Agenda packet — Costa Mesa City Council, January 18, 2022 (part 1 of 7)

City of Costa Mesa

REGULAR CITY COUNCIL AND SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE

REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND HOUSING AUTHORITY
Agenda
Via Zoom6:00 PMTuesday, January 18, 2022
*Note: All agency memberships are reflected in the title "Council Member" 5:00 P.M. Closed Session
The City Council meeting will be held virtually via Zoom Webinar. Pursuant to the State of California Assembly Bill 361(Gov. Code §54953(b)(3)) the City Council Members and staff may participate by video conference.

You may participate via the following options:

1. Members of the public can view the City Council meetings live on COSTA MESA TV (SPECTRUM CHANNEL 3 AND AT&T U-VERSE CHANNEL 99) or
http://costamesa.granicus.com/player/camera/2?publish_id=10&redirect=true and online at youtube.com/costamesatv.

2. Zoom Webinar: (For both 5:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. meetings) Please click the link below to join the webinar:
https://zoom.us/j/98376390419?pwd=dnpFelc5TnU4a3BKWVIyRVZMallZZz09 Or sign into Zoom.com and “Join a Meeting”
Enter Webinar ID: 983 7639 0419/ Password: 905283
• If Zoom is not already installed on your computer, click “Download & Run Zoom” on the launch page and press “Run” when prompted by your browser. If Zoom has previously been installed on your computer, please allow a few moments for the application to launch automatically.
• Select “Join Audio via Computer.”
• The virtual conference room will open. If you receive a message reading, “Please wait for the host to start this meeting,” simply remain in the room until the meeting begins.
• During the Public Comment Period, use the “raise hand” feature located in the participants’ window and wait for city staff to announce your name and unmute your line when it is your turn to speak. Comments are limited to 3 minutes, or as otherwise directed.

Page 1 of 12 ends

1 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL AND

SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE

REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND

HOUSING AUTHORITY
Agenda January 18, 2022
Participate via telephone: (For both 5:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. meetings) Call: 1 669 900 6833 Enter Webinar ID: 983 7639 0419/ Password: 905283 During the Public Comment Period, press *9 to add yourself to the queue and wait for city staff to announce your name/phone number and press *6 to unmute your line when it is your turn to speak. Comments are limited to 3 minutes, or as otherwise directed.

3. Additionally, members of the public who wish to make a written comment on a specific agenda item, may submit a written comment via email to the City Clerk at [email protected]. Comments received by 12:00 p.m. on the date of the meeting will be provided to the City Council, made available to the public, and will be part of the meeting record.

4. While the City does not expect there to be any changes to the above process for participating in this meeting, if there is a change, the City will post the information as soon as possible to the City’s website.

Note that records submitted by the public will not be redacted in any way and will be posted online as submitted, including any personal contact information. All pictures, PowerPoints, and videos submitted for display at a public meeting must be previously reviewed by staff to verify appropriateness for general audiences. No links to YouTube videos or other streaming services will be accepted, a direct video file will need to be emailed to staff prior to each meeting in order to minimize complications and to play the video without delay. The video must be one of the following formats, .mp4, .mov or .wmv. Only one file may be included per speaker for public comments. Please e-mail to the City Clerk at [email protected] NO LATER THAN 12:00 Noon on the date of the meeting.

Note regarding agenda-related documents provided to a majority of the City Council after distribution of the City Council agenda packet (GC §54957.5): Any related documents provided to a majority of the City Council after distribution of the City Council Agenda Packets will be made available for public inspection. Such documents will be posted on the city’s website.

Page 2 of 12 ends

2 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL AND

SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE

REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND

HOUSING AUTHORITY
Agenda January 18, 2022
The City of Costa Mesa aims to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in all respects. If, as an attendee or a participant at this meeting, you will need special assistance beyond what is currently provided, the Clerks office will attempt to accommodate in a reasonable manner. Please contact the City Clerk’s office 24 hours prior to the meeting to inform us of your particular needs and to determine if accommodation is feasible 714-754-5225 or at [email protected].

El objetivo de la Ciudad de Costa Mesa es cumplir con la ley de Estadounidenses con Discapacidades (ADA) en todos los aspectos. Si como asistente o participante en esta junta, usted necesita asistencia especial, más allá de lo que actualmente se proporciona, la oficina del Secretario de la Ciudad intentara de complacer en una forma razonable. Favor de comunicarse con la oficina del Secretario de la Ciudad con 24 horas de anticipación para informarnos de sus necesidades y determinar si alojamiento es realizable al 714-754-5225 o [email protected].

Page 3 of 12 ends

3 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL AND

SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE

REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND

HOUSING AUTHORITY
Agenda January 18, 2022

CALL TO ORDER

ROLL CALL
PUBLIC COMMENTS Members of the public are welcome to address the City Council only on those items on the Closed Session agenda. Each member of the public will be given a total of three minutes to speak on all items on the Closed Session agenda.

CLOSED SESSION ITEMS:

1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION - ONE CASE
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9 (d)(1) Costa Mesa v. NMUSD, OCSC Case No. 30-2021-01179397-CU-WM-CXC.

2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
Pursuant to Subdivision (d)(2) of Section 54956.9, California Government Code Bernede v. Costa Mesa, OCSC Case No. 30-2019-01041552-CU-PO-CJC

Page 4 of 12 ends

4 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL AND

SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE

REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND

HOUSING AUTHORITY
Agenda January 18, 2022

REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND SUCCESSOR AGENCY

TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Tuesday, January 18, 2022– 6:00 P.M.

JOHN STEPHENS
Mayor

MANUEL CHAVEZ ANDREA MARR
Council Member - District 4 Mayor Pro Tem - District 3

JEFFREY HARLAN LOREN GAMEROS
Council Member - District 6 Council Member - District 2

ARLIS REYNOLDS DON HARPER
Council Member - District 5 Council Member - District 1

KIMBERLY HALL BARLOW LORI ANN FARRELL HARRISON
City Attorney City Manager

CALL TO ORDER

NATIONAL ANTHEM AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

MOMENT OF SOLEMN EXPRESSION
[Per Council Policy 000-12, these presentations are made by community volunteers stating their own views. The City Council disclaims any intent to endorse or sponsor the views of any speaker.]
Pastor Jordan Hansen, Newport Mesa Church

ROLL CALL

CITY ATTORNEY CLOSED SESSION REPORT
PRESENTATIONS: NONE.

PUBLIC COMMENTS – MATTERS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA
Comments are limited to 3 minutes, or as otherwise directed.

Comments on Consent Calendar items may also be heard at this time.

Page 5 of 12 ends

5 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL AND

SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE

REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND

HOUSING AUTHORITY
Agenda January 18, 2022

COUNCIL MEMBER COMMITTEE REPORTS, COMMENTS, AND SUGGESTIONS Each council member is limited to 4 minutes. Additional comments will be heard at the end of the meeting.

1. Council Member Reynolds

2. Council Member Chavez

3. Council Member Gameros

4. Council Member Harlan

5. Council Member Harper

6. Mayor Pro Tem Marr

7. Mayor Stephens
REPORT – CITY MANAGER
REPORT – CITY ATTORNEY
CONSENT CALENDAR (Items 1-10)
All matters listed under the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and will be acted upon in one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless members of the City Council, staff, or the public request specific items to be discussed and/or removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.

1. PROCEDURAL WAIVER: APPROVE THE READING BY TITLE ONLY

OF ALL ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
21-543
RECOMMENDATION:

City Council and Agency Board approve the reading by title only and waive full reading of Ordinances and Resolutions.

2. READING FOLDER 21-544
RECOMMENDATION:

City Council receive and file Claims received by the City Clerk: Mike Baxter, Heizel Castillo, Southern California Edison, Riccardo Grad, Kevin Kono, Damon Levy, Edward Martindale, Ahmad Masri, Mercury Insurance, Estate of Heizel Michelle Pozo-Castillo, Marcial Pozo, Francisco Roman, Ray Taylor, Christianne Leman & Elizabeth Freeman.

Page 6 of 12 ends

6 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL AND

SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE

REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND

HOUSING AUTHORITY
Agenda January 18, 2022

3. ADOPTION OF WARRANT RESOLUTION 21-513
RECOMMENDATION:

City Council approve Warrant Resolution No. 2672
Summary Check Register 1-18-2022Attachments:

4. MINUTES 21-542
RECOMMENDATION:

City Council approve the Minutes of the Regular meeting of December 7, 2021, the Special Closed Session meeting of January 5, 2022, and the Special Joint Closed Session meeting of January 11, 2022.

1. 12-07-2021 Draft Minutes

2. 01-05-22 Special Closed Session - Draft Minutes

3. 01-11-22 Special Closed Session - Draft Minutes
Attachments:

5. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION TO CONTINUE CONDUCTING

MEETINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL, COMMISSIONS AND

COMMITTEES REMOTELY AS NEEDED DUE TO HEALTH AND

SAFETY CONCERNS FOR THE PUBLIC
21-545
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council adopt Resolution 2021-xx to allow the City to continue conducting City Council, Commission, and Committee meetings remotely as needed via Zoom due to:
· The current State of Emergency and global pandemic, which continues to directly impact the ability of the members of the City ’s legislative bodies to meet safely in person; and
· Federal, State and /or local officials continue to impose or recommend measures to promote social distancing.

1. Draft Resolution No. 2021-xxAttachments:

Page 7 of 12 ends

7 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL AND

SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE

REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND

HOUSING AUTHORITY
Agenda January 18, 2022

6. MONTHLY UPDATE OF STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS AND

OBJECTIVES
21-515
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council approve the January update to the City of Costa Mesa’s Strategic Plan Goals and Objectives.

Strategic Plan Objectives_ UPDATE January 2022Attachments:

7. 2021 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT RELIEF FUNDING PROGRAM 21-523 RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council approve Resolution No. 2022-xx (Attachment 1) authorizing the submittal of the Fairview Road Improvement Project to the 2021 Pavement Management Relief Funding Program (PMRF).

1. Resolution No. 2022-XXAttachments:

8. A RESOLUTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA

MESA AUTHORIZING ACCEPTANCE OF ASSISTANCE TO

FIREFIGHTERS GRANT (AFG) AWARD FROM THE FEDERAL

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY (FEMA)
21-532
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt the proposed resolution (Attachment 1) which ratifies the application for the Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) award from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and authorizes the City Manager to execute the grant agreement for the amount of $730,613.76 for the purchase of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and other firefighting equipment; and

2. Approve budget appropriations of $664,194.33 from FEMA and the City’s required 10% match of $66,419.43 for the Fiscal Year 2020 Assistance to Firefighters Grant for a total budget of $730,613.76.

3. Approve the City ’s 10% match appropriation transfer of $66,419.43 from the FY 2021-2022 General Fund Non-Departmental Adopted Budget to the Federal Grant Fund 230 to comply with the FEMA award requirement.

1. Costa Mesa Resolution No. 2022-xx FEMA AFG

2. Award Letter - EMW-2020-FG-15200
Attachments:

Page 8 of 12 ends

8 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL AND

SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE

REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND

HOUSING AUTHORITY
Agenda January 18, 2022

9. ADOPT A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE ACQUISITION OF

BANNING RANCH BY THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND
21-537
RECOMMENDATION:

City Council to consider the adoption of Resolution 2022-XX in support of the acquisition of Banning Ranch by The Trust for Public Land (TPL) for the permanent preservation of public open space.

1. Banning Ranch Reso. No. 2022-XXAttachments:

10. ADOPT RESOLUTION APPROVING RECOGNIZED OBLIGATION
PAYMENT SCHEDULE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2020-2021 FOR THE
PERIOD OF JULY 1, 2022 TO JUNE 30, 2023
21-539
RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt Successor Agency Resolution No. 2022-xx approving the Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule for Fiscal Year 2022-23 for the period of July 1, 2022 to June 30, 2023.

1. Resolution ROPS FY 2022-23

2. ROPS Payment Schedule 22-23
Attachments:

AT THIS TIME COUNCIL WILL ADDRESS ANY ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT

CALENDAR
------------------------END OF CONSENT CALENDAR------------------------

Page 9 of 12 ends

9 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL AND

SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE

REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND

HOUSING AUTHORITY
Agenda January 18, 2022
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
(Pursuant to Resolution No. 05-55, Public Hearings begin at 7:00 p.m.)

1. CITY OF COSTA MESA 2021-2029 (SIXTH CYCLE) HOUSING
ELEMENT (GP-21-01)
21-530
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council receive a staff presentation for the 2021-2029 (Sixth Cycle) General Plan Housing Element Update, take public comment, consider the Planning Commission ’s recommendation, provide feedback to staff, and continue the item to the February 1, 2022 City Council meeting for consideration of Housing Element adoption.

1. Housing Element Update ISMND

2. Updatd Draft Housing Element (strikethrough underline version)

3. Planning Commission Resolution

4. Public Comments

5. ISMND Public Comments
Attachments:

OLD BUSINESS: NONE.

NEW BUSINESS:

1. 2021 LEGISLATIVE REPORT AND UPDATE FROM TOWNSEND

PUBLIC AFFAIRS
21-546
RECOMMENDATION:

Receive and file the 2021 legislative update and report from Townsend Public Affairs.

Page 10 of 12 ends

10 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL AND

SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE

REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND

HOUSING AUTHORITY
Agenda January 18, 2022

2. URBAN MASTER PLAN SCREENING REQUEST (UMP-21-005) FOR A NINE-UNIT LIVE /WORK DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 1540

SUPERIOR AVENUE
21-526
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council review and provide feedback on the proposed nine-unit live/work project at 1540 Superior Avenue, located in the 19 West Urban Plan area.

1. UMP-21-005 Summary Sheet

2. UMP-21-005 Applicant Letter

3. UMP-21-005 Vicinity Map

4. UMP-21-005 Zoning Map

5. UMP-21-005 Plans
Attachments:

3. CITY OF COSTA MESA AND COSTA MESA PUBLIC FINANCING

AUTHORITY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDING
JUNE 30, 2021
21-541
RECOMMENDATION:

1. Staff recommends that the City Council receive and file the following reports for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2021:

a. Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) (Attachment 1); b. Air Quality Improvement Fund Compliance Report (Attachment 2);
c. Audit Communication Letter (Attachment 3); and
d. Independent Accountant's Report on Agreed-Upon Procedures Applied to Appropriation Limit Worksheets (Attachment 4).

2. Staff recommends that the City Council and Costa Mesa Public Financing Authority receive and file the Costa Mesa Public Financing Authority audited financial statements for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2021 (Attachment 5).

1. City of Costa Mesa 2021 ACFR Final

2. Air Quality MD Opinion Letter

3. Audit Communication Section 260 Letter

4. Independent Accountant's Rpt Letter

5. Costa Mesa Public Financing Authority Audit Rpt
Attachments:

Page 11 of 12 ends

11 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL AND

SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE

REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND

HOUSING AUTHORITY
Agenda January 18, 2022

4. COSTA MESA FINANCING AUTHORITY FISCAL YEAR 2020-2021

AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
21-538
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council and Costa Mesa Financing Authority receive and file the Costa Mesa Financing Authority ’s audited financial statements for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2021.

1. Costa Mesa Financing Authority Audit ReportAttachments:

5. COSTA MESA HOUSING AUTHORITY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

AND HOUSING SUCCESSOR ANNUAL REPORT FOR THE PERIOD
ENDING JUNE 30, 2021
21-540
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council and Housing Authority receive and file the following:

1. The Fiscal Year 2020-21 Independent Financial Audit of the Costa Mesa Housing Authority, including the Low and Moderate Income Housing Asset Fund; and

2. The Fiscal Year 2020-21 Housing Successor Annual Report prepared under the California Health and Safety Code Section 34176.1 as the housing successor and Section 34328 as a housing authority.

1. CM Housing Authority Audit Report

2. Housing Report CMHA FY 20-21
Attachments:

ADDITIONAL COUNCIL /BOARD MEMBER COMMITTEE REPORTS, COMMENTS, AND

SUGGESTIONS

ADJOURNMENT

Page 12 of 12 ends

12 City of Costa Mesa
Agenda Report
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
File #: 21-543 Meeting Date: 1/18/2022
TITLE:

PROCEDURAL WAIVER: APPROVE THE READING BY TITLE ONLY OF ALL ORDINANCES AND

RESOLUTIONS
RECOMMENDATION:

City Council and Agency Board approve the reading by title only and waive full reading of Ordinances and Resolutions.

Page 1 of 1 ends

13 City of Costa Mesa
Agenda Report
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
File #: 21-544 Meeting Date: 1/18/2022
TITLE:

READING FOLDER
DEPARTMENT: City Manager’s Office/City Clerk’s Division RECOMMENDATION:

Page 1 of 1 ends

14 City of Costa Mesa
Agenda Report
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
File #: 21-513 Meeting Date: 1/18/2022
TITLE:

ADOPTION OF WARRANT RESOLUTION
DEPARTMENT: Finance Department
PRESENTED BY: Carol Molina, Finance Director
CONTACT INFORMATION: Carol Molina at (714) 754-5243
RECOMMENDATION:

City Council approve Warrant Resolution No. 2672
BACKGROUND:

In accordance with Section 37202 of the California Government Code, the Director of Finance or their designated representative hereby certify to the accuracy of the following demands and to the availability of funds for payment thereof.

FISCAL REVIEW:

Funding Payroll Register No. 21-24 for $2,681,787.35, 21-25 “A”for $21,367.39 and 21-26 for $2,960,568.81 and City operating expenses for $5,992,218.6.

Page 1 of 1 ends

15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
29 30
31 32
33 34
35 36
37 38
39 40
41 42
43 44
45 46
47 48
49 50
51 52
53 54
55 56
57 58
59 60
61 62
63 64
65 66
67 68
69 70
71 72
73 74
75 76
77 78
79 80
81 82
83 84
85 86
87 88
89 90
91 92
93 94
95 96
97 98
99 100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
City of Costa Mesa
Agenda Report
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
File #: 21-542 Meeting Date: 1/18/2022
TITLE:

MINUTES
DEPARTMENT: City Manager’s Office/City Clerk’s Division RECOMMENDATION:

City Council approve the Minutes of the Regular meeting of December 7, 2021, the Special Closed Session meeting of January 5, 2022, and the Special Joint Closed Session meeting of January 11, 2022.

Page 1 of 1 ends

120
Minutes – Regular Meeting – December 7, 2021 Page 1 of 16 City of Costa Mesa
Meeting Minutes
Tuesday, December 7, 2021
6:00 PM
City Council Chambers
77 Fair Drive

REGULAR CITY COUNCIL AND SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO

THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND HOUSING

AUTHORITY
121
Minutes – Regular Meeting – December 7, 2021 Page 2 of 16 4:00 P.M. Closed Session
CALL TO ORDER - The Closed Session meeting was called to order by Mayor Stephens at 4:00 p.m.

ROLL CALL

Present: Council Member Chavez, Council Member Gameros, Council Member Harlan, Council Member Harper, and Mayor Stephens.

Absent: Council Member Reynolds and Mayor Pro Tem Marr.

PUBLIC COMMENTS – None.

CLOSED SESSION ITEMS:

1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION – ONE CASE Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9 (d)(1) Costa Mesa v. NMUSD, OCSC Case No. 30-2021-01179397-CU-WM-CXC.

2. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.8, APN: 424-051-25, Property 774 Shalimar Drive, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 APN: 424-051-23, Property 778 Shalimar Drive, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Agency Negotiator: Lori Ann Farrell Harrison, City Manager Negotiating Parties: Andrew Connell (Broker) and Matthew Hoyt (Part Owner/Broker)

3. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION – ONE CASE Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9 (d)(4) – Potential Litigation

4. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
Pursuant to Section 54956.9 (d)(1) of California Government Code Name of Case: City of Costa Mesa, et al v. Purdue Pharma, L.P., et al; USDC, Northern District of Ohio, MDL No. 2804 (1:20-op-45055-DAP, transferred from USDC, Central District, Case No. 8:19-cv-02154), originally filed in San Francisco Superior Court under Case No. CGC-19-574865, and then Orange County Superior Court under Case No. 30-2019-01101802-CU-BT-CXC.

City Council recessed at 4:02 p.m. for Closed Session.

Closed Session adjourned at 5:45 p.m.
122
Minutes – Regular Meeting – December 7, 2021 Page 3 of 16

REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND SUCCESSOR AGENCY

TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
DECEMBER 7, 2021 – 6:00 P.M.

CALL TO ORDER - The Regular City Council and Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency meeting was called to order by Mayor Stephens at 6:02 p.m.

NATIONAL ANTHEM AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Led by Brendan Ford and Council Member Chavez

MOMENT OF SOLEMN EXPRESSION
Led by Pastor David Manne from Calvary Baptist Church

ROLL CALL

Present: Council Member Chavez, Council Member Gameros, Council Member Harlan, Council Member Harper, Council Member Reynolds, Mayor Pro Tem Marr (Arrived 6:19 p.m.), and Mayor Stephens.

Absent: None.

CITY ATTORNEY CLOSED SESSION REPORT – No reportable action.

PRESENTATIONS: NONE.

PUBLIC COMMENTS – MATTERS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA
Speaker, spoke on Measures AA and Y, spoke on protecting the city against SB-9 & SB-10 regarding housing, and an initiative that has started ourneighborsvoices.com.

Speaker, spoke on problems related to a rehabilitation health facility license on Purdue Drive.

David Martinez, Costa Mesa, spoke on recruitment for committees, renaming the Bikeway and Walkability Committee to Active Transportation Committee, and establishing a Human Relations & Equity Committee.

Hank Castignetti, spoke on vandalism at the OC Model Engineers Building and thanked everybody for the donations received to repair the building.

Wendy Leece, Costa Mesa, spoke on the vandalism at the OC Model Engineers Building, remembering 80th anniversary of Pearl Harbor and thanked all that served, alerted Costa Mesa residents regarding mailer by Mesa Water on public hearings in January on rate increases, and paying through the tax rolls.
123
Minutes – Regular Meeting – December 7, 2021 Page 4 of 16 Charlene Ashendorf, Costa Mesa, spoke on art projects in the City and the commitment to community projects and art, and conveyed to be careful when driving and walking and to obey the rules of the road for pedestrian safety.

Kim Hendricks, Costa Mesa, spoke on the Fairview Park Alliance doing a restoration project in Fairview Park on Saturday, December 11, 2021.

Ben Chapman, Costa Mesa, requested an update on Council Member Harper’s request for the quarterly finance report.

COUNCIL MEMBER COMMITTEE REPORTS, COMMENTS, AND SUGGESTIONS Council Member Reynolds spoke on traffic safety and pedestrian safety, spoke on the Strong Towns event, thanked staff for all their efforts in making Costa Mesa a better community and more transparent, spoke on processing cannabis applications next year, and attending the Transportation Corridor Agency workshops.

Council Member Chavez thanked key players for their efforts to repair the OC Model Engineers facility, spoke on the Veterans Cemetery groundbreaking, and invited all to the Snoopy House event.

Council Member Gameros spoke on visiting the OC Model Engineers site, and wished everyone Happy Holidays.

Council Member Harlan congratulated Newport Harbor Water Polo team for winning the State Championship and the Boys Football team for being in the CIF playoffs, and thanked staff and colleagues for collaboration on working on the issues, and wished everyone Happy Holidays.

Council Member Harper spoke on the taxpayers supporting the OC Model Engineers, expressed concern on robbery and crime issues, expressed concerns regarding SB-9 regarding housing mandates, requested an update on the COLU software, and requested an update on the quarterly finance report.

Mayor Pro Tem Marr spoke on a resident contacting her regarding a new bus stop at North Bound Harbor at Merrimac, and spoke on attending the Innovating Commerce Serving Communities (ICSC) event.

Mayor Stephens spoke on remembering the 80 th anniversary of Pearl Harbor, honoring Mr.

Cornelius who is a WWII Veteran on his 100 th birthday, congratulated Anduril’s general counsel Babak Siavoshy who was awarded best general council, spoke on attending the Valerie Amatis mural unveiling, thanked everybody regarding the OC Model Engineers facility, spoke on the upcoming Snoopy House event, spoke on attending the Innovating Commerce Serving Communities (ICSC) event, and spoke on the County of Orange redistricting resolution.
124
Minutes – Regular Meeting – December 7, 2021 Page 5 of 16 REPORT – CITY MANAGER – Ms. Farrell Harrison spoke on investments into our parks facilities, spoke on participating in the redistricting process and the next workshop on January 8, 2022, spoke in remembrance of Pearl Harbor and Senator Bob Dole, remembered Jack Hammett, spoke on the pandemic and case rates and to be careful during the holidays and encouraged vaccinations and boosters, announced City Hall closure from December 23, 2021 to January 3, 2022, and Ms. Molina, Finance Director, provided a status of the quarterly financial report.

REPORT – CITY ATTORNEY – Ms. Hall Barlow, wished all a wonderful holiday season.

CONSENT CALENDAR (Items 1-16)
MOVED/SECOND: Council Member Reynolds/Mayor Pro Tem Marr MOTION: Approve recommended actions for Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 through 16 except for item number 10.

The motion carried by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Council Member Chavez, Council Member Gameros, Council Member Harlan, Council Member Harper, Council Member Reynolds, Mayor Pro Tem Marr, and Mayor Stephens.

Nays: None

Absent: None
Abstain: Council Member Gameros recused himself only on CC-3 the Warrant Resolution because of a conflict of interest as his wife works at Priceless Pet Rescue.

Motion carried: 7-0

1. PROCEDURAL WAIVER: APPROVE THE READING BY TITLE ONLY OF ALL

ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
ACTION:

City Council and Agency Board approved the reading by title only and waived full reading of Ordinances and Resolutions.

2. READING FOLDER
ACTION:

City Council received and filed Claims received by the City Clerk: Martha Cervantes, Kelly Beavers, Robert Wesley Beavers, Pauline Popkin.

3. ADOPTION OF WARRANT RESOLUTION
ACTION:

City Council approved Warrant Resolution No. 2671.

4. MINUTES
ACTION:

City Council approved the Minutes of the Study Session of November 9, 2021 and the Regular meeting of November 16, 2021.
125
Minutes – Regular Meeting – December 7, 2021 Page 6 of 16

5. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION TO CONTINUE CONDUCTING MEETINGS OF THE

CITY COUNCIL, COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES REMOTELY AS NEEDED DUE

TO HEALTH AND SAFETY CONCERNS FOR THE PUBLIC
ACTION:

City Council adopted Resolution 2021-46 to allow the City to continue conducting City Council, Commission, and Committee meetings remotely as needed via Zoom due to:
 The current State of Emergency and global pandemic, which continues to directly impact the ability of the members of the City’s legislative bodies to meet safely in person; and
 Federal, State and/or local officials continue to impose or recommend measures to promote social distancing.

6. REQUEST TO CANCEL THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 4, 2022
ACTION:

City Council cancelled the regular meeting of Tuesday, January 4, 2022.

7. DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES ANNUAL REPORT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2021
ACTION:

City Council received and filed the Development Impact Fees Annual Report for the Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2021.

8. APPROVAL OF CARRYOVERS FROM THE PRIOR FISCAL YEAR (FY2020-21) TO FISCAL YEAR 2021-22 FOR THE GENERAL FUND, OTHER FUND

ENCUMBRANCES, AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (CIP) UNSPENT

APPROPRIATIONS)
ACTION:

City Council approved the following:

1. Carryover of Fiscal Year 2020-21 General Fund and other fund appropriations; and

2. Carryover unspent appropriations from Fiscal Year 2020-21 for the continuation of Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Projects.
126
Minutes – Regular Meeting – December 7, 2021 Page 7 of 16

9. SECOND READING AND ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 13 OF

THE COSTA MESA MUNICIPAL CODE (ZONING CODE) TO CLEAN UP INTERNAL

INCONSISTENCIES BETWEEN VARIOUS CHAPTERS OF THE ZONING CODE AND

TO CONFORM TO RECENT REVISIONS TO AND REQUIREMENTS OF STATE LAW (CODE AMENDMENT 2020-02)
ACTION:

City Council gave second reading to and adopted Ordinance 2021-20 approving Code Amendment CO-2020-02, amending Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code (Zoning Code) to clean up internal inconsistencies between various chapters and conform to recent revisions in compliance with State law.

11. AWARD CONTRACT FOR STREET STRIPING AND THERMOPLASTIC MARKINGS ACTION:

1. City Council approved the Maintenance Services Agreement (MSA) with Superior Pavement and Markings Inc., 5312 Cypress Street, Cypress, CA 90630, for the performance of street striping and installation of thermoplastic markings, in an amount not to exceed $193,786.41 annually, for an initial term of three (3) years with two (2) optional one-year extensions.

2. Approved a 10% contingency of $19,379 for unforeseen costs.

3. Authorized the City Manager and City Clerk to execute the PSA and future amendments to the agreement within Council authorized limits with Superior Pavement and Markings Inc.

12. AMENDMENT TO THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) WITH THE

SAVE OUR YOUTH CENTER (SOY)
ACTION:

City Council approved the first amendment to the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Costa Mesa and the Save Our Youth Center (SOY).

13. COUNTY OF ORANGE MEAL GAP SERVICES GRANT
ACTION:

1. City Council accepted and approved revenue and expense appropriations in the amount of $200,000 respectively, for Meal Gap Services Grant Funds from the County of Orange to provide meals for those facing food insecurities; and

2. Authorized the City Manager or designee to execute any and all documents necessary for the purchase and distribution of grocery gift cards and shelf stable meals.
127
Minutes – Regular Meeting – December 7, 2021 Page 8 of 16

14. AUTHORIZE THE USE OF OMNIA PARTNERS PUBLIC SECTOR NATIONAL

COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH GAME TIME PLAYGROUND SOLUTIONS FOR

THE PURCHASE OF PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT FOR TANAGER PARK AND

JORDAN PARK
ACTION:

1. City Council authorized the use of OMNIA Partners, Public Sector (formerly U.S.

Communities) National Cooperative Agreement No. 2017001134 with Game Time Playground Solutions for the purchase of playground equipment for Tanager Park and Jordan Park; and

2. Authorized the City Manager, or her designee, to execute any and all documents necessary for the purchase of playground equipment for Tanager Park and Jordan Park for $194,013.87 through Game Time Playground Solutions.

15. DOWNTOWN AQUATIC CENTER POOL RE-PLASTERING PROJECT, CITY PROJECT NO. 21-08
ACTION:

1. City Council awarded a Public Works Agreement (PWA) to California Waters Development, Inc., 23311 E. La Palma Avenue, Yorba Linda, California 92887, in the amount of $281,340.

2. Authorized the City Manager and City Clerk to execute the PWA and future amendments to the agreement within Council authorized limits.

3. Authorized an additional ten percent (10%) contingency totaling $28,134 as needed for unforeseen costs.

4. Approved a budget reallocation in the amount of $34,474 from the Building Modifications Project to the Downtown Aquatic Center Pool Re-plastering Project.

16. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH PACIFIC ADVANCED CIVIL

ENGINEERING FOR ENGINEERING DESIGN SERVICES FOR THE TEWINKLE

PARK LAKES UPGRADES PROJECT
ACTION:

1. City Council awarded a Professional Services Agreement (PSA) to Pacific Advanced Civil Engineering (PACE), 17520 Newhope Street, Suite 200, Fountain Valley, California 92708 for two years with two one-year renewal periods, in an amount not to exceed $120,425 for engineering design services for the TeWinkle Park Lakes Upgrades Project.

2. Authorized an additional ten percent (10%) contingency in the amount of $12,050 as needed for any unforeseen costs related to this project. 128
Minutes – Regular Meeting – December 7, 2021 Page 9 of 16

3. Approved a budget reallocation in the amount of $7,475, from the Tanager Park Playground Exercise Equipment Replacement Project to the TeWinkle Park Lakes Upgrades Project.

4. Authorized the City Manager and City Clerk to execute the PSA and future amendments to the agreement within Council authorized limits.

AT THIS TIME COUNCIL WILL ADDRESS ANY ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT

CALENDAR

10. MEASURE M2 EXPENDITURE REPORT
Public Comments – None.

MOVED/SECOND: Council Member Chavez/Council Member Harlan MOTION: Approve recommended actions.

The motion carried by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Council Member Chavez, Council Member Gameros, Council Member Harlan, Council Member Harper, Council Member Reynolds, Mayor Pro Tem Marr, and Mayor Stephens.

Nays:None

Absent: None
Motion carried: 7-0
ACTION:

City Council adopted Resolution No. 2021-47, approving the Measure M2 Expenditure Report and authorizing staff to submit the report to the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA.)
-----------------------------------------END OF CONSENT CALENDAR---------------------------------------- City Council recessed into a break at 6:59 p.m.

City Council reconvened at 7:05 p.m.

PUBLIC HEARINGS:

1. ADOPTION OF AN URGENCY ORDINANCE ADOPTING CHANGES TO TITLE 13 (ZONING) OF THE COSTA MESA MUNICIPAL CODE, RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SENATE BILL 9 FOR THE CREATION OF TWO (2)

RESIDENTIAL UNITS PER LOT AND URBAN LOT SPLITS IN SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES; AND DECLARING THE ORDINANCE TO BE AN URGENCY

MEASURE TO TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY UPON ADOPTION
Presentation by Ms. Le, Economic and Development Services Director. 129
Minutes – Regular Meeting – December 7, 2021 Page 10 of 16 Public Comments:

Speaker, spoke on ministerial decisions and less public involvement, voting by district, and council representation.

Marc Vukcevich, Costa Mesa, spoke in support of city staff on their timing of bringing the item forward, recommended reducing setbacks, and changing the design standards.

Speaker, spoke against SB-9 and SB-10 and that this will not provide low income housing.

Wendy Leece, Costa Mesa, spoke against SB-9 and SB-10, spoke in support of local control, and preserving Costa Mesa neighborhoods.

Kim Hendricks, Costa Mesa, spoke against SB-9, it does not follow CEQA, spoke against State mandates and it ignores affordable housing, and spoke on the long term vision.

Aaron Klemm, spoke in support of SB9, because the homeowner decides what to do with the property.

MOVED/SECOND: Council Member Chavez/Council Member Reynolds MOTION: Approve recommended actions.

Council Member Harper spoke against the item being an Urgency Ordinance and would prefer it to go through the regular permanent Ordinance process.

MOVED/SECOND: Council Member Chavez/Council Member Reynolds MOTION: Approve recommended actions.

The motion carried by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Council Member Chavez, Council Member Gameros, Council Member Harlan, Council Member Reynolds, Mayor Pro Tem Marr, and Mayor Stephens.

Nays:Council Member Harper.

Absent: None
Motion carried: 6-1
ACTION:

1. City Council found that Urgency Ordinance No. 2021-21 is statutorily exempt from CEQA because this Ordinance is not considered a “project” pursuant to Government Code Section 65852.21(j) and because it can be seen with certainty that this Ordinance will not have an effect on the environment pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) (general rule); and

2. Introduced and adopted Urgency Ordinance No. 2021-21. 130
Minutes – Regular Meeting – December 7, 2021 Page 11 of 16

2. ANNUAL REVIEW OF THE CITYWIDE TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE PROGRAM Presentation by Ms. Rosales, Transportation Manager.

Public Comments:

David Martinez, Costa Mesa, spoke in opposition to Capital Improvement Projects for street widening and adding more lanes.

Marc Vukcevich, Costa Mesa, spoke in opposition to Capital Improvement Projects for street widening and adding more lanes, spoke on more walkability efforts, reducing automobile trips, and slowing traffic.

Cynthia McDonald, Costa Mesa, spoke in favor of measures to slow traffic.

MOVED/SECOND: Council Member Chavez/Mayor Stephens
MOTION: Approve recommended actions.

The motion carried by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Council Member Chavez, Council Member Gameros, Council Member Harlan, Council Member Harper, Council Member Reynolds, Mayor Pro Tem Marr, and Mayor Stephens.

Nays:None

Absent: None
Motion carried: 7-0
ACTION:

City Council adopted the Resolution No. 2021-48, continuing the citywide traffic impact fee for new development in the City of Costa Mesa and conducting the related annual review of the citywide traffic impact fee program and capital improvement plan for transportation improvements. The resolution incorporates the recommendations from the Traffic Impact Fee Ad Hoc Committee and staff, which include:

1. Continued a traffic impact fee of $235 per Average Daily Trip (ADT) based on the Capital Improvement Projects in Attachment 2 and Active Transportation projects in the adopted Active Transportation Plan (ATP).

2. Approved allocation of up to ten percent (10%) of traffic impact fees towards traffic signal synchronization projects.

3. Approved a five percent (5%) reduction in automobile trips as a result of ATP implementation and an additional five percent (5%) reduction in automobile trips for developments proposing to implement active transportation improvements beyond typical development requirements.

4. Approved the annual accounting of the Citywide Traffic Impact Fee Program. 131
Minutes – Regular Meeting – December 7, 2021 Page 12 of 16 OLD BUSINESS:

1. OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN UPDATE
Presentation by Mr. Minter, Parks and Community Services Director.

Mr. Minter requested to reinstate Services Area 6 line item adding $2,800 for a total of $56,600 and to include this change in the motion.

Public Comments:

Kim Hendricks, Costa Mesa, spoke on listing Fairview Park on the Open Space Master Plan by itself and not with Talbert Park.

MOVED/SECOND: Council Member Reynolds/Council Member Harlan MOTION: Approve recommended actions.

The motion carried by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Council Member Chavez, Council Member Gameros, Council Member Harlan, Council Member Harper, Council Member Reynolds, Mayor Pro Tem Marr, and Mayor Stephens.

Nays:None

Absent: None
Motion carried: 7-0
ACTION:

1. City Council awarded a contract to RJM Design Group, 31591 Camino Capistrano, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675, for a total not-to-exceed amount of $56,600, for professional services for the update of the Open Space Master Plan; and

2. Authorize the City Manager and the City Clerk to execute a Professional Services Agreement and future amendments to the agreement.

City Council recessed into a break at 7:30 p.m.

City Council reconvened at 7:35 p.m.
132
Minutes – Regular Meeting – December 7, 2021 Page 13 of 16

2. JACK HAMMETT SPORTS COMPLEX EXPANSION PROJECT, CITY PROJECT NO. 21-05
Presentation by Ms. Farrell Harrison, City Manager, Mr. Sethuraman, Public Services Director, Ms. Mokarram, Principal Engineer, and Ms. Villasenor, Recreation Manager.

Public Comments:

Flo Martin, Costa Mesa, expressed concern on the 2 million expenditure for additional parking, spoke on utilizing the Orange Coast College new parking lot, spoke on the removal of trees and fences to be replaced, and that the fields do not need new sidewalks.

David Martinez, Costa Mesa, spoke on expanding the parking lot and that the parking lot does not strengthen public safety, the current parking lot is underutilized, requested to remove the $250,00 for parking and do everything else in the project, ask Orange Coast College or Costa Mesa High School for parking agreements, spoke in support of more bike racks, spoke against the need for more parking, and supports more biking and walking to the Jack Hammett Sports Complex.

Brett Eckles, Costa Mesa, spoke in support of staff’s recommendations, spoke in support of field space, spoke on safety reasons, and more parking is needed.

Speaker, spoke in support of the project, and spoke on parking problems.

Marc Vukcevich, Costa Mesa, spoke in opposition to the parking proposals, spoke on other parking in the area, and spoke in support of walking and biking.

Speaker, spoke in support of the project and spoke on parking problems.

Jimmy Vivar, Costa Mesa, expressed concern on increasing traffic circulation and spoke on speed bumps for safety.

Cynthia McDonald, Costa Mesa, spoke in opposition of additional parking, spoke on safety concerns, using the bike racks, and additional lighting.

MOVED/SECOND: Council Member Gameros/Council Member Harper MOTION: Approve recommended actions.

The motion carried by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Council Member Chavez, Council Member Gameros, Council Member Harlan, Council Member Harper, Council Member Reynolds, Mayor Pro Tem Marr, and Mayor Stephens.

Nays:None

Absent: None
Motion carried: 7-0
133
Minutes – Regular Meeting – December 7, 2021 Page 14 of 16 ACTION:

1. City Council adopted plans, specifications, and working details for the Jack Hammett Sports Complex Expansion Project, City Project No. 21-05.

2. Accepted the bid withdrawal submitted by PUB Construction, Inc.

3. Awarded a Public Works Agreement (PWA) to Horizons Construction Company International, Inc., 432 W. Meats Avenue, Orange, CA 92865, in the amount of $2,166,920.70.

4. Authorized the City Manager and City Clerk to execute the PWA and future amendments to the agreement within Council authorized limits.

5. Authorized a budget adjustment of an additional $125,000 from the Jack Hammett Sports Complex Capital Improvement Fund (417).

6. Authorized an additional ten percent (10%) contingency in the amount of $216,693 as needed for any unforeseen costs related to this project.

NEW BUSINESS:

1. COMPENSATION PLAN AND SALARY SCHEDULE REVISIONS TO ADDRESS

RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION (PHASE ONE)
Presentation by Ms. Lee, Human Resources Manager.

Public Comments:

Ralph Taboada, Costa Mesa, spoke on problems with vacancies, spoke on the comparisons with adjoining cities are a good comparison, requested to provide a range of annual costs, and anticipated changes in costs.

MOVED/SECOND: Council Member Chavez/Mayor Pro Tem Marr
MOTION: Approve recommended actions.

The motion carried by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Council Member Chavez, Council Member Gameros, Council Member Harlan, Council Member Harper, Council Member Reynolds, Mayor Pro Tem Marr, and Mayor Stephens.

Nays:None

Absent: None
Motion carried: 7-0
ACTION:

1. City Council adopted Resolution Nos. 2021-49, 2021-50 and 2021-51 revising the Compensation Plans and Salary Schedules of designated classifications to address Phase One of the City’s hard to fill and/or hard to retain positions, and to ensure internal alignment with the classification series. 134
Minutes – Regular Meeting – December 7, 2021 Page 15 of 16

2. Adopted Resolution No. 2021-52 revising the Compensation Plans and Salary Schedules for part time employees to align the salary schedule with minimum wage increases effective January 1, 2022, and provide adjustments necessary to address compaction.

2. AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE CITY MANAGER Presentation by Mayor Stephens.

Public Comments – None.

MOVED/SECOND: Mayor Pro Tem Marr/Council Member Harlan
MOTION: Approve recommended actions.

The motion carried by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Council Member Chavez, Council Member Gameros, Council Member Harlan, Council Member Harper, Council Member Reynolds, Mayor Pro Tem Marr, and Mayor Stephens.

Nays:None

Absent: None
Motion carried: 7-0
ACTION:

City Council considered the Third Amendment to Agreement for the Office of the City Manager and

1. Approved the Third Amendment to Agreement for the Office of the City Manager.

2. Adopted Resolution 2021-53 which revises the Executive Compensation Plan and Executive Salary Schedule.

ADDITIONAL COUNCIL/BOARD MEMBER COMMITTEE REPORTS, COMMENTS, AND SUGGESTIONS – NONE.

ADJOURNMENT – The Mayor Adjourned the meeting at 10:15 p.m. 135
Minutes – Regular Meeting – December 7, 2021 Page 16 of 16 Minutes adopted on this 18th day of January, 2022.
___________________________
John Stephens, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________
Brenda Green, City Clerk
136

Minutes – Closed Session – January 5, 2022 – Page 1

MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CLOSED SESSION MEETING OF

THE CITY COUNCIL AND SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE

REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY

TUESDAY, JANUARY 5, 2022

CALL TO ORDER - The Special Joint Closed Session meeting was called to order by Mayor Stephens at 5:00 p.m.

ROLL CALL

Present by Zoom: Council Member Chavez, Council Member Gameros (Excused at 6:24 p.m.), Council Member Harlan, Council Member Reynolds, Mayor Pro Tem Marr, and Mayor Stephens (Excused at 5:59 p.m.).

Absent: Council Member Harper.

PUBLIC COMMENTS - NONE

CLOSED SESSION ITEMS:

1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
Pursuant to Section 54956.9(d)(1) of California Government Code Robert Sharpnack v. City of Costa Mesa Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30 - 2020-01131375-CU-OE-CJC.

2. THREAT TO SECURITY
Pursuant to Section 54957(a) of California Government Code Consultation with:

Costa Mesa Director of Emergency Services, City Manager, Police Chie f, Fire Chief, and Emergency Services Administrator.

City Council recessed into Closed Session at 5:01 p.m.

Closed Session adjourned at 6:32 p.m. and the City Attorney indicated there was no reportable action.

137

Minutes – Closed Session – January 5, 2022 – Page 2

Minutes adopted on this 18th day of January, 2022.

___________________________
John Stephens, Mayor

ATTEST:

___________________________
Brenda Green, City Clerk

138

Minutes – Closed Session – January 11, 2022 – Page 1

MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CLOSED SESSION MEETING

OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE

REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY

TUESDAY, JANUARY 11, 2022

CALL TO ORDER - The Special Joint Closed Session meeting was called to order by Mayor Stephens at 5:00 p.m.

ROLL CALL

Present by Zoom: Council Member Chavez, Council Member Harlan, Council Member Harper, Council Member Reynolds, Mayor Pro Tem Marr (Arrived 5:03 p.m.), and Mayor Stephens.

Absent: Council Member Gameros.

PUBLIC COMMENTS - NONE

CLOSED SESSION ITEMS:

1. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.8
APN: 439-281-48; 2450 Newport Boulevard, Costa Mesa
City/Housing Authority Negotiators: Lori Ann Farrell Harrison, City Manager/Authority Executive Director; Susan Price, Assistant City Manager Negotiating Party: William Pavone and Century Housing

2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION - ONE CASE Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9 (d)(1) Costa Mesa v. NMUSD, OCSC Case No. 30-2021-01179397-CU-WM-CXC.

City Council recessed into Closed Session at 5:02 p.m.

Closed Session adjourned at 5:47 p.m. and the City Attorney indicated there was no reportable action.

139

Minutes – Closed Session – January 11, 2022 – Page 2

Minutes adopted on this 18th day of January, 2022.

___________________________
John Stephens, Mayor

ATTEST:

___________________________
Brenda Green, City Clerk

140
City of Costa Mesa
Agenda Report
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
File #: 21-545 Meeting Date: 1/18/2022
TITLE:

ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION TO CONTINUE CONDUCTING MEETINGS OF THE CITY

COUNCIL, COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES REMOTELY AS NEEDED DUE TO HEALTH AND

SAFETY CONCERNS FOR THE PUBLIC
DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER’S OFFICE/CITY CLERK DIVISION
PRESENTED BY: BRENDA GREEN
CONTACT INFORMATION: BRENDA GREEN, (714) 754-5221
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council adopt Resolution 2021-xx to allow the City to continue conducting City Council, Commission, and Committee meetings remotely as needed via Zoom due to:
· The current State of Emergency and global pandemic, which continues to directly impact the ability of the members of the City’s legislative bodies to meet safely in person; and · Federal, State and/or local officials continue to impose or recommend measures to promote social distancing.

BACKGROUND:

Pursuant to AB 361, the City Council will need to declare every 30 days that the City’slegislative bodies continue to meet remotely as needed in order to ensure the health and safety of the public.

On September 17, 2021 the Governor signed into law AB 361 which allows local legislative bodies to continue to meet remotely after the October 1, 2021 deadline. A local agency will be allowed to continue to meet remotely when:
· The local agency holds a meeting during a declared state of emergency; · State or local health officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing; and
· Legislative bodies declare the need to meet remotely due to present risks to the health or safety of attendees.

ANALYSIS:

The City meets the requirements of AB 361 to continue holding meetings remotely in order to ensure the health and safety of the public and its employees. Both the California Department of Public Health and the County of Orange Public Health Officer have issued recommendations that members of vulnerable populations (such as older adults and those persons with an elevated risk due to certain medical conditions) continue to practice social distancing. The City cannot ensure social distancing

Page 1 of 2 ends

141
File #: 21-545 Meeting Date: 1/18/2022
medical conditions) continue to practice social distancing. The City cannot ensure social distancing requirements are always met inside the Council Chambers and/or Conference Rooms where the City Council, Commissions, and Committees meet, making it difficult for members of these bodies, City staff, and members of the public to consistently socially distance from each other with absolute certainty.

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed resolution making the required findings that the City Council, Commission and Committee meetings can continue to meet remotely as needed pursuant to the requirements of AB 361.

ALTERNATIVES:

City Council may choose to not hold City Council, Commission and Committee meetings remotely via Zoom. The City would then be required to hold all public meetings in-person.

FISCAL REVIEW:

There is no fiscal impact associated with this item.

LEGAL REVIEW:

The City Attorney’sOffice has reviewed this agenda report, has prepared the proposed Resolution, and approves them as to form.

CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND PRIORITIES:

This item supports the following City Council Goal:
· Strengthen the Public’s Safety and Improve the Quality of Life.

