Agenda packet — Costa Mesa City Council, February 1, 2022 (part 2 of 8)

use, copy and reproduce any and all Documents for its own benefit, but for no other purpose without Consultant’s prior written consent.

5. CONFIDENTIALITY
In the course of Consultant’s provision of the Services, Consultant agrees to keep confidential and not disclose to any person or entity (other than Consultant’s principals, agents, employees and subcontractors necessary for the intended purposes of this Agreement), without prior consent of Client, all data or information, not previously known to and generated by Consultant or furnished to Consultant by Client. The foregoing sentence shall not apply to information that (a) was in Consultant’s possession before receipt from Client, (b) is or was already in the public domain, (c) is rightfully received by Consultant from a third party, or (d) is disclosed by Consultant with Client’s prior approva

Further, nothing contained herein shall restrict Consultant from complying with an order or a subpoena to produce or supply data and/or information.

6. LIMIT OF LIABILITY
The parties acknowledge and agree that the ADA is a relatively new and complex law and that it contains many concepts, interpretation and terms of art, many of which have yet to be tested by actual experience or judicial decision and which are subject to change by legislative, regulatory or judicial action. Although Consultant shall use its best efforts to provide the most comprehensive analysis for the client concerning the ADA issues presented, it is impossible to guarantee that Consultant will locate every barrier to individuals with disabilities. In no event shall Consultant’s liability to Client exceed the total amount paid to Consultant under this Agreement.

7. TERMINATION
This Agreement may be terminated by either party at any time with written notice. If the Agreement is terminated prior to the completion of the Services described in Exhibit A, Consultant shall be paid for the percentage of Services performed prior to receiving the notice of termination.

8. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
A. This Agreement and its Exhibits,contain the entire agreement of the parties hereto in relation to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all other agreements, both written and oral, between the parties. Any modification to this Agreement must be in writing and signed by both parties.

B. This Agreement shall be deemed to be governed by California law applicable to contracts which are made, entered into and performed entirely with the State of California.

C. If any arbitration or action at law or equity is brought to enforce the terms hereo

f,
the prevailing party shall, in addition to any other award or relief ordered by the court or arbitrator, be entitled to an award of costs and attorney’s fees.

D. Unless the parties mutually agree otherwise, all claims, disputes and other matters in question between the parties to this Agreement which arise out of or are related to this Agreement or the interpretation or breach hereof, shall be decided by a single arbitrator in accordance with the Construction Industry Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association. All arbitration hearings shall be conducted in San Diego, California, unless the parties mutually agree otherwise.

ATTACHMENT 2
220
PAGE 08 OF 25
EXHIBIT A: ADA ASSESSMENT REPORT
P age 3 of 8
N oti c e of a dem and to ar bi tr ate s h al l be fi l ed, i n w r i ti ng, w i th the other par ty an d the A

an A

ati

on A

ati

. The dem

nd s

hal

ade i

n a r

onabl

e after

he c

, di

pute or

other

atter

has

en. In no ev

t s

hal

the

dem

and for

ati

ade l

ate

than

the

ate w

hen

tuti

egal

equi

tabl

e pr

eedi

ngs

ed upon

, di

pute

, or

other

atter

oul

d b

e banned

the appl

abl

e s

tatut

e of l

tati

The aw

d r

ender

ed by

the ar

ato

n an

ati

on s

be fi

nal

and

ndi

and j

udgm

ent m

be e

nter

ed upon i

t i

n ac

anc

e w

th appl

abl

e l

n any

our

t hav

uri

on t

her

eof.

E. A

noti

e gi

en or

ent

nder

thi

eem

ent s

hal

be deem

d to hav

been r

ed w

hen s

ent by

fac

e or

thr

ee (

bus

nes

day

after

has

bee

depos

ted i

the U

ted

tates

, fi

t c

, pos

tage pr

epai

d and addr

ed to

the l

t k

n addr

of the par

n ques

on.

F. N

ontr

obl

gati

hal

etw

een

tant

and

ent

unl

and

unti

thi

eem

ent has

bee

n ex

uted

ons

nt.

G. Thi

ent m

be ex

uted

n m

e c

ounter

par

the par

her

eto.

ounter

uted s

ons

tute

ne agr

eem

ent bi

ndi

upon al

par

, not

ths

tandi

that al

par

e not

gnator

to the or

nal

the

e c

ounter

par

t. E

h c

ounter

par

t s

hal

be deem

an or

nal

to thi

eem

ent,

hal

ons

ute

one

agr

eem

ent

the

date

of thi

eem

ent. D

ents

uted, s

ned and tr

ans

tted el

oni

and el

gnatur

hal

eem

ed or

nal

atur

for

pur

thi

eem

ent and al

atter

ated

ther

eto, w

th s

nned and e

oni

gnatur

ng the s

e l

egal

effec

t as

gnatur

WITN

the

par

her

eto i

nto

thi

ent

the

date

and y

ear

t s

et for

abov

e.
“

”

“

LIE

T”
C

opm

ent R

our

, In

+ P

ani

hapan A

tec

, In

for

a C

por

ati

on
B

__________________________

By
___________________________
N

eal

per

, P

dent

ASp

020)

ATTACHMENT 2
221
PAGE 09 OF 25
EXHIBIT A: ADA ASSESSMENT REPORT

Page 4 of 8 ends

EXHIBIT A - DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES
A. SERVICES
A.1 SITE EVALUATION SURVEY

Consultant shall conduct a Facility Inspection

(“Inspection”)
of the facility(s) listed in Exhibit
“A-

1” (the “Facility”). The portion of each facility included in the Inspection is limited to those areas identified in “Exhibit A-

1” and as further limited by the following.

The Inspection shall, unless otherwise excepted herein, compare elements with: (i) the current new building

c
onstruction requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Standards (the “ADAS”) and (ii) the current new building provisions of the California Building Code that exclusively and unambiguously address disabled access issues (the “CBC”).

Consultant shall only examine those features that are: (1) required to be evaluated hereunder and (2) specifically and unambiguously required to be accessible pursuant to the ADAS and CBC as Consultant understands these obligations.

