Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
02 - PH-1 - 2015-2035 General Plan and Final Environ - 6/14/2016
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: JUNE 14, 2016 ITEM NUMBER: PH -1 SUBJECT: 2015-2035 GENERAL PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) - SCH# 2015111053 DATE: JUNE 10, 2016 FROM: PLANNING DIVISION/DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT PRESENTATION BY: MINOO ASHABI, AIA, AND LAURA STETSON AICP, MIG FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: MINOO ASHABI, PRINCIPAL PLANNER (714) 754-5610 minoo.ashabi@costamesaca.gov RECOMMENDATION Staff requests that the City Council provide direction to staff on whether to pursue the following items as described in this staff report. Staff requests that the City Council act separately on each individual item rather than on all of the items together in one motion: Direct staff to specify the following land uses for the proposed Multi -Use Center designation for the Fairview Developmental Center site in the 2015-2035 General Plan: • Maximum 582 residential units: Maximum 250 dwelling units at 15 du/acre and Maximum 332 dwelling units at 40 du/acre. • Minimum 25 percent Open Space/Park Uses (25.6 acres) • Maximum 0.25 FAR for Public/Institutional Uses for maximum 12 percent of the site (139,660 square feet). 2. To include new General Plan policies pursuant to the Airport Land Use Commission's recommendation. 3. To include new General Plan goals/objectives/policies relating to promoting tourism and hotel/motel revitalization. 4. To initiate and process a General Plan Amendment (Low Density Residential) and Rezone for 2850 Mesa Verde Drive to be separate and apart from this General Plan Amendment process. 5. To initiate and process a General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan Amendment to establish an overlay zone to promote public storage uses along Newport Boulevard and/or Harbor Boulevard to be separate and apart from this General Plan Amendment process. 6. To prepare the Final 2015-2035 General Plan and General Plan Program EIR for the June 21, 2016 Council meeting, including any final errata to address typographical errors and internal consistency. 7. To schedule the City Council public hearing for June 21, 2016. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project involves the following: • 2015-2035 General Plan — An update to current General Plan, including all ten elements with the incorporation of the 2013-2021 Housing Element, which was adopted in 2014. The proposed amendments are related to: Land Use, Circulation, Growth Management, Conservation Element, Open Space and Recreation, Noise, Safety, Community Design, and Historical and Cultural Resources. • Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) - This is a Program EIR prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15168, which allows for the preparation of a Program EIR for a series of actions that can be characterized as a single project (SCH # 2015111053). BACKGROUND Public Hearings Four hearings were held by the Planning Commission on March 14, 2016, March 28, April 11 and April 25: • On April 25, 2016, the Planning Commission held a fourth public hearing and recommended that the City Council certify the DEIR and adopt the 2015-2035 General Plan. • On May 17, 2016, the City Council received the staff report and the draft of the proposed General Plan and DEIR. Council received public comments, provided input and requested additional information and analysis. • The item was continued to June 14th and June 21St for review of the requested information and possible action on June 21St For a detailed discussion of the General Plan Update and DEIR, please refer to the May 17th staff report at the following link: http://www. costamesaca.gov/ftp/council/agend a/2016/2016-05-17/PH-1. pdf This report will focus on the issues discussed at the May 17, 2016 City Council meeting. ANAI YRIS Program EIR Process includes Preparation of "Errata" Pursuant to State Law, the Errata to the Program Draft EIR is now available as of Friday, June 10, 2016. The errata was still pending and therefore not available at the last Council meeting (nor at the Planning Commission meetings). The errata reflects corrections to the Draft EIR shown in black -lined and strike -out text. The original environmental conclusions of the Draft EIR were not changed. The General Plan update required preparation of a Program EIR according to the CEQA Statute and Guidelines. A Program EIR addresses impacts at a broad level and does not include the level of detail associated with a project -level EIR. The Draft EIR was prepared and released for a 45 -day public review period according to the CEQA requirements. The standard CEQA process involves soliciting comments on the Draft EIR and responding to those comments in the Final EIR. Preparation of the Final EIR includes clarifying and correcting information per the comment letters, including addressing any typographical errors. Following the close of the public review period on April 18, 2016, staff and the consultants began to prepare the Responses to Comments and errata to the Program DEIR; these are attached to this report as the Final EIR. The revisions to the document did not result in new impacts or change to any of the conclusions in the Draft EIR. The Planning Commission took action on the CEQA documentation available at the time, which was the Draft EIR and not the pending Errata. The Planning Commission's action allowed City staff to proceed with the next steps in the process, which included the preparation of the Errata to correct any typographical errors or internal inconsistencies in the documents. The Final EIR, which consists of the errata and final responses to comments, is the document recommended for certification by the City Council. Population Estimates The DEIR is referring to an estimated 110,524 population, which is derived from the housing unit count data based on the existing land use inventory conducted in GIS. The Inventory was initially conducted in 2012, but had been frequently updated between 2012 and 2015. Other references to a population number of 113,952 originated from the California Department Finance, Demographic Research Unit City's Population Estimates for January 1, 2015. 2015-2035 General Plan The proposed amendments include revisions to all elements of the 2000 General Plan, except the 2013-2021 Housing Element, which was adopted in 2014. Those elements affected are Land Use, Circulation, Growth Management, Conservation Element, Open Space and Recreation, Noise, Safety, Community Design, and Historic and Cultural Resources. The primary focus of the General Plan Amendments is to: 1) update the Land Use Policy Map to target revitalization efforts; 2) ensure that the Circulation Element comports with the amended land use plan, incorporates "complete streets" strategies, incorporates recommendations from the Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee, and addresses all current planning laws; and 3) update all other elements to incorporate provisions that respond to State laws adopted since 2002 (the adoption date of the current General Plan). The City has established 2035 as the horizon year for the amended General Plan, meaning that 2035 represents the year by which the City would expect that the General Plan's policies and programs would be realized and a new comprehensive review of the plan may be warranted. The following land use changes are proposed; these land use changes would affect four percent of the overall land uses in the City: ■ A new land use designation (Multi -Use Center) that applies to the Fairview Development Center ■ Three new land use overlays (Harbor Blvd and Newport Blvd. Residential Incentive Overlay Zone and Harbor Blvd. Mixed Use) ■ Site-specific FAR of 0.64 for the Segerstrom Home Ranch site ■ Site-specific density of 80 dwelling units per acre for Sakioka Lot 2 ■ Amended General Plan designation of Commercial Center and site specific FAR of 0.54 to 0.64 for the LA Times site Council Direction Requested The following items require further direction from the City Council: 1) Direct staff to specify the following land uses for the proposed Multi -Use Center designation for the Fairview Developmental Center site in the 2015-2035 General Plan: • Maximum 582 residential units: Maximum 250 dwelling units at 15 du/acre and Maximum 332 dwelling units at 40 du/acre. • Minimum 25 percent Open Space/Park Uses (25.6 acres) • Maximum 0.25 FAR for Public/Institutional Uses for maximum 12 percent of the site (139,660 square feet). The Multi -Use Center currently proposes a mix of residential (500 units), public/institutional (50% of site), and open space (25% of site) for the existing Fairview Development Center. Council requested that the Multi -Use Center be refined to allow additional housing without resulting in significant traffic impacts. The refinements to the Multi -Use Center designation for the Fairview Developmental Center site do not involve significant changes to the project description. The amended land uses in the Multi -Use Center designation will be reflected in the Land Use Element and do not result in any new or significant impacts than previously disclosed in the Draft EIR. If this option is selected all related exhibits will be updated accordingly. Alternative Multi -Use Center Total Residential Units 582 -Units at 5 du/ac 250 (51 acres) -Units at 40 du/ac 332 (9 acres) Open Space Acres 25.6(25%) Public/Institutional Acres 16.6(16%) Stantec provided a traffic analysis (Attachment 4) for this alternative that included the following comparison: Land Use Units AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ADT In Out I Total In Out Total GENERAL PLAN TRAFFIC STUDY Medium Density Residential 200 DU 30 98 128 104 60 164 1,634 High Density Residential 300 DU 30 123 153 120 66 186 1,995 Public Facility 52 Acres 2 2 4 4 4 8 98 Passive Park 26 Acres 1 1 2 2 2 4 49 Total Trip Generation 63 224 287 230 132 362 3,776 PROPOSED MIXED-USE CENTER DESIGNATION Low Density Residential 250 DU 48 140 188 158 93 251 2,380 High Density Residential 332 DU 33 136 169 133 73 206 2,208 Institutional Office 139.66 TSF 191 27 218 35 173 208 1,540 Passive Park 25.65 Acres 1 1 2 2 2 4 48 Total Trip Generation 273 304 577 328 341 669 6,176 DIFFERENCE (MIXED-USE CENTER DESIGNATION VERSUS GENERAL PLAN TRAFFIC STUDY) Trilp Generation Increase 210 80 1 290 98 209 1 307 2,400 Abbreviations: ADT - average daily trips DU - dwelling unit TSF - thousand square feet 2) To include new General Plan policies pursuant to the Airport Land Use Commission's recommendation. During the meeting held on May 19, 2016, the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County considered the General Plan Update and DEIR. The General Plan Update and DEIR was unanimously found to be consistent with the Commission's Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport with the inclusion of the following policy revisions and edits which are included in our General Plan Errata: Page LU -16 The FAA standard that is of the most concern in Costa Mesa is the horizontal surface for John Wayne Airport. This surface is 206 2-068 feet above the mean sea level and extends nearly two miles from the airport. Page LU -18 The City will also ensure that development proposals including the construction or alteration of a structure more than 200 feet above ground level, reference North American Vertical Datum 1988 (NAV88), must fully comply with procedures provided by Federal and State law, including with the referral requirements of the ALUC, and filing a Notice of Construction and Alteration (Form 7460-1). (Perm 7480 1). Page LU -77 Additional policies per Airport Land Use Commission consistency finding with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan. Policy LU -3.14 Certain development proposals which may include the construction or alteration of structures more than 200 feet above ground level or are located within the FAR Part 77 notification area for J.W.A. may require filing with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) pursuant to Federal and State Law. If a filing requirement is determined to be necessary in accordance with the procedures provided by State/Federal agencies, the filing of a Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration (FAA Form 7460-1) shall be required prior to review and consideration of the proposed development. Policy LU -3.15 The City will ensure that development proposals including the construction or operation of a heliport or helistop comply fully with permit procedures under State law, including referral of the project to the ALUC by the applicant, and with all conditions of approval imposed or recommended by the Federal Aviation Administration, ALUC, and Caltrans, including the filing of Form 7480-1 (Notice of Landing Area Proposed) with the FAA. This requirement shall be in addition to all other City development requirements. Policy LU -3.14 Certain development proposals which may include the construction or alteration of structures more than 200 feet above ground level or are located within the FAR Part 77 notification area for J.W.A. may require filing with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) pursuant to Federal and State Law. If a filing requirement is determined to be necessary in accordance with the procedures provided by State/Federal agencies, the filing of a Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration (FAA Form 7460-1) shall be required prior to review and consideration of the proposed development. Policy LU -3.15 The City will ensure that development proposals including the construction or operation of a heliport or helistop comply fully with permit procedures under State law, including referral of the project to the ALUC by the applicant, and with all conditions of approval imposed or recommended by the Federal Aviation Administration, ALUC, and Caltrans, including the filing of Form 7480-1 (Notice of Landing Area Proposed) with the FAA. This requirement shall be in addition to all other City development requirements. Policy LU -3.16 The City shall refer certain projects to the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County as required by Section 21676 of the California Public Utilities Code to determine consistency of the project(s) with the AELUP for JWA. Policy LU -3.17 New residential developments within the 60 dB CNEL noise contour of the airport shall provide designated outdoor signage informing the public of the presence of operating aircraft. The suggested General Plan policies for the Land Use Element by the Airport Land Use Commission do not involve changes to the project description. The language would further address consistency with the John Wayne Airport Land Use Plan and do not result in any new or significant impacts than were previously disclosed in the Draft EIR. 3) To include new General Plan goals/objectives/policies relating to promoting tourism and hotel/motel revitalization. The following policies are recommended to be added to the Land Use Element to encourage tourism and development of new hotels and improvements to the existing hotels and motels. Tourism and Hotel Goals, Objectives, and Policies. Goal: Promote the growth of tourism. Objective: Promote physical improvements of visitor -oriented land uses. Policies 1. Engage with property owners, developers and business owners to encourage the revitalization of the hotel/motels. 2. Provide incentives to motel development projects seeking to improve existing motel facilities by increasing their rating. These projects may include: a. Updating building(s) structural, mechanical, electrical, or pluming to comply with current building standards. b. Adding new and/ or improved amenities to the site. c. Updating or improving the landscaping on the site. d. Updating or improving the fagade of the building(s). e. Updating parking lots and pedestrian accessibility. Objective: Promote growth of visitor -oriented land uses. Policies 1. Motel and hotels land uses should be encouraged to be located near major transportation corridors and proximate to key tourist/visitor draws, arts and recreation venues, the airport, regional and general local shopping centers. 2. Consider the interests and quality of stay for visitors when evaluating projects near visitor -oriented land uses. Objective: Promote uses and events that make visitor -oriented business more economically viable. Policies 1. Celebrate and promote the arts, culture, and industries of Costa Mesa through special events, civic gatherings, and City marketing and tourism promotion efforts. 2. Promote the development of local and small-scale land uses that generate multiple secondary and tertiary markets that support business travel tourism - related uses. 3. Maintain and enhance the City's status and image as a centrally located destination and cultural center in Orange County. 4) To initiate and process a General Plan Amendment (Low Density Residential) and Rezone for 2850 Mesa Verde Drive to be separate and apart from this General Plan Amendment process. The authorized agent for the property owner of this commercial property has submitted a request to the City Council expressing interest to change the General Plan and zoning of the property to accommodate future low density residential land uses. (See Attachment). If Council wishes to proceed with analysis of this request and a separate General Plan Amendment/Rezone for this property, direction to staff is required. 5) To initiate and process a General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan Amendment to establish an overlay zone to promote public storage uses along Newport Boulevard and/or Harbor Boulevard to be separate and apart from this General Plan Amendment process. There was interest from a Councilmember to analyze an overlay zone or promotion of public storage uses along these corridors. 6) To prepare the Final 2015-2035 General Plan and General Plan Program EIR for the June 21, 2016 Council meeting, including any final errata to address typographical errors and internal consistency. With direction from Council, staff will proceed with finalizing these documents for consideration at the June 21, 2016 Council meeting. Therefore, the Council resolutions to adopt the General Plan and certify the Final Program EIR will be included in the next report. Discussed Issues: The following is a summary of key issues raised by the public and discussed during the May 17th City Council public hearing: 1) How the public comments were collected, and are they all included in the Response to Comments? The Great Reach and public participation started in 2013. The process included a series of workshops and study sessions held in 2014 and 2015: three joint City Council/Planning Commission workshops, three study sessions with City Council, and one study session with Planning Commission. An email interest list was developed that included over 180 individuals and organizations. The email list was used in addition to the required public noticing for each of the public hearings and updating information. All comments received during the outreach was cataloged and posted on the website and available for public review by residents and city officials. The notices for General Plan and DEIR were advertised in the newspaper, on the website, and sent to all individuals on the email list and organizations and government agencies. A specific email address was included on the website to submit comment; those emails would be delivered to City staff. The 45 -day review period ended on April 18, 2016; staff received three correspondence past the deadline that were included in the Response to Comments. The City Clerk was also notified by two residents on May 4t" that there may be emails submitted directly to the General Plan email that were not accounted for. The IT Department provided a list of all emails submitted to the GP email and there were two emails that were not received by staff; the rest were confirmed as spam emails. Those two comment emails have been retrieved from the residents and included in the Response to Comments. 2) Reference to Fairview Park being "repurposed" in the General Plan and the DEIR should be corrected. All references to Fairview Park being "repurposed" have been removed from the Draft General Plan. The 2015-2035 General Plan includes Fairview Park under Open Space Land Use as currently assigned and does not change the current land use designation or the Fairview Park Master Plan. The Fairview Park Master Plan was adopted by City Council as a tool for the orderly implementation of the approved improvements for Fairview Park. Changes to the Fairview Park Master Plan are considered in compliance with City Council Policy 500-11, Implementation Procedures for the Fairview Park Master Plan. The Fairview Park Citizens Advisory Committee reviews the Master Plan and recommends revisions or changes to the Master Plan. The Committee is currently on hold pending completion of the update of the City's Open Space Master Plan of Parks and Recreation. The following includes a list of City Council comments and responses to the comments: Councilmember Foley Response Remove Mesa Verde node The node including the Mesa Verde Center at the southwest corner of Mesa from Residential Incentive Verde Drive East and Harbor Blvd. has been removed from the Overlay. Overlay The revised Harbor Residential Incentive Overlay graphic is included as an Attachment. The Council will need to include as part of its motion the proposed removal of this area from the proposed overlay application. Inclusion of approved hotels The Natelson Dale Group has evaluated the potential enhancement to the in the Fiscal Impact Analysis City's General Fund cash flow from an additional 450 hotel rooms (i.e., the 200 new rooms already assumed plus 450 more, for a total increment of 650 rooms. The update is included as Attachment 6. What is the most revenue The Natelson Dale Group utilized the fiscal impact model to test the net generating land use? fiscal impact of one acre of prototypical development for each land use category. The calculations assume that the hypothetical one -acre development: Land Use Category Annual Fiscal Impact Per Acre Low density residential (8 DUA) +$4,000 Medium density residential (12 DUA) +$4,500 High density residential (20 DUA) +$500 Overlay zone residential 40 DUA —$3,000 Retail 0.35 FAR +70,000 Office 0.40 FAR Neutral Industrial 0.40 FAR +$4,500 Hotel 100 rooms per acre +$270,000 What budget year was used The Natelson Dale Group's detailed calculations are based on the latest for the analysis? The current (2015/2016) adopted budget. However, for comparison purposes, the budget is over 150M. summary slides shown at the May 17 City Council meeting showed information for FY 2014/2015 (since 2014/2015 is the latest year for which "actual" numbers were available at the time Natelson Dale completed the analysis). General Fund revenue in FY 2014/2015 totaled $109,451,662. The General Fund is only a portion of the total budget; it is the component of the budget used for the fiscal impact analysis because it represents the discretionary portion of the City's budget that will be most significantly impacted by new development. The budget discussed by the City Council was the 2015/2016 total budget which is $154,189,869 and includes General Fund revenue of $115,202,900. Provide examples of projects Walgreens at Newport/17th - 1,289 trips built with 1,000 additional Assisted Living Project 1640 Monrovia - 1,079 trips ADTs Mesa Verde Collection - 69 homes - 700 trips Home Ranch Residential (Susan Street) - 143 homes 1,300 trips Azulon - 215 Senior Housing units - 740 trips Motel 6 off Harbor/Gisler - 186 rooms - 1,047 trips Add a tourism incentive for Adding a new incentive overlay would modify the project description and hotel development on require substantial additional analysis in the EIR. If directed, an overlay Newport Blvd. Overlay. incentive could be generated following the adoption of the General Plan Update to support or incentivize tourism and hotel investment. Staff has included potential goals, objective, and policies section that can be added to the General Plan to spur some of these incentives at this time. This issue needs direction from the City Council. Add public storage as a The Newport Boulevard Specific Plan currently includes public storage as desirable use in Newport a prohibited use; if direction is received to allow this use, the specific plan Blvd. Overlay will need to be amended. This issue needs direction from the City Council. Fairview Development Center Charts and Graphics have been prepared and included as Attachment 9. - include a matrix and graphics with an option of This issue needs direction from the City Council. increased residential density and 12% Public/Institutional and 25% Open Space in the Multi -Use land use category Show the increase in traffic in Stantec has provided revised maps depicting the increase in traffic a chart form; the color coded conditions for the proposed General Plan and the Current General Plan in maps are difficult for comparison with the existing conditions at TAZ level with specific ADT comparison numbers for each of the TAZ areas. Please refer to Attachment 9. Provide information on the The results of the phone survey can be accessed at the following link: phone survey conducted for http://costamesaca.gov/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=21795 development of open space master plan Councilmember Genis Fairview Development Center Charts and graphics have been prepared and attached. The exhibit of the — include a land use option in proposed alternative indicates the potential for 332 units at 40 du/acre on the Multi -Use category with 9 acres total. This could be a combination of State, City or other projects an affordability requirement or to be proposed in the future. Staff needs direction from the City Council to a land use that would allow finalize this change. transitional/supportive housing Include a comparison of new, A comparison chart has been included as Attachment 7. revised and deleted policies Data relative to Costa Mesa's The information has been corrected throughout the DEIR. The climate, location of SOBECA information does not change any conclusions. and similar references in the settings section of DEIR should be corrected Address tunnel effect on Removal of the node containing the Mesa Verde Center will reduce any Harbor Blvd. and important potential impacts on Harbor Boulevard where four-story projects could viewpoints with the proposed have developed in close proximity. There are only four nodes remaining nodes on this overlay district. The distance between the nodes is substantial. Also, building heights will be reviewed as part of individual development project proposal. This land use policy will have limited effects on the views northward along Harbor Blvd. Concerns about cumulative The City will be required to assess every development application for Impacts and how future the appropriate CEQA documentation. If criteria for the infill exemption projects may be subject to or any other CEQA exemption can be satisfied, then no further analysis infill exemptions and full would be required. If not, the City will prepare an Initial Study or EIR, environmental impact depending upon what the analysis concludes. This could include site - analysis not required specific technical studies, such as a traffic or biological resources report. Mitigation measures referring The recommended policies in the General Plan are not mitigation to recommended policies measures. Instead, the policies are part of the project that was evaluated (such as bike master plan for impacts in the EIR. To the extent that a General Plan policy self - policies) will not suffice mitigates (i.e., it encourages sustainability, improves traffic congestion, or preserves cultural heritage) that project feature was analyzed in the EIR. So long as there were no residual environmental effects that required mitigation of the project, then the impacts were determined to be less than significant. As explained in the EIR, there are only two areas of impact that require mitigation: Hazards and Biological Resources. Neither the mitigation for Hazards nor the mitigation for Biological Resources rely on General Plan policies. Explain changes in ADTs in Stantec has prepared a map depicting the difference in ADTs comparing areas not included in the the proposed General Plan and the current General Plan build out with update such as on Canyon existing conditions; the maps highlight areas with any change and include Drive changes in the ADTs at TAZ level. Refer to Attachment 9. Revise reference to 1,500 Staff verified that the Acjachemen Nation was notified during the Notice of B.C. on Page HCR -12 Preparation and no comments were received. Mayor Pro Tem Righeimer Fairview Development Center Charts have been prepared and attached. Staff needs direction from the — include a land use option in City Council to finalize this change. the Multi -Use category with 50% low density residential Include 2850 Mesa Verde Dr. Addition of this site will modify the project description. Staff recommends as Low Density Residential this type of modification occur following adoption of the General Plan (LDR) Update so as not to affect the integrity of the EIR. Public Comments The following includes the public comments and staff responses provided during the May 17th hearing: 1) Fairview Park- All reference to Fairview Park should be consistent and correct; repurposing of the park should be removed from Pages OSR-5, OSR-15 and OSR- 18. Response - the following revisions have been made with reference to Fairview Park: Page OSR-5 — In April 2013, the Costa Mesa City Council voted to reconvene the Fairview Park Citizens Advisory Committee (FPAC) to examine several issues regarding the park, and to evaluate the Fairview Park Master Plan relative to the City's needs. Based on those needs, the FPAC will recommend the addition, reduction, elimination, and modification of park uses and master -planned elements. Koji elements iRGl i.de d uses. Comnletinn of the review is an+ininate d in 2016. As part of the citywide Open Space Master Plan of Parks and Recreation initiated in 2015, the community will be engaged in further discussion of improvement plans for Fairview Park. Page OSR-15 — Planning Area 1 is unique in a number of ways. First, it is the location of major public open space features, including Canyon Community Park and the Talbert Regional Park and in close proximity to Fairview Community Park. However, these facilities are located along the easternmost boundary of the area, leaving the balance poorly served for neighborhood park service. Secondly, the area is the most densely populated and highly developed in the City, leaving very limited opportunities for sites to fulfill this service deficiency. There are several park priority areas within the Westside neighborhood, just south of Victoria Street. Page OSR-18 — As the population in the City continues to changes, the demand for parks and open spaces will increase and change based on the population's composition. In response, the City may find it necessary to repurpose current parks and open spaces to accommodate residents' needs. As a result, preserving the established uses of parks and open spaces and balancing between passive and active recreation use may become a challenge. Due to its size, FaiFview Park is „no of the narks that may be rani irnnsorl tO innIi irde other n, ThrG amenities However, a balance between passive and active open space opportunities within the nark will continue to be a key consideration. 2) Increase in the number of units — Even though there is reference to 4% change in the area of land uses, the proposed General Plan will result in a potential increase of 7,000 units: Response — the proposed land uses will potentially allow development of a maximum of 201 medium -density and 2,831 high-density housing units in comparison with the current General Plan. Land Use Units Existing Current GP Proposed GP Difference 1. Low Density Residential DU 14,210 14,788 14,791 +3 2. Medium Density Residential DU 4,370 4,791 4,992 +201 3. High Density Residential DU 23,593 28,830 31,661 +2,831 3) Parkland acquisition — The recently adopted park fee for apartment units will increase the funding available for acquisition of parkland. This should be included in the analysis for underserved areas. Response — The acquisition and development of new neighborhood parks and prioritizing the acquisition of land for parks in underserved areas are included in the Open Space Element policies as OSR-1.0 and OSR-1.D. 4) Density proposed at 40 du/acre — The densities recently approved by City Council were over 50 du/acre. A development in the proposed density area of 40 du/acre with a density bonus component will increase the number of units to 50 du/acre, which will typically require a parking structure and five -story buildings. Response — The maximum allowable height south of 1-405- is four stories. Any change will require approval of a General Plan Amendment. 5) Double counting of OC Fairground area — Reference to DEIR pages 4.15-3 and 4.15-1 Response — Revisions were made to the noted tables to use consistent and accurate areas for the OC Fairgrounds; the numbers have been verified, and there is no double counting of OC Fairgrounds. The numbers include inventories of open spaces were also verified for accuracy. Final Program Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) - SCH# 2015111053 This FEIR has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., § 15000 et seq.). The DEIR is a Program EIR prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15168. Section 15168 allows for the preparation of a Program EIR for a series of actions that can be characterized as a single project. The Final EIR consists of the DEIR, responses to comments received on the DEIR, and revisions to the DEIR in response to comments. The DEIR and FEIR address the following: • Aesthetics • Noise • Air Quality • Population and Housing • Cultural Resources • Public Services • Geology and Soils • Recreation • Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Transportation/Circulation • Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Utilities and Service Systems • Hydrology and Water Quality • Land Use and Planning Unavoidable significant impacts have been identified with regard to air quality and greenhouse gas emissions. Sites exist within the City that are listed as hazardous waste facilities, hazardous waste properties, and/or hazardous waste disposal sites, as enumerated under California Government Code 65962.5. PUBLIC COMMENTS The Notice of Preparation was released on November 16, 2015. All public comments received during the 30 -day review period are accessible at the following link: http://www.costamesaca.gov/ftp/generalplan20l 5-2035/Appendix%20B%20- %20Notice%20of%20Preparation.Of Responses to Comments - Draft EIR Public Comment Period On March 4, 2016, the City released the draft 2015-2035 General Plan and DEIR for a 45 - day public review ending on April 18, 2016. Both documents were available at local libraries, the City Hall and on the City's website at the following link: http://www.costamesaca.gov/index.aspx?page=1994 As required by CEQA, all public hearing comments and correspondence received during the 45 -day public review period are addressed in the Final "Response to Comments" document included as section 10.0 of the FEIR. CONCLUSION The General Plan update process started in 2012. During the past three years, many workshops and study sessions that provided opportunities for the public to weigh in and discuss major land use and traffic issues. The 2015-2035 General Plan is a compilation of the revisions approved by the Council and updates in compliance with the latest State and regional requirements, such as the Complete Street component. Most goals, policies and objectives have remained unchanged. The major land use changes are proposed for four percent of the City's overall area, which, if implemented are anticipated to be supported by the circulation improvements within the General Plan time frame. MINOO ASHABI, AIA Principal Planner GARY ARMSTRONG, AICP Economic Development & Development Services Director / Deputy CEO CLAIRE FLYNN, AICP Assistant Director Development Services Attachments: 1. FEIR including Response to Comments — Under separate cover 2. General Plan Errata (last update was dated May 6, 2016) 3. Land Use alternative for Fairview Develoamental Center 4. Memo from Stantec on the Fairview alternatives 5. Revised Harbor Blvd. Incentive Overlay 6. Memo from The Natelson Dale Group dated June 6, 2016 7. Comparison of new and old policies 8. Stantec — Traffic Comparison Maps 9. Stantec — TAZ Map and Charts 10. Stantec — Peak Hour Intersection Counts 11. ALUC Consistency Determination 12. Public Correspondence ATTACHMENT 1 Finalnvixonmental Impact Report A"p 2015-2O35�.�z�A�& Lead Agency: City of Costa Mesa 2ND FL, Development Services Department 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 714 754 5245 June 26, 2016 State Clearinghouse No. 2015111053 Consultant: MIG, Inc. 537 S. Raymond Avenue Pasadena, CA 91105 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction 1.1 CEQA and the Purpose of an EIR..................................................................................................1-1 Introduction.....................................................................................................................................1-1 1.2 Program EIR................................................................................................................................1.2-1 Purposeand Scope.....................................................................................................................1.2-1 1.3 Scoping and Public Review.........................................................................................................1.3-1 Noticeof Preparation...................................................................................................................1.3-1 2.0 Executive Summary 2.1 Project Summary.........................................................................................................................2.1-1 General Plan Amendments.........................................................................................................2.1-1 2.2 Project Location...........................................................................................................................2.2-1 2.3 Environmental Setting.................................................................................................................2.3-1 2.4 Environmental Impacts................................................................................................................2.4-1 2.5 Areas of Potential Controversy....................................................................................................2.5-1 2.6 Alternatives to the Proposed Project...........................................................................................2.6-1 3.0 Project Description..................................................................................................................................3.0-1 Background................................................................................................................................................3.0-1 ProjectLocation.........................................................................................................................................3.0-1 ExistingGeneral Plan................................................................................................................................3.0-4 Costa Mesa General Plan Update.............................................................................................................3.0-4 General Plan Amendments........................................................................................................................3.0-5 IntendedUse of this EIR..........................................................................................................................3.0-22 Proposed Goals and Objectives..............................................................................................................3.0-23 4.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.1 Aesthetics....................................................................................................................................4.1-1 ExistingConditions......................................................................................................................4.1-1 RegulatorySetting.......................................................................................................................4.1-5 Thresholds of Significance..........................................................................................................4.1-5 EnvironmentalImpacts................................................................................................................4.1-5 MitigationMeasures..................................................................................................................4.1-10 References................................................................................................................................4.1-11 4.2 Agricultural and Forestry Resources...........................................................................................4.2-1 ExistingConditions......................................................................................................................4.2-1 Environmental Impact Report TOC -1 Table of Contents Thresholds of Significance..........................................................................................................4.2-4 EnvironmentalImpacts................................................................................................................4.2-4 MitigationMeasures....................................................................................................................4.2-7 References..................................................................................................................................4.2-8 4.3 Air Quality....................................................................................................................................4.3-1 ExistingConditions......................................................................................................................4.3-1 Planning and Regulatory Framework..........................................................................................4.3-8 Thresholds of Significance........................................................................................................4.3-12 EnvironmentalImpact................................................................................................................4.3-13 MitigationMeasures..................................................................................................................4.3-24 Level of Impact with Mitigation Incorporated.............................................................................4.3-25 References................................................................................................................................4.3-26 4.4 Biological Resources...................................................................................................................4.4-1 ExistingConditions......................................................................................................................4.4-1 Planning and Regulatory Framework........................................................................................4.4-13 LocalRegulations......................................................................................................................4.4-15 Thresholds of Significance........................................................................................................4.4-16 Environmental Impacts..............................................................................................................4.4-16 MitigationMeasures..................................................................................................................4.4-19 Level of Impact with Mitigation Incorporated.............................................................................4.4-19 References.................................................................................................................................4.420 4.5 Cultural Resources......................................................................................................................4.5-1 ExistingConditions......................................................................................................................4.5-1 RegulatoryFramework................................................................................................................4.5-7 Thresholds of Significance........................................................................................................4.5-11 EnvironmentalImpacts..............................................................................................................4.5-11 MitigationMeasures..................................................................................................................4.5-15 4.6 Geology and Soils.......................................................................................................................4.6-1 ExistingConditions......................................................................................................................4.6-1 RegulatoryFramework..............................................................................................................4.6-10 Thresholds of Significance........................................................................................................4.6-14 EnvironmentalImpact................................................................................................................4.6-14 MitigationMeasures..................................................................................................................4.6-19 References................................................................................................................................4.6-20 4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions........................................................................................................4.7-1 ExistingConditions......................................................................................................................4.7-1 Planning and Regulatory Framework..........................................................................................4.7-6 Thresholds of Significance........................................................................................................4.7-11 EnvironmentalImpacts..............................................................................................................4.7-11 MitigationMeasures..................................................................................................................4.7-16 Level of Impact with Mitigation Incorporated.............................................................................4.7-17 Reference..................................................................................................................................4.7-18 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials..............................................................................................4.8-1 ExistingConditions......................................................................................................................4.8-1 RegulatoryFramework................................................................................................................4.8-2 TOC -2 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendments Table of Contents Thresholds of Significance........................................................................................................4.8-11 EnvironmentalImpacts..............................................................................................................4.8-12 MitigationMeasures..................................................................................................................4.8-16 Level of Significance with Mitigation Incorporated.....................................................................4.8-16 References................................................................................................................................4.8-17 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality.......................................................................................................4.9-1 EnvironmentalSetting.................................................................................................................4.9-1 RegulatoryFramework................................................................................................................4.9-6 Thresholds of Significance........................................................................................................4.9-11 Environmental Impacts..............................................................................................................4.9-11 MitigationMeasures..................................................................................................................4.9-16 References................................................................................................................................4.9-20 4.10 Land Use ....................................................................................................................................4.10- ExistingConditions....................................................................................................................4.10-1 Existing Planning and Regulatory Framework...........................................................................4.10-3 Environmental Impacts..............................................................................................................4.10-7 MitigationMeasures................................................................................................................4.10-10 References..............................................................................................................................4.10-11 4.11 Mineral Resources.....................................................................................................................4.11-1 ExistingConditions....................................................................................................................4.11-1 Planning and Regulatory Framework........................................................................................4.11-3 Thresholds of Significance........................................................................................................4.11-4 Environmental Impacts..............................................................................................................4.11-4 MitigationMeasures..................................................................................................................4.11-5 References................................................................................................................................4.11-6 4.12 Noise.........................................................................................................................................4.12-1 Basicsof Noise..........................................................................................................................4.12-1 ExistingConditions....................................................................................................................4.12-4 Planning and Regulatory Framework........................................................................................4.12-6 Thresholds of Significance........................................................................................................4.12-9 Environmental Impacts............................................................................................................4.12-10 MitigationMeasures................................................................................................................4.12-19 References..............................................................................................................................4.12-20 4.13 Population and Housing............................................................................................................4.13-1 ExistingConditions....................................................................................................................4.13-1 Planning and Regulatory Framework........................................................................................4.13-2 Thresholds of Significance........................................................................................................4.13-4 Environmental Impacts..............................................................................................................4.13-4 MitigationMeasures................................................................................................................4.13-10 References..............................................................................................................................4.13-11 4.14 Public Services..........................................................................................................................4.14-1 ExistingConditions....................................................................................................................4.14-1 Planning and Regulatory Framework........................................................................................4.14-5 Thresholds of Significance........................................................................................................4.14-6 EnvironmentalImpacts..............................................................................................................4.14-6 Environmental Impact Report TOC -3 Table of Contents MitigationMeasures................................................................................................................4.14-10 References..............................................................................................................................4.14-11 4.15 Recreation.................................................................................................................................4.15-1 ExistingConditions ........................... ......................................................................................... 4.15-1 Planning and Regulatory Framework........................................................................................4.15-4 Thresholds of Significance........................................................................................................4.15-5 EnvironmentalImpacts..............................................................................................................4.15-5 MitigationMeasures..................................................................................................................4.15-7 References................................................................................................................................4.15-8 4.16 Transportation and Traffic.........................................................................................................4.16-1 Existing Circulation System.......................................................................................................4.16-1 RegulatoryFramework............................................................................................................4.16-14 Thresholds of Significance......................................................................................................4.16-19 Environmental Impacts............................................................................................................4.16-20 Costa Mesa Master Plan of Streets and Highways(MPSH)....................................................4.16-44 Proposed Circulation Policy Framework..................................................................................4.16-48 MitigationMeasures................................................................................................................4.16-54 References..............................................................................................................................4.16-55 4.17 Utilities and Service Systems....................................................................................................4.17-1 ExistingConditions....................................................................................................................4.17-1 RegulatoryFramework..............................................................................................................4.17-8 Thresholds of Significance......................................................................................................4.17-11 Environmental Impacts............................................................................................................4.17-11 MitigationMeasures................................................................................................................4.17-15 References..............................................................................................................................4.17-17 5.0 Alternatives..............................................................................................................................................5.0-1 Purpose....................................................................................................................................................5.0-1 Rationale for Alternative Selection.............................................................................................................5.0-1 Alternatives Considered but not Selected for Analysis..............................................................................5.0-2 AlternativesConsidered.............................................................................................................................5.0-2 Evaluation of Alternatives Impacts Relative to the Project.........................................................................5.0-4 Environmentally Superior Alternatives.....................................................................................................5.0-12 6.0 Analysis of Long Term Effects...............................................................................................................6.0-1 CumulativeImpacts...................................................................................................................................6.0-1 EnergyConservation...............................................................................................................................6.0-10 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes......................................................................................6.0-14 Unavoidable Significant Environmental Impacts......................................................................................6.0-15 References..............................................................................................................................................6.0-16 7.0 Effects Found Not to be Significant.......................................................................................................7.0-1 8.0 Preparation Team 8.1 Lead Agency........................................................................................................................................8.0-1 8.2 Consultants to Lead Agency................................................................................................................8.0-1 TOC -4 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendments Table of Contents 9.0 References Planning Area..............................................................................................................................3.0-3 4.1 Aesthetics...............................................................................................................................................9-1 Draft Land Use Plan....................................................................................................................3.0-7 4.2 Agricultural and Forestry Resources.......................................................................................................9-1 Figure 3.0-4 4.3 Air Quality...............................................................................................................................................9-1 4.4 Biological Resources..............................................................................................................................9-2 Multi -Use Center Focus Area....................................................................................................3.0-10 4.6 Geology and Soils...................................................................................................................................9-2 Figure 3.0-6 4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions...................................................................................................................9-2 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials..........................................................................................................9-3 Residential Incentive Overlay: Newport Boulevard Focus Area................................................3.0-12 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality..................................................................................................................9-4 Figure 3.0-8 4.11 Mineral Resources................................................................................................................................9-5 4.12 Noise.....................................................................................................................................................9-5 Los Angeles Times Focus Area.................................................................................................3.0-15 4.13 Population and Housing........................................................................................................................9-6 Figure 3.0-10 4.14 Public Services.....................................................................................................................................9-6 4.15 Recreation............................................................................................................................................9-7 Segerstrom Home Ranch Focus Area.......................................................................................3.0-17 4.16 Transportation and Traffic.....................................................................................................................9-7 Figure 3.0-19 4.17 Utilities and Service Systems................................................................................................................9-7 6.0 Analysis of Long Term Effects................................................................................................................9-8 Draft Master Plan of Streets and Highways...............................................................................3.0-20 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata 10.1 Response to Comments............................................................................................................10.0-2 Master Responses to Comments..............................................................................................10.0-4 Agencies....................................................................................................................................10.0-9 Organizations..........................................................................................................................10.0-15 Individuals...............................................................................................................................10.0-21 10.2 Errata.......................................................................................................................................10.0-30 List of Figures Figure3.0-1 Regional Map..............................................................................................................................3.0-2 Figure3.0-2 Planning Area..............................................................................................................................3.0-3 Figure 3.0-3 Draft Land Use Plan....................................................................................................................3.0-7 Figure 3.0-4 Focus Area Overview Map..........................................................................................................3.0-9 Figure 3.0-5 Multi -Use Center Focus Area....................................................................................................3.0-10 Figure 3.0-6 Residential Incentive Overlay: Harbor Boulevard......................................................................3.0-11 Figure 3.0-7 Residential Incentive Overlay: Newport Boulevard Focus Area................................................3.0-12 Figure 3.0-8 Harbor Mixed -Use Overlay........................................................................................................3.0-13 Figure 3.0-9 Los Angeles Times Focus Area.................................................................................................3.0-15 Figure 3.0-10 SoBECA Mixed -Use Overlay Focus Area..................................................................................3.0-16 Figure 3.0-11 Segerstrom Home Ranch Focus Area.......................................................................................3.0-17 Figure 3.0-19 Sakioka Lot 2 Focus Area.........................................................................................................3.0-19 Figure 3.0-13 Draft Master Plan of Streets and Highways...............................................................................3.0-20 Figure 3.0-14 Conceptual Bicycle Master Plan................................................................................................3.0-21 Figure 4.2-1 Google Earth (2015) view of Segerstrom Home Ranch Property showing agricultural fields...... 4.2-2 Figure 4.2-2 Google Earth (2015) view of Sakioka Lot 2 Property showing agricultural fields ......................... 4.2-3 Figure4.6-1 Geologic Map..............................................................................................................................4.6-2 Figure4.6-2 Soil Types....................................................................................................................................4.6-5 Figure4.6-3 Regional Fault Map.....................................................................................................................4.6-6 Environmental Impact Report TOC -5 Table of Contents Figure4.6-4 Liquefaction.................................................................................................................................4.6-8 Figure 4.6-5 Flooding and Seismically Induced Waves.................................................................................4.6-11 Figure 4.6-6 Geologic Hazards Map..............................................................................................................4.6-13 Figure4.8-1 Airport Safety Zones....................................................................................................................4.8-3 Figure 4.9-1 Improvements by Watershed Area..............................................................................................4.9-4 Figure 4.9-2 Local Flooding Hazards...............................................................................................................4.9-5 Figure 4.10-1 Existing Land Use (2015)..........................................................................................................4.10-2 Figure 4.11-1 Mineral Resources in Orange County.......................................................................................4.11-2 Figure4.12-1 Hertz Diagram...........................................................................................................................4.12-2 Figure 4.12-2 Activity Based Noise Levels......................................................................................................4.12-2 Figure 4.14-1 Public Services Map..................................................................................................................4.14-2 Figure 4.16-1 Existing Roadway System.........................................................................................................4.16-7 Figure 4.16-2 Existing ADT Volumes...............................................................................................................4.16-8 Figure 4.16-3 Intersection Location Map.......................................................................................................4.16-15 Figure 4.16-4 4 Year 2035 Constrained Roadway System............................................................................4.16-27 Figure 4.16-5 5 Year 2035 Buildout Roadway System..................................................................................4.16-26 Figure 4.16-6 Proposed Circulation System..................................................................................................4.16-51 Figure 4.16-7 Conceptual Bicycle Master Plan..............................................................................................4.16-52 List of Tables Table 1-1: Summary of Scoping Comments.................................................................................................1.3-1 Table 2.0-1 Environmental Impact Summary.................................................................................................2.4-3 Table 3.0-1 Existing Developed and Proposed 2035 Build -Out Summary.....................................................3.0-4 Table: CUL -1 City of Costa Mesa Historical Resources Inventory.....................................................................4.5-4 Table 4.3-1 Ambient Air Quality Standards....................................................................................................4.3-3 Table 4.3-2 South Coast Air Basin Attainment Status....................................................................................4.3-5 Table 4.3-3 2012-2014 Local Air Quality........................................................................................................4.3-7 Table 4.3-4 2012-2014 Air Quality Standards Exceedance............................................................................4.3-7 Table 4.3-6 SCAQMD Maximum Daily Emissions Thresholds (Ibs/days).....................................................4.3-12 Table 4.4-1 Plants of the Grassland Community and Status in Planning Area...............................................4.4-2 Table 4.4-2 Plants of the Sage Scrub Community and Status in Planning Area............................................4.4-3 Table 4.4-3 Plants of the Riparian Community and Status in Planning Area..................................................4.4-4 Table 4.4-4 Species List of Mammals, Reptiles and Amphibians and Status in Planning Area......................4.4-6 Table 4.4-5 Species List of Birds and Status in Planning Area.......................................................................4.4-7 Table 4.4-6 CNDDB Species Occurrences...................................................................................................4.4-10 TOC -6 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendments Table of Contents Table 4.7-1 Global Warming Potential (GWP) of Greenhouse Gases (GHG)................................................4.7-3 Table 4.7-2 Scoping Plan Measures...............................................................................................................4.7-9 Table 4.7-3 CALGREEN Requirements.......................................................................................................4.7-10 Table 4.8-1 Toxic Release Inventory Facilities...............................................................................................4.8-5 Table 4.8-2 Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites and Facilities ..............................................................4.8-6 Table 4.8-3 SWRCB Site Cleanup Programs.................................................................................................4.8-6 Table 4.8-4 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks..........................................................................................4.8-7 Table 4.10-1 Existing Land Use Summary ................................................. Table 4.10-2 City and County Land Use Designation Comparison ............ ..4.10-3 ..4.10-5 Table 4.12-1 Ambient Noise Measurements..................................................................................................4.12-5 Table 4.12-2 Orange County Fairgrounds Modified Noise Ordinance..........................................................4.12-12 Table 4.12-3 Pacific Amphitheater Court Order Current Noise Restriction ...................................................4.12-12 Table 4.12-4 Common Construction Vibration..............................................................................................4.12-15 Table 4.12-5 Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels........................................................................4.12-18 Table 4.13-1 Capacity for New Housing within Focus Area............................................................................4.13-6 Table 4.14-1 Fire Station Locations................................................................................................................4.14-3 Table 4.14-2 Costa Mesa School Enrollment.................................................................................................4.14-4 Table 4.15-1 Open Space and Recreation Inventory .....................................................................................4.15-1 Table 4.15-2 Park/Community Center Facility Inventory................................................................................4.15-2 Table 4.15-3 School Facility and Other Institutions Inventory.........................................................................4.15-3 Table 4.16-1 Intersection Level of Service Descriptions -Urban Streets and Intersections .............................4.16-5 Table 4.16-2 Arterial Roadway ADT Capacities.............................................................................................4.16-6 Table 4.16-3 Existing ADT Volumes and V/C Ratios......................................................................................4.16-9 Table 4.16-4 Existing Intersection LOS Summary ........................................................................................4.16-16 Table 4.16-5 Average Daily Traffic Trip Generation Rates...........................................................................4.16-21 Table 4.16-6 Citywide Land Use and ADT Trip Generation Summary.........................................................4.16-22 Table 4.16-7 Peak Hour Trip Generation Rates...........................................................................................4.16-23 Table 4.16-8 Existing Citywide Land Use and Peak Hour Trip Generation ..................................................4.16-24 Table 4.16-9 Proposed General Plan Buildout Citywide Land Use and Peak Hour Trip Generation ............ 4.16-25 Table 4.16-10 Future Roadway Improvements..............................................................................................4.16-26 Table 4.16-11 Future Intersection Improvements...........................................................................................4.16-29 Table 4.16-12 2035 Constrained Highway Network and Buildout Highway Network ADT Volumes and V/C Ratios4.16-32 Table 4.16-13 2035 Constrained Highway Network and Buildout Highway Network Intersection LOS Summary4.16-40 Table 4.16-14 ADT Volumes and V/C Rations: West 19th Street....................................................................4.16-44 Table 4.16-15 ADT Volumes and V/C Ratios: West 17th Street......................................................................4.16-45 Table 4.16-16 ADT Volumes and V/C Ratios: East 22nd Street......................................................................4.16-45 Table 4.16-17 ADT Volumes and V/C Ratios: Baker Street...........................................................................4.16-46 Table 4.16-18 2035 Buildout Highway Network ADT Volumes and V/C Ratios with Bluff Road ....................4.16-46 Table 4.16-19 2035 Buildout Highway Network ADT Volumes and V/C Rations with Road Diets .................4.16-47 Table 5-1 Comparison of Remaining Development Capacity Versus Proposed Capacity...........................5.0-3 Table 5-2 Impact Comparison Summary Matrix........................................................................................5.0-12 Table 6-1 CAG 2008-2035 Growth Forecast...............................................................................................6.0-1 TOC -7 Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents Table 6.0-2 General Plan Potential Capacity Comparison.............................................................................6.0-7 Table 10.0-1 Draft EIR Comments Received.................................................................................................10.0-3 TOC -8 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendments Introduction 1 Executive Summary 2 Project Description 3 Environmental Impact Analysis 4 Alternatives 5 Analysis of Long Term Effects 6 Effects Found Not to be Significant 7 Preparation Team 8 References 9 ntroduction CEQA and the Purpose of an EIR 1.1 Introduction The City of Costa Mesa (Lead Agency) lois considering ^^tea series of amendments to all elements of its General Plan, with the exception of the Housing Element. The amendments are intended to refine policies regarding long-term growth in the community and to ensure that the General Plan reflects current State law. The project, referred to as the "General Plan Amendments," is the subject of this Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The adoption and implementation of the General Plan Amendments is defined as a "project" and is subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 1970 (Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq.), and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, title 14, Section 15000 et seq.). Accordingly, the City has prepared this EIR to assess the long-range and cumulative environmental consequences that could result from adoption and implementation of the proposed General Plan Amendments, including any amendments to land use regulatory documents used to implement the General Plan. This EIR has been prepared in accordance with the CEQA Statutes and Guidelines and with the City of Costa Mesa's local rules and procedures for implementing CEQA. This document has been prepared by professional planning consultants under contract to the City of Costa Mesa. The City of Costa Mesa is the Lead Agency for the preparation of this EIR, as defined by CEQA (Public Resources Code, Section 21067, as amended) because the City has primary discretionary authority with respect to adoption, amendment, and implementation of the proposed General Plan. The content of this document reflects the independent judgment of the City. The body of State law known as "CEQA" was originally enacted in 1970 and has been amended since. The legislative intent of these regi ilatienethe Act is established in Section 21000 of the California Public Resources Code, as follows: "The Legislature finds and declares as follows: (A) The maintenance of a quality environment for the people of this state now and in the future is a matter of statewide concern. (B) It is necessary to provide a high-quality environment that at all times is healthful and pleasing to the senses and intellect of man. (C) There is a need to understand the relationship between the maintenance of high-quality ecological systems and the general welfare of the people of the state, including their enjoyment of the natural resources of the state. (D) The capacity of the environment is limited, and it is the intent of the Legislature that the government of the State take immediate steps to identify any critical thresholds for the health and safety of the people of the state and take all coordinated actions necessary to prevent such thresholds being reached. (E) Every citizen has a responsibility to contribute to the preservation and enhancement of the environment. (F) The interrelationship of policies and practices in the management of natural resources and waste disposal requires systematic and concerted efforts by public and private interests to enhance environmental quality and to control environmental pollution. Environmental Impact Report 1-1 1.0 Introduction (G) It is the intent of the Legislature that all agencies of the state government which regulate activities of private individuals, corporations, and public agencies which are found to affect the quality of the environment, shall regulate such activities so that major consideration is given to preventing environmental damage, while providing a decent home and satisfying living environment for every Californian. In Public Resources Code Section 21001, Tthe Legislature further finds and declares that it is the policy of the State to: H) Develop and maintain a high-quality environment now and in the future, and take all action necessary to protect, rehabilitate, and enhance the environmental quality of the State. 1) Take all action necessary to provide the people of this state with clean air and water, enjoyment of aesthetic, natural, scenic, and historic environmental qualities, and freedom from excessive noise. J) Prevent the elimination of fish or wildlife species due to man's activities, ensure that fish and wildlife populations do not drop below self-perpetuating levels, and preserve for future generations representations of all plant and animal communities and examples of the major periods of California history. K) Ensure that the long-term protection of the environment, consistent with the provision of a decent home and suitable living environment for every Californian, shall be the guiding criterion in public decisions. L) Create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony to fulfill the social and economic requirements of present and future generations. M) Require governmental agencies at all levels to develop standards and procedures necessary to protect environmental quality. N) Require governmental agencies at all levels to consider qualitative factors as well as economic and technical factors and long-term benefits and costs, in addition to short-term benefits and costs and to consider alternatives to proposed actions affecting the environment." A concise statement of legislative policy, with respect to public agency consideration of projects for some form of approval, is found in Section 21002, quoted below. "The Legislature finds and declares that it is the policy of the state that public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects, and that the procedures required by this division are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects. The Legislature further finds and declares that in the event specific economic, social, or other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual projects may be approved in spite of one or more significant effects thereof." 1-2 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendments -Program EIR 1.2 Purpose and Scope The Costa Mesa General Plan is a long-range planning program that guides the orderly growth and development of the Costa Mesa planning area, which is defined as all properties within the Costa Mesa corporate limits and properties within the City's sphere of influence. The General Plan communicates the City's vision of its future and establishes a policy framework to govern decision-making concerning the physical development of the community, including assurances that the community at large will be supported by an adequate range of public services and infrastructure systems. The General Plan Amendments analyzed in this Program EIR have been tailored to address revised land use policy direction for defined "focus areas," to update maps and policies to reflect current State law, and to reflect the City's current vision regarding circulation and mobility improvements. The General Plan Amendments would not authorize any specific development project, other form of land use approval, or any specific public facilities or capital facilities expenditures or improvements. As such, a Program EIR is the appropriate type of document to identify the geographic extent of sensitive resources and hazards, along with existing and planned services and infrastructure support systems that occur in the planning area. Further, the Program EIR is described in Section 15168 of the State CEQA Guidelines as the appropriate analytical framework to assess the cumulative environmental effects of the full plan in a first tier level of analysis, to identify broad concerns and sets of impacts, and to define/develop regulatory standards and programmatic procedures that reduce impacts and help achieve environmental goals and objectives. Upon proposal, Iater activities proposed pursuant to the goals and policies of the amended General Plan will be reviewed in light of this EIR and may focus on those site-specific and localized environmental issues that could not be examined in sufficient detail as part of this program -level EIR. As with all projects proposed in the City, projects contained in specific focus areas where land use changes are proposed will be subject to CEQA review, as required by State law, at such time the City receives a permit application for the project. At that time, the CEQA analysis would specifically address impacts of the project on traffic; the ability of service providers to serve the project; consistency with General Plan policies; consistency with building and engineering regulations of the City; site-specific biological, cultural resource, and visual effects; impacts on on-site and off-site drainage, among other analyses. The advantages of a Program EIR include consideration of effects and alternatives that cannot practically be reviewed at the project -level, consideration of cumulative impacts that may not be apparent on a project -by -project basis, the ability to enact citywide mitigation measures, and a subsequent reduction in paperwork. Organization of the Program EIR The Draft -Final Program EIR is divided into two volumes. Volume 1 contains the primary analysis of potential environmental impacts discussed in the following nine sections: Section 1.0 Introduction Section 2.0 Executive Summary A brief project description and summarizes project impacts and mitigation measures Section 3.0 Project Description Provides detailed description of the proposed Project Section 4.0 Environmental Impact Analysis Considers project impacts and identifies mitigation measures designed to reduce significant impacts Environmental Impact Report 1.2-1 1.2 Program EIR Section 5.0 Alternatives Provides an analysis of alternatives to the proposed project Section 6.0 Analysis of Long -Term Effects Provides an analysis of cumulative impacts, growth -inducing impacts, and significant irreversible environmental impacts Section 7.0 Effects Found not to Be Significant Identifies areas of no significant impact Section 8.0 Preparation Team Lists the preparers of this analysis Section 9.0 Organizations and Persons Consulted Contains reference information on people and organizations consulted during the preparation of the EIR Section 10.0 FEIR Response to Comments and Errata Volume 2 includes the EIR appendices, including documentation of the scoping process and Notice of Preparation (NOP). The appendices include: ■ Appendix A: Notice of Preparation ■ Appendix B: NOP Distribution List, Comment Letters, and Scoping Meeting Notes ■ Appendix C: List of General Plan Element Goals and Objectives ■ Appendix D: Air Quality and Climate Change Report ■ Appendix E: Noise Study ■ Appendix F: Traffic Impact Analysis In compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, a mitigation monitoring reporting program (MMRP) will has been prepared as a separately bound document that will be adopted in conjunction with the certification of the Final EIR._ The MMRP, rResponses to public comments and key; anirevisions to the Draft EIR are contained in Section 10.0 of this document. �nl fndinG will be identified as Volume Z , r Approach to EIR Analysis The approach to the analysis presented in this EIR is programmatic in nature given the broad scope of the General Plan Amendments. Each environmental issue is analyzed in the same manner, starting with a discussion of the existing environmental setting, including physical conditions and pertinent planning and regulatory framework. Thresholds of significance are then defined and are used to measure the proposed General Plan Amendments potential impact to the environment. Thresholds of significance are based on a broad list of questions and impact topics set forth in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. The impact analysis section examines the broad, long- term environmental effects resulting from implementation of the goals and policies contained in each of the amended General Plan elements. The presence of sensitive environmental resources, hazards in specific areas, and tthe affects of land use changes resulting from ho h��ns .,f the General Plan Amendments thFaughout the planningrea-_are considered in the determination of impact significance. If the analysis indicates that a significant impact could occur, even with the benefits of any proposed planning policies, mitigation measures are provided. In conjunction with the Final EIR, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) will behas been prepared for adoption that identifies a responsible party, a timeline for implementation, and a monitoring frequency for any 1.2-2 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment 1.2 Program EIR incorporated mitigation measures. The MMRP provides a mechanism for ensuring that potentially significant impacts resulting from long-term implementation of the General Plan Amendments are avoided or reduced to the extent feasible. For each environmental issue area examined in Section 4.0, the discussion concludes with a statement regarding the level of impact significance remaining after imposition of any required mitigation measures. Environmental Impact Report 1.2-3 1.2 Program EIR This page intentionally left blank. 1.2-4 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment Scoping and Public Review 1.3 Notice of Preparation To define the scope of the investigation of the Program EIR, the City of Costa Mesa distributed a Notice of Preparation (NOP) (Appendix A) to city, county, and state agencies; other public agencies; and interested private organizations and individuals. The NOP review period ran from November 17, 2015 through December 17, 2015. The purpose of the NOP was to identify agency and public concerns regarding potential impacts of the proposed project, and to request suggestions concerning ways to avoid significant impacts (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15082). Copies of written comments received during the 30 -day public review period for the NOP are included in Appendix B of this EIR. On November 30, 2015, the City also conducted a scoping meeting to solicit oral comments on the NOP. Comments were received from approximately eight people during the meeting. Additional scoping comments were also received fromby other jurisdictions and agencies during the 30 -day public review period. The scoping comments addressed in this Program EIR are summarized in Table 1.1 (Summary of Scoping Comments). Table 1-1 Summa of Scopina Comments in EIR where Commenting Entity Summary of Comment AddressedSection Agencies Mesa Water District Water supply; infrastructure; water conservation Public Services and Utilities and irrigation; water pressure; and facilities access Orange County Public Works Flooding and drainage issues Hydrology and Water Quality Orange County Sanitation District Upgrade sewer maps; conduct modeling Public Services South Coast Air Quality Management Air quality analysis requirements Air Quality District State of California — Department of Information to include in traffic analysis Traffic and Transportation Transportation, District 12 State of California - Department of Open space issue NA General Services State of California, Governor's Office of NA NA Planning and Research - State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit State of California Natural Resources Impacts on Fairview and Talbert Parks; Biological Resources; Agency - Department of Fish and monitoring and adaptive mgt. at FP; reference Recreation Wildlife fire management plan for HCP reserved;- form letter on what to include in EIR analysis Organizations Building Industry Association of BIA supports the General Plan Amendments NA Southern California, Orange County Chapter Costa Mesa Affordable Housing Concerned about loss of low income housing Population and Housing Coalition due to Harbor Blvd. and Newport Blvd. overlays; potential for an increase in this will increase homelessness; massive displacement of lower income motel residents; questions to answer in housing section The Kennedy Commission Feels there needs the provision for mMore Population and Housing affordable housing for low income working Environmental Impact Report1 1.3-1 1.3 Scoping and Public Review Table 1-1 Summary of Scovinq Comments in EIR where Commenting Entity Summary of Comment AddressedSection households Individuals Comments common to several GPAs do not express desires of citizens; no Aesthetics individuals (form letter comments). multi -family housing which causes gridlock; Air Quality Where common comment is used the consider lower density alternatives; no overlays; Cultural Resources summary is referred to as "common more parkland on Westside; additional parkland; Land Use and Planning comments" increase minimum development setbacks-; Population and Housing impacts on schools and medical facilities; Public Services and Utilities impacts on public safety facilities; -preserve Recreation historical artifacts in Fairview Park; Shade and Traffic and Transportation shadow analysis; lots of traffic requests also. Alternatives Cathleen Boyd Common comments As above Frank and Susan Calabretta Common comments As above Pilar Chandler Common comments As above Joseph Cook Common comments As above Bonnie Copeland Common comment As above Cynthia Corely Common comments As above Mrs. Drain Common comments As above Eleanor Egan Common comments As above Tamar Goldman 2 letters Common comments As above Frank Hanrahan Common comments As above Kim Hendricks Wants to see more open space in the City and Recreation should meet goal of 2.46 acres per 1,000 residents Wendy Leece Concerned about reduction of safety staff with Hazards and Hazardous new development; fire, police, medical; worried Materials about ability to leave in event of disaster or Public Services and Utilities emergency due to increased traffic; impacts of Traffic and Transportation the development of Banning Ranch in Newport Beach on Costa Mesa Robin Leffler Common comments As above Judy Lindsay Common comments As above Florence N. Martin Common comments As above Bill McCarty Common comments As above Cynthia McDonald Wants a cohesive plan for City; setbacks Air Quality important; incentivize and retain businesses; Cultural Resources more transit hubs in north; concerned about Land Use and Planning noise and air quality impacts; retain coastal feel Noise and breeze; traffic impacts, parks, and cultural Recreation resources- are of concern Traffic and Transportation Mary Menninger Common comments As above Elizabeth Parker Common comments As above Joanne Perler Common comments As above Alan Remington Common comments, plus worried about the City As above increasing population density in the middle of a drought Patrick Riley Common comments As above 1.3-2 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment 1.3 Scoping and Public Review Table 1-1 Summary of Scovinq Comments Corrine Stover Wants more time to study impacts of general NA Ian; no comments related to EIR analysis Ralph Taboada Common comments As above Notice of Completion Pursuant to Section 15085 of the State CEQA Guidelines, a Notice of Completion (NOC) was filed with the State Office of Planning and Research (OPR) on March 4, 2016, and the DEIR will be circulated for public and agency review for a period of 45 days. A copy of the DEIR w+#-bewas posted at the Costa Mesa Library and at City Hall. Copies of the DEIR will be sent to responsible agencies, local agencies, and concerned agencies and individuals, as requested. Public hearings will be held in conjunction with the review of the project. Response to Comments on Draft Program EIR Comments from all agencies and individuals afe-were invited regarding the information contained in the Draft Program EIR. Such comments s4eald-were encouraged to explain any perceived deficiencies in the assessment of impacts, provide the information that is purportedly lacking in the Draft Program EIR or indicate where the information may be found. All comments on the Draft Program EIR afe4e-bewere submitted to: Claire Flynn, Assistant Development Services Director City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, California 92626 Following a 45 -day period of circulation and review of the Draft Program EIR, all comments and the City's responses to the comments will-bewere incorporated into thisa Final Program EIR prior to certification of the document by the City of Costa Mesa. Availability of Program EIR Materials All materials related to the Preparation of this Program EIR are available for public review. To request an appointment to review these materials, please contact: Claire Flynn, Assistant Development Services Director City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, California 92626 Environmental Impact Report 1.3-3 1.3 Scoping and Public Review This page intentionally left blank. 1.3-4 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment Project Summary 2.1 The proposed project analyzed in this EIR is the adoption and implementation of nine amended elements of the City of Costa Mesa General Plan: Land Use, Circulation, Growth Management, Conservation, Noise, Safety, Community Design, Open Space and Recreation, and Historical and Cultural Resources. The proposed project also includes any subsequent amendments to Title 13 (Planning, Zoning, and Development) of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code (Zoning Code) adopted to implement the General Plan Amendments, as well as any amendments to existing specific plans and urban plans to implement the General Plan Amendments. A comprehensive amendment of the Housing Element was adopted by the City Council in 2013 to meet a statutory deadline for cities within the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) region; the Housing Element is not part of the current project. The proposed project is referred to as the "General Plan Amendments" or "City of Costa Mesa General Plan 2015-2035." General Plan Amendments The intent of the General Plan Amendments with respect to each of the elements is summarized below. Land Use Element The Land Use Element includes an amended Land Use Plan. Focused amendments are proposed that would provide additional policies and new development opportunities in targeted areas and along Gorri in Costa Mesa that can accommodate such development. These land use changes affect approximately represen four percent of the land area in the entire City. The strategy behind these targeted land use changes is to identify focus areas where private investment and redevelopment efforts would create new opportunities for housing and businesses, particularly in areas well served by transit and where reinvestment could enhance neighborhoods, districts, and nodes. These targeted areas are vacant or underutilized properties north of 1-405 and along Harbor Boulevard and Newport Boulevard. The proposed General Plan Amendments are also assign a new land use designation "Multi -Use Center" to provide a fut alterna+ ve r the Fairview Developmental Center site. The amended Land Use Plan includes: ■ A new land use designation (Multi -Use Center€airview) that applies to the Fairview Development Center site to allow for the future repurposing of this State-owned property to residential and open space uses ■ A change in the land use designation on a site referred to as the Los Angeles Times property from Industrial Park to Urban Center Commercial • Creation of a-threetwo. new overlay designations: Residential Incentive Overlay, and -Harbor Mixed Use Overlay, and the SoBECA Mixed -Use Overlay. ■ Amendments nnrnies affeGtin.. h_e The SoBECA Urban Plan wouldte-allow for --residential densities of up to 40 units per acre, with a cap of 450 units overall ■ Amendments to policies affecting the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan, which includes the Segerstom Home Ranch and Sakioka Lot 2 properties. These amendments to -increase the development cap applicable to the Segerstrom Home Ranch property and allow residential densities of up to 80 units per acre on the Sakioka Lot 2 site (without increasing the maximum permitted unit yield) Circulation Element The Circulation Element has been updated to incorporate a complete streets approach to managing travel modes and to reflect the creationGreate of a new Bicycle Master Plan, both in terms of system design and goals, -and policies, and recommendations. Complete streets planning aims to provide for all transportation routes in Costa Mesa to accommodate all users: pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and transit riders of all ages and abilities (Figure 3.0-13 Draft Master Plan of Streets and Highways atlon Plap and Figure 3.0-14 Conceptual Bicycle Master Plan). New goals, policies, and exhibits have been prepared to reflect the City's future direction related to walking, bicycling, and transit improvements. Environmental Impact Report 2.1-1 2.1 Project Summary Growth Management Element The Growth Management Element has been amended to reflect the requirements of the Orange County Transportation Agency's Measure M2 program; the element guides City programs and policies that allow Costa Mesa to remain eligible for future transportation funding improvements funding of the Measure M2 program. Conservation Element The Conservation Element has been amended to update policies regarding the preservation of coastal wildlife habitat areas and landforms, natural resource conservation and environmental sustainability, water conservation and water quality, and specifically to address air quality and climate change. Open Space and Recreation Element Because Costa Mesa recently initiated preparation of an updated Master Plan of Parks and Recreation, the Open Space and Recreation Element has been amended to set the framework for tt-iethat master plan, including identification of future parks and open space improvements needed to accommodate the population growth identified in the Land Use Element. New goals and policies have been added to pursue new revenue streams to fund the acquisition and maintenance of future and established parks, and as a priority, to pursue parkland acquisition in underserved neighborhoods, as identified in the element. In addition, the scope of the element has been augmented to include cultural arts goals and policies. Historical and Cultural Resources Element The Historical and Cultural Resources Element has been amended to address the potential for post -World War II historical resources to be recognized, as well to include policies that encourage compatibility between historical resource sites and new development. Safety Element The Safety Element has been amended to reflect 2015 data regarding hazards present in the City, including flooding and dam inundation, seismic hazards, aviation safety, and emergency services. Also, maps and policies have been included to address potential flooding hazards associated with sea level rise. Noise Element The Noise Element includes updated exhibits and analysis that depict the future noise environment consistent with the amended Land Use and Circulation Elements. New goals and policies have been added to protect established and new residential and industrial uses within mixed-use districts. Community Design Element The goals and policies of the Design Element have been updated to ensure consistency with changes to the Land Use Element. 2.1-2 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment Project Location 2.2 The City of Costa Mesa is located in the extensively developed west -central portion of Orange County. Costa Mesa is surrounded by the cities of Newport Beach, Huntington Beach, Fountain Valley, Santa Ana, Fountain Valley, and Irvine. Major transportation facilities that serve Costa Mesa include Interstate 405 (1-405), State Route 55 (SR -55), State Route 73 (SR -73), and John Wayne -Orange County (SNA) Airport. The area covered by the General Plan Amendments consists of t4e45.8 square miles. within the oornoroto City limits, as well as lands within tho Cit i ininrnrperot8d sphere of infli endo Environmental Impact Report 2.2-1 2.1 Project Summary This page intentionally left blank. 2.2-2 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment Environmental Settina 2.3 Orange County is characterized by mild summers and winters. The average winter low (temperature is 47"0 Fahrenheit (F) and the average summer high temperature is 773-4° F. Daytime winds are from the southwest at six to eight miles per hour (MPH) as air moves onshore from the Pacific Ocean. Rainfall in the area is infrequent and variable. Most precipitation occurs from December through March, averaging 13 94-30 inches per year. The City's municipal limits encompass 15.8 square miles.— The General Plan Planning Area consists of the incorporated City limits and two small areas comprising 209 acres within the City's unincorporated Sphere of Influence (SOI). The Planning Area total is approximately 16.2 square miles (nearly 10,368 acres). The planning aroa also iRGlYdes two small aF . . 1 209 aGFeS WithiR the Gity'S URiRGE)FIpeFated Sphere Of IRfIUeRGe (Sol). While the City is largely urbanized, natural features include the Santa Ana River, which runs along the City's western boundary, and large natural areas within Fairview Park and —Talbert Regional Park, and the adjanon+ wildlife refuge. Residential land is the predominant land use category, totaling 47% of the planning area. Industrial land uses comprise the 6o^^nd largest PeFGeR+ag 10.5% of the planning area. Combined office/commercial uses comprise 13.7% of the planning area, while open space and recreation uses comprise 14.1 %. Only about 20 acres remain vacant, and 70 acres are still in agricultural production. Major institutional and cultural land uses include the Orange County Fairgrounds, Orange Coast College, Vanguard University, and the Segerstrom Center for the Arts. Geologic deposits in Costa Mesa are composed mainly of volcanic, marine, and non -marine sedimentary rocks overlying a basement complex of granitic and metamorphic rock. The plain is immediately underlain by a thick sequence of alluvial sediments, which overlie the older sedimentary and volcanic rocks. Soils within Costa Mesa are variable, ranging from a predominance of clay with some silty sand in the northern half of the City to a predominance of silty sand with some sand and clay in the southern half. The City is contained within the Santa Ana River Hydrologic Unit. This unit covers an area of approximately 2,700 square miles, or the majority of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board jurisdictional area, which includes portions of Orange, Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. Within this hydrologic unit, the City's geography is split between the Santa Ana River Watershed (northern portion) and the Newport Bay Watershed (southern portion). Environmental Impact Report 2.3-1 2.1 Project Summary This page intentionally left blank. 2.1-2 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment Environmental Impacts 2.4 Based on the preliminary environmental analysis conducted, the City determined that the adoption and long-term implementation of the updated General Plan Amendments has the potential to result in significant, unavoidable environmental effects with regard to the following environmental issue areas: ■ Air Quality °oS+T (due to inconsistency with regional plans) ■ Greenhouse Gas Emissions (due to inconsistency with regional plans) The analysis has determined that the following significant impacts can be avoided with incorporation of mitigation: ■ Biological Resources ■ Hazards and Hazardous Materials The analysis determined that the Project would have less than significant impacts or no impacts in the following areas: ■ Aesthetics ■ Cultural Resources ■ Geology and Soils ■ Hydrology and Water Quality ■ Land Use and Planning ■ Mineral Resources ■ Noise ■ Population and Housing ■ Public Services ■ Recreation ■ Transportation and Traffic ■ Utilities and Service Systems This Program EIR examines each of these issue areas in separate sections, in addition to other required topics specified in the State CEQA Guidelines. Table 2.0-1 summarizes the environmental impacts associated with the project and lists the mitigation measures required to reduce or avoid impacts. Environmental Impact Report 2.4-1 2.4 Environmental Impacts This page left blank intentionally 2.4-2 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment 2.4 Environmental Impact Table 2.0-1 Environmental Impact Summa nificant and Unavoidable Im Air Qualit 4.3.A The General Plan Amendments have the potential to conflict with the 2012 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) because land use policies provide 4.3.B for a greater level of population and jobs growth than projected and assumed in the Southern California Association of Governments' (SCAG) 4.3.0 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, which informs the AQMP. Impacts at the program level would be significant and unavoidable. _ Greenhouse Gas Emissions 4.7.A I Over the long term, GHG emissions may exceed regional thresholds established, as projected population capacity for Costa Mesa exceeds population growth assumptions in the regional plans. Impacts at the program level are significant and unavoidable. 4.7.13 The General Plan Amendments have the potential to conflict with the 2012 SCAG RTP/SCS and California Air Resources Board's Scoping Plan— and thereby not attain GHG reductions targets— because land use policies provide for a greater level of population and lobs growth than protected and assumed in the Southern California Association of Governments' (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, which informs the AQMP. . Impacts at the program level are significant and unavoidable. Less than Significant Impacts with Mitigation Incorporated Biological Resources 4.4.A Impacts to special status species (burrowing 4.3.A-1 – A focused survey for burrowing owls shall be conducted by Less than Significant owls) and their habitat resulting from a qualified professional biologist for any new development project implementation of the General Plan proposed on a vacant site of two acres or larger, with a landscape of Amendments would be less than significant annual and perennial grasslands, desert, or and scrubland with low - with mitigation incorporated. growing vegetation or agricultural use or vegetation. The purpose of the survey is to determine if burrowing owls are foraging or nesting on or adjacent to the project site. If surveys confirm that the site is occupied habitat, mitigation measures to minimize impacts to burrowing owls, their burrows, and foraging habitat shall be identified. The results of this survey, including any mitigation recommendations, shall be incorporated into theproject-level CEQA compliance Environmental Impact Report 2.4-3 2.4 Environmental Impacts Hazards and Hazardous Materials 4.8.D Impacts to development and persons due to building siting on contaminated properties would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Table 2.0-1 Environmental Impact Su documentation. Owl surveys and approaches to mitigation shall be in accordance with the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation, issued by the California Department of Fish and Game on March 7, 2012. 4.8.D-1 - Applications for new development projects requiring City discretionary approval shall include the results of a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA), prepared in accordance with the latest ASTM protocol for such assessments. If the Phase I ESA indicates some evidence of site contamination exists that could require cleanup to avoid danger to people or damage to the environment, a Phase II level review shall be completed to fully characterize the nature and extent of such contamination, and the scope of required clean up procedures. The results of the Phase II assessment shall be considered as part of the CEQA compliance process prior to any action on the project. Less than significant No Impact and Less than Significant Impacts Aesthetics 4.1.A Impacts to scenic vistas and resources would be less than significant with implementation of draft General Plan policies in the Land Use and 4.1.13 Community Design Elements that focus on enhancements to Costa Mesa's arterial corridors. 4.1.0 Impacts to the visual character and quality of the planning area would be less than significant with implementation of draft General Plan policies in the Land Use and Community Design Element that require review of new projects for compatibility with the established, surrounding development. 4.1.D Impacts due to light and glare would be less than significant with implementation of existing zoning standards that provide for shielding of new light sources, particularly in areas adjacent to residential development. Agricultural Resources 4.2.A .-The proposed changes in the General Plan Update would not result in the conversion of Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Important, Unique Farmland to non- agricultural use. That land use change has already been occurred many years ago. As a result, the proposed Project would not significantly impact these sites that have already been designated and contemplated for future commercial development by the existing General Plan. 2.4-4 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment Environmental Impact 2.4 Table 2.0-1 Environmental Impact Summary Impact numbers• to the EIR sections where specific impact topics are addressed. The letters Level of Significance refer to the thresholds identified in Appendix G of the CEQA with Mitigation •-lines.) Mitigation Measures Incorporated 4.2.13 Implementation of the General Plan Amendments would not result in any Williamson Act Contract impacts since none exist in the City. 4.2.C, D No impact would occur to existing zoning for forest land or timberland as a result of the General Plan Amendments since no such lands exist in the City. 4.2.E DUB tO the Glassiftat& Of th868 SitOG OR the LaW Committed to Nei;agFiGUItUFaI Use eveday and the faGt that the GeReFal PIaR Update does Re 'rnpaGts less us Ghange the existing GGMFneFG!aI designations, aFe Gonsidered than signifiGant. No mitigation required. GhaRgeS to the existing eny'Fenment would not result on GOnVeFS'en of forest land to non forest use sRnGe no GUGh lands exist in the City. Due to the classification of these sites in the Land Committed to Nonagricultural Use overlay and the fact that the General Plan Update does not change the existing commercial designations, impacts are considered less than significant. No mitigation is required. Changes to the existing environment would not result in conversion of forest land to non -forest use since no such lands exist in the City. Air Qualitr 4.3.D The General Plan Amendments have the potential to result in the exposure of sensitive receptors to pollutant emissions associated with industrial uses. However, potential impacts can be addressed at the project level. Impact would be less than significant with implementation of General Plan policies and application of standard development practices specific to pollutant emissions and most specifically, those regulations of the South Coast Air Quality Management District SCAQMD . 4.3.E The General Plan Amendments have the potential to result in the exposure of sensitive receptors to odors from industrial uses. However, potential impacts can be addressed at the project level through compliance with G*apA-SCAQMD regulations. Impact would be less than significant with implementation of draft General Plan policies and application of standard development practices. Resources No impacts to Southern Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest or Southern Coastal Salt Marsh habitat would occur as a result of implementation of the Biological 4.4.13 General Plan Amendments. 4.4.0 No impact to Section 404 wetlands would occur as a result of implementation of the General Plan Amendments since no changes are proposed to areas containing wetlands. 4.4.D No impact to the Santa Ana River wildlife corridors or any wildlife nurseries would occur as a result of implementation of the General Plan Amendments since the parcels affected by the proposed project does nott4ees-Pet-include any changes to any such areas and is not located near these wetlands... 4.4.E No impact related to conflicts between the General Plan Amendments and other existing policies, regulations, or standards would occur. 4.41 No impact related to conflicts between the General Plan Amendments and existing Habitat Conservation Plans would occur. Cultural Resources Environmental Impact Report 2.4-5 2.4 Environmental Impacts Table 2.0-1 Environmental Impact Summary Impact numbers• to the EIR sections where specific impact topics are addressed. The letters Level of Significance refer to the thresholds identified in Appendix G of the CEQA with Mitigation •-lines.) Mitigation Measures Incorporated 4.5.A Impacts to historical resources would be less than significant with implementation of existing regulations and draft General Plan policies, specifically those that provide for the protection of such resources. 4.5.6 Impacts to archaeological resources would be less than significant with implementation of existing regulations and draft General Plan policies, specifically those that provide for the protection of such resources. 4.5.0 Impacts to paleontological resources would be less than significant with implementation of existing regulations and draft General Plan policies, specifically those that provide for the protection of such resources. 4.5.1) Impacts to human remains would be less than significant with implementation of existing regulations, particularly those enforced by the Orange County Coroner. 4.5.E Impacts to tribal cultural resources, as defined in Public Resources Code section 21074, would be less than significant. Letters to eleven tribes that requested to be consulted on protects proposed in the City were sent the notice of preparation (NOP) for the program EIR by City staff. No tribes responded to the NOP. Geology and Soils 4.6.A.1 Hazardous impacts to people and structures resulting from the potential rupture of a known earthquake fault would be less than significant with implementation of existing regulatory ractices and policies in the draft General Plan Safety Element. 4.6.A.2 Impacts to life and property resulting from earthquakes would be less than significant with implementation of existing regulatory standards and draft Safety Element policies that support design parameters related to ground shaking. Impacts to life and property resulting from seismically induced liquefaction or settlement would be less than significant with implementation of existing 4.6.A.3 regulatory standards and draft General Plan policies that require investigation of site conditions for liquefaction susceptibility. 4.6.A.4 Impacts to life and property within the planning area related to seismically induced landslides would be less than significant with implementation of existing regulatory standards and draft General Plan policies that require the consideration of site soil conditions in the review of projects in areas subject to landslides. 4.6.13 Impacts related to wind-blown soil erosion and loss of topsoil would be less than significant. 4.6.0 Impacts related to ground failure would be less than significant with implementation of existing regulations and draft General Plan policies. 4.6.D Impacts related to expansive soils would be less than significant with implementation of existing regulations. 4.6.E No impacts related to soils and septic sstems would occur since all of Costa Mesa is served by a public sewers stem. Hazards and Hazardous Materials 4.8.A The General Plan Amendments would result in less than significant impacts associated with the use, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials 4.8.B and wastes since existing federal, State, County, and local regulations provide sufficient protections. 4.8.0 2.4-6 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment Environmental Impact 2.4 Table 2.0-1 Environmental Impact Summary Environmental Impact Report 2.4-7 Impact numbers• to the EIR sections where specific impact topics are addressed. The letters Level of Significance refer to the thresholds identified in Appendix G of the CEQA with Mitigation •-lines.) Mitigation Measures Incorporated 4.8.E No impacts related to operation of public or private airports would occur with implementation of existing regulatory standards since the project does 4.81 not proposed any new land use policies that would impact operations at John Wayne Airport. Also, as required by State law, the proposed General Plan Amendments will be reviewed by the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission. 4.8.G The General Plan Amendments would not interfere with the implementation of the City's emergency response and evacuation procedures. 4.8.H No impacts associated with wildland fires would occur since not wildland fire hazard areas exist in Costa Mesa. Hydrology and Water Qualit Implementation of the General Plan Amendments would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, or otherwise 4.9.A 4.91 degrade water quality. 4.9.13 Impacts related to overdrafting of groundwater resources and lowering of groundwater levels would be less than significant with application of existing standards and regulations. Flooding and sedimentation impacts caused by on- or off-site flooding would be less than significant with implementation of draft General Plan 4.9.0 4.9.D policies and existing City regulatory standards, particularly with regard to implementation of the City's Master Plan of Drainage and payment of required fees for development projects. 4.9.E Impacts related to polluted urban runoff and storm drain capacity would be less than significant with implementation of existing standards and regulations. 4.8.G Impacts due to the placement of housing within 100- ear flood zones would not occur as a result of implementation of the General Plan Amendments. 4.9.H Impacts related to the diversion of floodwaters would be less than significant with implementation of existing City regulations. 4.9.1 Impacts related to inundation due to dam or levee failure would be less than significant with implementation of existing federal, City, and county regulations. 4.9.J Impacts associated with mudflows, tsunami, and seiche would be less than significant with implementation of existing City regulations. Land Use and Planning 4.10.A The General Plan Amendments would not result in a division of an established community since the project does not propose any substantial land use changes and the land use changes were designed to be compatible with existing land uses... 4.10.13 The General Plan Amendments would not conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project, as discussed in other sections of the EIR. 4.10.0 No impact related to conflicts between the General Plan Amendments and existing Habitat Conservation Plans and Natural Community Conservation Plan would occur. Mineral Resources Environmental Impact Report 2.4-7 2.4 Environmental Impacts Table 2.0-1 Environmental Impact Summary Impact numbers• to the EIR sections where specific impact topics are addressed. The letters Level of Significance refer to the thresholds identified in Appendix G of the CEQA with Mitigation •-lines.) Mitigation Measures Incorporated 4.11.A Implementation of the General Plan Amendments would result in a less than significant impact with regard to loss of known mineral resources of value to the region and the State since the City is largely built out. 4.11.13 No impact to locally important mineral resources would occur as a result of the implementation of the General Plan Amendments since the City is largely built out. Noise 4.12.A Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of City standards would be less than significant with implementation of the proposed General Plan Amendments. 4.12.13 Implementation of the General Plan Amendments would not expose persons to or generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise; impact would be less than significant impact. 4.12.0 The proposed project would allow for additional development of industrial, commercial, residential, and mixed-use development that may cause a permanent increase in ambient noise levels higher than current levels. However, the anticipated increases would not exceed levels considered significant. Impacts would be less than significant with continued implementation of the City's Municipal Code and the proposed General Plan Amendment policies. 4.12.1) The project would allow for additional development of industrial, commercial, residential and mixed-use development that may result in increased temporary or intermittent noise impacts. Those impacts are less than significant with the continued implementation of Municipal Code regulations relating to noise and the proposed General Plan Amendment policies. 4.12.E The project would not expose people residing or working within two miles of any public airport nor private airport to excessive noise levels associated 4.12.E with air traffic. Population and Housing 4.13.A Implementation of the General Plan Amendments would not induce si nificant o ulation or housing growth. Impacts would be less than significant. 4.13.13 The General Plan Amendments do not propose policies that would result in the displacement of substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Policies support development of new housing for all income categories. Impact would be less than significant. 4.13.0 The General Plan Amendments do not propose policies that would result in the displacement of substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Policies support development of housing for all income categories. Impact would be less than significant. Public Services 2.4-8 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment Environmental Impact 2.4 Table 2.0-1 Imnarfc ralatarl fn thin aYnnncinn of fires nrnfartinn fnrilifiac fn maintain nnnlirnhla caniira zfnnHnrHQ 1ninidd hn lacc than zinnifirnnf XAlith Environmental Impact Report 2.4-9 implementation of existing General Plan and Municipal Code policies and requirements, including the payment of impact fees to offset any increased demand for fire protections services. Impacts related to the expansion of police protection facilities to maintain applicable service standards would be less than significant with 4.14.6 implementation of existing General Plan and Municipal Code policies and requirements. Impacts related to the expansion of school facilities to maintain applicable service standards would be less than significant with implementation of 4.14.0 existing State regulations that require the payment of school impact fees. 4.14.D Impacts related to the expansion and construction of parks to maintain applicable service standards would be less than significant with implementation of existing General Plan and Municipal Code policies and requirements, including compliance with Quimby Act provisions and payment of park impact fees. Impacts related to the expansion and construction of libraries to maintain applicable service standards would be less than significant with 4.14.E implementation of existing Municipal Code requirements. Recreation 4.15.A Deterioration of existing parks and recreation facilities due to increased use would be less than significant with implementation of policies of the Draft Open Space and Recreation garb Element and existing City regulatory standards, including compliance with Quimby Act provisions and payment of park impact fees. Any direct impacts related to the expansion and construction of recreational facilities would be less than significant since the General Plan 4.15.6 Amendments do not specifically rovide for new park facilities. Indirect impacts are addressed by 4.15.A. and Traffic Transportation 4.16.0 Impact with respect to air traffic patterns would be less than significant since the project would not interfere with existing patterns and review by the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission is required for any projects within the influence area of John Wayne Airport (SNA). 4.16.D Impact with respect to traffic hazards would be less than significant since the General Plan Amendments do not involve any direct changes to the circulation system. All new roadway segments and improvements pursuant to the Circulation Element would be required to conform to City design standards, which have been designed in accordance with accepted traffic safety engineering ractices. Impact with respect to emergency access would be less than significant since the General Plan Amendments would not change any emergency 4.16.E response plans. 4.16.E Impact with respect to parking capacity would be less than significant since the project does not involve any changes to existing parking regulations. 4.16.G No adverse impact would result with respect to alternative transportation. In fact, the General Plan Amendments promulgate development and use of alternative transportation modes. Environmental Impact Report 2.4-9 2.4 Environmental Impacts Table 2.0-1 Environmental Impact Summary Impact numbers• to the EIR sections where specific impact topics are addressed. The letters Level of Significance refer to the thresholds identified in Appendix G of the CEQA with Mitigation •-lines.) Mitigation Measures Incorporated Utilities and Service Systems 4.17.A Impacts related to the exceedance of wastewater treatment requirements would be less than significant with implementation of existing codes, policies and regulations. 4.17.6 Impacts related to the potential future construction of water and wastewater infrastructure would be less than significant with implementation of existing City standards and regulations. 4.17.0 Impacts related to the potential future expansion of storm drain facilities would be less than significant with implementation of existing City standards and regulations, and most specifically, im lementation of the Master Plan of Drainage and required payment of fees. 4.17.1) Implementation of the General Plan Amendments would not require new or expanded water supply entitlements to be secured. 4.17.E Impacts related to insufficient wastewater treatment capacity would be less than significant with implementation of existing standards and regulations. 4.17.E Impacts associated with solid waste regulations and adequacy of disposal sites would be less than significant with implementation of existing policies 4.17.G and regulations. 2.4-10 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment 2.5 Areas of Potential Controversy Areas of potential controversy identified during the initial scoping process and during the preparation of this EIR are as outlined below. These issues are related to and have been addressed in the EIR. ■ Land Use and Planning ■ Long-term Effects ■ Open Space and Parks ■ Population and Housing ■ Transportation and Traffic ■ Utility and Public Service Systems Environmental Impact Report 2.5-1 2.1 Project Summary This page intentionally left blank. 2.1-2 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment 2.6 Alternatives to the Proposed Project CEQA requires that an EIR examine alternatives to the project that are capable of reducing or eliminating therp oiect's unavoidable significant effects. The significant and unavoidable impacts of the project are air quality and greenhouse gas emissions. For both of these areas, the proposed General Plan Amendments have the potential to conflict with the 2012 Air Quality Management Plan and with the 2012 SCAG RTP/SCS and CARB Scoping Plan (and thereby not attain GHG reduction targets) because land use policy supports a higher level of does not support the same lev" population growth and increased development intensity than what is projected in those documents. Avoidance of these impacts could be achieved by reducing population growth to be in accordance with SCAG's 2012 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. Removing the Residential Incentive Overlay along Harbor and Newport Boulevards would reduce population growth. However, because the Residential Incentive Overlay is proposed to achieve this key revitalization objective and because the Overlay has the potential to create new housing opportunities for lower-income households, not adopting the Residential Incentive Overlay was refected as an alternative.ThrnaTThe following alternatives were examined in Section 5.0 arein an effort to reduce or eliminate those unavoidable significant effects: ■ Alternative 1: No Project — Continued implementation of the existing General Plan ■ Alternative 2: Maintaining the Public/Institutional designation on the Fairview Developmental Center site ■ Alternative 3: Maintaining the Industrial Park designation on the Los Angeles Times site ■ Alternative 4: Maintaining the current development capacity on the Segerstrom Home Ranch property The analysis indicates that Alternative 1 could result in the elimination of the significant air quality and greenhouse gas impacts associated with the General Plan Amendments. However, as required by the State CEQA Guidelines, if the No Project alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, another alternative must be identified. Alternative 2 has the potential to result in marginally reduced environmental impacts relative to those associated with the proposed project. None of the four alternatives fully achieves the objectives of the proposed project. Environmental Impact Report 2.6-1 2.1 Project Summary This page intentionally left blank. 2.6-2 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment Project Description 3.0 Background Under California law (Government Code Section 65300 et seq.), every city and county is required to have a general plan. The general plan is to be comprehensive and long range in perspective. For cities, the general plan guides the physical development of the incorporated city, plus any land outside city boundaries that has a relationship to the city's planning activities. The project analyzed in this Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is the adoption and long-term implementation of focused amendments to the City of Costa Mesa General Plan and any subsequent amendments to Title 13 (Planning, Zoning, and Development) of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code (Zoning Code) adopted to implement the updated General Plan. Where used in this EIR and even if not explicitly stated, the terms "General Plan amendments" and "project" include such subsequent Zoning Code amendments. The City of Costa Mesa (City) proposes amendments to all elements of the 2000 General Plan except the 2013-2021 Housing Element, which was adopted in 2013. Those elements affected are Land Use, Circulation, Growth Management, Conservation Element, Open Space and Recreation, Noise, Safety, Community Design, and Historic and Cultural Resources. The goals, objectives, policies, and recommendations in each of the amended elements are contained in Appendix A of this Draft EIR. The General Plan, as amended, will continue to serve as the blueprint for the City by setting forth goals, policies, and programs that will guide the long-term physical development and quality of life in the community. The primary focus of the General Plan Amendments is to: 1) update the Land Use Policy Map to target revitalization efforts; 2) ensure that the Circulation Element comports with the amended land use plan, incorporates "complete streets" strategies, and addresses all current planning laws; 3) update elements to incorporate provisions that respond to State laws adopted since 2002 (the adoption date of the current General Plan, and 4) update other elements to reflect updated baseline conditions and to refine policies to reflect current City practices and programs. The City has established 2035 as the horizon year for the amended General Plan, meaning that 2035 represents the year by which the City would expect that the General Plan's policies and programs would be realized and a new comprehensive review of the plan may be warranted. This EIR has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, § 15000 et seq.). This EIR is a Program EIR prepared in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15168. Section 15168 allows for the preparation of a Program EIR for a series of actions that can be characterized as a single project. Project Location The City of Costa Mesa is located in the extensively developed west -central portion of Orange County. Costa Mesa is surrounded by the cities of Newport Beach, Huntington Beach, Santa Ana, Fountain Valley, and Irvine (Figure 3.0-1 Regional Map). Major transportation facilities serving the City include Interstate 405 (1-405), State Route 55 (SR -55), State Route 73 (SR -73), and John Wayne -Orange County (SNA) Airport. The 15.87--square-mile area covered by the General Plan consists of the corporate limits of the City, as well as lands within the City's unincorporated sphere of influence (Figure 3.0-2 Planning Area). The term "sphere of influence" (S01) applies to the area designated by the Orange County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) as the probable, future physical boundary or service area of the City. Land use regulatory authority in the S01 area is held by Orange County. However, certain portions of the S01 receive one or more services administered by the City. Overall, planning decisions made for the City are assumed to have a bearing on growth and development in these unincorporated adjacent areas; hence the term "sphere of influence." Environmental Impact Report 3.0-1 3.0 Project Description Whittier \ \Loi AngelesCounty \ Chino Hills La Habra / r La Mirada Orange County Brea Norwalk l rQ/J L Fullerton Buen Anaheim Park , \ Anaheim ng \ I Beach Lo\� �! Cypress Orange ( J Garden- \ Grove J \ Seal Beach I ! •� \\ Santa Ana Tustin Fountain \ Valley / \ 1 Huntington �, \ r Irvine �;� Lake \ L� {I Forest Beach I - Mission \ Vielo �1_ r- Laguna Newport Beach \ \ Hills Pacific Ocean Laguna Beach \ Laguna \ Niguel = � � Miles 11 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 5 Figure 3.0-1 Regional Map 3.0-2 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment Project Description 3.0 �1 E ,_ . e MacArthur Blvd � , 55_ J•' �Y �� , iL p � � �I 0 WO _VA — a ,a 1 Event Center Mill Ell ME _ �Jk��lIEEE� lip,='��!,�.