Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout84 - PH-4 - Attachment 7 - 7/21/2015NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION To: X X From: Office of Planning and Research County Clerk City of Costa Mesa 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 County of Orange Development Services Sacramento, CA 95814 P. O. Box 22013 77 Fair Drive Santa Ana, CA 92702 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Date: June 8, 2015 TO: Interested Agencies, Organizations, and Individuals NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to Section 15072 of the State CEQA Guidelines,Mesa hereby gives notice that a Draft Negative Declaration (ND) for the 10 -unit residential developmentf0imAqle Residential at 2880 Mesa Verde Drive East is available for review and comment. 1 � 2015 ��}� PROJECT TITLE: Pinnacle Residential Project (Rezone R-14-05, Planning Application No. 4-48, and TentaJiract Map TT -17824). K CORDER U7 PA pRpNGErout, CG DEPUTY PROJECT LOCATION: 2880 Mesa Verde Drive East in the City of Costa Mesa, on t eas r e Drive East, approximately 0.2 miles north of the intersection of Adams Avenue and Mesa Verde Drive East, County Assessor's Parcel Number 139-313-08. The proposed project site is not on a list compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is an amended project from the original 13 -unit project, which was originally assigned SCH# 2015031099. The amended project involves the following: (1) Adoption of an Initial Study/Negative Declaration; (2) Rezone of a 2 -acre site from I&R (Institutional and Recreational) to R1 (Single -Family Residential District) (7.26 dwelling units per acre maximum allowed); (3) Design Review for the development of a 10 -unit, two-story, detached residential development (4.83 dwelling units per acre proposed). The Design Review also includes a Minor Modification to allow two units to project 20% or less into front yard setback, or 16 feet. (20 feet required; 16 feet proposed); and (4) Tentative Tract Map TT - 17824 for subdivision of property for homeownership. The project consists of the development of 10 single-family, detached residences with a density of 4.83 dwelling units per acre, instead of original 13 units proposed. The amended project includes a rezone to R1 (Single-family Residential District) rather than PDR -LD zone (Planned Development Residential - Low Density). The project will provide 20 garage/covered parking spaces and 30 open parking spaces, for a total of 50 spaces (4 spaces per residential unit, and 10 additional spaces). Vehicle access to the 10 units will be provided from a private street off of Mesa Verde Drive East. No deviations from the City's Residential Design Guidelines are requested. PROJECT IMPACTS: The Initial Study/ND was completed in accordance with the Lead Agency's Guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act. The Initial Study/ND found that the environmental effects from the project would be less than significant with the incorporation of standard conditions of approval and compliance with the Code requirements. Zs PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD: Begins: March 27, 2015 Ends: April X, 2015 (extended to June 29, 2015 per revisions) PUBLIC HEARING: A public hearing will be held before the Costa Mesa Planning Commission on June 22, 2015, at 6 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at Costa Mesa City Hall, 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa. The Initial Study/Negative Declaration is being re -extended for public review and comment for a period of 20 days. An initial 30 comment period commenced on March 27, 2015 to April 27, 2015. This 20 day extension is a courtesy for the public. Any person may submit written comments to the Planning Division of the City's Development Services Department before the end of the review period. If you challenge the City's action in court you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Division PrOtSeT L L.LJJ review period. Comments may be sent by mail, or faxed to the following address: 1 1_ Mel Lee, AICP, Senior Planner Phone: (714) 754-5611 JUN 12 2015 City of Costa Mesa FAX: (714) 754-4856 77 Fair Drive ORANGECQUNjA"'KRECORI]ER DEPARTME� Costa Mesa, CA 92628 mel.lee@costamesaca.gov LOCATION WHERE DOCUMENT CAN BE REVIEWED: The Initial Study, Draft ND anY' is areDr PUTS available for review and comment during normal business hours at the following locations: (a) City of Costa Mesa, Public Counter, 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, CA, (b) Mesa Verde Library, 2969 Mesa Verde Drive, East, (c) Costa Mesa/Donald Dungan Library, 1855 Park Avenue. 4 IG �11_— *Z� -4 Date: Mel Lee, Senior Planner, City of Costa Mesa NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT AN IS -ND Initial Study/ Negative Declaration 2880 Mesa Verde East 2880 Mesa Verde Drive City of Costa Mesa, Orange County, California Prepared by: City of Costa Mesa Development Services Department 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 714.754.5000 Contact: Ryan Loomis, Associate Planner Date: June 5, 2015 Table of Contents Section1: Introduction.................................................................................................................1 1.1— Incorporation by Reference..............................................................................................1 Section2: Project Description.......................................................................................................3 2.1 - Project Location................................................................................................................. 3 2.2 - Environmental Setting....................................................................................................... 3 2.2.1- General Plan and Zoning........................................................................................ 3 2.2.2 - Surrounding Zoning............................................................................................... 4 2.3 - Project Features................................................................................................................ 7 Section 3: Initial Study Checklist.................................................................................................11 3.1 - Background....................................................................................................................... 11 3.2 - Environmental Factors Potentially Affected.................................................................... 12 3.3 - Lead Agency Determination............................................................................................ 12 Section4: Environmental Analysis..............................................................................................13 4.1 Aesthetics................................................................................................................... 14 4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources........................................................................... 18 4.3 Air Quality/Greenhouse Gases................................................................................... 20 4.4 Biological Resources................................................................................................... 32 4.5 Cultural Resources......................................................................................................35 4.6 Geology and Soils....................................................................................................... 38 4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials.............................................................................. 43 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality..................................................................................... 47 4.9 Land Use and Planning ...................... .................................................... I.... ............... 50 4.10 Mineral Resources..................................................................................................... 54 4.11 Noise..........................................................................................................................55 4.12 Population and Housing............................................................................................ 58 4.13 Public Services........................................................................................................... 60 4.14 Recreation................................................................................................................. 62 4.15 Transportation/Traffic................................................................................................63 4.16 Utilities and Service Systems..................................................................................... 67 4.17 Mandatory Findings of Significancej......................................................................... 75 Section5: References.................................................................................................................78 Appendix A: 2880 Mesa Verde Drive Trip Generation Study Appendix B: Revised Mesa Verde East Project Site Plan ( June 2015) Appendix C: Mesa Water District Letter Appendix D: Geotechnical Exploration Report List of Tables Table1: Project Summary....................................................................................................................... 7 Table 2: Land Use and Trip Generation Summary................................................................................ 23 Table 3: Residential Noise Standards.................................................................................................... 56 H Table 4: Land Use and Trip Generation Summary.............................:...................,.....:........................64 List of Exhibits Exhibit 1: Regional Location Map...................................................:.............:..........:....;.:...........:...;....;.:.5 Exhibit 2: Local Vicinity Map, Topographic Base.....................................................................................6 Exhibit3: Site Plan..................................................................................................................................8 IM city of costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Initial Study/Negative Declaration Introduction The City of Costa Mesa has determined the proposed Mesa Verde East Residential Project (i.e., proposed project) is subject to the guidelines and regulations of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This Initial Study addresses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects associated with the project, as proposed. Section 2.0, Project Description, provides a detailed description of the project. The proposed project involves the following: (1) Adoption of an Initial Study/Negative Declaration; (2) Rezone of a 2 -acre site from I&R (Institutional and Recreational) to R1 (Single Family District) (7.26 dwelling units per acre maximum allowed); (3) Planning Application PA -14-48 for Design Review for the development of a 10 -unit, two-story detached residential development at a density of 4.83 dwelling units per acre. The Design Review also includes the following requested variances from Zoning Code requirements: a. Minor Modification to allow two units to project 20% or less into front yard setback, or 16 feet. (20 feet required; 16 feet proposed); (4) Tentative Tract Map T-17824 for subdivision of property for homeownership for 10 single-family dwelling units. The Project consists of the development of 10 single-family, detached residences with a density of 4.83 dwelling units per acre. The project will provide 20 garage/covered parking spaces and 30 open parking spaces, for a total of 50 spaces (4 spaces per residential unit, and 10 guest spaces). Vehicle access to 10 of the units will be provided from a private street from Mesa Verde Drive East. No deviations from the City's Residential Design Guidelines are requested. The following environmental analysis examines the environmental effects of a low-density residential land use if the rezone were approved. 1.1- Incorporation by Reference Pertinent documents relating to this Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND) have been cited and incorporated, in accordance with Sections 15148 and 15150 of the CEQA Guidelines, to eliminate the need for inclusion of voluminous engineering and technical reports within the Initial Study. Of particular relevance are those previous environmental documents that present information regarding descriptions of environmental settings, and future development -related growth and cumulative impacts. The references outlined below were utilized during preparation of this Initial Study. The documents are available for review at the City of Costa Mesa Development Services Department located at 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, California 92626. City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Initial Studv/ Negative Declaration Introduction City of Costa Mesa 2000 General Plan (Adopted January 22, 2002). The City of Costa Mesa 2000 General Plan (General Plan) is the primary source of long-range planning and policy direction intended to guide growth and preserve the quality of life within the community. The General Plan contains goals, policies, and plans that are intended to guide land use and development decisions. It consists of a Land Use Plan Map and the following Elements, which together fulfill the state requirements for a General Plan: Land Use; Circulation/Transportation; Housing; Conservation; Noise; Safety; Open Space and Recreation; Growth Management; Community Design; and Historic and Cultural Resources. The General Plan was used throughout this Initial Study as a source of baseline data. According to the current (2013-2021) Housing Element (City of Costa Mesa 2008), as of 2010, there were 39,946 households within 16 square miles in the City. City of Costa Mesa 2000 General Plan Environmental Impact Report. The City of Costa Mesa 2000 General Plan Environmental Impact Report was certified on January 22, 2002 through City Council Resolution No. 02-07. The General Plan EIR analyzed the potential environmental impacts that would result from implementation of the City of Costa Mesa 2000 General Plan. General Plan EIR Table 3-6, Growth Increases Over Existing Conditions (2000) Associated with 2000 General Plan Implementation (2020), identifies new development projected between 2000 and 2020. The environmental impact analysis contained in the General Plan EIR assumes 42,469 dwelling units and 46,683,237 square feet (sq ft) of non-residential land uses, which represents a growth of 1,892 additional dwelling units and 12,643,695 additional square feet of non-residential uses by 2020. The General Plan EIR concluded that impacts in the following areas would be significant and unavoidable (see General Plan EIR Section 8.0): • Transportation and Circulation (roadway capacity at Gisele Avenue, west of Harbor Boulevard); • Noise (long-term mobile sources); • Air Quality (short- and long-term emissions). The General Plan and General Plan EIR were used in this Initial Study/Negative Declaration as a source of baseline data. City of Costa Mesa Municipal Code. The City of Costa Mesa Municipal Code (CMMC) consists of regulatory, penal, and administrative ordinances of the City of Costa Mesa. It is the method the City uses to implement control of land uses, in accordance with General Plan goals and policies. The City of Costa Mesa Zoning Code is located in CMMC Title 13, Planning, Zoning, and Development, The purpose of CMMC Title 13 is to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare, and preserve and enhance the aesthetic quality of the City by providing regulations to ensure that an appropriate mix of land uses occur in an orderly manner. The CMMC and CMMC Title 13 are referenced throughout this Initial Study for descriptions and requirements of the City's regulatory framework. 2 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/ Negative Declaration 2.1- Project Location Environmental Analysis The project site is located in the northwestern portion of the City of Costa Mesa, in the County of Orange; refer to Exhibit 1. Specifically, the site is located east of E. Mesa Verde Drive and north of Adams Avenue; refer to Exhibit 2. The site is located approximately 2.0 miles northwest of the Pacific Ocean. Regional access to the site is provided via Interstate 405 (1-405), which is located approximately one mile to the north. Harbor Boulevard, which is located approximately half a mile east of the site, also provides regional access. Local access to the site is provided via Adams Avenue and Mesa Verde East Drive. 2.2 - Environmental Setting The project site (Assessor Parcel Numbers 139-313-08) consists of one parcel totaling approximately 2.07 acres. The site is relatively flat with onsite elevation of approximately 105 feet above mean sea level. The project site contains the facilities for First Church of Christ Scientist, including offices, classrooms, and the main sanctuary, in two buildings totaling approximately 8,900 square feet, and approximately 124 surface parking spaces. Primary site access is provided via Mesa Verde Drive East. The site is currently separated from the residential properties to the north by a block wall. Onsite water and sewer are provided by Mesa Water District and Costa Mesa Sanitary District. 2.2.1- General Plan and Zoning General Plan The General Plan land use designation for the project area is Low Density Residential (8 dwelling units to the acre maximum). Low -Density Residential areas generally are intended to accommodate single-family residences on their own parcels. Other housing types include attached housing that provide a greater portion of recreation or open space than typically found in multi -family developments, and clustered housing which affords the retention of significant open space, Low - Density Residential areas are intended to accommodate family groups and outdoor living activities in open space adjacent to dwellings. In order to avoid land use conflicts, these areas should be located away from or protected from the more intense non-residential areas and major travel corridors. Pursuant to the Costa Mesa General Plan, the density for this land use designation shall be up to eight units to the acre. Zoning According to the Official Zoning Map, the project site is zoned I&R (Institutional and Recreational). A rezone (or change) of the zoning classification of the 2 -acre development site from I&R (Institutional and Recreational) to R1 (Single Family District) is proposed. The proposed rezone to R1 (Single Family 3 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis District) would be compatible with the existing Low Density Residential General Plan designation for the project site. 2.2.2 - Surrounding Zoning Surrounding land uses generally consist of commercial and residential uses. Land uses immediately adjacent to the project site consist of the following: • North: Single Family residential uses are located to the north. These residential uses are zoned R1 (Single- Family Residential). • East: Single Family residential uses are located to the east. These residential uses are zoned R1 (Single- Family Residential). • South: Commercial uses are located to the south. These properties are zoned C1 (Local Business). • West: Single Family residential uses are located to the west (across Mesa Verde Drive East). These residential uses are zoned R1 (Single- Family Residential). 4 City of Costa Mesa ,zXHIBIT 1: MESA VERDE EAST REGIONAL MAP -[Created 3/25/2015 9:59 39 AM] [Scale 3852 34] [Page: 85 x 11 /Portrait] Map Display FCUNTAM VALLE-f FOUNTAIN WA CO HUNTINGTON B � f {C 12002- 5 .Nww.GcoPnse_H c r Legend Roads Mawr SCICQNUARY Cl city CmftCisr Newo— TT BLVD Kydrology Bourrdary Froaway .4� Primary Channels (c ont) (canto (C) 2002-5 GeoPrise.net (GeoVec, Inc.) - (866)422-2505 -J" City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/ Negative Declaration 2.3 - Project Features Environmental Analysis The City of Costa Mesa is processing a planning application from Mesa Verde East, LLC for, two-story, small lot residential development at a density of 4.83 dwelling units per acre. Approval of the proposed project involves the following: 1. Adoption of an Initial Study/Negative Declaration. 