CONCLUSION:

Staff recommends the City Council adopt Resolution 2021-xx to allow the City to continue conducting City Council, Commission, and Committee meetings remotely as needed via Zoom due to:
· The current State of Emergency and global pandemic, which continues to directly impact the ability of the members of the City’s legislative bodies to meet safely in person; and · Federal, State and/or local officials continue to impose or recommend measures to promote social distancing.

Page 2 of 2 ends

142
Resolution No. 2021-XX
RESOLUTION NO. 2021-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA MAKING

THE LEGALLY REQUIRED FINDINGS TO CONTINUE TO AUTHORIZE THE CONDUCT OF REMOTE “TELEPHONIC” MEETINGS DURING THE STATE OF

EMERGENCY

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

WHEREAS, on March 4, 2020, pursuant to California Gov. Code Section 8625, the Governor declared a state of emergency;
WHEREAS, on September 17, 2021, Governor Newsom signed AB 361, which bill went into immediate effect as urgency legislation;
WHEREAS, AB 361 added subsection (e) to Section 54953 to authorize legislative bodies to conduct remote meetings provided the legislative body makes speci fied findings;
WHEREAS, as of September 19, 2021, the COVID -19 pandemic has killed more than 67,612 Californians;
WHEREAS, social distancing measures decrease the chance of spread of COVID- 19;
WHEREAS, this legislative body previously adopted a resolution to authorize this legislative body to conduct remote “telephonic” meetings; WHEREAS, Government Code 54953(e)(3) authorizes this legislative body to continue to conduct remote “telephonic” meetings provided that it has timely made the findings specified therein.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa does hereby declare that it has reconsidered the circumstances of the state of emergency declared by the Governor and at least one of the following is true: (a) the state of emergency, continues to directly impact the ability of the members of this legislative body to meet safely in person; and/or (2) state or local officials continue to impose or recommend measures to promote social distancing.

143
City of Costa Mesa
Agenda Report
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
File #: 21-515 Meeting Date: 1/18/2022
TITLE:

MONTHLY UPDATE OF STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER’S OFFICE
PRESENTED BY: LORI ANN FARRELL HARRISON, CITY MANAGER
CONTACT INFORMATION: ALMA REYES, ASSISTANT TO THE CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council approve the January update to the City of Costa Mesa’s Strategic Plan Goals and Objectives.

BACKGROUND:

On October 16, 2021, the City Council adopted the amended goals for the 2021-2024 Three Year Strategic Plan and created a new six-month work plan covering the October 2021 through March 2022 period. The new six month objectives (Attachment 1) were developed at the September 27, 2021 Strategic Planning retreat. During the workshop, the City Council developed key priorities and objectives for the next six months with staff input. Staff will continue to provide updates to the City Council via the detailed work plan attached to this report, which is updated on a monthly basis.

ANALYSIS:

The September Strategic Planning Retreat included breakout groups where the five City Council Goals were discussed individually. Additionally, each group developed key objectives for the next six- month period for each Goal, covering October 2021 through March 2022.

The matrix provides a detailed work plan with specific deliverables for each Goal including timeframes for project completion that will be updated and monitored monthly.

CITY COUNCIL THREE YEAR GOALS AND PRIORITIES:

The monthly update to the work plan provides the City Council the opportunity to review the progress for each of the Strategic Planning goals and objectives and allows for necessary adjustments in order to meet current needs. The new Three Year Goals approved by the City Council are as follows (in no priority order):
• Recruit and Retain High Quality Staff
• Achieve Long-Term Fiscal Sustainability
• Strengthen the Public’s Safety and Improve the Quality of Life

Page 1 of 2 ends

144
File #: 21-515 Meeting Date: 1/18/2022
• Diversify, Stabilize and Increase Housing to Reflect Community Needs • Advance Environmental Sustainability and Climate Resiliency ALTERNATIVES:

The City Council can provide alternate direction to staff regarding the Strategic Plan.

FISCAL REVIEW:

Many of the stated priorities and action steps can be funded within the FY 2021-22 Adopted Budget and if needed, will be included in the proposed budget for FY 2022-2023.

LEGAL REVIEW:

The City Attorney reviewed and approved this report as to form.

CONCLUSION:

The City Council in collaboration with the City’s leadership team revised the Three Year Goals at the September 2021 retreat, and established new objectives for the next six months. Staff recommends that the City Council approve the January update to the 2021 Strategic Plan.

Page 2 of 2 ends

145
A1

C I T Y O F C O S T A M E S A

SIX -MONTH STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES

O c t o b e r 1 6, 2 0 2 1 t h r o u g h M a r c h 1 5 , 2 0 22

THREE-YEAR GOAL: RECRUIT AND RETAIN HIGH QUALITY STAFF

WHEN

WHO

WHAT

STATUS

COMMENTS

DONE ON
TARGET

REVISED

1. Dec. 1, 2021

HR Manager

Initiate the process to map and evaluate the employee recruitment process to innovate and modernize recruitment and commence development of the succession plan and present to the City Manager.

Succession Plan Contract
awarded to CPS Consulting
Services for the development of
the Citywide Succession Plan
and modernization of
recruitment and hiring
practices. Kick off meetings
have occurred with
Departments and work is
underway.

2. Dec. 1, 2021

City Manager

Present to the City Council for consideration the first phase of hard- to-fill positions requiring a market adjustment based on current data.

12/7/21- City Council approved
Phase 1 of the hard to fill
compensation adjustments.

Phase 2 is scheduled to be
presented to the City Council in
February 2022.

3. Jan. 1, 2022

City Clerk

Perform a market analysis of City Council compensation for comparable agencies and special districts within the county and report results to the City Manager.

1/4/21 – Preliminary Council
Compensation Survey has
been provided to the City
Manager. City Manager review
is currently underway. Results
will be presented to the City
Council in February/March for
its consideration.
146
A2

4. Jan. 15, 2022
Feb, 15, 2022

HR Manager

Launch the Costa Mesa University Wellness, Leadership, Training and Mentorship Program for all city employees.

Finalizing initial phase of
training offerings for Costa
Mesa “U” in conjunction with
implementation of Neogov
“Learn” module.

5. Jan. 15, 2022

HR Manager

Develop HR staffing recommendations for inclusion in the mid-year budget to be presented to the City Council for consideration.

Staffing recommendations
under discussion with City
Manager for mid-year budget
inclusion.

6. March 1, 2022

HR Manager, in
concert with the IT
Director

Update and begin implementation of the online employee onboarding, training and evaluation processes by updating the NeoGov System.

NeoGov contract signed.

Implementation process
initiated for NEOGOV
“Onboard”, “Learn” (Training)
and “Perform” (Evaluation)
modules.

“Learn” module in
implementation process to be
followed by Onboard and
Perform.
147
B1

THREE-YEAR GOAL: ACHIEVE LONG-TERM FISCAL SUSTAINABILITY

WHEN

WHO

WHAT

STATUS

COMMENTS

DONE ON
TARGET

REVISED

1. Dec. 15, 2021

Finance Director

Develop and define a quarterly report format, including financial metrics, to improve fiscal transparency and
report to the City Council and FIPAC

Distributed the FY 2021/2022 1st
Quarter Financial Report to the
City Council and FiPAC, and
posted to the City’s website.

2. March 1, 2022

Economic and
Development Services
Director, working with the
City Attorney

Secure a consultant for the Economic Development
Strategic Plan.

The Request for Proposals
has been prepared for release
in coordination with City
Attorney and Finance staff.

On target for consultant
selection in March.

3. March 15, 2022

IT Director, working with
the Police Chief and
Finance Director

Procure and implement an upgrade of the public safety
systems, subject to Dept. of Justice approval, and
citywide database servers.

Working with PD to procure
and implement MDCs. DOJ
approval for MDCs and PCs
was approved. PD placed
order for MDCs.

Obtaining quotes for Phase 3
of PC Refresh. PCs on order
for Phase 3 install.

4. March 15, 2022

Finance Dir., working with
the Development Services
Director

Provide an update to the City Council regarding the state of retail cannabis implementation, including revised
revenue projections.

Mid-Year Budget Study
Session to provide City
Council with an update on all
General Fund revenues
including Retail Cannabis for
current year budget and for
the fiscal year starting July 1,
2022.
148
C1

THREE-YEAR GOAL: STRENGTHEN THE PUBLIC’S SAFETY AND IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF LIFE

WHEN

WHO

WHAT

STATUS

COMMENTS

DONE ON
TARGET

REVISED

1. Weekly

Asst. City Manager (lead),
working with the
Communications Team

Enhance the Communications and Engagement Plan to
support the public’s health, safety and quality of life and present results to the City Manager.

Weekly communication plan
presented to City Manager.

Additional contract resources
may be acquired in order to
expand existing communications
during pandemic.

2. March 15, 2022

Public Services Dir., working
with the Police Chief and a
consultant

Present a plan to reduce collisions and injuries on
roadways, including providing 3-5 options for City Council direction.

11/2/21 - Third (3rd) Stakeholder
working group held to review
safety countermeasures for case
study locations, counter
measure toolbox, and best
practices.

11/17/21 -Public outreach
meeting scheduled.

Consultant preparing draft Local
Road Safety Plan with traffic
safety countermeasures and
applications to reduce collisions
and injuries on roadways.

1/5/22 - Draft report is under
review by City staff to be
forwarded to the Stakeholder
Working Group for review in
January.
149
C2

3. March 15, 2022

Police Chief – lead, Asst.

City Manager, Parks and
Community Services Dir.,
and Fire Chief

Engage the community to obtain feedback on the
community’s sense of safety and well-being and present
results to the City Council

I/P: Police Dept. developing a
community survey and potential
platforms and channels of
distribution.

1/5/22- Survey draft has been
completed and shared with
department directors for
feedback and finalization.

Numerous Meet and Greet
opportunities have been held for
new Police Chief to discuss
public safety goals and
measures with community
groups with additional potential
meetings underway.

4. March 15, 2022

Parks and Community
Services Director

Update the City Council on the Open Space Master Plan,
with a focus on access to parks.

12/7/21 - City Council approved
an agreement with RJM Design
Group to complete the Open
Space Master Plan (not-to-
exceed $56,600).

5. March 15, 2022

Asst. City Manager

Present options to the City Council for a behavioral health response model.

Reviewing best practices and
conducting outreach to potential
providers.

Made contact with 3 cities for
potential opportunities to
collaborate.

6. FUTURE OBJECTIVE

_______, 2022

Asst. City Manager, working
with the Communications
Team

Identify, develop and implement a measurement tool(s) to determine the effectiveness of the City’s communications and public engagement with all segments of the
community.

150
D1

THREE-YEAR GOAL: DIVERSIFY, STABILIZE AND INCREASE HOUSING TO REFLECT COMMUNITY NEEDS

WHEN

WHO

WHAT

STATUS

COMMENTS

DONE ON
TARGET

REVISED

1. Dec. 1, 2021

Asst. City Manager – lead,
Development Services Dir.,
City Attorney

Present to the City Council opportunity sites for potential motel conversions with site control options.

11/16/21- Two proposed sites
approved by the City Council.

12/14/21 – County Board of
Supervisors approved one site
(Motel 6) for submission to the
State by the deadline of 1/31/22.

2. Dec. 15, 2021

City Attorney and the
Development Services Dir.

Present to the City Council for action necessary code
amendments to address SB 8, 9, and 10.

12/7/21 - City Council adopted
an urgency ordinance adopting
changes to Title 13 (Zoning)
relating to the implantation of
Senate Bill 9 for the creation of
two residential units per lot and
urban lot splits in single family
residential zones; and declaring
the ordinance an urgency
measure to take effect
immediately upon adoption.

3. Dec. 15, 2021

City Manager, working with
the City Council

Initiate and convene a Citizens Advisory Group to discuss Measure Y and Housing Element compliance.

10/19/21 – The City Council
approved formation of a Housing
Ad Hoc Committee to lead
community outreach efforts and
deliberations regarding Housing
Element Compliance and
Measure Y.

1/11/22 – Community Forum
was held by Ad Hoc Committee
to seek input from the public.
151
D2

4. Feb. 1, 2022

Development Services Dir.

Present to the City Council for action the Housing Element.

11/8/21 - The initial Housing
Element presentation to the
Planning Commission took
place. On target for City Council
discussion in January 2022 and
final adoption on February 1st.

5. March 15, 2022

Development Services Dir.
and City Attorney

Present to the Planning Commission a draft Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.

Keyser Marston Associates, the
City’s inclusionary housing
consultant, has completed the
first draft of the required
technical report. On target for a
presentation of an Ordinance to
the Planning Commission by
March 2022.

6. FUTURE OBJECTIVE

_______, 2022

Development Services Dir.
and City Attorney

Initiate a draft STR Ordinance and an evaluation of
program implementation options.

11/2/21 – City Council approved
an urgency ordinance prohibiting
STR’s (except for home
sharing). Staff will investigate
opportunities for a permitting
system and return to Council in
2022.

7. FUTURE OBJECTIVE

_______, 2022

Development Services Dir.
and the City Attorney,
working with Jamboree
Housing

Present to the City Council for consideration a development plan and land use documentation for affordable senior
housing at the Senior Center site.

Jamboree Housing has initiated
meetings with staff to move
forward with an application for a
senior housing project on the
City Senior Center site in late
2021. Staff is discussing
revising the due dates for other
City Council priorities to
accommodate this timeline.

152
E1

THREE-YEAR GOAL: ADVANCE ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE RESILIENCY

WHEN

WHO

WHAT

STATUS

COMMENTS

DONE ON
TARGET

REVISED

1. Feb. 15, 2022

Public Services Director

Present the Pedestrian Master Plan update to the City
Council for direction.

10/6/21 – 2nd Public Outreach
meeting held.

12/1/21 - Draft
recommendations and draft
Pedestrian Master Plan
recommendations presented to
the Bikeway and Walkability
Committee.

1/5/22 – A special meeting of
the Bike and Walkability
Committee is scheduled for
January 19th to focus on the
Pedestrian Master Plan.

Public outreach meeting
planned for February.
153
E2

2. Feb. 15, 2022

Public Services Director,
working with the City
Manager

Develop a scope of work for the Climate Action and
Adaptation Plan and present to the City Council for action.

Staff is currently conducting
research on best practices in
CAAP development, including
detailed review of climate
action plans of several cities in
California.

Staff has also developed a draft
community survey titled
“Climate Ready Costa Mesa:

Community Survey” to gauge
Costa Mesa residents’
concerns and priorities in
climate change. The survey is
expected to be launched in
early 2022.

1/5/22 – Staff has completed
research on best practices and
lessons learned, and is
currently working on developing
a draft scope of work for Costa
Mesa.

154
E3

3. March 1, 2022

Public Services Director

Provide an update of the Stormwater Management Master
Plan to the City Council.

Existing Conditions
Assessment Phase:

Data Collection _ Record
Information: completed

Site Assessment and
Inspection: Ongoing

Base maps Development:

Ongoing

Existing Hydrologic/Hydraulic
Analysis (EHH): Near
completion

I/P: Draft Existing Conditions
Assessment Report (ECAR)

155
E4

4. March 15, 2022

Public Services Director,
working with the
Development Services Dir.

Re-evaluate the existing Municipal Sustainable Policy,
including landscape, organic waste and infrastructure
planning and present the results to the City Council for action.

Staff has mobilized a Costa
Mesa Green Team
(representatives from Public
Services and Development
Services) to review existing
policy developed in 2007 and
conduct research on ways to
advance sustainability at City
owned facilities and
infrastructure.

Staff is recruiting members of
‘Sustainability Working Group’,
representatives from all City
Departments to provide
suggestions to improve the
Sustainable Municipal Green
Policy.

1/5/22 – The Costa Mesa
Green Team has conducted
research on best practices in
municipal sustainability and has
developed preliminary goals.

The Sustainability Working
Group members, representing
all City Departments, have
been identified and the first
internal workshop to review the
policy will be held in early
January.

156
City of Costa Mesa
Agenda Report
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
File #: 21-523 Meeting Date: 1/18/2022
TITLE:
2021 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT RELIEF FUNDING PROGRAM
DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT/ENGINEERING DIVISION PRESENTED BY: RAJA SETHURAMAN, PUBLIC SERVICES DIRECTOR CONTACT INFORMATION: SEUNG YANG, P.E., CITY ENGINEER (714) 754-5633 RECOMMENDATION:

BACKGROUND:

The federal Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2021 (CRRSAA) appropriated over $10 billion to thirty-five (35) Orange County local agencies for Highway Infrastructure Programs through the Federal Highway Administration. The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) received CRRSAA funds and created the 2021 Pavement Management Relief Funding Program (PMRF). The PMRF is a one-time funding program to help offset the loss of Measure M2 Local Fair Share revenues and other funding programs that support local streets and roads whose revenue streams have been negatively impacted by the coronavirus pandemic. The City of Costa Mesa is eligible to receive $331,116 towards the repair of streets under this program.

ANALYSIS:

Per guidelines enumerated by OCTA, the City must submit an approved resolution, adopted by the City Council, certifying that the City authorizes the list of projects to be submitted to the PMRF program that will utilize CRRSAA federal funding.

Eligible expenditures for this program include pavement preservation and maintenance, including rehabilitation and reconstruction of streets and parkways, such as sidewalks and curbs and gutters.

In addition, expenditures for bicycle facilities that are within the limits of the project are eligible.

The proposed Capital Improvement Program (CIP) project selected for this funding for the upcoming Fiscal Year 2022-23 CIP budget is the Fairview Road Improvement Project between Adams Avenue and Wilson Street. CRRSAA will cover a portion of the cost of required improvements in this segment and the remaining will be budgeted from other funds during the

Page 1 of 2 ends

157
File #: 21-523 Meeting Date: 1/18/2022
Fiscal Year 2022-23 CIP.

The estimated cost of the project is approximately $1.6 million. The actual cost will be determined based on final design.

The project scope includes pavement rehabilitation, parkway reconstruction of sidewalks curbs and gutters, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) improvements to accessibility ramps, and implementation of bicycle facilities that will conform to the City’s approved Active Transportation Plan (ATP).

ALTERNATIVES:

The alternative would be to reject the approval of the proposed resolution. Staff does not recommend this action as it will deprive the City of needed funding for this project. Another alternative would be to select another arterial for the project. Staff will review and make appropriate changes to the resolution if this alternative was selected and another arterial is approved.

FISCAL REVIEW:

This item authorizes City staff to submit Fairview Road Improvement Project for the 2021 CRRSAA appropriations administered by OCTA. It is anticipated that the City will secure $331,116 in Federal Funds. It is anticipated that the cost for improving Fairview Road between Adams Avenue and Wilson Street could be approximately $1.6 million. Additional funding using a combination of Gas Tax, Measure M2 and Capital Improvement Funds will be proposed in the FY 2022-23 Capital Improvement Project (CIP) budget for approval by the City Council.

LEGAL REVIEW:

The City Attorney’sOffice has reviewed the report, prepared the proposed resolution, and approves them both as to form.

CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND PRIORITIES:

This City Council staff report is administrative in nature.

CONCLUSION:

Page 2 of 2 ends

158
Resolution No. 2022-XX Page 1 of 3
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-xx

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA ,

CALIFORNIA, WHICH CERTIFIES THAT THE CITY COUNCIL HAS AUTHORIZED

THE PROJECT LIST SUBMITTAL FOR CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE AND RELIEF SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT OF 2021 (CRRSAA) FUNDING THROUGH THE ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 2021 PAVEMENT

MANAGEMENT RELIEF FUNDING PROGRAM

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY FINDS, DETERMINES, AND DECLARES AS FOLLOWS:

WHEREAS, the City of Costa Mesa (“City”) is being provided $331,116 in federal Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2021 (CRRSAA) funding through the 2021 Pavement Management Relief Funding (PMRF) Program; and WHEREAS, the City is eligible to receive federal funding through the California Department of Transportation; and
WHEREAS, the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) is responsible for the distribution of the CRRSAA funding; and
WHEREAS, OCTA has developed guidelines for administering and distributing CRRSAA funds to eligible local agencies through the 2021 PMRF Program; and WHEREAS, the City is the lead agency for project (s) and will comply with all applicable local, state, and federal provisions including but not limited to the Federal Transportation Improvement Program, Califor nia Environmental Quality Act, National Environmental Policy Act, Americans with Disabilities Act, and Buy America.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. The City Council finds that the above recitals are true and correct.

Section 2. The City Council hereby authorizes the submittal of the following project nomination to OCTA for CRRSAA funding:
 Fairview Road Improvement Project between Adams Avenue and Wilson Street for $331,116 in CRRSAA funding.
159
Resolution No. 2022-XX Page 2 of 3
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of January, 2022.

____________________________
John Stephens, Mayor

ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

____________________________ ____________________________ Brenda Green, City Clerk Kimberly Hall Barlow, City Attorney 160
Resolution No. 2022-XX Page 3 of 3
THIS PAGE IS RESERVED FOR CITY CLERK’S OFFICE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss

CITY OF COSTA MESA )

I, BRENDA GREEN, City Clerk of the City of Costa Mesa, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the above and foregoing is the original of Reso lution No. 2022- __ and was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa at a regular meeting held on the 18th day of January, 2022, by the following roll call vote, to wit:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereby set my hand and affixed the seal of the City of Costa Mesa this 18th day of January, 2022.

________________________
Brenda Green, City Clerk

161
City of Costa Mesa
Agenda Report
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
File #: 21-532 Meeting Date: 1/18/2022
TITLE:

A RESOLUTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA AUTHORIZING

ACCEPTANCE OF ASSISTANCE TO FIREFIGHTERS GRANT (AFG) AWARD FROM THE

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY (FEMA)
DEPARTMENT: FIRE AND RESCUE DEPARTMENT
PRESENTED BY: KRISTIN STEVENS, MANAGEMENT ANALYST
CONTACT INFORMATION: DANIEL STEFANO, FIRE CHIEF (714) 754-5144 RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council:

2. Approve budget appropriations of $664,194.33 from FEMA and the City’srequired 10% match of $66,419.43 for the Fiscal Year 2020 Assistance to Firefighters Grant for a total budget of $730,613.76.

3. Approve the City’s 10% match appropriation transfer of $66,419.43 from the FY 2021- 2022 General Fund Non-Departmental Adopted Budget to the Federal Grant Fund 230 to comply with the FEMA award requirement.

BACKGROUND:

The Assistance to Firefighters Grant program serves to protect the health and safety of the public and firefighting personnel. The grant helps firefighters and other first responders obtain needed resources and equipment necessary for protecting the community and emergency personnel from fire and related hazards.

The Costa Mesa Fire and Rescue Department (CMFR) regularly inspects, inventories and requests equipment needs annually. Equipment inspected includes Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and the department identified outdated PPE and equipment in need of replacement that is eligible for AFG funding.

On February 11, 2021, the department submitted a grant application under the Fiscal Year 2020

Page 1 of 3 ends

162
File #: 21-532 Meeting Date: 1/18/2022
Assistance to Firefighters Grants Program for the purchase of PPE and equipment.

On August 13, 2021, the City received notification of the AFG award (Attachment 2) in the amount of $730,613.76 for the purchase of Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBAs), equipment and radios.

City Council approval is requested to accept the AFG award and the proposed budget adjustments to the Federal Grant Fund 230.

ANALYSIS:

Since 2001, AFG has helped firefighters and other first responders obtain critically needed equipment, protective gear, emergency vehicles, training and other resources necessary for protecting the public and emergency personnel from fire and related hazards.

Although in prior years the department has not been awarded AFG funds, this year the department successfully secured grant funding for the replacement of PPE and equipment. This award is critical to the department’sequipment replacement, especially during this economic recovery period, as the City emerges from the COVID-19 pandemic.

On February 26, 2020, the County of Orange Health Officer declared a local health emergency based on the imminent threat to public health from the introduction of a novel coronavirus in Orange County.

Consequently, in March 2020, the City declared a state of emergency due to the COVID-19 public health emergency and shelter in place orders. As a result, our state and City have been faced with funding challenges and revenue shortfalls.

The AFG funding will help fund the replacement of aging self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) with new industry standard units. Additionally, the grant will fund the replacement of the department’s radios and outdated vehicles extraction equipment. Currently, the radios, which have been in use for over 15 years, limit direct communication with other agencies and peer departments. Since the existing radios are outdated and no longer in production, replacement parts are difficult to obtain as the manufacturer no longer makes them.

In order to receive the grant funds, it is necessary that the City Council formally accept the award and make the necessary budget adjustments.

ALTERNATIVES:

The City could elect to not accept the grant; however, the Department would not be able to fund the replacement of PPE and equipment within the department’s current budget.

FISCAL REVIEW:

Upon acceptance of the Fiscal Year 2020 Assistance to Firefighters Grant, the FY 2021-22 Adopted Budget will be amended to increase revenue and expense appropriations respectively, each in the amount of $730,613.76. The appropriations are comprised of the FEMA approved funding in the amount of $664,194.33, and the City’s 10% match requirement of $66,419.43 transfer from the General Fund Non-Departmental Adopted Budget to the Federal Grants Fund for a total approved budget of $730,613.76.

Page 2 of 3 ends

163
File #: 21-532 Meeting Date: 1/18/2022
LEGAL REVIEW:

The City Attorney’sOffice has reviewed the proposed 2020 AFG award agreement, the proposed resolution and this report and approves them as to form.

CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND PRIORITIES:

This project achieves the following City Council Goals:
· Strengthen the Public’s Safety and Improve the Quality of Life · Achieve Long-Term Fiscal Sustainability
CONCLUSION:

Staff recommends that the City Council:

2. Approve budget appropriations of $664,194.33 from FEMA and the City’srequired 10% match of $66,419.43 for the Fiscal Year 2020 Assistance to Firefighters Grant for a total budget of $730,613.76.

3. Approve the City’s10% match transfer of $66,419.43 from the FY 2021-2022 General Fund Non-Departmental Adopted Budget to the Federal Grant Fund 230 to comply with the FEMA award requirement.

Page 3 of 3 ends

164
Resolution No. 2022-xx Page 1 of 3

RESOLUTION NO. 2022-xx

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA,

CALIFORNIA, RATIFYING THE APPLICATION FOR A GRANT AWARD FROM THE

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (DHS), FEDERAL EMERGENCY

MANAGEMENT AGENCY (FEMA) THROUGH THE ASSISTANCE TO FIREFIGHTERS

GRANT (AFG) PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR HER

DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE ALL GRANT DOCUMENTS, AND ACCEPT AND

ADMINISTER THE GRANT

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY FINDS, DETERMINES, AND DECLARES AS FOLLOWS:

WHEREAS, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has established grant programs to focus on enhancing the safety of the public and firefighters with respect to fire and fire-related hazards; and WHEREAS, the Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) Program provides financial assistance directly to eligible fire departments, nonaffiliated emergency medical service organizations, and State Fire Training Academies for critical training and equipment; and WHEREAS, the Costa Mesa Fire and Rescue Department submitted a grant application for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2020 AFG Program for the purchase of personal protective equipment (PPE) and equipment; and
WHEREAS, FEMA has awarded the City an AFG Program grant in the amount of $664,194.33 for the purchase of Self -Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBAs), equipment and radios; and
WHEREAS, the FEMA AFG Program requires the City to contribute at least 10% of the amount awarded, or $66,419.43, in non-federal funds; and WHEREAS, the FEMA AFG Program approved budget equals $730,613.76; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to authorize the City Manager or her designee to execute all grant documents and accept and administer the grant.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa that:

Section 1. The City Council hereby ratifies the application for a FY 2020 AFG Program grant from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
165
Resolution No. 2022-xx Page 2 of 3

Section 2. The City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager or her designee to execute all grant documents, including, but not limited to, the grant agreement, accept and administer the grant, and take all steps necessary to implement this authorization and AFG Program requirements.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of January, 2022.

_____________________________
John Stephens, Mayor

ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

________________________ _____________________________ Brenda Green, City Clerk Kimberly Hall Barlow, City Attorney

166
Resolution No. 2022-xx Page 3 of 3

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss

CITY OF COSTA MESA )

I, BRENDA GREEN, City Clerk of the City of Costa Mesa, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the above and foregoing is the original of Resolution No. 2022-xx and was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa at a regular meeting held on the 18th day of January, 2022, by the following roll call vote, to wit:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereby set my hand and affixed the seal of the City of Costa Mesa this 18th day of January, 2022.

________________________
Brenda Green, City Clerk

167
Award Letter
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Washington, D.C. 20472
Eﬀective date: 08/02/2021
Laura Kroeger

COSTA MESA, CITY OF
P O BOX 1200 77 FAIR DRIVE
COSTA MESA, CA 92628
EMW-2020-FG-15200
Dear Laura Kroeger,
Congratulations on behalf of the Department of Homeland Security. Your application submitted for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2020 Assistance to Fireﬁghters Grant (AFG) Grant funding opportunity has been approved in the amount of $664,194.33 in Federal funding. As a condition of this grant, you are required to contribute non-Federal funds equal to or greater than 10.0% of the Federal funds awarded, or $66,419.43 for a total approved budget of $730,613.76. Please see the FY 2020 AFG Notice of Funding Opportunity for information on how to meet this cost share requirement.

Before you request and receive any of the Federal funds awarded to you, you must establish acceptance of the award through the FEMA Grants Outcomes (FEMA GO) system. By accepting this award, you acknowledge that the terms of the following documents are incorporated into the terms of your award:

Summary Award Memo - included in this document
Agreement Articles - included in this document
Obligating Document - included in this document
2020 AFG Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) - incorporated by reference Please make sure you read, understand, and maintain a copy of these documents in your oﬃcial ﬁle for this award.

Sincerely,
Christopher Logan
Acting Assistant Administrator
Grant Programs Directorate
168
Summary Award Memo
Program: Fiscal Year 2020 Assistance to Fireﬁghters Grant Recipient: COSTA MESA, CITY OF
DUNS number: 066148016
Award number: EMW-2020-FG-15200
Summary description of award
The purpose of the Assistance to Fireﬁghters Grant program is to protect the health and safety of the public and ﬁreﬁghting personnel against ﬁre and ﬁre-related hazards. After careful consideration, FEMA has determined that the recipient`s project or projects submitted as part of the recipient`s application and detailed in the project narrative as well as the request details section of the application - including budget information - was consistent with the Assistance to Fireﬁghters Grant Program`s purpose and was worthy of award.

Except as otherwise approved as noted in this award, the information you provided in your application for FY 2020 Fiscal Year (FY) 2020 Assistance to Fireﬁghters Grants funding is incorporated into the terms and conditions of this award. This includes any documents submitted as part of the application.

Amount awarded table
The amount of the award is detailed in the attached Obligating Document for Award.

The following are the budgeted estimates for object classes for this award (including Federal share plus your cost share, if applicable):
169
Approved scope of work
After review of your application, FEMA has approved the below scope of work. Justiﬁcations are provided for any diﬀerences between the scope of work in the original application and the approved scope of work under this award. You must submit scope or budget revision requests for FEMA`s prior approval, via an amendment request, as appropriate per 2 C.F.R. § 200.308 and the FY2020 AFG NOFO.

Approved request details:

Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)
Object Class Total
Personnel $0.00
Fringe beneﬁts $0.00
Travel $0.00
Equipment $730,613.76
Supplies $0.00
Contractual $0.00
Construction $0.00
Other $0.00
Indirect charges $0.00
Federal $664,194.33
Non-federal $66,419.43
Total $730,613.76
Program Income $0.00
170
Equipment
SCBA: SCBA Unit includes: Harness/Backpack, Face Piece and 2 cylinders

DESCRIPTION
SCBA (2018 Edition) with Snap-Change Cylinder Connection, 4.5, Standard Harness with Parachute Buckles, Standard Belt, Regulator with E-Z Flo Regulator with Quick Connect Hose (Rectus ﬁttings), Universal EBBS Accessory Hose, Pak-Tracker, AV-3000 HT Facepiece w/ Kevlar Head Harness and R Bracket; Radio Direct Interface Voice Ampliﬁer with Open Bracket Conﬁguration; and 2 Snap-Change Cylinders, Carbon-Wrapped, Pressure 4500, 45 Minutes (at 40 Ipm).

QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL BUDGET
CLASS
EquipmentCost 1 82 $7,000.00 $574,000.00

CHANGE FROM APPLICATION
Price from $11,012.75 to $7,000.00

JUSTIFICATION
This reduction is because the cost you requested for SCBA exceeds the average price range calculated from market research and prior awards for the same item.

Cutter/Spreader

DESCRIPTION
Two extrication tool sets consisting of two S 789 cutters, two SP 555ewxt watertight spreaders, eight 9ah batteries, and four 110 volt chargers.

QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL BUDGET
CLASS
EquipmentCost 1 4 $12,872.16 $51,488.64
171
Vehicle Extrication Equipment

DESCRIPTION
Two R 522 ewxt rams with watertight extrication, four 6 ft chains with hook, and four shackles with bolt.

QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL BUDGET
CLASS
EquipmentCost 1 2 $12,872.16 $25,744.32
Portable Radios (must be P-25 Compliant, limited to number of AFG approved seated positions)

DESCRIPTION
This purchase would include 40 Relm BK portable radios each with a ﬂexible antenna and speaker, and batteries/chargers for these new radios. 40 Relm BK Portable Radios with 5000 Channels, 6 Watt, VHF 136-174 MHz, Full Keypad, Color Display, and Specialized Command Groups. 40 10.5 Inch Flexible Antennas for Relm BK radios. 40 Public Safety Speaker Mic with 3.5mm Jack for Relm BK Radios. 40 3450 mAh / Li-Ion Rechargeable Battery for Relm BK Radios. 40 Rapid Charges Li-Ion Batteries, includes Hard Wire Kit for Relm BK Radios. 80 Orange "AA" Clamshell for Relm BK Radios.

QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL BUDGET
CLASS
EquipmentCost 1 40 $1,984.52 $79,380.80

CHANGE FROM APPLICATION
Item from Mobile Radios (must be P-25 Compliant) to Portable Radios (must be P-25 Compliant, limited to number of AFG approved seated positions)

JUSTIFICATION
The award reﬂects a change in the application. The item is adjusted from Mobile Radio to Portable Radio as described in the description.
172
Agreement Articles
Program: Fiscal Year 2020 Assistance to Fireﬁghters Grant Recipient: COSTA MESA, CITY OF
DUNS number: 066148016
Award number: EMW-2020-FG-15200
Table of contents
173
Article
1 Assurances, Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, Representations and Certiﬁcations
Article
2 DHS Speciﬁc Acknowledgements and Assurances
Article
3 Acknowledgement of Federal Funding from DHS
Article
4 Activities Conducted Abroad
Article
5 Age Discrimination Act of 1975
Article
6 Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
Article
7 Best Practices for Collection and Use of Personally Identiﬁable Information Article
8 Civil Rights Act of 1964 – Title VI
Article
9 Civil Rights Act of 1968
Article
10 Copyright
Article
11 Debarment and Suspension
Article
12 Drug-Free Workplace Regulations
Article
13 Duplication of Beneﬁts
Article
14 Education Amendments of 1972 (Equal Opportunity in Education Act) – Title IX Article
15 Energy Policy and Conservation Act
Article
16 False Claims Act and Program Fraud Civil Remedies
Article
17 Federal Debt Status
Article
18 Federal Leadership on Reducing Text Messaging while Driving Article
19 Fly America Act of 1974
Article
20 Hotel and Motel Fire Safety Act of 1990
Article
21 Limited English Proﬁciency (Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VI) Article
22 Lobbying Prohibitions
Article
23 National Environmental Policy Act
Article
24 Nondiscrimination in Matters Pertaining to Faith-Based Organizations Article
25 Non-Supplanting Requirement
174
Article
26 Notice of Funding Opportunity Requirements
Article
27 Patents and Intellectual Property Rights
Article
28 Procurement of Recovered Materials
Article
29 Rehabilitation Act of 1973
Article
30 Reporting of Matters Related to Recipient Integrity and Performance Article
31 Reporting Subawards and Executive Compensation
Article
32 SAFECOM
Article
33 Terrorist Financing
Article
34 Traﬃcking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (TVPA)
Article
35 Universal Identiﬁer and System of Award Management
Article
36 USA PATRIOT Act of 2001
Article
37 Use of DHS Seal, Logo and Flags
Article
38 Whistleblower Protection Act
Article
39 Acceptance of Post Award Changes
Article
40 Prior Approval for Modiﬁcation of Approved Budget
Article
41 Disposition of Equipment Acquired Under the Federal Award Article
42 Environmental Planning and Historic Preservation (EHP) Review Article
43 Award Performance Goals
175
Article 1 Assurances, Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, Representations and Certiﬁcations
DHS ﬁnancial assistance recipients must complete either the Oﬃce of Management and Budget (OMB) Standard Form 424B Assurances – Non- Construction Programs, or OMB Standard Form 424D Assurances – Construction Programs, as applicable. Certain assurances in these documents may not be applicable to your program, and the DHS ﬁnancial assistance oﬃce (DHS FAO) may require applicants to certify additional assurances. Applicants are required to ﬁll out the assurances applicable to their program as instructed by the awarding agency. Please contact the DHS FAO if you have any questions. DHS ﬁnancial assistance recipients are required to follow the applicable provisions of the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards located at Title 2, Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) Part 200, and adopted by DHS at 2 C.F.R. Part 3002. By accepting this agreement, the recipient and its executives, as deﬁned in 2 C.F.R. § 170.315, certify that the recipient policies are in accordance with OMB guidance located at 2 C.F.R. Part 200, all applicable federal laws, and relevant Executive guidance.
176
Article 2 DHS Speciﬁc Acknowledgements and Assurances
All recipients, subrecipients, successors, transferees, and assignees must acknowledge and agree to comply with applicable provisions governing DHS access to records, accounts, documents, information, facilities, and staﬀ. 1.

Recipients must cooperate with any compliance reviews or compliance investigations conducted by DHS. 2. Recipients must give DHS access to, and the right to examine and copy, records, accounts, and other documents and sources of information related to the federal ﬁnancial assistance award and permit access to facilities, personnel, and other individuals and information as may be necessary, as required by DHS regulations and other applicable laws or program guidance. 3. Recipients must submit timely, complete, and accurate reports to the appropriate DHS oﬃcials and maintain appropriate backup documentation to support the reports. 4. Recipients must comply with all other special reporting, data collection, and evaluation requirements, as prescribed by law or detailed in program guidance. 5. Recipients of federal ﬁnancial assistance from DHS must complete the DHS Civil Rights Evaluation Tool within thirty (30) days of receipt of the Notice of Award or, for State Administrative Agencies, thirty (30) days from receipt of the DHS Civil Rights Evaluation Tool from DHS or its awarding component agency. After the initial submission for the ﬁrst award under which this term applies, recipients are required to provide this information once every two (2) years if they have an active award, not every time an award is made. Recipients should submit the completed tool, including supporting materials, to
[email protected]. This tool clariﬁes the civil rights obligations and related reporting requirements contained in the DHS Standard Terms and Conditions. Subrecipients are not required to complete and submit this tool to DHS. The evaluation tool can be found at https://www.dhs.gov/publication/dhs- civil-rights-evaluation-tool. The DHS Oﬃce for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties will consider, in its discretion, granting an extension if the recipient identiﬁes steps and a timeline for completing the tool. Recipients should request extensions by emailing the request to [email protected] prior to expiration of the 30-day deadline.

Article 3 Acknowledgement of Federal Funding from DHS
Recipients must acknowledge their use of federal funding when issuing statements, press releases, requests for proposal, bid invitations, and other documents describing projects or programs funded in whole or in part with federal funds.

Article 4 Activities Conducted Abroad
Recipients must ensure that project activities carried on outside the United States are coordinated as necessary with appropriate government authorities and that appropriate licenses, permits, or approvals are obtained. 177
Article 5 Age Discrimination Act of 1975
Recipients must comply with the requirements of the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, Pub. L. No. 94-135 (1975) (codiﬁed as amended at Title 42, U.S. Code, § 6101 et seq.), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of age in any program or activity receiving federal ﬁnancial assistance.

Article 6 Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
Recipients must comply with the requirements of Titles I, II, and III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Pub. L. No. 101-336 (1990) (codiﬁed as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101–12213), which prohibits recipients from discriminating on the basis of disability in the operation of public entities, public and private transportation systems, places of public accommodation, and certain testing entities.

Article 7 Best Practices for Collection and Use of Personally Identiﬁable Information
Recipients who collect personally identiﬁable information (PII) are required to have a publicly available privacy policy that describes standards on the usage and maintenance of the PII they collect. DHS deﬁnes PII as any information that permits the identity of an individual to be directly or indirectly inferred, including any information that is linked or linkable to that individual. Recipients may also ﬁnd the DHS Privacy Impact Assessments: Privacy Guidance at http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/privacy/privacy_pia_guidance_june2010.pdf and Privacy Template at
https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/ﬁles/publications/privacy_pia_template 2017.pdf as useful resources respectively.

Article 8 Civil Rights Act of 1964 – Title VI
Recipients must comply with the requirements of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (codiﬁed as amended at 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq.), which provides that no person in the United States will, on the grounds of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the beneﬁts of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal ﬁnancial assistance. DHS implementing regulations for the Act are found at 6 C.F.R. Part 21 and 44 C.F.R. Part 7.
178
Article 9 Civil Rights Act of 1968
Recipients must comply with Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, Pub. L.

No. 90-284, as amended through Pub. L. 113-4, which prohibits recipients from discriminating in the sale, rental, ﬁnancing, and advertising of dwellings, or in the provision of services in connection therewith, on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, disability, familial status, and sex (see 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq.), as implemented by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development at 24 C.F.R. Part 100. The prohibition on disability discrimination includes the requirement that new multifamily housing with four or more dwelling units—i.e., the public and common use areas and individual apartment units (all units in buildings with elevators and ground-ﬂoor units in buildings without elevators)—be designed and constructed with certain accessible features. (See 24 C.F.R. Part 100, Subpart D.)
Article 10 Copyright
Recipients must aﬃx the applicable copyright notices of 17 U.S.C. §§ 401 or 402 and an acknowledgement of U.S. Government sponsorship (including the award number) to any work ﬁrst produced under federal ﬁnancial assistance awards.

Article 11 Debarment and Suspension
Recipients are subject to the non-procurement debarment and suspension regulations implementing Executive Orders (E.O.) 12549 and 12689, which are at 2 C.F.R. Part 180 as adopted by DHS at 2 C.F.R. Part 3000. These regulations restrict federal ﬁnancial assistance awards, subawards, and contracts with certain parties that are debarred, suspended, or otherwise excluded from or ineligible for participation in federal assistance programs or activities.

Article 12 Drug-Free Workplace Regulations
Recipients must comply with drug-free workplace requirements in Subpart B (or Subpart C, if the recipient is an individual) of 2 C.F.R. Part 3001, which adopts the Government-wide implementation (2 C.F.R. Part 182) of Sec. 5152-5158 of the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 (41 U.S.C. §§ 8101-8106).

Article 13 Duplication of Beneﬁts
Any cost allocable to a particular federal ﬁnancial assistance award provided for in 2 C.F.R. Part 200, Subpart E may not be charged to other federal ﬁnancial assistance awards to overcome fund deﬁciencies; to avoid restrictions imposed by federal statutes, regulations, or federal ﬁnancial assistance award terms and conditions; or for other reasons. However, these prohibitions would not preclude recipients from shifting costs that are allowable under two or more awards in accordance with existing federal statutes, regulations, or the federal ﬁnancial assistance award terms and conditions.
179
Article 14 Education Amendments of 1972 (Equal Opportunity in Education Act) – Title IX
Recipients must comply with the requirements of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, Pub. L. 92-318 (1972) (codiﬁed as amended at 20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq.), which provide that no person in the United States will, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the beneﬁts of, or be subjected to discrimination under any educational program or activity receiving federal ﬁnancial assistance. DHS implementing regulations are codiﬁed at 6 C.F.R. Part 17 and 44 C.F.R. Part 19.

Article 15 Energy Policy and Conservation Act
Recipients must comply with the requirements of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Pub. L. 94- 163 (1975) (codiﬁed as amended at 42 U.S.C. § 6201 et seq.), which contain policies relating to energy eﬃciency that are deﬁned in the state energy conservation plan issued in compliance with this Act.

Article 16 False Claims Act and Program Fraud Civil Remedies Recipients must comply with the requirements of the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-3733, which prohibit the submission of false or fraudulent claims for payment to the federal government. (See 31 U.S.C. §§ 3801-3812, which details the administrative remedies for false claims and statements made.)
Article 17 Federal Debt Status
All recipients are required to be non-delinquent in their repayment of any federal debt. Examples of relevant debt include delinquent payroll and other taxes, audit disallowances, and beneﬁt overpayments. (See OMB Circular A-129.) Article 18 Federal Leadership on Reducing Text Messaging while Driving Recipients are encouraged to adopt and enforce policies that ban text messaging while driving as described in E.O. 13513, including conducting initiatives described in Section 3(a) of the Order when on oﬃcial government business or when performing any work for or on behalf of the federal government.

Article 19 Fly America Act of 1974
Recipients must comply with Preference for U.S. Flag Air Carriers (air carriers holding certiﬁcates under 49 U.S.C. § 41102) for international air transportation of people and property to the extent that such service is available, in accordance with the International Air Transportation Fair Competitive Practices Act of 1974, 49 U.S.C. § 40118, and the interpretative guidelines issued by the Comptroller General of the United States in the March 31, 1981, amendment to Comptroller General Decision B-138942.
180
Article 20 Hotel and Motel Fire Safety Act of 1990
In accordance with Section 6 of the Hotel and Motel Fire Safety Act of 1990, 15 U.S.C. § 2225a, recipients must ensure that all conference, meeting, convention, or training space funded in whole or in part with federal funds complies with the ﬁre prevention and control guidelines of the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974, (codiﬁed as amended at 15 U.S.C. § 2225.) Article 21 Limited English Proﬁciency (Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VI) Recipients must comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, (42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq.) prohibition against discrimination on the basis of national origin, which requires that recipients of federal ﬁnancial assistance take reasonable steps to provide meaningful access to persons with limited English proﬁciency (LEP) to their programs and services. For additional assistance and information regarding language access obligations, please refer to the DHS Recipient Guidance: https://www.dhs.gov/guidance- published-help- department- supported-organizations-provide-meaningful-access-people- limited and additional resources on http://www.lep.gov.

Article 22 Lobbying Prohibitions
Recipients must comply with 31 U.S.C. § 1352, which provides that none of the funds provided under a federal ﬁnancial assistance award may be expended by the recipient to pay any person to inﬂuence, or attempt to inﬂuence an oﬃcer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an oﬃcer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with any federal action related to a federal award or contract, including any extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modiﬁcation.

Article 23 National Environmental Policy Act
Recipients must comply with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), Pub. L. 91-190 (1970) (codiﬁed as amended at 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.) and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA, which require recipients to use all practicable means within their authority, and consistent with other essential considerations of national policy, to create and maintain conditions under which people and nature can exist in productive harmony and fulﬁll the social, economic, and other needs of present and future generations of Americans.

Article 24 Nondiscrimination in Matters Pertaining to Faith-Based Organizations It is DHS policy to ensure the equal treatment of faith- based organizations in social service programs administered or supported by DHS or its component agencies, enabling those organizations to participate in providing important social services to beneﬁciaries. Recipients must comply with the equal treatment policies and requirements contained in 6 C.F.R. Part 19 and other applicable statues, regulations, and guidance governing the participations of faith-based organizations in individual DHS programs.
181
Article 25 Non-Supplanting Requirement
Recipients receiving federal ﬁnancial assistance awards made under programs that prohibit supplanting by law must ensure that federal funds do not replace (supplant) funds that have been budgeted for the same purpose through non- federal sources.

Article 26 Notice of Funding Opportunity Requirements
All the instructions, guidance, limitations, and other conditions set forth in the Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) for this program are incorporated here by reference in the award terms and conditions. All recipients must comply with any such requirements set forth in the program NOFO.

Article 27 Patents and Intellectual Property Rights
Recipients are subject to the Bayh-Dole Act, 35 U.S.C. § 200 et seq, unless otherwise provided by law. Recipients are subject to the speciﬁc requirements governing the development, reporting, and disposition of rights to inventions and patents resulting from federal ﬁnancial assistance awards located at 37 C.F.R. Part 401 and the standard patent rights clause located at 37 C.F.R. § 401.14.

Article 28 Procurement of Recovered Materials
States, political subdivisions of states, and their contractors must comply with Section 6002 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, Pub. L. 89-272 (1965), (codiﬁed as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. § 6962.) The requirements of Section 6002 include procuring only items designated in guidelines of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) at 40 C.F.R. Part 247 that contain the highest percentage of recovered materials practicable, consistent with maintaining a satisfactory level of competition.