� City Boundaries Costa Mesa City Boundary Costa Mesa Sphere of Influence Source: City of Costa Mesa, 2015. Feet 0 1,000 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 Figure 3.0-2 Planning Area Environmental Impact Report 3.0-3 3.0 Project Description Existing General Plan The current City of Costa Mesa General Plan was adopted in 2002. The following eleven chapters comprise the General Plan: 1. Introduction 2. Land Use Element 3. Circulation Element 4. Growth Management Element 5. Housing Element 6. Conservation Element 7. Noise Element 8. Safety Element 9. Community Design Element 10. Open Space and Recreation Element 11. Historic and Cultural Resources Element The Housing Element was updated in 2013 to meet a statutory deadline for cities within the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) region; the Housing Element is not part of the current project. Costa Mesa General Plan Update Every city and county in California must prepare a comprehensive, long-term general plan to guide future development in that jurisdiction. California state law requires each city and county to adopt a general plan "for the physical development of the county or city, and any land outside its boundaries which bears relation to its planning" (California Government Code, §65300). A general plan expresses the community's development goals and embodies public policies relative to the distribution of future land uses, both public and private. The proposed Costa Mesa General Plan Amendments, as described above, have been targeted to address specific land use changes, to reflect current general plan laws, to update baseline conditions to 2015, and in part, to respond to community input received during the "Great Reach" events conducted during 2012-2015, including the work of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Mobility Committee. The proposed amended Land Use Element establishes an overall development capacity for the City and serves as a policy guide for determining the appropriate physical development and character of the approximately 15.87 -square miles that make up the City's jurisdiction proper and the additional area located within the City's sphere of influence. The development capacity of the proposed Land Use Plan is estimated at 51,894 dwelling units to house approximately 131,690 residents, and to support 11.0 million square feet of office space, 13.2 million square feet of commercial space, and 13.0 million square feet of industrial space (Table 3.0-1 Existing Developed and Proposed Build -Out Summary and Figure 3.0-3 Draft Land Use Plan). As indicated in Table 3.0-1, most of the increase in dwelling units would be in the multi -family category. No additional square footage is anticipated in the industrial land use category. All of the proposed goals, policies, and objectives included in the amended General Plan are compiled in Appendix A of this EIR. 3.0-4 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment Project Description 3.0 Table 3.0-1 The Zoning Code, Specific Plans, and Urban Plans serve as the primary tools to implement General Plan land use policies. Zoning districts that correspond to General Plan land use designations establish use regulations, development standards, and design criteria for all types of development in Costa Mesa. Following adoption of the amended General Plan, the City will undertake focused amendments to the Zoning Code, Specific Plans, and Urban Plans to achieve consistency between these documents and the General Plan and thereby allow for consistent implementation of the General Plan. This, subseqU8Rt and yet -uRdefiRedameRdrneRts +�e Rg Godo eneGift RaRS, and UrbaR Plans te implement the GeReral RaR ArneRdrneRts deSGribed below are GORsidered as part of the ff t - General Plan Amendments The proposed General Plan Amendments are focused on increasing development capacity at targeted sites, using a "complete streets" approach to ensure the circulation network functions to accommodate any new trips, and incorporating new laws into the General Plan. Also, the City has reorganized the elements (except the Housing Element) to streamline them but not to affect policy direction. The following paragraphs describe the proposed amendments. Land Use Element The Land Use Element includes an amended Land Use Plan and new or updated land use goals and policies. The Amendments will provide new development opportunities in targeted areas and along corridors that can accommodate such development. These land use changes will apply to four percent of the land area in the entire City. The strategy behind these targeted land use changes is to identify focus areas in the City that will benefit from allowing property owners to maximize development potential on vacant or underutilized properties north of 1-405, within the SoBECA Urban Plan area, and along Harbor Boulevard and Newport Boulevard. The amended Land Use Plan (see Figure 3.0-3 Proposed Land Use Plan) includes: ■ A new land use designation (Multi -Use Center) that applies to the Fairview Development Center ■ Two new land use overlays (Residential Incentive Overlay Zone and Harbor Mixed -Use Overlay Zone) ■ Site-specific FAR of 0.64 for the Segerstrom Home Ranch site ■ Site-specific density of 80 dwelling units per acre for Sakioka Lot 2 ■ Amended General Plan designation of Commercial Center and site specific FAR of 0.54 to 0.64 for the Los Angeles Times site The locations of the targeted Land Use Plan amendments are indicated on Figure 3.0-4 Focus Area Overview Map. For each focus area, a description of the intent of the land use district is provided below. Graphic depictions show the Environmental Impact Report 3.0-5 Existing Developed and Proposed 2035 Build -Out Summary DevelopmentNonresidential Dwelling Units (in iii Population Employment Single- Multi- Office Commercial Industrial Family Family Existing Land 14,210 28,413 7,224 11,403 13,08778 10940,756524 87,300278 Use Proposed Land 14,791 37,103 11,004 13,267 13,08778 131,690 104,425 Use Sub Total +581 +8,690 +3,7802;8x-8 +1,864 0 Chane +9,271 +5,64435 +21,166 +17,147 Percent Chane +2248% +18% +19% +20% The Zoning Code, Specific Plans, and Urban Plans serve as the primary tools to implement General Plan land use policies. Zoning districts that correspond to General Plan land use designations establish use regulations, development standards, and design criteria for all types of development in Costa Mesa. Following adoption of the amended General Plan, the City will undertake focused amendments to the Zoning Code, Specific Plans, and Urban Plans to achieve consistency between these documents and the General Plan and thereby allow for consistent implementation of the General Plan. This, subseqU8Rt and yet -uRdefiRedameRdrneRts +�e Rg Godo eneGift RaRS, and UrbaR Plans te implement the GeReral RaR ArneRdrneRts deSGribed below are GORsidered as part of the ff t - General Plan Amendments The proposed General Plan Amendments are focused on increasing development capacity at targeted sites, using a "complete streets" approach to ensure the circulation network functions to accommodate any new trips, and incorporating new laws into the General Plan. Also, the City has reorganized the elements (except the Housing Element) to streamline them but not to affect policy direction. The following paragraphs describe the proposed amendments. Land Use Element The Land Use Element includes an amended Land Use Plan and new or updated land use goals and policies. The Amendments will provide new development opportunities in targeted areas and along corridors that can accommodate such development. These land use changes will apply to four percent of the land area in the entire City. The strategy behind these targeted land use changes is to identify focus areas in the City that will benefit from allowing property owners to maximize development potential on vacant or underutilized properties north of 1-405, within the SoBECA Urban Plan area, and along Harbor Boulevard and Newport Boulevard. The amended Land Use Plan (see Figure 3.0-3 Proposed Land Use Plan) includes: ■ A new land use designation (Multi -Use Center) that applies to the Fairview Development Center ■ Two new land use overlays (Residential Incentive Overlay Zone and Harbor Mixed -Use Overlay Zone) ■ Site-specific FAR of 0.64 for the Segerstrom Home Ranch site ■ Site-specific density of 80 dwelling units per acre for Sakioka Lot 2 ■ Amended General Plan designation of Commercial Center and site specific FAR of 0.54 to 0.64 for the Los Angeles Times site The locations of the targeted Land Use Plan amendments are indicated on Figure 3.0-4 Focus Area Overview Map. For each focus area, a description of the intent of the land use district is provided below. Graphic depictions show the Environmental Impact Report 3.0-5 3.0 Project Description existing land uses, existing General Plan designations, and proposed new General Plan designations, along with likely build -out information and trip generation for each mapped condition. Multi -Use Center (Fairview Development Center) The Fairview Development Center is a State -operated facility for persons with developmental and intellectual disabilities. Currently, the approximately 102 -acre site supports the Fairview Development Center. As of December, 2015, 252 individuals were housed at the Center. The State's longer -range plans to restructure or close the facility will provide an opportunity for redevelopment and reuse of the site. The City proposed to establish the unique Fairview Multi -Use Center land use designation to provide the framework for future site repurposing (Figure 3.0-5 Multi -Use Center airview Focus Area). The Multi -Use Center airv+ew Multi Uco renter FaiN ew land use designation allows up to 500 residences (300 at 25 units/acre and 200 at 15 units/acre), parks and open spaces on 25% of the site, and institutional uses on 50%. The maximum height limit is four stories. Residential Incentive Overla The Residential Incentive Overlay is proposed to create opportunities for residential development at strategic locations along Harbor Boulevard and Newport Boulevard (Figure 3.0-6 Residential Incentive Overlay: Harbor Boulevard ResmdeRtial 6Reep+tv8 Overlaand Exhibit 3.0-7 Residential Incentive Overlay: Newport Boulevard Residential inGen+ive Overpay Focus Area). This designation would allow for new high-density residential uses up to 40 units/acre at strategic nodes^^-�� Buildings can be up to four stories in height, provided privacy concerns of established neighborhoods are adequately addressed through the setbacks of upper stories or other design approaches. With regard to Newport Boulevard, the Newport Boulevard Specific Plan currently allows residential development but only up to 17.3 units/acre. The Residential Overlay would increase the allowable density up to 40 units/acre on targeted sites. As of 2015, approximately 237 residential units existed within the affected overlay area. The proposed amended General Plan policy would accommodate up to 1,210 units if all affected properties transitioned. Accordingly, commercial development would be reduced from approximately 582,200 square feet to approximately 291,100 square feet to accommodate the increased residential uses... Along Harbor Boulevard, application of the Residential Incentive Overlay would increase residential capacity to approximately 1,063 units on affected properties; today, these properties support approximately 84 units. Accordingly, commercial development would be reduced from approximately 356,800 square feet to approximately 178,400 square feet to accommodate the increased residential uses. Harbor Mixed -Use Overlav The Harbor Mixed -Use Overlay Zone is intended to promote lot consolidation within an aging commercial corridor and to provide a synergy between the lower reach of Harbor Boulevard and 19th Street, focusing on the Triangle as Costa Mesa's downtown (Figure 3.0-8 Harbor Mixed -Use Overlay Fns Area). Current land use policy designates the affected sites as General Commercial. The overlay complements the 19th Street West Urban Plan in that it would provide housing and commercial development opportunities between Wilson Street and 19th Street at a maximum density of 20 dwelling units per acre. New commercial development would have a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 1.00, and mixed-use project would have a maximum FAR of 1.25. Application of the overlay would increase residential capacity to approximately 491 units; the current unit count is approximately 13 units. Commercial development capacity would be approximately 321,000 square feet, or less than the approximately 337,300 square feet existing today. 3.0-6 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment 65 aty of Fountain Valley OC Fair & Event Canter City of Newport Beach Cny or Santa Ma PaciflcOcean � �� Newport � Bay ®® IT "am General Pian Land Uses Low Density Residential (8 dulac) Medium Density Residential (12 dulac) - High Density Residential (20 dulac) Commercial -Residential (17.4 dulac) Neighborhood Commercial - General Commercial - Commercial Center - Regional Commercial Upper Newport Bay Feet fl 1,000 2,0O0 4,000 6,000 8,000 Source: Cky of Costa Mesa, 2016. Date: March 2016 (1) Segerstrom Horne Ranch (2) Sakioka Site (Lot 2) Project Description 3.0 (2) �• �oa D ► o DO Ojohn yyayna 1 Airpad aty d Wine Boundaries -- City Boundary ---------- Sphere of Influence Figure 3.0-3 Draft Land Use Plan Environmental Impact Report 3.0-7 Land Use Overlays - Multi -Use Center (15 to 25 du/ac) _�Residential Incentive Oveday (40 dulac) Urban Center Commercial iii==_; Harbor Mixed -Use Overlay (20 dulac; 125 FAR) Cultural Arts Center i___ _=�1 SoBECAMixed-Use Overlay (40 dulac)* Light Industrial " Not to exceed 450 units Industrial park Urban Plans and Specific Plan - Golf Course TTTj�T� 19 West Urban Plan Fairgounds_ rr�rr l Mesa West Bluffs Urban Plan Lc._tw� Public/Institutional Mesa West Residential j_____ ,I North Costa Mesa Specific Plan Feet fl 1,000 2,0O0 4,000 6,000 8,000 Source: Cky of Costa Mesa, 2016. Date: March 2016 (1) Segerstrom Horne Ranch (2) Sakioka Site (Lot 2) Project Description 3.0 (2) �• �oa D ► o DO Ojohn yyayna 1 Airpad aty d Wine Boundaries -- City Boundary ---------- Sphere of Influence Figure 3.0-3 Draft Land Use Plan Environmental Impact Report 3.0-7 Project Description 3.0 Environmental Impact Report 3.0-8 Project Description 3.0 rep ON V Fairview Park OC Fair & Event Center IL City of Newport Beach \ 7 City of Newport Beach r� 15th St. Pacific Ocean Upper Newport Bay Focus Areas Source: City of Costa Mesa, 2015. Multi -Use Center [, Residential Incentive Overlay Feet Los Angles Times Site L ____� SoBECA Mixed -Use Overlay „ 0 1,000 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 Sakioka Lot 2 Site Harbor Mixed -Use Overlay Segerstrom Home Ranch Site Figure 3.0-4 Focus Area Overview Map Environmental Impact Report 3.0-9 , Blvd. \ 405 ■ •�■•MacArthur J'r■�San Cit( of a Ana �C.IIII • ��I : ■.■� � �� : WWI �W`�-. rep ON V Fairview Park OC Fair & Event Center IL City of Newport Beach \ 7 City of Newport Beach r� 15th St. Pacific Ocean Upper Newport Bay Focus Areas Source: City of Costa Mesa, 2015. Multi -Use Center [, Residential Incentive Overlay Feet Los Angles Times Site L ____� SoBECA Mixed -Use Overlay „ 0 1,000 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 Sakioka Lot 2 Site Harbor Mixed -Use Overlay Segerstrom Home Ranch Site Figure 3.0-4 Focus Area Overview Map Environmental Impact Report 3.0-9 3.0 Project Description Aerlal Key Map General Plan: Land Use Designation General Plan Designations Low Density Residential (S dulac) Medium Density Residential (12 dulac) High Density Residential (20 dulac) General Commercial Neighborhood Commercial Multi -Use Center Golf Course Baseline (2015) Beds...............300 Total Area....... 102.6 Acres Land Use Plan Land Use Designation .............Multi -Use Center Total Residential Units. --.--.. r500 Units at 25 dulac........300 (12.0 acres) Units at 15 dulac ........ 200 (13.3 acres) Open Space Acres... ___25.13 acres (25%) Public/Institutional Acres .......... 51.6 acres (50%) Figure 3.0-5 Multi -Use Center Focus Area 3.0-10 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment r� � �- 1/1/1111 - • { 1�11nY 4 F 1 ✓' � IOC �� �� IL iuilii' �,. iimii, "' 1 11EInE —0 a�+ 111EE1E a Adam A 5� _ *• _ 1 ` ' Q of : 0 . force r— =i lii 1 ----1 71 ` „'^,dc npnunn Millie to i Me nnn:p� i Y.L -TM wz� 111111 �p plln.:p.. 1nYn'C►11 iIII�Iflmuu i u01091 ,la�,�no� s -- � - • � �i�m�mr 3, SI 1�11�1 • .. ��: nnn' '. � � .r Min 4 :a Aerial Key Map Project Description 3.0 General Plan: Overlay General Plan Designations Low Density Residential (8 dulac) Medium Density Residential (12 dulac) � High Density Residential (20 dulac) � General Commercial Harbor Mixed -Use Overlay General Plan land use overlay that allows a maximum residential density of 20 dwelling units per acre. Mixed-use projects that do not include residential components can be developed at a 1.00 FAR. Mixed-use projects with both residential and commerical components can be developed at 1.25 FAR. Baseline (2015) Residential Units ............ .............13 Commercial Square Feet .... ................. 337,300 Total Area............................................24.6 acres Land Use Plan Residential Units.................................491 Commercial Square Feet .....................321,000 Density................................................20 DUTAC FAR _ _.......... ........... ....................... ..1.00 to 1.25 FAR Figure 3.0-8 Harbor Mixed -Use Overlay Environmental Impact Report 3.0-13 3.0 Project Description Los Angeles Times Site The Los Angeles Times Site is a north of 1-405 and occupied by the former Los Angeles Times publishing plant and an adjacent property under the same ownership (Tribune Publishing) (Figure 3.0-9 Los Angeles Times Focus Areasite). The site is designated Business Park; the new designation of Commercial Center designation would expand the allowable use to allow retail at a maximum FAR of 0.54 and office development at 0.64 FAR maximum. The maximum allowable building height is five stories/75 feet. Currently the site supports approximately 374,000 square feet of industrial development. The proposed General Plan Amendments would allow &t between 553.000 and 655.000 sauare feet of office and retail use. Maximum trip budaet is 1.015 AM and 976 PM. SoBECA Overlay and Urban Plan The proposed General Plan amendment for the SoBECA area (Westside and South Bristol Entertainment and Cultural Arts area) would result in revisions to the established SoBECA Urban Plan, which covers an area bounded by Baker Street, Bristol Street, and State Route 73 (Corona Del Mar Freeway) (Figure 3.0-10 SoBECA Focus Area). The SoBECA Urban Plan would continue to allow a mix of live/work, retail/service commercial businesses, light industrial uses, creative studios, retail campuses, and entertainment and restaurant uses that attract local residents and visitors. The maximum residential yield within the SoBECA Urban Plan would be capped at 450 units, with a maximum project density of 40 units/acre. The new maximum FAR would be 1.25, with a maximum height of four stories or 60 feet. Permitted development approaches would be mixed-use development that combines residential and commercial uses, as well as stand-alone uses. This designation would emphasize commercial uses and would aim to expand the established innovative, eclectic, and unique uses that demonstrate the importance of homegrown and incubator -type businesses to the local economy. The integration of innovative public spaces and "hangout" areas for special events would be highly encouraged. Existing development consists of approximately 491,000 square feet of industrial and commercial uses. With the proposed General Plan Amendments, buildout would consist of 450 residential units and 420,359 square feet of industrial and commercial uses. Segerstrom Home Ranch The amended Land Use Plan would revise the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan development standards for the 43.57 - acre Segerstrom Home Ranch site, which is located south of Coast Drive and north of 1-405 (Figure 3.0-11 Segerstrom Home Ranch Focus Area). The North Costa Mesa Specific Plan allows office and office -related uses. With the amendment, the Home Ranch site would have its maximum FAR increase from 0.40 to 0.64. The maximum building height varies from two stories to five stories. Also, the existing development cap of 1.2 million square feet would continue to apply. Although the site is currently in agricultural production and supports historical structuresLit is designated as "lands committed to nonagricultural use" by the California Department of Conservation. Maximum trip budget for this subarea of Segerstrom Home Ranch is 1,860 AM and 1,788 PM. 3.0-14 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment Aerial Key Map Project Description 3.0 General Plan General Plan Designations s Industrial Park � General Commercial � Commercial Center Baseline (2015) Land Use ..................Manufacturing, Private Open Space Square Feet ............... 374,000 sq. it. Total Area..................23.5 acres Land Use Recommendation Land Use ----- ............... Office or Retail FAR.............................0.64 FAR for Office FAR ... . .......................0.54 FAR for Retail Square Feet 553,000 to 655,000 Figure 3.0-9 Los Angeles Times Focus Area Environmental Impact Report 3.0-15 3.0 Project Description Aerial Key Map General Plan: Overlay General Plan Designations Low Density Residential (8 du/ac) Medium Density Residential (12 du/ac) High Density Residential (20 dulac) General Commercial Light Industrial Public/Institutional SoBECA Overlay General Plan land use overlay that allows a maximum of 450 units. Individual residential projects cannot exceed 40 dwelling units per acre. Baseline (2015) Units.. .. . ......... _ 0 Square Feet..... 491,000 Acres...............39.2 Acres Land Use Plan Units.. r . r.... r 450 Maximum Square Feet.. ... .......420,359 FAR.._ _____ _.__-1.00 to 125 FAR Density.....................40 DUTAC' " Not to exceed 450 units for area Figure 3.0-10 SoBECA Mixed -Use Overlay Focus Area 3.0-16 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment Aerial General Plan Key M� Project Description 3.0 General Plan Designations Low Density Residential (8 dulac) Medium Density Residential (12 du/ac) High Density Residential (20 dulac) General Commercial Commercial Center Urban Center Commercial Industrial Park Publicllnstitutional Baseline (2015) Square Feet...............0 Total Area ............... 43.6 acres Land Use Plan Office Square feet...............1,200,000 FAR.....................................0.64 FAR* Building intensity shall not exceed maximum allowable development set forth by the trip budget in the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan. Figure 3.0-11 Segerstrom Home Ranch Focus Area Environmental Impact Report 3.0-17 3.0 Project Description Sakioka Lot 2 The Sakioka Lot 2 site also lies within the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan. The amended Land Use Plan would revise the standards in the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan for the 33 -acre Sakioka site (Lot 2) sub -area, which is located south of Sunflower Avenue, west of Main Street, and north of 1-405 (Figure 3.0-12 Sakioka Focus Area). The standards would allow residential projects to be constructed at a maximum density of 80 units/acre, but the established overall maximum residential yield of 660 units would remain the same. The maximum building height is twelve stories. All development would be required to comply with the vehicle trip budgets set forth in the specific plan. Although the site is currently in agricultural production, it is designated as "lands committed to nonagricultural use" by the California Dept. of Conservation. Circulation Element The Circulation Element has been updated to incorporate a complete streets approach to managing travel modes and to reflect comprehensive changes to the Bicycle Master Plan, both in terms of system design1-apd goals, and policies, and recommendations. Complete streets planning aims to provide for all transportation routes in Costa Mesa to accommodate all users: pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and transit riders of all ages and abilities (Figure 3.0-13 Draft Circulation Plan). New goals, policies, recommendations and exhibits have been prepared to reflect the City's future direction related to walking, bicycling, and transit improvements. Figure 3.0-14 Conceptual Bicycle Master Plan shows the proposed new Bicycle Master Plan. Growth Management Element The Circulation and Land Use Elements provide most of the foundation for the Growth Management Element. The major goal of the Growth Management Element is to ensure that the planning, management, and implementation of traffic improvements and infrastructure meet the current and projected needs of the City. Conservation Element The Conservation Element has been amended to update policies regarding the preservation of coastal wildlife habitat areas and landforms, natural resource conservation and environmental sustainability, water conservation and water quality, and air quality and climate change. Open Space and Recreation Element Because Costa Mesa recently initiated a program to prepare a new Master Plan of Parks and Recreation, the Open Space and Recreation Element has been amended to set the framework for the master plan, including identification of future park and open space improvements needed to accommodate the population growth identified in the Land Use Element. New goals and policies have been added to establish new revenue streams to fund the acquisition and maintenance of future and established parks. In addition, the scope of the element has been changed to include cultural arts goals and policies. Historic and Cultural Resources Element The Historic and Cultural Resources Element has been amended to include policies that encourage preservation of the existing resources and support compatibility between historical resource sites and new development. 3.0-18 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment Aerial 1W General Plan Project Description 3.0 Key Map General Plan Designations !_ High Density Residential (20 dulac) Urban Center Commercial Baseline (2015) Square Feet...............0.0 Total Area. ............ .....33 acres Land Use Plan Residential Units.... ........... -660 Density................................80 DUTAC FAR. .................................. 1,00 FAR* Maximum Building height 12 stories Building intensity shall not exceed maximum allowable development set forth by the trip budget in the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan. Figure 3.0-12 Sakioka Lot 2 Focus Area Environmental Impact Report 3.0-19 limmommllowl. a 0.25 0.5 1 L5 Miles N Project Description 3.0 Legend City of Costa Mesa Existing Facilities Class l Class II Class III Proposed Facilities ••••• Class ••••• Class II ••••• Class III )Route) • • • • • Class III (Blvd.) ••••• Class IV Figure 3.0-14 Conceptual Bicycle Master Plan Environmental Impact Report 3.0-21 3.0 Project Description Safety Element The Safety Element has been amended to reflect 2015 baseline data regarding the hazards present in the City, including flooding and dam inundation, seismic hazards, aviation safety, and emergency services. Also, maps and policies have been included to address potential flooding hazards associated with sea level rise. Noise Element The Noise Element includes updated exhibits and analysis that depict the future noise environment consistent with the amended Land Use and Circulation Elements. New goals and policies have been added to protect established and new residential and industrial uses within mixed-use districts. Community Design Element The goals and policies of the Design Element have been updated to ensure consistency with changes in the Land Use Element and to include additional illustrative graphics. No substantial amendments are proposed. All nodes, paths, landmarks, and districts were updated. Intended Use of this EIR The policy framework set forth in the proposed General Plan Amendments would not result in the immediate construction of any new development. All new development within the City will continue to be subject to the City's development review and approval processes. Elected and appointed officials and City staff will review subsequent project applications for consistency with the General Plan and Zoning Code, and will prepare appropriate environmental documentation to comply with CEQA and other applicable environmental requirements. Pursuant to Section 15168 of the State CEQA Guidelines, this EIR is a Program EIR. The goals, policies, land use designations, implementation programs, and other substantive components of the General Plan and implementing sections of the Zoning Code comprise the "program" evaluated in this Program EIR. Subsequent activities undertaken by the City and project proponents to implement the General Plan will be examined in light of this Program EIR to determine the appropriate level of environmental review required under CEQA. Such subsequent implementation activities may include the following: ■ Updating the Zoning Code ■ Rezoning of properties to achieve consistency with the General Plan ■ Updating and approval of Specific Plans, Urban Plans, and other development plans and planning documents ■ Approval of tentative maps, variances, conditional use permits, and other land use permits and entitlements ■ Approval of development agreements ■ Approval of facility and service master plans and financing plans ■ Approval and funding of public improvement projects ■ Approval of resource management plans ■ Issuance of municipal bonds ■ Issuance of permits and other approvals necessary for implementation of the General Plan ■ Acquisition of property ■ Issuance of permits and other approvals necessary for public and private development projects ■ Future amendments to the City's Housing Element and other General Plan Elements Following certification of this Program EIR and adoption of the General Plan amendments by the lead agency (City of Costa Mesa), other agencies may use this Program EIR in the approval of subsequent implementation activities. 3.0-22 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment Project Description 3.0 These agencies may include but are not limited to those listed below. No other permits will be required for the General Plan Amendments to move forward. However, the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission will be required to review the proposed General Plan Amendments for consistency with the provisions of the Orange County -John Wayne Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Local Agencies ■ Orange County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) ■ Orange County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) ■ County of Orange ■ Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) State and Regional Agencies ■ California Department of Fish and Wildlife ■ California Department of Conservation ■ California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) ■ California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) ■ Regional Water Quality Control Board (Santa Ana Region — Region 8) ■ Southern California Association of Governments ■ South Coast Air Quality Management District Federal Agencies ■ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services ■ U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Proposed Goals and Objectives All goals, objectives, policies, and recommendations included in the proposed amended General Plan Elements are listed in Appendix A. The overarching objectives for the proposed General Plan Amendments are as follows: 1) Replace the current General Plan Elements with updated elements that reflect the goals and aspirations of the community through 2035. 2) Accommodate increased development capacity at targeted sites to expand housing development opportunities for all income ranges, including lower-income households; allow for compact, walkable mixed- use environments; and increase capacity for jobs growth in areas where infrastructure, and roadway infrastructure in particular, can sufficiently support such growth. 3) Ensure the General Plan, as amended, achieves compliance with all applicable State laws and regulations. 4) Ensure that the development, use, and maintenance of public and private lands will always: a. respect Costa Mesa's heritage and historic resources, b. protect Costa Mesa's traditional suburban development pattern and residential neighborhoods while accommodating new, more urban approaches to development, c. provide opportunities for diverse businesses that generate revenue and employment, and d. promote high-quality design. Environmental Impact Report 3.0-23 3.0 Project Description 5) Accommodate circulation and mobility options beyond the automobile. In all infrastructure and development planning decisions, the City looks to: a. provide for the integration of automobiles, transit, bicycles, and pedestrians within the established street network using the Complete Street system, b. provide greater connectivity and reduce congestion on the street network, and c. promote efficient and high-quality transit use, including bus routes serving Costa Mesa. d. Focus new development on major arterials, served by a variety of transportation modes. 3.0-24 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment Alternatives Analysis of Long Term Effects 6 Effects Found Not to be Significant 7 Preparation Team Organizations and Persons Consulted 4 Environmental Impact Analysis Aesthetics 4.1 This section discusses potential impacts to scenic vistas and visual resources in the planning area, and the potential for adverse changes in the visual character and quality to occur as a result of implementing the proposed land use changes and urban design policies. Potential impacts associated with light and glare are also addressed. During the scoping meeting held on November 30, 2015, attendees raised concerns regarding the potential for new development in certain districts and neighborhoods to conflict with the existing building character. In particular, concerns were raised about the potential for taller, higher -density development to be built in areas that historically have had only one- and two-story buildings. Additionally, several people stated that impacts related to shade and shadowing need to be addressed in the EIR. These concerns are addressed below under Impact 4.1.C. Existing Conditions The planning area is almost completely urbanized. Costa Mesa sits atop a plateau approximately one mile from the Pacific Ocean. The Pacific Ocean can be seen along the City's western boundary, where the coastline creates a distinctive visual background. The eastern edge of the City affords some views of Upper Newport Bay. Views to the north and east include the San Gabriel Mountains (distant) and Santa Ana Mountains (nearby), respectively. Natural features in the City include the channelized Santa Ana River, which runs along the City's entire western border, and open space lands in Fairview Park and Talbert Regional Park. The Santa Ana River has a sandy bottom and irregular pockets of vegetation. The urban environment consists primarily of residential neighborhoods, with several commercial districts and concentrations light industrial businesses. The northeastern portion of the planning area is bisected by the junction of three major freeways: Interstate 405 (1-405), State Route 55 (SR -55), and State Route 73 (SR -73). The intersection of these three freeways creates the Downtewn Fffiangle Square DiS+rin+ a triangular area that encompasses mostly commercial and light industrial uses, with some residential. To the north of this triangular area is the Cultural Arts Center (home of the QFange County Performing Arts ren+or Segerstrom Center of the Arts) and the South Coast Metro District which is anchored by South Coast Plaza. Industrial development is focused in the North industr'al/Busuness Park Di6triGt, the Southwest industrual/Bu6uness Park , Harbor Gateway, Westside, and Airport Industrial/Business Park District. Open space areas include the river -adjacent parks described above, city parks distributed throughout the community, and three golf courses. In the center of the City is the Fairgrounds/Orange Coast College Distrk;t wh'Gk GORstaffi% there is a collection of Public and Institutional uses including the civic center complex, Vanguard University (a private institution), the Orange County Fairgrounds, and Orange Coast College. Scenic Vistas Scenic vistas generally are defined as specific locations where natural landscapes form views of unique flora, geologic, or other natural features that can be viewed free from urban intrusions. Typical scenic vistas include views of mountains and hills; large, uninterrupted open spaces; and water features. Scenic vistas generally play a large role in the way a community defines itself and also affects development patterns for projects designed to take advantage of scenic viewsheds. The Pacific Ocean, Santa Ana River, and Santa Ana Mountains form a scenic backdrop at specific locations within the planning area. Scenic vistas generally require large expanses of undeveloped land in close enough proximity so that a viewer can see the backdrop uninterrupted. Such locations include Fairview Park, Talbert Regional Park, adjaGon+ wildlife refuge and atl-all the golf courses, armparks, and ballfields in the City. Environmental Impact Report 4.1-1 4.1 Aesthetics Scenic Resources Scenic resources are occurrences of aesthetically pleasing natural or human -made forms. Typical examples of natural scenic resources include rock outcroppings, trees, natural land, water bodies, and prominent ridgelines. Scenic resources can also be architecturally distinctive structures or historic buildings. The Santa Ana River and its natural areas constitute a scenic resource, as do the Santa Ana Mountains and Upper Newport Bay. Scenic Highways No officially designated Scenic Highways or highways that are considered eligible for Scenic Highway status are present in the planning area. Highway 1, which runs parallel to the Pacific Ocean just southwest of the planning area but generally does not afford views toward Costa Mesa, is an eligible State Scenic Highway which has not been designated (Caltrans 2015). Visual Character A community's visual character can be defined by the historical development pattern and architectural precedence that have occurred over its history, coupled with the community theming and design elements that have been implemented. Most cities' visual character is divided into sub -areas, or districts, each with its own visual pattern. The City of Costa Mesa divides these sub -areas into districts. Districts are those sections of the City that have a certain identifiable character due to building architecture, neighborhood design, streetscape, land use, etc. A "district" is defined as an integral part of a larger urban area with common characteristics that make it unique from other areas of the community. Distinguishing features may include building type, use, activity, inhabitants, and/or topography. Residential Districts The following describes the primary residential districts within Costa Mesa; this discussion describes the neighborhoods as they are found today. The General Plan proposes to regroup and redefine these neighborhood di�trirtS_ Eastside Residential District This district contains a mix of single-family and multi -family homes on large lots. In recent years, many of the older, smaller homes have been replaced by larger Mediterranean -style homes and town homes. The Land Use Element discusses issues associated with this district related to narrow deep lots and lot consolidation. Westside Residential District This area is characterized by a mix of residential densities and architectural types that include single-family homes, townhomes, and apartments. The styles are varied, dating to the 1940s and reflecting all eras since. More recent construction consists of taller buildings in modern styles. This district also encompasses the Costa Mesa Golf Course. Mesa Verde Residential District This district has a mix of residential densities. Homes closer to the Mesa Verde Golf Course are much larger and at lower residential densities compared to those closer to Harbor Boulevard and the 1-405 freeway. 4.1-2 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment 4.1 Aesthetics College Park Residential District The homes within this district are characterized by a mix of residential densities and architectural styles. The majority of the units are higher -density homes located along Newport Boulevard, Wilson Street, and Victoria Street. This district also includes College Park, a large single-family residential tract dating to the 1950s. North Costa Mesa/Mesa del Mar/Halecrest Hall of Fame Residential District This district contains mostly single-family residential tracts with higher residential densities near arterials. This district also contains pockets of commercial uses along Baker Street. Bristol/Paularino Residential District This district is bordered between 1-405, SR -73, and SR -55. The homes are comprised of higher residential densities mixed with commercial uses along Bristol Street. South Coast/Wimbledon Village Residential District This district contains mostly single-family residential tracts with some townhomes and apartments. Commercial Districts and Corridors Costa Mesa's main commercial districts and corridors as they occur today are described below. The General Plan proposes to redefine the commercial districts and corridors. inn South Coast Metro District This district is the economic heart of the City, where South Coast Plaza and other regional commercial and office developments are located. The district is characterized by commercial centers, entertainment venues, hotels, and high-rise office buildings. The district includes the Plaza Tower, Center Tower, South Coast Metro Center, and the Orange County Performing Arts Center. This district encompasses the primary commercial and cultural center of the City. Harbor Boulevard Corridor Harbor Boulevard begins at the south end of the City of Costa Mesa in the City at Newport BeaGh and travels north through and beyond Costa Mesa. The corridor represents the primary commercial corridor of the City, with a mix of vehicle -oriented uses, auto dealerships, neighborhood commercial centers, entertainment venues, and a few residential uses. Both the proposed Harbor Mixed -Use Overlay and Harbor Residential Incentive Overlay would apply within this district. Downtown/Trianale Sauare Downtown/Triangle Square is located at one of the busiest intersections in Costa Mesa, where the SR -55 freeway (transitions to Newport Boulevard) and Harbor Boulevard intersect. The area within and surrounding Triangle Square is one of the busiest activity hubs in the community. Across the street from Triangle Square is the Costa Mesa Courtyards, a busy commercial center. this dic+rir+ Environmental Impact Report 4.1-3 4.1 Aesthetics East 171h Street Corridor This corridor is characterized by multi -tenant retail centers, restaurants, and offices. A wide variety of goods and services are available along this retail corridor. Newport Boulevard Corridor Newport Boulevard parallels the SR -55 freeway from the 1-405 Freeway south to where the SR -55 freeway ends at 191h Street. Newport Boulevard then continues south to 15th Street and into the City of Newport Beach. The corridor is characterized with a mix of uses that include neighborhood commercial businesses, motels, restaurants, and some residential development. The Newport Boulevard Residential Incentive Overlay is in this district. Industrial/Business Park Districts In 2015, tThe City of Costa Mesa contains three distinct industrial districts, as described below. The General Plan proposes to redefine these industrial/business districts. North Industrial/Business Park District This district is characterized by large-sized industrial and office buildings, and includes the Automobile Club, Times Orange County, and Whittier Law School. This district includes two of the large vacant parcels remaining in the City—the Segerstrom Home Ranch and Sakioka Lot 2 Overlays—which are located between South Coast Drive and 1-405, as well as the Los Angeles Times Overlay. Airport Industrial/Business Park District This area is bordered by John Wayne Airport to the east, SR -73 to the south, the SR -55 to the west, and 1-405 to the north. The area contains a concentration of industrial, office, and commercial uses in one- to two-story buildings. Southwest Industrial/Business Park District This district is characterized by low -scale, older industrial plant facilities but also includes auto -related uses, manufacturing, and public storage. The district has a very distinct industrial character. Open Space/Recreational Districts Major open space districts, in 2015, in the City include the following. Note, the General Plan proposes to redefine the open space/recreational districts. Fairgrounds/Orange Coast College District This area comprises the primary cultural, educational, and civic center district of the City. The Orange County Fairgrounds, Orange Coast College, Vanguard University, and Civic Center make up the majority of this district. Each use has a distinct aesthetic character. The fairgrounds, which includes exhibit buildings, parade grounds, and Pacific Amphitheater, are surrounded largely by vast parking lots. The 164 -acre Orange Coast College campus has buildings of varying heights amid a well -landscaped campus and acres of surface parking lots, with athletic fields in the northeast quadrant, along Fairview Road and Adams Avenue. Vanguard University is a relatively compact campus, with mid -rise buildings set back from the university's Fair Drive frontage and athletic fields and lower -scale building on the campus interior. Adjacent to Vanguard is the Civic Center complex, which consists of low- and mid - rise buildings. 4.1-4 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment 4.1 Aesthetics Fairview Park/Talbert Nature Preserve District This district, consisting entirely of open space uses, is bounded by the Santa Ana River to the west, Adams Avenue to the north, 19th Street to the south, and the Victoria -Placentia Quadrant Residential District to the east. The district includes the expansive Fairview Regiepai Park, Talbert Regional Park, and an adjacent wildlife refuge. Additionally, the proposed Orange Coast River Park, when completed, will strengthen the linkage between Costa Mesa and the coast. Outdoor Lighting and Night Skies Much of the planning area is urbanized, with numerous outdoor lighting sources such as street lights, building and parking lot lighting, sports field lighting, illuminated signs, etc. Views of night skies and stars are impacted throughout the planning area (and the region generally) due to the abundance of night lighting. Regulatory Setting Title 13 - City of Costa Mesa Planning, Zoning and Development Code The City's Zoning Code establishes development standards (Title 13, Chapter 5 of the Municipal Code) for each zoning district, which are to be used to regulate any development project. Tho ri+ 7()nwng Code addresses developmeRt standards (Title 13, Chapter 5 Of the MUniGiPal Code) to be used f9F PF-GjeGtS IR all zoRing . Title 13 sets forth such things as lot coverage, setbacks, building size and heights, yard areas, landscaping, signage, etc. Some standards are specific to the type of use permitted, i.e. residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, planned developments, etc., while other apply to all zoning districts, i.e. landscaping. Under Chapter III, Section 13-29, the Code specifies that a planning application must go through design review with the City's Planning Division and receive final review approval by the Planning Commission. Design review applies to any construction that results in three or more dwelling units on a development lot in any residential zone (excluding a planned development). Most Other land uses are subject development review by the Planning Division (Title 13, Chapter III, Section 13-29). Thresholds of Significance The proposed General Plan Amendments would result in significant aesthetic impacts if they would: A. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. B. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. C. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. D. Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Environmental Impacts IMPACT Impacts to scenic vistas and resources would be less than significant with 4.1.A implementation of draft General Plan policies. 4.11.113 As described above, scenic vistas within the City are limited to large areas of undeveloped land that offer views of scenic resources such as Upper Newport Bay, the Santa Ana River, and the Santa Ana Mountains. The proposed project will not alter scenic vistas located in existing parks or open space areas as none are subject to land use change. New development built on the Segerstrom Home Ranch, Los Angeles Times, and Sakioka Lot 2 sites could Environmental Impact Report 4.1-5 4.1 Aesthetics impact existing views of the Santa Ana Mountains since current land use policy allows buildings of heights greater than two stories; the proposed General Plan land use policies will continue this condition. However, with the implementation of the following Community Design Policies CD -5.A through CD -5.F below, potential impacts on scenic vistas and resources would be less than significant: GOAL CD -5: EDGES. Utilize Costa Mesa's edges as opportunities for enhancing the image of the City along its boundaries. Objective CD -5.1 Develop and implement programs that preserve and enhance City edges. Policy CD -5.A Preserve and optimize natural views and open spaces in Costa Mesa. Policy CD -5.13 Control the visual impacts of new development on natural views of the coast and the wetlands. Policy CD -5.0 Develop open space corridors and trails along the edges of Costa Mesa where feasible. Policy CD -5.D Continue to preserve natural open space, including restoration of the natural areas of Talbert Regional Park. Policy CD -5.E Continue protection of Fairview Park as an open space and recreation area. Policy CD -51 Work with Caltrans to improve the design quality of freeway edges. There are no designated or eligible State scenic highways within the planning area. Therefore, impact on scenic highways would be less than significant. IMPACT Impacts to the visual character and quality of the planning area would be less than 4.1.0 significant with implementation of draft General Plan policies. Impacts to the visual character and quality of the planning area could occur if proposed policies are not sufficient to preserve and enhance those areas that contribute to a sense of place and provide distinctive community identity. The planning area is almost fully developed, and future development supported by the General Plan would generally be constructed within the context of an urbanized environment. The proposed policy framework addressed in the updated general plan elements will guide new private and public development in the existing developed Overlay areas to be consistent with existing natural and urban characters, while still providing a variety and visual interest. As discussed in Chapter 4.5 of this EIR, regulations are in place to protect the integrity of historical buildings and structures, and the proposed project would not result in any significant impacts to such visual resources. New development could create new areas of shade or shadowing on adjacent on existing buildings or open areas. Effects of shade and shadowing on existing land uses would be assessed as part of community design review when new projects come forward for development permits. Refer to relevant community design es+ty goals and objectives below. GOAL CD -8: QUALITY COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. Achieve a high level of quality design for commercial development. Objective CD -8.1 Encourage high level of architectural and site design quality. 4.1-6 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment 4.1 Aesthetics Policy CD -8.A. Require that new and remodeled commercial developmentGtFU tUF86 and pFopohies be designed to reflect architectural diversity, yet be compatible with the scale and character of the district. Policy CD -8.B. Use distinctive commercial architectural styles to reinforce a positive sense of place. Commercial architectural design elements and materials must be of high quality and style as well as suitable for long-term maintenance. Consistent architectural design should be considered in choosing materials, finishes, decorative details, color, accent features. Policy CD -8.C. Encourage the use of entrance patios, courtyards, plazas, arcades, fountains, porches, tower elements, covered walks, and other features in commercial areas. Promote pedestrian amenities. Policy CD -8.D. Ensure that common areas, walkways, driveways, and parking spaces be landscaped consistent with landscaping standards contained in the Planning, Zoning and Development c -Code. Utilize landscaping to provide project amenities for new and remodeled commercial uses, and to screen parking and equipment areas. Landscaped areas generally should incorporate planting utilizing a three -tiered system: 1) grasses and ground covers, 2) shrubs and vines, and 3) trees. Policy CD -8.E. Ensure that site access, parking, and circulation for commercial uses is designed in a logical, safe manner. Parking should not dominate the site in areas adjacent to street; and be well landscaped with a clear hierarchy of circulation. Wherever possible, parking lots should be divided into a series of connected smaller lots utilizing walkways and raised landscape strips. Parking lots should also include landscaping that accents the importance of driveways from the street, frames the major circulation aisles, and highlights pedestrian pathways. Policy CD -8.F. Require that areas for outside equipment, trash receptacles, storage, and loading areas be located in the least conspicuous part of the site. Utility and mechanical equipment (e.g. electric and gas meters, electrical panels, and junction boxes) should be concealed from view from public streets, neighboring properties, and nearby higher buildings. Trash enclosures should be architecturally compatible with the project. Landscaping should be incorporated into the design of trash enclosures to deter graffiti. Policy CD -8.G. Encourage decorative paving treatments to be incorporated throughout commercial developments, including driveway entries, pedestrian walkways, plazas, and other areas. The design, materials, and colors of decorative paving treatments (e.g., stamped concrete, stone, brick or granite pavers, exposed aggregate, or colored concrete) should complement the architectural style of the primary buildings and make a positive contribution to the aesthetic and function of the site. Policy CD -8.H. Require that exterior lighting on commercial properties be consistent with the architectural style of the commercial building. On each commercial site, all lighting fixtures should be from the same family of fixtures with respect to design, materials, color, fixture, and color of light. Lighting sources should be shielded, diffused or indirect to avoid spillover on adjacent properties, nighttime sky light pollution, and glare to pedestrians and motorists. To minimize the total number of freestanding light Environmental Impact Report 4.1-7 4.1 Aesthetics standards, wall -mounted and pathway lights should be utilized to the greatest extent possible. Objective CD -8.2 Preserve the scale and character of established neighborhoods near commercial uses. Policy CD -8.1. Ensure that new commercial development utilize site planning and design features that optimize compatibility with adjacent residential neighborhoods. The following guidance should be considered: When adjacent residential and nonresidential uses can mutually benefit from connection, appropriate linkages (e.g., walkways, common landscape areas, and building orientation) are encouraged. Successful interaction between commercial and residential uses may be achieved through adequate setbacks, landscape buffers, screening, decorative masonry walls, berms, building orientation, and limitations of commercial activities. ■ Loading areas, access and circulation driveways, trash and storage areas, and rooftop equipment should be located as far as possible from adjacent residences. Building orientation and landscaping of commercial buildings should minimize direct lines of sight into adjacent residential private open space. Require that new and remodeled commercial structures and properties be designed to reflect architectural diversity, yet be compatible with the scale and character of the district. GOAL CD -9: MIXED-USE. Promote development of mixed-use projects that seamlessly integrate multiple uses both functionally and aesthetically. Objective CD -9.1 Design mixed-use development projects to achieve a high quality character. Policy CD -9.A. Require that mixed-use development projects be designed to mitigate potential conflicts between uses. Consider noise, lighting, and security. Objective CD -9.2 Provide for the development of projects that integrate housing with commercial uses and other compatible uses. All of the areas for which land use changes are proposed are in districts that are either largely commercial and/or industrial development in nature (Harbor Boulevard, Newport Boulevard, SoBECA, LA Times) or support agricultural uses (Segerstrom Home Ranch, Sakioka Lot 2). The Fairview Development Center site area supports an institutional land use. The Harbor Boulevard and Newport Residential Incentive Overlay applies to parcels displaying a mix of architectural styles with no defined character. Most buildings in the vicinity of parcels to which the Overlay will apply are one story and comprise strip malls, restaurants, motels, automobile dealerships, auto repair shops, car washes, etc. The Residential Incentive Overlay would allow for new high-density residential uses up to 40 units per acre in areas where only commercial uses were previously allowed. Buildings can be up to four stories in height. Privacy concerns of established neighborhoods would be addressed through General Plan goals, objectives and policies under CD -91 in particular, that mixed use projects mitigate potential conflicts between uses (listed above). New residential development will be subject to design review under Title 13, Chapter III, Section 13-29 of the Planning, Zoning and 4.1-8 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment 4.1 Aesthetics Development Code to provide for appropriate relationships to surrounding residential development. The Overlay will not degrade the existing visual character of this district. The Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Overlay mostly comprises budget motels, strip malls, restaurants, and other similar small-scale commercial development. The architectural styles vary, with no real visual connection among the various businesses. The Harbor Mixed Use new Overlay is intended to promote lot consolidation for commercial properties and provide a synergy between the Harbor Boulevard commercial corridor and 19th Street fens 6'Rg on the T-Fainnlo as the-dow . The proposed Oeverlay will allow for residential uses at 20 units per acre and mixed-use projects. These new developments are intended to revitalize the area and provide newer projects that enhance the area. With design review processes implemented, the overlay is anticipated to result in an improved aesthetic condition. The new Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use laruse designation would not degrade the visual character of this district. Two areas for which land use changes are proposed are currently in agricultural production: Segerstrom Home Ranch and Sakiota Lot S4e-2, both of which are located in the North Costa Mesa industrial/Business Pork District. With the proposed General Plan Amendments, the Segerstrom Home Ranch property would support up to 1.2 million square feet of development at a maximum FAR of 0.64. Sakioka Lot S4e-2, located at Sunflower Avenue and Main Street, would support residential development at up to 80 units per acre but not to exceed the existing total unit allocation of 660 units. This new development could impact the visual character and quality of the planning area if not properlty designed. With the implementation of Community Design Goal CD -8 and Objectives CD -8.1 and CD -8.2 and policies CD -8.A through CD -8.1 above and requirements for design review set forth in the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan, potential impacts on visual character and quality related to the development of these two large vacant parcels would be less than significant. The Los Angeles Times Site Overlay is in the Harbor Gateway North ln,+„cfrial/Business Pork District. The majority of the Harbor Gateway Noi4h 'n,+, istriol Bi iciness Dort District currently supports warehouses and parking lots, but also includes a ball field and other recreational facilities. With the implementation of Community Design Goals and Objectives under CD -10 below, future development of commercial and office uses in this Overlay would reflect the character of surrounding uses. No adverse change in the visual character would occur. GOAL CD -10: INDUSTRIAL AND BUSINESS PARKS. Promote quality design approaches for the redevelopment of existing industrial buildings, encourage the design to incorporate or provide flexibility for the needs of emerging types of industrial uses, and strive to match design with overall character of node, corridor, or district if applicable. Objective CD -10.1 Require that industrial and business park projects meet high quality design standards. Objective CD -10.2 Control the development of industrial projects to ensure they are a positive addition to the City's community setting, and that they do not result in adverse impacts with adjacent uses. The SoBECA Mixed Use Overlay includes a mix of retail/service commercial businesses, light industrial uses, creative studios, retail campuses, entertainment and restaurant uses, and limited residential development. The SoBECA Mixed Use' fir" on Dion for +his Overlay would be updated to allow additional residential opportunities, with densities up to 40 units per acre, with a residential capacity of 450 units. Permitted development approaches would be mixed-use development that combines residential and commercial uses, as well as stand-alone residential uses at up to four stories/60 feet. This designation would continue to emphasize commercial uses as the predominant use in the district, with the overall aim to expand the established innovative, eclectic, and unique uses that demonstrate the importance of homegrown and incubator -type businesses to the local economy. Residential and mixed -used development is anticipated to add to this eclectic nature. Development project would continue to be subject to the development standards and landscaping requirements established in the SoBECA Urban Plan (CM 2006), which will Environmental Impact Report 4.1-9 4.1 Aesthetics continue to shape the district as envisioned. Application of the SoBECA Mixed Use Oeverlay would not degrade the visual character of this district. The State -operated Fairview Developmental Center opened in 1959 and currently serves approximately 27850 people with developmental and intellectual disabilities. It has an institutional character, with one-story buildings dating largely to the 1950s, and is surrounded on three sides by the Costa Mesa Golf Course. The land use designation change to "Multi -Use Center" for this area provides the opportunity for the City to encourage a comprehensive reuse plan to consist of residences (up to 500 units at residential densities ranging from 15 to 25 units per acres), parks and open spaces, public facilities, and institutional uses. Proposed General Plan land use policies would require creation of a specific plan for the comprehensive repurposing of this site with any non -State associated development. Through the specific plan process, the City will be able identify the development approaches that provide for compatibility with surrounding land uses. With application of standard City development and design review practices, any potential visual character impacts can be avoided. Thus, the new land use designation would not degrade the visual character of this district. With implementation of General Plan policies, the impact would be less than significant. Impacts due to light and glare would be less than significant with implementation of IMPACT proposed General Plan Amendment policies. 4.1.D Development directed by the goals and policies of the General Plan Amendments could produce new sources of light and/or glare that may potentially cause significant impacts to daytime and/or nighttime views. Excessive or inappropriately directed lighting can adversely impact nighttime views by reducing the ability to see the night sky and stars. Glare can be caused from unshielded or misdirected lighting sources. For example, a floodlight attached to the side of a single-family residence could be oriented to shine into a neighbor's house. Reflective surfaces (e.g., polished metal) can also cause glare. Impacts associated with glare range from simple nuisance to potentially dangerous situations (e.g. if glare is directed into the eyes of motorists). New commercial development could introduce inappropriate lighting or use building materials that could cause inappropriate glare in the planning area. Community Design Policy CD -8.1.H above, and the requirements of Section 13-49 (Development standards for establishments within two hundred feet of residentially zoned property) of the Municipal Code which implements the policy, require that outdoor lights be shielded to avoid spillover onto adjacent properties and specifically, to be directed away from residential area. With implementation the above policy and existing requirements of the Municipal Code, potential impacts relating to light and glare would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required. 4.1-10 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment 4.1 Aesthetics References California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2015. California Scenic Highway Mapping System, Orange County, accessed on 11/12/2015, http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic highways/index.htm Google Earth Accessed on December 3, 2015. California Department of Developmental Services. 2015. Fairview Developmental Center, website accessed on December 3, 2015 at http://www.dds.ca.gov/fairview/. City of Costa Mesa, 2006. SoBECA Urban Plan, prepared by the Development Services Department, City of Costa Mesa, adopted April 4, 2006. Environmental Impact Report 4.1-11 4.1 Aesthetics This page intentionally left blank. 4.1-12 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment Agricultural and Forestry Resources 4.2 This section evaluates the potential effects on agricultural and forestry resources associated with long-term implementation of the amended General Plan Elements. This section is primarily based on the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, 210&2012 -and the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. No comments related to agricultural or forestry resources were submitted during circulation of the Notice of Preparation. Existing Conditions The map of Important Farmland in California (20129) prepared by the Department of Conservation (CDC) dses-r+st identifies the -two existing agricultural use sites (Segerstrom Home Ranch and Sakioka Lot 2) as supporting y any Inns+inn un+hie the riff, as being Prime FarmlandI Riq le Farmland q Gr -Farmland of Statewide Importance (CDC 201209). Additionally, portions of the Segerstrom Home Ranch also supports Prime Farmland as identified by CDC (CDC 2012). mapped as Prime Farmlandd and+/nr as Farmland of Statewide Imno4annel-InW8VeY It is imnor+o n+ to note that. Notwithstanding the 2012 map of Important Farmland, tthe Dept. of Conservation applied an optional overlay in 2010 on the narnels Whinh enenif,y +ha+ i+ i�specifying these sites as "Land Committed to Nonagricultural Uses" � reason nr annl yin this overlay was that the City had ashen ed the Iona use and ZOR'Rci des'no+inns for these sites from agricultural production to non-agricultural uses (Hennessey) in the early 2000's. No Williamson Act contracts are active within the City limits (CDC 2007). Two large parcels in the planning area are still used for commercial agriculture production: the Segerstrom Home Ranch property and the Sakiokta Lot 2 property, both located north of 1-405. The Segerstrom Home Ranch agricultural fields comprise approximately 340 acres of the 44 -acre site (see Figure 4.2-1, Segerstrom Home Ranch). The Sakioka Lot 2 property supports agricultural fields on roughly 30 acres of the 33 -acre site (see Figure 4.2-2, Sakioka Lot 2 Property). Although the Segerstrom Home Ranch and Sakioka Lot 2 properties still support commercial agricultural use, neither is zoned for agriculture nor are they currently designated for agricultural use in the current General Plan or General Plan Update. Both sites aFe ZORed and deSigRated fe..eature commercial development options as specified in nnmmernial , ise h" the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan, `"yhinh does nn+ snenifinally eXGI de agrini K irol nrodJi in+inn; the current uses are considered historical remnant agricultural operations ultimately to be replaced by urbanization. Public Resources Code Section 12220(g) identifies forest land as "land that can support 10 -percent native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits." -The City does not contain any land currently being managed or used for forest resources as identified in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g). The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection's Fire and Resource Assessment Program (FRAP) land cover maps for the City identify it as urban type, indicating that it is not capable of growing industrial wood tree species (CDFFP 2015). Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) The California Department of Conservation's (CDC) Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) rates agricultural land soil quality and irrigation status. The first three categories in descending order of potential are Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, and Unique Farmland. In addition, under the FMMP, each county may define and identify lands important to the local agricultural economy, or Farmland of Local Importance. In general, Farmland of Local Importance is either currently producing, or has the capability to produce, but may not meet the Environmental Impact Report 4.2-1 4.2 Agricultural and Forestry Resources criteria of Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, and Unique Farmland (CDC 2015). The Department of Conservation is in the process of updating its maps. (Hen es6y 204- The rev+sedcurrent maps w4l-show the Sakioka Lot 2 and Segerstrom Home Ranch sites as part of the "Land Committed to Nonagricultural Use" designation overlay (Hennessy 2016). California Land Conservation Aact (Williamson Act) The Williamson Act (CGC §51200 et seq.) allows county governments to enter into contracts with private landowners who agree to restrict parcels of land to agricultural uses or uses compatible with agriculture for at least ten years. In return, landowners receive property tax assessments that are much lower than normal because they are based upon income derived from farming and open space uses as opposed to full market value of the property. Figure 4.2-1: Google Earth (2015) view of Segerstrom Home Ranch Property showing agricultural fields 4.2-2 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment 74- 4 ! - T li ❑ fp �R, El El 8.0 ,fi)Cl��l Oath 33 41"r2fi190,�.-N .�1�17a52=11.99" W elevo 48 R eye alt 2783 R j 4.2 Agricultural and Forestry Resources California Government Code section 51250 sets forth that a breach of contract has occurred if: 1) a commercial, industrial, or residential building is constructed that is not allowed by Williamson Act, local uniform rules or ordinances consistent with the provisions of the Williamson Act, and that is not related to an agricultural use or compatible use, and 2) the total area of all of the building or buildings causing the breach exceeds 2,500 square feet. State-owned buildings, however, are exempt from these specific breach of contract provisions (CGC §51250(s)(1)(C)). Costa Mesa General Plan Due to the lack of lands zoned or designated for agF'GU!tuFe E)rtimber production, the Costa Mesa General Plan does not address agriGUltural and -forestry resources. Thresholds of Significance Implementation of the General Plan Amendments would have significant impacts if: A. 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, are converted to non-agricultural use. B. New land use designations would conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract. C. New land use designations would conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104 (g)). D. New land use designations would result in loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non -forest use. E. 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. Environmental Impacts Implementation of the General Plan Amendments would not significantly impact prime IMPACT farmland, lands under Williamson Act contracts, forest land or timberland. 4.11.A.B.C.11) No Williamson Act contracts are in effect within thetannin area. Therefore the proposed Pro'ect would have no impacts in this regard. With respect to the other thresholds addressed in this section, he City of Costa Mesa is an almost fully developed, suburbanized area that does not contain any areas zoned or designated by the General Plan as solely for commercial agriculture or forest resources. As described above, although twons areas of the City support Prime Farmland, Unique Farm IaPA—,g_nd/or Farmland of Statewide Importance, those lands are officially not committed to agricultural uses. This meaneciivn'fioc that T,TeFefoFe there will be n^Tthe -conversion of Prime Farmland Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Statewide Importance to a non-agricultural use as a result of build out of the General Plan was already foreseen and aGGeptedconsidered by the City and De"State Department of Conservation in connection with the City's last General Plan Update and zoning consistency actions.- The implementation of the General Plan Amendment for these sites only relate to changes to the Floor Area Ratio (Segerstrom Home Ranch) and residential density/building height (Sakioka Lot 2). --,Neo change in use is proposed nor is a commercial development project proposed at this time. These commercially -zoned Costa Mesa sites have been designated as "Land Committed to Nonagricultural Use" by the State Department of Conservation in 2010: 4.2-4 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment Agricultural and Forestry Resources 4.2 • Approximately 30 acre field of Farmland of Statewide Importance (Sakioka Lot 2). This property is zoned Planned Development Commercial and has a current General Plan designation of Urban Center Commercial. • Approximately 34 acre field with 10 acres of Prime Farmland and 24 acres of Farmland of Statewide Importance (Segerstrom Home Ranch).- This property is zoned Planned Development Commercial and has a current General Plan desianation of Commercial Center. Thus, these proposed changes in the General Plan Update --would not result in the conversion of Prime Farmland, Uniaue Farmland. or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-aaricultural use.- That land use chanae has alreadv occurred many years ago. -As a result, the proposed Project would not significantly impact these sites that have already been designated and contemplated for future commercial development by the existing General Plan. No mitigation is required. As mentioned above, the City of Costa Mesa is a fully developed, suburban area that does not contain any forest land. Thus, there would be no loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non -forest use as a result of build out of the General Plan. No impact would occur. Environmental Impact Report 4.2-5 4.2 Agricultural and Forestry Resources Changes to the existing environment would not result in conversion of farmland to non - IMPACT agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non -forest use. 4.11.E The only large parcels in the planning area still in agricultural production are the Segerstrom Home Ranch property and the Sakioka Lot 2 property. The land use designations for both properties isare Commercial Center and Urban Center Commercial, respectively; the amended Land Use Element would not change theses designations. Both properties are surrounded by urban land uses, as indicated in Figures 4.2-1 and 4.2.-2. The actual loss of existing agricultural uses on the two properties would be at the diGsretion of the private propeFty ewnersas a result of a development project at the discretion of the property owner, and not as a result of the proposed General Plan Update. land aye ^h in the aFea. , The General Plan Update does not change the land use ^h^n^^S We F8 .pony^, „ndeF previous QeReral plan amendments and the conversion of the agFiG611t rol use was assessed in prior CIRC for the Senerstrom Home Ranh and Sak'oka Lot `'.designations for sites as identified in the current 2000 General Plan. nor fFern a Ghange iR the land use designation of the pmperty. Thus, the impaet weuld ,ss than sign Site- specific environmental review will be required for any development of these areas. Additionally, according to the State Department of Conservation, "Land Committed to Nonagricultural Use" is defined as existing farmland, grazing land, and vacant areas that have a permanent commitment for development. This is an optional designation which allowed the City of Costa Mesa to provide detail on the nature of changes expected to occur in the future. State Conservation staff indicated that this category was developed in cooperation with local government planning departments and county boards of supervisors during the public workshop phase of the FMMP's development in 1982. It is available both statistically and as an overlay to the Important Farmland Map. Regarding the two sites within the City of Costa Mesa designated as Land Committed to Nonagricultural Use, FAWthe Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Division of the State Department of Conservation received a September 2009 letter from the City of Costa Mesa which contained the proper supporting documents required for this classification. The State accepted the City's documentation regarding the commercial General Plan designations and development agreements on the properties, and these sites were included in the 2010 Orange County Land Committed to Nonagricultural Use GIS database. The proposed General Plan Update does not change the classifications of these sites from Farmland. sites remain Orr'qated o rice It ire the Prime and Statewide rote cries will involve an impact to a riot It al land non i i development occrs on the propert„These areas -will continue to be mapped as Farmland on the Important Farmland Map due to the irrigated agriculture currently on site. -These areas will remain mapped as Farmland until the land is developed. However, once development does occur, these areas will be removed from the Farmland categories and changed to the Urban classification by the State Department of Conservation. The State Department of Conservation indicated that mitigation is a locally determined factor, and the Important Farmland categories alone do not }rimewinvolve automatic mitigation by CEQA. Additionally, the previously recorded Land Committed to Nonagricultural Use designation in 2010 by the State and recorded Development Agreements signify the City's and State's recognition of future commercial development on these sites. The State indicated that there is no required mitigation for the loss of the agricultural land. Due to the classification of these sites in the Land Committed to Nonagricultural Use overlay and the fact that the General Plan Update does not change the existing commercial designations, impacts are considered less than si nificant. No mitigation is required. 4.2-6 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment Agricultural and Forestry Resources 4.2 The City does not contain any forest or timber land within its boundaries. Therefore, build -out of the General Plan would not encroach onto forest or timber land nor would it encourage the conversion of existing forest or timber land to a non - forest use. Mitigation Measures No mitigation is required. Environmental Impact Report 4.2-7 4.2 Agricultural and Forestry Resources References California Department of Conservation. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, 2012N. The City of Costa Mesa is indicated as "Urban and Built -Up Land" in the 2010 map of Orange County. ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/2010/oralO.pdf [Accessed April 2015]. California Department of Conservation. Williamson Act Program, 2007. ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/wa/Orange_WA_03_04.pdf [Accessed April 2015]. California Dept. of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection. May 31, 2016. Email from Patrick Hennessy of CDC to Daniel Inloes, City of Costa Mesa. Regarding application of overlay designation for two agricultural parcels in Costa Mesa. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Fire and Resources Assessment Program (FRAP). California Land Cover Map: Multi -Source Data Compiled in 2006. http://frap.cdf.ca.gov/data/frapgismaps/pdfs/fvegwhrl3b_map.pdf [Accessed April 2015]. Google Earth, 2015. View of Segerstrom Home Ranch and Sakioka Lot 2 property in Costa Mesa. [Access December 2015]. Patrick Hennessy, California Dept. of Conservation, 2016. Communication to nein Inloes Senior Dlann��noT Gosta-MesaPlanning Division staff (dated Tuesday, May 31, 2016 and June 2, 2016). RE: Confirmation that FMMP maps will be updated to reflect revised designation for two parcels in Costa Mesa. 4.2-8 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment Air Quality 4.3 This section analyzes potential air quality impacts that could result from implementation of the proposed General Plan Amendments. Comments regarding air quality impacts were submitted in response to the City's Notice of Preparation of the Draft EIR, from the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) during the NOP period. These comments are included in Appendix B and addressed in this section. Comments regarding air quality impacts were not expressed at the scoping meeting frGm-held on November 30, 2015. Existing Conditions The City of Costa Mesa and Orange County are defined by a semi -arid Mediterranean climate characterized by mild winters and summers. According to the Western Regional Climate Center, annual rainfall averages 134-33 inches, with the rainy season occurring during the winter (WRCC). The coolest month of the year is January, with an average monthly low of 47° Fahrenheit (F). The warmest month is August, with an average monthly high of 73° 63-.2—' F. The annual average maximum temperature is 67.8° F, and the annual average minimum temperature is 54.6° F. Costa Mesa is located at an elevation of approximately 98 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). Regional Air Quality The City is located within the South Coast Air Basin (Basin) (SCAQMD). The Basin includes Orange County and the non - desert portions of Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and Riverside counties. The Basin is bounded by the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains to the north and east; these topographic features trap ambient air and pollutants within the Los Angeles and Inland Empire valleys below. The Basin is managed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Pursuant to the California Clean Air Act (CCAA), SCAQMD is responsible for bringing air quality within the Basin into conformity with federal and State air quality standards by reducing existing emission levels and ensuring that future emission levels meet applicable air quality standards. SCAQMD works with federal, State, and local agencies to reduce pollutant emissions from stationary, mobile, and indirect pollutant sources through the development of rules and regulations. Both California and the federal government have established health -based ambient air quality standards (AAQS) for seven air pollutants (known as criteria pollutants). These pollutants are ozone (Os), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), inhalable particulate matter with a diameter of 10 microns or less (PM,o), fine particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less (PM2.5), and lead (Pb). The State has also established AAQS for the additional pollutants of visibility reducing particles, sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, and vinyl chloride. The AAQS are designed to protect the health and welfare of the populace within a reasonable margin of safety. Where State and federal standards differ, State AAQS are more stringent than federal AAQS. Federal and State standards are shown in Table 4.3-1 (Ambient Air Quality Standards). Descriptions of each criteria pollutant are provided below. Ozone Ozone is a pungent, colorless, and highly reactive gas that forms from the atmospheric reaction of organic gases with nitrogen oxides in the presence of sunlight. Ozone is most commonly associated with smog. Ozone precursors such as reactive organic gases (ROG) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) are released from mobile and stationary sources. Ozone is a respiratory irritant and can cause cardiovascular diseases, eye irritation, and impaired cardiopulmonary function. Ozone also causes damage to building materials and plant leafs. Carbon Monoxide Carbon monoxide is primarily emitted from vehicles due to the incomplete combustion of fuels. Carbon monoxide has wide- ranging impacts on human health because it combines with hemoglobin in the body and reduces the amount of oxygen transported in the bloodstream. Carbon monoxide can result in reduced tolerance for exercise, impairment of mental function, impairment of fetal development, headaches, nausea, and death at high levels of exposure. Environmental Impact Report 4.3-1 4.3 Air Quality Nitrogen Dioxide Nitrogen dioxide and other oxides of nitrogen (NOx) contribute to the formation of smog and results in the brownish haze associated with it. They are primarily emitted from motor vehicle exhaust but can be omitted from other high-temperature stationary sources. Nitrogen oxides can aggravate respiratory illnesses, reduce visibility, impair plant growth, and form acid rain. Particulate Matter Particulate matter is a complex mixture of small -suspended particles and liquid droplets in the air. Particulate matter between ten microns and 2.5 microns is known as PM,o, also known as coarse or inhalable particulate matter. PM,o is emitted from diverse sources including road dust, diesel soot, combustion products, abrasion of tires and brakes, construction operations, and windstorms. PM,o can also be formed secondarily in the atmosphere when NO2 and S02 react with ammonia. Particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size are called PM2.5 or fine particulate matter. PM2.5 is primarily emitted from point sources such as power plants, industrial facilities, automobiles, wood -burning fireplaces, and construction sites. Particulate matter is deposited in the lungs and cause permanent lung damage, potentially resulting in lung disease and respiratory symptoms like asthma and bronchitis. Particulate matter has also been linked to cardiovascular problems such as arrhythmia and heart attacks. Particulate matter can also interfere with the body's ability to clear the respiratory tract and can act as a carrier of absorbed toxic substances. Particulate matter causes welfare issues because it scatters light and reduces visibility, causes environmental damage such as increasing the acidity of lakes and streams, and can stain and damage stone, such as that applied in statues and monuments. Sulfur Dioxide Sulfur dioxide and other oxides of sulfur (SOx) are reactive gasses emitted from the burning of fossil fuels, primarily from power plants and other industrial facilities (USEPA). Other less impacting sources include metal extraction activities, locomotives, large ships, and off-road equipment. Human health impacts associated with SOx emissions include bronchoconstriction and increased asthma symptoms. Lead Lead is primarily emitted from metal processing facilities (i.e. secondary lead smelters) and other sources such as manufacturers of batteries, paints, ink, ceramics, and ammunition. Historically, automobiles were the primary sources before lead was phased out of gasoline. The health effects of exposure to lead include gastrointestinal disturbances, anemia, kidney diseases, and potential neuromuscular and neurologic dysfunction. Lead is also classified as a probable human carcinogen. 4.3-2 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment Air Quality 4.3 Table 4.3-1 Ambient Air Qualitv Standards Pollutant Averaging Time 1 Hour California 0.09 ppm Standards' Method4 Primary3.5 d. Secontary3.6 Method7 Ozone (03) 180 /m3 Ultraviolet Same as Primary Ultraviolet 8 Hour 0.07 ppm 0.075 ppm Photometry Standard Photometry 137 /m3 147 /m3 Respirable 24 Hour 50 pg/m3 Gravimetric or Beta 150 pg/m3 Same as Primary Inertial Separation Particulate Attenuation Standard and Gravimetric Annual Matter (PM 10) 20 pg/m3 Analysis Arithmetic Mean Fine 24 Hour No Separate State Standard 35 pg/m3 Inertial Separation Annual 12 pg/M3 Gravimetric or Beta 15 �glm3 Particulate Matter Same as Primary Standard and Gravimetric PM2.5 Arithmetic Mean Attenuation Analysis 8 Hour Non -Dispersive Carbon 10 Mg/ppm Non -Dispersive 10 mp/m3 None Infrared Photometry 1 Hour 20 23 m p m m3 35 m 40 Mg/M3) Monoxide Infrared Photometry (NDIR) (CO) (NDIR) 8 Hour (Lake 6 ppm Tahoe) (7 Mg/ m3 Annual 0.03 ppm 53 ppb Same as Primary Nitrogen Arithmetic Mean 57 /m3 Gas Phase 100 /m3 Standard Gas Phase Dioxide (NO2) 1 Hour 0.18 ppm Chemiluminescence 100 ppb None Chemiluminescence 339 /m3 see footnote 8 24 Hour 0.04 ppm Ultraviolet 105 /m3 Fluorescence; 0.5 ppm Sulfur Dioxide Ultraviolet Spectrophotometry (S02) 3 Hour Fluorescence (1,300 pg/m3) (Pararosaniline Method 1 Hour 0.25 ppm 75 ppb 655 /m3 196 /m3 30 Day Average 1.5 /m3 - Lead9 Calendar Quarter Atomic Absorption 1.5 /m3 Same as Primary High Volume Rolling 3 -Month 0.15 �g/m3 (Pb) Standard Sampler and Atomic Avera e10 Absorption Visibility Beta Attenuation Reducing 8 Hour See footnote 12 and Transmittance No Particles throw h Filter Ta e Federal Sulfates 24 Hour 25 /m3 Ion Chromatography Hydrogen 1 Hour 0.03 ppm Ultraviolet Sulfide 42 /m3 Fluorescence Standards Vinyl 24 Hour 0.01 ppm Gas Chloride9 26 /m3 Chromatography Source: ARB, May 2015 PPM, parts per million Ng/m3, micrograms per cubic meter 1. California standards for ozone, carbon monoxide (except Lake Tahoe), sulfur dioxide (1 and 24 hour), nitrogen dioxide, suspended particulate matter—PM10, PM2.5, and visibility reducing particles, are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded. California ambient air quality standards are listed in the Table of Standards in Section 70200 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations. 2. National standards (other than ozone, particulate matter, and those based on annual averages or annual arithmetic mean) are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The ozone standard is attained when the fourth highest eight-hour concentration in a year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than the Environmental Impact Report 4.3-3 4.3 Air Quality Table 4.3-1 Amplent AIC uuallty 5tanaaraS standard. For PM10, the 24-hour standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration above 150 pg/m3 is equal to or less than one. For PM2.5, the 24-hour standard is attained when 98 percent of the daily concentrations, averaged over three years, are equal to or less than the standard. Contact U.S. EPA for further clarification and current federal policies. 3. Concentration expressed first in units in which it was promulgated. Equivalent units given in parentheses are based upon a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 torr. Most measurements of air quality are to be corrected to a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 torr; ppm in this table refers to ppm by volume, or micromoles of pollutant per mole of gas. 4. Any equivalent procedure which can be shown to the satisfaction of the ARB to give equivalent results at or near the level of the air quality standard may be used. 5. National Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety to protect the public health. 6. National Secondary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant. 7. Reference method as described by the EPA. An "equivalent method" of measurement may be used but must have a "consistent relationship to the reference method" and must be approved by the EPA. 8. To attain this standard, the 3 -year average of the 98th percentile of the daily maximum 1 -hour average at each monitor within an area must not exceed 0.100 ppm (effective January 22, 2010). Note that EPA standards are in units of parts per billion (ppb). California standards are in units of parts per million (ppm). To directly compare the national standards to the California standards the units can be converted from ppb to ppm. In this case, the national standards of 53 ppb and 100 ppb are identical to 0.053 ppm and 0.100 ppm, respectively. 9. On June 2, 2010, the US EPA established a new 1 -hour S02 standard, effective August 23, 2010, which is based on the 3 -year average of the annual 99th percentile of the 1 -hour daily maximum concentrations. EPA also proposed a new automated Federal Reference Method (FIRM) using ultraviolet technology, but will retain the older pararosaniline methods until the new FIRM has adequately permeated State monitoring networks. The EPA also revoked both the existing 24-hour S02 standard of 0.14 ppm and the annual primary S02 standard of 0.030 ppm, effective August 23, 2010. The secondary S02 standard was not revised at that time; however, the secondary standard is undergoing separate review by EPA. Note that the new standard is in units of parts per billion (ppb). California standards are in units of parts per million (ppm). To directly compare the national standards to the California standards the units can be converted from ppb to ppm. In this case, the national standard of 75 ppb is identical to 0.075 ppm. 10. The ARB has identified lead and vinyl chloride as "toxic air contaminants" with no threshold level of exposure for adverse health effects determined. These actions allow for the implementation of control measures at levels below the ambient concentrations specified for these pollutants. 11. National lead standard, rolling 3 -month average: final rule signed October 15, 2008. 12. Extinction coefficient of 0.23 per kilometer visibility of ten miles or more (0.07 — 30 miles or more for Lake Tahoe) due to particles when relative humidity is less than 70 percent. Non -Attainment Status Air pollution levels are measured at monitoring stations located throughout the Basin. Areas that are in nonattainment with respect to criteria pollutants are required to prepare plans and implement measures that will bring the region into attainment. Table 4.3-2 (South Coast Air Basin Attainment Status) summarizes the attainment status in the Basin for the criteria pollutants. The Basin is currently in nonattainment status for ozone (03) and fine and inhalable particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM1o) Pollution problems in the Basin are caused by emissions within the area and the specific meteorology that promotes pollutant concentrations. Emissions sources vary widely from smaller sources such as individual residential water heaters and short- term grading activities to extensive operational sources including long-term operation of electrical power plants and other intense industrial use. Pollutants in the Basin are blown inward from coastal areas by sea breezes from the Pacific Ocean and are prevented from horizontally dispersing due to the surrounding mountains. This is further complicated by atmospheric temperature inversions that create inversion layers. The inversion layer in Southern California refers to the warm layer of air that lies over the cooler air from the Pacific Ocean. This is strongest in the summer and prevents ozone and other pollutants from dispersing upward. A ground -level surface inversion commonly occurs during winter nights and traps carbon monoxide emitted during the morning rush hour. 4.3-4 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment Table 4.3-2 South Coast Air Basin Attainment Status Pollutant 03 1 -hr Federal NIA State Nonattainment 03 8 -hr Nonattainment Nonattainment PM10 Nonattainment Nonattainment PM2.5 Nonattainment Nonattainment CO Attainment Attainment NO2 Attainment Attainment S02 Attainment Attainment Pb Attainment Nonattainment Sources: CARB 2012, USEPA 2012 Local Air Quality Air Quality 4.3 The City of Costa Mesa is located in the North Coastal Orange County air monitoring and source receptor area (SRA 18). Air quality in SRA 18 is monitored at the New Song Worship Center (1850 Mesa Verde Drive East) in the City of Costa Mesa. Air monitoring results for this area over the last three years of available data ares summarized in Table 4.3-3 (2012-2014 Local Air Quality) (SCAQMD). Note that this station does not monitor particulate matter, lead, or sulfate, so Table 4.3-3 is auamented with particulate matter, lead, and sulfate data from the next nearest monitorina station, an inland station in Mission Viejo . Table 4.3-4 (2012-2014 Air Quality Standards Exceedance) summarizes the number of days for each monitoring year that air quality standards were exceeded. Based on the 2012-2014 air quality monitoring data, the North Coastal Orange County area experiences ozone pollution and has exceeded the State 8 -hr maximum concentration a minimum of six days in 2014. This is not necessarily due to local production of ozone, but due to how ozone forms and travels over the Basin. Ozone precursors are emitted primarily in the urban centers of the Basin such as Los Angeles and Santa Ana. Ozone does not form immediately but rather forms over the day. This combined with prevailing winds blowing ozone precursors inland cause the highest concentrations of ozone in the Basin to occur in the San Bernardino valley and mountain regions. Sensitive Receptors Some populations are more susceptible to the effects of air pollution than the population at large; these populations are defined as sensitive receptors. Sensitive receptors include children, the elderly, the sick, and people who spend hours outdoors in vigorous exercise. Land uses associated with sensitive receptors include residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, athletic facilities, long-term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, and retirement homes. Pollutants of particular concern when relating to sensitive receptors include carbon monoxide, toxic air contaminants, and odors. The City currently has numerous sensitive land uses, in particular residences, schools, health care facilities, and playgrounds. These sensitive land uses will continue to exist and new sensitive land uses will be established pursuant to General Plan policies. Toxic Emission Sources According to the EPA, 310 identified toxic air emitters operate within the planning area. Warehouse and other similar industrial uses exist within the southwestern, northern, and northseutheastern portions of the City, as well as along Harbor Boulevard and Baker Street. These land uses may generate high volumes of truck traffic resulting in diesel -particulate matter emissions, an identified toxic air contaminant. Environmental Impact Report 4.3-5 4.3 Air Quality Local Transportation Regional access to Costa Mesa is provided by SR -55, which traverses the eastern central portion of the planning area in a northeast -southwest direction; SR -73, which traverses the eastern central portion of the planning area in a northwest - southeast direction; and 1-405, which runs in east -west along the northern boundary of the planning area. Costa Mesa's roadway network is generally based on a grid system, with major roadways located half -mile to one -mile apart providing access to most portions of the City. According to the 2013 Orange County Congestion Management Plan (CMP), of the three CMP intersections in the planning area, none currently operates at an unacceptable level of service (LOS) E or worse during morning or evening peak hours (OCTA). According to the traffic impact study prepared by Stantec Consulting Services, Inc., based on the intersection LOS performance criteria, all of the intersection locations analyzed in the City currently operates at an acceptable LOS (LOS D or better) with the exception of the intersection of Hyland Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard during the PM peak hour. 4.3-6 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment Air Quality 4.3 Table 4.3-3 2012-2014 Local Air Quality Table 4.3-4 2012-2014 Air Quality Standards Exceedance • Monitoring Station Fed* State State Fed State Fed A • Monitoring Station • • • •. (pgJM3) Max 8 -hr Max Max Max AAM 1 -hr 8 -hr 1 -hr Max 24- Max 24- AAM Max AAM Max Max Max hr hr 24 -hr Month Qtr 24 -hr North Orange County Coastal —0^^ —0"" —0^^ 2014 1.9 0.096 0.079 60.6 10.8 8.8 --41.0* —19.8* —25.5* —NA - - 2013 2.0 0.095 0.083 75.7 11.6 4.2 --51.0* —19.0* —28.0* —8.0* - - 2012 1.7 0.090 0.076 74.4 10.4 6.2 —37.0* —17.0* —27.6* —7.9* - - Source: SCAQMD 2012-2014, CARB 2016 "^ Data are from Mission Vieio monitoring station at 26081 Via Pera. -- pollutant not monitored at Costa Mesa or nearby monitoring station. NA insufficient monitoring data for the given time period to compute a value PPM, parts per million pg/m3, micrograms per cubic meter AAM, annual arithmetic mean * Pollutant is not monitoring at the Costa Mesa monitoring station. Data are from Mission Vieio monitoring station at 26081 Via Pera. Table 4.3-4 2012-2014 Air Quality Standards Exceedance • Monitoring Station Fed* State State Fed State Fed A North Orange County Coastal 2014 4 1 6 —0^" —0"" —NA 2013 1 1 2 —0^^ —0"" —0^^ 2012 1 2 1 —0^^ —0"" —0^^ Source: SCAQMD 2012-2014, CARB 2016 -- pollutant not monitored NA insufficient monitoring data for the given time period to compute a value 0.075 ppm "35 pg/m3 "^ Data are from Mission Vieio monitoring station at 26081 Via Pera. This Page Intentionally Left Blank Environmental Impact Report 4.3-7 Air Quality 4.3 Local Emissions Local emissions are defined by area source emissions, energy demand emissions, and mobile source emissions. Area source emissions are the combination of many small emissions sources that include use of outdoor landscape maintenance equipment, use of consumer products such as cleaning products, and use of architectural coatings in the construction and maintenance of developments. Energy demand emissions result from use of electricity and natural gas. Mobile source emissions will result from automobile, truck, and other vehicle sources associated with build out of the General Plan Update. Odors According to the CEQA Air Quality Handbook, land uses associated with odor complaints include agricultural operations, wastewater treatment plants, landfills, and certain industrial operations (such as manufacturing uses that produce chemicals, paper, etc.). Currently, those activities that could create odors include remnant agricultural operations adjacent to SR -55. Also, two crematoriums operate in Costa Mesa, as do numerous light and heavy industrial uses that have the potential for odor generation. Planning and Regulatory Framework Clean Air Act The federal Clean Air Act (CAA) defines the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) responsibilities for protecting and improving the United States air quality and ozone layer (USEPA). Key components of the CAA include reducing ambient concentrations of air pollutants that cause health and aesthetic problems, reducing emission of toxic air pollutants, and stopping production and use of chemicals that destroy the ozone. Federal clean air laws require areas with unhealthy levels of ozone, inhalable particulate matter, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and sulfur dioxide to develop State Implementation Plans (SIPs). SIPs are comprehensive documents that identify how an area will attain National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Deadlines for attainment were established in the 1990 amendments to the CAA based on the severity of an area's air pollution problem. Failure to meet air quality deadlines can result in sanctions against the state or the EPA taking over enforcement of the CAA in the affected area. SIPs are a compilation of new and previously submitted plans, programs, district rules, and state and federal regulations. The SCAQMD implements the required provisions of an applicable SIP through its AQMPs and updates. Currently, SCAQMD implements the 8 -hr Ozone and PM2.5 SIP in the 2007 AQMP and the PM10 SIP in the 2003 AQMP. The PM2.5 SIP is currently being revised by SCAQMD in response to partial disapproval by the EPA. California Clean Air Act The California Clean Air Act (CCAA) of 1988 was enacted to develop plans and strategies for attaining California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). The California Air Resources Board (ARB), which is part of the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal -EPA), develops statewide air quality regulations, including industry -specific limits on criteria, toxic, and nuisance pollutants. The CCAA is more stringent than federal law in a number of ways including revised standards for PM10 and ozone and State for visibility reducing particles, sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, and vinyl chloride. Toxic Hotspots State requirements specifically address air toxics issues through Assembly Bill (AB) 1807 (known as the Tanner Bill) that established the State air toxics program and the Air Toxics Hot Spots Information and Assessment Act (AB 4.3-8 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment Air Quality 4.3 2588). The air quality regulations developed from these bills have been modified to incorporate the federal regulations associated with the Federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. The Air Toxics Hot Spots Information and Assessment Act (Hot Spots Act) was enacted in September 1987. Under this bill, stationary sources of emissions are required to report the types and quantities of certain substances that their facilities routinely release into the air. The SCAQMD is required to prepare an annual report on the status and forecast of air toxic hotspots pursuant to Section 44363 of the California Health and Safety Code. SCAQMD monitors facilities that are not exempt from the fee and reporting requirements of AB2588. Some facilities are covered under umbrella permits that address industry -wide categories. SCAQMD has issued general permits for the following seven activities: ■ Retail gasoline dispensing ■ Perch loroethylene dry cleaning ■ Auto body shops ■ Fiberglass molding ■ Printing ■ Metal plating ■ Wood stripping and finishing Emissions inventories and risk assessment guidelines have been prepared for the seven industry -wide categories. Approximately 1,400 auto body shops, 3,200 gasoline stations, and 1,400 perchloroethylene dry cleaners within the District are covered under these umbrella permits. Depending on the severity of the facilities' TAC releases, SCAQMD requires either public notification of toxic hot spots or preparation of a risk reduction plan, as follows: Action Risk Level Public Notification Level Exempt Air Quality Management Plan Cancer Risk (per million) >= 25 >= 10 <1 Acute Risk Chronic Risk >= 3.0 >= 3.0 >=1.0 >=1.0 <0.1 <0.1 Under State law, SCAQMD is required to prepare an overall plan for air quality improvement, known as the Air Quality Management Plan. The purpose of an AQMP is to bring an air basin into compliance with federal and State air quality standards and is a multi -tiered document that builds on previously adopted AQMPs (SCAQMD). The 2012 AQMP was adopted in December 2012 and demonstrated 03 and PM10 for the covered Basin. It also provides the maintenance plans for CO and NOz, which the Basin has been in attainment for since 1997 and 1992, respectively. The 2012 AQMP was adopted by the SCAQMD governing board on December 7, 2012, approved by ARB on September 27, 2007, and submitted to the EPA as part of the 2007 SIP on February 1, 2013. The AQMP identifies short- and long-term control measures designed to reduce stationary, area, and mobile source emissions, organized into four primary components: 1. District Stationary and Mobile Source Control Measures 2. Air Resources Board (ARB) State Strategy 3. Supplement to ARB Control Strategy 4. SCAG Regional Transportation Strategy and Control Measures Environmental Impact Report 4.3-9 4.3 Air Quality The 2012 AQMP further builds on the 2007 AQMP to address the federal PM2.5 air quality standard, as well as proactively addressing the federal 8 -hour ozone air quality standard to be attained by 2023. Overall, the 2012 AQMP projected a three percent reduction in NOx and 17 percent reduction in PM2.5 emissions by 2014, and a three percent reduction in NOx and one percent reduction in VOC emissions by 2023 compared to respective 2014 and 2023 projected baselines for each pollutant. The AQMP anticipated attainment of the 24-hour PM2.5 standard by 2014 and attainment of the 8 -hour ozone standard by 2023. Stationary source control measures in the 2012 AQMP are based on implementation of all feasible control measures through the application of available cleaner technologies, best management practices, incentive programs, as well as development and implementation of zero- and near -zero technologies and control methods. These would be applied to both point source (typically facilities permitted by SCAQMD) as well as area sources associated with smaller/non- permitted emissions. Notable PM2.5 stationary control measures that will begin implementation in 2013 include further reductions from the Regional Clean Air Incentives Market (RECLAIM) NOx and SOx cap -and -trade program, further reductions from residential and open wood burning, and reductions from under -fired charbroilers. Notable ozone stationary control measures that began implementation in 2015 include targeting reducing emissions from coatings and solvents, combustion sources, petroleum operations and fugitive volatile organic compounds (VOCs), as well as incentive and education programs. Mobile source reduction includes actions seeking further emission reductions from both on -road and off-road mobile sources, such as accelerated penetration of zero- and near -zero emission vehicles and early retirement of older vehicles as well research and development of advanced control technologies from various mobile sources. These measures are designed to achieve attainment for both PM2.5 and ozone; however, greater reductions in ozone are necessary to achieve attainment, so a more robust program to reduce NOx emissions that contribute to ozone levels to evaluate, develop, demonstrate, fund, and deploy new technologies is designed to achieve the necessary reductions. NOx emissions contribute greatly to ozone levels and are the primary target for reduction to achieve ozone attainment. SCAG's Regional Transportation Strategy and Transportation Control Measures included in SCAG's 2012 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) are designed to expand infrastructure to limit congestion and expand transportation choices, as well as encourage population and employment growth in high quality transit areas to make transit more feasible. While these measures are primarily intended to affect road congestion and transportation choices, they also can help achieve substantial measurable reductions in emissions that are incorporated into the 2012 AQMP. SCAQMD Rule Book To control air pollution in the Basins, SCAQMD adopts rules that establish permissible air pollutant emissions and governs a variety of businesses, processes, operations, and products to implement the AQMP and the various federal and State air quality requirements. SCAQMD does not adopt rules for mobile sources; those are established by ARB or U.S. EPA. Rules that will be applicable during buildout of the proposed General Plan AmendmentsUpdafes include Rule 402 (Nuisance), Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust), Rule 1108 (Cutback Asphalt) and Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings). Rule 402 prohibits discharges of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. Rule 403 prohibits emissions of fugitive dust from any grading activity, storage pile, or other disturbed surface area if it crosses the project property line or if emissions caused by vehicle movement cause substantial impairment of visibility (defined as exceeding 20 percent opacity in the air). Rule 403 requires the implementation of Best Available Control Measures (BACM) and includes additional provisions for projects disturbing more than five acres and those disturbing more than fifty acres. Rule 1108 restricts the sale or use of any cutback asphalt containing more than 0.5 percent by volume organic compounds. Rule 1113 establishes maximum concentrations of VOCs in paints and other applications and establishes the thresholds for low-VOC coatings. 4.3-10 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment Air Quality 4.3 Approach to Air Quality Analysis The South Coast Air Quality Management District ((SCAQMD) recognizes the differences between project -level environmental review and program -level review, as discussed in Section 7.12(Program EIRs and EIRs for General Plans of the 1993 CEQA Air Quality Handbook (SCAQMD, 1993). Therein, SCAQMD explains that program -level documents need not address the level of specificity that is inherent at the project level, but rather should focus on the establishment of broad policies and mitigation that will be applicable to future development within the planning area of the programmatic document, as follows: At a programmatic level, the air quality assessment should be as comprehensive as possible. There are some cases, such as construction impacts of a General plan, where specific information may not be available.... If the program EIR was not sufficiently detailed so that all significant effects were evaluated, then such evaluation should be performed when subsequent activities involving site-specific operations are contemplated. LL -_6) The discussion provided in the Handbook clarifies that the inclusion of air -quality -related goals, policies, and program may act as mitigation through adoption of the General Plan, when considered in the EIR, to be implemented over the life of the General Plan. Finally, the Handbook recognizes the cumulative character of impacts associated with General Plans and the opportunity for a lead agency to address cumulative and broad impacts that can be ascertained when evaluating impacts through a larger geographic and longer temporal context. Consistent with this discussion, the analysis of air quality impacts provided herein was conducted programmatically by evaluating the goals and policies of the General Plan and how those will result in broad category or locational criteria pollutant and toxic air contaminant reductions. Future development within the Planning Area will be subject not only to the goals and policies of the proposed general plan, but further to any implementing ordinances and project -level environmental evaluation and potential analysis pursuant to CEQA and the City's standard environmental review process. This air quality analysis focuses on the inherent, cumulative nature of air quality impacts and the need for the proposed General Plan to not conflict with efforts to reduce Basin -wide emissions and meet federal and state air quality requirements. This type of analysis is based on consistency with regional growth projections and does not require estimating criteria pollutants emissions. As such, emissions estimations were not prepared for the proposed General plan and are not included in this EIR. It is clear in the Handbook that estimation of emissions from programmatic projects is not required or recommended in both Section 7.12 and in Chapter 6 through the discussion of thresholds of significance. (p. 6-7) In discussing its own adoption of a program EIR for the 1991 AQMP, SCAQMD recognizes that ".... the level of detailed analysis ... . is consistent with the requirements in the CEQA Guidelines which recognize the level of detail of an environmental analysis is directly related to the level of detail of the project." This discussion explains that only policy level analysis was conducted in the AQMP because that was the level of specificity available and that future project -level, specific land use projects would likely be subject to additional review and mitigation to address local impacts. The Programmatic analysis provided herein is consistent with this discussion. SCAQMD further recognizes the difference between project -level analysis and program -level analysis by separating these types of analysis in the discussion of thresholds. SCAQMD uses a fairly strict definition of project in Chapter in its discussion of construction and operational impacts and the appropriate thresholds for determining significance. There are no thresholds established for program -level documents in the discussions of thresholds in Section 6.1 through 6.4 nor is specific direction or implication present that programmatic projects are subject to the daily thresholds identified therein. Programmatic analysis is addressed elsewhere, as discussed above. Environmental Impact Report 4.3-11 4.3 Air Quality Thresholds of Significance The General Plan Amendments could result in potentially significant impacts related to air quality if they would: 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 that the region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). D. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. E. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Implementation of the General Plan Amendments would influence future development that could potentially result in criteria pollutant and toxic contaminant emissions. Background information is provided on what levels of emissions are anticipated to be generated as a result of implementation of the General Plan Amendments. However, since the project would not directly result in emissions, the General Plan Amendments are analyzed primarily in terms of consistency with the AQMP to determine impacts on region -wide emissions, as well as how implementing projects pursuant to the General Plan would be analyzed individually to determine potentially substantial impacts. Implementing projects would be screened to determine if maximum daily criteria pollutant emissions from construction and operation are individually and/or cumulatively significant. To determine this, the SCAQMD significance thresholds would be used. These thresholds are identified in Table 4.3-6 (SCAQMD Maximum Daily Emissions Thresholds [lbs/day]). Cumulative impacts are typically determined by analyzing vehicle miles traveled, long-term pollutant reductions, or average vehicle ridership, depending on the use. Table 4.3-6 SCAQMD Maximum Daily Emissions Thresholds (lbs/days) Pollutant VOCIROG Construction 75 Operation 55 NOx 100 55 CO 550 550 SO2 150 150 PM10 150 150 PM2.e 55 55 Lead 3 3 Source: MIG, 2015 Note: Volatile organic compounds are measured as reactive organic gases SCAQMD also has established thresholds for emissions of toxic air contaminants. Toxic air emissions from a project are considered potentially significant if maximum incremental cancer risk is greater than 10 persons in 1,000,000. Cancer risk is determined by calculating the annual average toxic concentration (micrograms per cubic meter, or pg/m3) and multiplying it by the unit risk factor (URF) for the toxic and the lifetime exposure adjustment (LEA) of the receptor. URF represents the estimated probability that a person will contract cancer as a result of inhalation of a toxic of one pg/m3 continuously over 70 years. Because some receptors are exposed to toxics for less than 70 years (i.e., off-site workers), the LEA adjusts the receptors exposure to represent actual exposure time. The LEA for residential uses and other sensitive receptors is 1.0, representing an assumed exposure of 70 continuous years. Acute and chronic non -cancer risks are considered significant if a project's toxic air contaminant emissions result in a hazard index greater than or equal to one. The hazard index is determined by calculating the average annual toxic 4.3-12 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment Air Quality 4.3 concentration (pg/m3) divided by the reference exposure level (REL) for a particular toxic. The REL is the concentration at which no adverse health impacts are anticipated and is established by OEHHA. Environmental Impact The proposed General Plan Amendments would will not conflict with the 2012 Air IMPACT Quality Management Plan because land use policy would accommodate increases in 4.3.A population above will support the projected level of population growth assumed in the 4.3. 113 2012 Air Quality Management Plan. Also, projected cumulative daily pollutant emissions 4.3.0 program -wide will not would exceed SCAQMD thresholds for criteria pollutants. Impacts at the program level would beess_4han—significant. Construction Emissions The proposed General Plan Amendments would not directly result in construction of any development or infrastructure and thus does not have the potential to generate construction emissions that could conflict with the AQMP or cause or contribute to a an existing or projected air quality violation; however, future development supported by the policies of the General Plan would result in short-term construction -related criteria pollutant emissions. Short-term criteria pollutant emissions would occur during site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and painting activities associated with specific new development projects. Emissions would occur from use of equipment, worker, vendor, and hauling trips, and disturbance of onsite soils (fugitive dust). Pursuant to existing CEQA requirements, short-term, project -specific construction -related emissions will be analyzed as development proposals are submitted. Mitigation will be applied, where necessary, and typically includes requirements for use of low-VOC paints, installation of diesel particulate filters on older construction equipment, and limitations on hauling distances and or daily trips. AQMP Consistency and Pollutant Emissions A significant impact could occur if the proposed project conflicts with or obstructs the implementation of SCAQMD 2012 AQMP. Conflicts and obstructions that hinder implementation of the AQMP can delay efforts to meet attainment deadlines for criteria pollutants and maintaining existing compliance with applicable air quality standards. Because of this program -level analysis, Thresholds A through C are discussed as a whole in this section. As a policy document, no development is authorized or would directly occur from the adoption of the General Plan Amendments. However, development can be expected to occur within the planning area guided by amended General Plan policies. Short-term criteria pollutant emissions would occur during site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and painting/coating activities. Emissions would occur from use of construction equipment, worker, vendor, and hauling trips, and disturbance of on-site soils (fugitive dust). Long-term criteria air pollutant emissions would result from the operation of potential development. Long-term emissions are categorized as area source emissions, energy demand emissions, and operational emissions. Operational emissions would result from automobile, truck, and other vehicle sources associated with daily trips to and from future development. Pursuant to the methodology provided in Chapter 12 of the 1993 SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, consistency with the 2012 Air AQMP is affirmed when a project: (1) does not increase the frequency or severity of an air quality standards violation or cause a new violation and (2) is consistent with the growth assumptions in the AQMP (SCAQMD). These criteria are discussed below. Environmental Impact Report 4.3-13 4.3 Air Quality Criterion 1 To address the first criterion, an air quality modeling analysis is typically performed to determine if a specific project could cause a violation of any air quality standard either regionally or locally. However, given that the proposed General Plan Amendments represent a programmatic proposal and would not directly result in construction of any development or infrastructure, such analysis cannot be completed at this time. Future developments that result from buildout of the proposed General Plan would be subject to CEQA, which, depending on the project, may include conducting an air quality analysis to determine if a project could increase the frequency or severity of an air quality standards violation or cause a new violation. To determine if the proposed General Plan Amendments could potentially contribute or cause a new air quality violation by exceeding applicable ambient air quality standards, consistency with the growth projections used in the AQMP is appropriate, as discussed in criterion 2 below. Criterion 2 The proposed General Plan Amendments have the potential to support 9,271 more dwelling units, 21,166 more residents, and approximately 5.6 million square feet more of non-residential development compared to the existing conditions. Due to the changes in proposed land uses from the existing General Plan Land Use Plan, upon which the 2012 AQMP is partially based, and the proposed General Plan Amendments and potential future development supported by implementation of the amended General Plan may not be consistent with the growth projections utilized in the 2012 AQMP. This could result in potentially significant impacts because air quality attainment goals could be delayed since the strategies adopted in the AQMP would not account for land use changes in the planning area. The 2012 AQMP long-term emissions inventory is based on the growth and land use projections included in SCAG's 2012 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. According to the RTP/SCS, by 2035 Costa Mesa's population is projected to be 114,000 and the total employment base is projected to be 88,800. As is detailed in the Project Description, the proposed land use plan can accommodate a build -out population of 131,690 and the total employment base is projected to be 104,425. Therefore, the proposed General Plan is inconsistent with the growth projections used in the RTP/SCS and would be inconsistent with the 2012 AQMP. Despite this inconsistency, the following policies in the updated General Plan support attainment of air quality goals through assessment and mitigation of future development projects and City operations in regards to construction and operational pollutants, vehicle miles traveled and trips generated, alternative transit systems, and use of alternative energy. Land Use Element Objective LU -424: Encourage new development and redevelopment that protects and te-improves-aPA ma+eta+e the quality of Costa Mesa's natural the urban environment and resources. Policy LU -4_62.G: Incorporate the principles of sustainability into land use planning, infrastructure, and development processes to reduce greenhouse gas emissions consistent with State goals. 4.3-14 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment Air Quality 4.3 Circulation Element Goal C-4: Promote Transportation Demand Management, Transit, and Efficiency. Utilize Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies to manage demand and maximize available capacity. Objective C -4.A: Encourage greater utilization of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies to reduce dependence on single -occupancy vehicles. Policy C -4.A.1: Support South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) trip reduction programs, including park and ride lots, transit subsidies, carpool and vanpool programs, flexible working hours, bicycle facilities, and other traffic reduction strategies. Policy C -4.A.2: Support local and multi -jurisdictional car -sharing and bike -sharing programs. Goal C-11: Promote the Positive Air Quality, Health, and Economic Benefits of Active Transportation. Encourage active transportation by promoting air quality, health, and economic benefits, and by pursuing multiple sources of funding for active transportation programs and facilities. PG1iGy G !.A: Develop as many street pr�eGts as possible 'R aR affordable, balanGed, , , pLjb!'G traRSit veh'Gles and their passeRgers, and pedestrians of all ages and abilities. Objective C-1 1.A: Improve air quality and public health and reduce ambient noise by promoting Active Transportation programs. Recommendation C -11.A.1: Determine baseline emissions levels, then track and communicate changes in emissions as modes of transportation trips shift to encourage walking and biking. Recommendation C-1 1.A.2: Improve the quality of life in Costa Mesa by reducing neighborhood traffic and noise. Environmental Impact Report 4.3-15 4.3 Air Quality Recommendation C-1 1.A.3: Increase pedestrian and bicycle trips, thereby reducing vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled. Recommendation C-1 1.A.4: Coordinate with appropriate federal, state, and county health agencies on active transportation programs to achieve health benefits. POIOGY G 1.F: Consider street retrefut and rnedifiGations that Gan improve Mobility and safety fa.r ' throughcUGhmeasures as neighborhood traffin management � iQ Complete CtFeets design Conservation Element Objective C-2: Work towards the conservation of energy resources in existing and new buildings, utilities, and infrastructure. Policy C -2.A: Promote efficient use of energy and conservation of available resources in the design, construction, maintenance, and operation of public and private facilities, infrastructure, and equipment. Policy C-2.13: Consult with regional agencies and utility companies to pursue energy efficiency goals and expand renewable energy strategies to reach zero net energy for both residential and commercial new construction. Policy C -2.C: Continue to develop partnerships with participating jurisdictions to promote energy efficiency, energy conservation and renewable energy resource development by leveraging the abilities of local governments to strengthen and reinforce the capacity of energy efficiency efforts. Policy C -2.D: Encourage new development to take advantage of Costa Mesa's optimal climate in the warming and cooling of buildings, including use of heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) systems. Policy C -2.E: Promote environmentally sustainable development principles for buildings, neighborhoods, and infrastructure. Policy C-21: Encourage construction and building development practices that reduce resource expenditures throughout the lifecycle of the structure. 4.3-16 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment Air Quality 4.3 Policy C -2.G: Continue to require all City facilities and services to incorporate energy and resource conservation standards and practices and new municipal facilities be built within the LEED Gold standards or equivalent. waste redUGtien, reGyGling and reuse, and !RGreased rellanGe on renewable energy. Policy C-2.Ht: Continue City green initiatives in purchases, equipment, and agreements that favor sustainable products and practices. Objective C -4.A: Pursue the prevention of the significant deterioration of local and regional air and quality. Policy C -4.A: Support regional policies and efforts that improve air quality to protect human and environmental health, and minimize disproportionate impacts on sensitive population groups. Policy C -4.B: EncourageConsult—with businesses, industries, and residents, and regulatory ageRGies to reduce the impact of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of stationary and non -stationary pollution sources, o, Gh as industry, diesel +n into and airGraf+ Policy C -4.C: Require that sensitive uses such as schools, childcare centers, parks and playgrounds, housing, and community gathering places are protected from adverse impacts of emissions. Policy C -4.D: Continue to participate in regional planning efforts with nearby jurisdictions and the South Coast Air Quality Management District to meet or exceed air quality standards. P010GY G 4.k DeVelOp gFeeR PFOGUrement plans and seek eReFgy savings in operations and main+ononno of City fonili+ioo These policies would work to reduce criteria pollutant emissions in the planning area in a number of ways. These policies aim to reduce the City's carbon footprint, ensure the long-term viability and productivity of the community's natural and human -made environment, and manage resources wisely to meet the needs of a growing population and economy. Community planning decisions would be based on sustainable practices that reduce environmental pollutants, conserve resources, and minimize waste. These policies would also reduce the dependence on fossil fuels by encouraging the design of energy-efficient buildings, using renewable energy, and promoting alternative methods of transportation. However, because the proposed General Plan Update would be inconsistent with AQMP growth projections, impacts would still be significant. Environmental Impact Report 4.3-17 4.3 Air Quality Construction and operation related impacts of developments constructed as a result of the proposed General Plan Update will be identified on a project -by -project basis, at which time additional mitigation would be adopted, if necessary. Regarding potential contribution to an existing or projected air quality violation, the 2012 AQMP identifies short- and long-term control measures designed to reduce stationary, area, and mobile source emissions. The 2012 AQMP further builds on the 2007 AQMP to address the federal PM2.5 air quality standard, as well as proactively addressing the federal 8 -hour ozone air quality standard to be attained by 2023. 16 r,r^ioGted to aGhieve attaiRp;eRt of criteria (Regulatory mewepk) Of this 6840R -.—The proposed General Plan Amendments would support AQMP implementation to achieve the attainments thrsegh_twith the measures included in the AQMP through implementation the proposed policies in the General Plan Amendments; however, because the accommodated growth would exceed projections assumed in the 2012 AQMP, as previously stated, the proposed General Plan may interfere with theconflict with the successfull implementation of the 2012 AQMP and thus cause or contribute to an air quality violation. This (impact would be significant. The proposed General Plan Amendments have the potential to result in the exposure of IMPACT sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations associated with industrial 4.3. 113 use from construction activities, high-volume roadways, and stationary sources of toxic air contamninants.. However, impacts would be less than significant with implementation of General Plan policies and application of standard development practices. Concentrations of Criteria Pollutants The proposed General Plan Amendments would not authorize any specific construction; however, future development projects constructed pursuant to General Plan land use policies could potentially expose sensitive receptors to temporary, localized pollutant concentrations in excess of air quality standards, even if the broader region is in attainment. Examples include emissions of fugitive dust and vehicle and machinery exhaust during large- scale grading activities and roadway construction. Under limited circumstances, large-scale construction activities could result in emissions of fugitive dust, nitrogen oxides, and other criteria pollutants that could exceed SCAQMD daily thresholds of significance and thereby could result in a significant impact. Emissions of fugitive dust near sensitive receptors are a primary concern because, unlike gaseous pollutants that quickly rise and affect the upper atmosphere, particulate matter tends to remain close to the ground. Pursuant to existing law, future development associated with buildout of the proposed General Plan would be required to prepare an air quality impact analysis for individual development projects where possible emissions could impact sensitive receptors. Such analyses will include project -specific mitigation measures, as appropriate. Furthermore, future construction activities will be subject to routine control measures as required by SCAQMD (Rules 402, 403, 1108, and 1113). It should be noted that SCAQMD guidance indicates that analysis of localized criteria pollutant impacts is required; therefore, future construction projects would be assessed for localized criteria pollutant impacts on a case-by-case basis under the purview of the City. Impacts related to local criteria pollutant emissions would not be significant with implementation of existing regulations and the proposed policies of the General Plan update. According to the Air Quality and Land Use Handbook, ARB recommends that sensitive land uses not be located within 500 feet of highways or major arterials having average annual daily traffic (AADT) that exceeds 100,000 vehicles. This is due to the concentration of pollutants that accumulate in this proximity to freeways and other major arterials. No non -freeway roadways within the planning area either currently or over the long term are projected to have an AADT that exceeds 100,000 vehicles. 