Consultant shall not be responsible for any analysis in connection with fire alarms or any other alarm system or the operating condition of any telephones, assistive listening system or any other electronic device of any nature whatsoever. Consultant shall not be responsible for examining any feature or facility outside the boundary of a Facility, including without limitation, any feature in any public right

way. Consultant shall not be
responsible to analyze any policy or procedures.

Though Consultant shall use its reasonable best efforts to locate and evaluate features required to be accessible under the ADAS and CBC, Consultant and Client agree that an occasional and/or immaterial failure to identify and/or evaluate any particular subject feature will not be deemed to be a breach of Consultant’s duties hereunder.

A.2 REPORT - (

NON

CRASCA)
Consultant shall memorialize the findings of the SES in a written standardized report (“Report”).

The report is not intended to conform to the requirements of the Construction

Related
Accessibility Standards Compliance Act (CRASCA, CA Civil Code 55.51

–

55.545).

The Report shall identify elements which do not conform to the new construction related ADAS or CBC requirement. Consultant shall include a color digital photograph of each element identified as non

conforming.

In the event that any specific area, feature or item (or portion thereof) does not reflect the relevant requirements of ADA S or CBC/DA, Consultant shall attempt to make a simple and general “recommendation.” Each recommendation comes from a standard list or possible recommendations for features similar to the feature being evaluated. The recommendation is derived from a basic cursory examination of each subject feature and ATTACHMENT 2
222
PAGE 10 OF 25
EXHIBIT A: ADA ASSESSMENT REPORT

Page 5 of 8 ends

represents only one possible physical solution to bring the subject feature into comparative compliance with ADAS and CBC/DA New Construction standards.

Consultant shall deliver one electronic copy of each Report to Client in Adobe PDF format.

B. EXCLUSIONS
Consultant shall not be obligated to provide any services other than those set forth in Section A.1 and A.2, above, including, without limitation, the following:
a. Services related to the portions of the ADA dealing with employment policies, transportation issues and telecommunications. b. Analysis of the requirement of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. c. Analysis of concealed or unknown conditions or characteristics of any facility or performance of destructive testing of any sort or nature. d. Analysis of survey of any facility’s compliance with applicable codes and standards (excluding Disabled Access Laws) including, but not limited to building, health, zoning, seismic and life safety codes. e. Design or construction work of any nature whatsoever. f. Any research or analysis of the permit history or construction dates of any building or facility.

C. CLIENT DUTIES REGARDING SITE EVALUATION
Client shall provide the following:
a) Client shall provide Consultant with the right to enter from time to time, property owned by the Client and/or others so Consultant may perform the Services.

D. SCHEDULE
Consultant shall perform the services outlined in A.1 & A.2 (Inspection and Report) within thirty (30) days of receiving a fully executed contract.

Consultant shall perform the services outlined in A.3 (Review of Phasing Schedule) within fourteen (14) days of receiving the schedule from Client.

E. MISCELLANEOUS
All services shall be performed by a minimum of one of the following

p
ersons:

Neal Casper

CASp-

020

xpiration 9/29/2020

ATTACHMENT 2
223
PAGE 11 OF 25
EXHIBIT A: ADA ASSESSMENT REPORT

Page 6 of 8 ends

EXHIBIT “B” - FEE FOR SERVICES
Consultant and Client agree that Consultant shall charge a fee (the “Fee”) of $2,4 00 .00 or the provision of Services set forth in Sections A.1 , A.2 and A.3 of Exhibit “A” .

Travel Expenses (estimated at

$105.00)
If Consultant utilizes their automobiles in the provision of services, mileage shall be charged at the published IRS mileage rate (currently $0.5

6 per mile).

Miscellaneous
Client understands and affirms that this Agreement is between Client and Consultant only and payment to Consultant by Client is not dependent upon Client’s reimbursement of Consultant’s fees, costs and expenses by any third parties whatsoever.

Unless otherwise agreed in writing, all fees and costs shall be due and payable within thirty (30) days of the date upon which they are invoiced to Client. Any sums not paid when due and payable shall accrue interest at a rate of 15% per annum until paid in full.

ADDITIONAL SERVICES
Additional services, should they be requested, including consulting time connected with Consulta

nt’s finding, shall be billed in accordance with Exhibit C

-
Standard Rates.

ATTACHMENT 2
224
PAGE 12 OF 25
EXHIBIT A: ADA ASSESSMENT REPORT

Page 7 of 8 ends

EXHIBIT “C” - STANDARD RATES
Principal Consultant/Expert Rates
Document or Plan Review (2hr minimum): $250 per hour
Research, Investigation or Consulting (4hr minimum): $250 per hour Deposition or Sworn Testimony: $375 per hour
Associate or Administrative Rates
Document or Plan Review (Associate): $150 per hour
Research, Investigation or Consulting (Associate): $150 per hour Technical / Clerical or Administrative: $100 per hour
Consultant’s hourly rates shall be billed in ¼ hour increments.

Travel Time
Consultant shall be entitled to compensation for Travel Time while away from his office.

Travel Time will be charged to Client at Consultant’s regular hourly rate from the time of departure from Consultant’s office until the time of return (portal to portal).

Expenses – Travel

Related & Other
Client shall reimburse Consultant for all reasonable costs (including, without limitation, photocopying, parking, travel expenses, overnight delivery charges, messenger service and printing) in an amount equal to said costs plus a markup of 10%.

Travel Expenses include, but are not limited to:

1. Parking Garages, tolls & airport

2. Airfare
Flights 0

-
2 hours

-
Refundable Coach
Flights 2

-
4 hours

–
Refundable Coach Plus & Wifi
Flights 4+ hours

–
First Class & Wifi
(Time based on total duration for day’s flight(s))

3. Hotel Business class

4. Meals Breakfast / Lunch / Dinner

5. Car Rental Intermediate class
Expenses – Use of Personal Vehicles
In the event that Consultant or staff utilizes their automobiles in connection with the provision of Services, mileage shall be charged at the standard mileage rate published by the IRS from time to time (currently $0.56 per mile).

Terms
Unless otherwise agreed in writing, all fees and costs shall be due and payable within thirty (30) days of the date upon which they are invoiced to Client. Any sums not paid when due and payable shall accrue interest at a rate of 15% per annum until paid in full.

