospheric
photochemical reactions, and natural activities (e.g., wind24 hours * 35 µg/m raised dust and ocean sprays). 3 Lead (Pb) 30-Day Average 1.5 µg/m3 * Present source: lead smelters, battery manufacturing & recycling facilities. Past source: combustion of leaded Calendar Quarter * 1.5 µg/m gasoline. 3
Rolling 3-Month
Average
* 0.15 µg/m3
Sulfates (SO4)
5 24 hours 25 µg/m3 * Industrial processes.

Visibility Reducing
Particles
8 hours ExCo
=0.23/km
visibility of
10≥ miles
No Federal
Standard
Visibility-reducing particles consist of suspended
particulate matter, which is a complex mixture of tiny
particles that consists of dry solid fragments, solid cores with liquid coatings, and small droplets of liquid. These particles vary greatly in shape, size and chemical
composition, and can be made up of many different
materials such as metals, soot, soil, dust, and salt.

AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS BACKGROUND AND MODELING DATA

Table 1 Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants Pollutant Averaging Time
California
Standard1
Federal Primary
Standard2 Major Pollutant Sources
Hydrogen Sulfide 1 hour 0.03 ppm No Federal
Standard
Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) is a colorless gas with the odor of rotten eggs. It is formed during bacterial decomposition of sulfur-containing organic substances. Also, it can be
present in sewer gas and some natural gas and can be
emitted as the result of geothermal energy exploitation.

Vinyl Chloride 24 hours 0.01 ppm No Federal
Standard
Vinyl chloride (chloroethene), a chlorinated hydrocarbon, is a colorless gas with a mild, sweet odor. Most vinyl
chloride is used to make polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastic and vinyl products. Vinyl chloride has been detected near landfills, sewage plants, and hazardous waste sites, due to microbial breakdown of chlorinated solvents.

Source: CARB 2016.

Notes: ppm: parts per million; μg/m3: micrograms per cubic meter * Standard has not been established for this pollutant/duration by this entity. 1 California standards for O3, CO (except 8-hour Lake Tahoe), SO2 (1 and 24 hour), NO2, and particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5, and visibility reducing particles), are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded. California ambient air quality standards are listed in the Table of Standards in Section 70200 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations. 2 National standards (other than O3, PM, and those based on annual arithmetic mean) are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The O3 standard is attained when the fourth highest 8-hour concentration measured at each site in a year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than the standard. For PM10, the 24-hour standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration above 150 µg/m3 is equal to or less than one. For PM2.5, the 24-hour standard is attained when 98 percent of the daily concentrations, averaged over three years, are equal to or less than the standard. 3 On October 1, 2015, the national 8-hour ozone primary and secondary standards were lowered from 0.075 to 0.070 ppm. 4 On December 14, 2012, the national annual PM2.5 primary standard was lowered from 15 μg/m3 to 12.0 µg/m3. The existing national 24-hour PM2.5 standards (primary and secondary) were retained at 35 µg/m3, as was the annual secondary standard of 15 µg/m3. The existing 24-hour PM10 standards (primary and secondary) of 150 µg/m3 also were retained. The form of the annual primary and secondary standards is the annual mean, averaged over 3 years. 5 On June 2, 2010, a new 1-hour SO2 standard was established and the existing 24-hour and annual primary standards were revoked. The 1-hour national standard is in units of parts per billion (ppb). California standards are in units of parts per million (ppm). To directly compare the 1-hour national standard to the California standard the units can be converted to ppm. In this case, the national standard of 75 ppb is identical to 0.075 ppm.

California has also adopted a host of other regulations that reduce criteria pollutant emissions, including:
 AB 1493: Pavley Fuel Efficiency Standards
 Title 20 California Code of Regulations (CCR): Appliance Energy Efficiency Standards  Title 24, Part 6, CCR: Building and Energy Efficiency Standards  Title 24, Part 11, CCR: Green Building Standards Code

AIR POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN
Criteria Air Pollutants
The air pollutants emitted into the ambient air by stationary and mobile sources are regulated by federal and state law. Air pollutants are categorized as primary or secondary pollutants. Primary air pollutants are those that are emitted directly from sources and include CO, VOC, NO2, SOX, PM10, PM2.5, and Pb. Of these, CO, SO2, NO2, PM10, and PM2.5 are “criteria air pollutants,” which means that ambient air quality standards (AAQS) have been established for them. VOC and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) are air pollutant precursors that form secondary criteria pollutants through chemical and photochemical reactions in the atmosphere. Ozone (O3) and NO2 are the principal secondary pollutants. A description of each of the primary and secondary criteria air pollutants and their known health effects is presented below.

AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS BACKGROUND AND MODELING DATA

Carbon Monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless, toxic gas produced by incomplete combustion of carbon substances, such as gasoline or diesel fuel. CO is a primary criteria air pollutant. CO concentrations tend to be the highest during winter mornings with little to no wind, when surface-based inversions trap the pollutant at ground levels. Because CO is emitted directly from internal combustion, engines and motor vehicles operating at slow speeds are the primary source of CO in the SoCAB. The highest ambient CO concentrations are generally found near traffic-congested corridors and intersections. The primary adverse health effect associated with CO is interference with normal oxygen transfer to the blood, which may result in tissue oxygen deprivation (South Coast AQMD 2005; US EPA 2023). The SoCAB is designated as being in attainment under the California AAQS and attainment (serious maintenance) under the National AAQS (CARB 2023a).

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) are composed primarily of hydrogen and carbon atoms. Internal combustion associated with motor vehicle usage is the major source of VOCs. Other sources include evaporative emissions from paints and solvents, asphalt paving, and household consumer products such as aerosols (South Coast AQMD 2005). There are no AAQS for VOCs. However, because they contribute to the formation of O3, South Coast AQMD has established a significance threshold (South Coast AQMD 2019). The health effects for ozone are described later in this section.

Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) are a by-product of fuel combustion and contribute to the formation of groundlevel O3, PM10, and PM2.5. The two major forms of NOX are nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2).