1-405, SR -55, and SR -73 currently have and will likely continue to 4.3-18 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment Air Quality 4.3 have AADTs that exceed 100,000.' Based on ARB guidelines, a significant impact could occur if the General Plan Amendments would permit new residential or other sensitive uses within 500 feet of these highways. Today, residential land uses exist within 500 feet of these highways within the planning area. Also, there are a number of vacant parcels designated for residential land use within 500 feet of either freeway. With the implementation of proposed General Plan policies and adherence to existing environmental regulations that require specific analysis of impacts of industrial projects on existing or potential sensitive receptors and sensitive receptors from existing industrial projects, significant impacts to sensitive receptors from heavy traffic roadway criteria pollutants would be less than significant. Toxic Air Contaminants Some industrial land uses have the potential to generate substantial toxic air contaminant (TAC) concentrations that could adversely affect sensitive receptors. Such emissions could be produced by a variety of interior processes and outdoor activities that generate emissions of TACs. TACs are air pollutants that may cause or contribute to an increase in deaths or serious illnesses or that may pose a present or potential hazard to human health. Unlike criteria pollutants, there are no levels of exposure to TACs that do not produce adverse health effects. The Tanner Bill requires implementation of risk reduction measures for toxic contaminant releases with cancer risks that are equal to or greater than 25 per million and the SCAQMD has established a TAC emissions cancer risk threshold of equal to or greater than ten per million. For example, common facilities within the District that have a cancer risk of approximately 10 per million include forges, refineries, fuel distribution and storage facilities, and heavy plating facilities. Common facilities with a cancer risk of approximately 25 per million or more include aircraft manufacturing, large plating and machining facilities, and chemical manufacturing. The proposed General Plan land use plan includes Industrial Park (IP) and Light Industrial (LI) land use categories that permit varying degrees of manufacturing, processing, and distribution activities. Future businesses of these types that may be developed within the designated industrial areas could result in emissions of a variety of toxic air contaminants. ARB research has documented increased potential health risks for sensitive receptors as the distance to sources of hazardous emissions is reduced. Based on these findings, they have developed guidelines to assist local government agencies in siting new land uses that could be occupied by "sensitive individuals" at a safe distance from such sources.' Sensitive individuals refer to those segments of the population most susceptible to poor air quality (i.e., children, the elderly, and those with pre-existing serious health problems affected by air quality). Land uses where sensitive individuals are most likely to spend time include schools and schoolyards, parks and playgrounds, daycare centers, nursing homes, hospitals, and residential communities (also known as sensitive sites or sensitive land uses). The recommended distances are based on a variety of health studies and air pollution monitoring and modeling. Major air pollution source categories currently found in Costa Mesa, or that could be developed in the future within designated industrial zones, and their associated air pollutant risks, are described below. Freeways and High -Traffic Roadways High -traffic roadways such as freeways or other major roadways with traffic volumes at 100,000 vehicles per day or more. Primary pollutants of concern include diesel particulate matter, benzene, and 1,3 -butadiene. Environmental Impact Report 4.3-19 4.3 Air Quality Distribution Centers: Distribution warehouses result in the generation of heavy diesel truck traffic and have been linked with high emissions of diesel particulate matter (DPM), established as an air toxic contaminant by ARB in 1998.3 DPM was identified as a toxic because of its potential to cause cancer, premature deaths, and other health problems. Health hazards associated with DPM are especially hazardous for children because their lungs are still developing, and the elderly who may have other serious health problems. Perch loroethylene Dry Cleaners: Perch loroethylene is the most common used solvent in the dry cleaning industry to clean clothes and other materials. Although dry cleaning operations are subject to regulations enforced by ARB and SCAQMD, continued studies still show a substantial risk even near well-controlled operations. Perch loroethylene is a carcinogen and also presents other non -cancer health risks including dizziness, impaired judgment and perception, and liver and kidney damage. Gasoline Dispensing Facilities: Common local gas stations present a relatively low-risk to land uses in the general proximity. However, large -volume, high throughput gas stations have become a concern due to the high amounts of gasoline being pumped (in excess of 2.4 million gallons per year) and are the main target of the recommended buffer. The pollutant of concern associated with gasoline stations is benzene. Five years of monitoring indicates that strong winds at the Costa Mesa air quality monitoring station come primarily from the southwest with some strong winds also coming from the northeast less frequently, which should generally be representative of the wind pattern in Costa Mesa.4 In those cases where residential uses and other sensitive land uses are located immediately northeast or southwest of industrial land uses, a potentially significant impact could occur because sensitive uses could be exposed to emissions carried by wind from the industrial land uses. Based on the ARB recommended siting standards, land designated for residential development within 1,000 feet downwind of a designated industrial land use concentration is considered to be a potentially significant pollutant exposure area. Existing school and park facilities and'/ -mile buffer areas are shown on Figure 4.3-1 (Air Quality Sensitivity) and the 1,000 -foot industrial buffer areas, regardless of wind direction, are identified in Figure 4.3-2 (Existing Emission Locations) and Figure 4.3-3 (Potential Emission Locations) and the residential land uses are shown previously in Exhibit 3.0-3 (Draft Land Use Plan). Since existing and planned industrial land uses exist throughout much of the planning area, much of the City may be affected by any potential substantial industrial emission source that currently exists or may be developed in the future regardless of wind direction. This does not mean that any existing homes in the identified 1,000 -foot buffer areas are currently exposed to significant health risks; this is intended simply as a guideline for estimating where there is the most potential for exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial toxics concentrations generated within areas of industrial uses. Actual levels of risk can only be determined through site-specific analysis and specialized air pollutant modeling, based on an actual relationship between an industrial emission source and a specific residential site. Such assessments might determine that there are less than significant health risks, or that there could be some significant level of exposure to pollutants that need to be mitigated through siting, site design, or operational restrictions. General Plan policies for proposed developments to prepare an air quality analysis, which would include health risk assessments where appropriate, would address any potential impact that could occur in these identified areas or any other area of the City. With implementation of proposed General Plan policies and existing regulations that regulate and monitor toxic emitters, potential health impacts to sensitive receptors due to exposure to toxic air contaminants will be less than significant. 4.3-20 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment 1111!-!! 1.. �■ �■ !� I k l "�h -�# [ 74J L WIN L J1�1 L� r io PAJ Ew" , � G 4.3 Air Quality G E. *Alma kmwstw U> 120161 a Why 1a or Ar Pnlluaon ® nnuvey -all 0 -4n iia 0 6oundamn 0 — uo &—mr 0 -'—'--' SDMG ulrft Ye �1 G E. *Alma kmwstw U> 120161 a Why 1a or Ar Pnlluaon ® nnuvey -all v 7Ant,v unsay -rye E^.+rav: -4n iia InAllCbml Intl Ff tay Huff s 6oundamn - neu ra -" �-aec=w ewer — uo &—mr L _V4 •K7w7a 1.00LIXOM ediff -'—'--' SDMG ulrft Ye hi[p-•?www migc— can . 951-79 7-91? ' ® Hogie-Ireland o ;a Feet �I 0 t -ice 2-ODO 4,000 8-ff00 8-000 Sallee. Cly or caw Meat 20W FRa, Kn-,QR, 2715. Llai* NDVeff ff"15 Exhibit 4.3-2 Existing Emission Locations Costa Mesa Genera! Plan Update Costa Mesa, California Figure 4.3.2 Existing Emission Locations 4.3-22 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment rgllil'. Er M 1 G 4.3 Air Quality Carbon Monoxide Hotspots A carbon monoxide (CO) hotspot is an area of localized CO pollution that is caused by severe vehicle congestion on major roadways, typically near intersections. CO hotspots have the potential to violate state and federal CO standards at intersections, even if the broader Basin is in attainment for federal and state levels. In general, the California Department of Transportation Project -Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol (CO Protocol) recommend analysis of CO hotspots when a project increases the number of vehicles operating in cold start mode by more than two percent, increases traffic volumes by more than five percent, or worsens average traffic speeds. In addition, CO hotspots are typically associated with intersections with lower ratings of Level of Services (LOS), such as LOS E or F, which indicate high congestion and high amounts of idling vehicles that have the potential to generate a CO hotspot. Currently the following intersection operates at LOS E, and no intersections operate at LOS F:5 ■ Hyland Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard Pursuant to existing regulations, future development projects associated with buildout of the proposed General Plan will be screened and analyzed pursuant to the CO Protocol to determine if a CO hotspot may occur at congested intersections. Mitigation may be required, if necessary, to alleviate traffic congestion and minimize the hotspot potential. Other mitigation could include operational restrictions on future development. With screening and analysis of future projects pursuant to the CO Protocol, impacts related to carbon monoxide hotspots would be less than significant. The proposed General Plan Amendments have the potential to result in the exposure of IMPACT sensitive receptors to odors from construction activities and industrial land uses. 4.3. E Impact would be less than significant with implementation of General Plan policies and application of standard development practices. According to the CEQA Air Quality Handbook, land uses associated with odor complaints include agricultural operations, wastewater treatment plants, landfills, and certain industrial operations (such as manufacturing uses that produce chemicals, paper, etc.). While odors do not present a health risk of themselves, they are often considered a nuisance by people who live, work, or otherwise are located near outdoor odor sources. Odor controls are routinely established by cities, on a case-by-case basis, during the development project review/entitlement process, based on the unique characteristics of the specific development proposal. Future potential sources of odors would have to be considered in light of potential impacts to surrounding land uses. Pursuant to existing environmental regulations, projects would be evaluated with regard to potential impacts related to odors. While siting is the primary way to prevent exposure to odors, odors can also be mitigated in similar fashion to air pollutant emissions (i.e., filtering). Impacts related to odors would be less than significant with implementation of existing development review practices. Mitigation Measures No mitigation is available to provide for consistency of the proposed General Plan Amendments with the 2012 AQMP growth projections. As part of the process of preparing the subsequent RTP/SCS on which the subsequent AQMP will be based, the City will work with SCAG to ensure that the regional projections reflect Costa Mesa's updated land 4.3-24 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment Air Quality 4.3 use objectives and projections, as well as the policies and measures the City is pursuing to help achieve regional air pollution reduction goals. In the interim, however, no mitigation is available. Pursuant to proposed General Plan policies, CEQA, and SCAQMD regulations, individual development projects would be required to perform project -specific air quality analyses to determine potential impacts and mitigation measures to comply with the applicable AQMP and maximum daily emission thresholds. Level of Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Not applicable Environmental Impact Report 4.3-25 Air Quality 4.3 References California Air Resources Board. Air Quality Data Statistics. Select 8 Summary for Orange County. http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/select8/sc8start.php [June 9, 20161 Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. City of Costa Mesa General Plan Update Traffic Analysis. February 12, 2016. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Clean Air Act. www.epa.gov/air/caa/ [November 16, 2015]. United States Environmental Protection Agency. EnviroMapper for Envirofacts. http://www.epa.gov/emefdata/em4ef.home [November 15, 2015]. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Particulate Matter. http://www.epa.gov/air/particlepollution/index.html [November 14, 2012]. Western Regional Climate Center. Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary: Newport Beach Harbor, California (046175). http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca6l75 [November 15, 2015]. 4.3-26 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment Biological Resources 4.4 This section discusses potential impacts of the General Plan Amendment's implementation on vegetation communities, wildlife habitat, rare, endangered, and special status species, wildlife migration, and wetlands and riparian habitat. The analysis is this section is based in part on the: ■ California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database ■ County of Orange - Central and Coastal Sub -Region: Natural Community Conservation Plan and Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP) ■ Fairview Park Master Plan • California Land Cover Mapping and Monitoring Program Additional information on special status species and habitats was acquired from the NatureServe Explorer, the University of California, and other publically available resources. Note that site-specific surveys were not performed, due to the programmatic nature of the document and the fact that all proposed land use amendments apply to existing urbanized areas. Site specific surveys will be required, as necessary, when development projects are submitted to the City for review and permitting. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife submitted a comment letter on the Notice of Preparation. This section includes information recommended in the comment letter and addresses Fairview Park as a potential habitat reserve for the Orange County NCCP/HCP. Existing Conditions Climate Orange County is characterized by mild summers and winters. The average winter high temperature is 474° Fahrenheit (F) and the average summer high temperature is 73-4° F. Daytime winds are from the southwest at six to eight miles per hour (MPH) as air moves onshore from the Pacific Ocean. Rainfall in the area is infrequent and variable. Most precipitation occurs from December through March, averaging 134.0 inches per year (WRCC 2015). Flora and Fauna A majority of Costa Mesa's natural biological resources are located in areas free from large-scale development intrusion. Areas such as these are found in western Costa Mesa near the Santa Ana River and include Fairview Reg+eaal-Park and tf�e-Talbert Regional Parkad4Ge ^A4We refi ge. Additionally, the agricultural fields in northern Costa Mesa support an Vie -animal community related to field crop production. Flora Prior to development in the City of Costa Mesa, the natural landscape was covered with a wide variety of native grasses, with small sage scrub communities along the coastal bluffs and canyons. What remains of this natural environment is not representative of conditions at that time. The grasslands on the mesa at Fairview Park and the Santa Ana River lowlands have been significantly altered by the introduction of nonnative grasses, grazing, agricultural production and discing, and frequent human activity. Adjacent sage -scrub communities have been disrupted by bluff erosion and grading, while the smaller riparian community near the Santa Ana River has been impacted by efforts to channelize the river for flood protection purposes. In spite of these alterations, examples of all three communities (grassland, sage scrub, and riparian) can be found in limited amounts within the present City limits. A detailed description of these and other plant communities broken down into finer categories can be found in the Fairview Park Master Plan. This document includes descriptions of sensitive species and habitats not included below, and it is hereby incorporated by reference. Environmental Impact Report 4.4-1 4.4 Biological Resources Grasslands Grasslands are generally found at low elevations on flat plains or gentle hillsides having a deep layer of clay -bearing soil. A list of plants generally associated with this community is included below in Table 4.4-1 (Plants of the Grassland Community). Species most common to the Fairview Park and river lowlands are non-native species and include Russian thistle (Salsola kah), Curly Dock (Rumex crispus), mustard (Brassica ssp.), Mexican tea (Chenopodium ambrosiodes), Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), brome grass (Bromus spp.), wild oat (Avena fatua), Italian rye (Lolium multiflorium), and clover (Trifolium sp.). Some native species also occur and include California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), California poppy (Eschscholzia californica), shooting stars (Dodecatheon clevelandii), and California buttercup (Ranunculus californicus). Table 4.4-1 Plants of the Grassland Community and Status in Planning Area Common Name Scientific Name Status Observation - X PossibleConfirmed Present Red -skinned Onion Allium haematochiton - X Southwestern beard rass Andropo on glomeratus - X California sagebrush Artemesia californica - X Coulter's saltbrush Atri lex coulteri CNPS 1 B X Slender wild oat Avena barbata X Wild oat Avena fatua X Black mustard Brassica ne ra X Red brome Bromus rubens X Poverty brome Bromus sterilis X Prostrates ineflower Chorizanthe procumbens CNPS 4 Wild hyacinth Dichelostemma pulchellum X Shooting stars Dodecatheon clevelandii X California buckwheat Erio onum fasciculatum X White -stemmed filaree Erodium moschatum X California poppy Eschscholzia califoml.ca X - X Southern tarplant Centromadia*m4epia Parryi ssp. CNPS 113, aAustralis FSC X X Vernal barley Hordeum intercedens CNPS 3 X Wild barley Hordeum murinum X Goldentop grass Lamarckia aurea X Coulter's goldfields Lasthenia glabrata ssp. Coulteri CNPS 16, FSC X Hairy peppergrass Le idium nitidum X Small -flowered microseris Microseris dou lasii var. platycarpha CNPS 4 X Coastal prickly -pear Opuntia littoralis X California buttercup Ranunculus californicus X Johnson grass Sorghum hale ense X Johnny jump -ups Viola pendunculata X FSC: Federal Species of Concern CNPS 1 B: California Native Plant Society List for Plants Rare or Endangered in California and Elsewhere CNPS 3: California Native Plant Society List for Plants About Which We Need More Information — A Review List CNPS 4: California Native Plant Society List for Plants of Limited Distribution — A Watch List Source: Biological Consulting Services for the Conservation Element of the Costa Mesa General Plan, prepared by BonTerra Consulting, May 22, 2000. Species status updated from CDFW CNDDB, November 2015. 4.4-2 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment Biological Resources 4.4 Sage Scrub Sage scrub communities, consisting of grayish -green scrub usually less than three feet high, can be found at elevations less than 3,000 feet on foothills and coastal bluffs and canyons. The most prevalent form of sage in the Costa Mesa area is the coastal sage. Plants most commonly associated with this community are noted in Table 4.4-2 (Plants of the Sage Scrub Community). Table 4.4-2 Plants of the Sage Scrub Community and Status in Planning Area Common Name Red -skinned Onion Scientific Name Allium haematochiton Status Observation - X PossibleConfirmed Present Aphanisma Aphanisma blitoides CNPS 113, FSC X California sagebrush Artemesia californica - X Coulter's saltbrush Atri lex coulteri CNPS 113 X C., +h ooltsGale AWplex paGi GNPS 113, €SS x Parish's brittlescale Antriplex parishii CNPS 113, FSC X Davidson's saltscale Atriplex serenana var. davidsonii CNPS 1B X Slender wild oat Avena barbata - X Wild oat Avena fatua - X Goldenstar Bloomeria crocea - X - x Buckwheat Erio onum fasciculatum - X Decumbent goldenrush Isocoma menziesii var. decumbens CNPS 1B X Robinson's pepper -grass Le idium vir inicum var. Robinsonii CNPS 1B X Deerweed Lotus sco arius - X Laurel sumac Malosma laurina - X Melic grass Melica frutescens - X Lemonadeberry Rhus inte rifolia - X California wild rose Rosa californica - X White sae Salvia a lana - X Purple sae Salvia leuco h lla - X Black sae Salvia mellifera - X Hedge mustard Sis mbrium officinale - X FSC: Federal Species of Concern CNPS 1 B: California Native Plant Society List for Plants Rare or Endangered in California and Elsewhere Source: Biological Consulting Services for the Conservation Element of the Costa Mesa General Plan, prepared by BonTerra Consulting, May 22, 2000. Species status updated from CDFW CNDDB, November 2015. Riparian Riparian communities are associated with relatively permanent springs, streams, seeps and ponds. Within Costa Mesa such communities are found around the small pond near the Santa Ana River and Victoria Street, in the northwestern portion of the Fairview Park and along the bottom of Canyon Park. Because of the availability of water, these areas provide favorable habitats for a large variety of trees, shrubs and grasses. Such communities are generally characterized by the species identified in Table 4.4-3 (Plants of the Riparian Community). Environmental Impact Report 4.4-3 4.4 Biological Resources Table 4.4-3 Plants of the Ri arian Communitv and Status in Plannina Area Common Name Big -leaf maple Scientific Name Status Observation Acer macro h Ilum PossibleConfirmed Present X White alder Alnus rhombifolia X Mule fat Baccharis salicifolia X Santa Barbara morning-glory Cal ste is se ium ssp. Bin hamiae CNPS 113 X Historic arch Salt mhirlJ'c_ho�L W.���+ �/€ fdb Western sycamore Plantanus racemosa X Sword fern Pol stichum munitum X Fremont cottonwood Po ulus fremontii X - X Castor bean Ricinus communis - X Arroyo willow Salix lasiolepis X Mexican elderberry Sambucus Mexicana X Coastal bulrush Scir us robustus X Posion oak Toxicodendron diversilobum X Broad-leaved cattail Typha latifolia X Galifemia bay la - X Desert wild grape Vitis giardiana X FE: Federally -listed endangered FSC: Federal Species of Concern SE: State -listed endangered CNPS 1 B: California Native Plant Society List for Plants Rare or Endangered in California and Elsewhere Source: Biological Consulting Services for the Conservation Element of the Costa Mesa General Plan, prepared by BonTerra Consulting, May 22, 2000. Species status updated from CDFW CNDDB, November 2015. Non -Native Vegetation Subsequent urban development and agricultural production have introduced a wide variety of non-native vegetation to the area. These species were imported as agricultural crops (citrus fruits, avocados, grapes), for protection from winds (eucalyptus) and as ornamental landscaping. A majority of these trees, shrubs and flowers were brought from the Mediterranean region, South Africa, South America, Central America, Australia and Eastern Asia, as well as Northern California and the Eastern United States_.. Canary Island Pine, a variety of species of eucalyptus, deodar, podocarpus, pyracantha, azaleas and pittosporum are only a few examples. Today, species such as these are the dominant forms of vegetation within Costa Mesa. Fauna Based on paleontologic records, Orange County was inhabited by a wide variety of wildlife ranging from bison, jaguars, camels, wolves, ground sloths, bears and sabre-toothed cats to shrews and rats. The skeletal remains of a nearly perfectly preserved mastodon was excavated in 1962 near the intersection of Boa Vista Drive and Nevis Circle. However, as was the case of Costa Mesa's vegetative heritage, today's range of wildlife has been substantially reduced to those species which have adapted to close human contact. What remains today is an abbreviated predator -prey food chain consisting of squirrels, voles, white -tail kites, red -tail hawks, occasional coyotes, and numerous dogs and cats. The most noticeable form of wildlife is the California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi). Some species of special interest that inhabit open spaces within the City include the burrowing owl (Atheneeetyte cuniculara), an indigenous species that uses abandoned rodent burrows for nests; the San Diego fairy shrimp (Branchinecta sandiegonensis) which occupies vernal pools in Fairview Park; the Belding's savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi) which resides year-round in coastal salt marshes of Southern California, and the 4.4-4 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment Biological Resources 4.4 Least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) which inhabits riparian and terrestrial fields, shrubland, chaparral, and woodlands. These special status species are discussed further below. There is a direct relationship between the type and diversity of plant material found in an area and the type and diversity of wildlife supported by this vegetation. The plant communities on the County of Orange's Talbert Nature Preserve and the City's Fairview Park sites offer seasonally important sources of food for migratory birds, occasional nesting and feeding sites for sea and shore birds. In the same area, the bluffside vegetation and thickets provide habitats for more reclusive species of birds, mammals, and reptiles. Some of these species which inhabit the remaining undeveloped lands within Costa Mesa are unique and of special interest. An example is the burrowing owl (AtheneSpeet to cuniculara). Observations of the owls have been reported on the Costa Mesa Golf Course and Country Club, at Fairview Park, and on the slopes of the Corona del Mar Freeway (SR -73). The burrowing owl is a wild indigenous species of predatory bird that uses abandoned rodent burrows for nests. It is currently on the Audubon Society Blue List of rare birds and is a California Species of Special Concern. Two other species that are becoming increasingly rare in the area occupy the County's parks and City's Fairview Park. The first, Coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma loronatum), is extremely rare in this area. Second is the reclusive trapdoor spider, found along the bluff edge feeding on small ground -dwelling insects. These spiders are found in higher concentrations on the park site than elsewhere in Orange County. provisions to retain a Ratural area for the spiders One sensitive species that frequents Costa Mesa is the California least tern (Sterna albifrons), included on the State and Federal list of endangered species. It is also designated as a California fully protected species. Although the primary nesting sites for the least tern are located farther south at the mouth of the Santa Ana River, the pond south of Victoria Street provides an occasional feeding area. The pond is of such importance that it has been proposed as an "essential habitat" for the least tern colony by the United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Based on biological studies prepared as part of the Fairview Park Master Plan, numerous other sensitive species have been found at the park. Detailed accounts of these species found in that document are hereby incorporated by reference. A general list of wildlife species which are known, or are presumed to inhabit Costa Mesa, is provided in Table 4.4-4, Species List of Mammals, Reptiles and Amphibians and Table 4.4-5 (Species List of Birds). Environmental Impact Report 4.4-5 4.4 Biological Resources Table 4.4-4 Species List of Mammals, Reptiles and Amphibians and Status in Planninq Area Name Confirmed Scientific Name Status ObservationCommon •. Species List of Mammals Coyote Canis latrans - X Virginia opossum Didelphis vir iniana - X Black -tailed jackrabbit Le us californicus - X Striped skunk Mephitis mephitis - X California vole Microtus californicus - X House mouse Mus musculus - X Long-tailed weasel Mustela frenata - X Dusky -footed woodrat Neotoma fusci es - X Desert woodrat Neotoma le ida - X Cactus mouse Perom scus eremicus - X California mouse Perom scus californicus - X Deer mouse Perom scus maniculatus - X Western harvest mouse Reithrodont mos me alotis - X Broad -footed mole Sca anus latimanus - X Ornate shrew Sorex ornatus - X California ground squirrel S ermo hilus beeche i - X Desert cottontail S Ivila us audobonii - X Botta's pocket gopher Thomom s bottae - X PW Species List of Reptiles and Am hibians AL Silvery legless lizard Anniella pulchra pulchra FS, CSC X Black -bellied slender salamander Batrachoseps nigriventris X Western toad Bufo boreas - X Coastal western whi tail Cnemido horus ti ris multiscutatis - X Western skink Eumeces skiltonianus - X San Diego alligator lizard Gerrhonotus multicarinatus webbi - X Pacific tree frog Hyla re illa - X Common kin snake Lam ro eltis getulus - X Coast horned lizard Ph rnosoma coronatum - X San Diego Gopher snake Pituo his melanuoleucus annectens - X Bullfrog Rana catesbeiana - X Coastpatch-nosed snake Salvadora hexale is - X Western fence lizard Scelo orus accidentalis - X Western terrestrial garter snake Thamnophis elegans - X Side -blotched lizard Uta stansburiana - X FS: Forest Service Sensitive Species CSC: State -listed California Species of Special Concern FE: Federal) -Listed Endangered Source: Biological Consulting Services for the Conservation Element of the Costa Mesa General Plan, prepared by BonTerra Consulting, May 22, 2000. Species status updated from CDFW CNDDB Special Animals List, January 2015 4.4-6 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment Biological Resources 4.4 Table 4.4-5 Species List of Birds and Status in Planninq Area Name Sharp -shinned hawk Scientific Name Acci iterstriatus Status - Confirmed Possible ObservationCommon X Cooper's hawk Acci iter coo edi CSC- X Spotted sandier Actitis macularia - X Mallard Anas platyrhyncho - X Cinnamon teal Anas c ano tera - X American widgeon Anas Americana - X Green -winged teal Anas crecca - X Northern shoveler Anas cl eata - X Greater white -fronted goose Anseralbifrons - X American pipit Anthus reubescens - X Great blue heron Ardea Herodias - X Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia CSC X Lesserscaup Aha affinis - X Canvasback Aha valisineria - X Brant Branta bernicla CSC X Bufflehead Buce hala albeola X Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis - X Western sandier Calidris mauri - X Sanderling Calidris alba - X Dunlin Calidris alpine - X Anna's hummingbird Cal to anna - X Cactus wren Cam lorh nchus brunneica illus CSC- X Lesser goldfinch Carduelis psaltria X House Finch Car odacus mexicanus X American goldfinch Carudelis tristis X Turkey vulture Cathartes aura - X Hermit thrush Catharus guttatus - X Willet Cato tro horous semi almatus - X Belted kingfisher Ce le alc on - X Semi almated plover Charadrius semi almatus - X Killdeer Charadrius vociferous - X Western snowy plover Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus FT, CSC X Marsh wren Cistothoris palustris X Northern flicker Cola tes auratus - X American crow Corvus brach rh nchos - X Yellow -rum ed warbler Dendroica coronate - X White-tailed kite Elanus leucurus FP- X American kestrel Falco s arverius X American coot Fulica Americana - X Common yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas - X Black -necked stilt Himanto us mexicanus - X Dark -eyed junco Junco h emalis - X Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus CSC X Bona arte's gull Larus Philadelphia X Ring -billed gull Larus delawarensis X Long -billed dowitcher Limnodromus scolo aceus Short -billed dowitcher Limnodromus griseus - X Song sparrow Melos iza melodia - X Lincoln's sparrow Melos iza lincolnii - X Environmental Impact Report 4.4-7 4.4 Biological Resources Table 4.4-5 Species List of Birds and Status in Planning Area Common Name Northern mockingbird Scientific Name Status Mimus polyglottos - Confirmed Possible Observation Present X Ruddy duck Ox ura jamaicensis - X Belding's savannah sparrow Passerculus sandwhichensis CSC (spp. Beldin i X California towhee Pipilo crissalis - X Spotted towhee Pipilo maculates - X Eared grebe Podice s ni ricollis - X Pied -billed grebe Podil mbus podiceps - X Blue -grey natcatcher Polio fila caerulea - X California coastal gnatcatcher Palio lila californica californica FT X_ Bushtit Psaltriparus minimus - X American avocet Recurvirostra Americana - X Ru -crowned kinglet Regulus calendula - X Say's phoebe Sa ornis sa a - X Black phoebe Sa ornis nigricans - X Black -chinned sparrow S izella arto ularis - X California least tern Sterna antillarum browni FE, SE, FP X Spotted dove Stre to elia chinensis - X European starling Stumus vulgaris - X Western meadowlark Sturnella ne lecta - X Bewick's wren Thryomanes bewickii - X Lesser yellowlegs Trina flavi es - X Least Bell's vireo Vireo bellii pusillus FE, SE X Mourning dove Zenaidura macroura - X Golden -crowned sparrow Zonotrichia atrica illa - X White -crowned sparrow Zonotrichia leuco h s - X FE: Federally -listed Endangered FT: Federally -listed Threatened SE: State -listed Endangered ST: State -listed Threatened CSC: State -listed California Species of Special Concern FP: State Fully Protected Source: Biological Consulting Services for the Conservation Element of the Costa Mesa General Plan, prepared by BonTerra Consulting, May 22, 2000. Species status updated from CDFW CNDDB Special Animals List, January 2015; table preliminarily updated by B. Nerhus, 2016. Special Status Wildlife, Plants, and Habitat Special status wildlife species are those listed under federal or State Endangered Species acts, listed as Species of Special Concern by the State, protected under official conservation programs (e.g., Multi -Species Conservation Programs), and/or those designated by local legislation as requiring protection. Special status plants are those listed under federal or State endangered species acts, protected under official conservation programs (e.g., Multi -Species Conservation Programs), and/or considered sensitive, such as those listed by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS). The CNPS utilizes a ranking system to define the status of sensitive plant species, as follows: 1A: Plants presumed extinct in California 1 B: Plants that are rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere 2: Plants that are rare, threatened, or endangered in California but more common elsewhere 3: Plants about which the CNPS needs more information. This is the review list. 4: Plants of limited distribution. This is the watch list. The California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) inventories occurrences of rare, threatened, endangered, and sensitive animals, plants, and natural communities in California. The CNDDB inventories both aquatic and terrestrial 4.4-8 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment Biological Resources 4.4 natural communities that are extremely high quality, very limited distribution, or threatened. The CNDDB inventory for the Newport Beach 7.5' Quadrangle provides species occurrences within and near the planning area. Species occurrences and status within and near the planning area are summarized in Table 4.4-6 (CNDDB Species Occurrences). According to the CNDDB, 80 plant and animal species and four natural communities occur within a five - mile radius of the Costa Mesa planning area. Of these, only 10 species and two natural communities are located within the planning area and all occurrences are found either in Fairview Park, Talbert Regional Park or the adjacent wildlife preserve in Newport Beach. The 10 species include three birds, a fairy shrimp, and six plants. The natural communities are the southern coastal salt marsh and the southern cottonwood willow riparian forest. Additional information regarding the 10 species and two natural communities is provided below. Information related to species listing is provided in the Planning and Regulatory Framework section below. Wildlife The California coastal gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) is a small gray songbird that is a resident of scrub dominated plan communities from southern Ventura County southward through Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and San Diego Counties. This gnatcatcher is strongly associated with sage scrub in its various successional stages. USFWS designated Critical Habitat for the gnatcatcher occurs in Newport Beach as shown in Figure 4.4-1. Environmental Impact Report 4.4-9 4.4 Biological Resources Table 4.4-6 CNDDB Species Occurrences Seen Species PopulationLast Listing Status SSC 20196 Burrowing Owl Presumed present - 2002 Belding's Savannah Presumed E Sparrow absent 2014 Least Bell's Vireo Presumed present E E - 2014 San Diego Fairy Shrimp Presumed present E - - 2015 San Diego Button- Presumed present E E 1B.1 Celery 2015 Southern Tarplant Presumed present - 1 B.1 1993 Coulter's Goldfields Presumed absent - - 1B.1 2010 Mud Nama Presumed present - - 1B.2 1932 Chaparral Sand Presumed - - 1 B.1 Verbena 2Lqsentab&ent 2015 Prostrate Vernal Pool Presumed present - - 1B.1 Navarretia Source: CDFW 2015 USFWS CDFG E Endangered E Endangered T Threatened T Threatened C Candidate Species SSC Species of Special Concern CNPS Categories 1A Plants presumed extinct in California 1 B Plants that are rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere 2 Plants that are rare, threatened, or endangered in California but more common elsewhere 3 Plants about which the CNPS needs more information. This is a review list. 4 Plants of limited distribution. This is a watch list. CNPS Threat Code Extensions None: Plant is lacking threat information 2: Fairly endangered in California 1: Seriously endangered in California 3: Not very endangered in California Burrowing Owl The burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) is a small, long-legged owl and a California Species of Special Concern found throughout western and central North America. Habitat includes open grasslands such as prairies, plains, and savanna although it can also be found in any open space, such as a vacant lots. Burrowing owls are opportunistic residents nesting and roosting in burrows dug by other mammals or in other burrow -like features. Although most burrowing owl breeders are migratory, both locally and long distance, Southern California populations are generally considered resident. Threats to the burrowing owl include habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation. Particularly in western North America, eradication of prairie dog populations, conversion of rangeland to agricultural land, and suburbanization have contributed to population declines. Locally, this species has been reported within Fairview Park and on the slopes of the Corona del Mar Freeway (SR -73). Least Bell's Vireo Least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) is a small song bird listed as a State and federal endangered species. Habitat includes riparian, willow scrub, and mulefat scrub. and teFFesfrfai fields chFubland, GhapaFFal and ,.,..wild".+. It is particularly found in dente ash mosquito, willow -cottonwood forest, streamside thickets, sGFUI) oak, moist woodlands, and woodland edges. Least Bells' vireo is migratory, migrating into Southern California near the end of March and leaving for the cape region of Baja California in late July to September, although some may overwinter in 4.4-10 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment Biological Resources 4.4 the U.S. Primary threats include loss of habitat to urbanization and infrastructure projects and nest parasitism by cowbirds. Locally, this species has been reported within Fairview Park and the Talbert Nature Preserve. No USFWS designated critical habitat for this species has been established within or near the planning area (USFWS 20161. San Diego Fairy Shrimp The San Diego fairy shrimp (Branchinecta sandiegonensis) is a small aquatic crustacean generally visible in shallow pools (vernal pools) from January through March. Mature individuals lack a carapace (a hard outer covering of the head and thorax), and have a delicate elongated body, large stalked compound eyes and 11 pairs of swimming legs. They swim or glide gracefully upside down by means of complex wave-like beating movements of the legs that pass from front to back. The species is found in vernal pools located in Fairview Park. Critical habitat was proposed for this species at Fairview Park in 2003, but was excluded in the Final Rule as explained here: "we are also excluding Fairview Regional Park, City of Costa Mesa (proposed subunit 1 B) under section 4(b)(2) of the Act as we have determined that the City of Costa Mesa has completed and is implementing a management plan. We have determined that the benefits of excluding Fairview Regional Park outweigh the benefits of including this area in the critical habitat designation" (USFWS 2007).NO GFitiGaI habitat feF this GpKies has been established within E)F neaF the p! i _ Plants San Diego Button -Celery The San Diego button -celery (Eryngium aristulatum var. parishii) is a member of the parsley family. It is a vernal pool plant that is found in San Diego Mesa hardpan and claypan vernal pools. The species is found in vernal pools located in Fairview Park (Calflora 2015). Southern Tarplant The southern tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. australis) is an annual herb in the sunflower family that is native to California. Its preferred habitat is valley and foothill grasslands near alkaline soils, and marsh and swamp margins (Calflora 2015). Locally the species is found in the Talbert Nature Preserve and in restored areas of Fairview Park. Coulter's Goldfields Coulter's goldfields (Lasthenia glabrata ssp. Coulten) is an annual herb in the aster family. It is associated with alkali sink, coastal salt marshes, and freshwater wetlands. The species has not been observed recently in the planning area and is presumed extirpated (Calflora 2015). Mud Nama The mud nama (Hama stenocarpum) is an annual or perennial herb in the borage family that is native to California. It is associated with freshwater wetlands and wetland -riparian habitats (Calflora 2015). Locally this species is known from Fairview Park. Chaparral Sand -Verbena The chaparral sand -verbena (Abronia villosa var. aurita) is a short, hairy annual wildflower in the four o'clock family which grows in creeping prostrate masses along the ground. It is associated with coastal beach habitat and desert sands (Calflora 2015). It has not been observed recently in the planning area and is presumed extirpated. The sand - verbena was observed in 2015 down near the wetlands restoration area (Nerhus 2016). Environmental Impact Report 4.4-11 4.4 Biological Resources Prostrate Vernal Pool Navarretia The prostrate vernal pool navarretia (Navarretia prostrate) is an annual low -growing herb associated with vernal pools and moist places from Santa Barbara to San Bernardino Counties (Calflora 2015). Locally this species is known from the vernal pools at Fairview Park. Natural Communities Southern Coastal Salt Marsh The Southern Coastal Salt Marsh natural community is a wetland plant community that occurs sporadically along the Pacific Coast from Humboldt Bay to San Diego. This salt marsh type is found in bays, harbors, inlets, and other protected areas subject to tidal flooding. Plant species in this community are adapted to the saline conditions and low oxygen content typically found in the water -saturated soils. As a result of the demanding conditions, species diversity is relatively low. Typical plant species in this community include salt grass (Distichlis spicata), franconia (Frankenia salina), pickleweed and glasswort (Salicornia spp.), cordgrass (Spartina foliosa), and seep weed (Suaeda californica). This community is no longer present within the City limits (Nerhus 2016). Southern Cottonwood -Willow Riparian Forest This community is characterized as a tall, open, broad -leafed winter -deciduous riparian forest dominated by cottonwoods and willows. Vegetation within this community is predominantly composed of deciduous species. The tall riparian trees and dense understory result in almost full canopy cover. Typical tree species include Fremont cottonwood, several species of willow (arroyo, yellow, red), box elder, black walnut, sycamore, elderberry and coast live oak. Associated trees include big leaf maple, white alder, and valley oak. Shrubs include California blackberry, snowberry, toyon, and California rose. Wildlife Movement and Migratory Routes Wildlife movement is essential to wildlife survival. Local movement is required for individuals seeking food, shelter, and mates. Long-range movement is necessary to satisfy the seasonal migratory needs of species to find favorable climatic conditions. Opportunities for movement are also essential for the dispersal of young to new homes. Opportunities for movement and migration are also important for gene flow, population recolonization, and range shifts. Movement corridors are particularly important for larger, terrestrial animals such as mountain lions, badgers, and bighorn sheep that require wide ranges to roam. Impediments to wildlife movement include roads, railroads, dams, urban development, and agriculture. Migration behavior is the regularly occurring, seasonally oriented movement of a species. Migration may consist of short- or long-distance dispersal and one -and two-way migratory trips over time cycles consisting of hours to years. A migratory route is the geographic path a species takes as it acts on its migratory behavior. Aquatic species typically migrate along streams and rivers. Avian species utilize wetlands and other open space areas as resting and feeding nodes as they migrate. GfGw4dbGneTerrestrial species generally require wildlife corridors to migrate. Southern California forms a portion of the Pacific Flyway, a generic term used to categorize the numerous and complex migratory routes used by bird species migrating from the Bering Strait to South America. Essentially, any waterbody or open space within the Pacific Flyway can serve as a travel node on a migratory path. Major California nodes include the Salton Sea, San Luis Reservoir, Mono Lake, and the Eel River. BothkW4e the Least Bell's vireo and the burrowing- owl urrowingowl ares a -migratory winter resident savaRRah in the planning area. , are beth ". rocidento of the planning area. The Santa Ana River corridor presents an opportune candidate as a node on a migratory path due to the expanse of open space and water. 4.4-12 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment Biological Resources 4.4 Wetlands and Riparian Habitat Wetlands are areas of soil that are saturated with moisture such as a swamp, marsh, or bog. A wetland is subject to Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) with the legal definition of a wetland defined under Title 33, Part 328.3(a) of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Delineating a wetland is implemented through the US Army Corps of Engineers' (ACOE) Wetland Delineation Manual that includes identification of such things as the presence of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology.' Wetlands serve not only as nodes for avian and aquatic migratory routes but also provide a unique habitat for various species. The USFWS maintains the National Wetlands Inventory and Mapping System and according to the most recent data, the planning area contains riverine habitat along the Santa Ana River and Freshwater Emergent wetlands adjacent to the Santa Ana River in the southwestern portion of the planning area (USFWS NWI 2015). Riparian habitat is composed of trees and other vegetation and physical features found on stream banks and floodplains associated with streams, lakes, and other bodies of water. Riparian habitat is unique in its support of an abundance of fish and wildlife species. Wildlife Nurseries A native wildlife nursery includes facilities and protected habitat for the rehabilitation of injured or rare species for eventual release into the wild. No existing or proposed native wildlife nurseries have been documented within the planning area. Planning and Regulatory Framework A variety of federal, State, and local regulations address sensitive plants and wildlife resources. These plans and programs have been enacted through federal, State, and local action, and are administered by agencies and special districts. The following paragraphs summarize the regulatory context that biological resources are managed within the planning area. Federal Endangered Species Act The Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) is administered by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and was established to protect wildlife species and habitats from extinction and diminishment. FESA applies to federally listed species and habitat occupied by federally listed species. FESA Section 9 forbids acts that directly or indirectly harm listed species. Section 9 also prohibits "taking" of any species of wildlife or fish listed as endangered. These restrictions apply to all federal agencies and all persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction. Specifically, Section 9 (16 U.S.C. 1538) identifies prohibited acts related to endangered species and prohibits all persons, including federal, State and local governments, from "taking" listed species of fish and wildlife except as specified under the provisions for exemptions (16 U.S.C. 1539). The term take is defined as harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or an attempt to engage in any such conduct (16 U.S.C. 1532[18]). Critical Habitat Critical habitats are specific geographic areas, whether occupied by a species under FESA or not, that are essential for its conservation and that have been formally designated by a rule published in the Federal Register. Critical habitat receives protection under Section 7 of FESA through prohibition against destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat with regard to actions carried out, funded, or authorized by a Federal Agency. There is no critical habitat for the San Diego fairy shrimp in the planning area (USFWS 20079), however critical habitat is present in Newport Beach (see Environmental Impact Report 4.4-13 4.4 Biological Resources Figure 4.4-1, Biological Resources). USFWS designated critical habitat for the California coastal gnatcatcher occurs southwest of the DIannina area in the Citv of NewDort Beach (Figure 4.4-1. Biolooical Resources). Incidental Take Permits An incidental take permit is issued under Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the FESA to a non-federal party undertaking an otherwise lawful project that might result in the take of an endangered or threatened species. Application for an incidental take permit is subject to certain requirements including preparation by the permit applicant of a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). An HCP outlines ways of maintaining, enhancing, and protecting a given habitat type needed to protect species. The HCP usually includes measures to minimize impacts and may include provisions for permanently protecting land, restoring habitat, and relocating plants or animals to another area. The planning area is contained within the Orange County Central/Coastal Subregional Natural Community Conservation Plan and Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP) or the County of Orange which was adopted in 1996 (County of Orange 1996). Specifically, the planning area is covered under the County of Orange Central and Coastal Subregion (Parts I and Il: NCCP/HCP). Even though the City of Costa Mesa is within the NCCP/HCP plan boundary, the City is not a signatory to the plan implementation agreement. Not being a signatory means that any projects receiving development permits in the City would not be covered for incidental take of state or federally -listed species addressed in the NCCP/HCP. Talbert Regional Park and Talbert Nature Preserve located within the City boundaries is included within the boundaries of an identified NCCP/HCP habitat reserve as an "outlying island" (County of Orange 1996). The park, managed by the County of Orange, provides important biodiversity habitat along the Santa Ana River. California Endangered Species Act The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (Fish and Game Code, Section 2050 et seq.) generally parallels the main provisions of FESA and is administered by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). Under CESA, the term endangered species is defined as a species of plant, fish, or wildlife that is "in serious danger of becoming extinct throughout all, or a significant portion of its range" and is limited to species or subspecies native to California. CESA prohibits the taking of listed species, except as provided in State law. Specifically, section 2053 of CESA prohibits projects that would jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat essential to the continued existence of those species if there are reasonable and prudent alternatives available consistent with conserving the species or its habitat that would prevent jeopardy. Any future development or redevelopment in the planning area that has the potential to affect wildlife is subject to the restrictions contained in CESA. Natural Community Conservation Planning Act The Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) program of the CDFW takes a broad-based ecosystem approach to planning for the protection and perpetuation of biological diversity. The NCCP program, established pursuant to the 1991 NCCP Act (Fish and Game Code 2003) is broader in its orientation and objectives than the CESA or FESA. While the CESA and FESA are designed to identify and protect species that have already declined significantly in numbers, the NCCP program seeks to prevent species listing by focusing on the long-term stability of wildlife and plant communities. As stated above under incidental take permits, the planning area is within the boundaries of the County of Orange NCCP/HCP, but the City is not a participant in the plan (Natural Communities Coalition 2015). The City's Talbert Nature Preserve, however, is included as an area that could support future NCCP/HCP habitat reserves (CM 2008). Native Plant Protection Act California's Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA) (California Fish and Game Code, Sections 1900-1913) requires all State agencies to establish criteria for determining if a species, subspecies, or variety of native plant is endangered or 4.4-14 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment Biological Resources 4.4 rare. Provisions of the NPPA prohibit the taking of listed plants from the wild and require notification of the CDFW at least 10 days in advance of any change in land use that would adversely impact listed plants. This requirement allows CDFW to salvage listed plant species that would otherwise be destroyed. Streambed Alteration Agreements The CDFW, through provisions of the Fish and Game Code Sections 1600-1603, is empowered to issue agreements (Streambed Alteration Agreements) for projects that would "divert or obstruct the natural flow of, or substantially change or use any material from the bed, channel, or bank of, any river, stream, or lake, or deposit or dispose of debris, waste, or other material containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement where it may pass into any river, stream, or lake" (Fish and Game Code Section 1602[a]). Streams and rivers are defined by the presence of a channel bed, banks, and intermittent flow. The limits of CDFW jurisdiction are also based on riparian habitat and may include wetland areas that do not meet U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) criteria for soils and/or hydrology (e.g., where riparian woodland canopy extends beyond the banks of a stream away from frequently saturated soils). Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (16 U.S.C. 703) implements various treaties and conventions between the U.S., Canada, Japan, Mexico and the former Soviet Union for the protection of migratory birds. Under the MBTA, the taking, killing or possessing of migratory birds is unlawful, unless expressly permitted by other federal regulations. The MBTA provides that it is unlawful to pursue, hunt, take, capture or kill any migratory bird, part, nest, egg or product. The MBTA requires that project -related disturbance at active nesting territories be reduced or eliminated during critical phases of the nesting cycle (1 February to 31 August, annually). Migratory bird species protected by this act are defined in Title 50, CFR Section 10.13. Clean Water Act Section 401 of the CWA requires an applicant to obtain certification for any activity that may result in a discharge of a pollutant into waters of the United States. As a result, proposed fill in waters and wetlands requires coordination with the appropriate State Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) that administers Section 401 and provides certification. The RWQCB also plays a role in review of water quality and wetland issues, including avoidance and minimization of impacts. Section 401 certification is required prior to the issuance of a Section 404 permit, as discussed below. Under Section 404 of the CWA, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) has jurisdiction over Wetlands and Waters of the United States. Permitting of activities that could discharge fill or dredge materials or otherwise adversely modify wetlands or other waters of the United States and associated habitat is required. Permits authorized by ACOE under the Act typically involve mitigation to offset unavoidable impacts on wetlands and other waters of the United States in a manner that achieves no net loss of wetland acres or values. Local Regulations City of Costa Mesa Planning, Zoning and Development Code The City has adopted an ordinance regulating the preservation of landmark trees, as codified in Title 15, Chapter V. Parkway Trees, Section 15-138 of the Planning, Zoning, and Development Code. On a voluntary basis, residents can nominate trees that have historical significance, are a rare or unusual species, or which have a unique form or shape that currently contribute to the skyline or have the potential to do so in the future. If approved by the Parks, Recreation Facilities, and Parkways Commission, nominated trees are then placed on the landmark tree list and warrant certain protections. Environmental Impact Report 4.4-15 4.4 Biological Resources Thresholds of Significance Implementation of the General Plan Amendments would result in a significant impact if they: 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 CDFW or USFWS. B. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS. 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 native wildlife nursery sites. E. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. F. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted HCP, Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Environmental Impacts Impacts to special status species and their habitat would be less than significant with IMPACT implementation of draft General Plan policies and Mitigation Measure 4.3.A-1. 4.3.A Impacts to special status species and migratory birds would be considered significant if development under the proposed General Plan Update converts vacant lands that have a reasonable potential to support special status species or habitat to developable lands. A reasonable potential for occurrence includes relatively recent sightings and presence of appropriate habitat for the species. With the exception of the Segerstrom Home Ranch and Sakioka Lot 2 sites, which are currently in active agricultural use, the properties affected by the proposed General Plan land use changes are already developed and located within highly urbanized areas, with little opportunity to support native wildlife or special status species. The active agricultural activities have resulted in the removal of native habitat that could support sensitive species. The CNDDB identified four animal species and six plant species that have occurred or do occur in the planning area. According to the CNDDB search of the planning area, two of the plant species are presumed to be absent from the planning area (see Table 4.3-6). Additionally, all special status species occurrences were restricted to Fairview Park and Talbert Regional Park and Nature Preserve due to the presence of natural habitat and the close proximity to the Santa Ana River. Except for the burrowing owl and some migratory birds, no special status species have a reasonable potential to occupy lands that are subject to the proposed general plan land use changes. Migratory birds could nexst in trees that occur in the urbanized areas of the City. Existing regulations of CDFW protect migratory birds from development related activities during the nesting season. The regulations require pre -construction surveys for projects that occur within the nesting season that could potentially impact nesting birds. Furthermore, within the entire planning area, goals and policies contained in the Conservation Element promote the conservation of important biological resources (see Goal and Objective CON -1 and Policies C -1.A to E, and C -1.G). Impacts on special status species, other than the burrowing owl, are considered less than significant. 4.4-16 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment Biological Resources 4.4 GOAL CON -1: PRESERVED AND RESTORED NATURAL COASTAL HABITAT AND LANDFORMS. It is the goal of the City of Costa Mesa to provide its residentsGitiZ8R6 with a high quality environment through the conservation of resources, including land, water, wildlife, and vegetation; and protection of areas of unique natural beauty. Continue to preseNe and restore natural habitat and a660Giated plants and wildlife 'Rduding wetlands, rip SpKffieS with the noon to aGGemmodate developmeRt Objective CON -1. Evaluate the proseFvatlen of the Gity'6 existing biotic resources and preserve them in in as ecologically viable and natural a conditions, where as possible -i; and/or restore and integrate these resources into the urban environment, where feasible. Habitat and Biological Resources Protection and Restoration Policy CON -1.A: Natural habitat is essential to ensuring biodiversity and protecting sensitive biological resources. Protect these areas and consult with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Orange County Water District, Orange County Parks, and other regional agencies to identify areas for special protection, and establish appropriate protection measures for these areas. Policy CON -1.13: Contribute to regional biodiversity and the preservation of rare, unique, or sensitive biological resources by maintaining functional wildlife corridors and habitat linkages. Policy CON -1.C: Coordinate with the United States Fish and Wildlife service, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and other regulatory agencies to mitigate project impacts affecting open and natural spaces. Policy CON -1.D: Promote and protect native plant species within Fairview Park and remove and control the spread of invasive species, including plants, animals, and fungi. Policy CON -1.E: Ensure that all future development is reviewed with regard to protecting natural topography and bluffs to preserve and enhance Costa Mesa's natural beauty. One species of particular concern that has been sighted in the planning area is the burrowing owl. Although the owl's occurrence was documented in Fairview Park, it is known to nest in existing burrows, culverts, or other appropriately sized holes found on vacant land. This allows it to occur theoretically on any vacant site in the planning area. Any future development on vacant land pursuant to the proposed Land Use Element could potentially impact this species, including future development of the Segerstrom Home Ranch and Sakiota Lot 2 sites, which are currently in active agricultural use. Due to this, Mitigation Measure 4.3.A-1 is recommended to reduce the impact on burrowing owls to less than significant. Mitigation Measure 4.3.A-1 requires that a focused survey for burrowing owls shall be conducted by a qualified professional biologist for any new development project proposed on a vacant site of two acres or larger. No impact to any riparian area or other sensitive natural community identified in local or IMPACT regional plans, policies, regulations, or by CDFW or USFWS would occur as a result of 4.3.13 implementation of the General Plan Amendments. The CNDDB identified two sensitive natural communities within the planning area: Southern Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest within the Santa Ana River and Southern Coastal Salt Marsh found in Talbert Regional Park. In addition, vernal pools are present in Fairview Park. The proposed General Plan Amendments do not propose any land use changes that would impact these areas. No impact to these sensitive habitats would occur. Environmental Impact Report 4.4-17 4.4 Biological Resources No impact to Section 404 wetlands would occur as a result of implementation of the IMPACT General Plan Amendments. 4.3.0 No wetlands located within the planning area are subject to land use changes. All wetlands occur along the edge of the Santa Ana River within dedicated parklands and consists of riverine habitat along the Santa Ana River and Freshwater Emergent wetlands adjacent to the Santa Ana River in the southwestern portion of the planning area. Vernal pool wetlands occur in Fairview Park. Therefore, Implementation of the proposed General Plan Amendments would not impact any wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. No impact to wildlife corridors or any wildlife nurseries would occur as a result of IMPACT implementation of the General Plan Amendments. 4.4.D The amended General Plan Land Use Plan addresses twoflve new Overlay Zones and one new land use designation. None of these would result in land use changes that could fragment the Santa Ana River and freshwater emergent wetlands adjacent to the Santa Ana River that act as a wildlife corridor because all parcels affected by the General Plan Amendments amended planning zones are not located near these wetland areaswell away from this area. Therefore the project would not impede its use as local or migratory wildlife corridors. There are no known wildlife nurseries in the planning area. No impacts would occur. No impact related to conflicts with the proposed General Plan Amendments and other IMPACT existing policies, regulations, or standards would occur. 4.3.E Development pursuant to the amended General Plan Land Use Plan would be required to comply with proposed General Plan policies and existing City policies related the protection of biological resources. In addition to the General Plan policies of the Conservation Element, new and existing development must comply with the Zoning ordinance related to the preservation of landmark trees (see above under Local Regulations). As a result, the project would not conflict with any City policies, regulations, or standards designed to protect biological resources applicable to the planning area. No impact related to conflicts between the proposed General Plan Amendments and any IMPACT adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other 4.3.F approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan would occur. None of the land use changes proposed would conflict with the County of Orange NCCP/HCP because none of the changes apply to properties within the NCCP/HCP. As described above, the City of Costa Mesa is not a participant to the NCCP/HCP; however, proposed reserve lands occur within the City's jurisdiction in the Talbert Nature Preserve. Reserves are also proposed in Talbert Regional Park, which is under the jurisdiction of the County of Orange (Natural Communities Coalition 2015). The revised Fairview Park Master Plan (CM 2008) recommends that 111 acres of habitat restoration areas within the park ultimately be incorporated into the Orange County NCCP/HCP (CM 2008). This issue may again be considered as part of the City's current effort to update the Parks and Recreation Master Plan and subsequently, as warranted, the Fairview Park Master. Plan. 4.4-18 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment Biological Resources 4.4 Mitigation Measures A focused survey for burrowing owls shall be conducted by a qualified professional MITIGATION biologist for any new development project proposed on a vacant site of two acres or 4.3.A-1 larger and with a landscape of annual and perennial grasslands, desert, or and scrubland with low -growing vegetation or agricultural use or vegetation. The purpose of the survey is to determine if burrowing owls are foraging or nesting on or adjacent to the project site. If surveys confirm that the site is occupied habitat, mitigation measures to minimize impacts to burrowing owls, their burrows, and foraging habitat shall be identified. The results of this survey, including any mitigation recommendations, shall be incorporated into the project -level CEQA compliance documentation. Owl surveys and approaches to mitigation shall be in accordance with the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation, issued by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife on March 7, 2012 (CDFW 2012). Level of Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Impacts associated with the potential use on the Segerstrom Home Ranch and Sakiota Lot 2 parcels by burrowing owls would be less than significant with incorporation of Mitigation Measure 4.3.A-1. All other impacts do not require mitigation. Environmental Impact Report 4.4-19 4.4 Biological Resources References Bon Terra Consulting, 2000. Biological Consulting Services for the Conservation Element of the Costa Mesa General Plan, prepared by BonTerra Consulting, May 22, 2000. Calflora. 2015: Information on California plants for education, research and conservation, with data contributed by public and private institutions and individuals, including the Consortium of California Herbaria. [web application]. 2015. Berkeley, California: The Calflora Database [a non-profit organization]. Available: http://www.calflora.org/ (Accessed: Nov 19, 2015). California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation, March 7, 2012. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2015. CNDDB Search, November 2015. Costa Mesa. 2008. City of Costa Mesa Fairview Park Master Plan, March 1998, Revised February 2001 and November 2002, updated November 2008. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, 20070. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat Designation�for Endangered San Diego Fairy Shrimp, (Branchinecta sandiogonensis); Final Rule. SG G nn 44 GentaGt: Andy Yuen rm Bagel 4.i.,RGY r_11180 „F gape Wend FA., 760/4.21. onnn Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 238, December 12, ^^+�—,20079, 172 h+w, Natural Communities Coalition. 2015. Reserve Map for Orange County NCCP/HCP. http://occonservation.org/land- areas/reserve-map/. Nurhus, Barry, Biologist, Fairview Park, City of Costa Mesa. 2016. Comments on DEIR. Western Regional Climate Center. 2015. Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary: Newport Beach Harbor, California (046175). http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cqi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca6l75 [May 18, 2015]. 4.4-20 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment Cultural Resources 4.5 This section evaluates the potential environmental effects the General Plan Amendments could have on cultural and paleontological resources. The analysis is based in part on cultural resources data provided by the National Register of Historic Places and the General Plan Historic and Cultural Resources Element. Several letters and emails were received asking that historical resources at Fairview Park be preserved. This issue is addressed under Threshold A, below. Existing Conditions Locally Important Historic Resources As with other cities in Orange County, historical property types characteristic of the early colonization and subsequent growth of the City may include houses and churches, agri-industrial buildings, railroad structures, cultural institutions and parks, bridges and street patterns, early water distribution features and canals, and land use patterns. Early houses were typically vernacular, wood frame, one- or two story structures with a simple rectangular or L plans and gable roofs. Commercial structures were usually brick with cast iron storefronts, while agri-industrial buildings were either brick or wood frame. Following World War I, historical resource property types may be represented by Arts and Crafts styles, including the California Bungalow, two-story Craftsman, Prairie, and English cottage/Tudor Revival. In addition, styles that referenced the American Colonial period and French, Spanish -Italian Renaissance, and English architecture may have also been popular. Beaux Arts Classicism reached its peak in the post -World War I period civic architecture, while Gothic Revival and Spanish Colonial Revival influenced designs for churches. Finally, historical resource property types characteristic of the post -World War II years may include tracts of post-war vernacular style houses. These one-story residences were modest in size and typically had wood or stucco siding and attached garages; the tracts themselves were designed with curving street patterns. Historical Development of Costa Mesa The history of Costa Mesa is the story of three communities of the past. An old boomtown called Fairview, the farming colony of Paularino, and the Village of Harper once thrived within Costa Mesa's boundaries. Their growth and blending together played a significant role in the history of Orange County and California. Sometime after 1800, three adobes were built along the bluffs of Costa Mesa overlooking the Santa Ana River. The first adobe, known as the Polloreno or Banning Adobe, was located about one-third of a mile south along the bluff from Adams Avenue. It fell to ruin between 1903 and 1906 after treasure hunters dug around the old building looking for hidden gold. The second adobe, known as the Gabe Allen Adobe or the Estancia, still exists. It is believed that the Estancia adobe was -may have been built by the padres from Mission San Juan Capistrano or other ranchingfa as a way station for herders. The third adobe, called the Rice Adobe, was located just north of Gisler Avenue. This adobe was torn down by Edward Pomeroy, the owner at the time, in 1919, to keep treasure hunters off the property. Fairview Between the fall of 1887 and the summer of 1888, the town of Fairview was introduced. The town centered on the present day intersection of Adams Avenue and Harbor Boulevard. In October 1887, a syndicate consisting of local businessmen formed to purchase various tracts in the Newport District and develop portions of them. Over the next few years, development of Fairview grew at a rapid pace. During this time, the Fairview Post Office was established in a corner drug store and the three-story Hotel Fairview was also completed. Four other developments demonstrated the rapid rise of this new town: the discovery of a hot mineral water spring and natural gas, the publication of a local newspaper, and the Santa Ana, Fairview & Pacific Railroad. Environmental Impact Report 4.5-1 4.5 Cultural Resources Despite attempts to promote the continuing development of Fairview, by spring of 1889 it was over. The town began to collapse as rapidly as it had appeared. By 1889 the land boom of Southern California was over. Many of the land transactions throughout the region fell through. Fairview's expansion was curtailed at this point. In mid-March, a severe rainstorm washed out a section of the Fairview Railroad tracks. The roadbed midway between Fairview and Santa Ana, next to the Santa Ana River, which had overflown, was gone. In addition, many of the residents began to leave town. Formerly successful business establishments boarded up their doors and windows. By 1911, all that remained in Fairview was the town's schoolhouse, the hotel, and a few scattered houses. The Fairview School closed its doors in 1915 when it merged with the Harper District. In 1918, an earthquake cut off the flow of hot mineral water to the hotel resort. This closed the hotel almost immediately, and the structure was sold and demolished two years later. The few remaining residential houses succumbed to new development in the 1930s and 1950s or to accidents such as fire. Paularino Paularino was considered a typical farming community, with approximately 800 acres bounded by today's Fairview Road to the west, Newport Boulevard on the east, the San Diego Freeway on the north, and by a boundary line approximately one-half mile south of Baker Street. The Paularino community did not amount to more than a name with a few scattered farmhouses, one public school building, and a railroad siding complete with a loading platform and a warehouse. The Paularino railroad siding was located on what is now the west side of Newport Boulevard between Paularino Avenue and Baker Street. It was connected to the Santa Ana & Newport Railroad, which ran between Santa Ana and Newport Beach. The lack of growth of Paularino eventually led to its demise. Har er Harper was named after a rancher who came to the area after the Fairview land boom. Building activity was quiet on the mesa from 1903 to 1906. Developers and oil discoveries during the next six years promoted further settlement. These two factors led to the addition of stores, schools, highways, water systems, and churches. Parallel with the land development, the area experienced its first oil boom, which served to promote and expand population. Three oil wells went up in 1906 just south of the present Newport Harbor High School location. In the latter part of 1907, several more wells were installed on the northern end of the Newport Heights Tract. The oil boom was short-lived. The oil that had been found turned out to be a thick, sticky substance and thus, very difficult to pump. Within two or three years, the old derricks were abandoned. The growth and development of Harper fell back upon land development. In 1920 the farming community of Harper was renamed to Costa Mesa. In the summer of 1920, the second store on Newport Boulevard—the Wayside Market—opened for business. Several more store buildings went up along the boulevard during 1921, including a garage and blacksmith shop, barbershop, and soda fountain. Development increased throughout Costa Mesa until January 21, 1932 when the Costa Mesa Branch of the Bank of Balboa closed its doors during the Great Depression. In December 1933, the branch line of the Southern Pacific Railroad, which ran from Santa Ana to Newport Beach along Newport Boulevard through the heart of town, was abandoned. The tracks were pulled up two years later. Growth continued in 1940 with the opening of several commercial stores, including the new Sprouse -Reitz Variety at 1830 Newport Boulevard, the Myers & Myers Department Store at 1816 Newport Boulevard, and the Post Office at 1809 Newport Boulevard. Through 1940 Costa Mesa continued to be recognized as a small town; then World War II accelerated growth. 4.5-2 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment Cultural Resources 4.5 The Santa Ana Arm Air Base As world tension mounted, additional military installations were planned throughout the nation. A prime contract was awarded to the Griffith Company of Los Angeles for construction of the United States Air Corps Replacement Training Center. Construction of the base intensified after the United States formally declared war. On April 7, 1942, the base was renamed the Santa Ana Army Air Base (SAAAB). It consisted of three schools: the Air Force Classification Center, the Air Force Pre -Flight School for pilots, and the Air Force Pre -Flight School for bombardiers and navigators. The base eventually reached the size of 1,283 acres, including territory west from Newport Boulevard to Harbor Boulevard, and south from Warehouse Road to the present Vanguard University. The main gate was located on Newport Boulevard. After the war, in 1946 the War Department announced that the Base was for sale to any educational institution for the price of one dollar. Two hundred and forty-three acres of what had been choice farming land and Air Force buildings were transferred from the War Assets Administration to the Orange Coast Junior College District. The school opened for the first time on September 13, 1948. Also, in 1948 the Southern California Assemblies of God Churches purchased 126 acres of the Army Air Base from the War Assets Administration for a future campus. In 1950, a new Southern California Bible College opened. Today, all that remains of the SAAAB are a few warehouses located near the corner of Dale Way and College Avenue, plus a few "standardized designed" buildings on the Orange County Fairgrounds, including the 1.4 -acre Memorial Garden and Bird Sanctuary, also located on the Fairgrounds. Historical Resources within Costa Mesa A City-wide survey of historic resources in the City was conducted by PCR Services Corporation in 1999. For the General Plan Amendment and update of the Historic and Cultural Resources Elemenn4t a records search and review of the National Register of Historic Places and its annual updates, as well as the 1995 California Historic Resources Inventory maintained by the State Office of Historic Preservation (OHP), was conducted to determine any existing evaluations and designations in the City of Costa Mesa, Table CUL -1, City of Costa Mesa Historic Resources Inventory, reflects the results of the research conducted. Environmental Impact Report 4.5-3 4.5 Cultural Resources Table CUL -1 City of Costa Mesa Historic Resources Inventory Address.. I. Sites Eli ible for National Re ister Listin0 and Local Re ister Listin 1 420 W. 19th St. 1928 Religious Spanish Colonial/Methodist Church 2 1900 Adams Ave. c. 1823 Adobe Diego Sepulveda Adobe 3 3315 Fairview Rd. 1915 SF Residential Craftsman/Se erstrom House 4 3315 Fairview Rd. 1928 Agricultural Western St Ie/Se erstrom Barn 5 2150 Newport Blvd. 1880 Commercial Queen Anne/Stationmaster House II. Site Eli ible for Local Register Listin 6 123 E. 18th St. 1926 SF Residential Spanish Colonial 7 127 E. 18th St. 1926 SF Residential Spanish Colonial 8 179 E. 18th St. 1923 SF Residential Bun alow/TeWinkle House 9 565-7 W. 18th St. 1950 Government Int'I. St IeNet's Hall/Police Substation 10 1534 Adams Ave. 1963 Theater has been extensively remodeled Modern/International Style 11 147 Albert Place c. 1923 SF Residential Bungalow 12 195 Albert Place 1924 SF Residential Bungalow 13 1293 Baker St. 1928/30 SF Residential Spanish Colonial/McClintock House 14 1950 Church St. 1928 Religious Craftsman/Church 15 1817 Fullerton Ave. c. 1909 SF Residential False Front/Blacksmith's House 16 137 Magnolia St. c. 1920 SF Residential Bungalow/Blacksmith's House 17 200 Magnolia St. 1936 SF Residential Monterey St le/S arke's House 18 208 Magnolia St. 1972/40 SF Residential Period Revival/Leroy Anderson 19 301 Magnolia St. c. 1923/39 Religious Church 20 2180 Newport Blvd. c. 1962 Commercial International Style/Stater Brothers 21 1734 Orange Ave. c. 1939/50 Religious Mesa Bible Chapel 22 1835 Orange Ave. 1930 SF Residential Craftsman/Bungalow 23 2048 Orange Ave. 1923 SF Residential Craftsman/Bungalow 24 2172 Orange Ave. 1923 SF Residential Craftsman/Pink House 25 2519 Santa Ana Ave. 1925 SF Residential Bungalow 26 2529 Santa Ana Ave.' 1915 SF Residential Bun alow/Huscroft House Relocated 27 1549 Tustin Ave. 1915 SF Residential Craftsman/La Perle House 28 1785 Newport Blvd. 1923 Commercial Former clubhouse 29 240 E. 161h St. c. mid 1950s SF Residential Modern/International Style III. Sites Eli ible for Local Register Listing as Historic District Contributors 302-9 88 Fair Drive 1942 1 Military Santa Ana Army/O.C. Fairgrounds 3129 2701 Fairview Rd. c. 1950/55 1 Educational Int'I. Style/Orange Coast College This house is the only property actually listed on the City's Local Register. has been OFange GG IRty FaiF FO ends U RW „ , on+ leGation ran ho a tp.r.r .m..ed Source: City of Costa Mesa 2015 Note: SF = Single Famil relented to a temporary IeAatien at the The research conducted and analysis performed resulted in the identification of buildings that have been evaluated and classified according to the requirements of the California OHP. The following evaluation codes were found to apply to one or more of the surveyed properties: 2S2- Determined eligible for separate listing in the National Register through a consensus determination by a federal agency and the State Historic Preservation Officer. 3S- Appears eligible for separate listing in the National Register. 4.5-4 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment Cultural Resources 4.5 551- Not eligible for the National Register but of local interest because the property is eligible for separate designation under an existing local ordinance. 5D1- Not eligible for the National Register but of local interest because the property is a contributor to a fully documented district that is eligible for designation as a local historic district under an existing local ordinance. 553- Not eligible for the National Register but of local interest because the property is not eligible for separate designation under an existing local ordinance, but is eligible for special consideration in the local planning process. 6Z1- Found ineligible for listing in the National Register with no potential for any listing. Resources Listed as Eligible for the National Register One property in the survey area is currently listed as eligible for the National Register: the Station Master's House located at 2150 Newport Boulevard. Five properties, including the Station Master's House, in the survey area appear to meet the standards for listing in the National Register. These properties have been given an OHP rating of 1S" and are as follows: ■ 420 West 19th Street — Methodist Church ■ 1900 Adams Avenue — Diego Sepulveda Adobe ■ 315 Fairview Road — Segerstrom House ■ 3315 Fairview Road — Segerstrom Barn ■ 2150 Newport Boulevard — Station Master House Resources Worthy of Local Designation Twenty-six properties in the survey area have been evaluated as eligible for designation under an existing local historic preservation ordinance. The OHP rating classification given to these structures were "5S1" and "51D1." "5S1" applies to properties which are eligible for individual designation under the local ordinance. "5DV applies to contributors in recognizable groupings or districts that are likely to be designated as local historic districts. Resources Worthv of Local Note A total of 141 properties in the survey area were evaluated as worthy of note at the local level. These resources, primarily single-family residences, derive their significance from the historic development patterns and architectural characteristics that give the study area a cohesive identity. The OHP classification given to such buildings were "5S3" and were evaluated as eligible for special consideration in the local planning process. In summary, the Citywide Survey conducted by PCR Services Corporation during July 1999 identified 4,332 properties that were constructed prior to 1954 (45 years or older), of which 3,348 were inventoried after completing the initial windshield survey and field research. Upon completion of in-depth field research and an intensive level survey approximately 29 properties were identified as significant federal, state, and/or local historic resources. Approximately 60 properties, including the 29 significant properties, were formally documented on State Inventory Forms (DPR523 forms). Since the 1999 inventory additional properties may have become potentially significant historic resources due to the age of the resource. Environmental Impact Report 4.5-5 4.5 Cultural Resources Locally Important Cultural Resources Development of sites containing archaeological resources brings the possibility of damage or destruction to those resources. Previously recorded and investigated sites in Costa Mesa have yielded artifacts at depths ranging from one to seven feet, with the greatest number of items being found between one and two feet. The construction of nearly any type of building or road involves excavation or scarification of the soil to a depth of one to two feet or more. Construction of parking lots and installation of groundcovers normally involve disturbance of the first six inches of soil or less. New shrubs and trees, however, require planting holes ranging from one to three feet in depth. In summary, almost any kind of development on land containing archaeological resources will directly impact those resources. The scientific, cultural and educational value of historic or prehistoric artifacts can be severely reduced by such disturbance. Items may be damaged or lost and their distribution in the soil may be altered from the original condition, thus misleading investigators as to their use and the location of various activity centers within the original settlement. PrehistoricGultural Resources within Costa Mesa Costa Mesa has a rich prehistoric past. The Gabrielinos (Tongva or Kizh) were the City's first settlers prior to 1,500 B.C. The Gabrielinos are Takic-speakers and lived in domed, circular shaped structures, constructed from tree branches and thatched with tule, fern, or carrizo. Villages were located near fresh water and raw material resources. Evidence or artifacts of their occupation have been found both on the surface and subsurface, and have included stone and bone tools, shell middens, pottery shards, and human burials. Within the City limits there are seven previously recorded prehistoric archaeological sites (the classification numbers indicate California -Orange County -site number). The seven archaeological sites are identified as CA -ORA -76 (shell midden); CA -ORA -163 (shell midden); CA -ORA -165 (lithic scatter and shell midden); CA -ORA -297 (stone tools and debris); CA -ORA -58 (habitation complex); CA -ORA -506 (habitation complex); and CA-ORA-687(habitation complex with human burials). These sites are located on or near the bluffs overlooking the Santa Ana River and the Upper Newport Bay. Of these eight archaeological sites, CA -ORA -58 known as the "Fairview Indian Site," is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and on the California Register Historic Resources. Given the rich history of past human settlement, the potential exists for subsurface artifacts could still be present in soils at depths not previously disturbed by existing or past development. Paleontology Paleontology is the study of the fossil record of past geological periods and of the phylogenetic relationships between ancient and contemporary plant and animal species. Specifically, paleontology is the study of what fossils tell us about the ecologies of the past, about evolution, and about our place, as humans, in the world. Paleontology incorporates knowledge from biology, geology, ecology, anthropology, archaeology, and even computer science to understand the processes that have led to the origination and eventual destruction of the different types of organisms since life arose. Paleontological resources are the fossilized remains of organisms from prehistoric environments found in geologic strata. These resources are valued for the information they yield about the history of the earth and its past ecological settings. There are two types of resources: vertebrate and invertebrate. These resources are found in geologic strata conducive to their preservation, typically sedimentary formations. Paleontological sites are areas that show evidence of pre -human activity. Often they are simply small outcroppings visible on the surface or sites encountered during grading. Geologic formations are the most important indicators of paleontological resources since they may contain important fossils. 4.5-6 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment Cultural Resources 4.5 Paleontological Resources within Costa Mesa A comprehensive paleontological assessment of Orange County that included the City of Costa Mesa was undertaken in 1980. The geology of Costa Mesa was mapped out as part of the countywide assessment. The geology of Costa Mesa was determined to be part of the Palos Verdes Formation, a collection of sand and gravel deposits approximately 100,000 years old. These deposits were formed during the time when Costa Mesa was covered by the Pacific Ocean. Often referred to as the Palos Verdes Sand, these deposits contain evidence of the kinds of marine life that inhabited the area prior to the ocean receding, exposing the current terrestrial landmass of Costa Mesa. The results of the paleontological assessment identified ten unique paleontological sites consisting of a variety of gastropods (e.g., marine snails) and bivalves (e.g., clams, oysters, and mussels). These sites were singled out due to encroaching development that could cause significant impacts to the resources if left unprotected. The ten paleontological sites have been classified as F-91 (Partial skeleton of a mastodon); A-3129 (Mollusks); LACM-3267 (Mastodon or mammoth); LACM-4219 (Mollusks, Fish, Birds, Sharks, Sea lions and Seals); JDC-CM-1 (Bivalve, Gastropods, and Mollusks); JDC-CM-2 (Mollusks); JDC-CM-2A (Oyster shells and Mollusks); JDC-CM-3 (Bay -type Sea shells); JDC-CM-4 (Marine shells); and VAC -CM -4 (Mollusks). In addition to these ten sites, the assessment also identified more than 500 species of marine invertebrate fossils, as well as significant numbers of non -marine vertebrate fossils, including, birds, and sea and land mammals. Given the paleontological record of the area, the potential exists for subsurface artifacts could still be present in soils at depths not previously disturbed by existing or past development. Regulatory Framework The treatment of cultural resources is governed by federal and State laws and guidelines. Specific criteria apply to determining whether prehistoric and historic sites or objects are significant and/or protected by law. Federal and State significance criteria generally focus on the resource's integrity and uniqueness, its relationship to similar resources, and its potential to contribute important information to scholarly research. Some resources that do not meet federal significance criteria may be considered significant under State criteria. The laws and regulations are intended to preserve significant prehistoric or historic resources. Federal and State laws and guidelines for protecting historic resources pertinent to a local community development and planning program are summarized below. The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 Enacted in 1966, the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) has become the foundation and framework for historic preservation in the United States. The NHPA authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to expand and maintain a National Register of Historic Places (NRHP); it establishes an Advisory Council on Historic Preservation as an independent federal entity; requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties, and affords the Advisory Council a reasonable opportunity to comment on any undertakings that may affect historic properties listed, or eligible for listing, in the NRHP; and makes the heads of all federal agencies responsible for the preservation of historic properties owned or controlled by their agencies. In addition, the NHPA authorizes funding for State programs with provisions for pass-through funding and participation by local governments. In summary, the NHPA provides the legal framework for most State and local preservation laws. The National Park Service has issued regulations governing the NRHP (36 CFR 60). Among the topics covered in detail in these regulations are the effects of listing under federal law, definition of key terms (e.g., building, site, structure, and district), nomination procedures, nomination appeals, and removing properties from the NRHP. Importantly, Section 60.4 of the regulations presents the criteria by which historic properties are evaluated for the NRHP. Environmental Impact Report 4.5-7 4.5 Cultural Resources The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and: A. that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or B. that are associated with lives of persons significant in our past; or C. that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D. that has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. A point to be emphasized is that a historic property does not have to be nominated for or listed in the NRHP to be afforded protection under the NHPA. Indeed, most of the properties managed under this and other federal historic - preservation authorities have never been nominated for the NRHP. The significance of a historic district, site, building structure or object—and thus its required consideration under the law—is determined by the property's eligibility for the NRHP with respect to the criteria set forth in 36 CFR 60.4. The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act is a federal law passed in 1990. NAGPRA provides a process for museums and federal agencies to return certain Native American cultural items—human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony—to lineal descendants and culturally affiliated Native American tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations. NAGPRA includes provisions for unclaimed and culturally unidentifiable Native American cultural items, intentional and inadvertent discovery of Native American cultural items on federal and tribal lands, and penalties for noncompliance and illegal trafficking. Federal Curation of Archaeological Collections Federal curation regulations are also provided in 36 CFR Part 79, which apply to collections that are excavated or removed under the authority of the Antiquities Act (16 USC. 431-433), the Reservoir Salvage Act (16 USC. 469- 469c), Section 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 USC. 470h-2), or the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (16 USC. 470aa-mm). Such collections generally include those that are the result of a prehistoric or historic resources survey, excavation, or other study conducted in connection with a federal action, assistance, license, or permit. The California Office of Historic Preservation The State of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) administers the California Register program. As a recipient of federal funding, the OHP meets the requirements of the NHPA with a State Historical Preservation Officer (SHPO) who enforces a designation and protection process, has a qualified historic preservation review commission, maintains a system for surveys and inventories, and provides for adequate public participation in its activities. As the recipient of federal funds that require pass-through funding to local governments, the OHP also administers the Certified Local Government program for the State of California. The OHP also administers the California Register of Historical Landmarks and California Points of Historical Interest programs. In addition, the State of California Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) published a supplement to the 2003 General Plan Guidelines on November 14, 2005 which provides advisory guidance to cities and counties on the process for consulting with Native American Indian tribes during the adoption or amendment of local general plans, such as the City's General Plan Update, or specific plans, in accordance to Senate Bill 18 (SB18) (Chapter 905, Statutes of 2004). 4.5-8 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment Cultural Resources 4.5 The California Register of Historic Resources SHPO maintains the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR). Properties listed, or formally designated eligible for listing, on the NRHP are automatically listed on the CRHR, as are State Landmarks and Points of Interest. The CRHR also includes properties designated under local ordinances or identified through local historical resource surveys. Native American Historic Cultural Sites State law (Public Resources Code 5097-5097.993) addresses the disposition of Native American burials in archaeological sites and protects such remains from disturbance, vandalism, or inadvertent destruction; establishes procedures to be implemented if Native American skeletal remains are discovered during construction of a project; and establishes the Native American Heritage Commission to resolve disputes regarding the disposition of such remains. In addition, the Native American Historic Resource Protection Act makes it a misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in jail to deface or destroy an Indian historic or cultural site that is listed or may be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources. California Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act The California NAGPRA, enacted in 2001, requires all State agencies and museums that receive state funding and that have possession or control over collections of human remains or cultural items, as defined, to complete an inventory and summary of these remains and items on or before January 1, 2003, with certain exceptions. California NAGPRA also provides a process for the identification and repatriation of these items to the appropriate tribes. California Health and Safety Code In the event human remains are encountered in any form outside of a cemetery, whoever makes this discovery is required to comply with State of California Public Resources Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5-7055. Specifically, Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 describes the requirements if any human remains are accidentally discovered during excavation of a site. State Historic Building Code Alternative State building regulations may be used for the rehabilitation, preservation, restoration, or relocation of nominated resources. Specifically, the State Historical Building Code, or HBC, (part 8 of Title 24 of the California Administrative Code) shall be used for any historic resource through the City's building permit procedure. The purpose of the HBC is to provide regulations for the preservation, restoration, rehabilitation, relocation or reconstruction of buildings or properties designated as qualified historical buildings or properties. The HBC is intended to provide solutions for the preservation of qualified historical buildings or properties, to promote sustainability, to provide access for persons with disabilities, to provide a cost-effective approach to preservation, and to provide for the reasonable safety of the occupants or users. The HBC requires enforcing agencies to accept solutions that are reasonably equivalent to the regular code when dealing with qualified historical buildings or properties. The intent of the HBC is to facilitate the preservation and continuing use of qualified historical buildings or properties while providing reasonable safety for the building occupants and access for persons with disabilities. Environmental Impact Report 4.5-9 4.5 Cultural Resources Senate Bill 18 Senate Bill (SB) 18 (California Government Code, Section 65352.3) incorporates the protection of California traditional tribal cultural places into land use planning for cities, counties, and agencies by establishing responsibilities for local governments to contact, refer plans to, and consult with California Native American tribes as part of the adoption or amendment of any general or specific plan proposed on or after March 1, 2005, SB18 requires public notice to be sent to tribes listed on the Native American Heritage Commission's SB18 Tribal Consultation list within the geographical areas affected by the proposed changes. Tribes must respond to a local government notice within 90 days (unless a shorter time frame has been agreed upon by the tribe), indicating whether or not they want to consult with the local government. Consultations are for the purpose of preserving or mitigating impacts to places, features, and objects described in Sections 5097.9 and 5097.993 of the Public Resources Code that may be affected by the proposed adoption or amendment to a general or specific plan. Assembly Bill 52 Assembly Bill (AB) 52 specifies that a project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, as defined, is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. AB 52 requires a lead agency to begin consultation with a California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project, if the tribe requested to the lead agency, in writing, to be informed by the lead agency of proposed projects in that geographic area and the tribe requests consultation, prior to determining whether a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or environmental impact report is required for a project. AB 52 specifies examples of mitigation measures that may be considered to avoid or minimize impacts on tribal cultural resources. The bill makes the above provisions applicable to projects that have a notice of preparation or a notice of negative declaration filed or mitigated negative declaration on or after July 1, 2015. AB 52 amends Sections 5097.94 and adds Sections 21073, 21074, 2108.3.1., 21080.3.2, 21082.3, 21083.09, 21084.2, and 21084.3 to the California Public Resources Code (PRC) relating to Native Americans. City of Costa Mesa Historic Preservation Ordinance The City of Costa Mesa, through provisions cited in the Municipal Code, has established procedures for preserving designated historic and cultural resources. The provision relative to historic preservation is documented in the City's Historic Preservation Ordinance (Ordinance). The Ordinance was adopted on November 1, 1999 by the Costa Mesa City Council. The Ordinance encompasses significance criteria requirements, the obligations required of historic property ownership, and a broad range of incentives available to owners of historic properties. The Historic Preservation Ordinance states that a historic resource is any building, structure, natural feature, site, landscape, object, or improvement that is of significance to the citizens of the City, the State, or the nation. To be designated a local landmark a historic resource must be over 50 years of age or in special circumstances under 50 years, and meet one or more of the following: ■ Exemplifies or reflects special elements of the City's cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering, architectural, or natural history; or ■ Is identified with persons or events significant in local, state, or natural history; or ■ Embodies distinctive characteristics of a style, type, period, or method of construction, or is a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship; or ■ Represents the work of a notable builder, designer, or architect; or ■ Contributes to the significance of an historic area, being a geographically definable area possessing a concentration of historic or scenic properties or thematically related grouping of properties which contribute to each other and are unified aesthetically by plan or physical development; or 4.5-10 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment Cultural Resources 4.5 ■ Has a unique location or singular physical characteristics or is a view or vista representing an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood community or of the City; or ■ Embodies elements of architectural design, detail, materials, or craftsmanship that represents a significant structural or architectural achievement or innovation; or ■ Is similar to other distinctive properties, sites, areas, or objects based on a historic, cultural, or architectural motif; or ■ Reflects significant geographical patterns, including those associated with different eras of settlement and growth, particular transportation modes, or distinctive examples of park or community planning; or ■ Is a type of building or is associated with a business or use which was once common but is now rare; or ■ Yields, or may yield, information important in prehistory or history; and ■ Retains the integrity of those characteristics necessary to convey its significance. Historical Preservation Committee The Historical Preservation Committee consists of nine members appointed by the City Council. Members are residents of the City who are interested and knowledgeable in areas related to historic preservation. Authorized by ordinance, the Commission makes recommendations, decisions, and determinations concerning the designation, preservation, protection, enhancement, and perpetuation of historic and cultural resources in the City. Thresholds of Significance The General Plan Amendments would result in significant impacts related to cultural or paleontological resources if they: A. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource as defined in Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines. B. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines. C. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. D. Disturb any human remains including those interred outside of formal cemetery. E. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code section 21074? Environmental Impacts Impacts to historic resources would be less than significant with implementation of IMPACT existing regulations and draft General Plan policies. 4.5. A -Future development within the planning area subject to the goals and policies of the General Plan Amendments could impact historic resources where new development supplants older development. Adverse modification of historic resources may also occur if appropriate restoration methods are not implemented, thereby permanently altering the historic character of the resource. Impacts associated with the destruction or alteration of historic resources can affect a City's sense of place and lose important information relevant to City, the region, and/or State history. As part of the General Plan Amendments, the goals, objectives, and policies in the Historic and Cultural Resources Element have been strengthened, particularly with regard to post -World War II structures and community education. The following additional goals and policies have been added: Environmental Impact Report 4.5-11 4.5 Cultural Resources GOAL HCR -1: HISTORIC RESOURCE CONSERVATION It is the goal of the City of Costa Mesa to provide its citizens with a high quality environment through the protection and conservation of historic and cultural resources. Objective HCR -1A. Encourage the preservation and protection of the City's natural and man-made historic resources. Policy HCR -1.A4 Encourage protection and enhancement of the diverse range of historical sites and resources in the City for the benefit of current and future residents and visitors. ------------- Policy HCR-1.BA-.2 Encourage the preservation of significant historical resources by developing and implementing incentives such as building and planning application permit fee waivers, Mills Act contracts, grants and loans, and implementing other incentives identified in the Historical Preservation Ordinance. Require monitoring ef grading eperatiens by a property to be made available for a reasonable period of time for salvage of known experts, organizations, e„oat'enal 'nstifi,tions rl Policy HCR-1.CA-.3 Promote context -sensitive design that respects and celebrates the history and historical character of sites and resources while meeting contemporary needs of the community. - Require development en land GentainIng known aFGhaeolog'Gal F8sourGes t e u s e r e a s 91n. -A Bh Ile. ru -A.r e t. A0 IloGate StrUGWres, paving, IandSGaping, and full dirt In SuGh a way as to preserve these FeSGUFGes undamaged for future generations when it 06 the reGommendlaflen of a qualified arGhaeeleg'st that said reseurGes be preserved in situ. Policy HCR-1.DA4 Require, as part of the environmental review procedure. an evaluation of the significance of paleontological, archaeological, and historical resources and the impact of proposed development on those resources. waivers, �A� AGtGontraGtS, state grants and loans implementing the HiStonr Building merle and other innentives as identified in the City's Historio Preservation OrdlmnanGB. Policy HCR-1.EA-.5 Continue to identify local landmarks with markers and way -finding signage. Include informational signage about local history, utilizing maps to highlight locations of other historical resources at popular historical sites. Premete the preservation of ergan zatiens to assist in the urohase and/or r�aat.en ef ti� buildings, and `o't��r��i�`i'"r��f��,��,res deemed to he of histnriral signifiranre " Policy HCR -1.F" Encourage development of an interpretive center for paleontological, archaeological, and historical resources at Fairview Park. The center may contain resources found in the park area as well as resources found throughout the City. 4.5-12 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment Cultural Resources 4.5 Future development and infrastructure improvements guided by the Land Use and Circulation Elements will be subject to policies in the Historic and Cultural Resources Element described above, the City's Historic Preservation Ordinance, and protections offered by local Historic Landmark and Historic District designations. Within a designated Local Historic Landmark and Historic District, the City would conduct a historic resources survey to identify and inventory historic and cultural resources. The survey would be prepared and maintained periodically and be consistent with State and Federal preservation standards. Through implementation of a historic resources survey, greater protection and community awareness of historic resources would be achieved. By preventing demolition of historic structures, ensuring that new development is compatible with historic resources, and ensuring that restoration of historic structures preserve the character of the resource, potential impacts to historic resources will be less than significant because the historic value of these resources will be preserved in perpetuity. These policies operate concurrently with the extensive regulatory framework of federal, State, and local laws protecting historic resources, as identified herein. Impacts to archaeological resources would be less than significant with implementation IMPACT of existing regulations and draft General Plan policies. 4.5. B Future development subject to the goals and policies of the Land Use and Circulation Elements could impact archaeological resources where excavation and other earthmoving activities are required. Failure to properly survey development sites and, if necessary, monitor earthmoving activities to ensure identification and recovery of archaeological resources could result in a significant impact due to the loss of information related to pre -historic and historic human activities. The amended Historic and Cultural Resources Element, as proposed, includes goals, policies, and implementation measures designed to protect and maintain local archaeological resources as follows: Preserving Archaeological Resources Policy HCR -2.A: Require cultural resources studies (i.e. archaeological and historical investigations) for all applicable discretionary projects, in accordance with CEQA regulations. The studies should identify cultural resources (i.e., prehistoric sites, historic sites, and isolated artifacts and features) in the project area, determine their eligibility for inclusion in the California Register of Historic Resources, and provide mitigation measures for any resources in the project area that cannot be avoided. Cultural resources studies shall be completed by a professional archaeologist that meets the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards in prehistorical or historical archaeology. Policy HCR -2.B: If, during the course of construction cultural resources (i.e., prehistoric sites, historic sites, and isolated artifacts and features) are discovered work shall be halted immediately within 50 feet of the discovery, the City of Costa Mesa's Planning Department shall be notified, and a professional archaeologist that meets the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards in prehistoric or historical archaeology shall be retained to determine the significance of the discovery. In addition to the extensive regulatory framework of federal, State, and local laws protecting archaeological resources, the policies of the Historical and Cultural Resources Element will protect archaeological resources by requiring surveys, documentation, and protection of resources. Mitigation for individual projects would be required depending on the assessment provided in the cultural resources assessment for each individual development project. Environmental Impact Report 4.5-13 4.5 Cultural Resources The preferred course of action is to avoid the resource and leave it in place, if possible. Other common mitigation includes provisions for recovery, identification, and curation should resources be discovered during site surveying or during earthmoving activities. Impacts to archaeological resources would be less than significant with implementation of draft General Plan policies and existing regulations described under Regulatory Framework above. IMPACT 4.5. C Impacts to paleontological resources would be less than significant with implementation of existing regulations and draft General Plan policies. Future development pursuant to the General Plan Amendments which result in excavation and other earthmoving activities in Pleistocene -era alluvium materials could disturb paleontological resources. Failure to survey development sites prior to ground disturbing activities, and, if necessary, to monitor earthmoving activities to ensure proper identification and recovery of paleontological resources could result in a significant impact to fossil resources. The amended Historic and Cultural Resources Element, as proposed, includes goals, policies, and implementation measures designed to protect and maintain local paleontological resources as follows: Preserving Paleontological Resources Policy HCR -3.A: Require paleontological studies for all applicable discretionary projects. The studies should identify paleontological resources in the project area, and provide mitigation measures for any resources in the project area that cannot be avoided. Policy HCR -3.B: Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act regarding the protection and recovery of paleontological resources during development activities. S4euld-a:�y potentially unique narl eentorlegriGal rese ues (f smils) be enGOUntered during development aE S worLkshal�ehaed immediately within 50 foot of the diGGE)V8FY, the City of Gesta Mesa PlaRRing Depai4ment shall be immediately , and a qualified paleontologist shall be retaiRed to determiR8 the SignifiGaRGG Of the d IGG In addition to the extensive regulatory framework of federal, State, and local laws protecting paleontological resources, the policies of the Historical and Cultural Resources Element would protect paleontological resources by requiring surveys, documentation, and protection of resources. In particular, Policies HCR -3.A and 3.13te-G require that a paleontological study be undertaken for individual development projects. If resources are suspected, a paleontological expert would monitor the site during ground disturbing activities. If resources are found, the preferred course of action is to avoid the resource and leave it in place, if possible. Other common mitigation could be required, including recovery, identification, and curation of resources discovered during site surveying or during earthmoving activities. Impacts to paleontological resources would be less than significant with implementation of existing policies and regulations and new general plan policies related to paleontological resources. 4.5-14 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment IMPACT 4.5. D Cultural Resources 4.5 Impacts to human remains would be less than significant with implementation of existing regulations. The potential exists that as -yet undiscovered human remains may be encountered during future development activities within the planning area. Destruction of pre -historic or historic remains can result in the loss of information important to the history of the State, the region, or the immediate locality. Destruction of recent human remains could result in destruction of evidence associated with a crime. In the event human remains are encountered, the discovery is required to comply with State of California Public Resources Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5-7055. Specifically, Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 describes the requirements if any human remains are discovered during excavation of a site. As required by state law, the requirements and procedures set forth in Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code would be implemented, including notification of the County Coroner, notification of the Native American Heritage Commission, and consultation with the individual identified by the Native American Heritage Commission to be the "most likely descendant." If human remains are found during excavation, excavation must stop in the vicinity of the find and any area that is reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the County Coroner has been contacted, the remains investigated, and appropriate recommendations made for the treatment and disposition of the remains. Given required compliance with state regulations that detail the appropriate actions necessary in the event human remains are encountered, impacts associated with development supported by the proposed General Plan Amendments would be less than significant. Impacts to tribal cultural resources, as defined in Public Resources Code Section IMPACT 21074, would be less than significant. 4.5. E As described under Regulatory Framework above, AB 52 requires a lead agency to begin consultation with a California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project, if the tribe requested to the lead agency, in writing, to be informed by the lead agency of proposed projects in that geographic area and the tribe requests consultation, prior to determining whether a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or environmental impact report is required for a project. Since the General Plan Amendments are not authorizing the development of a specific project where ground -disturbing activities would take place, the requirement for tribal consultation is not relevant. However, as part of the CEQA process the City has undertaken consultation pursuant to both AB 52 and SB 18. Letters to eleven tribes that requested to be consulted on projects proposed in the City were sent the notice of preparation (NOP) for the Program EIR by City staff. No tribes responded to the NOP. (SinGe the pr,, Kt is a General pian Amendment). Tribes affiliated with the planning area will be notified by the City when specific development proposals are submitted to the City for permitting. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required. Environmental Impact Report 4.5-15 4.5 Cultural Resources This page intentionally left blank. 4.5-16 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment Geology and Soils 4.6 This section evaluates the potential environmental effects the General Plan Amendments could have on geology and soils, including earthquake related impacts and erosion and landslide impacts. This analysis is based, in part, on the following: ■ Costa Mesa Safety Element of the General Plan ■ Orange County General Plan ■ Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey, US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) • United States Geological Service ■ California Geological Survey ■ Publicly available resources from other agencies, organizations, and educational institutions No comments related to geology and soils were submitted during circulation of the Notice of Preparation. Existing Conditions Geologic Structures Costa Mesa lies adjacent to the Downey and Tustin portions of the Coastal Plain, where sedimentary and volcanic rocks in the subsurface attain great thickness. These deposits are composed mainly of volcanic, marine, and non - marine sedimentary rocks overlying a basement complex of granitic and metamorphic rock. The plain is immediately underlain by a thick sequence of alluvial sediments, which overlie the older sedimentary and volcanic rocks. The main development of Costa Mesa is primarily on an uplifted mesa (Newport Mesa) bounded on the west, south, and east by steep cliffs. Newport Mesa slopes gently northward from an elevation of 80 to 110 feet above sea level at the southern crest of the mesa to less than 40 feet above sea level at the northern boundary of the City. Approximately 80 percent of the City is located on this mesa (see Figure 4.6-1, Geologic Map). Newport Mesa is the most southerly of a series of discontinuous low hills and plains that extend along the Newport - Inglewood structural zone from the Santa Monica Mountains southeast to Newport Beach. These topographic features are inferred from both the physiographic and stratigraphic evidence to be essentially contemporaneous segments of the Sangamon Age (120,000 years Before Present) deformed lower terrace of the Palos Verdes Hills. Soils Soils within Costa Mesa are variable, ranging from a predominance of clay with some silty sand in the northern half of the City to a predominance of silty sand with some sand and clay in the southern half. These generalized units were derived from a more detailed soils map contained in the soil survey of Orange County. Mineral Resources Oil Portions of Costa Mesa overlay the West Newport Q! Field, whioh is south of 1714 Street between Pomona and Currently the only active oil wells in Costa Mesa operate in the West Newport Field, west of Whittier Avenue between 17th and 19th Streets (DC DOGG 2015). These wells produce a relatively low -quality crude oil and remained in operation through the mid-1990s. Environmental Impact Report 4.6-1 4.6 Geology and Soils Talbert Ave. City of Santa Ana Ellis Ave. � r r South Coast Dr. r r Garfield Ave. j Gisler Ave. i r. i r 2 i Baker St. city of Huntington Beach Adams Ave. Orange Coast l College � Arlin tar r � r Co % Fairview OCFair&Event Park Fair Dr. � Talbert o Regional Park Wilson St. i ' i } Victoria St. � a 0 r rL 19th St. l City of Newport 17th St. Beach 15th St. ,ll. e� Q Pacific Ocean Geologic Units 0 Quaternary 0 Miocene 0 Water City Boundaries — . — City Boundary -------- Sphere of Influence Segerstrom Ave. m m o 0 Blvd. LL Sunflower Ave. South Coast Anton Blvd. Plaza o �`F m /John / Wayne Airport / Dr. 05 enter Gac�Q i j Upper S Newpo Bay City of Newport I l\ Beach Source: Geologic Map of California: California Division of Mines and Geology, 1977. Feet 0 1,000 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 Figure 4.6.1 Geologic Map 4.6-2 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment 4.6 Geology and Soils Peat Deposits Peat deposits are located adjacent to the Santa Ana River and in the vicinity of Upper Newport Bay (see Figure 4.6- 2, Soil Types). The size of the deposits in Costa Mesa is not sufficient to justify extraction. However, peat does provide an unstable base for construction and must be removed prior to development. Seismicity Earthauake Faults Five regional major faults—the Newport -Inglewood, San Joaquin Hills, Whittier, San Andreas, and San Jacinto— present a seismic hazards to the City. In addition, the EI Modeno, Norwalk, Palos Verdes, 4-S Ranch, and Aliso fault pose lesser seismic hazards due to their localized extent Four major faults or zones present a soismio hazard for Costa Mesa� the Newport !Rglewoed StFUGt6lFal zene, Whittier fault zene, San ARdreas fault zone, and SaR jaGiRtG fault zone. Other faults with lesser se'sm*G hazard wnGlude the El Medene, Norwalk, and Alise faults (see Figure 4.6-3, Regional Fault Map). The intensity of earthquakes is measured, or expressed, in terms of two scales. The Richter Scale measures the strength of an earthquake, or the strain energy released, as determined by seismographic observations. The Mercalli Intensity Scale describes the intensity in terms of observable impacts. Both measurement systems are referenced in the following discussions. Newport -Inglewood -Rose Canyon Fault-Skal Zone The Newport -Inglewood structural zone consists of northwesterly trending folded hills and echelon faults extending over 40 miles from the Santa Monica Mountains to Newport Beach, where it projects offshore for an unknown distance. The zone is seismically active, with numerous recorded earthquakes. The largest and most completely documented was the Long Beach earthquake of 1933 (magnitude 6.3M), which resulted in strong shaking in Costa Mesa and throughout Southern California. The Newport -Inglewood structural zone is approximately 3.5 miles wide within Costa Mesa. Five northwest -trending traces (Exhibit 4.65-3, Regional Fault Map) have been projected through the City based primarily on subsurface data. The main trace, classified on the basis of seismic activity, lies 0.3 miles south of the City limits. San Joaauin Hills Fault. The San Joaquin Hills Fault is a recently discovered southwest -dipping blind thrust fault originating near the southern end of the Newport -Inglewood Fault near Huntington Beach at the western margins of the San Joaquin Hills. Rupture of the entire area of this blind thrust fault could generate an earthquake as large as M 7.3. In addition, a minimum average recurrence interval of between about 1,650 and 3,100 years has been estimated for moderate-sized earthauakes on this fault. Whittier Fault -Z r The Whittier fault extends over approximately 20 miles from the Whittier Narrows near Whittier, southeasterly to the Santa Ana River, where it merges with the southeasterly trending Elsinore fault. Collectively, these two faults combined with smaller faults are known as the Whittier -Elsinore fault zone. [\Ansa is approximately 15 miles to the northeast Environmental Impact Report 4.6-3 4.6 Geology and Soils No major or moderate size earthquakes have occurred along the Whittier fault in historic time; however, microseismic data show clustering of events along its trace demonstrating that it is seismically active. On October 1, 1987, an earthquake seriously impacted the Whittier area but did not occur on the Whittier Fault; a series of large aftershocks occurred as well. The 5.9 magnitude earthquake occurred along a previously unidentified fault located in Los Angeles. The fault has since been named the Elysian Hills Fault. San Andreas Fault-Zene The San Andreas is the best known of all California faults due mainly to its known historic seismic activity and destructive capabilities. The center section of the fault ruptured the ground surface in the 1857 Fort Tejon earthquake (8.3± M estimated), causing considerable damage from ground shaking over thousands of square miles. Its closest approach to Costa Mesa is 48 miles, lying on the northeastern flank of the San Bernardino Mountains. San Jacinto Fault -Zone The San Jacinto fault zone extends over 180 miles from its junction with the San Andreas Fault southeast of Palmdale to the Colorado River delta. The closest approach of this fault to Costa Mesa is 44 miles. Several damaging historic events have occurred along the San Jacinto fault, the most notable being the Imperial County earthquake of 1940, which generated surface faulting. Although the San Jacinto fault zone is slightly closer to Costa Mesa, the potential levels of ground shaking from the San Andreas Fault are higher because of its larger maximum credible earthquake. Ground Shaking The effects of seismically induced ground shaking are probably the most critical potential seismic hazards to the City of Costa Mesa. The severity of ground shaking at any particular site depends primarily upon the magnitude of the earthquake, the location of the causative fault with respect to the site, and soil and/or rock conditions at the site. The effects of ground shaking in Costa Mesa will vary considerably depending on the distance of the seismic source to the City and the duration of strong vibratory motion. Ground shaking from distant seismic events (greater than 40 miles), will be of a different nature than events within 10 miles of Costa Mesa. For more distant, large (greater than 7.5 MggnitudeM) events such as those that occur on the San Andreas Fault, the ground shaking will reflect a predominance of long period waves. This will have minimal effects upon structures less than three stories in height, but will affect flexible structures (typically high-rise buildings, greater than three stories), especially if the natural period of the building should coincide with that of the long period earthquake waves. The resultant amplifications of motions could result in serious damage to high-rise structures. Short period waves, however, are generally very destructive near the epicenter of moderate- and large -magnitude seismic events, causing severe damage predominately to low-rise rigid structures (fewer than three stories) not specifically designed to resist them. The duration of strong ground motion is a function of magnitude and distance from the causative fault. It is probably the single most important factor in producing excessive damage to structures. Long duration, reasonably high acceleration, and considerable amplitudes, as would occur from a maximum seismic event on the Newport - Inglewood structural zone, are the combination which would do the most damage to buildings. A distant maximum seismic event on the San Andreas Fault would produce less intensity of shaking; however, duration of strong ground motion would be longer resulting in a high potential for damage to high-rise flexible structures. 4.6-4 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment 4.6 Geology and Soils TalbertAve. ®� MacArthur Blvd. rn LL City of Santa Ana Ellis Ave. „ Sunflower Ave. South astSou h Coast PlazaAnton Ivd. Garfield Ave. %t Gisler Ave. _ - - --`. r � - r 6 - r � �` LL Baker St City of •.' \ \ .. \ John�a Huntington��� Wayne, Beach i/w�:\ \ — \ ' GAi\port � � A v Orange Coast t ,� college Arlington Dr. O m` - OC Fair 8 / Va - - Event Center - r r - 4011, � Wits r ;L Vi for t. ,\ N o`aaA cP aP / 5a Cify of Newport Soil Types Beach -' nth St.