Article 29 Rehabilitation Act of 1973
Recipients must comply with the requirements of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Pub. L. 93-112 (1973) (codiﬁed as amended at 29 U.S.C. § 794) which provides that no otherwise qualiﬁed handicapped individuals in the United States will, solely by reason of the handicap, be excluded from participation in, be denied the beneﬁts of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal ﬁnancial assistance.

Article 30 Reporting of Matters Related to Recipient Integrity and Performance If the total value of any currently active grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from all federal awarding agencies exceeds $10,000,000 for any period of time during the period of performance of this federal award, then the recipients must comply with the requirements set forth in the government-wide Award Term and Condition for Recipient Integrity and Performance Matters located at 2 C.F.R. Part 200, Appendix XII, the full text of which is incorporated here by reference in the award terms and conditions. 182
Article 31 Reporting Subawards and Executive Compensation Recipients are required to comply with the requirements set forth in the government-wide award term on Reporting Subawards and Executive Compensation located at 2 C.F.R. Part 170, Appendix A, the full text of which is incorporated here by reference in the award terms and conditions.

Article 32 SAFECOM
Recipients receiving federal ﬁnancial assistance awards made under programs that provide emergency communication equipment and its related activities must comply with the SAFECOM Guidance for Emergency Communication Grants, including provisions on technical standards that ensure and enhance interoperable communications.

Article 33 Terrorist Financing
Recipients must comply with E.O. 13224 and U.S. laws that prohibit transactions with, and the provisions of resources and support to, individuals and organizations associated with terrorism. Recipients are legally responsible to ensure compliance with the Order and laws.

Article 34 Traﬃcking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (TVPA) Recipients must comply with the requirements of the government-wide ﬁnancial assistance award term which implements Section 106(g) of the Traﬃcking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (TVPA), codiﬁed as amended at 22 U.S.C. § 7104. The award term is located at 2 C.F.R. § 175.15, the full text of which is incorporated here by reference.

Article 35 Universal Identiﬁer and System of Award Management Recipients are required to comply with the requirements set forth in the government-wide ﬁnancial assistance award term regarding the System for Award Management and Universal Identiﬁer Requirements located at 2 C.F.R.

Part 25, Appendix A, the full text of which is incorporated here by reference.

Article 36 USA PATRIOT Act of 2001
Recipients must comply with requirements of Section 817 of the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (USA PATRIOT Act), Pub. L. No. 107-56, which amends 18 U.S.C. §§ 175–175c.

Article 37 Use of DHS Seal, Logo and Flags
Recipients must obtain permission from their DHS FAO prior to using the DHS seal(s), logos, crests or reproductions of ﬂags or likenesses of DHS agency oﬃcials, including use of the United States Coast Guard seal, logo, crests or reproductions of ﬂags or likenesses of Coast Guard oﬃcials. 183
Article 38 Whistleblower Protection Act
Recipients must comply with the statutory requirements for whistleblower protections (if applicable) at 10 U.S.C § 2409, 41 U.S.C. § 4712, and 10 U.S.C. § 2324, 41 U.S.C. §§ 4304 and 4310.

Article 39 Acceptance of Post Award Changes
In the event FEMA determines that changes are necessary to the award document after an award has been made, including changes to period of performance or terms and conditions, recipients will be notiﬁed of the changes in writing. Once notiﬁcation has been made, any subsequent request for funds will indicate recipient acceptance of the changes to the award. Please call the FEMA/GMD Call Center at (866) 927-5646 or via e-mail to ASK- [email protected] if you have any questions.

Article 40 Prior Approval for Modiﬁcation of Approved Budget Before making any change to the FEMA approved budget for this award, you must request prior written approval from FEMA where required by 2 C.F.R. § 200.308. FEMA is also utilizing its discretion to impose an additional restriction under 2 C.F.R. § 200.308(f) regarding the transfer of funds among direct cost categories, programs, functions, or activities. Therefore, for awards with an approved budget where the federal share is greater than the simpliﬁed acquisition threshold (currently $250,000), you may not transfer funds among direct cost categories, programs, functions, or activities without prior written approval from FEMA where the cumulative amount of such transfers exceeds or is expected to exceed ten percent (10%) of the total budget FEMA last approved. You must report any deviations from your FEMA approved budget in the ﬁrst Federal Financial Report (SF-425) you submit following any budget deviation, regardless of whether the budget deviation requires prior written approval.

Article 41 Disposition of Equipment Acquired Under the Federal Award When original or replacement equipment acquired under this award by the recipient or its subrecipients is no longer needed for the original project or program or for other activities currently or previously supported by a federal awarding agency, you must request instructions from FEMA to make proper disposition of the equipment pursuant to 2 C.F.R. § 200.313. 184
Article 42 Environmental Planning and Historic Preservation (EHP) Review DHS/FEMA funded activities that may require an EHP review are subject to the FEMA Environmental Planning and Historic Preservation (EHP) review process.

This review does not address all federal, state, and local requirements.

Acceptance of federal funding requires recipient to comply with all federal, state, and local laws. DHS/FEMA is required to consider the potential impacts to natural and cultural resources of all projects funded by DHS/FEMA grant funds, through its EHP Review process, as mandated by the National Environmental Policy Act; National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended; National Flood Insurance Program regulations; and, any other applicable laws and Executive Orders. To access the FEMA EHP screening form and instructions, go to the DHS/FEMA website at:
https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/90195. In order to initiate EHP review of your project(s), you must complete all relevant sections of this form and submit it to the Grant Programs Directorate (GPD) along with all other pertinent project information. The EHP review process must be completed before funds are released to carry out the proposed project; otherwise, DHS/FEMA may not be able to fund the project due to noncompliance with EHP laws, executive order, regulations, and policies. If ground disturbing activities occur during construction, applicant will monitor ground disturbance, and if any potential archeological resources are discovered, applicant will immediately cease work in that area and notify the pass-through entity, if applicable, and DHS/FEMA.

Article 43 Award Performance Goals
FEMA will measure the recipient’s performance of the grant by comparing the number of items requested in its application, the numbers acquired (ordered, paid, and received) within the period of performance. In order to measure performance, FEMA may request information throughout the period of performance. In its ﬁnal performance report submitted at closeout, the recipient is required to report on the recipients compliance with the applicable industry, local, state and national standards described in the NOFO. 185
Obligating document

1.Agreement No.

EMW-2020-FG-
15200

2. Amendment
No.

N/A

3. Recipient
No.
956005030

4. Type of
Action
AWARD

5. Control No.

WX00641N2021T

6. Recipient Name and
Address

COSTA MESA, CITY OF
77 FAIR DR
COSTA MESA, CA 92626

7. Issuing FEMA Oﬃce and
Address
Grant Programs Directorate
500 C Street, S.W.

Washington DC, 20528-7000
1-866-927-5646

8. Payment Oﬃce and
Address
FEMA, Financial Services
Branch
500 C Street, S.W., Room
723
Washington DC, 20742

9. Name of Recipient
Project Oﬃcer
Laura Kroeger
9a. Phone
No.
9163168001

10. Name of FEMA Project
Coordinator
Assistance to Fireﬁghters
Grants Grant Program
10a.

Phone
No.
1-866-
274-0960

11. Eﬀective Date of
This Action
08/02/2021

12. Method of
Payment

OTHER - FEMA
GO

13. Assistance
Arrangement

COST SHARING

14. Performance
Period
08/09/2021 to
08/08/2023
Budget Period
08/09/2021 to
08/08/2023

15. Description of Action a. (Indicate funding data for awards or ﬁnancial changes)
Program
Name
Abbreviation
Assistance
Listings
No.

Accounting
Data(ACCS
Code)
Prior
Total
Award
Amount
Awarded
This Action
+ or (-)
Current
Total
Award
Cumulative
Non-Federal
Commitment
AFG 97.044
2021-F0-
GB01 -
P410-xxxx-
4101-D
$0.00 $664,194.33$664,194.33$66,419.43
Totals$0.00 $664,194.33$664,194.33$66,419.43
b. To describe changes other than funding data or ﬁnancial changes, attach schedule and check here:

N/A

16.FOR NON-DISASTER PROGRAMS: RECIPIENT IS REQUIRED TO SIGN AND RETURN THREE (3) COPIES OF THIS DOCUMENT TO FEMA (See Block 7 for address)
This ﬁeld is not applicable for digitally signed grant agreements 186

17. RECIPIENT SIGNATORY OFFICIAL (Name and Title) DATE

18. FEMA SIGNATORY OFFICAL (Name and Title)
Christopher Logan, Acting Assistant Administrator Grant Programs Directorate
DATE
08/02/2021
187
City of Costa Mesa
Agenda Report
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
File #: 21-537 Meeting Date: 1/18/2022
TITLE:

ADOPT A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE ACQUISITION OF BANNING RANCH BY THE TRUST

FOR PUBLIC LAND
DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT, CONSTITUENT SERVICES DIVISION PRESENTED BY: ALEXANDER GONZALEZ, CHIEF OF STAFF
CONTACT INFORMATION: ALEXANDER GONZALEZ, CHIEF OF STAFF (714) 754-5192 RECOMMENDATION:

City Council to consider the adoption of Resolution 2022-XX in support of the acquisition of Banning Ranch by The Trust for Public Land (TPL) for the permanent preservation of public open space.

BACKGROUND:

Council Member Arlis Reynolds has requested that the City Council consider adopting a resolution in support of the acquisition of Banning Ranch by the Trust for Public Land. The 401-acre parcel of land known as Banning Ranch is the site of a former oil field located west of Newport Beach and south of Costa Mesa, adjacent to the mouth of the Santa Ana River. It is the largest piece of privately owned coastal open space in Southern California and home to many native rare species that migrate and nest in the surrounding natural habitat. Located within the ancestral homelands of the Tongva and Acjachemen Nations and known as the site of Genga, Banning Ranch is also a sacred and culturally significant site to members of these tribal communities.

Since 2008, the Banning Ranch Conservancy (BRC), a local 501(c)(3) non-profit, has been dedicated to the mission of the “preservation,acquisition, conservation, and management of the entire Banning Ranch as permanent public open space, park and coastal nature preserve.” The effort to “Save Banning Ranch” has been supported by coastal and environmental organizations, environmental justice organizations, indigenous groups, and local community members.

ANALYSIS:

In September 2016, the California Coastal Commission denied a proposed development that conflicted with the California Coastal Act. In May 2021, TPL negotiated a purchase agreement with Newport Banning Ranch LLC (NBR) to acquire 384 acres of the property for $97 million by June 2022.

On December 17, 2021 Assemblywoman Cottie Petrie-Norris presented $8 million included in the Governor’sbudget for the acquisition of Banning Ranch. This allocation of state funding brings the

Page 1 of 2 ends

188
File #: 21-537 Meeting Date: 1/18/2022
total amount raised for the acquisition of Banning Ranch to $83 million.

The acquisition of Banning Ranch by TPL for the permanent preservation of public open space would create accessible open space and outdoor recreation opportunities for Costa Mesa and Orange County residents, supporting the City Council’s goal to increase park and open space access.

ALTERNATIVES:

The City Council may choose to receive and file this report.

FISCAL REVIEW:

There is no fiscal impact to the City from adopting Resolution 2022-XX.

LEGAL REVIEW:

The City Attorney’s Office has reviewed this report and prepared Resolution 2022-XX, and approved them as to form.

CONCLUSION:

Banning Ranch is a valuable natural resource that is home to many rare native species and one of the largest open space areas in the region by acreage. The City Council’sstrategic objectives include identifying strategies to increase park access and the acquisition of Banning Ranch would significantly increase open park space and outdoor recreational opportunities. Therefore, Council Member Arlis Reynolds requests that the City Council consider the adoption of Resolution 2022-XX in support of the acquisition of Banning Ranch by TPL for the permanent preservation of open space.

Page 2 of 2 ends

189
1 RESOLUTION NO. 2022-___

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA

MESA, CALIFORNIA, IN SUPPORT OF THE ACQUISITION OF

BANNING RANCH BY THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA DOES HEREBY
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

WHEREAS, Banning Ranch is located within the ancestral homelands of the Tongva and Acjachemen Nations and along the Santa Ana River, adjacent to Costa Mesa’s Westside neighborhoods; and
WHEREAS, Banning Ranch covers 401 acres of undeveloped land and is the largest private piece of land remaining on the California coast between Ventura County and the United States/Mexico border; and
WHEREAS, Banning Ranch, the site of Genga, has been utili zed by the Tongva and Acjachemen Nations as a village, cultural, and ceremonial site since time immemorial and contains more than 3000 years of documented evidence of use by these indigenous communities; and
WHEREAS, Banning Ranch was part of the historic 63,414-acre Rancho Santiago de Santa Ana; and
WHEREAS, Banning Ranch was part of the historic 4000 -acre Banning Ranch, and named after, and owned by the family of, Phineas Banning, “The Father of the Port of Los Angeles;” and
WHEREAS, Banning Ranch is the southern-most oil field in California and has a historic and ongoing role in the Southern California oil industry since the 1940s; and WHEREAS, Banning Ranch contains federal - and state-listed species and other rare plants and animals , including those of special significance to the Tongva and Acjachemen people; and
WHEREAS, Banning Ranch contains one of only two federally recognized vernal pool complexes in coastal Orange County; and
WHEREAS, the California Coastal Commission found that Banning Ranch has extensive Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA), which is afforded the highest protection under the California Coastal Act; and
190
2 WHEREAS, The Trust for Public Land has worked diligently with the landowners for more than four years, secured an exclus ive option to purchase 384 acres of the property and raised public and private dollars so far totaling $83M towards the $97M purchase price; and
WHEREAS, the creation of a public open space, park, and coastal nature preserve at Banning Ranch would provide much-needed park space accessible to Costa Mesa residents and address park space deficits in Costa Mesa and other nearby cities; and WHEREAS, creation of a public open space, park, and coastal nature preserve at the site of Genga creates an opportunity to reconnect Native people with their ancestral home lands and sacred spaces; and
WHEREAS, the restoration and reintroduction of tidal flow to the degraded salt marshes of Banning Ranch would address and mitigate anticipated sea -level rise along the Southern California coast; and
WHEREAS, studies have shown that natural habitat, open space and park access improves mental health, provides respite from modern day intrusions, and reduces stress; and
WHEREAS, Banning Ranch serves as a wildlife corridor for immedi ately surrounding publicly-owned open spaces (Talbert Preserve, Fairview Park, Army Corps of Engineers Santa Ana River Marsh, Sunset Ridge Park and Huntington Beach Wetlands Conservancy properties), all of which are envisioned to become part of the future 1000- acre Orange Coast River Park (OCRP); and
WHEREAS, the 2015 -2035 Costa Mesa General Plan (Open Space Element) states that, “As a built -out community, Costa Mesa will face challenges acquiring new open space land due to high land costs and the limited availability of land;” and WHEREAS, the 2021 City Council’s strategic objectives include identifying strategies to increase park access;
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa that the City of Costa Mesa supports the acquisition of Banning Ranch by the Trust for Public Land.

191
3 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of January, 2022:

_______________________________
John Stephens, Mayor

ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

_________________________ _____________________________ Brenda Green, City Clerk Kimberly Hall Barlow, City Attorney

192
4 STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss

CITY OF COSTA MESA )

I, BRENDA GREEN, City Clerk of the City of Costa Mesa, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the above and foregoing is the original of Resolution No. 2022-__ and was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa at a regular meeting held on 18th day of January, 2022, by the following roll call vote, to wit:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereby set my hand and affixed the seal of the City of Costa Mesa this 19th day of January, 2022.

_______________________________

BRENDA GREEN, CITY CLERK (SEAL)
193
City of Costa Mesa
Agenda Report
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
File #: 21-539 Meeting Date: 1/18/2022
TITLE:

ADOPT RESOLUTION APPROVING RECOGNIZED OBLIGATION PAYMENT SCHEDULE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2020-2021 FOR THE PERIOD OF JULY 1, 2022 TO JUNE 30, 2023 DEPARTMENT: FINANCE DEPARTMENT
PRESENTED BY: CAROL MOLINA, FINANCE DIRECTOR
CONTACT INFORMATION: CAROL MOLINA, FINANCE DIRECTOR, (714) 754-5243 RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt Successor Agency Resolution No. 2022-xx approving the Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule for Fiscal Year 2022-23 for the period of July 1, 2022 to June 30, 2023.

BACKGROUND:

As of February 1, 2012, all California redevelopment agencies were dissolved. The Successor Agency to the Costa Mesa Redevelopment Agency (Successor Agency) is performing its functions under Division 24, Parts 1.8 and 1.85 of the Health and Safety Code, as amended by Assembly Bill 1484 and other subsequent legislation (together as amended, the “Dissolution Law”), to administer the enforceable obligations and unwind the affairs of the former Agency.

One of the enforceable obligations is the $9.3 million loan from the City’sGeneral Fund to the former Redevelopment Agency. Upon dissolution, the State Department of Finance (DOF) initially disapproved the loan repayment to the General Fund. Staff and the Agency’slegal counsel met with DOF numerous times and provided extensive documentation showing that the loan was originally established within two years of the former Agency’sformation and evidenced through a series of promissory notes. In May 2014, DOF approved the reinstatement of the Successor Agency’sloan and allowed the annual loan repayment be placed on the Recognized Obligation Payment Schedules (ROPS), subject to annual approval by the oversight board and DOF.

At previous meetings of the Successor Agency, under the Dissolution Law, all prior ROPS were approved and thereafter submitted to the local oversight board, then to the DOF, and ultimately approved with modifications. As of July 1, 2018; the Orange Countywide Oversight Board serves as the oversight board to the 25 successor agencies in Orange County. This agenda report is for the annual ROPS for FY 2021-22 (Attachment 1). Under Section 34171(h) of the California Health and Safety Code, as amended, the ROPS is “thedocument setting forth the minimum payment amounts and due dates of payments required by enforceable obligations for each fiscal year as provided in subdivision (o) of Section 34177.”

Page 1 of 3 ends

194
File #: 21-539 Meeting Date: 1/18/2022
Under the dates required in the Dissolution Law, the Successor Agency is required to consider and adopt the ROPS for the period of July 1, 2022 to June 30, 2023, and submit such approved ROPS to the DOF on or before February 1, 2022. Section 34177(l) of Part 1.85, as amended, requires the Successor Agency to take actions with regard to each ROPS as follows:
“(l)(1) … For each recognized obligation, the Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule shall identify one or more of the following sources of payment:
(A) Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund.
(B) Bond proceeds.
(C) Reserve balances.
(D) Administrative cost allowance.
(E) The Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund, but only to the extent no other funding source is available or when payment from property tax revenues is required by an enforceable obligation or by the provisions of this part. (F) Other revenue sources, including rents, concessions, asset sale proceeds, interest earnings, and any other revenues derived from the former redevelopment agency, as approved by the oversight board in accordance with this part. (o) (1) Commencing with the Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule covering the period from July 1, 2016, to June 30, 2017, inclusive, and for each period from July 1 to June 30, inclusive, thereafter, a successor agency shall submit an oversight board-approved Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule to the department and to the county auditor- controller no later than February 1, 2016, and each February 1 thereafter…”.

ANALYSIS:

The ROPS FY 2022-23 and the Successor Agency resolution (Attachment 2) are included with this agenda report. Currently, the only enforcement obligation is the annual payment on the promissory note for the reinstated City/Former Agency loan under Section 34191.4, which annual payment has been listed and approved by the DOF on the ROPS since DOF approved its reinstatement in 2014.

The timing for DOF’sreview of each annual ROPS is set forth in subsection (o) of Section 34177 which provides:
“Thedepartment shall make its determination of the enforceable obligations and the amounts and funding sources of the enforceable obligations no later than April 15, 2016, and each April 15 thereafter. Within five business days of the department’s determination, a successor agency may request additional review by the department and an opportunity to meet and confer on disputed items, except for those items which are the subject of litigation disputing the department’sprevious or related determination. An untimely submittal of a Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule may result in a meet and confer period of less than 30 days.

The department shall notify the successor agency and the county auditor/controller as to the outcome of its review at least 15 days before the date of the first property tax distribution for that period.

Page 2 of 3 ends

195
File #: 21-539 Meeting Date: 1/18/2022
Staff recommends that the Successor Agency adopt the attached Resolution approving the ROPS for FY 2022-23 and authorizing the Finance Director or her authorized designee to transmit to the Oversight Board for its review and approval, and under the Dissolution Law, concurrently to send a copy of ROPS FY 2022-23 to the DOF, the Orange County Auditor-Controller, the Orange County Administrative Officer, and State Controller’s Office as required.

Further, the Finance Director or her authorized designee, in consultation with legal counsel, shall be authorized to request and complete meet and confer session(s) with the DOF and authorized to make augmentations, modifications, additions or revisions as may be necessary or directed by DOF, which changes, if any, will be reported back to the Successor Agency and the Oversight Board.

ALTERNATIVES:

N/A. An approved ROPS must be transmitted to the County Oversight Board, and ultimately the DOF, by February 1, 2022 for continuing funding.

FISCAL REVIEW:

If the DOF approves the ROPS FY 2022-23 as submitted, the Successor Agency will receive $1,749,586 for the period July 1, 2022 to June 30, 2023 to pay the Successor Agency’s enforceable obligations.

LEGAL REVIEW:

The City Attorney’s Office has reviewed the report, and approves the report as to form.

CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND PRIORITIES:

Achieve Long-Term Fiscal Sustainability.

CONCLUSION:

Adopt Successor Agency Resolution No. 2022-xx approving the Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule for Fiscal Year 2022-23 for the period of July 1, 2022 to June 30, 2023, subject to submittal to and review by the Orange Countywide Oversight Board (Oversight Board) and the State of California, Department of Finance (DOF). Further, the Finance Director, or her authorized designee, in consultation with legal counsel, shall be authorized to request and complete meet and confer session(s), if any, with the DOF and authorized to make augmentations, modifications, additions or revisions as may be necessary or directed by DOF.

Page 3 of 3 ends

196

SUCCESSOR AGENCY RESOLUTION NO. 21-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE COSTA MESA

REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY APPROVING THE RECOG NIZED
OBLIGATION PAYMENT S CHEDULE FY 2022-23 FOR THE ANNUAL
FISCAL PERIOD OF JULY 1, 2022 TO JUNE 30, 202 3, SUBJECT TO

SUBMITTAL TO, AND REVIEW BY THE ORANGE COUNTYWIDE

OVERSIGHT BOARD AND THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE UNDER CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND
SAFETY CODE, DIVISION 24, PART 1.85; AND, AUTHORIZING THE

POSTING AND TRANSMITTAL THEREOF
WHEREAS, the former Costa Mesa Redevelopment Agency (“ Former Agency”) was established as a redevelopment agency which was previously organized and existing under the California Community Redevelopment Law, Health and Safety Code Section 33000, et seq., and previously authorized to transact business and exercise powers of a redevelopment agency pursuant to action of the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa (“City”); and
WHEREAS, Assembly Bill x1 26 added Parts 1.8 and 1.85 to Division 24 of the California Health and Safety Code, which caused the dissolution of all redevelopment agencies and winding down of the affairs of former agencies, including as such laws were amended by Assembly Bill 1484 and by other subsequent legislation (together, as amended, the “Dissolution Law”); and
WHEREAS, as of February 1, 2012 the Former Agency was dissolved under the Dissolution Law, and as a separate public entity, the Successor Agency to the Costa Mesa Redevelopment Agency (“Successor Agency”) administers the enforceable obligations of the former Agency and otherwise dissolves the former Agency’s affairs, all subject to the review and approval by a seven-member oversight board; and WHEREAS, under Section 34179(j) of the Dissolution Law, in every California county there shall be one oversight board that is staffed by the county’s auditor-controller; and
WHEREAS, the applicable consolidated oversight board overseeing this Successor Agency is called the Orange Countywide Oversight Board (“Oversight Board”); and
WHEREAS, every oversight board, both the prior local oversight board and the Oversight Board, has fiduciary responsibilities to the holders of enforceable obligations and to the taxing entities that benefit from distributions of property tax and other revenues pursuant to Section 34188 of the Dissolution Law; and
WHEREAS, Sections 34177(m), 34177(o) and 34179 provide that each ROPS is submitted to, reviewed and approved by the Successor Agency and then reviewed and approved by the Oversight Board before final review and a pproval by the State of California, Department of Finance (“DOF”); and
WHEREAS, Section 34177(o) of the Dissolution Law requires that the annual ROPS for the 22-23 A-B fiscal period of July 1, 2022 to June 30, 2023 (“ROPS FY 2022- 197

23”) shall be submitted to the DOF by the Successor Agency, after approval by the Oversight Board, no later than February 1, 2021; and
WHEREAS, the ROPS FY 2022-23, in the form required by DOF, is attached as Exhibit A and fully incorporated by this reference; and WHEREAS, the Successor Agency has reviewed the ROPS FY 2022-23 and desires to approve this schedule and to authorize and direct the Successor Agency staff to transmit the ROPS FY 2022-23 to the Oversight Board, with copies to the Orange County Administrative Offi cer (“CAO”), Orange County Auditor -Controller (“CAC”), the State Controller’s Office (“SCO”) and DOF as required by Dissolution Law; and WHEREAS, the Successor Agency shall post the ROPS FY 2022-23 on the City/Successor Agency website www.costamesaca.gov.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE COSTA MESA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY:

Section 1. The foregoing recitals are incorporated into this Resolution by this reference, and constitute a material part of this Resolution.

Section 2. The Successor Agency approves ROPS FY 2022-23 submitted herewith as Attachment 1, under the requirements of the Dissolution Law; provided however, that the ROPS FY 2022-23 is approved subject to the condition such ROPS FY 2022-23 is to be transmitted to the Oversight Board for review and approval and a copy of such ROPS FY 2022-23 shall concurrently be sent to the CAO, CAC, SCO, and DOF. Further, the Finance Director (and her authorized designee), in consultation with legal counsel, shall be authorized to request and complete meet and confer session(s), if any, with the DOF and authorized to make augmentations, modifications, additions or revisions as may be necessary or directed by DOF.

Section 3. After approval by the Oversight Board, the Successor Agen cy authorizes transmittal of the approved ROPS FY 2022-23 again to the CAC, SCO and DOF.

Section 4. The Finance Director of the Successor Agency or her authorized designee is directed to post this Resolution, including the ROPS FY 2022-23, on the City/Successor Agency website (www.costamesaca.gov) under the Dissolution Law.

Section 5. The Secretary of the Successor Agency shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.

APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of January 2022.

John Stephens, Chair
Successor Agency to the Costa Mesa
Redevelopment Agency
198

(SEAL)
ATTEST:

Brenda Green, Secretary
Successor Agency to the Costa Mesa Redevelopment Agency

APPROVED AS TO FORM

_____________________________
Kimberly Hall Barlow,
Successor Agency Counsel
199

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.

CITY OF COSTA MESA )
I, Brenda Green, Secretary of the Successor Agency to the Costa Mesa Redevelopment Agency, hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted by the Successor Agency at a regular meeting held on the 18th day of January 2022, and that it was so adopted by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Brenda Green, Secretary
Successor Agency to the Costa Mesa
Redevelopment Agency
(SEAL)
200

EXHIBIT A
to Successor Agency Resolution No. 21-xx
RECOGNIZED OBLIGATION PAYMENT SCHEDULE FY 2022-23
FOR PERIOD JULY 1, 2022 TO JUNE 30, 2023

201
Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS 22-23) - Summary Filed for the July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023 Period Successor Agency: Costa Mesa
County: Orange
Current Period Requested Funding for Enforceable
Obligations (ROPS Detail)
22-23A Total
(July -
December)
22-23B Total
(January -
June)
ROPS 22-23
Total
A Enforceable Obligations Funded as Follows (B+C+D) $ - $ - $ - B Bond Proceeds - - -
C Reserve Balance - - -
D Other Funds - - -
E Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund (RPTTF) (F+G) $ 1,749,586 $ - $ 1,749,586 F RPTTF 1,749,586 - 1,749,586
G Administrative RPTTF - - -
H Current Period Enforceable Obligations (A+E) $ 1,749,586 $ - $ 1,749,586 Certification of Oversight Board Chairman:

Name Title
Pursuant to Section 34177 (o) of the Health and Safety
code, I hereby certify that the above is a true and
accurate Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule for
the above named successor agency. /s/
Signature Date
202
Costa Mesa
Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS 22-23) - ROPS Detail July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W
Item
#
Project
Name Obligation Type
Agreement
Execution
Date
Agreement
Termination
Date
Payee Description Project
Area
Total
Outstanding
Obligation
Retired
ROPS
22-23
Total
ROPS 22-23A (Jul - Dec)
22-23A
Total
ROPS 22-23B (Jan - Jun)
22-23B
Total
Fund Sources Fund Sources
Bond
Proceeds
Reserve
Balance
Other
Funds RPTTF Admin
RPTTF
Bond
Proceeds
Reserve
Balance
Other
Funds RPTTF Admin
RPTTF
$3,451,948 $1,749,586 $- $- $- $1,749,586 $- $1,749,586 $- $- $- $- $- $- 6 Promissory
Note
Payable
City/County
Loan (Prior 06/
28/11), Cash
exchange
09/30/
1971
06/30/2024 City of
Costa
Mesa
Original
Loan to
establish
RDA
Downtown 3,451,948 N $1,749,586 - - - 1,749,586 - $1,749,586 - - - - - $- 203
Costa Mesa
Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS 22-23) - Report of Cash Balances July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2020
(Report Amounts in Whole Dollars)
Pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 34177 (l), Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund (RPTTF) may be listed as a source of payment on the ROPS, but only to the extent no other funding source is available or when payment from property tax revenues is required by an enforceable obligation.

A B C D E F G H
ROPS 19-20 Cash Balances
(07/01/19 - 06/30/20)
Fund Sources
Comments
Bond Proceeds Reserve Balance Other Funds RPTTF
Bonds issued
on or before
12/31/10
Bonds issued
on or after
01/01/11
Prior ROPS
RPTTF and
Reserve
Balances retained
for future
period(s)
Rent, grants,
interest, etc.

Non-Admin
and Admin

1 Beginning Available Cash Balance (Actual 07/01/19)
RPTTF amount should exclude "A" period distribution
amount.
8,222 519 16,221 Prior ROPS excess ash: $621 from 15-16A; $1050 from 16-17B; $7,500 from 17-18A;
$3,000 from 17-18A; $3,000 from 18-19A
2 Revenue/Income (Actual 06/30/20)
RPTTF amount should tie to the ROPS 19-20 total
distribution from the County Auditor-Controller
1,326,470 AB1484 requires 20% ($265,204) of loan
repayment ($1,326,021) to be transferred to
Low and Moderate Income Housing Asset
Fund per HSC 34191.4(s)(2)(c).
3 Expenditures for ROPS 19-20 Enforceable Obligations
(Actual 06/30/20)
1,327,521 Successor Agency's FY 19/20 total
expenditures and loan repayments
4 Retention of Available Cash Balance (Actual 06/30/20) RPTTF amount retained should only include the amounts
distributed as reserve for future period(s)
5 ROPS 19-20 RPTTF Prior Period Adjustment
RPTTF amount should tie to the Agency's ROPS 19-20 PPA
form submitted to the CAC
No entry required
6 Ending Actual Available Cash Balance (06/30/20)
C to F = (1 + 2 - 3 - 4), G = (1 + 2 - 3 - 4 - 5)
$8,222 $- $- $519 $15,170 Prior ROPS excess ash: $621 from 15-16A; $1050 from 16-17B; $7,500 from 17-18A;
204
Pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 34177 (l), Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund (RPTTF) may be listed as a source of payment on the ROPS, but only to the extent no other funding source is available or when payment from property tax revenues is required by an enforceable obligation.

Non-Admin
and Admin

$3,000 from 17-18A; $3,000 from 18-19A
205
Costa Mesa
Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS 22-23) - Notes July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023
Item # Notes/Comments
6 206
City of Costa Mesa
Agenda Report
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
File #: 21-530 Meeting Date: 1/18/2022
TITLE:

CITY OF COSTA MESA 2021-2029 (SIXTH CYCLE) HOUSING ELEMENT (GP-21-01) DEPARTMENT: Economic and Development Services Department / Planning Division
PRESENTED BY: Jennifer Le, Director of Economic and Development Services CONTACT INFORMATION: JENNIFER LE, [email protected]; (714) 754-5270 RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council receive a staff presentation for the 2021-2029 (Sixth Cycle) General Plan Housing Element Update, take public comment, consider the Planning Commission’s recommendation, provide feedback to staff, and continue the item to the February 1, 2022 City Council meeting for consideration of Housing Element adoption.

BACKGROUND:

The Housing Element is one of the seven State-mandated General Plan “elements” and is a component of the City of Costa Mesa 2015-2035 General Plan. California State Housing Element Law (California Government Code Article 10.6) establishes the requirements for Housing Elements.

California Government Code Section 65588 requires that local governments review and revise their Housing Element a minimum of once every eight years. Additionally, the California Legislature identifies overall housing goals for the State with the goal of ensuring every resident has access to housing and a suitable living environment.

To remain in compliance with State Housing Law, the City’supdated Housing Element must include various applicable State provisions and be adopted by the City Council by February 11, 2022.

STATE HOUSING ELEMENT ENFORCEMENT
As part of the 2021-2022 State budget and various recently approved State Assembly Bills, the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) received additional budget and staff resources to expand its enforcement efforts and formed the Housing Accountability Unit. The Housing Accountability Unit staff specifically enforce Housing Element compliance. While HCD states that education and technical assistance is the first step in its enforcement efforts, the intent of the Housing Accountability Unit is to hold jurisdictions accountable for their housing element commitments and other applicable State laws. Violations can lead to consequences including revocation of housing element certification and/or referral to the California Office of the Attorney General. If a jurisdiction is found by the HCD as out of compliance and is unwilling to comply with HCD corrections, the Attorney General can seek the following remedies:

Page 1 of 15 ends

207
File #: 21-530 Meeting Date: 1/18/2022
· The Attorney General may, based upon a finding of the court that the housing element does not substantially comply with State Law, request that the court issue an order or judgment directing the City to bring its housing element into substantial compliance. The court will then retain jurisdiction to ensure that its order or judgment is carried out. · If the City has not complied with the order or judgment after twelve months, the court will impose fines on the City. The fine levied pursuant to State Law is a minimum of $10,000 per month and up to $100,000 per month.

Besides the aforementioned enforcement actions, the City could be subject to several other consequences if a compliant housing element is not adopted or falls out of compliance over time, including:
· Potential loss of eligibility for certain future State grant funds; · Potential loss of some level of local control over development, i.e., mandated “by right” development;
· A court may suspend the City’s authority to issue building permits or other City permits and approvals; and
· Outside groups may file legal actions against the City for a non-compliant Housing Element.

As an example, the City recently received correspondence from the State indicating that over $800,000 in SB 2 funds awarded and allocated toward operations of the City’shomeless shelter would be contingent upon the City’sadoption of a certified Housing Element by May 2022. Staff believes local cities can expect ongoing State oversight and enforcement related to Housing Element compliance.

RHNA ALLOCATION
The Housing Element establishes a high-level blueprint for local housing policy and identifies housing goals, and specific programs or actions to be taken over the next eight years to meet those housing goals. As required by State Housing law, the State has identified a Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) that allocates the City’s“fairshare”of regional housing need. Pursuant to this RHNA, the City is required by the State to plan and zone land at sufficient densities to accommodate the RHNA allocation. Costa Mesa’sassigned RHNA is 11,760 housing units, distributed among four affordability categories as shown in Table 1.

Page 2 of 15 ends

208
File #: 21-530 Meeting Date: 1/18/2022
Table 1 - Final RHNA Allocation
Income Category% of Area
Median
Income
(AMI)
Affordable
Monthly
Rent
Income Range Min. -
Max.

RHNA
Allocatio
n
Very Low Income0-50% AMI $961 - $1,281 -- $64,050 2,919 units Low Income 51-80% AMI $2,561 $64,051 $102,450 1,794 units Moderate Income81-120%
AMI
$3,090 $102,451 $123,600 2,088 units
Above Moderate
Income
%120% AMI >$3,090 $123,601 -- 4,959 units
Total 11,760 units
The City is not required to build the aforementioned housing units; however, the City is obligated to update the Housing Element to support housing development by establishing land use related goals, policies, and programs with specific action items and timelines that promote housing. The City is required to submit annual reports to the State identifying the number of housing units approved and constructed each year toward meeting the RHNA allocation, as well as to report on the City’s progress in implementing the identified programs.

COMMUNITY OUTREACH
Over the last year, City staff have been preparing the update to the City’sHousing Element. This effort has included contracting with a Housing Element consultant (Kimley-Horn) for expert analysis, meeting on multiple occasions with HCD staff, conducting two City-wide Townhall meetings (November 18, 2020 and September 2, 2021), hosting outreach meetings for each of the City’ssix voting districts (February 17, 2021 and February 18, 2021), and several other stakeholder meetings with affordable housing advocates, the development community, local community organizations and service providers. A special study session with the Planning Commission was held on March 1, 2021 and with the City Council on March 23, 2021. In addition, on April 27, 2021 and September 13, 2021, the City Council and Planning Commission held joint public study sessions. For the first time, the City provided online surveys, informational mailers and posts using social media and online community platforms, and held its outreach meetings in both English and Spanish.

DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT
Based on community outreach and input from the community, local officials and stakeholders, and with consideration of the State requirements, City staff focused on identifying opportunities for future housing growth in already developed areas of the City, primarily along existing commercial and industrial corridors with the potential for revitalization and redevelopment as housing or mixed use development. The following “focus areas” and major corridors are most suitable for potential future housing growth:
· Area north of the 405 Freeway

Page 3 of 15 ends

209
File #: 21-530 Meeting Date: 1/18/2022
· SoBECA area
· Harbor Boulevard corridor
· Placentia Avenue corridor
· West 19th Street corridor
· Mesa West Bluffs area
· Newport Boulevard
To comply with the City’s11,760-unit RHNA allocation, the Housing Element calls for future actions by the City to update the City’sGeneral Plan, area plans, and zoning to allow for future housing within these focus areas and major corridors. In order to meet State requirements, the Housing Element identifies “candidatesites”primarily located within the focus areas and corridors listed above which are feasible for housing development in order to meet the City’s RHNA allocation.

Other programs are also identified and include pursuing opportunities at the Fairview Development Center site, preparing an inclusionary housing ordinance, incentivizing accessory dwelling units and motel conversions, and other action items intended to promote appropriate and diverse housing options for Costa Mesa residents.

The Draft Housing Element update document is comprised of the following Chapters:

Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION - a summary of the content, organization and statutory considerations of the Housing Element;
Chapter 2: COMMUNITY PROFILE - an analysis of the City’s population, household and employment base, and the characteristics of the City’s housing stock; Chapter 3: HOUSING CONSTRAINTS, RESOURCES, AND FAIR HOUSING - an analysis of governmental and non-governmental constraints on production, maintenance, and affordability of housing and provides a summary of housing resources, including sites identification and funding and financial considerations; and Chapter 4: POLICY PLAN - An analysis of Costa Mesa’s identified housing needs, including housing goals, policies, and programs.

Additionally, the below appendices are provided as supplementary background Housing Element resources and include:

Appendix A - Review of Past Performance of 5th Cycle Programs; Appendix B - Summary of Adequate Sites Analysis;
Appendix C - Summary of Outreach; and
Appendix D - Glossary of Housing Terms.

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT
After its initial completion, the City released the draft Housing Element for public review and comment between August 17, 2021 and September 15, 2021. Approximately 50 public comments were received via email with additional comments received through the City’s online portal. (These comments are included in the Housing Element; Appendix C). At the September 13, 2021 City Council and Planning Commission joint study session, staff reviewed the Housing Element public

Page 4 of 15 ends

210
File #: 21-530 Meeting Date: 1/18/2022
Council and Planning Commission joint study session, staff reviewed the Housing Element public review draft with the City Council, Planning Commission and the public, and received feedback and direction to modify and submit the document to the State. The Draft Housing Element update was submitted to HCD on October 6, 2021, and the City Council, Planning Commission and public comments were incorporated into that submittal.

STATE HCD COMMENT LETTER
On December 3, 2021, HCD forwarded a letter to the City that included the State’sreview comments regarding the Draft Housing Element Update. The letter is essentially a housing element “correction list”that the City must follow to obtain certification of the Housing Element by the State. Most cities in Orange County received such a comment letter and many of the comments are consistent across jurisdictions.

The December 3, 2021 HCD letter is available at the below link:
<https://www.costamesaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/50107>

PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission reviewed the Draft Housing Element Update at its regular meetings on November 8, 2021, November 22, 2021 and December 13, 2021. The initial Planning Commission meetings were specifically held to introduce the Planning Commission and the public to the final stages of the Housing Element effort and focus on the strategies, policies and programs relating to how the City will facilitate its “fairshare”of the regional housing needs. During these meetings, the Planning Commission was given an opportunity to review the updated Housing Element submitted to the HCD and request from staff responses and clarifications to specific Housing Element related topics and issues.

At the December 13, 2021 Planning Commission hearing, the Planning Commission received a staff presentation regarding the HCD comment letter and was also provided a revised Draft Housing Element Update with staff’sproposed revisions responding to the State’scorrections/issues. All of the proposed revisions were shown in underline/strike-through format so that the Planning Commission and the public could easily consider the recent updates.

The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed revisions to the Draft Housing Element update and recommended on a 6-1 vote that the City Council adopt the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for CEQA compliance purposes and approve the Housing Element Update (GP -21-01).

The Planning Commission motion for approval included a staff recommended change to add a program to the Housing Element (which was inadvertently left out) pertaining to updating the City’s accessory dwelling unit (ADU) Ordinance to be consistent with the State law (per forthcoming HCD guidance). The motion also included a Planning Commission comment to the City Council that suggests adding information in the Draft Housing Element Update that identifies “projects in the pipeline.” Projects in the pipeline are essentially an inventory of housing projects that are approved but not yet constructed or are currently in the entitlement process (but not yet approved) and may or may not have the potential of being developed during 2021-2029 Housing Element Sixth Cycle. In response, staff has included additional language in Chapter 3 (Housing Constraints, Resources, and

Page 5 of 15 ends

211
File #: 21-530 Meeting Date: 1/18/2022
response, staff has included additional language in Chapter 3 (Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing), Section F (Housing Resources) of the Draft Housing Element update entitled Housing projects in the Pipeline (see page 3-126 of the Draft Housing Element Update) as well as in Appendix B for Council consideration.

The November 8, 2021, November 22, 2021 and December 13, 2021 Planning Commission staff reports are available at these links:
·
<http://ftp.costamesaca.gov/costamesaca/planningcommission/agenda/2021/2021-11-08/PH- · <http://ftp.costamesaca.gov/costamesaca/planningcommission/agenda/2021/2021-11-22/PH-1.pdf> · <http://ftp.costamesaca.gov/costamesaca/planningcommission/agenda/2021/2021-12-13/PH-1.pdf> The November 8, 2021, November 22, 2021 and December 13, 2021 Planning Commission meeting videos are available at these links:
· <https://costamesa.granicus.com/player/clip/3794?view_id=10&redirect=true> · <https://costamesa.granicus.com/player/clip/3802?view_id=10&redirect=true> · <https://costamesa.granicus.com/player/clip/3807?view_id=10&redirect=true> ANALYSIS:

The City Council last reviewed the Housing Element Update at its joint study session held on September 13, 2021 (Staff Report:
<https://costamesa.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=PA&ID=892974&GUID=2EC89CD4-EDE7-461F-8127 -922507F6D3D6>). Since then, several key Housing Element milestones have been completed, including:

1. Per Council direction, staff submitted the Housing Element Update to HCD that incorporated City Council, Planning Commission and public comments;

2. The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was circulated for public review and the comment period ended on November 29, 2021;

3. The State reviewed the Update and provided a comment letter on December 3, 2021;

4. Staff revised the Draft Housing Element Update to respond to HCD comments;

5. The Planning Commission reviewed the revised Draft Housing Element Update and on December 13, 2021 recommended that the City Council adopt and approve the Update, and the associated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND).

This report focuses on the HCD comment letter and staff’s proposed revisions to the Housing Element to respond to those comments.

Page 6 of 15 ends

212
File #: 21-530 Meeting Date: 1/18/2022

RESPONSES TO HCD COMMENT LETTER
Chapter 4 - Housing Plan Program Changes
Overall, HCD comments (both included in the HCD letter and verbally during Costa Mesa/HCD staff meetings) were high-level and generally requested more detailed information and analysis in certain topical areas. With few exceptions, which are indicated below (shown in bullet point and bold), the revisions made to the Housing Element in response to HCD comments do not modify the fundamental approach or action items.
· HCD requested additional clarification/information regarding the City’s estimated number of new ADU’sover the next years and indicated they believed that the City’s ADU assumptions were high. They also requested a program requiring the City to modify its ADU Ordinance to comply with State law pursuant to forthcoming comments from HCD staff.

Proposed Housing Element Modification: Staff modified the Draft Housing Element Update adding additional data in support of the City’sADU estimates and lowered the number of ADU’s projected to be built over the next eight years. Staff also added further details regarding ADU permits issued previously and provided an “ADUTrend Analysis”that projects anticipated ADU production in the City through the year 2028 (see Appendix B page B-14 through B-16). The analysis shows that ADU’spermitted have been steadily increasing from 4 units in 2018, 6 units in 2019, 27 units in 2020, to 41 units in 2021. Based on these trends, the Housing Element reflects an estimated 572 ADUs/JADUs within the next 8 years. In addition, Program 3E was modified to include an action item for amending the City’sADU Ordinance to respond to forthcoming comments from HCD staff. · The State requested that Housing Element program “timeframes” for completion (included in Chapter 4) be modified from “ongoing/periodic review” to be more specific such as “annually” or within a specified time frame.

Proposed Housing Element Modification: The Program “Timeframe”(s)for completion of certain programs and action items were modified to respond to HCD comments (see Chapter 4 - Housing Plan, pages 4-5 through 4-22).
· HCD requested that the City’szoning provisions be amended to include transitional and supportive housing explicitly in the City’s land use matrix.

Proposed Housing Element Modification: A new program was added to the Draft Housing Element stating that the City would process a zoning code amendment to list transitional and supportive housing explicitly as uses in the City’s land use matrix (see Program 2J below).

PROGRAM 2J: Transitional and Supportive Housing
The City will amend its Zoning Code to include transitional and supportive housing within the City’sland use matrix, subject only to those regulations that apply to other residential uses of the same type in the same zone, in compliance with Senate Bill 2. The City will monitor the inventory of sites appropriate to accommodate transitional and supportive housing and will work with the appropriate organizations to meet the needs of persons

Page 7 of 15 ends

213
File #: 21-530 Meeting Date: 1/18/2022
experiencing homelessness and extremely low
‐
income residents.

Timeframe: Within 24 months of adoption of the 6th Cycle Housing Element Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Planning Division
Funding Source: In Kind
· The HCD requests that the City’sdensity bonus application fees be amended to avoid constraints on affordable housing development.

Proposed Housing Element Modification: The Draft Housing Element update was amended to include a new program (see below, Program 2K):

PROGRAM 2K: Planning Application Fees
The City will review its current planning application fees, with a special focus on the density bonus fee, and update the fee(s) to avoid creating a constraint to the development of affordable housing.

Timeframe: Within 24 months of adoption of the 6th Cycle Housing Element Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Planning Division
Funding Source: In Kind/General Fund
· The HCD requests that the City add further actions in the Housing Element to encourage the development of housing for “extremely low” and “lower” income households.

Proposed Housing Element Modification: The Draft Housing Element update was amended to include a new program (see below, Program 2L):

PROGRAM 2L: Development of Housing for Extremely Low and Lower ‐
Income
Households
The City recognizes the importance of supporting the development of housing for low and extremely low income households. While the City does not build housing, it is a primary goal of the Housing Element to support developers and increase the feasibility of development of housing for extremely low and low income households. Actions for this program include the following:
o When funding is available, the City shall subsidize up to 100 percent of the City’s application processing fees for qualifying developments where all units are affordable to 80 percent AMI or lower; and
o Promote the benefits of this program to the development community by posting information on the City’s webpage and creating an educational brochure to be distributed with land development applications.

Timeframe: Evaluated annually
Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Planning Division

Page 8 of 15 ends

214
File #: 21-530 Meeting Date: 1/18/2022
Funding Source: In Kind/General Fund
· HCD stated that the City’scurrent parking standards (particularly for studio apartments) results in a constraint to the development of multi-family housing and specifically affordable housing.

Proposed Housing Element Modification: The Draft Housing Element update was amended to include a new program (see below, Program 2M):

PROGRAM 2M: Parking Standards for Residential Developments The City will review and revise the Municipal Code’srequirements for residential off ‐
street
parking for multi
‐
family projects to facilitate the development of multi
‐
family housing, and
specifically affordable housing. The City will consider multiple factors when addressing this update, including but not limited to: size of residential units, number of bedrooms, access to transit and other multi
‐
modal opportunities, local parking trends related to vehicle ownership and the availability of the City’s inventory of on ‐
street parking.