Client understands and affirms that this Agreement is between Client and Consultant only and payment to Consultant by Client is not dependent upon Client’s reimbursement of Consultant’s fees, costs and expenses by any third parties whatsoever.

ATTACHMENT 2
225
PAGE 13 OF 25
EXHIBIT A: ADA ASSESSMENT REPORT

Page 8 of 8 ends

EXHIBIT A -1 – FACILITIES
Costa Mesa Police Facility
99 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA
Inspection limited to the path of travel serving the basement shooting range as marked on the attached plans (dotted red line) including:

1. Accessible parking near the building entrance

2. Accessible route between city sidewalk, accessible parking and the facility entrance

3. Route from facility entrance to the basement (elevator / stairs / hallways)

4. Basement toilet and shower rooms
ATTACHMENT 2
226
PAGE 14 OF 25
EXHIBIT A: ADA ASSESSMENT REPORT
Building Entrance
ATTACHMENT 2
227
PAGE 15 OF 25
EXHIBIT A: ADA ASSESSMENT REPORT
ATTACHMENT 2228
PAGE 16 OF 25
EXHIBIT A: ADA ASSESSMENT REPORT
Area of Proposed
work
ATTACHMENT 2
229
PAGE 17 OF 25
EXHIBIT B: A&E SERVICES FOR ADA RETROFITS
EXHIBIT B:

A&E SERVICES FOR ADA RETROFITS
ATTACHMENT 2
230
PAGE 18 OF 25
EXHIBIT B: A&E SERVICES FOR ADA RETROFITS
2900 bristol street G-205| costa mesa, california 92626 | P. 714.668.4260 F. 714.668.4265 | www.gparchitects.org May 26, 2021
Seung Yang, P.E.

City Engineer
City

of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Dr. Costa Mesa

92626
Subject: City

of Costa

Me
sa

Police Firing Rang

A&E Services

f
or ADA

Improvements
Dear Seung,
The following proposal is for providing A&E services to the

selected

retrofits

from

the ADA report that
has
been completed in response to the proposed renovations for

the new Firing

Range located at the
City’s Police Headquarters at 99 Fair Drive.

We understand that this project would involve an architectural, structural, and mechanical engineering scope of design improvements, planning review/ entitlement, design development, and construction support for these additional accessibility retrofits.

This proposal includes the following:
 Detailed Cost Proposal for A&E Services
 Statement of Probable Construction Costs based on respective itemized ADA Retrofits (For reference)
B. COMPENSATION
We propose to furnish these services not to exceed:
$35,480 (Thirty-Five Thousand Four Hundred and Eighty Dollars) Additional services outside the Scope of Work agreed upon shall not be performed without the authorization of the City. We have tailored our scope and subsequent fee proposal to accommodate the scope of work, realizing that there is latitude in both parameters to be discussed during the contract negotiation.

Sincerely,
Jack Panichapan, AIA, LEED AP, President, CEO
Gillis + Panichapan Architects, Inc.

ATTACHMENT 2
231
PAGE 19 OF 25
EXHIBIT B: A&E SERVICES FOR ADA RETROFITS

FEE EXHIBIT
5/24/2021
A Task A: Phase 1: Design Development Phase
c Survey site and verify record drawings with existing site conditions. Document existing site conditions. Identify opportunities and constraints for proposed improvements. 2 2 2 $620 d Develop As-built File of the field verified record drawings of the Firing Range. 1244 $1,125
e Prepare Conceptual Design, product specifications, and preliminary ROM cost estimates including the design and cost. 21888 $3,005
f Meet with City staff and others to obtain input and revise the Conceptual Design and cost estimates as necessary to receive City’s approval. 21228 $1,625
g Prepare exhibits of the revised Conceptual Design and cost estimate. 1 1 2 $390 h Project Management: review design and documented scope and extent of design is confirmed moving forward. 4 4 $1,160
TASK A TOTAL 4 7 19 17 24 $7,925
B Task B: Phase 2: Construction Documents Phase and Plan Check Support a 70-Percent CDs: Development of 60-percent Demo, Architectural, Mech, and Electrical, Prepare preliminary technical specifications. Provide coordination with Electrical design development. Include technical specifications defining the overall project and design criteria for Firing Range Space
3 2 16 24 24 $7,225
c 100-Percent CDs: Final comments will be incorporated from the design review meeting and plan check to complete the final drawing and specifications. 22288 $2,350
d Project Management-coordinate City Requirements with engineer sub-consultants 2 3 $715 TASK B TOTAL: 5 6 21 32 32 $10,290
C Task C- Phase 3: Construction Support Services
a Bid Phase Services: Attend the pre-bid meeting. Provide technical support at the pre-bid meeting. Prepare addenda in response to requests for information (RFIs) and requests for clarification (RFCs). prepare a conformed set of contract documents that incorporate all addenda and revisions to the contract documents. 12444 $1,735
b
Engineering Services During Construction:review and guide the progress and direction of construction documents including RFI response, GPa will review Shop Drawings, Product Data, Samples and similar submittals to verify conformity with the information by the original contract documents Includes CALGreen Comissioning. 4 8 12 20 12 $6,460
c
Site Visits During Construction: provide meeting on-site (Up to 4 meetings w architect) 8 8 $2,560 d
Project Close-Out: Participate in final walk through of the site. Assist in the development of Project punch list. 1188 $2,180 e Project Management-Coordination and administration
2 2 $580
Task C Total 14 13 34 32 16 $11,780
Hours: 23 26 74 81 72 $29,995
Total Hours
Hourly Rates: $185 $155 $135 $95 $80
Structural Engineer Allowance
MEP Engineer Allowance
Reimbursibles*
Architecture and Engineering Total (Task A-D)

ARCHITECT

ARCHITECT
Designer
$29,995 Architecture
**RReeiimmbbuurrssiibblleess:: Covers costs for specialty printing, delivery fees, and travel. City Business License fees (if required for the entire A&E Team) This reimbursable allowance covers fees beyond general B&W printing fees on standard ledger or tabloid size paper. Government fees, delivery costs (such as United Parcel Service charges), and the costs of special sized prints/ reproductions are not included in our fee. These items are "reimbursable" items and will be shown separately on our invoice with a 10% coordination fee. $35,480
$$228855
NNOOTTEE oonn PPllaann CChheecckk FFeeeess:: Reimbursibles and fees shown here do not include Building Department or Plan check Submittal Fees, or any other 3rd party fees not indicated in this scope. Scope of Entitlement does not include design of potential accessible upgrades that may be required for the overall building and site outside the immediate project.