� Hueneme fine sandy loam, drained a _ cQ� N � Marina loamy sand, 2 to 9% slopes $� ��5 Pia' Metz loamy sand, moderately fine substratum ca 15th St. mac` � Myford sandy loam, 0 to 2% slopes Pa. Myford sandy loam, 2 to 9% slopes o� Myford sandy loam, 2 to 9% slopes, eroded Myford sandy loam, 9 to 15% slopes - Myford sandy loam, 9 to 30% slopes, eroded Myford sandy loam, thick surface, 0 to 2% slopes Pacific Ocean - Omni clay, drained _ Pits - Riverwash - San Andreas sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes - Thapto-Histic Fluvaquents Soils Type Source: U.S. Department ofAgricullure, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Bolsa silt loam Hueneme fine sandy loam Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) database for Orange, 2008. /� Feet Bolsa silt loam, drained Water ,1 0 1,000 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 Bosanko clay, 15 to 30% slopes Xeralfic arents, loamy, 2 to 9% slopes Capistrano sandy loam, 2 to 9% slopes - Chino silty clay loam, drained Figure 4.6-2 Soil Types - Cropley clay, 2 to 9% slopes Environmental Impact Report 4.6-5 4.6 Geology and Soils v ♦` sq 41 San Bernardino County ,o San Gabriel Mountains FgFj�T O , 0 tiF San Bernardino Co41 unty' Los Angeles F County ';, T Riverside County 0. r 10 �No �` N Orange County `♦ ```�♦ �Ncc X00 sdbfe ` �1 GST • � O q �♦ \ �♦ �: Costa Mesa Pacific Ocean ,\ �• Potentially Active Faults Accurate Location — — — — Approximate Location ••-••-•••• Inferred Location Jurisdictional Boundaries --- Costa Mesa City Boundary County Boundaries National Forests Source: Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey, 1997 and 1995. Miles // 0 2.5 5 10 Figure 4.6-3 Regional Fault Map 4.6-6 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment 4.6 Geology and Soils Ground Failure Seismically induced ground failure as discussed in this section includes liquefaction, differential compaction, ground lurching, ground cracking, and earthquake -induced slope failures. Liquefaction Liquefaction of surface or subsurface materials is the result of strong ground shaking of water -saturated, loose to moderately dense sand and silty sand. It is defined as the transformation of a granular material from a solid state into a liquefied state as a consequence of increased pore water pressure that occurs during an earthquake. Liquefaction can result in shifting of foundations, settling of roadways, and rupture of underground pipelines and cables. Buildings and other objects on the ground surface can settle, tilt, and collapse as the foundations beneath them lose support, and lightweight buried structures may float to the surface. Four types of general failure commonly result from liquefaction: lateral spreading, flow failure, ground oscillation, and loss of bearing strength. Even though Costa Mesa has been subjected to strong ground shaking in the past (e.g., the 1933 Long Beach earthquake), available historic records fail to confirm an instance of liquefaction. However, instances of liquefaction have been reported in the nearby cities of Huntington Beach and Newport Beach. The potential exists for liquefaction in localized sections within the northwest and western portions of the City (see Figure 4.6-4, Liquefaction). Differential Compaction or Settlement Differential ground settlement resulting from earthquake ground shaking is potentially damaging to structures and buried utilities and services. Differential settlement may occur in cohesionless sediments where differences in densities in adjacent materials lead to different degrees of compaction during ground shaking. In the case of saturated cohesionless sediments, post --earthquake settlement may occur when excess pore -water pressures generated by the earthquake dissipate. For soft, saturated, cohesive soils such as the known peat deposits within Costa Mesa, post -earthquake differential settlement may also occur (see Figure 4.6-2, Soil Types). Whereas differential settlement is a potential hazard in Costa Mesa, the significance of the hazard at any particular site may only be determined by soils investigations. Ground Cracking, Ground Lurching, and Lateral Spreading Both ground lurching and cracking are secondary features resulting from strong to moderately strong ground shaking and may be associated with liquefaction. Ground cracking usually occurs in near -surface materials, reflecting differential compaction or liquefaction of underlying materials. The potential for ground cracking exists especially in those areas of the City which have a moderate to high potential for liquefaction and in regions of known peat deposits. Ground lurching results when soft, water -saturated surface soils are thrown into undulatory motion. Areas within Costa Mesa occur in those regions indicated on Figure 4.6-4, Liquefaction that have a high potential for liquefaction. Lateral spreading (a form of landsliding) is referred to as limited displacement ground failure, often associated with liquefaction. Compact surface materials may slide on a liquefied, or low shear strength layer at shallow depth, moving laterally several feet down slopes of less than two degrees. Lack of adequate subsurface data prohibits delineating areas in Costa Mesa prone to shallow Iandsliding. Such a hazard may be present where conditions conducive to shallow liquefaction exist or where soils exist along the bluffs adjacent to the Santa Ana River or Newport Bay. Environmental Impact Report 4.6-7 4.6 Geology and Soils 05CM1 Y1241 City of Huntington Beach 2 Baker St. Orange Coast L / �o/sdFa' College Arlington Dr. a� jV� _ � � OCFair&Event Ceni ai Fair Dr. m /�9/ak � ♦•�'•.� Wilson SL � off, ./�. to Vletoria St. Z •�� 19th St. •• .a 17t eN, 17th St. coif Bea :?ooe (ityof Newport Beach tee. s 15th St. `/, 0 V Pacific Ocean Potentially Active Faults Seismic Hazards - Earthquake Induced Accurate Location — Landslide Hazard Zone — — — — Approximate Location %/XZZZI Liquefaction Hazard Zone ---------- Inferred Location 4.6-8 405 Source: Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey, 1997 and 1998. Feet o 1,000 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 Figure 4.6-4 Liquefaction City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment 4.6 Geology and Soils Slope Stability Seismically related slope stability problems include landslides, rockfalls, mudslides, and avalanches. Since the City is primarily located on flat to gently sloping terrain (generally less than one percent), the potential for these hazards is remote. However, the potential exists for earth movements during strong ground shaking along the southern City boundary and on the bluff areas on the west side. In recognition of this potential, the City's zoning ordinance requires a 10 -foot building setback from the bluff crest. Buildings may locate closer with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit, provided that it is demonstrated that the structure does not endanger the stability of the slope, interfere with fire access, or detract from the visual integrity of the slopes. Surface Faulting Surface faulting—rupture of the ground surface along a causative fault trace—is associated with the primary movement that produced the seismic event and should not be confused with secondary ground cracking which is simply a result of shaking and may occur at some distance from the causative fault. The likelihood of surface rupture on a given fault can be determined principally by studying the seismic history of the fault and reviewing geologic evidence which suggests historic or prehistoric surface rupture. Many past studies have shown that future surface faulting is most likely to occur where the trace ruptured last, especially if there is evidence of repeated and significant displacement on the trace. Seismically Induced Water Waves Seismically induced water waves include tsunamis, seiches, and waves generated by failure of retaining structures. Tsunamis are generated by earthquake -induced subsea dislocations or landslides which cause large volumes of water to move in the form of ocean waves. Coastline configuration and tidal influx may cause local amplifying effects. A seiche is a low amplitude wave generated in a restricted body of water due to earthquake motions. Refer to Figure 4.6-5, Flooding and Seismically Induced Waves. Tsunamis Costa Mesa is three-quarters of a mile inland from the Pacific Ocean at elevations between approximately 30 to 100 feet above sea level. The southern portion of the City resides on 100 -foot bluffs overlooking the City of Newport Beach. The potential for tsunami effects within most of the City is negligible (CMGP Safety Element, 2000). However, within areas of the Santa Ana River Channel, where low elevations occur, the potential exists for tsunami effects. Seiches The absence of any large bodies of water within Costa Mesa and the location of high bluffs adjacent to Newport Bay preclude the possibility of damage from seiche effects. Topsoil and Erosion Erosion is the removal of soil and other geologic fragments from the landscape as a result of wind, water, or ice. Erosion occurs as a result of three processes: detachment, entrainment, and transport. Detachment results when a particle loses cohesion with surrounding material via a medium that moves the particle, most commonly wind, water, or ice. Entrainment is the lifting of the particle and transport is the movement of the particle. The process of erosion will eventually end in the deposition of the eroded particle by some factor that reduces the velocity of the particle until it settles (Pidwirney 2006). Environmental Impact Report 4.6-9 4.6 Geology and Soils Erosion can result in a variety of hazards and issues within the planning area. Wind -related erosion and blowsand can cause visibility problems and damage architectural coatings and building material. Erosion due to rain or other fluvial events can deposit sediments in downstream water bodies, potentially changing drainage patterns and effecting biological regimes. Freshly graded soils are most susceptible to erosion. Unpaved roadways and other areas that are not stabilized by vegetation or otherwise capped can also erode. Regulatory Framework Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act The Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act was signed into law in 1972 (renamed the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act in 1994). The Act's primary purpose is to mitigate the fault rupture hazard on human life and property by limiting the potential for siting human occupancy structures across an active fault trace. The Act requires the State Geologist (Chief of the California Geological Survey) to delineate Earthquake Fault Zones along faults that are "sufficiently active and well defined." These faults show evidence of Holocene surface displacement along one or more of their segments (sufficiently active) and are clearly detectable by a trained geologist as a physical feature at or just below the ground surface (well defined). The boundary of an Earthquake Fault Zone is generally about 500 feet from major active faults, and 200 to 300 feet from well-defined minor faults. The Act dictates that cities and counties withhold development permits for sites within an Earthquake Fault Zone until geologic investigations demonstrate that the sites are not threatened by surface displacements from future faulting. Alquist-Priolo maps are distributed to all affected cities and counties for their use in planning and controlling new or renewed construction. Local agencies must regulate most development projects within these zones. Projects include all land divisions and most structures for human occupancy. State law exempts single-family wood -frame and steel - frame dwellings that are less than three stories and are not part of a development of four units or more. However, local agencies can be more restrictive. Applicable faults and boundaries of the State -delineated fault zones are shown on Figure 4.6-6, Geologic Hazards Map. Seismic Hazards Mapping Act The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act addresses the hazard of surface fault rupture and is not directed toward other earthquake hazards. Recognizing this, in 1990, the State passed the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act (SHMA), which addresses non -surface fault rupture earthquake hazards, including strong ground shaking, liquefaction, and seismically induced landslides. The California Geological Survey (CGS) is the principal State agency charged with implementing the Act. Pursuant to the SHMA, the CGS is directed to provide local governments with seismic hazard zone maps that identify areas susceptible to liquefaction, earthquake -induced landslides and other ground failures. The goal is to minimize loss of life and property by identifying and mitigating seismic hazards. The seismic hazard zones delineated by the CGS are referred to as "zones of required investigation." Site-specific geological hazard investigations are required by the SHMA when construction projects fall within these areas. The CGS, pursuant to the 1990 SHMA, has been releasing seismic hazards maps since 1997, with emphasis on the large metropolitan areas of Los Angeles, Orange, and Ventura counties; funding for this program limits the geographic scope of the studies to these three counties in Southern California. As a result, there are no State -issued (and, therefore, official) seismic hazard zone maps for the City of Costa Mesa. 4.6-10 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment Talbert Ave. Gfyof jSanta Ana Ellis Ave. South Coast Dr. Garfield Ave. Gisler Ave. r /� r � r. r i r D 3 Baker St. City of Huntington Beach r r rAdams Ave. Orange Coast j College Arlin for o m 0(Fair& Event Fairview Park Fair Dr. r albert m r egional � I r Park Wilson St. _ r Victoria St. r a r 0 a 19th St. / l 17th St. P 15th St. \ ,e �P 0 ''/�/ Pacific Ocean Tsunami Inundation ® Tsunami Hazard Zone This tsunami inundation area was prepared to assist cities in identifying their tsunami hazard. It is intended for local jurisdictional, coastal evacuation planning uses only. 4.6 Geology and Soils gerstrom Ave. in m 3 Sunflower Ave. South (oast Anton Blvd. Plaza w 42 m r. r City of Newport Beach Sources: Tsunami: California Emergency Management Agency, California Geological Survey, and University of Southern California, 2009. Sea -Level Rise: CalifomiaPacific Institute, Oakland, California, 2009. Feet 0 1,000 2,000 a.aao 6,000 8 0 Figure 4.6.5 Flooding and Seismically Induced Waves Environmental Impact Report 4.6-11 4.6 Geology and Soils California Building Code The California Building Standards Law states that every local agency enforcing building regulations must adopt the provisions of the California Building Code (CBC) within 180 days of its publication; however, each jurisdiction can require more stringent regulations issued as amendments to the CBC. The publication date of the CBC is established by the California Building Standards Commission, and the code is known as Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations. In the past, the CBC was modeled on the Uniform Building Code (UBC); however, beginning with the 2007 version, the CBC is now modeled after the International Building Code (IBC). It should be emphasized that the building codes provide minimum requirements to prevent major structural failure and loss of life. In some cases, these requirements may not be adequate, particularly in the areas of faulting and seismology, where the pool of knowledge is rapidly growing and evolving. Consequently, it is important that geotechnical consultants working with the City, as well as reviewers of their work, keep up to date on current research. The City of Costa Mesa adopted the 2013 CBC through Ordinance 0-03-10 on November 5, 2013. The 2013 CBC bases its seismic design criteria on maximum considered ground motion through maps prepared by the USGS for the National Seismic Hazard Mapping Program (see Section 1613). Chapter 18 (Soils and Foundations) and Appendix J (Grading) of the 2013 CBC have also been adopted by the City to establish grading and foundation standards. Standards include requirements for excavation, fill, footings, retaining walls, and pier and pile foundations. Pursuant to the CBC, soils reports are required to be submitted prior to issuance of grading permits. Real Estate Disclosure Act Since June 1, 1998, the Natural Hazards Disclosure Act has required that sellers of real property and their agents provide prospective buyers with a Natural Hazard Disclosure Statement when the property being sold lies within one or more State -mapped hazard areas. If a property is located in a Seismic Hazard Zone as shown on a map issued by the State Geologist, the seller or the seller's agent must disclose this fact to potential buyers. The law specifies two ways that this disclosure can be made. One is to use the Natural Hazards Disclosure Statement as provided in Section 1102.6c of the California Civil Code. The other way is to use the Local Option Real Estate Disclosure Statement as provided in Section 1102.6a of the California Civil Code. The Local Option Real Estate Disclosure Statement can be substituted for the Natural Hazards Disclosure Statement only if the Local Option Statement contains substantially the same information and substantially the same warning as the Natural Hazards Disclosure Statement. Unreinforced Masonry Laws Enacted in 1986, the Unreinforced Masonry Law (Section 8875 et seq. of the California Government Code) required all cities and counties in Seismic Zone 4 (zones near historically active faults) to identify potentially hazardous unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings in their jurisdictions, establish a URM loss reduction program, and report their progress to the State by 1990. The owners of such buildings were to be notified of the potential earthquake hazard these buildings pose. Costa Mesa has not yet adopted a URM ordinance. Orange County General Plan Safety Element Orange County's Safety Element, adopted as part of the General Plan in July 2014, provides general information on natural hazards in the County, including the Costa Mesa area. County land use policies and decisions based on natural hazards apply to the sphere of influence. The County's Safety Element includes policies that support public education, expansion of disaster relief programs, and integration of data into planning and implementation programs to protect against natural and human -made hazards, including those from geologic and wind -related origins. 4.6-12 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment Segerstrom Ave. Gisler Ave. ol 2 LT Baker St. 4.6 Geology and Soils o / 2Ono. a Orange (oast 0 ♦o/S College `aFa/ Arlington Dr. ♦_ OCFair&Event Center \ FQ ? $ Wilson St. _ F 4/ lok / A*ria St. • oy. / Upper ng/ ♦- fi �sQ� ) Newport wOo aF .`�.• Bay aG�2Ona.- 19th St. Y ♦°aoa •.y°Yp, i a 17th St. '•�� Oif / :?oa City of Newport J - L z • °ary Beach / >" 15th St. \ �cc •�••: vi �/ / e io Pacific Ocean Potentially Active Faults Seismic Hazards - Earthquake Induced Accurate Location Landslide Hazard Zone — — — — Approximate Location %//////, Liquefaction Hazard Zone ---------- Inferred Location Source: Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey, 1997 and 1998. Feet 0 1,000 2,000 4,000 6,000 5.000 Figure 4.6-6 Geologic Hazards Map Environmental Impact Report 4.6-13 4.6 Geology and Soils Orange County Development Code The purpose of the Orange County Development Code is to implement the General Plan by classifying and regulating land uses within the unincorporated areas of the County (including those properties within Costa Mesa's sphere of influence). Specifically, it provides: (1) standards and guidelines for growth and development; (2) a basis for county -wide planning and construction of public facilities such as water supply and flood control; (3) a means to preserve natural and cultural resources, and (4) measures to promote public safety. The code addresses zoning, permitting, and investigation requirements for areas subject to potential geologic problems; geologic and geotechnical report requirements; and standards for design and grading of projects. Portions of the code also identify and address areas susceptible to flooding, as well as dust and wind-borne soil erosion. As established in the Development Code, the County has created Overlay Districts for areas having special physical characteristics that require additional standards and requirements. The County's Geologic Hazard Overlays include earthquake fault zones, liquefaction, and landslides and has been used in the discussion, mapping, and analysis of potential geologic hazards in this document. The County's Geologic Hazard Overlay identifies liquefaction, landslide, and faulting hazards within the planning area. Thresholds of Significance A significant impact could occur if the General Plan Amendments would: A. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: 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). Strong seismic ground shaking. Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction. 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 the Uniform Building Code (2006), creating substantial risks to life or property. E. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water. Environmental Impact IMPACT Hazardous impacts to people and structures resulting from the potential rupture of a known earthquake fault would be less than significant with implementation of existing 4.6.A.1 regulatory standards and policies in the draft General Plan Safety Element. FiveF-Gw major faults or zones present a seismic hazard in Costa Mesa: Newport -Inglewood, San Joaquin Hills, Whittier, San Andreas, and San Jacinto—present a seismic hazard to the City. the Newport Inglewood struGti zene, the Whitt* fault zene, the San AndiceaG fault zone, and the San jaeffinte i-ault . Development built on or in the near vicinity of the Newport -Inglewood zone could potentially be exposed to a fault rupture risk because this fault 4.6-14 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment 4.6 Geology and Soils system is sufficiently active to produce earthquakes and potentially rupture. The proposed Land Use Element includes residential and other land use designations within the Newport -Inglewood fault zone area. Goal and Objective S-1 of the draft General Plan Safety Element address risk management of natural disasters. Policy S -1.A requires consideration of geologic hazard constraints, impacts, and mitigation when making public decisions relating to land development. Policy S-1.0 requires preparation of geologic studies for developments located on or adjacent to bluffs. Proposed amendments to the Safety Element include e -updated policies related to geologic and seismic safety in support of the objective of avoiding or preventing damage from geologic hazards by assessing the nature, location, and appropriate control measures to mitigate for the hazard. Specifically, Policy S -1.E requires the enforcement of applicable building codes relating to the seismic design of structures to reduce the potential for loss of life and property damage. Moreover, in the case of any future fault rupture, a geologic study would identify the exact position of the fault on a development site and then establish an appropriate setback to prevent structural damage should the fault rupture. This standard is implemented as part of the City's routine development project review process, pursuant to CEQA, and would avoid placement of buildings within areas potentially exposed to fault rupture hazards. Pursuant to this standard and the new geologic and seismic safety policies of the proposed Safety Element Amendment, potential impacts would be less than significant. GOAL S-1: RISK MANAGEMENT OF NATURAL AND HUMAN -CAUSED DISASTERS The following PE)"Gies mandate, eRGOLlrage, or aIIGW Gertain aGti0RS to be pursued through the General Plan herizeii year. Together the P911GIeS seNe as strategiG diFeGti9n6 for Gity staff and partners, highlighting where time and F8GE)61FGeG should 198 fOGUS EaGh P011GY either may 'MpleMeRted through 9Re of aGt'OnS, and some aGtiens suppoi4 several ^^'I^Minimize the risk of injury, loss of life, property damage, and environmental degradation from seismic activity, geologic hazards, flooding, fire, and hazardous materials. Promote a sustainable approach to reduce impacts of natural disasters, such as flooding and fire. Objective S-1. Work to mitigate or prevent potential adverse consequences of natural and human -caused disasters. Geologic and Seismic Safety Policy S -1.A: Continue to incorporate geotechnical hazard data into future land use decision- making, site design, and construction standards. Policy S -1.B: Enforce standards, review criteria, and other methods to ensure that structures on or adjacent to bluffs are set back sufficiently to preserve the natural contour and aesthetic value of the bluff line and to provide sufficient access for fire protection. Policy S -1.C: Require geologic surveys of all new development located on or adjacent to bluffs. Policy S -1.D: Encourage retrofitting of structures—particularly older buildings—to withstand earthquake shaking and landslides consistent with State and Historic Building codes. Policy S -1.E: Enforce applicable building codes relating to the seismic design of structures to reduce the potential for loss of life and property damage. Policy S -1.E: Identify through a study the issue of unreinforced masonry buildings in Costa Mesa. Provide assistance if necessary to unreinforced masonry buildings once those buildings have been identified. Environmental Impact Report 4.6-15 4.6 Geology and Soils IMPACT Impacts to life and property resulting from strong seismic groundshaking would be less than significant with implementation of existing regulatory standards and draft General 4.6.A.2 Plan policies that support design parameters related to ground shaking. Future development within the planning area would subject people and structures to potential earthquake hazards due to the seismically active nature of Southern California. The San Jacinto, San Andreas, Newport -Inglewood, and Whittier faults have the potential of generating earthquakes of magnitudes ranging from 6.5 to 7.5 on the Richter scale. Strong earthquakes can cause widespread property damage, injury, and loss of life. Secondary impacts include fires and disruption of utilities and service systems. The City's building plan check and building code compliance procedures include requirements to design structures in accordance with the appropriate ground—shaking design parameters set forth in the CBC. These parameters are based on the seismic setting and potential intensity levels of the earthquake faults most likely to generate significant ground shaking in the planning area. The proposed amended Safety Element supports this commitment to enforcement of CBC ground -shaking design parameters through Geologic and Seismic Safety Policy S -1.E that requires the enforcement of applicable building codes relating to the seismic design of structures to reduce the potential for loss of life and property damage. Enforcement of CBC design parameters related to ground shaking and implementation of the proposed Safety Element Amendments would reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. Impacts to life and property resulting from seismically induced liquefaction or settlement would be less than significant with implementation of existing regulatory IMPACT standards and draft General Plan policies that require investigation of site conditions 4.6.A.3 for liquefaction susceptibility. As discussed under existing conditions, two of the three required factors for liquefaction to occur are prevalent throughout the planning area (the potential for strong ground shaking and loose, unconsolidated sediments). Therefore, the primary concern for liquefaction occurrence revolves around groundwater levels. Liquefaction potential within the planning area is associated with the Santa Ana River and the coastal area of the City, where groundwater levels are anticipated to be within 50 feet of the surface. This is mainly confined to localized sections within the northwest and western portions of the City. The remainder of the planning area's groundwater level is more than 50 feet below the surface; thus, the planning area generally has a low potential for liquefaction. The majority of the planning area is subject to impacts associated with settlement soils due to the widespread presence of young, unconsolidated alluvial soils. The existing General Plan Safety Element does not include any objectives or policies that require developers to prepare geotechnical studies to identify any liquefaction and other ground failure potential and require appropriate design parameters on a project -by -project basis. However, soils reports are required under the City -adopted design standards of the 2010 CBC. Typical design features to prevent impacts associated with liquefaction are ground improvement or foundational design. Ground improvement includes removal and recompaction of low-density soils and removal of excess groundwater. Similarly, over -excavation and soil recompaction is a common method to prevent soil compression impacts. Importing of soils may also be required if soils contain excessive amount of organic material or deleterious objects (such as boulders). Foundation design includes construction of piles to reinforce shallow foundations or construction of subsurface retaining structures. Moreover, the proposed amended Safety Element includes new policies associated with liquefaction. Specifically, Policy S -1.F, calls for the continued implementation of the Seismic Hazard Mapping Act, which requires sites within liquefaction hazard areas to be investigated for liquefaction susceptibility prior to building construction or human occupancy. Implementation of existing standards and implementation of the proposed General Plan Safety Element Update, CBC, and City Design Guidelines, would reduce impacts associated with seismically induced liquefaction and settlement to less than significant levels. 4.6-16 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment 4.6 Geology and Soils Liquefaction and Landslides Policy S -1.F: Continue to implement the Seismic Hazard Mapping Act, which requires sites within liquefaction hazard areas to be investigated for liquefaction susceptibility prior to building construction or human occupancy. Policy S -1.G: Consider site soils conditions when reviewing projects in areas subject to liquefaction or slope instability. Impacts to life and property within the planning area related to seismically induced landslides would be less than significant with implementation of existing regulatory IMPACT standards and draft General Plan policies that require the consideration of site soil 4.6.A.4 conditions when reviewing projects in areas subject to landslide. Since the topography of the City consists of generally flat to gently sloping terrain, the potential for slope -stability hazards like landslides is minimal. However, the potential remains for earth movements during strong ground shaking along the bluffs along the southern portion of the City and along the Back Bay. As of the date of this document, tThe City uses Chapter 18 and Appendix J of the 2010 CBC to regulate all grading design and criteria. This includes design criteria for development on slopes and at the toe of slopes. The CBC requires soils reports to include slope stability studies that discuss grading procedures, soil design criteria for structures and embankments, and site geology. Stabilization of slopes for development can involve a number of features, including replacing weak portions of a slope with engineered fill, reinforcements such as soil cement, and sub -drainage systems to remove excess water from within the slope. These provisions are designed to minimize risk of slope failure should development be proposed on a hillside. Future development will also be subject to standard environmental review in accordance with CEQA. Moreover, the proposed amendments to the Safety Element include new policies associated with slope stability and landslide. Specifically, Policy S -1.D encourages retrofitting of structures—particularly older buildings—to withstand earthquake shaking and landslides consistent with State and Historic Building codes. Policy S -1.G also requires consideration of site soils conditions when reviewing projects in areas subject to slope instability. Implementation of existing environmental and grading standards, as well as implementation of the proposed amended Safety Element, would reduce impacts associated with landslides to less than significant levels. IMPACT Impacts related to wind-blown soil erosion and loss of topsoil would be less than 4.6.13 significant. Future development under the General Plan Amendments could cause impacts associated with soil erosion resulting in increased fugitive dust that affects air quality and water quality degradation due to increased sedimentation. For a discussion of air quality -related impacts related to erosion, please refer to Section 4.3 (Air Quality). For a discussion of sedimentation, see Section 4.9 (Hydrology and Water Quality). Erosion of topsoil results in the loss of nutrient -rich soils that support the establishment and continuance of vegetation. Wind -driven erosion can occur where flat, barren surfaces are exposed to high -velocity winds. Existing vacant parcels are not likely to contribute to wind-blown erosion because native vegetation stabilizes soil, preventing it from leaving a site. Developed sites curtail wind -driven erosion by preventing wind from contacting soil, due to the presence of buildings, parking lots, other impervious surfaces, and landscaping, etc. Landscaping stabilizes soil in the same manner that native vegetation does, thereby minimizing windblown erosion. Wind-blown erosion in the Environmental Impact Report 4.6-17 4.6 Geology and Soils planning area is likely to decrease over the long-term as new development replaces any areas of exposed soil, such as on agricultural fields and vacant lots. Impacts associated with wind-blown soil erosion and loss of topsoil would be less than significant. IMPACT Impacts related to ground failure would be less than significant with implementation of 4.6.0 existing regulations and draft General Plan policies. As discussed in Impact 4.6.A.3 above, the majority of the planning area is subject to impacts associated with settlement and compressible soils due to the widespread presence of young, unconsolidated alluvial soils. Settlement, collapse, and subsidence are all related to the generally loose and dry nature of the planning areas' soils. The lack of clay bonds that support soil strength in unconsolidated soil makes them susceptible to weakness under pressure. Policy S -1.A of the existing General Plan Safety Element only requires consideration of geologic hazard constraints, impacts, and mitigation when making public decisions relating to land development. Policy S-1.0 of the existing General Plan Safety Element only requires preparation of geologic studies for developments located on or adjacent to bluffs. The proposed amended Safety Element includes new policies related to geologic and seismic safety in support of the objective of avoiding or preventing damage from geologic hazards by assessing the nature, location, and appropriate control measures to mitigate for the hazard. Specifically, Policy S -1.E requires the enforcement of applicable building codes relating to the seismic design of structures to reduce the potential for loss of life and property damage. Moreover, in the case of any future fault rupture, a geologic study would identify the exact position of the fault on a development site and then establish an appropriate setback to prevent structural damage should the fault rupture. This standard is implemented as part of the City's routine development project review process, pursuant to CEQA, and would avoid placement of buildings within areas potentially exposed to fault rupture hazards. Pursuant to this standard and the new geologic and seismic safety policies of the proposed amended Safety Element, potential impacts would be less than significant. Implementation of existing standards and regulations would reduce impacts associated with ground failure to less than significant levels. The planning area is not likely to be subject to subsidence associated with development due to the lack of clay within the soil, although localized subsidence could occur depending on soil specifics such as variation in grain size. Future development within the planning area, however, would increase the need for groundwater extraction to serve the water consumption needs of the community. Unless this is accomplished in a controlled manner and/or offset through sufficient recharge activities, there could be a potential for ground subsidence due to fluid withdrawal that weakens soil cohesion and leads to collapse (hydroconsolidation). The Mesa Water District Urban Water Management (UWMP) includes programs for the long-term management of area groundwater basins. The primary means of ensuring long-term maintenance of groundwater levels are water conservation programs. Future groundwater recharge facilities may also be needed to ensure maintenance of groundwater levels. Implementation of the policies of the Water District and the City are designed to ensure groundwater resources are recharged both through natural and assisted means. Water conservation helps to maintain groundwater levels by reducing the need to extract from them. Implementation of these policies would reduce impacts associated with subsidence by maintaining adequate groundwater levels. Impacts would be less than significant. 4.6-18 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment 4.6 Geology and Soils IMPACT Impacts related to expansive soils would be less than significant with implementation of 4.6.13 existing regulations. The General Plan Amendments would not directly subject people or structures to hazards associated with expansive soils because the project does not authorize any construction project, any development plan, or any other land - altering activities. Impacts associated with expansive soils are generally structurally related, including cracked walls and foundations. Avoiding the development of new structures in areas subject to expansive soils is the best way to avoid any potential impacts. If this is unavoidable, building areas with expansive soils may be pre -saturated to a moisture content and depth specified by the project's soil engineer, thereby pre -swelling the soil prior to constructing the structural foundation or hardscape. This method is often used in conjunction with strengthened foundations that can resist small ground movements without cracking. Adequate surface drainage control is necessary to ensure that soils are not over -saturated in the future. Soils testing to determine expansive characteristics are required for new development, pursuant to Chapter 18 and Appendix J of the CBC. Mitigation of expansive conditions is also required and must be fully defined in the routine grading permit process. The City will continue to administer these CBC regulations, and any updates thereto, for all new development in the planning area. This ongoing regulatory program would avoid significant impacts involving expansive soils. IMPACT 4.6. E No impacts related to soils and septic systems would occur. Since the planning area is supported by a fully functioning sewer system and septic systems are used only at limited sites in the planning area, no impact related to soils and septic systems would occur. Mitigation Measures No mitigation is required. Environmental Impact Report 4.6-19 4.6 Geology and Soils References Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources. 2015. Well Status, July 2015 Pidwirny, Michael. 2006. University of British Columbia, Okanagan. Fundamentals of Physical Geography. 2nd ed. Erosion and Deposition. 4.6-20 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment Greenhouse Gas Emissions 4.7 This section discusses the existing greenhouse gas setting and analyzes potential effects that could result from implementation of the proposed General Plan Amendments. In response to the Notice of Preparation, no comments specific to greenhouse gases were submitted. Existing Conditions Climate Change Climate change is the distinct change in measures of climate for a long period of time. Climate change can result from natural processes and from human activities. Natural changes in the climate can be caused by indirect processes such as changes in the Earth's orbit around the Sun or direct changes within the climate system itself (i.e. changes in ocean circulation). Human activities can affect the atmosphere through emissions of gases and changes to the planet's surface. Emissions affect the atmosphere directly by changing its chemical composition, while changes to the land surface indirectly affects the atmosphere by changing the way the Earth absorbs gases from the atmosphere. The term climate change is preferred over the term global warming because climate change conveys the fact that other changes can occur beyond just average increase in temperatures near the Earth's surface. Elements that indicate that climate change is occurring on Earth include: ■ Rising of global surface temperatures by 1.3° Fahrenheit (F) over the last 100 years ■ Changes in precipitation patterns ■ Melting ice in the Arctic ■ Melting glaciers throughout the world ■ Rising ocean temperatures ■ Acidification of oceans ■ Range shifts in plant and animal species Climate change is intimately tied to the Earth's greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect is a natural occurrence that helps regulate the temperature of the planet. The majority of radiation from the Sun hits the Earth's surface and warms it. The surface in turn radiates heat back towards the atmosphere, known as infrared radiation. Gases and clouds in the atmosphere trap and prevent some of this heat from escaping back into space and re -radiate it in all directions. This process is essential to supporting life on Earth because it keeps the planet approximately 60° F warmer than without it. Emissions from human activities since the beginning of the industrial revolution (approximately 150 years) are adding to the natural greenhouse effect by increasing the gases in the atmosphere that trap heat, thereby contributing to an average increase in the Earth's temperature. Human activities that enhance the greenhouse effect are detailed below. Greenhouse Gases The greenhouse effect is caused by a variety of greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gases (GHGs) occur naturally and from human activities. Greenhouse gases produced by human activities include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). Since the year 1750, it is estimated that the concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide in the atmosphere have increased over 36 percent, 148 percent, and 18 percent, respectively, primarily due to human activity. The primary GHGs are discussed below (US EPA 2015). Carbon Dioxide CO2 is emitted and removed from the atmosphere naturally. Animal and plant respiration involves the release of carbon dioxide from animals and its absorption by plants in a continuous cycle. The ocean -atmosphere exchange Environmental Impact Report 4.7-1 4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions results in the absorption and release of CO2 at the sea surface. Carbon dioxide is also released from plants during wildfires. Volcanic eruptions release a small amount of CO2 from the Earth's crust. Human activities that affect carbon dioxide in the atmosphere include burning of fossil fuels, industrial processes, and product uses. Combustion of fossil fuels is the largest source of carbon dioxide emissions in the United States, accounting for approximately 85 percent of all equivalent emissions. Because of the fossil fuels used, the largest of these sources are electricity generation and transportation. When fossil fuels are burned, the carbon stored in them is released into the atmosphere entirely as CO2. Emissions from on-site industrial activities also emit carbon dioxide such as cement, metal, and chemical production and use of petroleum produced in plastics, solvents, and lubricants. Methane Methane (CH4) is emitted from human activities and natural sources. Natural sources of methane include wetlands, gas hydrates, permafrost, termites, oceans, freshwater bodies, soils, and wildfires. Human activities that cause methane releases include fossil fuel production, animal digestive processes from farms, manure management, and waste management. It is estimated that 50 percent of global methane emissions are human generated. Wetlands are the primary producers of methane in the world because the habitat is conducive to bacteria that produce methane during decomposition of organic material. Methane is produced from landfills as solid waste decomposes. Methane is a primary component of natural gas and is emitted during its production, processing, storage, transmission, distribution, and use. Decomposition of organic material in manure stocks or in liquid manure management systems also releases methane. Releases from animal digestive processes at agricultural operations are the primary source of human -related methane emissions. Nitrous Oxide Anthropogenic (human) sources of nitrous oxide include agricultural soil management, animal manure management, sewage treatment, combustion of fossil fuels, and production of certain acids. N2O is produced naturally in soil and water, especially in wet, tropical forests. The primary human -related source of N2O is agricultural soil management due to use of synthetic nitrogen fertilizers and other techniques to boost nitrogen in soils. Combustion of fossil fuels (mobile and stationary) is the second leading source of nitrous oxide, although parts of the world where catalytic converters are used (such as California) have significantly lower levels than those areas that do not. High Global Warming Potential Gases High global warming potential (GWP) gases (or fluorinated gases) are entirely manmade and are mainly used in industrial processes. HFCs, PFCs, and SF6 are high GWP gases. These types of gases are used in aluminum production, semiconductor manufacturing, electric power transmission, magnesium production and processing, and in the production of hydrochlorofuorocarbon-22 (HCFC -22). High GWP gases are also used as substitutes for ozone-depleting gases like chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and halons. Use of high GWP gases as substitutes for ozone-depleting substances is the primary use of these gases in the United States. Water Vapor It should be noted that water vapor is also a significant GHG in the atmosphere; however, concentration of water vapor in the air is primarily dependent on air temperature and cannot be influenced by humans. GHGs behave differently in the atmosphere and contribute to climate change in different ways. Some gases have more potential to reflect infrared heat back towards the earth while some persist in the atmosphere longer than others. To equalize the contribution of GHGs to climate change, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) devised a weighted metric to compare all greenhouse gases to carbon dioxide (IPCC 2007). 4.7-2 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendments Greenhouse Gas Emissions 4.7 The weighting depends on the lifetime of the gas in the atmosphere and its radiative efficiency. As an example, over a time horizon of 100 -years, emissions of nitrous oxide will contribute to climate change 298 times more than the same amount of emissions of carbon dioxide while emissions of HFC -23 would contribute 14,800 times more than the same amount of carbon dioxide. These differences define a gas's GWP. Table 4.7-1 (Global Warming Potential of Greenhouse Gases) identifies the lifetime and GWP of select GHGs. The lifetime of the GHG represents how many years the GHG will persist in the atmosphere. The GWP of the GHG represents the GHG's relative potential to induce climate change as compared to carbon dioxide. Table 4.7-1 Global Warming Potential (GWP) of Greenhouse Gases (GHG) Carbon Sequestration Carbon sequestration is the process by which plants absorb CO2 from the atmosphere and store it in biomass like leaves and grasses. Agricultural lands, forests, and grasslands can all sequester carbon dioxide, or emit it. The key is to determine if the land use is emitting carbon dioxide faster than it is absorbing it. Young, fast-growing trees are particularly good at absorbing more than they release and are known as a sink. Agricultural resources often end up being sources of carbon release because of soil management practices. Deforestation contributes to carbon dioxide emissions by removing trees, or carbon sinks, that would otherwise absorb CO2. Another form of sequestration is geologic sequestration. This is a manmade process that results in the collection and transport of CO2 from industrial emitters (i.e. power plants) and injecting it into underground reservoirs. Climate Change and California Specific, anticipated impacts to California have been identified in the 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy prepared by the California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA) through extensive modeling efforts (CNRA 2009).' General climate changes in California indicate that: ■ California is likely to get hotter and drier as climate change occurs with a reduction in winter snow, particularly in the Sierra Nevada Mountains ■ Some reduction in precipitation is likely by the middle of the century ■ Sea -levels will rise up to an estimated 55 inches ■ Extreme events such as heat waves, wildfires, droughts, and floods will increase ■ Ecological shifts of habitat and animals are already occurring and will continue to occur It should be noted that changes are based on the results of several models prepared under different climatic scenarios; therefore, discrepancies occur between the projections. The potential impacts of global climate change in California are detailed below. Environmental Impact Report 4.7-3 GHG Carbon Dioxide Lifetime (yrs) 50-200 GWP 1 Methane 12 25 Nitrous Oxide 114 298 HFC -23 270 14,800 HFC -134a 14 1,430 HFC -152a 1.4 124 PFC-14 50,000 7,390 PFC-116 10,000 12,200 Sulfur Hexafluoride 3,200 22,800 Source: IPCC 2007 Carbon Sequestration Carbon sequestration is the process by which plants absorb CO2 from the atmosphere and store it in biomass like leaves and grasses. Agricultural lands, forests, and grasslands can all sequester carbon dioxide, or emit it. The key is to determine if the land use is emitting carbon dioxide faster than it is absorbing it. Young, fast-growing trees are particularly good at absorbing more than they release and are known as a sink. Agricultural resources often end up being sources of carbon release because of soil management practices. Deforestation contributes to carbon dioxide emissions by removing trees, or carbon sinks, that would otherwise absorb CO2. Another form of sequestration is geologic sequestration. This is a manmade process that results in the collection and transport of CO2 from industrial emitters (i.e. power plants) and injecting it into underground reservoirs. Climate Change and California Specific, anticipated impacts to California have been identified in the 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy prepared by the California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA) through extensive modeling efforts (CNRA 2009).' General climate changes in California indicate that: ■ California is likely to get hotter and drier as climate change occurs with a reduction in winter snow, particularly in the Sierra Nevada Mountains ■ Some reduction in precipitation is likely by the middle of the century ■ Sea -levels will rise up to an estimated 55 inches ■ Extreme events such as heat waves, wildfires, droughts, and floods will increase ■ Ecological shifts of habitat and animals are already occurring and will continue to occur It should be noted that changes are based on the results of several models prepared under different climatic scenarios; therefore, discrepancies occur between the projections. The potential impacts of global climate change in California are detailed below. Environmental Impact Report 4.7-3 4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Public Health and Welfare Concerns related to public health and climate change includes higher rates of mortality and morbidity, change in prevalence and spread of disease vectors, decreases in food quality and security, reduced water availability, and increased exposure to pesticides. These concerns are all generally related to increase in ambient outdoor air temperature, particularly in summer. Higher rates of mortality and morbidity could arise from more frequent heat waves at greater intensities. Health impacts associated with extreme heat events include heat stroke, heat exhaustion, and exacerbation of medical conditions such as cardiovascular and respiratory diseases, diabetes, nervous system disorders, emphysema, and epilepsy. Climate change would result in degradation of air quality promoting the formation of ground -level pollutants, particularly ozone. Degradation of air quality would increase the severity of health impacts from criteria and other air pollutants discussed in Section 4.2 (Air Quality). Temperature increases and increases in carbon dioxide are also expected to increase plant production of pollens, spores, and fungus. Pollens and spores could induce or aggravate allergic rhinitis, asthma, and obstructive pulmonary diseases. Precipitation projections suggest that California will become drier over the next century due to reduced precipitation and increased evaporation from higher temperatures. These conditions could result in increased occurrences of drought. Surface water reductions will increase the need to pump groundwater, reducing supplies and increasing the potential for land subsidence. Precipitation changes are also suspected to impact the Sierra snowpack (see Water Management herein). Earlier snow melts could coincide with the rainy season and could result in failure of the flood control devices in that region. Flooding can cause property damage and loss of life for those affected. Increased wildfires are also of concern as the State dries over time. Wildfires can also cause property damage, loss of life, and injuries to citizens and emergency response services. Sea -level rises would also threaten human health and welfare. Flood risks will be increased in coastal areas due to strengthened storm surges and greater tidal damage that could result in injury and loss of property and life. Gradual rising of the sea will permanently inundate many coastal areas in the state. Other concerns related to public health are changes in the range, incidence, and spread of infectious, water -borne, and food -borne diseases. Changes in humidity levels, distribution of surface water, and precipitation changes are all likely to shift or increase the preferred range of disease vectors (i.e. mosquitoes). This could expose more people and animals to potential for vector-borne disease. Biodiversity and Habitat Changes in temperature will change the livable ranges of plants and animals throughout the state and cause considerable stress on these species. Species will shift their range if appropriate habitat is available and accessible if they cannot adapt to their new climate. If they do not adapt or shift, they face local extirpation or extinction. As the climate changes, community compositions and interactions will be interrupted and changed. These have substantial implications on the ecosystems in the state. Extreme events will lead to tremendous stress and displacement on affected species. This could make it easier for invasive species to enter new areas, due to their ability to more easily adapt. Precipitation changes would alter stream flow patterns and affect fish populations during their life cycle. Sea level rises could impact fragile wetland and other coastal habitat. Water Management Although disagreement among scientists on the causes and effects of long-term precipitation patterns in the State has occurred, it is generally accepted by scientists that rising temperatures will impact California's water supply due 4.7-4 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendments Greenhouse Gas Emissions 4.7 to changes in the Sierra Nevada snowpack. Currently, the State's water infrastructure is designed to both gather and convey water from melting snow and to serve as a flood control device. Snowpack melts gradually through spring warming into early summer, releasing an average of approximately 15 million acre-feet of water. The State's concern related to climate change is that due to rising temperatures, snowpack melt will begin earlier in the spring and will coincide with the rainy season. The combination of precipitation and snowmelt would overwhelm the current system, requiring tradeoffs between water storage and flood protection to be made. Reduction in reserves from the Sierra Nevada snowpack is troublesome for California and particularly for Southern California. Approximately 75 -percent of California's available water supply originates in the northern third of the state while 80 percent of demand occurs in the southern two-thirds. There is also concern that rising temperatures will result in decreasing volumes from the Colorado River basin. Colorado River water is important to Southern California because it supplies water directly to Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. Agriculture California is the most agriculturally productive state in the U.S. resulting in more than 37 billion dollars in revenue in 2008. California is the nation's leading producer of nearly 80 crops and livestock commodities, supplying more than half of the nation's fruit and vegetables and over 90 percent of the nation's production of almonds, apricots, raisin grapes, olives, pistachios, and walnuts. Production of crops is not limited to the Central Valley but also occurs in Southern California. Strawberries and grapes are grown in San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. Orange County and San Diego County also contribute to strawberry production. Cherries are also grown in Los Angeles and Riverside County. Anticipated impacts to agricultural resources are mixed when compared to the potentially increased temperatures, reduced chill hours, and changes in precipitation associated with climate change. For example, wheat, cotton, maize, sunflower, and rice are anticipated to show declining yields as temperatures rise. Conversely, grapes and almonds would benefit from warming temperatures. Anticipated increases in the number and severity in heat waves would have a negative impact on livestock where heat stress would make livestock more vulnerable to disease, infection and mortality. The projected drying trend and changes in precipitation are a threat to agricultural production in California. Reduced water reliability and changes in weather patterns would impact irrigated farmlands and reduce food security. Furthermore, a drying trend would increase wildfire risk. Overall, agriculture in California is anticipated to suffer due to climate change impacts. Forestry Increases in wildfires will substantially impact California's forest resources that are prime targets for wildfires. This can increase public safety risks, property damage, emergency response costs, watershed quality, and habitat fragmentation. Climate change is also predicted to affect the behavior of plant species including seed production, seedling establishment, growth, and vigor due to rising temperatures. Precipitation changes will affect forests due to longer dry periods and moisture deficits and drought conditions that limit seedling and sapling growth. Prolonged drought also weakens trees, making them more susceptible to disease and pest invasion. Transportation and Energy Infrastructure Higher temperatures will require increased cooling, raising energy production demand. Higher temperatures also decrease the efficiency of distributing electricity and could lead to more power outages during peak demand. Climate changes would impact the effectiveness of California's transportation infrastructure as extreme weather events damage, destroy, and impair roadways and railways throughout the state causing governmental costs to increase as well as impacts to human life as accidents increase. Other infrastructure costs and potential impacts to life would increase due to the need to upgrade levees and other flood control devices throughout the state. Infrastructure improvement costs related to climate change adaptation are estimated in the tens of billions of dollars. Environmental Impact Report 4.7-5 4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Planning and Regulatory Framework National Climate Protection Act The federal government began studying the phenomenon of global warming as early as 1978 with the National Climate Protection Act, 92 Stat. 601, which required the President to establish a program to "assist the Nation and the world to understand and respond to natural and man -induced climate processes and their implications." Global Climate Protection Act The 1987 Global Climate Protection Act, Title XI of Pub. L. 100-204, directed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to propose a "coordinated national policy on global climate change," and ordered the Secretary of State to work "through the channels of multilateral diplomacy" to coordinate efforts to address global warming. Further, in 1992, the United States ratified a nonbinding agreement among 154 nations to reduce atmospheric GHGs. Massachusetts v. EPA In Massachusetts v. EPA (April 2, 2007), the United States Supreme Court held that GHGs fall within the Clean Air Act's definition of an "air pollutant," and directed the EPA to consider whether GHGs are causing climate change. If so, the EPA must regulate GHG emissions from automobiles under the Clean Air Act. Clean Air Act On December 7, 2009, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) signed two (2) distinct findings regarding greenhouse gases under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. The rule declared that GHGs endanger human health and is the first step to regulation through the federal Clean Air Act. The EPA defines air pollution to include the six (6) key GHGs — COz, CH4, NZO, HFCs, PFCs and SF6. The Administrator finds that the combined emissions of these well -mixed greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to greenhouse gas pollution which threatens public health and welfare. These findings do not themselves impose any requirements on industry or other entities. However, this action is a prerequisite to finalizing the EPA's proposed greenhouse gas emission standards for light-duty vehicles, which were jointly proposed by EPA and the Department of Transportation's National Highway Safety Administration on September 15, 2009. Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Congress has increased the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) of the U.S. automotive fleet. In December 2007, President Bush signed a bill raising the minimum average miles per gallon for cars, sport utility vehicles, and light trucks to 35 miles per gallon by 2020. This increase in CAFE standard will create a substantial reduction in GHG emissions from automobiles, which is the largest single emitting GHG sector in California. Executive Orders S-3-05 and S-30-15 Executive Order S-3-05 was issued by California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and established targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emission at the milestone years of 2010, 2020, and 2050. Statewide GHG emissions must be reduced to 1990 levels by year 2020 and by 80 percent beyond that by year 2050. The Order requires the Secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency (CaIEPA) to coordinate with other State departments to identify strategies and reduction programs to meet the identified targets. A Climate Action Team (CAT) was created and is headed by the Secretary of CaIEPA who reports on the progress of the reduction strategies. The latest CAT Biennial Report to the Governor and Legislature was completed in April 2010 (CCAT 2010). CAT also works in 11 4.7-6 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendments Greenhouse Gas Emissions 4.7 subgroups to support development and implementation of the Scoping Plan (see California Global Warming Solutions Act herein). S-30-15 added an intermediate greenhouse gas reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by the year 2030. California Global Warming Solutions Act The California State Legislature adopted the California Global Warming Solutions Act in 2006 (AB32). AB32 establishes the caps on statewide greenhouse gas emissions proclaimed in Executive Order S-3-05 and establishes a regulatory timeline to meet the reduction targets. The timeline is as follows: January 1, 2009: Adopt Scoping Plan January 1, 2010: Early action measures take effect January 1, 2011: Adopt GHG reduction measures January 1, 2012: Reduction measures take effect December 31, 2020: Deadline for 2020 reduction target As part of AB32, CARB had to determine what 1990 GHG emissions levels were and projected a business -as -usual (BAU) estimate for 2020 to determine the amount of GHG emissions that will need to be reduced. BAU is a term used to define emissions levels without considering reductions from future or existing programs or technologies. 1990 emissions are estimated at 427 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2E) while 2020 emissions (without implementation of reduction measures, but including economic downturn, Pavley, and Renewables Portfolio of 12-20%) is estimated at 507 MMTCO2E; therefore, California Statewide GHG emissions must be reduced 80 MMTCO2E by 2020, a reduction of approximately 16 percent. CARB is responsible for implementation of AB32. Nine discrete early action measures; 35 additional measures were adopted in October 2007 and are now enforceable. The discrete early actions include a low carbon fuel standard, landfill methane capture regulations, reductions in HFCs from mobile air conditioning systems, fluorinated gas emissions from semiconductor manufacturing, sulfur hexafluoride from some industrial processes, high GWP gases in consumer products, and emissions from diesel auxiliary engines on ships at California Ports, improved fuel efficiency in heavy-duty diesel vehicles, and new tire pressure regulations. The early action programs form part of California's comprehensive strategy for achieving the GHG reduction targets. Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act In January 2009, California Senate Bill (SB) 375 went into effect known as the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act (SCAG 2015). The objective of SB375 is to better integrate regional planning of transportation, land use, and housing to reduce sprawl and ultimately reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other air pollutants. SB375 tasks ARB to set greenhouse gas reduction targets for each of California's 18 regional Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs). Each MPO is required to prepare a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) as part of their Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The SCS is a growth strategy in combination with transportation policies that will show how the MPO will meet its GHG reduction target. If the SCS cannot meet the reduction goal, an Alternative Planning Strategy (APS) may be adopted that meets the goal through alternative development, infrastructure, and transportation measures or policies. In the SCAG region, sub -regions can also elect to prepare their own SCS or APS. In August 2010, CARB released the proposed GHG reduction targets for the MPOs to be adopted in September 2010. The proposed reduction targets for the SCAG region were eight percent by year 2020 and 13 percent by year 2035. The eight percent 2020 target Environmental Impact Report 4.7-7 4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions was adopted in September 2010 and tentatively adopted the 13 percent year 2035 target until February 2011 to provide additional time for SCAG, CARB, and other stakeholders to account for additional resources (such as state transportation funds) needed to achieve the proposed targets. In February 2011, the SCAG President affirmed the year 2035 reduction target, and SCAG Staff updated CARB on additional funding opportunities. The status of funding was requested to be revisited again in year 2014. On April 4, 2012, SCAG's Regional Council adopted the 2012-2035 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy: Towards a Sustainable Future. The RTP/SCS includes a strong commitment to reduce emissions from transportation sources to comply with SB 375. The RTP/SCS contains a host of improvements to the region's multimodal transportation system. These improvements include closures of critical gaps in the network that hinder access to certain parts of the region, as well as the strategic expansion of the transportation system where there is room to grow in order to provide the region with greater mobility. The RTP/SCS demonstrates the region's ability to attain and exceed the GHG emission -reduction targets set forth by the CARB. The SCS outlines a plan for integrating the transportation network and related strategies with an overall land use pattern that responds to projected growth, housing needs, changing demographics, and transportation demands. The regional vision of the RTP/SCS maximizes current voluntary local efforts that support the goals of SB 375. The RTP/SCS focuses the majority of new housing and job growth in high-quality transit areas and other opportunity areas in existing main streets, downtowns, and commercial corridors, resulting in an improved jobs -housing balance and more opportunity for transit -oriented development. This overall land use development pattern supports and complements the proposed transportation network that emphasizes system preservation, active transportation, and transportation demand management measures. Air Resources Board Scoping Plan The CARB Scoping Plan is the comprehensive plan to reach the GHG reduction targets stipulated in A1332. The key elements of the plan are to expand and strengthen energy efficiency programs, achieve a statewide renewable energy mix of 33 percent, develop a cap -and -trade program with other partners in the Western Climate Initiative (includes seven states in the United States and four territories in Canada), establish transportation -related targets, and establish fees (CARB 2008). The Scoping Plan measures are identified in Table 4.7-2 (Scoping Plan Measures). Note that the current early discrete actions are incorporated into these measures. ARB estimates that implementation of these measures will reduce GHG emissions in the state by 136 MMTCO2E by 2020; therefore, implementation of the Scoping Plan will meet the 2020 reduction target of 80 MMTCO2E, which is a reduction of 27 percent compared to the projected business as usual 507 MMTCO2E. Key recommendations of the Scoping Plan to achieve the 2020 target include: Expanding and strengthening existing energy efficiency programs as well as building and appliance standards; Achieving a statewide renewable energy mix of 33 percent; Developing a California cap -and -trade program that links with other Western Climate Initiative partner programs to create a regional market system; Establish targets for transportation -related greenhouse gas emissions for regions throughout California, and pursuing policies and incentives to achieve those targets; Adopting and implementing measures pursuant to existing State laws and policies, including California's clean car standards, goods movement measures, and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard; and Creating targeted fees, including a public goods charge on water use, fees on high global warming potential gases, and a fee to fund the administrative costs of the State's long term commitment to AB 32 implementation. In a report prepared on September 23, 2010, CARB indicates that 40 percent of the reduction measures identified in the Scoping Plan have been secured (CARB 2010a). CARB held the hearing for the cap -and -trade program rulemaking on December 16, 2010. The cap -and -trade program began on January 1, 2012 after CARB completed a 4.7-8 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendments Greenhouse Gas Emissions 4.7 series of activities that dealt with the registration process, compliance cycle, and tracking system; however, covered entities will not have an emissions obligation until 2013 (CARB 2015). ARB recently conducted its first quarterly auction on November 14, 2012 with its next auction scheduled for March 2013. ARB is also currently working on the low carbon fuel standard where public hearings and workshops are currently being conducted. In August 2011, the Scoping Plan was reapproved by CARIB with the program's environmental documentation. Table 4.7-2 Scoping Plan Measures Measure T-1 Description Pavely I and II — Light Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Standards T-2 Low Carbon Fuel Standard T-3 Regional Transportation -Related Greenhouse Gas Targets T-4 Vehicle Efficiency Measures T-5 Ship Electrification at Ports T-6 Good Movement Efficiency Measures T-7 Heavy -Duty Vehicle Aerodynamic Efficiency T-8 Medium and Heavy -Duty Vehicle Hybridization T-9 High Speed Rail E-1 Energy Efficiency (Electricity Demand Reduction E-2 Increase Combined Heat and Power Use E-3 Renewable Portfolio Standard E-4 Million Solar Roofs CR -1 Energy Efficiency Natural Gas Demand Reduction CR -2 Solar Water Heating GB -1 Green Buildings W-1 Water Use Efficiency W-2 Water Recycling W-3 Water System Energy Efficiency W-4 Reuse Urban Runoff W-5 Increase Renewable Energy Production W-6 Public Good Charge Water 1-1 Energy Efficiency for Large Industrial Sources 1-2 Oil and Gas Extraction GHG Reductions 1-3 Oil and Gas Transmission Leak Reductions 1-4 Refinery Flare Recovery Process Improvements 1-5 Removal of Methane Exemption from Existing Refinery Regulations RW -1 Landfill Methane Control RW -2 Increase Landfill Methane Capture Efficiency RW -3 Recycling and Zero Waste F-1 Sustainable Forest Target H-1 Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning H-2 Non -Utilities and Non -Semiconductor SF6 Limits H-3 Semiconductor Manufacturing PFC Reductions H-4 Consumer Products High GWP Limits H-5 I High GWP Mobile Source Reductions H-6 High GWP Stationary Source Reductions H-7 High GWP Mitigation Fees A-1 Large Dairy Methane Capture California Green Building Standards New California Green Building Standards Code (CALGREEN) went into effect on January 1, 2011 (CBSC 2010). The purpose of the new addition to the California Building Code (CBC) is to improve public health, safety, and general Environmental Impact Report 4.7-9 4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions welfare by enhancing the design and construction of buildings using concepts to reduce negative impacts or produce positive impacts on the environment. The CALGREEN regulations cover planning and design, energy efficiency, water efficiency and conservation, material conservation and resources efficiency, and environmental quality. Many of the new regulations have the effect of reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the operation of new buildings. Table 4.7-3 (CALGREEN Requirements) summarizes the previous requirements of the CBC and the new requirements of CALGREEN that went into effect in January 2011. Minor technical revisions and additional requirements have gone into effect July 2012. Table 4.7-3 CALGREEN Requirements 4.7-10 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendments Item Previous Requirements CALGREEN All projects subject to stormwater management. Stormwater Stormwater management required on projects > 4.1 Management than one acre Surface Drainage Surface water must flow away from building Drainage patterns must be analyzed 4.2 Energy Efficiency California Energy Code Minimum energy efficiency to be established by California Energy Commissions Indoor Water Use HCD maximum flush rates; CEC water use Indoor water use must decrease by at least 20 percent standards for appliances and fixtures prescriptive or performance based 4.3 Multiple Showerheads Not covered Multiple showerheads cannot exceed combined flow of the code Irrigation Controllers Not covered Irrigation controllers must be weather or soil moisture based controllers Joint Protection Plumbing and Mechanical Codes All openings must be sealed with materials that rodents cannot penetrate Construction Waste Local Ordinances Establishes minimum 50 percent recycling and waste 4.4 management plan Educational materials and manuals must be provided Operation Plumbing Code for gray water systems to building occupants and owners to ensure proper equipment operation Gas fireplaces must be direct -vent sealed -combustion Fireplaces Local Ordinances type; Wood stoves and pellet stoves must meet USEPA Phase II emissions limits Mechanical Equipment Not covered All ventilation equipment must be sealed from contamination during construction VOCs Local Ordinances Establishes statewide limits on VOC emissions from adhesives, paints, sealants, and other coatings Capillary Break No prescriptive method of compliance Establishes minimum requirements for vapor barriers 4.5 in slab on grade foundations Moisture Content Current mill moisture levels for wall and floor Moisture content must be verified prior to enclosure of beams is 15-20 percent wall or floor beams Whole House Fans Not covered Requires insulted louvers and closing mechanism when fan is off Bath Exhaust Fans Not covered Requires Energy Star compliance and humidistat control HVAC Design Minimal requirements for heat loss, heat gain, and Entire system must be designed in respects to the ducts stems local climate Installer Qualifications HVAC installers need not be trained HVAC installers must be trained or certified 7 Inspectors Training only required for structural materials All inspectors must be trained Source: HCD 2010 4.7-10 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendments Greenhouse Gas Emissions 4.7 Thresholds of Significance The proposed project could result in potentially significant impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions and global climate change if it would: A. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. B. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purposes of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. As a policy document, the proposed General Plan Amendments will not directly result in construction or operation of any development that contributes to climate change and associated impacts. However, implementation of the General Plan will guide future development that will generate greenhouse gases and will contribute to climate change. Future development projects will be required to determine if individually they exceed recognized or adopted thresholds that comply with adopted greenhouse gas reduction plans. A numerical threshold for determining the significance of greenhouse gas emissions in the South Coast Air Basin (Basin) has not been established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). As an interim threshold based on guidance provided in the CAPCOA CEQA and Climate Change handbook, the City has opted to use a non -zero threshold approach based on Approach 2 of the handbook. Threshold 2.5 (Unit -Based Thresholds Based on Market Capture) establishes a numerical threshold based on capture of approximately 90 percent of emissions from future development. The latest threshold developed by SCAQMD using this method is 10,000 metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2E) per year for industrial projects, 3,500 MTCO2E for residential projects, 1,400 MTCO2E for commercial projects, and 3,000 MTCO2E for mixed-use projects (SCAQMD 2010). These thresholds are based on a case study of 711 CEQA projects. These thresholds will be utilized for implementing development in the future in determining if emissions of greenhouse gases will be significant, until an officially adopted threshold is established by SCAQMD. Environmental Impacts Construction emissions of greenhouse gases associated with build -out pursuant to IMPACT land use policy will be less than significant. Over the long term, GHG emissions may 4.7.A exceed regional thresholds established as projected population capacity for Costa Mesa exceeds population growth assumptions in the regional plans. Impacts at the program level are potentially significant. Development that occurs as a result of the implementation of the proposed General Plan Amendments would include activities that emit greenhouse gas emissions over the short and long term. While one project could not be said to cause global climate change, individual projects contribute cumulatively to greenhouse gas emissions that result in climate change. Future site-specific development projects will be required to prepare a greenhouse gas emissions inventory, to determine if that individual projects exceed applicable screening or impact thresholds and would thus potentially contribute substantially to climate change and associated impacts. A summary of short- and long-term emissions and the analysis for each are included below. Short -Term Emissions Future development projects would result in short-term greenhouse gas emissions from construction. Greenhouse gas emissions would be released by equipment used for demolition, grading, paving, and building construction activities. GHG emissions would also result from worker and vendor trips to and from project sites and from Environmental Impact Report 4.7-11 4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions demolition and soil hauling trips. Construction activities are short-term and cease to emit greenhouse gases upon completion, unlike operational emissions that are continuous year after year until operation of the use ceases. Because of this difference, SCAQMD recommends in its draft threshold to amortize construction emissions over a 30 -year operational lifetime. This normalizes construction emissions so that they can be grouped with operational emissions in order to generate a precise project GHG inventory. Typically, construction -related GHG emissions contribute unsubstantially (less than one percent) to a project's annual greenhouse gas emissions inventory and mitigation for construction -related emissions is not effective in reducing a project's overall contribution to climate change, given how small of a piece of the total emissions construction emissions are. The proposed General Plan policies relating to sustainability listed in Section 4.3 (Air Quality) of this EIR indicate the City of Costa Mesa's commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions consistent with State goals. Implementation of AB32 and SB375 through California Air Resources Board's (CARB) Scoping Plan and SCAG's RTP/SCS are designed to achieve the required reduction in greenhouse gas emissions (CARB 2010b and c). Analysis of the General Plan's support of these plans is presented below. With the proposed General Plan policies to require analysis of greenhouse gas emissions and cooperation and support of these plans, short-term climate change impacts due to future construction activities would not be significant. Long -Term Emissions Future development projects will result in continuous GHG emissions from mobile, area, and operational sources. Mobile sources, including vehicle trips to and from development projects, will result primarily in emissions of CO2, with minor emissions of CHa and N2O. The most significant GHG emission from natural gas usage will be methane. Electricity usage by future development and indirect usage of electricity for water and wastewater conveyance will result primarily in emissions of carbon dioxide. Disposal of solid waste will result in emissions of methane from the decomposition of waste at landfills coupled with CO2 emission from the handling and transport of solid waste. These sources combine to define the long-term greenhouse gas inventory for typical development projects. As assumed in the SCAG RTP/SCS, Costa Mesa is forecast to grow to a total population of 114,000, with 88,800 jobs, by 2035. The ultimate build -out of the proposed General Plan land use plan can accommodate a total population of 131,690 and total employment of 104,425 within the planning area. Therefore, because the proposed General Plan Amendments accommodate growth beyond the assumptions of the RTP/SCS, impacts are potentially significant. The General Plan incorporates policies that support cooperation with and support of these plans, as well as requiring greenhouse gas emission analysis for individual projects. Nonetheless, due to the inconsistency with the RTP/SCS growth projections, the proposed General Plan Amendments would result in significant impacts related to long-term GHG emissions. IMPACT The proposed General Plan Amendments have the potential to conflict with the 2012 SCAG RTP/SCS and CARB Scoping Plan—and thereby not attain GHG reductions 4.7.B targets—because land use policy does not support the same level of population growth projected. Impacts at the program level are significant and unavoidable. California Air Resources Board Scoping Plan (AB32) CARB's Scoping Plan identifies strategies to reduce California's greenhouse gas emissions in support of AB32. Many of the strategies identified in the Scoping Plan are not applicable at the General Plan or project -level, such as long-term technological improvements to reduce emissions from vehicles. Some measures are applicable and supported by the project. Finally, while some measures are not directly applicable, the project would not conflict with their implementation. Reduction measures are grouped into 18 action categories, as follows: California Cap -and -Trade Program Linked to Western Climate Initiative Partner Jurisdictions. Implement a broad-based California cap -and -trade program to provide a firm limit on emissions. Link 4.7-12 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendments Greenhouse Gas Emissions 4.7 the California cap—and-trade program with other Western Climate Initiative Partner programs to create a regional market system to achieve greater environmental and economic benefits for California (CARB 2015). Ensure California's program meets all applicable AB 32 requirements for market-based mechanisms. These programs involve capping emissions from electricity generation, industrial facilities, and broad scoped fuels. While it is unlikely that a qualifying heavy industrial facility such as these would be located in the City, if one were, it would be subject to these state requirements, and the proposed General Plan Amendments would not interfere with their implementation. California Light -Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Standards. Implement adopted Pavley standards and planned second phase of the program. Align zero -emission vehicle, alternative and renewable fuel and vehicle technology programs with long-term climate change goals. This is not applicable as this is a statewide measure establishing vehicle emissions standards. Energy Efficiency. Maximize energy efficiency building and appliance standards, and pursue additional efficiency efforts including new technologies, and new policy and implementation mechanisms. Pursue comparable investment in energy efficiency from all retail providers of electricity in California (including both investor-owned and publicly owned utilities). The General Plan promotes energy efficient building design, as well as implementation of existing building and other codes regulating minimum energy, water, and waste efficiency consistent with 2011 CALGREEN requirements and would thus be consistent and not interfere with this program. Renewable Portfolio Standards. Achieve 33 percent renewable energy mix statewide by 2020. This establishes the minimum statewide renewable energy mix and is not applicable at a City level or below for implementation. The proposed General Plan Amendments would not interfere with the implementation of this program. Low Carbon Fuel Standard. Develop and adopt the Low Carbon Fuel Standard. This is not applicable to a City as this establishes reduced carbon intensity of transportation fuels. Regional Transportation -Related Greenhouse Gas Targets. Develop regional greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets for passenger vehicles. As is detailed previously, the proposed General Plan Amendments would potentially conflict with and would not support the implementation of SCAG's RTP/SCS to achieve the required GHG reduction goals by 2020 and 2035 based on an inconsistency with growth projections. The proposed General Plan Amendments includes policies to reduce vehicle miles traveled by encouraging mixed-use, infill, an improved jobs -housing balance, and alternative modes of transportation. Vehicle Efficiency Measures. Implement light-duty vehicle efficiency measures. This is not applicable to a City as this identifies measures such as minimum tire -fuel efficiency, lower friction oil, and reduction in air conditioning use. Goods Movement. Implement adopted regulations for the use of shore power for ships at berth. Improve efficiency in goods movement activities. Identifies measures to improve goods movement efficiencies such as advanced combustion strategies, friction reduction, waste heat recovery, and electrification of accessories. While the proposed General Plan Amendments may result in facilities such as distribution warehouses that are associated with goods movement, these measures are yet to be implemented and will be voluntary. The proposed General Plan Amendments would not interfere with their eventual implementation. Million Solar Roofs Program. Install 3,000 megawatts of solar -electric capacity under California's existing solar programs. Sets goal for use of solar systems throughout the state. The proposed General Environmental Impact Report 4.7-13 4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Plan Amendments would not interfere with but instead would directly support installation of alternative energy sources through its policies and programs. 10. Medium- and Heavy -Duty Vehicles. Adopt medium -duty (MD) and heavy-duty (HD) vehicle efficiencies. Aerodynamic efficiency measures for HD trucks pulling trailers 53 -feet or longer that include improvements in trailer aerodynamics and use of rolling resistance tires were adopted in 2008 and went into effect in 2010. Future, yet to be determined improvements, includes hybridization of MD and HD trucks. The proposed General Plan Amendments may result in development of industrial uses that utilize truck fleets. These potential future developments would be required to have their fleet equipment be consistent with the current applicable efficiency measures at the time of operation. The proposed General Plan Amendments would not interfere with implementation of this program. 11. Industrial Emissions. Require assessment of large industrial sources to determine whether individual sources within a facility can cost-effectively reduce greenhouse gas emissions and provide other pollution reduction co -benefits. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions from fugitive emissions from oil and gas extraction and gas transmission. Adopt and implement regulations to control fugitive methane emissions and reduce flaring at refineries. These measures are applicable to large industrial facilities (> 500,000 MTCO2ENR) and other intensive uses such as refineries. While it is unlikely that a qualifying heavy industrial facility such as these would be located in the City, if one were, it would be subject to these state requirements; the proposed General Plan Amendments would not interfere with their implementation. 12. High Speed Rail. Support implementation of a high-speed rail system. This is not applicable as no high-speed rail facilities are planned within Costa Mesa. 13. Green Building Strategy. Expand the use of green building practices to reduce the carbon footprint of California's new and existing inventory of buildings. The General Plan promotes energy efficient building design as well as implementation of existing building and other codes regulating minimum energy, water, and waste efficiency consistent with 2011 CALGREEN requirements and would thus be consistent and not interfere with this program. 14. High Global Warming Potential Gases. Adopt measures to reduce high global warming potential gases. The proposed General Plan Amendments would not directly result in generation of high global warming potential gases, and would not interfere with implementation of any future changes in air conditioning, fire protection suppressant, and other emission requirements. 15. Recycling and Waste. Reduce methane emissions at landfills. Increase waste diversion, composting and other beneficial uses of organic materials, and mandate commercial recycling to move toward zero - waste. The proposed General Plan Amendments is consistent since implementing development will be required to recycle a minimum of 50 percent from construction activities and warehouse operations per state requirements. 16. Sustainable Forests. Preserve forest sequestration and encourage the use of forest biomass for sustainable energy generation. The 2020 target for carbon sequestration is 5 million MTCO2ENR. This is not applicable, as the City does not contain any areas defined as forest. 17. Water. Continue efficiency programs and use cleaner energy sources to move and treat water. The proposed General Plan Amendments are consistent since implementing development will include use of low -flow fixtures and water efficient landscaping per state requirements. 4.7-14 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendments Greenhouse Gas Emissions 4.7 18. Agriculture. In the near-term, encourage investment in manure digesters and at the five-year Scoping Plan update determine if the program should be made mandatory by 2020. The proposed General Plan Update does not contain any agricultural land use designations, and any policies related to agriculture land uses would not be applicable. As summarized above, the proposed General Plan Amendments will potentially conflict with Regional Transportation - Related GHG targets, but would not conflict with any of the other provisions of the Scoping Plan. The proposed General Plan Amendments in fact support four of the action categories through energy efficiency, green building, recycling/waste, and water conservation through these proposed goals, objectives, and policies, in addition to those listed in Section 4.3 (Air Quality) relating to the Circulation Element: Goal LU -4: New Development that is Sensitive to Costa Mesa's Environmental Resources Objective LU -4D- Encourage new development and redevelopment that protects and improves the quality of Costa Mesa's natural environment and resources. Policy LU -4D.6 Incorporate the principles of sustainability into land use planning, infrastructure, and development processes to reduce greenhouse gas emissions consistent with State goals. Objective CON -2: Work to conserve energy resources in existing and new buildings, utilities, and infrastructure. Policy CON -2.A: Promote efficient use of energy and conservation of available resources in the design, construction, maintenance, and operation of public and private facilities, infrastructure, and equipment. Policy CON -2.13: Consult with regional agencies and utility companies to pursue energy efficiency goals. Expand renewable energy strategies to reach zero net energy for both residential and commercial new construction. Policy CON -2.C: Continue to develop partnerships with participating jurisdictions to promote energy efficiency, energy conservation, and renewable energy resource development by leveraging the abilities of local governments to strengthen and reinforce the capacity of energy efficiency efforts. Policy CON -2.E: Promote environmentally sustainable development principles for buildings, master planned communities, neighborhoods, and infrastructure. Policy CON -2.F: Encourage construction and building development practices that reduce resource expenditures throughout the lifecycle of a structure. Policy CON -2.G: Continue to require all City facilities and services to incorporate energy and resource conservation standards and practices and the new municipal facilities be built within the LEED Gold standards or equivalent. Policy CON -2.H: Continue City green initiatives in purchases, equipment, and agreements that favor sustainable products and practices. Policy CON -3.D: Restrict use of turf in new construction and landscape reinstallation that requires high irrigation demands, except for area parks and schools, and encourage the use of drought -tolerant landscaping. Environmental Impact Report 4.7-15 4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Policy CON -4.E: Encourage compact development, infill development, and a mix of uses that are in proximity to transit, pedestrian, and bicycling infrastructures. Policy CON -4.F: Enhance bicycling and walking infrastructure, and support public bus service, pursuant to the Circulation Element's goals, objectives, and policies. Policy CON -4.H: Encourage installation of renewable energy devices for businesses and facilities and strive to reduce community -wide energy consumption. Policy CON -4.1: Develop long-term, communitywide strategies and programs that work at the local level to reduce greenhouse gases and Costa Mesa's "carbon footprint". Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (SB375) The 2012 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy and the goals, policies, and programs included within it are projected to obtain and exceed applicable GHG reduction targets of eight percent by 2020 and 13 percent by 2035. Projected reductions by the RTP/SCS are nine percent by 2020 and 16 percent by 2035. Ultimately, the RTP/SCS is keyed to implement the requirements of AB32 at the regional level. For a program -level analysis, if the proposed General Plan Amendments are consistent with the assumptions of the RTP/SCS, then long- term development within the planning area will meet regional reduction targets. As assumed in the RTP/SCS, based on current City boundaries, Costa Mesa is forecast to grow to a total population of 114,000, with 88,800 jobs, by 2035. The ultimate build -out of the proposed General Plan land use plan can accommodate a total population of 131,690 and total employment of 104,425. Therefore, the proposed General Plan Amendments are not consistent with the population growth forecasts of the RTP/SCS. This could potentially alter transportation plans and models of the RTP/SCS determined to achieve the noted GHG reduction targets. Despite inconsistencies with growth projections of the RTP/SCS, the proposed General Plan amendments would directly support the implementation of the RTP/SCS in achieving mandated GHG reduction targets through its policies oriented towards improvements in the region's multimodal transportation system and coordinating land use patterns around high-quality transit corridors as previously described. These policies are intended to reduce reliance on automobile use and improve the jobs housing balance in more suburban communities to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT), thus reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Although the proposed General Plan Update generally supports implementation of the RTP/SCS, since the plan is not strictly consistent with the RTP/SCS, the potential remains that the RTP/SCS may not be properly implemented within the City; impacts would be significant due to this inconsistency. Mitigation Measures No feasible mitigation measures are available to reduce the significant and unavoidable impacts relating to greenhouse gases. The only way to attain consistency with the 2012 AQMP with regard to GHG emissions would be to adjust land use policies to reduce the growth capacity in Costa Mesa during the planning horizon extending to 2035. This measure would be inconsistent with City goals to incentivize private reinvestment and redevelopment efforts along major corridors and on targeted sites where infrastructure can support desired growth. A number of new technologies and fuels will need to be developed, made readily available, and widely applied that avoid materials and processes that generate GHGs via building energy consumption and vehicular transportation as proposed by CARB's Scoping Plan. Until that occurs, total GHGs due to growth in the planning area would be significant. In addition, and as indicated previously, due to the General Plan's inconsistency with SCAG's population 4.7-16 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendments Greenhouse Gas Emissions 4.7 growth projections for Costa Mesa, the potential still remains for an interference with the implementation of SCAG's 2012 RTP/SCS and CARB's Scoping Plan to achieve the required greenhouse gas reductions. Thus, long-term impacts with respect to climate change remain potentially significant and unavoidable. It should be noted that the City's updated growth projections based on the proposed updated General Plan would be incorporated into the next update of the RTP/SCS. Level of Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Impacts would remain significant and unavoidable due to inconsistency with regional growth plans. Environmental Impact Report 4.7-17 4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions References United States Environmental Protection Agency. (US EPA 2015). Greenhouse Gas Emissions. www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/index.html [November 18, 2015]. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (IPCC 2007). Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing (Working Group 1). Forth Assessment Report. 2007. California Natural Resources Agency. (CNRA 2009). California Climate Adaptation Strategy. California Climate Action Team. (CCAT 2010). Biennial Report. April 2010. Southern California Association of Governments. (SCAG 2015). Senate Bill 375 Fact Sheet. www.scag.ca.gov/sb375/factsheets.htm [November 18, 2015]. California Air Resources Board. (CARB 2008). Climate Change Scoping Plan. December 2008. California Air Resources Board. (CARB 2010a). AB 32 Climate Change, Scoping Plan Progress Report. September 2010. California Air Resources Board (CARB 2015).. Cap -and -Trade. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/capandtrade/capandtrade.htm [November 18, 2015]. California Building Standards Commission. (CBSC 2010). California Code of Regulations Title 24. California Green Building Standards Code. 2010. South Coast Air Quality Management District. (SCAQMD 2010). CEQA Significance Thresholds Working Group. Meeting # 15, Main Presentation. September 28, 2010. California Air Resources Board. (CARB 2010b). California GHG Emissions — Forecast (2002-2020). October 2010. California Air Resources Board. (CARB 2010c). Scoping Plan Measures Implementation Timeline. October 2010. 4.7-18 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendments Hazards and Hazardous Materials 4.8 This section addresses the transportation and handling of hazardous materials and wastes within the planning area and the potential risk of upset. This section also addresses airport hazards, wildfire hazards, and emergency response planning. For purposes of searching various agency databases for hazardous materials and waste sites and facilities, both the City of Costa Mesa and ZIP codes 92626, 92627, and 92628 have been used. In response to the Notice of Preparation, a member of the public voiced concerns about making sure the City will still be able to deal with toxic and hazardous materials in an earthquake or terror attack. The laws and regulations in place for handling hazardous waste and draft policies in the City's Safety Element address this issue. Existing Conditions Defining Hazardous Materials and Wastes Hazardous materials and wastes exist in many places in an urban environment. Hazardous materials range from simple household paint to highly toxic industrial chemicals. Hazardous wastes range from used motor oil to post- production manufacturing wastes. The primary difference between hazardous materials and hazardous wastes is that hazardous materials are produced for specific uses whereas hazardous wastes are the byproducts of various processes. Hazardous materials are classified based on the form of hazard(s) they pose: flammable, combustible, poisonous, and/or radioactive. Hazardous wastes are classified by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) through a listing process. Listed wastes are those wastes that the EPA has formally found to be hazardous. Characteristic wastes are those that have not formally been listed but exhibit hazardous features. Universal wastes are common hazardous wastes that are not industry specific but can be found in many types of businesses, institutions, and households. Mixed wastes are those that are both hazardous and radioactive. Hazardous wastes are also classified by the type of hazard(s) they pose, similar to hazardous materials. Hazardous wastes may be ignitable, corrosive, reactive, toxic, or radioactive. Transport of Hazardous Materials and Wastes The City currently does not have a Truck Route Master Plan as adopted in the General Plan Circulation Element that identifies higher capacity roadways that can accommodate truck traffic and separate it from residential. Chapter XIII — Restricted Use of Certain Streets, Section 10-248 (Truck Routes) of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code addresses truck routes. Per ordinance provisions, truck routes are established by a resolution of the City Council. Wildland Urban Interface No portion of the planning area has been designated as a Moderate, High, or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) through the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CALFIRE) Fire and Resource Assessment Program. Fire hazard zoning is developed through modeling efforts based on vegetation, topography, weather, crown fire potential, and ember production and movement. Crown fire denotes fire that advances independently from the surface fire. Fire hazard zoning does not account for risk, which is the measure of potential for damage. Fire hazard mapping is used in building codes for areas located within the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) and requirements for defensible space clearing. According to CALFIRE, the entire planning area is located within a Non-VHFHSZ Local Responsibility Area (CALFIRE 2015). Environmental Impact Report 4.8-1 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Public and Private Airports John Wayne/Orange County Airport (SNA) is located immediately east of the planning area, roughly parallel with SR - 55. Almost the entire planning area lies within the so-called 20,000 -foot Notification Area of John Wayne Airport, and the northeastern section is affected by two safety zones (see Figure 4.8-1, Airport Safety Zones). Regulatory Framework Hazardous Materials and Wastes CERCLA and Suoerfund Sites The federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), adopted in 1980, was developed to remove contamination of water, air, and land resources from past chemical disposal practices. This Act, also known as the Superfund Act, contains a list of sites referred to as Superfund sites. CERCLA collects taxes from the chemical and petroleum industries that are placed in trust funds to clean abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. Response actions authorized by CERCLA include short term response that require immediate attention and long term response to sites that hazardous substance release is not immediately life threatening. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Superfund Information System currently does not list any hazardous or potentially hazardous sites being assessed pursuant to CERCLA within the planning area (US EPA 2015a and 2015b). CERCLIS and the National Priorities List The EPA also maintains the CERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Information System list. This list contains sites that are either proposed to be or on the National Priorities List (NPL), as well as sites that are in the screening and assessment phase for possible inclusion on the NPL. The NPL is a list of the worst hazardous waste sites that have been identified by Superfund. Sites are only put on the list after they have been scored using the Hazard Ranking System (HRS), and have been subjected to public comment. Any site on the NPL is eligible for cleanup using Superfund Trust money. The HRS uses a structured analysis approach to scoring sites. This approach assigns numerical values to factors that relate to risk based on conditions at the site. The factors are grouped into three categories: ■ likelihood that a site has released or has the potential to release hazardous substances into the environment; ■ characteristics of the waste (e.g. toxicity and waste quantity); and ■ people or sensitive environments (targets) affected by the release. Four pathways can be scored under the HRS: ■ ground water migration (drinking water); ■ surface water migration (drinking water, human food chain, sensitive environments); ■ soil exposure (resident population, nearby population, sensitive environments); and ■ air migration (population, sensitive environments). After scores are calculated for one or more pathways, they are combined using a root -mean -square equation to determine the overall site score. Listing on the NPL makes a site eligible for funding of long-term site remediation. No NPL sites are within the planning area (US EPA 2015c). 4.8-2 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment Talbert Ave. Gisler Ave. r: r i r n .t' I/ Adams Ave. m t Wilson St. _ Victoria St. U a 19th St. 17th St. L 15th St. / Hazards and Hazardous Materials 4.8 Orange (oast College Arlin for O(Fair& Event John Wayne Airport Safety Zones - Zone 1: Runway Protection Zone - Zone 2: Inner Approach/Departure Zone 0 Zone 3: Inner Turning Zone 0 Zone 4: Outer Approach/Departure Zone 0 Zone 5: Sideline Zone 0 Zone 6: Traffic Pattern Zone Environmental Impact Report ' City of / Newport Beach 4 John Wayne 2 City of Irvine Source: Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport, Airport Land Use Commission, Airport Environs, 2008. Feet 0 1,000 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 Figure 4.8-1 Airport Safety Zones 4.8-3 Segerstrom Ave. �— City of Santa Ana m MacArthur Blvd. Sunflower Av . South Cot Dr. — South Coast Anto Blvd. Plaza Baker St. Q�a� Orange (oast College Arlin for O(Fair& Event John Wayne Airport Safety Zones - Zone 1: Runway Protection Zone - Zone 2: Inner Approach/Departure Zone 0 Zone 3: Inner Turning Zone 0 Zone 4: Outer Approach/Departure Zone 0 Zone 5: Sideline Zone 0 Zone 6: Traffic Pattern Zone Environmental Impact Report ' City of / Newport Beach 4 John Wayne 2 City of Irvine Source: Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport, Airport Land Use Commission, Airport Environs, 2008. Feet 0 1,000 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 Figure 4.8-1 Airport Safety Zones 4.8-3 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials RCRA and Hazardous Waste Generators The Resources Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) is a federal law that regulates the generation, management, and transportation of waste material. Hazardous waste management, specifically, includes the following: Treatment: Any process that changes the physical or chemical composition of the waste to make it less harmful to the environment Storage: The holding of hazardous waste for a temporary period of time Disposal: The permanent final location of the hazardous waste into or on the land RCRA approaches hazardous wastes from a cradle -to -grave approach, meaning that all hazardous wastes are tracked and strictly regulated from generation to disposal. Hazardous waste generators are required to report use or transport of hazardous wastes to the EPA. Hazardous waste generators range from small producers such as dry cleaners and automobile repair facilities to larger producers such as hospitals and manufacturing operations. Specifically, the EPA categorizes Small Quantity Generators (SQG) as those facilities that produce between 100 and 1,000 kilograms (kg) of hazardous waste per month. Facilities producing less than 100 kg of hazardous waste per month are not subject to RCRA. Large Quantity Generators (LQG) produces 1,000 kg or more hazardous waste per month. LQG and SQG facilities are subject to the storage and transportation requirements of RCRA. As of December 4, 2015, 244 active hazardous waste handlers are located in the planning area, including 29 LQG and four hazardous waste transportation facilities (US EPA 20154). EPCRA and the Toxic Release Inventory The federal Emergency Planning and Community Right -To -Know Act (EPCRA) were enacted to inform communities and residents of chemical hazards in their area. Businesses are required to report the locations and quantities of chemicals stored on-site to both state and local agencies. This Act requires the EPA to maintain and publish a list of toxic chemical releases and other waste management activities reported by certain industry groups and federal facilities. This list, known as the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI), gives the community more power to hold companies accountable for their chemical management. Section 3131 of the EPCRA requires manufacturers to report releases of more than 600 designated toxic chemicals into the air, soil, or water. Off-site transfers of waste for treatment or disposal are also required to be reported. On- site disposal or release of chemicals include emissions to the air, discharges to bodies of water, disposal at the facility to land, and disposal in underground injection wells. Off-site disposal or release of chemicals is a discharge of a toxic chemical to the environment that occurs as a result of a facility transferring a waste containing a TRI chemical off-site for disposal or other release. Certain other types of transfers are also categorized as off-site disposal or other release because the outcome of transferring the chemical off-site is the same as disposing of it or releasing it on-site. Facilities required to report, per EPCRA, include industrial uses that manufacture, process, or use significant amounts of chemicals. Reporting must include the types and amounts of chemicals that are released each year into the air, water, and land or transferred off-site. Listing as a TRI facility does not necessarily mean that releases are harmful to humans or the environment. As of December 15, 2015, 30 TRI facilities were located in the planning area, as identified in Table 4.8-1 (Toxic Release Inventory Facilities) (US EPA 2015e). 4.8-4 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment Hazards and Hazardous Materials 4.8 Table 4.8-1 Toxic Release Inventory Facilities Name Alco Battery Co. Inc Address 2980 Red Hill Ave. Brunswick Corp. Defense Div. 3333 Harbor Blvd. Canon Business Machines Inc. 3191 Red Hill Ave. Cerad ne Inc. 3169 Red Hill Ave. CIBA Geigy 1571 W. McArthur Blvd. CIMCO 265 Briggs Ave. CYTEC Aerospace Materials 851 W. 18th St. DISC Instruments 102 E. Baker St. Eaton Corp. Aerospace & Commercial 1640 Monrovia Ave. Foremost Packaging Sys. Inc. 1613 Monrovia St. Griswold Industries 1701 Placentia Ave. Gulton-Statham Transducers Inc. 1644 Whittier Ave. Hartley Co. 1987 Placentia Ave. ITT Industries Inc. JABSCO 1485 Dale W . Kowa America Corp. 385 Clinton St. MacGregor Yacht Corp. 1631 Placentia Ave. Mallinckrodt Anesthesia Products Div. 3195-A Airport Loop Dr. Parker Hannifin Corp. Hydraulic Valve Div. 3115 Airway Ave. Prime Technologies Inc. 3183 Red Hill Ave. Probe Manufacturing Industries 3050 Pullman St. Prototype Concepts Inc. 1945-C1 Placentia Ave. Resinart corp. 1621 Placentia Ave. Rockwell International Corp. 2990 Airway Ave. Sanmina Corp. 2950 Red Hill Ave. Sigma Circuits Inc. Southern Cal. Div. 2970 Airway Ave. Transcom Systems 3100 Pullman St. TRD USA Inc. 335 E. Baker St. Valentec International Corp. 3190 Pullman St. Velie Circuits Inc. 1267 Logan Ave. Western Digital Corp. 3128 Red Hill Ave. Source: EPA 2015 (;nrtPSP I ist The provisions in California Government Code Section 65962.5 are commonly referred to as the Cortese List. The list, or a site's presence on the list, has bearing on the local permitting process, as well as on compliance with CEQA. As this statute was enacted over 20 years ago, some of the provisions refer to agency activities that were conducted many years ago and are no longer being implemented; in some cases, the information to be included in the Cortese List does not exist. The agencies and tracking activities that still exist and which are included on the Cortese List are detailed below. Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites and Facilities The California Department of Toxic Substances (DTSC) is charged with reporting of hazardous waste facilities, hazardous waste sites, and hazardous waste disposal on public lands. A hazardous waste facility processes and disposes of hazardous wastes. A hazardous waste site is a contaminated site requiring monitoring and cleanup. According to the DTSC, five hazardous waste and substance sites exist within the planning area, as listed in Table 4.8-2 (Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites and Facilities) (DTSC 2015). Environmental Impact Report 4.8-5 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Table 4.8-2 Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites and Facilities Site Cleanup Programs SWRCB is also required to report site contamination. The primary difference between DTSC and SWRCB site reporting is that DTSC reports pursuant to the Health and Safety Code while SWRCB reports pursuant to the Water Code. Further distinction is made because DTSC reports specifically on hazardous waste sites, while SWRCB reports on hazardous materials and other contaminants that may affect soil and/or water resources. Five active cleanup program sites occur within the City; these are listed in Table 4.8-3 (SWRCB Site Cleanup Programs) (WRCB 2015). Table 4.8-3 SWRCB Site Cleanup Pro rams AddressName .. Contaminants Costa Mesa Air 2675 Irvine Ave. Indoor Air, Groundwater, Soil, Soil Vapor Metals, Polynuclear Aromatic National Guard 2651 Newport Blvd. Groundwater, Soil, Soil Vapor Hydrocarbons (PANS), Volatile John Wane Airport 3151 Airway Ave. None Specified Organic Com ounds VOCs Precision Optical 865 & 869 W. 17th Groundwater, Soil, Soil Vapor Tetrachloroethylene (PCE) Incorporated Facility St. Oil/Motor Hydraulic/Lubricating Southern California 1080 W. 17th St. Soil Waste Oil/Motor/Hydraulic/Lubricating Edison Lafayette 1680 Monrovia Ave. Groundwater, Soil, Soil Vapor Tetrachloroethylene (PCE) Substation Water Supply Maurer Marine, Inc. 873 W. 17th St. Indoor Air, Groundwater, Soil, Tetrachloroethylene (PCE) Ave. Soil Vapor (PCE), Trichloroethylene TCE CLA-VAL Facility 1701 Placentia Ave. Indoor Air, Groundwater, Soil, Tetrachloroethylene (PCE) Soil Vapor, Under Investigation Source: DTSC 2015 Site Cleanup Programs SWRCB is also required to report site contamination. The primary difference between DTSC and SWRCB site reporting is that DTSC reports pursuant to the Health and Safety Code while SWRCB reports pursuant to the Water Code. Further distinction is made because DTSC reports specifically on hazardous waste sites, while SWRCB reports on hazardous materials and other contaminants that may affect soil and/or water resources. Five active cleanup program sites occur within the City; these are listed in Table 4.8-3 (SWRCB Site Cleanup Programs) (WRCB 2015). Table 4.8-3 SWRCB Site Cleanup Pro rams Leaking Underground Storage Tanks SWRCB is required to report on all leaking underground storage tanks (LUSTs). The most common type of LUSTs are leaking underground fuel tanks (LUFTs). There are currently fourteen active LUST assessments in progress within the City, as summarized in Table 4.8-4 (Leaking Underground Storage Tanks) (WRCB 2015). 4.8-6 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment AddressName . Contaminants Euroclean Express Cleaners 2675 Irvine Ave. Indoor Air, Groundwater, Soil, Soil Vapor Tetrachloroethylene (PCE) Aviation, Diesel, Gasoline, John Wane Airport 3151 Airway Ave. None Specified MTBE/TBA/Other Fuel Oxygenates, Trichloroethylene (TCE), Waste Oil/Motor Hydraulic/Lubricating Newport Banning Ranch LLC 1080 W. 17th St. Soil Waste Oil/Motor/Hydraulic/Lubricating Randy's Automotive Property 2089 Harbor Blvd. Aquifer Used for Drinking Diesel, Gasoline Water Supply Walgreens Store 1726 Superior Groundwater, Soil, Soil Acetone, Tetrachloroethylene Ave. Vapor (PCE), Trichloroethylene TCE Source: SWRCB 2015 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks SWRCB is required to report on all leaking underground storage tanks (LUSTs). The most common type of LUSTs are leaking underground fuel tanks (LUFTs). There are currently fourteen active LUST assessments in progress within the City, as summarized in Table 4.8-4 (Leaking Underground Storage Tanks) (WRCB 2015). 4.8-6 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment Hazards and Hazardous Materials 4.8 Table 4.8-4 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks Solid Waste Disposal Sites The SWRCB is charged with reporting on solid waste disposal facilities that have migration of hazardous substances from the site. According to the SWRCB GeoTracker database, Pacific Avenue Landfill, located at 2193 Pacific Avenue, has been inactive since 2014. No site history or contaminant information is available (WRCB 2015). Military Cleanup Sites The SWRCB is charged with reporting on military cleanup sites that are resulting in the migration of hazardous substances from the site. According to the SWRCB GeoTracker database, Costa Mesa Air National Guard, located at 2651 Newport Boulevard, has been actively monitored since 2012. The potential media of concern for this site is groundwater and soil. Potential contaminants of concern include diesel, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PANS), trichloroethylene (TCE), and waste oil/ motor/ hydraulic/lubricating (WRCB 2015). Active Water Board Orders The Santa Ana RWQCB is required to compile a list of active Cease and Desist Orders (CDO) and Cleanup and Abatement Orders (CAO) that concern the discharge of wastes that are hazardous materials. John Wayne Airport and Argo Tech Corp. currently have "active" CAOs, each last issued by the RWQCB on June 17, 2005 (Cal EPA 2015). Hazardous Materials Transportation Act United States Code part 49, Section 5101 et al sets the basic statutory requirements for federal hazardous materials transportation law. The law provides the federal government with the authority to designate hazardous materials. Designation may occur for explosive, radioactive, infectious, flammable, combustible, toxic, oxidizing, and corrosive Environmental Impact Report 4.8-7 AddressName .. Contaminants Chevron #21-1314/ American 2252 Harbor Blvd. Groundwater Gasoline Savin s Bank G&M Oil #21 2995 Bristol St. Groundwater Diesel, Gasoline G&M Oil #23 1740 Newport Ave. Groundwater Gasoline General Transmissions 2073 Harbor Blvd. Aquifer Used for Drinking Waste Oil/ Motor/ Hydraulic/ Water Supply Lubricating Los Angeles Times North 1375 Sunflower Ave. Groundwater Diesel, Gasoline Tanks Mobil #18- HDR 3195 Harbor Ave. Groundwater Gasoline, Waste Oil/ Motor/ Hydraulic/ Lubricating Mobil #18- JMY 3470 Fairview Rd. Groundwater Gasoline Newport Mesa Unified School 2985A Bear St. Aquifer Used for Drinking Gasoline, Waste Oil/ Motor/ District Water Supply Hydraulic/ Lubricating P&M Station #975* 2050 Harbor Blvd. Groundwater Gasoline Shell Oil 1201 Baker St. Groundwater Gasoline Thrifty Oil #139 79919th St. Groundwater Gasoline Thrifty Oil #151 751 Baker St. Groundwater Gasoline Tosco 76 #4992 1900 Newport Ave. Groundwater Gasoline Unocal #5404 3599 Harbor Blvd. Groundwater Gasoline, Waste Oil/ Motor/ Hydraulic/ Lubricating Source: SWRCB 2015 *AKA Superior Station, Inc. Solid Waste Disposal Sites The SWRCB is charged with reporting on solid waste disposal facilities that have migration of hazardous substances from the site. According to the SWRCB GeoTracker database, Pacific Avenue Landfill, located at 2193 Pacific Avenue, has been inactive since 2014. No site history or contaminant information is available (WRCB 2015). Military Cleanup Sites The SWRCB is charged with reporting on military cleanup sites that are resulting in the migration of hazardous substances from the site. According to the SWRCB GeoTracker database, Costa Mesa Air National Guard, located at 2651 Newport Boulevard, has been actively monitored since 2012. The potential media of concern for this site is groundwater and soil. Potential contaminants of concern include diesel, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PANS), trichloroethylene (TCE), and waste oil/ motor/ hydraulic/lubricating (WRCB 2015). Active Water Board Orders The Santa Ana RWQCB is required to compile a list of active Cease and Desist Orders (CDO) and Cleanup and Abatement Orders (CAO) that concern the discharge of wastes that are hazardous materials. John Wayne Airport and Argo Tech Corp. currently have "active" CAOs, each last issued by the RWQCB on June 17, 2005 (Cal EPA 2015). Hazardous Materials Transportation Act United States Code part 49, Section 5101 et al sets the basic statutory requirements for federal hazardous materials transportation law. The law provides the federal government with the authority to designate hazardous materials. Designation may occur for explosive, radioactive, infectious, flammable, combustible, toxic, oxidizing, and corrosive Environmental Impact Report 4.8-7 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials materials as well as compressed gases. The law covers various aspects of hazardous materials transportation, as follows: ■ Hazardous materials classification ■ Hazard communication ■ Packaging requirements ■ Operational rules ■ Training and security ■ Registration California Code of Regulations (Title 22) Title 22 contains all applicable State and federal laws governing hazardous wastes in the State. Title 22 is more stringent and broader in its coverage of wastes than federal law. Title 26 deals with toxic -related regulations. The generation, transport, and disposal of asbestos and asbestos -containing materials are regulated under Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations. (Toxic Fact) Asbestos is a fibrous mineral that was commonly used in household products and building materials prior to the 1980s. When asbestos fibers become airborne and are inhaled, they pose a serious health risk. Exposure to asbestos can lead to varying forms of lung cancer. The primary non -industrial source of asbestos exposure is the demolition or remodeling of buildings constructed with asbestos - containing materials. Other materials of concern when demolition or remodeling occurs includes lead-based paints and mercury -containing products. Hazardous Materials Disclosure Program State and federal law require all businesses handling more than a specified amount of hazardous or extremely hazardous materials to submit a Hazardous Materials Business Plan to the local Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA). The CUPA for the City of Costa Mesa is the Orange County CUPA (OC-CUPA). The OC-CUPA has a Hazardous Materials Disclosure and Business Emergency Plan program, which requires that a business plan be prepared, submitted, and implemented by any business handling hazardous materials or a mixture containing hazardous materials in qualities equal to or greater than 55 gallons of a liquid, 500 pounds of a solid, or 200 cubic feet of compressed gas, or extremely hazardous, or extremely hazardous substances above the threshold planning quantity. • All hazardous waste generators, regardless of quantity generated ■ Any business that uses, generates, processes, produces, treats, stores, emits, or discharges a hazardous material in quantities at or exceeding: - 55 gallons or more of a liquid; - 500 pounds or more of a solid; or - 200 cubic feet (compressed) of gas at any one time in the course of a year. ■ Any business that handles, stores, or uses Category (1) or (II) pesticides, as defined by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, regardless of amount ■ Any business that handles Department of Transportation Hazard Class 1 explosives In addition, businesses are required to submit an amendment to their business plan within 30 days of any of the following events: ■ A 100 percent or more increase in the quantity of a previously disclosed hazardous material ■ Any handling of a previously undisclosed hazardous material subject to inventory requirements: 4.8-8 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment Hazards and Hazardous Materials 4.8 Change of business address; Change of ownership; or Change of business name. These required business plans are used by responding agencies in the event of a release to allow for a quick and accurate evaluation of each situation. Businesses handling hazardous materials are required to verbally report any release or threatened release if there is a reasonable belief that the release poses a significant present or potential hazard to human health and safety, property, or the environment. In addition, if a release involves a hazardous substance listed in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations in an amount equal to or exceeding the reportable quantity, a notice must be filed with the California Office of Emergency Services within 15 days. The OCFD-HMD is responsible for conducting compliance inspections of regulated facilities in Orange County. Hazardous Waste Control Law This State statute sets regulations for the handling, transport, and disposal of hazardous waste. California law exceeds federal RCRA regulations by requiring source reduction planning and includes more extensive coverage of activities and wastes. Hazards and Emergency Planning National Incident Manaaement Svstem (NIMS In 2003, the Homeland Security Presidential Directive -5 was issued. It directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to develop and administer National Incident Management System (NIMS). While most emergency situations are handled locally, when there is a major incident, help may be needed from other jurisdictions, the State, and the federal government. The NIMS provides a consistent nationwide template to establish federal, state, tribal and local governments, private sector, and nongovernmental organizations to work together effectively and efficiently to prepare for, prevent, respond to, and recover from domestic incidents, regardless of cause, size or complexity, including acts of catastrophic terrorism. NIMS benefits include a unified approach to incident management; standard command and management structures; and emphasis on preparedness, mutual aid and resource management. The Costa Mesa4GR Fire Department ensures consistency with NIMS. Standardized Emergency Management System The majority of emergencies are mitigated by local agencies with no need for additional assistance. However, when a major incident occurs, the first few moments are critical in terms of reducing loss of life and property. First responders must be sufficiently trained to understand the nature and the gravity of the event to minimize the confusion that inevitably follows catastrophic situations. The first responder must then put into motion relevant mitigation plans to further reduce the potential for loss of lives and property damage and to communicate with the public. According to the State's Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS), local agencies have primary authority regarding rescue and treatment of casualties and making decisions regarding protective actions for the community. This on - scene authority rests with the local emergency services organization and the incident commander. The SEMS law intent is to improve the coordination of State and local emergency response in California. It requires all California jurisdictions to participate in the establishment of a standardized statewide emergency management system. Depending on the type of incident, several different agencies and disciplines may be called in to assist with emergency response. Agencies and disciplines that can be expected to be part of an emergency response team Environmental Impact Report 4.8-9 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials include medical, health, fire and rescue, police, public works, and coroner. The challenge is to accomplish the work at hand in the most effective manner while maintaining open lines of communication between the different responding agencies to share and disseminate information, to coordinate efforts. Emergency response in every California jurisdiction is handled in accordance with SEMS, with individual City agencies and personnel taking on their responsibilities as defined by the City's Emergency Plan. This document describes the different levels of emergencies, the local emergency management organization, and the specific responsibilities of each participating agency, government office, and City staff. The Costa Mesa Fire Department manages the Emergency Operation Center (EOC) during disasters and coordinates other agencies in the implementation of SEMS. The framework of the SEMS system is the following: ■ Incident Command System – a standard response system for all hazards that is based on a concept originally developed in the 1970s for response to wildland fires; ■ Multi -Agency Coordination System – coordinated effort between various agencies and disciplines, allowing for effective decision-making, sharing of resources, and prioritizing of incidents; ■ Master Mutual Aid Agreement and related systems – agreement between cities, counties and the State to provide services, personnel and facilities when local resources are inadequate to handle an emergency; ■ Operational Area Concept – coordination of resources and information at the county level, including political subdivisions within the county; and ■ Operational Area Satellite Information System – a satellite -based communications system with a high - frequency radio backup that permits the transfer of information between agencies using the system. The SEMS law requires the following: ■ Jurisdictions must attend training sessions for the emergency management system; ■ All agencies must use the system to be eligible for funding for response costs under disaster assistance programs; and ■ All agencies must complete after -action reports within 120 days of each declared disaster. Oranae Countv General Plan Safetv Element The County's General Plan Safety Element includes adopted goals and objectives designed to minimize risk from hazardous materials and waste releases and loss and injury from fires. These include goals and objectives for fire hazards, crime, and hazardous materials (OC 2014). John Wavne Airport. Airport Environs Land Use Commission and Land Use Plan In 1967, the first Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) statute was adopted by the California legislature, according to the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. In 1982 the statute was amended to require consistency between local general plans and zoning and ALUC compatibility plans. In 1994, CEQA statutes as applied to the preparation of environmental documents in the vicinity of airports was amended. Lead agencies are required to use the Airport Land Use Planning Handbook as a technical resource when assessing the airport related noise and safety impacts of airport vicinity projects (OC ALUC 2008). The purpose of ALUCs has remained essentially unchanged since the early years of the statutes. To fulfill its purpose, ALUC has two specific duties: ■ Prepare Compatibility Plans — Each commission is required to "prepare and adopt" an airport land use plan for each of the airports within its jurisdiction (Section 21674 (c) and 21675(a)). 4.8-10 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment Hazards and Hazardous Materials 4.8 Review Local Agency Land Use Actions and Airport Plans — The commissions' second duty is to "review the plans, regulations, and other actions of local agencies and airport operators..." (Section 21674(d)) The key limitations are: 1) a ALUC has no authority over existing land uses regardless of whether such uses are incompatible with airport activities and 2) the "powers of the commission shall in no way be construed to give the commission jurisdiction over the operation of any airport." The County of Orange has adopted an Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) that applies to all airports within the County and that specifically identifies safety zones around the airports, including John Wayne. Section 4.3 of the AELUP addresses amendments to general plans as follows: 4.3 Amendments to General Plans and Specific Plans (Zoning). Within the AELUP planning areas, any amendment to a General Plan or Specific Plan (including conventional zoning and Planned Communities) must be submitted to the Commission for a consistency determination prior to its adoption by the local agency. Costa Mesa Fire Code The City has adopted the 2013 California Building Code, including Section 701A et al that defines specifications for exterior materials and construction methods for structures located in a wildland-urban interface. These regulations pertain to any new building located within a Local Agency Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone or within a State Responsible Moderate, High, or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. This Section's purpose is to protect life and property by increasing a building's ability to resist the intrusion of flames or burning embers projected by a vegetation fire. The section's provisions address roofing, exterior walls, decking, and ancillary buildings. Thresholds of Significance The General Plan Amendments could result in significant impacts associated with hazardous materials and/or wastes if: A. A significant hazard to the public or the environment is created through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. B. A significant hazard to the public or the environment is created through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. C. Hazardous emissions are emitted or hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or wastes are handled within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. D. A significant hazard to the public or the environment is created through development of a site that is included on a list of hazardous waste sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. The General Plan Amendments could result in significant impacts associated with air traffic hazards if: E. People residing or working in the planning area are subject to safety hazards due to the planning area or portions thereof being located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. F. People residing or working in the planning area are subject to safety hazards due to the planning area or portions thereof being located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. The General Plan Amendments could result in significant impacts associated with emergency response programs or wildfires if: Environmental Impact Report 4.8-11 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials G. The program impairs implementation of or physically interferes with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. H. Exposes people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands. Environmental Impacts IMPACT The proposed General Plan Amendments would result in less than significant impacts 4.8.A from the use, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes. Hazardous materials and wastes are would be routinely transported, used, and disposed of within the planning area, particularly originating from or being delivered to the many industrial businesses in the City. The transport, use, and disposal would range from hazardous materials used for manufacturing processes to common household hazardous wastes (HHW) such as paint and used motor oil. The use, transportation, and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes has varying degrees of risk of upset dependent on the type and quantity of the material or waste. Simple spills of HHWs can result in minor environmental contamination to soil, air, or water. Releases of toxic chemicals from industrial facilities pollute the air and may have immediate and adverse health effects on workers or residents in the vicinity. Releases can occur accidentally or deliberately. A common means of accidental release occurs when a vehicle transporting hazardous wastes or materials is involved in a collision and the wastes are released onto the roadway and surrounding environment. Large-scale accidents involving the transportation of hazardous materials or wastes can result in extensive clean-up efforts at significant cost. Primary routes within the planning area where transport of hazardous materials or wastes will typically occur include 1-405 and SR -55, as well as along arterial roadways such as Harbor and Newport Boulevards. Given the proximity of residential and industrial uses next to each other, residents in these areas could experience a higher risk of exposure to potential upset associated with materials transport. Designated truck routes and other roadways are used to transport materials and wastes from within the City to the freeways. As discussed above, truck routes in Costa Mesa are designated by City Council resolution. Criteria used to establish such routes includes proximity to residential uses and schools. The General Plan Amendments would result in less than significant impacts associated with the use, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials and waste. IMPACT The proposed General Plan Amendments would result in less than significant impacts 4.8.6 related to reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Hazardous materials and wastes are extensively regulated and monitored by State and federal law, as discussed above. The use of hazardous materials is regulated and monitored under EPCRA, RCRA, and the Hazardous Materials Disclosure Program. Transportation of hazardous materials and/or wastes is regulated under RCRA, the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, Hazardous Wastes Control Law, and California Code of Regulations Title 22. Disposal of hazardous wastes regulated under RCRA, Hazardous Wastes Control Law, and California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 22. Sections 2729 through 2732 of the (CCR) provide requirements for the reporting, inventory, and release response plans for hazardous materials. These requirements establish procedures and minimum standards for hazardous material plans, inventory reporting and submittal requirements, emergency planning/response, and training. 