2. Rezone R-14-05: An ordinance to rezone a 2 -acre site from I&R (Institutional and Recreational) to R1 (Single Family District). The maximum allowable General Plan density is 16 dwelling units at a maximum of 8 dwelling units per acre. 3. Planning Application PA -14-48: Design Review for the development of a 10 -unit, two-story detached residential development at a density of 4.83 dwelling units per acre. The Design Review also includes the following requested variances from Zoning Code requirements: a. Minor Modification to allow two units to project 20% or less into front yard setback, or 16 feet. (20 feet required; 16 feet proposed); 4. Tentative Tract Map T-17824: Subdivision of the property into fee simple lots for homeownership. Table 1, Project Summary, summarizes the proposed units and their sizes. The development includes 10 total units. The project would provide 20 garage parking spaces and 30 open parking spaces for a total of SO spaces (4 spaces per residential unit, for a total of 40 spaces are required by code). Table 1, Project Summary, summarizes the proposed units and their sizes. Table 1: Project Summary The proposed project includes demolition and removal of the existing church building. Prior to demolition of the existing structure(s), removal and/or abatement of asbestos containing building materials, lead containing paints, and any hazardous materials associated with the existing building materials shall be conducted by a qualified environment professional in consultation with the Costa Mesa Fire Department. Once demolition and removals are completed, the project site would be graded and constructed in single-phase. If contaminated soils are encountered during grading activities, excavation and removal of contaminated soils would be required to comply with Federal, State, and local regulations. PA -14-48 Lot Size 6,000 sq. ft. min Total No. of Units 10 No. Bedrooms and Baths 4 Bed, 3.5 Bath No. of Stories 2 No. Of Garage Spaces 20 No. Of Open Spaces 30 Total Parking 40 Spaces required by Code 50 Spaces (Proposed) The proposed project includes demolition and removal of the existing church building. Prior to demolition of the existing structure(s), removal and/or abatement of asbestos containing building materials, lead containing paints, and any hazardous materials associated with the existing building materials shall be conducted by a qualified environment professional in consultation with the Costa Mesa Fire Department. Once demolition and removals are completed, the project site would be graded and constructed in single-phase. If contaminated soils are encountered during grading activities, excavation and removal of contaminated soils would be required to comply with Federal, State, and local regulations. l;e' 6- }§! }^ V) § V> )}\ } }(\/ \, ] 6 }} E,3k l;e' W -IdONV�3 V) Q LU LU C) (ne LU 1 V) LU ► � 6- \ V) § ! � 6 94E CL § § / §\ #] 7 7 � W -IdONV�3 V) Q LU LU C) (ne LU 1 V) LU ► � City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/ Negative Declaration Leave Blank Environmental Analysis L",O IC,.,L 1,10 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/ Negative Declaration 3.1- Background 1. Project Title Mesa Verde East Project 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Costa Mesa Development Services Department 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 3. Contact Persons and Phone Number: Melvin E. Lee, AICP Senior Planner 714-754-5611 email: mel.lee@costamesaca.gov 4. Project Location: 2880 E. Mesa Verde Drive Costa Mesa Orange County, CA S. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Pinnacle Residential 20 Enterprise, Suite 320 Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 6. General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential 7, Zoning: 1&R (Insititutional and Recreational District) 8. Description of the Project: See Section 2, Project Description 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: See Section 2, Project Description 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits): • South Coast Air Basin • Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board - Region 8 Environmental Analysis 11 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/ Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis 3.2 - Environmental Factors Potentially Affected 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' or "Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated," as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agriculture and Forestry ❑ Air Quality Resources ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Geology/Soils r-� Greenhouse Gas Emissions ❑ Hazards/Hazardous Materials ❑ Hydrology/Water Quality ❑ Land Use/Planning ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Noise ❑ Population/Housing ❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation ❑ Transportation/Traffic ❑ Utilities/Services Systems ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance 3.3 - Lead Agency Determination Lead Agency Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation: ® I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in Section 4, Environmental Analysis, have been added. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposal MAY have a significant effect(s) 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, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. Signed City of Costa Mesa Agency Signer's Name, Ti6e Date 12 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/ Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis Sections 4.1 through 4.17 analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with the project. The environmental issue areas that are evaluated are: • Aesthetics • Agriculture and Forestry Resources • Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Biological Resources • Cultural Resources • Geology/Soils • Hazards/Hazardous Materials • Hydrology/Water Quality • Land Use/Planning • Mineral Resources • Noise • Population/Housing • Public Services • Recreation • Transportation/Traffic • Utilities/Services Systems • Mandatory Findings of Significance The environmental analysis in the following sections is patterned after the Initial Study Checklist recommended by the CEQA Guidelines, as amended, and used by the City of Costa Mesa in its environmental review process. For the preliminary environmental assessment undertaken as part of this Initial Study's preparation, a determination that there is a potential for significant effects indicates the need to more fully analyze the development's impacts and to identify mitigation. For the evaluation of potential impacts, the questions in the Initial Study Checklist are stated and an answer is provided according to the analysis undertaken as part of the Initial Study. The analysis considers the long-term, direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the development. To each question, there are four possible responses: • No Impact. The development will not have any measurable environmental impact on the environment. • Less than significant impact. The development will have the potential for impacting the environment, although this impact will be below established thresholds that are considered to be significant. • Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The development will have the potential to generate impacts, which may be considered as a significant effect on the environment, although mitigation measures or changes to the development's physical or operational characteristics can reduce these impacts to levels that are less than significant. • Potentially significant impact. The development could have impacts, which may be considered significant, and therefore additional analysis is required to identify mitigation measures that could reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant levels. The following is a discussion of potential project impacts as identified in the Initial Study/ Environmental Checklist. Explanations are provided for each item. 13 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/ Negative Declaration Environmental Issues 4.1 Aesthetics 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 building within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Environmental Evaluation Would the project: Environmental Analysis Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ No Impact. There are no General Plan -identified scenic vistas/views located in the project area, as there are no officially designated scenic vistas in the City of Costa Mesa. Therefore, project implementation would not have any effect on a designated scenic vista/view. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic building within a state scenic highway? No Impact. The project site is not located along a designated State scenic highway, as there are no officially designated scenic highways in the City of Costa Mesa. Aside from ornamental landscaping located within the existing church property, there are no protected tree species on the property. No historic buildings or rock outcroppings are located at the project site. Therefore, project implementation would not damage scenic resources within a state scenic highway. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Less than significant impact. The existing visual character of the project site is primarily defined by church buildings, landscaped areas and associated parking lot. The existing visual character of the surrounding area is defined by established residential uses to the north, east and west, and commercial uses located south of the project site. The area does not exhibit distinct architectural 14 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/ Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis character and there is no uniformity of architectural styles. No unique or scenic visual resources exist on the project site or in its surroundings. A project is generally considered to have a significant visual/aesthetic impact if it substantially changes the character of the project site, such that it becomes visually incompatible or visually unexpected when viewed in the context of its surroundings. The project site is located in a mature residential area, and would introduce a 10 -unit, two-story, residential development at a density of 4.83 dwelling units to the existing mature residential neighborhood. The project would be similar in scale and character to the site's surroundings. The Community Design Element identifies the following Private Property Focus for residential design (page CD -18): Objective CD -7A. Encourage excellence in architectural design. CD -7A.1 Ensure that new and remodeled structures are designed in architectural styles which reflect the City's diversity, yet are compatible in scale and character with existing buildings and natural surroundings within residential neighborhoods. Develop and adopt design guidelines for residential development. CD -7A.2 Preserve the character and scale of Costa Mesa's established residential neighborhoods; where residential development or redevelopment is proposed, require as a condition of approval that it is consistent with the prevailing character of existing development in the immediate vicinity, and that it does not have a substantial adverse impact on adjacent areas. Consistent with the objectives of the Community Design Element, the proposed project includes a traditional architecture with varied building materials, textures and colors, quality landscaped project common areas and project entries, and private open space. In addition, project implementation would be consistent with the character of the surrounding area through quality architectural design. The design of any future residential use is required to conform with the City's design guidelines and residential development standards (e.g. two-story maximum building height, maximum density allowed in R1 zone, etc.), unless a request for any discretionary approvals (i.e. variance, minor modification, etc.) is approved in conjunction with the development proposal. Since the proposed project would require the review/approval of a Design Review to ensure conformance with the Zoning Code and Residential Design Guidelines, no significant impacts related to this environmental topic are anticipated. Standard review, conditions, and requirements completed during the review process will avoid any significant impacts related to aesthetics. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required. is City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/ Negative Declaration Environmental Analvsis d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Less than significant impact. Light spillage is typically defined as unwanted illumination from light fixtures on adjacent properties. The project site is located within a residential area. Existing lighting conditions in the project area include light emanating from building interiors, security lights and the surrounding residential land uses, as well as nearby street lighting. There are residential uses located north, east, and west of the project site. Commercial uses are located south of the project site. There are no additional sensitive land uses in the project's immediate vicinity. The residential units would include a garage and living areas on the ground floor, and living areas on the second floor. The project would create new sources of light due to light emanating from building interiors and light from exterior sources (e.g., building illumination, security lighting, and landscape lighting). The existing and proposed residential uses are considered light sensitive and could be exposed to lighting from the existing nearby commercial uses. A seven -foot high block wall would be installed between along the western, eastern and southern project boundary to enhance privacy and separate the project from existing residential land uses. No significant lighting is proposed adjacent to the existing residential uses. As previously noted, the existing and proposed residential uses could be exposed to lighting from the existing surrounding commercial uses to the south. Most of the lighting from the existing uses surrounding the project would be shielded by the proposed seven -foot high screen wall to be located along the southern boundary of the project site. Spillover light impacts on residential uses to less than significant. Existing lighting conditions in the Project area include light emanating from the abutting commercial property and residential property, as well as nearby street lighting. The proposed development would create new sources of light due to light emanating from the new residential building interiors and light from exterior sources (e.g., building illumination, security lighting, entry sign and landscape lighting). Surrounding sensitive receptors (existing residences) will be separated from new block walls and landscaping within required setbacks. No significant new lighting is proposed adjacent to the existing residential uses. Low voltage landscape lighting will be placed within the common open space areas within the project site. Standard Condition SC 4.1-1 requires preparation of a Lighting Plan and Photometric Study, in order to demonstrate that the proposed lighting meets minimum security lighting requirements and minimizes light/glare to residents. Project compliance with CMMC standards and Standard Condition SC 4.1-1 would ensure that potential spillover light impacts on residential uses are less than significant. Standard Conditions 16 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/ Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis SC 4.1.1 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 compliance with the following: • The mounting height of lights on light standards shall not exceed 18 feet in any location on the Project site unless approved by the Development Services Director. • The intensity and location of lights on buildings shall be subject to the Development Services Director's approval. • All site lighting fixtures shall be provided with a flat glass lens. Photometric calculations shall indicate the effect of the flat glass lens fixture efficiency. • 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 purposes on site. • Glare shields may be required for select light standards. In regards to glare, the project would involve primarily non -reflective fagade treatments and the minimization of unrelieved glass surfaces. Additionally, since the proposed project would require the review/approval of a Master Plan (CMMC Section 13-56) to ensure conformance with the Zoning Code and Residential Design Guidelines, no significant impacts related to this environmental topic are anticipated. Standard review, conditions, and requirements completed during the review process will avoid any significant impacts related to light and glare. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard. 17 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/Negative Declaration Environmental Issues Less Than Significant Potentially With Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated Environmental Analysis Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 4.2 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 Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project, and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. 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(8)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section ❑ ❑ ❑ 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(8))? 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? 18 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/ Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation Environmental Analysis a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No impact. The project site is not designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide importance. The project site is developed with existing church buildings and parking lot. Thus, project implementation would not result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No impact. The project site is currently zoned I&R (Institutional and Recreational), but is proposed to be rezoned to R1 (Single -Family Residential District). The project site and surrounding lands are not zoned for agricultural use or part of a Williamson Act Contract. Therefore, project implementation would not 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(8)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? No impact. The project site is is currently zoned I&R (Institutional and Recreational), but is proposed to be rezoned to R1 (Single -Family Residential District). Project implementation would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? No impact. The project site is developed with existing church buildings and parking lot. Thus, project implementation would not 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? No impact. The project site is developed with existing church buildings and parking lot, and the surrounding area is designated for residential and commercial uses. There are no agricultural or forest uses in the vicinity. Therefore, project implementation would not involve changes in the existing environment that could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non -forest use. 19 City of Costa Mesa ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Mesa Verde East Project ® ❑ Initial Study/Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Environmental Issues Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact 4.3 Air Quality Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management 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) Violate any air quality standard or contribute ❑ ❑ ® ❑ substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) 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 (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial ❑ ❑ ® ❑ pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a ❑ ❑ ® ❑ substantial number of people? 