NO is a colorless, odorless gas formed from atmospheric nitrogen and oxygen when combustion takes place under high temperature and/or high pressure. The principal form of NOX produced by combustion is NO, but NO reacts quickly with oxygen to form NO2, creating the mixture of NO and NO2 commonly called NOX. NO2 is an acute irritant and more injurious than NO in equal concentrations. At atmospheric concentrations, however, NO2 is only potentially irritating. NO2 absorbs blue light; the result is a brownishred cast to the atmosphere and reduced visibility. NO2 exposure concentrations near roadways are of particular concern for susceptible individuals, including asthmatics, children, and the elderly. Current scientific evidence links short-term NO2 exposures, ranging from 30 minutes to 24 hours, with adverse respiratory effects, including airway inflammation in healthy people and increased respiratory symptoms in people with asthma. Also, studies show a connection between elevated short-term NO2 concentrations and increased visits to emergency departments and hospital admissions for respiratory issues, especially asthma (South Coast AQMD 2005; USEPA 2023a). On February 21, 2019, CARB’s Board approved the separation of the area that runs along the State Route 60 corridor through portions of Riverside, San Bernardino, and Los Angeles counties from the remainder of the SoCAB for state nonattainment designation purposes. The Board designated this corridor as nonattainment.1 The remainder of the SoCAB is designated in attainment (maintenance) under the National AAQS and attainment under the California AAQS (CARB 2023a).

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) is a colorless, pungent, irritating gas formed by the combustion of sulfurous fossil fuels. It enters the atmosphere as a result of burning high-sulfur-content fuel oils and coal and chemical processes at plants and refineries. Gasoline and natural gas have very low sulfur content and do not release 1 CARB is proposing to redesignate SR-60 Near-Road Portion of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties in the SoCAB as attainment for NO2 at the February 24, 2022 Board Hearing (CARB 2023d).

AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS BACKGROUND AND MODELING DATA

significant quantities of SO2. When sulfur dioxide forms sulfates (SO4) in the atmosphere, together these pollutants are referred to as sulfur oxides (SOX). Thus, SO2 is both a primary and secondary criteria air pollutant. At sufficiently high concentrations, SO2 may irritate the upper respiratory tract. Current scientific evidence links short-term exposures to SO2, ranging from 5 minutes to 24 hours, with an array of adverse respiratory effects, including bronchoconstriction and increased asthma symptoms. These effects are particularly adverse for asthmatics at elevated ventilation rates (e.g., while exercising or playing) at lower concentrations and when combined with particulates, SO2 may do greater harm by injuring lung tissue.

Studies also show a connection between short-term exposure and increased visits to emergency facilities and hospital admissions for respiratory illnesses, particularly in at-risk populations such as children, the elderly, and asthmatics (South Coast AQMD 2005; US EPA 2023). The SoCAB is designated as attainment under the California and National AAQS (CARB 2023a).

Suspended Particulate Matter (PM10 and PM2.5) consists of finely divided solids or liquids such as soot, dust, aerosols, fumes, and mists. Two forms of fine particulates are now recognized and regulated. Inhalable coarse particles, or PM10, include particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns or less (i.e., ≤0.01 millimeter). Inhalable fine particles, or PM2.5, have an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 microns or less (i.e., ≤0.002.5 millimeter). Particulate discharge into the atmosphere results primarily from industrial, agricultural, construction, and transportation activities. Both PM10 and PM2.5 may adversely affect the human respiratory system, especially in people who are naturally sensitive or susceptible to breathing problems. The EPA’s scientific review concluded that PM2.5, which penetrates deeply into the lungs, is more likely than PM10 to contribute to health effects and at far lower concentrations. These health effects include premature death in people with heart or lung disease, nonfatal heart attacks, irregular heartbeat, aggravated asthma, decreased lung function, and increased respiratory symptoms (e.g., irritation of the airways, coughing, or difficulty breathing) (South Coast AQMD 2005). There has been emerging evidence that ultrafine particulates, which are even smaller particulates with an aerodynamic diameter of <0.1 microns or less (i.e., ≤0.0001 millimeter) have human health implications because their toxic components may initiate or facilitate biological processes that may lead to adverse effects to the heart, lungs, and other organs (South Coast AQMD 2013). However, the EPA and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) have not adopted AAQS to regulate these particulates. Diesel particulate matter is classified by CARB as a carcinogen (CARB 2023e). Particulate matter can also cause environmental effects such as visibility impairment,2 environmental damage,3 and aesthetic damage4
(South Coast AQMD 2005; US EPA 2023). The SoCAB is a nonattainment area for PM2.5 under California and National AAQS and a nonattainment area for PM10 under the California AAQS (CARB 2023a).5
2 PM2.5 is the main cause of reduced visibility (haze) in parts of the United States. 3 Particulate matter can be carried over long distances by wind and then settle on ground or water, making lakes and streams acidic; changing the nutrient balance in coastal waters and large river basins; depleting the nutrients in soil; damaging sensitive forests and farm crops; and affecting the diversity of ecosystems. 4 Particulate matter can stain and damage stone and other materials, including culturally important objects such as statues and monuments.
5 CARB approved the South Coast AQMD’s request to redesignate the SoCAB from serious nonattainment for PM10 to attainment for PM10 under the National AAQS on March 25, 2010, because the SoCAB did not violate federal 24-hour PM10

AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS BACKGROUND AND MODELING DATA

Ozone (O3) is a key ingredient of “smog” and is a gas that is formed when VOCs and NOX, both byproducts of internal combustion engine exhaust, undergo photochemical reactions in sunlight. O3 is a secondary criteria air pollutant. O3 concentrations are generally highest during the summer months when direct sunlight, light winds, and warm temperatures create favorable conditions for its formation. O3 poses a health threat to those who already suffer from respiratory diseases as well as to healthy people. Breathing O3 can trigger a variety of health problems, including chest pain, coughing, throat irritation, and congestion. It can worsen bronchitis, emphysema, and asthma. Ground-level O3 also can reduce lung function and inflame the linings of the lungs. Repeated exposure may permanently scar lung tissue. O3 also affects sensitive vegetation and ecosystems, including forests, parks, wildlife refuges, and wilderness areas. In particular, O3 harms sensitive vegetation during the growing season (South Coast AQMD 2005; US EPA 2023). The SoCAB is designated extreme nonattainment under the California AAQS (1-hour and 8-hour) and National AAQS (8-hour) (CARB 2023a).