City of Costa Mesa
Principal
Project Dir.

Project Arch
Job Captain
Police Firing Range Facility Upgrade Project - ADA Upgrade (Additional Services) $$11,,220000
$$44,,000000
276 SUB-TOTAL
ATTACHMENT 2
232
PAGE 20 OF 25
EXHIBIT B: A&E SERVICES FOR ADA RETROFITS
CCiittyy ooff CCoossttaa MMeessaa
CCoossttaa MMeessaa PP..DD.. -- SShhoooottiinngg RRaannggee UUppggrraaddee ((AADDAA)) SSttaatteemmeenntt ooff PPrroobbaabbllee CCoosstt
DDaattee:: 0055//2244//22002211
EElleemmeenntt QQuuaannttiittyy UUnniitt UUnniitt CCoosstt TToottaall 01 General Conditions (incl. below)
02 Parking/Site (exterior): $3,500.00
03 Building (interior): $8,300.00
04 Elevator: $60,500.00
05 Stairs: $11,400.00
06 Women's Lockers/Toilet $58,050.00
07 Men's Lockers/Toilet $65,925.00
Subtotal $207,675
Subtotal $207,675
General Conditions 10.0% $20,768
Subtotal $228,443
Overhead & Profit 10.0% $22,844
Subtotal $251,287
Bonds & Insurance 2.5% $6,282.17
Subtotal $257,569
Design Contigency 10% $25,757
Subtotal $283,326
Construction Contigency 10% $28,333
TTOOTTAALL EESSTTIIMMAATTEE $$331111,,665588
OOPPTTIIOONN 11 -- SSuummmmaarryy

DDRRAAFFTT
Gillis + Panichapan Architects, Inc. Page 1 of 1
ATTACHMENT 2
233
PAGE 21 OF 25
EXHIBIT B: A&E SERVICES FOR ADA RETROFITS
CCiittyy ooff CCoossttaa MMeessaa
CCoossttaa MMeessaa PP..DD.. -- SShhoooottiinngg RRaannggee UUppggrraaddee ((AADDAA)) SSttaatteemmeenntt ooff PPrroobbaabbllee CCoosstt
DDaattee:: 0055//2244//22002211
EElleemmeenntt QQuuaannttiittyy UUnniitt UUnniitt CCoosstt TToottaall 0011 GGeenneerraall CCoonnddiittiioonnss ((iinnccll.. bbeellooww)) 0022 PPaarrkkiinngg//SSiittee ((eexxtteerriioorr))::

New/Replaced Parking signage (Driveway entrance) 1 LS $300.00 $300.00 New accessible stall paint marking 1 LS $1,000.00 $1,000.00 Grind A.C. and Concrete to be flush at path of travel (1/4” +/-) 1 LS $800.00 $800.00 New accessible stall paint marking (International symbol) 1 LS $600.00 $600.00 New/Replaced Parking signage (Stall identification) 1 LS $800.00 $800.00 Sub-total $3,500.00
0033 BBuuiillddiinngg ((iinntteerriioorr))::

Replace protruding object in path of travel (4” max.) 1 LS $600.00 $600.00 B01 Entrance: Provide Lever type door hardware 1 ea $800.00 $800.00 B01 Entrance: Remove existing kick-down door stop. Provide overhead door stop (if allowed by Wall/Door rating) 1 LS $900.00 $900.00 B01: Entrance: Adjust or replace door closer 1 ea $800.00 $800.00 B01: relocate cabinet to provide 60” clear. 1 LS $500.00 $500.00 B01: relocate Room Signage 1 LS $800.00 $800.00
B03: Door: Remove kick-down door stop. Provide overhead door stop (if allowed by Wall/Door rating) 1 LS $900.00 $900.00 B03: relocate Room Signage 1 LS $800.00 $800.00
Signage: Provide tactile Braille “EXIT” signage. 1 ea $250.00 $250.00 Signage: Stairs: Provide tactile Braille signage “EXIT STAIR DOWN,UP”. 1 ea $250.00 $250.00
Signage: Provide tactile Braille “EXIT ROUTE” signage (Stair 1 and at room B01) 2 ea $250.00 $500.00
Drinking Fountain: Basement: relocate adjacent railings 1 LS $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $0.00
Sub-total $8,300.00
0044 EElleevvaattoorr::

Call Buttons: replace or provide additional buttons at wall (lighted/ registered) 2 ea $1,500.00 $3,000.00
Call Signal: provide lighted signal (wall mounted -high) 2 ea $1,500.00 $3,000.00 Signage: Braille floor level signs (each floor) 2 ea $250.00 $500.00 Elevator doors: install auto-operators for doors. 2 ea $20,000.00 $40,000.00 Elevator Car: Options for elevator finishes/materials for options to widen cab. 1 LS $4,000.00 $4,000.00
Elevator Car control buttons: Replace as required to comply 1 LS $8,000.00 $8,000.00 Elevator Limited Type certification 1 LS $2,000.00 $2,000.00 Sub-total $60,500.00
0055 SSttaaiirrss::

Provide signage (Braille floor level) at each floor level landing/door 2 ea $250.00 $500.00
DDeettaaiill

DDRRAAFFTT
Gillis + Panichapan Architects, Inc. Page 1 of 3
ATTACHMENT 2
234
PAGE 22 OF 25
EXHIBIT B: A&E SERVICES FOR ADA RETROFITS
CCiittyy ooff CCoossttaa MMeessaa
CCoossttaa MMeessaa PP..DD.. -- SShhoooottiinngg RRaannggee UUppggrraaddee ((AADDAA)) SSttaatteemmeenntt ooff PPrroobbaabbllee CCoosstt
DDaattee:: 0055//2244//22002211
EElleemmeenntt QQuuaannttiittyy UUnniitt UUnniitt CCoosstt TToottaall DDeettaaiill