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 any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Environmental Evaluation Air Quality ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less than significant impact. The project consists of a 10 -unit detached residential development, replacing an 8,900 square church. The project site is located in Orange County, which is located in the South Coast Air Basin (Air Basin). The regional agency responsible for air quality within the Air Basin is the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The area is designated nonattainment for the state 1 -hour and 8 -hour ozone, 24-hour and annual respirable particulate 20 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/ Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis matter (PMlo), and annual fine particulate matter (PM2.5) standards. The area is also designated nonattainment for federal standards for 8 -hour ozone, and 24-hour PM2.5. The area is designated as maintenance for the federal PMlo standard. The applicable Air Quality Plan (AQP) is the 2012 Air Quality Management Plan for the South Coast Air Basin (AQMP 2012). According to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, the project is consistent with the AQP if the project addresses two main criteria (and associated questions): Criterion 1: Questions 1 and 2. Would the project result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations? Would the project cause or contribute to new air quality violations? Answers 1 and 2: Given the size and current developed conditions of the project site, and the fact that trip generations will be similar to the existing use, the project would result in a less than significant carbon monoxide (CO) impact during operation. In addition, due to the limited grading and the fact that the future proposed residential development would not involve subsurface grading for underground structures, project construction emissions would not exceed SCAQMD's LST criteria with below Standard Conditions incorporated. Therefore, the project would not increase the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations in the project's vicinity. The project would be consistent with the first and second questions of Criterion 1. Question 3. Would the project delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQP? Answer 3. Given the size and current developed conditions of the project site, and the fact that trip generations will be similar to the existing use, the project would result in less than significant impacts with regard to localized pollutant concentrations and regional pollutant contributions, respectively, with below Standard Conditions incorporated. The project would not delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or 2012 AQMP emissions reductions. The project is consistent with the third question of Criterion 1. Criterion 2: Question 1. Would the project be consistent with the population, housing, and employment growth projections utilized in the preparation of the AQMP? Answer 1: In order to be consistent with the growth assumptions in the AQMP, the project must be consistent with the City of Costa Mesa 2000 General Plan (General Plan), the SCAG's Growth Management Chapter of the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG), and SCAG's 2012 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The General Plan map indicates that the project is located within the City's Low Density Residential (LDR) designation. The designation allows for 8 du/acre, however the project 21 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/ Negative Declaration Environmental Analvsis consists of only 4.83 du/acre. Therefore, the project is consistent with the City-wide plan for population growth at the project site. The project is also consistent with the RCPG's types, intensity, and patterns of land use designated for the area in and around the project site. The population, housing, and employment forecasts, which are adopted by SCAG's Regional Council, are based on the local plans and policies applicable to the City and are used by SCAG in all phases of implementation and review. Additionally, as the SCAQMD has incorporated these same projections into the 2012 AQMP, it can be concluded that the project would be consistent with the projections. Therefore, the project is consistent with the first question of Criterion 2. Question 2. Would the project implement all feasible air quality mitigation measures? Answer 3: The project would result in less than significant impact with all feasible air quality standard conditions incorporated and would therefore be consistent with the second question of Criterion 2. Question 3. Would the project be consistent with the land use planning strategies set forth in the AQMP? Answer 3: The project is located within a developed portion of the City with proximity to transit and a mix of other uses, therefore the project would not conflict with the City's or SCAG's policies. The project is consistent with the third question of Criterion 2. In summary, the project would not result in a significant localized or regional impact on the region's ability to meet State and Federal air quality standards. In addition, the project would be consistent with the growth forecasts in the AQMP, and is consistent with the land use strategies set forth in the AQMP. Therefore, this impact is less than significant. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Given the size and current developed conditions of the project site, the fact that and the fact that future proposed residential development would not involve subsurface grading for underground structures, short-term air quality impacts are expected to be less than significant. The long-term, operational air quality impacts are also expected to be less than significant because proposed residential development would involve similar average daily vehicle trips compared to the existing church use (RK Engineering Group, 2015). Less than significant impacts related to this environmental topic will occur as a result of the zone change and development. In addition, the City of Costa Mesa requires projects meet certain Standard Conditions. They are requirements and, therefore, incorporated into the analysis. Standard Conditions relevant to the project are provided below. In summary, considering that construction and operation of the proposed project will follow these standard conditions, both construction and operational air quality impacts are expected to be less than significant. 22 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial5tudy/ Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis c) 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 (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? The SCAQMD does not recommend quantified analysis of cumulative construction or operational emissions, nor does it provide separate methodologies or thresholds of significance to be used to assess cumulative construction or operational impacts. However, if an individual development project generates operational emissions that exceed the SCAQMD recommended daily thresholds, project -specific impacts would also cause a cumulative considerable increase in emissions for those pollutants for which the Air Basin is in non -attainment. The project would generate up to 124 daily trips, including up to 9 trips in the AM peak hour and up to 13 trips in the PM peak hour. Under existing conditions, the project site generates approximately 78 daily trips, including 5 trips in the AM peak hour and 4 trips in the PM peak hour. Overall, the project would generate up to 46 additional daily trips, including an additional 4 AM peak hour trips and an additional 9 PM peak hour trips, than currently occur under existing conditions. Table 2: Land Use and Trip Generation Summary AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use Category Dally 2 -Way Total Total Rates Church (TE/TSF) 9.11 0.56 0.55 Single -Family Detached Housing 9.52 0.75 1.00 (TE/DU) Project Single -Family Detached Housing 124 9 13 (13 DU)* Existing Site Church (8.598 TSF) -78 -5 -4 Total "Net" Project Trip 46 4 9 Generation: Project Minus Existing Church TE/DU= trip end per dwelling unit, TE/TSF= trip end per 1,000 square feet Source: RK Engineering 2015. *Amended project is for 10 -units only. Given the size and current developed conditions of the project site, the similar daily trips and the fact that future proposed residential development would not involve subsurface grading for underground structures, the project would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds during construction or operation. Therefore, the project's impacts would be considered less than significant. 23 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/Negative Declaration d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than significant impact. Environmental Analysis This discussion addresses whether the project would expose sensitive receptors to naturally occurring asbestos, asbestos from building demolition, construction -generated localized criteria pollutant impacts, construction -generated diesel particulate matter (DPM), construction or operational related toxic air contaminants (TACs), or operational CO hotspots. Sensitive Receptors Those who are sensitive to air pollution include children, the elderly, and persons with preexisting respiratory or cardiovascular illness. For purposes of CEQA, the SCAQMD considers a sensitive receptor to be a location where a sensitive individual could remain for 24 hours, such as residences, hospitals, or convalescent facilities (SCAQMD 2008a). Commercial and industrial facilities are not included in the definition because employees do not typically remain onsite for 24 hours. However, when assessing the impact of pollutants with 1 -hour or 8 -hour standards (such as nitrogen dioxide and carbon monoxide), commercial and/or industrial facilities would be considered sensitive receptors for those purposes. The closest sensitive receptor is a residential development directly adjacent north to the project. The existing residence is located within 25 meters of the project boundary. Naturally Occurring Asbestos (NOA) Asbestos is a fibrous mineral which is both naturally occurring in ultramafic rock (a rock type commonly found in California), and used as a processed component of building materials, Because asbestos has been proven to cause a number of disabling and fatal diseases, such as asbestosis and lung cancer, it is strictly regulated either based on its natural widespread occurrence, or in its use as a building material. In addition, the ARB approved an Air Toxic Control Measure for construction, grading, quarrying and surface mining operations to minimize emissions of naturally occurring asbestos. The regulation requires application of best management practices to control fugitive dust in areas known to have naturally occurring asbestos and requires notification to the local air district prior to commencement of ground -disturbing activities. The California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology (DMG) has a published guide for generally identifying areas that are likely to contain NOA (DMG 2011). The DMG map indicates NOA are not known to occur within the project area. Therefore, disturbance of NOA during project construction is not a concern for the project. The project would result in no impact from exposure of sensitive receptors to naturally occurring asbestos. Asbestos Containing Materials (ACM) In the initial Asbestos National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants rule promulgated in 1973, a distinction was made between building materials that would readily release asbestos fibers when damaged or disturbed (friable) and those materials that were unlikely to result in significant fiber release (non -friable). The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has since 24 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/ Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis determined that, severely damaged, otherwise non -friable materials can release significant amounts of asbestos fibers. Asbestos has been banned from many building materials under the Toxic Substances Control Act, the Clean Air Act, and the Consumer Product Safety Act. However, most uses of asbestos for building material are not banned. Therefore, the potential source of asbestos exposure for the project is the demolition activity of the existing structures. SCAQMD's Rule 1403 specifies work practice requirements to limit asbestos emissions from building demolition and renovation activities, includes the removal and associated disturbance of asbestos - containing materials (ACM). The requirements for demolition and renovation activities include asbestos surveying, notification, ACM removal procedures and time schedules, ACM handling and clean-up procedures, and storage, disposal, and land filling requirements for asbestos -containing waste materials (ACWM). The rule further states that the District shall be notified of the intent to conduct any demolition or renovation activity (SCAQMD 2012) Compliance with SCAQMD, federal, and state regulations reduces the potential of asbestos - containing material exposure to a less than significant impact. Construction: Localized Construction Impacts As shown above, the project would not exceed the localized significance thresholds for construction - generated criteria pollutants with implementation of Standard Conditions. Therefore, the project would not expose receptors to substantial criteria pollutant concentrations from construction activities. Impacts would be less than significant. Construction: Diesel Particulate Matter The project would generate diesel exhaust, a source of diesel particulate matter, during project construction. Diesel particulates are typically 2.5 microns (PM2.5). Onsite emissions of both diesel particulate matter occur during construction from the operation of heavy-duty construction equipment and from vendor trucks that operate on project sites. Project activities that would generate diesel particulate matter emissions are short-term in nature. Moreover, the current methodological protocols required by SCAQMD and ARB when studying the health risk posed by diesel particulate matter assume the following: (1) 24-hour constant exposure; (2) 350 days a year; (3) for a continuous period lasting 70 years. Therefore, considering the dispersion of the emissions and the short time frame, exposure to diesel particulate matter is anticipated to be less than significant. Construction: Toxic Air Pollutants - Onsite Workers There are a variety of state and national programs that protect workers from safety hazards, including high air pollutant concentrations (California OSHA and CDC 2012). Onsite workers are not required to be addressed through this health risk assessment process. A document published by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA, 2009), Health Risk Assessments for Proposed Land Use Projects, indicates that onsite receptors are included in risk assessments if they are persons not employed by the project. Persons not employed by the 25 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial 5tudy/Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis project would not remain onsite for any significant period. Therefore, a health risk assessment for onsite workers is not required or recommended. Impacts are less than significant. Operation: Toxic Air Pollutants The ARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook contains recommendations that will "help keep California's children and other vulnerable populations out of harm's way with respect to nearby sources of air pollution" (ARB 2005), including recommendations for distances between sensitive receptors and certain land uses. These recommendations are assessed as follows. • Heavily traveled roads. ARB recommends avoiding new sensitive land uses within 500 feet of a freeway, urban roads with 100,000 vehicles per day, or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles per day. Epidemiological studies indicate that the distance from the roadway and truck traffic densities were key factors in the correlation of health effects, particularly in children. The project is approximately 630 feet west of Placentia Ave, which is currently estimated to have 15,606 vehicles per day (California Environmental Health Tracking Program 2011). Therefore, the project would not expose onsite sensitive receptors to significant health risk from heavily traveled roads. Distribution centers. ARB also recommends avoiding siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a distribution center. The closest existing or proposed distribution center to the project is located more than 1,000 feet from the project. Therefore, the project would not expose onsite sensitive receptors to significant health risk from distribution centers. Fueling stations. ARB recommends avoiding new sensitive land uses within 300 feet of a large fueling station (a facility with a throughput of 3.6 million gallons per year or greater). A 50 - foot separation is recommended for typical gas dispensing facilities. The nearest fueling station is 0.50 miles from the project site. Therefore, the project would not expose onsite sensitive receptors to significant health risk from fueling stations. Dry cleaning operations. ARB recommends avoiding siting new sensitive land uses within 300 feet of any dry cleaning operation that uses perch loroethylene. For operations with two or more machines, ARB recommends a buffer of 500 feet. For operations with three or more machines, ARB recommends consultation with the local air district. The nearest dry cleaning operations from the project site are 0.54 miles to the southeast of the project site. Therefore, the project would not expose onsite sensitive receptors to significant health risk from dry cleaning operations. Operation: CO Hotspot The project is proposed residential and would not create a localized CO hotspot. Therefore, the project would not expose receptors to substantial CO concentrations from operational activities. Conclusion The project would not expose receptors to substantial quantities or significant concentrations of asbestos from demolition or soils disturbance, construction -generated localized criteria pollutant 26 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/ Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis concentrations, construction -generated diesel particulate matter, operational toxic air contaminants, or CO hotspots. Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant impact. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? The proposed project will include construction of 10 units. The residential uses are not proposed to create objectionable odors, outside of normal household activities. In addition, the proposed project will be similar to the surrounding residential uses. Therefore, the project will create less than significant impact related to odors affecting a substantial number of people. Greenhouses Gases a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Project -related GHG emissions would include emissions from direct and indirect sources. The project would results in direct and indirect emissions of CO2, N2O, and CH4. Direct project -related GHG emissions include emissions from construction activities, area sources, and mobile sources, while indirect sources include emissions from electricity consumption, water demand, and solid waste generation. Operational GHG emissions are based on energy emissions from natural gas usage and automobile emissions. The long-term, operational greenhouse gas impacts are also expected to be less than significant because proposed residential development would involve similar average daily vehicle trips compared to the existing church use (RK Engineering Group, 2015). Less than significant impact. The SCAQMD has prepared recommended significance thresholds for greenhouse gases for local lead agency consideration ("SCAQMD draft local agency threshold"). The current draft thresholds consist of the following tiered approach: o Tier 1 consists of evaluating whether or not the project qualifies for any applicable exemption under CEQA. o Tier 2 consists of determining whether the project is consistent with a greenhouse gas reduction plan. If a project is consistent with a qualifying local greenhouse gas reduction plan, it does not have significant greenhouse gas emissions. o Tier 3 consists of screening values, which the lead agency can choose, but must be consistent with all projects within its jurisdiction. A project's construction emissions are averaged over 30 years and are added to a project's operational emissions. If a project's emissions are under one of the following screening thresholds, then the project is less than significant: • All land use types: 3,000 MTCO2e per year • Based on land use type: residential: 3,500 MTCO2e per year; commercial: 1,400 MTCO2e per year; or mixed use: 3,000 MTCO2e per year o Tier 4 has the following options: 27 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis • Option 1: Reduce emissions from business as usual by a certain percentage; this percentage is currently undefined• Option 2: Early implementation of applicable AB 32 Scoping Plan measures • Option 3, 2020 target for service populations (SP), which includes residents and employees: • 4.8 MTCO2e/SP/year for projects and 6.6 MTCO2e/SP/year for plans; • Option 3, 2035 target: 3.0 MTCO2e/SP/year for projects and 4.1 MTCO2e/SP/year for plans o Tier 5 involves mitigation offsets to achieve target significance threshold. The SCAQMD discusses its draft thresholds in the following excerpt (SCAQMD 2008b): The overarching policy objective with regard to establishing a GHG [greenhouse gas] significance threshold for the purposes of analyzing GHG impacts pursuant to CEQA is to establish a performance standard or target GHG reduction objective that will ultimate contribute to reducing GHG emissions to stabilize climate change. Full implementation of the Governor's Executive Order 5-3-05 would reduce GHG emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels or 90 percent below current levels by 2050. It is anticipated that achieving the Executive Order's objective would contribute to worldwide efforts to cap GHG concentrations at 450 ppm, thus, stabilizing global climate. As described below, staff's recommended interim GHG significance threshold proposal uses a tiered approach to determining significance. Tier 3, which is expected to be the primary tier by which the AQMD will determine significance for projects where it is the lead agency, uses the Executive Order 5-3-05 goal as the basis for deriving the screening level. Specifically, the Tier 3 screening level for stationary sources is based on an emission capture rate of 90 percent for all new or modified projects. A 90 percent emission capture rate means that 90 percent of total emissions from all new or modified stationary source projects would be subject to some type of CEQA analysis, including a negative declaration, a mitigated negative declaration, or an environmental impact. Therefore, the policy objective of staff's recommended interim GHG significance threshold proposal is to achieve an emission capture rate of 90 percent of all new or modified stationary source projects. A GHG significance threshold based on a 90 percent emission capture rate may be more appropriate to address the long-term adverse impacts associated with global climate change. Further, a 90 percent emission capture rate sets the emission threshold low enough to capture a substantial fraction of future stationary source projects that will be constructed to accommodate future statewide population and economic growth, while setting the emission threshold high enough to exclude small projects that will in aggregate contribute a relatively small fraction of the cumulative statewide GHG emissions. This assertion is based on the fact that staff estimates that these GHG emissions would account for less than one percent of future 2050 statewide GHG emissions target (85 MMTCO2e/yr). In addition, these small projects would be subject to future applicable GHG control regulations that would further reduce their overall future contribution to the statewide GHG inventory. In summary, the SCAQMD's draft threshold uses the Executive Order S-3-05 goal as the basis for the Tier 3 screening level. Achieving the Executive Order's objective would contribute to worldwide efforts to cap carbon dioxide concentrations at 450 ppm, thus, stabilizing global climate. 