Lead (Pb) is a metal found naturally in the environment as well as in manufactured products. Once taken into the body, lead distributes throughout the body in the blood and accumulates in the bones. Depending on the level of exposure, lead can adversely affect the nervous system, kidney function, immune system, reproductive and developmental systems, and the cardiovascular system. Lead exposure also affects the oxygen-carrying capacity of the blood. The effects of lead most commonly encountered in current populations are neurological effects in children and cardiovascular effects in adults (e.g., high blood pressure and heart disease). Infants and young children are especially sensitive to even low levels of lead, which may contribute to behavioral problems, learning deficits, and lowered IQ (South Coast AQMD 2005; USEPA 2018). The major sources of lead emissions have historically been mobile and industrial sources. As a result of the EPA’s regulatory efforts to remove lead from gasoline, emissions of lead from the transportation sector dramatically declined by 95 percent between 1980 and 1999, and levels of lead in the air decreased by 94 percent between 1980 and 1999. Today, the highest levels of lead in air are usually found near lead smelters. The major sources of lead emissions today are ore and metals processing and piston-engine aircraft operating on leaded aviation gasoline. However, in 2008 the EPA and CARB adopted more strict lead standards, and special monitoring sites immediately downwind of lead sources recorded very localized violations of the new state and federal standards.6 As a result of these violations, the Los Angeles County portion of the SoCAB is designated as nonattainment under the National AAQS for lead (South Coast AQMD 2012; CARB 2023a). However, lead concentrations in this nonattainment area have been below the level of the federal standard since December 2011 (South Coast AQMD 2012). CARB’s State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision was submitted to the EPA for approval. Because emissions of lead are found only in projects that are permitted by South Coast AQMD, lead is not a pollutant of concern for the proposed project.
standards from 2004 to 2007. The EPA approved the State of California’s request to redesignate the South Coast PM10 nonattainment area to attainment of the PM10 National AAQS, effective on July 26, 2013. 6 Source-oriented monitors record concentrations of lead at lead-related industrial facilities in the SoCAB, which include Exide Technologies in the City of Commerce; Quemetco, Inc., in the City of Industry; Trojan Battery Company in Santa Fe Springs; and Exide Technologies in Vernon. Monitoring conducted between 2004 through 2007 showed that the Trojan Battery Company and Exide Technologies exceed the federal standards (South Coast AQMD 2012).

AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS BACKGROUND AND MODELING DATA

Toxic Air Contaminants
The public’s exposure to air pollutants classified as toxic air contaminants (TACs) is a significant environmental health issue in California. In 1983, the California Legislature enacted a program to identify the health effects of TACs and to reduce exposure to these contaminants to protect the public health. The California Health and Safety Code defines a TAC as “an air pollutant which may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or in serious illness, or which may pose a present or potential hazard to human health.” A substance that is listed as a hazardous air pollutant (HAP) pursuant to Section 112(b) of the federal Clean Air Act (42 United States Code §7412[b]) is a toxic air contaminant. Under state law, the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA), acting through CARB, is authorized to identify a substance as a TAC if it determines that the substance is an air pollutant that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or to an increase in serious illness, or may pose a present or potential hazard to human health.

California regulates TACs primarily through Assembly Bill (AB) 1807 (Tanner Air Toxics Act) and AB 2588 (Air Toxics “Hot Spot” Information and Assessment Act of 1987). The Tanner Air Toxics Act sets forth a formal procedure for CARB to designate substances as TACs. Once a TAC is identified, CARB adopts an “airborne toxics control measure” for sources that emit designated TACs. If there is a safe threshold for a substance (i.e., a point below which there is no toxic effect), the control measure must reduce exposure to below that threshold. If there is no safe threshold, the measure must incorporate toxics best available control technology to minimize emissions. To date, CARB has established formal control measures for 11 TACs, all of which are identified as having no safe threshold.

Air toxics from stationary sources are also regulated in California under the Air Toxics “Hot Spot” Information and Assessment Act of 1987. Under AB 2588, toxic air contaminant emissions from individual facilities are quantified and prioritized by the air quality management district or air pollution control district.

High priority facilities are required to perform a health risk assessment and, if specific thresholds are exceeded, are required to communicate the results to the public in the form of notices and public meetings.

By the last update to the TAC list in December 1999, CARB had designated 244 compounds as TACs (CARB 1999). Additionally, CARB has implemented control measures for a number of compounds that pose high risks and show potential for effective control. The majority of the estimated health risks from TACs can be attributed to relatively few compounds, the most important being particulate matter from diesel-fueled engines.

Diesel Particulate Matter
In 1998, CARB identified particulate emissions from diesel-fueled engines (diesel PM) as a TAC. Previously, the individual chemical compounds in diesel exhaust were considered TACs. Almost all diesel exhaust particle mass is 10 microns or less in diameter. Because of their extremely small size, these particles can be inhaled and eventually trapped in the bronchial and alveolar regions of the lung.

CARB has promulgated the following specific rules to limit TAC emissions:

AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS BACKGROUND AND MODELING DATA

 13 CCR Chapter 10, Section 2485, Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit Diesel-Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling
 13 CCR Chapter 10, Section 2480, Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit School Bus Idling and Idling at Schools
 13 CCR Section 2477 and Article 8, Airborne Toxic Control Measure for In-Use Diesel-Fueled Transport Refrigeration Units (TRU) and TRU Generator Sets and Facilities Where TRUs Operate Community Risk
In addition, to reduce exposure to TACs, CARB developed and approved the Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (2005) to provide guidance regarding the siting of sensitive land uses in the vicinity of freeways, distribution centers, rail yards, ports, refineries, chrome-plating facilities, dry cleaners, and gasoline-dispensing facilities. This guidance document was developed to assess compatibility and associated health risks when placing sensitive receptors near existing pollution sources. CARB’s recommendations on the siting of new sensitive land uses were based on a compilation of recent studies that evaluated data on the adverse health effects from proximity to air pollution sources. The key observation in these studies is that proximity to air pollution sources substantially increases exposure and the potential for adverse health effects. There are three carcinogenic toxic air contaminants that constitute the majority of the known health risks from motor vehicle traffic, DPM from trucks, and benzene and 1,3-butadiene from passenger vehicles. CARB recommendations are based on data that show that localized air pollution exposures can be reduced by as much as 80 percent by following CARB minimum distance separations.

AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLANNING
The South Coast AQMD is the agency responsible for improving air quality in the SoCAB and ensuring that the National and California AAQS are attained and maintained. South Coast AQMD is responsible for preparing the air quality management plan (AQMP) for the SoCAB in coordination with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Since 1979, a number of AQMPs have been prepared. 2022 AQMP
South Coast AQMD adopted the 2022 AQMP on December 2, 2022, which serves as an update to the 2017 AQMP. On October 1, 2015, the EPA strengthened the National AAQS for ground-level ozone, lowering the primary and secondary ozone standard levels to 70 parts per billion (ppb) (2015 Ozone National AAQS.).

The SoCAB is currently classified as an “extreme” nonattainment for the 2015 Ozone National AAQS.

Meeting the 2015 federal ozone standard requires reducing NOx emissions, the key pollutant that creates ozone, by 67 percent more than is required by adopted rules and regulations in 2037. The only way to achieve the required NOx reductions is through extensive use of zero emission (ZE) technologies across all stationary and mobile sources. South Coast AQMD’s primary authority is over stationary sources which account for approximately 20 percent of NOx emissions. The overwhelming majority of NOx emissions are from heavyduty trucks, ships and other State and federally regulated mobile sources that are mostly beyond the South Coast AQMD’s control. The region will not meet the standard absent significant federal action. In addition to

AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS BACKGROUND AND MODELING DATA

federal action, the 2022 AQMP requires substantial reliance on future deployment of advanced technologies to meet the standard. The control strategy for the 2022 AQMP includes aggressive new regulations and the development of incentive programs to support early deployment of advanced technologies. The two key areas for incentive programs are (1) promoting widespread deployment of available ZE and low-NOx technologies and (2) developing new ZE and ultra-low NOx technologies for use in cases where the technology is not currently available. South Coast AQMD is prioritizing distribution of incentive funding in Environmental Justice areas and seeking opportunities to focus benefits on the most disadvantaged communities (South Coast AQMD 2022).

Lead State Implementation Plan
In 2008, EPA designated the Los Angeles County portion of the SoCAB nonattainment under the federal lead (Pb) classification due to the addition of source-specific monitoring under the new federal regulation.

This designation was based on two source-specific monitors in Vernon and the City of Industry exceeding the new standard. The rest of the SoCAB, outside the Los Angeles County nonattainment area remains in attainment of the new standard. On May 24, 2012, CARB approved the SIP revision for the federal lead standard, which the EPA revised in 2008. Lead concentrations in this nonattainment area have been below the level of the federal standard since December 2011. The SIP revision was submitted to EPA for approval.

South Coast AQMD PM2.5 Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan In 1997, the EPA adopted the 24-hour fine PM2.5 standard of 65 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3). In 2006, this standard was lowered to a more health-protective level of 35 µg/m3. The SoCAB is designated nonattainment for both the 65 and 35 µg/m3 24-hour PM2.5 standards (24-hour PM2.5 standards). In 2020, monitored data demonstrated that the SoCAB attained both 24-hour PM2.5 standards. The South Coast AQMD has developed the 2021 Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for the 1997 and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 Standards demonstrating that the SoCAB has met the requirements to be redesignated to attainment for the 24-hour PM2.5 standards (South Coast AQMD 2021b).

AB 617, Community Air Protection Program
Assembly Bill (AB) 617 (C. Garcia, Chapter 136, Statutes of 2017) requires local air districts to monitor and implement air pollution control strategies that reduce localized air pollution in communities that bear the greatest burdens. In response to AB 617, CARB has established the Community Air Protection Program.

Air districts are required to host workshops to help identify disadvantaged communities disproportionately affected by poor air quality. Once the criteria for identifying the highest priority locations have been identified and the communities have been selected, new community monitoring systems would be installed to track and monitor community-specific air pollution goals. In 2018 CARB prepared an air monitoring plan (Community Air Protection Blueprint), that evaluates the availability and effectiveness of air monitoring technologies and existing community air monitoring networks. Under AB 617, the Blueprint is required to be updated every five years.

Under AB 617, CARB is also required to prepare a statewide strategy to reduce TACs and criteria pollutants in impacted communities; provide a statewide clearinghouse for best available retrofit control technology;

AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS BACKGROUND AND MODELING DATA

adopt new rules requiring the latest best available retrofit control technology for all criteria pollutants for which an area has not achieved attainment of California AAQS; and provide uniform, statewide reporting of emissions inventories. Air districts are required to adopt a community emissions reduction program to achieve reductions for the communities impacted by air pollution that CARB identifies.

Existing Conditions

CLIMATE/METEOROLOGY
South Coast Air Basin
The project site lies in the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB), which includes all of Orange County and the non-desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. The SoCAB is in a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills and is bounded by the Pacific Ocean in the southwest quadrant, with high mountains forming the remainder of the perimeter. The general region lies in the semi-permanent high-pressure zone of the eastern Pacific. As a result, the climate is mild, tempered by cool sea breezes. This usually mild weather pattern is interrupted infrequently by periods of extremely hot weather, winter storms, and Santa Ana winds (South Coast AQMD 2005).

Temperature and Precipitation
The annual average temperature varies little throughout the SoCAB, ranging from the low to middle 60s, measured in degrees Fahrenheit (°F). With a more pronounced oceanic influence, coastal areas show less variability in annual minimum and maximum temperatures than inland areas. The climatological station nearest to the project site with temperature data is the Anaheim, California Monitoring Station (ID No. 040192). The lowest average temperature is reported at 46.9°F in December, and the highest average temperature is 87.1°F in August (WRCC 2023).

In contrast to a very steady pattern of temperature, rainfall is seasonally and annually highly variable. Almost all rain falls from October through April. Summer rainfall is normally restricted to widely scattered thundershowers near the coast, with slightly heavier shower activity in the east and over the mountains.

Rainfall averages 14.09 inches per year in the vicinity of the area (WRCC 2023).