Timeframe: Review within 24 months of adoption of the 2021 ‐
2029 Housing Element
Update; revise Code within 36 months of adoption of the 2021 ‐
2029 Housing Element
Update.

Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Planning Division
Funding Source: In Kind/General Fund
· The HCD requested enhancements to the Draft Housing Element “adequate sites” program to better accommodate the City’s RHNA.

Proposed Housing Element Modification: Program 3A (“Adequate Sites”) has been amended as indicated below to include specific actions:

PROGRAM 3A: Adequate Sites
The City will maintain an inventory of vacant and underutilized sites and provide this inventory to interested developers. The City will monitor its status of meeting the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) annually and ensure that the City has adequate sites available to accommodate its RHNA.

The City will consider and promote, various incentives through the following actions, to encourage development of housing, live/work, and mixed
‐
use development in its Urban
Plan and Specific Plan areas. on the sites identified within the inventory. These actions include:
o Make information on candidate housing sites readily available through a database available to the public;
o Priority processing for candidate housing sites which provide the amount of affordable housing units at the income levels identified within the housing element for individual candidate sites; and
o If funding becomes available, the City shall subsidize up to 100 percent of the City’s application processing fees for qualifying developments that provide the amount of affordable housing units at the income levels identified within the housing element for

Page 9 of 15 ends

215
File #: 21-530 Meeting Date: 1/18/2022
affordable housing units at the income levels identified within the housing element for individual candidate sites.

Timeframe: OngoingReviewed annually
Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Planning Division
Funding Sources: In Kind
· HCD requested expansion and specific background analysis regarding housing opportunities at the Fairview Development Center site and to include anticipated City/State coordination efforts (State owned property).

Proposed Housing Element Modification: Program 3B (“Fairview Development Center”) has been amended as indicated below:

PROGRAM 3B: Fairview Development Center - State Property Fairview Development Center, owned by the State of California, is a 102 ‐
acre property
located at 2501 Harbor Boulevard in Costa Mesa. This property historically housed adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities but is closed and has been identified as surplus property by the State. The City has engaged with the State Department of General Services regarding the future use of the property as a master planned residential/mixed use community with a substantial affordable housing component and other community amenities.

In January 2020, the Costa Mesa Fairview Developmental Center Ad Hoc Committee met to discuss potential development yields for the site. The Committee presented a report to the City Council which summarized its strategic engagement in the development of the local vision, priorities, and reasoning behind the stated preliminary vision of a solutions ‐
based, housing
‐
first model for the site. The Committee took into consideration the City’s recent efforts to address local housing needs and contemplated opportunities for permanent supportive housing and integrated workforce housing on the site. Conceptual yield studies and draft plans have also been compiled for the property and helped to inform development capacity assumptions, which are estimated at 2,300 housing units at the site.

There are no current Development Agreements on the property.

The City will need to coordinate with the State of California Department of General Services (DGS) for future use of the site. The City is confident that there is significant interest in redeveloping the property once it becomes available based on informal discussions with developers during the housing element update process. The City is considering various zoning strategies as part of the Housing Element Update, including a specific plan or master plan for the site, which would permit the residential densities and development of the acreage identified within the Housing Element, while also considering expedited permitting.

The City will partner with the State to pursue compatible development on the Fairview Development Center site consistent with the State’s Site Assessment and the Housing Element’ssites analysis to permit residential development at the identified densities. The City envisions a two
‐
year process to negotiate future residential development use on the

Page 10 of 15 ends

216
File #: 21-530 Meeting Date: 1/18/2022
City envisions a two
‐
year process to negotiate future residential development use on the site or as modified by the State. If not established, the City will identify additional alternative sites to accommodate a potential shortfall in housing sites to accommodate the remaining RHNA.

Timeframe: Negotiate agreement to develop residential within two years or as modified by the State. If unsuccessful, identify additional sites to accommodate shortfall.

Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa/State of California Funding Sources: State and Federal Grant Funds, In Kind · HCD states that Measure Y is “clearly a constraint” on the City’s ability to satisfy its obligation to the State required RHNA and poses a constraint to housing development in general. HCD’s letter states:
“… The element describes various aspects of the local voter initiative which generally subjects legislative actions (e.g., specific and overlay plans) involving residential development to voter approval. The element further states the measure may be considered a potential constraint and may discourage developers from pursuing housing development. However, the Measure is clearly a constraint on development and conflicts with meeting state requirements. The element must include a specific analysis of the impacts on housing cost, supply, affordability, timing and approval certainty. Based on this analysis, the element must include programs to address this constraint in addition to programs to make sites available to accommodate the RHNA.” Further, the State’s letter specifically directs the City to modify Draft Housing Element Program 3G to include:
“...a specific schedule of actions to make sites with appropriate zoning available to accommodate the RHNA, including considering any exceptions within the Measure for the purposes of meeting mandates for rezoning or other changes in land use regulations, modifying the Measure and other steps that will be taken to ensure zoning will be completed within three years. If the appropriate zoning is not complete, the Program must include steps that will be taken to take alternative action...” Proposed Housing Element Modification: Program 3G (“AddressMeasure Y in Relation to Housing Element Compliance”) has been amended to respond to State comments.

PROGRAM 3G: Address Measure Y in Relation to Housing Element Compliance As it exists upon adoption of the 2021
‐
2029 Costa Mesa Housing Element, the Voter
Initiative, Measure Y requires voter approval of certain changes in land use, defined as those projects that amend, change or replace the General Plan, the Zoning Code, a specific plan, or an overlay plan, (collectively, legislative changes) and that involve any one of the following changes: adds 40 or more dwelling units, generates more than 200 additional average daily trips; increases the volume/capacity of an intersection based on specified formulas; changes the intersection capacity utilization or level of service based on specified formulas; adds 10,000 square feet of retail, office or other nonresidential; or, where the proposed project, combined with other projects within 8 years and a half mile of each other, meet the above criteria. Additionally, voter approval is required for projects that

Page 11 of 15 ends

217
File #: 21-530 Meeting Date: 1/18/2022
each other, meet the above criteria. Additionally, voter approval is required for projects that involve one of the above legislative changes and: changes from public uses to private uses under specified circumstances; land designated as utility right ‐
of
‐
way under specified
circumstances; land donated, bequeathed, or otherwise granted to the City; land used or designated for Costa Mesa school property; or land owned, controlled, or managed by the City.

Through extensive community outreach with Costa Mesa residents, housing advocates, and members of the development community, the City of Costa Mesa has continued to contemplate Measure Y’srole in the City’s2021
‐
2029 Housing Element Update. State
HCD has identified Measure Y as a clear constraint to the future development of residential uses within the City, a constraint to implementing the land use and zoning changes necessary to achieve State
‐
mandated compliance with the RHNA allocation, and also
conflicts with meeting State housing requirements. The City recognizes that it must, in coordination with guidance from the City Attorney and input from the community, determine a path forward in consideration of Measure Y to be able to adopt the subsequent changes to specific plans, urban plans, and overlays that are necessary to implement the City’s adopted Housing Element and meet the City’s RHNA allocation.

The language of Measure Y itself is not clear on how the initiative applies to the State ‐
mandated Housing Element Update process and/or the associated rezones and revisions to existing specific plans, urban plans, and overlays included as program actions within the Housing Element. The City will take the following steps to minimize the ways in which Measure Y functions as a constraint to housing development, Housing Element compliance, and other shared community goals.

MILESTONES TIMING FOR COMPLETION
(1) Engage the community and other
stakeholders, and complete legal analysis
necessary to identify appropriate modifications
to Measure Y for voter approval
Complete by June 2022
(2) Prepare ballot measure language and
obtain City Council approval for placement of
modifications on the ballot for the November
2022 general election.

Complete by August 2022
(3) Inclusion of the proposed measure on the
Ballot of Local Election.

Complete by November 8, 2022
(4) Creation and adoption of an inclusionary
housing ordinance. Measure Y exempts
affordable housing proposals required by state
or federal law. A City Council- approved
inclusionary housing ordinance provides an
opportunity to address affordable housing
needs City-wide.

Complete by December 2022
(5) Engage in a community planning and
visioning process. Prepare General Plan
amendments, rezones, and revisions to
existing specific plans, urban plans, and
overlays included as program actions
necessary to meet the City’s RHNA allocation
as identified within the Housing Element.

Complete appropriate technical studies and
CEQA compliance documents. Obtain City
Council approval.

Complete by June 2024

Page 12 of 15 ends

218
File #: 21-530 Meeting Date: 1/18/2022

Complete by August 2022
(3) Inclusion of the proposed measure on the
Ballot of Local Election.

Complete appropriate technical studies and
CEQA compliance documents. Obtain City
Council approval.

Complete by June 2024
Timeframe: Within 36 months of adoption of the 2021
‐
2029 Housing Element Update
Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Planning Division
Funding Sources: In Kind, General Fund
The revised Housing Element Update responding to State HCD comments is provided as an attachment to this report. (The revisions that have been made since the HCD submitted draft are shown in underline/strikethrough format.)

HOUSING AD HOC COMMITTEE
In light of the State’scomments on Measure Y, the City Council Housing Ad Hoc Committee hosted a virtual community forum regarding Housing and Measure Y on January 11, 2022. The purpose of the meeting was to accept public input, better understand the purpose and challenges of Measure Y, and discuss a viable path forward for the City’sHousing Element and housing goals. Approximately, 55 individuals attended and 26 spoke. Speakers included affordable housing advocates, supporters of Measure Y, building industry representatives and housing developers, housing service providers, and others. The Ad Hoc Committee is considering public comments and may ultimately hold additional community meetings and/or make a recommendation to the City Council in the coming weeks.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Housing Element Update does not grant any development entitlements or authorize development beyond what is allowed under the City’scurrent General Plan and Zoning Code. Rather, it outlines a blueprint for how the City can plan to meet its RHNA allocation and ultimately comply with State Housing Element law. As part of future discretionary actions to implement the Housing Element, the City will process Zoning Code and Specific Plan amendments (e.g., revise overlays) to accommodate applicable changes in local standards to meet the City’sRHNA allocation. Certain City General Plan Elements may also require updating to ensure internal General Plan consistency.

When meaningful information is known and determined through the community visioning process related to adopting the aforementioned City land use plans (e.g., Zoning Code, Specific Plan, Urban Plans, and General Plan amendments), a detailed CEQA evaluation (likely an Environmental Impact Report) of these changes will occur. Specifically, the future CEQA analysis would analyze the net change in development capacity from current land use policies and zoning to the proposed higher

Page 13 of 15 ends

219
File #: 21-530 Meeting Date: 1/18/2022
change in development capacity from current land use policies and zoning to the proposed higher densities in the focus areas and corridors described in the Housing Element.

In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines, an Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) has been prepared to evaluate the potential environmental effects associated with the City of Costa Mesa 2021-2029 Housing Element update.

The IS/MND was circulated for public comments on October 29, 2021. The public comment period ended on November 29, 2021. Three comment letters were received and are provided as an attachment to this report.

The IS/MND includes a description of the Housing Element Update; programmatic high-level evaluation of the potential environmental impacts; the findings of the environmental analyses; and recommended standard conditions and mitigation measures to avoid/lessen potentially significant adverse impacts on the environment. Based on the conclusions of the environmental analysis, the City’s Housing Element update would have less than significant impact on the following environmental issue areas: Aesthetics, Agricultural and Forestry Resources, Air Quality, Energy, Geology, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Mineral Resources, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation, Utilities and Service Systems, and Wildfire. Additionally, the Housing Element update would have less than significant impacts with the implementation of mitigation measures in the areas of: Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Noise, and Tribal Cultural Resources.

NEXT STEPS
February 1, 2022 City Council Meeting - A public hearing will be scheduled to review the Planning Commission recommendation, consider public testimony, and adopt the Housing Element update and associated IS/MND.

February 11, 2022 - Pursuant to State Law, the City must adopt its Housing Element by this date to remain in compliance with housing laws. After City Council adoption, the Housing Element will be forwarded to HCD for their re-review/certification. City staff and our expert consultants believe that HCD comments have been appropriately addressed in the revised Housing Element Update. However, if HCD requires additional corrections, staff will bring the Housing Element to the Council for an update at that time. 2022 - 2029 - After State HCD Housing Element certification, Development Services staff will process for Planning Commission and City Council approval subsequent land use and zoning code amendments in compliance with Housing Element program implementation.

ALTERNATIVES:

No action will occur at this public hearing and therefore there are no suggested alternatives.

FISCAL REVIEW:

The adoption of the Housing Element will have no impact to the City’s General Fund.

Page 14 of 15 ends

220
File #: 21-530 Meeting Date: 1/18/2022
LEGAL REVIEW:

This report has been approved as to form by the City Attorney’s Office.

CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND PRIORITIES:

Diversify, stabilize and increase housing to reflect community needs.

CONCLUSION:

This report includes an introduction to the final stages of the update to the City’sSixth Cycle General Plan Housing Element. The City Council is being asked to receive a presentation from staff, take public comments, provide any feedback to staff, and continue the item to the February 1, 2022 City Council regular meeting.

Page 15 of 15 ends

221
C
ity of Costa Mesa
2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Initial Study and
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Prepared
for
City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa California 92626
Prepared
by
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
1100 West Town and Country Road,
Suite 700
Orange, California 92868
Date October 2021
ATTACHMENT 1
222

This page intentionally left blank.

223
Table of Contents

i Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................1

1.1 Purpose and Scope of the Initial Study .......................................................................................... 1

1.2 Summary of Findings ...................................................................................................................... 1

1.3 Initial Study Public Review Process ................................................................................................ 2

1.4 Report Organization ....................................................................................................................... 3

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .........................................................................................................5

2.1 Project Location.............................................................................................................................. 5

2.2 Environmental Setting .................................................................................................................... 5 Physical Setting ........................................................................................................................................ 5 Population .............................................................................................................................................. 11 Housing .................................................................................................................................................. 11 Candidate Housing Sites......................................................................................................................... 12 General Plan ........................................................................................................................................... 12 Zoning ..................................................................................................................................................... 14

2.3 Background................................................................................................................................... 15

2.4 Project Characteristics.................................................................................................................. 18

2.5 Discretionary and Ministerial Approvals ...................................................................................... 25

3.0 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST ................................................................................................... 27 Environmental Checklist ........................................................................................................................ 28

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ............................................................................................... 37

4.1 Aesthetics ..................................................................................................................................... 37

4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ............................................................................................. 41

4.3 Air Quality ..................................................................................................................................... 43

4.4 Biological Resources ..................................................................................................................... 53

4.5 Cultural Resources........................................................................................................................ 59

4.6 Energy ........................................................................................................................................... 63

4.7 Geology and Soils ......................................................................................................................... 65

4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions .......................................................................................................... 71

4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ................................................................................................ 75

4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ....................................................................................................... 80

4.11 Land Use and Planning ................................................................................................................. 86

4.12 Mineral Resources ........................................................................................................................ 87

4.13 Noise ............................................................................................................................................. 89

4.14 Population and Housing ............................................................................................................... 97 224
Table of Contents
i
i Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
I nitial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

4.15 Public Services .............................................................................................................................. 99

4.16 Recreation .................................................................................................................................. 103

4.17 Transportation ............................................................................................................................ 105

4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................... 109

4.19 Utilities and Service Systems ...................................................................................................... 113

4.20 Wildfire ....................................................................................................................................... 119

4.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance ........................................................................................... 121

5.0 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................... 123 List of Exhibits
Exhibit 2-1: Regional Vicinity Map ................................................................................................................ 7 E
xhibit 2-2: Candidate Housing Sites Map .................................................................................................... 9 List of Tables
Table 2-1: Population Growth Forecast, 2010-2040 ................................................................................... 11 Table 2-2: Housing Unit Growth Trends, 2010-2018 .................................................................................. 12 Table 2-3: Existing General Plan Land Use Designations ............................................................................ 13 Table 2-4: Existing Zoning ........................................................................................................................... 14 Table 2-5: Households by Income Category in Costa Mesa ........................................................................ 16 Table 2-6: RHNA Housing Needs Allocation ................................................................................................ 18 Table 2-7: Summary of RHNA Status and Sites Inventory (Housing Units) ................................................. 20 Table 4.3-1: State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards .................................................................. 44 Table 4.3-2: South Coast Air Quality Management District Emissions Thresholds .................................... 46 Table 4.5-1: Candidate Housing Sites on Properties Eligible for National Register Listing ........................ 59 Table 4.13-1: Noise Levels for Land Uses .................................................................................................... 90 Table 4.13-2: Maximum Noise Levels Generated by Construction Equipment .......................................... 91 Table 4.13-3: Typical Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment .......................................................... 93 Table 4.15-1 School Capacity .................................................................................................................... 101 Table 4.19-1:Wastewater Capacity of OCSD Plants .................................................................................. 116 Appendices
A. Native American Tribal Consultation Correspondence
B. Candidate Housing Sites Inventory
225
Section 1.0
Introduction

1 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose and Scope of the Initial Study
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (California Public Resources Code [PRC] §21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations [CCR], Title 14, §15000 et seq.), this Initial Study has been prepared to evaluate the potential environmental effects associated with the City of Costa Mesa 2021-2029 Housing Element Update (project or proposed project), which represents the City of Costa Mesa ’s policy program for the 2021 -2029 6 th Cycle planning period.

The Housing Element is one of state-mandated General Plan elements and is included in the City of Costa Mesa 2015-2035 General Plan. The purpose of the Housing Element is to identify and plan for the City’s existing and projected housing needs.

This Initial Study includes a description of the proposed project; an evaluation of the project’s potential environmental impacts; the findings of the environmental analyses; and recommended standard conditions and mitigation measures to avoid/ lessen the project’s sign ificant adverse impacts on the environment. For purposes of CEQA review and compliance, the City of Costa Mesa (City) serves as the Lead Agency. In accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines, the City has the authority for environmental review and certification of the environmental documentation.

This Initial Study has evaluated each of the environmental issue areas contained in the checklist provided in Section 3.0: Environmental Checklist. It provides decision -makers and the public with information concerning the potential environmental effects associated with the project implementation, and potential ways to reduce or avoid the potential environmental impacts. This Initial Study is intended to be used as a decision -making tool for the City in considering and taking action on the proposed project. Any responsible agency may elect to use this environmental analysis for discretionary actions associated with the project implementation.

In e ach planning cycle, the California Department of Housing and Community Development ( HCD) determines the regional housing needs assessment (RHNA) by income level for each region’s Council of Governments (COG). The Southern California Association of Government ( SCAG) is the COG for the six - county region of Orange, Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura, and Imperial counties. SCAG prepares the RHNA allocation for every city and county. The Housing Element is required to identify potential candidate housing sites by income category to meet the City’s RHNA allocation.

The proposed Housing Element Update (HEU) includes the City’s Housing Policy Plan, which addresses the City’s identified housing needs and includes goals, policies, and programs concerning ho using and housing-related services, as well as the City’s approach to addressing its share of the regional housing need for the 6
th Cycle planning period . The proposed project includes 99 candidate housing sites on 352 acres. The HEU would require a Genera l Plan Amendment. No other entitlements, such as zone changes, are proposed as a part of the project. Future zoning actions to implement specific programs in the HEU are required to be completed within three years of adoption of the HEU.

1.2 Summary of Findings
As set forth in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15070, a public agency can prepare or have prepared a n Initial Study leading to a Negative Declaration (IS/ND) or a Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for a project subject to CEQA when:
226
Section 1.0
Introduction

2 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
a) The initial study shows no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, or b) The initial study identifies potentially significant effects, but:
1) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by the applicant before the proposed mitigated negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant ef fects would occur, and
2) There is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment.

Based on the Environmental Checklist Form and supporting environmental an alysis completed for the proposed project, the project would have no impact or a less than significant impact on the following environmental issue areas: Aesthetics, Agricultural and Forestry Resources, Air Quality, Energy, Geology, Greenhouse Gas Emission s, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Mineral Resources, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation, Utilities and Service Systems, and Wildfire. The proposed project’s impacts on the following issue areas would be less than significant with the implementation of mitigation : Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Noise, and Tribal Cultural Resources. All impacts would be less than significant after mitigation.

1.3 Initial Study Public Review Process
The Notice of Intent (NOI) to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been provided to the County of Orange Clerk-Recorder and mailed to responsible agencies and others who expressed interest in being notified. A 30-day public review period has been established in accordance with Section 15073 of the State CEQA Guidelines. During the public review period, the Initial Study , including the technical appendices, can be accessed on the City’s website and is available for review at the loc ation identified below.
https://www.costamesaca.gov/city-hall/city-departments/development- services/planning/environmental-notices-and-reports
City of Costa Mesa, Development Services, Planning Division 77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa California 92626
(714) 754-5000
In reviewing the Initial Study, affected public agencies and interested members of the public should focus on the adequacy of the document in identifying and analyzing the potential environmental impacts and the ways in which the potentially significant effects of the project can be avoided or mitigated. Comments on the Initial Study and the analysis contained herein may be sent to:

Jennifer Le
Director of Economic and Development Services
City of Costa Mesa
Email: [email protected]
Phone: (714) 754-5617
227
Section 1.0
Introduction

3 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Comments sent via email should include the project title in the subject line and a valid mailing address in the email.

Following receipt and evaluation of comments, the City of Costa Mesa will determine whether any substantial new environmental issues have been raised. If so, further documentation may be required. If not or if the issues raised do not provide substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment, the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the project will be considered for adoption and approval, respectively.

1.4 Report Organization
This document has been organized into the following sections:

Section 1.0 – Introduction. This section provides an introduction and overview describing the conclusions of the Initial Study.

Section 2.0 – Project Description. This section identifies key project characteristics and includes discussion of the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update.

Section 3.0 – Initial Study Environmental Checklist and Evaluation. This section describes the environmental setting and evaluates the potential impacts that may result from project implementation.

Section 4.0 – References. The section identifies resources used to prepare the Initial Study.

228
Section 1.0
Introduction

4 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
This page intentionally left blank.

229
Section 2.0
Project Description

5 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 Project Location
The City of Costa Mesa (City) is located in northwest Orange County. The City is bordered by the cities of Huntington Beach to the west, the City of Santa Ana to the north, the City of Irvine to the east, and the City of Newport Beach to the south. The Pacific Ocean is approximately one mile south of the City. John Wayne Airport (JWA) is adjacent to the City’s eastern jurisdictional boundary with the City of Santa Ana.

Regional access to the City is provided by State Route 55 (SR -55) that traverses the City in a southwest- northeast direction and Interstate 405 (I-405) that runs in a west-east direction at the City’s jurisdictional boundary with the City of Santa Ana. SR-73, the San Joaquin Hills Toll Road, also provides regional access in the City, providing connections to SR-55 and I-405. Exhibit 2-1: Regional Vicinity Map depicts the City’s location in a regional context and local context.

This Initial Study considers 99 candidate housing sites (parcels) on approximately 352 acres w ithin the City’s boundaries; see Appendix B: Candidate Housing Sites Inventory. The project area and candidate housing site locations are illustrated on Exhibit 2-2: Candidate Housing Sites Map. Solely for analysis purposes, the candidate housing sites have been assigned a numeric label (Exhibit 2-2). Various candidate housing sites are located within the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan, SoBECA Urban Plan, Mesa West Bluff Urban Plan, 19 West Urban Plan, and Harbor Mixed Use Overlay (Exhibit 2-2).

2.2 Environmental Setting
Physical Setting
Costa Mesa is approximately 10,880 acres of land area or 17 square miles. The City is approximately 3 miles wide and 4.5 miles long.
1 As described above, Costa Mesa is bordered by the cities of Huntington Beach to the west, the City of Santa Ana to the north, the City of Irvine to the east, and City of Newport Beach to the south. The City’s topography ranges from approximately 80 to110 feet above mean sea level (amsl) in the southern portion of the City, and approximately 40 feet amsl in the north portion of the City.2 The Santa Ana River forms the City’s western boundary , and bisects Costa Mesa with the City of Huntington Beach.

The City is predominantly comprised of residential land uses, with other notable land uses including major commercial uses along Harbor Boulevard, The Camp and The Lab, SOCO and the OC Mix, and South Coast Plaza. The South Coast Metro area includes South Coast Plaza, major office buildings, residential uses, and theater and arts uses including the South Coast Repertory and Orange County Museum of Art. I ndustrial areas are primarily located in the western part of the City . Major institutional and cultural land uses include the Orange County Fairgrounds, Orange Coast College, Vanguard University, and the Segerstrom Center for the Arts.

1 City of Costa Mesa. Available at https://www.costamesaca.gov/about/history. Accessed on August 26, 2021. 2 City of Costa Mesa Chapter 8 Safety Element, page S-3 230
Section 2.0
Project Description

6 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
This page intentionally left blank.

231
EXHIBIT 2-1: Regional Vicinity Map
Costa Mesa Housing Element Update IS/MND
LEGEND
City Boundary
± 0 1 20.5 Miles
Regional Vicinity Map
John WayneJohn Wayne
AirportAirport
Newport Newport
Back BayBack Bay
Pacific OceanPacific Ocean
Santa Ana RiverSanta Ana River
Newport Newport
BeachBeach
Santa AnaSanta Ana
Fountain Fountain
ValleyValley
HuntingtonHuntington
BeachBeach
Costa MesaCosta Mesa
232
Section 2.0
Project Description

8 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

This page intentionally left blank.

233
EXHIBIT 2-2: Candidate Housing Sites
Costa Mesa Housing Element Update IS/MND
196
134
142
132 133
146 147131
139
145
202
144
199 197
188
208 179
181 193
182
183
184
191
187
177
185
186 190
176
189
178
180
43 136
203
41 42
44 40
45 38
54 66
67 195194
5657
68 74 53
69 58
70 59
71 6163
62 72 64
65 12
200
14 204
198
137
100
10 11
13 78 96
75 76
77 79 17
97 98
99 16
18 19
22 20
21 23
24 138
206
207
52 39
204
141
205 140
201

SUPERIOR AVE

BEAR ST

VANGUARD WAY
SB73 FY
SUSAN
ST
NB73 FY
W
19TH ST

SUNFLOW
ER AVE
SB405 FY

DEL MAR AVE
NB405 FY
23RD ST
OLD

NEWPORT BLVD

NATIONAL AVE

WIMBLEDON WAY

SANTA ANA AVE

CANYON DR

PACIFIC AVE

RAYMOND AVE
NB405

FY RAMP TO
SB55 FY

TANAGER DR

CLUB HOUSE RD

E WILSON ST
W

PAULARIN
O AVE
W
AKE

FOREST RD
VIC
TORIA
ST

W BAY ST

AVENUE OF
THE
ARTS

MESA VERDE DR E

JOANN ST

TUSTIN AVE
SB405 FY
HOV TO
NB55 FY

YUKON AVE

SANTA ISABEL AVE
WATSON
AVE
W

BAKER ST

KILLYBROOKE LN

VILLANOVA RD

ANDROS ST
PRESID
IO
DR

JUNIPERO DR

MONROVIA
AVE

MONTE VISTA AVE

ORANGE AVE

DRAKE AVE
SAM
AR DR

BUCKNELL RD
M

ISSION DR

PLACENTIA AVE

CALIFORNIA
ST

CONWAY AVE

LABRADOR DR

FEDERAL AVE

MEYER PL
MAPLE
AVE
PRIN

CETON DR
OAK ST

VICTORIA

FRONTAGE RD

BALEARIC DR

COLLEGE AVE

NEWPORT BLVD
EL CAM
IN
O DR
E 20TH ST

PLACENTIA AVE
SB55 FY

FULLERTON AVE

CHEYENNE ST

WESTMINSTER AVE

ARBOR ST

HYLAND AVE
TAHITI
DR
W
W

ILSON ST
SW
AN DR

ANAHEIM
AVE

ROYAL PALM DR

MESA DR

HANOVER DR
NB55 FY

ELDEN AVE

E PAULARINO AVE

VICTORIA ST
FAIR
DR

SOUTH COAST DR
SCENIC
AVE

ALBERT PL

CADILLAC AVE
W

PAULARIN
O AVE

WHITTIER AVE
IO
W
A ST

PULLMAN ST
21ST ST

CORONADO
DR

SANTA ANA AVE

FORDHAM DR

AVOCADO ST

PULLMAN ST
HAM

ILTON ST

MACARTHUR BLVD

BRISTOL ST

E BAKER ST

COUNTRY CLUB DR
W
17TH ST

MESA VERDE DR W

CABRILLO ST

ANTON BLVD

WALNUT ST

OGLE ST

POMONA AVE
E 19TH ST

BROADWAY
E 17TH ST

FLOWER ST
W
18TH ST

VIRGINIA PL
16TH PL

COSTA MESA ST

MAGNOLIA ST
E 18TH ST
E 16TH ST

SUNFLOW
ER AVE
KALM
US DR
22ND ST

RED HILL AVE

SONORA RD
NEW
HAM

PSHIRE DR

CECIL PL

GIBRALTAR AVE

DARRELL ST
ARLIN

GTON DR

STERLING AVE

NEWPORT BLVD

AIRWAY AVE

N SHELLEY CIR
ADAM
S AVE

HARBOR BLVD
JOANN
ST

MENDOZA DR

CONGRESS ST

FISCHER AVE

MADEIRA AVE

JAVA RD

PALACE AVE

WALLACE AVE

NEWPORT BLVD

ORIOLE DR

FAIRVIEW RD
GIS

LER AVE

CHARLE ST

MANISTEE DR

TRAVERSE DR

LOGAN AVE
SB405 FY

FAIRVIEW
ON RAM
P
NB73

FY BAKER

OFF RAMP

ENCLAVE CIR
SB55 FY

PAULARINO

OFF RAMP
NB405 FY HARBOR OFF
NB73 FY RAMP TO
NB55 FY
NB55 FY
RAMP
TO SB405 FY
NB55 FY RAMP
TO NB73 FY
SB405 FY
RAM
P TO
SB73 FY
M
ERRIM
AC W
AY
NB405 FY

FAIRVIEW
ON RAM
P
SB55 FY RAMP TO SB405 FY
SB55 FY

BRISTOL OFF
RAM
P
SB55 FY

RAMP TO
SB73 FY
LEGEND
City Boundary
Specific Plan
19 West
Fairview Developmental
Harbor Mixed-Use
Mesa West
North Costa Mesa - HR
North Costa Mesa - SL2
North Costa Mesa
SoBECA
± 0 1 20.5 Miles
Sites Inventory
234
Section 2.0
Project Description

10 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
This page intentionally left blank.

235
Section 2.0
Project Description

11 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Population
The 2010 Census estimated Costa Mesa’s population to be 109,960 persons.3 The City’s population (as of January 2021) is 114,778 persons.4 From 2010 to 2021, the City’s population increased by approximately

4.5 percent (4,818 persons). According to the Southern California Association of Governments ( SCAG) 2016 – 2040 Regional Growth Forecast, the City’s population is forecast to grow to approximately 123,700 persons by 2040. Therefore, Costa Mesa is projected to have an average annual growth of approximately

1.4 percent (1,622 persons) between 2021 and 2040. Costa Mesa’s population growth is lower than many of the surrounding cities in the Orange County. Table 2 -1: Population Growth (2010 – 2040) shows the projected growth for Costa Mesa compared with the nearby cities of Newport Beach, Irvine, Santa Ana and Huntington Beach, and with the County of Orange.

Housing
The U.S. Census 2018 American Community Survey estimated Costa Mesa’s housing stock was 42,867 units in 2010. The City’s current housing stock inventory (as of January 2021) is 43,658 units.5 From 2010 to 2018, the City’s housing stock increased 1,233 units, or 0.6 percent, to approximately 43,100 units.

According to the SCAG 2016 – 2040 Regional Growth Forecast, the City’s housing stock is forecast to grow to approximately 42,500 households by 2040. Therefore, Costa Mesa has exceeded the SCAG forecast for housing units by approximately 1,158 units, or 2.7 percent. Table 2 -2: Housing Unit Growth Trends (2012-2018) identifies the household growth for Costa Mesa and surrounding cities.

As shown in Table 2-2, most of the nearby cities’ household experienced a higher growth rate than Costa Mesa from 2010 to 2015 and from 2015 to 2018. Between 2015 and 2018, Costa Mesa’s housing stock had grown by 0.2 percent, or 70 units, which was the lowest percent increase compared to surrounding jurisdictions from the same period. For example, the City of Irvine’s housing stock grew by 10.3 percent, or 9,496 units, from 2015 to 2018. However, and as indicated above, Costa Mesa continues to exceed the

3 United States Census Bureau. (2010). QuickFacts Costa Mesa City, California, Available at:
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/costamesacitycalifornia/POP010210, Accessed on October 26, 2021. 4 City of Costa Mesa. (2021). Community Economic Profile. Available at https://www.costamesaca.gov/Home/ShowDocument?id=26063. 5 California Department of Finance, Table E-5 - City/County Population and Housing Estimates 1/2021, Accessed July 27, 2021.

Table 2-1: Population Growth Forecast, 2010-2040
Jurisdictions
Population Percent Change
2010
Actual
2012
Projected
2020
Projected
2035
Projected
2040
Projected 2010-2020 2020-2040
Newport Beach 85,186 86,300 89,300 92,300 92,700 4.8% 3.8% Costa Mesa 109,960 111,200 113,900 116,500 117,400 3.6% 2.2% Irvine 212,375 227,100 296,300 326,700 327,300 39.5% 10.5% Santa Ana 324,528 329,200 340,600 343,400 343,100 5.0% 0.7% Huntington
Beach 189,992 193,200 203,800 207,300 207,100 7.3% 1.6% Orange County 3,010,232 3,072,000 3,271,000 3,431,000 3,461,000 8.7% 5.8% Sources: Bureau of the Census (2010) and SCAG 2016-2040 Regional Growth Forecast by Jurisdiction Report. 236
Section 2.0
Project Description

12 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
SCAG Regional Housing Growth Forecast and the development and entitlement of various housing types in the City continues.

Table 2-2: Housing Unit Growth Trends, 2010-2018
Jurisdiction 2010 2015 2018
Percent Change
2010 to 2015
Percent Change
2015 to 2018
Newport Beach 43,503 43,690 44,801 0.4% 2.5%
Costa Mesa 42,867 43,030 43,100 0.4% 0.2%
Irvine 76,184 91,938 101,434 20.7% 10.3%
Santa Ana 77,796 77,192 78,597 -0.8% 1.8%
Huntington Beach 79,166 78,252 81,396 -1.2% 4.0%
Orange County 1,042,254 1,064,642 1,091,376 2.1% 2.5%
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2010, 2015, and 2018.

Candidate Housing Sites
SCAG prepares and identifies the RHNA allocation for local jurisdiction s. For the 2021- 2029 6th Cycle planning period, the City of Costa Mesa’s RHNA allocation is 11,760 housing units. The Housing Element is required to identify potential candidate housing sites by income category to meet the City’s RHNA allocation. The sites identified in the HEU represent the City’s plan for housing at the designated income levels within the 6 th Cycle planning period. The candidate housing site inventory in Appendix B of this Initial Study provides a development capacity breakdown and other land use details for the 99 candidate housing sites. Of the 99 candidate housing sites, only 3 of these sites are vacant and undeveloped (or approximately 64 acres out of the 352 acres). 6 All of the vacant sites are in the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan area and are zoned PDC (Planned Development Commercial) which allows for residential uses. There are 5 existing housing units on the 99 candidate housing sites.

General Plan
The City of Costa Mesa 2015-2035 General Plan (General Plan) was adopted in 2015. It provides the City’s long-range planning goals and policies for development within the City. The General Plan is the City’s vision for growth to 2035. General Plan Chapters 2 through 11 include the following General Plan Elements: Land Use, Circulation, Growth Management, Housing, Conservation, Noise, Safety. Community Design, Open Space and Recreation, and Historic and Cultural Resources.

The Land Use Element describes the City’s existing land use characteristics and development patterns and establishes a plan for future development and redevelop ment. The existing General Plan land use designation for each of the candidate housing sites is identified in Appendix B and described in Table 2-3:

Existing General Plan Land Use Designations.

6 Vacant sites are defined as sites that have little to no improvements and mainly untouched by the HCD Housing Element Sites Inventory Guidebook. (2020). Available at: https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing- element/docs/sites_inventory_memo_final06102020.pdf. pp. 22. 237
Section 2.0
Project Description

13 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Table 2-3: Existing General Plan Land Use Designations
Land Use Designation Description
Commercial Center The Commercial Center designation is intended for large areas with a concentration of diverse or intense commercial uses serving local and regional needs. Appropriate uses include a wide variety and scale of retail stores, professional offices, restaurants, hotels, and theaters. Intense service uses, such as automobile repair and service, should be discouraged.

Commercial Residential It is the intent of this land use design ation to allow a complementary mix of commercial and residential zoning along Newport Boulevard. It is anticipated that individual parcels will be developed as either a commercial or residential use.

Cultural Arts Center The Cultural Arts Center designati on allows intensely developed mixed commercial and cultural uses within a limited area. The intended uses within this designation include mid - to high -rise offices, hotels, restaurants, retail, and cultural uses (theater, art museum or academy, etc.), as w ell as mid- to high-rise residential units in limited areas that are defined in the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan. It serves as the cultural center of the community and provides a focus to the arts-related uses, with the complement of nearby employment an d shopping
opportunities.

General Commercial The General Commercial designation is intended to permit a wide range of commercial uses that serve both local and regional needs. Appropriate uses include those found in the Neighborhood Commercial designation , plus smaller retail stores, theaters, restaurants, hotels and motels, and automobile sales and service establishments.

Golf Course Three golf courses are located within the City’s planning area. Because of the large area devoted to open space, the building intensity for this designation is 0.01 FAR.

High Density Residential Areas designated as High -Density Residential are intended for residential development with a density of up to 20 units to the acre with some exceptions.

Density bonuses shall be granted by the City when a project is designed to provide housing for individuals and families with specialized requirements (e.g., senior citizens, disabled, very -low, low-income, and moderate- income households with needs not sufficiently accommodated by conventional housing) or provide other facilities or land as required by State law. The City may also grant additional incentives or concessions pursuant to State law.

Medium Density Residential The Medium -Density Residential designation is intended to s upport single -and multi-family developments with a density of up to 12 units to the acre. The 12 units to the acre standard can be exceeded for legal, nonconforming Medium - Density Residential lots between 6,000 and 7,260 square feet in size that existed as of March 16, 1992.

Low Density Residential Low-Density Residential areas are intended to accommodate detached single - family residences. Low- Density Residential areas are intended to accommodate outdoor living activities (front yards and backyards) in ope n space adjacent to dwellings.

Industrial Park The Industrial Park designation is intended to apply to large districts that contain a variety of industrial and compatible office and support commercial uses.

Industrial parks are characterized by large parc els and landscaped setbacks that create a campus-like environment.

Light Industrial The Light Industry designation applies to areas intended for a variety of light and general industrial uses. Uses are limited to small manufacturing and service 238
Section 2.0
Project Description

14 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Table 2-3: Existing General Plan Land Use Designations
Land Use Designation Description
industries, as well as larger industrial operations that can demonstrate design features or restricted operations that limit disruptions to surrounding uses.

Public/Institutional The Public/Institutional designation applies to both publicly and privately owned land that provides recreation, open space, health, and educational opportunities, as well as uses that provide a service to the public.

Regional Commercial The Regional Commercial designation is intended to apply to large, concentrated shopping centers of regional scale and importance. The intended uses within this designation include major department stores, specialty retail outlets, restaurants, offices, hotels, and other complementary uses.

Urban Commercial Center The Urban Center Commercial designation is intended to allow high -intensity mixed-use commercial development within a limited a rea. Developments within this designation can range from one - and two-story office and retail buildings to mid- and high- rise buildings of four to approximately 25 stories, provided the maximum building height set forth in the North Costa Mesa Specific Pla n is not exceeded. Appropriate uses include offices, retail shops, restaurants, residential, and hotels.

Source: City of Costa Mesa. (2015). City of Costa Mesa General Plan Land Use Element Land Use Designations, Available at http://ftp.costamesaca.gov/costamesaca/generalplan2015-2035/adopted/02_FinalDraftLandUseElement_02-2016.pdf, Accessed August 30, 2021.

Zoning
The City’s Zoning Code can be found in the City of Costa Mesa Municipal Code (CMMC) Title 13. The Zoning Code’s purpose is to establish permitted land uses and development standards for each zone. It also is intended to implement General Plan goals and objectives; guide and manage development within the City in accordance with the General Plan ; as well as reduce hazards to the public resulting from the inappropriate location, use, or design of buildings and other improvements. The existing zoning for each of the candidate housing sites is identified in Appendix B to this Initial Study and described in Table 2-4:

Existing Zoning.

Table 2-4: Existing Zoning
Zone Description
C1 Local Business District
This district is intended to meet the local business needs of the community by providing a wide range of goods and services in a variety of locations throughout the city. The permitted and conditional uses as well as development standards are aimed toward reducing impacts on surrounding properties especially in those areas where residential uses are in the vicinity.

C2 General Business District
This district is intended to provide for those uses which offer a wide range of goods and services which are generally less compatible with more sensitive land uses of a residential or institutional nature.

CL Commercial Limited
District
This district is intended for unique areas of land which, due to the proximity of residential development or the potential for traffic circulation hazards, require special precautions to be taken to assure appropriate development. The district is also intended for industrial areas where commercial uses must be considered according to their compatibility with existing or permitted industrial uses. 239
Section 2.0
Project Description

15 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Table 2-4: Existing Zoning
Zone Description
I & R Institutional and
Recreational District
This district is intended to allow land uses which provide recreation , open space, health and public service uses. Development in this designation may occur on either public or private property.

MG General Industrial
This district is intended for a variety of industrial areas which contain a wide range of light and general industrial activities. Development standards and the approval of conditional uses shall be aimed toward eliminating possible hazards to adjoining properties, especially in those areas where residential uses are in the vicinity.

MP Industrial Park This district is intended for large, concentrated industrial areas where the aim of development is to create a spacious environment in a park-like setting.

PDC Planned Development
Commercial
This district is intended for retail shops, offices and service establi shments, including but not limited to, hotels, restaurants, theaters, museums, financial institutions, and health clubs. These uses are intended to serve adjacent residential areas, as well as the entire community and region. Complementary residential uses could also be included in the planned development.

PDI Planned Development
Industrial
This district is intended for large, concentrated industrial areas where the aim of development is to create a spacious environment in a park-like setting.

R1 Single-Family Residential
District
This district is intended to promote the development of single -family detached units located on lots with a minimum lot size of six thousand (6,000) square feet, and a maximum density of 7.26 dwelling units per gross acre.

R2-HD Multiple-Family
Residential District, High
Density
This district is intended to promote the development of multi-family rental as well as ownership dwelling units on lots with a minimum size of twelve thousand (12,000) square feet. The maximum den sity allowed is three thousand (3,000) square feet per dwelling unit, which equals 14.52 dwelling units per gross acre.

R2-MD Multiple-Family
Residential District, Medium
Density
This district is intended to promote the development of multi-family rental as well as ownership properties on lots with a minimum size of twelve thousand (12,000) square feet. The maximum density allowed is three thousand six hundred thirty (3,630) square feet per dwelling unit, which equals twelve (12) dwelling units per gross acre. Legal lots existing as of March 16, 1992 with a minimum lot area of six thousand (6,000) square feet up to seven thousand two hundred sixty (7,260) square feet are allowed two (2) dwelling units.

TC Town Center District
This district is intended to a llow intensely developed mixed commercial and residential uses within a very limited geographical area bounded by Sunflower Avenue to the north, 1-405 to the south, Bristol Street to the west, and Avenue of the Arts to the east. Developments within this designation can range from one - and two-story office and retail buildings to mid- and high-rise buildings.

Source: City of Costa Mesa. City of Costa Mesa Municipal Code Title 13. Available at http://qcode.us/codes/costamesa/view.php?topic=13-ii-13_20&frames=on. Accessed August 3, 2021.

2.3 Background
State Policy and Authorization
California State Housing Eleme nt Law (California Government Code Article 10.6) establishes the requirements for Housing Elements. California Government Code Section 65588 requires that local governments review and revise the Housing Element of their comprehensive General Plans not less than once every eight years. Additionally, the California Legislature identifies overall housing goals for the state to ensure every resident has access to housing and a suitable living environment. 240
Section 2.0
Project Description

16 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Housing Element
California Government Code Article 10.6 and Section 65588 requires all cities and counties to adopt a Housing Element as part of their respective General Plan s. The Housing Element provides an analysis of the city’s current demographic, economic, and housing characteristics and establishes objectives, policies, and programs addressing community housing conditions and needs. The Housing Element is a comprehensive statement by the City of its current and future housing needs and a listing of proposed actions to facilitate the provision of housing to meet those needs. The proposed Housing Element would update the previous 5
th Cycle Housing Element and provide a program for the 2021 -2029 6th Cycle. The proposed 6th Cycle Housing Element Update (HEU) , in compliance with State regulations, proposes an update to the current Housing Element to incorporate goals, policies, and programs to support housing development throughout the City of Costa Mesa.

Household Income
The California State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has identified the following income categories based on the Area Median Income (AMI) of Orange County:
 Very Low-income: households earning up to 50 percent of the AMI  Low-income: households earning between 51 and 80 percent of the AMI  Moderate Income: households earning between 81 percent and 120 percent of the AMI  Above Moderate Income: households earning above 120 percent of the AMI State law also defines extremely low-income as households earning less than 30 percent of the AMI and
are considered a subset of the very low -income category. Combined, the extremely low, very low, and low-income groups are referred to as lower income.7
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) estimates are based on the 2013-2017 American Community Survey. As identified in Table 2-5: Households by Income Category in Costa Mesa , approximately 52.8 percent of Costa Mesa households earned moderate or above moderate incomes, while 29 percent of households had incomes in the extremely low, very low, and low-income levels.

Table 2-5: Households by Income Category in Costa Mesa
Income Category (% of County AMI) Households Percent
Extremely Low (30% AMI or less) 6,610 16.3%
Very Low (31 to 50% AMI) 5,220 12.9%
Low (51 to 80% AMI) 7,325 18.1%
Moderate or Above (over 80% AMI) 21,405 52.8%
Total 40,555 100%
Source: Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), 2013-2017.

7 Federal housing and community development programs typically assist households with incomes up to 80 percent of the AMI and use different terminology. For example, the Federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program refers households with incomes between 51 and 80 percent AMI as moderate income (compared to low-income based on State definition).
241
Section 2.0
Project Description

17 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA)
As previously noted, California Government Code Section 65583 sets forth the specific content requirements of a jurisdiction’s Housing Element. Included in these requirements are obligations on the part of local jurisdictions to provide their “fair share” of regional housing needs. Local governments and Councils of Governments (COGs) are required to determine existing and future housing needs (RHNA) and the allocation of this need must be approved by HCD.

The City is a member agency of SCAG, who is responsible for preparing the RHNA for all jurisdictions within the SCAG region and therefore acts as the COG for Orange County. The RHNA is mandated by State Housing Law as part of the periodic process of updating local General Plan Housing Elements. 8 SCAG quantifies the housing need in each jurisdiction for all economic segments o f the community (known as RHNA allocation plan) in four income categories: very low, low, moderate, and above moderate.

Per California Government Code Section 65584(d), the RHNA allocation plan determines existing and projected housing need with the following objectives:
 Increasing the housing supply and the mix of housing types, tenure, and affordability in all cities and counties within the region in an equitable manner, which shall result in each jurisdiction receiving an allocation of units for low- and very low-income households.  Promoting infill development and socioeconomic equity, the protection of environmental and agricultural resources, the encouragement of efficient development patterns, and the achievement of the region’s greenhouse gas reductions targets provided by the State Air Resources Board pursuant to California Government Code Section 65080.  Promoting an improved intraregional relationship between jobs and housing, including an improved balance between the number of low -wage jobs an d the number of housing units affordable to low-wage workers in each jurisdiction.
 Allocating a lower proportion of housing need to an income category when a jurisdiction already has a disproportionately high share of households in that income category, as compared to the countywide distribution of households in that category from the most recent American Community Survey.
 Affirmatively furthering fair housing.

Each jurisdiction must demonstrate in its Housing Element that it can accommodate its RHNA allocation at all income levels. The California Department of Finance ’s (DOF) population estimates and RHNA are also used for regional transportation planning purposes. Senate Bill (SB) 375 integrates RHNA with SCAG’s Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Susta inable Communities Strategy (SCS). In the past, the RHNA was undertaken independently from the RTP. However, in 2008, the California Legislature passed SB 375 as the land use and transportation planning component of the State’s effort to reduce vehicle mil es traveled (VMT) to achieve the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill [AB] 32) GHG emission reductions. AB 32 recognizes the importance of planning for housing and land use in creating sustainable communities where residents of all income le vels have access to jobs, services, and housing by using transit, walking, or bicycling.