28 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial 5tudy/Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis For this Project, the 3,000 MTCO2e per year for mixed use screening threshold is used as the significance threshold, in addition to the qualitative thresholds of significance. A 10 -unit development would not exceed the SCAQMD's threshold of significance for greenhouse gases. b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Less than significant impact. There are currently no adopted local or regional greenhouse gas reduction plans applicable to the proposed project. However as discussed in Section 4.7a) above, the Air District is in the process of preparing recommended significance thresholds for greenhouse gases for local lead agency consideration which the proposed project does not exceed. The Scoping Plan states, "The 2020 goal was established to be an aggressive, but achievable, mid- term target, and the 2050 GHG emissions reduction goal represents the level scientists believe is necessary to reach levels that would stabilize climate" (ARB 2008). The year 2020 GHG emission reduction goal of AB 32 corresponds with the mid-term target established by Executive Order 5-3-05, which aims to reduce California's fair -share contribution of GHGs in 2050 to levels that would stabilize the climate. Project Construction Construction of the proposed project is estimated to generate GHGs. Construction emissions were quantified for demolition, grading, trenching, building construction, paving, and the application of architectural coatings. GHG emissions produced during the approximately two year construction phase of the project are from construction vehicle exhaust. SCAQMD assessment methodology allocates the GHG emissions generated over the construction period and amortizes them over the life of the project (30 years). The combination of construction and operations phase emissions are then evaluated against the SCAQMD GHG significance threshold. Therefore, construction emissions would not conflict with the AB 32 Scoping Plan. Because the project is limited to the redevelopment of a single-family residence development, it is not a project subject to the Scoping Plan's recommended measures. As such, the Scoping Plan's recommended measures do not directly apply to the project. In other words, there are no specific actions or measures to incorporate into the project in order to comply with the Scoping Plan. Therefore, the project would not conflict with the Scoping Plan's recommended measures and, as such, would not impede implementation of the Scoping Plan. In conclusion, the project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for reducing the emissions of GHGs because the project would generate low levels of GHGs, and would not impede implementation of the Scoping Plan, or conflict with the policies of the Scoping Plan. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. 29 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/ Negative Declaration Standard Conditions Environmental Analysis SC -4.3-1 All construction contractors shall comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) regulations, including Rule 403, Fugitive Dust. All grading (regardless of acreage) shall apply best available control measures for fugitive dust in accordance with Rule 403. To ensure that the project is in full compliance with applicable SCAQMD dust regulations and that there is no nuisance impact off the site, the contractor would implement each of the following: • Moisten soil not more than 15 minutes prior to moving soil or conduct whatever watering is necessary to prevent visible dust emissions from exceeding 100 feet in any direction. • Apply chemical stabilizers to disturbed surface areas (completed grading areas) within five days of completing grading or apply dust suppressants or vegetation sufficient to maintain a stabilized surface. • Water excavated soil piles hourly or covered with temporary coverings. • Water exposed surfaces at least twice a day under calm conditions. Water as often as needed on windy days when winds are less than 25 miles per day or during very dry weather in order to maintain a surface crust and prevent the release of visible emissions from the construction site. • Wash mud -covered tired and under -carriages of trucks leaving construction sites. • Provide for street sweeping, as needed, on adjacent roadways to remove dirt dropped by construction vehicles or mud, which would otherwise be carried off by trucks departing project sites. • Securely cover loads with a tight fitting tarp on any truck leaving the construction sites to dispose of debris. • Cease grading during period when winds exceed 25 miles per hour. SC -4.3-2 Prohibits permanently installed wood burning devices into any new development. A wood burning device means any fireplace, wood burning heater, or pellet -fueled wood heater, or any similarly enclosed, permanently installed, indoor or outdoor device burning any solid' fuel for aesthetic or space -heating purposes, which has a heat input of less than one million British thermal units per hour. SC -4.3-3 The project shall comply with Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations established by the energy conservation standards. The project Applicant shall incorporate the following in building plans: • Double paned glass or window treatment for energy conservation shall be sued in all exterior windows; 30 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis • Buildings shall be oriented north/south where feasible. SC 4.3-4 The Applicant shall contact the Air Quality Management District (AQMD) at (800) 288-7664 for potential additional conditions of development or for additional permits required by the AQMD. SC 4.3-5 Trash facilities shall be screened from view, and designed and located appropriately to minimize potential noise and odor impacts to residential areas. SC 4.3-6 All rubber tired dozers and graders used during the grading phase of construction shall be powered by Tier 3 engines. 31 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/ Negative Declaration Environmental Issues 4.4 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, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? 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 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? Environmental Setting Environmental Analysis Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ The project site is developed with existing church buildings and associated parking lot. The project site is surrounded by urban development consisting of residential and commercial uses. 32 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial5tudy/ Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis Environmental Evaluation 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? No impact. The project site is fully developed/disturbed and contains limited ornamental landscaping throughout the property. No suitable habitat for any special -status plant or wildlife species occurs within the project site. Therefore, project implementation would not impact either directly or through habitat modifications, any plant or wildlife species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No impact. There are no riparian habitats or other sensitive natural communities located within the project area identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Therefore, there would be no impacts to any of these habitat types. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No impact. The project is devoid of wetlands, marshes, and vernal pools. Therefore, there would be no impact to any federally protected wetlands under the Clean Water Act. 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 wildlife nursery sites? No impact. The project site is fully developed and is located in an urban setting. The site and surrounding areas do not provide habitat for the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species. Therefore, there is no potential for the site to serve as a migration corridor for wildlife and no impact would occur. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No impact. The project site does not contain any protected biological resources or tree species that are considered sensitive. Project implementation would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances. 33 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/ Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No impact. The City of Costa Mesa is not within the jurisdiction of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan. Therefore, project implementation would not conflict with the provisions of an approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. 34 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/ Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Environmental Issues Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact 4.5 Cultural Resources Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the ❑ ❑ ❑ significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique ❑ ❑ ® ❑ paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those ❑ 1:1® ❑ interred outside of formal cemeteries? Environmental Evaluation Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? No impact. The City's historic and cultural resources are illustrated on General Plan EIR Exhibit 4.10- 1, Properties that Meet the Standards for Listing in the National Register, and outlined in General Plan EIR Table 4.10-1, Historic Resources Inventory. The project site is not identified as a historically/culturally significant resource. City records indicate that the church buildings were constructed in 1968. The existing structures were assessed for historic significance and do not appear to meet any of the four criteria (A -D) for listing on the California Register of Historic Resources (CR) nor do they appear to meet any criteria for local listing. The buildings were built as functional buildings for a church and therefore, are not associated with events (A) that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of history. The church is not recognized locally, and would not be considered historically significant and therefore, the structures are not associated with a person(s) (B) significant in the past. The structure is not unusual or exceptional in any respect and therefore, it does not embody a distinctive characteristic of a type, period, or method of construction (C). Finally, the structure is not capable of providing information important in prehistory or history (D). The structures located onsite do not appear to meet any of the criteria for listing on the CR or local listings and further study is not deemed necessary. 35 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/ Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis Therefore, project implementation would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? Less than significant impact. Ground disturbing activities, such as grading or excavation could disturb previously unidentified subsurface archaeological resources. However, the project site consists of, and is surrounded by, developed land that has been permanently altered due to the construction of below and aboveground improvements (i.e., buildings, driveways, streets, hardscapes, and utilities). Additionally, the project site has already been subject to extensive disruption. Given the highly disturbed condition of the site, the potential for project implementation to impact an unidentified archeological resource is considered low. The project would be subject to compliance with Standard Condition SC 4.5-1, which provides direction in the event archeological resources are unearthed during project subsurface activities. Therefore, project implementation would result in a less than significant impact involving an adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource. Standard Condition SC 4.5.4 In the event that archaeological resources are encountered during grading and construction, all construction activities shall be temporarily halted or redirected to permit the sampling, identification, and evaluation of archaeological materials as determined by the City, who shall establish, in cooperation with the project Applicant and a certified archaeologist, the appropriate procedures for exploration and/or salvage of the artifacts. c) Directly or indirectly, destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Less than significant impact. As noted above, the project site has already been subject to extensive disruption. Additionally, there is no evidence of unique geologic features on the project site. Given the highly disturbed condition of the site, the potential for the project to impact unidentified paleontological resource is considered remote. The project would be subject to compliance with Standard Condition SC 4.5-2, which provides direction in the event paleontological resources are unearthed during project subsurface activities. Therefore, project implementation would result in a less than significant impact involving the potential destruction of a paleontological resource. Standard Condition SC 4.5.-2 In the event that paleontological resources are encountered during grading and construction operations, all construction activities shall be temporarily halted or redirected to permit a qualified paleontologist to assess the find for significance and, if necessary, develop a paleontological resources impact mitigation plan (PRIMP) for the review and approval by the City prior to resuming excavation activities. 36 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/ Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Less than significant impact. The probability that construction of the project would impact any human remains is low, given the degree of past disturbance of the site, as it is developed with existing church facility. In the event that human remains are encountered during earth removal or disturbance activities, the California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that all activities cease immediately and a qualified archaeologist and Native American monitor be contacted immediately. The Coroner would also be contacted pursuant to Sections 5097.98 and 5097.99 of the Public Resources Code relative to Native American remains. Should the Coroner determine the human remains to be of Native American descent, the coroner has 24 hours to notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC would then be required to contact the most likely descendant of the deceased Native American, who would then serve as consultant on how to proceed with the remains. Compliance with the established regulatory framework (i.e., California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98), as required by Standard Condition SC 4.5-3, would reduce potential impacts involving disturbance to human remains would be less than significant. Standard Condition SC 4.5-3 If human remains are encountered, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection within 24 hours of notification by the NAHC. The MLD may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials. 37 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/ Negative Declaration Environmental Issues 4.6 Geology and Soils Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to 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 risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Environmental Analysis Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ A Geotechnical Exploration Report, prepared by Leighton and Associates, Inc. (L&A), briefly summarizes the geotechnical constraints for the project (L&A 2014). Environmental Evaluation Would the project: 38 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. No impact. Seismically induced ground rupture is defined as the physical displacement of surface deposits in response to an earthquake's seismic waves. Ground rupture is most likely along active faults, and typically occurs during earthquakes of magnitude five or higher. Ground rupture only affects the area immediately adjacent to a fault. The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act was passed in 1972 to mitigate the hazard of surface faulting to structures for human occupancy. The Act's main purpose is to prevent the construction of buildings used for human occupancy on the surface trace of active faults. The Act requires the State Geologist to establish regulatory zones, known as "Alquist-Priolo (AP) Earthquake Fault Zones," around the surface traces of active faults and to issue appropriate maps. If an active fault is found, a structure for human occupancy cannot be placed over the trace of the fault and must be set back from the fault (typically 50 feet). The nearest potentially active fault is the San Joaquin Hills blind thrust fault and the Newport - Inglewood Fault, which are located approximately 1.4 miles and 3.0, respectively, from the site (L&A 2014). No faults are known to occur on or within the immediate vicinity of the project site. Therefore, there would be no impact. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? Less than significant impact. As with all areas of Southern California, the project would be subject to strong ground shaking associated with seismic activity, especially given that the project site is located near faults that have the potential to cause moderate to large earthquakes. These levels of shaking can be expected to cause damage particularly to older and poorly constructed buildings. The project would involve all new structures and would be required to conform to the seismic design parameters of the California Building Code (CBC). Compliance with the seismic design parameters as outlined in the most recent CBC would ensure that impacts are less than significant. Standard Condition SC 4.6-1 The Applicant shall comply with the requirements of the 2013 California Building Code, 2013 California Residential code, 2013 California Electrical code, 2013 California Mechanical code, 2013 California Plumbing code,2013 California Green Building Standards Code, and the 2013 California Energy Code (or the applicable adopted California Building code, California Residential code, California Electrical code, California Mechanical code, California Plumbing Code, California Green Building Standards, California Energy Code at the time of plan submittal or permit issuance), and California Code of Regulations also known as the California Building 39 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/ Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis Standards Code, as amended by the City of Costa Mesa. Areas of alteration and additions shall comply with 2013 California Green Building Standards Code section 5.303.2 and 5.303.2 iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less than significant impact. Liquefaction is the loss of soil strength or stiffness due to increased pore -water pressure during severe shaking. Liquefaction is associated primarily with loose (low density), saturated, fine to medium grained, cohesionless soils. As indicated in the City's General Plan Update EIR, Geology & Seismic Hazards, Exhibit 4.7-4, Liquefaction, the project site is located in an area with low liquefaction potential due to the lack of liquefiable soils (GP EIR 2002). The project must comply with Standard Condition SC 4.6-1, which requires compliance with the California Building Code. Standard Condition SC 4.6-2 must also be followed, which requires that prior to the implementation of the project, the project Applicant would prepare a geotechnical report for the proposed buildings, which would fully identify any site- specific risk for liquefaction, and would identify any specific construction design recommendations in accordance with the CBC. The Geotechnical Exploration Report included borings up to 51.3 feet, and associated soil testing (moisture, shear strength, consolidation, corrosivity, etc.) to determine any geotechnical constraints to development (L&A 2014). Excavation for the site would generally be limited to 10 feet below ground surface, and groundwater depth is estimated between 30 and 50 feet below ground surface. The Review did not identify any barriers to development, and provided specific grading and foundation design recommendations. Accordingly, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant. Standard Condition SC 4.6-2 Prior to the issuance of Grading Permits, the project Applicant shall provide the City of Costa Mesa Department of Building Safety with a geotechnical investigation of the project site detailing recommendations for remedial grading in order to reduce the potential of onsite soils to cause unstable conditions. Design, grading, and construction shall be performed in accordance with the requirements of the California Building Code applicable at the time of grading, appropriate local grading regulations, and the recommendations of the geotechnical consultant as summarized in a final written report, subject to review by the City of Costa Mesa Department of Building Safety. iv) Landslides? No impact. Due to the level topography, landslides are not anticipated to occur on the project site. Based on the State of California Seismic Hazard Zones Map for the Newport Beach Quadrangle (CGS, 1998), the site is not located within an area that has been identified by the State of California as being potentially susceptible to seismically induced landslides. Therefore, project implementation would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving landslides. 