DDRRAAFFTT
Provide/replace outside handrail at middle landings. 60 LF $165.00 $9,900.00 Provide guard rail at underside of Stairs 1 ea $1,000.00 $1,000.00 Sub-total $11,400.00
0066 WWoommeenn''ss LLoocckkeerrss//TTooiilleett
Signage: Replace braille signage at wall. Relocate sign at door 1 ea $250.00 $250.00 B19: Remove kick-down hold open 1 ea $300.00 $300.00
B19: Adjust or replace door closer 1 ea $900.00 $900.00 B19: Door clearance: provide and install low energy door operato 1 ea $16,000.00 $16,000.00 B19: Remove or relocate protrusion at wall or provide detectable barrier below item 1 ea $900.00 $900.00
Signage: relocate room signage 1 ea $800.00 $800.00
B20: Install ADA Circle symbol on door 1 ea $250.00 $250.00 B20: Remove kick-down hold open 1 ea $300.00 $300.00
B20: Adjust or replace door closer 1 ea $900.00 $900.00 Accessible toilet partition: replace partition door hardware with self-closing device 1 LS $3,000.00 $3,000.00
Accessible toilet stall clearance: replace adjacent sink to provide 60” clear 1 LS $8,000.00 $8,000.00
Accessible toilet stall clearance: reconfigure stall door providing 4” max. jamb 1 ea $1,000.00 $1,000.00
Accessible toilet stall door: install additional door pull 34” to 44” high 1 ea $1,000.00 $1,000.00
Accessible toilet stall: relocate/adjust grab bars 1 LS $1,500.00 $1,500.00 Accessible toilet stall: install/relocate toilet tissue dispenser rolls 1 LS $1,500.00 $1,500.00 Accessible toilet stall: install/relocate toilet seat cover dispenser rolls 1 LS $1,500.00 $1,500.00
Accessible toilet stall: install/relocate disposal unit 1 LS $1,500.00 $1,500.00 B21: Door signage: Install ADA Circle symbol on door 1 ea $250.00 $250.00 B21: Shower stall: replace diverter controls and relocated Water valve controls and Hand held spray unit 1 LS $6,000.00 $6,000.00 B21: Shower stall: cut back plastic partition 1 LS $800.00 $800.00 B21: Shower stall: replace floor tile and provide max. slope of

2.08% 1 LS $8,000.00 $8,000.00
B21: Threshold: replace door threshold 1 ea $500.00 $500.00 B21: Floor Drain. Retile floor and reset floor drain 1 LS $2,000.00 $2,000.00 B21: Sink drains: provide insulated pipes 1 ea $250.00 $250.00 Sink, Label Accessible sink in one room 1 ea $250.00 $250.00 B21: Sink, Replace soap dispenser 1 ea $400.00 $400.00
Sub-total $58,050.00
Gillis + Panichapan Architects, Inc. Page 2 of 3
ATTACHMENT 2
235
PAGE 23 OF 25
EXHIBIT B: A&E SERVICES FOR ADA RETROFITS
CCiittyy ooff CCoossttaa MMeessaa
CCoossttaa MMeessaa PP..DD.. -- SShhoooottiinngg RRaannggee UUppggrraaddee ((AADDAA)) SSttaatteemmeenntt ooff PPrroobbaabbllee CCoosstt
DDaattee:: 0055//2244//22002211
EElleemmeenntt QQuuaannttiittyy UUnniitt UUnniitt CCoosstt TToottaall DDeettaaiill

DDRRAAFFTT
0077 MMeenn''ss LLoocckkeerrss//TTooiilleett
Signage: Replace braille signage at wall. Relocate sign at door 575 sf $35.00 $20,125.00 B18: Remove kick-down hold open 575 sf $12.00 $6,900.00 B18: Adjust or replace door closer 575 sf $20.00 $11,500.00 B18: Recess fire extinguisher (4” maximum protrusion) 1 ea $1,200.00 $1,200.00 Signage: Relocate braille signage 1 ea $800.00 $800.00
B16: Replace door signage 1 ea $250.00 $250.00
Door to B16: Remove kick-down hold open 1 ea $300.00 $300.00 Door to B16: Adjust or replace door closer 1 ea $900.00 $900.00 Urinal: Relocate/replace paper towel combo 1 ea $400.00 $400.00 Accessible toilet partition: replace partition door hardware with self-closing device 1 ea $3,000.00 $3,000.00
Accessible toilet stall clearance: replace adjacent sink to provide 60” clear 1 ea $8,000.00 $8,000.00
Accessible toilet stall: reconfigure partitions ea $1,000.00 $0.00 Accessible toilet stall: relocated/replace grab bars 1 ea $1,500.00 $1,500.00 B17: Replace/relocate door signage 1 ea $800.00 $800.00 Accessible shower: Relocate/replace/adjust seat 1 ea $2,000.00 $2,000.00 Accessible shower: Relocate/replace/adjust water valve 1 ea $2,000.00 $2,000.00 Accessible shower: Relocate/replace hand held spray unit 1 ea $4,000.00 $4,000.00 Accessible shower: Floor Drain. Retile floor and reset floor drain 1 ea $2,000.00 $2,000.00 B16: Sinks: insulate sink drains (completely) 1 ea $250.00 $250.00 Sub-total $65,925.00
Gillis + Panichapan Architects, Inc. Page 3 of 3
ATTACHMENT 2
236
PAGE 24 OF 25
EXHIBIT B: A&E SERVICES FOR ADA RETROFITS
EXHIBIT C:

SUPPLEMENTAL CONSTRUCTION

ADMINISTRATION
ATTACHMENT 2
237
PAGE 25 OF 25
EXHIBIT C: SUPPLEMENTAL CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION

2900 bristol street G-205| costa mesa, california 92626 | P. 714.668.4260 F. 714.668.4265 | www.gparchitects.org October 19, 2021

Seung Yang, P.E.

City Engineer
City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Dr. Costa Mesa CA 92626

Re: City of Costa Mesa Police Firing Range: Supplemental Construction Support Services

Seung,

This proposal would provide enhanced construction support services for renovation of City of Costa Mesa Police Firing Range including the additional scope for the ADA and accessibility retrofits to the existing facility.