8 Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). What is RHNA? Available at https://scag.ca.gov/rhna. Accessed on August 10, 2021
242
Section 2.0
Project Description

18 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
RHNA Allocation
The 6th Cycle RHNA allocates housing need based on future estimates of housing unit growth need over the planning period of 2021-2029. The RHNA allocation plan identifies the projected number of housing units that will be needed to accommodate estimated future growth need during the planning period at specified levels of affordability. On March 4, 2021, SCAG adopted the final RHNA allocations and distributed the RHNA allocation to all local jurisdictions. Table 2 -6: RHNA Housing Needs Allocation breaks down the City’s regional share of housing units by income category. The City’s projected housing need for the 6
th Cycle planning period is 11,760 housing units, including 2,919 very low-income units and 1,794 low-income units.

Table 2-6: RHNA Housing Needs Allocation
Income Level
% of Median Family
Income (MFI)1
Income Range1 RHNA Allocation
(Housing Units) Min. Max.

Very Low Income 0-50% $0 $51,500 2,919
Low Income 51-80% $51,501 $82,400 1,794
Moderate Income 81-120% $82,401 $123,600 2,088
Above Moderate Income >120% $123,601 >$123,601 4,959
Total 11,760

1. Income Range is based on the 2020 HUD Median Family Income (MFI) for County of Orange of $103,000.

In accordance with State Housing Law, local governments must be accountable for ensuring that projected housing needs can be fully accommodated at all times during the Housing Element planning period. The HEU provides a framework for evaluating the adequacy of local zoning and regulatory actions to ensure each local government is providing sufficient appropriately designated land use throughout the planning period. The Housing Element must identify and analyze the City’s housing needs and establish reasonable goals, objectives, and policies to achieve those needs. The HEU must also identify candidate housing sites with the potential to accommodate housing at h igher densities to meet the City’s assigned low -income RHNA (extremely low, very low and low-income) category need.

2.4 Project Characteristics
The City is proposing the 6 th Cycle Housing Element (2021 –2029 planning period) a s a comprehensive update to the City’s 5th Cycle 2014-2021 Housing Element. The HEU includes the City’s Housing Policy Plan, which addresses the City’s identified housing needs, and includes goals, policies, and programs concerning housing and housing-related services, as well as the City’s approach to addressing its share of the regional housing need.

The draft 2021-2029 Housing Element has four chapters and four appendices:
 Chapter 1 - Introduction: The Introduction contains a summary of the content, organization, and statutory considerations of the Housing Element.
 Chapter 2 – Community Profile : The Community Profile contains an analysis of the City’s population, household and employment base, and characteristics of the housing stock.  Chapter 3 – Housing Constraints, Resources, and Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing : The Housing Constraints and Resources examine governmental and non-governmental constraints on 243
Section 2.0
Project Description

19 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
the production, maintenance, and affordability of housing and provides a summary of housing resources, including sites identification, funding and financial considerations, and an analysis of fair housing.
 Chapter 4 – Housing Plan: The Housing Policy Plan addresses Costa Mesa’s identified housing needs, including housing goals, policies, and programs.  Appendix A: Appendix A reviews the implementation of housing programs and st rategies proposed in the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update.
 Appendix B: Appendix B contains an analysis of each selected candidate housing site as well as an analysis of strategies that can be implemented in order for the City to achieve the RHNA.  Appendix C: Appendix C contains a description of community engagement throughout the Housing Element Update process.
 Appendix D: Appendix D contains a glossary of terms used in the Housing Element Update.

Candidate Housing Sites Inventory
To demonstrate the availability of sites to accommodate the 2021 -2029 RHNA allocation, the City prepared a parcel- specific “land inventory” that takes into consideration land availability, zoning and development standards, and infrastructure to accommodate this allocation. Provided in Appendix B of the draft Housing Element Update, the inve ntory includes sites capable of accommodating the RHNA allocation pursuant to State guidance, without the need for any changes to land use designations.

These candidate housing sites include those that have been or will be constructed or issued permits during the 2021-2029 planning period, sites with existing residential zoning capacity, and sites to be rezoned in the future as part of the Housing Element’s policy program; see Table 2-7: Summary of RHNA Status and Sites Inventory. As shown in the table, the City’s total potential development capacity is approximately 17,531 housing units, which would exceed the City’s RHNA allocation of 11,760 housing units by 5,771 units (or approximately 149 percent over the RHNA allocation). A sufficient buffer is ident ified to accommodate the RHNA during the entire planning period given the requirements of the “no net loss” statute pursuant to Senate Bill 330.

The table identifies the City’s 6th Cycle RHNA need by income category and candidate site to meet the need. The analysis demonstrates that Costa Mesa has the capacity to meet their 6th Cycle RHNA allocation through the following methods:
 Identification of development capacity in entitled overlays, Specific Plans, and urban plan areas.  Identification of development capacity on sites which permit residential development at or above 30 dwelling units per acre (du/ac).
 Identification of entitled/approved projects that do not have Certificates of Occupancy.  Future development of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) assumptions using SCAG/HCD approved methodologies.
244
Section 2.0
Project Description

20 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Table 2-7: Summary of RHNA Status and Sites Inventory (Housing Units)

Very Low
Income Low Income
Moderate
Income*
Above Moderate
Income Total
RHNA (2021-2029) 2,919 1,794 2,088 4,959 11,760
Units Constructed in Projection
Period (Begins June 31, 2021) 0 0 0 0 0
Remaining Unmet RHNA 2,919 1,794 2,088 4,959 11,760
Sites Inventory
Fairview Developmental Center 575 345 690 690 2,300
Sakioka Lot 2 120 60 120 900 1,200
Home Ranch 221 110 221 1,663 2,215
Senior Center Housing Project 40 20 0 0 60
Pacific Arts Plaza and Town
Center 53 27 53 402 535
Total Potential Capacity -
Existing Sites 1,009 562 1,084 3,655 6,310
Overlays, Specific Plans, and Urban Plans
North Costa Mesa Specific Plan 1,269 632 1,269 3,265 6,435 SoBECA Urban Plan 141 67 141 383 732
Mesa West Bluff Urban Plan 208 100 208 555 1,071
19 West Urban Plan 123 59 123 335 640
Harbor Mixed Use Overlay 286 135 286 778 1,485
Total Potential Capacity -
Overlays, Specific Plans, and
Urban Plans
2,027 993 2,027 5,316 10,363
Projected ADU Construction
Projected ADU Construction 215 369 257 17 858
Sites Inventory Total
Total Units towards RHNA 3,251 1,924 3,368 8,988 17,531 Total Capacity Over RHNA
Categories 111% 107% 161% 181% 149%

The candidate housing site inventory provides a breakdown of the potential 17,531 housing units from the 99 candidate housing sites, which are comprised of 99 potential buildable parcels totaling approximately 352 acres (see Appendix B to this Initial Stud y). The HEU identifies potential candidate housing sites by income category to meet the City’s RHNA a llocation; see Appendix B for further details.

The City demonstrates the capacity to accommodate up to 17,531 candidate housing sites through existing capacity or future amend ments per Housing Programs 3B and 3C to permit residential development at the densities specified in HEU Appendix B, Table B- 3. The candidate housing sites are either residentially zoned or within areas of opportunity identified by the City with supporting strategies to stimulate future housing growth. Each site’s development capacity depends on permitted density and site-specific factors . Exhibit 2 -2 depicts the candidate housing sites identified for future housing development, as facilitated by project implementation.
245
Section 2.0
Project Description

21 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
All candidate sites were evaluated based on surrounding and existing on-site development to determine the extent to which existing, established uses have the likelihood to redevelop during the 2021 -2029 planning period.

As discussed above, to accommodate their RHNA allocation, the City has identified candidate sites that yield 17,531 potential housing units within the City, which exceeds the total required RHNA growth need of 11,760 housing units and result in a surplus of 5,771 housing units or 149 percent (Table 2-7). As shown in the table, no units have been constructed and/or permits have been issued. As also shown in the table, 6,310 housing units would be provided through existing zoning, which inclu des 858 Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), as well as through entitled Specific Plans, Overlays, and Urban plans (10,363 units).

The environmental analysis in this Initial Study is limited to the City’s housing policy and program of actions to support the C ity’s compliance with State H ousing regulations. Therefore, this Initial Study evaluates changes from the proposed revisions to existing Specific Plans, Urban Plans, and Overlays (North Costa Mesa Specific Plan, 19 West Specific Plan, SoBECA Urban Plan, Mesa West Bluff Urban Plan, Residential Ownership Urban Plan (Propose to Remove), Residential Incentive Overlay, and Harbor Mixed-Use Overlay) at a programmatic and policy level and does not evaluate future site -specific development on the candidate housing sites. Amendments to the Specific Plans, Urban Plans, and Overlays would permit residential development at a higher density than what the current zoning permits as of adoption of this document. Implementation of the revisions is a future action that will be evaluated in subsequent CEQA analysis.

All the candidate housing sites in the inventory with a capacity to accommodate very low -/low-income units meet the criteria set forth by AB 1397 (or pursuant to State guidance, have specific justification for their inclusion). The City recognizes that all sites within the inventory will not likely develop at the maximum affordability assumptions identified draft Housing Element. As an additional strategy to create adequate capacity for the development of lower -income units, the City assumes only a portion of (approximately half) of the full cap acity of each of candidate housing sites will develop at lower- income affordable levels. For example, some sites may develop at higher densities or lower affordability levels, and some may develop with lower densities or higher affordability levels. For th is reason, the City has included a buffer of 10 percent (462 units) on the total number of very low and low-income units to assist in accommodating potential differences in future housing development. There is also an overall buffer of 50 percent (5,771 units), averaged over all income categories, of capacity built into the inventory.

The HEU establishes goals, policies, and programs (Section 4: Housing Plan) that identify funding opportunities and partnerships with the development community to increase the amount of affordable housing built in future developments. The City recognizes that should a “No Net Loss” situation occur, they will be required to identify additional sites to demonstrate the ability to accommodate any future unaccommodated RHNA need. For this reason, the City has included the housing buffer.

Depending on the City's policy preferences and guidance from HCD, it is possible that not all of the candidate sites will be included in the final HEU. This Initial Study analysis considers all candidate housing sites to provide a conservative analysis of potential environmental impacts. The candidate sites are listed in Initial Study Appendix B.
246
Section 2.0
Project Description

22 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
General Plan Goals and Policies
The HEU’s purpose is to address the housing needs and objectives of the City and to meet the State Housing Law requirements. The City of Costa Mesa has identified the following housing goals as part of this Housing Element Update:

Housing Goal 1: Preservation, c onservation, and enhancement of existing housing stock and residential neighborhoods within Costa Mesa.

Housing Goal 2: A range of housing choices for all social and economic segments of the community, including housing for persons with special needs.

Housing Goal 3: Identification of adequate, suitable sites for residential use and development to meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) at all income levels.

Housing Goal 4: Existing and future housing opportunities open and available t o all social and economic segments of the community without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, disability/medical conditions, national origin or ancestry, marital status, age, household composition or size, source of income, or any other arbitrary factors.

The Housing Element expresses the Costa Mesa community’s overall housing goals and supporting policies, quantified objectives, and housing programs to achieve them. The stated Housing Programs are based on a rev iew of past performance of the 5
th Cycle Housing Element, current State requirements,
analysis of current constraints and resources, and input from Costa Mesa residents and stakeholders.

Housing Goal 1: Preservation, conservation, and enhancement of exis ting housing stock and residential neighborhoods in Costa Mesa.

Housing Policy 1.1: Continue the existing rehabilitation loan and grant programs for low and moderate-income homeowners as long as funds are available.

Housing Policy 1.2: Minimize the displacement of existing residences due to redevelopment and public projects.

Housing Policy 1.3: Encourage the development of housing that fulfills all segments of the population including specialized needs.

Housing Policy 1.4: Actively enforce existing regulations regarding derelict or abandoned vehicles, outdoor storage, substandard or illegal buildings and establish regulations to abate weed-filled yards when any of the above is deemed to constitute a health, safety or fire hazard.

Housing Policy 1.5: Establish code enforcement as a high priority and provide adequate funding and staffing to support code enforcement programs.

Housing Goal 2: Providing a range of housing choices for all social and economic segments of the community, including housing for persons with special needs.

Housing Policy 2.1: Encourage concurrent applications (i.e., rezones, tentative tract maps, conditional use permits, variance requests, etc.) if multiple approvals are required, and if consistent with applicable processing requirements. 247
Section 2.0
Project Description

23 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Housing Policy 2.2: Promote the use of State density bonus provisions to encourage the development of affordable housing for lower and moderate -income households, as well as senior housing.

Housing Policy 2.3: Encourage developers to employ innovative or alternative construction methods to reduce housing costs and increase housing supply.

Housing Policy 2.4: Continue membership in the Orange County Housing Authority to provide rental assistance to very low-income households.

Housing Policy 2.5: Provide clear rules, policies, and procedure s, for reasonable accommodation in order to promote equal access to housing.

Housing Policy 2.6: Monitor the implementation of the City’s ordinances, codes, policies, and procedures to ensure they comply with the “reasonable accommodation” for disabled provisions and all fair housing laws.

Housing Policy 2.7: Encourage programs that address the housing needs of Costa Mesa’s senior resident population.

Housing Goal 3: Identification of adequate, suitable sites for residential use and development to meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) at all income levels.

Housing Policy 3.1: Encourage the conversion of existing marginal, underutilized or vacant motels, commercial, and/or industrial land to residential, where feasible and consistent with environmental conditions that are suitable for new residential development.

Housing Policy 3.2: Provide opportunities for the development of well-planned and designed mixed- use projects which, through vertical or horizontal integration, provide for the development of compatible residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, or public uses within a single project, neighborhood, or geographic area within the City.

Housing Policy 3.3: Cooperate with large employers, the Chamber of Commerce, and m ajor commercial and industrial developers to identify and implement programs to balance employment growth with the ability to provide housing opportunities affordable to the incomes of the newly created job opportunities.

Housing Policy 3.4: Consider the potential impact of new housing opportunities and their impacts on existing residential neighborhoods when reviewing rezone petitions affecting residential properties.

Housing Policy 3.5: Encourage residential and mixed -use development along transportation routes and major commercial corridors.

Housing Goal 4: Existing and future housing opportunities open and available to all social and economic segments of the community without discrimi nation on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, disability/medical conditions, national origin, or ancestry, marital status, age, household composition or size, source of income, or any other arbitrary factors.
248
Section 2.0
Project Description

24 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Housing Policy 4.1: Support the intent and spirit of equal housing opportunities as expressed in Federal and State fair housing laws.

Housing Policy 4.2: Continue to provide fair housing and counseling services for all Costa Mesa residents in an effort to remove barriers an d promote access to affordable housing in the City.

Housing Policy 4.3: Encourage and support the construction, maintenance and preservation of residential developments which will meet the needs of families and individuals with specialized housing requirements.

Housing Policy 4.4: Encourage and support the construction, maintenance and preservation of residential developments which will meet the needs of families and individuals with specialized housing requirements.

Development Capacity Projections for Future Site Development Under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(a), a project is defined as “the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.” The proposed project includes creating policies that would accommodate implementation measures to increase 17,531 potential housing units within the City, inclusive of the RHNA allocation of 11,760 housing units and a buffer of 5,771 housing (Table 2 -7). The project does not include the actual implementation measures and/or development of the housing units, which would be subject to future environmental evaluation.

Project Phasing
The Housing Element is a policy document that pr esents the City’s policies and programs to achieve housing objectives during the 2021 -2029 planning period. Foundational to this analysis is that growth projections represent a theoretical development capacity, which, consistent with the Housing Element planning period, is estimated to be accommodated by 2029. However, and as previously mentioned, the project does not propose development, rather it is intended to accommodate and encourage housing development to accommodate the State regional projected share at all income levels within the City. The 17,531 housing unit development capacity and planning period are both based on theoretical conditions used to conduct a thorough and conservative analysis of potential environmental impacts that would result from future development accommodated through project implementation. The development capacity and planning period do not consider factors that influence the timing of development, such as economics and market forces, among others. Individual projects would occur incrementally over time, largely based on property owner desires, economic conditions, market demand, and other planning considerations.

The actual rate of housing development is outside of the City’s control and would be dictated by factors that influence development, as previously mentioned . Therefore, while the project includes creating policies for the development capacity of 17,531 housing units , it is unlikely that the antic ipated development would occur by the Housing Element’s 2029 planning horizon. Moreover, not all the candidate sites analyzed as part of the project may be included in the final Housing Element. The project’s intent is to provide the capacity (i.e., land u se implementation provisions and zoning amendments) for the housing market to adequately address housing needs for all income groups, rather than generating the full development capacity housing within the planning cycle. The p roject further directs the 249
Section 2.0
Project Description

25 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
development capacity to occur where planned growth is best suited to occur. Therefore, to provide a conservative analysis (i.e., a “worst -case” scenario environmentally), this Initial Study assumes project buildout by 2029.

2.5 Discretionary and Ministerial Approvals
Primarily, the following discretionary and ministerial actions and/or approvals need to be considered for the proposed project:
 Adoption of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. The proposed project requires CEQA compliance through the adoption of an IS/MND prior to approval of the project. This Initial Study and the proposed MND are intended to serve as the primary environmental document for the Costa Mesa HEU Project.
 Adoption of the City of Costa Mesa 2021-2029 Housing Element  Approval of Housing Element from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD)

250
Section 2.0
Project Description

26 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
This page intentionally left blank.

251
Section 3.0
Initial Study Checklist
27 Co
sta Mesa Housing Element Update
Initia l Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

3.0 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:

The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

The analysis concludes that no Potentially Significant Impacts would occur.

Aesthetics
Air Quality
Agricultural and Forestry
Re
sources
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Energy
Geology/Soils
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Hazards & Hazardous
Mat
erials
Hydrology/Water Quality
Land Use/Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population/Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation
Tribal Cultural Resources
Utilities/Service Systems
Wildfire
Mandatory Findings of
Sig
nificance
DETERMINATION:

On the basis of this initial evaluation (check one):

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NE
GATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will n
ot be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENV
IRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially sig
nificant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1 ) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, be
cause all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

CERTIFICATION:

Prepared by:

Dana Privitt, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Revi
ewed by:

Jennifer Le, City of Costa Mesa
252
Section 3.0
Initial Study Checklist

28 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

1. AESTHETICS. Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?

c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the
existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point).

If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations
governing scenic quality?

d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?

2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,
to non-agricultural use?

b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?

c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources
Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by Government Code section
51104(g))?

d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

e) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

253
Section 3.0
Initial Study Checklist

29 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance c riteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?

b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?

c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?

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

4. 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 Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and
Wildlife Service?

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

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?

e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?

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?

254
Section 3.0
Initial Study Checklist

30 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to in § 15064.5?

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

c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of dedicated cemeteries?

6. 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?

b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency?

7. 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.

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?

iv) Landslides?
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?

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?

e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems

255
Section 3.0
Initial Study Checklist

31 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?

8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?

b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?

9. 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?

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?

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

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?

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?

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

g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?

256
Section 3.0
Initial Study Checklist

32 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

10. 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?

b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?

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 substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site?

ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding
on- or offsite?

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?

iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?

e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water
quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?

11. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
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?

257
Section 3.0
Initial Study Checklist

33 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

12. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?

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?

13. 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?

b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?

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?

14. 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)?

b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?

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

i) Fire protection?
ii) Police protection?
258
Section 3.0
Initial Study Checklist

34 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
iii) Schools?
iv) Parks?
v) Other public facilities?

16. RECREATION. Would the project:
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?

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?

17. TRANSPORTATION. Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?

b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?

c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

d) Result in inadequate emergency access?

18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) 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

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)?

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

259
Section 3.0
Initial Study Checklist

35 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?

19. 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?

b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development
during normal, dry and multiple dry years?

c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?

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?

e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid
waste?

20. 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?

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?

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?

260
Section 3.0
Initial Study Checklist

36 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?

21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Does the project:
a) 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?

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)?

c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?

261
Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis

37 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

4.1 Aesthetics
Threshold (a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less Than Significant Impact. According to the City of Costa Mesa 2015-2035 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (General Plan EIR), the City has three public scenic vistas: the Pacific Ocean, the Santa Ana River, and the Santa Ana Mountains. A substantial adverse effect to scenic vistas could result in situations in which a development project introduces physical features that are not characteristic of current development, obstructs an identified public scenic vista mentioned above or has a substantial change to the natural landscape.

The HEU would not result in a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. The project would not result in direct housing construction but would facilitate future housing development on candidate housing sites that are located throughout the City. All new development facilitated by the HEU would be required to be consistent with the City of Costa Mesa 2015 -2035 General Plan (General Plan) and current zoning standards. Future housing development projects would be subject to the City’s planning review process and zoning requirements per C MMC Title 13 – Planning, Zoning, and Development, which contains regulations intended to protect scenic vistas. Furthermore, future development facilitated by the HEU would be subject to comply with the City’s General Plan policies. Specifically, General Plan Policy CD-5.1 requires the City to preserve and optimize natural views and open spaces, Policy CD -5.2 requires preservation and optimization of natural views and open spaces in the City, and Policy CD -5.4 aims to maintain Fairview Park as an open space and recreation area. Approximately , 97 percent of candidate housing sites identified in the HEU are currently developed and are surrounded by urban development.

Compliance with the above -mentioned regulations and policies would ensure that appropriate consideration is taken when reviewing any new housing development facilitated by the HEU for adverse effects on scenic vistas. Furthermore, the proposed project would not change the City's current development standards and would be consistent with the regulation of building height, setbacks, massing, and overall design in the City per CMMC Title 13, Chapter V (Development Standards). Future housing development would be subject to the City’s planning review process and zoning requirements, which are intended to ensure consistency with the General Plan policies. Therefore, impacts to scenic vistas would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Threshold (b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? No Impact. There are no designated or eligible State scenic highways in the City. State Highway 1, which runs parallel to the Pacific Ocean just southwest of the City, is an eligible State Scenic Highway but has not been designated.9 Because there are no State scenic highways in the City, no impact would occur and no mitigation is required.

9 Caltrans. (2018). California State Scenic Highway System Map, Available at:
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa, Accessed July 19, 2021.
262
Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis

38 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Threshold (c) Would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
Less Than Significant Impact. The HEU would not directly result in construction but would facilitate new housing development on candidate housing sites located throughout in the City. The HEU w ould not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality.

The development review process codified under CMMC Title 13, Chapter V protects against degrading visual character or quality of public views through its development standards. Development standards are regulations, rules, or measures pertaining to land uses and zoning that establish how future development projects would be designed. For example, residential common interest development standards under CMMC Title 13, Chapter V, Article 2, Section 13-41 (Residential Common Interest Development Standards) require natural features such as scenic points and bluffs be taken into consideration during the site planning process. Additionally, the City does not have a scenic overlay that governs scenic quality.

Future housing development facilitated by the HEU wo uld be required to comply with the CMMC regarding design compatibly of housing facilitated by the HEU with the surrounding community.

Therefore, impacts to existing visual character and quality of public views would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Threshold (d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less Than Significant Impact. Future housing development facilitated by the HEU could add new sources of light and glare. Potential new light sources would be primarily exterior nighttime lighting fixtures, parking area lighting, light glow from windows, doors and skylights, and accent lighting. The introduction of concentrated or multiple sources of nighttime lighting near low-density areas could result in potential impacts.

However, future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be required to comply with all applicable requirements related to light and glare, including the California Green Building Standards Code.

Additionally, future housing projects facilitated by the HEU would be subject to City standard conditions outlined in Standard Condition (SC) AES -1, which requires applicants to submit a Lighting Plan and Photometric Study for approval to the City’s Development Services Department prior to the issuance of any building permits.10 CMMC Title 13, Chapter V, Article 2,(Residential District Development Standards) protects residential neighborhoods from excessive illumination by regulating lighting orientation (directed toward walkways and driveways, or shielding) . Compliance with SC AES -1 would ensure future housing development on candidate housing sites is reviewed for li ghting compatibility with adjacent neighborhoods.

Future housing development facilitated by the HEU could also add new sources of glare. Glare is commonly associated with reflective surfaces such as glass, rooftop solar panels, windows, heat-reflective roofing materials, and other building elements. SC AES-1 requires a Lighting Plan and Photometric Study to determine if glare shields are required. Further, to minimize glare, future projects would be required to use glass with low reflectivity, in complianc e with California Building Code Title 24 standards. To minimize glare associated with rooftop solar panels, panels could be installed flat, treated with anti- reflective coatings, and manufactured from modern glass technology. Considering these requirements

10 City of Costa Mesa. General Conditions and Code Requirements for All Applications, Accessed July 19, 2021. 263
Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis

39 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
and the City’s standard conditions, future housing development facilitated by the HEU would not create new source s of substantial light or glare. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Program
Standard Conditions and Mitigation Measures
SC AES-1 Prior to the issuance of Building Permits, the Applicant shall submit a Lighting Plan and Photometric Study for the approval of the City’s Development Services Department. The Lighting Plan shall demonstrate com pliance with the following: (a) Lighting design and layout shall limit spill light to no more than 0.5 -foot candle at the property line of the surrounding neighbors, consistent with the level of lighting that is deemed necessary for safety and security pur poses on site. (b) Glare shields may be required for select light standards.

264
Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis

40 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
This page intentionally left blank.

265
Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis

41 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Threshold (a) Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resource Agency, to non-agricultural use? Less than Significant Impact. According to the City’s General Plan EIR, the City is mostly developed and urbanized, and does not contain any areas zoned or designated solely for commercial agriculture or forest resources. The California Important Farmland Finder Map 11 identifies that candidate housing site 13 8 is
on land classified as Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance and candidate housing site 142 is on land classified as Farmland of Stat ewide Importance. Candidate housing sites 138 and 142 are currently in commercial agriculture production. Candidate housing site 138 is occupied by the Segerstrom House and Ranch, and site 142 is occupied by the Tanaka Farms Hana Field and Sakioka Company, LLC.

Although these sites are designated as Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance, neither is zoned for agriculture or designated for agricultural use in the General Plan. The current uses on candidate housing sites 138 and 142 are considered historical remnant agricultural operations ultimately to be replaced by urbanization. The existing zoning designation on candidate housing site s 138 and 142 is Planned Development Commercial (PDC) , which allows for residential development following Planning Commission review and approval for compatibility with surrounding uses. Therefore, the HEU would not result in the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, and Farmland or Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Threshold (b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract? or
Threshold (c) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104 (g))? or
Threshold (d) Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non- forest use?
b-d. No Impact. According to the General Plan EIR, the City does not have any active Williamson Act contracts, have any lands zoned for agriculture use, and does not contain any forest land. Therefore, future housing development facilitated by the HEU would not conflict with any existing zoning for agricultural use, Williamson Act Contract, or result in rezoning of forest lands. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required.

Threshold (e) Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature could result in conversion of Farmland, to non- agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest land?
Less than Significant Impact. As discussed above, candidate housing site 138 and 142 currently used for agricultural production. However, these candidate housing sites have an Urban Center Commercial land use designation, which allows for residential land uses. Further, the HEU would not involve other changes in the existing environment which could result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use or

11 California Department of Conservation, California Important Farmland Finder. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/, accessed August 3, 2021.
266
Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis

42 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
the conversion of forest land to non-forest land. Therefore, the impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Program
Standard Conditions and Mitigation Measures
No standard conditions or mitigation measures are applicable to the proposed HEU.

267
Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis

43 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

4.3 Air Quality
The Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) and the California Clean Air Act (CCAA) regulate the emission of airborne pollutants and have established ambient air quality standards for the protection of public health. Local control in air quality management is provided by the C alifornia Air Resources Board ( CARB) through county-level or regional (multi-county) air pollution control districts (APCDs). CARB establishes air quality standards and is responsible for control of mobile emission sources, while the local APCDs are responsible for enforcing standards and regulating stationary sources. CARB has established 14 air basins statewide.

Costa Mesa is in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB).

Federal Regulations
Federal Clean Air Act
The Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA), passed in 1970 and last amended in 1990, is the basis for national air pollution control. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U. S. EPA) is responsible for implementing most aspects of the Clean Air Act, including set ting National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for major air pollutants; setting hazardous air pollutants standards; approving State attainment plans; setting motor vehicle emission standards; issuing stationary source emission standards and permits; and establishing acid rain control measures, stratospheric ozone (O 3) protection measures, and enforcement
provisions. The 1990 FCAA amendments represent the latest in a series of federal efforts to regulate the protection of air quality in the United Stat es. The FCAA allows states to adopt more stringent standards or to include other pollution species.

National Ambient Air Quality Standards
The FCAA requires the U.S. EPA to establish primary and secondary NAAQS for a number of criteria air pollutants. The air pollutants for which standards have been established are considered the most prevalent air pollutants that are known to be hazardous to human health. NAAQS have been established for the following pollutants: Ozone (O
3), Carbon Monoxide (CO), Sulfur Dioxide (SO2), Particulate Matter 10 (PM10), Particulate Matter 2.5 (PM2.5), and lead.

State Regulations
California Clean Air Act
The California Clean Air Act (CCAA), signed into law in 1988, requires all areas of the state to achieve and maintain the CAAQS by the earliest practical date. CARB is the state air pollution control agency and is a part of the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA). CARB is th e agency responsible for coordination and oversight of state and local air pollution control programs in the state, and for implementing the requirements of the CCAA. CARB overseas local district compliance with state and federal laws, approves local air q uality plans, submits the State Implementation Plans (SIPs) to the U.S. EPA, monitors air quality, determines and updates area designations and maps, and sets emissions standards for new mobile sources, consumer products, small utility engines, off-road vehicles, and fuels.

California Ambient Air Quality Standards
The CCAA requires CARB to establish CAAQS. Similar to the NAAQS, CAAQS have been established for the following pollutants: O
3, CO, NO 2, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, lead, vinyl chloride, hydrogen sulfide, sulfates, and visibility-reducing particulates. In most cases, the CAAQS are more stringent than the NAAQS. The CCAA requires that all local air districts in the state endeavor to achieve and maintain the CAAQS by the earliest 268
Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis

44 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
practical date. The CCAA specifies that local air districts should focus particular attention on reducing the emissions from transportation and area- wide emission sources and provides districts with the authority to regulate indirect sources. The CAAQS and NAAQS are presented in Table 4.3 -1: State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards below.

Table 4.3-1: State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards Pollutant Averaging Time State Standards1 Federal Standards2 Ozone (O3) 2, 5, 7 8 Hour 0.070 ppm (137 µg/m3) 0.070 ppm 1 Hour 0.09 ppm (180 µg/m3) NA
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 8 Hour 9.0 ppm (10 mg/m3) 9 ppm (10 mg/m3) 1 Hour 20 ppm (23 mg/m3) 35 ppm (40 mg/m3)
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
1 Hour 0.18 ppm (339 µg/m3) 0.10 ppm11
Annual Arithmetic
Mean 0.030 ppm (57 µg/m3) 0.053 ppm (100 µg/m3)
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 8
24 Hour 0.04 ppm (105 µg/m3) 0.14 ppm (365 µg/m3)
1 Hour 0.25 ppm (655 µg/m3) 0.075 ppm (196 µg/m3)
Annual Arithmetic
Mean NA 0.03 ppm (80 µg/m3)
Particulate Matter (PM10) 1, 3, 6
24-Hour 50 µg/m3 150 µg/m3
Annual Arithmetic
Mean 20 µg/m3 NA
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 3, 4, 6, 9
24-Hour NA 35 µg/m3
Annual Arithmetic
Mean 12 µg/m3 12 µg/m3
Sulfates (SO4-2) 24 Hour 25 µg/m3 NA
Lead (Pb) 10, 11
30-Day Average 1.5 µg/m3 NA
Calendar Quarter NA 1.5 µg/m3
Rolling 3-Month
Average NA 0.15 µg/m3
Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) 1 Hour 0.03 ppm (42 µg/m3) NA
Vinyl Chloride (C2H3CI) 10 24 Hour 0.01 ppm (26 µg/m3) NA ppm = parts per million; µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; mg/m3 = milligrams per cubic meter; – = no information available. 1 California standards for O3, carbon monoxide (except Lake Tahoe), sulfur dioxide (1 -hour and 24-hour), nitrogen dioxide, suspended particulate matter - PM10, and visibility reducing particles are values that are not to be exceeded. The standards for sulfates, Lake Tahoe carbon monoxide, lead, hydrogen sulfide, and vinyl chloride are not to be equaled or exceeded. If the standard is for a 1-hour, 8-hour or 24-hour average (i.e., all standards except for lead and the PM 10 annual standard), then some measurements may be excluded. Measurements are excluded that CARB determines would occur less than once per year on the average. The Lake Tahoe carbon monoxide standard is 6.0 ppm, a level one-half the national standard and two-thirds the State standard.
2 National standards shown are the "primary standards" designed to protect public health. National standards other than for O3, particulates and those based on annual averages are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The 1-hour O3 standard is attained if, during the most recent three -year period, the average number of days per year with maximum hourly concentrations above the standard is equal to or less than one. The 8-hour O3 standard is attained when the 3-year average of the 4th highest daily concentrations is 0.070 ppm or less. The 24-hour PM10 standard is attained when the 3-year average of the 99th percentile of monitored concentrations is less than 150 µg/m3. The 24-hour PM2.5 standard is attained when the 3-year average of 98th percentiles is less than 35 µg/m3. 269
Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis

45 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Table 4.3-1: State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards Pollutant Averaging Time State Standards1 Federal Standards2 3 Except for the national particulate standards, annual standards are met if the annual average falls below the standard at every site. The national annual particulate standard for PM10 is met if the 3-year average falls below the standard at every site. The annual PM2.5 standard is met if the 3-year average of annual averages spatially-averaged across officially designed clusters of sites falls below the standard.

NAAQS are set by the U.S. EPA at levels determined to be protective of public health with an adequate margin of safety. 4 On October 1, 2015, the national 8 -hour O3 primary and secondary standards were lowered from 0.075 to 0.070 ppm. An area will meet the standard if the fourth -highest maximum daily 8 -hour O3 concentration per year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than 0.070 ppm. U.S. EPA will make recommendations on attainment designations by October 1, 2016, and issue final designations October 1, 2017. Nonattainment areas will have until 2020 to late 2037 to meet the health standard, with attainment dates varying based on the O3 level in the area. 5 The national 1-hour O3 standard was revoked by the U.S. EPA on June 15, 2005. 6 In June 2002, CARB established new annual standards for PM2.5 and PM10. 7 The 8-hour California O3 standard was approved by the CARB on April 28, 2005 and became effective on May 17, 2006. 8 On June 2, 2010, the U.S. EPA established a new 1-hour SO2 standard, effective August 23, 2010, which is based on the 3 - year average of the annual 99th percentile of 1 -hour daily maximum concentrations. The existing 0.030 ppm annual and

0.14 ppm 24-hour SO2 NAAQS however must continue to be used until one year following U.S. EPA initial designations of the new 1 hour SO2 NAAQS.
9 In December 2012, U.S. EPA strengthened the annual PM 2.5 NAAQS from 15.0 to 12.0 μg/m 3. In December 2014, the U.S.

EPA issued final area designations for the 2012 primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Areas designated “unclassifiable/attainment” must continue to take steps to prevent their air quality from deteriorating to unhealthy levels. The effective date of this standard is April 15, 2015.
10 CARB has identified lead and vinyl chloride as ‘toxic air contaminants’ with no threshold level of exposure below which there are no adverse health effects determined.
11 National lead standards, rolling 3-month average: final rule signed October 15, 2008. Final designations effective December 31, 2011.

Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Management Plan , 2016; California Air Resources Board, Ambient Air Quality Standards, May 6, 2016.

Regional and Local Regulations
South Coast Air Quality Management District
The S outh Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) is responsible for air quality planning in the SCAB and developing rules and regulations to bring the area into attainment of the ambient air quality standards. This is accomplished through air quality monitoring, evaluation, education, implementation of control measures to reduce emissions from stationary sources, permitting and inspection of pollution sources, enforcement of air quality regulations, and by supporting and implementing measures to reduce emissions from motor vehicles. All projects are subject to South Coast AQMD rules and regulations in effect at the time of construction.

The South Coast AQMD is also the lead agency in charge of developing the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) with input from SCAG and CARB. The AQMP is a comprehensive plan that includes control strategies for stationery and area sources, as well as for on -road and off-road mobile sources. SCAG has the primary respo nsibility for providing future growth projections and the development and implementation of transportation control measures. CARB, in coordination with federal agencies, provides the control element for mobile sources.

The 2016 AQMP was adopted by the South Coast AQMD Governing Board on March 3, 2017. The purpose of the AQMP is to set forth a comprehensive and integrated program that would lead the SCAG into compliance with the federal 24 -hour PM2.5 air quality standard, and to provide an update to the Sout h 270
Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis

46 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Coast AQMD’s commitments towards meeting the federal 8-hour O3 standards. The AQMP incorporates the latest scientific and technological information and planning assumptions, including the SCAG Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) and updated emission inventory methodologies for various source categories.

The South Coast AQMD has published the CEQA Air Quality Handbook (approved by the South Coast AQMD Governing Board in 1993 and augmented with guidance for Local Significance Thresholds [LST] in 2008). The South Coast AQMD guidance helps local government agencies and consultants to develop environmental documents required by CEQA and provides identification of suggested thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants for both construction and operation. With the help of the CEQA Ai r Quality Handbook and associated guidance, local land use planners and consultants are able to analyze and document how proposed and existing projects affect air quality in order to meet the requirements of the CEQA review process. The South Coast AQMD periodically provides supplemental guidance and updates to the handbook on their website.

South Coast AQMD Thresholds
According to the South Coast AQMD, an air quality impact is considered significant if the p roject would violate any ambient air quality stan dard, contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, or expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The South Coast AQMD has established thresholds of significance for air quality during construction and operational activities of land use development projects, as shown in Table 4.3-2: South Coast Air Quality Management District Emissions Thresholds.

Table 4.3-2: South Coast Air Quality Management District Emissions Thresholds Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors Construction-Related Operational-Related Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) 75 55
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 550 550
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) 100 55
Sulfur Oxides (SOX) 150 150
Coarse Particulates (PM10) 150 150
Fine Particulates (PM2.5) 55 55
Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District, South Coast AQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds, April 2019.

Localized Carbon Monoxide. In addition to the daily thresholds listed above, development associated with the project would also be subject to the ambient air quality standards. These are addressed through an analysis of localized CO impacts. The significance of localized impacts d epends on whether ambient CO levels near a project site are above the state and federal CO standards (the more stringent California standards are 20 ppm for 1-hour and 9 ppm for 8-hour). The SCAB has been designated as in attainment under the 1-hour and 8-hour standards.

City of Costa Mesa 2015-2035 General Plan
The City’s General Plan Conservation Element contains goals and policies to improve and maintain air quality for the benefit of the health and vitality of residents and the local economy. In alignment with State emissions reduction goals and in cooperation with the South Coast AQMD, the City aims to pursue regional collaboration to reduce emissions from all sources. 271
Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis

47 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Objective CON-4.A: Pursue the prevention of the significant deterioration of local and regional air quality.

Policy CON-4.A.1: Support regional policies and efforts that improve air q uality to protect human and environmental health, and minimize disproportionate impacts on sensitive population groups.

Policy CON-4.A.2: Encourage businesses, industries and residents to reduce the impact of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of s tationary and non -stationary pollution sources.

Policy CON-4.A.3: Require that sensitive uses such as schools, childcare centers, parks and playgrounds, housing, and community gathering places are protected from adverse impacts of emissions.

Policy CON-4.A.4: Continue to participate in regional planning efforts with the Southern California Association of Governments, nearby jurisdictions, and the South Coast Air Quality Management District to meet or exceed air quality standards.

Impact Analysis
Threshold (a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Less Than Significant Impact. The S outh Coast AQMD is required, pursuant to the FCAA, to reduce emissions of criteria pollutants for which the SCAB is in non -attainment of the NAAQS (e.g., ozone and PM2.5). The South Coast AQMD’s 2016 AQMP contains a comprehensive list of pollution control strategies directed at reducing emissions and achieving the NAAQS. These strategies are developed, in part, based on regional growth projections prepared by SCAG. SCAG has the responsibility of preparing and approving portions of the AQMP relating to the regional demographic projections and integrated regional land use, housing, employment, and transportation programs, measures, and strategies. SCAG is required by law to ensure that transportation activities conform to, and are supportive of, the goals of regional and state air quality plans to attain the NAAQS. The RTP/SCS includes transportation programs, measures, and strategies generally designed to reduce VMT, which are contained in the AQMP. The South Coast AQMD combines its portion of the AQMP with those prepared by SCAG.

On September 3, 2020, SCAG ’s Regional Council adopted Connect SoCal, the 2020 -2045 RTP/SCS. The 2020-2045 RTP/SCS was determined to conform to the federally mandated SIP for the attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. On October 30, 2020, CARB also accepted SCAG’s determination th at the RTP/SCS met the applicable state GHG emissions targets. The 2020 -2045 RTP/SCS will be incorporated into the forthcoming 2022 AQMP. Both the Regional Comprehensive Plan and AQMP are based, in part, on projections originating with county and city general plans.

The 2016 AQMP was prepared to accommodate growth, reduce the high levels of pollutants within the areas under the jurisdiction of South Coast AQMD, return clean air to the region, and minimize the impact on the economy. Projects that are consis tent with the assumptions used in the AQMP do not interfere with attainment because the growth is included in the projections utilized in the formulation of the AQMP.

Therefore, projects, uses, and activities that are consistent with the applicable growth projections and 272
Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis

48 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
control strategies used in the development of the AQMP would not jeopardize attainment of the air quality levels identified in the AQMP, even if they exceed the South Coast AQMD’s numeric indicators.

As discussed previously, the HEU does not propose development. Instead, the HEU identifies policies and programs that could be implemented to provide additional capacity for future development of dwelling units consistent with State Housing Law. Future zoning actions to implement specific programs within the HEU are required to be completed within three years of adoption of the HEU. The City can accommodate some of the future housing needs based on sites currently zoned for or permitting residential uses.

However, rezones are required to accommodate the RHNA allocation.

The HEU would not result in direct housing construction but would facilitate and provide a policy framework for future housing development on candidate housing sites throughout the City. A total potential development capacity of 17,531 housing units is assumed. As such, future housing on these sites would be developed with greater density than assumed in the General Plan and SCAG’s growth projections. Additionally, 858 ADU units are anticipated throughout the City. The forecast population growth associated with these 17,531 new housing units is approximately 47,333 persons; see Section 4.14, Population and Housing.

Additionally, future housing development on candidate housing sites would be required to adhere to al l federal, state, and local requirements for minimizing construction and operational pollutant emissions, including South Coast AQMD’s Rule 402, Rule 403, and Rule 1113, as prescribed in the City’s Standard Conditions (see SC AQ-1 and SC AQ-2) as well as the CMMC.

It is noted, the City’s goal for the HEU is to achieve Housing and Community Development (HCD) certification; therefore, the project must comply with applicable federal, state, regional, and local housing laws, and policies. As a result, it is not anticipated that future housing development facilitated by the HEU would interfere with S outh Coast AQMD goals for improving air quality in the SCAB or conflict with or obstruct implementation of applicable air quality plans. The HEU would be consistent with the standards and policies set forth in the 2016 AQMP and would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the AQMP. Therefore, anticipated air quality impacts would be less than significant.

Threshold (b) Would the project result in a cumulativ ely considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Less Than Significant Impact. The HEU does not propose development. Future housing dev elopment facilitated by the HEU would be subject to development review and would occur as market conditions allow and at the discretion of the individual property owners. Future housing development on candidate housing sites could result in the temporary, short -term pollutants from construction -related soil disturbance, fugitive dust emissions, and combustion pollutants from on-site construction equipment, as well as from off- site trucks hauling construction materials. Emissions resulting from construction would be temporary and construction activities and associated emissions would cease following completion of the housing development. Further, construction emissions can vary substantially from day to day depending on activity level, the specific operation type, and, for dust, prevailing weather conditions.

The South Coast AQMD’s approach to assessing cumulative impacts is based on the AQMP forecasts of attainment of ambient air quality standards in accordance with the requirements of the FCAA and CCAA. 273
Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis

49 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
The AQMP is designed to assist the region in attaining the applicable State and national ambient air quality standards and is intended to bring the SCAB into attainment for all criteria pollutants.

All future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be subject the City’s development review process and required to demonstrate compliance with federal, state, and local regulations in effect at the time of development, including the Costa Mesa General Plan policies and CM MC standards. The City’s standard condition related to air quality, outlined under SC AQ -1 and SC AQ -2 require compliance with South Coast AQMD air quality construction thresholds. SC AQ -1 (e.g., prohibition of nuisances, watering of inactive and perimeter areas, track out requirements, etc.) would be applied to future developments on a project-by-project basis in order to minimize those potential negative air quality effects. Emissions resulting from construction would be temporary and construction activities and associated emissions would cease following completion of each housing development.

In regard to operational thresholds, future development on candidate housing sites would likely generate

VOC, NO
X, CO, SO X, PM10, and PM 2.5 operational emissions from mobile sources, including vehicle trips from future residents and guests. Other emissions from future housing development would likely include those from use of consumer products, architectural coatings for repainting, and landscape maintenance equipment; and those from energy sources, including combustion of fuels used for space and water heating and coo king appliances. In analyzing cumulative impacts for future housing development facilitated by the HEU, an analysis must specifically evaluate a development’s contribution to the cumulative increase in pollutants for which the SCAB is designated as nonattainment for the CAAQS and NAAQS.

The SCAB has been designated as a federal nonattainment area for O3 and PM

2.5 and State nonattainment
area for O3, PM 10, and PM2.5. PM10 and PM2.5 emissions associated with construction generally result in nearfield impacts. The nonattainment status is the result of cumulative emissions from all sources of these air pollutants and their precursors within the SCAB. Future housing developments would be required to evaluate the potential air emissions for both construction and operational activities. As provided by SC AQ-1, future construction activities would be subject to South Coast AQMD’s Rule 402 and 403: Fugitive Dust Control, which requires actions to restrict visible emissions of fugitive dust beyond the property line.

Compliance with Rule 402 and Rule 403 would limit fugitive dust (i.e., PM 10 and PM 2.5) that may be
generated during grading and construction activities. Additionally, as provided in SC AQ-2, future housing developments also would be subject to South Coast AQMD’s Rule 1113: Architectural Coatings, which requires manufacturers, distributors, and end-users of architectural and industrial maintenance coatings to reduce reactive organic gas (ROG) emissions from the use of these coatings.

Further, future development on candidate housing sites, at a minimum, would be required to meet the mandatory energy requirements of CALGreen and the Energy Code (Title 24, CCR §6) in effect at the time of development application and would benefit from the efficiencies associated with these regulations as they relate to building heating, ventilating, and air conditioning mechanical systems, water heating systems, and lighting. Considering these requirements, future development on candidate housing sites facilitated by the HEU would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the SCAB is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.

Threshold (c) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less Than Significant Impact. The HEU would facilitate and provide a policy framework for future housing development on candidate housing sites throughout the City, which are situated in urbanized ar eas and 274
Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis

50 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
would be consistent with State Housing laws. The candidate housing sites were evaluated in this Initial Study at a programmatic level, as discussed above. Future housing development would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. As a result, no air modeling was conducted for this analysis.

Toxic Air Contaminants. Future housing development could include emissions of pollutants identified by the state and federal government as TACs or hazardous air pollutants . State law has established the framework for the state’s TAC identification and control program, which is generally more stringent than the federal program and aimed at TACs that are a problem in the state. The greatest potential for TAC emissions during construction would be diesel particulate emis sions from heavy equipment operations and heavy-duty trucks and the associated health impacts to sensitive receptors. The following measures are required by state law to reduce DPM emissions:
• Fleet owners of mobile construction equipment are subject to the CARB Regulation for in-use off- road diesel vehicles ( Title 13, CCR §2449), the purpose of which is to reduce DPM and criteria pollutant emissions from in-use (existing) off-road diesel-fueled vehicles. • All commercial diesel vehicles are subject to Title 13, CCR §2485, limiting engine idling time. Idling of heavy-duty diesel construction equipment and trucks during loading and unloading shall be limited to five minutes; electric auxiliary power units should be used whenever possible.

CARB’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective recommends against siting sensitive receptors within 500 feet of a freeway, urban roads with 100,000 vehicles per day, or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles per day. The primary concern with respect to heavy-traffic roadway adjacency is the long-term effect of TACs, such as diesel exhaust particulates, on sensitive receptors. The primary source of diesel exhaust particulates is heavy -duty trucks on freeways and high-volume arterial roadways. The project would not result in direct construction of residential or non -residential uses but would facilitate and provide a policy framework for future development within the City. While the HEU does not propose development, it can be assumed that future development could potentially result in direct impacts through construction and operation of residential land uses through the emission of toxic air contaminants (TAC). All future projects would be subject to the City’s development review process and would be required to demonstrate consistency with General Plan policies and CMMC requirements, which may require additional studies for future projects proximate to TAC emitters.