40 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/ Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less than significant impact. The project site is currently a developed 2 -acre site comprised of church buildings and parking lot. While the project would have a greater amount of pervious areas, these areas would take the form of trees and shrubs in private yards, as well as community gathering spaces, and vegetative groundcover. Thus, the increase of pervious areas does not pose a risk for erosion because they would be either vegetated and/or contained. As all storm water flows would be directed to the existing municipal storm drain system or into vegetated pervious areas, the project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. In addition, the project would be subject to compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting process, since one or more acres of soil would be disturbed; refer also to Standard Condition 4.6-4. Following development of increased pervious landscaping and compliance with NPDES regulatory requirements, project implementation would result in a less than significant impact involving soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. Furthermore, the project site is currently developed as a church facility that previously required grading and the removal of topsoil during construction. The project would require minimal grading due to the site's current use as a church. Therefore, impacts related to erosion would be less than significant. Standard Conditions SC 4.6-3 The Applicant shall submit a soils report for this project. Soil's Report recommendations shall be blueprinted on both the architectural and grading plans. For existing slopes or when new slopes are proposed, the Soils Report shall address how existing slopes or the new slopes will be maintained to avoid erosion or future failure. SC 4.6-4 The project shall comply with the NPDES requirements, as follows: • Construction General Permit Notice of Intent (NOI) Design: Prior to the issuance of preliminary or precise grading permits, the project Applicant shall provide the City Engineer with evidence that an NOI has been filed with the Storm Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Such evidence shall consist of a copy of the NOI stamped by the SWRCB or Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), or a letter from either agency stating that the NOI has been filed. • Construction Phase Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP): Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Applicant shall prepare a SWPPP that complies with the Construction General Permit and will include at a minimum the following: - Discuss in detail the BMPs planned for the project related to control of sediment and erosion, nonsediment pollutants, and potential pollutants in non - storm water discharges; - Describe post -construction BMPs for the project; • Explain the maintenance program for the project's BMPs 41 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/ Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis • List the parties responsible for the SWPPP implementation and the BMP maintenance during and after grading. The project Applicant shall implement the SWPPP and modify the SWPPP as directed by the Construction General Permit. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Less than significant impact. As the site is relatively level, there is no potential for landslides or slope instabilities. Lateral spreading is a phenomenon in which large blocks of intact, non -liquefied soil move downslope on a liquefied soil layer. For lateral spreading to occur, the liquefied soil must be laterally continuous and free to move along sloping ground. Due to the low susceptibility for liquefaction, the potential for lateral spreading is considered very low. Subsidence or settlement occurs when seismic shaking causes downward shifts of the ground. This settlement generally occurs in loose to moderately dense, unsaturated granular soils. Based on blow counts records, the seismically induced settlement under the proposed buildings is anticipated to be less than one inch, Following compliance with the City's Building Regulations pursuant to Standard Condition 4.6-1, project implementation would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving unstable geologic units or soils. Standard Condition Refer to Standard Condition SC 4.6-1 above. d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Less than significant impact. Expansive soils contain significant amounts of clay particles that swell when wetted and shrink when dried. Expansive soils can cause foundations to heave and crack when expansive soils are subject to uplifting forces caused by swelling and shrinking. As discovered in Geotechnical Exploration Report (L&A, 2014), near surface soils consist of predominately clayey sand to sandy clay. These soils are generally considered to have moderate to high potential for expansion. As required for all new residential buildings, an evaluation of onsite soils will be required as part of building permit review in order to determine compliance with the CBC, and measures to reduce the potential impact of expansive soil impacts to less than significant. The final design of the project building would be based on the results of the geotechnical report, thereby ensuring any impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No impact. The project does not propose the use of septic tanks. The project would connect to the existing City sanitary sewer system for wastewater disposal. Therefore, no impacts to soils due to the use of septic systems are anticipated. 42 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/ Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Environmental Evaluation Would the project: 43 Environmental Issues Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact 4.7 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 for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private ❑ ❑ ❑ airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically ❑ ❑ ❑ interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant ❑ ❑ ❑ risk of loss, injury or death involving wild land fires, including where wild lands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wild lands? Environmental Evaluation Would the project: 43 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/ Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Less than significant impact. Exposure of the public or the environment to hazardous materials could occur through the following: improper handling or use of hazardous materials or hazardous wastes, particularly by untrained personnel; transportation accidents; environmentally unsound disposal methods; and/or fires, explosions, or other emergencies. The severity of these potential effects varies with the activity conducted, the concentration and type of hazardous material or wastes present, and the proximity of sensitive receptors. The project would include rezone from I&R (Institutional and Recreational) to R1 and construct a 10 - unit residential development. The secondary activities that would occur at these residential units (e.g., building and landscape maintenance) could potentially involve the use of limited quantities of materials considered hazardous. Cleaning and degreasing solvents, fertilizers, pesticides, and other materials used in the regular maintenance of buildings and landscaping could be utilized onsite. Thus, the project could result in an increase in the use of household cleaning products and other materials routinely used in building maintenance, however will not pose any greater hazards than from household products already used by surrounding existing development. Therefore, project implementation would result in less than significant impacts. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Less than significant impact. The project site is currently developed, with a church facility and an associated parking lot. The project site is located within a residential area of Costa Mesa. Suspect Asbestos -Containing Materials Based on the age of the structures (1960s), Asbestos -Containing Materials may be present at the site. Lead -Based Paint Based on the age of the structures (1960s), Lead -Based Paint may be present at the site. Compliance with established regulations, and Standard Conditions below would ensure that the project would not 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. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact in this regard. Standard Condition SC 4.7-1 During demolition, grading, and excavation, workers shall comply with the requirements of Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 1529, which provides for exposure limits, exposure monitoring, respiratory protection, and good working practices by workers exposed to asbestos. Asbestos -contaminated debris 44 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial 5tudy/Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis and other wastes shall be managed and disposed of in accordance with the applicable provision of the California Health and Safety Code. SC 4.7-2 During demolition, grading, and excavation, workers shall comply with the requirements of Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 1532.1, which provides for exposure limits, exposure monitoring, respiratory protection, and good working practice by workers exposed to lead. Lead -contaminated debris and other wastes shall be managed and disposed of in accordance with the applicable provision of the California Health and Safety Code. SC 4.7-3 Prior to demolition activities, removal and/or abatement of asbestos containing building materials, lead based paints, and hazardous materials associated with the existing building materials, an investigation shall be conducted by a qualified environmental professional in consultation with the Costa Mesa Fire Department. An asbestos and hazardous materials abatement plan shall be developed by the qualified environmental professional, in order to clearly define the scope and objective of the abatement activities. The Applicant shall conduct demolition consistent with the abatement plan, applicable state requirements and City standard conditions. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Less than significant impact. Adams Elementary School is located approximately 0.25 miles west of the project site. Due to the nature of the proposed residential project, it is not anticipated that the residences would emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste in reportable quantities. Therefore, project implementation would result in less than significant impacts involving hazardous emissions or handling hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 -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? Less than significant impact. The project site is currently used as a church facility. The site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Compliance with established regulations, and above Standard Conditions would ensure that the project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. The project would have a less than significant impact. 45 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/Negative. Declaration Environmental Analysis e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No impact. The project site is approximately 5 miles west of John Wayne Airport and outside of the Airport Safety Zone, the AELUP Height Restriction Zone, and the Runway Protection Zones (Clear Zones). The project site is within the FAR Part 77 Notification Area for John Wayne Airport. Therefore, project implementation would not result in an airport -related safety hazard for people residing or working at the proposed residential development. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No impact. The project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, project implementation would not result in an airstrip -related safety hazard for people residing at the proposed residential development. g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No impact. The Costa Mesa Disaster Plan serves as the City's Emergency Operations Plan (EOP). The EOP provides guidance during emergency situations associated with natural disasters, technological incidents, and nuclear defense operations. The Plan does not address normal day to -day emergencies or the well-established and routine procedures used in coping with such emergencies. Rather, the EOP analyzes potential large-scale disasters that require a coordinated and immediate response. The EOP considers the City's evacuation routes in its planning. General Plan Safety Element Exhibit SAF -9, Emergency Evacuation Routes, illustrates the City's emergency evacuation routes and indicates that Adams Street, located just south of the project site, is a designated emergency evacuation route. Harbor Boulevard, located approximately 0.25 mile east of the project site, is also a designated emergency evacuation route. The project does not include any characteristics that would physically impair or otherwise interfere with emergency response or evacuation in the project vicinity. These conditions preclude the possibility of the project conflicting with an emergency response or evacuation plan. No impact would occur. h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wild land fires, including where wild lands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wild lands? No impact. The project site is located within an urban area and not adjacent to wild lands. Therefore, project implementation would not expose people or structures to a significant risk involving wild land fires. 46 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/ Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis Environmental Issues 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste ❑ discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or Less Than interfere substantially with groundwater Significant recharge such that there would be a net Significant deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the Impact local groundwater table level (e.g., the Impact production rate of pre-existing nearby wells ❑ would drop to a level which would not ® support existing land uses or planned uses for ❑ which permits have been granted? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially indrease the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) 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? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? J) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Environmental Analysis ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Less Than ® ❑ ❑ Significant ❑ Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ❑ Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 47 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial 5tudy/Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation Environmental Analysis Less than significant impacts. The property located at 2880 Mesa Verde Drive East consists of approximately two acres of developed land and includes an existing church building and surface parking lot. The Santa Ana River is about two miles west of the proposed project. There are no water resources in the immediate project vicinity to be affected. The proposed project will not involve the modification or alteration of a water resource. The project site is not within an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) designated or proposed sole -source aquifer. In addition, the project is not: (a) within 1000 yards from mean high tide, (b) within an area regulated by the State Coastal Zone Management Agency, (c) in a coastal zone. The project site is located outside a 500 - year floodplain, identified as Zone X on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (Map Number 0602160266H, December 3, 2009). The City of Costa Mesa does not contain any Wild and Scenic Rivers as designated by the National Park Service. Therefore, less than significant impacts related to hydrology and water quality are expected as a result of the proposed project. Proposed residential development will result in a similar amount of impervious surface compared to the existing development. Compliance with the City's Local Implementation Plan requiring a stormwater pollution prevent program and water quality management plan, where applicable, will be required. A preliminary Water Quality Management Plan will be required during the processing of any proposed residential development. Less than significant impacts related to this environmental topic will occur as a result of the project. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required. Standard Conditions SC 4.8-1 In order to comply with the 2003 DAMP, the project shall prepare a Storm Drain Plan, Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) conforming to the current National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements, prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer or Environmental Engineer, which shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. • The SWPPP shall be prepared and updated as needed during the course of construction to satisfy the requirements of each phase of development. • The plan shall incorporate all necessary Best Management Practices (BMPs) and other City requirements to eliminate polluted runoff until all construction work for the project is completed. The SWPPP shall include treatment and disposal of all dewatering operation flows and for nuisance flows during construction. • A WQMP shall be maintained and updated as needed to satisfy the requirements of the adopted NPDES program. The plan shall ensure that the existing water quality measures for all improved phases of the project are adhered to. • Location of the BMPs shall not be within the public right-of-way. 48 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/ Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis SC 4.8-2 Prior to approval of Plans, the project shall fulfill the City of Costa Mesa Drainage Ordinance No. 06-19 requirements. SC 4.8-3 The project Applicant shall submit grading plans, an erosion control plan, and a hydrology study. 