A. PROJECT UNDERSTANDING
Supplemental Construction Administration and Support

The following additional architectural services to be provided during Construction:

• Attend weekly meetings during construction and assist City with formatting Weekly meeting minutes. • Review and provide input on Contractor's construction schedule and status. • Review and provide input on Contractor's order project updates for the project. • Assist in coordination of Fire Safety Enhancements and Retrofits • Assist City in reviewing coordination between the Contractor and City ’s vendors (including telecommunications, audio visual, low voltage cabling, security, and furniture). • Assist City in Construction Change Directives during construction. • Assist City in reviewing of Contractor invoicing and credits with the city. • Conduct field reviews to observe work by Contractor. Development of Field Reports as needed identifying observed work that is not consistent with the Construction Documents. (3 field reviews provided) • Provide one follow-up visit after Punchlist to confirm that the noted construction deficiencies have been corrected or provide a summary of the deficiencies.

The scope of these services is based on the 80 working day construction schedule projected for this project.

B. COMPENSATION
We propose to furnish these services not to exceed the following fee:

Grand Total: $32,000 (Thirty-Two Thousand Dollars)

Additional services outside the Scope of Work agreed upon shall not be performed without the authorization of the City. We have tailored our scope and subsequent fee proposal to accommodate the scope of work, realizing that there is latitude in both parameters to be discussed during the contract negotiation. We look forward to working with you on this project.

Sincerely,

Jack Panichapan, AIA, LEED AP
Principal, CEO,
Gillis + Panichapan Architects, Inc.

ATTACHMENT 2
238
City of Costa Mesa
Agenda Report
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
File #: 21-549 Meeting Date: 2/1/2022
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 adopt a Resolution that approves and adopts the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) including the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and approve General Plan Amendment 21-01 for the City of Costa Mesa 2021-2029 (Sixth Cycle) Housing Element update.

BACKGROUND:

On January 18, 2022, staff provided the City Council a presentation regarding the final steps for the update of the City’sSixth Cycle Housing Element and associated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. Included with the presentation was a comprehensive agenda report that included the following components:
· A summary of the City’sassigned Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) of 11,733 housing units;
· A description of the City’s multi-year Housing Element associated community outreach efforts;
· A description of the Draft Housing Element content; · A discussion of the Draft Housing Element update, circulation for public review, and comments received;
· A discussion of the State’s recent and past housing element enforcement efforts; · A summary of the State Department of Community Development (HCD) comment letter in consideration of the City’s submitted Draft Housing Element update; · A summary of the environmental review process pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and
· A summary of the Planning Commission hearing and recommendation of the Draft Housing Element and CEQA document to the City Council.

Page 1 of 4 ends

239
File #: 21-549 Meeting Date: 2/1/2022
The January 18, 2022 agenda report also highlighted:
· Key milestones completed from the beginning of the Housing Element Update effort to present;
· The Draft Housing Element Program changes and other modifications that occurred since the City Council’sprior review as a result of HCD’scomment letter, public comment, and the Planning Commission’s consideration;
· A summary of the recent Housing Ad Hoc Committee community discussion related to State housing element law compliance and Measure Y;
· A discussion of the City’s Housing Element “next steps.” During the January 18, 2022 City Council hearing, one public comment was provided that generally focused on Measure Y. After the City Council considered public input and the draft Housing Element update, the City Council provided the following general comments:
· After Housing Element adoption, the City must continue to engage the community in regard to housing and land use issues and begin the next steps in community visioning; · Any City Council discussions regarding Measure Y will require significant public outreach and public participation;
· High rents in the City and the significant cost of housing is a critical issue for City Council and community consideration;
· The City should generally consider how to further diversify housing options in the City for all income levels; and
· Community engagement with Housing Element implementation is critical when considering housing and open space needs in the City.

No changes to the Housing Element were made by the City Council. A motion was approved on a 6-1 vote to continue the Housing Element review to the February 1, 2022 City Council meeting for consideration of Housing Element adoption.

ANALYSIS:

The Housing Element update provides an analysis of the City’scurrent demographic, economic, and housing characteristics and establishes objectives, policies, and programs addressing community housing conditions and needs. The Housing Element update is a comprehensive statement of the City’scurrent 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 Fifth Cycle Housing Element and provide a program for the 2021-2029 Sixth Cycle planning period. To remain in compliance with State Housing Law, the City’s updated Housing Element must include various applicable State provisions and be adopted by City Council and certified by California State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) by February 11, 2022.

For a comprehensive summary, please refer to the January 18, 2022 agenda report:
<https://costamesa.legistar.com/ViewReport.ashx?
M=R&N=Text&GID=839&ID=4650866&GUID=DB908081-37E6-4240-8339- 25AE1F3D3A3D&Title=Legislation+Text>

Page 2 of 4 ends

240
File #: 21-549 Meeting Date: 2/1/2022
Housing Element Changes Since the January 18, 2022 City Council Hearing · As a result of recent HCD comments returned to other local agencies in regard to “special needs housing,”Appendix A of the Draft Housing Element update has been modified to include an evaluation of the City’s prior program accomplishments and achievements related to special needs populations.
· In addition, staff made minor modifications to Program 3G - Address Measure Y in Relationship to Housing Element Compliance, in Housing Element Chapter 4. The modifications are limited and do not change the fundamental substance or approach of the Program as previously discussed.

A “track changes” version of these modifications, along with a Resolution and a “clean copy” of the Housing Element Update are provided as attachments to this report.

Environmental Review
In accordance with 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 the January 18, 2022 City Council 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 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.

The City Council is being asked to review and consider the information provided, and approve and adopt the IS/MND including the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (provided as an attachment to this report).

Next Steps
· 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 and 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

Page 3 of 4 ends

241
File #: 21-549 Meeting Date: 2/1/2022
· 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. This effort will begin with a community visioning process.