Carbon Monoxide Hot Spots. Mobile-source impacts, including those related to CO, occur essentially on two scales. Regionally, construction travel associated with future housing development would add to regional trip generation and increase the VMT within the local airshed and the SCAB. Locally, construction traffic would be added to the roadway system in the vicinity of the future housing development site.

Although the SCAB is currently an attainment area for CO, there is a potential for the formation of microscale CO “hotspots” to occur immediately around points of congested traffic. Hotspots can form if traffic occurs during periods of poor atmospheric ventilation that is composed of a large number of vehicles cold -started and operating at pollution -inefficient speeds, and/or is ope rating on roadways already congested with existing traffic.

Typically, high CO concentrations are associated with congested roadways. Traffic associated with future housing development facilitated by the HEU could contribute to traffic impacts that may res ult in the formation of CO hotspots. Because of continued improvement in vehicular emissions at a rate faster than the rate of vehicle growth and/or congestion, the potential for CO hotspots in the SCAB is steadily decreasing. Any future housing development on candidate housing sites would require further evaluation 275
Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis

51 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
under this criterion upon submittal of permits and entitlement applications to demonstrate that both daily construction emissions and operations would not exceed South Coast AQMD’s significance thresholds for any criteria air pollutant.

As previously discussed, future construction activities would be subject to the City’s standard conditions for air quality control, prescribed under SC AQ-1 and SC AQ-2. As provided by SC AQ-1, future construction activities would be subject to South Coast AQMD’s Rule s 402 and 403: Fugitive Dust Control, which requires actions to restrict visible emissions of fugitive dust beyond the property line. Compliance with Rules 402 and 403 would limit fugitive dust (i.e., PM
10 and PM2.5) that may be generated during grading
and construction activities. Additionally, as provided in SC AQ-2, future housing developments also would be subject to South Coast AQMD’s Rule 1113: Architectural Coatings, which requires manufacturers, distributors, and end-users of architectural and industrial maintenance coatings to reduce reactive organic gas (ROG) emissions from the use of these coatings.

Therefore, future development on candidate housing sites would not expose sensitive receptors t o substantial pollutant concentrations. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Threshold (d) Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less Than Significant Impact. Future housing development facilitated by the HEU could result in odors generated from vehicles and/or equipment exhaust emissions during construction. Odors produced during construction would be attributable to concentrations of unburned hydrocarbons from tailpipes of construction equipment and architectural coatings. Such odors would be temporary and generally would occur at magnitudes that would not affect substantial numbers of people. Land uses and industrial operations as sociated with odor complaints typically include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. Future development on candidate housing sites facil itated by the HEU would result in new housing, which is not a land use typically associated with generation of odors . Future housing development facilitated by the HEU would not expose a substantial number of people to odors. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Program
Standard Conditions
SC AQ-1 Dust Control . During construction, construction contractors shall comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District’s ( South Coast AQMD ’s) Rules 402 an d 403 to minimize construction emissions of dust and particulates. S outh Coast AQMD Rule 402 requires that air pollutant emissions not be a nuisance off- site. Rule 402 prohibits the discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants o r 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 ten dency to cause, injury or damage to business or property.

South Coast AQMD Rule 403 requires that fugitive dust be controlled with Best Available Control Measures so that the presence of such dust does not remain visible beyond the property line of the emission source. This rule is intended to reduce PM 10 emissions from
276
Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis

52 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
any transportation, handling, construction, or storage activity that has the potential to generate fugitive dust. This requirement shall be included as notes on the contractor specifications. Table 1 of Rule 403 lists the Best Available Control Measures that are applicable to all construction projects. The measures include, but are not limited to, the following:
a. Portions of a construction site to remain inactive longer than a period of three months will be seeded and watered until grass cover is grown or otherwise stabilized. b. All on -site roads will be paved as soon as feasible or watered periodically or chemically stabilized.
c. All material transported off-site will be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust.
d. The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations will be minimized at all times.
e. Where vehicles leave a construction site and enter adjacent public streets, the streets will be swept daily or washed down at the end of the workday to remove soil tracked onto the paved surface.

SC AQ-2 Architectural Coatings. South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) Rule 1113 requires manufacturers, distributors, and end -users of architectural and industrial maintenance coatings to reduce reactive organic gas (ROG) emissions from the use of these coatings , primarily by placing limits on the ROG content of various coating categories. Architectural coatings shall be selected so that the volatile organic compound (VOC) content of the coatings is compliant with S outh Coast AQMD Rule 1113. This requirement shall be included as notes on contractor specifications.

277
Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis

53 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

4.4 Biological Resources
Threshold (a) Would the project have a substantial effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) may list species as threatened or endangered under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) or Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA), respectively. The USFWS can designate critical habitat that identifies specific areas that are essential to the conservation of a listed species.

The HEU does not propose construction of housing or other development; rather, it provides capacity for future housing development. Of the 99 candidate housing sites, 97 percent of the sites are developed and in urbanized areas. However, future housing development could potentially impact candidate, sensitive, or special status wildlife or plant species through direct or indirect disturbance or elimination of essential habitat, if located near such resources, as depicted in General Plan Figure CON-1.12 The Santa Ana River Greenbelt, Talbert Regi onal Park, and Fairview Park contain wetland, riparian, and vernal pool habitat. Banning Ranch, located in the City of Newport Beach and adjacent to the City of Costa Mesa boundary to the southwest contains critical habitat for the San Diego Fairy Shrimp and Coastal California Gnatcatcher. No candidate housing sites are located near the City boundary with Newport Beach or near the Banning Ranch area. A dditionally, the General Plan Conservation Element identifies sensitive vegetation species in the City include but are not limited to the following : San Diego button - celery (E. aristulatum var. parishii), Gambel’s watercress (N. gambelii), and California Orcutt grass (O. californica).

All future housing development facilitated by the HEU would comply with federal, State, and local regulations. Compliance with the regulatory framework would ensure that no habitat would be impaired during develop ment construction or operations. Future housing development would be subject to General Plan Conservation Element Policy CON-1.A.1, which requires applicants proposing development within biologically sensitive areas to consult the CDFW, Orange County Water District, and Orange County Parks. Compliance with Policy CON-1.A.1 would identify areas for special protection and create protection measures for specified habitat and sensitive species.

Future housing development facilitated by the HEU would have the po tential to impact nesting birds which have acclimated to urban life and nest and forage in local trees and shrubs. These bird species are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). If vegetation clearing would occur during the bird breeding season (February 1 to July 15 for raptors and January 15 to August 31 for other birds), direct impacts to nesting birds could occur.

All future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be subject to the City’s development review process per CMMC Title 13, Chapter III, Section 13-29 (Planning Application Review Process). Future housing developments facilitated by the HEU would be required to implement MM BIO-1 and MM BIO-2

12 Costa Mesa General Plan, Conservation Element- all sensitive species of concern can be found in Tables CON-1, CON-2, and CON-3.
278
Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis

54 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
to protect biological resources from construction-related activities.13 MM BIO-1 requires future housing development facilitated by the HEU to conduct a biological study prior to construction to determine suitable mitigation for each individual site. MM BIO -2 requires that construction shall not take place during bird breeding season, and if construction must be done during nesting season, a qualified biologist will be brought in to identify nesting bird activity and create construction barriers to protect the sites.

Additionally, as provided in SC BIO -1, a focused survey for b urrowing owls is required for any new development project proposed on a vacant site of two acres or larger. Implementation of MM BIO-1 and MM BIO-2 would reduce any substantial adverse effect, either directly or indirectly, or through habitat modifications to special status wildlife and plants. Therefore, impacts would be mitigated to a less than significant level.

Threshold (b) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. As previously discussed above, Fairview Park contains vernal pools and wetlands and riparian habitat while the Banning Ranch area, adjacent to the City’s jurisdictional boundary with Newport Beach, contains critical habitat for San Diego Fairy Shrimp and the Coastal California Gnatcatcher. Future housing development facilitated by the HEU would comply with General Plan Policy CON-1.A., which requires consultation with the appropriate agencies (CDFW, Orange County Water District, and Orange County Parks) to establish special protection and appropriate protection measures for developments near natural habitats . Additionally, future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be subject to the City’s development review process, and comply with General Plan policies. Further, future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be required to comply with MM BIO-1 for avoiding and minimizing construction and operations impacts to riparian habitat or other sensitive vegetation communities. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant level with mitigation.

Threshold (c) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a State or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. While the HEU does not specifically propose alteration of a known or potential jurisdictional wetland or other waters of the U.S. or State, it is possible that potential future housing development projects facilitated pursuant to the HEU could directly or indirectly impact jurisdictional waters or wetlands. No candidate housing sites are located on identified wetland habitats known to be present in Fairview Park. Future housing development would be required to implement MM BIO-1 which would require a biological study to be conducted in order to determine what impacts could be had on riparian habitat or other sensitive vegetation communities through consultation with the appropriate agencies, and then incorporating design to mitigate effects . Implementation of MM BIO-1 would reduce the potential for future housing development to result in substantial adverse effect, either directly or indirectly, on any known wetlands or other waters of the U.S. and State. Therefore, potential impacts related to wetland resources would be less than significant level with mitigation.

13 The City’s Planning Division may require preparation of site biological surveys where the City has determined a potential for biological impacts, even for by-right projects.
279
Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis

55 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Threshold (d) Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife 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. As previously addressed , future housing development facilitated by the HEU has the potential to impact nesting birds which have acclimated to urban life and nest and forage in the local trees and shrubs.

The City is mostly developed and urbanized. Only candidate housing sites 138 and142 are currently vacant and actively used for agricultural purposes. Candidate housing sites 138 and 142 are located in the northern portion of the City in the South Coast Metro area, bordered by urban development, and within

0.25 mile of I-405 and 2.5 miles of SR-55. Given the active agricultural use on candidate housing sites 138, 142, and 198 and proximity to freeway transportation corridors, no wildlife corridors are known to exist.

Further, the City’s General Plan identifies wildlife habitat areas in the City, including the Santa Ana River and Fairview Park. Per the General Plan Conservation Element, habitat corridors provide for open space connectivity between isolated areas where animals live and forage, as well as for migration corridors. No candidate housing sites are proximate to the Santa Ana River or in Fairview Park. Therefore, HEU implementation would not impact wildlife corridors.

Future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be required to adhere to all federal, State, and local requirements for avoiding and minimizing interference with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish and wildlife species, migratory wildlife species, or migratory wildlife corridors. Applications for future housing development facilitated by the HEU, where the City has determined a potential for impacts to a wildlife corridor, would be required to implement the mitigation framework included in MM BIO-1 and MM BIO-2. Compliance with the established regulatory framework, as well as MM BIO -1 and MM BIO -2, future housing development would reduce impacts to a less than significant impact with mitigation on wildlife corridors.

Threshold (e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Less than Significant Impact. The City d regulates parkway or median trees, tree easements, and landmark trees. If future housing development facilitated by th e HEU would impact parkway or median trees, applicants would be subject to the City’s tree replacement ratio codified under CMMC Title 15, Chapter V, Section 15-131 (Tree Replacement Ratio). The City establishes regulations for preservation of landmark trees under CMMC Title 15, Chapter V, Section 15-138 (Preservation of Landmark Trees). Future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be subject to compliance with CMMC regulations related to the removal or installation of public trees or effects to landmark trees . Therefore, the HEU would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources and impacts would be less than significant.

Threshold (f) Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Less than Significant Impact. The City is within the Orange County Central/Coastal Subregional Natural Community Conservation Plan and Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP), specifically covered under the County of Orange Central and Coastal Subregion (Parts I and II: NCCP/HCP). Although the City is within the 280
Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis

56 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
NCCP/HCP Plan boundary, the City is not a signatory to the I mplementation Agreement, meaning any projects receiving development permits in the City would not be covered for incidental take of state or federally-listed species addressed in the NCCP/HCP. Talbert Regional Park and Talbert Nature Preserve are within the boundaries of an identified NCCP/HCP habitat reserve; however, no candidate housing sites are within the Talbert Regional Park or Nature Preserve.

A majority of candidate housing sites are developed and bordered by urban development. Future housing construction facilitated by the HEU would not conflict with the Central/Coastal NCCP/ HCP. All future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be subject to the City’s development review process and be required to demonstrate consistency with conservation policies in the General Plan as well as federal, State, and local regulatory requirements. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Program
Standard Conditions and Requirements
SC BIO-114 A focused surve y for burrowing owls shall be conducted by a qualified professional biologist for any new development project proposed on a vacant site of two acres or larger and with a landscape of annual and perennial grasslands, desert, or arid scrubland with low-growing vegetation or agricultural use or vegetation. The purpose of the survey is to determine if burrowing owls are foraging or nesting on or adjacent to the project site. If surveys confirm that the site is occupied habitat, mitigation measures to minimize impacts to burrowing owls, their burrows, and foraging habitat shall be identified. The results of this survey, including any mitigation recommendations, shall be incorporated into the project-level CEQA compliance documentation. Owl surveys and approaches to mitigation shall be in accordance with the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation, issued by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife on March 7, 2012 (CDFW 2012).

Mitigation Measures
MM BIO-1 Applications for future housing development facilitated by the HEU, where the City has determined a potential for impacts to special- status wildlife and plants species, shall be required to comply with the following mitigation framework:

Prior to the issuance of any permit for future dev elopment consistent with the HEU, a site-specific general biological resources survey shall be conducted on sites that contain the presence of any sensitive biological resources, including any sensitive plant or wildlife species. A biological resources rep ort shall be submitted to the City to document the results of the biological resources survey. The report shall include (1) the methods used to determine the presence of sensitive biological resources; (2) vegetation mapping of all vegetation communities and/or land cover types; (3) the locations of any sensitive plant or wildlife species; (4) an evaluation of the potential for occurrence of any listed, rare, and narrow endemic species; and (5) an evaluation of the significance of any potential direct or indirect impacts from the proposed project. If potentially significant impacts to sensitive biological resources are identified, future project -level grading and site plans shall incorporate project design features required by the applicant to minimize direc t

14 Costa Mesa General Plan Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Measure 4.3.A-1 281
Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis

57 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
impacts on sensitive biological resources to the extent feasible, and the report shall also recommend appropriate mitigation to be implemented by the applicant to reduce the impacts to below a level of significance.

MM BIO-2: Housing development activities facilitated by the HEU shall avoid the bird breeding season (typically January through July for raptors and February through August for other avian species), if feasible. If breeding season avoidance is not feasible, the applicant shall be responsible for a qualified biologist to conduct a pre -construction nesting bird survey prior to the commencement of any ground disturbing activities to determine the presence/absence, location, and status of any active nests on or adjacent to the survey area. The extent of the survey buffer area surrounding each site shall be established by the qualified biologist to ensure that direct and indirect effects to nesting birds are avoided. To avoid the destruction of active nests and to protect the reproductive success of birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the California Fish and Game Code and minimize the potential for project delay, nesting bird surveys shall be performed by the qualified biologist prior to project commencement. In the event that active nests are discovered, a suitable buffer (distance to be determined by the biologist or overriding agencies) shall be established around such active nests, and no construction within the buffer shall allowed until the biologist has determined that the nest(s) is no longer active (i.e., the nestlings have fledged and are no longer reliant on the nest).

282
Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis

58 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
This page intentionally left blank.

283
Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis

59 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

4.5 Cultural Resources
Threshold (a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to in Section 15064.5?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. While the HEU does not propose any development, future housing development facilitated by the HEU could potentially result in direct or indirect impacts through the physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of potential historical resources. The likelihood of encountering historical resources on developed sites is higher than on vacant lots. Out of the 99 candidate housing sites, 96 are developed and 3 are vacant.

Based on National Register of Historical Places (NRHP) guidelines, generally, structures 50 years of age or older have the potential to be a historic resource. Since development facilitated by the HEU could o ccur over the next ten or more years, there is a potential for buildings on developed candidate housing sites to reach an age of 50 years and thus be eligible to be added to the NRHP. Vacant candidate housing sites would be at lower risk of containing historic resources since no structures exist.

According to the General Plan Historical and Cultural Resources Element , t here are 31 historical properties, built environments and landmarks eligible for listing in the City’s Local Register of Historical Places. Specifically, there are five properties within the City eligible for National Register Listing, 24 properties eligible for local register listing, and two properties eligible for local listing as a historical district contributor.
15 Two candidate housing s ites are located on properties eligible for listing on the National Register, as shown in Table 4.5-1: Candidate Housing Sites on Properties Eligible for National Register Listing.

Table 4.5-1: Candidate Housing Sites on Properties Eligible for National Register Listing Site
Number
Assessor’s Parcel
Number Address Size (AC)
Architectural Style/ On
the Ground Use
137 140-041-82 3315 Fairview Drive 7.58 Western Style/
Segerstrom Barn
198 140-041-83 3315 Fairview Drive 0.23 Craftsman/ Segerstrom House

Future housing development on the candidate housing sites facilitated by the HEU would be subject to development review and be required to adhere to all federal, State, and local requirements for avoiding impacts to historical resources, including the National Historic Preservation Act. The City General Plan Historical and Cultural Resources Element includes several policies aimed at historical preservation, including Policy HCR-1.1, which encourages the protection and enhancement of historical sites within the City and Policy HCR-1.4 which requires an impact assessment of all historical resources as part of the environmental review process . Specifically, future housing development on candidate housing site 137 and 198 would be required to comply with Policy HCR-1.1. Although the Segerstrom Barn and House are not listed historical resources under the NRHP or the California Register of Historical Resources, they are

15 City of Costa Mesa. Costa Mesa General Plan Historical and Cultural Resources Element Table HCR-1, Available at:
https://www.costamesaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/34708/636740022588370000 , Accessed October 1, 2021. 284
Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis

60 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
considered local historical resources 16. Compliance with Policy HCR -1.1 and Policy HCR-1.4 is enforced through CMMC Title 13, Chapter IX, Article 14 (Historic Preservation).

Future development on candidate housing sites 137 and 198 would be subject to preparation of a historical resource assessment as part of the development review process pursuant to CMMC Title 13, Chapter IX, Article 14, S ection 13-200.10 (Certificate of Appropriateness Process) , which details the procedures for proper maintenance, restoration, relocation, and processing of cultural resources found in the City.

It could be likely that future developmen t on candidate housing sites could impact future potential, unidentified historical resources. As a result, implementation of MM CR -1 would be required, which requires historical evaluations on buildings and structures over 50 years of age. Following compliance with the established regulatory framework, the project’s potential impacts concerning adverse changes in the significance of a historical resource would be less than significant.

Threshold (b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in t he significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The HEU does not directly propose any future housing development nor ground -disturbing activities such as grading or excavation . However, future projects facilitated by the HEU could involve ground-disturbing activities that could impact archeological resources during construction. The likelihood of encountering archeological resources on undeveloped sites is greatest given these have been minimally disturbed in the past (e.g., undeveloped parcels, vacant lots, and lots containing undeveloped areas). Alternately, previously disturbed sites are generally considered to have a lower potential for archeological resources sinc e previous construction activities may have already removed or disturbed soil that may have contained resources.

Future housing development facilitated by the HEU on candidate housing sites would be subject to development review would be required to adhere to all federal, State, and local requirements for avoiding or mitigating impacts to archeological resources , including General Plan Policy HCR -1.7 and 1.8, which require cultural resources studies ( i.e., archaeological an d historical investigations) for all applicable discretionary projects, in accordance with CEQA regulations. In the likelihood that future housing developments would impact archeological resources, implementation of MM CR -2 would be required.

MM CR-2 requires preparation of an archaeological survey by a qualified archaeologist to evaluate the presence of cultural resources . Compliance with the established regulatory framework and MM CUL -2 would reduce any potential impacts to archaeological resources to less than significant.

16 City of Costa Mesa, Historical Ordinance, Available at: Historical Ordinance | City of Costa Mesa (costamesaca.gov), accessed October 1, 2021.
285
Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis

61 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Threshold (c) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Less than Significant Impact. According to the General Plan EIR, the City has identified seven archeological sites, one of which is a habitation and burial site for human remains. Since the precise locations of each of these sites is not publicly shared, future development facilitated by the HEU on candidate housing sites could result in the discovery of burial grounds or formal cemeteries. Future housing development would be subject to comply with the General Plan Policy HCR-1.7 which requires cultural resource studies for all applicable discretionary projects in accord ance with CEQA regulations. However, preparation of future housing development facilitated by the HEU may still result in the disturbance of unknown human remains.

Therefore, human remains could be disturbed as a result of future development facilitated by the HEU. If human remains are found, those remains would require proper treatment in accordance with applicable laws, including State of California Health and Safety Code (HSC) Sections 7050.5-7055 and PRC Section 5097.98 and Section 5097.99. HSC Sections 7050.5-7055 describe the general provisions for treatment of human remains. Specifically, HSC Section 7050.5 prescribes the requirements for the treatment of any human remains that are accidentally discovered during excavation of a site. HSC Section 7050.5 also requires that all activities cease immediately, and a qualified archaeologist and Native American monitor be contacted immediately. As required by State law, the procedures set forth in PRC Section 5087.98 would be implemented, including evaluation by the County Coroner and notification of the NAHC. Th e NAHC would designate the “Most Likely Descendent” of the unearthed human remains. If human remains are found during excavation, excavation would be halted near the find and any area that is reasonably suspected to overlay adjacent remains shall remain un disturbed until the County Coroner has investigated, and appropriate recommendations have been made for treatment and disposition of the remains.

All future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be subject to the City’s development review process and be required to demonstrate compliance with the regulatory framework. In the likelihood that future housing development would disturb any human remains, projects would be required to comply with Standard Condition Cultural Resources 1 (SC CR-1). SC CR-1 requires all construction to stop if human remains are found, and a forensic expert will be brought in to determine the significance of the find.

Compliance with the established regulatory framework would result in a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Program
Standard Conditions and Requirements
SC CR-1 Applications for future development consistent with the HEU, where the City has determined a potential for impacts to human remains, shall be required to comply with the following mitigation framework: In the event that human remains are discovered or unearthed, all earth -disturbing work within a 100 -meter radius of the location of the human remains shall be temporarily suspended or redirected by the applicant until a forensic expert retained by the applicant has identified and evaluated the nature and significance of the find, in compliance with State CEQA Guidelines 15064.5(f). If human remains of Native American origin are discovered or unearthed, the applicant shall contact the consulting t ribe, as detailed in MM TCR -1, regarding any finds and provide information after the archaeologist makes his/her initial assessment of the nature of the find, so as to provide Tribal input concerning significance and treatment. After the find 286
Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis

62 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
has been appr opriately mitigated, as determined, and documented by a qualified archaeologist, work in the area may resume.

Mitigation Measures
MM CR-1 Applications for future development facilitated by the HEU, where the City has determined a potential for impacts to historic resources, shall be required to comply with the following mitigation framework: For any building/structures in excess of 50 years of age having its original structural integrity intact, the applicant shall retain a qualified professional historian to determine whether the affected building/structure is historically significant. The evaluation of historic architectural resources shall be based on criteria such as age, location, context, association with an important person or event, uniqueness, or structural integrity, as indicated in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. A historical resource report shall be submitted by the applicant to the City and shall include the methods used to determine the presence or absence of historical resources, identif y potential impacts from the proposed project, and evaluate the significance of any historical resources identified.

MM CR-2 Applications for future development consistent with the HEU, where the City has determined a potential for impacts to archeological resources, shall be required to comply with the following mitigation framework: Prior to the issuance of any permit for future development located on a previously undisturbed site, the applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist to conduct an archaeo logical survey to evaluate the presence of cultural resources and the need for project impact mitigation by preservation, relocation, or other methods. An archaeological resource report shall be submitted by the applicant to the City and shall include the methods used to determine the presence or absence of archaeological resources, identify potential impacts from the proposed project, and evaluate the significance of any archaeological resources identified. If there are potentially significant impacts to an identified archaeological/cultural resource, the report shall also recommend appropriate mitigation required by the applicant to reduce impacts to below a level of significance.

287
Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis

63 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

4.6 Energy
Threshold (a) Would the project result in a potentially significant impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
Southern California Gas (SoCal Gas) and Southern California Edison provide natural gas and electricity to the City of Costa Mesa.

Construction: Less Than Significant Impact. The project would not result in direct housing construction but would facilitate and provide a policy framework for future housing development throughout the City.

Therefore, future housing development facilitated by the HEU would result in the direct consumption of electricity and natural gas resources. Energy use from construction activities would primarily result from the use of diesel fuel (e.g., mobile construction equipm ent), fuel use by vehicles and construction equipment and vehicle trips associated with workers commuting to and from construction sites, and electricity (e.g., power tools) and fuel use. During construction, some incidental energy conservation would occur through compliance with State requirements. Construction equipment would also be required to comply with the latest U.S. EPA and CARB engine emissions standards. Construction -related energy consumption associated with future housing developments would be subject to project -level review and approval by the City.

Future construction activities associated with future housing development would also be required to monitor air quality emissions using applicable regulatory guidance per the South Coast AQMD. This requirement indirectly relates to construction energy conservation because when air pollutant emissions are reduced because of monitoring and the efficient use of equipment and materials, this results in reduced energy consumption. There are no aspects of the HEU that would foreseeably result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy during construction activities of future housing developments.

There are no unusual characteristics that would necessitate the use of construction equipment that would be less energy efficient than at comparable construction sites in the region or state. Future housing developments would be subject to project -specific review and approval to ensure compliance with applicable City goals, policies, and cod e requirements. Therefore, it is expected that construction fuel consumption associated with the HEU would not be any more inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary than other similar projects of this nature. Impacts to energy resources associated with the fut ure developments’ construction activities would be less than significant. Project implementation would not grant any entitlements or building permit issuances that would result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources.

Operations: Less Than Significant Impact. As previously noted, the project would not result in direct housing construction, but would facilitate future housing development. Future development facilitated by the HEU would consume energy during operations through building electricity, water, and natural gas usage, as well as fuel usage from on -road vehicles. Passenger vehicles would be mostly powered by gasoline, with some fueled by diesel or electricity. Public transit would be powered by diesel or natural gas an d could potentially be fueled by electricity. Future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be subject to the City’s development review process codified under CMMC Title 13, Chapter III, Section 13-29 (Planning Application Review Process). CMMC Title 13, Chapter III, Section 13-29 requires development to be consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan as well as specific 288
Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis

64 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
standards set for multi- family dwellings that outline proper steps to ensure energy efficiency for future development. Future housing development facilitated by the HEU would also be required to adhere to all federal, state, and local requirements for energy efficiency, including SB 32’s Scoping Plan that includes a 50 percent reduction in petroleum use in vehicles ; South Coast AQMD’s 2016 Air Quality Management Plan17, which calls for the support of land use and transportation planning strategies that reduce energy use and GHG emissions; and the latest Title 24 stan dards. It is also noted that future project design and materials would be subject to compliance with the most current Building Energy Efficiency Standards.

Prior to issuance of a building permit, the City would review and verify that the project plans demonstrate compliance with the current version of the Building and Energy Efficiency Standards. Future projects would also be required adhere to the provisions of California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen), which establishes planning and design stand ards for sustainable site development, energy efficiency (in excess of the California Energy Code requirements), water conservation, material conservation, and internal air contaminants. Considering these requirements, HEU implementation would not result i n a substantial increase in transportation -related energy uses, such that it would result in a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Threshold (b) Would the project conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Less than Significant Impact. As previously noted, HEU implementation would not result in direct housing construction but would facilitate future housing development. Future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be required to comply with State Building Energy Efficiency Standards, appliance efficiency regulations, and green building standards. Project development would not cause inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary energy consumption, and no adverse impact would occur. The General Plan identifies goals and policies related to energy efficiency and renewable energy sources such as Policy CON -2.A.2, which requires new residential construction to consult with regional agencies and utility companies to achieve energy efficient goals. Future developments would be reviewed for consistency with City policies related to renewable energy and energy efficiency . Future housing developments facilitated by the HEU would be required to comply with all current energy requirements set by the current California Building Code , adopted by reference under CMMC Title 5, Chapter I, Section 5-1 (Construction Codes Adopted).

Therefore, compliance with the existing regulatory setting and CMMC would reduce impacts to a less than significant level, and no mitigation would be required.

Mitigation Program
Standard Conditions and Mitigation Measures
No standard conditions or mitigation measures are applicable to the proposed project.

17 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final 2016 South Coast Air Quality Management Plan. Accessed online at http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-management-plans/2016-air-quality-management- plan/final-2016-aqmp/final2016aqmp.pdf?sfvrsn=15. 2016. 289
Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis

65 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

4.7 Geology and Soils
Threshold (a.i) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving the 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?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project would not result in direct housing construction but would facilitate future housing development on candidate housing sites. No candidate housing sites are located in an Alquist -Priolo Fault zone. Therefore, the project would not directly, or indirectly, cause potential substantial adverse effects involving rupture of a known earthquake fault. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required.

Threshold (a.ii) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking? Less Than Significant Impact. As previously noted, the project would not result in direct housing construction but would facilitate future housing development. Future development in the City would subject people and structures to potential earthquake hazards due to the seismically active nature of Southern California. The General Plan Safety Element notes that the City is in the vicinity of several known active and potentially active earthquake faults, including the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone and the San Joaquin Hills Fault Zone. Other faults such as the San Andreas, Whittier, Elsinore, Palos Verdes, and Puente Hills Faults are predicted to affect the City with strong seismic shaking. The San Jacinto, San Andreas, Newport-Inglewood, and Whittier faults have the potential of generating earthquakes of magnitude s ranging from 6.5 to 7.5 on the Richter scale.
18 Therefore, future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be subject to rupture at known earthquake faults. General Plan Safety Element Policy S -1.1 requires consideration of geologic hazard constraints, impacts, and mitigation when making decisions relating to land development. Compliance with this policy would ensure that effects of any future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be evaluated prior to development, therefore ensuring that substantial adverse effects are disclosed and minimized to the greatest extent possible.

The City has adopted the Orange County Grading and Excavation Code under CMMC Title 5, Chapter I Section 5-1.4 (Adoption of the Orange County Grading and Excavation Code). The Orange County Grading and Excavation Code requires that a geotechnical/soil engineering and engineering geology report be prepared for any development project that requires a grading permit. Additionally, the City requires as a Standard Condition of Approval (SC GEO -1) that any design, grading, and construction be performed in accordance with the California Building Code (CBC) requirements applicable at the time of grading as well as the appropriate local grading regulations, and the recommendations of a project geotechnical consultant prior to the issuance of grading permits (March 2021). 19 Future housing developments
facilitated by the HEU would be subject to permit approval and required to adhere to all federal, State, and local requirements for avoiding and minimizing seismic -related impacts. Considering these

18 City of Costa Mesa. (2015). General Plan EIR Section 4.6 Geology and Soils, Available at: https://www.costamesaca.gov/city- hall/city-departments/development-services/approved-plans-for-city/2015-2035-general-plan, Accessed July 7, 2021. 19 City of Costa Mesa. General Conditions and Code Requirements for All Applications 290
Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis

66 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
requirements, the HEU would result in a less than significant impact concerning potential exposure to seismic-related hazards and no mitigation is required.

Threshold (a.iii) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction?
Less Than Significant Impact. Liquefaction is the loss of strengt h where loose, saturated, relatively cohesion-less soil deposits lose shear strength during strong ground motions. The potential exists for liquefaction in localized sections within the northwest and western portions of the City. 20 Available records do not indicate recent cases of liquefaction. However, instances of liquefaction have been reported in the nearby cities of Huntington Beach and Newport Beach.

The project would not result in direct housing construction but would facilitate future housing on candidate housing sites located throughout the City. Therefore, future housing facilitated by the HEU could be subject to liquefaction. All future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be subject to the City’s development review process and requir ed to adhere to all local, State, and federal requirements, including the City’s Building Regulations (CMMC Title 5 Chapter I ) and the Orange County Grading and Excavation Code (CMMC Title 5, Chapter I, Section 5-1.4), which requires a geotechnical/soil engineering and engineering geology report for grading projects. The soils engineering report would confirm site -specific soil composition and assign an expansion index (EI) rating, and would include conclusions and recommendations addressing grading procedu res, soil stabilization, and foundation design. Additionally, General Plan Policy S-1.7 requires compliance with the Seismic Hazard Mapping Act, which requires sites within liquefaction hazard areas to be investigated for liquefaction susceptibility prior to building construction or human occupancy. Compliance with Policy S-1.7 would ensure that the project would not cause substantial adverse effects due to liquefaction hazard areas.

Considering these requirements, including the preparation of soils engineering reports for future housing developments, as required by the CMMC, and compliance with General Plan Policy S-1.7, future housing development facilitated by the HEU would not create substantial adverse effects involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Threshold (a.iv) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides? Less Than Significant Impact. Landslides can occur if areas of steep slopes consisting of unstable soils are disturbed by ground shaking and/or heavy rainfall. Since the City’s topography consists of generally flat to gently sloping terrain, the potential for hazards from landslides is minimal. 21 No candidate housing sites
are located adjacent to bluffs or on slopes.

As previously mentioned, the project would not result in direct housing construction but would facilitate future housing development on candidate housing sites located throughout the City . Therefore, future housing facilitated by the HEU could be subject to landslides. The City relies on the CBC Chapter 18, Soils

20 City of Costa Mesa. (2015). General Plan EIR Section 4.6 Geology and Soils, Available at: https://www.costamesaca.gov/city- hall/city-departments/development-services/approved-plans-for-city/2015-2035-general-plan, Accessed July 7, 2021. 21 Ibid.
291
Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis

67 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
and Foundations, and Appendix J, Grading, to regulate all grad ing and design criteria. 22 This includes design criteria for development on slopes and at the toe of slopes. The CBC requires soils reports to include slope stability studies that discuss grading procedures, soil design criteria for structures and embankments, and site geology. General Plan Policy S -1.8 requires consideration of site soils when reviewing projects in areas subject to slope instability. Additionally, all future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be subject to the City’s development review process and required to adhere to all local, State, and federal requirements for avoiding and minimizing seismic -related impacts (i.e., ground failure including landslides). Therefore, impacts related to landslides would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Threshold (b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less Than Significant Impact. The project would not result in direct housing construction but would facilitate future housing development throughout the City. Therefore, future housing development facilitated by the HEU would involve grading activities that would disrupt soil profiles/soil compos ition and thereby result in potential increased exposure of soils to wind and rain. Erosion on graded slopes could cause downstream sedimentation impacts. Other related impacts resulting from substantial short- term erosion or loss of topsoil include topography changes and the creation of impervious surfaces.

Future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be subject to the City’s development review process and required to adhere to all local, State, and federal requirements for avoiding and minimizing impacts concerning soil erosion or loss of topsoil, including the City’s Building Regulations (CMMC Title 5, Chapter I) and the Orange County Grading and Excavation Code (CMMC Title 5, Chapter I, Section 5-1.4), which establishes minimum requirements for grading, excavating and filling of land, and the issuance of permits as contained in the CBC. Prior to initiation of ground disturbing activities, future project applicants would be required to demonstrate compliance with the Orange County Grading and Excavation Code including requirements pertaining to erosion control. S hort-term construction-related erosion would be addressed through compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program, which requires implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and best management practices (BMPs) intended to reduce soil erosion.

Out of the 99 candidate housing sites, 3 are vacant, and 96 are developed, or approximately 97 percent.

Developed sites curtail wind-driven erosion by preventing wind from contacting soil, due to the presence of buildings, parking lots, other impervious surfaces, and landscaping. Therefore, future housing development facilitated by the HEU would not result in substantial soil er osion or loss of topsoil.

Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Threshold (c) Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in an on- site or off - site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? or Threshold (d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating su bstantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?

22 City of Costa Mesa. (2015). General Plan EIR Section 4.6 Geology and Soils, Available at: https://www.costamesaca.gov/city- hall/city-departments/development-services/approved-plans-for-city/2015-2035-general-plan, Accessed July 7, 2021. 292
Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis

68 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Less Than Significant Impact. Subsidence occurs when a large portion of land is displaced vertically, usually due to the withdrawal of groundwater, oil, or natural gas. Soils that are particularly sub ject to subsidence include those with high silt or clay content. According to the General Plan Safety Element, the potential for liquefaction is greatest in the northwest and western portions of the City. Some candidate housing sites are located in these areas.

The project would not result in direct housing construction but would facilitate future housing development throughout the City. All future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be subject to environmental review under CEQA, the City’s development review process, and required to adhere to all local, State, and federal requirements for avoiding and minimizing impacts concerning soil erosion or loss of topsoil, including the City’s Building Regulations (CMMC Title 5, Chapter I) and the Orange County Grading and Excavation Code, which requires a geotechnical/soil engineering and engineering geology report for grading projects. The soil engineering report would confirm site -specific soil composition and assign an EI rating, and would include conclusions and recommendations addressing grading procedures, soil stabilization, and foundation design.

The General Plan Safety Element contains policies that aim to minimize the risk of injury, loss of life, property damage, and environmental degradation from geological hazards. General Plan Policy S -1.1 requires geotechnical hazard data be incorporated into land use decision -making, site design, and construction standards. General Plan Policy S-1.8 requires the consideration of site soil conditions when reviewing projects in areas subject to liquefaction or slope instability. Compliance with Policy S-1.8 would ensure that development would not be located on an unstable geologic site. Considering these requirements, including the preparation of soil engine ering reports for future housing developments, as required by the CMMC, and compliance with the above-mentioned General Plan policies, future housing development facilitated by the HEU would not create substantial risks to life or property associated with expansive soils, or allow for the development of housing on a geologic unit that is unstable and would result in a seismic -related impact (i.e., ground failure including landside). Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Threshold (e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
No Impact. All future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be in areas served by the City’s sanitary sewer system and would therefore not use septic tanks or other alternative wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, no impact would occur and no mitigation is required.

Threshold (f) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Less Than Significant Impact. The City’s General Plan Historical and Cultural Resources Element defines paleontological resources as fossilized remains of organisms from prehistorical environments found in geologic strata, providing evidence of pre-human activity. The City’s geological composition is part of the Palos Verdes Formation, a collection of sand and gravel deposits approximately 100,000 years old. These 293
Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis

69 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
deposits contain evidence of marine life that inhabited the area prior to the ocean receding. Ten paleontological sites have been identified within the City.23 While the HEU would not result in direct housing construction, it would f acilitate future housing development throughout the City. Therefore, there is a likelihood that earthwork activities associated with future housing development facilitated by the HEU would encounter a paleontological resource.

Direct impacts to paleontological resources could occur when earthwork activities (e.g., grading) cut into sensitive paleontological areas, thereby directly damaging the resource, or exposing paleontological resources to potential indirect impacts (e.g., surficial erosion, uncontrolled specimen collection).

All future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be subject to the City’s development review process and required to demonstrate consistency with General Plan policies protecting paleontological resources. The General Pl an Historic and Cultural Resources Element Policy HCR -1.9 requires that a paleontological study be prepared that identifies all paleontological resources in the project area and provide mitigation measures for any resources in the project area that cannot be avoided. General Plan Policy HCR-1.10 requires compliance with State CEQA Guidelines regarding the protection and recovery of paleontological resources during development activities. Compliance with Policy HCR -1.9 and Policy HCR-1.10 would ensure that f uture housing development facilitated by the HEU would have a paleontological study prepared and that State CEQA Guidelines regarding paleontological resources are followed. Additionally, future housing development would be required to adhere to all local, State, and federal requirements for avoiding and minimizing impacts to paleontological resources. Compliance with established regulatory framework would ensure potential impacts from future housing development concerning the destruction of a unique paleontological resource or unique geologic feature would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Program
Standard Conditions and Mitigation Measures
SC GEO-1 Design, grading, and construction shall be performed in accordance with the requirements of the California Building Code applicable at the time of grading as well as the appropriate local grading regulations, and the recommendations of the project geotechnical consultant as summarized in a final written report, subject to review by the City of Costa Mesa Building official prior to the issuance of grading permits.

23 City of Costa Mesa. (2015). General Plan Historical and Cultural Resources Element, Available at:
https://www.costamesaca.gov/city-hall/city-departments/development-services/approved-plans-for-city/2015-2035- general-plan, Accessed July 7, 2021
294
Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis

70 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
This page intentionally left blank.

295
Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis

71 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Background
The “greenhouse effect” is the natural process that retains heat in the troposphere, the bottom layer of the atmosphere. Without the greenhouse effect, thermal energy would “leak” into space resulting in a much colder and inhospitable planet. With the greenhouse effect, the global average temperature is approximately 61˚F (16˚C). Greenhouse gases (GHGs) are the components of the atmosphere responsible for the greenhouse effect. The amount of heat that is retained is proportional to the concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere. As more GHGs are released into the atmosphere, GHG concentrations increase and the atmosphere retains more heat, increasing the effects of climate change. Six gases were identified by the Kyoto Protocol for emission reduction targets: carbon dioxide (CO 2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide
(N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFC), perfluorocarbons (PFC), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). When accounting for GHGs, all types of GHG emissions are expressed in terms of CO 2 equivalents (CO2e) and are typically quantified in metric tons (MT) or million metric tons (MMT).

Approximately 80 percent of the total heat stored in the atmosphere is caused by CO 2, CH4, and N2O.

These three gases are emitted by human activities as well as natural sources. Each of the GHGs affects climate change at different rates and persist in the atmosphere for varying lengths of time. The relative measure of the potential for a GHG to trap heat in the atmosphere is called global warming potential (GWP). The GWP was developed to allow comparisons of the global warming impacts of different gases.

Specifically, it is a measure of how much energy the emissions of one ton of a gas will absorb over a given period, relative to the emissions of one ton of CO

2. The larger the GWP, the more that a given gas warms
the Earth compared to CO 2 over that period . GWPs provide a common unit of measure, which allows analysts to add up emissions estimates of different gases (e.g., to compile a national GHG inventory), and allows policymakers to compare emissions reduction opportunities across sectors and gases.

Greenhouse gases, primarily CO 2, CH 4, and N 2O, are directly emitted because of stationary source combustion of natural gas in equipment such as water heaters, boile rs, process heaters, and furnaces.

GHGs are also emitted from mobile sources such as on-road vehicles and off-road construction equipment burning fuels such as gasoline, diesel, biodiesel, propane, or natural gas (compressed or liquefied). Indirect GHG emi ssions result from electric power generated elsewhere (i.e., power plants) used to operate process equipment, lighting, and utilities at a facility. I ncluded in GHG quantification is electric power which is used to pump the water supply (e.g., aqueducts, wells, pipelines) and disposal and decomposition of municipal waste in landfills.24
Threshold (a) Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Less Than Significa nt Impact. The HEU does not propose any development and future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be subject to permits and plan check processes, and would occur as market conditions allow and at the discretion of individual property owners. The HEU does identify sites to meet the City’s future housing need and does include several goals and policies that would induce population growth. As noted in Section 4.14, Population and Housing , the future housing development facilitated by the HEU would result in a population growth of approximately 47,333 persons.

24 California Air Resources Board, Climate Change Scoping Plan, 2008. 296
Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis

72 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Future housing development facilitated by the HEU would increase GHG emissions due to increased VMT, construction activities, stationary area sources (i.e., natural gas consumption for space and water heating devices, landscape maintenance equipment operat ions, and use of consumer products), energy consumption, water supply, and solid waste generation. Increased GHG emissions could contribute to global climate change patterns and the adverse global environmental effects thereof. GHG emissions associated wit h future development are anticipated to include CO 2, N 2O, and CH 4. Future housing development facilitated by the HEU would comply with Title 24 which applies green building standards for new development. Compliance with Title 24 would result in lower emissions from the City overall and would support greenhouse gas reduction efforts since technology for reductions would be prioritized by developers. Additionally, future housing development would be subject to the City’s development review process, CEQA evaluation, and plan check process, which may require future applicants prepare air quality and GHG emission studies using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod). CalEEMod relies upon project-specific land use data to calculate emissions. Site -specific details are not available for this analysis of the HEU, which is programmatic in nature.

SCAG’s Connect SoCal RTP/SCS aims to create sustainable, mixed -use communities conducive to public transit, walking, and biking by focusing future growth in the previously developed areas such as the South Coast Metro area along the I -405 transportation corridor and downtown are a south of I -405. Future housing development could potentially place housing closer to other residential areas, commercial uses, public transportation, along established transportation corridors, and near some recreational activities.

Overall, placing residential uses closer to commercial and transportation corridors, and providing additional opportunities for transit ultimately would reduce dependency on vehicle trips, and therefore reduce VMT. 25 Future housing development would be subject to permits and required to meet the mandatory energy requirements of CALGreen and the Energy Code (Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations) in effect at the time of development. These regulations require that new development incorporate design features to capture energy efficiencies associated with building heating, ventilating, and air conditioning mechanical systems, water heating systems, and lighting. Future housing development would also be required to adhere to General Plan policies targeted toward GHG emissions reductions such as Policy CON-4.A.5, which encourages infill development close to transit, pedestrian, and bicycling infrastructure. Infill development would provide future housing opportunities in already established and developed areas, and would be built closer to public transit stops, increasing public transit opportunities for future residents. Compliance with the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) and the Energy Code (CCR Title 24, Part 6) in effect at the time of development and General Plan Policy CON -4.A.5 which encourages infill development which would reduce VMT and vehicle emissions in the City, would reduce GHG emissions in the City. Therefore, the project’s potential impact concerning generating GHG, either directly or indirectly, that may have a si gnificant impact on the environment would be less than significant.

Threshold (b) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project would not result in direct housing construction but would facilitate and provide a policy framework for future housing development on candidate housing sites throughout the City. These candidate housing sites are spread throughout the City (see Exhibit 2-2). Future development facilitated by the HEU, at a minimum, would be required to meet the mandatory energy

25 Byars, M. et. Al. (2017). State-Level Strategies for Reducing Vehicle Miles of Travel. Available at:
https://escholarship.org/content/qt8574j16j/qt8574j16j.pdf?t=pfb6o8&v=lg. 297
Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis

73 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
requirements of CALGreen and the Energy Code (Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations) in effect at the time of development. These regulations require that new development incorporate design features to capture energy efficiencies associated with energy efficient building heating, ventilating, and air conditioning mechanical systems, water heating systems, and lighting. In addition, future housing development would be subject to discretionary permits and CEQA evaluation required to comply with the goals and strategies outlined in the City’s General Plan and SCAG Connect SoCal RTP/SCS.

The City’s General Plan Conservation and Land Use Elements outline the City’s goals to use sustainable practices in order to reduce energy consumption and decrease the volume of greenhouse gases emitted each year. Future housing development would comply with General Plan Conser vation Element Policy CON- 4.A.4 which requires coordination with regional agencies to meet standards set by the South Coast AQMD and S CAG. Compliance would e nsure future housing development comply with SCAG’s RTP/SCS which aims to reduce GHG emissions. Further, future housing facilitated by the HEU would comply with General Plan Policy LU- 4.6 which requires the incorporation of sustainable practices in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to levels consistent with the State goals. Compliance with the Policy CON-4.A.4 and LU -4.6 would reduce energy consumption, inefficient use of resources , would decrease in GHG emissions and would accomplish adherence to LU 4.6.

SCAG’s RTP/SCS aims to create sustainable, connected communities conducive to public transit, walking, and biking by focusing future growth on enhancing mu lti-modal transit opportunities as well as the expansion of existing public transit facilities. Further, General Plan Policy C -1.10 encourages new developments to integrate better walking and biking facilities into their design. The proposed candidate housing sites are within urbanized and developed portions of the City and served by existing pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities. Future housing development facilitated by the HEU would propose additional housing opportunities closer to transit areas and non -motorized opportunities near major throughfares in the City, which ultimately could reduce VMT and GHG emissions.

Future development facilitated by the HEU wo uld be consistent with the City’s General Plan and SCAG’ RTP/SCS goals and policies . The proposed HEU is consistent with strategies included SCAG RTP/SCS including: focusing on new, higher density residential and commercial development ; increasing the convenience of shared transportation ; supporting energy programs that promote sustainability; and creating High Quality Transit Areas that would encourage employment and living closer to the workplace.

Furthermore, future housing development would be required to comply with mandatory energy requirements of CALGreen and the Energy Code (CCR Title 24, Part 6) in effect at the time of development.

Compliance with these regulations would further incorporate design features to capture energy efficiencies associated with building heating, ventilating, and air conditioning mechanical systems, water heating systems, and lighting, which ultimately would reduce GHG emissions. Therefore, future development facilitated by the HEU, would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing emissions of greenhouse gases. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Impacts related to GHG emissions are the result of cumulative glob al emissions and no single project on its own can cause climate change as a single project is not large enough to change the global atmosphere.