4.8-12 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment Hazards and Hazardous Materials 4.8 In addition, all regulated substance handlers are required to register with local fire or emergency response departments per the California Accidental Release Prevention Program. Locally, this is overseen by the Orange County Fire Department Environmental Health Division (OCFD-EHD). The OCFD-EHD reviews and approves of an Emergency/Contingency Plan for regulated facilities. The plan outlines precautions and procedures necessary to protect facilities from accidental release of hazardous materials, and provides emergency remediation to minimize effects should an accidental spill occur. Annual updates and review of the plan are required to ensure compliance and adequacy. The Hazardous Materials Disclosure Program requires notification of potential or known release. The OCFD-EHD responds to emergency releases under the Hazardous Materials Disclosure Program. Furthermore, releases of hazardous materials or wastes are required to be reported to the California Office of Emergency Services (OES). These existing regulations provide adequate safeguards for preventing, responding to and cleaning up accidental releases of hazardous materials and wastes, and further regulation by the City is considered unnecessary. The proposed General Plan Amendments would not conflict with any of these regulations; therefore, this project would not result in a significant impact involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. IMPACT The proposed General Plan Amendments would result in less than significant impacts related to hazardous material emissions within one-quarter mile of an existing or 4.8.0 proposed school. The General Plan Amendments are not designating any land uses specifically within '/ mile of any existing schools, so land uses that typically use hazardous materials (such as gas stations, manufacturing plants, agricultural products storage, etc.) would not be sited near a school. Furthermore, any new schools proposed in the City would go through strict State -mandated siting requirements under the direction of the California Division of State Architects that would ensure they are not located hazardous materials sites (CDSA 2015). Future development in proximity to an existing or already planned school site would be subject to City review concerning potential environmental effects, in accordance with the City's routine CEQA compliance procedures. Through the existing planning process, impacts involving the manufacture, use, transport, storage, or disposal of hazardous substances and wastes near a school site would be considered. If potentially significant effects are identified, measures to avoid or reduce impacts to less than significant levels would need to be identified, and the City would be required to make specific findings to document that consideration. The General Plan Amendments would result in less than significant impacts related to hazardous material emissions within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. IMPACT Impacts to development and persons due to building sitting on contaminated properties 4.8.D would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Contaminated building sites and properties in the planning area are listed in Tables 4.8-2, 3 and 4. In addition, the Housing Element identifies the Sakioka Lot 2 and Arge Te^" sites as possibly requiring remediation prior to future development due to past agricultural and uses Yew �Ye' Contamination may occur at these sites depending on past and/or proposed uses. Sensitive and other land uses could also be proposed on known or currently unknown sites contaminated by hazardous materials. Development on contaminated sites could prevent the contamination from being cleaned, allowing it to continue to transport through the soil and eventually to groundwater resources. The proposed amended Safety Element includes Policy S -24.M through Policy S -24.R, regarding Hazardous Materials Operations (listed above), to regulate hazardous materials operations. These policies would ensure continued consultation with the County of Orange, appropriate in-depth environmental analysis of development, and preparation of adequate action plans. In addition, to ensure that site contamination would be identified during the Environmental Impact Report 4.8-13 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials development review process for future development pursuant to the amended General Plan, Mitigation Measure 4.8.D-1 has been incorporated. Mitigation Measure 4.8.D-1 requires that site assessments be conducted prior to project approvals to identify any contamination; the measure also sets performance standards for cleanup prior to approval of development or redevelopment projects. This would ensure that as properties are developed, site contamination, where such exists, is removed. Through application of existing regulations and imposition of mitigation, impacts to persons and other resources would be reduced to less than significant levels. GOAL S-2: HIGH LEVEL OF POLICE AND FIRE SERVICES AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS. Provide a high level of security in the community to prevent and reduce crime, and to minimize risks of fire to people, property, and the environment. Objective S-2. Plan, promote, and demonstrate a readiness to respond and reduce threats to life and property through traditional and innovative emergency services and programs. Hazardous Materials Operations Policy S -2.M: Continue to consult with the County of Orange in the implementation of the Orange County Hazardous Waste Management Plan. Policy S -2.N: Ensure that appropriate in-depth environmental analysis is conducted for any proposed hazardous waste materials treatment, transfer, and/or disposal facility. Policy S-2.0: Continue to consult with the County of Orange to identify and inventory all users of hazardous materials and all hazardous waste generators, and prepare clean-up action plans for identified disposal sites. Policy S -2.P: Require the safe production, transportation, handling, use, and disposal of hazardous materials that may cause air, water or soil contamination. Policy S -2.Q: Encourage best practices in hazardous waste management and ensure consistency with City, County, and Federal guidelines, standards, and requirements. Policy S -2.R: Consult with federal, State, and local agencies and law enforcement to prevent the illegal transportation and disposal of hazardous waste. IMPACT 4.8.E 4.8. F Impacts related to operation of public or private airports would be less than significant due to requirements of existing regulations related to consistency with AELUP. John Wayne Airport is located immediately adjacent to the planning area to the east. Portions of the SoBECA, Sakioka Lot 2, and Residential Incentive -Newport Overlay lie within Safety Compatibility Zones of the airport, as designated in the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport (AELUP) (OC ALUC 2008). These areas lie within Zone 6 — Traffic Pattern Zone. According to the AELUP, Zone 6 is an area with a "generally low likelihood of accident occurrence at most airports; risk concern primarily is with uses for which potential consequences are severe." Residential uses are considered compatible, as are most nonresidential uses except outdoor stadiums and similar very -high -occupancy land uses. Large schools, day care centers, hospitals, and nursing homes are discouraged. As discussed under Regulatory Setting above, the City must submit general plan amendments to the Airport Land Use Commission to determine consistency with the AELUP. 4.8-14 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment Hazards and Hazardous Materials 4.8 Future development applications would be reviewed in light of AELUP criteria with regard to sitting within airport safety zones. Development within close proximity to the airport is regulated in Municipal Code Sections 13-42.3 (Development Standards and Requirements), which requires a developer to disclose to future homeowners if the property is within two miles of an airport, and Section 13-38 (Additional Property Development Standards for Multiple - Family Residential Districts), which requires that a noise study be performed if a property is located in proximity to an airport. These regulations ensure people residing or working within close proximity of the airport are reasonably protected from noise and height -related impacts. With adherence to these existing regulations, impacts related to people residing or working within airport safety zones would be less than significant. IMPACT The proposed General Plan Amendments would not interfere with the implementation of 4.8.G the City's emergency response and evacuation procedures. Impairment of emergency or evacuation procedures can result in increased property damage and/or personal injury by slowing emergency services response times or preventing the public from being able to escape emergency situations. The General Plan Amendments do not include any proposed changes in the physical organization of the planning area that could interfere with the City's emergency response or evacuation procedures pursuant to NIMS, SEMS, or the City's emergency response plan. The project does not involve any proposal or action to eliminate existing emergency response facilities such as fire stations, nor do amendments to the Circulation Element involve change to roadways in any manner that would hinder the ability of emergency vehicles to respond. Emergency and disaster response procedures are designed to be flexible in nature in order to adapt to the volatile and unpredictable nature of disasters and hazards. This flexibility allows for emergency response services and City staff to respond to varying emergencies regardless of location, size, or number of persons affected. Refer to draft Safety Element policies S -2.J to L regarding Emergency and Disaster Preparedness which are listed above. In addition, the following draft Circulation Element policies relate to emergency response. Policy C -2.B.2: Continue to deploy intelligent transportation systems (ITS) strategies—such as adaptive signal controls, fiber optic communication equipment, closed circuit television cameras, real-time transit information, and real- time parking availability information—to reduce traffic delays, lower greenhouse gas emissions, improve travel times, and enhance safety for drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists. Policy C-2.6.45: Investigate and utilize state-of-the-art transportation system management technology and industry practices to address recurring and non-recurring traffic events (i.e., special events, incident/emergency management). Through the annual budgeting process, the City determines how to implement these policies based on community needs and available resources. With continued implementation of these policies and review of individual development projects with regard to emergency service needs, impact would be less than significant. IMPACT 4.8. H No impacts associated with wildland fires would occur. The General Plan Amendments do not affect any lands that are in a "Very High, High, or Moderate" Fire Hazard Zone (CALFIRE 2015). Where such lands are adjacent to developed lands there would be susceptibility to wildland fire impacts. No impacts related to wildland fires affecting urban land uses would result from the General Plan Amendments. Environmental Impact Report 4.8-15 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Mitigation Measures Applications for new development projects requiring City discretionary approval shall MITIGATION include the results of a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA), prepared in 4.8.13-1 accordance with the latest ASTM protocol for such assessments. If the Phase I ESA indicates some evidence that site contamination exists that could require cleanup to avoid danger to people or damage to the environment, a Phase 11 level review shall be completed to fully characterize the nature and extent of such contamination, and the scope of required clean up procedures. The results of the Phase II assessment shall be considered as part of the CEQA compliance process prior to any action on the project. Level of Significance with Mitigation Incorporated Impact 4.8.D would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. All other impacts in this section do not require mitigation. 4.8-16 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment Hazards and Hazardous Materials 4.8 References California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CALFIRE). 2015. Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA. Orange County. December 2015. California Division of the State Architect, 2015. http://www.dgs.ca.gov/dsa/Home.aspx, accessed on February 25, 2016 United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2015a. Cleanups in My Community. http://www2.epa.gov/cleanups/cleanups-my-community [December 4, 2015]. United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2015b. EnviroMapper: Costa Mesa, CA. http://www.epa.gov/emefdata/em4ef.home [December 4, 2015]. United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) 2015c.. EnviroFacts, CERCLIS Query Form. http://www.epa.gov/enviro/html/cerclis/cerclis query.html [May 21, 2015]. United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) 20154. EnviroFacts, RCRA Info Search: Costa Mesa. http://www3.epa.gov/enviro/facts/rcrainfo/search.html [December 4, 2015]. United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2015e. EnviroFacts, TRI Query Form: Costa Mesa. http://www.epa.gov/enviro/tri-search [Accessed December 15, 2015].] California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2015. EnviroStor. http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/Cortese List.cfm [May 21, 2015]. State Water Resources Control Board (WRCB). 2015. GeoTracker, Advanced Search: Costa Mesa. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/search.asp [December 4, 2015]. California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal EPA) 2015. Cortese List, List of `active' CDO and CAO. http://www.calepa.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/CorteseLisVCDOCAOList.xls [December 4, 2015]. Orange County (OC). 2014. General Plan. Safety Element. July 2014. City of Costa Mesa (CM) 2002. General Plan. Safety Element. 2002. Orange County Airport Land Use Commission (OC ALUC). 2008. Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport. As amended through April 17, 2008. Environmental Impact Report 4.8-17 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials This page intentionally left blank. 4.8-18 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment Hydrology and Water Quality 4.9 This section analyzes impacts of the proposed General Plan Amendments associated with water quality, wastewater discharge requirements, groundwater supplies and recharge, erosion, flooding, and hydrologic hazards. During circulation of the Notice of Preparation, the County of Orange Department of Public Works submitted a comment related to drainage and flood control. This comment is addressed in this section. Environmental Setting The City of Costa Mesa and Orange County have a semi -arid Mediterranean climate characterized by mild winters and summers. Annual rainfall averages 134-3 inches with the rainy season occurring during the winter, although drought conditions have prevailed in recent years. According to Western Regional Climate Center data, the coolest month of the year is January, with an average monthly low of 46.9° Fahrenheit (F). The warmest month is August, with an average monthly high of 6737-34° F. The annual average maximum temperature is 67.8° F, and the annual average minimum temperature is 54.6° F (WRCC 2015). Existing Conditions Hvdroloav and Watersheds Costa Mesa is located within the jurisdictions of both the North Orange County Integrated Regional Watershed Management Plan (IRWMP) and the Central Orange County IRWMP (OCPW 2011, OCPW 2007). The City is contained within the Santa Ana River Hydrologic Unit. This unit covers an area of approximately 2,700 square miles, or the majority of the Santa Ana Region of the Water Quality Control Board (WQCB) jurisdictional area, which includes portions of Orange, Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. Within this hydrologic unit, the City's geography is split between the Santa Ana River Watershed (northern portion) and the Newport Bay Watershed (southern portion). The Santa Ana River Watershed comprises 210.47 square miles within Orange County and is the largest watershed in Orange County. The watershed is located primarily in the northeast part of the county with a small portion, which follows the Santa Ana River to the ocean, passing through the Talbert Watershed. The watershed extends beyond Orange County. The watershed includes portions of the cities of Anaheim, Brea, Costa Mesa, Fountain Valley, Garden Grove, Huntington Beach, Orange, Placentia, Santa Ana, Villa Park, and Yorba Linda. This watershed contains the Santa Ana River and Santiago Creek. The Talbert and Huntington Beach Channels drain the western side of the watershed, carrying flow to the Talbert Marsh along the coast (OCPW 2011). The Newport Bay Watershed encompasses an area of approximately 154 square miles, with overland flows draining toward the Pacific Coast into Newport Bay. The watershed is bounded on the north by the Santiago Hills (Loma Ridge) and on the south by the San Joaquin Hills. The Tustin Plain, a broad alluvial valley, occupies the major portion of the watershed. Major cities within the watershed include Newport Beach, Irvine, and Tustin, plus portions of Orange, Lake Forest, Laguna Hills, Costa Mesa, and Santa Ana. The principal watercourse of the Newport Bay Watershed is San Diego Creek, with a drainage area that covers approximately 122 square miles (OCPW 2007). Groundwater Extensive portions of Orange County are underlain by deep deposits of permeable, water -bearing sedimentary geologic strata. Groundwater occurs in semi- to moderately consolidated sand, gravel, and silt occurring in aquifers extending from approximately 40 to over 2,500 feet beneath the ground surface in Costa Mesa. Depths to the uppermost aquifer vary throughout the City from approximately 40 feet below the ground surface in the northern portion to over 100 feet near the coast. Groundwater is present at depths of less than 40 feet along the Santa Ana River. Groundwater for Environmental Impact Report 4.9-1 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality Costa Mesa is withdrawn from the largest of four groundwater basins in Orange County—the Lower Santa Ana Groundwater Basin. Refer to Section 4.17, Utilities and Service Systems, for more discussion of water supply. Drainage Patterns The City of Costa Mesa is unique in its drainage pattern because of the slope and topography of the land. In two places in the City, water may actually drain in four different directions. The advantages of these conditions relate to the ability to install short storm drain systems due to the small drainage areas and means that uncontrolled runoff is not as hazardous because of the lower water concentrations. Generally speaking, Costa Mesa has sufficient natural slope to assist storm runoff. Runoff generated outside of the City which is transported through or adjacent to the City creates a different type of drainage problem. Channels on the north, east, and west sides of the City are primarily dominated by runoff that originates from neighboring jurisdictions, but these channels are also required to dispose of runoff generated in Costa Mesa. Drainaae Facilities Local drainage facilities—storm drains, channels, and retention and detention basins—are designed to control and manage storm water and urban runoff and to protect properties from flooding. Engineers size and design local and regional drainage facilities based on historic flooding data and an understanding of how urban development affects storm flows. Master plans identify any existing and future system deficiencies, and define improvements needed to provide a high level of flood protection. The City's Master Plan of Drainage g44 --identifies numerous specific projects that will improve the storm drain system. Continued implementation of the plan provides the City with appropriate control and management over local drainage concerns. Existing and proposed local drainage facilities are designed to provide a measure of control for stormwater generated within Costa Mesa for a 10 -year storm. These facilities are identified in the City of Costa Mesa's Master Plan of Drainage for the key purpose of programming funding in the 10 -year and 20 -year Capital Improvement Programs (CIPs). The level of protection decreases with longer-term storm events because the facilities are not designed to handle 25 -year or 100 -year storm runoff. Although proposed and programmed improvements to the City's drainage facilities pursuant to the CIPs will reduce the damage from these higher -than -design storms, the City has deemed it impractical to design the local drainage system for greater than a 10 -year storm. Because of this, minor flooding can be expected when local flows exceed the system's capacity or if inlets plug with trash and debris. Figure 4.9-1, Improvements by Watershed Area, identifies programmed improvements. Hydrologic Hazards Flooding The greatest potential flood hazard in the City is from the Santa Ana River, followed by the Greenville -Banning Channel and the Santa Ana -Delhi Channel. Costa Mesa is located immediately adjacent to the Santa Ana River, the largest river system in Southern California. The basin area of this system encompasses a total of approximately 3,200 square miles, including portions of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Orange Counties. In the recent past, the channel capacity for the Santa Ana River upstream of Costa Mesa was not sufficient to carry either 100 -year or the 500 -year frequency floods. Under such flood conditions, excess flood flow has the potential to breech the levee in the City of Santa Ana, causing widespread flooding in both Santa Ana and Costa Mesa due to ponding of water directly upstream of 1-405. However, the Santa Ana River Mainstem project, which is under construction and 95% complete, was designed by the Orange County Flood Control Agency to provide flood protection to Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties (OCFCA 2015). 4.9-2 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment Hydrology and Water Quality 4.9 The Mainstem project involved making improvements over 75 miles of the Santa Ana River from its headwaters east of the City of San Bernardino to the mouth of the river at the Pacific Ocean between the Cities of Newport Beach and Huntington Beach. The Mainstem project increases flood protection to more than 3.35 million people within the three Counties. The project included seven independent features: Seven Oaks Dam, Mill Creek Levee, San Timoteo Creek, Oak Street Drain, Prado Dam, Santiago Creek, and the Lower Santa Ana River. The portion of the project adjacent to the City of Costa Mesa is the Lower Santa Ana River project. This project involved making improvements to 23 miles of existing river channel from Weir Canyon Road to the Pacific Ocean. Work included channel widening, improvements to the existing Greenville -Banning Channel located parallel to the river near the coast, relocation of the Talbert Channel ocean outlet and construction of rock jetties and derrick stone jetties at the mouth of the river, and bridge modifications to accommodate the widened channel. The Mainstem is expected to be completed in 2016 (OCFCA 2015). Dam Inundation Prado Dam is located northeast in Riverside County. The dam was designed in the 1930s but has recently increased its functioning capability due to the Seven Oaks Dam, which was completed in November 1999 and is located approximately 40 miles upstream on the Santa Ana River. During a flood, Seven Oaks Dam will store water destined for Prado Dam for as long as the reservoir pool at Prado Dam is rising. When the flood threat at Prado Dam has passed, Seven Oaks Dam will begin to release its stored flood water at a rate that does not exceed the downstream channel capacity. Working in tandem, the Prado and Seven Oaks Dams provide increased flood protection to Orange County. The City of Costa Mesa—along with the cities of Anaheim, Buena Park, Cerritos, Cypress, Fountain Valley, Fullerton, Garden Grove, Huntington Beach, Irvine, Long Beach, Newport Beach, Orange, Placentia, Santa Ana, Seal Beach, Stanton, Westminster, and Yorba Linda—are located within the dam inundation area of Prado Dam. Properties in the northern and western portions of the City lie within the inundation paths of the Prado Dam (see Figure S-64 in the draft Safety Element). The Prado Dam has been designed to protect against a 100 -year flood (or a one percent chance event). During any 100 -year period, a 39 percent risk exists that one or more floods will occur that exceed the design level. Flood Hazard Management/Drainage Costa Mesa sits alongside the Santa Ana River. This regional water feature presents a potential flooding hazard, as it drains Southern California's largest watershed, originating in the San Bernardino Mountains and draining over 3,000 square miles. Significant flood control improvements have been installed along the river course, with the goal of protecting properties along its route from flooding hazards. The Flood Insurance Rate Maps prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) identify areas within the City susceptible to 100 -year and 500 -year floods. In the event of a 500 -year flood, the northern and western boundaries of Costa Mesa are susceptible to flooding, as shown in Figure 4.9-2, Local Flooding Hazards. In the event of a 100 -year flood, minimal flooding is expected to occur within the flood channels adjacent to the Talbert Nature Preserve. Local drainage and runoff problems can be controlled through proper anticipation of potential flood problems, analysis of existing and future system deficiencies and construction of appropriate flood control facilities. The Master Drainage Plan was prepared for the City in December 1969, and is updated periodically. This plan delineates numerous specific projects to improve Costa Mesa's storm drain system (Figure 4.9-1, Master Drainage Plan). Continued implementation of this plan and the construction of the remaining improvements should provide the City with appropriate control over local drainage concerns. Environmental Impact Report 4.9-3 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality jj+ 51351F1l114E9 �.._r�.at..�.� venni �_aia�pia�.._....y I d rGER 1.Y �+ e � hR. WaUCERST '27 W � W WLiON 57 � y +� is 7 MOW �, 13h� 11 a� d 2.LIUU 4. U 8.L'L'U Fccl 1 PO Upgrad$ Surnnury by W=rrhad lv— he5 Number d To umitli o! Tool caaee .. u Odes upera llej Cb .Fup .e ' 166 :6,765 $11,214,359 2 0 0 $o 3 126 37,167 $23,319,4$7 4 44 8,022 $4,237,348 S. :0 6,16E $2,5217,24= 6 T6 $2S,T33 7 20 6,916 $1,489,2x, S W 1SAHS $9,7w.5L8 9 1S :,%6 5671,35] 10 S ',095 5373,6'6 11 46 6,150 $2,910,436 12 4 915 5320,56-0 13 49 5,621 $3,360,291 141 106 3S,83a $14,465,SSH 15 S 119 $5:3,93; 16 1- $644,432 17 _0 41,75: 821,Ed9,284 TS2TA1 I914 I199AA6 I $193,442,410 Figure 4.9.1 Improvements by Watershed Area 4.9-4 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment Hydrology and Water Quality 4.9 =Blvd.— City Talbe Ave. � of jSanta Ana EII s Ave. / Su flower Ave. South Coast Dr. South Coast ton Blvd. Plaza 1 Garfield Ave. Gisler Ave. ,® ' 3 m , , Baker St. City of ; Huntington Beach , Adams Ave. Orange Coast College � Arlington Dr. 5 , \.o �• m % OCFair&Event Center Fairview \ Park Fair Dr. , , , a Wilson St. , iL Victoria St. i ai , ' a 19th St. •\ 17th St. 15th St. Pack Ocean City of Newport �e Beach eP \�c � sr Cityof Newport Beach Flood Zones 100 -Year Flood Zone 500 -Year Flood Zone Areas of 0.2% annual chance flood; Special flood hazard areas areas of 1% annual chance flood subject to inundation by the 1 % with average depths of less than 1 annual chance flood foot or with drainage areas less than 1 square mile; and areas protected by levees from 1% annual chance flood. Source: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), National Flood Insurance Program, Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), 2009. „Feet 0 1,000 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 Figure 4.9.2 Local Flooding Hazards Environmental Impact Report 4.9-5 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality Regulatory Framework The following section provides information regarding important regulatory programs currently in effect. This section does not purport to list all regulations relevant to hydrology and water quality issues; however, it does outline major programs applicable to the planning area. Federal and State Regulations Federal Clean Water Act of 1972 The primary federal law regulating water quality is the Clean Water Act (CWA), administered by the U.S. EPA. The purpose of the CWA is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters through prevention and elimination of pollution. The CWA applies to discharges of pollutants into so-called Waters of the Unites States'. The CWA establishes a framework for regulating stormwater discharges from municipal, industrial, and construction activities under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The CWA sections most relevant to this analysis are summarized below. In some instances, the U.S. EPA delegates its authority for implementing the CWA in California to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB). Section 303(4) of the CWA requires states, territories, and authorized tribes to develop a list of water bodies that are considered to be "impaired" from a water quality standpoint. Water bodies that appear on this list do not meet water quality standards even after the minimum required levels of pollution control technologies have been implemented to reduce point sources of pollution. In turn, the law requires that respective jurisdictions (i.e., RWQCBs) establish priority rankings for surface water bodies on the list and develop action plans, referred to as total maximum daily loads (TMDLs), to improve water quality. The California SWRCB publishes the list of water -quality limited segments in California. Section 402 of the CWA establishes the NPDES permit program to regulate the discharge of pollutants from point sources. The CWA defines point sources of water pollutants as "any discernable, confined, and discrete conveyance" that discharges or may discharge pollutants. These are sources from which wastewater or stormwater is transmitted in some type of conveyance (pipe and channel) to a water body; they are classified as municipal or industrial. Municipal point sources consist primarily of domestic treated sewage and processed water, including municipal sewage treatment plant outfalls and stormwater conveyance system outfalls. These outfalls contain harmful substances that are emitted directly into Waters of the U.S. Without a permit, the discharge of pollutants from point sources into Waters of the U.S. is prohibited. NPDES permits require regular water quality monitoring. Assessments must be completed to ensure compliance with the permit standards. 1 For purposes of the Clean Water Act, "Waters of the United States" means: (a) All waters which are currently used, were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide; (b) All interstate waters, including interstate "wetlands" (c) All other waters such as interstate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds the use, degradation, or destruction of which would affect or could affect interstate or foreign commerce including any such waters: (1) Which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes; (2) From which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce; or (3) Which are used or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce; (d) All impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States under this definition; (e) Tributaries of waters identified in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this definition; (f) The territorial sea; and (g) Wetlands adjacent to waters (other than waters that are themselves wetlands) identified in paragraphs (a) through (f) of this definition 4.9-6 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment Hydrology and Water Quality 4.9 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) The NPDES program requires permitting for activities that discharge pollutants into Waters of the U.S. This includes discharges from municipal, industrial, and construction sources. These are considered point sources from a regulatory standpoint. Generally, these permits are issued and monitored under the oversight of the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and administered by each regional water quality control board. A brief discussion of these permit types is presented below. Municipal Municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4) are issued permits based on the size of the municipality. Municipalities with populations between 100,000 and 250,000 are considered "medium," and municipalities with populations over 250,000 are considered "large." All others are considered "small." MS4 permit requirements include reduction of pollutant discharges to the "maximum extent practicable" and protection of water quality. Requirements also include identification of major outfalls and pollutant loads and control of discharges from new development and redevelopment. To address these objectives, municipalities are required to prepare stormwater management plans. Although urban runoff is considered a nonpoint source of pollution, municipal storm drain outlets are readily defined and can be individually monitored, thereby defining them as point sources for the purposes of administering NPDES permits, even though the origin of the source is diffuse. Although the NPDES program does not regulate nonpoint sources of pollution, the Santa Ana RWQCB has other programs in place to address nonpoint sources. Furthermore, many of the programs implemented under the City's MS4 permit address nonpoint sources (CRWQCB 2015). The City of Costa Mesa is subject to the NPDES permitting process under its MS4 codified as Title 14 (Storm Drains and Floodplain Management) of the Municipal Code. The City is also a permittee under the Santa Ana RWQCB Order No. R8-2009-0030 (NPDES No. CAS618030) that issues the regional NPDES permit to Orange County (CRWQCB 2015). These permits are discussed in detail below under the "local" regulations discussion. In particular, municipal permits regulate discharges from the City's urban runoff, its wastewater treatment facility, and its water reclamation facility. Industrial The State Water Resources Control Board issues the Industrial General Permit (Order No. 97-03-DWQ) that regulates discharges from 10 broad categories of industrial activities. The permit requires preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and monitoring program to implement water quality objectives through use of the best available technology economically achievable (BAT) and best conventional pollutant control technology (BCT). Construction Construction activities that disturb one acre or more (whether a single project or part of a larger development) are required to obtain coverage under the State's General Permit for Dischargers of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity. All dischargers are required to obtain coverage under the Construction General Permit. The activities covered under the Construction General Permit include clearing, grading, and other disturbances. The permit requires preparation of a SWPPP and implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) with a monitoring program. Wastewater Discharge Requirements (WDRs) are issued to facilities discharging wastewater directly into receiving surface waters. Such facilities are required to be permitted either individually or under a general permit. Environmental Impact Report 4.9-7 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act Under the Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter -Cologne), the SWRCB has authority over State water rights and water quality policy. Porter -Cologne also established nine RWQCBs to oversee water quality on a day-to- day basis at the local/regional level. RWQCBs engage in a number of water quality functions in their respective regions. One of the most important is preparing and periodically updating the water quality control plans. Each plan establishes: ■ beneficial uses of water designated for each water body to be protected; ■ water quality standards, known as water quality objectives, for both surface water and groundwater; and ■ actions necessary to maintain these standards in order to control non -point and point sources of pollution to the State's waters. Permits issued to control pollution (i.e., waste -discharge requirements) must implement Basin Plan requirements (i.e., water quality standards), taking into consideration beneficial uses to be protected. Regional Boards regulate all pollutant or nuisance discharges that may affect either surface water or groundwater. Any person proposing to discharge waste within any region must file a report of waste discharge with the appropriate regional board. No discharge may take place until: the Regional Board issues waste discharge requirements or a waiver of the waste discharge requirements, and ■ 120 days have passed since complying with reporting requirements. Under the auspices of the EPA, the SWRCB and nine Regional Boards also have the responsibility of administering the NPDES permits discussed above. National Dam Safety Act of the Federal Emergency Management Authority (FEMA) The National Dam Safety Act of 2006 authorized a program to reduce the risks to life and property from dam failure by establishing a safety and maintenance program. As the lead Federal agency for the National Dam Safety Program (NDSP), FEMA is responsible for coordinating efforts to secure the safety of dams throughout the United States. NDSP is a national program that targets the improvement of dams and the safety of those who live in surrounding communities. Since it was first authorized by Congress in 1996, there have been marked improvements in the safety of many of the nation's dams. The program makes federal funds available to the states, which are primarily responsible for protecting the public from dam failures of non-federal dams, and pursuing initiatives that enhance the safety of dams posing the greatest risk to people and property (2015). Regional and Local Regulations Santa Ana River WQCB Basin Plan Water quality and waste discharge standards are adopted and enforced by the Santa Ana WQCB through its Water Quality Control Plan (Resolution No. 94-01) (SAWQCB 2008). The Santa Ana River Basin Plan ("Basin Plan") was most recently updated in February 2008, with nonsubstantive editorial corrections made to Chapter 4 in June 2011. The Basin Plan provides policies, objectives, and guidelines for the maintenance and improvement of water quality in surface and groundwater bodies. The Basin Plan identifies existing and potential beneficial uses of the Basin's water bodies, including recreation, drinking water, and habitat. Water quality objectives set a wide range of requirements for water bodies that include aesthetic values, and maximum chemical and mineral loads. The NPDES program's administration is the primary method for addressing point source pollution issues within the Basin. Nonpoint source pollution is addressed through the WQCB's participation in the State administered Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program. The Santa Ana WQCB has instituted various implementing programs to meet the objectives of the Basin 4.9-8 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment Hydrology and Water Quality 4.9 Plan; these area too numerous to list here but include water reclamation requirements, waste discharge prohibitions, water quality certification, and monitoring and enforcement of the Basin standards. The Santa Ana River reach that is adjacent to the City of Costa Mesa is referred to as Reach 1 in the Basin Plan. From the City of Anaheim to where the river reaches the Pacific Ocean, flows are slow to non-existent due to groundwater recharging that takes place near Anaheim (SAWQCB 2008). North Orange County Watershed Management Area Integrated Regional Watershed Management Plan (NOC IRWMP) and Central Orange County Watershed Management Area Integrated Regional Watershed Management Plan (COC IRWMP). The primary purpose of the North Orange County Integrated Regional Watershed Management Plan is to bridge existing and developing watershed planning efforts, allowing for more effective collaboration and greater opportunity to leverage agency resources across jurisdictions (OCPW 2011). The NOC IRWMP addresses: ■ the issues and priorities of the NOC IRWMP; ■ the goals and objectives of the NOC IRWMP; ■ current watershed efforts; ■ strategies for meeting the identified goals and objectives; and ■ ways to evaluate the plan and update it as necessary. The NOC IRWMP region encompasses the Santa Ana River Watershed, the Lower San Gabriel River/Coyote Creek Watershed, and the Anaheim Bay -Huntington Harbor Watershed. These watersheds house 1.5 million residents and provide employment for almost 1.0 million employees, including providing the water and wastewater needs for the area. These watersheds carry the runoff for approximately one-third of Orange County's area. These watersheds also provide the riparian habitat for many flora and fauna and include 35 miles of ocean coastline and many of the remaining significant estuary areas along the southern California coastline. Beach closures, clean oceans and meeting TMDL/NPDES requirements are critical components as are using our water resources in an efficient manner (OCPW 2011). The objectives of the NOC IRCWP are as follows: 1. Protect and Enhance Water Quality in Region 2. Enhance Local Water Supplies 3. Promote Flood Management 4. Enhance and Maintain Wetlands/Coastal Areas and Wetland Functions 5. Manage Runoff and its Related Impacts from Existing and Future Land Uses 6. Maximize Funding from State and Federal Sources 7. Promote and Support Public Education Programs and Available Information 8. Reduce Invasive Species and Enhance and Maintain Habitat 9. Promote Environmental Justice 10. Enhance Recreational Opportunities in the Watershed The Central Orange County Integrated Regional and Coastal Watershed Management Plan (COC IRCWMP) addresses critical water resource management needs for the Newport Bay and Newport Coast Watersheds, a highly urbanized area with a population of 705,000 people (OCPW 2007). Within this developed area exist fragile coastal ecosystems with three designated Critical Coastal Areas (CCAs) and two Areas of Special Biological Significance (ASBSs); the Upper Newport Bay CCA, Newport Beach Marine Life Refuge ASBS, and Irvine Coast Marine Life Refuge (ASBS) are the receiving waters for drainage from throughout the watershed area. The IRCWMP incorporates the tenets of integrated regional water management planning to address challenging issues for water quality, habitat protection and enhancement, flood control, water supply and stormwater management. This plan is a programmatic Environmental Impact Report 4.9-9 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality planning document for the region and has been prepared in accordance with the State's Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Standards as required per California Water Code Section 79560 et seq. The objectives of the COC IRCWMP to protect important resources are as follows: Improve water quality in streams and channels, particularly those that are listed as impaired, and those discharging to Upper and Lower Newport Bay, Newport Beach Marine Life Refuge, and Irvine Coast Marine Life Refuge in order to reduce impacts on these CCAs and ASBSs. Provide for implementation of restoration projects, BMPs, and other control measures to support beneficial uses of creeks, streams, bays and estuaries, and to facilitate attainment of TMDL targets, receiving water quality objectives, the Santa Ana RWQCB's Watershed Management Initiative, and NPDES permit requirements. Provide a comprehensive, regional, watershed -wide approach to address runoff and its related impacts from existing and future land uses, in accordance with the Non -point Source Pollution Plan. Protect, restore, enhance, and connect wetland and wildlife habitats and support ecosystem processes in the coastal zone and upper watershed, while maintaining flood protection. Enhance quantity and quality of local water supplies, including groundwater, to reduce reliance on imported water. Provide a safe, reliable drinking water supply and recreational opportunities for disadvantaged communities within the region, consistent with other areas of the region. Provide a framework for efficient intra -regional cooperation, planning, and implementation of this and other plans that have been developed for the region, which encourages integrated implementation of watershed improvement projects with multiple benefits. Costa Mesa Municipal Code The City's Municipal Code addresses hydrology and water quality issues through Title 8, Health and Sanitation. Chapter 1111, and in particular: Section 8-32. Control of Urban Runoff. (a) New development and significant redevelopment. (1) All new development and significant redevelopment within the City of Costa Mesa shall be undertaken in accordance with: (i) The Drainage Area Management Plan, including but not limited to the Development Project Guidance; and (ii) Any conditions and requirements established by the development services department and the public services department which are reasonably related to the reduction or elimination of pollutants in stormwater runoff from the project site. The City has adopted the 2007 California Building Code (CBC) and other applicable codes pursuant to this Chapter. Municipal Code (Chapter V. Development Standards, Article 10) The floodway and floodplain districts and regulations are intended to be applied to those areas of the city which, under present conditions, are subject to periodic flooding and accompanying hazards. The objectives of the floodway and floodplain districts include: (a) Prevention of loss of life and property and minimization of economic loss caused by flood flows. 4.9-10 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment Hydrology and Water Quality 4.9 (b) Establishment of criteria for land management and land use in flood -prone areas that are consistent with the criteria promulgated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency for the purpose of providing flood insurance eligibility for property owners. (c) Prohibition of encroachments, new construction or other improvements or development that would obstruct or divert the flow of floodwaters within a regulatory floodway. (d) Regulation and control of use of land below the elevation of the design flood flow within the remainder of the floodplain. Thresholds of Significance A significant impact could occur if the General Plan Amendments would: A. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. B. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the 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 the site or 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 increase 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. Result in inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. Environmental Impacts Implementation of the General Plan Amendments would not violate any water quality IMPACT standards, waste discharge requirements, or otherwise degrade water quality. 4.9. A 4.9. F There are two major classes of pollutants: point source and non -point source. Point -source pollutants can be traced to their original source. Point -source pollutants are discharged directly from pipes or spills. Raw sewage draining from a pipe directly into a stream is an example of a point -source water pollutant. Non -point -source pollutants (NPS) cannot be traced to a specific original source. NPS pollution is caused by rainfall or snowmelt moving over and through the ground. As the runoff moves, it picks up and carries away natural and human -made pollutants, finally depositing them into lakes, rivers, wetlands, coastal waters, and even our underground sources of drinking water. NPS pollutants include: Environmental Impact Report 4.9-11 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality ■ Excess fertilizers, herbicides, and insecticides from agricultural lands and residential areas ■ Oil, grease, and toxic chemicals from urban runoff and energy production ■ Sediment from improperly managed construction sites, crop and forest lands, and eroding stream banks • Salt from irrigation practices and acid drainage from abandoned mines ■ Bacteria and nutrients from livestock, pet wastes, and faulty septic systems ■ Atmospheric deposition and hydromodification Impacts associated with water pollution include ecological disruption and injury or death to flora and fauna, increased need and cost for water purification, sickness or injury to people, and degradation or elimination of water bodies as recreational opportunities. Future development consistent with General Plan land use policy has the potential to increase urban runoff from residential, commercial, industrial, utility, and roadway sources. The General Plan Amendments ' nd Use Elern�^+ allows for the potential conversion of agricultural lands to development on the Segerstrom Home Ranch and Sakioka Lot 2 parcels north of 1-405 (although the two parcels are already designated for future development), as well as repurposing of the Fairview Developmental Center site, which currently includes landscaped grounds. -.4Wh4 a4he Harbor Mixed Use Overlays, on Les Angeles Times site, and in the SeBEGA area, these areas are already developed with impervious surfaGesNew development would nOt Greate any ne i , surfaG8s and would present Runoff from development on the Segerstrom Home Ranch, Sakioka Lot 2, and Fairview Developmental Center site could increase pollutant loading in downstream waters, including the Santa Ana River. While the General Plan Amendments also allow for intensification of development on properties affected by the Residential Incentive Overlay, the Harbor Mixed -Use Overlay, and designation changes to the Los Angeles Times site and in the SoBECA area, these areas are already developed with impervious surfaces. Therefore, in these focus areas, new development would not create new impervious surfaces and would present opportunities to better control current runoff through implementation of modern and mandated runoff control features. Additionally, accidents, poor site management, or negligence by property owners and tenants can result in accumulation of pollutant substances on parking lots and loading and storage areas, or result in contaminated discharges directly into the storm drain system. The City currently inspects all residential, commercial, institutional, and industrial development and enforces structural and non-structural BMPs as adopted in the Santa Ana River Basin Plan to ensure compliance with the City's MS4 and eliminate such discharges. Future commercial and other development supported by the proposed General Plan Amendments would be subject to the same monitoring and enforcement procedures. NPDES regulations applicable to the planning area are designed to reduce non -point -source pollutant loading through implementation of BMPs and other control measures that minimize or eliminate pollutants from urban runoff, thereby protecting downstream water resources. The City implements NPDES provisions through the requirements of its MS4 permit, which is applicable to all portions of the City. BMPs implemented to address residential pollutant sources generally revolve around educational programs. Commercial and industrial development is subject to annual inspections to ensure implementation of BMPs and educational programs. Violations of water quality standards due to urban runoff can be prevented through the continued implementation of existing regional water quality regulations and through successful implementation of the City's local water quality control standards imposed on new development and redevelopment over the long term. The proposed General Plan Amendments would not interfere with the implementation of water quality regulations and standards. The draft Conservation Element includes policies CON -31 through CON -3.K that address water quality and urban runoff. The policies are geared toward reducing stormwater runoff and ensuring that runoff that does enter the storm drain system is free of pollutants. Long-term water quality impacts due to non -point sources are less than significant. 4.9-12 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment Hydrology and Water Quality 4.9 GOAL CON -3: IMPROVED WATER SUPPLY AND QUALITY. Pursue a multijurisdictional approach to protecting, maintaining, and improving water quality and the overall health of the watershed. A comprehensive, integrated approach will ensure compliance with federal and State standards, and will address a range of interconnected priorities, including water quality and runoff; stormwater capture, storage and flood management techniques that focus on natural drainage; natural filtration and groundwater recharge through green infrastructure and habitat restoration; and water recycling and conservation. Objective CON -3: Work towards the protection and conservation existing and future water resources by recognizing water as a limited resource that requires conservation. Water Quality and Urban Runoff Policy CON -3.F: Work with public and private property owners to reduce stormwater runoff in urban areas to protect water quality in storm drainage channels, the Santa Ana River, and other local water courses that lead to the Pacific Ocean. Policy CON -3.G: Continue to develop strategies to promote stormwater management techniques and storm drain diversion programs that collectively and naturally filter urban runoff. Policy CON -3.H: Continue to comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Program (NPDES) by participating in the Countywide Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP), which stipulates water quality requirements for minimizing urban runoff and discharge from new development and requires the provisions of applicable Best Management Practices (BMP). Policy CON -3.1: Require all applicable development project be reviewed with regards to requirements of on-site Water Quality Management Plan and State requirements for runoff and obtaining a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) permit Policy CON -3.J: Continue to consult with the Costa Mesa Sanitation District and the Orange County Sanitation District to modernize wastewater treatment facilities to avoid overflows of untreated sewage. Wastewater collection is performed by the Costa Mesa Sanitation District. All wastewater is directed to the Orange County Sanitation District's Wastewater Treatment Plants located in Fountain Valley and Huntington Beach. These plants are regulated by the Santa Ana RWQCB. Current and future operations of the reclamation and treatment plants will be subject to provisions that require secondary or tertiary treatment of all wastewater prior to being utilized as non - potable recycled water or being discharged into the Santa Ana River. Wastewater treatment requirements are based on the Santa Ana River's water's beneficial uses and the ability for that body to accept effluent loads. Wastewater production would increase incrementally as future development projects under the General Plan Amendments are built. However, future development is unlikely to affect current operations due to the requirements to design new development to minimize water use and thus reduce wastewater discharge. Any increase in pollutant loading in wastewater received at the plants will be subject to the most current wastewater discharge requirements to properly treat all wastes to help maintain the beneficial uses of the Santa Ana River. Nothing in the proposed General Plan Amendments would change or interfere with the operations of the treatment plants and thus, would have less than significant impacts relating to wastewater discharge. Environmental Impact Report 4.9-13 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts related to depleting groundwater supplies or interfering substantially with IMPACT groundwater recharge would be less than significant with application of existing 4.9. B standards and requlations. Future development within the planning area would require additional water services that would come from local groundwater sources. Future development may also impact groundwater recharge by increasing impervious surfaces that could hinder percolation of drainage into subsurface aquifers. Future development could also impact groundwater recharge if existing spreading grounds are altered (e.g., developed upon) without construction of replacement facilities. Additionally, drainage may be directed away from its natural source where it may be deposited in other water bodies. Impacts associated with depleted groundwater supplies included increased demand on out -of -region water resources and the energy and cost associated with the importing of other resources. The lowering of aquifer and groundwater levels in an area can cause existing wells and pumps to become non-functional if they are not designed to extract water below certain depths. The groundwater basin of concern is the Lower Santa Ana Groundwater Basin, as discussed in Existing Conditions above. The Mesa Consolidated Water District (Mesa) owns and operates nine groundwater production wells. Seven of these wells are currently in operation. These seven wells have a total design capacity of approximately 14,000 gallons per minute (GPM). All of the wells are located in the northwest portion of the service area and produce water from the Orange County groundwater basin managed by OCWD. Mesa relies on approximately 15,900 acre-feet of groundwater from the Lower Santa Ana River Groundwater Basin (Orange County Basin) each year. This local source of supply meets approximately 82% of Mesa's total annual demand (Mesa 2010). The 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) includes programs for the long-term management of area groundwater basins (Mesa 2010). The primary means of ensuring long-term groundwater level maintenance include careful monitoring to ensure groundwater levels are managed within a safe basin operating range and implementation of water conservation programs. The proposed General Plan Conservation Element supports water conservation through use of natural and drought -tolerant vegetation and through water recycling (refer to policies CON -3.C, D, and E below). Additionally, water conservation programs of Mesa are designed to ensure groundwater resources are recharged both through natural and assisted means. Water conservation helps to maintain groundwater levels by reducing the need to extract from them. Due to the ongoing drought water agencies statewide are mandated to reduce water use by at least 20% through conservation and by educating water users on how to reduce water use. Mesa enacted an emergency water conservation ordinance in May 2015 and has been able to significantly reduce water use through the implementation of conservation programs (Mesa 2015, website (mesawater.org) accessed in December 2015). Water Conservation Policy CON -3.C: Encourage residents, public facilities, businesses, and industry to minimize water consumption, especially during drought years. Policy CON -3.D: Restrict use of turf infer new construction and landscape reinstallation that requires high irrigation demands, except for area parks and schools, and encourage the use of drought tolerant landscaping. Water Recycling Policy CON -3.E: Consult with local water districts and the Orange County Water District to advance water recycling program for new and existing developments, including the use of 4.9-14 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment Hydrology and Water Quality 4.9 treated wastewater to irrigate parks, golf courses, roadway landscaping, and other intensive irrigation consumers. Future growth associated with the proposed General Plan build out would require more water that comes from groundwater sources. As future development proposal seek regulatory permitting, they will be specifically assessed as to their impacts on groundwater resources. The General Plan Amendments do not include policies that would interfere with the determination and enforcement of safe yield limits; therefore, under the proposed polices of the project, impacts to groundwater supplies would be less than significant. Impacts related to altering existing drainage patterns or altering the course of a stream IMPACT or river in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation would be less 4.9. C than significant with implementation of draft General Plan policies and existing City standards. Future development within the planning area is likely to change drainage patterns, which could have the potential to result in on- or off-site erosion and siltation. Short-term and long-term development activities could potentially result in erosion and siltation impacts as a result of alteration of natural drainage patterns. Siltation is the introduction of increased sediment flows into a water body. This can result in the shrinking of the water body, rising surface waters, habitat destruction, faunal injury or death, and flooding as sediments change the natural character of the water body. Siltation is generally associated with activities such as site grading and deforestation. During grading activities, extensive earth -moving activities and vegetation removal could alter existing natural drainage patterns. These short- term changes in natural drainage patterns could result in erosion and siltation because water movement across the affected area is increased without natural barriers in place. Vegetation stabilizes soil, reducing its ability to be washed downstream. If sufficient energy -reducing mechanisms such as rock rip -rap or detention basins are not provided, or if runoff is not diverted effectively through landscaped areas or other places where runoff can settle prior to discharge, there is a potential for runoff to cause scouring and erosion of open land that could generate silt and sediments that could negatively affect downstream waters. The City has adopted existing regulations and policies that minimize on- and off-site flooding which can alter drainage patterns or stream course and cause erosion and sedimentation impacts. The floodway and floodplain districts regulations contained in the Municipal Code (Chapter V. Development Standards, Article 10) are specifically designed to prevent and regulate development in flood -prone areas. Conservation Element policies Policy CON -31 to K above address water quality and urban runoff. With these regulation and policies in place, impacts related to drainage and on- or off-site flooding would be less than significant. Impacts related to altering existing drainage patterns or altering the course of a stream IMPACT or river in a manner which would result in a substantially increase in the rate or amount 4.9.11) of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site would be less than significant with implementation of draft General Plan policies and existing City standards. Future development within the planning area is likely to change drainage patterns, which could have the potential to result in on- or off-site flooding. As development occurs, impervious surfaces (streets, other paved areas, etc.) are constructed that prevent infiltration and increased rates and volumes of runoff. Additionally, drainage courses could be modified based on site design and hydrologic conditions. This could result in the installation of a number of drainage conveyance devices including v -ditches, culverts, retention basins, curbs, and gutters to collect and direct runoff into specified areas. If local and regional storm drainage/flood control systems are not expanded in conjunction with new development, there could potentially be increased flooding downstream of development areas. On-site flooding could occur if site flow patterns are not engineered correctly or if the amount of runoff from the site exceeds the amount that Environmental Impact Report 4.9-15 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality can be conveyed by stormwater control devices. Potential impacts associated with flooding are property damage, impeded vehicle circulation and emergency access, injury, and possibly death. The majority of the planning area is built out, with well-established drainage infrastructure. The Santa Ana River is still in a semi -natural state, although flood control devices such as levees have been constructed along reaches. Vacant land within the urbanized portions of the planning area contribute to localized drainage conditions; however, development of these lands would not result in the major alteration of any streams or drainage courses because of the existing drainage infrastructure. Additionally, currently undeveloped land that could be developed is limited to 88 acres, all of which is surrounded by existing development and drainage infrastructure. The City has adopted existing regulations that minimize on- and off-site flooding, erosion, and sedimentation impacts. The floodway and floodplain districts regulations contained in the Municipal Code (Chapter V. Development Standards, Article 10) are specifically designed to prevent and regulate development in flood -prone areas. Development of storm drainage facilities is subject to the standard designs of the City's Engineering Division. The draft Safety Element includes policies (S-1.1-1 to L below) related to flooding. Implementation of these standards and policies ensures that drainage facilities will be designed to effectively transport stormwater and thereby minimize on-site and off-site flooding due to development associated with changes in drainage patterns. Impacts related to drainage and on- or off-site flooding and sedimentation would be less than significant. GOAL S-1: RISK MANAGEMENT OF NATURAL AND HUMAN -CAUSED DISASTERS. Minimize the risk of injury, loss of life, property damage, and environmental degradation from seismic activity, geologic hazards, flooding, fire, and hazardous materials. Promote a sustainable approach to reduce impacts of natural disasters, such as flooding and fire. Objective S-1: Work to mitigate or prevent potential adverse consequences of natural and human -caused disasters. Localized Flooding Policy S -1.H: Continue to consult with appropriate local, State and Federal agencies to maintain the most current flood hazard and floodplain information; use the information as a basis for project review and to guide development in accordance with Federal, State, and local standards. Policy S-1.1: Regularly review and update Article 10 - Floodway and Floodplain Districts of the City's Municipal Code consistent with Federal and State requirements. Policy S-11 Improve and maintain local storm drainage infrastructure in a manner that reduces flood hazards. Policy S -1.K: Continue to development hazards preparedness plans to prepare for large storms that could bring flooding hazards and other related issues. Policy S-11: Actively promote public education, research, and information dissemination on flooding hazards. 4.9-16 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment Hydrology and Water Quality 4.9 Impacts related to polluted urban runoff and storm drain capacity would be less than IMPACT significant with implementation of existing standards and regulations. 4.9. E Future development within the planning area could potentially increase stormwater flows into the existing storm drain system, mainly due to an increase in impervious surfaces that inhibit infiltration of stormwater. The increase in development and therefore impervious surfaces also increases the amount of urban runoff and generally increases the amount of pollutants within the stormwater. New development on existing undeveloped land would be restricted to approximately 88 acres north of 1-405 on the Segerstrom Home Ranch and Sakioka Lot 2 parcels, as well as the potential repurposing of the Fairview Developmental Center site. The City's Engineering Department requires hydrology and stormwater discharge review during the City's standard development review process, as described above under the City Municipal Code Section 8-32. Conditions of approval are issued based on the project's drainage needs pursuant to municipal NPDES permit requirements and standard engineering practices. Stormwater quality is discussed in Impact 4.9.A and notes that adherence to NPDES requirements for implementation of BMPs during construction and throughout project operation will ensure that stormwater discharges do not introduce excessive pollutants to downstream water bodies. Post -construction BMPs are implemented through preparation of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) which identifies site design, structural and non-structural source control, and treatment control BMPs. Typical BMPs include use of bioswales, infiltration basins, hay bales, straw wattles, sediment fences, etc. Additionally, NPDES and City stormwater discharge requirements ensure that excessive pollutants are not discharged into the storm drain system; impacts to downstream water quality would be less than significant. On- and off-site drainage control and storm drain design is reviewed by the Department of Public Services DivisionWerks- through applicant submission of hydrology reports and storm drain plans. Drainage design is required to complies with the City's Master Plan of Drainage. Standard drainage analysis and design practices will ensure that future development does not exceed the capacity of the existing or planned storm drain system. Additionally, fees are required pursuant to Section 14-65 of the Master Plan of Drainage Ordinance (Drainage Ordinance) to pay for operation, administration, maintenance, improvement, environmental restoration, and replacement of the existing and future storm drainage system. Impacts related to storm drain capacity would be less than significant with implementation of existing standards. IMPACT 4.9. G Impacts due to the placement of housing within 100 -year flood zones would not occur as a result of implementation of the General Plan Amendments. The proposed General Plan Amendments do not authorize any residential construction and therefore could not directly result in the placement of housing within flood hazards areas. According to the Conservation Element Local Flooding Hazards Exhibit, no areas where land use changes are proposed would be subject to 100 -year flooding. In particular, the proposed Amendments do not include any land use changes that would support residential development in flood hazard zones. No impacts to residential development as a result of potential flooding would occur. Furthermore, the floodway and floodplain districts section of the Municipal Code (Chapter V. Development Standards, Article 10) addresses inappropriate development in flood zones. Environmental Impact Report 4.9-17 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts related to the diversion of floodwaters would be less than significant with IMPACT implementation of existing City regulations. 4.9. H No land use changes authorized by the General Plan Amendments would place structures within a floodplain, as all proposed land use changes are outside of floodplains. Furthermore, all significant structures built within the City would be subject to the Floodplain Management Regulations (Chapter V, Article 10 of the Municipal Code) that require hydrological evaluation to ensure that minimal diversion of floodwaters occurs and development standards are implemented to prevent flooding of on- and off-site uses. These regulations specifically prohibit construction of structures that could cause or divert floodwaters without appropriate site planning and structural design. Implementation of existing regulations would reduce impacts associated with the potential diversion of floodwaters to less than significant levels. Impacts related to inundation due to dam or levee failure would be less than significant IMPACT with implementation of existing federal and county regulations. 4.9. 1 The General Plan Amendments would not interfere with the County's responsibilities in recertifying any levee within or protecting the planning area because there are no levees in the planning area. Impacts due to levee failure would be less than significant. The Los Angeles Times, Segerstrom Home Ranch sites and a small portion of the Residential Incentive Overlay on Harbor Blvd. are contained in an area subject to inundation in the event of failure of either/orbet# the Santiago Creek Dam and the Prado Dam (refer to Figure S-4 in the draft Safety Element). The National Dam Safety Act of 2006 authorized a program to reduce the risks to life and property from dam failure by establishing a safety and maintenance program. The program requires regular inspection of dams to reduce the risks associated with dam facilities. Furthermore, all dam operators are required to submit an evacuation plan for review and approval by the State Office of Emergency Services (OES). The evacuation plan for the Santiago Creek and Prado Dams are on file with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The evacuation plans have been prepared in accordance with the Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety. The evacuation plans identify modes of dam failure, maps inundation areas, classifies hazard potential within inundation areas, determines available time for response under slow, rapid, or instantaneous failure scenarios, and establishes notification procedures. Continued inspection and maintenance of the two dams and the procedures outlined in the evacuation plans are considered adequate precautions to reduce impacts due to potential dam inundation to less than significant. Finally, the draft Safety Element contains policy S-1.0 (listed below) which addresses dam inundation. Impacts associated with dam inundation and would be less than significant. Dam Inundation IMPACT 4.9. J Policy S-1.0: Develop emergency response, early warning notification, and evacuation plans for areas that are within dam inundation areas, where feasible. Impacts associated with mudflows, tsunami, and seiche would be less than significant with implementation of existing City regulations. The potential for mudflow is minimal throughout the majority of the planning area because of the generally level grade and lack of hillsides, particularly within the areas where land use changes are proposed. None of the areas proposed for land use change lies within a tsunami and sea level rise hazard area, as depicted on Figure S-5 of the Safety 4.9-18 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment Hydrology and Water Quality 4.9 Element of the General Plan. Finally, the draft Safety Element contains policies S -1.M and N (listed below) which address tsunamis and sea level rise. Therefore, impacts associated with tsunamis and seiches would be less than significant. Tsunami and Sea Level Rise Policy S -1.M: Minimize flood hazard risks to people, property, and the environment by addressing potential damage tsunamis and Sea Level rise. Policy S -1.N: Consult with regional agencies and study strategies that employ engineering defensive methods along the Santa Ana River that limit potential flooding hazards from Sea Level rise. Mitigation Measures None required Environmental Impact Report 4.9-19 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality References California Regional Water Quality Control Board, 2015. Santa Ana Region. Order No. R8-2009-0030, NPDES No. CAS618030. May 26, 2015. California State Water Resources Control Board, 2015. Storm Water Program: Construction Storm Water Program. www.waterboards.ca.gov/water issues/programs/stormwater/construction.shtml [May 26, 2015]. California State Water Resources Control Board, 2009. Construction General Permit Fact Sheet. September 2, 2009. California Water Code. Division 7: Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act. January 1, 2010. City of Costa Mesa, 2006, Ordinance of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code Relating to Drainage. City of Costa Mesa, 2015a. Draft Conservation Element of the General Plan, 2015. City of Costa Mesa, 2015b. Draft Safety Element of the General Plan, 2015. Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2004. Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety. April 2004. Mesa Consolidated Water District, 2010, 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, Final, May 2011. Orange County Flood Control Agency, 2015. Website: http://ocflood.com/sarp/lower Orange County Public Works Dept. 2015. Website: http://ocwatersheds.com/programs/ourws/wmaareas/wmanorthoc Orange County Public Works, 2011. North Orange County Integrated Regional Watershed Management Plan, February 2011. Orange County Public Works, 2007. Central Orange County Integrated Regional Watershed Management Plan, August 2007. Santa Ana Water Quality Control Board, 2008. Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin. January 24, 1995, updated February 2008. United States of America. National Dam Safety Act. Public Law Sections 109-406.2006. Western Regional Climate Center, 2015. Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary: Newport Beach Harbor, California (046175). http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca6l75 [May 15, 2015]. 4.9-20 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Update Land Use & Plannina 4.10 This section describes the existing land use pattern and land use planning/regulatory framework in the City of Costa Mesa. It also evaluates potential long-term land use impacts such as physically dividing an established community and consistency with environmental planning efforts. This section does not evaluate potential impacts on habitat conservation or natural community conservation plans; these are discussed in Section 4.3 (Biological Resources). Several comments regarding land use and planning were received in response to the Notice of Preparation, particularly with regard to land use compatibility. To the extent the issues relate to the significance criteria, they are addressed in the Impact section below. Existing Conditions Historic Land Use Trends Development in Costa Mesa started in the 1920s when the farming community of Harper was renamed to Costa Mesa (CM 2015). In the summer of 1920, the second store on Newport Boulevard, the Wayside Market, opened for business. Several more store buildings went up along the boulevard during 1921, including a garage and blacksmith shop, barber shop, and soda fountain. Growth continued in the 1930s and `40s with the opening of several commercial stores, including the new Sprouse -Reitz Variety at 1830 Newport Boulevard, the Myers & Myers Department Store at 1816 Newport Boulevard, and the Post Office at 1809 Newport Boulevard. Through 1940, Costa Mesa continued to be recognized as a small town. World War II accelerated Costa Mesa's growth, bringing many thousands of people to the area for training at the Santa Ana Army Air Base, located on what is now the Orange County Fairgrounds, Orange Coast College, and the present site of the Civic Center. When the war ended, many of these men and women returned with their families to begin a population boom that affected much of Southern California. The City formally incorporated in 1953 (CM 2015). Existing Land Use Distribution The area covered by the General Plan Amendments consists of the corporate limits of the City (encompassing 15.8 square miles) and lands within the City's unincorporated sphere of influence (SOI). State law authorizes a general plan to address the area within the boundaries of an adopting city, as well as any unincorporated land outside its boundaries that, in the planning agency's judgment, bears relation to its planning efforts. Costa Mesa's SOI includes the following two area (LAFCO 2010): ■ The 195 -acre "Santa Ana Country Club (SACC)/South Mesa" Island (LAFCO ID#4) located south of SR -55. It comprises two parcels: Santa Ana Country Club and a mixed-use area bordered by Mesa Drive and Irvine Ave. It is located between the cities of Costa Mesa and Newport Beach. • '4e- This residential area is adjanent to Newport Beanh Figure 4.10-1, Existing Land Use depicts the existing land uses in the planning area, and Table 4.10-1, Existing Land Use Summary summarizes the distribution of land uses by major categories. Residential land is the predominant land use category, totaling 47% of the planning area. Industrial land uses comprise the senend IaFgest nersentage at -1 0.5%. Combined office/commercial uses comprise 13.7% of the planning area, while open space and recreation uses comprise 14.1% (parks and golf course uses). Only 20 acres within the planning area remain vacant, and 64 to 720 acres are still in agricultural production. Environmental Impact Report 4.10-1 4.9 Land Use & Planning A of Santa Ana Ellis Ave. Garfield Ave. City of Huntington Beach r 'L OC Fair 8 Event Center Sunflower Ave. V D� Existing Land Use (2015) Source: City of Costa Mesa, 2015. Low Density Residential (0 to 8 du/ac) General Commercial Feet Medium Density Residentail (9 to 12 du/ac) — Hospital 0 1,000 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 — High Density Residential (12 to 20 du/ac) Convalescent Care — Higher Density Residential Performance Theater (20 du/ac and Higher) � Golf Course — Age Qualifed Housing — Park — Mixed Use Agriculture Neighborhood Commercial — Vacant Figure 4.10-1 Existing Land Use (2015) 4.10-2 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Update � � ,• �, � � ��,, , •. `-. � Auto Dealership �� � R __ ,■ Commercial Center — Regional Commercial LLQ ■r. ` o-.� -0/�0/�0 Motel City of w \\\\\\\\\\\� Hotel Newport Beach - ,� r Office/Campus Park Medical Office City of Newport Beach Public Storage P� Light Industrial 15th St. • �� I � Industrial Park � , �� � Fairgrounds co S�. Public Facility City Hall — Elementary/Middle School Pj�an -"'A High School L' College/University Existing Land Use (2015) Source: City of Costa Mesa, 2015. Low Density Residential (0 to 8 du/ac) General Commercial Feet Medium Density Residentail (9 to 12 du/ac) — Hospital 0 1,000 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 — High Density Residential (12 to 20 du/ac) Convalescent Care — Higher Density Residential Performance Theater (20 du/ac and Higher) � Golf Course — Age Qualifed Housing — Park — Mixed Use Agriculture Neighborhood Commercial — Vacant Figure 4.10-1 Existing Land Use (2015) 4.10-2 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Update 4.9 Land Use & Planning Table 4.10-1 Existing Land Use Summary Existing Planning and Regulatory Framework Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is responsible for regional planning in the six -county Southern California encompassing Los Angeles, Imperial, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura counties. SCAG provides a framework to coordinate local and regional decisions regarding future growth and development and prepares future growth forecasts for the region. As the designated Metropolitan Planning Organization for the area, SCAG's responsibilities include researching and developing plans for transportation, growth management, hazardous waste management, and air quality based on the regional growth projections (SCAG 2015). Orange County LAFCO The Orange County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) is a State -mandated, independent agency with countywide jurisdiction over changes in organization and boundaries of cities and special districts within Orange County, including Costa Mesa (LAFCO 2015). The Orange County LAFCO has the responsibility to limit urban sprawl, prevent future conversions of agricultural and open space lands, review and approve changes in boundaries, establish city and county sphere of influence, and assist local government agencies in improving the efficiency of urban services. As discussed above, two unincorporated islands lie within the sphere of influence of the City of Costa Mesa. Both are south of SR -55 and adjacent to the City of Newport Beach. Orange County General Plan The plan area contains unincorporated areas that are within the City's sphere of influence and thus under the jurisdiction of the Orange County General Plan. The Orange County General Plan, adopted in 2005 and updated in 2014, guides land use decision-making in unincorporated sections of the County. The Orange County General Plan includes multiple goals and policies relating to unincorporated areas that serve as a coordination tool and guide to development and the local decision-making process. The County General Plan consists of an introductory chapter, a demographics chapter, and nine elements: Land Use, Transportation, Public Services and Facilities, Resources, Recreation, Noise, Safety, Housing, and Growth Management. The County General Plan designates the Santa Ana Country Club (SACC)/South Mesa and Santa Ana Avenue/Colleen Shoot unincorporated islands as "Suburban Residential" and allows 0.5 to 18 dwelling units per acre (Orange County 2014). Environmental Impact Report 4.10-3 Land Use Category Residential 3,753 46.7 Office 332 4.1 Commercial 770 9.6 Lodging: Motel/Hotel 60 0.7 Industrial 841 10.5 Schools/Colleges 525 6.5 Public Facilities/Institutional 458 5.7 Golf 535 6.7 Parks 592 7.4 Agriculture 72 0.9 Religious Institutions 70 0.9 Vacant 20 0.2 TOTAL 8,028 100.0% Source: Costa Mesa General Plan Draft Land Use Element 2015 Existing Planning and Regulatory Framework Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is responsible for regional planning in the six -county Southern California encompassing Los Angeles, Imperial, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura counties. SCAG provides a framework to coordinate local and regional decisions regarding future growth and development and prepares future growth forecasts for the region. As the designated Metropolitan Planning Organization for the area, SCAG's responsibilities include researching and developing plans for transportation, growth management, hazardous waste management, and air quality based on the regional growth projections (SCAG 2015). Orange County LAFCO The Orange County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) is a State -mandated, independent agency with countywide jurisdiction over changes in organization and boundaries of cities and special districts within Orange County, including Costa Mesa (LAFCO 2015). The Orange County LAFCO has the responsibility to limit urban sprawl, prevent future conversions of agricultural and open space lands, review and approve changes in boundaries, establish city and county sphere of influence, and assist local government agencies in improving the efficiency of urban services. As discussed above, two unincorporated islands lie within the sphere of influence of the City of Costa Mesa. Both are south of SR -55 and adjacent to the City of Newport Beach. Orange County General Plan The plan area contains unincorporated areas that are within the City's sphere of influence and thus under the jurisdiction of the Orange County General Plan. The Orange County General Plan, adopted in 2005 and updated in 2014, guides land use decision-making in unincorporated sections of the County. The Orange County General Plan includes multiple goals and policies relating to unincorporated areas that serve as a coordination tool and guide to development and the local decision-making process. The County General Plan consists of an introductory chapter, a demographics chapter, and nine elements: Land Use, Transportation, Public Services and Facilities, Resources, Recreation, Noise, Safety, Housing, and Growth Management. The County General Plan designates the Santa Ana Country Club (SACC)/South Mesa and Santa Ana Avenue/Colleen Shoot unincorporated islands as "Suburban Residential" and allows 0.5 to 18 dwelling units per acre (Orange County 2014). Environmental Impact Report 4.10-3 4.9 Land Use & Planning Costa Mesa General Plan The General Plan, required for every city and county by the State of California, is the City's comprehensive community planning document. Any planning or zoning actions the City takes must be consistent with the General Plan. The General Plan consists of several mandatory elements, along with any optional elements. Costa Mesa's General Plan includes the following required and optional elements. All elements were updated in 2002, except for the Housing Element, which was updated in 2014. The proposed General Plan Amendments address the remaining 10 elements, including six of the seven State -mandated General Plan elements. ■ Land Use Element ■ Housing Element ■ Circulation Element ■ Growth Management Element ■ Conservation Element ■ Open Space and Recreation Element ■ Historic and Cultural Resources Element ■ Safety Element ■ Noise Element ■ Community Design The existing Land Use Element establishes the following land use designations: ■ Low -Density Residential ■ Medium -Density Residential ■ High -Density Residential ■ Commercial — Residential ■ Neighborhood Commercial ■ General Commercial ■ Commercial Center ■ Regional Commercial ■ Urban Center Commercial ■ Cultural Arts Center ■ Industrial Park ■ Light Industry ■ Public/Institutional • Golf Course ■ Fairgrounds City of Costa Mesa v. Sphere of Influence Land Use Policies Land use policies forte properties within the City's sphere of influence, but outside of the City's boundaries, are governed by the Orange County General Plan. The Costa Mesa General Plan applies land use designations for parcels within this area that represent the City's preferences and intent on governing these properties, if they are annexed to the City in the future. Table 4.10-2 (City and County Land Use Designation Comparison) compares the land use designations assigned by_between-the City and the County for properties within the sphere of influence. 4.10-4 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Update 4.9 Land Use & Planning Table 4.10-2 City and County Land Use Designation Comparison Unincorporated City of Costa Mesa Parcels Orange County Designation Density/Intensity Designation Densityllntensity Medium Density (MD) 12 du/ac Suburban Residential 0.5 —18 du/ac South Mesa SR South Mesa (existing Medium Density (MD) 12 du/ac Community Commercial NA commercialparcel) Santa Ana A\/o/('nl loon rcv-ci-vmicci-r I n .� Density /I f11 E Q-�h-�rhon De.s0d- n+iol 0.5_ 1wR-v'+'u'lac Santa Ana Country Golf Course NA Open Space NA Club Source: Costa Mesa General Plan Land Use Plan and Orange County General Plan Land Use Designations City of Costa Mesa Planning, Zoning, and Development Code Title 13 of the Municipal Code, the City's Planning, Zoning, and Development Code (Zoning Code), is the General Plan's primary implementation tool. Whereas the General Plan is a policy document that aPA-sets forth direction for land use policy -level decisions, the Zoning Code is a regulatory document that establishes specific standards for the use and development of all properties in the City, as well as subdivision regulations. The Zoning Code regulates development intensity using a variety of methods, such as setting limits on building setbacks, yard landscaping standards, and building heights. The Zoning Code also indicates the permitted land uses in the various zones. Specific Plans A specific plan is a detailed plan for the development of a particular area. Specific plans provide specifications for the permitted land use types, development standards (setbacks, heights, landscape, architecture, etc.), circulation, and infrastructure improvements broadly defined by the General Plan. By law, a specific plan must be consistent with the General Plan. Specific plans are often used to ensure multiple property owners and developers adhere to a single common development plan, as well as to provide flexibility in development standards beyond those contained in the zoning ordinance as a means of achieving superior design. Two Specific Plans are described below: North Costa Mesa Specific Plan Adopted in 1994 and amended several times through 2007, the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan applies to properties north of 1-405 and generally east of Harbor Boulevard. The North Costa Mesa Specific Plan contains provisions related to the maximum overall development of dwelling units, hotel rooms, and resident -serving retail/commercial uses for eight subareas, including the Segerstrom Home Ranch and Sakioka Lot 2 subareas for which changes area proposed as part of the General Plan Amendments. For the Segerstrom Home Ranch subarea, the project proposes increased development capacity by increasing the maximum allowable FAR from 0.40 to 0.64. For Sakioka Lot 2, no development capacity increase is proposed, although residential development would be allowed a maximum density of 80 units per acre (versus current limit of 20 units per acre). Environmental Impact Report 4.10-5 4.9 Land Use & Planning Newport Boulevard Specific Plan The Newport Boulevard Specific Plan applies to properties along Newport Boulevard and allows for a mix of commercial and residential uses, with residential development limited to a maximum of 17.4 units per acre. Select areas of specific plan area are affected by the proposed land use changes, in that the proposed Residential Overlay would increase the maximum residential development density to 40 units per acre. Urban Plans The City has adopted several Urban Plans that both supplement and supersede the underlying zoning regulations. In addition to setting forth land use and development regulations, these Urban Plans contain standards for public realm improvements and design guidelines. The SoBECA Urban Plan is bounded by Baker Street, Bristol Street, and State Route 73 (Corona Del Mar Freeway). It includes a mix of housing and retail/service commercial businesses, light industrial uses, creative studios, retail campuses, and entertainment and restaurant uses that attract local residents and visitors. For example, the Westside Urban Plans apply to properties generally located west of Newport Boulevard and south of 19th Street. Thev are as follows: The 19 West Urban Plan provides commercial and residential mixed-use opportunities primarily along 19th Street and Harbor Boulevard, at a cluster of properties between Newport Boulevard and Superior Avenue, and at the south corner of Victoria Street and Placentia Avenue. This mixed-use overlay zone (over the Commercial and Industrial base districts) is intended to promote commercial/residential mixed-use development, encourage adaptive reuse, stimulate private investments and improvements, promote new housing types, and meet housing demand. Development is subject to the trip budget established by the General Plan. The Mesa West Bluffs Urban Plan encompasses approximately 277 acres and was adopted to provide an overlay zone encouraging the development of live/work units or residential development, with the goal of revitalizing and attracting new high-quality residences. The Mesa West Bluffs Urban Plan applies to industrial properties predominantly south of 18th Street, north of 16th Street, and along Placentia Avenue. The Urban Plan intends to stimulate live/work and residential development without exceeding the development capacity of the General Plan transportation system. Established industrial uses may continue and expand, and new residential development must recognize long- established industrial uses and be designed to minimize conflicts. New creative industrial workspace is permitted, provided that activities limit or confine noise, dust, and vibration impacts. The Mesa West Residential Ownership Urban Plan encompasses approximately 238 acres located between Victoria Street and 17th Street, east of SR -55. The objective of the Mesa West Residential Ownership Urban Plan is to promote economic viability in existing medium -density and high-density residential areas, encourage the conversion of existing rental apartments to residential common -interest development, and development of new ownership housing to improve the balance between rental and ownership opportunities. Thresholds of Significance The General Plan Amendments Land would result in a significant land use impact if they would: A. Physically divide an established community. B. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. C. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. 4.10-6 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Update 4.9 Land Use & Planning Environmental Impacts Proposed Land Use Element Amendments The proposed amendments to the Land Use Element include an updated Land Use Plan that focuses on providing new options for development in strategic areas and along corridors that can accommodate such development, and that provide opportunities to take advantage of ready transit access. These land use changes represent only four percent of the land area in the entire City and target only specific areas of the City. The strategy behind these targeted land use changes is to allow for increased development capacity in very focused areas to incentivize revitalization and private investment and/or accommodate market demand for housing and other uses where available infrastructure can support growth. The Land Use Plan proposes the following: ■ A new land use designation (Multi -Use CenterFairview) that applies to the Fairview Developmental Center site to allow for the future redevelopment of this State-owned property to residential and open space uses ■ A change in the land use designation on the former Los Angeles Times property from Industrial Park to Commercial Center, and site-specific FAR of 0.54 to 0.64. ■ Creation of a three new overlay designations: Residential Incentive Overlay Harbor Blvd., Residential Incentive Overlay Newport Blvd, and Harbor Mixed Use Overlay_ ■ Amendments policies affecting the SoBECA Mixed Use OverlayUrban Plan to allow for residential densities of up to 40 units per acre, with a cap of 450 units overall ■ Amendments to policies affecting the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan, which includes the Segerstrom Home Ranch and Sakioka Lot 2 properties to increase the development cap applicable to the Segerstrom Home Ranch property and allow residential densities of up to 80 units per acre on the Sakioka Lot 2 site (without increasing the maximum permitted unit yield) Previous Figure 3.0-5 (Focus Area Overview Map) in the Project Description section identifies the fOGUs areasabove- listed amendments ("focus areas"). Descriptions of each are provided below. Each focus area has been studied for land use opportunities that promote desirable uses. The boundaries were established with the intent to minimize impacts to existing low-density residential, large commercial, and industrial properties. The alternatives in^li de a range of options for oonsideration Multi -Use CenterFakviewf This site is currently occupied by the Fairview Developmental Center, a State-owned and operated facility currently serving approximately 2570 people with developmental and intellectual disabilities. The State has no immediate plans to discontinue this use. However, the City has established the new land use designation to provide a vision for the ultimate reuse of the site at the time the State opts to consolidate or relocate the current operation. The FaiNiew Iand use designa+ign General Plan Amendments designate this site with a new land use designation, "Multi -Use Center" (Figure 3.0-6, Multi -Use CenterFairview Focus Area) to allows a mixture of residences (up to 500 units at a residential density ranging from 15 to 25 units per acres), parks and open spaces, public facilities, and institutional uses. Residential Incentive Overlay The Residential Incentive Overlay would create opportunities for residential development at strategic locations along Harbor Boulevard and Newport Boulevard (Figure 3.0-7, Residential Incentive Overlay Focus Area). With regard to Harbor Boulevard, this designation would allow for new higher -density residential uses at up to 40 units per acre in areas where only commercial uses were previously allowed. Buildings mean be up to four stories in height, provided privacy concerns of established neighborhoods are adequately addressed through the setbacks of upper stories or other design approaches. Environmental Impact Report 4.10-7 4.9 Land Use & Planning Along the east side of Newport Boulevard, the Residential Incentive Overlay would allow for new higher -density residential uses of up to 40 units per acre in areas where only mixed-use and residential development up to 17.4 units per acre were previously allowed. Buildings could be up to four stories in height, provided privacy concerns of established neighborhoods are adequately addressed through the setbacks of upper stories or other design approaches. Harbor Mixed -Use Overlay The Harbor Mixed -Use Overlay Zone is intended to promote lot consolidation for marginal commercial properties and provide a synergy between the Harbor Boulevard commercial corridor and West 19th Street, fnni ieinn on the Triangle nnmmern al Gomer as the f owRtewn (Figure 3.0-8, Harbor Mixed -Use Overlay Focus Area). The mixed-use corridor also provides housing and commercial opportunities along the southern portion of Harbor Boulevard (between Wilson Street and West 19th Street) at a maximum density of 20 dwelling units per acre and new commercial opportunities with a maximum floor -area ratio of 1.0. Los Angeles Times Site The Los Angeles Times site is proposed to be designated Commercial Center and to accommodate the future development of commercial and office uses at floor -area ratios of 0.54 and 0.64, respectively (Figure 3.0-9, Los Times Angeles Times Site). The site, which is occupied by a former Los Angeles Times publishing plant and is currently owned by Tribune Publishing, includes an adjacent site recently purchased by Tribune Publishing and currently used as a private baseball training field. SoBECA Mixed Use Overla Limited revisions would apply to the established SoBECA Urban Plan, which is bounded by Baker Street, Bristol Street, and State Route 73 (Corona Del Mar Freeway) (Figure 3.0-10, SoBECA Focus Area). The SoBECA Urban Plan will continue to include a mix of housing and retail/service commercial businesses, light industrial uses, creative studios, retail campuses, and entertainment and restaurant uses that attract local residents and visitors. The proposed Land Use Plan amendments would direct that the SoBECA Urban Plan be updated to allow additional residential opportunities. Residential development projects could be built at a density of 40 dwelling units per acre, with a residential capacity of 450 units overall. Permitted development approaches would be mixed-use development that combines residential and commercial uses, as well as stand-alone uses. This designation would emphasize commercial uses and would aim to expand the established innovative, eclectic, and unique uses that demonstrate the importance of homegrown and incubator -type businesses to the local economy. The integration of innovative public spaces and "hangout" areas for special events would be highly encouraged. The new designations' maximum building floor area ratio of 1.25, and maximun; height of four steries or 60 feet, would be GORGIGtNt With the existing eveplay. Segerstrom Home Ranch As described above, the updated Land Use Plan would revise the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan development standards for the 43.57 -acre Segerstrom Home Ranch sub -area, located south of South Coast Drive and north of 1- 405 (Figure 3.0-11, Segerstrom Home Ranch Focus Area). With an increase in the maximum FAR, the Segerstrom Home Ranch site could accommodate up to 1.2 million square feet of office uses. Sakioka Lot 2 The updated Land Use Plan would revise the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan development standards for the 33 -acre Sakioka site (Lot 2) sub -area, which is located south of Sunflower Avenue, west of Main Street, and north of 1-405 4.10-8 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Update 4.9 Land Use & Planning (Figure 3.0-12, Sakioka Focus Area). On the Sakioka site, residential projects at up to 80 dwelling units per acre would be allowed, but existing residential capacity of 660 units would remain unchanged. The General Plan Amendments would not result in a division of an established IMPACT community. 4.10.A Division of a neighborhood may occur with the construction of a new freeway, railway, or other large transportation project that may run through an established community. Impacts associated within the division of an established community include a loss of community identity, disruption or loss of connectivity, and a degradation of the historic character of an area. The General Plan Amendments represent a policy -level project designed to direct long-term growth within the planning area. The City has many long-established residential neighborhoods as well as newer developments. The proposed amended Land Use Plan would retain the City's primarily residential character since the land use changes only affect about four percent of land in the City. The land use changes would not divide an established community because they do not authorize any specific construction project, development plan, or other land -altering activity. Neither would they indirectly lead to the division of an established community, as the changes would not trigger the development of major new infrastructure (such as major roads or freeways, power easements or water conveyance facilities) which could physically divide existing developed areas of the City. Additionally, land use changes were designed to be compatible with existing land uses. The proposed land use changes support maintenance of established neighborhoods through the following goals, objectives, and policies in the Draft Land Use Element. GOAL LU -1: A BALANCED COMMUNITY WITH A MIX OF LAND USES TO MEET RESIDENTS AND BUSINESS NEEDS 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. Policy LU -1A.2 Balance economic gains from new development while preserving the character and densities of residential neighborhoods. Policy LU -1A.3 Strongly encourage the development of residential uses and owner -occupied housing (single-family detached residences, condominiums, townhouses) where feasible to improve the balance between rental and ownership housing opportunities. GOAL LU -2: PRESERVE AND PROTECT RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS Objective LU -28. Promote land use patterns and development which contribute to community and neighborhood identity. Policy LU -213.6 Encourage increased private market investment in declining or deteriorating neighborhoods. Policy LU -2B.9 Require appropriate building setbacks, structure orientation, and the placement of windows to consider the privacy of adjacent residential structures within the same project and on adjacent properties. Environmental Impact Report 4.10-9 4.9 Land Use & Planning Policy LU -3C.7 Promote development/design flexibility that encourages older or poorly maintained high-density residential uses to be rehabilitated. Policy LU -3C.8 Ensure that new development reflects existing design standards, qualities, and features that are in context with nearby development and surrounding residential neighborhoods. Proposed policies within the General Plan Amendments would protect established neighborhoods, limit building heights, and be supported by in-place transportation systems. These policies ensure that the project would not result in the division of an established community. Impact would be less than significant. The General Plan Amendments would not conflict with an applicable land use plan, IMPACT policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project, as discussed in other 4.10.B sections of this EIR. The project involves the update of all General Plan elements, except the Housing Element. None of the changes affect plans, policies, or regulations of other agencies that have jurisdiction within the planning area. In fact, some of the changes in General Plan elements are proposed to reflect and address new policies and regulations of other agencies, such as those relating to flooding and other i hazard areas. With regard to review authority of the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC), the proposed project does not involve any proposals that would allow for increased building heights or high -occupancy buildings within any of the airport -influence zones of John Wayne/Orange County Airport. As required by State Public Utilities Code, the City will provide for formal consultation with the ALUC regarding the proposed General Plan Amendments and over time, any land use applications within the affected review areas. Orange County has jurisdiction over land uses within the sphere of influence, but no changes are proposed on properties within the sphere of influence. The planning area is subject to a variety of federal, State, and locally adopted plans designed to mitigate environmental impacts or to preserve important resources. Plans and policies related to specific resource issues are addressed in those specific sections of this EIR. No conflicts between the specific resources and a policy or regulation of another agency would occur as a result of the proposed project. Impacts would be less than significant. No impact related to conflicts between the proposed General Plan Amendment and IMPACT existing Habitat Conservation Plans would occur. 4.4.0 None of the land use changes proposed in the General Plan Amendments would conflict with the Natural Community Conservation Plan and Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP) or the County of Orange County of QFaRge NGGPiHGP- since no land use changes are proposed in affected areas. The City of Cost Mesa is not a participant to the NCCP/HCP, and none of the proposed reserve lands occur within the City's jurisdiction. Reserves are proposed in Talbert Regional Park, which is under the jurisdiction of the County of Orange. Mitigation Measures No significant impacts are anticipated; therefore, mitigation measures are not required. 4.10-10 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Update 4.9 Land Use & Planning References City of Costa Mesa, 2015. General Plan Draft Historical and Cultural Resources Element. Orange County Local Agency Formation Commission. 2015. General information from website: https://www.oclafco.org. Orange County Local Agency Formation Commission. 2010.2010 Islands Strategy Handbook, Islands Map. Southern California Association of Government, 2015. General information from website: https://www.scag.ca.gov/about. Southern California Association of Government, 2012. 2012-2035 Regional Transportation Plan: Sustainable Communities Strategy, April 2012. Environmental Impact Report 4.10-11 4.9 Land Use & Planning This page intentionally left blank. 4.10-12 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Update Mineral Resources 4.11 This section evaluates the potential effects on mineral resources associated with long-term implementation of the amended General Plan Elements. This section is primarily based on the California Department of Conservation Open File Report 93-05 entitled Mineral Land Classification of the Ortega Rock Quarry Property: Orange County, California and Special Report 143, Part III entitled Mineral Land Classification of the Greater Orange County-Temescal Valley area. No comments related to mineral resources were submitted during circulation of the Notice of Preparation. Existing Conditions Minerals are defined as a naturally occurring, inorganic, homogenous solids with a definite chemical composition and an ordered atomic arrangement. Generally, a mineral is a single or compound of elements and serves as the building blocks for rocks. "Ore" is the naturally occurring material that can be extracted from minerals that have economic value. Providing and encouraging access to mineral resources is an important consideration for the City of Costa Mesa as well as the State of California. The Orange County Basin The Orange County Basin is located in north and central Orange County within the lower Santa Ana River watershed. The Orange County Basin is bounded by the Coyote and Chino Hills on the north, the Santa Ana Mountains on the northeast, the San Joaquin Hills on the south, and the Pacific Ocean and the Newport -Inglewood fault zone on the southwest. The Orange County Basin is separated from the Central Basin along Coyote Creek and the County line, although there is no physical barrier between the two basins. The Newport -Inglewood fault zone acts as a complete barrier to flow from the ocean along most of its length in Orange County except at ancient river -crossing gaps, most notably the Alamitos Gap along the Los Angeles County line and the Talbert Gap in Huntington Beach and Costa Mesa. At these two locations, permeable river deposits cross the fault barrier, providing the opportunity for seawater to flow into the Orange County Basin (MWDSC 2007). The hydrogeology of the Orange County Basin is characterized by a deep structural alluvial basin containing a thick accumulation of interbedded sand, silt, and clay. KI Portions of Costa Mesa overlay the West Newport Q! Field, whioh is south of 1714 Street between Pomona and WestmffinGteF Avenues, and the VVe6t NewpeFt Gil Field, Wh!Gh 66 west of WhittieF Avenue, 69Yth Of ViGtOria StFeet. Currently, the only active oil wells in Costa Mesa operate in the West Newport Field west of Whittier Avenue between 17th and 19th Streets. These wells produce a relatively low -quality crude oil and remained in operation through the mid- 1990s (DC DOGGR 2015). Peat Deposits Peat deposits are located adjacent to the Santa Ana River and in the vicinity of Upper Newport Bay (see previous Figure 4.6-2, Soil Types). The size of the deposits in Costa Mesa is not sufficient to justify extraction. However, peat does provide an unstable base for construction and must be removed prior to development. Mineral Resources Areas subject to California mineral land classification studies are divided by the State Geologist into various Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ) categories that reflect varying degrees of mineral potential. The MRZ nomenclature and criteria adopted by the California State Mining and Geology Board (1983) are graphically portrayed on what is referred to as the California Mineral Land Classification Diagram. The classification map for Orange County is shown on Figure 4.11- 1 (Mineral Resources in Orange County). Environmental Impact Report 4.11-1 4. 11 Mineral Resources T 1aj j, i 1p III i fll T 7r' 0 T IT i4 T 4K M Z 0 0 LLI o CL >- < LLJ z W F— LLJ U) < cr) Z C—) LLJ Uj tj N LU 0 cc!) cr_ 0 U CE LU X LU Z :D (D z LIJ 0 < Z LLI w0 Figure 4.11-1 Mineral Resources in Orange County 4.11-2 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment 41- o -7r 0 U T 4K M Z 0 0 LLI o CL >- < LLJ z W F— LLJ U) < cr) Z C—) LLJ Uj tj N LU 0 cc!) cr_ 0 U CE LU X LU Z :D (D z LIJ 0 < Z LLI w0 Figure 4.11-1 Mineral Resources in Orange County 4.11-2 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment Mineral Resources 4.11 ■ MRZ-1: Areas of No Mineral Resource Significance ■ MRZ-2: Areas of Identified Mineral Resource Significance ■ MRZ-3: Areas of Undetermined Mineral Resource Significance ■ MRZ-4: Areas of Unknown Mineral Resource Significance The distinction between the MRZ-1 and MRZ-4 categories is important for land use considerations. It must be emphasized the MRZ-4 classification does not imply little likelihood for the presence of mineral resources but rather a lack of knowledge regarding mineral occurrence. Further exploration work could well result in the reclassification of land in MRZ-4 areas to MRZ-3 or MRZ-2 categories. Most of the Costa Mesa planning area is classified as MRZ-3, with smaller areas of MRZ-1 land located alongside SR -55 (see Figure 4.11-1). Planning and Regulatory Framework Surface Mining and Reclamation Act The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA) was enacted by the California legislature to promote the conservation of the State's mineral resources and to ensure adequate reclamation of mined lands. Among other provisions, SMARA requires the State Geologist to classify land in California into MRZs according to the known or inferred mineral potential of the land. The process is based solely on geology, without regard to existing land use or land ownership. Upon completion of each study, the State Geologist submits the mineral land classification report to the State Mining and Geology Board, which transmits the information to appropriate local governments that maintain jurisdictional authority in mining, reclamation, and related land -use activities. Local governments are required to incorporate the report and maps into their general plans and consider the information when making land use decisions. SMARA addresses the need for a continuing supply of mineral resources and to prevent or minimize the negative impacts of surface mining to public health, property and the environment. The Act applies to anyone—including government agencies—engaged in surface mining operations in California, including federally managed lands that disturb more than one acre or remove more than 1,000 cubic yards of material cumulatively from one site. Regulated mining activities include prospecting and exploratory activities, dredging and quarrying, streambed skimming, borrow pitting, and the stockpiling of mined materials. The California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology (DMG) "Mineral Land Classification Project" continues to publish mineral resource maps which have proved to be of value in land use planning and mineral conservation. This is an ongoing process with updates taking place approximately every 10 years. DMG is also in the process of identifying lands throughout the county with the potential for mineral resource recovery and will be used to identify new mineral resource areas to help ensure their preservation. Reclamation Plans All reclamation plans are required to comply with the provisions of SMARA (Section 2772 and Section 2773) and State regulations (CCR Section 3500-3505). Reclamation plans approved after January 15, 1993, reclamation plans for proposed new mining operations, and any substantial amendments to previously approved reclamation plans are also required to comply with the requirements for reclamation performance standards (CCR Section 3700-3713). Before a mining project is approved, a reclamation plan must be prepared and approved by the City, and must include specific information and documents identified in the State regulations. The State requires that a mining report be submitted annually by each mine operator. The report must include information as to the amount of land disturbed during the previous year, acreage reclaimed during the previous year, and any amendments to the mine's reclamation plan. This process helps cities, counties, and the State to track mining Environmental Impact Report 4.11-3 4. 11 Mineral Resources operations. Because no mining operations are located within the jurisdiction of the City, the City does not inspect, track, or report on active mines pursuant to SMARA. Orange County General Plan The Orange County General Plan Natural Resources Component includes goals and policies to protect mineral resources. The policies support identification of valuable mineral resources and their preservation or extraction with appropriate plans for reclamation. Goal 2 of the Natural Resources Component supports the promotion of wise management of mineral resources. Policy 3 supports the efficient use of all mineral lands consistent with sound resources management practices, and Policy 4 supports opportunities for the extraction of minerals in the County and to protect the environment during and after these mineral are being extracted. Costa Mesa General Plan Safety Element The Costa Mesa General Plan Safety Element identifies portions of the City that overlay the West Newport Oil Field, which is south of 17th Street between Pomona and Westminster Avenues. Currently, the only active oil wells in Costa Mesa operate west of Whittier Avenue between 171h and 19th Streets (CM 2002). Costa Mesa Municipal Code Pursuant to the requirements of SMARA, Chapter XIV Sections 13-288 through 13-302 (Oil Drilling) of the City's Municipal Code addresses the permitting, planning, and reclamation of oil drilling and extraction operations (CM 2015). Thresholds of Significance Implementation of the General Plan Amendments would have significant impacts if: A. The availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State are lost. B. The availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan is lost. Environmental Impacts IMPACT 4.11.A Implementation of the General Plan Amendments would result in a less than significant loss of known mineral resources of value to the region and the State. Development directed by the goals and policies of the General Plan could produce effects on known mineral resources by removing access for testing or recovery. As described above in the Environmental Setting section, mineral resources present in the planning area are oil, peat, and aggregate. According to the Department of Conservation Division of Oil, Gas, and Thermal Resources, there are 15 active oil wells in the planning area; however, none are in areas subject to land use changes by the proposed amendments. The Newport West Oil Field is located entirely outside of the planning area. Peat is restricted to areas adjacent to the Santa Ana River, and no General Plan land use changes are proposed in the areas where the peat is located. With respect to aggregate resources, areas subject to land use changes are mostly located on land classified as having "undetermined mineral resource significance." Since most of the areas proposed for land use changes by the General Plan Amendments support existing development, aggregate resources, should they be present, would not be subject to mining in the near future and would remain intact. Furthermore, aggregate mining is not typically done on 4.11-4 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment Mineral Resources 4.11 small parcels within existing urban areas due to the lack of appropriate zoning for such a use, as well as the prohibitive cost and nuisance associated with such operations. As such, lands of undetermined significance would not likely be considered for mining in the foreseeable future. For these reasons, impacts on mineral resources are considered less than significant. IMPACT 4.11.6 No impact to locally important mineral resources would occur as a result of the implementation of the General Plan Amendments. The existing General Plan does not identify any locally important mineral resources. No other City planning documents identify any locally important mineral resources. No impacts to locally important mineral resources could occur as a result of the implementation of the General Plan Amendments. Mitigation Measures No mitigation is required. Environmental Impact Report 4.11-5 4. 11 Mineral Resources References City of Costa Mesa. 2015. Municipal Code. Chapter XIV, Section 13-288. City of Costa Mesa. 2002. General Plan. Safety Element. Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources. 2015. Well Status, July 2015. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. 2007. Chapter IV: Groundwater Basin Reports — Orange County Basin. September 2007. 4.11-6 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment Noise 4.12 This section analyzes potential noise impacts that could result from implementation of the proposed General Plan Amendment. The analysis herein summarizes the findings of the February 2016 Noise Study prepared on behalf of the City by MIG, Inc. (MIG 2016). The Noise Study is attached to this EIR as Appendix D. Discussions related to groundborne vibration are based on information provided in Caltrans' Transportation and Construction Induced Vibration Manual and Technical Advisory 04-01-R0201 (Transportation Related Earthborne Vibrations) (Jones and Stokes 2004). Note groundborne and earthborne are used interchangeably in this section. Several comments related to noise were submitted in response to the circulation of the Notice of Preparation or at the EIR Scoping Meeting. One was directed at general noise increases, while most others were directed at potential noise related to multi -family housing replacing less dense land uses. Basics of Noise Defining Noise "Sound" is a vibratory disturbance created by a moving or vibrating source and is capable of being detected. "Noise" is defined as sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or undesired and may therefore be classified as a more specific group of sounds. The effects of noise on people can include general annoyance, interference with speech communication, sleep disturbance and—in the extreme—hearing impairment. Production of Sound Sound has three properties: amplitude and amplitude variation of the acoustical wave (loudness), frequency (pitch), and duration of the noise. Despite the ability to measure sound, human perceptibility is subjective, and the physical response to sound complicates the analysis of its impact on people. People judge the relative magnitude of sound sensation in subjective terms such as "noisiness" or "loudness." Measuring Sound Sound pressure levels are described in logarithmic units of ratios of sound pressures to a reference pressure, squared. These units are called bels. To provide a finer description of sound, a bel is subdivided into 10 decibels, abbreviated dB. Since decibels are logarithmic units, sound pressure levels cannot be added or subtracted by ordinary arithmetic means. For example, if one automobile produces a sound pressure level of 70dB when it passes an observer, two cars passing simultaneously would not produce 140 dB. In fact, they would combine to produce 73 dB. This same principle can be applied to other traffic quantities as well. In other words, doubling the traffic volume on a street or the speed of the traffic will increase the traffic noise level by three dB. Conversely, halving the traffic volume or speed will reduce the traffic noise level by three dB. A three dB change in sound is the beginning at which humans generally notice a barely perceptible change in sound. Sound pressure level alone is not a reliable indicator of loudness. The frequency or pitch of a sound also has a substantial effect on how humans will respond. While the intensity of the sound is a purely physical quantity, the loudness or human response depends on the characteristics of the human ear. Human hearing is limited not only to the range of audible frequencies but also in the way it perceives the sound pressure level in that range. In general, the healthy human ear is most sensitive to sounds between 1,000 Hertz (Hz) and 5,000 Hz, and perceives both higher and lower frequency sounds of the same magnitude with less intensity. Hertz is a unit of frequency that defines any periodic event. In the case of sound pressure, a Hertz defines one cycle of a sound wave per second (see Figure 4.12-1, Hertz Diagram). To approximate the frequency response of the human ear, a series of sound pressure level adjustments is usually applied to the sound measured by a sound level meter. Environmental Impact Report 4.12-1 Noise 4.12 Figure 4.12-1 Hertz Diagram 1 Herta = 1 Cycle per Second The adjustments, or weighting network, are frequency dependent. Of all the various scales available for measuring noise, the A - weighted sound pressure level (identified as dBA) is the scale of measurement that is most useful in community noise measurement. The A -scale approximates the frequency response of the average young ear when listening to most ordinary everyday sounds. When people make relative judgments of the loudness or annoyance of a sound, their judgments correlate well with the A - scale sound levels of those sounds. A range of noise levels associated with common indoor and outdoor activities are shown in Figure 4.12-2 (Activity -Based Noise Levels). Figure 4.12-2 Activity -Based Noise Levels Common Outdoor Activities Common Indoor Activities A -Weighted Sound Level dBA Subjective Effects of Loudness Naise Threshold of Pain Near Jet Engine Jet Fly -Over at 1000 ft Rock Band 140 130 120 110 very Noisy Speech Loud Interference Moderate Sleep Disturbance Loud Auto Horn 100 Gas Lawn Mower at 3 ft 90 Diesel Truck at 50 ft, at 50 mph Food Blender at 3 ft 80 Noisy Urban Area, Daytime Vacuum Cleaner at 10 ft 70 Heavy Traffic, at 300 ft Normal Speech at 3 ft 60 Quiet Urban Daytime Large Business Office 50 Quiet Urban Nighttime Theater, Large Conference Room (Background) 40 Quiet Suburban Nighttime Library 30 Faint No Effect Very Faint Quiet Rural Nighttime Bedroom at Night. Convert Hall (Background) 20 BroadcastlRecording Studio 10 Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing 0 Standards for Noise Equivalent Noise consists of pitch, loudness, and duration; therefore, a variety of methods for measuring noise have been developed. According to the California General Plan Guidelines for Noise Elements, the following are common metrics for measuring noise (CGOPR 2003): 4.12-2 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment Noise 4.12 Leq (Equivalent Energy Noise Level): The sound level corresponding to a steady-state sound level containing the same total energy as a time -varying signal over given sample periods. Leq is typically computed over 1-, 8-, and 24-hour sample periods. CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level): The average equivalent A -weighted sound level during a 24- hour day, obtained after addition of five decibels to sound levels in the evening from 7:00 PM to 10:00 PM and after addition of ten decibels to sound levels in the night from 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM. Ldn (Day -Night Average Level): The average equivalent A -weighted sound level during a 24-hour day, obtained after the addition of ten decibels to sound levels in the night after 10:00 PM and before 7:00 AM. CNEL and Ldn are utilized for describing ambient noise levels because they account for all noise sources over an extended period of time and account for the heightened sensitivity of people to noise during the night. Leq is better utilized for describing specific and consistent sources because of the shorter reference period. Federal and State agencies have established noise and land use compatibility guidelines that use averaging approaches to noise measurement. The State Department of Aeronautics and the California Commission on Housing and Community Development have adopted the community noise equivalent level (CNEL). Sensitive Receptors The State of California defines sensitive receptors as those land uses that require serenity or are otherwise adversely affected by noise events or conditions. Schools, libraries, churches, hospitals, and residential uses make up the majority of these areas. Sensitive receptors are located throughout the city. Types of Noise Roadway Noise The level of traffic noise depends on four key factors: 1) traffic volumes, 2) the speed of traffic, 3) the type or "mix" of vehicles using a particular roadway, and 4) pavement conditions. Vehicle noise is a combination of the noise produced by the engine, exhaust, and tires. Traffic therefore represents a primary contributor to the ambient noise levels in a community and also results in periodic noise level increases based on daily traffic fluctuations. Airport Noise Many different sources in and around an airport produce noise. Air traffic can produce high intensity noise and affect many people near airports. The extent of the noise is a product of the types of aircraft flown, the number of flights, and the flight paths. Similar to road traffic, larger and heavier aircraft can produce more noise. However, some lighter, smaller aircraft are exceptions to this rule. Most of the noise generated from the aircraft engines typically occur from the high velocity exhaust gases and the air flow in the fan system (Noise Quest 2015). Another aspect of an aircraft that generates noise is the airframe. Many people may not be aware of the fact that parts of the airframe—wings, flaps, and landing gear—also produce a lot of noise. During landing, most of the noise heard from the ground comes from these components. This noise is characterized by sharp, low frequency peaks (Noise Quest 2015). Environmental Impact Report 4.12-3 Noise 4.12 Vibration and Groundborne Noise Vibration is the periodic movement of mass over time. It is described in terms of frequency and amplitude. Unlike sound, there is no standard way of measuring and reporting amplitude. Vibration is described in units of velocity (inches per second [in/sec]), and is discussed in dB units in order to compress the range of numbers required to describe vibration. Vibration impacts to buildings are generally discussed in terms of peak particle velocity (PPV), which represents the maximum instantaneous positive or negative peak of a vibration signal and is most appropriate for evaluating the potential for building damage (FTA 2006). In general, earthborne vibrations associated with transportation and construction activities attenuate rapidly with distance from the source. Caltrans has taken vibration measurements throughout California and provides data in the Transportation Related Earthborne Vibrations Technical Advisory (TAV-02-01-R9601) (Caltrans 2001). Vibration of trucks is characterized by peaks considerably higher than those generated by automobiles. These peaks last often a fraction of a second and drop-off quickly with distance. In general, more trucks will show up as more peaks, not necessarily higher peaks. Caltrans' truck traffic vibration data suggest that at distances greater than 130 feet from the road, the vibration levels are below the threshold of perception. Temporary, Periodic and Ambient Noise Levels Noise can be produced from different sources and for different time periods, resulting in varying noise levels over time. Ambient noise levels, for the purpose of this analysis, are developed using 24-hour average noise level measurements taken throughout the planning area resulting in a general description of the noise environment. Periodic noise levels are characterized by regular increases in noise levels due to reoccurring activities such as the passing of railcars or periods just before and after peak -hour traffic along roadways. Temporary noise levels result from one-time activities that result in increased noise levels, such as construction activities or special events. Existing Conditions Costa Mesa's noise environment is dominated by vehicular traffic and aircraft operations at John Wayne Airport. Field noise measurements, taken in 2015 at various locations in Costa Mesa, establish ambient noise levels primarily in the vicinity of sensitive uses (i.e., schools, residences, churches, hospitals, etc.) (MIG 2016). Ambient noise levels are a composite of noise from all sources, near and far. In this context, the ambient noise level constitutes the normal or existing level of environmental noise at a given location. 