Humidity
Although the SoCAB has a semiarid climate, the air near the earth’s surface is typically moist because of the presence of a shallow marine layer. Except for infrequent periods when dry, continental air is brought into the SoCAB by offshore winds, the “ocean effect” is dominant. Periods of heavy fog, especially along the coast, are frequent. Low clouds, often referred to as high fog, are a characteristic climatic feature. Annual average humidity is 70 percent at the coast and 57 percent in the eastern portions of the (South Coast AQMD 2005).

AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS BACKGROUND AND MODELING DATA

Wind
Wind patterns across the south coastal region are characterized by westerly or southwesterly onshore winds during the day and by easterly or northeasterly breezes at night. Wind speed is somewhat greater during the dry summer months than during the rainy winter season.

Between periods of wind, periods of air stagnation may occur, both in the morning and evening hours. Air stagnation is one of the critical determinants of air quality conditions on any given day. During the winter and fall months, surface high-pressure systems over the SoCAB, combined with other meteorological conditions, can result in very strong, downslope Santa Ana winds. These winds normally continue a few days before predominant meteorological conditions are reestablished.

The mountain ranges to the east affect the transport and diffusion of pollutants by inhibiting their eastward transport. Air quality in the SoCAB generally ranges from fair to poor and is similar to air quality in most of coastal southern California. The entire region experiences heavy concentrations of air pollutants during prolonged periods of stable atmospheric conditions (South Coast AQMD 2005).

Inversions
In conjunction with the two characteristic wind patterns that affect the rate and orientation of horizontal pollutant transport, there are two similarly distinct types of temperature inversions that control the vertical depth through which pollutants are mixed. These are the marine/subsidence inversion and the radiation inversion. The combination of winds and inversions are critical determinants in leading to the highly degraded air quality in summer and the generally good air quality in the winter in the project area (South Coast AQMD 2005).

AREA DESIGNATIONS
The AQMP provides the framework for air quality basins to achieve attainment of the state and federal ambient air quality standards through the State Implementation Plan (SIP). Areas are classified as attainment or nonattainment areas for particular pollutants, depending on whether they meet ambient air quality standards. Severity classifications for ozone nonattainment range in magnitude from marginal, moderate, and serious to severe and extreme.
 Unclassified: a pollutant is designated unclassified if the data are incomplete and do not support a designation of attainment or nonattainment.
 Attainment: a pollutant is in attainment if the CAAQS for that pollutant was not violated at any site in the area during a three-year period.
 Nonattainment: a pollutant is in nonattainment if there was at least one violation of a state AAQS for that pollutant in the area.

AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS BACKGROUND AND MODELING DATA

 Nonattainment/Transitional: a subcategory of the nonattainment designation. An area is designated nonattainment/transitional to signify that the area is close to attaining the AAQS for that pollutant.

The attainment status for the SoCAB is shown in Table 2, Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the South Coast Air Basin.

Table 2 Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the South Coast Air Basin Pollutant State Federal
Ozone – 1-hour Extreme Nonattainment No Federal Standard Ozone – 8-hour Extreme Nonattainment Extreme Nonattainment PM10 Serious Nonattainment Attainment
PM2.5 Nonattainment Nonattainment2
CO Attainment Attainment
NO2 Nonattainment (SR-60 Near Road only)1 Attainment/Maintenance SO2 Attainment Attainment
Lead Attainment Nonattainment (Los Angeles County only )3 All others Attainment/Unclassified Attainment/Unclassified Source: CARB 2023c.
1 On February 21, 2019, CARB’s Board approved the separation of the area that runs along State Route 60 corridor through portions of Riverside, San Bernardino, and Los Angeles counties from the remainder of the SoCAB for State nonattainment designation purposes. The Board designated this corridor as nonattainment.

The remainder of the SoCAB remains in attainment for NO2 (CARB 2019a). CARB is proposing to redesignate SR-60 Near-Road Portion of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties in the SoCAB as attainment for NO2 at the February 24, 2022 Board Hearing (CARB 2023c). 2 The SoCAB is pending a resignation request from nonattainment to attainment for the 24-hour federal PM2.5 standards. The 2021 PM2.5 Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan demonstrates that the South Coast meets the requirements of the CAA to allow US EPA to redesignate the SoCAB to attainment for the 65 µg/m3 and 35 µg/m3 24-hour PM2.5 standards. CARB will submit the 2021 PM2.5 Redesignation Request to the US EPA as a revision to the California SIP (CARB 2021).
3 In 2010, the Los Angeles portion of the SoCAB was designated nonattainment for lead under the new 2008 federal AAQS as a result of large industrial emitters.

Remaining areas in the SoCAB are unclassified.

EXISTING AMBIENT AIR QUALITY
Existing levels of ambient air quality and historical trends and projections in the vicinity of the project site are best documented by measurements taken by the South Coast AQMD. The project site is located within Source Receptor Area (SRA) 16: North Orange County. The air quality monitoring station closest to the proposed project is the Anaheim – Pampas Lane Monitoring Station, which is one of 31 monitoring stations South Coast AQMD operates and maintains within the SoCAB.7 Data from this station includes O3, NO2, PM10, and PM2.5 and is summarized in Table 3, Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Summary. The data show regular violations of the state and federal O3, state PM10, and federal PM2.5 standards in the last five years. 7 Locations of the SRAs and monitoring stations are shown here: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/default-documentlibrary/map-of-monitoring-areas.pdf.

AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS BACKGROUND AND MODELING DATA

Table 3 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Summary
Pollutant/Standard
Number of Days Threshold Were Exceeded and
Maximum Levels during Such Violations1,2
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Ozone (O3)
State 1-Hour ≥ 0.09 ppm (days exceed threshold)
State & Federal 8-hour ≥ 0.070 ppm (days exceed threshold) Max. 1-Hour Conc. (ppm)
Max. 8-Hour Conc. (ppm)
0 4

0.090

0.076
4 1

0.112

0.071
1 1

0.096

0.082
6 15

0.142

0.097
0 0

0.089

0.068
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
State 1-Hour ≥ 0.18 ppm (days exceed threshold)
Max. 1-Hour Conc. (ppb)
0 0.0812
0 0.0660
0 0.0594
0 0.0709
0 0.0671
Coarse Particulates (PM10)
State 24-Hour > 50 µg/m3 (days exceed threshold)
Federal 24-Hour > 150 µg/m3 (days exceed threshold)
Max. 24-Hour Conc. (µg/m3)
5 0

95.7 2
0 94.6
4 0
127.1
5 0

74.5 1
0 63.3
Fine Particulates (PM2.5)
Federal 24-Hour > 35 µg/m3 (days exceed threshold)
Max. 24-Hour Conc. (µg/m3)
8 53.9
7 63.1
4 36.1
12 60.2
10 54.4
Source: CARB 2023xx.