As such, the geographic scope for cumulative GHG emissions impacts is global and past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the region, State, nation, and world, have and would continue to contribute to GHG emissions. While federal, State, and local regulations have been put in place to 298
Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis

74 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
address targets for emissions reductions, changes from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects have contributed to a cumulatively significant impact on GHG emissions.

Cumulative impacts related to consistency with GHG plans, policies, and regulations would be less than significant, as the HEU would be consistent with applicable plans and policies. Further, individual future development projects would be required to demonstrate compliance with these plans and policies.

Therefore, the HEU would not cause a cumulatively considerable impact to global climate change.

Mitigation Program
Standard Conditions and Mitigation Measures
No standard conditions or mitigation measures are applicable to the proposed project. 299
Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis

75 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Regulatory Setting
Toxic Substances Control Act/Resource Conservation and Recovery Act/Hazardous and Solid Waste Act The Federal Toxic Substances Con trol Act of 1976 and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) established a program administered by the U.S. EPA for the regulation of the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. RCRA was amended in 1984 by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Act, which affirmed and extended the “cradle to grave” system of regulating hazardous wastes.

California Department of Toxic Substances Control
The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) regulates hazardous waste primarily under the authority of the RCRA and Title 22 of the California Public Health and Safety Code. The DTSC regulates hazardous waste, maintains a public database of potentially contaminated properties (through its List and Hazardous Materials Division [HMD] database), cleans up existing contamination, and research ways to reduce the hazardous waste produced in the state. The HMD is the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) for the County of Orange and is responsible for regulating hazardous materials business plans and chemical inventory, hazardous waste and tiered permitting, underground storage tanks, above ground petroleum storage, and risk management plans.

Costa Mesa Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 requires all local governments to create such a disaster plan to qualify for hazard mitigation funding. As of October 2021, the City of Costa Mesa is preparing a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP), expected to be adopted in 2021. 26 The LHMP aims to create a safer community
for residents, businesses, and visitors. A hazard mitigation strategy would be included in the LHMP that would detail specific policy recommendations for the City to carry out to reduce the threat from hazard events.

Threshold (a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Less Than Significant Impact. Environmental exposure to hazardous materials can occur through transportation accidents; environmentally unsound disposal methods; improper handling of hazardous materials or hazardous wastes (particularly by untrained personnel); and/or emergencies, suc h as explosions or fires. The severity of these potential effects varies by type of activity, concentration and/or type of hazardous materials or wastes, and proximity to sensitive receptors.

The project would not result in direct housing construction but would facilitate and provide a policy framework for future housing development throughout the City. Demolition and construction activities associated with future housing development facilitated by the HEU would require transport of hazardous materials (e.g., asbestos-containing materials, lead -based paint, and contaminated soils). Transport of hazardous materials during construction would be limited in duration since construction impacts are typically short term and cease upon project completion. Future hou sing projects facilitated by the HEU

26 City of Costa Mesa, Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, Available at: https://www.costamesaca.gov/city-hall/city- departments/police/department-divisions/administration/the-office-of-emergency-management-oem/local-hazard- mitigation-plan, Accessed September 2, 2021.
300
Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis

76 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
would be required to comply with handling measures specified by the City, County’s Department of Environmental Health, and the South Coast AQMD during construction and operational phases. These measures include standard s and regulations regarding the storage, handling, and use of hazardous materials.

Future housing development facilitated by the HEU would not involve ongoing or routine use of substantial quantities of hazardous materials during operations (occupancy of future housing). Only small quantities of hazardous materials would be anticipated including cleaning solvents, fertilizers, pesticides, and other materials used in regular maintenance. Additionally, according to the General Plan Safety Element, the City has adopted the Orange County Hazardous Waste Management Plan that provides policy direction and action programs to address hazardous waste management issues that require local responsibility. Additionally, the storage, management, and disposal of any hazardous materials is required to be done in accordance with the local, State, and federal regulations.

Threshold (b) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The HEU would not result in direct housing construction but would facilitate future housing development throughout the City. Therefore, excavation and grading activities associated with future housing development could expose construction workers and the public to unknown hazardous materials present in soil or groundwater. All future housing development on the candidate housing sites in the City would be reviewed to confirm compliance with all applicable requirements, including the City’s development review process and consistency with the regulatory framework for minimizing upset associated with hazardous materials. As provided in SC HAZ-1, a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA), prepared in accordance with the latest ASTM protocol, is required for all new development projects requiring City discretionary approval. The Phase I ESA would identify specific Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs), which may require further sampling/remedial activities by a qualified hazardous materials specialist.

Future housing development on currently developed candidate housing sites would be subject to demolition permits, which would be subject to the City’s Building Division plan check review process. It is possible that unknown wastes or suspect materials could be discovered during construction. Therefore, implementation of MM HAZ-1 would be required, which provides instructions for contractors to identify and rectify suspected hazardous wastes that are inadvertentl y discovered during construction. Future assessments for future housing projects would include a review of local, State, tribal, and federal environmental record sources, standard historical sources, aerial photographs, fire insurance maps, and physical setting sources. Although future housing development construction could accidentally involve the release of hazardous materials into the environment, the City’s development review process, compliance with SC HAZ- 1, and implementation of MM HAZ- 2, would ensure that no significant hazard would be created. Following compliance with the established regulatory framework, all federal, State, and 301
Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis

77 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
local regulations, and implementation of MM HAZ-1, potential impacts involving the accidental discovery of unknown wastes or suspect materials during construction would be reduced to less than significant levels.

Threshold (c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an exi sting or proposed school?
Less Than Significant Impact. The HEU would have a potentially significant impact on the environment if it would facilitate future housing development that would emit hazardous emissions or substances within

0.25-mile of an existing or proposed school. Any future housing development facilitated by the HEU would need to adhere to mandatory requirements and regulations related to the emissions or handling of hazardous materials, substances, or wastes near schools to reduce the potent ial for impacts to schools.

Adherence to California Hazardous Waste Control Law, California Health and Safety Code, and RCRA regulations, which regulate how to transport and handle hazardous and non -hazardous materials and waste, would reduce potential impacts associated with the accidental release of hazardous materials.

As a result, future housing development facilitated by the HEU would not conflict with any State or local plan aimed at preventing emissions or handling of hazardous materials near schools. Therefore, the HEU’s impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Threshold (d) Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Less Than Significant Impact. Government Code Section 65962.5 (commonly referred to as the Cortese List) includes DTSC-listed hazardous waste facilities and sites, Department of Health Services lists of contaminated drinking water wells, sites listed by the State Water Resources Control Board ( SWRCB) as having underground storage tank leaks and having h ad a discharge of hazardous wastes or materials into the water or groundwater and lists from local regulatory agencies of sites that have had a known migration of hazardous waste/material.

DTSC identified three hazardous waste sites pursuant to California Government Code Section 65962.5 (Cortese List). Candidate housing sites identified in the HEU are not directly located on the sites identified; however, candidate housing sites 75, 76, 77, 78, and 79 are near the identified hazardous sites on the Cortese List. Additionally, a regulatory review of the DTSC Envirostor and SWRCB Geotracker databases identified 37 regulated facilities and 210 regulated facilities, respectively in the City. Future housing development facilitated by the HEU could occur near identified regulated facilities. As provided in SC HAZ- 1, future housing development facilitated by the HEU would require a site-specific Phase I ESA to identify any site contamination that exists that could require clean up to avoid danger to people or damage to the environment. Compliance with SC HAZ-1 would reduce potential impacts relative to hazardous material sites to less than significant.

Threshold (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?
302
Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis

78 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Less than Significant Impact. The City of Costa Mesa does not contain any airports. However, John Wayne Airport (JWA) is adjacent to the eastern boundary of the City near the I -405. The HEU has identified multiple candidate housing sites within two miles of the airport. Future housing development applications would be reviewed by the Airpor t Land Use Commission for consistency with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for JWA (AELUP) criteria regarding development within airport safety zones. The safety zones identify the land uses that are permitted in each zone and establish safety standards to reduce potential safety hazards for persons living, working, or recreating near JWA. 27 Further, the General Plan Safety Element contains policies regarding the safety of development near JWA, including Policy S-1.17 which requires coordination with the AELUP for evaluation of land use compatibility and land use intensity in areas affected by airport operations. Compliance with the JWA AELUP and General Plan Policy S-1.17 would ensure that any future development applications are evaluated by ALUC for compatibility with airport operations. CMMC Title 13, Chapter V, Article 1, Section 13-38 (Additional Property Development Standards for the Multiple-Family Residential Districts) requires development within proximity to the airport to prepare a noise study. For further discussion of noise related to the proximity to JWA, see Section 4.12 Noise.

General Plan Policy S -1.19 requires developers to use the Federal Aviation Regulations as a guideline to establish the ultimate height of structures as defined in FAR Part 77. Compliance with Policy S-1.19 would ensure that any new housing development fa cilitated by the HEU not result in a safety hazard due to building height. All future housing developments facilitated by the HEU would be subject to permit approval and required to adhere to all local, State, and federal requirements for avoiding and minimizing safety hazards or excessive noise for people residing or working within two miles of. Therefore, future housing development facilitated by the HEU would not result in significant safety hazards or excessive noise for people residing or working in th e HEU area, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Threshold (f) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less Than Significant Impact. Future housing development facilitated by the HEU would increase housing densities on candidate housing sites located throughout the City and therefore could potentially interfere with adopted emergency response plans. However, 97 percent of the can didate housing sites are currently developed with structures and are located in urbanized areas. Additionally, no substantial circulation improvements such as new freeways or roadways would be required to implement the HEU.

Future housing development facilitated by the HEU, would be subject to discretionary permits and required to comply with CMMC Title 7, Chapter II, Section 7-15 (Amendments to the 2019 California Fire Code), which requires fire access roads be designed in compliance with Fire Code Section Sections 503.2.1 through 503.2.8 and the Costa Mesa Fire & Rescue Department Plan Submittal Checklist Specifications.

Given the scope and location of future housing development facilitated by the HEU, the HEU is not anticipated to impair implementation of, or physically conflict with, emergency response plans. All future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be subject to the City’s development review process, which may include review pursuant to CEQA, and be required to comply with CMMC Title 7, Chapter II Section 7-15 which prescribes suitable site access for emergency vehicles . As a result, future housing

27 County of Orange. (2008). Airport Land Use Commission Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport, Available at:
https://www.ocair.com/about/administration/airport-governance/commissions/airport-land-use-commission, Accessed July 8, 2021
303
Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis

79 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
development facilitated by the HEU would not conflict with any local, County, or State plan aimed at preserving and maintaining adopted emergency response or emergency evacuation plans. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Threshold (g) Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? No Impact. As discussed in Section 4.20, Wildfire, the City does not contain any lands that are in a “Very High, High, or Moderate” Fire Hazard Zone. Therefore, future housing development facilitated by the HEU would not directly or indirectly expose people or structures to a risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. Candidate housing sites are located primarily in developed locations and not adjacent to any wildland areas. Future housing development projects would be subject to the development rev iew process and the California Fire Code as adopted by CMMC Title 7, Chapter II Section 7-14 which would ensure adequate fire protection through certain design features to limit exposure and impacts of fires.

Therefore, there is no impact related to wildland fire, and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Program
Standard Conditions
SC HAZ-128 Applicants for new development projects requiring City discretionary approval shall include the results of a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA), prepared in accordance with the latest ASTM protocol for such assessments. If the Phase I ESA indicates some evidence that site contamination exists that could require cleanup to avoid danger to people or damage to the environment, a Phase II level review shall be completed to fully characterize the nature and extent of such contamination, and the scope of required clean up procedures. The results of the Phase II assessment shall be considered as part of the CEQA compliance process prior to any action on the project.

Mitigation Measures

MM HAZ-1 If the Applicant or Applicant’s contractor discovers unknown wastes or suspect materials during construction that are believed to involve hazardous waste or materials, the applicant or applicant’s contractor shall:

1. Immediately cease work in the suspected contaminant’s vicinity, remove workers and the public from the area, and secure the area.

2. Notify the applicant’s Environmental Professional and immediately implement proper remedial activities as recommended.

3. Notify the City Engineer and Planning and Community Development Director and implement measures to further secure the area.

4. The Hazardous Waste/Materials Coordinator shall advise the responsible party of further actions that shall be taken, if required.

28 Costa Mesa General Plan Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Measure 4.8.D-1 304
Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis

80 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
No hydrological studies were prepared for this analysis. Candidate housing sites were evaluated in this Initial Study at a programmatic level based on information available to the City where reasonably foreseeable, direct, and indirect physical changes in the environment could be considered. F urther analysis was not conducted, as it would be too speculative to base an analysis of potential impacts resulting from future housing development per the HEU. As such, potential changes beyond that are considered speculative or unlikely to occur and therefore, not reasonably foreseeable.

Environmental Setting
Hydrology and Drainage
The City is located within the jurisdictions of both the North Orange County and Central Orange County Integrated Regional Watershed Management Plan, specifically within the Santa Ana River Hydrologic Unit.

This unit covers an area of approximately 2,700 square miles, or the majority of the Santa Ana Region of the Water Quality Control Board (WQCB) jurisdictional area, which includes portions of Orang e, Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties. Within this hydrologic unit, the City’s geography is split between the Santa Ana River Watershed (northern portion) and the Newport Bay Watershed (southern portion).

The City’s Master Plan of Drainage was last updated and adopted in August 2006. The City’s Public Services Department is currently revising the Storm Drain Master Plan and an updated version is expected to be released in 2022. The Master Plan provides an inventory of all existing public drainage facilities along with hydrologic and hydraulic analyses to determine existing system capacities. Existing and proposed local drainage facilities are designed to provide a measure of control for stormwater generated within Costa Mesa for a 10-year storm. These facilities are identified in the City of Costa Mesa’s Master Plan of Drainage for the key purpose of programming funding in the 10 -year and 20-year Capital Improvement Programs (CIPs). The level of protection decreases with longer -term storm ev ents because the facilities are not designed for 25-year or 100 -year storm runoff. Although proposed and programmed improvements to the City's drainage facilities pursuant to the CIPs would reduce the damage from these higher-than-design storms, the City has deemed it impractical to design the local drainage system for greater than a 10-year storm event. Accordingly, minor flooding can be expected when local flows exceed the system's capacity or if inlets plug with trash and debris. However, the City has a storm water management ordinance that establishes standards and minimum requirements for storm water management, site design, and best management practices to improve water quality and reduce the adverse effects of polluted runoff discharges.

Threshold (a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? Less Than Significant Impact. The HEU does not propose any development and future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be subject to discretionary permits, plan check processes, and would occur as market conditions allow and at the discretion of individual property owners. Future housing development could result in potential impacts related to water quality over three different periods:
 During the earthwork and construction phase, where the potential for erosion, siltation, and sedimentation would be the greatest;
305
Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis

81 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
 Following construction, before the establishment of ground cover, when the erosion potential may remain relatively high; and
 After project completion, when impacts related to sedimentation would decrease markedly but those associated with urban runoff would increase.

Urban runoff, both dry and wet weather, discharges into st orm drains, and in most cases, flows directly to creeks, rivers, lakes, and the ocean. Polluted runoff can have harmful effects on drinking water, recreational water, and wildlife. Urban runoff pollution includes a wide array of environmental, storm water characteristics depend on site conditions (e.g., land use, impervious cover, and pollution prevention practices), rain events (duration, amount of rainfall, intensity, and time between events), soil type and particle sizes, the amount of vehicular traffic, and atmospheric deposition. Major pollutants typically found in runoff from urban areas include sediments, nutrients, oxygen -demanding substances, heavy metals, petroleum hydrocarbons, pathogens, and bacteria.

Construction: Short-term impacts related to water quality can occur during the earthwork and construction phases of future housing development projects. During this phase, the potential for erosion, siltation, and sedimentation would be the greatest. Additionally, impacts could occur prior to the establishment of ground cover when the erosion potential may remain relatively high. Future development projects facilitated by the HEU would be subject to compliance with the established regulatory framework pertaining to water quality. If future developments disturb more than one acre of land surface, they would be required to obtain coverage under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) storm water program. The NPDES Construction General Permit program calls for the implementation of best management practices (BMPs) to reduce or prevent pollutant discharge from these activities to the Maximum Extent Practicable for urban runoff and meeting the Best Available Technology Economically Achievable and Best Conventional Pollutant Control Techn ology standards for construction storm water. Construction activities would be required to comply with a project -specific Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) that identifies erosion -control and sediment-control BMPs that would meet or exceed measures required by the Construction Activity General Permit to control potential construction-related pollutants. Erosion-control BMPs are designed to prevent erosion, whereas sediment controls are designed to trap sediment once it has been mobilized.

Additionally, future development projects facilitated by the HEU would be required to comply with CMMC Title 8, Chapter III, Section 8-32 (Control of Urban Runoff) . Pursuant to CMMC Title 8, Chapter III Section 8-32, future development would be undertaken in accordance with the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP). DAMP Section 8.0 ensures the implementation of control practices that address construction related pollutants discharges including erosion and sediment control and on -site hazardous materials and waste management. Further, future project a pplicants would be required to comply with conditions and requirements established by the City’s Department Services Department and Public Services Department. Further, the City has adopted NPDES No. CAS618030 that regulates the discharge of pollutants in urban stormwater runoff from anthropogenic sources and requires construction sites of one acre or more to obtain a General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit. Compliance with the established regulatory framework would ensure that potential impacts from construction of developments facilitated by the HEU related to soil erosion, siltation, and sedimentation would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Operations. Due to the City’s built-out nature, most surface flows are directed toward existing stormwater drainage facilities . The project would facilitate and provide a policy framework for future housing 306
Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis

82 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
development on candidate housing sites throughout the City, which are situated in urbanized areas.

Therefore, the project’s operations could potentially violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality.

The DAMP ensures that all new development and significant redevelopment incorporates appropriate Site Design, Source Control and Treatment Control BMPs to address specific water quality issues (DAMP Section 7.0). Future developments facilitated by the HEU would be required to install, implement, and maintain the BMPs identified in DAMP Section 7.0, including but not limited to erosion management; materials storage; inspection, maintenance, repair, upgrade of BMPs; and preparation of SWPPP.

Future housing development would also be required to comply with existing water quality standards and waste discharge regulations set forth by the S tate Water Quality Control Board (SWQCB) . Future developments facilitated by the HEU would comply with these regulations and waste dis charges would be connected to the public wastewater system. Further, Costa Mesa General Plan Conservation Element Policies CON-3.F through CON-3.K address water quality and urban runoff. These policies are focused on reducing stormwater runoff and ensuring pollutant-free runoff entering the storm drain system. Future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be required to adhere to all federal, S tate, and local requirements for avoiding violation of water quality standards during construction and op erations.

Considering these requirements, future housing development facilitated by the HEU would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Threshold (b) Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Less Than Significant Impact. A groundwater basin is generally defined as a hydrogeologic unit containing one large aquifer as well as several connected and interrelated aquifers that has reasonably well-defined boundaries and areas of rec harge and discharge. The City’s groundwater supply comes from the Lower Santa Ana Groundwater Basin. Groundwater occurs in semi- to moderately consolidated sand, gravel, and silt occurring in aquifers extending from approximately 40 to over 2,500 feet beneath the ground surface in the City.

The Mesa Water District provides water resources to the City. The Mesa Water District receives water from two main sources, the Lower Santa Ana River Groundwater Basin, which is managed by the Orange County Water District (OCWD) and a backup source of imported water from the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC). MWDOC is Orange County’s wholesale supplier and is a member agency of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan). The Mesa Water District owns and operates eight wells, 317 miles of distribution pipelines, and two reservoirs for emergency storage.

Future housing development facilitated by the HEU could increase impervious surfaces, decrease water infiltration into the groundwater basin, and reduce ground water recharge. Approximately 97 percent of candidate housing sites are developed with structures and connected to the existing water supply infrastructure; only 3 candidate housing sites are vacant. Future developments facilitated by the HEU could potentially increase the City’s impervious surface area from development of these three candidate housing sites. Increased impervious surfaces on the remaining candidate sites is anticipated to be nominal 307
Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis

83 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
given these sites are already fully improved. Given approximately 61. 5 acres29 of increased impervious surface area is anticipated, the project is not anticipated to interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project would impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin.

Future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be required to incorporate design features that would reduce impervious area, as feasible, and promote water infiltration. Treatment control and hydromodification management facilities would promote retention and infiltration of stormwater. Future housing development on candidate housing structures would compl y with water quality standards intended to reduce runoff, increase infiltration, and improve water quality. Additionally, future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be required to adhere to all federal, state, and local requirements for avoiding and minimizing construction and operations impacts to groundwater supplies, including the Orange County DAMP. Considering these requirements, future housing development facilitated by the HEU would not decrease ground water supplies or interfere substantially with ground water recharge such that the HEU may impede sustainable groundwater management of the bas in.

Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Threshold (c.i.) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or riv er or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? or
Threshold (c.ii.) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off- site? or
Threshold (c.iii.) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river o r through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? or Threshold (c.iv.) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would impede or r edirect flood flows?
Less Than Significant Impact. A majority of identified candidate housing sites (97%) are currently developed and contain impervious surfaces. Accordingly, surface flows are directed toward existing City facilities. Due to the primarily built-out nature of the City, construction of future housing developments facilitated by the HEU would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern through the addition of impervious surfaces.

Future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be required to adhere to all federal, state, and local requirements for avoiding construction and operations impacts that could substantially alter the existing drainage pattern or alter the course of a stream or river, including the Orange County DAMP.

29 Candidate housing site 138,142, and 198 total 61.46 acres. 308
Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis

84 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Further, the City has adopted existing regulations and policies that minimize on-site and off-site flooding which can alter drainage patterns or stream course and cause erosion and sedimentation impacts.

Specifically, floodway and floodplain districts regulations are contained in CMMC Title 13, Chapter V, Article 10 (Floodway and Floodplain Districts), which aim to prevent and regulate development in flood - prone areas. General Plan Conservation Element Policy CON -3.F through CON-3.K above address water quality and urban runoff. CMMC Title 8, Chapter III, Section 8-32 (Control of Urban Runoff) enforces the Orange County DAMP to reduce or eliminate pollutants in storm water runoff from a project site.

Considering these requirements, future housing development facilitated by the HEU would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area. This includes the alteration of the course of a stream or river that would result in substantial erosion, runoff, or impede flood flows .

Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Threshold (d) In fl ood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the project risk the release of pollutants due to project inundation?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Santa Ana River forms the City’s western boundary and is considered a flooding hazard. Significant flood control improvements have been installed along the river course . The Flood Insurance Rate Maps prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) identify areas located within the City that are susceptible to 100 -year and 500 -year floods ( e.g., within Flood Zone X). In the event of a 500-year flood, the northern and western boundaries of Costa Mesa would be susceptible to flooding
30 as shown in General Plan Safety Element Figure S-5, Local Flooding Hazards. In the event of a 100 -year storm event, minimal flooding is expected to occur within the flood channels adjacent to the Talbert Nature Preserve. Future development facilitated by the HEU would be subject to the Floodplain Management Regulations under CMMC Title 13, Chapter V, Ar ticle 10 (Floodway and Floodplain Districts), which outlines a development review process and development standards for future projects within a flood-prone area. These regulations specifically prohibit construction of structures that could cause or divert floodwaters without appropriate site planning and structural design. Compliance with CMMC Title 13, Chapter V , Article 10 would ensure new development is not within a flood hazard area and designed to avoid hazards related to flooding.

According to the General Plan Safety Element, the City is approximately one mile inland from the Pacific Ocean at elevations ranging between 30 to 100 feet above mean sea level. The potential for tsunamis affecting the City is negligible. Therefore, future development on candidate housing sites would not be impacted by tsunamis.

Future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be required to adhere to all federal, state, and local requirements for avoiding and minimizing impacts related to flood hazards, tsunami, or seiches, including the General Plan policies and CMMC . Considering these requirements, the future housing development facilitated by the HEU would not result in significant increased risk concerning release of pollutants due to inundation, tsunami, or seic he zones. Therefore, HEU impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

30 City of Costa Mesa. (2015). General Plan Safety Element Figure S-5, Local Flooding Hazards, Available at:
https://www.costamesaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/34702/636740022576330000, Accessed August 12, 2021. 309
Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis

85 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Threshold (e) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Less Than Significant Impact. In 2014, the California Sustainable Groundwater Management Act was passed, which provides authority for agencies to develop and implement groundwater sustainability plans or alternative plans that demonstrate the water basins are being managed sustainably . The City is underlain by the Lower Santa Ana River Groundwater Basin . Groundwater levels are managed within a safe basin operating range to protect the long-term sustainability of the OC Basin and to protect against land subsidence. Orange County Water District (OCWD) regulates groundwater levels in the OC Basin by regulating the annual amount of pumping. As discussed under Threshold 4.10b, the City is unlikely to face groundwater impacts through the implementation of the project. Therefore, future housing development facilitated by the HEU would not obstruct implementation of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act.

The City’s Water Quality Ordinance codified under CMMC Title 8, Sections 8-30 to 8 -40 aim to protect water resources and improve water quality. The ordinance requires all new development and significant redevelopment within the City to comply with the Orange County DAMP that would reduce the adverse effects of polluted runoff discharges on waters of the state and control contribution of pollutants to the City’s municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s), and to ensure that the City is compliant with RWQCB and with applicable state and federal law. Future developments facilitated by the HEU would be required to prepare a stormwater management plan and incorporate stormwater standards manual requirements into design documents to minimize potential impacts to water quality. Submitted materials would be required to demonstrate how the requirements of this stormwater ordinance would be met, and the permit or approval would not be approved unless the decision maker determines that the application c omplies. Further, dischargers whose projects disturb one or more acres of soil or whose projects disturb less than one acre but are part of a larger common plan of development that in total disturbs one or more acres, are required to comply with the General Permit for Discharges of Stormwater Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit Order 2009 -0009-DWQ). The Construction General Permit requires the development of a SWPPP by a certified Qualified SWPPP Developer.

All future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be subject to the City’s development review process, which may include review pursuant to CEQA, and be required to comply with General Plan policies, CMMC standards, and required to adhere to all federal, state, and local requirements for avoiding and minimizing conflicts with or obstruction of implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. As a result, future housing development facilitated by the HEU would not c onflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Program
Standard Conditions and Mitigation Measures
No standard conditions or mitigation measures are applicable to the proposed project.

310
Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis

86 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

4.11 Land Use and Planning
Threshold (a) Would the project physically divide an established community? Less than Significant Impact. Projects that divide an established community can involve large scale linear infrastructure, such as freeways, highways, and drainage facilities that bisect an established community or create barriers to movement within that community. The project would not result in direct housing construction but would facilitate and p rovide a policy framework for future housing development throughout the City. All future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be subject to the City’s development review process and would occur as market conditions allow and at the discretion o f the individual property owners.

The HEU does not propose infrastructure improvements that would bisect existing established communities. As previously noted, 97 percent of the candidate housing sites are developed with structures and would be considered in-fill developments. In addition, candidate housing sites have been identified throughout the City, rather than concentrated in a single area and would therefore not divide an established community. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Threshold (b) Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Less than Significant Impact. The HEU includes 99 candidate housing sites for future housing development to meet the City’s RHNA allocation of 11,760 units. As previously noted, the HEU would not result in direct housing construction but would facilitate future housing development. Future housing development facilitated by the HEU would occur as market conditions allow and at individual property owner discretion.

The HEU would identify a series of imp lementing actions to increase the City’s housing capacity. As part of the HEU, additional housing units would be accommodated on the candidate housing sites that are ultimately selected through revisions to the City’s Housing Element. Future housing develo pment facilitated by the HEU is anticipated to increase the City’s housing stock where capacity exists.

Future housing development facilitated by the HEU may be subject to the City’s development review process, and required to comply with applicable federal, state, and local laws, policies, and regulations as applicable to new housing development. The HEU is required to comply with applicable State Housing laws. As such, the HEU would be consistent with applicable land use and planning policies in the stat e, regional, and local context as necessary to meet that legislation. This includes consistency with the General Plan. Future housing development facilitated by the HEU would therefore be consistent with all applicable land use and planning policies and re gulations intended to minimize environmental effects.

Impacts are considered less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Program
Standard Conditions and Mitigation Measures
No standard conditions or mitigation measures are applicable to the proposed project. 311
Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis

87 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

4.12 Mineral Resources
Threshold (a) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? Less than Significant Impact. The City’s General Plan EIR depicts Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ) categories in the City.31 The majority of the City is classified as MRZ-3, an area of undetermined mineral resource significance, with smaller areas of MRZ- 1, an area of no mineral resource signific ance, located along SR-55. Aggregate mining is not associated with small parcels within existing urban areas of undetermined significance. While the City contains oil wells and peat deposits, future development facilitated by the HEU would primarily occur in already developed and urbanized areas not associated with mineral significance; 97 percent of candidate housing sites would be in -fill development in urbanized areas.

Further, no candidate housing sites would be located on vacant lands associated with historic mining activities. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Threshold (b) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
No Impact. The General Plan does not identify any available locally-important mineral resources.

Therefore, future development facilitated by the HEU would not result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resource recovery site delineated on an applicable land use plan. The proposed HEU’s adoption would result in no impact to mineral resources and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Program
Standard Conditions and Mitigation Measures
No standard conditions or mitigation measures are applicable to the HEU.

31 City of Costa Mesa. General Plan Environmental Impact Report, Figure 4.11-1: Mineral Resources in Orange County, Available at: http://ftp.costamesaca.gov/costamesaca/generalplan2015-2035/4.0-Environment-and-Impact-Analysis.pdf. Accessed July 19, 2021.
312
Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis

88 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
This page intentionally left blank.

313
Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis

89 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

4.13 Noise
Sound is technically described in terms of amplitude (loudness) and frequency (pitch). The standard unit of sound amplitude measurement is the decibel (dB). The decibel scale is a logarithmic scale that describes the physical intensity of the pressure vibrations that make up any sound. The pitch of the sound is related to the frequency of the pressure vibration. Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to a given sound level at all frequencies, a special frequency -dependent rating scale has been devised to relate noise to human sensitivity. The A -weighted decibel scale (dBA) provides this compensation by discriminating against frequencies in a manner approximating the sensitivity of the human ear.

Noise, on the other hand, is typically defined as unwanted sound. A typical noise environment consists of a base of steady ambient noise that is the sum of many distant an d indistinguishable noise sources.

Superimposed on this background noise is the sound from individual local sources. These can vary from an occasional aircraft or train passing by to virtually continuous noise from traffic on a major highway.

Several rating scales have been developed to analyze the adverse effect of community noise on people.

Since environmental noise fluctuates over time, these scales consider that the effect of noise on people is largely dependent on the total acoustical energy content of the noise as well as the time of day when the noise occurs. For example, the equivalent continuous sound level (L eq) is the average acoustic energy
content of noise for a stated period of time; thus, the Leq of a time-varying noise and that of a steady noise are the same if they deliver the same acoustic energy to the ear during exposure. The Day -Night Sound Level (Ldn) is a 24-hour average Leq with a 10 dBA “weighting” added to noise during the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. to account for noise sensiti vity in the nighttime. The Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is a 24-hour average Leq with a 10 dBA weighting added to noise during the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. and an additional 5 dBA weighting during the hours of 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. to account for noise sensitivity in the evening and nighttime.

Regulatory Setting
California Code of Regulations, Title 24. The State’s noise insulation standards are codified in the California Code of Regulations, Title 24: Part 1, Building Standards Adminis trative Code, and Part 2, California Building Code. These noise standards are applied to new construction in California for the purpose of interior noise compatibility from exterior noise sources. The regulations specify that acoustical studies must be pre pared when noise -sensitive structures, such as residential buildings, schools, or hospitals, are located near major transportation noise sources, and where such noise sources create an exterior noise level of 65 dBA CNEL or higher. Acoustical studies that accompany building plans must demonstrate that the structure has been designed to limit interior noise in habitable rooms to acceptable noise levels. For new residential buildings, schools, and hospitals, the acceptable interior noise limit for new construction is 45 dBA CNEL.

City of Costa Mesa General Plan. The General Plan Noise Element contains noise standards that are correlated with land use categories, meant to maintain identified ambient noise levels and to limit, mitigate, or eliminate intrusive no ise that exceeds the ambient noise levels within a specified zone. T he 314
Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis

90 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
noise and land use guidelines for different land uses within the City are presented in Table 4.13-1: Noise Levels for Land Uses.32
Table 4.13-1: Noise Levels for Land Uses
Land Use Category
Community Noise Exposure
Ldn or CNEL, dBA
Normally
Acceptable
Conditionally
Acceptable
Normally
Unacceptable
Clearly
Unacceptable
Residential: Low-Density 50-60 60-70 70-75 ≥75
Residential: Multiple Family 50-65 65-70 70-75 ≥75
Mixed use 50-65 65-70 70-75 ≥75
Transient Lodging-Motels, Hotels 50-65 65-70 70-80 ≥80
Schools, Libraries, Churches,
Hospitals, Nursing Homes 50-65 60-65 65-80 ≥80
Auditoriums, Concert Halls,
Amphitheaters NA 50-70 NA ≥80
Sports Arenas, Outdoor Spectator
Sports NA 50-75 NA ≥80
Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks 50-67.5 NA 67.5-75 ≥75
Golf Courses, Riding Stables,
Water Recreation, Cemeteries 50-70 NA 70-80 ≥80
Office Buildings, Business
Commercial and Professional 50-67.5 67.5-77.5 77.5-85
≥85 unless
appropriately
insulated
Industrial, Manufacturing,
Utilities, Agriculture 50-70 70-80 80-85 NA
Source: City of Costa Mesa. (2015). General Plan Noise Element Table N-3: Noise and Land Use Compatibility Matrix Threshold (a) Would the project result in the generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinances, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Construction Noise: Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The project would not result in direct housing construction but would facilitate and provide a policy framework for future housing development throughout the City. Future housing development facilitated by the HEU would result in construction noise generated from development activities. In general, construction would typically involve the following construction sequence: (1) site preparation and/or demolition; (2) grading and utilities construction; (3) building construction; (4) paving; and (5) architectural coatings. Typical construction equipment would include backhoes, excavators, graders, loaders, compactors, cranes, trucks, pavers, pneumatic tools, generator sets, and air compresso rs. With exception to pile- driving activities, construction equipment with substantially higher noise -generation characteristics (such as rock drills and blasting equipment) would not be anticipated for construction of typical residential developments. Typ ical construction

32 City of Costa Mesa. (2015). General Plan Noise Element Table N-3: Noise and Land Use Compatibility Matrix Available at:
https://www.costamesaca.gov/city-hall/city-departments/development-services/approved-plans-for-city/2015-2035- general-plan, Accessed July 7, 2021
315
Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis

91 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
equipment generates maximum noise levels at 50 feet from the noise source ranging between 80 dBA for backhoes and loading trucks, to 85 -90 dBA for graders and excavators. Table 4.13-2: Maximum Noise Levels Generated by Construction Equipm ent shows the typical noise levels for common construction equipment.

Table 4.13-2: Maximum Noise Levels Generated by Construction Equipment Equipment Typical Noise Level (dBA) at 50 Feet from Source Acoustical Use Factor Lmax at 50 Feet (dBA) Lmax at 100 Feet (dBA) Concrete Saw 20 90 84
Crane 16 81 75
Concrete Mixer Truck 40 79 73
Backhoe 40 78 72
Dozer 40 82 76
Excavator 40 81 75
Forklift 40 78 72
Paver 50 77 71
Roller 20 80 74
Tractor 40 84 78
Water Truck 40 80 74
Grader 40 85 79
General Industrial Equipment 50 85 79
dBA: A-weighted decibels; Lmax: maximum noise level
Note: Acoustical Use Factor (percent): Estimates the fraction of time each piece of construction equipment is operating at full power (i.e., its loudest condition) during a construction operation.

Source: Federal Highway Administration, Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide, January 2006.

In general, construction noise can vary substantially from day to day, depending on the level of activity and the specific type of equipment in operation. Additionally, construction activities associated with future housing development facilitated by the HEU is anticipated to occur in incremental phases over time based on market demand, economic, and planning considerations. As a result, construction-related noise would not be concentrated in any one constant area in the City.

Future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be required to comply with the City’s Noise Ordinance codified under CM MC Title 13, Chapter XIII, Sections 13-277 through 13 -287. Construction associated with future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be required to comply with the CMMC Title 13, Chapter XIII, Section 13-279 (Exceptions for Construction). CMMC Title 13, Chapter XIII, Section 13-279 limits construction activities to Monday through Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., and Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., with no construction allowed on Sundays or City holidays. Exemptions to the code requirements include noise related to emergency work or work that has obtained special approval by appropriate city departments. Additionally, future project applicants may request approval from the development services director of a minor modification for a temporary waiver for construction equipment, vehicles, or work outside the permitted hours. The City requires compliance with CMMC Title 13, Chapter XIII, Section 13-279 outlined under Standard Condition NOI-1 (SC NOI-1).

The Planning Division may also require an acoustical analysis for future development projects situated in a noise environment which may affect future residents per CMMC Title 13, Chapter V, Article 6, 316
Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis

92 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Section 13-62(g) (Noise Attenuation). The acoustical analysis would ensure that construction and operations of future housing projects would meet the interior and exterior noise standards specified in the City’s Noise Ordinance.

Operations Noise: Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. Future housing development facilitated by the HEU would result in additional noise sources from housing, people, pets, and automobiles in the community. Noise is also likely to occur from stationary operation -related sources, such as heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) u nits, tankless water heaters, generators, lawn maintenance equipment, and swimming pool pumps. Future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be subject to the City’s Noise Ordinance and CMMC Title 13, Chapter III, Planning Applications.

Some stationary noise sources, such as mechanical HVAC units located on the ground or on rooftops of the proposed structures, would have the potential to generate high noise levels. However, specific information on the HVAC units (location, sizes, manufacturers, m odels) associated with future housing development facilitated by the HEU is not known. Compliance with the City’s Noise Ordinance is typically achieved through the inclusion of acoustical enclosures around the HVAC units. Noise is also likely to occur from sources mobile from motor vehicle traffic. Future housing development facilitated by the HEU would result in increased traffic volumes on local City roadways, thereby increasing cumulative noise levels.

Additional average daily trips (ADT) from future housing development facilitated by the HEU would need to more than double current ADT for there to be a discernable difference in noise levels ( i.e., more than 3 dBA increase). There are 96 candidate housing sites are already developed with structures and already generate traffic volumes and contribute to mobile noises. Future development on the candidate housing sites would likely not double traffic volumes to increase mobile noise . 33 Future housing development
projects facilitated by the HEU would be subject to the planning application review process under CMMC Title 13, Chapter III, Planning Application , which requires projects are reviewed with compliance with adjacent land uses, including noise compatibility.

Since the City is largely developed and built out, and 97 percent of candidate housing sites would be in - fill developments adjacent to existing established communities, there is a possibility that future development facilitated by the HEU could exceed the City’s noise standards. Therefore, implementation of MM NOI-1 and MM NOI-2 would be required. MM NOI-1 requires the use of the best available noise control techniques, as well as alternatives to pneumatic power tools to reduce noise levels. MM NOI -2 would require future applicants provide methodology to track and respond to noise complaints.

Implementation of MM NOI -1 and MM NOI -2, as well as compliance with the City’s Noise Ordinance codified under CMMC Title 13, Chapter XIII, Sections 13-277 through 13-287 would reduce noise impacts from construction and operations of future development facilitated by the HEU to a less than significant level with mitigation.

Threshold (b) Would the project result in the generation of excessi ve groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation . Construction activities associated with future housing development facilitated by the HEU could result in varying degrees of groundborne vibration impacts from heavy equipment operations, depending on the construction procedure and equipment used.

Construction equipment operations would generate vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish in amplitude with distance from the source. The effect on buildings located near a construction

33 Out of the 99 candidate housing sites, 3 are vacant, and 96 are developed, or approximately 97 percent. 317
Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis

93 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
site often varies depending on soil type, ground strata, and construction characteristics of the receiver building(s). Groundborne vibrations from construction activities rarely reach levels that damage structures.

The FTA has published standard vibration velocities for construction equipment operations. In general, the FTA architectural damage criterion for continuous vibrations (i.e., 0.2 inch/second) appears to be conservative even for sustained pile driving. Pile driving levels often exceed 0.2 inch/second at distances of 50 feet, and 0.5 inch/second at 25 feet without any apparent damage to buildings. Types of construction vibration impacts include human annoyance and building damage. Human annoyance occurs when construction vibration rises significantly above the threshold of human perception for extended periods of time. Building damage can be cosmetic or structural. Ordinary buildings that are not particularly fragile would not experience any cosmetic damage (e.g., plaster cracks) at distances beyond 25 feet. This distance can vary substantially depending on the soil composition and underground geological layer between vibration source and receiver. Construction activities associated with future development have the potential to generate low levels of groundborne vibration. Table 4.13 -3: Typical Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment identifies various vibration velocity levels for various construction equipment types.

Table 4.13-3: Typical Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment Equipment
Approximate Peak
Particle Velocity at 25
Feet (inches/second)
Approximate Peak
Particle Velocity at 50
Feet (inches/second)
Approximate Peak
Particle Velocity at 250
Feet (inches/second)
Large bulldozer 0.089 0.0315 0.0028
Loaded trucks 0.076 0.0269 0.0024
Small bulldozer 0.003 0.0011 0.0001
Jackhammer 0.035 0.0124 0.0011
Vibratory compactor/roller 0.210 0.0742 0.0066
Notes:

1. Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018. Table 7-4.

2. Calculated using the following formula:

PPV equip = PPVref x (25/D)1.5
where: PPV (equip) = the peak particle velocity in in/sec of the equipment adjusted for the distance PPV (ref) = the reference vibration level in in /sec from Table 12 -2 of the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Guidelines
D = the distance from the equipment to the receiver

Similar to noise, groundborne vibration would attenuate with distance. The groundborne vibration generated during construction activities would primarily impact vibration -sensitive land uses (i.e., nonengineered timber and masonry buildings) located adjacent to or n ear the construction activity. The force of vibrations reaching an adjacent structure would depend upon several variables, including the activity generating the vibrations, the distance between the source and the existing structure, and the type of soil or pavement found between the two. Based upon the vibration velocity levels provided in Table 4.13-3, vibration velocities from typical heavy construction equipment operations that could be used during construction activities range from 0.003 to 0.089 inch -per-second PPV at 25 feet from the activity source (and up to 0.644 PPV if pile driving activities were to occur). Therefore, vibration velocities from typical heavy construction equipment operations at 25 feet from the activity source would not 318
Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis

94 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
exceed the 0.2 the inch/second threshold, except for pile driving activities. As also shown in the table, vibration velocities from pile driving activities at 50 feet from the activity source would exceed the 0.2 the inch/second threshold. Therefore, construction -related activities that involve pile driving and occur 50 feet from a vibration-sensitive land use (non-engineered timber and masonry buildings) could exceed

0.2 the inch/second threshold, and expose persons or structures to, or generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels.

To avoid impacts to vibration -sensitive structures (i.e., n on-engineered timber and masonry buildings) located within a 50-foot radius of pile driving activities, MM NOI-3 would be required. MM NOI-3 requires temporary noise attenuation curtains and alternative installation methods to reduce vibration impacts.

The attenuation curtain would be placed between the equipment and nearest noise sensitive receptor to the construction site. Alternative installation methods could reduce vibration impacts below the 0.2 the inch/second threshold . Implementation of MM NOI -3 wo uld reduce vibration impacts on adjacent sensitive land uses to a less than significant level.

Operation of r esidential uses are not anticipated to generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise. Future housing development facilitated by th e HEU would not involve railroads or substantial heavy truck operations, and therefore would not result in vibration impacts at surrounding uses. Therefore, operational activities associated with future development would not expose persons or structures to or generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no additional mitigation is required for operational uses.

Threshold (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?
Less than Signif icant Impact. The City does not contain any airports. However, the City is located near JWA and the HEU has identified multiple candidate housing sites within two miles of the airport. Future development within the airport area could be exposed to noise levels up to 65 dBA according to the Airport Environs Land Use Plan AELUP. The City’s General Plan Policy N-1.A defines that the maximum acceptable exterior noise levels for residential areas is 65 CNEL. Compliance with Policy N -1.A would ensure that future housing developments within the airport area would not experience significant noise impacts. Further, CMMC Title 13, Chapter V, Article 1, Section 13-38 (Additional Property Development Standards for Multiple-Family Residential Districts), requires residential projects located in proximity to an airport to submit an acoustical evaluation for approval by the City. Acoustical evaluations would show that future development projects could reduce interior noise levels to 45 CNEL and exterior noise levels to 65 CNEL. Compliance with CMMC Title 13, Chapter V, Article 1, Section 13-38 would ensure that the noise lev els of future housing development near JWA would be evaluated and would not exceed the thresholds stated above. Therefore, airport traffic noise would not cause City residents to be exposed to noise above existing standards and impacts would be less than significant and no additional mitigation is required.

Mitigation Program
Standard Conditions and Mitigation Measures
SC NOI-1 All noise -generating construction activities shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.

Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Saturday. Noise -generating 319
Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis

95 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
construction activities shall be prohibited on Sunday and the following federal holidays:

New Year’s Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day , Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, and Christmas Day.

MM NOI-1 To reduce construction-related noise impacts, where construction activities would exceed the standards established in in the City’s Noise Ordinance , the Applicant shall require construction contractors to implement a site -specific Noise Reduction Program, which includes the following measures, ongoing through demolition, grading, and/or construction:
 Equipment and trucks used for project construction shall utilize the best available noise control techniques (e.g., improved mufflers, equipment redesign, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, and acoustically attenuating shields or shrouds), wherever feasible.
 Impact tools (e.g., jack hammers, pavement breakers, and rock drills) used for construction shall be hydraulically or electronically powered wherever possible to avoid noise associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically powered tools. However, where use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler shall be used (this muffler can lower noise levels from the exhaust by up to approximately 10 dBA). External jackets on the tools themselves shall be used where feasible (this can achieve an approximately 5.0 -dBA reduction. Quieter procedures shall be used, such as drills rather than impact equipment, whenever feasible.  Stationary construction-related noise sources shall be located as far from adjacent receptors as possible, and they shall be muffled and incorporate insulation barriers, or other measures to the extent feasible.

MM NOI-2 Prior to demolition, grading, or building permit approval, the Applicant shall submit to the Planning Department a list of measures to respond to and track complaints pertaining to construction noise, ongoing throughout demolition, grading, and/or construction. At minimum, these measures shall include the following:
 A procedure to the public for notifying the City’s Code Enforcement Officer and Police Department (during regular construction hours and off-hours);  A requirement for a sign to be posted by the Applicant on -site specifying the permitted construction days and hours, and notification procedure, and who to notify in the event of a noise- related concern. The sign shall also include the construction contractor’s telephone numbers (dur ing regular construction hours and off- hours); and
 A requirement for a preconstruction meeting to be held with the Applicant and general contractor/on -site project manager to confirm that noise measures and practices (including construction hours, neighborhood notification, posted signs, etc.) are completed.

MM NOI-3 To avoid impacts to vibration -sensitive structures (i.e., non -engineered timber and masonry buildings) located within a 50 -foot radius of pile driving activities, prior to demolition, g rading, or building permit approval, the applicant shall provide for the following measures to be specified on the project plans and implemented prior to and during construction:
320
Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis

96 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
 The applicant shall utilize temporary noise attenuation curtain suitable for pile driving equipment as needed. This noise attenuation device should be installed directly between the equipment and the nearest noise sensitive receptor to the construction site.
 Pile driving within a 50 -foot radius of identified vibration -sensitive structures shall utilize alternative installation methods (e.g., pile cushioning, jetting, predrilling, cast- in-place systems, resonance-free vibratory pile drivers) such that vibration velocities from the alternative construction activity would fall below t he 0.2 the inch/second threshold. Construction hours, allowable workdays, and the phone number of the job superintendent shall be clearly posted at all construction entrances to allow for surrounding owners and residents to contact the job superintendent. If the City or the job superintendent receives a complaint, the superintendent shall investigate, take appropriate corrective action, and report the action taken to the reporting party.

321
Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis

97 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

4.14 Population and Housing
Threshold (a) Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Less Than Significant Impact. The project would not result in direct housing construction but would facilitate and provide a policy framework for future housing development throughout the City. To meet the City’s RHNA allocation of 11,760 units and to accommodate a buffer of 5,771 units, the HEU identifies candidate housing sites that could accommodate the RHNA allocation, which would induce population growth in the City. As a component of statewide housing legislation, any housing growth and population growth associated with the p roject would be in accordance with State -level regulation and would therefore not be considered unplanned. Additionally, future housing development facilitated by the HEU would occur in urbanized locations near existing utilities and service systems, and areas already served by public services (e.g., police and fire protection, and other emergency responders).

Table 4.14-1: Population Increase from Housing Element Update summarizes the projected population growth associated with the project’s maximum forecast development capacity of 17,531 housing units.