4.12-4 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment Noise 4.12 Table 4.12-1 Ambient Noise Measurements Site Date Time Leg Lmax Lmin Location 1 8/4/15 7:12 AM 67.8 84.5 57.8 Northeast corner of Anton & Avenue of the Arts 2 8/4/15 7:45 AM 77.6 102.1 55.3 Southeast corner of Bear & Paularino 3 8/4/15 8:12 AM 71.5 88.5 57.6 Northeast corner of Harbor & Adams 4 8/4/15 8:37 AM 70.2 84.3 56.2 Northwest corner of Fairview & Fair 5 8/4/15 9:12 AM 66.2 82.3 55.1 Southwest corner of South Coast & Susan 6 8/5/15 11:07 PM 68.4 80.7 45.5 Northwest corner of Mesa Verde & Adams 7 8/5/15 11:35 PM 52.5 65.2 39.1 East corner of Santa Ana & 22nd 8 8/6/15 7:02 AM 67.8 84.9 46.4 North corner of Del Mar & Orange 9 8/6/15 7:33 AM 61.5 75.1 45.5 East corner of Santa Ana & Cabrillo 10 8/6/15 7:55 AM 73.1 86.9 57.1 Northeast corner of Harbor & 19th 11 8/6/15 8:21 AM 73.8 89.4 60.5 Northeast corner of Harbor & Victoria 12 8/6/15 8:47 AM 69.4 82.5 54.3 Northeast corner of 171h & Pomona 13 8/6/15 9:11 AM 63.1 82.0 42.3 Northeast corner of 171h & Whittier 14 8/6/15 9:43 AM 74.1 93.9 53.9 Northeast corner of Placentia & 20th 15 8/6/15 10:24 AM 69.3 85.5 56.2 South corner of Red Hill & Paularino Source: MIG 2016 Traffic Noise Traffic noise -including that from automobiles, trucks, and other motor vehicles -is the most pervasive source of noise in Costa Mesa. The Costa Mesa roadway network consists of the 1-405, State Highways 73 and 55, regional arterials, local public roads, and private roads. Traffic noise levels can be reliably predicted using formulas that take into account traffic volume, speed, and percentage of trucks. Existing noise contours were calculated for all the City's primary and major arterials as well as the three freeways (1-405, SR -55, SR -73) that traverse the City. In addition, noise contours were calculated for a number of secondary and commuter streets; refer to Appendix D Airplane and Airport Noise John Wayne Airport (JWA), owned and operated by the County of Orange, is the only commercial service airport in Orange County. It is located immediately east of Costa Mesa, between 1-405 and SR -73. The service area includes more than three million people within the 34 cities and unincorporated areas of Orange County. In 2014, more than nine million passengers flew into or out of John Wayne Airport (OC 2015). John Wayne Airport has one of the most stringent aircraft access and noise monitoring programs in the United States and the world. Commercial air carrier operations at the airport are regulated by the Phase 2 Commercial Airline Access Plan and Regulation (Access Plan). The Access Plan places restrictions on operational capacity, hours of operations, and noise levels. General aviation operations are permitted 24 hours daily subject to compliance with the daytime noise limits and the more restrictive curfew noise limits, as documented in the General Aviation Noise Ordinance (GANG) (OC 2015). John Wayne Airport abuts industrial and commercial properties at the northeast corner of Costa Mesa. A portion of Costa Mesa lies within the 65 dBA CNEL contour of John Wayne Airport. Development in the northeastern portion of the city are exposed to noise levels up to 65 dBA according to the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport. In addition, there are approximately 100 dwelling units within the City's sphere of influence, as well as the industrial operations located between State Route 73 (SR -73) Environmental Impact Report 4.12-5 Noise 4.12 and Interstate 405 (1-405) with general commercial and outdoor recreation uses located immediately south of SR -73. Non -Transportation Noise Sources Non -transportation -related noise generators are commonly called "stationary," "fixed," "area," or "point" sources of noise. Industrial processing, mechanical equipment, pumping stations, and heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment are examples of fixed -location, non -transportation noise sources within the city. Some non -transportation sources are not stationary but are typically assessed as point or area sources due to the limited area in which they operate, such as truck deliveries. Industrial and commercial land uses produce noise of various types, intensities, and frequencies depending on the nature of the business. Industrial uses often produce additional noise due to the use of heavy machinery. Commercial uses such as large retail complexes can raise localized noise levels due to high volumes of traffic and increased outdoor activities (such as special events). Both industrial and commercial uses may include loading and unloading of trucks in loading docks and generally increase truck traffic in the area. Industrial uses in Costa Mesa are concentrated adjacent to John Wayne Airport, in the southwest corner (known as Westside area), and north of 1-405 adjacent to the Santa Ana River. Intermittent or temporary neighborhood noise from amplified music, public address systems, barking dogs, landscape maintenance, and stand-by power generators can be disturbing to residents but are difficult to attenuate and control. Major sources of non -transportation noise in Costa Mesa include the Pacific Amphitheater and the Orange County Event Center. Several noise sources presently exist within the Orange County Events Center property, including the Orange County Fair and Event Center. Typical noise associated with the OC Fair include public address systems, screams and the sound of rides moving along their tracks, animal noises, human activity throughout the fairgrounds, and setup and breakdown of booths and rides. Approximately 1.3 million people attend the Fair annually. The Orange County Fair operates for four weeks annually during the summer months. Noise sources during the fair events include a public address system, carnival rides, and several sound reinforcement systems used for concerts and carnival rides. Other stationary noise sources within the Orange County Fair and Events Center include the weekly Orange County Market Place, Farmers Market, Centennial Farm, and Food Truck Fare Wednesday, as well as annual events such as OC Home and Garden Show, and concerts in the Pacific Amphitheater. Planning and Regulatory Framework Federal Federal Noise Control Act of 1972 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Noise Abatement and Control was originally established to coordinate federal noise control activities. After its inception, EPA's Office of Noise Abatement and Control issued the Federal Noise Control Act of 1972, establishing programs and guidelines to identify and address the effects of noise on public health, welfare, and the environment. In response, the EPA published information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety (Levels of Environmental Noise). The Levels of Environmental Noise recommended that the Ldn should not exceed 55 dBA outdoors or 45 dBA indoors to prevent significant activity interference and annoyance in noise -sensitive areas. 4.12-6 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment Noise 4.12 In addition, the Levels of Environmental Noise identified five dBA as an "adequate margin of safety" for a noise level increase relative to a baseline noise exposure level of 55 dBA Ldn (i.e., there would not be a noticeable increase in adverse community reaction with an increase of five dBA or less from this baseline level). The EPA did not promote these findings as universal standards or regulatory goals with mandatory applicability to all communities, but rather as advisory exposure levels below which there would be no risk to a community from any health or welfare effect of noise. In 1981, EPA administrators determined that subjective issues such as noise would be better addressed at more localized levels of government. Consequently, in 1982 responsibilities for regulating noise control policies were transferred to State and local governments. However, noise control guidelines and regulations contained in EPA rulings in prior years remain in place by designated federal agencies, allowing more individualized control for specific issues by designated federal, State, and local government agencies. Federal Transit Administration The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has developed methodology and significance criteria to evaluate incremental noise impacts from surface transportation modes (i.e., on road motor vehicles and trains) as presented in Transit Noise Impact and Vibration Assessment (FTA Guidelines). These incremental noise impact criteria are based on EPA findings and subsequent studies of annoyance in communities affected by transportation noise. The FTA extended the EPA's five dBA incremental impact criterion to higher ambient levels. As baseline ambient levels increase, smaller and smaller increments are allowed to limit expected increases in community annoyance. For example, in residential areas with a baseline ambient noise level of 50 dBA CNEL, a less -than -five dBA increase in noise levels would produce a minimal increase in community annoyance levels, while at 70 dBA CNEL, only one dBA increase could be accommodated before a significant annoyance increase would occur. The FTA provides guidelines for maximum -acceptable vibration criteria for different types of land uses. Groundborne vibration and noise levels associated with various types of construction equipment and activities are summarized in the Reference Vibration Source Amplitudes for Construction Equipment table in the Noise Study (Appendix D). Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Guidance In response to the problems associated with highway traffic noise, the United States Code of Federal Regulations Part 772 (23 CFR 772), "Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise," establishes standards for abatement of highway traffic noise. The purpose of this document is to provide Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) guidance for the applying 23 CFR 772 in the analysis and abatement of highway traffic noise. Following this guidance is strictly voluntary. It is based on lessons learned and best practices and does not constitute the establishment of an FHWA standard. Not all studies are the same; therefore, this guidance is intended to be non -prescriptive, and its application is flexible and scalable to the type and complexity of the analysis to be undertaken. FHWA guidance on highway noise addresses noise compatible planning, source control, and highway traffic noise abatement. The latter addresses traffic noise on interstate highways as well as construction related to interstate highway development/improvements (FHWA 2011). Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Standards Enforced by the FAA, Title 14, Part 150 prescribes the procedures, standards, and methodology governing the development, submission, and review of airport noise exposure maps and airport noise compatibility programs, including the process for evaluating and approving or disapproving those programs. Title 14 also identifies those land uses which are normally compatible with various levels of exposure to noise by Environmental Impact Report 4.12-7 Noise 4.12 individuals. It provides technical assistance to airport operators—in conjunction with other local, State, and federal authorities—to prepare and execute appropriate noise compatibility planning and implementation programs. The FAA establishes a 65 dBA CNEL as the noise standard associated with aircraft noise. State of California California Noise Control Act of 1973 Sections 46000-46080 of the California Health and Safety Code, known as the California Noise Control Act of 1973, find that excessive noise is a serious hazard to public health and welfare and that exposure to certain levels of noise can result in physiological, psychological, and economic damage. It also finds that there is a continuous and increasing bombardment of noise in the urban, suburban, and rural areas. The California Noise Control Act declares that the State of California has a responsibility to protect the health and welfare of its citizens by the control, prevention, and abatement of noise. California Noise Insulation Standards (CCR Title 24) In 1974, the California Commission on Housing and Community Development adopted noise insulation standards for multi -family residential buildings (Title 24, Part 2, California Code of Regulations). Title 24 establishes standards for interior room noise (attributable to outside noise sources). The regulations also specify that acoustical studies must be prepared whenever a residential building or structure is proposed to be located near an existing or adopted freeway route, expressway, parkway, major street, thoroughfare, rail line, rapid transit line, or industrial noise source, and where such noise source or sources create an exterior CNEL (or Ldn) of 60 dBA or greater. Such acoustical analysis must demonstrate that the residence has been designed to limit intruding noise to an interior CNEL (or Ldn) of 45 dBA or below. (California's Title 24 Noise Standards, Chap. 2-35) State of California Deaartment of Health Services The California Department of Health Services establishes noise criteria for various land uses entitled; Noise/Land Use Compatibility Criteria. The City of Costa Mesa has incorporated a modified version of the State standards in the General Plan Noise Element. State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) 23 CFR 772 Title 23, Part 772 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), titled "Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise," outlines procedures for noise studies that are required for approval of federal -aid highway projects. The FHWA requires that State highway agencies prepare State -specific policies and procedures for applying 23 CFR 772.The purpose of 23 CFR 772 is to provide procedures to help protect public health and welfare, supply noise abatement criteria, and establish requirements for information to be given to local officials for use in the planning and design of highways approved pursuant to 23 CFR 772.1. As such, 23 CFR 772 provides procedures for preparing operational and construction noise studies and evaluating noise abatement considered for federal -aid highway projects. According to 23 CFR 772.3, all highway projects that are developed in conformance with this regulation are deemed to be in conformance with the FHWA noise standards. Local City of Costa Mesa Municipal Code -- Noise Control Ordinance 4.12-8 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment Noise 4.12 The following standards from of the City of Costa Mesa Municipal Code Noise Control Ordinance apply to the proposed project. 13-279 — Construction Noise. The provisions of the City's Noise Ordinance do not apply to cSonstruction equipment, vehicles, or work between the following approved hours, isallowedprovided that all required permits for such construction, repair, or remodeling have been obtained from the appropriate City departments: 7:00 A.M. through 7:00 P.M. Monday through Friday, and 9:00 A.M. through 6:00 P.M. Saturdays. Construction activities on Sundays and holidays are prohibited. 13-280 — Noise Standards. The following noise standards, unless otherwise specifically indicated, shall apply to all residential property within the City: RESIDENTIAL EXTERIOR NOISE STANDARDS Noise Level Time Period 55 dB(A) 7:00 A.M. through 11:00 P.M. 50 dB(A) 11:00 P.M. through 7:00 A.M. RESIDENTIAL INTERIOR NOISE STANDARDS Noise Level Time Period 55 dB(A) 7:00 A.M. through 11:00 P.M. 45 dB(A) 11:00 P.M. through 7:00 A.M. 13.283 — Loud, Unnecessary Noise: It shall be unlawful for any person to willfully make or continue, or cause to be made or continued, any loud, unnecessary and unusual noise which disturbs the peace or quiet of any neighborhood or which causes discomfort or annoyance to any reasonable person of normal sensitiveness residing in the area, regardless of whether the noise level exceeds the standards specified in Section 13-280 Exteriornoise standards, and Section 13-281 Interiornoise standards. The standard which may be considered in determining whether a violation of the provisions of this section exists may include, but not be limited to, the following: a. The level of the noise; b. Whether the nature of the noise is usual or unusual; c. Whether the origin of the noise is natural or unnatural; d. The level and intensity of the background noise, if any; e. The proximity of the noise to residential sleeping facilities; f. The nature and zoning of the area within which the noise emanates; g. The density of the inhabitation of the area within which the noise emanates; h. The time of the day and night the noise occurs; i. The duration of the noise; j. Whether the noise is recurrent, intermittent, or constant; or k. Whether the noise is produced by a commercial or noncommercial activity. I. The density of the inhabitation of the area affected. Thresholds of Significance In accordance with Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project could result in potentially significant impacts related to noise if it results in: A. Exposure of persons or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. Environmental Impact Report 4.12-9 Noise 4.12 B. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne 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, exposure of people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. F. For a project within a vicinity of a private airstrip, expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. Environmental Impacts Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of City standards IMPACT would be less than significant with implementation of the proposed General Plan 4.12.A Amendment policies. As described in the following paragraphs, the noise environment in Costa Mesa is not expected to change as a result of the implementation of the General Plan Amendments. Future development under the General Plan Amendments could result in the exposure to persons to or generate noise levels in excess of City standards. In particular sources of noise that could expose persons to noise in excess of City standards are the John Wayne Airport, the OC Fair and Event Center, and traffic. As described above under "Local" regulations, the City has specific exterior and interior noise standards to protect residents from above --standard noise. In addition, the draft Noise Element includes policies that pertain to protecting new development from noise impacts through ensuring compatible use with surrounding areas, building types and materials, and setbacks. Refer to Goals and Objectives N-1 and N-2 below along with the corresponding policies that lead to the achievement of the goals and objectives. John Wayne Airport The City of Costa Mesa does not contain any airports. However, the City is located immediately adjacent to John Wayne -Orange County (SNA) Airport to the southeast. According to the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport, existing uses within the northeastern portion of the city are exposed to noise levels up to 65 dBA. Exposed uses include approximately 100 dwelling units within the City's sphere of influence, industrial uses between SR -73) and WeFstate 405 (I-405), and general commercial and outdoor recreation uses immediately south of SR -73. Noise contours resulting from operations at John Wayne Airport are on file with the County of Orange Office of Noise Abatement and the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). The 2008 AELUP adopted by the Airport Land Use Commission specifies acceptable uses proximate to the airport. These are defined as uses that will not subject people to adverse noise impacts. John Wayne Airport, primarily through the General Aviation Noise Ordinance (GANG), has on-going programs of noise reduction that include limits on the number of commercial airline flights, noise abatement, arrival and departure procedures, admonishment of noisy operators (including private aircraft), curfew, and take -off weight limitations. 4.12-10 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment Noise 4.12 The Orange County Board of Supervisors approved a Master Plan for the airport in February 1985. Settlement of lawsuits concerning airport expansion was reached in December 1985 between the County, City of Newport Beach, and two community organizations. In 2003, the Settlement Agreement was amended which extended the agreement until 2015, allowed an increase in passengers served from 8.4 million annual passengers to 10.8 million annual passengers, allowed an increase in regular Class A flights to 85 average daily departures, and allowed facility improvements. In 2014, the Board of Supervisors authorized an increase in operational capacity and extended the terms of the Settlement Agreement through December 31, 2030, with no change to curfew until December 31, 2035. Additionally, beginning on January 1, 2021, the approval allows a gradual increase in passenger count from 8.4 million average passengers to 11.8 million average passengers and 95 average daily departures. Further, on January 1, 2026, the number passengers would again be able to increase, up to 12.5 million average passengers, depending upon the actual service levels in the preceding five years. Despite the increase in air traffic from John Wayne Airport, the ultimate CNEL noise contours are less than the noise contour contained in the 2008 ALUC, due to updated technology creating quieter fleets of commercial aircrafts. Further, the JWA has one of the most stringent aircraft access and noise monitoring programs in the United States and the world. The Airport's Access Plan places restrictions on operational capacity, hours of operations, and noise levels. General aviation operations are permitted 24 hours daily subject to compliance with the daytime noise limits and the more restrictive curfew noise limits, as documented in the General Aviation Noise Ordinance (GANG) (OC 2015). Noise from JWA would not cause City residents to be exposed to noise above existing standards and, therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Helicopter Services The City of Costa Mesa contracts with Huntington Beach for police helicopter services on a case-by-case basis. Depending on altitude and speed, noise levels generated by the craft under normal conditions range from 61 to 65 dBA. As of 2015, fiveeuf heliports were located in Costa Mesa at the following locations: ■ Costa Mesa Police Department, 99 Fair Drive ■ Former Los Angeles A Times building, 1375 West Sunflower Avenue ■ South Coast Metro Center, 555 Anton Boulevard Tridair Helicopter, 3000 Airway Avenue ■ Heliport 3132 Airway Avenue The AELUP for Heliports establishes regulations and restrictions for the siting of hel i ports/hel i pads. The purpose of the AELUP for Heliports is to protect the public from the adverse effects of aircraft noise by ensuring that hel i ports/hel i pads are sited in areas of compatible land use. The City regulates the siting of helipads through a Conditional Use Permit. The City requires an analysis to identify potential noise impacts and the City may regulate the hours of operationand arrival, departure/arrival routes, and type of helicopters that may use the heliport in order to minimize impacts to sensitive land uses. Heliports and helistops must comply with the all conditions of approval imposed or recommended by the FAA, ALUC, and by Caltrans/Division of Aeronautics. Noise from helicopter services would not cause City residents to be exposed to noise above existing standards, and impacts would be less than significant. Environmental Impact Report 4.12-11 Noise 4.12 The OC Fair and Event Center The OC Fair and Event Center hosts the annual summer fair and the weekly Orange County Market Place, Farmers Market, Centennial Farm, and Food Truck Fare Wednesday, as well as annual events such as OC Home and Garden Show, Orange County Fair, and concerts at the Pacific Amphitheater. In 1980, a modified stricter Noise Ordinance for fairground operations was established in an agreement between the 32nd District Agricultural Association and the City of Costa Mesa ("1980 Settlement Agreement"). Table 4.12-2 (Orange County Fairgrounds Modified Noise Ordinance), which applies to the activities within the Orange County Fairgrounds, with the exception of the events at the Pacific Amphitheater. Ongoing compliance with the Orange County Fairground Modified Noise Ordinance will ensure that noise levels generated by activities at the OC Fairgrounds will remain within acceptable levels. Table 4.12-2 Oranae Countv Fairarounds Modified Noise Ordinance Land Use noise Levei aot to be Exceeded 50 dBA maxiMUM Aliowame of Exceedance 30 min/hour Sunday -Thursday 50 dBA 55 dBA 15 min/hour Residential 60 dBA 5 min/hour 7:00 AM —11:00 PM 65 dBA 1 min/hour 70 dBA Not for any period of time Noise Zone Noise Level CNEL Time Period 1 and 2 Family Residential 60 dBA 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. 50 dBA 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Multiple Dwelling 60 dBA 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Residential, Public Space, 55 dBA 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Commercial Source: City of Costa Mesa Inter Office Memorandum, August 24, 2010 Prior to 1990, noise levels generated by concert events at Pacific Amphitheater exceeded the Costa Mesa Noise Ordinance, impacting surrounding residential neighborhoods. In 1990, a permanent injunction ("1990 Order") was entered against the former operators of the Amphitheater and the order set the current noise level established in Table 4.12-3 (Pacific Amphitheater Court Order Current Noise Restriction). The order specifically stated that the City's Noise Ordinance does not apply to the Pacific Amphitheatre. The amphitheater closed in 1997, but reopened in 2003 and remains subject to the noise restrictions of the 1990 Order outlined in Table 4.12-3. Ongoing compliance with the 1990 Order will ensure that noise levels generated by the events held at the Pacific Amphitheater will remain within acceptable levels. Table 4.12-3 Pacific Amphitheater Court Order Current Noise Restriction 55 dBA 7:00 AM —10:30 PM Sunday -Thursday 50 dBA 10:30 PM — 7:00 AM Sunday -Thursday 55 dBA 7:00 AM —11:00 PM Friday -Saturday 50 dBA 11:00 PM — 7:00 AM. Fridav-Saturdav Noise levels at the OC Fairground and Event Center and Pacific Amphitheater will be monitored to ensure that legally binding noise levels are being met (see Policy N -1.H below). Ongoing compliance with the 1990 Order will ensure that noise levels generated by the events held at the Pacific Amphitheater will remain within 4.12-12 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment Noise 4.12 acceptable levels. Additional information on OC Fair and Event Center noise is contained in Appendix D. Thus, impacts would be less than significant. Future Noise Levels along Existing Roadway Segments Future population and employment growth within the planning area would result in increased traffic and the need for roadway and intersection improvements necessary to maintain desired levels of service. Increases in traffic could result in permanent increases in ambient noise levels, e.g., where a roadway segment is proposed to be expanded with additional travel lanes over the long-term to achieve level of service standards. Roadway noise could also increase on an existing roadway that will carry increasing traffic volumes. In either set of circumstances, roadway noise levels could increase to beyond the levels considered acceptable for the adjacent land uses as defined by the City of Costa Mesa Noise Ordinance or General Plan Noise Element. As part of the Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment process, an inventory of the existing land uses in the city was compiled and future land uses associated with future development under existing land use conditions and proposed land use conditions was determined. Traffic noise levels at 100 feet from roadway segment centerlines were modeled utilizing the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Traffic Noise Model (TNM) Version 2.5 (see Appendix B for TNM Output Data). Distances to the 55, 60, 65, and 70 BA CNEL noise contours under 2035 proposed General Plan Buildout conditions were calculated and shown in Table 9 in Appendix D (Future 2035 CNEL Proposed General Plan Buildout) and Exhibit4 in Appendix D (2035 Proposed General Plan Buildout Traffic Noise Contours). Traffic noise levels identified represent conservative potential noise exposure. In reality, noise levels may vary from those represented as the calculations do not assume natural or artificial shielding nor do they assume reflection from existing or proposed structures or topography. Intervening structures or other noise -attenuating obstacles between a roadway and a receptor may reduce roadway noise levels at the receptor. Table 10 in Appendix D (Future 2035 CNEL Noise Level Increase) shows the noise increases due to future development facilitated by build out of the proposed General Plan Amendments compared to existing conditions. Noise levels at 100 feet from the centerline of roadway segments were calculated based on average daily traffic volumes provided by the project traffic study prepared by Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. A 3.0 dBA change in sound is the beginning at which humans generally notice a barely perceptible change in sound, a 5.0 dBA change is generally readily perceptible, and a 10.0 dBA increase is perceived by most people as a doubling of the existing noise level. Based on the results of the model, implementation of the proposed General Plan Amendment would result in noise increases of 3.0 dB CNEL along Del Mar west of Santa Ana, where residential uses are located, and 3.1 dB CNEL along 161h west of Newport, where industrial uses are located. Therefore, residents along Del Mar west of Santa Ana and the industrial uses along 161h west of Newport and could be exposed to barely perceptible increases in noise. The proposed General Plan Amendment would not authorize any specific construction. Potential increases in noise levels along existing and proposed roadways will be assessed in conjunction with the City's review of site-specific noise impact analyses. Implementation of the following proposed General Plan Goals, Objectives and Policies would ensure that impacts related to increases in traffic noise due to future development would be reduced to acceptable levels. Environmental Impact Report 4.12-13 Noise 4.12 Goal N-1: NOISE HAZARDS AND CONDITIONS it is th 4Tthe City of Costa Mesa aims residents, local workers, +„ PFOt8Gt its G tiZens and property from injury, damage, or destruction from noise hazards and to work towards improved noise abatement. Objective N-1: Control noise levels within the City for the protection of residential areas and other sensitive land uses from excessive and unhealthful noise. Policy N -1.A: Enforce the maximum acceptable exterior noise levels for residential areas which is 565 CNEL. Policy N -1.D: Ensure that appropriate site design measures are incorporated into residential developments, when required by an acoustical study, to obtain appropriate exterior and interior noise levels. Policy N -1.E: Apply the standards contained in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations as applicable to the construction of all new dwelling units. Policy N-1.1-1: Monitor the noise levels at Orange CountyG Fair & Event Center and the Pacific Amphitheater and continue to monitor the status of legally binding noise levels on the Orange County Fair and the Event Center and the Pacific Amphitheater. Goal N-2: NOISE AND LAND USE COMPATIBILITY Integrate the known impacts of excessive noise on aspects of land use planning and siting of residential and non-residential projects. Objective N-2: Plan for the reduction in noise impacts on sensitive receptors and land uses. Policy N -2.A: Require the use of sound walls, berms, interior noise insulation, double -paned windows, and other noise mitigation measures, as appropriate, in the design of new residential or other new noise sensitive land uses that are adjacent to arterials, freeways, or adjacent to industrial or commercial uses. Policy N-2.13: Require, as a part of the environmental review process, that full consideration be given to the existing and projected noise environment. Policy N -2.D: Require that all proposed projects are compatible with adopted noise/land use compatibility criteria. Policy N -2.E: Enforce applicable interior and exterior noise standards. Policy N -2.F: Allow a higher exterior noise level standard for infill projects in existing residential areas adjacent to major arterials if it can be shown that there are no feasible mechanisms to meet the exterior noise levels. The interior standard of 45 dBA CNEL shall be enforced for any new residential project. 4.12-14 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment Noise 4.12 Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or IMPACT grounborne noise levels would be less than significant with implementation of 4.12.6 the proposed General Plan Amendment policies. Typical sources of groundborne vibration and noise come from indude construction activities and heavy vehiG�„ e tFaffi& Excessive vibration can lead to structural damage and general annoyance to the public. Vibration can also adversely affect delicate instruments such as electron microscopes and advanced technology production and research equipment. Pile drivers and rock blasting are generally the primary cause of construction related vibration impacts. Such construction methods are employed on a limited basis, on sites where there are extensive layers of very hard materials that must be loosened and/or penetrated to achieve the grading plan and place foundation supports. Additional vibration impacts could occur where heavy machinery is required to break up large, hard rocks into smaller fragments. The need for such methods is determined through site-specific geotechnical investigations that identify the subsurface materials within the grading envelope, along with the construction methods recommended to handle the types of materials that are found. Occasionally, large bulldozers and loaded trucks can create perceptible vibration when in at -close proximity; however, they generally do not cause vibration that could cause structural or cosmetic damage. Construction equipment and activities are categorized by the nature of the vibration it produces. Equipment or activities typical of continuous vibration include excavation equipment, static compaction equipment, vibratory pile drivers, and pile -extraction equipment. Equipment or activities typical of transient (single -impact) or low -rate repeated impact vibration include impact pile drivers, blasting, and crack -and -seat equipment. High -rate repeated impact vibrations are common of jackhammers and pavement breakers. Table 4.12-4 (Common Construction Vibration) summarizes the peak particle velocity (PPV) at 25 feet for common construction equipment. Table 4.12-4 Common Construction Vibration Vibration varies widely with distance and intensity. Vibration from earthmovers and haulers have no potential to damage buildings after ten feet, while vibration from blasting activities can damage structures up to 115 feet away. Common mitigation for impact pile drivers include jetting, pre -drilling, use of cast -in-place or auger cast piles, use of non-displacement piles, and use of pile cushioning. Vibration can be reduced from breaking of concrete and other materials through use of hydraulic crushers, saws or rotary rock -cutting heads, hydraulic splitters, and chemicals instead of using hydraulic breakers. Building and roadway construction has the potential to generate perceptible vibration levels to sensitive receptors within 20 feet from the operation of heavy equipment. Given that vibration levels dissipate rapidly with distance, and that homes along streets and intersections are typically more than 20 feet away from the Environmental Impact Report 4.12-15 Equipment Crack -and -Seat Operators PPV (in/sec at 25ft) 2.400 Vibratory Roller 0.210 Large Bulldozer 0.089 Caisson Drilling 0.089 Loaded Trucks 0.076 Jackhammer 0.035 Small Bulldozer 0.003 Source: California Department of Transportation. Transportation- and Construction -Induced Vibration Guidance Manual, June 2004 Vibration varies widely with distance and intensity. Vibration from earthmovers and haulers have no potential to damage buildings after ten feet, while vibration from blasting activities can damage structures up to 115 feet away. Common mitigation for impact pile drivers include jetting, pre -drilling, use of cast -in-place or auger cast piles, use of non-displacement piles, and use of pile cushioning. Vibration can be reduced from breaking of concrete and other materials through use of hydraulic crushers, saws or rotary rock -cutting heads, hydraulic splitters, and chemicals instead of using hydraulic breakers. Building and roadway construction has the potential to generate perceptible vibration levels to sensitive receptors within 20 feet from the operation of heavy equipment. Given that vibration levels dissipate rapidly with distance, and that homes along streets and intersections are typically more than 20 feet away from the Environmental Impact Report 4.12-15 Noise 4.12 street edge, residential land uses adjoining roadway and intersection improvement projects would not likely be subject to distinctly perceptible vibration levels over extended periods of time. Potential vibration due to future construction activities would be assessed in conjunction with the City's routine review of site-specific geotechnical studies and the recommended grading and foundation design measures. This will occur in the project planning process, prior to project approval, for projects subject to review under CEQA, and this will provide an adequate mechanism to require special measures to mitigate potentially significant vibration impacts of the updated General Plan. Impacts resulting from construction—generated groundborne vibration and noise would be less than significant. The proposed project would allow for additional development of industrial, IMPACT commercial, residential, and mixed-use development that may cause a 4.12.0 permanent increase in ambient noise levels in excess of current levels. Those impacts would be less than significant with continued implementation of the City's Municipal Code and the proposed General Plan Amendment policies. The City has specific exterior and interior noise standards that are described above. In addition, the Draft Noise Element includes policies that pertain to protecting new development from noise impacts through ensuring compatible use with surrounding areas, building types and materials, and setbacks. Refer to Goals and Objectives N-1 and N-2 above along with the corresponding policies that lead to the achievement of the goals and objectives. Future population growth within the planning area would result in increased traffic and the need for roadway and intersection improvements necessary to maintain desired levels of service, despite this increase in traffic. Increases in traffic could result in permanent increases in ambient noise levels, e.g., where a roadway segment is proposed to be expanded with additional travel lanes over the long-term to achieve level of service standards. Roadway noise could also increase on an existing roadway that will carry increasing traffic volumes. In either set of circumstances, roadway noise levels could increase to beyond the levels considered acceptable for the adjacent land uses. This issue is addressed under Impact 4.12.AS. The proposed Land Use Element Amendment would accommodate development of additional commercial, residential, and mixed-use development in specific focus areas where land use changes would apply. This could result in an increased number of residents registering noise complaints from neighboring uses. Intermittent or temporary neighborhood noise from amplified music, public address systems, barking dogs, landscape maintenance, and stand-by power generators are disturbing to residents but are difficult to attenuate and control. The City's Noise Control section of the Zoning Code includes Section 13.283 which pertains to loud, unnecessary noise. The Section states "it shall be unlawful for any person to willfully make or continue, or cause to be made or continued, any loud, unnecessary and unusual noise which disturbs the peace# or quiet of any neighborhood or which causes discomfort or annoyance to any reasonable person of normal sensitiveness residing in the area, regardless of whether the noise level exceeds the standards specified in Section 13-280." Exterior noise standards and Section 13-281, Interior. Ainoise standards". Continued enforcement of the Zoning Code would reduce potential nuisance noise impacts. As such, impact is less than significant. 4.12-16 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment Noise 4.12 The proposed project would allow for additional development of industrial, IMPACT commercial, residential, and mixed-use development that may result in 4.12.D increased temporary or intermittent noise impacts. Those impacts would be less than significant with the continued implementation of the City's Municipal Code and the proposed General Plan Amendment policies. Demolition and Construction Noise Over the long term, the General Plan will facilitate the completion of various construction projects at numerous places throughout the City. These projects can occur in any zoned area, including residential, commercial/office, industrial, and mixed-use area. It is unknown when and where specific construction may occur, and therefore, potential impacts for the proposed General Plan Amendment can only be addressed in a qualitative manner. Construction activities would generate a variety of noise levels associated with different kinds of construction equipment and the location of staging, construction, storage and access routes. Grading, paving, landscaping and building construction processes involve equipment and vehicles that are known to produce intrusive levels of noise. This will result in temporary increase in local noise levels near the active construction sites that could adversely affect neighboring land uses, particularly those where sensitive receptors are located. Construction activity generates noise that potentially has a short-term impact on ambient noise levels butand can reach high levels that have the potential to impact nearby sensitive land uses. Future construction projects within the city will be subject to the City'srules of the Nnoise Oordinance. The construction noise impacts to a particular neighborhood are dependent upon a number of factors specific to the project. Some of the factors include proximity to sensitive land uses, time of day, intervening barriers, level of construction (e.g., number and type of construction equipment that is operating simultaneously), and the duration of the project's construction phase. Worst-case examples of construction noise at 50 feet are presented in Table 4.12-5 (Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels). The peak noise level for most of the equipment that would be used during construction is in the range of 70 to 95 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. Noise levels for each doubling of distance will be 6 dBA less. For example, at 200 feet, the peak construction noise levels range from 58 to 83 dBA. Environmental Impact Report 4.12-17 Noise 4.12 Table 4.12-5 Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels A, -Weighted Sou n level (d RA) At 50 Feet Equipment 60 70 so 90 100 110 LEG END �T 11 N� Source: Mestre Greve Associates 4.12-18 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment T LEG END �T 11 N� Source: Mestre Greve Associates 4.12-18 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment Noise 4.12 According to Section 13-279 (Exceptions for Construction) of the City of Costa Mesa Municipal Code, operation of construction equipment, vehicles, or construction work is exempt between the hours of 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM on Mondays through Fridays and between 9:00 AM and 6:00 PM on Saturdays provided that all required permits have been obtained from the appropriate City departments. Potential construction noise will be assessed in conjunction with the City's review of site-specific noise impact analyses. Although construction activity is exempt according to Section 13-279 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code, noise levels at sensitive receptors should be analyzed on a case-by-case basis and appropriate mitigation should be applied to bring noise levels down to acceptable levels. Compliance with Chapter XIII of the City's Noise Ordinance (Noise Control) will ensure that construction noise impacts will be less than significant. IMPACT 4.12.E 4.12.E The proposed project would not expose new residents or people working within two miles of any public air4port nor private airport to excessive noise levels associated with air traffic. Portions of the City of Costa Mesa are located within the John Wayne Airport land use plan area (OC 2008). Overflights to and from the airport are audible within portions of the city. The airport is located along the northeastern boundary of the city. A large industrial area, located between SR 55 and the airport; is adjacent to the airport within Costa Mesa. According to the noise contour map for JWA, the ultimate 65 dBA CNEL noise contour for the airport encroaches into the City of Costa Mesa; tg4dd e , approximately 100 dwelling units are located within the 65 dBA CNEL noise impact area south of the runway. in addition, approximate! However, the planned land use in the encroachment area is industrial; this is not considered a sensitive land use for the 65 dBA airport noise area. The General Plan Amendment would not change land uses in areas susceptible to a 65 dBA or greater noise levels associated with JWA. Furthermore, as discussed above the JWA has one of the most stringent aircraft access and noise monitoring programs in the United States and the world. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose new residents or people workers within two miles of an airport to excessive noise levels associated with air traffic. Impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required. Environmental Impact Report 4.12-19 Noise 4.12 References Federal Highway Administration. 2011. Highway Traffic Noise: Analysis and Abatement Guidance. (FHQA-HEP-10-025). Original June 2010 and revised December 2011. California Governor's Office of Planning and Research. General Plan Guidelines. 2003 U.S. Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Assessment. FTA -VA- 90-1003-06. Washington, DC. May 2006. City of Costa Mesa. 2006. Zoning Code, Chapter XIII. Noise Control. Ordinance 06-9, Revised April 2006. Caltrans. 2004. Transportation and Construction Induced Vibration Manual and Technical Advisory 04-01-R0201(Transportation Related Earthborne Vibrations). Noise Quest. 2015. Information on sources of noise. (http://www.noisequest.psu.edu/sourcesofnoise-overview.html). Accessed December 17, 2015 Caltrans. 2002. Transportation Related Earthborne Vibrations Technical Advisory (TAV-02-01- R9601). February 20, 2002 Jones & Stokes. 2004. Transportation- and construction -induced vibration guidance manual. June. (J&S 02-039.) Sacramento, CA. Prepared for California Department of Transportation, Noise, Vibration, and Hazardous Waste Management Office, Sacramento, CA. Orange County, 2015. John Wayne Airport., About the John Wayne Airport (http://www.ocair.com/aboutjwa/). Accessed December 17, 2015 Orange County Airport Land Uses Commission, 2008. Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport and Environs. Amended April 17, 2008. California Department of Transportation. Basics of Highway Noise: Technical Noise Supplement. November 2009 , 2009-. I and Use Ran for johR Wayne AirpO4 and Cnivirnnc Amended April 17 2008 4.12-20 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment Noise 4.12 Environmental Impact Report 4.12-21 Noise 4.12 This page intentionally left blank. 4.12-22 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment Population and Housinq 4.13 This section examines population and housing growth impacts associated with implementation of the General Plan Amendments. Population and household estimates and projections for the City were obtained from the California Department of Finance (DOF) and SCAG. In response to the Notice of Preparation and EIR scoping meeting, several comments were received regarding population and housing. The Costa Mesa Affordable Housing Coalition requested that loss of existing housing units for lower-income residents be addressed in the EIR. The Kennedy Commission had similar comments related to the loss of existing housing units for low-income residents. Several residents also submitted comments related to housing, including whether the 2015 to 2035 General Plan (also referred to as the General Plan Amendments) might result in the replacement of less dense housing with multi -family housing. The former issue is addressed in this section in the context of population growth and the displacement of persons from existing housing units. The latter comment is addressed in this section and within Table 4-13.1, which illustrates that the General Plan Amendments will not replace low-density housing with high-density housing. Existing Conditions Population The U.S. Census reported the population of Costa Mesa at 112,174 in 2013 (three-year American Community Survey). According to DOF estimates, the City of Costa Mesa has an estimated population of 113,455 as of January 1, 2015. This DOF figure represents a 1.45 percent increase compared to the 2008 population of 111,835. The City's SOI contains approximately 209 acres, with an estimated current population of 614 (SCAG 2012). SCAG's 2012-2035 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) forecasts Costa Mesa's population to increase to 113,700 in 2020 and 114,000 in 2035. SCAG's estimates are based on prior data that do not reflect the more refined counts reported by DOF. Housing According to the DOF, the City of Costa Mesa had approximately 42,600 housing units as of January 1, 2015.1 This number represents a 1.12 percent increase compared to the 2010 estimate of 42,120 housing units. Of the 42,600 dwelling units in the City, 55% are high-density units, 33% are low-density units, 10% are medium -density units, and 2% comprise age -qualified housing. Although there are more high-density units, the low-density category (primarily single-family residences) comprise the housing type with the largest land coverage in the City. Additionally, there are 376 housing units in the City's sphere of influence (LAFCO 2010). Employment According to SCAG's adopted 2012-2035 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), Costa Mesa had an estimated employment base of 94,200 in 2008 (SCAG 2012) and according to City sources, an estimated 87,278 jobs in 2015 (Costa Mesa Economic Development Department). The 2012-2035 RTP forecasts Costa Mesa's employment base to be to 88,300 in 2020 and 88,800 in 2035. City sources project 104,425 jobs in 2030. The discrepancies between City and SCAG data and projections can be attributed to differing data sources. 1 It is noted that DOF's housing unit figures do not classify or include motel units as housing units. Environmental Impact Report 4.13-1 4.13 Population and Housing Planning and Regulatory Framework Housing Element 2013-2021 The Costa Mesa Housing Element for the 2013-2021 period was adopted in 2014 and subject to its own CEQA review at that time, and in 2014 was certified by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). The Housing Element goals/policies/programs are part of the regulatory framework under which the impacts of the General Plan Amendments are being analyzed, but those goals/policies/programs are not being analyzed as part of this DEIR. State Housing Element Law requires that a local jurisdiction accommodate a share of the region's projected housing needs for the planning period. This share, called the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), is important because State law mandates that local jurisdictions provide sufficient land to accommodate a variety of housing opportunities for all economic segments of the community. Compliance with this requirement is measured by the local jurisdiction's ability to provide adequate land to accommodate the RHNA. As noted, the City's 2013-2021 Housing Element was certified by HCD in 2014 as being in compliance with State law, including provision of adequate sites and programs to meet the City's RHNA for all income categories. The following goals and policies of the Housing Element address the availability of affordable housing and meeting specialized housing needs in the City. GOAL HOU-1: PRESERVATION AND ENHANCEMENT It is the goal of the City of Costa Mesa to preserve the availability of existing housing opportunities and to conserve as well as enhance the quality of existing dwelling units and residential neighborhoods. Policy HOU-1.6 Continue existing rehabilitation loan and grant programs for low- and moderate -income homeowners as long as funds are available. Policy HOU-1.7 Minimize the displacement of existing residences due to public projects. Policy HOU-1.8 Encourage the development of housing that fulfills specialized needs. GOAL HOU-2: PRESERVING AND EXPANDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES It is the goal of the City of Costa Mesa to provide a range of housing choices for all social and economic segments of the community, including housing for persons with special needs. This goal can be achieved by implementing the following policies: Policy HOU-2.2 Promote the use of State density bonus provisions to encourage the development of affordable housing for lower and moderate income households, as well as senior housing. Policy HOU-2.3 Provide incentive bonus units to encourage the redevelopment of residential units that are nonconforming in terms of density. The incentive shall be limited to the multi -family residential land use designations. The density incentive shall be limited to an increase of 25 percent above Medium -Density or an increase of 50 percent above High -Density. In no case shall the resulting number of units exceed the existing number of units on each site Policy HOU-2.4 Encourage developers to employ innovative or alternative construction methods to reduce housing costs and increase housing supply. 4.13-2 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment Population and Housing 4.13 Policy HOU-2.5 Continue membership in the Orange County Housing Authority to provide rental assistance to very low income households. Policy HOU-2.6 Provide clear rules, policies, and procedures, for reasonable accommodation in order to promote equal access to housing. Policies and procedures should be ministerial and include but not be limited to identifyingwho ho may request a reasonable accommodation (i.e., persons with disabilities, family -members, landlords, etc.), timeframes for decision-making, and provision for relief from the various land -use, zoning, or building regulations that may constrain the housing for persons of disabilities. Policy HOU-2.7 Monitor the implementation of the City's ordinances, codes, policies, and procedures to ensure they comply with the "reasonable accommodation" for disabled provisions and all fair housing laws. Housing Element and Land Use Law California law, in Government Code Sections 65580-65589.9, establishes regulations for the required contents of the General Plan Housing Element. Specifically, and on point here, Section 65583.2(c)(3) sets forth what is colloquially referred to as "default densities" for lower-income housing. For local jurisdictions in a metropolitan county, which Costa Mesa is considered, the default density is 30 units per acre (or more). As stated in the law, land use densities at 30 units per acre (or more) "shall be deemed appropriate to accommodate housing for lower income households." Provided a jurisdiction demonstrates that adequate zoning is in place at this default density to accommodate that jurisdiction's assigned fair share of lower-income housing, then that jurisdiction is compliant with this particular provision of Housing Element Law, i.e., zoning at densities of 30 units per acre or more are deemed appropriate to accommodate housing for lower income households. Separate from default densities described in the Housing Element Law, Government Code Sections 65915-65918 (State Density Bonus Law) set forth the requirements a local jurisdiction must follow when an owner or developer seeks a density bonus in consideration for providing a specified percentage of affordable housing. Cities have limited jurisdiction to deny applications by owners and developers seeking density bonuses under State Density Bonus Law. Thus, this State law mechanism is available in Costa Mesa to owners and developers that agree to integrate affordable housing units into a market -rate project utilizing the State Density Bonus Law; in addition, as described above, local jurisdictions are encouraged to exercise their police powers and through land use and zoning to establish default densities, which are deemed to accommodate housing for lower income households. The densities established by the City in the Residential Incentive Overlay zones under the General Plan Amendments will encourage and accommodate housing for lower income households. Relocation Law Both federal law and State relocation laws (California Relocation Assistance Law, Health and Safety Code Section 7260, et seq., and the HCD implementing regulations in Code of Regulations, Title 25, HCD, Division 1, Chapter 6, Section 6000, et seq. (CRAL), and the Federal Uniform Relocation and Real Property Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 4601, et seq., and the implementing regulations in 49 CFR Part 24, and in specific programs in 24 CFR Parts 42, 91, 92, and 570, including for example, the CDBG, HOME and other federal programs (URA) provide relief for persons displaced from their homes by public acquisitions, programs or projects funded all or in part by a public entity. The State CRAL and federal URA provisions do not apply in the event a private development project may cause the displacement of persons (or businesses). Environmental Impact Report 4.13-3 4.13 Population and Housing Thresholds of Significance The General Plan Amendments would result in a significant impact if they would: A. Induce substantial population growth in the 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 Impacts Draft Land Use Element Land Availability for Future Development Of the 8,032 nett acres in Costa Mesa, only 88 acres—or 1.1 percent—are either vacant or support agricultural production. The agricultural uses which currently take place on the Segerstrom Home Ranch and Sakioka Lot 2 properties are temporary; the lands are entitled for development under the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan. As a result, the majority of new development within the City will take the form of infill development, particularly on underutilized sites. The primary challenge for land use planning will be to determine the best use and development approach for remaining infill properties. Goals. Obiectives, and Policies Maintaining and enhancing the quality of life in Costa Mesa is the foundation of the General Plan. As part of the proposed General Plan Amendments, the City looks to focus future change within targeted growth areas. Some of these areas already have a mix of commercial, office, hotel, and residential uses, and are located along major arterials and roadways that will be enhanced with "Complete Streets" features, improved landscaping, and expanded public spaces (such as parks and plazas). Also, current City policies look to protect and enhance neighborhoods throughout Costa Mesa to ensure these largely residential areas continue to provide value to residents and the community as whole. Goals, objectives, and policies relevant to this section of the EIR are presented below. GOAL LU -1: A BALANCED COMMUNITY WITH A MIX OF LAND USES TO MEET RESIDENTS AND BUSINESSES NEEDS. 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. Policy LU -1.1 Provide for the development of a mix and balance of housing opportunities, commercial goods and services, and employment opportunities in consideration of the needs of the business and residential segments of the community. Policy LU -1.3 Strongly encourage the development of residential uses and owner -occupied housing (single-family detached residences, condominiums, townhouses) where feasible to improve the balance between rental and ownership housing opportunities. 2 Net acreage refers to acreage that does not include roads and public right-of-way. 4.13-4 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment Population and Housing 4.13 GOAL LU -2: PRESERVE AND PROTECT RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS Policy LU -2.6 Encourage increased private market investment in declining or deteriorating neighborhoods. GOAL LU -3: DEVELOPMENT THAT MAINTAINS NEIGHBORHOOD INTEGRITY AND CHARACTER Policy LU -3.5 Provide opportunities for the development of well-planned and designed projects which, through vertical or horizontal integration, provide for the development of compatible residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, or public uses within a single project or neighborhood. Policy LU -3.6 Facilitate revitalization of aging commercial centers by working with property owners, developers, local businesses, and other community organizations to coordinate efforts. Policy LU -3.7 Promote development/design flexibility that encourages older or poorly maintained high-density residential uses to be rehabilitated. GOAL LU -5: ADEQUATE COMMUNITY SERVICES, TRANSPORTATATION SYSTEMS, AND INFRASTRUCTURE TO MEET GROWTH Policy LU -5.7 Encourage new development that is organized around compact, walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods and districts to conserve open space resources, minimize infrastructure costs, and reduce reliance on the automobile. GOAL LU -6: ECONOMICALLY VIABLE AND PRODUCTIVE LAND USES THAT INCREASE THE CITY'S TAX BASE Policy LU -6.5 Encourage revitalization of existing, older commercial and industrial areas in the Westside with new mixed-use development consisting of ownership housing stock and live/work units. Policy LU -6.13 Encourage new development along major corridors that are pedestrian oriented and include a mixture of retail/service, residential, and office uses. Policy LU -6.19 Provide flexibility and support for development er—of residential, office, small retail centers, and similar uses that would serve local residents and would also benefit from the high visibility along major corridors outside of significant commercial or industrial nodes. GOAL LU -8: PROMOTE A RANGE OF MULITIPLE USES AT THE FAIRVIEW DEVELOPMENTAL CENTER SITE Policy LU -8.1 In anticipation of the potential closure or repurposing of the Fairview Development Center site, the City will work with appropriate State agencies or private entity (if the property is sold) to plan for a complementary mix of low -scale residential, institutional, public facilities, open spaces, and recreational uses within a campus setting. Environmental Impact Report 4.13-5 4.13 Population and Housing Land Use Changes that Affect Housing and Population The proposed amended Land Use Plan, per the proposed General Plan Amendments, could increase the number of housing units in the City of Costa Mesa by 4,040 dwelling units (Table 4-13.1). This would be in addition to 5,261 units that are already designated for development in areas outside the focus areas (for a total of 9,271 units). hese units would be added within the following land use designations: Fairview Developmental Center (Multi -Use Center), Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Overlay, Residential Incentive Overlay (applied along Harbor Boulevard and Newport Boulevard), and SoBECA Overlay and Urban Plan Area. Based on an average number of 2.743 persons per unit, this level of new residential development could accommodate 11,078 new residents by the year 2035. As indicated in Table 4-13.1, 200 units would be in the medium -density category (15 du/acre and greater) and 3,840 units would be in the high-density category (20 du/acre and greater). All but 978 would be at densities assumed to be able to accommodate affordable housing (30 du/ac and greater). Table 4-13.1 Capacity for New Housing within Focus Areas Area Existing Residential Land Use ProposedFocus Use 300 residential units at 25 ... Fairview Developmental Public Development Center +300 residential units at 25 Center 300 beds du/ac and 200 at 15 du/ac. du/ac and +200 at 15 Open Space du/ac. Public/Institutional Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use 13 dwelling units existing at 491 residential units at 20 +478 dwelling units at Overlay* varying densities du/acre 20/du acre General Commercial Residential Incentive Overlay: Harbor Boulevard 84 residences existing at 1,063 residential units at 40 +979 dwelling units at 40 va in densities du/acre du/ac Newport Boulevard 237 residences existing at 1,210 residential units at 40 +973 residential units at 40 va in densities du/ac du/ac GAMmernial Residential High Density Residential Segerstrom Home Ranch Commercial Center, no None 0 Site residential; Currently in a riculture Los Angeles Times Site Light Industrial, no residential None 0 Sakioka Lot 2 Site Urban Center Commercial, No 660 residential units, 80 +660 residential units at 80 residential du/acre du/ac (no change in Currently in agriculture previously allowed unit cap of 660 units for Sakioka Lot 2 SoBECA Overlay** General Commercial/Light 450 residential units at 40 +450 residential units at 40 Industrial du/ac du/ac No residences existing Total Residential Potentially +4,040 total (200 units at Added medium density and 3,840 units at high density) 200 units at 15 du/ac 478 units at 20 du/ac 300 units at 25 du/ac 2,402 units at 40 du/ac 3 Demographic Research Unit, California Department of Finance. Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, January 1, 2011-2015, with 2010 U.S. Census Benchmark. 4.13-6 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment Population and Housing 4.13 Table 4-13.1 for New Housing within Focus Areas 1 660 units at 80 du/ac 'General Plan land use overlay that allows a maximum residential density of 20 dwelling units per acre. Mixed-use projects that do not include residential components can be developed at a 1.00 FAR. Mixed-use projects with both residential and commercial components can be developed at 1.25 FAR. **General Plan land use overlay that allows a maximum of 450 units. Individual residential projects cannot exceed 40 du/ac. The General Plan Amendments would not directly or indirectly replace low-density housing with multi -family housing. Table 4-13.1 shows that no areas within the City currently zoned for low-density housing would be affected by the General Plan Amendments. IMPACT Implementation of the proposed General Plan Amendments would not induce substantial 4.13. A population growth, either directly or indirectly. Impacts would be less than significant. Induced population growth may result in impacts if a project induces growth in an area not otherwise planned for growth, or in an area that cannot adequately accommodate such growth. Growth may be induced directly by proposing new residential uses, or indirectly, by proposing new roadways, other infrastructure or employment opportunities. Population growth is complex and caused by the interplay of myriad factors, including immigration, employment and economic opportunities, births, deaths, and other influences. The General Plan Amendments would not directly induce population growth because they do not authorize a specific construction project, development plan, or other land - altering activity. Neither would the General Plan Amendments designate formerly undeveloped lands needing major infrastructure expansions (water, sewer, wastewater) for development. Instead, the General Plan Amendments have been drafted to: 1) accommodate anticipated growth in existing developed areas that are adequately served by infrastructure, 2) revive underutilized parcels and uses, and 3) preserve and enhance residential opportunities and options within the City. The proposed amended Land Use Element establishes an overall development capacity for the City and serves as a policy guide for determining the appropriate physical development and character of the approximately 15.87 square miles that make up the City's jurisdiction proper and the additional area located within the City's sphere of influence. The development capacity of the proposed Land Use Plan is estimated at 51,894 dwelling units to house approximately 131,960 residents, and to support approximately 11.0 million square feet of office space, 13.2 million square feet of commercial space, and 13.1 million square feet of industrial space (Table 3.0-1, Existing Developed and Proposed Build -Out Summary and Figure 3.0-3, Draft Land Use Plan). Although the projected population at proposed General Plan buildout is 131,690 residents (21,166 over the existing population), only about 11,000 of the new residents would be attributable to the General Plan Amendments. The projected buildout population is what can be accomplished within existing urban areas that already support urban infrastructure. None of this would be accommodated on undeveloped land that requires the expansion of urban infrastructure. Additionally, should population growth be less than what the buildout can accommodate (i.e., in accordance with the SCAG projections), then residential development would also be less. Projected buildout population is just that, a projection; actual development and population growth in the City will be based on market conditions. Currently, only approximately 7088 acres of land are undeveloped and could support new development, and these acres (on the Sakioka Lot 2 and Segerstrom Home Ranch sites) are already designated for development under the existing North Costa Mesa Specific Plan. Residential land uses are not permitted on the Segerstrom Home Ranch site Environmental Impact Report 4.13-7 4.13 Population and Housing per the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan. For the Sakioka Lot 2 site, no change in the existing development capacity of 660 units is proposed. The land use designation proposed for the Los Angeles Times site would not accommodate residential uses. With regard to the proposed Residential Incentive Overlay and Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Overlay, the City's intent is to provide flexibility to property owners to either retain current commercial or residential uses or to redevelop sites over time with new residential housing at densities specified in the implementing overlay zone. Sites proposed for the Residential Incentive Overlay are targeted at locations along Harbor Boulevard and Newport Boulevard to take advantage of transit routes and proximity to goods and services. In the case of Newport Boulevard, residential uses are currently allowed. The proposed maximum density of 40 units per acre for the Residential Incentive Overlay might induce modest growth, but only as can be accommodated by existing infrastructure and as market forces would allow. Similarly, with regard to proposed changes within the SoBECA Overlay and Urban Plan area, residential uses are currently allowed. The proposed amendment affecting the SoBECA area would increase allowable residential densities to 40 units per acre (currently at 20 units per acre) but would cap the ultimate unit yield at 450 units. For the Multi -Use Center or Development Center aiNiew site, the proposed General Plan Amendments would allow for residential development at the time, if at all, that the State of California Department of General Services elects to repurpose the site. The proposed land use policy to allow up to 500 units at varying densities indicates the City's intent to accommodate a diversity of housing types in the event the State seeks to redevelop the property in the future. Since the Fairview property is State owned, the City's land use designation is only advisory. City land use regulatory authority would apply only in the event the State elects to repurpose the property for uses not associated with State responsibilities and functions. Due to the focused nature of the proposed General Plan Amendments on existing urban developed land, the fact that growth caps are proposed for both the Fairview Developmental Center property and the SoBECA area, and the fact that no infrastructure improvements are needed or proposed for the areas where new residential development would occur, the proposed project would not induce substantial population growth. IMPACT The General Plan Amendments do not propose policies that would result in the 4.13. B displacement of substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. The impact would be less than significant. The General Plan Amendments would not result in the direct displacement or demolition of residential structures because the Amendments do not authorize a specific construction project, development plan, or other land -altering activity. The proposed changes to the Land Use Element could result in indirect impacts by establishing land use policies that provide incentives for private redevelopment initiatives on specified lots or for mixed-use development ^r S PPEA GOMMeFnial u6e6 For example, the Residential Incentive Overlay could encourage the conversion of existing commercial uses on Harbor Boulevard and Newport Boulevard to housing. The Residential Incentive Overlay is proposed to be applied to groups of properties at nodes along major arterials—Harbor and Newport Boulevards—that are public transportation corridors and that have ready access to goods and services for residents. The Residential Inventive Overlay is intended to incentivize transit -oriented residential development at or above densities capable of providing for affordable housing, and on specified properties. The Residential Incentive Overlay zoning will establish densities that accommodate development of housing for low-income persons, as encouraged under the State Housing Element Law as discussed above. 4.13-8 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment Population and Housing 4.13 Included within the Residential Incentive Overlay areas are properties that support a range of commercial uses, including motels. While motels are not considered permanent housing, some owners have used their motels to provide de facto long-term occupancies, with some motel units occupied by extremely low-, very low-, and low-income persons. Application of the Residential Incentive Overlay and implementing zoning may result in property owners choosing to pursue private redevelopment of existing commercial or residential uses within the transit -oriented nodes, which as to commercial motel uses would cause the long-term motel occupants to move. However, because any specific property redevelopment would occur in the future, the specific number of persons using that particular motel for long-term occupancy is not known at this time. The type of residential development that would replace existing commercial uses, including motels, is also unknown, but could include new commercial uses, including hotel or motel uses, or new residential development that includes affordable housing which, based on the densities, could accommodate and encourage development of housing for low-income persons. Further, the assumption that existing commercial uses, including existing motels, within the transit -oriented nodes would be displaced if owners avail the Residential Incentive Overlay is speculative because: motels provide an important resource for tourists, 2}and-they can be lucrative, especially in a coastal environment, and 3) aro often operated by owners who treat motel management as a way of 4fe. Nonetheless, in the event persons are displaced from motels in the future due to a specific private redevelopment of existing commercial or residential sites within the transit -oriented nodes, there will be opportunities for those persons to find housing in Costa Mesa due to the fact that there will be more multifamily units than exist today (even accounting for the owners' using motels for long-term occupancy), and there will be greater opportunities for residents to rent or own decent, safe, and sanitary housing in more modern housing units than are currently available on these commercial motel sites. As noted above, a density of 30 units per acre is considered sufficient to accommodate, and encourage, construction of housing for lower-income households. Thus, any private redevelopment initiatives involving the reuse of existing commercial uses, including motels, at which persons may have been in occupancy long-term would result in a substantial increase in capacity for new housing at densities capable of accommodating and providing both market - rate and affordable housing within these Residential Incentive Overlay areas. In addition, in other areas of the City, General Plan policies would allow a maximum permitted density of up 80 units per acre (Sakioka Lot 2). Thus, the City would have zoning in place to accommodate housing for lower-income households. Thereby, an overall loss of housing would not occur, and any potential displacement would be offset by the construction of greater numbers of housing and the accommodation of affordable housing throughout different areas of the City. If persons who had occupied motel rooms move as a result of the reuse and redevelopment of the property and who are unable to find or afford decent, safe, and sanitary housing within the City, or in the event of any temporary move - out from the motel property, a number of agencies in Costa Mesa provide shelters and services for the homeless and persons at risk of becoming homeless (CM 2014). These include: ■ HOPE Institute (YWCA of Central Orange County) ■ Human Options ■ Mental Health Activities Center ■ Orange Coast Interfaith Shelter ■ Serving People in Need (SPIN) ■ Share Our Selves (SOS) Emergency Services ■ Someone Cares Soup Kitchen Through the annual Community Development Block Grant allocation process, the City provides funding to agencies that serve various special needs groups in the City. Since this impact threshold focuses on whether or not the project itself is "displacing substantial numbers of housing," the potential loss of "motel units" does not meet the threshold criteria because "substantial" and "housing" can only be Environmental Impact Report 4.13-9 4.13 Population and Housing applied in a speculative manner. Further, the impact threshold of "necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere" is not met by the project because the City is already providing housing opportunities to meet the future needs of the City and region, none of which is necessitated by the loss of residential structures in the Residential Incentive Overlay areas (refer to Table 4-13.1 above). The actual displacement of people using motels for long-term occupancy, or de facto housing, is speculative because the project is the designation of a land use category overlay only; it would not directly result in the loss of motels that currently support long-term occupants. Further the City has designated land for the development of high-density housing that accommodates and encourages development of housing for low-income persons under the State Housing Element Law. As such, there would be no significant impact related to the reduction of substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. IMPACT The General Plan Amendments do not propose policies that would result in the 4.13. C displacement of substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. The impact would be less than significant. The General Plan Amendments would not result in any direct displacement of substantial numbers of people because they do not authorize any construction or redevelopment activity that would displace people. While the General Plan Amendments would establish "Residential Overlay" districts that could displace housing that supports extremely low-, very low-, or low-income people, as discussed in 4.13. B above, the impacts are less than significant because: 1) the General Plan Amendments would not directly cause the displacement of people, 2) the likelihood that motels being used as housing would be removed is speculative, and 3) the potential for a "substantial number of people" being displaced is speculative. Further, even if such units were displaced, the City has designated land for the development of high-density housing that accommodates and encourages development of housing for low-income persons. The intended purpose of the Residential Incentive Overlay is to encourage additional high-density housing development along multimodal and mixed-use arterials, thereby providing future affordable housing opportunities at densities of 30 dwelling units or more pursuant to State Housing Element law. As such, there would be no significant impact related to the reduction of substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Further, the City has designated land for the development of high-density housing that accommodates and encourages development of housing for low-income persons. The intended purpose of the Residential Incentive Overlay is to encourage additional high-density housing development along multimodal and mixed-use arterials. As such, there would be no significant impact related to the displacement of substantial numbers of persons, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required since no impacts would result. 4.13-10 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment Population and Housing 4.13 References California Government Code, Section 65583.2 (Residential land inventory; definitions; inventory elements; suitability for regional housing needs; densities). City of Costa Mesa, 2014. General Plan Housing Element. Orange County Local Agency Formation Commission. 2010.2010 Islands Strategy Handbook, Islands Map. Southern California Association of Government, 2012. 2012-2035 Regional Transportation Plan: Sustainable Communities Strategy, April 2012. Environmental Impact Report 4.13-11 4.13 Population and Housing This page intentionally left blank. 4.13-12 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment Public Services 4.14 This section analyzes potential impacts associated with the provision of new or expanded public service facilities in response to long-term growth guided by the General Plan Amendments. Public services examined are fire protection and emergency services, police protection, schools, and libraries. Parks are discussed in Section 4.15, Recreation. No comments pertaining to public services were submitted during circulation of the Notice of Preparation. Existing Conditions Fire Protection and Emergency Services Costa Mesa Fire & RescueFiFe DepartmoRt The City of Costa Mesa Fire Department is responsible for fire prevention, enforcement of fire protection laws and ordinances, fire suppression, emergency medical services, hazardous materials response, and weed abatement [CM Fire Department].' These services are considered essential and are continually reviewed and updated as part of the City's annual budgeting process. Fire protection incorporates all elements of the community, the private sector, community agencies, and the Fire Department. In addition to providing response services, the Fire Department practices fire prevention and emergency preparation through use of built-in fire protection such as early warning and detection systems, automatic fire sprinklers, fire resistive design of structures and materials, fire prevention inspections, and public education. Modern cities have been successful in attracting and keeping business and industry by maintaining low, base fire insurance rates. These rates are set by Insurance Services Office (ISO) Commercial Risk Services, Inc., and are on a scale of one to ten, with protection class one affording the best rates. Ratings are based essentially on the capability of the Fire Department to deliver needed quantities of water to building fires in a timely fashion. Factors considered in the rating include: required fire flow for buildings; available water supplies; fire station locations; fire equipment and personnel; fire inspection programs; firefighter training programs; and fire communications systems. Costa Mesa has achieved and maintains a protection class two, which affords residents and business owners excellent base fire insurance rates. To maintain this high rating, the City must maintain a high level of fire protection and prevention as building densities increase and vacant land is developed. This is accomplished by continual monitoring of existing conditions, review of all building projects and planning for additional fire protection facilities, equipment, personnel, and training to meet future needs. The Costa Mesa Fire Department is staffed by 78 sworn 4uniformed personnel, including the fire chief, battalion chiefs, fire captains, engineers, and firefighter/paramedics. All firefighters on the Costa Mesa Fire Department, in addition to their fire suppression and prevention duties, are trained and equipped to provide emergency medical care. Some firefighters, designated as firefighter -emergency medical technicians, are capable of providing basic life support level care. Other firefighters, designated as firefighter -mobile intensive care paramedics, are capable of providing advanced life support level care. The Costa Mesa Fire Department responded to over 11,599 calls in 2014 from six stations throughout the community. Fire and police station locations, as well as parks and schools, are mapped on Exhibit 4.14-1 (Public Services Map). Table 4.14-1 (Fire Station Locations) lists the six Costa Mesa Fire Department Stations and their address. Environmental Impact Report 4.14-1 4.14 Public Services Fountain , w Va I I ey - N a W Segersirom Ave W �ersuom Ave Kaye Ad 1 W AnrH, Are wurHcn�si m W IaacArthw &rd ';OU uiuIF( CO s r W Sunflower Avc ss n S R. S Caass Dr Mecry Pointe al South Coast ANi1 N a ■■ n Anion 106 W ~ N •ti/ baker $1 A x 73 ■ John Wayne Airport ?. i► Ad+4A a E Adams A x ArlRion ori - Y OC Fair S Evens Censer A a Cosia Mesa Gall Course ss it ,N Pa.r Do 73 c f!P . x ■• W W &On S)l W Wilson S1 a Vic loxia Si 'lam S l r Oak 51 m v eWP� 2� Sr Ute ` �4i'Sr 1 Pie a ' i N�� igth St■ 1 W ay`� Pae, an 'eOsta Mesa yec` ■�` $� . Ff d� c' W 17th Si S� py h � P ¢ r D r.T.P d 1 a &g Cam - � Qo ;ewp rt ea co gle �$ a Balboa say 14'.:Or I c3 ■ Fire Station ■ - Police Station rt FKt - Library ■ - School „ 0 1,0011 x01111 4,0110 s.000 a.om hiipllwwwrugcnm.can•951-W-9277 Exhibit 4.14-1 Public Services Map ® Hogle-Ireland Costa Mesa General Plan Update Costa Mesa, Caiftrnia Figure 4.14-1 Public Services Map 4.14-2 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendments Public Services 4.14 Table 4.14-1 Fire Station Locations Orange County Fire Authority Costa Mesa and surrounding jurisdictions are located in the Orange County Fire Authority's Operations Division 2, Battalion 5 [OCFA).2 Operations Division 2 serves the cities/communities of Emerald Bay, Irvine, John Wayne Airport, and the University of California, Irvine. Division 2 includes nine stations. The nearest stations to the planning area are Station 28 located at 17862 Gillette Avenue in Irvine and Station 33 located at 374 Paularino in Costa Mesa. Station 28 is located in an industrial area of Irvine and is staffed by three captains, three engineers, and three firefighters. Station 28 is equipped with one engine. Station 33 is located at John Wayne Airport and is staffed by three captains, six engineers, and nine firefighters. Station 33 specializes in airport crashes and includes four crash apparatus, a foam trailer, and a crane. Police Protection Costa Mesa Police Department The 15.8 square miles that make up the City of Costa Mesa is served by the Costa Mesa Police Department. The Police Department headquarters is in the City's civic center located at 99 Fair Drive. Approximately 17896 headquartered staff includes patrol officers, detectives, traffic officers, and administrative personnel. T -wTwo police substations serve the planning area, they are located at 567 West 18th Street, 2803 Royal Palm Drive, and at South Coast Plaza. Costa Mesa is staffed by 112 actual with 130 funded sworn officers and 66 non -sworn support staff, equating to a ratio of 1.0049 sworn officers for every 1,000 residents (based on a population of 110,332). The Costa Mesa Police Department consists of twoh�ee Department Divisions, including the Admini6tFation Division, the Field Operations Division, and the Support Services Division [C0PD].3 The Department responded to an average of 274 violent crimes and 3,583 property crimes between 2009 and 2015 [COPD].4 Orange County Sheriff The Orange County Sheriff Department's North Operations Division serves the unincorporated portions of the planning area from the Sheriff's Headquarters in Santa Ana. The North Operations Patrol Division provides law enforcement services for the 72,212 residents of unincorporated Orange County. These unincorporated areas, known as "County islands," are located adjacent to the cities of Anaheim, Costa Mesa, La Habra, Brea, Garden Grove, Newport Beach, Orange, Santa Ana, Tustin, and Placentia. Also included are the communities of Midway City, Emerald Bay, Rossmoor, and Silverado Canyon. The Sheriff also contracts to the City of Villa Park. North Patrol deputies respond to over 40,000 calls for service each year [0CSCD].5 Environmental Impact Report 4.14-3 Royal Palm Station AddressStation 2803 Royal Palm Drive Baker Station 800 Baker Street Park Station 1865 Park Avenue Placentia Station 2300 Placentia Avenue Civic Center Station 2450 Vanguard Way Metro Station 3350 Sakioka Drive Source: City of Costa Mesa Orange County Fire Authority Costa Mesa and surrounding jurisdictions are located in the Orange County Fire Authority's Operations Division 2, Battalion 5 [OCFA).2 Operations Division 2 serves the cities/communities of Emerald Bay, Irvine, John Wayne Airport, and the University of California, Irvine. Division 2 includes nine stations. The nearest stations to the planning area are Station 28 located at 17862 Gillette Avenue in Irvine and Station 33 located at 374 Paularino in Costa Mesa. Station 28 is located in an industrial area of Irvine and is staffed by three captains, three engineers, and three firefighters. Station 28 is equipped with one engine. Station 33 is located at John Wayne Airport and is staffed by three captains, six engineers, and nine firefighters. Station 33 specializes in airport crashes and includes four crash apparatus, a foam trailer, and a crane. Police Protection Costa Mesa Police Department The 15.8 square miles that make up the City of Costa Mesa is served by the Costa Mesa Police Department. The Police Department headquarters is in the City's civic center located at 99 Fair Drive. Approximately 17896 headquartered staff includes patrol officers, detectives, traffic officers, and administrative personnel. T -wTwo police substations serve the planning area, they are located at 567 West 18th Street, 2803 Royal Palm Drive, and at South Coast Plaza. Costa Mesa is staffed by 112 actual with 130 funded sworn officers and 66 non -sworn support staff, equating to a ratio of 1.0049 sworn officers for every 1,000 residents (based on a population of 110,332). The Costa Mesa Police Department consists of twoh�ee Department Divisions, including the Admini6tFation Division, the Field Operations Division, and the Support Services Division [C0PD].3 The Department responded to an average of 274 violent crimes and 3,583 property crimes between 2009 and 2015 [COPD].4 Orange County Sheriff The Orange County Sheriff Department's North Operations Division serves the unincorporated portions of the planning area from the Sheriff's Headquarters in Santa Ana. The North Operations Patrol Division provides law enforcement services for the 72,212 residents of unincorporated Orange County. These unincorporated areas, known as "County islands," are located adjacent to the cities of Anaheim, Costa Mesa, La Habra, Brea, Garden Grove, Newport Beach, Orange, Santa Ana, Tustin, and Placentia. Also included are the communities of Midway City, Emerald Bay, Rossmoor, and Silverado Canyon. The Sheriff also contracts to the City of Villa Park. North Patrol deputies respond to over 40,000 calls for service each year [0CSCD].5 Environmental Impact Report 4.14-3 4.14 Public Services Schools Newport Mesa Unified School District The planning area is located entirely within the Newport Mesa Unified School District (NMUSD). NMUSD covers 58.83 square miles and serves the cities of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa. NMUSD includes 22 elementary schools, two intermediate schools, two middle schools, two high schools, three alternative schools, an adult education program, and 13 preschools [NMUSD].6 NMUSD has a current enrollment of 21,800 students. School facilities serving the planning area are summarized in Table 4.14-2 (School Enrollment in the Planning Area). Enrollment figures indicate that Rogers, Grant, Alice Birney, and Lincoln Elementary Schools, Colton Middle School, and Colton High School exceeded capacity during the 2009-2010 school year (the latest year for which data were readily available from NMUSD). Table 4.14-2 Costa Mesa School Enrollment Libraries Three public libraries, operated by the County of Orange, are located within the planning area. The Mesa Verde Branch Library is located at 2969 Mesa Verde Drive, the Costa Mesa/Donald Dungan Library is located at 1855 Park Avenue, and the Costa Mesa Technology Library is located at 2263 Fairview Road.' The Mesa Verde Branch Library is 7,100 square feet in size, the Donald Dungan Library is approximately 10,500 square feet in size, and the Costa Mesa Technology Library is approximately 2,800 square feet in size. These facilities serve approximately 55,000 borrowers annually and house over 68,000 items in circulation. 4.14-4 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendments School.. Elementary Schools Adams 2850 Clubhouse Rd 422 California 3232 California Ave. 417 College Park 2380 Notre Dame Dr. 567 Davis Magnet School 1050 Arlington Dr. 569 Kaiser 2130 Santa Ana Ave. 705 Kill brooke 3155 Kill brooke Ln. 401 Paularino 1060 Paularino Ave. 438 Pomona 2051 Pomona Ave. 509 Everett A. Rea 661 Hamilton St. 490 Sonora 966 Sonora Rd. 498 Victoria 1025 Victoria St. 364 Whittier 1800 Whittier Ave. 718 Wilson 801 Wilson St. 483 Woodland 2025 Garden Ln. 542 Middle Schools Costa Mesa 2650 Fairview Ave. 647 TeWinkle 3224 California St. 644 High Schools Costa Mesa 2650 Fairview Ave. 1,154 Early College 2990 Mesa Verde Dr. 257 Estancia 2323 Placentia Ave. 1,157 Alternative Schools Back Bay High School 390 Monte Vista Dr. 176 Monte Vista High School 390 Monte Vista Dr. 155 Source: Ed -Data 2015, NMUSD 2015 Libraries Three public libraries, operated by the County of Orange, are located within the planning area. The Mesa Verde Branch Library is located at 2969 Mesa Verde Drive, the Costa Mesa/Donald Dungan Library is located at 1855 Park Avenue, and the Costa Mesa Technology Library is located at 2263 Fairview Road.' The Mesa Verde Branch Library is 7,100 square feet in size, the Donald Dungan Library is approximately 10,500 square feet in size, and the Costa Mesa Technology Library is approximately 2,800 square feet in size. These facilities serve approximately 55,000 borrowers annually and house over 68,000 items in circulation. 4.14-4 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendments Public Services 4.14 Planning and Regulatory Framework Insurance Services Office (ISO) The ISO provides rating and statistical information for the insurance industry in the United States. The ISO evaluates a community's fire protection needs and services and assigns each community a Public Protection Classification (PPC) rating. Insurance rates are based upon the community's rating. For planning purposes, the ISO recommends that developed portions of a community should have a first -due engine company within 1.5 miles and a ladder -service company within 2.5 miles. National Fire Protection Association The National Fire Protection Association recommends that fire departments respond to fire calls within six minutes of receiving the request for assistance 90 percent of the time. These time recommendations are based on the demands created by a structural fire. Response time is generally defined as one minute to receive and dispatch the call, one minute to prepare to respond in the fire station or field, and four minutes (or less) of travel time. Leroy F. Green School Facilities Act California Government Code Section 65995 (The Leroy F. Green School Facilities Act of 1998) sets base limits and additional provisions for school districts to levy development impact fees and to help fund expanded facilities to house new pupils that may be generated by new development. Sections 65996(a) and (b) state that such fees collected by school districts provide full and complete school facilities mitigation under CEQA. These fees may be adjusted by school districts over time as conditions change. Costa Mesa Municipal Code The City of Costa Mesa collects Development Impact Fees (DIF) for proposed projects to offset incremental increases in service demand on civic center, fire, library, parks, police, and transportation facilities. Environmental Impact Report 4.14-5 4.14 Public Services The Quimby Act (Government Code Section 66477) The Quimby Act (Government Code Section 66477), enacted in 1975, created a framework that allows cities and counties to provide parks for growing communities. The Quimby Act authorizes jurisdictions to adopt ordinances that require parkland dedication or payment of in -lieu fees as a condition of approval of residential subdivisions. The Quimby Act also specifies acceptable uses and expenditures of such funds, such as allowing developers to set aside land, donate conservation easements, or pay direct fees for park improvements. The City of Costa Mesa has adopted a local ordinance implementing the provisions of the Quimby Act. For new residential subdivisions, the ordinance requires dedication of land, payment of fees in -lieu of parkland dedication, or a combination thereof at a rate of three?? acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. The City also collects parkland fees as part of its DIF program to fund the acquisition and/or improvement of parkland. This funding may not be used for ongoing operational funding since it is intended to provide for additional parkland to offset impacts associated with new development (otheF than resides+ al bd 4�. These parkland impact fees are applicable to presidential apartments. and non_ residential developments Thresholds of Significance A significant impact could occur if the General Plan Update would 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 Impacts The proposed General Plan Amendments could accommodate up to 9,271 new dwelling units, up to 21,166 more residents, and up to 5.6million square feet of new non-residential development relative to existing developed conditions. Opportunities for medium -density residential development would be provided in the Harbor Boulevard and Newport Boulevard Residential Incentive Overlay and SoBECA focus areas. Opportunities for high-density residential development would be provided %r --in the SegeF om and Sakioka Lot 2 focus areas, although the proposed Amendments would not increase the development yield currently allowed, just the density for individual development projects. Opportunities for new mixed-use residential development would be provided in the Multi Use Center.afrview QveFlay fOGUs aFea. Opportunities for mixed-use residential and commercial development would be provided in the Residential Incentive Overlay Harbor Blvd. and Newport Blvd. Mixed Use Overlay fee area Future office commercial development would be provided in the Los Angeles Times focus area. Impacts related to the expansion of fire protection facilities to maintain applicable service IMPACT standards would be less than significant with implementation of existing General Plan 4.14 A and Municipal Code policies and requirements. Based on the ISO recommendation that all development be within 1.5 miles of a fire station equipped with a fire engine, the majority of the planning area lies within the first -response range of an engine -equipped station that includes all six 4.14-6 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendments Public Services 4.14 current Costa Mesa Fire Department stations. No portion of any of the identified focus areas is farther than 1.5 miles away from any of the City's six stations. Adoption of the proposed General Plan Amendments would not directly create the need for any new or expanded facilities because the project does not authorize any particular development project or construction activities. While build out of the proposed General Plan would create incremental increases in population and demand on fire services, the proposed Safety Element Policy includes the following policies to address long-term needs: Policy S -2.D: Provide a high level of police and fire service in the community. Secure adequate facilities, equipment, and personnel for police and fire. Policy S -2.E: Consult with neighboring jurisdiction and partner agencies to respond appropriately to emergencies and incidents in all parts of the City. Policy S-21: Require that water supply systems for development are adequate to combat structural fires. Policy S -2.G: Require development to contribute its fair share towards funding the provision of appropriate fire and emergency medical services as determined necessary to adequately serve the project. Policy S -2.J: Maintain staff and facilities that will continue to support a coordinated and effective response to emergencies and natural disasters throughout the City. Policy S -2.K: Consult with neighboring jurisdictions, local employers, and industries to ensure that emergency preparedness and disaster response programs equitably serve all parts of the City. Policy S-21: Continue to maintain adequate police and fire staffing, facilities, equipment, and maintenance in order to protect the community. Through the annual budgeting process, the City determines how to implement these policies based on community needs and available resources. In particular, S -2.G requires that development contribute its fair share towards funding the provision of appropriate fire and emergency medical services. These fair share contributions would incrementally fund expansion or construction of new facilities as growth is accommodated in the City. With continued implementation of these policies and review of individual development projects with regard to emergency service needs, impact would be less than significant. A key component of fire protection is adequate fire flow at local hydrants. Local water mains and hydrants may need to be upgraded and/or replaced over the long-term to ensure adequate fire flow to existing and future development. Proposed Safety Element Policy S-245 requires that water supply systems for development be adequate to combat structural fires. If a fire facility is to be expanded or constructed as a result of buildout of the proposed General Plan, the fire facility would undergo a development review process and be subject to environmental review pursuant to CEQA. That environmental review would identify site-specific conditions and physical changes resulting from fire station expansion, construction of new fire stations, or trenching needed for fire flow and water supply. Mitigation would be identified, as necessary, to reduce impacts related to fire and emergency service facilities expansion or new construction, as mandated by CEQA and implemented by the City through its review procedures. Impacts related to the expansion and new construction of fire protection and emergency service facilities would be less than significant with implementation of General Plan policies and environmental review standards. Environmental Impact Report 4.14-7 4.14 Public Services Impacts related to the expansion of police protection facilities to maintain applicable IMPACT service standards would be less than significant with implementation of General Plan 4.14. 1113 policies and Municipal Code requirements. The Costa Mesa Police Department currently has a service ratio of 1.0048 officers per 1,000 residents, based on a current population of 110,524. With an estimated build -out population of 131,690 and assuming this ratio is maintained, a total of 160 sworn officers would be needed to meet the long-term service needs of the planning area, an increase of three officers. The officer -to -resident ratios is just one standard that can be used to measure Department performance; other sources include crime statistics, response times, number and basis of citizen complaints, and employee performance evaluations. Future residential growth generally would be accommodated in the identified focus areas. Ensuring that police protection and emergency services are adequate to serve the community over time can be achieved through the hiring of sworn officers and support personnel, purchasing new and replacement equipment, and constructing new or expanded facilities. At this time, the Police Department has not identified the need for any new or expanded facilities to meet service needs in the planning area.9 Adoption of the proposed General Plan Amendments would not directly create the need for any new or expanded facilities because the project does not authorize any particular development project or construction activities. However, build out of the proposed General Plan would create incremental increases in population and demand for police services. Policy S -24-.A of the proposed General Plan Safety Element emphasizes the provision of a high level of response to incidents Objectively S-24-.0 emphasizes timely response to incidents. Policy S -1.D requires the securing of adequate facilities, equipment, and personnel to maintain a high level of police protection services. Collection of planning and development fees, as well as fair share contributions from development, will incrementally fund expansion or construction of new facilities as growth occurs pursuant to the proposed amended General Plan policies. An analysis of the impacts associated with a possible police protection facility expansion or construction is too speculative at this time because the facility's size, design, and location are not known. Section 15145 states that if a particular impact is too speculative, then its discussion should be terminated. If a police protection facility is to be expanded or constructed, the police facility would be subject to a development review process and environmental review pursuant to CEQA. Environmental review would identify site-specific conditions and physical changes resulting from police station expansion and construction of new stations. Typical impacts would likely include short-term construction activities related to air quality pollutant emissions, temporary traffic detours, and equipment noise. Mitigation would be identified, as necessary, to reduce impacts related to police service facilities expansion or new construction, as mandated by CEQA and implemented by the City through its local environmental review procedures. Impacts related to the expansion and new construction of police protection facilities would be less than significant with implementation of General Plan policies and environmental review standards. IMPACT Impacts related to the expansion of school facilities to maintain applicable service 4.14.0 standards would be less than significant with implementation of existing State New housing would be constructed over the long term as population growth occurs pursuant to amended land use policy. New homes would be occupied by a variety of households, including those with school -aged children. According to the proposed General Plan Land Use Element, build out of the planning area is anticipated to increase the number of elementary, middle, and high school students by 1,090. NMUSD monitors growth in the planning area and updates its facilities plans as needed to identify new facilities' needs, including locations, timing, and funding for expanded or new classrooms and related facilities. NMUSD will continue to 4.14-8 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendments Public Services 4.14 collect development impact fees as provided for in State law to fund expanded facilities. Moreover, all new non- residential development would be required to pay appropriate impact fees established by the NMUSD Board. Pursuant to State law, collection of fees by school districts is sufficient in mitigating for any potential impacts to school facilities resulting from long-term growth in the community. Any required expansion of construction of school facilities would be subject to environmental review pursuant to State law and CEQA. Environmental review would identify site-specific conditions and physical changes resulting from school expansion and construction of new fire stations. Typical impacts associated with new and modernized schools includes short-term construction activities related to air quality pollutant emissions, temporary traffic detours, changes in traffic distribution, and noise. Impacts related to the expansion and new construction of school facilities would be less than significant with implementation of existing State law. Impacts related to the expansion and construction of parks to maintain applicable service IMPACT standards would be less than significant with implementation of General Plan policies 4.14. 113 and Municipal Code requirements. As of 2015, approximately 3.66 acres of parkland existed in Costa Mesa for every 1,000 residents. However, the City's goal is to attain and maintain a park standard of 4.26 acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents. Pursuant to State law (State Government Code Section 66477), the City may collect up to 3.0 acres of parkland or in -lieu fees from new residential subdivisions for every 1,000 residents. Accordingly, the City adopted a Local Park Ordinance to implement its park and recreational land dedication requirements (Article 5 — Park and Recreation Dedications). Also, in August of 2015, the City Council adopted an ordinance authorizing collection of a $5,000 per unit impact fee for all other residential projects (not involving a land division). Other methods for supplementing the City's park system include encouraging the development of private open space and recreational amenities (beyond public park requirements) within large residential projects, and pursuing the joint use (or ultimate use) of utility district lands, such as those owned by County of Orange Flood Control District, for parks and open space. The City of Costa Mesa currently does not meet its goal of providing 4.26 acres of parkland per 1,000 persons. Parks provide a number of benefits including places to gather, opportunities for exercise and play, and an increased community aesthetic. Failure to provide adequate parkland reduces these benefits and lowers service levels and quality. Additionally, lack of adequate parkland may result in increased use of regional parks and surrounding City parks, thereby lowering the service standard of those parks (see Cumulative Impacts for further discussion). Impacts associated with the expansion or construction of parkland facilities may involve air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, noise, and traffic due to short-term construction activities and permanent physical changes to underdeveloped and developed lands. The Open Space and Recreation Element includes proposals for the acquisition, maintenance, and financing of parkland and open space. These would be implemented by the City primarily through collection of Quimby fees, the new parks fee, and requirements for other public open spaces in commercial development projects. Impacts related to the physical impacts associated with use of existing recreation facilities is addressed in Section 4.15 (Recreation). As of 2015, the City had an estimated population of 110,524 residents. Based on the City's park standard goal of 4.26 acres for every 1,000 persons, approximately 471 acres of parkland are required to meet the City's goal. Assuming a build -out population of 131,690 residents, 561 acres would need to be acquired to achieve the goal. Over the long term, as the City acquires and develops parkland, localized environmental impacts are likely to occur depending on the conditions and location of the sites involved. Identification and mitigation of potentially significant impacts would occur as part of the City's routine planning and design process for development projects and environmental review pursuant to CEQA. Environmental Impact Report 4.14-9 4.14 Public Services The proposed amended General Plan designates 1,925 acres as Open Space and Recreation throughout the community, of which 1,155 acres are designated as Open Space -Recreation on existing parkland. Additionally, Institutional uses including schools, colleges, public facilities, the Civic Center, the Santa Ana River right-of-way, the Fairview Development Center and other public/institutional uses comprise approximately 763 acres of Open Space for recreation purposes. Costa Mesa is largely built out, with vacant parcels scattered throughout the City and equaling only about 20 acres. Given the paucity of vacant land within the planning area, it could be reasonably assumed that acquisition and provision of an additional 561 acres of parkland would not feasible. However, this impact is not considered significant since the possible inability of the City to meet its goal would not result in any direct or indirect environmental impact. Impacts related to the expansion and construction of libraries to maintain applicable IMPACT service standards would be less than significant with implementation of existing 4.14.E Municipal Code requirements. Long-term growth in the planning area pursuant to the General Plan Amendments would require incremental library facility expansion or improvement to meet community needs. A facility needs assessment was prepared for the Costa Mesa Public Library system that concluded a new 20,000 -square -foot building (which would increase items in the collection from 68,000 to 95,000 items) would be required to meet the long-term demands of the service area. -4 Currently, a new library facility is being designed to replace the existing Donald Dungan Library.tepAa yeo �� the Dungan Library, whiGh would be GORStFUGted as part of the n8W GOMMURity GGnter (replaGing fadlities at th8iF GUrrent lecafien} The County collects fees to support incremental expansion of library services commensurate with development proposals. Any new or expanded library facilities would be subject to environmental review pursuant to CEQA to identify any potentially significant environmental impacts and, if necessary, identify appropriate mitigation. Typical impacts would likely include short-term construction activities related to air quality pollutant emissions, temporary traffic detours, changes in traffic distribution, and noise. Impacts related to the expansion or construction of library facilities will be less than significant with implementation of existing regulations. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required since no impacts would result. 4.14-10 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendments Public Services 4.14 References City of Costa Mesa. City Council Agenda Report, November 17, 2015. http://www. costa mesaca.gov/ftp/council/agenda/2015/2015-11-17/NB-1.pdf [Accessed December 16, 2015]. City of Costa Mesa. City Website: Libraries. http://www.costamesaca.gov/index.aspx?paqe=602 [Accessed December 15, 20125]. City of Costa Mesa. Fire Department. http://www.costamesaca.gov/index.aspx?page=81 [Accessed December 13, 2015]. City of Costa Mesa. General Plan. Safety Element. 2002. City of Costa Mesa. Police Department Website. http://www.costamesaca.gov/index.aspx?page=302 [Accessed December 14, 2015]. City of Costa Mesa. Police Department Website: Crime Statistics (Compiled through October 2015). http://www.costamesaca.gov/index.aspx?paqe=382 [Accessed December 15, 2015]. Electronic Correspondence. Lieutenant Brian Glass. Costa Mesa Police Department. December 21, 2015. Newport -Mesa Unified School District. Facts at a Glance. http://web.nmusd.us/factsata Iq ance [June 1, 2015]. Orange County Fire Authority www.ocfa.org/Menu/Departments/Operations/OperationsServiceMap.aspx [Accessed December 13, 2015]. Orange County Sheriff -Coroner's Department: North Operations http://ocsd.org/divisions/fieldops/north [December 15, 2015]. Environmental Impact Report 4.14-11 4.14 Public Services This page intentionally left blank. 4.14-12 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendments Recreation 4.15 This section examines whether implementation of the General Plan Amendments could result in substantial adverse environmental impacts due to the need for new or expanded parkland in order to meet the service objectives of the City. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife submitted a comment recommending that the City's Parks and Open Space Element address balancing restored habitat with creating new authorized access or trail creation in the Fairview Park. This comment is addressed under the Planning and Regulatory Framework, Costa Mesa General Plan, Open Space Recreation Policies OSR-3.H through 3.J. Members of the public submitted comments asking that more parks be developed on the City's west side. This46 issue is addressed under Impact 4.15.A. Existing Conditions Recreation opportunities in Costa Mesa include a diversity of facilities ranging from highly developed, active recreation sites to low -activity, passive open spaces. Recreational facilities within the City include neighborhood and community parks, community centers, regional recreation parks with hiking trails, golf courses (public and private), schools and colleges with fields and indoor recreation facilities, and bikeways. These recreation places are shown on the draft Land Use Plan included in Section 3.0 (Project Description). While it is recognized that not all institutional uses are readily available for public recreational uses, this inventory is considerable and offers many benefits to the residents of the community. The following sections provide detailed descriptions of the various components of the community's open space and recreation facilities. The existing network of open space and recreational facilities, as well as their size and percentage of the total, is inventoried in Table 4.15-1 (Open Space and Recreation Inventory) (CM 2015). Table 4.15-1 Open -Space and Recreation Inventory Parkland/Community Center Inventory The backbone of the local open space and recreation network is the neighborhood and community park system, making up 21 percent of total open space/recreation in the planning area. These community amenities provide significant opportunities for active recreation, social services, and recreation programs. Currently, the City has 30 neighborhood and community park facilities, which includes community centers located at Balearic Park, Lions Park, and the Costa Mesa Civic Center. These parks range in size from 0.18 acres to 210 acres. The largest community park is 210 -acre Fairview Park, while the smallest park consists is 0.18 -acre Shalimar Pocket Park. Table 4.15-2 (Park/Community Center Facility Inventory) identifies the size of each park and recreation facility (CM 2015). Environmental Impact Report 4.15-1 Type of Facility Parks and Community Centers Acreage 415.19 Percent 21.6 Talbert Regional Nature Preserve 211.00 11.0 Institutional Uses 763.03 39.6 OC Fair & Event Center 150.04 7.8 Open Space Easements 6.19 0.3 Golf Courses? 379.70 19.7 Totals 1,925.15 100.0 Source: City of Costa Mesa GIS data, 2015. Notes: 1 Includes schools, colleges, public facilities, Civic Center, Santa Ana River right-of-way, Fairview Development _ Center, and other public and institutional uses. 2) Includes acres of golf courses within the City of Costa Mesa only. Acreages do not include Santa Ana Country Club and Newport Beach Golf Course. Parkland/Community Center Inventory The backbone of the local open space and recreation network is the neighborhood and community park system, making up 21 percent of total open space/recreation in the planning area. These community amenities provide significant opportunities for active recreation, social services, and recreation programs. Currently, the City has 30 neighborhood and community park facilities, which includes community centers located at Balearic Park, Lions Park, and the Costa Mesa Civic Center. These parks range in size from 0.18 acres to 210 acres. The largest community park is 210 -acre Fairview Park, while the smallest park consists is 0.18 -acre Shalimar Pocket Park. Table 4.15-2 (Park/Community Center Facility Inventory) identifies the size of each park and recreation facility (CM 2015). Environmental Impact Report 4.15-1 4.15 Recreation Regional Recreation Facilities The County -owned Talbert Regional Nature Preserve includes 211 acres (approximately 11 percent of the total inventory) of passive open space located in the southwest corner of the City along the Santa Ana river lowlands. Combined, today Canyon Park, Fairview Park, and Talbert Regional Park provide a unique linkage of restored and enhanced natural environments totaling over 490 acres. Table 4.15-2 Park/Community Center Facility Inventory Another major regional open space feature available to Costa Mesa residents (but not included in the above inventory) is the 140 -acre Upper Newport Bay Nature Preserve, located east of the City limits along Irvine Avenue, south of University Drive. Components include the Peter and Mary Muth Interpretive Center, trails, and habitat stabilization and enhancement areas. The Friends of Harbors, Beaches and Parks (FHBP), a non-profit, charitable California corporation organized in 1997 to promote the protection, expansion and enhancement of regional recreation and open space facilities in Orange County, proposes the implementation of the Orange Coast River Park (OCRP). OCRP is envisioned as a coordinated mosaic of the publicly owned and future anticipated dedications of parks and open space along the Santa Ana River. These lands include: ■ Costa Mesa's Fairview Park ■ The County's Talbert Nature Preserve ■ The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers restored/U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service administered ecological reserve ■ Lands to be dedicated in conjunction with the entitlement of the Banning Ranch West development project ■ The former Pacific Coast Freeway lands declared surplus by Caltrans (between Superior and the West Newport Oil Company property) ■ The Huntington Beach Wetlands Conservancy parcel located between Brookhurst and Beach Boulevard Altogether, these lands comprise approximately 1,000 acres in the central Orange County coastal area, surrounded by a highly urbanized area with a general deficit of public parks and open space. 4.15-2 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment Name Balearic Park Acreage 10.06 Name Marina View Park Acreage 2.29 Brentwood Park 2.60 Ketchum-Libolt Park 0.34 Canyon Park 35.96 Mesa Verde Park 2.73 Civic Center 2.50 Moon Park 1.67 Community Gardens 1.22 Paularino Park 2.23 Del Mesa Park 2.47 Pinkley Park 2.57 Estancia Park 9.03 Shalimar Park 0.18 Fairview Park 210.04 Shiffer Park 7.09 Hammett Sperts Sesta Mesa Farm -Jack Hammett Sports Complex 18.50 Smallwood Park 3.39 Gisler Park 4.59 Suburbia Park 0.53 Harper Park 1.06 Tanager Park 7.41 Heller Park 2.61 Tewinkle Park 43.67 Jordan Park 2.48 Vista Park 5.92 Lindbergh Park 2.00 Wakeham Park 10.43 Lions Park 12.82 Wilson Park 3.61 Total 415.19 Another major regional open space feature available to Costa Mesa residents (but not included in the above inventory) is the 140 -acre Upper Newport Bay Nature Preserve, located east of the City limits along Irvine Avenue, south of University Drive. Components include the Peter and Mary Muth Interpretive Center, trails, and habitat stabilization and enhancement areas. The Friends of Harbors, Beaches and Parks (FHBP), a non-profit, charitable California corporation organized in 1997 to promote the protection, expansion and enhancement of regional recreation and open space facilities in Orange County, proposes the implementation of the Orange Coast River Park (OCRP). OCRP is envisioned as a coordinated mosaic of the publicly owned and future anticipated dedications of parks and open space along the Santa Ana River. These lands include: ■ Costa Mesa's Fairview Park ■ The County's Talbert Nature Preserve ■ The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers restored/U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service administered ecological reserve ■ Lands to be dedicated in conjunction with the entitlement of the Banning Ranch West development project ■ The former Pacific Coast Freeway lands declared surplus by Caltrans (between Superior and the West Newport Oil Company property) ■ The Huntington Beach Wetlands Conservancy parcel located between Brookhurst and Beach Boulevard Altogether, these lands comprise approximately 1,000 acres in the central Orange County coastal area, surrounded by a highly urbanized area with a general deficit of public parks and open space. 4.15-2 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment Recreation 4.15 Institutional Uses The inventory of institutional land uses is as varied as the entire open space and recreation inventory. Institutional uses include public and private school sites, the Orange County Fair and ExpesitioR Center OC Fair & Event Center, and Harbor Lawn - Mt. Olive Memorial Park and Mortuary rte. When the specific use (i.e., cemetery) or ownership (i.e., Vanguard University) precludes use of these sites for public recreation, they still provide the benefits of visual open space or relief from urban development patterns. This category is the largest component of the open space inventory, approximately 40 percent. Schools and colleges make up nearly three-fourths of the total inventory of institutional uses (506.52 596.10 acres). Because these facilities often provide local and community level recreation needs when not in use during school hours, they play a critical role in the citywide open space and recreation inventory. These facilities can augment those provided by the neighborhood and community system and can combine, through formal joint -use agreements, to meet the overall open space and recreation needs of the community. The Orange County Fairgrounds and Exposition GenterOC Fair & Event Center, Costa Mesa Civic Center, and the Harbor Lawn - Mt. Olive Memorial Park and Mortuary Gen*ery account for the remaining 468 187.32 acres of the inventory of institutional uses. Schools within the planning area that provide institutional recreation uses are listed in Table 4.15-3 (School Facility and Other Institutions Inventory). Table 4.15-3 School Facility and Other Institutions Inventory Name Acreage Name Acreage Public Schools Pomona Elementary School 7.47 Adams Elementary School 12.83 Rea Elementary School 13.71 Back Bay High School 6.89 Sonora Elementary School 10.00 California Elementary School 30.42 TeWinkle International School 30.00 College Park Elementary School 8.00 Victoria Elementary School 7.29 Costa Mesa High School 67.00 Whittier Elementary School 9.07 Davis Intermediate School 19.00 Wilson Elementary School 9.00 Estancia High School 53.59 Woodland Elementary School 9.00 Harper Elementary School 9.16 Colleges Woodland Elementary School 10.00 Kaiser Elementary School 18.00 Orange Coast College 6440 173.03 Killybrooke Elementary School 14.28 Vanguard University 47-.06 37.98 Lindbergh Elementary School 9.20 Other Mesa Verde School 10.00 Orange County Fairgrounds OC Fair & Event Center 7 150.04 Parsons School 10.00 Costa Mesa Civic Center 9.42 Paularino Elementary School 11.18 Harbor Lawn - Mt. Olive Memorial Park and Mortua 88-09 27.86 Total 6N-.20-783.42 Environmental Impact Report 4.15-3 4.15 Recreation Open Space Easements While comprising the smallest portion of the total open space inventory (0.3 percent), two existing open space easements provide significant open space benefits because of their location in the most densely developed section of the City. The 2.9 -acre easement within Town Center provides a grassy, park -like, open space feature which bisects the development in an east -west direction. The Lakes easement (3.29 acres) located in the Lakes Pavilions Shopping Center provides a more urban feel of hardscape and an open water element which unifies the individual components of this mixed use area (City of Costa Mesa Planning Commission 2015). Golf Courses Two golf courses within the City provide 20 percent of the total citywide open space inventory: the public Costa Mesa Golf and Country Club (240 acres) and the private Mesa Verde Country Club (139 acres). An additional 129 acres of private golf course area is provided by the Santa Ana Country Club, located outside of City limits but within the City's sphere of influence. Bikeways Although not included in the open space inventory, the City's bikeway network is a significant recreation facility. The network includes a series of local bike lanes, routes, and trails, as well as the regional Santa Ana River Bike Trail. The bikeway system provides access between a majority of the existing local open space and recreation sites and opportunities to access surrounding regional facilities, especially local beaches. Bikeways also offer opportunities for an alternate transportation mode for commuters. Park Standards — Level of Service Park standards determine the acres of parkland the City should develop and maintain based on population levels and objectives for recreation facilities. As on 2015, the City had a park standard of 3.66 acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents. However, the City's goal is to attain and maintain a park standard of 4.26 acres per 1,000 residents (CM 2015). In determining this standard, the City only considered community parks and community centers, which amount to 415 acres for a 2015 population of approximately 110,524. The goal represents 470 acres for the 2015 population. Thus, the City has a deficit of 66 acres. In early 2015, the City initiated a comprehensive update of its Parks and Recreation Master Plan to look critically at and plan for long-term park needs (CM DPR 2015). Planning and Regulatory Framework Quimby Act (Government Code Section 66477) The Quimby Act (Government Code Section 66477), enacted in 1975, created a framework that allows cities and counties to provide parks for growing communities. The Quimby Act authorizes jurisdictions to adopt ordinances that require parkland dedication or payment of in -lieu fees as a condition of approval of residential subdivisions. The Quimby Act also specifies acceptable uses and expenditures of such funds, such as allowing developers to set aside land, donate conservation easements, or pay direct fees for park improvements. The City of Costa Mesa has adopted a local ordinance implementing the provisions of the Quimby Act. The ordinance requires dedication of land, payment of fees in -lieu of parkland dedication, or a combination thereof at a rate of three acres of parkland per 1,000 residents for proposed residential subdivisions. The City aIS0 GGIIeGtS parkland fees as part of its Development ImpaGt Fee pregrarn to fund the aGquisitien and/o 0 mprevernent of parkland. This fYRding may Rot be used fGF GRgGiRg operational funding sinGe it is intended to provide 4.15-4 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment Recreation 4.15 State Public Park Preservation Act 1971 The Public Park Preservation Act of 1971 (California Public Resources Code, Sections 5400-5409) states that any jurisdiction acquiring parkland for non -park purposes shall either pay compensation that is sufficient to acquire substantially equivalent substitute parkland, or provide substitute parkland of comparable characteristics. Thresholds of Significance As identified in Appendix G of the Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA, the General Plan Amendments could result in a significant impact if the project: A. Increases 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. Includes recreational facilities or requires the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. Environmental Impacts Deterioration of existing parks and recreation facilities due to increased use would be IMPACT less than significant with implementation of policies of the Draft Open Space and Park 4.15.A Element. The increase in the resident population associated with long-term implementation of the General Plan and its land use policies could result in increased use of existing parks and recreation facilities if additional facilities are not added to the City's inventory. Substantial deterioration of existing facilities could occur if the level of usage intensifies significantly, the maintenance of affected facilities does not keep pace with intensified use, and no new park facilities are provided to meet increased demand. The draft Parks and Open Space Element includes the following policies regarding the acquisition of new parkland in Costa Mesa: GOAL OSR-1: BALANCED AND ACCESSIBLE SYSTEM OF PARKS AND OPEN SPACE. Provide a high-quality environment through the development of recreation resources and preservation of open space that meets the community demands in Costa Mesa. Objective OSR-1: Maintain and preserve existing parks and strive to provide additional parks, public spaces, and recreation facilities that meet the community's evolving needs. Adequate Neighborhood and Community Park Recreational Facilities Policy OSR-1.A: Maintain a system of Neighborhood and Community Parks that provide a variety of active and passive recreational opportunities throughout the City. Environmental Impact Report 4.15-5 4.15 Recreation Policy OSR-1.B: Provide parks and recreation facilities appropriate for the individual neighborhoods in which they are located and reflective of the needs and interests of the population they serve. Acquisition of New Parkland Policy OSR-1.C: Pursue the acquisition and development of pocket and neighborhood parks within park - deficient areas as identified in Figure OSR-3: Planning Areas and Underserved Park Areas.- Policy OSR-1.D: Prioritize the acquisition of land for parks in underserved neighborhoods. P015GY QSR 1.E: Develop a program to eRGOUrage private donations for open spaGe , Policy OSR-1.E: Maximize public space by requiring plazas and public gathering spaces in private developments that can serve multiple uses, including recreation and social needs. Policy OSR-1.GF: Provide maximum visibility and accessibility for future public parks by locating facilities in close proximity adjaEe44t to public streets. Policy OSR-14 4.G: Adjust and update development fee programs to accumulate funds for the acquisition and improvement of parks and recreation facilities that are commensurate with identified need and population growth. Park maintenance levels and any future park improvements to address deficiencies or expand recreational opportunities would be determined through the City's normal budgeting program, which varies year to year. The decision of when to fund new facilities and improvements will be guided by the new Parks Master Plan expeGted to dE)Re IR the spr „n of 2016 (CM DPR 2015). If adequate funding is not allocated for park maintenance or new parks are not constructed, deterioration of existing facilities has the potential to occur. However, given the City's record of commitment to park facilities maintenance and the considerable acreage of regional and institutional parkland nearby (Fairview Park and Talbert Regional Park, school playgrounds) that supplement City -owned parks, this potential impact is not considered significant. The current inventory of parks and community centers (415 acres) provide 3.66 acres of such parkland for every 1,000 residents (assuming a population of 110,524). The City's goal is to have 4.26 acres of parks and community centers for every 1,000 residents. At present, 66 acres of parkland are needed to meet the level of service goal. The build -out population is projected to be approximately 131,690; thus, 146 acres of new City -owned parkland would be needed to meet the level of service goal over the long term. The deficiency of parkland is notable in certain areas of the City, as shown in Figure OSR-2 (Park Accessibility). These areas are referred to as "Park Priority Areas" because parks are needed to serve residents in these areas. Two of the Overlays which are the subject of the General Plan Land Use Amendments are included in a Park Priority Area: Harbor Boulevard—Mixed Use Overlay and Harbor Boulevard—Residential Incentive Overlay. As indicated under Existing Conditions above, Costa Mesa currently is deficient in park and community centers relative to the goal of 4.26 acres per 1,000 residents, and this deficiency can be expected to continue with adoption of the General Plan Amendments. While residential development activity would generate funds for the development of new park facilities through Quimby fees, and all new development projects would require payment of Development Impact Fees (a portion of which would fund parkland acquisition and park maintenance), the degree to which these fees would 4.15-6 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment Recreation 4.15 actually result in new park facilities where they are needed is not known. To ensure that park -deficient areas are targeted for park development, the City has added Policy OSP- to the Open Space and Recreation Element as follows: Policy OSR-1.C: Pursue the acquisition and development of pocket and neighborhood parks within park - deficient areas, as identified in Figure OSR-3: Planning Areas and Underserved Park Areas. With inclusion of this policy, impact would be less than significant. Impacts related to the expansion and construction of recreational facilities would be less IMPACT than signfiicant since the General Plan Amendments do not specifcally provide for new 4.15.113 park facilities. The General Plan Amendments do not result in the direct construction or expansion of any recreational facility because the project does not authorize any specific land development activity. In addition, the Land Use Element does not specifically identify any location for the creation of new recreational facilities. As indicated above, Land Use Element and Open Space and Recreation Element policies indicate the City's intent to seek out opportunities to create new parklands. However, although the Open Space and Recreation Element identifies priority areas of new community parks, the proposed General Plan Land Use Map does not specifically identify locations for new parks or other recreational facilities. Thus, nO GonStFUGtien of park spaGe Will result diFeGtlY frorn General Plan implementation, and imnonf would be loos than oinnifinont.. Thus, an impact analysis related to the expansion and construction of specific recreation facilities cannot be made at the General Plan stage, and the impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required. Environmental Impact Report 4.15-7 4.15 Recreation References City of Costa Mesa Dept. of Parks and Recreation. 