ALTERNATIVES:

The City Council alternative actions include:

1. Adopting the Resolution as proposed;

2. Adopting the Resolution with modifications to the Draft Housing Element update; or

3. Not adopting the Resolution.

If the City Council chooses to make substantive modifications to the Draft Housing Element update, the modified Draft Element would need to be brought back at a future meeting for further City Council consideration. However, continuance of the review could result in the City not complying with the February 11, 2022 State required adoption date. Alternatively, if City Council requests minor modifications to the Housing Element, a motion could be made by City Council to adopt the Resolution, and for staff to make the City Council directed changes to the Draft Element prior to forwarding for State certification. Not adopting the Housing Element Update would make the City out of compliance with State Housing Element law and would subject the City to potential litigation and other enforcement actions by the State as previously discussed.

FISCAL REVIEW:

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

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:

Staff recommends the City Council adopt a Resolution approving the IS/MND (including the Mitigation Monitoring Program) and the General Plan Housing Element Update.

After adoption, the Housing Element Update will be forwarded to the State HCD for the required certification. After certification by the State, the City will begin implementing the required Housing Element plan and program actions.

Page 4 of 4 ends

242

ATTACHMENT 1
Revisions to Program 3G Language:

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; i ncreases 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 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’s role in the City’s 2021‐2029 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 alloc ation, 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 the 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 identify and address specific ways in which Measure Y functions as a constraint to housing development compliance, the city’s housing goals, Housing Element compliance, and other shared community goals.

Added Appendix A language:

Program Evaluation for Households with Special Needs
The City of Costa Mesa has demonstrated a significant effort in working towards accomplishing many of the objectives set for the programs of the past cycle. During the fifth cycle, the City completed a number of key programs to support housing opportunity and made substantial progress towards many of its programs. The City’s successful programs have been identified as continued for the sixth cycle, due to their success in the fifth cycle.

As a part of analyzing prior programs, the element must provide an explanation of the effectiveness of goals, policies, and related actions in meeting the housing needs of special needs populations. The table below provides an overview of the City’s prior program accomplishments; achievements related to special needs populations are summarized below:
243

Seniors
As shown in Section 2, approximately 11% of the population in Costa Mesa are seniors aged 65 years or older. Throughout the 5th Cycle the City partnered and consulted with a variety of groups to address the needs of persons with specialized needs in the City, including: Community SeniorServ, Elwyn California, Council on Aging Orange County. The City’s Action Plan identifies 500 persons assists using $56,180 CDBG funds through Services for Seniors/Frail Elderly. Additionally, a Single Room Occupancy Ordinance was adopted in 1991. since then, three projects were completed and occupied for a total of 247 units; including 91 senior units and 11 SRO units.

On July 21, 2020, the C ity Council approved an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) with Jamboree Housing Corporation in determining the feasibility, and potential terms, for the right to acquire a long - term leasehold interest in an approximately 0.90 -acre portion of the parkin g lot at the Senior Center property to develop a senior housing project. The conceptual density study plans envisioned the potential for 60 senior affordable dwelling units at the site. An application for an Urban Master Plan Screening for the proposed project was submitted in November 2021 and staff continues to work with the applicant to bring the project forward for a decision.

Persons with Disabilities
As shown in Section 2, approximately 8 percent of the population in Costa Mesa have at least one disability. On November 16, 2021, the City Council directed staff to collaborate with the County of Orange and associated development partners to submit application(s) for the Homekey Program grant funding for the acquisition, rehabilitation and conversion of one or two motel locations proposed for permanent supportive housing. City staff have been working with several existing motel owners of properties that range between approximately 40 to 90 units. The proposals will provide direct permanent supportive housing with funding from the City of Costa Mesa, the County and (if awarded) Homekey grant funds from the State. The target population for these units would include at risk or currently homeless individuals and seniors, age 62 and over, and chronic homeless individuals and couples, with a subset of the units for eligible persons that qualify for Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) programs. Because the City operates the 72 bed Bridge Shelter on Airway Avenue, the Homekey Program could provide a seamless opportunity to stabilize this most vulnerable population where supportive services are provided on site, in the expedited Homekey permanent supportive housing model.

In 2020, the owner of Costa Mesa Village was awarded “Section 811” program funds for up to 24 o f the 96 affordable units. The Section 811 program is a federal Housing and Urban Development (HUD) program administered by the State’s Housing and Community Development (HCD) that provides subsidies for housing for very-low income persons with disabilities, in this case developmentally disabled persons. As such, as units become vacant through attrition, Section 811 eligible residents are being referred to CMV through the Regional Center of Orange County. The referral entity is responsible for providing the supportive services to the Section 811 tenants. Programming and services are individualized based on each person’s needs and provided off-site.

244

Large Households
Large households are classified as those consisting of five or more members. These households can have difficulty in finding housing options that are adequately sized and affordable. As shown in Section 2, large- family households make up approximately 10% of the total households within Costa Mesa. The City permitted over 950 units across all in come levels during the 5 th cycle, many of which were single -family and could accommodate large-family households. The majority of those housing units were market rate and not available at levels affordable to low and very low-income households.

The City has implemented Program 2E in the 2021 -2029 Housing Element to prioritize development of housing options to accommodate large -family households, including outreach to the development community and a review of the current development standards to determine if any pose potential impediments to building housing that can accommodate larger households.

Farmworkers
As previously discussed, farm workers are not a significant portion of the Costa Mesa community. Their needs are accommodated through housing programs and policies that assist lower-income households in general rather than specialized programs, such as:
 Program HOU 1-6 (rehabilitation loan and grant programs) which provided funding for 7 owner - occupied rehabilitation projects; 4 of which were for extremely-low income households, 1 for very low income, and 2 for low income.
 Program HOU 2 -5 (OCHA rental assistance), which provided homeless prevention services or transitional housing assistance and services to over 450 individuals  Program HOU 4 -4 (preservation of residential developments for families and individuals with specialized housing needs)

Single-Parent Households:

As shown in Section 2, approximately 7.6 percent of Costa Mesa households are single-parent households, a quarter of which (27 percent) live below the poverty line. Costa Mesa Village (CMV), located at 2450 Newport Boulevard, is a 96-unit single room occupancy (SRO) affordable housing development with one manager’s unit for a total of 97 units on site. CMV was originally approved and developed as a two-story Travelodge motel in the mid -1980s. In 1991, a conditional use permit (CUP) was approved to allow the conversion of the existing motel into a single room occupancy (SRO) affordable housing development. As part of the conversion project, the City through its Redevelopment Agency (Agency) provided financial assistance for land acquisition costs in the form of a $500,000.00 loan in addition to a $1,200,000.00 loan from the Orange County Housing Authority. The Agency entered into several agreements with Costa Mesa Village, Ltd. (original developer and current owner of CMV) including a Regulatory Agreement to ensure that the units were provided as very low-income units at or below 50-percent of the area median income (AMI) in perpetuity. The conversion improvements were completed in 1993 and the loans were fully repaid in 2014. Changes to the CUP and Regulatory Agreement were proposed and require approval by the City Council. The CUP modifications were reviewed by the Planning Commission on January 24, 2022 and were recommended for City Council approval by the Planning Commission. The modifications are 245

scheduled for review and consideration by the City Council on February 1, 2022. In conjunction with the CUP changes, the property owner is also changing to a well-known California affordable housing developer (Century Housing Corporation). Century Housing Corporation is mission -driven to support and develop quality affordable home development and manage and administer 1000s of affordable units throughout the State.

Persons Experiencing Homelessness (Unhoused)
As shown in Section 2, the 2019 Point in Time Count showed 193 total persons experiencing homelessness (sheltered and unsheltered). As of 2018 staff worked on est ablishing a temporary and permanent homeless shelter that will be housing first modeled and will provide housing navigation services. In 2019, the City approved the use of a temporary modular structures at Lighthouse Church for the City’s temporary interim bridge shelter. Later in 2019, the City Council adopted an urgency ordinance relating to Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units, to be consistent with state law. In 2020, the City approved a permanent homeless shelter (Costa Mesa B ridge Shelter) to replace the temporary bridge shelter identified in 2019. The shelter opened on March 23, 2021. The City of Costa Mesa partners with Newport Beach to leverage scarce resources to better services the homeless population.

During the 5th Cycl e, the City provided homeless prevention services (i.e., rental assistance to prevent eviction or deposit assistance to move into housing and rapid housing) or transitional housing assistance and services to over 450 individuals.

In 2020, Families Forward helped house and bring an end to homelessness for 15 Costa Mesa families (49 adults and children), with 33 Costa Mesa families accessing the Families Forward food pantry and taking another step towards stability. When complete, the Pomona project will serv e as an entry point for families in and near Costa Mesa. Also, on November 17, 2020, the City Council approved a Subrecipient Agreement with Families Forward to establish a Tenant Based Rental Assistance (TBRA) program to assist qualified, very low -income households who are current residents of Costa Mesa (or households with strong community ties to Costa Mesa).

Extremely Low Income Households
As shown in Section 2, there are approximately 6,610 extremely low -income households in Costa Mesa per the 2013-2017 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data available. Extremely low - income renter households have the highest rate of cost burden at 17.5 percent.

Between 2013 and 2020, the City completed 111 mobile home rehabilitation projects, 52 of which were for individuals or family which qualified as extremely low income. The Housing and Community Development Division provided assistance with the purchase and rehabilitation of rental units by non - profit organizations to operate as affordable to low and very-low-income tenants. Funding was provided for 7 owner-occupied rehabilitation projects; 4 of which were for extremely-low income households, 1 for very low income, and 2 for low income.

another step towards stability. When complete, the Pomona project will serve as an entry point for families in and near Costa Mesa. Also, on November 17, 2020, the City Council approved a Subrecipient Agreement with Families Forward to establish a Tenant Based Rental Assistance (TBRA) program to assist qualified, very low -income households who are current r esidents of Costa Mesa (or households with strong community ties to Costa Mesa).

Additionally in 2020, the owner of Costa Mesa Village was awarded “Section 811” program funds for up to 24 of the 96 affordable units. The Section 811 program is a federal H ousing and Urban Development (HUD) program administered by the State’s Housing and Community Development (HCD) that provides subsidies for housing for very-low income persons with disabilities, in this case developmentally disabled persons. As such, as uni ts become vacant through attrition, Section 811 eligible residents are being referred to CMV through the Regional Center of Orange County. The referral entity is responsible for providing the supportive services to the Section 811 tenants. Programming and services are individualized based on each person’s needs and provided off-site.

247
ATTACHMENT 2
248
249
250
251
Ci
ty 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 3
252

This page intentionally left blank.

253
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 ............................................................................................................... 97 254
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
255
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:
256
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
257
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.

258
Section 1.0
Introduction

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

259
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-3 260
Section 2.0
Project Description

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

261
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
262
Section 2.0
Project Description

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

This page intentionally left blank.

263
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
264
Section 2.0
Project Description

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

265
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. 266
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. 267
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 268
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. 269
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. 270
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).
271
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
272
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 273
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.
274
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.
275
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.
276
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. 277
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.
278
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 279
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)

280
Section 2.0
Project Description

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

281
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
282
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?

283
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?

284
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

285
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?

286
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?

287
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?
288
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

289
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?

290
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?

291
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.
292
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. 293
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.

294
Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis

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

295
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.
296
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.

297
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 298
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. 299
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 300
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. 301
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 302
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. 303
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 304
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 305
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
306
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.

307
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.
308
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.
309
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 310
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-1 311
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).

312
Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis

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

313
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. 314
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.
315
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 316
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.

317
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 318
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. 319
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 320
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.
321
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. 322
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 323
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
324
Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis

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

325
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. 326
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. 327
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 328
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. 329
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.
330
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 331
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?
332
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
333
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-1 334
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;
335
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 336
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 337
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. 338
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. 339
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.

340
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. 341
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.
342
Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis

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

343
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 344
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
345
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, 346
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. 347
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 348
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 349
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:
350
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.

351
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 352
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. 353
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. 354
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.

355
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.
356
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.
357
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 358
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.
359
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. 360
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. 361
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 362
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.

363
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 364
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 365
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.

366
Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis

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

367
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.
368
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 369
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-3 370
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.
371
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. 372
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.

373
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. 374
Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis

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

375
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 376
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.

377
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.
378
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.

379
Correspondence
Appendix A
Native American Tribal Consultation
Element Update
380
STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor

NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION

Page 1 of 2 ends

Costa Mesa City CouncilFebruary 1, 2022

Costa Mesa City Council
February 1, 2022