49 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/ Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis Environmental Evaluation Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? No impact. The physical division of an established community typically refers to the construction of a linear feature, such as an interstate highway or railroad tracks, or removal of a means of access, such as a local bridge that would impact mobility within an existing community of between a community and outlying area. The project site is located on an existing developed I&R zoned property, surrounded by residential and commercial uses. None of the activities associated with project implementation would physically divide an established community. b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Less than significant impact. Any discretionary request for a zone changes involves a policy decision of the City Council as to the highest and best use for the subject property and appropriate zoning classification. The Land Use Element of the General Plan directs long-range development in the City by indicating the location and extent of development to be allowed. The General Plan sets forth land use goals, policies and objectives that guide new development. The City of Costa Mesa General Plan Land Use Map identifies the land use designation of the project site as Low Density Residential. so Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Environmental Issues Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact 4.9 Land Use and Planning Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, El El® ❑ policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat ❑ ❑ ❑ conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Environmental Evaluation Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? No impact. The physical division of an established community typically refers to the construction of a linear feature, such as an interstate highway or railroad tracks, or removal of a means of access, such as a local bridge that would impact mobility within an existing community of between a community and outlying area. The project site is located on an existing developed I&R zoned property, surrounded by residential and commercial uses. None of the activities associated with project implementation would physically divide an established community. b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Less than significant impact. Any discretionary request for a zone changes involves a policy decision of the City Council as to the highest and best use for the subject property and appropriate zoning classification. The Land Use Element of the General Plan directs long-range development in the City by indicating the location and extent of development to be allowed. The General Plan sets forth land use goals, policies and objectives that guide new development. The City of Costa Mesa General Plan Land Use Map identifies the land use designation of the project site as Low Density Residential. so City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/ Negative Declaration General Plan — Existing Environmental Analysis The General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential (8 dwelling units to the acre maximum) is intended to accommodate single-family residences on their own parcels. Other housing types include attached housing that provide a greater portion of recreation or open space than typically found in multi -family developments, and clustered housing which affords the retention of significant open space. Low -Density Residential areas are intended to accommodate family groups and outdoor living activities in open space adjacent to dwellings. In order to avoid land use conflicts, these areas should be located away from or protected from the more intense non-residential areas and major travel corridors. Pursuant to the Costa Mesa General Plan, the density for this land use designation shall be up to eight units to the acre. Zoning — Policy Decision According to the Official Zoning Map, the project site is zoned I&R (Institutional and Recreational). A rezone (or change) of the zoning classification of the 2 -acre development site from I&R (Institutional and Recreational) to R1 (Single -Family Residential District) is proposed. The proposed rezone to R1 (Single -Family Residential District) would be compatible with the existing Low Density Residential General Plan designation for the project site. Minimum lot sizes are 6,000 square feet with minimum lot widths of 50 feet or 60 feet, depending on the location of the individual dwelling unit lot. It is a policy decision of the City Council as to the appropriate residential zoning classification for the site and ultimately the maximum number of dwelling units allowed. The following analysis evaluates the project for consistency with specific goals and objectives of the General Plan Land Use Element. The proposed Rezone involve a policy decision by the final decision- making body. Because of the expansive nature of the General Plan, it cannot be expected that every goal and objective would apply to every project. Therefore, the following analysis focuses on those issues which are salient and relevant in considering the proposed project. The project complies with the following goals/objectives of the General Plan: o Goal LU -1, Land Use: It is the goal of the City of Costa Mesa to provide its citizens with a balanced community of residential, commercial, industrial, recreational, and institutional uses to satisfy the needs of the social and economic segments of the population and to retain the residential character of the City; to meet the competing demands for alternative developments within each land use classification within reasonable land use intensity limits; and, to ensure the long term viability and productivity of the community's natural and man-made environments. o Objective LU -1A: Establish and maintain a balance of land uses throughout the community to preserve the residential character of the City at a level no greater than can be supported by the infrastructure. o Objective LU -2A: Encourage new development and redevelopment to improve and maintain the quality of the environment. 51 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/ Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis The proposed project would replace an existing church use and surface parking lot with a planned residential development. The project reflects a quality design and includes traditional architecture with varied building materials, textures and colors, attractive landscaped project common areas and project entries. Discretionary Review The City of Costa Mesa is processing a planning application from Mesa Verde East, LLC for, two-story, small lot residential development at a density of 4.83 dwelling units per acre. Approval of the proposed project involves the following: 1. Adoption of an Initial Study/Negative Declaration. 2. Rezone R-14-05: An ordinance to rezone a 2 -acre site from I&R (Institutional and Recreational) to R1 (Single g Plan density is 16 dwelling units at a maximum of 8 dwelling units per acre. 3. Planning Application PA -14-48: Design Review for the development of a 10 -unit, two-story detached residential development at a density of 4.83 dwelling units per acre. The Design Review also includes the following requested variances from Zoning Code requirements: a. Minor Modification to allow two units to project 20% or less into front yard setback, or 16 feet. (20 feet required; 16 feet proposed) 3. Tentative Tract Map T-17824: Subdivision of the property into fee simple lots for 10 single- family dwelling units. Density, Site Coverage, and Open Space. The project proposes approximately 4.83 dwelling units per acre, within the maximum 7.26 dwelling units per acre density allowed in the R1 zone. Setbacks and Distance Between Buildings. Other than the required above-described deviations, the building setbacks and minimum distance between buildings are compliant with Code. Number of Stories and Building Height. The project proposes two-story residential units. Parking. The project proposes 50 total parking spaces. Each residence is provided a two -car garage and individual parking spaces within a private driveway and private street. The project exceeds the Code required parking by ten spaces. 52 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/ Negative Declaration Land use compatibility. Environmental Analysis Land use compatibility issues can arise when sensitive land uses (i.e., residential) are introduced into areas that are predominantly commercial or industrial. In this case, the proposed low-density residential use would be introduced on a site abutting an R1 residential district and a local commercial center. Notwithstanding proposed deviations from open space development standards, the proposed project use is in keeping with the mix of uses in the surrounding area and recently approved densities, and would not be incompatible with surrounding land uses. c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural communities' conservation plan? No impact. 53 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/ Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis Environmental Evaluation 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? No impact. The Costa Mesa 2000 General Plan does not identify the project site as a mineral resource zone. The project site is developed with an existing church and does not support mineral extraction operations. This condition precludes the possibility of related impacts. No impact would occur. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No impact. The Costa Mesa 2000 General Plan does not identify the project site as a mineral resource zone. In addition, the project site is developed with a church and does not support mineral extraction operations. This condition precludes the possibility of related impacts. No impacts would occur. 54 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Environmental Issues Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact 4.10 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? Environmental Evaluation 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? No impact. The Costa Mesa 2000 General Plan does not identify the project site as a mineral resource zone. The project site is developed with an existing church and does not support mineral extraction operations. This condition precludes the possibility of related impacts. No impact would occur. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No impact. The Costa Mesa 2000 General Plan does not identify the project site as a mineral resource zone. In addition, the project site is developed with a church and does not support mineral extraction operations. This condition precludes the possibility of related impacts. No impacts would occur. 54 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/ Negative Declaration Less Than Significant Potentially With Significant Mitigation Environmental Issues Impact Incorporated 4.11 Noise Would the project result in: Environmental Analysis Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise ❑ ❑ ® ❑ levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of ❑ ❑ ® ❑ excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient ❑ ❑ ® ❑ noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 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 expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private ❑ ❑ ❑ airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Environmental Evaluation a -d) Noise Levels Less than Significant Impact. Various noise guidelines and standards have been promulgated at the federal, state, and local levels. The City of Costa Mesa maintains a comprehensive Noise Ordinance, which sets standards for noise levels citywide and provides the means to enforce the reduction of obnoxious or offensive noises. The basic noise standards contained in Table 2, City Noise Ordinance Standards -Residential, below, are for the daytime period (7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.) and apply to both outdoor and indoor residential areas. Between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., the noise standards are 5 dBA more stringent for exterior areas and 10 dBA more stringent for indoor areas. The ordinance is designed to control unnecessary, excessive and annoying sounds generated on one piece of property from impacting an adjacent property, and to protect residential areas from noise sources other than transportation sources. 55 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/ Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis Table 3 Residential Noise Standards Exterior Noise Standards 55 dba 7:00 a.m. — 11:00 p.m. 50 dba 11:00 p.m. — 7:00 a.m. Interior Noise Standards 55 dba 7:00 a.m. — 11:00 p.m. 45 dba 11:00 p.m. — 7:00 a.m. *dba--decibels The Municipal Code specifies outdoor and indoor noise limits for various land uses impacted by transportation noise sources. The noise limits specified in the City's Municipal Code are in terms of the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). The Municipal Code identifies the following noise criteria for transportation noise sources: For residential land uses, the exterior noise exposure level shall not exceed 65 CNEL and the interior noise exposure level shall not exceed 45 CNEL. Short-term Impacts Construction noise represents a short-term impact on ambient noise levels. Noise generated by construction equipment, including trucks, graders, bulldozers, concrete mixers, and portable generators, can reach high levels. Grading and construction activities present the highest potential for noise impacts. For short periods of time, grading equipment noise could impact the residential uses located to the north, west, and east of the project site. These grading activities would generate noise levels in excess of the City's Municipal Code noise limits. However, noise generated by construction activities during daytime hours is exempted from the Noise Ordinance standards. Therefore, if construction is limited to those hours specified by the Noise Ordinance, construction - related noise impacts are considered less than significant. The following standard condition will minimize any short-term construction related noise impacts to below a level of significance: Standard Conditions SC 4.11-1 Grading materials delivery, equipment operation, and other construction -related activity shall be limited to be-tween the hours of 7 a.m. and 8 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. Saturday. Construction is prohibited on Sundays and federal holidays. Exceptions may be made for activities that will not generate noise audible from off-site, such as painting and other quiet interior work. Long-term Impacts According to the 2000 General Plan, existing (Year 2000) and expected (Year 2020) noise contours along the project site are located outside the 60 to 75 CNEL noise contours. These noise contours were based on the average daily traffic volume (ADT) noise levels at 100 feet from the roadway centerline without sound attenuation (e.g. block walls, land-scape berms, etc.). This noise data does 56 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/ Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis not take into account noise barriers or topography which may affect ambient noise levels. Since the project site is outside the 60 to 70 CNEL noise contours from major roadways, no significant noise impacts are anticipated. The primary source of noise is from motor vehicle noise on Mesa Verde Drive. No additional noise impacts are anticipated from existing commercial land uses located to the south of the property nor from the residential uses to the east, west and north. On-site residential uses would be required to comply with the City's 65 CNEL exterior and 45 CNEL interior noise standards. Typical residential construction achieves an average of 12 decibels of outdoor -to -indoor interior noise reduction with windows open. With windows closed, the outdoor - to -indoor noise reduction increases to an average of 20 decibels. In order to assume that windows can remain closed, adequate ventilation in accordance with the Uniform Building Code must be provided. Typically, this is accomplished through mechanical ventilation or HVAC systems, In addition, a seven -foot high wall is proposed along Mesa Verde Drive. This wall may adequately reduce noise levels further for properties adjacent to Mesa Verde Drive. Due to the City's Noise Ordinance regulating both exterior and interior noise levels, and the fact that short-term construction of the project is limited to those hours specified by the Noise Ordinance, exposure of persons to long-term noise levels and short-term noise levels, including ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels, will be considered less than significant. 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 expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Less than Significant Impact. The project site is located approximately 4.1 miles southwest of John Wayne Airport (the nearest airport). While aircraft noise is occasionally audible on the project site, due to the distance from area airports and the orientation of runways and flight patterns the project site does not lay within the 55-d BA CNEL noise contours of any airport. Therefore, the impact of noise levels from aviation sources would be less than significant. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. The project site is not located in the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, implementation of the project would not expose people to excessive noise levels, and no impact would occur. 57 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial 5tudy/Negative Declaration Environmental Issues 4.12 Population and Housing Would the project: Less Than Significant Potentially With Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated Environmental Analysis Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Induce substantial population growth in an 1:1 El® ❑ 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, ❑ ❑ ❑ necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Environmental Evaluation Would the project: a) Induce substantial 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. A project could induce population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads and/or other infrastructure). The project involves construction of a 10 -unit residential development in place of the existing church facility on site. The City's average household size was 2.68 according to the Costa Mesa General Plan. Notwithstanding, in order to provide a conservative analysis, based on average household size of 2.68, project implementation could result in a population increase of approximately 27 persons. The potential population growth would be nominal, representing less than one-tenth of one percent (less than 0.01%) increase over the City's existing 2013 population of 111,358 persons. Therefore, project implementation would not induce substantial population growth within the City. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No impact. The project site currently contains a church facility and parking lot. The project is a 10 - unit residential development and has a General Plan designation Low Density Residential. The proposed project will not displace existing housing, but will increase the number of residential units 58 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis in the area. Therefore, the project would have no impact in regards to displacing a substantial numbers of existing housing. c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No impact. As discussed, the project implementation would include the demolition of an existing church facility, as well as the construction of a new residential development. Therefore, the project will have no impact in regards to causing the displacement of a substantial number of people. 59 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/ Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis Environmental Evaluation a -e) Public Services Less than significant impact. Given the developed nature of the project site and surrounding properties, the proposed 10 -unit residential development is not expected to significantly increase demand for City services. As discussed in Standard Conditions below, the proposed development project will be subject to the payment of development impact fees (e.g. school fees, parkland fees, traffic impact fees, etc.) to provide for the cost of additional services, as stated in the standard conditions below. Therefore, the proposed residential project will have less than a significant impact to public services. Standard Conditions SC 4.13-1 Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the City of Costa Mesa Fire Department shall review and approve the developer's project design features to assess compliance with the California Building Code and California Fire Code. The Applicant shall then pay the appropriate fee in effect to mitigate the project's proportionate impact to additional demands on fire protection services, if any. SC 4.13-2 Projections, including eaves, shall be one-hour fire resistive construction, heavy timber or of noncombustible material if they project into the 5 ft (setback area from the property line). They may project a maximum of 12 inches beyond the 3 ft setback. CRC Tables R3O2.1(1) and R3O2.1(2). SC 4.13-3 As final building plans are submitted to the City of Costa Mesa for review and approval, the Costa Mesa Police Department shall review all plans for the purpose of 60 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Environmental Issues Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact 4.13 Public Services Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ b) Police protection? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ c) Schools? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ d) Parks? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ e) Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Environmental Evaluation a -e) Public Services Less than significant impact. Given the developed nature of the project site and surrounding properties, the proposed 10 -unit residential development is not expected to significantly increase demand for City services. As discussed in Standard Conditions below, the proposed development project will be subject to the payment of development impact fees (e.g. school fees, parkland fees, traffic impact fees, etc.) to provide for the cost of additional services, as stated in the standard conditions below. Therefore, the proposed residential project will have less than a significant impact to public services. Standard Conditions SC 4.13-1 Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the City of Costa Mesa Fire Department shall review and approve the developer's project design features to assess compliance with the California Building Code and California Fire Code. The Applicant shall then pay the appropriate fee in effect to mitigate the project's proportionate impact to additional demands on fire protection services, if any. SC 4.13-2 Projections, including eaves, shall be one-hour fire resistive construction, heavy timber or of noncombustible material if they project into the 5 ft (setback area from the property line). They may project a maximum of 12 inches beyond the 3 ft setback. CRC Tables R3O2.1(1) and R3O2.1(2). SC 4.13-3 As final building plans are submitted to the City of Costa Mesa for review and approval, the Costa Mesa Police Department shall review all plans for the purpose of 60 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial 5tudy/Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis ensuring that design requirements are incorporated into the building design to increase safety and avoid unsafe conditions. These measures focus on security measures are recommended by the Police Department, including but not limited to, the following: • Lighting shall be provided in open areas and parking lots. • Required building address numbers shall be readily apparent from the street and rooftop building identification shall be readily apparent from police helicopters for emergency response agencies. • Landscaping requirements (e.g. minimize use of hedges, use of low height shrubs for greater visibility). • Emergency vehicle parking areas shall be designated within proximity to buildings. • Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the City of Costa Mesa Police Department shall review and approve the developer's project design features to satisfy local requirements. The applicant shall then pay the appropriate fee in effect to mitigate the project's proportionate impact to additional demands on police protection services, if any. SC 4.13-4 Prior to issuance of building permits, the Developer shall pay a school impact fee currently calculated at $1.84 per square foot for residential development and $0.30 per square foot for commercial development. SC 4.13-5 Prior to issuance of occupancy permits, the Developer shall pay a park impact fee or dedicate parkland to meet the demands of the proposed development. 