2015. Fairview Park Citizens Advisory Committee. On website http://www.costamesaca.gov/index.aspx?page=1619, accessed on December 10, 2015. City of Costa Mesa 2015 General Plan Update, Draft Open Space and Recreation Element, 2015. City of Costa Mesa Fairview Park Master Plan March 1998, Revised 2001, 2002, and 2008. City of Costa Mesa General Plan Land Use Map, July 2004. City of Costa Mesa Planning Commission. 2015. Planning Commission Agenda Report, August 10, 2015. 4.15-8 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment Transportation and Traffic 4.16 This section analyzes the potential impacts associated with long-term implementation of the General Plan Amendments. Baseline (20149) traffic conditions are described and compared to projected traffic conditions associated with build out pursuant to the Land Use Policy Map and planned and funded circulation improvements. The analysis also considers regional circulation facilities, air traffic, parking, roadway design, alternative transportation, and emergency access issues. The following discussion draws from City of Costa Mesa General Plan Circulation Element technical report prepared by Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. (Stantec) and the Orange County Congestion Management Program (CMP). The study prepared by Stantec is included in Appendix E. Comments were submitted by Caltrans and members of the public in response to circulation of the Notice of Preparation that raised concerns about increased traffic congestion and impacts on the freeways. These comments are addressed in the discussion throughout this Section. Study intersections and roadway segments are identified in Exhibit 4.16-1 exist;; ^ roadway system—(Existing Roadway SystemSt d oma, interso) and Exhibit 4.16-2 (Studied Roadway Segments). Existing Circulation System Circulation System The circulation system in Costa Mesa consists of a multi -modal system designed to accommodate motorized and non -motorized forms of transportation to meet a variety of mobility needs. The existing circulation system within the planning area is described below in terms of pedestrian, bicycle, rail, automobile, and airplane transportation modes. Roadways and Freeways The existing roadway system within the City, together with the number of lanes (midblock) on individual segments of the circulation system, are illustrated in Exhibit CIR-1, Existing Roadway System of the General Plan. Regional circulation facilities serving the City include the San Diego Freeway (1-405), which traverses east -west across the northern portion of the City; the Corona del Mar Freeway (SR -73), which begins at the San Diego Freeway between Fairview Road and Bear Street and extends southeast where it becomes the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor; and the Costa Mesa Freeway (SR -55), which enters at the northeast corner of the City and extends southwest before it terminates and transitions into Newport Boulevard south of 19th Street. The City's circulation system is greatly affected by the three freeways mentioned above. The San Diego Freeway carries the largest volume of traffic, which in 2014 varied from approximately 29244,000 vehicles per day just west of Bristol Avenue to over 399319,000 vehicles per day at Harbor Boulevard. The Costa Mesa Freeway carries approximately X5167,000 vehicles per day at its junction with the San Diego Freeway and about 39100,000 vehicles per day at its terminus just north of 19th Street. The Corona del Mar Freeway differs from the other two freeways in the City because it becomes a toll facility just east of the City limits. Because of this, it carries lower volumes of regional traffic than toll-free highways. Traffic volumes on the Corona del Mar Freeway in 2014-2014 were approximately 89191,000 vehicles per day at the 'unction with the Costa Mesa Freeway. North/south arterial facilities serving the central part of the City include Harbor Boulevard, Fairview Road, and Bristol Street. Each is a six -lane facility for the most part, currently carrying volumes ranging from 3928,000 to 754,000 vehicles per day in 2014.2 Other four -lane north/south facilities include Placentia Avenue in the west, Bear Street in Environmental Impact Report 4.16-1 4.16 Transportation and Traffic the north, and Irvine Avenue to the east, each currently carrying volumes ranging from 4-211,000 to 3328,000 vehicles per day. Six -lane facilities serving east/west travel include Sunflower Avenue east of Bear Street and Adams Avenue west of Fairview Road, currently carrying volumes ranging from 27-197,000 to 43393,000 vehicles per day in 2014.; r-espe"+� Several four -lane arterials also serve east/west traffic, including Baker Street, Fair Drive, Wilson Street, Victoria Street, west 19th Street, South Coast Drive, Sunflower Avenue (west of Bear Street) and 17th Street, each currently carrying daily volumes in the range of 4513,000 to 3531,000 vehicles per day in 2014. The City is bordered on the east and west by topographical features that limit the number of access points from areas outside the City. Running along the western City boundary is the Santa Ana River. Within Costa Mesa, the Santa Ana River currently has crossings only at Adams Avenue and Victoria Street. Besides 1-405, these two roadways represent the only locations where vehicles traveling through Costa Mesa can access the cities of Huntington Beach and Fountain Valley to the west using City streets. Just east of the City is the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Preserve that limits travel to the east. Vehicles traveling from Costa Mesa and the eastern portion of the City of Newport Beach must use either Pacific Coast Highway to the south or Bristol Street to the north to bypass the bay. The layout of the City's circulation system is most notable for its two differing grid patterns. Streets east of and including Newport Boulevard were constructed at approximately 45 -degree angles from the traditional north/south streets in north Orange County. This results in odd -angled intersections along Newport Boulevard, as well as high traffic volumes where north/south streets like Harbor Boulevard intersect with Newport Boulevard. Several major east/west arterials are interrupted by obstacles which prevent a continuous roadway from one end of the City to the other. Many streets east of Newport Boulevard do not align with their westerly extensions. For example, West 18th Street becomes Rochester Street upon crossing Newport Boulevard. Continuous east/west circulation is disrupted where Rochester Street ends just east of Orange Avenue. East 18th Street, which extends uninterrupted to Irvine Avenue, is located one block north of West 18th /Rochester Street. Adams Avenue and Baker Street provide other examples of the discontinuity in east/west travel. Adams Avenue transitions into a residential neighborhood east of Fairview Road, and Baker Street similarly terminates into the Mesa Verde residential area west of Harbor Boulevard. These configurations result in high turning -movement volumes between Baker Street and Adams Avenue on Harbor Boulevard and Fairview Road. Similarly, Fair Drive terminates at Harbor Boulevard, resulting in westbound traffic being forced to turn to access Adams Avenue, Wilson Street, or Victoria Street to continue traveling westbound. For northbound/southbound traffic in the northern portion of the City, 1-405 is an obstruction, with only four crossings between the Santa Ana River and SR -55. These crossings are at Harbor Boulevard, Fairview Road, Bear Street, and Bristol Street. The north/south arterials are also used by regional traffic traveling between Newport Beach to the south and northern cities such as Santa Ana. Non -Motorized Transportation Routes Bicycle Facilities Caltrans has developed statewide standards and definitions for the planning, design, and implementation of bicycle facilities. The following summarizes these standards. Class I (Bicycle Path) — A bicycle path is a special facility that is designed exclusively for the use of bicycles. They are physically separated from motor vehicle traffic by a physical barrier or landscaped area. Bicycle paths are more often used for recreation and are generally provided in Orange County along river channels and former railroad rights-of-way. 4.16-2 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendments Transportation and Traffic 4.16 Class II (Bicycle Lane) — A bicycle lane is a facility where a portion of the paved roadway area is marked as a special lane for use by bicycles only. It is identified by signage along the street that denotes "BIKE LANE," pavement markings, and lane line markings. Motor vehicles are prohibited from driving in bike lanes except when turning to and from driveways, intersections, or on -street parking. Class III (Bicycle Route) — A bicycle route is defined as a bicycle way designated within a public right-of-way. The purpose of the bicycle route is to encourage a sharing of the roadway between vehicles and bicycles. They are identified by signage along the street that denotes "BIKE ROUTE." No other pavement markings are employed with these facilities. Bicycle facilities within and near the City of Costa Mesa are primarily the Class I type (path/trail). A major area Class I facility, the Santa Ana River Trail, runs along the east bank of the river. Class IV (Cycle Track) — Class IV Bikeways, also known as cycle tracks, separated bikeways, or protected bikeways are similar to Class I facilities in that they feature a dedicated bicycle right-of-way. Rather than being independent from a street or highway, Class IV facilities are located inside the road right-of-way. Cyclists are typically separated from motor vehicles by a barrier such as a curb, delineator posts, parked cars, or median. There are no existing Class IV facilities in Costa Mesa. Regional Bicycle Facility Planning Oranae Countv Commuter Bikeways Strateaic Plan Developed in 2009 by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), the Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan serves as the long term planning document and bicycle master plan for all of Orange County. The plan provides a comprehensive blueprint of existing bikeways as well as proposed new facilities designed to enhance regional connectivity through the establishment of a network of bikeways and a more balanced transportation system. The Orange County Bikeways Strategic Plan proposed 12.65 miles of bikeway in addition to 43.34 miles of existing facility in the City of Costa Mesa (OCTA 2009). OCTA Districts 1 and 2 Bikeway Strategic Plan The OCTA Districts 1 and 2 Bikeway Strategic Plan represents a collaborative planning effort on the parts of OCTA, the County of Orange, Caltrans, and local cities such as Costa Mesa and its neighbors. The objectives of the strategic plan include building consensus amongst various agencies involved with regard to regional bike corridors, providing a set of tools to facilitate bikeway implementation, and positioning local jurisdictions for funding opportunities. Of the eleven regional bikeways proposed by strategic plan, 2 Corridors (B and K) would pass through Costa Mesa (Districts 1 and 2 Bikeway Strategy). Orange County Loop The Orange County (OC) Loop is a vision for 66 miles of seamless connections and an opportunity for people to bike, walk and connect to some of California's most scenic beaches and inland reaches. About 70% of the OC Loop is already in place and is used by thousands of people. It connects 17 cities, 200 parks and 180 schools in Orange County. Currently, nearly 46 miles use existing off-street trails along the San Gabriel River, Coyote Creek, Santa Ana River and the Coastal/Beach Trail. The OC Loop will provide direct access to Costa Mesa along the western edge, specifically via Santa Ana River Trail (OCTA 2016). Strategy to identify needs and opportunities fGF iFnPrGVeMGRt6 that enhaRGe non moterized transportation (walking efforts by OGTA and IGGal Gities to expand transportation GhGiGG8. The AGGessibility Strategy will serve as a refereRGe. fGF IOGal G4186 tG ip;pmve safety, addFesG existing baFFieFs and iRGFea6e the numbeF of MetFelink FideFs whe walk of Environmental Impact Report 4.16-3 4.16 Transportation and Traffic Pedestrian Circulation Pedestrian walking areas are an integral part of a city's circulation system. The connectivity of a sidewalk system, in terms of an overall network and links to neighboring major land uses, is a primary factor in pedestrian mobility. A sidewalk is an area of refuge from vehicle traffic that provides a safe route for pedestrian transport. The ", m Public Transit Public transportation in Costa Mesa, as defined here, consists of fixed route bus service and demand response service. This latter type of service is an advance reservation, shared ride transportation service for senior residents and disabled of any age and their attendants. Metrelink ore„ ides regional nnmm„ter rail seniine to the planning ^iron The nearest Metrolink station is located in Tustin to the east Public Bus Transit Service — Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) is the public transit agency serving Costa Mesa, operating fixed -route bus services throughout the planning area. OCTA is the only provider of public bus transportation within the City, with approximately eve --240 separate bus routes serving Costa Mesa. Railways Public Commuter Rail Service - Metrolink, the regional commuter rail service operated by the Southern California Regional Rail Authority, does not have direct service to Costa Mesa. Metrolink serves commute trips to downtown Los Angeles and Orange County from Ventura, Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Orange counties. The twG-Metrolink stations closest to Costa Mesa +sare the Tustin station at Edinger Avenue and Jamboree Road and the Santa Ana station on E. Santa Ana Boulevard. ore's the Santa Ona station on Santa Ana Boulevard and the Tustin station at VffiadUGt BE)ulevaFd and 2P4Ctreet This station ;sThese stations are located on the Orange County Line and provides access to the Inland Empire/Orange County Line, Ventura Line, and 91 Line Metrolink trains. The Orange County Line provides service to the west of San Bernardino, through the Pomona Valley and San Gabriel Valley, with a western terminus at Union Station in Los Angeles. The Inland Empire/Orange County Line provides service through Riverside, Colton, and Orange County, with a southern terminus in San Juan Capistrano. The 91 Line parallels the SR -91 freeway within the Inland Empire and also serves north Orange County and Fullerton, with its western terminus at Union Station in Los Angeles. Urban Rail - No urban rail facilities currently exist within the planning area, and there are currently no plans to construct and urban rail facilities at this time. Airports No aviation facilities exist within the planning area. However, scheduled air carrier services are provided at Orange County -Santa Ana -John Wayne Airport (SNA) located immediately adjacent to the City to the southeast. John Wayne 4.16-4 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendments Transportation and Traffic 4.16 is an international airport, with flights including those by charter, corporate, and general aviation users. In 20154, more than nine million passengers were served at the airport. Existing Traffic Conditions The traffic analysis report prepared for the project by Stantec analyzed existing traffic operating conditions for select roadway segments and intersections in the City of Costa Mesa.3 A set of performance criteria was utilized to determine existing and future operating levels of service (LOS) on the Costa Mesa roadway circulation system. Traffic LOS is designated "A" through "F," with LOS "A" representing free-flow conditions and LOS "F" representing severe traffic congestion. LOS is a qualitative approach to describing roadway performance based on the V/C ratio. The lower the ratio, the better the segment of roadway intersection performs, meaning freer -flowing traffic. Traffic congestion occurs as the number rises and approaches 1.0. Table 4.16-1 (Level of Service Descriptions — Urban Streets and Intersections) summarizes LOS descriptions for urban streets and intersections, as well as the V/C ranges that correspond to LOS "A" through "F" for arterial roads. The V/C ranges listed in the table are designated in the current Costa Mesa General Plan Circulation Element, as well as the Orange County Congestion Management Program (CMP). Table 4.16-1 Intersection Level of Service Descriptions — Urban Streets and Intersections Level of Volume/Capacity Service Description (V/C) Range LOS A describes primarily free-flow operations. Vehicles are completely unimpeded in their A ability to maneuver within the traffic stream. Control delay at the intersections is minimal. .00-.60 The travel speed exceeds 85% of the base free-flowspeed. LOS B describes reasonably unimpeded operation. The ability to maneuver within the traffic B stream is only slightly restricted, and control delay at the intersections is not significant. The .61 -.70 travel speed is between 67% and 85% of the base free-flow speed. LOS C describes stable operation. The ability to maneuver and change lanes at mid- C segment locations may be more restricted than at LOS B. Longer queues at the 71 80 intersections may contribute to lower travel speeds. The travel speed is between 50% and 67% of the base free-flowspeed. LOS D indicates a less stable condition in which small increases in flow may cause D substantial increases in delay and decreases in travel speed. This operation may be due to -.90 adverse signal progression, high volume, or inappropriate signal timing at the intersections. .81 The travelspeed is between 40% and 50% of the base free-flowspeed. LOS E is characterized by unstable operation and significant delay. Such operations may be E due to some combination of adverse progression, high volume, and inappropriate signal 91 —1.00 timing at the intersections. The travel speed is between 30% and 40% of the base free-flow speed. LOS F is characterized by flow at extremely low speed. Congestion is likely occurring at the F intersections, as indicated by high delay and extensive queuing. The travel speed is 30% or Above 1.00 less of the base free-flow speed. Source: Orange County CMP and the Highway Capacity Manual 2010, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council Environmental Impact Report 4.16-5 4.16 Transportation and Traffic The arterial roadway criteria involve the use of average daily traffic (ADT) V/C ratios based on the ADT roadway capacities listed in Table 4.16-2 (Arterial Roadway ADT Capacities). ADT capacities are designated for two categories of arterial roadways: standard arterials and augmented arterials. The augmented arterial designation applies to roadways in the City where enhancements that provide increased operating capacity are in place or are planned. Such enhancements include various types of implemented improvements such as additional lanes at intersections, traffic signal coordination, and other intelligent transportation system (ITS) technologies. Table 4.16-2 Arterial Roadway ADT Capacities Roadway Classification Major Arterials Lanes 10 Average i.t;apacity Standard Arterials (a) Augmented 93,000 Arterials (b) 112,000 8 75,000 90,000 6 56,000 68,000 4 c 37,000 45,000 3 c 28,000 34,000 2 c 19,000 23,000 Primary Arterial 4 38,000 45,000 Secondary Arterial 4 25,000 30,000 Divided Collector Arterial 2-4 22,000 Not Applicable Collector Arterial 2 12,500 Not Applicable Notes and Sources: (a) Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) (b) City of Costa Mesa Transportation Services Division c This designation applies to one-way Newport Boulevard adjacent to the SR -55 freeway. The ADT roadway capacities applied in the traffic study are considered planning -level capacities that are useful in identifying potential LOS deficiencies within a circulation system. However, the actual performance of an arterial roadway segment is more accurately determined by analyzing the peak -hour traffic conditions at the intersections along the roadway since roadway congestion typically occurs at the intersections. As such, an arterial roadway segment where the existing or future ADT volume exceeds the theoretical maximum ADT capacity is not considered to be a deficiency if the intersections along that roadway segment operate at acceptable levels of service during the peak A.M. and P.M. time periods based on the intersection performance criteria described below. The intersection performance criteria applied in the traffic study involve the use of peak hour intersection capacity utilization (ICU) values. The ICU calculation methodology adopted by the City of Costa Mesa applies a saturation flow rate of 1,700 vehicles per hour per intersection lane and a 0.05 clearance interval, which is consistent with the Orange County CMP. The ICU ranges that correspond to LOS "A" through "F" are the same as the V/C ranges shown in Table 4.16-1. LOS "D" (ICU not to exceed .90) is the performance standard for City of Costa Mesa intersections. The performance criteria utilized in the traffic study satisfies the current requirements of CEQA, and provides a realistic measure of arterial system performance. It is also used as a circulation system performance measure by Caltrans and by all local jurisdictions in Orange County, since it is a requirement of both the countywide Growth Management Plan and the CMP. Existing traffic conditions in the City were identified based on ADT counts collected for midblock arterial roadway segments and A.M. and P.M. peak -hour turn movement counts collected at intersections located in the City. The existing roadway circulation system in Costa Mesa is illustrated in Exhibit 4.16-1 (Existing Roadway System), together with existing midblock lanes and roadway designations on arterial roadways. The existing ADT volumes on the City's arterial roadway system are illustrated in Exhibit 4.16-2 (Existing ADT Volumes). 4.16-6 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendments Transportation and Traffic 4.16 Y N ... rim nua � oxo u iv rsw Santa Ana r L �L Y �� u.rurM,m _ 4P 4P• 4P 4P M Fl. 1 n -... .. ;T. [M ■ m 4P Iff/M-At L Huntington; Beach f r Y 1 _ca N IV % 2c�2c�is2s 1 vm Pacific Ocean ELM Hogle-Ireland W .U79 1 ] # ,e 5 as zs �y t _-_ % Newport Beach 4 Legend Xht Midblock lanes (X) 4 3 Newport and roadway type Back Bay (M= major arterial, P= primary arterial, 5= secondary arterial, C= collector arterial) u� Exhibit 4.16-1 Existing Roadway System Costa Mesa General Plan Update Costa Mesa, California Environmental Impact Report 4.16-7 4.16 Transportation and Traffic RI.aiCR ureR sr�u Santa Ana r � •� _ � :� � ry a, iso f' — r 23 ]2�` j1� 1024 vA r ti It 9 3$ 3TN29� t r IllR1! Huntington if� B63c,h i r M +—laxe`xa 3—r r ^+ 3 s A t% r ,pink i-- r • �'`� I I r. � f' 1r e�� � �� 1011111f 7711 1> t' 7 VIOL �-s—�r�s•,oj � v "t �s .". �= :•s ,�� Newport •, , Beach 'k + Newpof[ Back Bay VIC Pacific ocean kwac: star, ec Exhibit 4.16-2 Existing ADTVolumes 7�0 Hogle-Ireland Costa Mesa General Plan Update Costa Mesa, California 4.16-8 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendments Transportation and Traffic 4.16 Existing ADT and V/C ratios on the City's arterial roadway system are summarized in Table 4.16-3 (Existing ADT Volumes and V/C Ratios). As Table 4.16-3 indicates, the existing ADT volumes on each of the roadway segments that were analyzed are within theoretical maximum ADT capacity of each segment, with the exception of Wilson Street west of Harbor Boulevard and West 191h Street west of Placentia Avenue. However, these two locations are not considered to be actually deficient because, as is demonstrated below, the intersections analyzed along those roadway segments currently operate at acceptable levels of service during the A.M. and P.M. peak hours. Table 4.16-3 Existing ADT Volumes and VIC Ratios Roadway Adams w/o Placentia RoadwayLanes and Type 6M -A Capacity 68,000 39,000 .57 Adams e/o Placentia 6M -A 68,000 38,000 .56 Adams e/o Mesa Verde E. 6M -A 68,000 38,000 .56 Adams w/o Harbor 6M -A 68,000 37,000 .54 Adams e/o Harbor 6M -A 68,000 29,000 .43 Adams w/o Fairview 5M -A 57,000 26,000 .46 Anaheim s/o 19th 2C 12,500 5,000 .40 Anaheim n/o Superior 2C 12,500 6,000 .48 Anton e/o Bristol 6M 56,000 23,000 .41 Anton s/o Sunflower 6M 56,000 5,000 .09 Arlington e/o Fairview 2S 12,500 5,000 .40 Ave of the Arts n/o Anton 4S 25,000 7,000 .28 Baker e/o Mesa Verde 2S 12,500 9,000 .72 Baker w/o Harbor 4S 25,000 14,000 .56 Baker e/o Harbor 4P -A 45,000 19,000 .42 Baker w/o Fairview 4P -A 45,000 23,000 .51 Baker e/o Fairview 4P -A 45,000 32,000 .71 Baker e/o Coolidge 4P -A 45,000 30,000 .67 Baker w/o Bear 4P -A 45,000 31,000 .69 Baker w/o Randolph 4P -A 45,000 24,000 .53 Baker w/o SR -55 4P -A 45,000 27,000 .60 Baker w/o Pullman 4P -A 45,000 20,000 .44 Baker e/o Pullman 5M -A 57,000 15,000 .26 Ba e/o Harbor 2C 12,500 4,000 .32 Ba e/o Newport 2C 12,500 6,000 .48 Bear s/o Sunflower 6M 56,000 26,000 .46 Bear n/o South Coast 6M 56,000 30,000 .54 Bear n/o Paularino 4P 38,000 27,000 .71 Bristol s/o Sunflower 6M -A 68,000 41,000 .60 Bristol n/o Anton 8M -A 90,000 47,000 .52 Bristol s/o Anton 10M -A 112,000 65,000 .58 Bristol n/o Paularino 6M 56,000 36,000 .64 Bristol n/o Baker 6M 56,000 31,000 .55 Bristol n/o Bear 6M 56,000 22,000 .39 Bristol s/o Bear 6M 56,000 26,000 .46 Bristol e/o Newport 6M 56,000 26,000 .46 Bristol w/o Red Hill 6M 56,000 25,000 .45 Canyon n/o Victoria 2C 12,500 3,000 .24 Country Club n/o Mesa Verde 2C 12,500 4,000 .32 Del Mar w/o Orange 4S 25,000 12,000 .48 Del Mar w/o Santa Ana 2S 12,500 6,000 .48 Environmental Impact Report 4.16-9 4.16 Transportation and Traffic Table 4.16-3 Existing ADT Volumes and VIC Ratios Roadway Del Mar/University w/o Irvine Lanes and Roadway Type 2S D CapacityADT 12,500 6,000 ADT V/C .48 EI Camino e/o Fairview 2S 12,500 6,000 .48 EI Camino w/o Mendoza 2S 12,500 3,000 .24 Elden n/o 22nd 2C 12,500 2,000 .16 Fair e/o Harbor 4P 38,000 14,000 .37 Fair e/o Fairview 4P 38,000 21,000 .55 Fair w/o Newport 4P 38,000 24,000 .63 Fairview No South Coast 6M -A 68,000 42,000 .62 Fairview s/o South Coast 6M -A 68,000 61,000 .90 Fairview s/o 1-405 6M -A 68,000 44,000 .65 Fairview s/o Baker 6M -A 68,000 48,000 .71 Fairview s/o Adams 6M -A 68,000 33,000 .49 Fairview No Fair 6M -A 68,000 23,000 .34 Fairview No Wilson 6M -A 68,000 13,000 .19 Fairview s/o Wilson 4P -A 45,000 12,000 .27 Gisler w/o Harbor 2S 12,500 11,000 .88 Hamilton e/o Placentia 2C 12,500 3,000 .24 Hamilton w/o Harbor 2C 12,500 8,000 .64 Harbor n/o Sunflower 6M -A 68,000 44,000 .65 Harbor n/o South Coast 6M -A 68,000 50,000 .74 Harbor n/o Baker 8M -A 90,000 59,000 .66 Harbor n/o Village 7M -A 79,000 62,000 .78 Harbor n/o Adams 7M -A 79,000 55,000 .70 Harbor s/o Adams 6M -A 68,000 47,000 .69 Harbor n/o Fair 6M -A 68,000 43,000 .63 Harbor n/o Wilson 6M -A 68,000 40,000 .59 Harbor n/o Victoria 6M -A 68,000 39,000 .57 Harbor n/o Bay 6M -A 68,000 27,000 .40 Harbor n/o 19th 6M -A 68,000 27,000 .40 Harbor s/o 19th 6M -A 68,000 18,000 .26 Hyland s/o MacArthur 4P 38,000 10,000 .26 Hyland s/o Scenic 4P 38,000 7,000 .18 Hyland s/o Sunflower 4P 38,000 7,000 .18 Industrial w/o Newport 2C 12,500 5,000 .40 Irvine s/o Bristol 6M 56,000 26,000 .46 Irvine n/o Mesa 6M 56,000 21,000 .38 Irvine n/o University 4P 38,000 26,000 .68 Irvine n/o 22nd 4P 38,000 28,000 .74 Irvine s/o 22nd 4P 38,000 26,000 .68 Irvine n/o 19th 4P 38,000 29,000 .76 Irvine n/o 17th 4P 38,000 20,000 .53 Irvine n/o 16th 4P 38,000 14,000 .37 MacArthur w/o Harbor 6M 56,000 23,000 .41 Merrimac e/o Harbor 4P 38,000 10,000 .26 Merrimac w/o Fairview 4P 38,000 10,000 .26 Mesa w/o Orange 2S 12,500 7,000 .56 Mesa e/o Santa Ana 2S 12,500 7,000 .56 Mesa Verde W. n/o Adams 4P 38,000 7,000 .18 4.16-10 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendments Transportation and Traffic 4.16 Table 4.16-3 Existing ADT Volumes and VIC Ratios Roadway Mesa Verde W. w/o Country Club Lanes and Roadway Type 4P D Capacity 38,000 7,000 .18 Mesa Verde E. No Baker 4P 38,000 4,000 .11 Mesa Verde E. No Adams 4P 38,000 6,000 .16 Mesa Verde E. s/o Adams 4P 38,000 10,000 .26 Mesa Verde E. w/o Harbor 4P 38,000 11,000 .29 Monrovia s/o 19th 2C 12,500 6,000 .48 Monrovia n/o 17th 2C 12,500 6,000 .48 Newport SB n/o Mesa 3M -A 34,000 26,000 .76 Newport SB n/o Fair/Del Mar 4M -A 45,000 24,000 .53 Newport SB n/o Santa Isabel 3M -A 34,000 10,000 .29 Newport SB n/o Victoria 3M -A 34,000 30,000 .88 Newport SB s/o Victoria 2M -A 23,000 11,000 .48 Newport SB s/o Ford 2M -A 23,000 8,000 .35 Newport NB n/o Mesa 2M -A 23,000 7,000 .30 Newport NB n/o Fair/Del Mar 3M -A 34,000 24,000 .71 Newport NB No Santa Isabel 2M -A 23,000 13,000 .57 Newport NB No 22nd 3M -A 34,000 28,000 .82 Newport NB s/o 22nd 3M -A 34,000 13,000 .38 Newport NB s/o 20th 2M -A 23,000 9,000 .39 Newport s/o 19th 7M -A 79,000 66,000 .84 Newport n/o 17th 7M -A 79,000 79,000 1.00 Newport n/o Industrial 6M -A 68,000 51,000 .75 Ogle e/o Orange 2C 12,500 2,000 .16 Orange No Del Mar 2C 12,500 2,000 .16 Orange No Santa Isabel 2C 12,500 3,000 .24 Orange No 22nd 2C 12,500 4,000 .32 Orange No 21St 2C 12,500 6,000 .48 Orange No 19th 2C 12,500 7,000 .56 Orange No 17th 2C 12,500 12,000 .96 Orange No 16th 2C 12,500 8,000 .64 Orange No 15th 2C 12,500 5,000 .40 Park s/o 19th 2C 12,500 5,000 .40 Paularino e/o Fairview 2C 12,500 6,000 .48 Paularino e/o Bear 2C 12,500 8,000 .64 Paularino e/o Bristol 4P 38,000 16,000 .42 Paularino w/o Red Hill 4P 38,000 12,000 .32 Placentia s/o Adams 4P 38,000 11,000 .29 Placentia n/o Wilson 4P 38,000 12,000 .32 Placentia No Victoria 4P 38,000 16,000 .42 Placentia No Hamilton 4P 38,000 27,000 .71 Placentia s/o Hamilton 4P 38,000 24,000 .63 Placentia s/o 19th 4P 38,000 24,000 .63 Placentia No 17th 4P 38,000 17,000 .45 Placentia No 161h 4P 38,000 15,000 .39 Pomona n/o Victoria 2C 12,500 4,000 .32 Pomona n/o Hamilton 2C 12,500 8,000 .64 Pomona n/o 19th 2C 12,500 7,000 .56 Pomona n/o 18th 2C 12,500 7,000 .56 Environmental Impact Report 4.16-11 4.16 Transportation and Traffic Table 4.16-3 Existing ADT Volumes and VIC Ratios Roadway Pomona s/o 181h Lanes and Roadway Type 2C D Capacity 12,500 10,000 .80 Pomona n/o 171h 2C 12,500 5,000 .40 Red Hill No Airport Loop 4P 38,000 17,000 .45 Red Hill n/o Paularino 4P 38,000 19,000 .50 Red Hill No Baker 4P 38,000 18,000 .47 Red Hill No Kalmus 4P 38,000 15,000 .39 Red Hill No Bristol 4P 38,000 19,000 .50 Sakioka No Anton 4P 38,000 6,000 .16 Santa Ana s/o Bristol 4S 25,000 10,000 .40 Santa Ana n/o Del Mar/University 4S 25,000 7,000 .28 Santa Ana No Santa Isabel 2C 12,500 6,000 .48 Santa Ana No 22nd 2C 12,500 6,000 .48 Santa Ana No 21 st 2C 12,500 5,000 .40 Santa Ana No 19th 2C 12,500 6,000 .48 Santa Ana n/o 17th 2C 12,500 8,000 .64 Santa Ana n/o 16th 2C 12,500 6,000 .48 Santa Ana n/o 15th 2C 12,500 5,000 .40 Santa Isabel e/o Newport 2S 12,500 4,000 .32 Santa Isabel e/o Orange 2S 12,500 3,000 .24 South Coast w/o Harbor 4P 38,000 11,000 .29 South Coast e/o Harbor 4P 38,000 12,000 .32 South Coast w/o Fairview 4P 38,000 13,000 .34 South Coast e/o Wimbledon 4P 38,000 16,000 .42 South Coast w/o Bear 4P 38,000 16,000 .42 Sunflower e/o Hyland 4P 38,000 5,000 .13 Sunflower w/o Harbor 4P 38,000 7,000 .18 Sunflower e/o Harbor 4P 38,000 13,000 .34 Sunflower w/o Susan 4P 38,000 13,000 .34 Sunflower w/o Fairview 4P 38,000 17,000 .45 Sunflower w/o Fuschia/Raitt 4P 38,000 18,000 .47 Sunflower w/o Bristol 6M -A 68,000 31,000 .46 Sunflower e/o Bristol 6M -A 68,000 25,000 .37 Sunflower w/o Anton 6M -A 68,000 19,000 .28 Sunflower w/o Main 6M -A 68,000 22,000 .32 Superior s/o Anaheim 4P 38,000 12,000 .32 Superior n/o 16th/Industrial 4P 38,000 23,000 .61 Tustin No 21St 2C 12,500 3,000 .24 Tustin No 20th 2C 12,500 2,000 .16 Tustin No 19th 2C 12,500 4,000 .32 Tustin No 17th 2C 12,500 5,000 .40 Tustin No 16th 2C 12,500 7,000 .56 Victoria w/o Pacific 4P -A 45,000 30,000 .67 Victoria w/o National 4P -A 45,000 28,000 .62 Victoria w/o Placentia 4P -A 45,000 30,000 .67 Victoria e/o Placentia 4P -A 45,000 27,000 .60 Victoria e/o Harbor 4P -A 45,000 29,000 .64 Victoria w/o Harbor 413-A 45,000 31,000 .69 Victoria e/o College 4P -A 45,000 28,000 .62 4.16-12 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendments Transportation and Traffic 4.16 Table 4.16-3 Existing ADT Volumes and VIC Ratios Roadway Wilson w/o Placentia Lanes and Roadway Type 2S D Capacity 12,500 7,000 .56 Wilson e/o Placentia 2S -A 15,000 12,000 .80 Wilson e/o Pomona 2S -A 15,000 15,000 1.00 Wilson w/o Harbor 2S -A 15,000 17,000 1.13 a Wilson e/o Harbor 4S -A 30,000 17,000 .57 Wilson e/o Fairview 2S -A 15,000 13,000 .87 Wilson e/o Newport 2S 12,500 6,000 .48 15th e/o Newport 2C 12,500 2,000 .16 W. 16th e/o Monrovia 2C 12,500 4,000 .32 W. 16th e/o Placentia 2C 12,500 5,000 .40 16th w/o Newport 2C 12,500 2,000 .16 16th e/o Newport 2C 12,500 4,000 .32 16th e/o Orange 2C 12,500 3,000 .24 16th e/o Santa Ana 2C 12,500 3,000 .24 16th e/o Tustin 2C 12,500 3,000 .24 W. 17th w/o Monrovia 2C 12,500 5,000 .40 W. 17th w/o Placentia 2C 12,500 7,000 .56 W. 17th e/o Placentia 2S 12,500 9,000 .72 W. 17th w/o Pomona 2S 12,500 10,000 .80 17th w/o Orange 6M -A 68,000 35,000 .51 17th w/o Westminster 4P -A 45,000 34,000 .76 17th w/o Santa Ana 4P -A 45,000 33,000 .73 17th e/o Santa Ana 4P -A 45,000 34,000 .76 17th w/o Irvine 4P 38,000 30,000 .79 W. 18th e/o Monrovia 2C 12,500 5,000 .40 W. 18th e/o Placentia 2C 12,500 7,000 .56 W. 18th w/o Anaheim 2C 12,500 10,000 .80 W. 18th w/o Park 2C 12,500 11,000 .88 W. 19th w/o Placentia 2S 12,500 13,000 1.04 a W. 19th e/o Placentia 4S 25,000 22,000 .88 W. 19th w/o Park 6M 56,000 32,000 .57 W. 19th e/o Harbor 6M 56,000 32,000 .57 19th e/o Newport 4S 25,000 12,000 .48 19th w/o Orange 2C 12,500 11,000 .88 19th e/o Orange 2C 12,500 8,000 .64 19th e/o Santa Ana 2C 12,500 6,000 .48 19th w/o Irvine 2C 12,500 6,000 .48 20th e/o Newport 2C 12,500 4,000 .32 20th e/o Tustin 2C 12,500 3,000 .24 21st e/o Newport 2C 12,500 3,000 .24 21stw/o Irvine 2C 12,500 2,000 .16 22nd e/o Newport 2C 12,500 10,000 .80 22nd e/o Orange 2C 12,500 7,000 .56 22nd e/o Santa Ana 2C 12,500 6,000 .48 22nd/Santiago w/o Irvine 2C 12,500 5,000 .40 Environmental Impact Report 4.16-13 4.16 Transportation and Traffic Table 4.16-3 Existing ADT Volumes and VIC Ratios Roadway Types: M — Major Arterial (Standard) M -A — Major Arterial (Augmented) P — Primary Arterial (Standard) P -A — Primary Arterial (Augmented) S — Secondary Arterial (Standard) S-A — Secondary Arterial (Augmented) Denotes a peak hour deficiency. C — Collector Arterial (a) Although the theoretical maximum ADT capacity is exceeded at this location, this is not considered to be a deficiency because the intersections analyzed along this roadway segment operate at acceptable levels of service during the AM and PM peak hours. Exhibit 4.16-3 (Intersection Location Map) illustrates the intersection locations in Costa Mesa that were analyzed under existing conditions. Existing ICU values were calculated using peak hour traffic count data in combination with the existing lane configuration of each location. Existing A.M. and P.M. peak hour ICU values are summarized in Table 4.16-4 (Existing Intersection LOS Summary). Based on the intersection LOS performance criteria outlined above, each of the intersection locations analyzed in the City currently operates at an acceptable LOS (LOS D or better), with the exception of the intersection of Hyland Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard during the P.M. peak hours. Regulatory Framework Orange County Congestion Management Plan (CMP) The 2013 CMP for Orange County is a State -mandated program intended to address regional congestion by linking transportation, land use, and air quality decisions. The CMP includes a deficiency plan designed to implement strategies that either fully mitigate congestion or provide measurable improvement to congestion and air quality. The purpose of the CMP roadway network is to monitor system performance. The CMP designates a system of regionally significant roadways and establishes procedures to be used to calculate LOS. These CMP roadways are monitored to identify deficiencies in the system. The CMP includes Level of Service Standards for roadways, Standards and Policies for Transit Service, Land Use Impact Analysis, a Capital Improvement Program, Transportation Demand Management, and CMP Conformance. The System Level of Service Element defines the CMP roadway system, establishes traffic LOS standards on the system, and prescribes procedures for computing traffic levels of service. The baseline LOS standard is LOS E or the LOS established in 1992 (whichever is furthest from LOS A) for any roadway segment or intersection. If a segment or intersection has been assigned a LOS F standard because the segment or intersection's LOS in 1992 was F, a 10 percent degradation in its V/C will cause the segment to be classified as deficient (see deficiency plans below). The Performance Element provides a basis on which to objectively assess the relative merits among available modal alternatives and a framework for selecting appropriate alternatives. The Land Use/Transportation Element addresses the impacts of land use decisions made by local jurisdictions on regional transportation systems, including the estimate of costs related to those impacts. The CMP defines roles for local jurisdictions to implement the goals and objectives of the plan. This element requires preparation of Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Reports for all development projects meeting the adopted trip generation thresholds (i.e., 2,400 or more daily trips for projects adjacent to the CMPHS, and 1,600 or more daily trips for projects that directly access the CMPHS). These reports are reviewed by Orange County Council of Governments and local jurisdictions. This element also requires development of fair -share mitigation programs to address impacts to CMP facilities. Local jurisdictions are also required to participate in the development of the CMP capital improvement program to address cumulative impacts to CMP facilities over the long term. 4.16-14 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendments Transportation and Traffic 4.16 5o 'Ce. ]wnnr In tp:'r n v--gc om.com . 9 51- 70 7.9272 ® Hogle-Ireland Exhibit 4.16-3 Intersection Location Ma Costa Mesa General Plan Update Costa Mesa, California Environmental Impact Report 4.16-15 4.16 Transportation and Traffic Table 4.16-4 Existinq Intersection LOS Summary Intersection AM Peak Hour ICU LOS PM Peak ICU Hour LOS 1. Harbor & Scenic/Lake Center .57 A .60 A 2. Harbor & Sunflower .50 A .65 B 3. Susan & Sunflower .35 A .58 A 4. Fairview & Sunflower .61 B .58 A 5. Wimbledon & Sunflower .28 A .47 A 6. Fuchsia/Raitt & Sunflower .25 A .43 A 7. Bear & Sunflower .36 A .37 A 9. Bristol & Sunflower .58 A .76 C 11. Ave of the Arts & Sunflower .30 A .42 A 12. Sakioka & Sunflower .29 A .41 A 13. Anton & Sunflower .40 A .42 A 14. Harbor & Law Court .55 A .69 B 15. Bear & Crystal Court .19 A .46 A 16. Bristol & Town Center .38 A .39 A 17. Hyland & South Coastl1-405 NB On -Ramp .23 A .60 A 18. Harbor & South Coast .48 A .66 B 19. Susan & South Coast .26 A .45 A 20. Fairview & South Coast .53 A .60 A 24. Bear & South Coast .24 A .43 A 25. Bristol & Anton .39 A .63 B 27. Ave of the Arts & Anton .36 A .42 A 28. Sakioka & Anton .28 A .39 A 30. Hyland & MacArthur .52 A .91 E 36. Bear & Metro Point .24 A .45 A 38. Harbor & 1-405 NB Ramps .68 B .78 C 39. Harbor & 1-405 SB Ramps .42 A .59 A 40. Fairview & 1-405 NB Ramps .53 A .60 A 41. Fairview & 1-405 SB Ramps .58 A .57 A 42. Bristol & 1-405 NB Ramps .47 A .76 C 43. Bristol & 1-405 SB Ramps .50 A .56 A 44. Harbor & Gisler .57 A .74 C 45. Harbor & Date .44 A .50 A 46. Harbor & Nutmeg .43 A .55 A 47. Fairview & Paularino .47 A .49 A 48. Bear & Paularino .36 A .65 B 49. Bristol & Paularino .46 A .64 B 51. SR -55 SB Ramps & Paularino .71 C .64 B 52. SR -55 NB Ramps & Paularino .67 B .71 C 53. Red Hill & Paularino .43 A .56 A 54. Bear & SR 73 NB Ramps .31 A .56 A 55. Bear & SR -73 SB Ramps .36 A .49 A 56. Harbor & Baker .47 A .64 B 57. College & Baker .34 A .52 A 58. Fairview & Baker .62 B .67 B 59. Coolidge & Baker .43 A .65 B 60. Mendoza & Baker .48 A .60 A 61. Babb & Baker .55 A .68 B 62. Milbro & Baker .52 A .50 A 63. Bear & Baker .49 A .55 A 64. Bristol & Baker .56 A .74 C 4.16-16 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendments Transportation and Traffic 4.16 Table 4.16-4 Existing Intersection LOS Summary Intersection AM Peak ICU Hour LOS PM Peak ICU Hour LOS 65. SR -55 SB Ramps & Baker .66 B .69 B 66. SR -55 NB Ramps & Baker .67 B .75 C 67. Red Hill & Baker .34 A .63 B 74. Royal Palm & Baker .33 A .52 A 76. Bristol & Bear .34 A .44 A 77. Bristol & Newport SB .27 A .44 A 78. Bristol & Newport NB .29 A .41 A 79. Bristol & Red Hill .38 A .43 A 80. Shantar & Adams .47 A .60 A 81. Placentia/Mesa Verde W & Adams .75 C .75 C 82. Mesa Verde E & Adams .52 A .57 A 83. Royal Palm & Adams .49 A .66 B 84. Harbor & Adams .66 B .74 C 85. Pinecreek & Adams .59 A .62 B 86. Fairview & Adams .62 B .60 A 88. Harbor & Mesa Verde .41 A .60 A 90. Fairview & Arlington .28 A .42 A 91. Harbor & Merrimac .36 A .56 A 92. Fairview & Merrimac .24 A .30 A 93. Newport SB & Mesa .28 A .53 A 94. Newport NB & Mesa .27 A .41 A 95. Harbor & Fair .35 A .53 A 97. Fairview & Fair .41 A .53 A 100. Newport SB & Fair .32 A .41 A 101. Newport NB & Del Mar .75 C .48 A 102. Newport SB & Vanguard .23 A .45 A 103. Newport NB & Santa Isabel .41 A .43 A 104. Harbor & Harbor Center .39 A .55 A 115. Placentia & Wilson .43 A .47 A 116. Harbor & Wilson .41 A .58 A 117. Fairview & Wilson .48 A .66 B 118. Newport SB & Wilson .26 A .39 A 119. Newport NB & Wilson .36 A .40 A 121. Valley & Victoria .54 A .65 B 122. Canyon & Victoria .53 A .61 B 123. American & Victoria .56 A .59 A 124. National & Victoria .59 A .63 B 125. Placentia & Victoria .74 C .77 C 126. Pomona & Victoria .61 B .63 B 127. Harbor & Victoria .67 B .78 C 128. Newport SB & Victoria .49 A .56 A 129. Newport NB & 22nd .79 C .60 A 130. Harbor & Hamilton .41 A .57 A 131. Harbor & Bay .31 A .47 A 132. Newport SB & Bay .28 A .50 A 133. Newport NB & Bay .34 A .45 A 134. Placentia & 19th .43 A .55 A 135. Pomona & 19th .46 A .62 B 136. Meyer & 19th .26 A .34 A 137. Anaheim & 19th .61 B .70 B 138. Park & 19th .38 A .51 A Environmental Impact Report 4.16-17 4.16 Transportation and Traffic Table 4.16-4 Existina Intersection LOS Summa Intersection AIN eLeu ICU nour LOS •uriour ICU LOS 139. Harbor & 19th .40 A .57 A 140. Newport & 19th .86 D .83 D 141. Newport & Broadway .63 B .64 B 142. Newport & Harbor .70 B .78 C 143. Placentia & 18th .56 A .69 B 144. Newport & 18th/Rochester .74 C .81 D 145. Maple & Victoria .54 A .58 A 150. Placentia & 17th .40 A .54 A 151. Superior & 17th .67 B .67 B 152. Newport & 17th .73 C .77 C 153. Orange & 17th .51 A .62 B 154. Santa Ana & 17th .52 A .62 B 155. Tustin & 17th .49 A .57 A 156. Irvine & 17th .56 A .67 B 157. Newport & 16th .53 A .60 A 158. Placentia & 16th .30 A .35 A 159. Superior & 16th .46 A .45 A 160. Newport & Industrial .48 A .59 A Abbreviations: ICU - intersection capacity utilization LOS - level of service NB - northbound SB - southbound Denotes a peak -hour deficiency. The Travel Demand Management Element includes strategies that are consistent with achieving air quality goals, including reductions in trip making, trip length, and travel demand, as well as increasing the availability of modal alternatives. The Monitoring Program and Transportation Modeling Element provides information on current levels of service, identifies system deficiencies, and determines local jurisdiction conformity with the CMP. The Capital Improvement Element includes a seven-year plan using performance measures to improve the performance of the multimodal transportation system. The Deficiency Plan identifies locations where LOS at intersections and on roadway segments (arterials and freeways) fail to attain the County's established LOS standards. Deficiency is based on the 1997 baseline established when the first CMP was adopted. The intersection of Harbor Boulevard and Adams Avenue and the intersection of 1-405 northbound ramp and Harbor Boulevard are the only CMP facilities within the Costa Mesa planning area currently operating at LOS F. Development Impact Fees Section 13-270 of the Municipal Code establishes the City's Development Impact Fee program. These fees are imposed on any project requiring a building permit or other land development permit that will result in the attraction or generation of traffic trips. Traffic attraction and generation are determined through a special study that also serves to apportion a project's "fair share" impact on existing or future infrastructure. These funds are permitted to be used for any traffic -related capital improvement project, meaning transportation planning, preliminary engineering, engineering 4.16-18 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendments Transportation and Traffic 4.16 design studies, land surveys, right-of-way acquisition, engineering, permitting, construction and inspection of all the necessary features for any road construction project. Costa Mesa General Plan The current Costa Mesa General Plan includes extensive goals, objectives, and policies that address circulation within the Planning Area. The overarching goals and objectives are: GOAL CIR-1: TRANSPORTATION. It is the goal of the City of Costa Mesa to provide for a balanced, uncongested, safe, and energy-efficient transportation system, incorporating all feasible modes of transportation. Objective CIR-1A. To provide specific programs and policies that address multimodal transportation, multi - agency coordination, mitigation of traffic impacts and the balancing of land uses with transportation systems. GOAL CIR-2: TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT. It is the goal of the City of Costa Mesa to provide for standard service levels at signalized intersections by constructing capacity improvements for all various modes of circulation, adopting land use intensities commensurate with planned circulation improvements and implementing traffic demand reduction programs, thereby creating a more energy efficient transportation system. Objective CIR-2A. To coordinate efforts with other regional agencies and pursue operational improvements towards enhancing the capacity of the system of freeways and arterial highways in the City. Objective CIR-213. To promote the use of high occupancy vehicular modes of transportation in and through the City. Objective CIR-2C. To invest capital via a rationally phased allocation process for implementing transportation projects and programs. Objective CIR-213. To ensure that the transportation related impacts of development projects are mitigated to the fullest extent possible, in conformance with transportation related policies. Thresholds of Significance The General Plan Amendments could result in impacts associated with transportation and traffic if it: A. Causes an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., results in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections). B. Exceeds, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways. C. Results in a change in air traffic patterns, including an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks. D. Substantially increases hazards due to design features or incompatible uses. E. Results in inadequate emergency access. F. Results in inadequate parking capacity. G. Conflicts with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. Environmental Impact Report 4.16-19 4.16 Transportation and Traffic Environmental Impacts This section first examines the potential impacts on the roadway system associated with buildout of the proposed land use plan. That analysis is followed by examination of the proposed amendments to Circulation Element goals, objectives, policies, and recommendations. Future Traffic Demands The traffic impact analysis prepared for the proposed project analyzes future traffic demands on the City of Costa Mesa roadway circulation system. The traffic generation characteristics of existing and future land uses in the City are first described. This is followed by a description of future roadway improvements planned and/or proposed in the City and an analysis of future traffic volumes and levels of service on the local roadway system. Various issues pertaining to the Costa Mesa Master Plan of Streets and Highways (MPSH) are addressed as well. As part of the analysis for alternatives to the project, the traffic analysis also presented potential impacts associated with the current General Plan. The analysis of current General Plan traffic conditions to the proposed amended General Plan conditions is included in Section 5.0 — Alternatives of this EIR. Citywide Land Use and Trip Generation As part of the Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment process, an inventory of existing land uses in the City was compiled, and future land uses associated with buildout of the proposed General Plan were determined. Morning and evening peak -hour and ADT trip generation estimates based were calculated for existing and future land uses using vehicle trip generation rates from various sources, primarily the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual (9th Edition). The ADT trip generation rates are summarized in Table 4.16-5 (Average Daily Traffic Trip Generation Rates), and citywide existing and future (current and proposed General Plan) land use and ADT trip generation estimates are summarized in Table 4.16-6 (Citywide Land Use and ADT Trip Generation Summary). Of particular note is the condition that uses within the Home Ranch subarea, under the current General Plan, and the Sakioka Lot 2 area, under the current and proposed General Plan, are subject to trip generation caps established for those areas in the General Plan and land use regulations. Also, future trip generation growth assumed for Orange Coast College (OCC) is based on the recently adopted OCC Facilities Master Plan. As indicated in Table 4.16-6, the ADT generated under the proposed General Plan scenario are estimated to increase by 22.1 % relative to the existing ADT trip generation level. The traffic model was also utilized to forecast future a.m. and p.m. peak -hour volumes at roadway intersection locations throughout Costa Mesa. Table 4.16-7 (Peak Hour Trip Generation Rates) summarizes the a.m. and p.m. peak -hour trip rates that were applied in the model for the existing and future land uses. These peak -hour trip rates were taken from the same sources as the ADT trip generation rates presented earlier. Citywide peak -hour and ADT trip generation estimates based on existing land uses; see Table 4.16-8 (Existing Citywide Land Use and Peak Hour Trip Generation). Buildout of the proposed General Plan land uses are summarized in Table 4.16-9 (Proposed General Plan Buildout Citywide Land Use and Peak Hour Trip Generation). 4.16-20 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendments Transportation and Traffic 4.16 Table 4.16-5 Averaqe Dailv Traffic Trip Generation Rates CategoryLand Use ADT Trip 1. Low Density Residential DU ITE Category 210 Sin le Family Detached 9.52 2. Medium Density Residential DU Average of ITE Category 210 Single Family Detached and ITE Category 220 Apartments 8.09 3. High Density Residential DU ITE Category 220 Apartments 6.65 5. Age Qualified Housing DU ITE Category 252 Senior Adult Housing - Attached 3.44 6. General Office TSF ITE Category 710 General Office Building 11.03 7. Medical Office TSF ITE Category 720 Medical -Dental Office Building 36.13 8. General Commercial TSF ITE Category 820 Shopping Center Equation for 200 TSF 53.28 9. Regional Commercial TSF ITE Category 820 Shopping Center Equation for 2000 TSF 23.80 10. Light Industrial TSF ITE Category 110 Light Industrial 6.97 11. Golf Course Acre ITE Category 430 Golf Course 5.04 12. Elementary/Middle School Student ITE Category 520 Elementary School 1.29 13. High School Student ITE Category 530 High School 1.71 14. College/University College/University Student ITE Category 540 Junior/Community College 1.23 15. Public Facility Acre ITE Category 411 City Park 1.89 16. Fairgrounds Acre OC Fairgrounds (Special Use 12.30 17. Storage TSF ITE Category 151 Mini -Warehouse 2.50 18. City Hall TSF ITE Category 733 Government Office Complex 27.92 19. Performance Theater TSF Field Survey 1.23 20. Convalescent Care Bed ITE Category 254 Assisted Living 2.66 21. Hospital Bed ITE Category 610 Hospital 12.94 22. Hotel Room ITE Category 310 Hotel 8.17 23. Motel Room ITE Category 320 Motel 5.63 24. Auto Dealership TSF ITE Category 841 New Car Sales 32.30 25. Passive Park Acre ITE Category 411 City Park ADT 1.89 26. Agriculture Acre Assumed to be negligible .00 27. Religious Facility TSF ITE Category 560 Church 9.11 28. Vacant Acre Assumed to be negligible .00 29. Museum TSF ITE Category 590 Library 56.24 30. Home Ranch TSF ITE Category 710 General Office Building adjusted based on the established peak hour tri caps for Home Ranch 11.03 31. Sakioka Lot 2 TSF ITE Category 710 General Office Building adjusted based on the established peak hour trip caps for Sakioka Lot 2 11.03 32.000 Master Plan SG Unit Special Generator (SG) rates based on trip generation estimates from the August 2015 Orange Coast College OCC Facilities Master Plan 144.96 Abbreviations: ADT - average daily traffic DU - dwelling unit ITE - Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition TSF - thousand square feet Note: Land Use #4 in this table and subsequent tables was eliminated during the course of refining the traffic study model. Environmental Impact Report 4.16-21 4.16 Transportation and Traffic Table 4.16-6 Citvwide Land Use and ADT Trip Generation Summary CategoryLand Use 1. Low Density Residential DU 14,210 ADT 135,290 Proposed Plan Amount 14,791 BuildoutExisting AD 140,817 2. Medium Density Residential DU 4,370 35,349 4,992 40,384 3. High Density Residential DU 23,593 156,896 31,661 210,548 5. Age Qualified Housing DU 450 1,548 450 1,548 6. General Office TSF 7,112 78,442 10,675 117,743 7. Medical Office TSF 112 4,047 112 4,047 8. General Commercial TSF 5,601 298,423 7,299 388,892 9. Regional Commercial TSF 4,140 98,531 4,640 110,431 10. Light Industrial TSF 13,087 91,217 12,704 88,549 11. Golf Course Acre 535 2,696 535 2,696 12. Elementary/Middle School Student 7,385 9,526 8,067 10,406 13. High School Student 4,590 7,848 4,998 8,547 14. College/University College/University Student 25,990 31,968 26,286 32,332 15. Public Facility Acre 176 336 228 434 16. Fairgrounds Acre 150 1,845 150 1,845 17. Storage TSF 11171 2,931 530 1,328 18. City Hall TSF 133 3,713 133 3,713 19. Performance Theater TSF 585 720 691 850 20. Convalescent Care Bed 448 1,191 448 1,191 21. Hospital Bed 472 6,108 122 1,579 22. Hotel Room 1,877 15,335 2,077 16,969 23. Motel Room 2,272 12,793 946 5,327 24. Auto Dealership TSF 491 15,860 491 15,860 25. Passive Park Acre 592 1,122 618 1,171 26. Agriculture Acre 72 0 -- -- 27. Religious Facility TSF 555 5,055 555 5,055 28. Vacant Acre 18 0 6 0 29. Museum TSF -- -- 140 7,874 30. Home Ranch Trip Cap TSF -- -- -- -- 31. Sakioka Lot 2 Trip Cap TSF 0 0 862 9,508 32.000 Master Plan SG 0 0 100 14,496 Total Trip Generation 1,018,790 1,244,140 Total Trip Generation Difference a 225,350 Total Trip Generation Percent Difference a 22.1% 4.16-22 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendments Transportation and Traffic 4.16 Table 4.16-7 Peak Hour Trip Generation Rates Land Use Units In .19 AM Peak Hour Out .56 .75 .63 PM Peak Hour Out .37 1.00 AD 9.52 1. Low Density Residential DU 2. Medium Density Residential DU .15 .49 .64 .52 .30 .82 8.09 3. High Density Residential DU .10 .41 .51 .40 .22 .62 6.65 5. Age Qualified Housing DU .07 .13 .20 .14 .11 .25 3.44 6. General Office TSF 1.37 .19 1.56 .25 1.24 1.49 11.03 7. Medical Office TSF 1.89 .50 2.39 1.00 2.57 3.57 36.13 8. General Commercial TSF .73 .45 1.18 2.23 2.41 4.64 53.28 9. Regional Commercial TSF .33 .20 .53 .99 1.08 2.07 23.80 10. Light Industrial TSF .81 .11 .92 .12 .85 .97 6.97 11. Golf Course Acre .16 .05 .21 .10 .20 .30 5.04 12. Elementary/Middle School Student .25 .20 .45 .07 .08 .15 1.29 13. High School Student .29 .14 .43 .06 .07 .13 1.71 14. College/University Student .10 .02 .12 .08 .04 .12 1.23 15. Public Facility Acre .04 .04 .08 .08 .07 .15 1.89 16. Fairgrounds Acre .00 .00 .00 2.00 2.00 4.00 12.30 17. Storage TSF .08 .06 .14 .13 .13 .26 2.50 18. City Hall TSF 1.97 .24 2.21 .88 1.97 2.85 27.92 19. Performance Theater TSF .01 .00 .01 .08 .02 .10 1.23 20. Convalescent Care Bed .09 .05 .14 .10 .12 .22 2.66 21. Hospital Bed .95 .37 1.32 .47 .95 1.42 12.94 22. Hotel Room .31 .22 .53 .31 .29 .60 8.17 23. Motel Room .16 .29 .45 .25 .22 .47 5.63 24. Auto Dealership TSF 1.44 .48 1.92 1.05 1.57 2.62 32.30 25. Passive Park Acre .04 .04 .08 .08 .07 .15 1.89 26. Agriculture Acre .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 27. Religious Facility TSF .35 .21 .56 .26 .29 .55 9.11 28. Vacant Acre .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 29. Museum TSF .74 .30 1.04 3.50 3.80 7.30 56.24 30. Home Ranch Trip Cap TSF 1.38 .20 1.58 .29 1.28 1.57 11.03 Environmental Impact Report 4.16-23 Transportation and Traffic 4.16 Table 4.16.8 Existinq Citvwide Land Use and Peak Hour Trip Generation Land Use 1. Low Density Residential Units DU Amount 14,210 AM In 2,700 Peak Hour Out 7,958 .. 10,658 PM 8,952 Peak Hour 5,258 otal 14,210 AD 135,290 2. Medium Density Residential DU 4,370 656 2,141 2,797 2,272 1,311 3,583 35,349 3. High Density Residential DU 23,593 2,359 9,673 12,032 9,437 5,190 14,627 156,896 5. Age Qualified Housing DU 450 32 59 91 63 50 113 1,548 6. General Office TSF 7,112 9,743 1,351 11,094 1,778 8,819 10,597 78,442 7. Medical Office TSF 112 212 56 268 112 288 400 4,047 8. General Commercial TSF 5,601 4,089 2,520 6,609 12,490 13,498 25,988 298,423 9. Regional Commercial TSF 4,140 1,366 828 2,194 4,099 4,471 8,570 98,531 10. Light Industrial TSF 13,087 10,600 1,440 12,040 1,570 11,124 12,694 91,217 11. Golf Course Acre 535 86 27 113 54 107 161 2,696 12. Elementary/Middle School Student 7,385 1,846 1,477 3,323 517 591 1,108 9,526 13. High School Student 4,590 1,331 643 1,974 275 321 596 7,848 14. College/University College/University Student 25,990 2,599 520 3,119 2,079 1,040 3,119 31,968 15. Public Facility Acre 176 7 7 14 14 12 26 336 16. Fairgrounds Acre 150 0 0 0 300 300 600 1,845 17. Storage TSF 1,171 94 70 164 152 152 304 2,931 18. City Hall TSF 133 262 32 294 117 262 379 3,713 19. Performance Theater TSF 585 6 0 6 47 12 59 720 20. Convalescent Care Bed 448 40 22 62 45 54 99 1,191 21. Hospital Bed 472 448 175 623 222 448 670 6,108 22. Hotel Room 1,877 582 413 995 582 544 1,126 15,335 23. Motel Room 2,272 364 659 1,023 568 500 1,068 12,793 24. Auto Dealership TSF 491 707 236 943 516 771 1,287 15,860 25. Passive Park Acre 592 24 24 48 47 41 88 1,122 26. Agriculture Acre 72 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27. Religious Facility TSF 555 194 117 311 144 161 305 5,055 28. Vacant Acre 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Trip Generation 40,347 30,448 70,795 46,452 55,325 101,777 1,018,790 Abbreviations: ADT - average daily traffic DU - dwelling unit SG - special generator TSF - thousand square feet 4.16-24 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Updates Transportation and Traffic 4.16 Table 4.16-9 Proposed General Plan Buildout Citywide Land Use and Peak Hour Trip Generation Land Use 1. Low Density Residential Units DU Amount 14,791 AM In 2,810 Peak Hour Out 8,283 TotalOut 11,093 PM 9,318 Peak Hour 5,473 Total 14,791 140,817 2. Medium Density Residential DU 4,992 749 2,446 3,195 2,596 1,498 4,094 40,384 3. High Density Residential DU 31,661 3,166 12,981 16,147 12,664 6,965 19,629 210,548 5. Age Qualified Housing DU 450 32 59 91 63 50 113 1,548 6. General Office TSF 10,675 14,625 2,028 16,653 2,669 13,237 15,906 117,743 7. Medical Office TSF 112 212 56 268 112 288 400 4,047 8. General Commercial TSF 7,299 5,328 3,285 8,613 16,277 17,591 33,868 388,892 9. Regional Commercial TSF 4,640 1,531 928 2,459 4,594 5,011 9,605 110,431 10. Light Industrial TSF 12,704 10,290 1,397 11,687 1,524 10,798 12,322 88,549 11. Golf Course Acre 535 86 27 113 54 107 161 2,696 12. Elementary/Middle School Student 8,067 2,017 1,613 3,630 565 645 1,210 10,406 13. High School Student 4,998 1,449 700 2,149 300 350 650 8,547 14. College/University College/University Student 26,286 2,629 526 3,155 2,103 1,051 3,154 32,332 15. Public Facility Acre 228 9 9 18 18 16 34 434 16. Fairgrounds Acre 150 0 0 0 300 300 600 1,845 17. Storage TSF 530 42 32 74 69 69 138 1,328 18. City Hall TSF 133 262 32 294 117 262 379 3,713 19. Performance Theater TSF 691 7 0 7 55 14 69 850 20. Convalescent Care Bed 448 40 22 62 45 54 99 1,191 21. Hospital Bed 122 116 45 161 57 116 173 1,579 22. Hotel Room 2,077 644 457 1,101 644 602 1,246 16,969 23. Motel Room 946 151 274 425 237 208 445 5,327 24. Auto Dealership TSF 491 707 236 943 516 771 1,287 15,860 25. Passive Park Acre 618 25 25 50 49 43 92 1,171 26. Agriculture Acre 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27. Religious Facility TSF 555 194 117 311 144 161 305 5,055 28. Vacant Acre 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29. Museum TSF 140 104 42 146 490 532 1,022 7,874 30. Home Ranch Trip Cap TSF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31. Sakioka Lot 2 Trip Cap TSF 862 586 474 1,060 603 802 1,405 9,508 32.000 Master Plan SG 100 936 195 1,131 731 772 1,503 14,496 Total Trip Generation 48,747 36,289 85,036 56,914 67,786 124,700 1,244,140 Abbreviations: ADT - average daily traffic DU - dwelling unit SG - special generator TSF - thousandsquare feet Future Roadway Circulation System Year 2035 future traffic conditions that assume buildout of the proposed General Plan land uses in Costa Mesa were analyzed in the traffic study for the following two future circulation system scenarios: • Year 2035 Constrained Highway Network • Year 2035 Buildout Highway Network The year 2035 constrained highway network scenario assumes only improvements that are committed for construction, such as those contained in Costa Mesa's CIP and associated traffic impact fee program and the OCTA Measure M2 Program. The year 2035 buildout highway network scenario assumes non -committed future improvements that are included in the City of Costa Mesa Master Plan of Streets and Highways (MPSH). The freeway and arterial roadway improvements assumed in year 2035 constrained and buildout highway networks in Environmental Impact Report 4.16-25 4.16 Transportation and Traffic Costa Mesa and the immediate vicinity are listed in Table 4.16-10 (Future Roadway Improvements). The year 2035 roadway circulation system is illustrated in Exhibits 4.16-4 (Year 2035 Constrained Roadway System) and 4.16-5 (Year 2035 Buildout Roadway System) for the constrained highway network and the buildout highway network, respectively. Future intersection improvements assumed for year 2035 constrained and buildout highway network scenarios are summarized in Table 4.16-11 (Future Intersection Improvements). Table 4.16-10 Future Roadway Improvements 4.16-26 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendments 2035 Constrained Highway Network .. LocationYear Harbor Boulevard (Sunflower Avenue to Widen northbound from three lanes to four Costa Mesa CIP Whittier Law School driveway) lanes. Newport Boulevard (19th Street to 17th Widen southbound from three lanes to Costa Mesa CIP Street) four lanes. Add one general purpose lane in each 1-405 Freeway (SR -73 to 1-605) direction between Euclid Street and 1-605, Orange County Transportation Authority and add one tolled Express Lane in each Measure M2 Program direction between SR -73 and SR -22. 1-405 Freeway (SR -55 to SR -133) Add one general purpose lane in each Orange County Transportation Authority direction. Measure M2 Program SR -55 Freeway (1-405 to 1-5) Add one general purpose lane in each Orange County Transportation Authority direction. Year 2035 Buildout Measure M2 Program Location.. 17th Street (Orange Avenue to Tustin Widen from four lanes to six lanes. Costa Mesa Master Plan of Streets and Avenue) Highways 17th Street (Pomona Avenue to Bluff Widen from two lanes to four lanes. Costa Mesa Master Plan of Streets and Road) Highways Baker Street (Bear Street to Red Hill Widen from four lanes to six lanes. Costa Mesa Master Plan of Streets and Avenue) Highways Bear Street (1-405 overcrossing) Widen from four lanes to six lanes. Costa Mesa Master Plan of Streets and Highways Del Mar Avenue/University Drive Widen from two lanes to four lanes. Costa Mesa Master Plan of Streets and (Newport Boulevard to Irvine Avenue) Highways SR -55 Freeway (19th Street to Industrial Construct four -lane freeway extension (cut Costa Mesa Master Plan of Streets and Way) and cover). Highways Wilson Street (Newport Boulevard to Widen from two lanes to four lanes. Costa Mesa Master Plan of Streets and College Avenue) Highways Wilson Street (Harbor Boulevard to Widen from two lanes to four lanes. Costa Mesa Master Plan of Streets and Placentia Avenue) Highways (a) The year 2035 buildout highway network also includes the improvements assumed in the year 2035 constrained highway network. 4.16-26 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendments Transportation and Traffic 4.16 4 s.►TCq _ 1 r - s= K Santa Ana d W�M'rHull J Z �� i L sm t 3° e -J o: Huntingtoni; , z� 8�ach f ii4S251 < ti 4P 4P 25 2s 2s ~� W 4P ±PLM 7S all ESO 4P 143 am U r 2Q 2C 2'. i 2 `" 2C 2s'2s —f \a. d% .� . �ratc Pacific Ocean Newport j Beac 1 Legend )ON Midblock lanes (X) and roadway type (M= major arteriaL NewpoR P-- primary arterial. Back Bay 5= secondary arterial, C= collects r arterial) XM Fvwre roadway improvements .USI 5-w4e 51.,"t" httl3;•w—migco-com.951-7$7.9777 Exhibit 4.16-4 Year 2035 Constrained Roadway System ® Hv le -Breland Costa Mesa General Plan Update g Costa Mesa. California Environmental Impact Report 4.16-27 4.16 Transportation and Traffic v v socw;ranu -e NI n 4 YtN dP 4P• 4P 4F 4P 4P 4P OA1R1[la • r -L Fw-w&N Santa Ana 4P + 1 .- 'DL2c 4A --M"4z RP SRP 4P aP 4P s SM 2S y I Bu W Huntington; 4P �s v dP r 4P 0 f N 2S 41, 4C 4 i as 12 a SAW 4P 4P " 4P u 4p aP 4P� 2C 2C pink i n ry►• �' C ■ ��\ i:La��a 2S 13 amI Xr' j+ 2C ry : x 12C u 911 1 _o,f •\ 4r ~ L SP sp Pacific ocean Sou Mstanw J ` V a j Newport Legend Beach � XM AAidblock lanes (X) and roadway type (M= major arterial - P= primary arterial. S= secondary arterial, Newport C= collector arterial) Sack Bay XM Future roadway improvements f 7Y aw.W MUMSwn k PLnnu •- aly am dm cit owwwwt a w0po ad atv�t :.:,rr.anrycom.com•951.787.9221 Exhibit 4.16-5 Year 2035 Buildout Roadway System ©® Hogle-Ireland Costa Mesa General Plan Update Costa Mesa, California 4.16-28 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendments Transportation and Traffic 4.16 Table 4.16-11 Future Intersection Improvements Loc. # 2 ApproachIntersection Southbound,.und J Northbound Eastbound Intersection (NS & EW) Left_]L Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Harbor Boulevard & Sunflower Avenue Existing Conditions 2 3 1 1.5 1.5 0 2 3 1 1 2 0 Improvements 2035 Constrained 1 1 9 Bristol Street & Sunflower Avenue Existing Conditions 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 2.5 1.52 2.5 1.5 Improvements 2035 Constrained 3 17 Hyland Avenue & South Coast Drivel1-405 Northbound Ram Existing Conditions 1 0 f 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Improvements 2035 Constrained 2 18 Harbor Boulevard & South Coast Drive Existing Conditions 1 2 4 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 3.5 1 1.5 1 1 1 0.5 1.5 Improvements 2035 Constrained 1 2 30 Hyland Avenue & MacArthur Boulevard Existing Conditions 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 0 1 3 1 Improvements 2035 Constrained 2.5 0.5 1 42 Bristol Street & 1-405 Northbound Ramps Existing Conditions 0 5 0 1.5 1.5 2 0 4 f 0 0 2 Improvements 2035 Constrained 1.5 1 2.5 44 Harbor Boulevard & Gisler Avenue Existing Conditions 1 4 0 1 1 1 1 5 0 2 1 0 Improvements 2035 Constrained 1 3 49 Bristol Street & Paularino Avenue Existing Conditions 2 3 0 1 1 1 1 3 0 1 1 0 Improvements 2035 Constrained 2 51 SR -55 Southbound Ramps & Paularino Avenue Existing Conditions 1 0 2 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 Improvements 2035 Constrained 1 52 SR -55 Northbound Ramps & Paularino Avenue Existing Conditions 0 0 0 0 2 0 0.5 1.5 0 1 2 0 Improvements 2035 Constrained 1 63 Bear Street & Baker Street Existing Conditions 2 1 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 2 2 0 Improvements 2035 Buildout 3 64 Bristol Street & Baker Street Existing Conditions 2 3 1 2 2 1 2 3 1 2 2 0 Improvements 2035 Buildout 3 3 65 SR -55 Southbound Ramps & Baker Street Existing Conditions 0.5 1.5 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 Improvements 2035 Constrained 1 Improvements 2035 Buildout 3 3 66 SR -55 Northbound Ramps & Baker Street Existing Conditions 0 0 0 0 2 1 0.5 1.5 0 1 2 0 Improvements 2035 Constrained 1.5 2 Improvements 2035 Buildout 3 3 67 Red Hill Avenue & Baker Street Existing Conditions 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1.5 1.5 1 Environmental Impact Report 4.16-29 4.16 Transportation and Traffic Table 4.16-11 Future Intersection Improvements Loc. # ApproachIntersection Southbound .. . Northbound Eastbound Intersection (NS & EW) Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Improvements 2035 Buildout 3 84 Harbor Boulevard & Adams Avenue Existing Conditions 1 2 4 2 2 3 1 2 3 0 3 3 1 Improvements 2035 Constrained 3 1 100 Newport Boulevard Southbound & Fair Drive Existing Conditions 1 L 3 f 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 101 Newport Boulevard Northbound & Del Mar Avenue Existing Conditions 0 0 0 0 2 1 0.5 2.5 0 1:::=2 1 0 Improvements 2035 Constrained 1.5 1.5 115 Placentia Avenue & Wilson Street Existing Conditions 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 1 1 Improvements 2035 Buildout 2 0 117 Fairview Street & Wilson Street Existing Conditions 1 2 1 1 1 0 1 2 0 1 1 0 Improvements 2035 Buildout 2 2 129 Newport Boulevard Northbound & 22nd Street Existing Conditions 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.5 2.5 1 =2 0 Improvements 2035 Constrained 1.5 1.5 1 3 134 Placentia Avenue & 19th Street Existing Conditions 1 2 0 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 0 Improvements 2035 Constrained 1 140 Newport Boulevard & 19th Street Existing Conditions 1 3.5 1.5 1 2.5 1.5 1 4 0 2.5 1.5 1 Improvements 2035 Constrained 0 5 Improvements 2035 Buildout 2.5 1 3 141 Newport Boulevard & Broadway Existing Conditions 1 3 1 1 1 0 1 4 d 1 1 0 Improvements 2035 Constrained 4 d Improvements 2035 Buildout 3 3 142 Newport Boulevard & Harbor Boulevard Existing Conditions 0 3 0 0 0 0 2 4 0 1 0 2 Improvements 2035 Constrained 4 Improvements 2035 Buildout 3 3 144 Newport Boulevard & 18th StreetlRochester Street Existing Conditions 1 3 1 1 1 0 1 4 0 2 1 1 Improvements 2035 Constrained 4 0 Improvements 2035 Buildout 3 1 3 150 Placentia Avenue & 17th Street Existing Conditions 1 2 0 1 1 0 1 2 0 1 1 0 Improvements 2035 Buildout 1 1 151 Superior Avenue & 17th Street Existing Conditions 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 0.5 1.5 1 2 1 Improvements 2035 Constrained 1.5 1.5 1 2 152 Newport Boulevard & 17th Street Existing Conditions 2 3 1 2 3 1 1 4 0 3 2 0 Improvements 2035 Constrained 1 Improvements 2035 Buildout 2 3 153 Orange Avenue & 17th Street 4.16-30 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendments Transportation and Traffic 4.16 Table 4.16-11 Future Intersection Improvements # Southbound Intersection (NS & EW) Left Thru RightLoc. Existing Conditions 1 1 1 1 .. F7 ApproachIntersection . Northbound RightRightRight 1 1 1 1 Eastbound 1 2 1 Improvements 2035 Buildout 3 3 154 Santa Ana Avenue & 17th Street Existing Conditions 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 Improvements 2035 Buildout 3 3 155 Tustin Avenue & 17th Street Existing Conditions 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1:::=2 1 Improvements 2035 Buildout 3 3 0 156 Irvine Avenue & 17th Street Existing Conditions 2 2 0 1 2 0 2 2 0 2 2 0 Improvements 2035 Constrained 1 1 157 Newport Boulevard & 16th Street Existing Conditions 1 3 1 0 1 0 1 3 0 0 1 0 Improvements 2035 Buildout 2 2 Lane entry notations: d = de -facto right -turn lane (curb lane 19 feet or wider) f = free right -turn lane Future Traffic Conditions Year 2035 ADT V/C ratios on the City's arterial roadway system based on proposed General Plan were projected for both the Constrained Highway Network and Buildout Highway Network Scenarios. The data isare presented in Table 4.16-12 (2035 Constrained Highway Network and Buildout Highway Network ADT Volumes and V/C Ratios). As Table 4.16-12 indicates, various roadways throughout the City are forecast to exceed their theoretical maximum ADT capacities under year 2035 traffic conditions. However, none of those locations are considered to be actual future deficiencies because, as is demonstrated below, the intersections analyzed along those roadway segments are forecast to operate at acceptable levels of service during the A.M. and P.M. peak hours with the future intersection improvements summarized in Table 4.16-11. Also note that Table 4.16-12 indicates that the following locations exceed their theoretical maximum ADT capacities under 2035 conditions based on the constrained highway network: • Wilson Street (Pomona Avenue to Harbor Boulevard) • Wilson Street (Fairview Road to Newport Boulevard) • 17th Street (Monrovia Avenue to Placentia Avenue) As indicated in Table 4.16-12, each of these roadways is forecast to operate within its theoretical maximum ADT capacity under year 2035 conditions with the future Wilson Street and 171h Street roadway widening improvements that are planned as part of buildout of the City of Costa Mesa MPSH. Year 2035 AM and PM peak hour ICU values for study intersections for the proposed General Plan are summarized in Table 4.16-13 (2035 Constrained Highway Network and Buildout Highway Network Intersection LOS Summary). Actual turn volumes and ICU calculation worksheets are included in Appendix A of the traffic study. Based on the intersection LOS performance criteria outlined in the traffic study, each of the intersection locations analyzed in the City is forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS (i.e., LOS "D" or better) under year 2035 conditions with the future intersection improvements summarized earlier in Table 4.16-11. Environmental Impact Report 4.16-31 4.16 Transportation and Traffic Table 4.16-12 2035 Constrained Hiqhwav Network and Buildout Hiqhwav Network ADT Volumes and V/C Ratios 4.16-32 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendments Lanes- Roadway Existing ADT Conditions (Constrained Roadway Proposed Highway ADT General Network)2035 Plan 2035 (Buildout Roadway Proposed ADT General Plan Roadway Adams w/o Placentia Type 6M -A Capacity 68,000 ADT 39,000 ADT V/C .57 Type 6M -A Capacity 68,000 ADT 46,000 ADT V/C .68 Type 6M -A Capacity 68,000 ADT 46,000 ADT V/C .68 Adams e/o Placentia 6M -A 68,000 38,000 .56 6M -A 68,000 44,000 .65 6M -A 68,000 43,000 .63 Adams e/o Mesa Verde E. 6M -A 68,000 38,000 .56 6M -A 68,000 43,000 .63 6M -A 68,000 43,000 .63 Adams w/o Harbor 6M -A 68,000 37,000 .54 6M -A 68,000 42,000 .62 6M -A 68,000 41,000 .60 Adams e/o Harbor 6M -A 68,000 29,000 .43 6M -A 68,000 35,000 .51 6M -A 68,000 34,000 .50 Adams w/o Fairview 5M -A 57,000 26,000 .46 5M -A 57,000 30,000 .53 5M -A 57,000 29,000 .51 Anaheim s/o 19th 2C 12,500 5,000 .40 2C 12,500 8,000 .64 2C 12,500 7,000 .56 Anaheim n/o Superior 2C 12,500 6,000 .48 2C 12,500 7,000 .56 2C 12,500 6,000 .48 Anton e/o Bristol 6M 56,000 23,000 .41 6M 56,000 36,000 .64 6M 56,000 36,000 .64 Anton s/o Sunflower 6M 56,000 5,000 .09 6M 56,000 7,000 .13 6M 56,000 6,000 .11 Arlington e/o Fairview 2S 12,500 5,000 .40 2S 12,500 7,000 .56 2S 12,500 7,000 .56 Ave of the Arts n/o Anton 4S 25,000 7,000 .28 4S 25,000 9,000 .36 4S 25,000 9,000 .36 Baker e/o Mesa Verde 2S 12,500 9,000 .72 2S 12,500 11,000 .88 4S 25,000 10,000 .40 Baker w/o Harbor 4S 25,000 14,000 .56 4S 25,000 16,000 .64 4S 25,000 16,000 .64 Baker e/o Harbor 4P -A 45,000 19,000 .42 4P -A 45,000 23,000 .51 4P -A 45,000 23,000 .51 Baker w/o Fairview 4P -A 45,000 23,000 .51 4P -A 45,000 28,000 .62 4P -A 45,000 28,000 .62 Baker e/o Fairview 4P -A 45,000 32,000 .71 4P -A 45,000 37,000 .82 4P -A 45,000 38,000 .84 Baker e/o Coolidge 4P -A 45,000 30,000 .67 4P -A 45,000 37,000 .82 4P -A 45,000 38,000 .84 Baker w/o Bear 4P -A 45,000 31,000 .69 4P -A 45,000 38,000 .84 4P -A 45,000 40,000 .89 Baker w/o Randolph 4P -A 45,000 24,000 .53 4P -A 45,000 30,000 .67 6M -A 68,000 36,000 .53 Baker w/o SR -55 4P -A 45,000 27,000 .60 4P -A 45,000 33,000 .73 6M -A 68,000 39,000 .57 Baker w/o Pullman 4P -A 45,000 20,000 .44 4P -A 45,000 23,000 .51 6M -A 68,000 26,000 .38 Baker e/o Pullman 5M -A 57,000 15,000 .26 5M -A 57,000 17,000 .30 6M -A 68,000 20,000 .29 Ba e/o Harbor 2C 12,500 4,000 .32 2C 12,500 6,000 .48 2C 12,500 5,000 .40 Ba e/o Newport 2C 12,500 6,000 .48 2C 12,500 6,000 .48 2C 12,500 6,000 .48 Bear s/o Sunflower 6M 56,000 26,000 .46 6M 56,000 29,000 .52 6M 56,000 31,000 .55 Bear n/o South Coast 6M 56,000 30,000 .54 6M 56,000 34,000 .61 6M 56,000 35,000 .63 Bear n/o Paularino 4P 38,000 27,000 .71 4P 38,000 30,000 .79 6M 56,000 32,000 .57 Bristol s/o Sunflower 6M -A 68,000 41,000 .60 6M -A 68,000 49,000 .72 6M -A 68,000 48,000 .71 Bristol n/o Anton 8M -A 90,000 47,000 .52 8M -A 90,000 56,000 .62 8M -A 90,000 55,000 .61 Bristol s/o Anton l OM -A 112,000 65,000 .58 l OM -A 112,000 82,000 .73 l OM -A 112,000 82,000 .73 Bristol n/o Paularino 6M 56,000 36,000 .64 6M 56,000 46,000 .82 6M 56,000 44,000 .79 4.16-32 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendments 4.16 Transportation and Traffic Table 4.16-12 2035 Constrained Hiqhwav Network and Buildout Highwav Network ADT Volumes and VIC Ratios Environmental Impact Report 4.16-33 Lanes Roadway Existing Conditions2035 ADT -Lanes Roadway Proposed -. Highway ADT General Network).. Plan 2035 Roadway Proposed ADT General Plan Network) Roadway Bristol n/o Baker Type 6M Capacity 56,000 ADT 31,000 ADT V/C .55 Type 6M Capacity 56,000 ADT 41,000 ADT V/C .73 Type 6M Capacity 56,000 ADT 40,000 ADT V/C .71 Bristol n/o Bear 6M 56,000 22,000 .39 6M 56,000 30,000 .54 6M 56,000 30,000 .54 Bristol s/o Bear 6M 56,000 26,000 .46 6M 56,000 36,000 .64 6M 56,000 35,000 .63 Bristol e/o Newport 6M 56,000 26,000 .46 6M 56,000 33,000 .59 6M 56,000 32,000 .57 Bristol w/o Redhill 6M 56,000 25,000 .45 6M 56,000 32,000 .57 6M 56,000 30,000 .54 Canyon n/o Victoria 2C 12,500 3,000 .24 2C 12,500 3,000 .24 2C 12,500 4,000 .32 Country Club n/o Mesa Verde 2C 12,500 4,000 .32 2C 12,500 4,000 .32 2C 12,500 4,000 .32 Del Mar w/o Orange 4S 25,000 12,000 .48 4S 25,000 12,000 .48 4P 38,000 18,000 .47 Del Mar w/o Santa Ana 2S 12,500 6,000 .48 2S 12,500 7,000 .56 4P 38,000 12,000 .32 Del Mar/University w/o Irvine 2S 12,500 6,000 .48 2S 12,500 7,000 .56 4P 38,000 10,000 .26 EI Camino e/o Fairview 2S 12,500 6,000 .48 2S 12,500 7,000 .56 2S 12,500 7,000 .56 EI Camino w/o Mendoza 2S 12,500 3,000 .24 2S 12,500 4,000 .32 2S 12,500 4,000 .32 Elden n/o 22nd 2C 12,500 2,000 .16 2C 12,500 2,000 .16 2C 12,500 2,000 .16 Fair e/o Harbor 4P 38,000 14,000 .37 4P 38,000 16,000 .42 4P 38,000 15,000 .39 Fair e/o Fairview 4P 38,000 21,000 .55 4P 38,000 26,000 .68 4P 38,000 25,000 .66 Fair w/o Newport 4P 38,000 24,000 .63 4P 38,000 28,000 .74 4P 38,000 27,000 .71 Fairview n/o South Coast 6M -A 68,000 42,000 .62 6M -A 68,000 47,000 .69 6M -A 68,000 47,000 .69 Fairview s/o South Coast 6M -A 68,000 61,000 .90 6M -A 68,000 70,000 1.03 a 6M -A 68,000 69,000 1.01 a Fairview s/o 1-405 6M -A 68,000 44,000 .65 6M -A 68,000 54,000 .79 6M -A 68,000 53,000 .78 Fairview s/o Baker 6M -A 68,000 48,000 .71 6M -A 68,000 59,000 .87 6M -A 68,000 60,000 .88 Fairview s/o Adams 6M -A 68,000 33,000 .49 6M -A 68,000 42,000 .62 6M -A 68,000 42,000 .62 Fairview n/o Fair 6M -A 68,000 23,000 .34 6M -A 68,000 32,000 .47 6M -A 68,000 33,000 .49 Fairview n/o Wilson 6M -A 68,000 13,000 .19 6M -A 68,000 18,000 .26 6M -A 68,000 19,000 .28 Fairview s/o Wilson 4P -A 45,000 12,000 .27 4P -A 45,000 17,000 .38 4P -A 45,000 18,000 .40 Gisler w/o Harbor 2S 12,500 11,000 .88 2S 12,500 12,000 .96 2S 12,500 12,000 .96 Hamilton e/o Placentia 2C 12,500 3,000 .24 2C 12,500 4,000 .32 2C 12,500 3,000 .24 Hamilton w/o Harbor 2C 12,500 8,000 .64 2C 12,500 11,000 .88 2C 12,500 9,000 .72 Harbor n/o Sunflower 6M -A 68,000 44,000 .65 6M -A 68,000 50,000 .74 6M -A 68,000 50,000 .74 Harbor n/o South Coast 6M -A 68,000 50,000 .74 6M -A 68,000 57,000 .84 6M -A 68,000 57,000 .84 Harbor n/o Baker 8M -A 90,000 59,000 .66 8M -A 90,000 71,000 .79 8M -A 90,000 69,000 .77 Harbor n/o Village 7M -A 79,000 62,000 .78 7M -A 79,000 75,000 .95 7M -A 79,000 73,000 .92 Harbor n/o Adams 7M -A 79,000 55,000 .70 7M -A 79,000 67,000 .85 7M -A 79,000 66,000 .84 Environmental Impact Report 4.16-33 4.16 Transportation and Traffic Table 4.16-12 2035 Constrained Hiqhwav Network and Buildout Highwav Network ADT Volumes and VIC Ratios 4.16-34 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendments Lanes Roadway Existing Conditions2035 ADT -Lanes Roadway Proposed -. Highway ADT General Network).. Plan 2035 Roadway Proposed ADT General Plan Network) Roadway Harbor s/o Adams Type 6M -A Capacity 68,000 ADT 47,000 ADT V/C .69 Type 6M -A Capacity 68,000 ADT 58,000 ADT V/C .85 Type 6M -A Capacity 68,000 ADT 56,000 ADT V/C .82 Harbor n/o Fair 6M -A 68,000 43,000 .63 6M -A 68,000 54,000 .79 6M -A 68,000 51,000 .75 Harbor n/o Wilson 6M -A 68,000 40,000 .59 6M -A 68,000 52,000 .76 6M -A 68,000 48,000 .71 Harbor n/o Victoria 6M -A 68,000 39,000 .57 6M -A 68,000 50,000 .74 6M -A 68,000 44,000 .65 Harbor n/o Bay 6M -A 68,000 27,000 .40 6M -A 68,000 35,000 .51 6M -A 68,000 32,000 .47 Harbor n/o 19th 6M -A 68,000 27,000 .40 6M -A 68,000 38,000 .56 6M -A 68,000 34,000 .50 Harbor s/o 19th 6M -A 68,000 18,000 .26 6M -A 68,000 23,000 .34 6M -A 68,000 21,000 .31 Hyland s/o MacArthur 4P 38,000 10,000 .26 4P 38,000 11,000 .29 4P 38,000 11,000 .29 Hyland s/o Scenic 4P 38,000 7,000 .18 4P 38,000 8,000 .21 4P 38,000 8,000 .21 Hyland s/o Sunflower 4P 38,000 7,000 .18 4P 38,000 9,000 .24 4P 38,000 9,000 .24 Industrial w/o Newport 2C 12,500 5,000 .40 2C 12,500 5,000 .40 2C 12,500 6,000 .48 Irvine s/o Bristol 6M 56,000 26,000 .46 6M 56,000 30,000 .54 6M 56,000 29,000 .52 Irvine n/o Mesa 6M 56,000 21,000 .38 6M 56,000 24,000 .43 6M 56,000 23,000 .41 Irvine n/o University 4P 38,000 26,000 .68 4P 38,000 30,000 .79 4P 38,000 30,000 .79 Irvine n/o 22nd 4P 38,000 28,000 .74 4P 38,000 32,000 .84 4P 38,000 29,000 .76 Irvine s/o 22nd 4P 38,000 26,000 .68 4P 38,000 30,000 .79 4P 38,000 26,000 .68 Irvine n/o 19th 4P 38,000 29,000 .76 4P 38,000 33,000 .87 4P 38,000 28,000 .74 Irvine n/o 17th 4P 38,000 20,000 .53 4P 38,000 23,000 .61 4P 38,000 18,000 .47 Irvine n/o 16th 4P 38,000 14,000 .37 4P 38,000 15,000 .39 4P 38,000 15,000 .39 MacArthur w/o Harbor 6M 56,000 23,000 .41 6M 56,000 25,000 .45 6M 56,000 25,000 .45 Merrimac e/o Harbor 4P 38,000 10,000 .26 4P 38,000 13,000 .34 4P 38,000 12,000 .32 Merrimac w/o Fairview 4P 38,000 10,000 .26 4P 38,000 11,000 .29 4P 38,000 11,000 .29 Mesa w/o Orange 2S 12,500 7,000 .56 2S 12,500 7,000 .56 2S 12,500 7,000 .56 Mesa e/o Santa Ana 2S 12,500 7,000 .56 2S 12,500 8,000 .64 2S 12,500 8,000 .64 Mesa Verde W. n/o Adams 4P 38,000 7,000 .18 4P 38,000 8,000 .21 4P 38,000 8,000 .21 Mesa Verde W. w/o Country Club 4P 38,000 7,000 .18 4P 38,000 8,000 .21 4P 38,000 8,000 .21 Mesa Verde E. n/o Baker 4P 38,000 4,000 .11 4P 38,000 5,000 .13 4P 38,000 5,000 .13 Mesa Verde E. n/o Adams 4P 38,000 6,000 .16 4P 38,000 7,000 .18 4P 38,000 7,000 .18 Mesa Verde E. s/o Adams 4P 38,000 10,000 .26 4P 38,000 11,000 .29 4P 38,000 11,000 .29 Mesa Verde E. w/o Harbor 4P 38,000 11,000 .29 4P 38,000 13,000 .34 4P 38,000 13,000 .34 Monrovia s/o 19th 2C 12,500 6,000 .48 2C 12,500 6,000 .48 2C 12,500 6,000 .48 Monrovia n/o 17th 2C 12,500 6,000 .48 2C 12,500 6,000 .48 2C 12,500 6,000 .48 Newport SB n/o Mesa 3M -A 34,000 26,000 .76 3M -A 34,000 30,000 .88 3M -A 34,000 31,000 .91 4.16-34 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendments 4.16 Transportation and Traffic Table 4.16-12 2035 Constrained Hiqhwav Network and Buildout Highwav Network ADT Volumes and VIC Ratios Environmental Impact Report 4.16-35 Lanes Roadway Existing Conditions2035 ADT -Lanes Roadway Proposed -. Highway ADT General Network).. Plan 2035 Roadway Proposed ADT General Plan Network) Roadway Newport SB n/o Fair/Del Mar Type 4M -A Capacity 45,000 ADT 24,000 ADT V/C .53 Type 4M -A Capacity 45,000 1 ADT 28,000 ADT V/C .62 Type 4M -A Capacity 45,000 ADT 28,000 ADT V/C .62 Newport SB n/o Santa Isabel 3M -A 34,000 10,000 .29 3M -A 34,000 12,000 .35 3M -A 34,000 14,000 .41 Newport SB n/o Victoria 3M -A 34,000 30,000 .88 3M -A 34,000 38,000 1.12 a 3M -A 34,000 37,000 1.09 a Newport SB s/o Victoria 2M -A 23,000 11,000 .48 2M -A 23,000 17,000 .74 2M -A 23,000 18,000 .78 Newport SB s/o Ford 2M -A 23,000 8,000 .35 2M -A 23,000 12,000 .52 2M -A 23,000 12,000 .52 Newport NB n/o Mesa 2M -A 23,000 7,000 .30 2M -A 23,000 10,000 .43 2M -A 23,000 10,000 .43 Newport NB n/o Fair/Del Mar 3M -A 34,000 24,000 .71 3M -A 34,000 27,000 .79 3M -A 34,000 27,000 .79 Newport NB n/o Santa Isabel 2M -A 23,000 13,000 .57 2M -A 23,000 15,000 .65 2M -A 23,000 16,000 .70 Newport NB n/o 22nd 3M -A 34,000 28,000 .82 3M -A 34,000 32,000 .94 3M -A 34,000 30,000 .88 Newport NB s/o 22nd 3M -A 34,000 13,000 .38 3M -A 34,000 15,000 .44 3M -A 34,000 15,000 .44 Newport NB s/o 20th 2M -A 23,000 9,000 .39 2M -A 23,000 10,000 .43 2M -A 23,000 10,000 .43 Newport s/o 19th 7M -A 79,000 66,000 .84 8M -A 90,000 79,000 .88 6M -A 68,000 31,000 .46 Newport n/o 17th 7M -A 79,000 79,000 1.00 8M -A 90,000 94,000 1.04 a 6M -A 68,000 44,000 .65 Newport n/o Industrial 6M -A 68,000 51,000 .75 6M -A 68,000 57,000 .84 6M -A 68,000 16,000 .24 Ole e/o Orange 2C 12,500 2,000 .16 2C 12,500 2,000 .16 2C 12,500 2,000 .16 Orange n/o Del Mar 2C 12,500 2,000 .16 2C 12,500 3,000 .24 2C 12,500 2,000 .16 Orange n/o Santa Isabel 2C 12,500 3,000 .24 2C 12,500 4,000 .32 2C 12,500 4,000 .32 Orange n/o 22nd 2C 12,500 4,000 .32 2C 12,500 5,000 .40 2C 12,500 5,000 .40 Orange n/o 21 st 2C 12,500 6,000 .48 2C 12,500 7,000 .56 2C 12,500 6,000 .48 Orange n/o 19th 2C 12,500 7,000 .56 2C 12,500 8,000 .64 2C 12,500 6,000 .48 Orange n/o 17th 2C 12,500 12,000 .96 2C 12,500 13,000 1.04 a 2C 12,500 12,000 .96 Orange n/o 16th 2C 12,500 8,000 .64 2C 12,500 9,000 .72 2C 12,500 6,000 .48 Orange n/o 15th 2C 12,500 5,000 .40 2C 12,500 5,000 .40 2C 12,500 5,000 .40 Park s/o 19th 2C 12,500 5,000 .40 2C 12,500 6,000 .48 2C 12,500 6,000 .48 Paularino e/o Fairview 2C 12,500 6,000 .48 2C 12,500 6,000 .48 2C 12,500 7,000 .56 Paularino e/o Bear 2C 12,500 8,000 .64 2C 12,500 9,000 .72 2C 12,500 9,000 .72 Paularino e/o Bristol 4P 38,000 16,000 .42 4P 38,000 19,000 .50 4P 38,000 15,000 .39 Paularino w/o Redhill 4P 38,000 12,000 .32 4P 38,000 14,000 .37 4P 38,000 13,000 .34 Placentia s/o Adams 4P 38,000 11,000 .29 4P 38,000 13,000 .34 4P 38,000 13,000 .34 Placentia n/o Wilson 4P 38,000 12,000 .32 4P 38,000 15,000 .39 4P 38,000 14,000 .37 Placentia n/o Victoria 4P 38,000 16,000 .42 4P 38,000 19,000 .50 4P 38,000 22,000 .58 Placentia n/o Hamilton 4P 38,000 27,000 .71 4P 38,000 31,000 .82 4P 38,000 30,000 .79 Environmental Impact Report 4.16-35 4.16 Transportation and Traffic Table 4.16-12 2035 Constrained Hiqhwav Network and Buildout Highwav Network ADT Volumes and V/C Ratios 4.16-36 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendments Lanes Roadway Existing Conditions2035 ADT -Lanes Roadway Proposed -. Highway ADT General Network).. Plan 2035 Roadway Proposed ADT General Plan Network) Roadway Placentia s/o Hamilton Type 4P Capacity 38,000 ADT 24,000 ADT V/C .63 Type 4P Capacity 38,000 ADT 27,000 ADT V/C .71 Type 4P Capacity 38,000 ADT 26,000 ADT V/C .68 Placentia s/o 19th 4P 38,000 24,000 .63 4P 38,000 29,000 .76 4P 38,000 25,000 .66 Placentia n/o 17th 4P 38,000 17,000 .45 4P 38,000 21,000 .55 4P 38,000 18,000 .47 Placentia n/o 16th 4P 38,000 15,000 .39 4P 38,000 17,000 .45 4P 38,000 15,000 .39 Pomona n/o Victoria 2C 12,500 4,000 .32 2C 12,500 4,000 .32 2C 12,500 5,000 .40 Pomona n/o Hamilton 2C 12,500 8,000 .64 2C 12,500 10,000 .80 2C 12,500 9,000 .72 Pomona n/o 19th 2C 12,500 7,000 .56 2C 12,500 9,000 .72 2C 12,500 9,000 .72 Pomona n/o 18th 2C 12,500 7,000 .56 2C 12,500 8,000 .64 2C 12,500 8,000 .64 Pomona s/o 18th 2C 12,500 10,000 .80 2C 12,500 12,000 .96 2C 12,500 11,000 .88 Pomona n/o 17th 2C 12,500 5,000 .40 2C 12,500 6,000 .48 2C 12,500 5,000 .40 Red Hill n/o Airport Loop 4P 38,000 17,000 .45 4P 38,000 21,000 .55 4P 38,000 21,000 .55 Red Hill n/o Paularino 4P 38,000 19,000 .50 4P 38,000 23,000 .61 4P 38,000 23,000 .61 Red Hill n/o Baker 4P 38,000 18,000 .47 4P 38,000 22,000 .58 4P 38,000 23,000 .61 Redhill n/o Kalmus 4P 38,000 15,000 .39 4P 38,000 18,000 .47 4P 38,000 17,000 .45 Red Hill n/o Bristol 4P 38,000 19,000 .50 4P 38,000 22,000 .58 4P 38,000 21,000 .55 Sakioka n/o Anton 4P 38,000 6,000 .16 4P 38,000 8,000 .21 4P 38,000 8,000 .21 Santa Ana s/o Bristol 4S 25,000 10,000 .40 4S 25,000 12,000 .48 4S 25,000 12,000 .48 Santa Ana n/o Del Mar/University 4S 25,000 7,000 .28 4S 25,000 9,000 .36 4S 25,000 9,000 .36 Santa Ana n/o Santa Isabel 2C 12,500 6,000 .48 2C 12,500 7,000 .56 2C 12,500 7,000 .56 Santa Ana n/o 22nd 2C 12,500 6,000 .48 2C 12,500 7,000 .56 2C 12,500 6,000 .48 Santa Ana n/o 21st 2C 12,500 5,000 .40 2C 12,500 6,000 .48 2C 12,500 5,000 .40 Santa Ana n/o 19th 2C 12,500 6,000 .48 2C 12,500 7,000 .56 2C 12,500 6,000 .48 Santa Ana n/o 17th 2C 12,500 8,000 .64 2C 12,500 9,000 .72 2C 12,500 7,000 .56 Santa Ana n/o 16th 2C 12,500 6,000 .48 2C 12,500 7,000 .56 2C 12,500 5,000 .40 Santa Ana n/o 15th 2C 12,500 5,000 .40 2C 12,500 5,000 .40 2C 12,500 4,000 .32 Santa Isabel e/o Newport 2S 12,500 4,000 .32 2S 12,500 4,000 .32 2S 12,500 4,000 .32 Santa Isabel e/o Orange 2S 12,500 3,000 .24 2S 12,500 3,000 .24 2S 12,500 3,000 .24 South Coast w/o Harbor 4P 38,000 11,000 .29 4P 38,000 15,000 .39 4P 38,000 15,000 .39 South Coast e/o Harbor 4P 38,000 12,000 .32 4P 38,000 20,000 .53 4P 38,000 20,000 .53 South Coast w/o Fairview 4P 38,000 13,000 .34 4P 38,000 21,000 .55 4P 38,000 21,000 .55 South Coast e/o Wimbledon 4P 38,000 16,000 .42 4P 38,000 19,000 .50 4P 38,000 19,000 .50 South Coast w/o Bear 4P 38,000 16,000 .42 4P 38,000 18,000 .47 4P 38,000 18,000 .47 Sunflower e/o Hyland 4P 38,000 5,000 .13 4P 38,000 7,000 .18 4P 38,000 7,000 .18 4.16-36 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendments 4.16 Transportation and Traffic Table 4.16-12 2035 Constrained Hiqhwav Network and Buildout Highwav Network ADT Volumes and VIC Ratios Environmental Impact Report 4.16-37 Lanes Roadway Existing Conditions2035 ADT -Lanes Roadway Proposed -. Highway ADT General Network).. Plan 2035 Roadway Proposed ADT General Plan Network) Roadway Sunflower w/o Harbor Type 4P Capacity 38,000 ADT 1 7,000 ADT V/C .18 Type 4P Capacity 38,000 1 ADT 10,000 ADT V/C .26 Type 4P Capacity 38,000 ADT 10,000 ADT V/C .26 Sunflower e/o Harbor 4P 38,000 13,000 .34 4P 38,000 17,000 .45 4P 38,000 17,000 .45 Sunflower w/o Susan 4P 38,000 13,000 .34 4P 38,000 17,000 .45 4P 38,000 17,000 .45 Sunflower w/o Fairview 4P 38,000 17,000 .45 4P 38,000 21,000 .55 4P 38,000 21,000 .55 Sunflower w/o Fuschia/Raitt 4P 38,000 18,000 .47 4P 38,000 23,000 .61 4P 38,000 23,000 .61 Sunflower w/o Bristol 6M -A 68,000 31,000 .46 6M -A 68,000 40,000 .59 6M -A 68,000 39,000 .57 Sunflower e/o Bristol 6M -A 68,000 25,000 .37 6M -A 68,000 33,000 .49 6M -A 68,000 33,000 .49 Sunflower w/o Anton 6M -A 68,000 19,000 .28 6M -A 68,000 25,000 .37 6M -A 68,000 25,000 .37 Sunflower w/o Main 6M -A 68,000 22,000 .32 6M -A 68,000 31,000 .46 6M -A 68,000 31,000 .46 Superior s/o Anaheim 4P 38,000 12,000 .32 4P 38,000 13,000 .34 4P 38,000 11,000 .29 Superior n/o 16th/Industrial 4P 38,000 23,000 .61 4P 38,000 29,000 .76 4P 38,000 27,000 .71 Tustin n/o 21 st 2C 12,500 3,000 .24 2C 12,500 3,000 .24 2C 12,500 3,000 .24 Tustin n/o 20th 2C 12,500 2,000 .16 2C 12,500 3,000 .24 2C 12,500 2,000 .16 Tustin n/o 19th 2C 12,500 4,000 .32 2C 12,500 5,000 .40 2C 12,500 4,000 .32 Tustin n/o 17th 2C 12,500 5,000 .40 2C 12,500 6,000 .48 2C 12,500 4,000 .32 Tustin n/o 16th 2C 12,500 7,000 .56 2C 12,500 7,000 .56 2C 12,500 7,000 .56 Victoria w/o Pacific 4P -A 45,000 30,000 .67 4P -A 45,000 34,000 .76 4P -A 45,000 34,000 .76 Victoria w/o National 4P -A 45,000 28,000 .62 4P -A 45,000 32,000 .71 4P -A 45,000 31,000 .69 Victoria w/o Placentia 4P -A 45,000 30,000 .67 4P -A 45,000 33,000 .73 4P -A 45,000 33,000 .73 Victoria e/o Placentia 4P -A 45,000 27,000 .60 4P -A 45,000 31,000 .69 4P -A 45,000 27,000 .60 Victoria e/o Harbor 4P -A 45,000 29,000 .64 4P -A 45,000 33,000 .73 4P -A 45,000 32,000 .71 Victoria w/o Harbor 4P -A 45,000 31,000 .69 4P -A 45,000 39,000 .87 4P -A 45,000 33,000 .73 Victoria e/o College 4P -A 45,000 28,000 .62 4P -A 45,000 33,000 .73 4P -A 45,000 32,000 .71 Wilson w/o Placentia 2S 12,500 7,000 .56 2S 12,500 8,000 .64 2S 12,500 8,000 .64 Wilson e/o Placentia 2S -A 15,000 12,000 .80 2S -A 15,000 14,000 .93 4S -A 30,000 21,000 .70 Wilson e/o Pomona 2S -A 15,000 15,000 1.00 2S -A 15,000 17,000 1.13 a 4S -A 30,000 26,000 .87 Wilson w/o Harbor 2S -A 15,000 17,000 1.13 a 2S -A 15,000 20,000 1.33 a 4S -A 30,000 29,000 .97 Wilson e/o Harbor 4S -A 30,000 17,000 .57 4S -A 30,000 19,000 .63 4S -A 30,000 24,000 .80 Wilson e/o Fairview 2S -A 15,000 13,000 .87 2S -A 15,000 16,000 1.07 a 4S -A 30,000 20,000 .67 Wilson e/o Newport 2S 12,500 6,000 .48 2S 12,500 7,000 .56 2S 12,500 6,000 .48 15th e/o Newport 2C 12,500 2,000 .16 2C 12,500 2,000 .16 2C 12,500 3,000 .24 W. 16th e/o Monrovia 2C 12,500 4,000 .32 2C 12,500 5,000 .40 2C 12,500 5,000 .40 Environmental Impact Report 4.16-37 4.16 Transportation and Traffic Table 4.16-12 2035 Constrained Hiqhwav Network and Buildout Highwav Network ADT Volumes and VIC Ratios 4.16-38 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendments Lanes Roadway Existing Conditions2035 ADT -Lanes Roadway Proposed -. Highway ADT General Network).. Plan 2035 Roadway Proposed ADT General Plan Network) Roadway W. 16th e/o Placentia Type 2C Capacity 12,500 ADT 5,000 ADT V/C .40 Type 2C Capacity 12,500 1 ADT 6,000 ADT V/C .48 Type 2C Capacity 12,500 ADT 6,000 ADT V/C .48 16th w/o Newport 2C 12,500 2,000 .16 2C 12,500 3,000 .24 2C 12,500 4,000 .32 16th e/o Newport 2C 12,500 4,000 .32 2C 12,500 5,000 .40 2C 12,500 5,000 .40 16th e/o Orange 2C 12,500 3,000 .24 2C 12,500 3,000 .24 2C 12,500 3,000 .24 16th e/o Santa Ana 2C 12,500 3,000 .24 2C 12,500 3,000 .24 2C 12,500 3,000 .24 l 6th e/o Tustin 2C 12,500 3,000 .24 2C 12,500 3,000 .24 2C 12,500 3,000 .24 W. 17th w/o Monrovia 2C 12,500 5,000 .40 2C 12,500 11,000 .88 4S 25,000 9,000 .36 W. 17th w/o Placentia 2C 12,500 7,000 .56 2C 12,500 13,000 1.04 a 4S 25,000 11,000 .44 W. 17th e/o Placentia 2S 12,500 9,000 .72 2S 12,500 12,000 .96 4P 38,000 14,000 .37 W. 17th w/o Pomona 2S 12,500 10,000 .80 2S 12,500 12,000 .96 4P 38,000 15,000 .39 17th w/o Orange 6M -A 68,000 35,000 .51 6M -A 68,000 44,000 .65 6M -A 68,000 53,000 .78 17th w/o Westminster 4P -A 45,000 34,000 .76 4P -A 45,000 41,000 .91 6M -A 68,000 47,000 .69 17th w/o Santa Ana 4P -A 45,000 33,000 .73 4P -A 45,000 40,000 .89 6M -A 68,000 45,000 .66 17th e/o Santa Ana 4P -A 45,000 34,000 .76 4P -A 45,000 41,000 .91 6M -A 68,000 46,000 .68 17th w/o Irvine 4P 38,000 30,000 .79 4P 38,000 37,000 .97 4P 38,000 39,000 1.03 a W. 18th e/o Monrovia 2C 12,500 5,000 .40 2C 12,500 6,000 .48 2C 12,500 6,000 .48 W. 18th e/o Placentia 2C 12,500 7,000 .56 2C 12,500 8,000 .64 2C 12,500 7,000 .56 W. 18th w/o Anaheim 2C 12,500 10,000 .80 2C 12,500 12,000 .96 2C 12,500 12,000 .96 W. 18th w/o Park 2C 12,500 11,000 .88 2C 12,500 13,000 1.04 a 2C 12,500 13,000 1.04 a W. 19th w/o Placentia 2S 12,500 13,000 1.04 a 2S 12,500 14,000 1.12 a 4S 25,000 13,000 .52 W. 19th e/o Placentia 4S 25,000 22,000 .88 4S 25,000 29,000 1.16 a 4S 25,000 26,000 1.04 a W. 19th w/o Park 6M 56,000 32,000 .57 6M 56,000 43,000 .77 6M 56,000 39,000 .70 W. 19th e/o Harbor 6M 56,000 32,000 .57 6M 56,000 38,000 .68 6M 56,000 35,000 .63 19th e/o Newport 4S 25,000 12,000 .48 4S 25,000 13,000 .52 4S 25,000 9,000 .36 19th w/o Orange 2C 12,500 11,000 .88 2C 12,500 11,000 .88 2C 12,500 8,000 .64 19th e/o Orange 2C 12,500 8,000 .64 2C 12,500 9,000 .72 2C 12,500 7,000 .56 19th e/o Santa Ana 2C 12,500 6,000 .48 2C 12,500 6,000 .48 2C 12,500 6,000 .48 19th w/o Irvine 2C 12,500 6,000 .48 2C 12,500 6,000 .48 2C 12,500 6,000 .48 20th e/o Newport 2C 12,500 4,000 .32 2C 12,500 4,000 .32 2C 12,500 3,000 .24 20th e/o Tustin 2C 12,500 3,000 .24 2C 12,500 3,000 .24 2C 12,500 3,000 .24 21 st e/o Newport 2C 12,500 3,000 .24 2C 12,500 3,000 .24 2C 12,500 3,000 .24 21 st w/o Irvine 2C 12,500 2,000 .16 2C 12,500 2,000 .16 2C 12,500 2,000 .16 22nd e/o Newport 2C 12,500 10,000 .80 2C 12,500 11,000 .88 4S 25,000 10,000 .40 4.16-38 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendments 4.16 Transportation and Traffic Table 4.16-12 2035 Constrained Hiqhwav Network and Buildout Highwav Network ADT Volumes and VIC Ratios Existing Conditions2035 Proposed General Plan -. Highway Network).. 2035 Proposed General Plan Network) Lanes Roadway ADT -Lanes Roadway ADT Roadway ADT Roadway Type Capacity ADT ADT V/C Type Capacity ADT ADT V/C Type Capacity ADT ADT V/C 22nd e/o Orange 2C 1 12,500 7,000 .56 2C 1 12,500 1 7,000 .56 2C 12,500 1 6,000 .48 22nd e/o Santa Ana 2C 12,500 6,000 .48 2C 12,500 7,000 .56 2C 12,500 5,000 .40 22nd/Santiago w/o Irvine 2C 12,500 5,000 .40 2C 12,500 1 5,000 .40 2C 12,500 4,000 .32 Abbreviations: ADT - Average Daily Traffic V/C - Volume/Capacity Ratio Roadway Types: M - Major Arterial (Standard) M -A -Major Arterial (Augmented) P - Primary Arterial (Standard) P -A - Primary Arterial (Augmented) S -Secondary Arterial (Standard) S-A -Secondary Arterial (Augmented) C - Collector Arterial (a) Although the theoretical maximum ADT capacity is exceeded at this location, this is not considered to be a deficiency because the intersections analyzed along this roadway segment are forecast to operate at acceptable levels of service during the AM and PM peak hours. Environmental Impact Report 4.16-39 4.16 Transportation and Traffic Table 4.16-13 2035 Constrained Highway Network and Buildout Highway Network Intersection LOS Summary Intersection.• Existing AM Peak Hour . t PM Peak Hour 2035 Proposed AM Peak Hour t . General Plan PM Peak Hour • 2035 Proposed .. AM Peak Hour General PM Peak Plan Hour 1. Harbor & Scenic/Lake Center .57 A .60 A .64 B .69 B .65 B .68 B 2. Harbor & Sunflower .50 A .65 B .61 B .72 C .60 A .72 C 3. Susan & Sunflower .35 A .58 A .49 A .64 B .48 A .67 B 4. Fairview & Sunflower .61 B .58 A .73 C .70 B .73 C .70 B 5. Wimbledon & Sunflower .28 A .47 A .37 A .55 A .38 A .55 A 6. Fuchsia/Raitt & Sunflower .25 A .43 A .37 A .52 A .37 A .52 A 7. Bear & Sunflower .36 A .37 A .43 A .46 A .44 A .47 A 9. Bristol & Sunflower .58 A .76 C .69 B .89 D .68 B .88 D 11. Ave of the Arts & Sunflower .30 A .42 A .45 A .57 A .45 A .57 A 12. Sakioka & Sunflower .29 A .41 A .38 A .52 A .37 A .52 A 13. Anton & Sunflower .40 A .42 A .44 A .55 A .43 A .53 A 14. Harbor & Law Court .55 A .69 B .66 B .80 C .65 B .78 C 15. Bear & Crystal Court .19 A .46 A .19 A .53 A .20 A .57 A 16. Bristol & Town Center .38 A .39 A .44 A .55 A .44 A .54 A 17. Hyland & South Coast/1-405 NB On -Ram .23 A .60 A .26 A .56 A .26 A .58 A 18. Harbor & South Coast .48 A .66 B .56 A .84 D .57 A .85 D 19. Susan & South Coast .26 A .45 A .46 A .68 B .46 A .67 B 20. Fairview & South Coast .53 A .60 A .69 B .79 C .69 B .79 C 24. Bear & South Coast .24 A .43 A .26 A .54 A .27 A .55 A 25. Bristol & Anton .39 A .63 B .45 A .84 D .45 A .83 D 27. Ave of the Arts & Anton .36 A .42 A .48 A .71 C .48 A .73 C 28. Sakioka & Anton .28 A .39 A .40 A .55 A .40 A .54 A 30. Hyland & MacArthur .52 A .91 E .67 B .87 D .67 B .88 D 36. Bear & Metro Point .24 A .45 A .24 A .49 A .25 A .52 A 38. Harbor & 1-405 NB Ramps .68 B .78 C .81 D .89 D .84 D .83 D 39. Harbor & 1 -405 Ramps .42 A .59 A .62 B .73 C .62 B .71 C -SB 40. Fairview & 1-405 NB Ramps .53 A .60 A .68 B .75 C .68 B .71 C 41. Fairview & 1-405 SB Ramps .58 A .57 A .65 B .70 B .62 B .69 B 42. Bristol & 1-405 NB Rams .47 A .76 C .53 A .84 D .53 A .84 D 43. Bristol & 1-405 SB Ramps .50 A .56 A .54 A .69 B .52 A .68 B 44. Harbor & Gisler .57 A .74 C .58 A .78 C .58 A .77 C 45. Harbor & Date .44 A .50 A .49 A .60 A .50 A .59 A 46. Harbor & Nutmeg .43 A .55 A .48 A .67 B .48 A .66 B 4.16-40 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendments 4.16 Transportation and Traffic Table 4.16-13 2035 Constrained Highwav Network and Buildout Hiqhwav Network Intersection LOS Summary Intersection 47. Fairview & Paularino AM Peak .47 Existing Hour •S A Conditions2035 PM Peak ICU .49 Hour LOS A AM Peak ICU .58 Proposed -. Highway Hour LOS• A General Plan Network)..Network) PM Peak .57 Hour A 2035 AM Peak .56 Proposed Hour • A General Plan PM Peak .55 Hour • A 48. Bear & Paularino .36 A .65 B .40 A .76 C .41 A .75 C 49. Bristol & Paularino .46 A .64 B .58 A .79 C .54 A .79 C 51. SR -55 SB Ramps & Paularino .71 C .64 B .71 C .64 B .70 B .62 B 52. SR -55 NB Ramps & Paularino .67 B .71 C .77 C .75 C .78 C .70 B 53. Redhill & Paularino .43 A .56 A .56 A .68 B .56 A .71 C 54. Bear & SR 73 NB Ramps .31 A .56 A .38 A .63 B .34 A .69 B 55. Bear & SR -73 SB Ramps .36 A .49 A .42 A .57 A .40 A .68 B 56. Harbor & Baker .47 A .64 B .55 A .79 C .55 A .80 C 57. College & Baker .34 A .52 A .43 A .65 B .43 A .67 B 58. Fairview & Baker .62 B .67 B .77 C .81 D .84 D .82 D 59. Coolidge & Baker .43 A .65 B .52 A .71 C .55 A .76 C 60. Mendoza & Baker .48 A .60 A .57 A .69 B .60 A .73 C 61. Babb & Baker .55 A .68 B .65 B .77 C .67 B .82 D 62. Milbro & Baker .52 A .50 A .62 B .57 A .65 B .61 B 63. Bear & Baker .49 A .55 A .63 B .67 B .53 A .69 B 64. Bristol & Baker .56 A .74 C .72 C .85 D .69 B .89 D 65. SR -55 SB Ramps & Baker .66 B .69 B .73 C .79 C .68 B .87 D 66. SR -55 NB Ramps & Baker .67 B .75 C .63 B .66 B .58 A .65 B 67. Red Hill & Baker .34 A .63 B .43 A .72 C .46 A .80 C 74. Royal Palm & Baker .33 A .52 A .35 A .66 B .35 A .66 B 76. Bristol & Bear .34 A .44 A .39 A .65 B .40 A .55 A 77. Bristol & Newport SB .27 A .44 A .32 A .67 B .31 A .64 B 78. Bristol & Newport NB .29 A .41 A .41 A .52 A .38 A .48 A 79. Bristol & Red Hill .38 A .43 A .51 A .52 A .48 A .51 A 80. Shantar & Adams .47 A .60 A .56 A .69 B .56 A .68 B 81. Placentia/Mesa Verde W & Adams .75 C .75 C .85 D .89 D .86 D .90 D 82. Mesa Verde E & Adams .52 A .57 A .61 B .66 B .60 A .63 B 83. Royal Palm & Adams .49 A .66 B .57 A .76 C .57 A .72 C 84. Harbor & Adams .66 B .74 C .86 D .84 D .87 D .82 D 85. Pinecreek & Adams .59 A .62 B .71 C .73 C .72 C .72 C 86. Fairview & Adams .62 B .60 A .78 C .75 C .78 C .72 C 88. Harbor & Mesa Verde .41 A .60 A .51 A .75 C .51 A .75 C Environmental Impact Report 4.16-41 4.16 Transportation and Traffic Table 4.16-13 2035 Constrained Highwav Network and Buildout Hiqhwav Network Intersection LOS Summary Intersection 90. Fairview & Arlington AM Peak .28 Existing Hour •S A Conditions2035 PM Peak ICU .42 Hour LOS A AM Peak ICU .36 Proposed -. Highway Hour LOS• A General Plan Network)..Network) PM Peak .47 Hour A 2035 AM Peak .35 Proposed Hour • A General Plan PM Peak .46 Hour • A 91. Harbor & Merrimac .36 A .56 A .49 A .67 B .48 A .65 B 92. Fairview & Merrimac .24 A .30 A .36 A .43 A .35 A .45 A 93. Newport SB & Mesa .28 A .53 A .32 A .65 B .32 A .61 B 94. Newport NB & Mesa .27 A .41 A .40 A .52 A .38 A .46 A 95. Harbor & Fair .35 A .53 A .45 A .63 B .45 A .60 A 97. Fairview & Fair .41 A .53 A .57 A .68 B .56 A .65 B 100. Newport SB & Fair .32 A .41 A .35 A .54 A .40 A .78 C 101. Newport NB & Del Mar .75 C .48 A .79 C .54 A .81 D .70 B 102. Newport SB & Vanguard .23 A .45 A .27 A .63 B .30 A .76 C 103. Newport NB & Santa Isabel .41 A .43 A .50 A .45 A .58 A .47 A 104. Harbor & Harbor Center .39 A .55 A .52 A .64 B .53 A .60 A 115. Placentia & Wilson .43 A .47 A .48 A .50 A .57 A .61 B 116. Harbor & Wilson .41 A .58 A .57 A .69 B .64 B .86 D 117. Fairview & Wilson .48 A .66 B .62 B .86 D .55 A .86 D 118. Newport SB & Wilson .26 A .39 A .34 A .48 A .44 A .74 C 119. Newport NB & Wilson .36 A .40 A .46 A .45 A .55 A .50 A 121. Valley & Victoria .54 A .65 B .59 A .74 C .59 A .75 C 122. Canyon & Victoria .53 A .61 B .57 A .72 C .57 A .72 C 123. American & Victoria .56 A .59 A .61 B .66 B .59 A .66 B 124. National & Victoria .59 A .63 B .63 B .72 C .62 B .70 B 125. Placentia & Victoria .74 C .77 C .79 C .88 D .77 C .88 D 126. Pomona & Victoria .61 B .63 B .71 C .75 C .61 B .71 C 127. Harbor & Victoria .67 B .78 C .76 C .87 D .73 C .81 D 128. Newport SB & Victoria .49 A .56 A .54 A .74 C .54 A .72 C 129. Newport NB & 22nd .79 C .60 A .81 D .57 A .76 C .52 A 130. Harbor & Hamilton .41 A .57 A .49 A .69 B .49 A .70 B 131. Harbor & Ba .31 A .47 A .45 A .61 B .36 A .59 A 132. Newport SB & Ba .28 A .50 A .39 A .64 B .34 A .70 B 133. Newport NB & Ba .34 A .45 A .54 A .50 A .46 A .45 A 134. Placentia & 19th .43 A .55 A .49 A .61 B .46 A .58 A 135. Pomona & 19th .46 A .62 B .60 A .71 C .54 A .67 B 136. Meyer & 19th .26 A .34 A .27 A .37 A .26 A .34 A 137. Anaheim & 19th .61 B .70 B .82 D .83 D .77 C .74 C 4.16-42 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendments 4.16 Transportation and Traffic Table 4.16-13 2035 Constrained Highwav Network and Buildout Hiqhwav Network Intersection LOS Summary Existing IntersectionAM Peak 138. Park & 19th .38 Conditions2035 Hour •S A PM Peak ICU .51 Hour LOS A AM Peak ICU .56 Proposed -. Highway Hour LOS• A General Plan Network)..Network) PM Peak .56 Hour A 2035 AM Peak .47 Proposed Hour • A General Plan PM Peak .46 Hour • A 139. Harbor & 19th .40 A .57 A .49 A .77 C .47 A .73 C 140. Newport & 19th .86 D .83 D .83 D .76 C .85 D .70 B 141. Newport & Broadway .63 B .64 B .74 C .75 C .76 C .44 A 142. Newport & Harbor .70 B .78 C .67 B .83 D .76 C .63 B 143. Placentia & 18th .56 A .69 B .59 A .74 C .54 A .68 B 144. Newport & 18th/Rochester .74 C .81 D .78 C .89 D .73 C .70 B 145. Maple & Victoria .54 A .58 A .69 B .66 B .65 B .62 B 150. Placentia & 17th .40 A .54 A .42 A .65 B .36 A .63 B 151. Su erior & 17th .67 B .67 B .61 B .73 C .52 A .62 B 152. Newport & 17th .73 C .77 C .86 D .89 D .83 D .78 C 153. Orange & 17th .51 A .62 B .67 B .77 C .50 A .68 B 154. Santa Ana & 17th .52 A .62 B .65 B .73 C .48 A .60 A 155. Tustin & 17th .49 A .57 A .57 A .71 C .46 A .56 A 156. Irvine & 17th .56 A .67 B .52 A .69 B .49 A .64 B 157. Newport & 16th .53 A .60 A .63 B .66 B .66 B .44 A 158. Placentia & 16th .30 A .35 A .34 A .48 A .31 A .43 A 159. Superior & 16th .46 A .45 A .58 A .59 A .56 A .56 A 160. Newport & Industrial .48 A .59 A .54 A .64 B .61 B .90 D Abbreviations: ICU - intersection capacity utilization LOS - level of service Level of Service Exceeds D, which is unacceptable NB SB - northbound - southbound Environmental Impact Report 4.16-43 4.16 Transportation and Traffic Costa Mesa Master Plan of Streets and Highways (MPSH) The following sub -sections discuss various issues pertaining to the Costa Mesa MPSH. Santa Ana River Crossings - Several studies have been conducted by the cities of Costa Mesa, Newport Beach, Fountain Valley, and Huntington Beach and OCTA to analyze the deletion of two unbuilt roadway crossings of the Santa Ana River. The main study, titled the Santa Ana River Crossings Study (SARX), provided the technical analysis to support the OCTA's amendment to the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) to downgrade the Gisler Avenue/Garfield Avenue crossing to a "Right -of -Way Reserve" status and delete the West 191h Street crossing from the MPAH. To maintain consistency with the amended MPAH, Costa Mesa, Fountain Valley, and Huntington Beach have subsequently changed the designation of the Gisler Avenue/Garfield Avenue crossing to "Right -of -Way Reserve" status in their respective General Plan Circulation Element roadway systems. Huntington Beach has deleted the West 19th Street crossing from its General Plan circulation system. With this deletion, there is no possible connection for a vehicular bridge from Costa Mesa to Huntington Beach. The long-range (2035) traffic forecasts analyzed in the traffic study do not include a West 19th Street crossing of the Santa Ana River, and the results of the analysis indicate that the future traffic demand in Costa Mesa can be adequately served without the crossing. Therefore, this analysis can serve as the technical support for deletion from the Costa Mesa MPSH of the West 19th Street crossing of the Santa Ana River. West 19th Street Downgrade - In the current Costa Mesa MPSH, West 19th Street west of Placentia Avenue is designated as a primary arterial. However, the long-range traffic forecasts presented in the traffic study, which do not assume a West 19th Street crossing of the Santa Ana River, support the downgrade of West 19th Street west of Placentia Avenue from a primary arterial to a divided collector arterial on the Costa Mesa MPSH. Table 4.16-14 (ADT Volumes and V/C Ratios: West 19th Street) summarizes the ADT volumes and ADT and V/C ratios on West 19th Street based on the long-range buildout highway network traffic forecasts presented in the traffic study. Table 4.16-14 ADT Volumes and V/C Ratios: West 19th Street Current General Proposed General ADT Plan Land Use Plan Land Use Roadway Capacity Primary Arterial Designation West 19th Street west of Placentia Avenue 38,000 13,000 .34 13,000 .34 Divided Collector Arterial Designation West 19th Street west of Placentia Avenue 22,000 13,000 .59 13,000 .59 Source: Stantec, 2016 As Table 4.16-14 indicates, downgrading West 19th Street from a primary arterial to a divided collector arterial would provide adequate capacity for the long-range traffic forecasts on West 19th Street. Because the forecasted long- range traffic volumes on West 19th Street are relatively low, the downgrade to a divided collector arterial classification would provide the opportunity to implement special design features such as protected bikeways along with the two existing travel lanes (one lane in each direction) while still providing adequate capacity for the future traffic demand on West 19th Street. Thus, impacts of the downgrade would be less than significant. West 171h Street Downgrade - West 17th Street west of Placentia Avenue is currently constructed as a collector arterial with one travel lane in each direction and with on -street parking allowed. In the current Costa Mesa MPSH, it is designated as a four -lane secondary arterial roadway. Table 4.16-15 (ADT Volumes and V/C Ratios: West 17th Street) summarizes the ADT volumes and ADT and V/C ratios on West 17th Street based on the long-range buildout highway network traffic forecasts presented in the traffic study. As Table 4.16-15 indicates, downgrading West 17th Street from a secondary arterial to a divided collector arterial on the Costa Mesa MPSH would provide adequate 4.16-44 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendments 4.16 Transportation and Traffic capacity for the long-range traffic forecasts on West 17th Street. Impact of the downgrade would be less than significant. Table 4.16-15 ADT Volumes and V/C Ratios: West 17th Street Roadway Secondary Arterial Designation ADT Capacity Plan Land ADT General Use ADT VIC ProposedCurrent Plan Land Use ADT ADT V/C West 17th Street west of Monrovia Avenue 25,000 9,000 .36 9,000 .36 West 17th Street west of Placentia Avenue 25,000 11,000 .44 11,000 .44 Divided Collector Arterial Designation West 17th Street west of Monrovia Avenue 22,000 9,000 .41 9,000 .41 West 17th Street west of Placentia Avenue 22,000 11,000 .50 11,000 .50 Source: Stantec, 2016 East 22nd Street Downgrade - East 22nd Street between northbound Newport Boulevard and Orange Avenue is currently constructed as a collector arterial with one travel lane in each direction. In the current Costa Mesa MPSH, it is designated as a four -lane secondary arterial roadway. Table 4.16-16 (ADT Volumes and V/C Ratios: East 22nd Street) summarizes the ADT volumes and ADT and V/C ratios on East 22nd Street based on the long-range buildout highway network traffic forecasts presented in the traffic study. As Table 4.16-16 indicates, downgrading East 22nd Street from a secondary arterial to a collector arterial on the Costa Mesa MPSH would provide adequate capacity for the long-range traffic forecasts on East 22nd Street. Therefore, impact of the downgrade would be less than significant. Table 4.16-16 ADT Volumes and V/C Ratios: East 22nd Street ProposedCurrent General ADT Plan Land Use Plan Land Use Roadway Capacity ADT ADT VIC ADT AU I VIU Secondary Arterial Designation East 22nd Street east of Newport Boulevard 25,000 9,000 .36 10,000 .40 Collector Arterial Designation East 22nd Street east of Newport Boulevard 12,500 9,000 .72 10,000 .80 Source: Stantec, 2016 Baker Street Downgrade - Baker Street between Mesa Verde Drive and Royal Palm Drive is currently constructed as a collector arterial with one travel lane in each direction. In the current Costa Mesa MPSH, it is designated as a four - lane secondary arterial roadway. Table 4.16-17 (ADT Volumes and V/C Ratios: Baker Street) summarizes the ADT volumes and ADT V/C ratios on Baker Street based on the long-range buildout highway network traffic forecasts presented in the traffic study. As Table 4.16-17 indicates, downgrading Baker Street from a secondary arterial to a collector arterial on the Costa Mesa MPSH would provide adequate capacity for the long-range traffic forecasts on Baker Street. Impact of the downgrade would therefore be less than significant. Environmental Impact Report 4.16-45 4.16 Transportation and Traffic Table 4.16-17 ADT Volumes and V/C Ratios: Baker Street Current General Proposed General ADT Plan Land Use Plan Land Use Roadway Capacity Secondary Arterial Designation Baker Street west of Royal Palm Drive 25,000 10,000 .40 10,000 .40 Collector Arterial Designation Baker Street west of Royal Palm Drive 12,500 10,000 .80 10,000 .80 Source: Stantec, 2016 Bluff Road Deletion - Bluff Road between Victoria Street and West 19th Street is shown as a future six -lane major arterial on the Costa Mesa MPSH and the Orange County MPAH, and the alignment of the roadway would traverse the Talbert Nature Preserve, which is an Orange County Park that has been designated and used for open space purposes. The long-range (2035) traffic forecasts analyzed in the traffic study do not include Bluff Road between Victoria Street and West 19th Street, and the results of the analysis indicate that the future traffic demand in Costa Mesa can be adequately served without this future roadway. Thus, impact associated with this deletion would be less than significant. Under the buildout highway network scenario, long-range (2035) traffic forecasts were developed for conditions both with and without Bluff Road. The segment of Bluff Road between Victoria Street and West 19th Street is forecast to carry 16,000 ADT in the long-range buildout scenario that includes Bluff Road. In the buildout scenario without Bluff Road, this volume of traffic can be accommodated by the network of adjacent roadways. Table 4.16-21 (2035 Buildout Highway Network ADT Volumes and V/C Ratios with Bluff Road) summarizes the ADT volumes and ADT V/C ratios for the roadways in southwest Costa Mesa that are affected by Bluff Road based on a comparison 2035 buildout traffic conditions with and without Bluff Road. As Table 4.16-18 indicates, all of the Costa Mesa roadways in the vicinity of Bluff Road are forecast to provide adequate capacity with or without this segment of Bluff Road. Table 4.16-18 2035 Buildout Hiahwav Network ADT Volumes and V/C Ratios with Bluff Road Roadway Without Bluff Road and Roadway Type Capacity Current ProposedLanes Placentia Ave s/o Victoria St 4P 38,000 30,000 .79 30,000 .79 Placentia Ave No West 19th St 4P 38,000 26,000 .68 26,000 .68 Placentia Ave s/o West 19th St 4P 38,000 25,000 .66 25,000 .66 Placentia Ave n/o West 17th St 4P 38,000 18,000 .47 18,000 .47 Placentia Ave n/o 16th St 4P 38,000 15,000 .39 15,000 .39 Victoria St w/o Pacific Ave 4P -A 45,000 34,000 .76 34,000 .76 Victoria St w/o National Ave 4P -A 45,000 31,000 .69 31,000 .69 Victoria St w/o Placentia Ave 4P -A 45,000 33,000 .73 33,000 .73 West 17th St w/o Placentia Ave 2C 12,500 11,000 .88 11,000 .88 West 19th St w/o Placentia Ave 4S 25,000 13,000 .52 13,000 .52 With Bluff Road Placentia Ave s/o Victoria St 4P 38,000 22,000 .58 22,000 .58 Placentia Ave n/o West 19th St 4P 38,000 19,000 .50 19,000 .50 Placentia Ave s/o West 19th St 4P 38,000 21,000 .55 21,000 .55 Placentia Ave No West 17th St 4P 38,000 15,000 .39 15,000 .39 Placentia Ave n/o 16th St 4P 38,000 14,000 .37 14,000 .37 4.16-46 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendments 4.16 Transportation and Traffic Table 4.16-18 2035 Buildout Highway Network ADT Volumes and VIC Ratios with Bluff Road Roadway Roadway Victoria St w/o Bluff Rd and Type 4P -A Capacity 45,000 Current 42,000 .93 ProposedLanes 42,000 .93 Victoria St wlo Pacific Ave 4P -A 45,000 27,000 .60 27,000 .60 Victoria St w/o National Ave 4P -A 45,000 26,000 .58 26,000 .58 Victoria St w/o Placentia Ave 4P -A 45,000 29,000 .64 29,000 .64 West 17th St e/o Bluff Rd 2C 12,500 6,000 .48 6,000 .48 West 17th St w/o Placentia Ave 2C 12,500 12,000 .96 12,000 .96 West 19th St e/o Bluff Rd 4S 25,000 9,000 .36 9,000 .36 West 19th St w/o Placentia Ave 4S 25,000 15,000 .60 15,000 .60 Abbreviations: ADT - Average Daily Traffic V/C - Volume/Capacity Ratio Roadway Types: P - Primary Arterial (Standard) P -A - Primary Arterial (Augmented) S - Secondary Arterial (Standard) C - Collector Arterial 45,000 35,000 .78 Fairview Road and Bristol Street Road Diets - Costa Mesa plans for implementation of "road diets" on several existing roadways to make use of excess right-of-way (beyond that required to accommodate projected traffic volumes). The road diet concept involves reducing the number of existing vehicle travel lanes on a roadway in order to accommodate multi -modal opportunities such as protected bikeways, pedestrian corridors, and transit corridors. In the traffic study, two roadway segments, Fairview Road between Fair Drive and Newport Boulevard and Bristol Street between Randolph Avenue and Red Hill Avenue, were evaluated for the potential implementation of road diets. Table 4.16-192 (2035 Buildout Highway Network ADT Volumes and V/C Ratios with tRoad Diets) summarizes the long-range ADT volumes and ADT V/C ratios on Fairview Road and Bristol Street with the application of road diets. As Table 4.16-19 indicates, the reduction of the existing travel lanes on these roadways would still provide adequate capacity for the long-range traffic volumes that are forecast on each of the two roadways. Impact of implementing road diets would be less than significant. Table 4.16-19 2035 Buildout Highway Network ADT Volumes and VIC Ratios with Road Diets Roadway Bristol Street and Roadway Type Capacity Current ProposedLanes Without Road Diet Randolph Avenue to Bear Street 6M 56,000 30,000 .54 30,000 .54 Bear Street to Newport Boulevard 6M 56,000 35,000 .63 35,000 .63 East of Newport Boulevard 6M 56,000 32,000 .57 32,000 .57 West of Red Hill Avenue 6M 56,000 30,000 .54 30,000 .54 With Road Diet Randolph Avenue to Bear Street 4M -A 45,000 30,000 .67 30,000 .67 Bear Street to Newport Boulevard 4M -A 45,000 35,000 .78 35,000 .78 East of Newport Boulevard 4M -A 45,000 32,000 .71 32,000 .71 West of Red Hill Avenue 4M -A 45,000 30,000 .67 30,000 .67 Fairview Road Without Road Diet Fair Drive to Wilson Street 6M -A 68,000 18,000 .26 19,000 .28 Wilson Street to Newport Boulevard 4P -A 45,000 17,000 .38 18,000 .40 With Road Diet Fair Drive to Wilson Street 4M -A 45,000 18,000 .40 19,000 .42 Environmental Impact Report 4.16-47 4.16 Transportation and Traffic Table 4.16-19 2035 Buildout Highway Network ADT Volumes and V/C Ratios with Road Diets ProposedLanes and Current Roadway ADT General Plan General Plan Roadway Type Capacity ADT ADT V/C ADT ADT VIC Wilson Street to Newport Boulevard 2P -A 22,500 1 17,000 .76 18,000 .80 Abbreviations: ADT—Average Daily Traffic V/C — Volume/Capacity Ratio Roadway Types: M — Major Arterial (Standard) M -A — Major Arterial (Augmented) P — Primary Arterial (Standard) P -A — Primary Arterial (Augmented) Proposed Circulation Policy Framework The proposed Circulation Element includes goals to: (1) implement Complete Streets; (2) effectively manage and improve the roadway system; (3) promote a friendly active transportation system; (4) create a safer place to walk and ride a bicycle; (5) integrate active transportation elements into circulation system and land use planning; (6) promote an active transportation culture; (7) promote positive air quality, health, and economic benefits of active transportation; (8) monitor, evaluate and pursue funding for implementation of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan; (9) enhance regional mobility and coordination; (10) promote transportation demand management, transit, and efficiency; (11) ensure coordination between land use and circulation systems; and (12) evaluate and fund the City's transportation network. The policies and recommendations in the element provide the details as to how the City will implement that support these goals. Central to the element are the Circulation Plan and Conceptual Bicycle Master Plan. Exhibit 4.16-6 (Proposed Circulation Plan) illustrates the proposed roadway network, and Exhibit 4.16-7 (Conceptual Bicycle Master Plan) indicates the plan to better accommodate bicyclists. Long-term implementation of the General Plan Amendmentsland use pe in IMPACTS combination with regional contributions to traffic on the local road network, would not 4.16.A and B casue an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system, nor would it cause an exceedance, either individually or cumulatively, of a level of service standard established bV the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways. increase in traffic that wi result in intersec-tions an"r roadway segments to operate at inadequate levels o sem- Impact would be less than significant. A level of service analysis was conducted based on the addition of the proposed General Plan land use data. The analysis scenarios include this land use growth, as well as programmed roadway improvements that include intersection and roadway segment capacity enhancements (funded future conditions). The analysis results above indicate that various roadways throughout the City are forecast to exceed their theoretical maximum ADT capacities under year 2035 traffic conditions. However, none of those locations are considered to be actual future deficiencies because all the intersections analyzed along those roadway segments are forecast to operate at acceptable levels of service during the A.M. and P.M. peak hours with future intersection improvements. The LOS would not exceed those established by the CMP. Furthermore, based on the intersection LOS analysis summarized above, each of the study intersection locations analyzed is forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS (i.e., LOS "D" or better) under year 2035 conditions with the future intersection improvements. As such, it has been determined that the proposed General Plan Amendments would not result in an increase in traffic in the planning area that would result in intersections and/or roadway segments to operate at inadequate levels of service with implementation of planned intersection and roadway improvements that are part of adopted City of Costa Mesa MPSH. 4.16-48 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendments 4.16 Transportation and Traffic Future street improvements that are programmed to implement the updated circulation network plan will be designed in accordance with all applicable standards relating to vehicle traffic, bicycles, and pedestrian safety. Impacts would be less than significant. IMPACT 4.16.0 Impact with respect to air traffic patterns would be less than significant. Future development pursuant to the proposed General Plan Amendments would not affect air traffic patterns because development pursuant to land use policy would be subject to land use and height restrictions established within the John Wayne Airport influence zones. Impacts on air traffic patterns would be less than significant; no mitigation is required. IMPACT 4.16.D Impact with respect to traffic hazards would be less than significant One aim of the Circulation Element is to provide for safe traffic conditions citywide, for all mobility modes. The Circulation Element includes a number of policies aimed at enhancing safety and reducing traffic hazards. Specific policies are: Policy C -1.A.3: Complete and annually maintained a needs assessment for traffic service levels and traffic safety. Develop and annually update a priority list of improvement projects, with priorities based on: 1) correcting identified hazards; 2) accommodating multimodal trips; 3) improving and/or maintaining peak -hour traffic volumes at critical intersections; 4) improving efficiency of existing infrastructure utilization; and 5) intergovernmental coordination. Policy C-1.13.1: Implement traffic calming measures that discourage speeding and cut -through traffic on residential streets. Policy C-1.13,5: Promote engineering improvements such as physical measures constructed to lower speeds, improve safety, or otherwise reduce the impacts of motor vehicles. Policy C -2.A.2: Avoid frequent driveways for new development access in active pedestrian areas that create conflict points between pedestrians and vehicles. Policy C -4.B.4: Encourage new development along major transit corridors to provide efficient and safe access to transit stops and public sidewalks. Future street improvements that are programmed to implement the updated circulation network plan will be designed in accordance with all applicable standards relating to vehicle traffic, bicycles, and pedestrian safety. Impacts would be less than significant. IMPACT 4.16.E Impact with respect to emergency access would be less than significant. Environmental Impact Report 4.16-49 4.16 Transportation and Traffic Inadequate emergency access can delay or prevent responders from arriving at an emergency location, thereby exacerbating an emergency situation leading to an increased potential loss of life and property. Future development will be subject to the provisions of the City's Fire Code with regard to providing adequate emergency access. The General Plan update does not include policies that would change standards related to emergency access, nor would it interfere with policy implementation. No impact would occur. IMPACT 4.16.0 Impact with respect to air traffic patterns would be less than significant. Future development pursuant to the proposed General Plan Amendments would not affect air traffic patterns because development pursuant to land use policy would be subject to land use and height restrictions established within the John Wayne Airport influence zones. Impacts on air traffic patterns would be less than significant; no mitigation is required. IMPACT 4.16.D Impact with respect to traffic hazards would be less than significant. One aim of the Circulation Element is to provide for safe traffic conditions citywide, for all mobility modes. The Circulation Element includes a number of policies aimed at enhancing safety and reducing traffic hazards. Specific policies are: Policy C -1.A.3: Complete and annually maintain a needs assessment for traffic service levels and traffic safety. Develop and annually update a priority list of improvement projects, with priorities based on: 1) correcting identified hazards; 2) accommodating multimodal trips; 3) improving and/or maintaining peak -hour traffic volumes at critical intersections; 4) improving efficiency of existing infrastructure utilization; and 5) intergovernmental coordination. Policy C-1.13.1: Implement traffic calming measures that discourage speeding and cut -through traffic on residential streets. Policy C-1.13.5: Promote engineering improvements such as physical measures constructed to lower speeds, improve safety, or otherwise reduce the impacts of motor vehicles. Policy C -2.A.2: Avoid frequent driveways for new development access in active pedestrian areas that create conflict points between pedestrians and vehicles. Policy C-4.13.4: Encourage new development along major transit corridors to provide efficient and safe access to transit stops and public sidewalks. IMPACT 4.16.F Impact with respect to parking capacity would be less than significant. Insufficient parking capacity can inhibit economic growth and result in overreliance on street parking, which can lead to increased traffic congestion and conflicts between adjacent properties. The Circulation Element supports provision of adequate parking in future developments via these policies: 4.16-50 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendments INN map k not intended b replace o --y by, Ik.CaI f-1. Surveyor. V..t- does not certify the --y of Me d.t. and k for rel—.— only and should not be used 1109 HIM 5.MIUME r 1� _ KAI fvl I G This —p h not intended to replace . --y by . LicC dif—i. S—Wr. St..1— d— —t —fity Rhe -- cy of the d.t. and is f., reference only and shodd not be used I., di-. I G 4.16 Transportation and Traffic Policy C -4.A.3: Consider implementing park -once approaches for multiuse districts and regional destinations areas. Policy C -4.A.4: Embrace innovative parking solutions that reduce the required spacesd needed for parking, such as automated parking lifts and elevators. Policy C -4.A.5: Encourage and provide incentives for commercial, office, and industrial development to provide preferred parking for carpools, vanpools, electric vehicles, and flex cars. Policy C -4.A.6: Encourage and support programs that increase vehicle occupancy, including the provision of traveler information, shuttles, preferential parking for carpools/vanpools, transit pass subsidies, and other methods. These policies, in conjunction with the parking supply and design standards requirements of the City's Zoning Code, would ensure that adequate parking is provided on a project -by -project basis. Impacts would be less than significant. IMPACT 4.16.G No adverse impact would result with respect to alternative transportation. Alternative transportation includes travel modes that can move people to their destinations through means other than a private automobile or light duty truck. Bus transit and rail service, for example, provide an important travel alternative for those who cannot rely on the use of private automobiles, such as the elderly and the disabled. The General Plan would not interfere with any adopted plan or policy related to alternative transportation. In fact, the General Plan Amendments includes the following specific alternative transportation policies: Policy C -1.A.1: Update the City's engineering standards for public and private streets to provide for safe, comfortable, and attractive access and travel for pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and transit users of all ages, abilities, and travel mode preferences. Policy C -4.A.1: Support South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) trip reduction programs, including such options as park and ride lots, transit subsidies, carpool and vanpool programs, flexible working hours, bicycle facilities, and other traffic reduction strategies. Policy C -4.A.6: Encourage and support programs that increase vehicle occupancy, including the provision of traveler information, shuttles, preferential parking for carpools/vanpools, transit pass subsidies, and other methods. Policy C-4.13.1: Ensure that roadways designated as transit routes can accommodate transit vehicle circulation and convenient pedestrian access to and from transit stops. Policy C-4.13.2: Review all capital improvement projects to ensure improvements located on existing and planned transit routes include modification of street, curb, and sidewalk configurations to allow for easier and more efficient transit operations and improved passenger access. Policy C-4.6.3: Provide transit stop amenities that facilitate access to and from transit stops and transfer locations. These may include pedestrian pathways approaching stops, high quality benches and shelters, Environmental Impact Report 4.16-53 4.16 Transportation and Traffic traveler information systems (real-time transit arrival information), and bike storage and bicycle connections. Bus stops should accommodate timed transfers between buses and other transit services where necessary. Policy C-4.6.4: Encourage new development along major transit corridors to provide efficient and safe access to transit stops and public sidewalks. Policy C-4.113.5: Support and participate with Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) ACCESS Service in providing transportation assistance to senior citizens and the handicapped. Policy C-4.113.6: Consult with OCTA for transit services, such as changes to bus routes, bus stops, and hours of operation. Additionally, coordinate with OCTA for changes to transit services provided for seniors, the disabled, and transit dependent populations. Policy C -4.B.7: Consult with Newport -Mesa Unified School District to maintain school bus services provided for local schoolchildren. Policy C -4.B.8: Coordinate with OCTA to improve transit services in the City including strategies such as bus rapid transit, express services, community circulators and other schemes. Policy C -4.B.9: Encourage new local transit programs in coordination with OCTA, consisting of shuttle services to local and regional destinations. Policy C-4.6.10: Coordinate with OCTA to construct bus turnouts at appropriate locations with attractive shelters designed for safe and comfortable use. Policy C-4.113.11: Require discussion of transit service needs and site design amenities for transit ridership in EIR's for major projects. Policies also support the use of public transit and promote bicycling and walking. The Complete Streets plan shn,.,n on Exhibit 4.16 9 hlghlight6 the Gity'S GE)MMItment to pFavide foF street design that Gan aGGE)Mmedate diveF6e tFavel modes. No adverse impact to alternative transportation plans, programs, or facilities would occur as a result of the project. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required since no impacts would result. 4.16-54 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendments 4.16 Transportation and Traffic References California Department of Transportation. 2014 Traffic Volumes on the California State Highway System. 2014. John Wayne Airport Orange County. http://www.ocair.com/aboutowa/ [Accessed March 2, 2016]. Orange County Transportation Authority. Annual Traffic Volume Maps. http://www.octa.neVFreeways-and- Streets/Streets/Master-Road-Plan/Annual-Traffic-Volume-Maps/?terms=traffic%20counts [Accessed February 12, KL6L Orange County Transportation Authority. 2009. OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan Orange County Transportation Authority. 2016. http://www.octa.neVBike/The-OC-Loop/, Accessed March 31, 2016 Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. City of Costa Mesa General Plan Update Traffic Analysis. February 12, 2016. 4.16-55 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendments 4.16 Transportation and Traffic This page intentionally left blank. 