Notes: ppm = parts per million; ppb = parts per billion; µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; * = Data not available 1 Data obtained from the Anaheim – Pampas Lane Monitoring Station. 2 Most recent data available as of February 2023.

MULTIPLE AIR TOXICS EXPOSURE STUDY V
The Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study (MATES) is a monitoring and evaluation study on existing ambient concentrations of TACs and the potential health risks from air toxics in the SoCAB. In April 2021, South Coast AQMD released the latest update to the MATES study, MATES V. The first MATES analysis, MATES I, began in 1986 but was limited because of the technology available at the time. Conducted in 1998, MATES II was the first MATES iteration to include a comprehensive monitoring program, an air toxics emissions inventory, and a modeling component. MATES III was conducted in 2004 to 2006, with MATES IV following in 2012 to 2013.

MATES V uses measurements taken during 2018 and 2019, with a comprehensive modeling analysis and emissions inventory based on 2018 data. The previous MATES studies quantified the cancer risks based on the inhalation pathway only. MATES V includes information on the chronic noncancer risks from inhalation and non-inhalation pathways for the first time. Cancer risks and chronic noncancer risks from MATES II through IV measurements have been re-examined using current Office of Environmental Health Hazards Assessment (OEHHA) and CalEPA risk assessment methodologies and modern statistical methods to examine the trends over time.

The MATES V study showed that cancer risk in the SoCAB decreased to 454 in a million from 997 in a million in the MATES IV study. Overall, air toxics cancer risk in the SoCAB decreased by 54 percent since 2012 when MATES IV was conducted. MATES V showed the highest risk locations near the Los Angeles International Airport and the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles. Diesel particulate matter continues to be

AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS BACKGROUND AND MODELING DATA

the major contributor to air toxics cancer risk (approximately 72 percent of the total cancer risk). Goods movement and transportation corridors have the highest cancer risk. Transportation sources account for 88 percent of carcinogenic air toxics emissions, and the remainder is from stationary sources, which include large industrial operations such as refineries and power plants as well as smaller businesses such as gas stations and chrome-plating facilities. (South Coast AQMD 2021a).

SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
Some land uses are considered more sensitive to air pollution than others due to the types of population groups or activities involved. Sensitive population groups include children, the elderly, the acutely ill, and the chronically ill, especially those with cardio-respiratory diseases.

Residential areas are also considered to be sensitive receptors to air pollution because residents (including children and the elderly) tend to be at home for extended periods of time, resulting in sustained exposure to any pollutants present. Schools are also considered sensitive receptors, as children are present for extended durations and engage in regular outdoor activities. Recreational land uses are considered moderately sensitive to air pollution. Although exposure periods are generally short, exercise places a high demand on respiratory functions, which can be impaired by air pollution. In addition, noticeable air pollution can detract from the enjoyment of recreation. Industrial and commercial areas are considered the least sensitive to air pollution.

Exposure periods are relatively short and intermittent, as the majority of the workers tend to stay indoors most of the time. In addition, the working population is generally the healthiest segment of the public.

The nearest offsite sensitive receptors are the single- and multi-family residences along West Arlington Avenue to the north, West Brewster Avenue to the east, West Romneya Drive to the south, and North Lombard Drive to the west of the project site.

Thresholds of Significance
The analysis of the proposed project’s air quality impacts follows the guidance and methodologies recommended in South Coast AQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook and the significance thresholds on South Coast AQMD’s website (South Coast AQMD 1993). CEQA allows the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district to be used to assess impacts of a project on air quality. South Coast AQMD has established thresholds of significance for regional air quality emissions for construction activities and project operation. In addition to the daily thresholds listed above, projects are also subject to the AAQS. These are addressed though an analysis of localized CO impacts and localized significance thresholds (LSTs).

REGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS
The South Coast AQMD has adopted regional construction and operational emissions thresholds to determine a project’s cumulative impact on air quality in the SoCAB. Table 4, South Coast AQMD Significance Thresholds, lists South Coast AQMD’s regional significance thresholds that are applicable for all projects uniformly regardless of size or scope. There is growing evidence that although ultrafine particulates contribute a very small portion of the overall atmospheric mass concentration, they represent a greater

AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS BACKGROUND AND MODELING DATA

proportion of the health risk from PM. However, the EPA or CARB have not yet adopted AAQS to regulate ultrafine particulates; therefore, South Coast AQMD has not developed thresholds for them.

Table 4 South Coast AQMD Significance Thresholds
Air Pollutant Construction Phase Operational Phase
Reactive Organic Gases (ROGs)/ Volatile
Organic Compounds (VOCs) 75 lbs/day 55 lbs/day
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) 100 lbs/day 55 lbs/day
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 550 lbs/day 550 lbs/day
Sulfur Oxides (SOX) 150 lbs/day 150 lbs/day
Particulates (PM10) 150 lbs/day 150 lbs/day
Particulates (PM2.5) 55 lbs/day 55 lbs/day
Source: South Coast AQMD 2019.

Projects that exceed the regional significance threshold contribute to the nonattainment designation of the SoCAB. The attainment designations are based on the AAQS, which are set at levels of exposure that are determined to not result in adverse health. Exposure to fine particulate pollution and ozone causes myriad health impacts, particularly to the respiratory and cardiovascular systems:
 Linked to increased cancer risk (PM2.5, TACs)
 Aggravates respiratory disease (O3, PM2.5)
 Increases bronchitis (O3, PM2.5)
 Causes chest discomfort, throat irritation, and increased effort to take a deep breath (O3)  Reduces resistance to infections and increases fatigue (O3)  Reduces lung growth in children (PM2.5)
 Contributes to heart disease and heart attacks (PM2.5)  Contributes to premature death (O3, PM2.5)
 Linked to lower birth weight in newborns (PM2.5) (South Coast AQMD 2015a) Exposure to fine particulates and ozone aggravates asthma attacks and can amplify other lung ailments such as emphysema and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Exposure to current levels of PM2.5 is responsible for an estimated 4,300 cardiopulmonary-related deaths per year in the SoCAB. In addition, University of Southern California scientists responsible for a landmark children’s health study found that lung growth improved as air pollution declined for children aged 11 to 15 in five communities in the SoCAB (South Coast AQMD 2015b).