61 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis Environmental Evaluation a -b) Recreation Less than significant impact. Given the developed nature of the project site and surrounding properties, the proposed 10 -unit residential development is not expected to significantly increase demand for recreational services. As discussed in Standard Conditions below, new development will be subject to the payment of development impact fees (e.g. parkland fees) to provide for the cost of additional recreational facilities. Therefore, less than significant impacts related to recreational services will occur as a result of the zone change and proposed development. Standard Conditions SC 4.14-1 Prior to issuance of occupancy permits, the Developer shall pay a park impact fee or dedicate parkland to meet the demands of the proposed development. The current park impact fee is calculated at $13,572 per new single-family dwelling unit. 62 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Environmental Issues Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact 4.14 Recreation a) Would the project increase the use of existing ❑ ❑ ® ❑ neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? 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? Environmental Evaluation a -b) Recreation Less than significant impact. Given the developed nature of the project site and surrounding properties, the proposed 10 -unit residential development is not expected to significantly increase demand for recreational services. As discussed in Standard Conditions below, new development will be subject to the payment of development impact fees (e.g. parkland fees) to provide for the cost of additional recreational facilities. Therefore, less than significant impacts related to recreational services will occur as a result of the zone change and proposed development. Standard Conditions SC 4.14-1 Prior to issuance of occupancy permits, the Developer shall pay a park impact fee or dedicate parkland to meet the demands of the proposed development. The current park impact fee is calculated at $13,572 per new single-family dwelling unit. 62 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/ Negative Declaration Environmental Issues 4.15 Transportation/Traffic Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non - motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Environmental Analysis Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? This section is based on the Trip Generation Study prepared by RK Engineering Group, Inc. (February 27, 2015), which is included as Appendix A. The study evaluated the trip generation for the originally proposed 13 -unit project. The amended project is for 10 -units, which would be slightly less impact than a 13 -unit project. The Trip Generation Study therefore is a conservative estimate, and determines if it increases traffic load on the existing circulation system. Existing Conditions The project site is currently developed with an 8,598 square foot church and includes an associated parking lot. 63 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial5tudy/ Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis Environmental Evaluation Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non -motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? Less than significant impact. Table 4, Project Trip Generation, summarizes the trip generation for the existing site and the project. The trip generation potential of the project was estimated using the average rates for ITE Land Use 210: Single -Family Detached Housing and ITE Land Use 560: Church published in the Trip Generation, 91h Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers. Table 3, below, depicts the trip generation rates used to forecast existing and proposed trips, summarizes the project's daily, AM peak hour, and PM peak hour trip generation potential, and compares these estimates to the existing trip generation "budget." The project would generate up to 124 daily trips, including up to 9 trips in the AM peak hour and up to 13 trips in the PM peak hour. Under existing conditions, the project site generates approximately 78 daily trips, including 5 trips in the AM peak hour and 4 trips in the PM peak hour. Overall, the project would generate up to 46 additional daily trips, including an additional 4 AM peak hour trips and an additional 9 PM peak hour trips, than currently occur under existing conditions. Table 4: Land Use and Trip Generation Summary Generation: Project Minus Existing Church TE/DU= trip end per dwelling unit, TE/TSF= trip end per 1,000 square feet Source: RK Engineering 2015. *Amended project is for 10 units. Data based on original 13 -units 64 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use Category Daily 2 -Way Total Total Rates Church (TE/TSF) 9.11 0.56 0.55 Single -Family Detached Housing 9.52 0.75 1.00 (TE/DU) Project Single -Family Detached Housing 124 9 13 (13 DU)* Existing Site Church (8.598 TSF) -78 -5 -4 Total "Net" Project Trip 46 4 9 Generation: Project Minus Existing Church TE/DU= trip end per dwelling unit, TE/TSF= trip end per 1,000 square feet Source: RK Engineering 2015. *Amended project is for 10 units. Data based on original 13 -units 64 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis Even though the proposed development is projected to add 4 trips in the a.m. peak hour, 9 trips in the p.m. peak hour and 46 trips during the day, the projected increase is considered nominal and will not have a significant impact on the adjacent circulation system as the surrounding intersections are currently operating at better than acceptable conditions. The project would not conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system. The project would result in less than significant impacts on traffic/circulation and the surrounding roadway network. The project would be subject to compliance with Standard Condition SC 4.15-1, which requires payment of traffic impact fees. No mitigation is required. Please refer to Response 4.15.f for a discussion of pedestrian and bicycle paths and mass transit. Standard Condition SC 4.15-1 The project Applicant shall be responsible for the payment of fees in accordance with Costa Mesa's traffic impact fee program to mitigate project -generated traffic impacts. b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Less than significant impact. The purpose of the Congestion Management Program (CMP) is to develop a coordinated approach to managing and decreasing traffic congestion by linking the various transportation, land use, and air quality planning programs throughout the County, consistent with that of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). The CMP requires review of substantial individual projects, which might on their own impact the CMP transportation system. Specifically, the Congestion Management Program (CMP) Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) measures impacts of a project on the CMP Highway System (CMPHS). Development projects that generate more than 2,400 daily trips are subject to a TIA for CMP evaluation. For projects that will directly access or be in close proximity to a CMP Highway System link, a reduced threshold of 1,600 trips per day is used. As discussed above, under Response 4.15.a, the project would generate up to 46 additional daily trips, including an additional 4 AM peak hour trips and an additional 9 PM peak hour trips, than currently occur under existing conditions. The project would generate a total of 124 daily trips, and thus would not meet the criteria for a CMP TIA. Project -related impacts on applicable CMPs and other established standards are considered less than significant. 65 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? No impact. The project involves a 10 -unit Single -Family Detached residential development. Due to the nature and scope of the proposed developed, project implementation would not result in a change in air traffic patterns. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Less than significant impact. Access to the project site will be provided via one full access private street along Mesa Verde Drive East. The internal driveways that provide access to the proposed units would vary in width between from 20 feet to 28 feet. Emergency access to the proposed units would be provided via the same entry points on Mesa Verde Drive East. The project does not propose or require improvements to roadways or intersections, thus, the project would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? Less than significant impact. Refer to Responses 4.7.g. and 4.15.a. f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? Less than significant impact. The project site is served by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), a multi -modal transportation agency serving Orange County. OCTA provides countywide bus and paratransit service and Metrolink rail service, among other services. The nearest bus lines to the project site are located along Adams Avenue, near the intersection of Mesa Verde Drive East and Adams Avenue, just south of the project site. Based on CMP guidelines, person transit trips are typically estimated using a 1.4 percent factor to convert total vehicle trips to person trips, and a 3.5 percent factor to convert person trips to total transit trips. As discussed above, under Response 4.15.a, the project would generate up to 124 daily trips. Based on the CMP guidelines and given the proximity of the various land uses in relation to available transit routes in the project vicinity, the project would generate up to 7 transit trips (Orange County CMP, 2013). Since these project -related transit trips can be accommodated by the existing transit services in the project vicinity, project -related CMP transit impacts would be less than significant. Project implementation would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit. 66 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/ Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Environmental Issues Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact 4.16 Utilities and Service Systems Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of F-10 ® ❑ the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new ❑ ❑ ® ❑ water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new ❑ ❑ ® ❑ storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to ❑ ❑ ® ❑ serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) 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? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient ❑ ❑ ® ❑ permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes ❑ ❑ ® ❑ and regulations related to solid waste? Environmental Evaluation Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Less than significant impact. The Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region, issued a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, which includes the City as a Permittee. That NPDES permit implements federal and state law governing point source discharges (a municipal or industrial discharge at a specific location or pipe) and nonpoint source discharges 67 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/ Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis (diffuse runoff of water from adjacent land uses) to surface waters of the United States. Implementation of the project would only nominally increase wastewater generation, thus, nominally increasing the demand for wastewater treatment; refer to Response 4.16.b. Therefore, given the nature and scope of the project, project implementation would not cause an exceedance of wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board. b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less than significant impact. Water The project site is located within the Mesa Consolidated Water District (Mesa Water) service area and specifically within their Division Area 2. Mesa Water provides water service to an 18 -square - mile area that includes the City of Costa Mesa (as well as parts of Newport Beach and parts of unincorporated Orange County). In compliance with legislative requirements, Mesa Water has prepared their 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). The UWMP provides information on the present and future water resources and demands, and assesses Mesa Water's water resource needs. Water Supplies and Demand According to the UWMP, Mesa Water's main sources of water supply are groundwater pumped from wells within the Orange County Basin and imported water from Metropolitan Water District of Southern California through Municipal Water District of Orange County. The project involves construction of a 10 -unit, residential development in place of the existing church facility on the property. Project implementation would result in a net increase of 10 dwelling units, which will result in a population increase of approximately 27 persons. Project implementation would generate a demand for approximately 4,830 gallons per day'. The increase in water demand would place an incremental increase in the demand for water supplies and treatment facilities. The increase is not considered substantial, since the project is consistent with the site's General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential. The City General Plan forms the basis for evaluating the service area's future water demands. Mesa Water has concluded they are capable of meeting the water demands of their customers in normal, single dry, and multiple dry years between 2015 and 2035. Water Treatment According to the UWMP, groundwater is pumped from six wells that pump clear water from the Orange County Basin and two wells that pump colored water. The colored water is treated at the Colored Water Treatment Facility (CWTF) and imported water is treated at the Diemer Filtration 1 Based on water use factors of 178.9 gallons per capita per day for residential uses per Mesa Water UWMP 68 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/ Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis Plant, then delivered to Mesa Water through the imported water connections. As concluded above, the project would result in a negligible increase in water demand, thus, resulting in a negligible impact on the existing water treatment facilities. Therefore, project implementation would not require or result in the construction of new water treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities. Water Conveyance As concluded above, the project would result in a negligible increase in water demand, thus, resulting in a negligible impact on the existing water conveyance facilities. The applicant would be responsible for construction of all water conveyance facilities pursuant to current Uniform Codes, City Ordinances, Public Works standards, and Water Division criteria. Therefore, the project would not require the construction of new water conveyance facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard. Wastewater The project site is located within the Costa Mesa Sanitary District (Sanitary District) service area. The Sanitary District boundaries include all of the City of Costa Mesa and portions of the City of Newport Beach and unincorporated County of Orange. Wastewater Generation The increase in wastewater generation would place an incremental increase in the demand for wastewater conveyance and treatment facilities. The project is consistent with the site's General Plan land use designation and City General Plans form the basis for issuance of the County Sanitation's NPDES wastewater discharge permits; refer also to the Wastewater Treatment Section below. Wastewater Conveyance The Sanitary District's facilities include 216 miles of mainline, 114 miles of private property sewer lateral pipelines, and 20 pumping stations. As concluded above, the project would result in a negligible increase in wastewater generation, thus, resulting in a negligible impact on the existing wastewater conveyance facilities. The applicant would be responsible for construction of all wastewater conveyance facilities pursuant to current Uniform Codes, City Ordinances, and Public Works standards, pursuant to Standard Condition SC 4.16-1. The Sanitary District would issue a Sewer Service Confirmation Letter indicating that they will serve sanitary sewer to the project. Service to the project would be conditioned upon approval of sewer infrastructure construction plans by the Sanitary District's Engineers, processing of easements (if necessary), and payment of all applicable fees, pursuant to Standard Conditions SC 4.16-2 through 4.16-4. Therefore, the project would not require the construction of new wastewater conveyance facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard. 69 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial study/ Negative Declaration Wastewater Treatment Environmental Analysis Wastewater collected by the Sanitary District is sent to the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County (County Sanitation) plants for treatment and disposal. County Sanitation is responsible for collecting, treating, and disposing the wastewater generated within their 479 -square mile service area. Wastewater is treated at County Sanitation's treatment plants in Fountain Valley and Huntington Beach. According to County Sanitation's treatment plant operational data, the combined effluent treated at both plants (2004-2005) totaled approximately 244 million gallons daily (average). County Sanitation operates under an NPDES ocean discharge permit issued by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. The project's increase in wastewater generation is not considered substantial, since the project is consistent with the site's General Plan land use designation and City General Plans form the basis for issuance of the NPDES wastewater discharge permits. Project implementation would not cause the treatment plants' operating capacities to be exceeded. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur in this regard. Standard Conditions SC 4.16-1 Applicant will be required to construct sewers to serve the project, at his/her own expense, meeting the approval of the Costa Mesa Sanitary District. SC 4.16-2 County Sanitation District fees, fixtures fees, inspection fees, and sewer permit are required prior to installation of sewer. SC 4.16-3 The Applicant shall submit a plan showing sewer improvements that meets the District Engineer's approval to the Building Division as part of the plans submitted for plan check. SC 4.16-4 The Applicant is required to contact the Costa Mesa Sanitary District to arrange final sign -off prior to Certificate of Occupancy being released. c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less than significant impact. The proposed project is located in an already urbanized area where existing water drainage facilities exist. The project would result in a negligible increase in wastewater generation, thus, resulting in a negligible impact on the existing wastewater conveyance facilities. Therefore, the proposed project will have less than significant impacts on the environment in regards to storm water drainage facilities. d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Less than significant impact. 70 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/ Negative Declaration Senate Bill 610 Environmental Analysis SB 610 requires a detailed report regarding water availability and planning for additional water supplies to be included with the environmental document for specified projects. Under SB 610, water supply assessments are required to be included in environmental documentation for certain projects, as defined in Water Code 10912[a], subject to CEQA. Under SB 221, approval by a city or county of certain residential subdivisions requires a written verification of sufficient water supply. Thus, no future action is necessary under the provisions of SB 221 and 610. All projects that meet any of the following criteria require the water availability assessment: • A proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units; • A proposed shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 500,000 sq ft of floor space; • A proposed commercial office building employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 250,000 sq ft of floor space; • A proposed hotel and motel having more than 500 rooms; • A proposed industrial, manufacturing, or processing plant, or an industrial park planned to house more than 1,000 persons, occupying more than 40 acres of land, or having more than 650,000 sq ft of floor area; • A mixed-use project that includes one or more of the projects specified in this subdivision; or • A project that would demand an amount of water equivalent to or greater than the amount of water required by a 500 dwelling unit project. Senate Bill 221 While SB 610 primarily affects the Water Code, SB 221 principally applies to the Subdivision Map Act. The primary effect of SB 221 is to condition every tentative map for an applicable subdivision on the applicant by verifying that the public water supplier (PWS) has sufficient water supply available to serve it. Under SB 221, approval by a city or county of certain residential subdivisions requires a written verification of sufficient water supply. SB 221 applies to any subdivision, defined as: • A proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units (if the PWS has more than 5,000 service connections); or • Any proposed development that increases connections by 10 percent or more (if the PWS has fewer than 5,000 connections). The project does not satisfy the criteria outlined above, thus, preparation of a Water Supply Assessment, in order to verify that sufficient water supplies are available to serve the project from existing entitlements/resources, is not warranted and a less than significant impact would occur in this regard. 