Table 4.14-1: Population Increase from Housing Element
Definition 6th Cycle Housing
Element
Maximum Potential Candidate Housing Units 17,531
Persons per household (American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2019) 2.7 Forecasted Unplanned Population Growth with HEU – 2029 Horizon (persons) +47,333 Existing 2021 Population Estimate 1 112,780
Forecast Population with Housing Element Update: 2029 Horizon (persons) 160,113 Forecast Population Growth with Housing Element Update: 2029 Horizon (percent increase) +41.9%
Forecast SCAG 2045 Population for City2 123,700
Forecast SCAG 2045 Population for City with Housing Element Update (persons) 171,033 Forecast SCAG 2045 Population for City with Housing Element Update (percent increase) +38.3%

1. State of California, Department of Finance, E-1 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State with Annual Percent Change — January 1, 2020 and 2021. Sacramento, California, May 2021.

2. SCAG. 2020. SCAG RTP/SCS: Connect SoCal Plan – Demographics and Growth Forecast. https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/0903fconnectsocal_demographics-and-growth- forecast.pdf?1606001579.

The projected population growth associated with future development facilitated by the HEU is a conservative estimate given no credit was taken for displacing existing on the ground land uses and assuming all persons were new to the City . SCAG forecasts the City’s population will grow to 123,700 persons through the RTP/SCS horizon year of 2045. Therefore, project implementation would generate a population growth rate that is approximately 29.4 percent greater than SCAG’s forecast population projections for the City. However, when adopting Connect SoCal, SCAG recognized that its growth projections do not constitute a prescriptive pattern of future development for General Plan or zoning code amendments. The distribution and types of RHNA housing units allocated within each local jurisdiction 322
Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis

98 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
continues to be fully and completely subject to local control and subject to other applicable laws, and not be constrained or affected by Connect SoCal’s growth projections.

SCAG’s Resolution No. 20-624-1 further notes that for many cities and counties, General Plan and zoning changes may need to accommodate more housing units than reflected in the Connect SoCal’s household and population growth projections. Given SCAG’s use of growth projections for regional planning and modeling purposes, and the local jurisdictions’ obligations to comply with State Housing law s including RHNA, SCAG agrees that potential exceedances may not be used to impede a local jurisdiction’s compliance with the 6
th Cycle RHNA requirements or to assess impacts of a plan or project under CEQA.

Further, it is anticipated that the next RTP/SCS update will incorporate the latest population and housing growth projections from the 6 th Cycle RHNA and the Housing Elements of cities and counties within the SCAG region. Accordingly, the forecast population growth generated by the future housing development facilitated through the HEU would not be classified as unplanned growth but rather would accommodate growth.

Future housing development would be subject to development review process and be assessed on a case- by-case basis for potential effects conce rning population growth. Additionally, future housing development would be subject to compliance with all f ederal, State, and local requirements for minimizing growth-related impacts. Local requirements include those stated in the Costa Mesa General Plan and CMMC. Future housing development facilitated by the project would primarily occur in urbanized locations where utility and service systems (e.g., water, sewer, stormwater, and dry utilities) already exist or are planned to accommodate residential develo pment in the community. Therefore, the HEU would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in the City directly or indirectly, a less than significant impact would occur.

Threshold (b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing peo ple or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Less Than Significant Impact. SB 166 (2017) requires a city or county to ensure that its housing inventory identified in its Housing Element can accommodate its share of the regional housing need throughout the planning period. It prohibits a city or county from reducing, requiring, or permitting the reduction of the residential density to a lower residential density than what was used by the HCD for certification of the Housing Element, unless the city or county makes written findings supported by substantial evidence that the reduction is consistent with the adopted General Plan, including the Housing Element.

Compliance with SB 166 would min imize the potential for future housing displacement. The candidate housing site s inventory would be sufficient to accommodate the City’s RHNA allocation, and all HEU actions would occur such that there is no net loss of residential unit capacity. Therefore , the HEU’s potential impacts, including from future development facilitated by the HEU, concerning displacement of existing people or housing, and need to construction replacement housing elsewhere would be less than significant.

Mitigation Program
Standard Conditions and Mitigation Measures
No standard conditions or mitigation measures are applicable to the proposed HEU. 323
Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis

99 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

4.15 Public Services
Threshold (a.i) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection? Less than Significant Impact. T he Costa Mesa Fire Department provides fire protection and emergency services to the City. The Fire Department has 6 fire stations and 90 full- time staff. The proposed project would not directly result in new housing construction but would guide and provide a policy framework for future housing development within the City. Future housing development fac ilitated by the HEU would result in an estimated population growth of 47,333 persons (see Section 4.14, Population and Housing) that would incrementally increase the demand for fire protection services in the City.

All candidate housing sites are within urbanized areas, surrounded by development, and served by CMFD.

It is not anticipated that new fire protection facilities would be necessary for these sites. However, future housing development facilitated by the HEU loc ated on vacant sites , which is three percent of the candidate housing sites, would incrementally increase the demand for fire protection services. Future housing development would be subject to comply with General Plan Safety Element Policy S -2.7, which requires future developments to contribute a fair share toward funding the provision of appropriate fire and emergency medical services as determined necessary to adequately serve projects. Therefore, the project would not result in physical impacts associated with the provision or construction of fire protection facilities.

Future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be subject to the City’s development review process, the 2019 California Fire Code, and CMMC Title 7, Chapter II, Section 7-14 (Adoption of Fire Code), which requires new construction projects comply with fire safety standards and required fire prevention measures such as smoke and carbon monoxide sensors, fire extinguishers, and sprinkler systems to reduce the burden to fire servi ce providers. Further, future housing developments would be subject to Fire System Development Fees detailed in the City’s 2019 -20 Fiscal Year Development Impact Fee Annual Report.34 Payment of these fees would help fund the construction and development of new fire facilities and minimize future housing projects’ operational impacts to fire protection services. Additionally, future housing developers would be required to submit a will -serve letter or service questionnaire to the Fire Department in conjunction with development project applications to ensure that fire protection services are available to serve proposed housing development s. Compliance with the established regulatory framework would minimize impacts to fire protection services to less than significant.

Threshold (a.ii) 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 police protection? Less than Significant Impact. Police services in the City are provided by the Costa M esa Police Department. The Police Department’s headquarters are located at 99 Fair Drive and the department

34 City of Costa Mesa. 2019-20 Fiscal Year Development Impact Fee Annual Report. Accessed at https://www.costamesaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/46181/637435391754870000. 2019. 324
Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis

100 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
currently employs 191 full-time staff members. The project would not result in direct housing construction but would facilitate and provide a policy framework for future housing development on candidate housing sites throughout the City. Future development facilitated by the project would increase demand for police protection services over time. HEU implementation would result in intensification of development and/or change of use, or construction on previously vacant sites. All candidate housing sites are within urbanized areas, surrounded by development, and served by CMPD. Potential impacts would include placing greater demands upon police stations, personnel, and equipment over time, potentially resulting in the need to provide new or expanded facilities in order to maintain acceptable service ratios. The CMPD would continue to provide services to the future housing developments facilitated by the project.

The project does not propose new or physically altered Police Department facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts. Any future expansion of existing Police Department facilities, if required, would be subject to environmental review. Future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be required to submit a will -serve letter or service questionnaire to the Po lice Department in conjunction with development applications to ensure that police protection services are available to serve the proposed housing development. Therefore, the HEU would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered police protection facilities. Impacts would be less than significant, and no physical environmental impacts would occur.

Threshold (a.iii) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated w ith 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 schools? Less than Significant Impact. As previously discussed above, the HEU would not directly result in housing construction but would facilitate future housing development. Future housing development facilitated by the HEU would increase the City’s population by approximately 47,333 persons (see Section 4.14, Population and Housing) and thereby increase the demand for school services. The City is served by the Newport-Mesa Unified School District (NMUSD), which provides public education for grades K-12.

Table 4.15-1: School Capacity lists the existing elementary, middle, and high sch ools and 2019/2020 enrollment numbers.

Future housing development facilitated by the HEU would generate student population growth in the NMUSD, which would incrementally increase the demand for school facilities and services. Any future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be required to comply with SB 50, which allows school districts to collect impact fees from developers of new development (residential and non -residential) projects to offset the cost of new development. Future applicants wou ld be subject to school developer fees from NMUSD. These fees are evaluated on a yearly basis and would be collected at the time of permit issuance. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65995(3)(h), “payment of statutory fees is deemed to be full and complete mitigation of the impacts of any legislative or adjudicative act, or both, involving, but not limited to, the planning, use or development of real property…”. Payment of these fees would provide an adequate financial base to construct new and equip exis ting schools in the area. Impacts concerning construction of school facilities would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

325
Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis

101 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Table 4.15-1 School Capacity
School Grades Current Student Enrollment
Elementary Schools
College Park Elementary
2380 Notre Dame Road, Costa Mesa K-6 512
Killybrooke Elementary
3155 Killybrooke Lane, Costa Mesa K-6 367
Paularino Elementary
1060 Paularino Avenue, Costa Mesa K-6 410
Sonora Elementary
966 Sonora Road, Costa Mesa K-6 398
Middle and High School
Costa Mesa High/Middle School
2650 Fairview Road, Costa Mesa 7-12 1,864
Source: Newport-Mesa Unified School Accountability Report Cards 2019/2020 Notes:

As of 2021, CEQA thresholds apply only to public schools. Thirteen private schools exist within the City and were not included in this table: Waldorf School of Orange County, St. John the Baptist Catholic School, Mariners Christian School, St.

Joachim Elementary School, Renascence School International-- Orange County, Saniku East West Language School, Woodland Child Development Center, Christ Lutheran School, Page Academy. Montessori Christian School, Kline School, and Christian Montessori School – Costa Mesa.

Threshold (a.iv) 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 parks? Less Than Significant Impact. Please refer to Section 4.16, Recreation.

Threshold (a.v) 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 environ mental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for other public facilities? Less than Significant Impact. The project would facilitate and provide a policy framework for future housing development on candidate housing sites throughout the City, which are situated in urbanized areas. Future housing development facilitated by the HEU and the resulting population growth would increase the demand on public facilities. The population growth would in crease the demand for public services and facilities over time. Potential impacts would include placing greater demands upon existing facilities and personnel, potentially resulting in the need to provide new or expanded facilities, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios.

As previously noted, HEU implementation would not result in direct housing construction but would facilitate future housing development. Future housing development facilitated by the HEU and the resulting population growth of approximately 47,333 persons would incrementally increase the demand for library facilities. Future housing development facilitated by the HEU would occur in urbanized locations near existing library facilities.
326
Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis

102 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
The project does not propose construction of new or physically altered public facilities. Future development could warrant construction of new facilities or physically altered existing facilities depending upon its nature and timing. Any future expansion of existing facilities or construction of new, if required, would be subject to environmental review. Demand would be at least partially offset by funding generated by tax revenue of higher numbers of residents.35 Therefore, impacts on public facilities would be less than significant.

Mitigation Program
Standard Conditions and Mitigation Measures
No standard conditions or mitigation measures are applicable to the proposed HEU.

35 Property tax is the primary funding source for the Orange County Public Library – County of Orange FY 2019-2020 Recommended Budget.
327
Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis

103 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

4.16 Recreation
Threshold (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. The project would not result in direct housing construction but would facilitate future housing development . Future housing development facilitated by the HEU and the resulting population growth of approximately 47,333 persons (see Section 4.14, Population and Housing), would incrementally increase the use of existing recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration could occur or be accelerated. Future residential projects could increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks. All future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be subject to the City’s development review process and compliance with CMMC requirements. CMMC Title Chapter XII, Article 4 ( Park and Recreation Impact Fees ) identifies that park and recreation impact fe es are applicable to subdivisions, multi -family, and apartment units , as outlined in SC REC -1. Payment of fees helps fund the acquisition and development of new or rehabilitating existing park and recreational facilities needed to accommodate demands created by the addition of residential dwelling units. Prior to subdivision map re cordation or issuance of building permits, residential developments that create a subdivision must dedicate a portion of the land, or pay a fee in lieu thereof, to provide park and recreation facilities to serve future residents, as outlined in SC REC-2 (CMMC Title 13, Chapter XI, Article 5).

According to the Costa Mesa General Plan, the City has over 415 acres of neighborhood and community parks, exclusive of the 244 -acre Talbert Regional Park. Payment of impact fees pursuant to CMMC Title 13, Chapter XII , Article 4 would ensure that future development facilitated by the HEU not result in substantial physical deterioration of park or recreational facilities in the City as a result of an increase in the use of existing parks and recreational facilities. Further, it is possible that future developments would include the construction of additional recreational facilities and developer- produced parks, but it is presently unknown until future housing projects are proposed.

Additionally, the HEU’s candidate housing sites are dispersed throughout the community to minimize the potential for adverse changes in the neighborhood character and reduce the potential for adverse impacts on recreation amenities. Adherence to mandatory development permit requirements and regulations for providing recreation would support the City’s goals for providing sufficient recreation opportunities for residents. For these reasons, the HEU and future housing dev elopment facilitated by the HEU would not result in substantial physical deterioration of existing neighborhood or regional parks. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Threshold (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 previously noted, the p roject would not result in direct housing construction but would facilitate future housing development on candidate housing sites located throughout the City. Future development would increase demand for parks and recreational facilities over time. Potential impacts would include placing greater demands on parkland and recreational facilities, potentially resulting in the need to provide new or expanded facilities in order to maintain an acceptable level of service. The p roject does not propose construction of new or physically altered parks or recreational facilities. Therefore, the project would not result in substantial environmental impacts in this 328
Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis

104 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
regard. Future development could warrant construction of new or physically altered parks or recreational facilities depending upon its nature and timing. Any future expansion of existing facilities or construction of new facilities, if required, would be subject to environmental review and comply with any applicable development review actions related to the expansion of recreational facilities.

Mitigation Program
Standard Conditions
SC REC-1 Prior to the issuance of building permits, applicants of projects that do not meet the City’s parkland dedication requirements shall pay park fees as established in CMMC Title 13, Chapter XII, Article 4 (Park and Recreation Impact Fees) to provide park and recreational facilities to serve the future residents of proposed new residential units.

SC REC-2 Every residential subdivider who creates a subdivision shall be required to dedicate a portion of the land, pay a fee in lieu thereof, or do a combination of both, as established in CMMC Title 13, Chapter XI, Article 5 (Park and Recreation Dedications) for the purpose of providing park and recreational facilities to serve future residents of the subdivision. In determining whether a subdivider shall dedicate land, pay a fee in lieu of land dedication, or a combination of both, the following procedure shall be used:
(a) Subdividers required to or desiring to dedicate property for park and recreational purposes shall, upon filing a tentative map for approval, check with the city to determine whether their property has been designated for a park site in the gen eral plan. If a subdivider’s property is so designated, the subdivider shall coordinate with the necessary departments to incorporate the park site(s) into the property’s development plan.
(b) If the subdivider’s property is not so designated, and a school site is proposed within or in proximity to the property, a park site adjacent to the school site shall be developed and the subdivider shall coordinate with the necessary departments to incorporate the park site(s) into the property’s development plan.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are applicable.
329
Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis

105 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

4.17 Transportation
The City of Costa Mesa is accessed via three primary corridors: the I-405, the Corona Del Mar Freeway (SR-73), and the Costa Mesa Freeway (SR-55).

Interstate 405 (I-405). I-405 is a major north-south regional facility that provides access between the City and other communities in Orange County such as Irvine, Fountain Valley, and Westminster. I -405 also provides connectivity to Los Angeles County in the northbound direc tion. The I-405 carries significant vehicle trips in Orange County, with an estimated 370,000 vehicle trips per day. 36 The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) in cooperation with Caltrans is currently widening a 16-mile segment of the I-405 between I-605 and SR-73. This project is expected to be completed in 2023.37 State Route 73 (SR-73). SR-73, also referred to as the Corona del Mar Freeway, is a north-south regional facility that provides access between the City and other communities in Orange County such as Irvine, Aliso Viejo, and Laguna Niguel . SR-73 begins at the I -405 between Fairview Road and Bear Street, and continues in a southeast direction becoming the San Joaquin Hills Transp ortation Corridor ( SR-133) in Laguna Beach. A majority of SR-73 is a limited-access toll highway. The first three miles of SR-73 have no tolls and make up the entire Corona del Mar Freeway.

State Route 55 (SR-55). SR-55, or the Costa Mesa Freeway, is a major regional facility that bisects the City in a northeast to southwest direction. SR -55 continues through the downtown Triangle area before transitioning into Newport Boulevard south of 19 th Street. In 2015, it was observed that approximately 100,000 vehicles used this freeway daily.38
Major Arterial Streets. Harbor Boulevard, Fairview Road, and Bristol Street are main north-south arterial roads that serve the City. All three roadways connect to I-405 and are six-lane facilities. Vehicle traffic on Harbor Boulevard, Fairview Road, and Bristol Street is approximately 40,000, 28,000 to 54,000 vehicles a day, respectively and connects the City to the neighboring cities of Newport Beach and Santa Ana.39 Public Transit and Pedestrian Facilities. Public bus transit in the City is provided by OCTA. OCTA operates over ten bus routes throughout the City, including to regional destinations such as South Coast Plaza and the downtown Triangle area. Metrolink provides public train services to Orange County with connections to other regional destinations in San Diego County and Los Angeles County. Although there are no Metrolink stations in the City, the Metrolink Station Non-motorized Accessibility Strategy outlines policies to encourage public train ridership through connected walking and biking trails and walkways between Metrolink stations.

Pedestrian facilities in the City include a large, interconnected system of sidewalks and walking trails throughout the City, including facilities along most streets, pedestrian streets near The Triangle, and trails in as Fairview Park.40

36 City of Costa Mesa. General Plan- Circulation Element. https://www.costamesaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/34694/636740022558830000, 2015. 37 Ibid.
38 Ibid.
39 Ibid.
40 City of Costa Mesa. General Plan-Circulation Element: Figure C-6. 2015. 330
Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis

106 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Threshold (a) Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? Less than Significant Impact. The project would not result in direct housing construction but would facilitate and provide a policy framework for future housing development on candidate housing sites throughout the City. The HEU does not include any goals, policies, or implementation programs that would conflict with plans or other regulations that address the circulation system. Future development projects would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis to verify consistency with applicable regulations that address the circulation system.

General Plan Circulation Element Policy C-9.3 requires that adequate pedestrian facilities are provided in new development projects. Future housing development facilitated by the HEU would comply with Policy C-9.3 by providing connections to the existing pedestrian facility network . Further, planned residential development projects facilitated by the HEU would comply with CMMC Title 13, Chapter V, Article 6, Section 13-62 (Planned Development Standa rds) which requires planned residential development to provide physically separated pedestrian walking corridors. Compliance with Policy C-9.3 and CMMC Title 13, Chapter V, Article 6, Section 13-62 would promote the creation and improvement of walking facilities throughout the City.

Future housing development facilitated by the HEU would comply with goals to improve bicycle lanes and access throughout the City, including Policy C-9.3 which requires that bicycle parking be considered when new developments ar e designed. Future development projects could incorporate bicycle racks to encourage future residents to utilize alternative modes of transportation.

The City sets forth provisions to assure adequate transportation system in conjunction with new development under CMMC Title 13, Chapter XII, Article 3, Section 13-275 (Development Project Review Procedures), which requires preparation of traffic studies to evaluate potential traffic impacts . 41 Future
housing development would also subject to payment of Traffic Impact Fees 42 that would fund future traffic-related capital improvement projects for the City. The City’s review process would examine project compatibilities with the surrounding areas to ensure future housing development facilitated by the HEU would not conflict with existing circulation plans . As a result, future housing development on the candidate housing sites facilitated by the HEU would not conflict with an adopted program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

41 A traffic impact study shall be required for all development projects estimated by the public services director to generate one hundred (100) or more vehicle trip ends during a peak hour. Traffic studies may also be required for smaller projects at the discretion of the Public Services Director.
42 City of Costa Mesa. (2019). Development Impact Fees FY 2019-20. Available at:
https://www.costamesaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/46181/637435391754870000 Accessed July 6, 2021. 331
Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis

107 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Threshold (b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines S ection 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Less than Significant Impact. Th e project would not result in direct housing construction but would facilitate and provide a policy framework for future housing development throughout the City. The candidate housing sites are dispersed throughout the City to reduce the potential for adve rse environmental impacts. The intent is to reduce impacts by placing housing near public transportation and recreation opportunities and away from environmentally sensitive resources. Future development projects would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis to ensure consistency with applicable regulations that address the circulation system, including regulations related to VMT and emergency access. The City adopted VMT guidelines pursuant to SB 743 in the Fall of 2020 and subsequently updated CMMC Title 13, Chapter XII, Article 3, Section 13-275 (Development Project Review Procedures), for consistency with SB 743 and revised traffic impact analysis guidelines for new development projects.

Future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be r equired to comply with several General Plan policies which indirectly aim to reduce VMT. General Plan P olicy CON-4.A.5 encourages compact development, infill development, and a mix of uses that are in proximity to transit, pedestrian, and bicycling infrastructures. Of the candidate housing sites, 97 percent of the sites are developed and located in urban and developed areas, and would be considered in-fill development projects. Providing additional housing in urbanized areas of the City would place housing closer to employment and commercial areas, further increasing opportunities to reduce VMT and increase alternative modes of transportation through walking, cycling, and public transit.

Future housing development on the candidate housing sites facilitated by the HEU would be required to adhere to all State and local requirements for avoiding significant impacts related to VMT. Any traffic demand management ( TDM) measures required for mitigation would be required to comply with the City’s adopted VMT guidelin es. In addition, future housing projects would be required to comply with CMMC Title 13, Chapter XII, Article 3, Section 13-275 which defines development project review procedures to evaluate transportation and traffic impacts. Future housing projects would be subject to CMMC Title 13, Chapter XII, Article 3, Section 13-275 and be required to prepare project -level transportation analysis. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Threshold (c) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Less than Significant Impact. The HEU would not result in direct housing construction but would facilitate future housing development throughout the City. Since future housing development facilitated by the HEU would predominantly occur on developed properties and use existing roadways that are connected and adjacent to the existing transportation network, hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible uses are not anticipated.

While site-specific details for future housing development on the candidate housing sites are not known at this time, all future housing development on the candidate housing sites with the potential to substantially increase transportation-related hazards would be subject to the City’s development review process, which may include review pursuant to CEQA, and comply with General Plan policies and CMMC standards. Per CMMC Title 13, Chapter XII, Article 3, Section 13-275, a traffic impact study is required for all development projects estimated by the Public Services Director to generate 100 or more vehicle trip 332
Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis

108 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ends during a peak hour. Traffic studies may also be required for smaller projects at the discretion of the Public Services Director. Further, future housing projects would be subject to the City’s development review process per CMMC Title 13 Chapter V (Development Standards), which would ensure compatible uses per the zoning district.

The City’s Transportation Services Division addresses traffic circulation needs and design issues related to traffic operations during the plan check review process. Future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be required to comply with applicable building and fire safety regulations required for t he design of new housing and emergency access , and would be required to adhere to all state and local requirements for avoiding construction and operations impacts related to design and incompatible uses.

As a result, future housing development facilitated by the HEU would not substantially increase hazards due to design features or incompatible uses. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Threshold (d) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? Less than Significant Impact. The City’s General Plan Safety Element provides several goals and policies aimed at ensuring emergency response times and safety during natural disasters. General Plan Policy S-2.9 requires projects to ensure adequate access to all parcels in the City for emergency response teams and services. Compliance with Policy S-2.9 would ensure future development facilitated by the HEU would be designed to allow for adequate emergency access. Further, the City has adopted the California Fire Code under CMMC Title 7, Chapter II, Section 7-14 and codified several regulations pertaining to emergency access roadway design including CMMC Title 7, Chapter II, Section 7-15 (Amendments to 2019 California Fire Code) which address Fire Code Section 503 - Fire Apparatus Access Roads . Future housing development on the candidate housing sites facilitated by the HEU would be required to comply with CMMC Section Title 7, Chapter II, 7-15 which requires fire apparatus access roads installed and arranged in accordance with the Costa Mesa Fire and Rescue Department Plan Submittal Checklist Specifications.

Additionally, CBC standards also apply regarding new construction and development of emergency access issues associated with earthquakes, flooding, climate/strong winds, and water shortages. Future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be required to comply with current, applicable building and fire safety regulations required for the design of new housing and emergency access. Compliance with the General Plan, CMMC, the California Fire Code, and CBC standards would ensure future housing development facilitated by the HEU provide adequate emergency access. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Program
Standard Conditions and Mitigation Measures
No standard conditions or mitigation measures are applicable to the proposed project.

333
Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis

109 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources
Threshold (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
ii) A re source 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 Resources 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. Chapter 532 Statutes of 2014 (i.e., AB 52) requires that lead agencies evaluate a project’s potential impact on “tribal cultural resources.” Such resources include “sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources or included in a local register of historical resources.” AB 52 also gives lead agencies the discretion to determine, based on substantial evidence, whether a resource qualifies as a “tribal cultural resource.” In compliance with PRC Section 21080.3.1(b), the City has provided formal notification to California Native American tribal representatives identified by the California Native American Heritage Commission. Native American groups may have knowledge about cultural resources in the area and may have concerns about adverse effects from development on tribal cultural resources as defined in PRC Section 21074. The City contacted the tribal representatives noted below.
 Campo Band of Diegueno Mission Indians, Ralph Goff
 Ewiiaapaayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians, Robert Pinto
 Ewiiaapaayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians, Michael Garcia
 Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation, Andrew Salas  Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians, Anthony Morales  Gabrielino/Tongva Nation, Sandonne Goad
 Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council, Robert Dorame  Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council, Christina Conley  Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe, Charles Alvarez
 Juaneño Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation - Belardes, Matias Belardes  La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians, Javaughn Miller  La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians, Gwendolyn Parada  Manzanita Band of Kumeyaay Nation, Angela Elliott Santos 334
Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis

110 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
 Mesa Grande Band of Diegueno Mission Indians, Michael Linton  Pala Band of Mission Indians, Shasta Gaughen
 Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians, Lovina Redner
 Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians, Isaiah Vivanco
Correspondence to and from tribal representatives is included as Appendix A: Native American Tribal Consultation Correspondence to this Initial Study. As of the release date of the Initial Study, the City has received one response from the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation on October 8, 2021 requesting clarification regarding the HEU. No consultation was requested.

While the HEU does not propose any development or ground -disturbing activities such as grading or excavation, it can be assumed that future housing development on the candidate housing sites facilitated by the HEU could directly or indirectly impact undiscovered subsurface tribal cultural resources through such activities. The likelihood of encountering tribal cultural resources on undeveloped sites is greatest on sites that have been minimally excavated in the past (e.g., undeveloped parcels, vacant lots, and lots containing undeveloped areas). Alternately, previously excavated areas are generally considered to have a lower potential for tribal cultural resources, since the previously graded areas may have already removed or disturbed the soil that may have previously contained resources.

Since no construction or development is proposed by the HEU and the details for future housing development on the candidate housing sites facilitated by the HEU is not known at this time, no site- specific surveys were conducted for this programmatic analysis. The HEU analysis was evaluated based on information available to the City where reasonably foreseeable, direct, and indirect physical changes in the environment could be considered. Further analysis was not conduc ted on tribal cultural resources because the City had no further information on which to base an analysis of potential impacts resulting from future housing development on the candidate housing sites.

Future housing development on the candidate housing sit es facilitated by the HEU would be subject to the City’s development process and would be required to comply with federal, state, and local requirements for the protection of tribal cultural resources. This includes compliance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 21074 and the City’s Historical and Cultural Resources Element , Objective HCR -1A, which aims to preserve and protect the City’s historical, archaeological, and paleontological resources. In the likelihood that future housing development would impact tribal resources, MM TR -1 would be required. MM T R-1 requires applicants to immediately cease any ground -disturbing activities upon discovery of any tribal, cultural, or arch aeological resources. Implementation of MM TR -1 would reduce potential future impacts to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures
MM TCR-1 Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural and Archaeological Resources: Upon discovery of any tribal, cultural, or archaeological resources during ground-disturbing activities, the Applicant shall immediately cease such activities in the immediate vicinity. The find will then be assessed by a qualified archeologist retained by the Applicant and a tribal monitor/consultant approved by the consulting tribe. The applicant shall promptly notify the Director of Economic and Development Services to the discovery of resources. If the 335
Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis

111 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
resources are Native American in origin, the consulting tribe shall coordinate with the landowner regarding treatment and curation of these resources. Typically, the tribe will request preservation in place or recovery for educational purposes. At the direction of the qualified archaeologist and tribal monitor /consultant, and in coordination with the Development Services Department, work may continue on other parts of the affected site while evaluation and, if necessary, additional protective measures are completed at the affected portion of the site pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 [f]. If a resource is determined by the qualified archaeologist to constitute a “historical resource” or “unique archaeological resource,” time and funding to allow for sufficient implementation of avoidance measures must be made available. The treatment plan established for the resources shall be in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(f) for historical resources. Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment upon ident ification of unique archeological resources (Public Resources Code Section 21083.2(b)). If preservation in place is not feasible, treatment may include implementation of archaeological data recovery excavations to remove the resource along with subsequent laboratory processing and analysis. All tribal cultural resources shall be returned to the consulting tribe. Any historic archaeological material that is not Native American in origin shall be curated at a public, non -profit institution with a research int erest in the materials . Acceptance and curation of the historic archeological materials will be at the discretion of the institution. If no institution accepts the archaeological material, they shall be offered to the consulting tribe or the Costa Mesa Historical Society for educational purposes.

336
Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis

112 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
This page intentionally left blank.

337
Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis

113 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

4.19 Utilities and Service Systems
Threshold (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?
Water Facilities: Less than Significant Impact. The Mesa Water District and Irvine Ranch Water D istrict provide water service to the City. All of the candidate housing sites are in the Mesa Water District service area, which has approximately 110,000 users within an 18-square-mile area. Approximately 97 percent of candidate housing sites are developed and are s erved by existing water infrastructure . Only three candidate housing sites are undeveloped but are bordered by urban development with Mesa Water District infrastructure. Accordingly, future housing development facilitated by the HEU is not anticipated to require or result in the relocation or construction of substantial new or expanded water facilities that could cause significant environmental effects. Notwithstanding, all future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be subject to the City’s development review process, which may include review pursuant to CEQA, and be required to adhere to General Plan policies and the CMMC standards.

Further, future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be required to obtain will-serve letters from the Mesa Water District per the City’s Standard Conditions of Approval (SC UT-1). Developers would contact the water district submit plans to be reviewed prior to the issuance of permits. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur and no mitigation is required.

Wastewater Treatment Facilities: Less than Significant Impact. The Costa Mesa Sanitary District (CMSD) provides sanitation services to the City and maintains approximately 224 miles of sewer mains throughout its service area.
43 There are also over 45,000 individual connections to residences, commercial and industrial properties44. The Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) processes over 200 million gallons of collected wastewater daily at treatment plants in the cities of Fountain Valley and Huntington Beach.

OCSD owns and maintains tr unk sewers and diversion structures in the City. Wastewater generated by future housing development facilitated by the HEU wou ld be treated at OCSD Reclamation Plants No . 1 and 2.

As noted in Section 4.14, Population and Housing, the forecast population growth resulting from future housing development facilitated by the HEU is 47,333 persons, or an approximate 41.9 percent increase of the City’s existing population of 112,780 residents.45 CMSD’s Five -Year Strategic Plan (2020 -2025) identifies goals to further assess the water needs of the City as it grows annually. F uture housing development facilitated by the HEU would increase demand incrementally. Future development projects would be required to coordinate with CMSD and obtain will -serve letters from CMSD as part of the development review process. Additionally, all future housing development would be required to be designed, constructed, and operated in accordance with OCSD Ordinance Nos. 40 and 48, and all wastewater discharges into OCSD facilities would be required to comply with the discharge standards set

43 Costa Mesa Sanitary District. Sewer System.
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/instant/minimalist/index.html?appid=72c5a224befa49f387063e679334e9ae. Accessed online July 1, 2021.
44 CMSD. Sewer System Facts. https://cmsdca.gov/index.php/wastewater/sewer-system-facts. Accessed online on June 29, 2021.
45 US Census. Costa Mesa City California. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/costamesacitycalifornia/PST045219.

Accessed online on June 29, 2021.
338
Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis

114 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
forth to protect the public sewage system and Waters of t he United States. Additionally, as noted in Section 4.14, the population buildout is overly conservative since no credit is taken for displacement of existing on the ground land uses. Forecast population growth similarly assumes a net population increase of entirely new residents to the City.

It should also be noted that 97 percent of the candidate housing sites are developed , and therefore already have access to existing wastewater infrastructure. Accordingly, future housing development facilitated by the HEU is not anticipated to require or result in the relocation or construction of substantial new or expanded wastewater facilities that could cause significant environmental effects.

Future development on candidate housing sites facilitated by the HEU would also be required to comply with CMMC Title 13, Chapter V, Article 9, Section 13-71 (Utility Requirements), which requires adherence to standards and approval of sewer and water system improvements from the serving utility. Additionally, the City requires as a Standard Condition of Approval for developers to contact and work with CMSD to comply with district requirements design standards. All future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be required to meet the mandatory requirements under the City’s various programs aimed at ensuring adequate supplies and service infrastructure are available to serve the development. Compliance with CMSD design requirements as well as other CMMC regulations would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level and no mitigation is required.

Stormwater Drainage: Less than Significant Impact. The City of Costa Mesa developed a Drainage Master Plan in 2012 , which provides an inventory of existing drainage capacity as well as future goals for expansion and stormwater management. The City’s Public Services Department is currently revising the Storm Drain Master Plan and an updat ed version is expected to be released in 2022. Future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be located in developed areas of the City where storm drain infrastructure already exists. Further, most of the candidate housing sites are developed and include existing connections to the City’s storm drain system. Accordingly, future housing development facilitated by the HEU is not anticipated to require or result in the relocation or construction of substantial new or expanded storm drain facilities t hat could cause significant environmental effects . The City requires projects that disturb more than 5,000 square feet of impervious surfaces prepare a preliminary water quality plan (WQMP) as part of the City’s grading permit requirements. WQMPs detail pre -development and post-development conditions and how project flows drain to local or regional drainage facilities. The City’s Engineering Division development review process and implementation of a WQMP would ensure that future housing development facilit ated by the HEU would be adequately serv ed by storm drain infrastructure.

Future housing development facilitated by the HEU would also comply with CMMC Title 15, Chapter III, Section 15-65 (Drainage Fees Established) , which establishes a drainage fee for development or redevelopment projects. The Drainage Fees would be used by the City to defray the cost of constructing storm drains and related facilities, including repair, maintenance and upkeep of existing drainage facilities.

Notwithstanding, all future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be subject to the City’s development review process, which may include review pursuant to CEQA, and be subject to payment of drainage fees per CMMC Title 15, Chapter III, Section 15-65. A less than significant impact would occur.

Dry Utilities (i.e., Electric Power, Natural Gas, and Telecommunications) : Less than Significant Impact.

Southern California Gas (SoCal Gas) and Southern California Edison (SCE) provide natural gas and 339
Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis

115 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
electricity, respectively to the City of Costa Mesa. Telecommunications services are provided by multiple companies including Spectrum, Verizon, Direct TV, AT&T, and Cox Communications.

Of the total candidate housing sites, 97 percent of the sites are developed , bordered by ur ban development, and within the service area of existing electric power, natural gas, and telecommunications providers and facilities. The remaining three percent of candidate housing sites are vacant but are bordered by urban development and fall within the service area of the utility purveyors. All future housing development would be required to meet the mandatory requirements under the City’s various programs aimed at ensuring adequate supplies and service infrastructure are available to se rve the development.

In addition, future development would be required to ensure adequate supplies and service infrastructure as required by CMMC Title 13, Chapter V, Article 9, Section 13-71 (Utility Requirements). A less than significant impact would occur.

Threshold (b) Would the project 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. Future housing development facilitated by the HEU would generate additional demand for water services. Costa Mesa is served by two water supply agencies: Mesa Water District and Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD). Properties to the southeast of Newport Boulevard, between 23
rd Street and Bristol Street, are served by IRWD. All candidate housing sites are in the Mesa Water District service area, which has approximately 110,000 users within an 18-square-mile area. Mesa Water District’s main sources of water are groundwater from the Orange County Groundwater Basi n, recycled water, and purchased/imported water from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan) through the Municipal Water District of Orange County in the event of an emergency.

According to the Mesa Water District 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), during fiscal year 2019-2020, the water district relied on 94 percent groundwater (75 % from clear wells and 19 % from desalinated groundwater) and 6 percent recycled water; no water was imported from Metropolitan. Mesa Water District forecasts 100 percent reliance on local water supplies by 2045, with a similar water supply portfolio of 95 percent groundwater and 5 percent recycled water.46 Mesa Water District conducted a Water Reliability Assessment to compare the total water supply sources available to the water supplier with long-term projected water use over the next 20 years, in five- year increments, for a normal water year, a single dry water year, and a drought lasting five consecutive water years. The UWMP determined that even in the multiple- dry year scenario, the Mesa Water District would be capable of meeting all customers’ demands with significant groundwater reserves. Shortage conditions due to drought would not trigger customer demand reduction measures.47
It is noted that future development would occur incrementally, based on market conditions and other factors. Future development satisfying certain criteria would be required to prepare a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) in order to verify sufficient water supply is available to meet the development’s water demand. Future development would also be subject to compliance with General Plan Policies CON-3.A.1 through CON-3.A.3 concerning water conservation.

46 Mesa Water District, June 2021, 2020 Urban Water Management Plan page ES-2 47 Mesa Water District, June 2021, 2020 Urban Water Management Plan page ES-3 340
Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis

116 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be subject to discretionary permits and required to adhere to all federal, State, and local requirements during construction and operation for ensuring that sufficient water supplies are available. Further, future housing development applicants would be required to present will -serve letters from the water district to ensure proper service and sufficient availability to serve future housing development facilitated by the HEU . 48 Therefore, impacts
would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Threshold (c) Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? Less than Significant Impact. The Costa Mesa Sanitary District (CMSD) provides wastewater services to the City of Costa Mesa. The Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) treats sewage for CMSD. Future development facilitated by the HEU would increase demand on the wastewater treatment facility capacities. OCSD’s 2019 Strategic Plan addresses future growth and plans to continue to expand as demand increases by assessing current wastewater needs as well as expansion of infrastructure to serve the area .49 Table 4.19-1: Wastewater Capacity of OCSD Plants shows the daily capacity of OCSD wastewater treatment plants.

Table 4.19-1:Wastewater Capacity of OCSD Plants
Plant Million Gallons Per Day (MGD)
Fountain Valley (Plant No. 1) 120
Huntington Beach (Plant No. 2) 65
Total 185
Source: Orange County Sanitation District. Facts and Key Statistics. Accessed through https://www.ocsan.gov/services/regional-sewer-service. Accessed on July 19, 2021.

The project would increase the population by 47,333 persons, although not all new persons would be new customers to the CMSD service area , since there is a potential for existing City residents to relocate to other portions of the City within the CMSD service area OCSD estimates an average generation rate of 75 gallons per capita per day (GPCD).50 Future housing development facilitated by the HEU could increase demand of wastewater services by approximately 3.5 million gallons per day ( MGD) or 2 percent of the existing capacity at the OCSD treatment plants. Future housing developments facilitated by the HEU would comply with CMMC Title 13, Chapter III, Section 13-29 (Planning Application Review Process) which requires developments subject to parcel or tract maps ensure project sewage flows would not violate the State Regional Water Control Board requirements pursuant to California Water Code Division 7 standards (which govern Water Quality). Considering these requirements and the available capacity of the treatment plants, the project would not result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing

48 MWD. Procedural Guidelines and General Design Requirements. https://www.mesawater.org/about/engineering/standard- specifications/document/download/1143 . 2018.
49 OCSD. (2019). Strategic Plan. Accessed through https://www.ocsan.gov/Home/ShowDocument?id=29333. 50 OCSD. (2017). Final Report and Recommendations on Wastewater Rates, Fees, and Charges. Accessed through https://www.ocsan.gov/Home/ShowDocument?id=23431.
341
Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis

117 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
commitments. No new significant expansions of infrastructure facilities are required, and impacts would be less than significant.

Threshold (d) Would the project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
Less than Significant Impact. CMSD provides solid waste service to the City . CMSD is required by the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) that at least 50 percent of all the City’s solid waste and recycling is diverted from landfills. There are also a multitude of other laws that require developers to provide multifamily-unit recycling and organic waste receptacles as well as promote statewide waste reductions:
 AB 341 requires cities and counties to implement recycling programs, reduce refuse at the source, and compost waste to achieve the established 75 percent diversion of solid waste from landfills.  AB 1826 requires businesses to recycle organic waste depending on the amount of waste generated per week.
 SB 1383 requires a 75 percent reduction of state-wide organic waste by 2025 in order to reduce associated greenhouse gases such as methane and other short-lived climate emissions.

Future development would involve a maximum development buildout of 17,531 housing units over existing conditions. Therefore, the project would increase solid waste disposal demands. It is not expected that future projects would lead to inadequate landfill capacity at the Frank R. Bowerman Sanitary Landfill, which has a daily capacity of 11,500 tons per day. The landfill has the capacity for 266 million cubic yards and has an operational life through 2053.
51 Solid waste generated at future housing developments facilitated by the HEU would represent a nominal increase in disposal rates. Existing landfill capacity would be sufficient to serve future development in the City. Future housing development facilitated by the HEU may be subject to the City’s development review process and be required to adhere to all federal, state, and local requirements for solid waste reduction and recycling. Considering these requirements, the HEU implementation would not generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of local infrastructure’s capacity. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Threshold (e) Would the project comply with federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Less than Significant Impact. State, county, and local agencies with regulatory authority related to solid waste include the California Department of Resou rces Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) and the City of Costa Mesa. Regulations specifically applicable t o future housing development on candidate housing sites include the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939), Section 4.408 of the CalGreen Code, and SB 341, which requires multi-family residential development and commercial uses to implement recycling programs.

The Integrated Waste Management Act requires every City and County in the State to prepare a Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) to its Solid Waste Management Plan, which identifies how each

51 CalRecycle, Solid Waste Information System, Available at:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/2767?siteID=2103, Accessed September 12, 2021. 342
Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis

118 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
jurisdiction will meet the State’s mandatory waste diversion goal of 50 percent by and after 2000. In accordance with SB 341, the diversion goal has been increased to 75 percent by 2020.

Future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be subject to compliance with t he 201 9 CalGreen Code Section 4.408 .2, which requires preparation of a Construction Waste Management Plan that outlines methods to divert or reuse 65 percent of nonhazardous construction and demolition debris.

Future projects would comply with the CalGreen Code through the recycling and reuse of at least 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition debris from a project site.

Future housing development facilitated by the HEU would comply with regulations such as AB 939, AB 341, AB 1826, and SB 1383 which would ensure solid waste reduction, increased rates of recycling, and the proper disposal o f organic waste. Compliance with these regulations would result in less than significant impacts and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Program
Standard Conditions and Mitigation Measures
SC UT-1 Customer shall contact the Mesa Water District – Engineering Desk and submit an application with plans for project review. Customer must obtain a letter of approval and a letter of project completion from Mesa Water District.

343
Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis

119 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

4.20 Wildfire
Threshold (a) If located in or near State responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No Impact. According to Cal Fire’s Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map,52 the City is not within a very high fire hazard severity zone for a Local Responsibility Area. No candidate housing sites are near a fire hazard severity zone. Therefore, future housing development facilitated by the HEU would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan because no portion of the City is within a very high fire hazard severity zone. No impact would occur.

Threshold (b) If located in or near State responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, would the project exacerbate wildfire risks and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? No Impact. As discussed above, no portion of the City is within a very high fire hazard severity zone .

Therefore, future housing development facilitated by the HEU would not exacerbate wildfire risks and would not expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. No impacts would occur.

Threshold (c) If located in or near State responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project 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. No portion of the City is within a very high fire hazard severity zone. Therefore, future housing development facilitated by the HEU would not require the installation or maintenance of infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impact to the environment. N o impacts would occur.

Threshold (d) If located in or near State responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project 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. No portion of the City is within a very high fire hazard severity zone. Therefore, future housing development facilitated by the HEU would not expose people or structures to significant risks as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes associated with a very high fire hazard severity zone. No impacts would occur.

Mitigation Program
Standard Conditions and Mitigation Measures
No standard conditions or mitigation measures are applicable to the proposed HEU.

52 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, California Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer Available at:
https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/, Accessed June 28, 2021. 344
Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis

120 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
This page intentionally left blank.

345
Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis

121 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

4.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Threshold (a) Does the project have the potential to substantially de grade 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. On the basis of the foregoing analysis, the proposed project does not have the potential to significantly 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 or 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.

The project would not result in direct housing construction but would facilitate and provide a policy framework for future housing development on candidate housing sites throughout the City. All future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be subject to the City’s development review process and required to adhere to all federal, state, and local requirements. The HEU would not result in any direct environmental impacts that would 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.

Threshold (b) Does the project have possible environmental effects which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
Less than Significant Impact. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15065(a)(3) defines “cumulatively considerable” as times when “the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.” This document provides a programmatic analysis of the effects of the proposed HEU and the future housing development facilitated by its implementation.

The project would facilitate and provide a policy framework for future housing development on candidate housing sites throughout the City, which are situated in urbanized areas. Fu ture housing development facilitated by the HEU would occur as market conditions allow and at the discretion of the individual property owners; be subject to the City’s development review process; be subject to environmental review under CEQA; and does not propose changes to current land use designations and zoning. Based on these factors, and since all future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be subject to the City’s development review process, the project would not result in environmental e ffects, which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable.

Threshold (c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less than Significant Impact. There are no known substantial adverse effects on human beings that would be caused by the proposed project. The HEU would facilitate future housing development throughout the 346
Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis

122 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
City but would not result in direct housing construction. The HEU provides capacit y for future housing development consistent with State Housing law. The candidate housing sites are dispersed throughout the community to minimize the potential for adverse changes in neighborhood character and aesthetics and reduce the potential for adverse impacts to the environment. The expansion of housing units in the City intends to create adequate housing availability at all income levels. The creation of more economically and socially diversified housing choices is a goal of the HEU and inten ds to provide new housing opportunities for low-income households. Implementation of the HEU would provide additional housing options for various income levels, as allocated by RHNA. Impacts are less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

347
Section 5.0
References

123 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

5.0 REFERENCES
Arcadis U.S., Inc. (2021). Mesa Water District 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Available at:
https://www.mesawater.org/documents/document/3534-june-30-2021-2020-urban-water- management-plan. Accessed July 8, 2021.

California Department of Conservation, California Important Farmland Finder. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/, accessed August 3, 2021 California, State of, Department of Water Resources. (2019). Groundwater Basin Boundary Assessment Tool. Available at: https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/bbat/. Accessed July 8, 2021.

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, California Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer Available at: https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/, Accessed June 28, 2021.

California, State of, Department of Toxic Substances Control. Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List - Site Cleanup (Cortese List). Available at: https://dtsc.ca.gov/dtscs-cortese-list/. Accessed:

August 12, 2021.

Caltrans. (2018). California State Scenic Highway System Map, Available at:
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e80571 16f1aacaa, Accessed July 19, 2021.

California, State of, Water Resources Control Board. Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA).

Available at https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/gmp/sgma.html. Accessed July 8, 2021.

CalRecycle, Solid Waste Information System, Available at:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/2767?siteID=2103, Accessed September 12, 2021
City of Costa Mesa. (2015). 2015 – 2035 General Plan, Chapter 8: Safety Element. Retrieved from https://www.costamesaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/34702/636740022576330000.

Accessed on July 8, 2021.

City of Costa Mesa. (2015). 2015 – 2035 General Plan, Chapter 7: Conservation Element. Retrieved from https://www.costamesaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/34698/636740022567130000.

Accessed on July 8, 2021.

County of Orange. (2003). Drainage Area Management Plan. Retrieved from https://cms.ocgov.com/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=9800. Accessed on July 8, 2021.

MIG, Inc. (2016). Final Environmental Impact Report for the 2015 – 2035 General Plan. Retrieved from http://ftp.costamesaca.gov/costamesaca/generalplan2015-2035/Final-EIR.pdf. Accessed on July 8, 2021.

Orange County Water District. (2015). Orange County Water District Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update. Retrieved from
https://www.ocwd.com/media/3622/groundwatermanagementplan2015update_20150624.pdf .

Accessed on July 8, 2021.
348
Section 5.0
References

124 Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Southern California Association of Governments. (2020). Connect SoCal 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy of the Southern California Association of Governments. Available at https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file- attachments/0903fconnectsocal-plan_0.pdf?1606001176. Accessed July 8, 2021.

349
Correspondence
Appendix A
Native American Tribal Consultation
Element Update
350
STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor

NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION

Page 1 of 2 ends

Costa Mesa City CouncilJanuary 18, 2022

Costa Mesa City Council
January 18, 2022