South Coast AQMD is the primary agency responsible for ensuring the health and welfare of sensitive individuals exposed to elevated concentrations of air pollutants in the SoCAB and has established thresholds that would be protective of these individuals. To achieve the health-based standards established by the EPA, South Coast AQMD prepares an AQMP that details regional programs to attain the AAQS. Mass emissions thresholds shown in Table 4 are not correlated with concentrations of air pollutants but contribute to the cumulative air quality impacts in the SoCAB. These thresholds are based on the trigger levels for the federal

AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS BACKGROUND AND MODELING DATA

New Source Review Program, which was created to ensure projects are consistent with attainment of healthbased federal AAQS. Regional emissions from a single project do not trigger a regional health impact, and it is speculative to identify how many more individuals in the air basin would be affected by the health effects listed previously. Projects that do not exceed the South Coast AQMD regional significance thresholds in Table 4 would not violate any air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation.

If projects exceed the emissions levels presented in Table 4, then those emissions would cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment status of the air basin and would contribute to elevating health effects associated with these criteria air pollutants. Known health effects related to ozone include worsening of bronchitis, asthma, and emphysema and a decrease in lung function. Health effects associated with particulate matter include premature death of people with heart or lung disease, nonfatal heart attacks, irregular heartbeat, decreased lung function, and increased respiratory symptoms. Reducing emissions would contribute to reducing possible health effects related to criteria air pollutants. However, for projects that exceed the emissions in Table 4, it is speculative to determine how exceeding the regional thresholds would affect the number of days the region is in nonattainment, because mass emissions are not correlated with concentrations of emissions or how many additional individuals in the air basin would be affected by the health effects cited previously.

South Coast AQMD has not provided methodology to assess the specific correlation between mass emissions generated and the effect on health to address the issue raised in Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (Friant Ranch, L.P.) (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, Case No. S21978. South Coast AQMD currently does not have methodologies that would provide the District with a consistent, reliable, and meaningful analysis to correlate specific health impacts that may result from a Proposed Project’s mass emissions.8 Ozone concentrations are dependent on a variety of complex factors, including the presence of sunlight and precursor pollutants, natural topography, nearby structures that cause building downwash, atmospheric stability, and wind patterns. Because of the complexities of predicting ground-level ozone concentrations in relation to the National and California AAQS, and the absence of modeling tools that could provide statistically valid data and meaningful additional information regarding health effects from criteria air pollutants generated by individual projects, it is not possible to link specific health risks to the magnitude of emissions exceeding the significance thresholds.

However, if a project in the SoCAB exceeds the regional significance thresholds, the project could contribute to an increase in health effects in the basin until the attainment standards are met in the SoCAB. 8 In April 2019, the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) published an Interim Recommendation on implementing Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502 (“Friant Ranch”) in the review and analysis of proposed projects under CEQA in Sacramento County. Consistent with the expert opinions submitted to the court in Friant Ranch by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) and South Coast AQMD, the SMAQMD guidance confirms the absence of an acceptable or reliable quantitative methodology that would correlate the expected criteria air pollutant emissions of projects to likely health consequences for people from project-generated criteria air pollutant emissions. The SMAQMD guidance explains that while it is in the process of developing a methodology to assess these impacts, lead agencies should follow the Friant Court’s advice to explain in meaningful detail why this analysis is not yet feasible. Since this interim memorandum SMAQMD has provided methodology to address health impacts. However, a similar analysis is not available for projects within the South Coast AQMD region.

AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS BACKGROUND AND MODELING DATA

CO HOTSPOTS
Areas of vehicle congestion have the potential to create pockets of CO called hot spots. These pockets have the potential to exceed the state one-hour standard of 20 ppm or the eight-hour standard of 9 ppm. Because CO is produced in greatest quantities from vehicle combustion and does not readily disperse into the atmosphere, adherence to ambient air quality standards is typically demonstrated through an analysis of localized CO concentrations. Hot spots are typically produced at intersections, where traffic congestion is highest because vehicles queue for longer periods and are subject to reduced speeds. With the turnover of older vehicles, introduction of cleaner fuels, and implementation of control technology on industrial facilities, CO concentrations in the SoCAB and in the state have steadily declined.

In 2007, the SoCAB was designated in attainment for CO under both the California AAQS and National AAQS. The CO hotspot analysis conducted for the attainment by the South Coast AQMD for busiest intersections in Los Angeles during the peak morning and afternoon periods plan did not predict a violation of CO standards.9 As identified in the South Coast AQMD's 2003 AQMP and the 1992 Federal Attainment Plan for Carbon Monoxide (1992 CO Plan), peak carbon monoxide concentrations in the SoCAB in previous years, prior to redesignation, were a result of unusual meteorological and topographical conditions and not a result of congestion at a particular intersection. Under existing and future vehicle emission rates, a project would have to increase traffic volumes at a single intersection to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour—or 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal air does not mix—in order to generate a significant CO impact (BAAQMD 2017).

LOCALIZED SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS
The South Coast AQMD developed LSTs for emissions of NO2, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 generated at the project site (offsite mobile-source emissions are not included in the LST analysis). LSTs represent the maximum emissions at a project site that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent federal or state AAQS and are shown in Table 5, South Coast AQMD Localized Significance Thresholds.

Table 5 South Coast AQMD Localized Significance Thresholds Air Pollutant (Relevant AAQS) Concentration
1-Hour CO Standard (CAAQS) 20 ppm
8-Hour CO Standard (CAAQS) 9.0 ppm
1-Hour NO2 Standard (CAAQS) 0.18 ppm
Annual NO2 Standard (CAAQS) 0.03 ppm
24-Hour PM10 Standard – Construction (South Coast AQMD) 1 10.4 µg/m3
24-Hour PM2.5 Standard – Construction (South Coast AQMD)1 10.4 µg/m3 24-Hour PM10 Standard – Operation (South Coast AQMD)
1 2.5 µg/m3
9 The four intersections were: Long Beach Boulevard and Imperial Highway; Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue; Sunset Boulevard and Highland Avenue; and La Cienega Boulevard and Century Boulevard. The busiest intersection evaluated (Wilshire and Veteran) had a daily traffic volume of approximately 100,000 vehicles per day with LOS E in the morning peak hour and LOS F in the evening peak hour.

AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS BACKGROUND AND MODELING DATA

24-Hour PM2.5 Standard – Operation (South Coast AQMD)1 2.5 µg/m3 Source: South Coast AQMD 2019.
ppm – parts per million; µg/m3 – micrograms per cubic meter 1 Threshold is based on South Coast AQMD Rule 403. Since the SoCAB is in nonattainment for PM10 and PM2.5, the threshold is established as an allowable change in concentration. Therefore, background concentration is irrelevant.

To assist lead agencies, South Coast AQMD developed screening-level LSTs to back-calculate the mass amount (lbs. per day) of emissions generated onsite that would trigger the levels shown in Table 5 for projects under 5-acres. These “screening-level” LSTs tables are the localized significance thresholds for all projects of five acres and less; however, it can be used as screening criteria for larger projects to determine whether or not dispersion modeling may be required to compare concentrations of air pollutants generated by the project to the localized concentrations shown in Table 5.

In accordance with South Coast AQMD’s LST methodology, the screening-level construction LSTs are based on the acreage disturbed per day based on equipment use. The screening-level construction LSTs for the project site in SRA 16 are shown in Table 6, South Coast AQMD Screening-Level Localized Significance Thresholds, for sensitive receptors within 82 feet (25 meters) of the project site.

Table 6 South Coast AQMD Screening-Level Localized Significance Thresholds Acreage Disturbed
Threshold (lbs/day)1
Nitrogen Oxides
(NOX)
Carbon Monoxide
(CO)
Coarse Particulates
(PM10)
Fine Particulates
(PM2.5)
≤1.00 Acre Disturbed Per Day 103 522 4.00 3.00

1.31 Acres Disturbed Per Day 117 597 4.62 3.31

1.50 Acres Disturbed Per Day 125 642 5.00 3.50

1.81 Acres Disturbed Per Day 139 717 5.62 3.81

2.50 Acres Disturbed Per Day 159 853 6.83 4.33

4.31 Acres Disturbed Per Day 159 853 6.83 4.33
Source: South Coast AQMD 2008 and 2011.
1 LSTs are based on sensitive receptors within 82 feet (25 meters) of the project site in Source Receptor Area (SRA) 16.

HEALTH RISK
Whenever a project would require use of chemical compounds that have been identified in South Coast AQMD Rule 1401, placed on CARB’s air toxics list pursuant to AB 1807, or placed on the EPA’s National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, a health risk assessment is required by the South Coast AQMD. Table 7, South Coast AQMD Toxic Air Contaminants Incremental Risk Thresholds, lists the TAC incremental risk thresholds for operation of a project. The type of land uses that typically generate substantial quantities of criteria air pollutants and TACs from operations include industrial (stationary sources) and warehousing (truck idling) land uses (CARB 2005). School uses do not use substantial quantities of TACs, thus these thresholds are typically applied to new industrial projects only. Additionally, the purpose of this environmental evaluation is to identify the significant effects of the proposed project on the environment, not the significant effects of the environment on the proposed project (California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369 (Case No. S213478)).

AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS BACKGROUND AND MODELING DATA

Table 7 South Coast AQMD Toxic Air Contaminants Incremental Risk Thresholds Maximum Incremental Cancer Risk ≥ 10 in 1 million
Hazard Index (project increment) ≥ 1.0
Cancer Burden in areas ≥ 1 in 1 million > 0.5 excess cancer cases Source: South Coast AQMD 2019.

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Scientists have concluded that human activities are contributing to global climate change by adding large amounts of heat-trapping gases, known as GHG, to the atmosphere. Climate change is the variation of Earth’s climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activities. The primary source of these GHG is fossil fuel use. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has identified four major GHG—water vapor,10 carbon (CO2), methane (CH4), and ozone (O3)—that are the likely cause of an increase in global average temperatures observed within the 20th and 21st centuries. Other GHG identified by the IPCC that contribute to global warming to a lesser extent include nitrous oxide (N2O), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and chlorofluorocarbons (IPCC 2001).11 The major GHG are briefly described below.
 Carbon dioxide (CO2) enters the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, and coal), solid waste, trees and wood products, and respiration, and also as a result of other chemical reactions (e.g. manufacture of cement). Carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere (sequestered) when it is absorbed by plants as part of the biological carbon cycle.  Methane (CH4) is emitted during the production and transport of coal, natural gas, and oil. Methane emissions also result from livestock and other agricultural practices and from the decay of organic waste in municipal landfills and water treatment facilities.
 Nitrous oxide (N2O) is emitted during agricultural and industrial activities as well as during combustion of fossil fuels and solid waste.
 Fluorinated gases are synthetic, strong GHGs that are emitted from a variety of industrial processes.

Fluorinated gases are sometimes used as substitutes for ozone-depleting substances. These gases are 10 Water vapor (H2O) is the strongest GHG and the most variable in its phases (vapor, cloud droplets, ice crystals). However, water vapor is not considered a pollutant, but part of the feedback loop rather than a primary cause of change. 11 Black carbon contributes to climate change both directly, by absorbing sunlight, and indirectly, by depositing on snow (making it melt faster) and by interacting with clouds and affecting cloud formation. Black carbon is the most strongly light-absorbing component of particulate matter (PM) emitted from burning fuels such as coal, diesel, and biomass. Reducing black carbon emissions globally can have immediate economic, climate, and public health benefits. California has been an international leader in reducing emissions of black carbon, with close to 95 percent control expected by 2020 due to existing programs that target reducing PM from diesel engines and burning activities (CARB 2017a). However, state and national GHG inventories do not yet include black carbon due to ongoing work resolving the precise global warming potential of black carbon. Guidance for CEQA documents does not yet include black carbon.

AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS BACKGROUND AND MODELING DATA