71 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/ Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis e) 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. Refer to Response 4.16.b. f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? Less than significant impact. The project site would continue to be served by the solid waste facilities and landfills that currently serve the City: • Frank R. Bowerman Sanitary Landfill • Olinda Alpha Sanitary Landfill • Prima Deschecha Sanitary Landfill In total, 110,886.46 tons of solid waste was generated by the City of Costa Mesa in 2012. Project implementation would result in a net increase of 10 dwelling units, with a resultant population increase of approximately 27 persons. Demolition and construction activities associated with the project would generate construction debris. Based on CalRecycle's Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates generation rates of 12.23 pounds per dwelling unit per day, it is estimated that the project would generate approximately 20 tons of solid waste per year. The increased solid waste generation would contribute to incrementally shortening the lifespan of the landfills identified above. However, given project's scale, and since the City would continue to comply with the existing regulatory framework for reducing solid waste disposal volumes, it is anticipated that the specified landfills would have the capacity to accommodate the project's waste disposal needs. Additionally, the project would be subject to compliance with Standard Conditions SC 4.16-5 and SC 4.16-6, which address solid waste disposal and District consultation. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard. Standard Conditions SC 4.16-5 Unless an offsite trash hauler is being used, the Applicant shall contact the Costa Mesa Sanitary District to pay trash collection program fees and arrange for service for all new residences. Residences using bin or dumpster services are exempt from the requirement. SC 4.16-6 The Applicant shall contact Costa Mesa Sanitary District for any additional district requirements. g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Less than significant impact. In 1989, the Legislature adopted the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939), in order to "reduce, recycle, and re -use solid waste generated in 72 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/ Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis the state to the maximum extent feasible." AB 939 established a waste management hierarchy: Source Reduction; Recycling; Composting; Transformation; and Disposal. The law also required that each county prepare a new Integrated Waste Management Plan and each city prepare a Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) by July 1, 1991. The SRRE is required to identify how each jurisdiction will meet the mandatory state waste diversion goal of 50 percent by the year 2000. The Act mandated that California's 450 jurisdictions (i.e., cities, counties, and regional waste management compacts), implement waste management programs aimed at a 25 percent diversion rate by 1995 and a 50 percent diversion rate by 2000. If the 50 percent goal was not met by the end of 2000, the jurisdiction was required to submit a petition for a goal extension to Cal Recycle. The City of Costa Mesa adopted the final SRRE in January 1992. Senate Bill (SB) 2202 made a number of changes to the municipal solid waste diversion requirements under the Integrated Waste Management Act. These changes included a revision to the statutory requirement for 50 percent diversion of solid waste to clarify that local governments shall continue to divert 50 percent of all solid waste on and after January 1, 2000. SB 1016, Wiggins, Chapter 343, Statutes of 2008 introduced a per capita disposal measurement system that measures the 50 percent diversion requirement using a disposal measurement equivalent. The bill repealed the board's two-year process, requiring instead that the board make a finding whether each jurisdiction was in compliance with the act's diversion requirements for calendar year 2006 and to determine compliance for the 2007 calendar year, and after, based on the jurisdiction's change in its per capita disposal rate. The board is required to review a jurisdiction's compliance with those diversion requirements in accordance with a specified schedule, which is conditioned upon the board finding that the jurisdiction is in compliance with those requirements or has implemented its source reduction and recycling element and household hazardous waste element. The bill requires the board to issue an order of compliance if the board finds that the jurisdiction has failed to make a good faith effort to implement its source reduction and recycling element or its household hazardous waste element, pursuant to a specified procedure. The per capita disposal rate is a jurisdiction -specific index, which is used as one of several "factors" in determining a jurisdiction's compliance with the intent of AB 939, and allows CalRecycle and jurisdictions to set their primary focus on successful implementation of diversion programs. Meeting the disposal rate targets is not necessarily an indication of compliance. CalRecycle reports that Costa Mesa's Disposal Rate Targets for Reporting Year 2013 are 8.5 pounds per day (PPD) per Resident and 11.3 PPD per Employee. The Applicant is currently working with the Costa Mesa Sanitary District to establish service for the project and will be required to integrate District requirements into the project design (e.g. established locations for trash carts and bulky pickup, sufficient clearance and appropriate routing for trucks). Participation in the City's recycling programs during project construction and operation would ensure that the project would not conflict with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations 73 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/ Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis related to solid waste. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard. Refer also to Response 4.16.f. 74 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/ Negative Declaration Environmental Issues 4.17 Mandatory Findings of Significance a) Does the project have the potential to 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, 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? Environmental Evaluation Would the project: Environmental Analysis ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ a) Does the project have the potential to 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, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Less than significant impact. As concluded in Section 4.4, Biological Resources, the project proposes a rezone from from I&R (Institutional and Recreational) to R1 (Single -Family Residential District) and construction of a 10 -unit residential development on an already disturbed site. The project site and its surroundings are fully developed, and there are no biological resources present in the area. Therefore, the project does not have the potential to 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, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. 75 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ a) Does the project have the potential to 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, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Less than significant impact. As concluded in Section 4.4, Biological Resources, the project proposes a rezone from from I&R (Institutional and Recreational) to R1 (Single -Family Residential District) and construction of a 10 -unit residential development on an already disturbed site. The project site and its surroundings are fully developed, and there are no biological resources present in the area. Therefore, the project does not have the potential to 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, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. 75 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/ Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis As concluded in Response 4.5.a, the project site does not contain a historically/culturally significant structure. Therefore, project implementation would not eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history. As concluded in Response 4.5.b, the project site has already been subject to extensive disruption. Given the highly disturbed condition of the site, the potential for project implementation to impact a yet unidentified archeological resource is considered remote. Therefore, project implementation would not eliminate important examples of the major periods of California 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)? Less than significant impact. The project impacts less than significant. Standard conditions will also be imposed upon the project, including the payment of fair -share development impact fees, design standards, etc. Other new development projects within the City would also be subject to these requirements. The design of any future residential use is required to conform with the City's design guidelines and residential development standards (e.g. two-story maximum building height, maximum density allowed in R1 zone, etc.), unless a request for any discretionary approvals (i.e. variance, minor modification, etc.) is approved and appropriate findings are made in conjunction with the development proposal. Proposed standard conditions will minimize the proposed project's impacts related to noise and air quality to below a level of significance. As an existing church site with nonnative vegetation, the proposed project would not have the potential to degrade the quality of environment, sensitive biological resources, or cultural/paleontological resources. Due to the projected similarity in average daily trips from the proposed change from church to residential use, the proposed project would not result in any cumulatively considerable impacts related to traffic/circulation. No significant adverse environmental effects on human beings will result, either directly or indirectly, from the proposed project. All other impacts of the project were determined either to have no impact, or to be less than significant without the need for mitigation. Cumulatively, the project would not result in any significant impacts that would substantially combine with impacts of other current or probable future impacts. Therefore, the project, in conjunction with other future development projects, would not result in any cumulatively considerable impacts. 76 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/ Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less than significant impact. Previous sections of this Initial Study/Negative Declaration reviewed the project's potential impacts related to air quality, geology/soils, hazards/hazardous materials, and noise, among other environmental issue areas. As concluded in these previous discussions, the project would result in less than significant environmental impacts with implementation of the standard conditions. Therefore, the project would cause less than significant adverse effects on human beings. Standard Conditions Refer to Sections 4.1 through 4.17 above. 77 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/ Negative Declaration SECTION 5: REFERENCES Environmental Analysis California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2000. Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel -fueled Engines and Vehicles. Website: http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/documents/rrpfinal.pdf. Accessed March 23, 2015. California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2005. California Environmental Protection Agency. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. April 2005. Website: www.arb.ca.gov/ch/landuse.htm. Accessed March 23, 2015. California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2013a. Area Designation Maps/ State and National. 2013 State Area Designations. Changes became effective April 1, 2013. Website: www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm. March 23, 2015. California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2013b. California Air Resources Board. Ambient Air Quality Standards. Updated June 4, 2013. Website: www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aags2.pdf. March 23, 2015. City of Costa Mesa. 2002. City of Costa Mesa 2000 General Plan. Adopted January 2002. City of Costa Mesa. 2004. City of Costa Mesa General Plan Land Use Map. Website: http://www.costamesaca.gov/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=369. Accessed June 25, 2014. City of Costa Mesa. 2014. Development Fees Information. Website: http://www.costamesaca.gov /modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=218. March 23, 2015. City of Costa Mesa. 2015. Police Department. Website: http://www.costamesaca.gov/index.aspx?page=302. March 23, 2015. City of Costa Mesa. 2007. City of Costa Mesa Zoning Map. Website: http://www.costamesaca.gov /modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=367. March 23, 2015. City of Costa Mesa General Zoning Map Website: http://www.costamesaca.gov/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=367 Accessed on March 23, 2015. City of Costa Mesa. 2014. Housing Element (2013-2021). Website: http://www.costamesaca.gov/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=6602. Accessed on March 23, 2015. City of Costa Mesa. 2014. Municipal Code (codified through Ordinance No. 14-01, enacted January 4, 2014, including Supplement No. 125, Update 1). Costa Mesa Sanitary District. 2013. Costa Mesa Sanitary District Boundary Map. Website: http://www.crosdca.gov/images/sewer/sewer_boundary_map.pdf. March 23, 2015- 78 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial 5tudy/Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis Envirostor. 2015. Website: http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/profile_report.asp?global_id=71002151 accessed March 23, 2015. Google Earth Program. 2015. Website: https://www.gpogle.com/earth/. Accessed March 23, 2015. Airport Land Use Commission. 2008, Airport Environs, Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport. April 17. Website http://www.ocair.com/commissions/aluc/. Accessed March 20, 2015. Airport Land Use Commission. 2004. AEULUP Height Restriction Zone for John Wayne Airport. Website: Restriction Zone http://www.ocair.com/commissions/aluc/docs/jwanotf.pdf. Accessed March 20, 2015. Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. 2011. Mesa Consolidated Water District 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. May. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). 2003. United States Department of Labor. Safety and Health Topics: Methane. Website: www.osha.gov/dts/chemicalsampling/data/CH_250700.html. Accessed March 20, 2015. Orange County. 2013. Congestion Management Plan. Website: http://www.octa.net/pdf/Final%202013%20CMRpdf. Accessed March 20, 2015. RBF Consulting. 2002. City of Costa Mesa 2000 General Plan Environmental Impact Report. Adopted January 22, 2002. RK Engineering Group, Inc. 2015. 2880 Mesa Verde Drive Trip Generation Study. State of California. 2013. CalRecycle. Estimated Solid Waste Generation and Disposal Rates. Website: http://www.caIrecycle.ca.gov/wastechar/wastegenrates/. Accessed March 2015. State of California. 2013. CalRecycle. On -Line Disposal Rate Calculator. Website: http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/lgcentral/Reports/OnLineDisposalRateCalc.aspx?ReportingEntitylD= 1156&ReportYear=2012&Mode=Edit. Accessed March 2015. State of California. 2014a. Department of Conservation California Geological Survey, Geologic & Hazards Mapping Program. Website: http://gmw.consrv.ca.gov/shmp/download/pdf/ozn_newb.pdf. Accessed March 23, 2015. State of California. 2014b. Department of Conservation California Geological Survey, Regional Geologic & Hazards Mapping Program - Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. Website: http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/WH/regulatorymaps.htm. Accessed March 23, 2015. State of California. 2014c. Department of Conservation, Orange County Tsunami Inundation Maps. Website: http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/tsunami/tsunami_maps.htm. Accessed March 23, 2015. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 1993. CEQA Handbook. Available at SCAQMD, 21865 Copley Dr., Diamond Bar, CA 91765. 79 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/ Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2008a. AQMD Rule 1403. Website: http://www.aqmd.gov/rules/reg/regl4/rl403.pdf. March 23, 2015.. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2008b. June 2003, revised July 2008. Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology. Website: http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default- source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance-thresholds/final-Ist-methodology- document.pdf?sfvrsn=2. March 23, 2015. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2010. Greenhouse Gas CEQA Threshold Stakeholder Working Group Meeting #15. September 28. Website: http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-cega- significance-thresholds/year-2008-2009/ghg-meeting-15/ghg-meeting-15-main- presentation.pdf?sfvrsn=2. March 20, 2015. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2012. 2012 Air Quality Management Plan. Website: http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-management- plans/2012-air-quality-management-plan/final-2012-aqmp-carb-epa-sip-submittal-(december- 2012)/2012-aqmp-carb-epa-sip-submittal-main-document.pdf. March 20, 2015 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2012. Green Book Nonattainment Areas for Criteria Pollutants as of December 14, 2012. Website: www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/. Accessed March 20, 2015. United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2015. Federal Register. National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter. Website: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-01- 15/pdf/2012-30946.pdf. Accessed March 20, 2015. U.S. Geological Survey. 2011. Van Gosen, B.S., and Clinkenbeard, J.P. California Geological Survey Map Sheet 59. Reported Historic Asbestos Mines, Historic Asbestos Prospects, and Other Natural Occurrences of Asbestos in California. Open -File Report 2011-1188. Website: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/'2011/1188/. Accessed March 20, 2015. 80 APPENDIX B PROPOSED TREES PROPOSED SHRUES (PARTIAL LIST) Preliminary Landscape Plan MESA VERDE DR 2880 MESA VERDE DRIVE, COSTA MESA CA PINNACLE RESIDENTIAL DMOSI20/5 PROPOSED PLANT SCHEDULE TRIES BOTANICAL NAME ARBUTUS UNEDO CERCIS OCCIDENTALIS DRACAENADRACO i GEIJERAPARVIFLORA PLATANUS RACEMOSA PIRUS CALLERYANA REDSPIRE SHRUBS BOTANICAL NAME AGAVE ATTENUATA ALOE ARSORESCENS ALOE STRICTA BOUGAINVILLEA X 'ROSENKA' CARISSA MACROCARPA'PROSTRATA' CRASSULAARGENTEA DIANELLA SPP EUPHORSIATIRUCALLPSTICKS ON FIRE' FURCRAEA FOETIDA LEONOTIS LEONURUS u(iiUSTRUL7 TEXAMUM LOMANORA LONOIFOLIA'BREEZE' WESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA COMMONNAME STRAWBERRY TREE WESTERN REDBUD DRAGON TREE AUSTRALIAN WILLOW CALIFORNIA SYCAMORE ARISTOCRAT FLOWERING PEAR COMMONNAME AGAVE ALOE ALOE BOUGAINVILLEA PROSTRATE NATAL PLUM JADE PLANT DIANELLA. PENCIL TREE MAURITIUS HEMP LION'S TAIL TEXAS PRIVET DWARF MAT RUSH COAST ROSEMARY MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITIES SIZE 24' BOX 24' BOX 24' BOX 24' BOX 24'48' BOX 24' BOX SIZE $ GAL 5 GAL 5 GAL 5 GAL 1 GAL 5 GAL 5 GAL 5 GAL 15 GAL 5 GAL 15 GAL 5 GAL 5 GAL OA H.O.A MAINTAINED LANDSCAPE AREA O PRIVATE HOMEOWNER MAINTAINED LANDSCAPE FRONT YARDS (DEVELOPER INSTALLED) © PRIVATE HOMEOWNER LANDSCAPE MAINTAINED/INSTALLED LEGEND 4'-0" STABILIZED DECOMPOSED GRANITE PATHWAY V-0" CMU PERIMETER WALL'TYPE' T.B.D. 3� CONCRETE UNIT PAVERS B" CONCRETE MOW CURB MAN GATE FOR MAINTENANCE O SIDE YARD GATE TYP. O PROJECT I.D. MONUMENT NOTE: LANDSCAPE SHALL MEET CURRENT WATER CONSERVATION REQUIREMENTS MANDATED BY STATE 0 le 32 48 84 foal BGBIDESIGN GROUP Lantlecepe Archlleclure Planning UrbanDesign