4.16-56 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendments Utilities and Service Systems 4.17 This section examines the potential impacts involving expansions of utilities and service systems resulting from adoption and long-term implementation of the General Plan Amendments. It examines the following systems: ■ Water Supply ■ Wastewater Collection and Treatment ■ Storm Drainage ■ Solid Waste Disposal and Diversion Various sources of information were utilized in preparation of this section, including adopted plans and standards and personal communication with utilities and services providers. Key plans include the: ■ Mesa Consolidated Water District Urban Water Management Plans (UWMP), ■ Costa Mesa Capital Improvement Program ■ California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) waste stream profiles ■ Irvine Ranch Water District Sewer System Management Plan ■ Orange County Sanitation District Five Year Strategic Plan ■ Orange County Sanitation District Sewer System Management Plan Comments related to utilities and service systems were submitted by the Orange County Sanitation District, the County of Orange Public Works Department, Mesa Water District, and several members of the public during circulation of the Notice Preparation. These comments are addressed herein. Existing Conditions Water Supply Costa Mesa is served by two water supply agencies: Mesa Consolidated Water District (MCWD) and Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD). A majority (85%) of the City lies within the boundaries of the MCWD, which also serves unincorporated areas of the County and portions of Newport Beach. Properties to the southeast of Newport Boulevard, between 23rd and Bristol Streets, are served by the IRWD. Both MCWD and IRWD are affiliated with the Coastal Municipal Water District (Coastal) and the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC). In turn, Coastal and MWDOC are member agencies in the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD), the agency that supplies Southern California with the majority of its imported water. In 2001, MWDOC consolidated with Coastal, which provided wholesale imported water supplies to water agencies and cities serving the coastal areas of Orange County from Newport Beach south to San Clemente. MWDOC is the second largest member agency of the MWD. Imported water comes to Orange County from Northern California and from the Colorado River. MWDOC's primary responsibility is to ensure that the present and future water needs of its members are met through system and supply reliability. MWDOC represents its members at regional, State, and federal levels by advocating for development and protection of water supplies and planning and coordinating the water needs for its service area. The District also maintains a water use efficiency program and coordinates countywide water/wastewater emergency preparedness and response efforts. MWDOC serves imported water to approximately 2.3 million residents. Natural water supplies in Orange County are limited to three sources: 1) groundwater, 2) surface flows in the Santa Ana River originating in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, and 3) local precipitation and runoff in Santiago Creek and other streams. Because the demand for water greatly exceeds the rate of replenishment of natural water sources, the majority of the urban and rural communities in Orange County are wholly or in part dependent upon water imported through the facilities of the MWD. Environmental Impact Report 4.17-1 4.17 Utilities and Service Systems Mesa Consolidated Water District MCWD encompasses approximately 18 square miles. MCWD serves Costa Mesa, part of Newport Beach, and John Wayne Airport. MCWD serves a population of 110,000 residents and provides domestic and irrigation water services to 23,000 metered connections. On an annual basis, MCWD delivers 21,000 acre-feet per year (6.6 billion gallons) of water to the various users (MCWD 2015). Irvine Ranch Water District The IRWD encompasses approximately 115,531 acres of 181 square miles in south-central Orange County. IRWD serves all of the City of Irvine and portions of Tustin, Santa Ana, Newport Beach, Lake Forest, Costa Mesa, Orange and unincorporated areas of Orange County. In 1997, IRWD began providing water service to the Santa Ana Heights community. IRWD serves a population of 380,000 and provides water to approximately 110,000 domestic connections, which includes residential, commercial, industrial, fire protection, public authorities, construction, landscape irrigation and agricultural users. For fiscal year 2013-2014, IRWD delivered 63,834 acre-feet of treated (potable) water, 2,665 acre-feet of untreated (non -potable) water and 31,932 acre-feet of recycled water for a total of 98,431 acre-feet. Approximately 23 percent of IRWD's water is purchased from MWD. This imported water comes from the Colorado River via the Colorado River Aqueduct and Northern California via the State Water Project. The remaining 77 percent of the supply comes from local groundwater wells. To alleviate its dependency of imported water, in 1979 IRWD began to develop a series of local wells called the Dyer Road Well Field Project. These wells, ranging from 400 to 1,200 feet in depth, extract high quality water from the Orange County Groundwater Basin. This groundwater now accounts for 77 percent of IRWD's total potable water supply. Water Sources Water is imported into Orange County via two extensive systems of aqueducts operated by MWD. At present, the primary source of supply is the Colorado River Aqueduct system. This aqueduct transports water from Lake Havasu on the Colorado River to Lake Mathews, a MWD storage reservoir in Riverside County. From this point, water is carried to East Orange County Feeder No. 2, the main distribution line serving the County. The second source of supply of imported water is the State Water Project (SWP). This system brings water from the Upper Feather River in north -central California via the California Aqueduct to Lake Castaic north of Los Angeles. From Castaic, the Foothill Feeder transports water to the Weymouth Filtration facility in La Verne. From this point, the Yorba Linda Feeder carries water to the Diemer Filtration Plant for distribution in Orange County. Currently, MCWD and IRWD rely on both groundwater and imported water. At present, 83 percent of MCWD's water supply is derived from groundwater from seven wells. OCWD manages the local area groundwater basin and utilizes 4.17-2 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendments Utilities and Service Systems 4.17 advanced techniques for recharging the groundwater basin. This additional water source provides customers with water that is of higher quality and lower cost than water imported from MWD. MCWD's 2010 Master Plan called for capital improvements, including a deep water aquifer treatment facility that would increase groundwater production to 95 percent of the total water supply by 2000-2001, decreasing the dependence on higher cost import water. Since Costa Mesa depends upon imported water for a portion of its water supply, the potential impacts of water supply and demand extend beyond the boundaries of the City and its two serving agencies. The availability of imported water is directly related to the water supply conditions in the source watersheds, as well as demand for water throughout the State. Recurring dry years can affect Southern California's water allotment. All of Southern California is more reliant on water from the north since the MWD allotment of Colorado River water was reduced from 1.2 million to 0.55 million acre-feet per year at the completion of the Central Arizona project in 1985. Mesa Consolidated Water District Approximately 75 percent of MCWD's water supply is pumped from natural underground water aquifers which are located in the Orange County Groundwater Basin. OCWD manages this groundwater basin, supplying water to many areas in Orange County. The OCWD supplements nature by artificially replenishing the groundwater basin with imported and natural water supplies (MCWD 2015). The remaining 25 percent of MCWD's water supply is imported from the MWD via two wholesale water agencies: MWDOC and Coastal. Imported supplies are transported through aqueducts from the Colorado River and Northern California. Imported water is more expensive than groundwater due to transportation and treatment costs. In an effort to decrease dependence on expensive imported water supplies, MCWD is continuing to build local water wells and reservoirs to store groundwater for use during peak demand periods. Currently, MCWD owns and operates two reservoirs which have the combined capacity to store more than 28 million gallons of water. MCWD is anticipating that smaller amounts of imported water will need to be purchased due to the increased use of so-called colored water. Colored water is an additional water resource, supplementing clear water. Colored water is pumped from deep aquifers in the Orange County Groundwater Basin. Colored water is the color of weak tea and has a sulfur smell. The color and odor are believed to originate from ancient redwood forests and peat. Colored water is treated using ozone and biofiltration to eliminate the color and odor, and chloramines for disinfection. Colored water is a high-quality resource that meets and exceeds all State and federal water quality standards. MCWD is at the forefront of colored water treatment and is the first water purveyor in the United States to practice ozone treatment at the wellhead. Irvine Ranch Water District Approximately 50 percent of IRWD's water is purchased from MWD. This imported water comes from the Colorado River via the Colorado River Aqueduct and from Northern California via the State Water Project. The remaining 50 percent of the supply comes from local groundwater wells (IRWD 2015b). To alleviate its dependency on imported water, in 1979 IRWD began to develop a series of local wells called the Dyer Road Well Field Project. These wells, ranging from 400 to 1,200 feet in depth, extract high quality water from the Orange County Groundwater Basin. This groundwater now accounts for 50 percent of IRWD's total potable water supply. Water Resources Master Plan The IRWD drafted a Water Resources Master Plan (WRMP) at the beginning of 2010. The Executive Summary chapter of the WRMP discusses IRWD's recommendations regarding changes in the water resource mix. Environmental Impact Report 4.17-3 4.17 Utilities and Service Systems The WRMP recommends that IRWD move from a heavy reliance on imported water to a greater utilization of local groundwater for cost, water quality, and reliability reasons. New potable groundwater supplies would greatly reduce the reliance on imported water under normal operating conditions and under most emergency outage scenarios. An expansion of the Michelson Water Reclamation Plant treatment capacity and the inclusion of the San Joaquin Reservoir as a reclaimed water seasonal storage reservoir are recommended to meet projected demand increases in the reclaimed water system. The resource mix for the year 2025 could potentially consist of nearly 70 percent clear and treated groundwater, with only five percent of untreated imported water required for the nonpotable system. The IRWD's San Joaauin Reservoir was converted from potable use to recvcled use in 2004. Existing potable system sources are imported treated water purchased from MWD and local groundwater developed through the Dyer Road Well Field. IRWD plans to develop additional potable groundwater to meet its future demand. These projects would ultimately increase supply reliability and water quality, and may reduce overall supply costs. Existing nonpotable system sources are treated wastewater from the reclamation plant, untreated water from Irvine Lake through the Irvine Lake Pipeline, and some local groundwater. The untreated source consists of untreated water purchased from the MWD and/or local runoff, depending on winter rainfall. To meet increasing demands for reclaimed water, the WRMP concludes that existing sources must be expanded or new sources developed. An expansion of reclamation treatment capacity and reclaimed water seasonal storage from the conversion of the San Joaquin Reservoir from potable use would minimize the amount of imported treated water used in the reclamation water system. This would also reduce the amount of wastewater sent to the Orange County Sanitation District for treatment and disposal, and allow groundwater production to be concentrated in the potable water system. Water Conservation The importance of water conservation programs was brought into focus during several recent droughts in California. In response to the most recent drought, MWD implemented a mandatory water -rationing plan for its customers. Both Mesa and IRWD have adopted water conservation policies. The City of Costa Mesa also encourages water conservation in all new developments. In particular, the General Plan Conservation Element includes policies that address green building sustainable development practices and water conservation. Through development review the City ensures new development incorporates all interior and exterior water conservation measures required by State law and by the affected water agencies. In cooperation with the OCWD, Mesa uses the OCWD's "Green Acres" reclaimed wastewater use program. Green Acres program water is highly treated and purified reclaimed wastewater, pumped in a separate distribution pipeline system, for use by selected users for non -potable (nondrinking) purposes, including production processes and the irrigation of greenbelts, golf courses, parks, and other similar facilities. Areas that are within a five -mile radius of the OCWD "Water Factory 21" facility (near the Santa Ana River/1-405 overpass, just outside of Costa Mesa's borders) will have the opportunity to utilize this lower-cost alternative water source in place of more scarce and more expensive groundwater and imported water. Wastewater Treatment and Reclamation The Costa Mesa Sanitary District (CMSD) is the local sewer agency for the majority of the City. The remaining portions of the City are served directly by the County Sanitation District of Orange County (CSDOC), which also treat the wastewater. Both CMSD and CSDOC maintain master plans based on anticipated land use intensities in order to estimate and plan for future needs. CSDOC's Master Plan guides wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal activities through the year 2020. Wastewater collected by the Costa Mesa and County districts is processed at CSDOC's treatment plants located in Fountain Valley and Huntington Beach. CSDOC operates under a five-year National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) ocean discharge permit issued by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board and the EPA. 4.17-4 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendments Utilities and Service Systems 4.17 This permit has a set discharge limit for biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and suspended solids. Currently, CSDOC's discharge is close to the BOD limit. In 1985, MWD, the agency that supplies MCWD and IRWD with imported water, switched from free chlorine to chloramine. Chloramine is a combination of chlorine and ammonia used as a disinfectant to prevent waterborne diseases such as cholera and typhoid. MCWD uses a mix of chloramines and ozone to improve the water quality and reduce the byproducts of disinfection. The switch to chloramines reduces the formation of disinfection -by-products such as trihalomethanes (THM). THMs are suspected carcinogens. Changes in federal and State drinking water standards prompted this change. For most people chloraminated water is safe for drinking, cooking, bathing, and all everyday water uses. However, two groups of people need to take special care with chloraminated water: kidney dialysis patients and fish owners. Medical centers that perform dialysis are responsible for purifying the water that enters dialysis machines. All hospitals and medical centers using dialysis are aware of the change. Commercial products are available at pet supply stores to remove chloramines in fish tanks. Water Quality The quality of water delivered to Costa Mesa is the result of blending water from three separate sources (groundwater, Colorado River and State Water Project) with varying degrees of contamination. Based on a comparison of a primary indicator of water quality, the concentration of total dissolved solids (TDS), the groundwater produced by the MCWD is of relatively high quality. Total dissolved solid concentrations in extracted water within the Lower Santa Ana Basin ranges from 200 parts per million (ppm) to 980 ppm, while the TDS levels from Mesa wells average 277 ppm. The U.S. Public Health Service recommends a standard of 1,000 ppm Minimum Contaminant Level of TDS for drinking water. With respect to imported water, Colorado River water is poor in TDS (750 to 800 ppm) and hardness quality (280 ppm), but excellent with respect to turbidity (2 ppm or less). In contrast, SWP water is relatively low in TDS (226 ppm) and hardness (97 ppm) but high in turbidity (3.6 ppm). The combined sources result in quality indicators of 447 ppm TDS and 239 ppm hardness of water supplied by MWD. In contrast, MCWD's well produces water that only has 166.8 ppm hardness of water. MCWD 2010 Water Quality Report indicates that its drinking water is of a higher quality than required by the State and federal standards. California water quality standards are more restrictive than federal standards. The California Department of Health Services enforces State drinking water standards. MCWD monitors its water supplies on an ongoing basis, and measures approximately 200 substances. Primary water quality and pollution control responsibilities are held by various federal, State, and regional agencies. The Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) develops national programs and regulations for water pollution control and water supply with full enforcement powers given to the State Water Resources Control Board. The State is divided into nine regions, each governed by a Regional Water Quality Control Board responsible for preparing and adopting regional water quality control plans, enforcing waste discharge requirements and performing other functions concerning water quality control. Actions of these Boards are subject to review by the State Department of Water Resources and Health. SCAG has been appointed by the EPA as the agency to coordinate water quality management planning in the South Coast area and is responsible for the development of a regional program for the control of nonpoint sources of water pollution (208 Program). Additionally, Costa Mesa is a member of the Newport -Irvine Waste Management Planning Agency (NIWA), a joint powers authority established to conduct water quality studies in the Newport Bay Drainage Area. The City's participation in regional water quality planning efforts and support of other pollution control agencies should ensure the maintenance of acceptable levels of water quality in the future. Environmental Impact Report 4.17-5 4.17 Utilities and Service Systems Solid Waste Landfill sites throughout the State are nearing capacity. In Southern California, this is especially a problem because new landfill sites are hard to locate due to limited land resources. In 1989, the State legislature passed AB 939, the California Integrated Waste Management Act. AB 939 requires all cities and counties to prepare integrated waste management plans to attain solid waste reduction goals of 25 percent reduction by 1995 and 50 percent reduction by 2000. These plans were to include components for source reduction, recycling, and composting. In April 1992, Costa Mesa prepared and adopted a source reduction and recycling element (SRRE). A description of the programs the City adopted in the final SRRE are provided below. Source reduction is any action that avoids the creation of waste by reducing waste as its source, including reducing packaging, reducing the use of non -recyclable materials, replacing disposable materials and products with reusable materials and products, reducing the amount of yard wastes generated and increasing the efficiency of the use of paper, cardboard, glass, metal, plastic, and other materials. It requires manufacturers and consumers to take an active role in reducing the amount of waste that is produced through changes in production methods and consumption patterns. ■ Recycling is any action that avoids the creation of waste through the reuse or reprocessing of material. Recycling requires active participation by the community and can take any number of forms. Recycling can be stimulated at all levels of government and the private sector through education, regulation and legislation. The three areas recycling focuses on within Costa Mesa are: 1) single-family residential; 2) multi -family residential, commercial, industrial and institutional uses; and 3) buy-back and drop-off recycling programs. ■ Composting is a controlled biological decomposition of organic waste to a relatively stable humus -like material. As a waste diversion method composting provides an opportunity to substantially reduce the volume of yard waste and other organic material that is presently landfilled. ■ Special wastes are relatively large, identifiable waste streams from the general municipal solid waste stream that have the potential to be segregated, reused, recycled, or disposed in a manner uniquely suited to that waste. Examples of special waste can include, but are not limited to ash, sewage sludge, industrial sludge, asbestos, auto shredder waste, and auto bodies. The management of these special wastes is primarily the responsibility of the County of Orange. The City of Costa Mesa supports the County of Orange in its efforts. ■ Education and public awareness in the area of recycling is important to increase the amount of refuse diverted from the waste stream. The City of Costa Mesa and the Costa Mesa Sanitary District (CMSD) are actively involved in educating the public and support of the goals and objectives of the County of Orange, as well as the intent of AB 939. The City of Costa Mesa encourages residents to use their own containers to separate waste from recyclable materials. The County of Orange has four landfill facilities that serve the cities within the County. These landfills are located in Brea, Santiago Canyon, Irvine, and San Juan Capistrano (this facility is both a landfill and a Household Hazardous Waste Collection Center). However, the Santiago Canyon Landfill had been operating at a reduced level since 1993 with the closure of this facility occurring 2002. Storm Water Control Drainage and flood control within the planning area are addressed by a system of County- and City -maintained facilities. The Costa Mesa Engineering Department is responsible for the maintenance and operation of most of the storm drains within its jurisdictional boundaries. The County is responsible for regional facilities designed to control urban stormwater runoff and natural drainage from the Santa Ana River and other waterbodies within the planning area. The County 4.17-6 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendments Utilities and Service Systems 4.17 provides capital improvement funding for these facilities. Additional funding for storm drainage facilities and flood control improvement projects include development impact fees and other federal and State grants (CM 2013). Orange County Flood Division The Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD) provides regional drainage and flood control infrastructure and maintenance to the planning area. The planning area is located within three separate watersheds within the District. The majority of the planning area is located within the Talbert/Greenville Banning Channel watershed (Watershed D), with the eastern and southeastern portions of the planning area located within the San Diego Creek (Watershed F) and East Costa Mesa/Newport Beach (Watershed G) watersheds, respectively. The Talbert/Greenville Banning Channel watershed is approximately 25.9 square miles in area and includes portions of the cities of Huntington Beach, Fountain Valley, Santa Ana, Tustin, Irvine, and Newport Beach. The San Diego Creek watershed is approximately 135.8 square miles and includes portions of the cities of Costa Mesa, Irvine, Tustin, Laguna Woods, Santa Ana, and Lake Forest. The East Costa Mesa/Newport Beach watershed is approximately 16.1 square miles and includes portions of the cities of Costa Mesa and Newport Beach. The OCFCD has developed flood control and drainage design manuals to guide the development and maintenance of the County's flood control and drainage systems (OCFCD 2015a and 2015b). OCFCD maintains a variety of interim and fully improved channels, storm drains, levees, basins, and check dams within the planning area. Levees are discussed in Section 4.9 (Hydrology and Water Quality). The County operates the following channels within the planning area: the Santa Ana Creek Channel, the East Costa Mesa Channel, the Santa Isabel Channel, the Fairview Channel, the Greenville Banning Channel, the Santa Ana Gardens Channel, the Baker Storm Channel, and the Paularino Channel. Drainage is also controlled through the County -maintained Costa Mesa Storm Darin, Mesa Verde Storm Drain, Times Storm Drain, Gisler Storm Drain, Hyland Storm Drain, Fairview Road Storm Drain, Baker Storm Drain, 22nd Street Storm Drain, and High Grove Storm Drain (OCFCD 2016a, 2016b and 2016c). The City of Costa Mesa has prepared a Master Plan of Drainage that identifies needed improvements to the local drainage system to ensure protection against 10 -year storm events. These improvements have been identified for the purpose of allocating funding in the 10 -year and 20 -year Capital Improvement Programs (CIP) for targeted storm drain enhancements. The Master Plan of Drainage identifies the following 20 -year CIP priority list: ■ Walnut Street system from Walnut to Irvine and Costa Mesa ■ Mesa Verde system from Ceylon Drive to Card Lane ■ Fairview Road system from Belfast/Warren to Fairview/McCormack ■ Walson AvenueRead system from College to Dulblin ■ Van Buren AvenueS#eet system from Atlanta to Charlston ■ Fordham system from Fair to Hanover ■ Anaheim/Superior system from Plummer to 18th/Crestmont ■ Anaheim/Superior system from 18th/Crestmont to Park ■ Anaheim/Superior system from Park to 17th/Pomona ■ Anaheim/Superior system from 17th/Pomona to Ohms/Farad ■ Anaheim/Superior system from Ohms/Farad to 16th/Superior ■ Brentwood/Santa Ana system from Brentwood to Rue de Cannes ■ Cherry Lake system from Westminster/Sherwood to 21 "/Santa Ana ■ Cherry Lake system from 21 st/Santa Ana to 22nd/Santa Ana ■ Cherry Lake system from 22nd/Santa Ana to Vista Baya/Santa Ana ■ Cherry Lake system from Vista Baya/Santa Ana to Waterman ■ Cherry Lake system from Waterman to Cherry Lake ■ West 18th system from Monrovia to west City limits ■ West 19th system from Monrovia to west City limits ■ East 171h system from Tustin to Irvine Environmental Impact Report 4.17-7 4.17 Utilities and Service Systems Approximately one-third of the programmed storm drain improvements citywide consist of installing minor systems comprising of pipes and reinforce box culverts where none exist. Approximately one-quarter of the improvements will involve installing larger pipes (54 inches or larger) or reinforced box culverts to provide the degree of stormwater control desired (Costa Mesa MPD). Regulatory Framework A variety of national, State, and regional regulations govern planning requirements for water and wastewater facilities, as well as solid waste disposal. Key provisions are summarized below. Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), originally passed by Congress in 1974, protects public health by regulating the nation's public drinking water supply. The law was amended in 1986 and 1996 and requires many actions to protect drinking water and its sources, including rivers, lakes, reservoirs, springs, and ground water wells. SDWA authorizes the U.S. EPA to set national health -based standards for drinking water to protect against both naturally occurring and human -made contaminants that may be found in drinking water. The U.S. EPA, states, and water systems then work together to make sure that these standards are met. There are a number of threats to drinking water. Improperly disposed of chemicals, animal wastes, pesticides, human wastes, wastes injected deep underground, and naturally occurring substances can all contaminate drinking water. Likewise, drinking water that is not properly treated or disinfected, or which travels through an improperly maintained distribution system, may also pose a health risk. Originally, SDWA focused primarily on treatment as the means of providing safe drinking water at the tap. The 1996 amendments recognize source water protection, operator training, funding for water system improvements, and public information as important components of safe drinking water. SB 610 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15155 SB 610 enacted Sections 10910-10915 of the State Water Code to require a local land use authority to consult with the local water purveyor to prepare or obtain a water supply assessment, prior to completing an environmental impact assessment for a specified "water demand" project, defined below. Section 15155 of the State CEQA Guidelines was added to directly incorporate these water code provisions into the CEQA process. ■ 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 square feet of floor space. ■ A proposed commercial office building employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 250,000 square feet of floor space. ■ A proposed hotel or motel, or both, having more than 500 rooms. ■ A proposed industrial, manufacturing, or processing plant, or industrial park planned to house more than 1,000 persons, occupying more than 40 acres of land, or having more than 650,000 square feet of floor area. ■ A mixed-use project that includes one or more of the projects specified in this subdivision. ■ 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. If a public water system has fewer than 5,000 service connections, then "project" means any proposed residential, business, commercial, hotel or motel, or industrial development that would account for an increase of 10 percent or more in the number of the public water system's existing service connections, or a mixed-use project that would demand an amount of water equivalent to, or greater than, the amount of water required by residential development 4.17-8 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendments Utilities and Service Systems 4.17 that would represent an increase of 10 percent or more in the number of the public water system's existing service connections. Key provisions required to be addressed in a water supply assessment include a description of past and existing water supplies and rights and groundwater extraction information including identification of basins, adjudication rights, and overdrafting status. Should the water assessment determine that insufficient supplies would be available to serve the project the water purveyor must indicate how it will meet the demand of the new project. Should additional supplies be unavailable to meet project demand, then the approving agency must include that determination in its project findings. SB 221 Similar to SB 610, SB 221 prohibits approval of subdivisions consisting of more than 500 dwelling units unless there is verification of sufficient water supplies for the project from the applicable water supplier(s). This requirement also applies to increases of 10 percent or more of service connections for public water systems with less than 500 service connections. The law defines criteria for determining "sufficient water supply" such as using normal, single -dry, and multiple -dry year hydrology and identifying the amount of water that the supplier can reasonably rely on to meet existing and future planned uses. Water Conservation in Landscaping Act Section 65591 et seq. of the Government Code requires all local jurisdictions to adopt a water efficient landscape ordinance. The ordinance is to address water conservation through appropriate use and grouping of plants based on environmental conditions, water budgeting to maximize irrigation efficiency, storm water retention, and automatic irrigation systems. Failure to adopt a water efficiency ordinance requires a local jurisdiction to enforce the provisions of the State's model water efficiency ordinance. In 2009, the Department of Water Resources (DWR) updated the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance pursuant to amendments to the 1991 Act. These amendments and the new model ordinance went into effect on January 1, 2010. The City of Costa Mesa adopted a water efficient landscape ordinance and guidelines in January of 2010. The primary purpose of the guidelines is to provide procedural and design guidance for project applicants proposing landscape installation or rehabilitation projects that are subject to the requirements of Title 13, Chapter VII, Landscape Standards of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code (CMPD 2012). Urban Water Management Plans Pursuant to Section 10610 et al. of the California Water Code (Urban Water Management Planning Act), any water district servicing 3,000 or more customers or provides over 3,000 acre-feet of water per year is required to prepare an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). The analysis contained in a UWMP is designed to ensure the appropriate level of reliability in its service to meet the needs of its customers in normal, dry, and multiple -dry years. Normal and dry years refer to categories of projected water supply in times of regular rainfall and in times of drought. UWMPs must be updated every five years on years ending with zero and five. The Act describes the contents of a UWMP as follows: ■ Description of service area including current climate and population and project populations estimates in five- year increments over 20 years ■ Description of existing and planned water supply over the same five-year increments including groundwater and surface water resources ■ Water supply reliability and methods to compensate for shortages during dry years ■ Opportunities for long-term and short-term water exchange or transfer ■ Description of water use and demand estimates based on land use for past, current, and projected quantities ■ Description of current and planned projects and programs designed to meet the service needs of the customer base ■ Description of opportunities for use of desalinated water ■ Preparation of a staged water shortage contingency plan for up to a 50 percent shortage over three years Environmental Impact Report 4.17-9 4.17 Utilities and Service Systems ■ Information on use and opportunities for use of recycled water Mesa Consolidated Water District's 2010 UWMP applies to the Santa Ana Heights area of Costa Mesa. IRWD, like Mesa Consolidated Water District, updates its UWMP every five years and is in the process of preparing its 2015 UWMP. IRWD's 2015 UWMP is scheduled for adoption in June 2016 and will be submitted to the Department of Water Resources by the July 1, 2016 deadline. City of Costa Mesa. The UWMP provides a summary of anticipated supplies and demands for the years 2010 to 2035. Wastewater Discharge Requirements Wastewater Discharge Requirements (WDRs) are issued to facilities discharging wastewater directly into receiving surface waters. Such facilities are required to be permitted whether individually or under a general permit. WDRs also establish wastewater treatment requirements. Treatment requirement orders regulate operations of the facility by limiting constituents in wastewater effluent, setting prohibitions on certain operations and activities, establishing specifications for facility design and maintenance, and provisions for reporting and monitoring. Wastewater, collected by the Mesa and County districts, is processed at CSDOC's treatment plants located in Fountain Valley and Huntington Beach. CSDOC operates under a five-year National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) ocean discharge permit issued by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board and the EPA. This permit has a set discharge limit for BOD and suspended solids. Currently, CSDOC's discharge is close to the BOD limit. Connections to Local Wastewater and Storm Drain Systems Connections to the City's water and sewer system are generally regulated by Section 13-71 (Utility Requirements) of the Municipal Code. Section 19-326 (Fees and Taxes) establishes the right of the City to require users of revenue- producing services to pay a utility users' tax ("utility tax") to the City. Section 13-180 (Application Requirements) establishes limits and prohibitions on discharges to the City's sewer system and establishes a permitting process for connection to the sewer system. Section 15-67 (Required Construction) establishes in -lieu fees to support the operation, maintenance, expansion, and upgrade of the City's wastewater collection and treatment system. Section 8-35 (Permits) regulates permitted and illicit connections to the City's storm drain system as part of the implementation of the City's NPDES permit. Additional information regarding water quality standards can be found in the Hydrology and Water Quality section of this EIR. AB 939 The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 regulates solid waste management and implements priorities in source reduction, recycling and composting, and environmentally safe transformation and land disposal. The primary provisions of AB 939 required all cities and counties to divert a minimum of 50 percent of their solid waste from landfills and to adopt Integrated Waste Management Plans (IWMP). The Act also established permitting and enforcement provisions for the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB). Costa Mesa Sanitary District currently has a diversion rate of 61 percent (CMSD 2015). Primary diversion measures include providing residential and commercial recycling services. Costa Mesa Source Reduction and Recycling Element The SRRE, adopted in January 1992, is the City's primary planning mechanism for solid waste diversion. This document was prepared in accordance with AB 939 to identify strategies for meeting the mandated 50 percent diversion rate. The source reduction component of the plan identifies methods such as use of reusable items as opposed to disposable items to remove products from the waste stream. The four categories of source reduction activities are education/technical assistance, rate structure modifications, economic incentives, and regulatory measures. The 4.17-10 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendments Utilities and Service Systems 4.17 recycling component of the plan identifies existing and proposed programs to increase recycling efforts. Additional items addressed in the plan include composting and special wastes. Development Fee Program The City of Costa Mesa collects development fees pursuant to California Government Code for the expansion of utilities and service systems facilities. The City's development fee program includes drainage and curb and gutter fees. The program also establishes a methodology for determining appropriate impact fees to fund such improvements. Thresholds of Significance A significant impact would occur if the General Plan Amendments would: A. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements adopted by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. B. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or the expansion of existing facilities that the construction of could cause significant environmental effects. C. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities that the construction of could cause significant environmental effects. D. Require new or expanded water supply entitlements due to lack of existing entitlements or resources. E. Result in the determination by the wastewater treatment provider that it will have inadequate capacity to serve the planning area based on projected demand and the provider's existing commitments. F. Be served by landfills without sufficient capacity to accommodate the project's disposal needs. G. Fail to comply with federal, state, or local statues and regulations related to solid waste. Environmental Impacts 7 IMPACT 4.17.A Impacts related to the exceedance of wastewater treatment requirements would be less than significant with implementation of existing codes, policies and regulations. Future development within the planning area guided by the policies of the General Plan could affect RWQCB treatment standards by increasing wastewater production. Orange County Sanitation District Reclamation Plant Number 1 in Fountain Valley has a total rated primary capacity of 108 mgd and secondary treatment capacity of 80 mgd. Treatment Plant No. 2 in Huntington Beach has a rated primary capacity of 168 mgd and secondary treatment capacity of 90 mgd. The Costa Mesa Sanitary District Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP) is currently designed to accommodate a service population of approximately 116,700 that includes the planning area and the City of Costa Mesa. The most recent population projections compiled by SCAG estimate a total population of 114,000 for the service population in the year 2035. The proposed General Plan Amendments project a build -out population of 131,690, which is greater than that projected by SCAG. Without expansion, the wastewater conveyance and treatment system could be insufficient to provide for the projected population growth. However, the City's Municipal Code requires incremental expansion of wastewater treatment facilities based on new development through the collection of development fees. This ensures that adequate funding would be available to meet future facility needs, should expansion be necessary. Furthermore, the OCSD will be required to comply with the RWQCB wastewater discharge requirements to ensure that effluent discharges are within acceptable water quality parameters. The requirement for the collection of development fees on new development which pay for facility upgrades, reduces impacts associated with wastewater treatment requirements to less than significant. Environmental Impact Report 4.17-11 4.17 Utilities and Service Systems Impacts related to the potential future construction of water and wastewater IMPACT infrastructure would be less than significant with implementation of existing City 4.17.6 standards and regulations. Future development within the planning area could require expanded water and wastewater facilities to meet the demand from anticipated population growth, including mainline or backbone elements and local connections. At this time, no immediate changes to the system are needed to meet the demands of immediate growth, as the water and wastewater master plans anticipate growth consistent with prior land use policy. To accommodate the level of long- term development allowed by the General Plan, the City will continue to assess demand and to update water and wastewater master plans as needed. As part of the update, the City would consider establishing service fees and assessment charges for new development projects. Also, as part of the development review process, the City will place the burden of any site-specific improvement requirements on the developer. Expansion of water and wastewater facilities would be contingent upon the rate of growth and deterioration of aging facilities. Thus, identifying the specific location of and timing for new facilities is speculative at this time. Construction of new or expanded water and wastewater treatment facilities could result in environmental impacts. Any future expansion of existing facilities or construction of new facilities would be required to undergo environmental review pursuant to CEQA. The review will either be conducted by project applicants for individual projects or by the City for project of broader application. Such impacts would be identified, along with measures to mitigate any significant impacts, as part of the CEQA compliance process for future project -specific planning actions. IMPACT Impacts related to the potential future expansion of storm drain facilities would be less 4.17.0 than significant with implementation of existing City standards and regulations. Future development sites within the planning area may require expanded storm drain facilities if they are identified as having drainage deficiencies per the City's Master Plan of Drainage. Site-specific drainage problems would be remedied through review of development plans by the City's Engineering Department. The Master Plan of Drainage identifies numerous specific projects that will improve the storm drain system. Fees are collected from development projects in part to fund the programmed storm drain system improvements. Continued implementation of the Master Plan of Drainage provides the City with appropriate control and management over larger local drainage concerns. As part of the development review process for major development projects, the City requires assessment of the adequacy of regional and localized drainage facilities, and requires developers to fund/provide any new facilities required (beyond those identified in the master drainage plans and City's CIP) to address project -specific impacts. Construction of any new or expanded storm drainage facilities could result in environmental impacts. However, such impacts would be identified, along with measures to mitigate any significant impacts, as part of the project review and CEQA compliance process for future project -specific planning actions. IMPACT Implementation of the proposed General Plan Amendments would not require new or 4.17.D expanded water supply entitlements to be secured, and the proposed General Plan Amendments incorporate policies aimed at conserving water supplies. Over the long term, population and employment growth would likely require expanded supplies to meet increase in demand. Mesa Consolidated Water District (MCWD) provides 85 percent of the water supply to the City, with the rest coming from Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD). Currently, the total water demand for retail customers served by MCWD is approximately 19,400 acre-feet annually consisting of 2,400 acre-feet of imported water, 15,900 acre-feet of local groundwater, and 1,100 acre-feet of recycled water. In the last five years, MCWDesa's water demand decreased 4.17-12 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendments Utilities and Service Systems 4.17 by eight percent while population has increased by four percent. MCWDesa is projecting a population growth of 9% accompanied by a flat water demand trend in the next 25 years. Using a per capita consumption rate of 221 gallons per day (the five-year average per the UWMP) and the 20 percent conservation factor included in the UWMP, the projected SCAG 2035 population for the City of Costa Mesa of 114,000 would require approximately 22,576 acre-feet per year (AFY) in the 2035. However, buildout of the proposed General Plan would result inwith a projected population of 131,690, build aut of the IpFepesed GeneFal Plan which would require approximately 26,072 AFY in the year 2035. This is a demand for an additional 3,496 AFY in 2035. Further, T#e% numbers eXCeed the 2035 nr^iertinn in the UVVMP MCWD anticipates pumping a maximum 19,700 AF in 2035 (MCWD 2011). Thus, impacts are potentially significant. However, the proposed General Plan Conservation Element includes objectives and policies aimed at protecting existing and future water resources. c"o ,*_ SS ecifically, General Plan objective and associated policies under CON -3 below require the City to work towards the protection and conservation of existing and future water resources by recognizing water as a limited resource that requires conservation. Moreover, the City has adopted a Water Conservation Ordinance to meet a State -mandated 20 percent reduction in water use from June 2015 through February 2016. With continued City consultation with local water districts regarding the City's growth projections and proposed development projects, combined with implementation of water efficiency programs, water supply should be able to meet demands. In light of drought conditions in the State and region, consideration of drought impacts from the proposed General Plan Amendments is necessary. Under normal conditions, the UMWP indicates that both MCWD and IRWD would be able to meet its long-term service demand. Moreover, the UMWP provides demand and supply estimates for single- and multi-year drought conditions to assess the reliability of water sources. MCWD evaluated supply reliability by projecting supply and demand conditions for the single- and multi-year drought cases based on conditions affecting the SWP (MCWD's largest and most variable supply). For this supply source, the single driest year was 1977 and the three-year dry period was 1990-1992. MCWD's analysis shows that the region can provide reliable water supplies not only under normal conditions but also under both the single driest year and the multiple dry year hydrologies (MCWD 2011). The proposed General Plan Amendments do not contain policies or programs that would conflict with existing policies and standards designed to conserve water, such as the Water Conservation in Landscaping Act. The proposed General Plan Amendments include policies supporting green building and sustainable building practices that will support water conservation efforts. Specifically, Policy CON -2.E promotes the use of environmentally sustainable practices, and Policy CON -2.G requires all City facilities and services to incorporate green and sustainable building practices in new municipal facilities. Based on existing water supplies and existing and proposed water conservation efforts, impacts related to the need for new or expanded water supplies would be less than significant. GOAL CON -2: CONSERVED NATURAL RESOURCES THROUGH ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY. Pursue Reduce the City's carbon footprint and manage resources wisely to meet the needs of a growing population and economy. Base community planning decisions on sustainable practices that reduce environmental pollutants, conserve resources, and minimize waste. Encourage the design of energy-efficient buildings, use renewable energy, and promote alternative methods of transportation. Objective CON -2: Work towards tole conserveattea of -energy resources in t existing and new buildings, utilities, and infrastructure. Green Building Sustainable Development Practices Policy CON -2.E: Promote environmentally sustainable development principles for buildings, master planned communities, neighborhoods, and infrastructure. Environmental Impact Report 4.17-13 4.17 Utilities and Service Systems Policy CON -21: Encourage construction and building development practices that reduce resource expenditures throughout the lifecycle of a structure. Policy CON -2.G: Continue to require all City facilities and services to incorporate energy and resource conservation standards and practices and the new municipal facilities be built within the LEED Gold Standards. Policy CON -2.H: Continue City green initiatives in purchases, equipment, and agreements that favor sustainable products and practices. GOAL CON -3: IMPROVED WATER SUPPLY AND QUALITY. Pursue a multijurisdictional approach to protecting, maintaining, and improving water quality and the overall health of the watershed. A comprehensive, integrated approach will ensure compliance with Federal and State standards, and will address a range of interconnected priorities, including water quality and runoff; stormwater capture, storage and flood management techniques that focus on natural drainage; natural filtration and groundwater recharge through green infrastructure and habitat restoration; and water recycling and conservation. Objective CON -3: Work towards the protection and conservation of the City's existing and future water resources by recognizing water as a limited resource that requires conservation. Water Supply, Conservation, and Recycling Policy CON -3.13: Continue to consult with local water districts and the Orange County Water District to ensure reliable, adequate, and high quality sources of water supply at a reasonable cost. Policy CON -3.C: Encourage residents, public facilities, businesses, and industry to minimize water consumption, especially during drought years. Policy CON -3.D: Restrict use of turf for new construction and landscape reinstallation that requires high irrigation demands, except for area parks and schools, and encourage the use of drought tolerant landscaping. Policy CON -3.E: Consult with local water districts and the Orange County Water District to advance water recycling program for new and existing developments, including the use of treated wastewater to irrigate parks, golf courses, roadway landscaping, and other intensive irrigation consumers. IMPACT Impacts related to insufficient wastewater treatment capacity would be less than 4.17.E significant with implementation of existing standards and regulations. The proposed General Plan Amendments would not require expansion of existing wastewater treatment facilities because no development or other land altering activity is proposed. Future development accommodated under the General Plan could require expanded wastewater infrastructure to meet future needs when considered in light of existing demand. Localized environmental impacts associated with the future expansion of facilities are subject to project -level environmental review pursuant to CEQA. Impacts associated with a lack of wastewater treatment capacity include accelerated deterioration of existing facilities, the potential for health hazards due to wastewater backup, and discharges of untreated wastewater into the environment. 4.17-14 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendments Utilities and Service Systems 4.17 The Orange County Sanitation District has prepared a Facilities Implementation Plan that identifies long-term programs designed to maintain and expand wastewater treatment facilities to accommodate existing and future growth (OCSD 2015). Incremental expansion of facilities in accordance with the Wastewater System Master Plan is achieved through the Development Fee Program described above, with fees applied to developers. Facilities may be expanded by development project proponents, as well to ensure that adequate facilities are available to serve new development needs. The General Plan does not include policies that will interfere with the implementation of the current or future CIP or the collection of Public Improvement Fees. Pursuant to existing standards and regulations, impacts associated with a lack of wastewater treatment capacity will be less than significant. IMPACT 4.17.F 4.17.G Impacts associated with solid waste regulations and adequacy of disposal sites would be less than significant with implementation of existing policies and regulations. Based on current waste generation rates of 5.2 lbs of trash per resident per day and 15.4 pounds per employee per day, approximately 409,530 tons of solid waste would be generated annually throughout the planning area, based on a buildout population of 131,690 residents and an employee base of 104,425 local workers. The majority of the waste will likely be disposed of at the Frank R. Bowerman Sanitary Landfill given its proximity to the planning area and the fact that it has over 55 percent of its capacity remaining (CalRecycle 2015). The City will continue to implement a variety of solid waste reduction, recycling, and re -use measures to meet its obligation under AB 939. These efforts will be coordinated with waste management programs administered by the Costa Mesa Sanitary District; therefore, future landfill diversion rates may improve. The policies and programs of the General Plan Amendments would not interfere with implementation of existing solid waste disposal regulations and would in fact support them. Policies CON -2.J through CON -21 below address waste reduction and recycling in various ways. Under any circumstance, solid wastes must be disposed of in accordance with federal and state laws. Impacts related to solid waste disposal methods and regulations would be less than significant. Solid Waste Reduction and Recycling Policy CON -2.J: Encourage waste management programs that promote waste reduction and recycling to minimize materials sent to landfills. Maintain robust programs; and encouraging residents and businesses to reduce, reuse, aPA--recycle, and compost. Policy CON -2.K: Support waste management practices that provide recycling programs and promote organic recycling, landfill diversion, pursuing zero waste goals, proper hazardous waste collections, composting, and the continuance of recycling centers. Policy CON -21: Continue construction and demolition programs that require recycling and minimize waste in haul trips. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required. Environmental Impact Report 4.17-15 4.17 Utilities and Service Systems References CalRecycle. (2015) Disposal Reporting System (DRS): Jurisdiction Disposal and Alternative Daily Cover (ADC) Tons by Facility. http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/ReportsNiewer.aspx?P=ReportYear%3d20l4%26ReportName%3d Rep ortEDRSJurisDisposalByFacility%260riginJurisdictionlDs%34108 City of Costa Mesa. Master Plan of Drainage. Undated. City of Costa Mesa (CM 2013). Public Works Department. Capital Improvement Program. 2009/2013 City of Costa Mesa Planning Division. (CMPD 2010). Water Efficient Landscape Guidelines. January 2010. Costa Mesa Sanitary District. (CMSD 2015). District Website: Trash Services and Solid Waste. http://crosdca.gov/index.php/departments/solid-waste/trash-services [Accessed January 4, 2015]. Irvine Ranch Water District .(IRWD 2015a). IRWD Basics: A Snapshot. https://www.irwd.com/about-us [Accessed June 5, 2015]. Irvine Ranch Water District. (IRWD 2015b). An Overview: Well -Grounded in Water Reliability. http://irwd.com/images/pdf/about-us/IRWD-FactSheet-8-14.pdf [Accessed June 5, 2015]. Mesa Consolidated Water District (MCWD 2015). Water District News. http://www.mesawater.org/pdf/JuIvAu-News.pdf [Accessed June 5, 2015]. Mesa Consolidated Water District. (MCWD 2011). 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. May 2011. Orange County Flood Control District. (OCFCD 2015a). Flood Division Website: Drawings and Maps. http://ocflood.com/docs/drawings#maps [Accessed January 8, 2016]. Orange County Flood Control District. (OCFCD 2015b). Flood Division Website: Online Manuals. http://ocflood.com/docs/manuals [Accessed January 8, 2016]. Orange County Flood Control District. (OCFCD 2016a). Watershed D Map. http://ocflood.com/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=32724 [Accessed January 8, 2016]. Orange County Flood Control District. (OCFCD 2016b). Watershed F Map. http://ocflood.com/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=32728 [Accessed January 8, 2016]. Orange County Flood Control District. (OCFCD 2016c). Watershed G Map. http://ocflood.com/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=32735 [Accessed January 8, 2016]. Orange County Sanitation District. (OCSD 2015) Final Administrative Facilities Implementation Plan. June 10, 2015. 4.17-16 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendments Introduction 1 Executive Summary 2 Project Description 3 Environmental Impact Analysis 4 Alternatives 5 Analysis of Long Term Effects 6 Effects Found Not to be Significant 7 Preparation Team 8 References 9 5 1 Alternatives Alternatives 5.0 Purpose Pursuant to Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines, this chapter discusses a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed General Plan Amendments that would attain some or all of the main objectives of the General Plan Amendments while avoiding or substantially lessening one or more of the significant environmental effects that would occur with long-range implementation of the General Plan Amendments. An examination of such alternatives provides for informed decision-making and public participation in the examination of the project's environmental merits and disadvantages. Rationale for Alternative Selection An EIR is not required to consider alternatives that are infeasible, unreasonable, or overly speculative. There is no standard set forth in the CEQA Guidelines for the number of alternatives that must be addressed. Instead, the CEQA Guidelines require that an EIR describe a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision-making and public participation. The range of alternatives is determined on a case-by-case basis depending on the unique characteristics of the project location, the project objectives, the environmental setting, and the potentially significant impacts that are associated with the Project. Accordingly, the specific criteria established by the CEQA Guidelines, and used in this Draft EIR, for the selection of a reasonable range of alternatives for the Project are whether it: 1. Accomplishes most or all of the General Plan Amendment's main objectives as listed in Section 3.0 (Project Description), which are to: a) Replace the current General Plan Elements with updated elements that reflect the goals and aspirations of the community through 2035. b) Accommodate increased development capacity at targeted sites to expand housing development opportunities for all income ranges, including lower-income households; allow for compact, walkable mixed-use environments; and increase capacity for jobs growth in areas where infrastructure, and roadway infrastructure in particular, can sufficiently support such growth. c) Ensure the General Plan, as amended, achieves compliance with all applicable State laws and regulations. d) Ensure that the development, use, and maintenance of public and private lands will always: i. respect Costa Mesa's heritage and historic resources, ii. protect Costa Mesa's traditional suburban development pattern and residential neighborhoods while accommodating new approaches to development that will accommodate expected future growth, iii. provide opportunities for diverse businesses that generate revenue and employment, and iv. promote high-quality design. e) Accommodate circulation and mobility options beyond the automobile. In all infrastructure and development planning decisions, the City looks to: i. provide for the integration of automobiles, transit, bicycles, and pedestrians within the established street network using the Complete Street system, ii. provide greater connectivity and reduce congestion on the street network, and iii. promote efficient and high-quality transit use, including bus routes serving Costa Mesa. iv. Focus new development on major arterials, served by a variety of transportation modes. 2. Avoids or substantially reduces one or more of the significant environmental effects associated with the General Plan Amendments. Environmental Impact Report 5.0-1 5.0 Alternatives 3. Proposes alternative development patterns where such alternatives are reasonable based upon current development trends within the Planning Area. 4. Proposes alternative development patterns which are feasible within the market constraints in which the community exists. Alternatives Considered but not Selected for Analysis In the course of selecting alternatives to be considered for analysis, the City focused on analyzing those alternatives which could potentially reduce the significant unavoidable effects related to the project and also achieve project objectives, including the key objective of providing incentives to revitalize sections of the Harbor and Newport Boulevard corridors. The proposed General Plan Update (General Plan Amendments) was ^r^ipfound to potentially result in significant unavoidable adverse impacts related to air quality emissions and greenhouse gas emissions. Comparatively, the existing General Plan also was determined to result in significant unavoidable impacts to air quality emissions. Avoidance of these air quality impacts may be achieved by reducing land use intensity and GGUId only be a population growth to be in accordance with SCAG's 2012 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. For example, making no changes to certain focus areas (i.e. LA Times site, Home Ranch site, and Fairview Developmental Center) would reduce trip generation compared to the proposed General Plan. Removing the Residential Incentive Overlays along Harbor and Newport Boulevards would reduce population growth. However, bt3ecause the Residential Incentive Overlay is proposed to achieve this key revitalization objective and because the Overlay has the potential to create new housing opportunities which may include affordable housing for lower-income households, not adopting the Residential Incentive Overlay was rejected as an alternative. The City also considered an alternative that would allow for new residential development on key sites north of 1-405. However, this alternative was also rejected from further consideration as it was considered during the public workshops held for preparation of the Draft General Plan Amendments and not selected as policy to pursue. Additionally, on May 17, 2016, City Council directed staff not to proceed with analysis of residential uses north of the 1-405. Alternatives Considered Alternative 1: "No Project" Alternative According to Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, the evaluation of alternatives in an EIR shall include a "no project" scenario, defined as "...what is reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the General Plan Amendments were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services." For the purpose of this EIR, this alternative assumes that the proposed General Plan Amendments would not be adopted and implemented. Instead, the planning area would continue to be developed according to the existing Land Use Plan and in accordance with current City policies. This alternative is considered to be feasible since it is currently in effect as the City's legislatively adopted General Plan. If the adopted policies were to remain in effect, no land use changes would be made with regard to the proposed Overlay designations and new Fairview land use designation, and no amended policies reflecting the desires of the community and City decision -makers identified during the public outreach process would be implemented. Table 5.4- 1 (Comparison of Remaining Development Capacity versus Proposed Capacity) shows the ultimate build -out projections under both the existing General Plan buildout scenario and the proposed General Plan buildout scenario in year 2035 compared to existing conditions. Impact comparison discussions for each environmental topic are presented in Section 5.5. 5.0-2 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendments Alternatives 5.0 Table 5-1 As indicated in Table 5.3-1, existing General Plan land use policy provides capacity for growth relative to existing conditions, with the potential for an additional 6,236 dwelling units, 46,59-914,832 residents, and approximately 655_3 million additional square feet of commercial, office, and industrial space. Because Alternative 1 represents a condition which is consistent with current growth projections in SCAG's RTP/SCS and thus is also consistent with the current Air Quality Management Plan, Alternative 1 best and most comprehensively addresses the reduction in air quality and greenhouse gas impacts associated with the proposed project. Alternative 2: Fairview Developmental Center Site Maintains its Institutional Land Use Designation The Fairview Development Center is a State -operated facility for persons with developmental and intellectual disabilities. The State's longer -range plans to restructure or close the facility would provide an opportunity for redevelopment and reuse. The General Plan Amendments would change the land use designation from Public/Institutional to Multi -Use Center. The City may consider€afrview an a specific plan for repurposing of the property. The Gpe Multi -Use Center designation would keep the Public/Institutional designation on 50% the site while allowing up to 500 residences (300 at 25 units/acre and 200 units at 15 units/acre) on 25% of the site, and open spaces area on the remaining 25%. Currently, the FaiNiew Developmental Center site is developed with State owned and operated housing for individuals with developmental and intellentual disabilities The State has no immediate plans to remove this site's housing and support facilities, although in 2015 the State Department of General Services began to conduct public meetings on future closure, and Governor Jerry Brown's budget plans call for closure by 2021. This alternative assumes that the Institutional designation remains and the facility remains in operation. Alternative 3: Los Angeles Times Site Maintains an Industrial Land Use Designation The Los Angeles Times QveFlay applies to a site is north of 1-405 and occupied by the former Los Angeles Times publishing plant and an adjacent property under the same ownership (Tribune Publishing). The site currently is designated Industrial Park, which does not allow commercial/retail and office uses. The proposed Commercial Center designation would expand the allowable use to allow commercial/retail at a maximum FAR of 0.54 and office development at 0.64 FAR maximum. Alternative 3 would keep the existing Industrial Park land use designation, which Environmental Impact Report 5.0-3 5.0 Alternatives would preclude the retail and office uses and allow development at a range of 0.20 FAR for high traffic generating land uses to 0.75 for very low generating uses. Alternative 4: Segerstrom Home Ranch Property Remains at Existing Land Use Intensity The amended Land Use Element would revise the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan development standards for the 43.57 -acre Segerstrom Home Ranch sub -area. The North Costa Mesa Specific Plan allows office and office -related uses. With the amendment, the Segerstrom Home Ranch site would have the maximum FAR increase from 0.40 to 0.64, which would require an amendment to North Costa Mesa Specific Plan. This alternative would keep the existing land use intensity at a 0.40 FAR. Evaluation of Alternatives Impacts Relative to the Project Impact Comparison Aesthetics The proposed General Plan Amendments would result in less than significant impacts relating to aesthetics, as it would not alter scenic vistas, result in the degradation of visual character or quality, or result in impacts relating to new sources of light or glare. Continuation of the existing General Plan (Alternative 1) would mean that there would be no amendments to the current General Plan. This means that the Residential Incentive Overlay would not be proposed, which would encourage the redevelopment of vacant or underutilized sites along major arterials. Redevelopment of such properties could result in the improvement of visual character and quality at these sites, because new development would be required to be designed and reviewed for compatibility with surrounding structures. Thus, Alternative 1 is considered to have similar, less than significant impacts to the proposed project, but would also not provide the aesthetic benefits of the proposed General Plan Amendments. Alternative 2 would eliminate the potential for new dwelling units to be constructed on the Fairview Development Center siteprspe#y by leaving the sitearea designed Public/Institutional. This would not result in a significant change in the visual environment since no new development would occur. Alternative 2 is considered have similar or slightly rod u aesthetiEimpacts compared to the proposed project. Alternative 3 would maintain the Industrial Park designation on the Los Angeles Times site, a large property north of 1- 405. This would not result in a change in the visual quality of the immediate area since surrounding properties largely support industrial development. Relative to the office and retail uses that would be allowed by the proposed project, any new development would be subject to existing City architectural and design review processes to address any aesthetic and compatibility concerns. Thus, Alternative 3 is considered to have similar impacts to the proposed project. Alternative 4 would maintain the current allowable maximum building density on the Segerstrom Home Ranch site of 0.40 FAR. This would mean that individual buildings would probably be of lower scale under Alternative 4 than under the proposed General Plan Amendments. However, given the City's rigorous design and architectural review process, combined with the fact that this area of Costa Mesa already supports urban -level multistory buildings, the relative aesthetic impact of Alternative 4 would be the same as that of the proposed project. Agricultural and Forestry Resources The proposed General Plan Amendments would result in less than significant impacts relating to loss of agricultural land and forestry resources. 5.0-4 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendments Alternatives 5.0 Under all alternatives, including the No Project Alternative, the existing agricultural land on the Segerstrom Home Ranch and the Sakioka Lot 2 properties could be converted to urban uses when a development project is implemented. However, under all alternatives, there are no changes to the classification of these sites as Land Committted to Non - agriculture use. Thus, impacts of all of the alternatives would remain the same as those associated with the proposed General Plan Amendments. Air Quality The proposed General Plan Amendments would result in significant, unavoidable air quality impacts due to inconsistency with regional growth projections and thus inconsistency with the Air Quality Management Plan. Alternative 1 would keep existing land use designations, which would be consistent with the projections associated with the current 2012 AQMP. Therefore, Alternative 1 would have reduced impacts compared to the General Plan Amendments, which are identified as significant and unavoidable. Given the consistency of Alternative 1 with the 2012 AQMP, impact would be reduced relative to the project. However, because all other areas proposed for land use change would not be affected, impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Alternative 2, decreasing residential densities in the Fairview Developmental Center area, would slightly reduce the build -out population and would be consistent with the projections associated with the current 2012 AQMP. Therefore, Alternative 2 would have reduced impacts compared to the General Plan Amendments, which are identified as significant and unavoidable. Given the consistency of Alternative 2 with the 2012 AQMP, impact would be reduced relative to the project. However, hong ice this Alternative would still evneed Population prpien+while Alternative 2 would reduce housing opportunity compared to the proposed General Plan Amendments, there is still the 4r4o he -potential for additional land use intensity and/or residential development from the other focus areas+o onnr it as a re& I+ of +he Residential Inventive n„erlavo; therefore, the air quality impact would remain significant and unavoidable. all ether areas proposed for land Use Ghange would not be affeGted, 'mpaGt would remain SigRiftant and unavoidable. Alternative 3 would maintain the existing Industrial Park designation, which is accounted for in the current 2012 AQMP. Therefore, Alternative 3 would have reduced impacts compared to the General Plan Amendments, which are identified as significant and unavoidable. Given the consistency of Alternative 3 with the 2012 AQMP, impact would be reduced relative to the project. However, However, while Alternative 3 for the LA Times site would reduce development intensity compared to the proposed General Plan Amendments, there is still the potential for additional land use intensity and/or residential development from the other focus areas; therefore, the air quality impact would remain significant and unavoidable. beGayse this Altemat've would still Weed population pro'eGts due to the PE)tW M a! for addmtloRal-�� evelnpment to GGGHr as a result of the Residential Inventive Overlays the impar+ WOUld remain sionifinant and ffidable. all otheF aFeas pFepesed f9F land U68 Ghange would nat be affeGted, imp A 0-10 1 8111-111 SigRifiGant and unavoidable Alternative 4 would maintain current development intensities on the Segerstrom Home Ranch property. Therefore, Alternative 4 would have reduced impacts compared to the General Plan Amendments, which are identified as significant and unavoidable. Given the consistency of Alternative 4 with the 2012 AQMP, impact would be reduced relative to the project. However, while Alternative 4 for the Segerstrom Home Ranch site would reduce development intensity compared to the proposed General Plan Amendments, there is still the potential for additional land use intensity and/or residential development from the other focus areas; therefore, the air quality impact would remain significant and unavoidable. beGau6e this Alternative would still eXGeed population Drg*eGts due ta-th"atentual for all etheF aFeas pmpesed f9F land U68 Ghange would not be affeGted, impaGt would Fema.n SigRifiGant and unavoidable. Environmental Impact Report 5.0-5 5.0 Alternatives Bioloaical Resources The proposed General Plan Amendments would result in less than significant impacts with mitigation relating to biological resources. Continuation of the existing General Plan policies (Alternative 1) would mean that no updates would occur to current General Plan policies regarding the protection of biological resources. (Existing policies provide protections to biological resources; the proposed new policies would strengthen these.) Because both Alternative 1 and the proposed project will work to protect biological resources, the relative impacts are the same: less than significant with mitigation. Alternative 2 would mean that the Fairview Development Center site would remain in its current condition. Because no sensitive biological resources have been identified on this sitee-pFeperties, impacts relative to the proposed project would be the same: less than significant with mitigation. Alternative 3 would maintain industrial uses on the Los Angeles Times properties. Because no sensitive biological resources have been identified on the properties, impacts relative to the proposed project would be the same: less than significant with mitigation. Alternative 4 would maintain the current allowable building density on the Segerstrom Home Ranch site rather than increase the density. This would not result in a significant change in impacts on biological resources, as any new development would be subject to site review to determine potential for presence of sensitive biological resources. Impacts relative to the proposed project would be the same: less than significant with mitigation. Cultural Resources The proposed General Plan Amendments would result in less than significant impacts relating to prehistorical, historical, and paleontological, and tribal cultural resources. Continuation of the existing General Plan policies (Alternative 1) would mean that no updates of the current General Plan policies would be made regarding the protection of historical and cultural resources. (Existing policies provide protections to cultural resources; the proposed new policies would strengthen these.) Generally, the aim remains the same, which is to provide protections for prehistorical, historical, and cultural resources. Impacts relative to the proposed project would be the same: less than significant. Alternative 2 would keep the Fairview Developmental Center in place. No assessment has been made regarding the potential historical significance of the buildings on site (circa late -1950s), as no plan has been put forward for reuse of the facility. If the buildings remain, no impact to any potential historical resource would occur. In this regard, if the buildings are deemed to be historical, no impact would occur under Alternative 2. Alternative 2 would thereby have reduced impact relative to the proposed project, which assumes the ultimate reuse of the property. Alternative 3 would provide for continued use of the Los Angeles Times properties with industrial uses. This would not result in a change in plan impacts on cultural resources since any new development would be subject to review to determine potential for presence of sensitive cultural resources. Impacts relative to the proposed project would be the same. Alternative 4 would maintain the current allowable building intensity on the Segerstrom Home Ranch property rather than increase the allowable intensity on this site. Because both Alternative 4 and the proposed project assume redevelopment of this site, impacts on existing historical resources on the property would be the same. Per the 5.0-6 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendments Alternatives 5.0 requirements of the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan, existing historical buildings must be protected via density transfers or other mechanisms. Impacts relative to the proposed project would be the same. Geology and Soils The proposed General Plan Amendments would result in less than significant impacts relating to geology and soils. Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 would not have different impacts from the proposed General Plan Amendments because the same areas are proposed for development, although at varying uses and intensities. Development pursuant to each alternative would generally rely on existing regulations and measures to address any potential impacts relative to geology and soils. Impacts relative to the alternatives and the proposed project would be the same. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change The proposed General Plan Amendments would result in significant, unavoidable impacts relating to climate change due to inconsistencies with the Air Quality Management Plan. Alternative 1 would not result in new City policies relative to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The proposed General Plan Amendments provide new policies on energy conservation that would limit greenhouse gases, as well as referencing implementation of current greenhouse gas reduction regulations. However, Alternative 1 would keep the existing land use designations, for which the population capacity of the existing land use designations would be consistent with the anticipated growth by SCAG. The proposed project would result in an inconsistency with the 2012 SCAG RTP/SCS. Therefore, Alternative 1 would have reduced impacts compared to the General Plan Amendments and would have the potential to eliminate the significant, unavoidable effects due to consistency with the RTP/SCS. Alternative 2 would maintain the Public/Institutional designation for the Fairview site and assumes the continued presence of the Fairview Developmental Center. Because no change in existing conditions would occur, relative to the proposed project, impacts would be reduced. However, However, while Alternative 2 would reduce housing opportunity compared to the proposed General Plan Amendments, there is still the potential for additional land use intensity and/or residential development from the other focus areas; therefore, the impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions would remain significant and unavoidable. this Altemat've would GWI 8XGeed peoulat'OR 048Gts due to the potential f'OF additional Fes'dentffial deyelepfl�@�� other areas proposed for land Use Ghange would not be affbGted, impaGt would remain s.gniftant and unavoidable. Alternative 3 would provide for less development than the proposed project, which would mean fewer vehicle trips and lower potential vehicle emissions. In this regard, relative to the proposed project, impacts would be reduced. However, However, while Alternative 3 would reduce development intensity compared to the proposed General Plan Amendments, there is still the potential for additional land use intensity and/or residential development from the other focus areas; therefore, the impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions would remain significant and unavoidable. this Altemat've would GWI 8XGeed populat'OR 048Gts due to the potential f'OF additional Fes'dentffial deyelepfl�@�� as a result of the Residential IRGentive Overlays, the !mPaGt would rema#�-�' �t and unavewdable. bGGause all etheF aFeas pmpesed feF land UGe Ghange Would not be affeGted, impaGt would FeMaiR G.gRifiGant and unavoidable. Alternative 4 would maintain the current allowable building intensity on the Segerstrom Home Ranch property, which is lower than that proposed by the General Plan Amendments. In this regard, relative to the proposed project, impacts would be reduced. However, beEaose while Alternative 4 would reduce development intensity compared to the proposed General Plan Amendments, there is still the potential for additional land use intensity and/or residential Environmental Impact Report 5.0-7 5.0 Alternatives development from the other focus areas; therefore, the impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions would remain significant and unavoidable. as a result of the Residential IRGeRt'Ve OVGF!ays, the urnpaG-t would rema'R swqnwf'GaRt and unavoidable. Hazards and Hazardous Materials The proposed General Plan Amendments would result in less than significant impacts relating to hazards and hazardous materials. Under both Alternative 1 and the proposed project, existing federal, State, and local regulations would apply to the handling and transport of hazardous materials or the disposition of hazards. In this regard, relative to the proposed project, impacts would be equivalent (less than significant). Alternative 2 would result in the continued presence of the Fairview Developmental Center. As neither this use nor the residential, open space, and institutional uses associated with the General Plan Amendments are anticipated to be generators or transporters of hazardous waste materials, impacts would be equivalent (less than significant). Alternative 3 would maintain the Industrial Park designation on the Los Angeles Times site. Such a designation would have a higher potential to produce hazardous materials relative to the retail and office uses associated with the proposed General Plan Amendments. However, all such materials would be subject to existing federal, State, and local regulations regarding the handling and transport of hazardous materials or the disposition of hazards. In this regard, relative to the proposed project, impacts would be equivalent (less than significant). Alternative 4, like the proposed project, would maintain the current allowable office land uses on the Segerstrom Home Ranch property. Such uses are not considered generators of unusual or large amounts of hazardous materials. In this regard, relative to the proposed project, impacts would be equivalent (less than significant). Hydrology and Water Quality The proposed General Plan Amendments would result in less than significant impacts relating to hydrology and water quality. All of the alternatives generally would allow development to occur in a manner similar to the proposed General Plan Amendments within a highly urbanized environment, where flood control and water quality protection measures are well established and enforced. This variation in intensity and land use designation changes would not substantially alter impacts from or to flooding, water quality, or on groundwater supplies because existing federal, State, and local regulations would apply to guard against flood hazards, water quality contamination, or impact on groundwater supplies. All relevant policies addressing these potential impacts in the proposed Safety Element would remain, as would any relevant standard regulations pertaining to hydrology and water quality. Impact for each alternative, like the proposed project, would be less than significant. Land Use and Planning The proposed General Plan Amendments would result in less than significant land use and planning impacts. Alternative 1 would retain the existing land use designations throughout the planning area. No Residential or Mixed Use Overlays would be applied, and existing policies applicable to the Fairview Developmental Center, Los Angeles Times, Segerstrom Home Ranch, and Sakioka Lot 2 sites would remain. Like the proposed project, all future 5.0-8 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendments Alternatives 5.0 development proposals would be reviewed against adopted land use policies for consistency and to ensure compatibility with surrounding uses. In this regard, impacts for Alternative 1, like the proposed project, would be less than significant. Alternative 2 assumes that the Fairview Developmental Center continues to operate. As this is a current use on the property, no impact relative to land use compatibility would be anticipated. With regard to the new proposed land use designation, any future development plans will require preparation of a specific plan, through which compatibility concerns can be addressed. In this regard, Alternative 1, like the proposed project, would not have an adverse impact. Alternative 3 would maintain the Industrial Park designation on the Los Angeles Times site, which is consistent with designations on surrounding properties. Like the proposed project, all future development proposals would be reviewed against adopted land use policies for consistency and to ensure compatibility with surrounding uses. In this regard, impact for Alternative 2, like the proposed project, would be less than significant. Alternative 4, like the proposed project, would maintain the current allowable office land uses on the Segerstrom Home Ranch property. Development intensity on any individual development site would be reduced relative to the proposed project. Like the proposed project, all future development proposals would be reviewed against adopted land use policies for consistency and to ensure compatibility with surrounding uses. In this regard, impact for Alternative 4, like the proposed project, would be less than significant. None of the alternatives or the proposed General Plan Amendments would result in the division of an established community since they retain similar development patterns and road networks. Mineral Resources The proposed General Plan Amendments would result in less than significant impacts relating mineral resources. All of the alternatives, liked the proposed General Plan Amendments, accommodate development generally in the same areas, and these areas are either already urbanized or in agricultural production. Given that no mineral resources would be impacted by the proposed project, impacts associated with each of the alternatives would be the same: less than significant. Noise The proposed General Plan Amendments would result in less than significant noise impacts. As shown in the traffic report (Tables 3-5 and 3-6 in Appendix D), the existing General Plan (Alternative 1) would result in less traffic growth_ (d fferenGe of 15,015 trips Gift,,. kik and thus a lesser degree of associated traffic noise. However, the noise study (Appendix E) concludes that the General Plan Amendments would not result in significant noise impacts. Thus, impacts of Alternative 1 would be comparable to the proposed project. Alternative 2 would not change existing conditions on the Fairview Developmental Center site and thus would not create any new noise sources or expose new populations to new noise sources. However, because the General Plan Amendments would not result in significant noise impacts, impacts of Alternative 2 would be comparable to the project. Alternative 3 would maintain industrial land uses on the Los Angeles Times site. As this is the current condition and surrounding land uses consist of industrial operations, no new noise impacts would be created. Like the proposed project, noise impacts associated with Alternative 3 would be less than significant. Environmental Impact Report 5.0-9 5.0 Alternatives Alternative 4 would provide for reduced development within the Segerstrom Home Ranch area. While the uses would be similar, the reduced development level would result in less traffic growth and thus a lesser degree of associated traffic noise. However, the noise study (Appendix E) concludes that the General Plan Amendments would not result in significant noise impacts. Thus, impacts of Alternative 4 would be comparable to the proposed project. Population and Housing The proposed General Plan Amendments would result in less than significant impacts relating to population and housing. Alternative 1 would accommodate population growth via land use policies that support residential development, as demanded by the market, including housing at densities that would encourage affordable housing development. Similar to the proposed project, Alternative 1 would not induce substantial population directly or indirectly since growth has been planned to match infrastructure capacity. Also, Alternative 1 would not result in the displacement of housing or persons, as land use policies do not provide for any wholesale changes to existing land use patterns. With regard to any motels used as de facto housing, current policies and land use regulations allow for residential development along Newport Boulevard, where many motels are located, at a maximum density of 17.3 units per acre. No such policies/regulations apply to Harbor Boulevard. In this regard, the conversion of commercial properties to residential uses would not be incentivized in a manner that could result in potential displacement of de facto housing. However, given that existing land use and zoning regulations allow for residential densities within the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan area of 25-35 units per acre (and up to 125 units per acre in the Lakes subarea), opportunities would be available for affordable housing development. Similar to the proposed project, impact would be less than significant. Alternative 2 assumes that the Fairview Developmental Center would remain. Compared to the proposed project, Alternative 2 would result in a reduced capacity for new housing and thus would not induce population growth nor displace housing or persons. Similar to the proposed project, impact would be less than significant. Alternative 3 eliminates the Los Angeles Times focus area. Retaining the existing Industrial Park similarly would not affect housing since housing is not allowed. Similar to the proposed project, impact would be less than significant. Alternative 4 addresses the Segerstrom Home Ranch site which, under both existing and proposed land use policy, would not accommodate housing development. Similar to the proposed project, impact would be less than significant. Public Services The proposed General Plan Amendments would result in less than significant impacts relating to public services. Alternative 1, the existing General Plan, was adopted by the City as a balanced plan, with planned development capable of being supported by existing and planned public services. Similarly, the proposed General Plan Amendments have been crafted to achieve balance. Thus, similar to the proposed project, impact would be less than significant. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 involve modifications to land use policies in specific areas: at the Fairview Developmental Center, on the Los Angeles Times site, and on the Segerstrom Home Ranch site. In all cases, the existing General Plan land use designations would remain. As cited directly above, the City has established land use policy in a balanced manner, with uses planned in accordance with the ability of public services to meet anticipated needs. Thus, similar to the proposed project, impact associated with Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would be less than significant. 5.0-10 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendments Alternatives 5.0 Recreation The proposed General Plan Amendments will result in less than significant impacts with mitigation relating to recreation resources and facilities. Alternative 1, like the proposed project, would result in a demand for additional parkland, particularly in neighborhoods that are underserved. The existing General Plan does not include targeted policies to address these deficiencies, whereas the proposed General Plan Amendments do. However, Alternative 1 would result in lower population growth and thus reduced demand for park facilities. It should be noted that the City is currently preparing an updated Parks and Recreation Master Plan to address parks needs issues citywide over the long term. Because park demand would be reduced by Alternative 1, impacts would be reduced relative to the project. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 involve modifications to land use policy in specific areas: at the Fairview Developmental Center, on the Los Angeles Times site, and on the Segerstrom Home Ranch site. Alternative 2 would result in a net reduction in housing development potential relative to the proposed project; fewer housing units and fewer new residents would mean less demand for park space over the long term. Alternatives 3 and 4 would not involve development of any new housing and thus also would reduce long-term demand for park space. In these regards, impact of Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would be reduced relative to the proposed project. Transportation and Traffic The proposed General Plan Amendments would result in less than significant impacts relating to transportation and traffic. Similar to the proposed General Plan Amendments, each of the alternatives would accommodate growth. The traffic impacts of Alternative 1, the existing General Plan, were examined in detail in the traffic study prepared by Stantec, Inc. (see Appendix D). Analysis for Alternative 1 buildout year 2035 was conducted for both a constrained condition (which assumes only those improvements committed for construction through the City's Capital Improvements Program and OCTA Measure M2 Program) and an unconstrained condition (which assumes more extensive improvements, such as widening 17th Street to four lanes). As shown in Table 3-9 (2035 Constrained Highway Network ADT volumes and V/C Ratios) in the traffic study in Appendix D, fewer than 20 of the more than 150 roadway segments examined would experience increases in ADT and ADT V/C when comparing the existing General Plan to the proposed project. While various roadways and intersections throughout the City are forecast to exceed their theoretical maximum ADT capacities in year 2035, all road segments and intersections are forecast to operate at acceptable levels of service with planned and budgeted road improvements. Thus, similar to the proposed project, impact associated with Alternative 1 would be less than significant. Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 assume the existing General Plan designations. Thus, traffic generation would fall between the projections shown in the traffic study for the existing General Plan (Alternative 1) and the proposed project (General Plan Amendments). Thus, similar to the proposed project, impact associated with Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would be less than significant. Utilities and Service Systems The proposed General Plan Amendments would result in less than significant impacts relating to utilities and service systems. Alternative 1 would accommodate less potential development than the General Plan Amendments and would thus would have a lesser impact on utilities and service systems compared to the proposed General Plan Amendments. In both cases, impact would be less than significant. Environmental Impact Report 5.0-11 5.0 Alternatives Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would have modestly reduced levels of development relative to the proposed General Plan Amendments; therefore, utility and service system impacts would be similar to that associated with the proposed General Plan Amendments: less than significant. Environmentally Superior Alternative Table 5-2 compares the relative impacts to each of the four alternatives to the proposed General Plan Amendments. Alternative 1 (the "no project" alternative) has the potential to eliminate the significant, unavoidable impacts associated with the project with regard to air quality and greenhouse gas emissions (due to inconsistency with the RTP/SCS and Air Quality Management Plan). Per Section 15266.6.c of the State CEQA Guidelines, if the no project alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, an environmentally superior among the other alternatives must be identified. Alternative 2 (retaining the Public/Institutional designation on the Fairview Developmental Center site) would comparatively reduces impacts in the most categories compared to the proposed General Plan Amendments. However, impacts relative to air quality and greenhouse gas emissions would likely remain significant and unavoidable under Alternative 2 due to development on other properties citywide. Table 5.2 Impact Comparison Summary Matrix ImpactsPlan Proposed General Amendments: .. Aesthetics NO/L = < Agricultural Resources NO/L Air Quality SU < < < < Biological Resources S/M Cultural Resources S/M = < Geology and Soils NO/L GHG and Climate Chane SU < < < < Hazards and Hazardous Materials S/M Hydrology and Water Quality NO/L Land Use and Planning NO/L Mineral Resources NO/L Noise S/L Population and Housing NO/L Public Services NO/L Recreation S/M < < < < Transportation and Traffic NO/L Utilities and Service Systems NO/L < Key: SU Significant and unavoidable impacts S/M Less than significant impacts with mitigation incorporated NO/L No impact or less than significant impact > Impacts are greater than proposed project = Impacts are similar to proposed project < Impacts are less than proposed project 5.0-12 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendments Analysis of Long Term Effects 6.0 CEQA requires the discussion of the cumulative impacts, growth -inducing impacts, and long-term impacts of proposed projects. The following sections address these issues as they relate to implementation of the proposed General Plan Amendments. Cumulative Impacts 6.1 Sections 15130(a) through 15130(e) of the State CEQA Guidelines require the contents of an EIR to include a discussion of cumulative impacts. Section 15355 of the State CEQA Guidelines defines a cumulative impact as two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts. a result of the GOrnbination of the PFOjeGt evaluated in the EIR together with other proje „",s,. g related fn;paGtG Section 15130(b)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines identify two methods to determine the scope of projects for cumulative impact analysis: List Method. A list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the agency. Projection Method. A summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document or in a prior environmental document that has been adopted or certified, which described or evaluated regional or area wide conditions contributing to the cumulative impact. Any such planning document shall be referenced and made available to the public at a location specified by the Lead Agency. Because of the long-term scope of the proposed General Plan, the appropriate method for cumulative impact analysis is the projection method. This method is appropriate because the projections will serve as a guide to determine if the General Plan Amendments are consistent with the long-term population, employment, and household projections of the region. If the proposed General Plan Amendments are generally consistent with regional projections, then they would also generally be consistent with regional efforts to address environment problems such as air quality and traffic. Furthermore, preparing a list of cumulative development projects over the approximate 20 - year period the proposed General Plan Amendments would cover is not feasible. In support of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), and other regional planning efforts, SCAG developed a series of growth projections utilizing a comprehensive analysis of fertility, mortality, migration, labor force, housing units, and local policies such as land use plans. Population, housing, and employment forecasts for Costa Mesa and neighboring communities, as well as the entire Orange County, are summarized in Table 6.1-1 (SCAG 2008-2035 Growth Forecast). Table 6.1-1 SCAG 2008-2035 Growth Forecast Costa Mesa 2008 109,100 Population 2035 114,000 change +4% 2008 39,700 Households 2035 40,900 change +3% Employment 2008 94,200 2035 88,800 change -6% Newport Beach 84,200 90,300 +7% 38,400 40,700 +6% 82,500 77,700 -6% Santa Ana 323,900 336,700 +4% 73,100 74,800 +3% 168,400 149,400 -11% Orange County 2,989,000 3,421,000 +13% 987,000 1,125,000 +12% 1,624,000 1,779,000 +8% Source: SCAG 2012 RTP/SCS Environmental Impact Report 6.0-1 6.0 Analysis of Long Term Impacts Aesthetics As indicated in Table 6.1-1 above, Costa Mesa's projected population growth is small compared to the entire County. Additionally, only 88 acres of land (less than 4% of the total land area of the City) is undeveloped and would be subject to new large-scale development; the majority of this land (the Segerstrom Home Ranch and Sakioka Lot 2 properties) already has a General Plan designation for urban development implemented via the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan. In other areas affected by the proposed General Plan Amendments, higher intensity development is proposed and could result in multiple -story structures (generally no more than four stories). However, proposed General Plan policies, implementing zoning regulations, and established City design review practices would ensure that any new development would be consistent with the existing character of the neighborhoods. Future development within the planning area would be subject to the policies of the proposed General Plan Amendments and existing development standards. This includes policies and programs that support preserving neighborhood character, promoting quality design, and minimizing lighting impacts (Goals and Objectives CD -8-1 and 8.2, Policies CD -8.A to CD -8.1). The proposed policies and programs would ensure that cumulative aesthetic effects would the not be considerable. Agricultural Resources Analysis of agricultural impacts in Section 4.2 of this EIR indicates that no impact would occur from conversion of the 65 acres of land in current agricultural use, as the conversion is already contemplated in the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan prepared in 1994.49% e44e Although the existing agricultural land on the Segerstrom Home Ranch site and Sakioka Lot 2 remains mapped as is designed as prime agricultural land and/or as 4npe4a4#-farmland of statewide importance, the DeptDepartment. of Conservation applied an overlay on the parcels which specify that it is "Land Committed to Nonagricultural Uses" (DOC 2016)7 The proposed General Plan Amendments could not have a cumulatively considerable effect on agricultural resources. Air Quality The context for assessing cumulative air quality impacts is the South Coast Air Basin in terms of national and State criteria pollutant standards. The immediate vicinity of the project site is the context for localized levels of criteria pollutants and toxic emissions. As discussed in Section 4.3, the proposed General Plan Amendments would conflict with the 2012 regional AQMP prepared by SCAQMD, as the proposed project conflicts with SCAG's growth projections within the current City boundaries. Policies have been included to ensure that individual implementing projects would be consistent with the AQMP, emission thresholds, and SCAQMD rules. Proposed mixed- use/residential incentive higher -density development policies would implement an important regional strategy to encourage more compact urban/infill development in areas with good access to transit, which helps reduce total vehicle trips and average trip distances. This would help reduce vehicle emissions. The City would continue to evaluate short-term, construction -related impacts and long-term impacts for discretionary land use projects so that best available control measures can be applied, where warranted, to minimize the effects of individual development projects. Thresholds recommended by the SCAQMD would continue to be the preferred criteria for determining the level of impact significance at the project level of review. The proposed General Plan Amendments would not authorize any particular project or any exemptions from or conflicts with the AQMP and would not result in any direct air quality impacts. The proposed General Plan Amendments have the potential to conflict with the 2012 Air Quality Management Plan because land use policies would accommodate a greater level of y does Ret suppoi4 the same level of populatioR growth than currently projected for the City. Impacts at the program level would be significant and unavoidable. Therefore, long-term cumulative air quality impacts to the region would also be cumulatively considerable. 6.0-2 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendments Analysis of Long Term Effects 6.0 Biological Resources The context for assessing cumulative impacts to biological resources includes sensitive species and their habitat throughout the planningep riod and beyond. Future new development within the planning area, as would be changed by the General Plan Amendments, is restricted to infill properties, except for the Segerstrom Home Ranch and Sakioka Lot 2 properties, which are still in agricultural use. These properties have been and will continue to be designated for urban commercial use; the land use will not change until the landowners are ready to develop the lands. Since these lands have the potential to support burrowing owls, a mitigation measure (1310-1) was recommended that requires a -n -owl assessment would have to be performed prior to development. If habitat is found, the landowner would have to mitigate any loss of habitat in accordance with requirements of the California Dept. of Fish and Wildlife. To address the long-term, cumulative loss of sensitive habitat and associated species in the planning area, the City would continue to implement existing federal and State mandatesFegulations related to species and habitat protection and conservation. Considering the proposed General Plan Amendments are consistentc-y with the -existing federal and State regulations, the project's contribution to the long-term loss of sensitive habitat and species would not be considerable. In particular, the General Plan provides for continued preservation and restoration of natural coastal habitat and landforms (Goal and Objective CON -1, Policies CON -1.A to E). The project's contribution to the future loss of biological resources would not be cumulatively considerable. Cultural Resources Since the planning area is almost entirely built out and development consists of infill, the chance of exposing hidden cultural resources is remote. Additionally, the existing and proposed General Plan policies provide an ongoing program to ensure proper identification, evaluation, and recovery and/or protection of potentially important historical, archaeological, and paleontological resources that may be disturbed during future development activities (Goal and Objective HCR -1, Policies HCR -1.A to F, HCR -2.A to D, HCR -3.A to C). Existing State law requires immediate County Coroner notification upon discovery of human remains and also notification of affected Native American tribes if the remains are suspected to be of Native American origin. Surrounding jurisdictions are subject to similar regulations, including coroner notification upon discovery of human remains. Long-term development throughout Costa Mesa has low potential to impact subsurface archaeological and/or paleontological remains because most of the lands subject to development have previously been disturbed. With regard to historical properties, General Plan policies recognize the importance of preserving the City's heritage. With continued implementation of City policies and practices, the project's contribution to the future loss of cultural resources would not be cumulatively considerable. Potentially historic structures on the Segerstrom Ranch site would be evaluated if and when they are proposed for removal. Geology and Soils Future development within the planning area would increase the number of people exposed to earthquake -induced ground -shaking and other seismically induced ground hazards, such as liquefaction. The context for assessing cumulative geologic impacts is statewide, considering the majority of California is subject to some type of geologic hazard. The specific types and extent of geologic hazards and constraints are due to localized conditions that are routinely addressed at the project -level of analysis. The proposed Safety Element includes policies related to risk management from natural disasters (Goal and Objective S-1, Policies S -1.A to H). Cumulative geologic hazards impacts would be less than significant. Environmental Impact Report 6.0-3 6.0 Analysis of Long Term Impacts Greenhouse Gas Emissions Climate change is inherently a discussion of cumulative impacts due to its global impacts. Development that occurs as a result of the implementation of the proposed General Plan Amendments would include activities that emit greenhouse gases over the short and long terms. While one project could not be said to cause global climate change, individual projects contribute cumulatively to greenhouse gas emissions that result in climate change. Pursuant to proposed General Plan policies, CEQA, and SCAQMD regulations, individual development projects would be required to perform project -specific air quality analyses to determine potential impacts and mitigation measures to ensure individual projects would not result in short- or long-term climate change impacts (Goal and Objective CON -2, Policies CON -2.A to H, CON -4.E to G). In addition, due to the General Plan's inconsistency with SCAG's population growth projection for Costa Mesa, the potential still remains for an interference with the implementation of SCAG's 2012 RTP/SCS and CARB's Scoping Plan to achieve the required greenhouse gas reductions. Thus, long-term impacts with respect to climate change remain potentially significant and unavoidable..., and would be cumulatively considerable. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hazardous Materials The context for assessing cumulative hazardous materials impacts involves existing and potential development within the planning area and those surrounding areas that could result in the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or wastes. Typical uses would include industrial activities, utility providers, and waste management services. As development occurs within the planning area and surrounding jurisdictions, particularly in industrial land use designations, the use, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes would increase. Concurrently, as the population and employment base increase in the area, the potential for exposure of people to hazardous materials and wastes becomes greater. Regulation of hazardous substances and wastes, including manufacturing, storage, processing, transportation, and disposal activities, would continue to be governed mainly by federal and State agencies. The County of Orange Fire Department would continue to conduct inspections and review hazardous materials storage and containment provisions at local businesses. The proposed General Plan Amendments would not conflict with any such authorities or standard practices involving responses to hazardous materials releases. Proposed General Plan land use and circulation policies would not provide for any new or more dangerous types of hazardous materials or wastes to be generated, stored, or transported within the planning area or outside of the planning area. The draft General Plan Safety Element contains policies regarding hazardous materials treatment, transport, handling, and disposal (Goal and Objective S-1, Policies S -2.M to R). The proposed General Plan Amendments would not result in a considerable contribution to the regional increase in the use, transport, disposal, or exposure to hazardous materials or wastes. Wildfires Most of the planning area is developed, and areas that are not developed do not contain highly flammable vegetation. The context for assessing wildfire hazards exists wherever the urban environment interfaces with wildlands. The only situation where this occurs is near Fairview Park and Talbert Regional Park. None of the existing urban development that abuts the parks is subject of to land use changes under the General Plan Amendments. Cumulative wildfire impacts can occur as development in fire hazard areas increase, not only because the number of people and structures exposed to wildfires is increasing but also because increased density supports the spreading of wildfires. With implementation of required fire codes, the project would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts related to wildfires. 6.0-4 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendments Analysis of Long Term Effects 6.0 Hydrology and Water Quality Groundwater Levels The planning area is served by the Mesa Consolidated Water District and Irvine Ranch Water District. Groundwater supplies 82% of the City's water needs. Future growth throughout the planning area and the region would increase the need for local and imported water supplies, contributing to cumulative strains on groundwater resources and the potential to substantially lower the water table. Expanding development typically hinders groundwater recharge as well because paving and other impervious surfaces prevent or redirect water from the soil, thereby reducing or eliminating percolation in areas. As is indicated in Section 4.9 (Hydrology and Water Quality), the groundwater basin of concern is the Lower Santa Ana Groundwater Basin, which is managed by the Orange County Water District. The basin has been adjudicated to determine safe yield pumping limits to prevent over -drafting and substantial decrease in groundwater levels. As further indicated in Section 4.17 (Utilities and Service Systems), the proposed General Plan development capacity is anticipated to be within the anticipated water supply production pursuant to the Mesa Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) in accordance with the safe yield amounts. The proposed General Plan Amendments include policies and programs designed to enhance groundwater recharge in the planning area, primarily through conservation and modified drainage practices. In addition, the Conservation Element includes policies to promote water conservation and water recycling (Goal and Objective CON -3, Policies CON -3.A to H). The proposed General Plan Amendments would not have a cumulatively considerable impact on groundwater resources. Drainage and Water Quality Future growth in the planning area and the region would include a variety of land use forms, street improvements, and impervious surfaces that could increase the volume of urban runoff that would need to be captured and discharged into the City's municipal storm drain system, the County's regional flood control facilities, and ultimately into the Pacific Ocean. The proposed General Plan Amendments support low -impact development and appropriate drainage practices to prevent erosion, sedimentation, and flooding. This, coupled with existing regulations such as the National Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and ongoing implementation of the City Master Plan of Drainage, would ensure that long-term changes to the drainage pattern do not substantially impact downstream water bodies or surrounding properties. The project's contribution to regional drainage and water quality impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. Flooding The proposed General Plan Amendments and the Municipal Code do not allow the placement of homes within flood zones. All significant structures built within the City would be subject to the Floodplain Management Regulations (Chapter 15.18 of the Municipal Code) that require hydrological evaluation to ensure that minimal diversion of floodwaters occurs and development standards are implemented to prevent flooding of on- and off-site uses. These regulations specifically prohibit construction of structures that could cause or divert floodwaters without appropriate site planning and structural design. Future development, as guided by the policies of the General Plan and the Municipal Code, would ensure there are no considerable cumulative flooding impacts to future homes or other structures (Goal and Objective S-1, Policies S -1.H to L). Land Use and Planning As discussed in Section 4.10, the proposed plan would not physically divide any established community within the planning area. Further, there are no new transportation corridors, major flood control facilities, or other elements of Environmental Impact Report 6.0-5 6.0 Analysis of Long Term Impacts the proposed plan that could result in such impacts outside of the planning area. The project would not contribute to cumulative impacts involving physical division of established communities. Costa Mesa and its unincorporated sphere of influence support a community of approximately 1103,500 residents. The California Department of Finance projects an increase of approximately 2,000 residents by the year 2040, an increase of less than two percent. The small percent increase is due to the mature nature of the City that has very little land left for new development. The population increase is relatively small when compared to surrounding the County as a whole (see Table 6.1). On a small level, future growth in Costa Mesa would affect the sub -regional land use and transportation patterns and intensities, thereby contributing to cumulative effects on regional infrastructure, jobs/housing balance, air quality, etc. Costa Mesa is a member city of SCAG, a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) that prepares and administers regional growth management strategies and allocation of federal transportation funding for a six -county area, including Ventura, Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Riverside, Orange and Imperial Counties. As the designated MPO, SCAG is mandated by the federal government to prepare regional plans for transportation, growth management, hazardous waste management, and air quality. As cited in Table 6.1-1, SCAG projects a smaller population increase for Costa Mesa: 114,00 residents in 2035. With the proposed amended land use policy, the City projects a population of 131,650 in 2035. This projection will be included in SCAG's future updates to the RTP/SCS. Thus, in this light, the project's contribution to regional cumulative land use impacts is not considerable due to the small increase relative to Orange County as a whole. Importantly, this growth will allow the City to accommodate its share of low-income housing development opportunities in accordance with the Regional Housing Needs Allocation. Mineral Resources Available data regarding mineral resources in the planning area indicate the presence of known or potential significant mineral resources including oil and aggregate. As addressed in Section 4.10 (Mineral Resources), the only active oil wells in the planning area are not affected by the proposed land use changes. The aggregate resource areas have not been determined for significance and for the most part are covered by existing urban uses. The proposed General Plan Amendments do not contain policies that conflict with the recovery of future mineral resources; therefore, significant mineral resource deposits, should they be unearthed in the future, would continue to be protected over the long term. The project would not contribute to a significant cumulative loss of mineral resources. Noise Implementation of the proposed General Plan Amendments would not generate new stationary noise sources outside of the planning area and would not, therefore, result in cumulatively considerable noise impacts involving stationary sources. Additional traffic volumes associated with future growth in the planning area would combine with regional traffic on major, inter -jurisdictional roads and highways leading to Costa Mesa that would contribute to cumulative effects involving roadway noise. However, as concluded in the noise study conducted for the project (Appendix D), the level of traffic noise attributable to Costa Mesa -based trips would not result in cumulatively considerable changes in roadway noise levels in the context of regional traffic growth. Population and Housing Under the General Plan Amendments, no permanent or temporary housing units would need to be or are proposed to be removed, relocated, or otherwise displaced to implement the proposed plan. This project would not contribute to cumulative impacts involving displacement of housing or persons since proposed General Plan policies allow for an increase in new housing construction relative to current conditions, and much of that housing could be constructed at densities of 30 units per acre or more, densities which the State Department of Housing and Community Development considers capable of incentivizing construction of housing for lower-income households (see discussion 6.0-6 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendments Analysis of Long Term Effects 6.0 in Section 4.14 — Population and Housing). Based on the proposed General Plan land use plan and the intensity levels specified therein, the ultimate population, employment capacity, and number of dwelling units would increase when compared to existing conditions, as shown in Table 6.1-2 (General Plan Potential Capacity Comparison). Table 6.1-2 General Plan Potential Capacity Comparison Rates of growth would occur in response to a variety of regional and national socioeconomic factors, including birth rates, migration from other states and other countries, land values, employment opportunities, interest rates, housing supply, demand and pricing, and broad regional and national economic conditions. Growth forecasts have been developed by SCAG and were summarized in Table 6.1-1. The proposed General Plan Amendments can accommodate a population of approximately 131,650 residents. By increasing housing development capacity above that projected by regional agencies, the City would be able to accommodate projected growth within the City and additional demand from the region, particularly for housing at higher densities that could be affordable housing. Proposed General Plan Amendments land use policy could accommodate an employment level of 104,42593-,690 jobs, which would meet and exceed its anticipated employment growth of 88,800 by 2035 projected by SCAG (Table 6.1-1). While the capacity for jobs growth under the proposed General Plan Amendments exceeds that projected in regional plans, the effect is not cumulatively considerable since the sites designated for jobs -related uses by the General Plan Amendments are already so designated.; the proposed PFO ont modestly innreaSeS Gaya . +„ and th is would not MUno gFewth rlirontly OF iRdiF8G Public Services The context for analyzing impacts related to public services is the relationship between local and regional population and urban growth and the concurrent need of individual service providers to expand facilities to meet the increasing demand. The draft General Plan Safety Element includes policies designed to ensure that appropriate levels of service are provided by requiring funding, facilities expansion, and service enhancements commensurate with long- term development in the planning area (Goal and Objective S-2, Policies S -2.A to L). The General Plan Amendments would not result in a considerable contribution to cumulative impacts associated with the expansion of and need for public services. Recreation Local and community recreation resources are provided for the benefit of the immediate vicinity and generally are not subject to cumulative impacts. The context for assessing cumulative impacts to parks and recreation resources are at the regional level, where multi -jurisdictional growth would put pressure on the availability and condition of parks and recreation facilities. Incremental residential growth in the planning area and in its outskirts would increase the demand for local, community, and regional recreation resources. Regional facilities would be required to expand to meet growing demand as the planning area and in Orange County. The proposed General Plan land use plan does not allocate specific land for parks and recreation uses, but includes policies for collecting fees from new development to develop and maintain community park facilities (Policies LU -3.A.3 and OSR-1.H). Also, the General Plan includes a policy directing the City to target parks in underserved neighborhoods, as identified in the Open Space and Recreation Element. As was detailed in Section 4.15, given the City's record of commitment to park facilities maintenance and the considerable acreage of regional and institutional parkland nearby (Fairview Park and Environmental Impact Report 6.0-7 6.0 Analysis of Long Term Impacts Talbert Regional Park, school playgrounds) that supplement City -owned parks, the potential impact of the General Plan Amendments on recreation is not considered ssignificant. Considered cumulatively, the lack of community parks in the Planning Area could cumulatively lead to impacts on the regional recreation facilities to the degree that other communities rely on such facilities to make up for the lack of community-based facilities. Transportation and Traffic The context for assessing the cumulative contribution of the proposed project to conditions on the local and regional transportation network is addressed through the assumptions inherent in the regional traffic model used to assess project -specific impacts (Appendix C of this EIR). Future traffic volumes were based on buildout of the proposed General Plan and were determined using the Costa Mesa Traffic Model (CMTM). As noted in the traffic study, the CMTM is derived from the Orange County Transportation Analysis Model, Version 3.4 (OCTAM 3.4), which is maintained by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), and has been developed according to OCTA's Orange County sub -area traffic modeling guidelines. The CMTM has been certified by the OCTA as being consistent with the OCTAM regional model. Thus, assumptions regarding cumulative growth, meaning future traffic on the road network not attributable to the proposed project, are inherent in the analysis. The results of the traffic analysis indicate that the Costa Mesa Master Plan of Streets and Highways, which the City will ensure is consistent with the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways, and the planned and funded future roadway and intersection improvements described Section 4.16 of this EIR will adequately accommodate projected future traffic volumes associated the proposed General Plan Amendments and background cumulative traffic volumes. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant. Utilities and Service Systems The context for assessing cumulative impacts to utilities and service systems varies depending on the service area and capacity of the utility which may vary from the planning area, Orange County, or (in terms of water) even statewide. Long-term maintenance and potential expansion of water, wastewater, flood control, and solid waste disposal facilities will be required as the region continues to grow and existing infrastructure ages. Utility providers currently impose development impact fees, connection fees, and service fees designed to maintain and incrementally expand infrastructure to meet existing and growing demand. Future development in the project vicinity and throughout the region would be subject to such fees in accordance with applicable ordinances and service master plans. The proposed General Plan Amendments would not have a cumulatively considerable impact on these facilities because the General Plan Amendments include policies that support water conservation, wastewater reuse, and recycling that would reduce impacts on regional utilities (Goals and Objectives CON -2 and 3). These policies, coupled with existing regulations, would provide for cumulatively considerable impacts to utilities and service systems to be less than significant. 6.0-8 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendments Analysis of Long Term Effects 6.0 Growth -Inducing Impacts 6.2 Growth -inducing effects include ways in which the proposed General Plan Amendments could foster economic or population growth, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. A prime example is a major infrastructure project or road extension which provides urban service capacities to currently undeveloped areas, thus removing an obstacle to population growth. The proposed General Plan Amendments are specifically intended to provide for the orderly growth within the planning area to achieve economic, environmental, and quality of life benefits. Nothing in the General Plan Amendments propose new infrastructure systems to facilitate growth of undeveloped areas that were not proposed in the existing General Plan. There are no proposed policies, regulations, or ordinances that are part of the project or implied by the General Plan Amendments that would encourage or enable significantly higher levels of growth than currently envisioned. The General Plan Amendments include the Residential Incentive Overlay, which would increase allowed residential densities in Costa Mesa to 40 units per acre on targeted properties along transit -oriented routes. This policy may be considered growth inducing as it may incentivize the private redevelopment of commercial properties. However, because amendments are focused on existing developed sites or sites surrounded by existing development, infrastructure currently exists to support the level of growth. Also, the planning of denser development near transit is consistent with City, regional, and State policies—implemented in part by the provisions of Senate Bill 375—to encourage integration of land use and transit planning. Projects permitted pursuant to amended land use policy would provide for additional housing for all income levels, create a better balance of residential and non-residential uses in the community, promote organized and pedestrian - friendly commercial development, and protect natural resources. Implementation of the General Plan Amendments would result in a more inclusive community, maintain a balance between housing and employment, and foster a stable economic base and diverse employment opportunities. Environmental Impact Report 6.0-9 6.0 Analysis of Long Term Impacts Energy Conservation 6.3 Introduction This energy conservation analysis has been prepared pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 21100(b)(3) and Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines. The purpose of this analysis is to assess the short- and long-term energy demand of the proposed project, identify proposed and required conservation measures, and assess the extent to which the proposed project would conserve energy. Project energy demand would not be wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary if it does not increase energy demand over typical construction and operating requirements. Appendix F of the State CEQA Guidelines states that the goal of assessing energy conservation in a project is to ensure the wise and efficient use of energy. Energy efficiency is achieved by decreasing energy consumption, decreasing reliance on fossil fuels, and increasing reliance on renewable energy sources. The guidelines for analysis of energy conservation provided in Appendix F of the State CEQA Guidelines are provided herein. CEQA Appendix F: Energy Conservation Introduction The goal of conserving energy implies the wise and efficient use of energy. The means of achieving this goal include: (1) decreasing overall per capita energy consumption, (2) decreasing reliance on fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas and oil, and (3) increasing reliance on renewable energy sources. In order to assure that energy implications are considered in project decisions, the California Environmental Quality Act requires that EIRs include a discussion of the potential energy impacts of proposed projects, with particular emphasis on avoiding or reducing inefficient, wasteful and unnecessary consumption of energy (see Public Resources Code section 21100(b)(3)). Energy conservation implies that a project's cost effectiveness be reviewed not only in dollars, but also in terms of energy requirements. For many projects, cost effectiveness may be determined more by energy efficiency than by initial dollar costs. A lead agency may consider the extent to which an energy source serving the project has already undergone environmental review that adequately analyzed and mitigated the effects of energy production. II. EIR Contents Potentially significant energy implications of a project shall be considered in an EIR to the extent relevant and applicable to the project. The following list of energy impact possibilities and potential conservation measures is designed to assist in the preparation of an EIR. In many instances specific items may not apply or additional items may be needed. Where items listed below are applicable or relevant to the project, they should be considered in the EIR. A. Project Description may include the following items: 1. Energy consuming equipment and processes which will be used during construction, operation and/or removal of the project. If appropriate, this discussion should consider the energy intensiveness of materials and equipment required for the project. 6.0-10 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendments Analysis of Long Term Effects 6.0 2. Total energy requirements of the project by fuel type and end use. 3. Energy conservation equipment and design features. 4. Identification of energy supplies that would serve the project. 5. Total estimated daily vehicle trips to be generated by the project and the additional energy consumed per trip by mode. B. Environmental Setting may include existing energy supplies and energy use patterns in the region and locality. C. Environmental Impacts may include: 1. The project's energy requirements and its energy use efficiencies by amount and fuel type for each stage of the project including construction, operation, maintenance and/or removal. If appropriate, the energy intensiveness of materials may be discussed. 2. The effects of the project on local and regional energy supplies and on requirements for additional capacity. 3. The effects of the project on peak and base period demands for electricity and other forms of energy. 4. The degree to which the project complies with existing energy standards. 5. The effects of the project on energy resources. 6. The project's projected transportation energy use requirements and its overall use of efficient transportation alternatives. D. Mitigation Measures may include: 1. Potential measures to reduce wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary consumption of energy during construction, operation, maintenance and/or removal. The discussion should explain why certain measures were incorporated in the project and why other measures were dismissed. 2. The potential of siting, orientation, and design to minimize energy consumption, including transportation energy, increase water conservation and reduce solid waste. 3. The potential for reducing peak energy demand. 4. Alternate fuels (particularly renewable ones) or energy systems. 5. Energy conservation which could result from recycling efforts. E. Alternatives should be compared in terms of overall energy consumption and in terms of reducing wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary consumption of energy. F. Unavoidable Adverse Effects may include wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary consumption of energy during the project construction, operation, maintenance and/or removal that cannot be feasibly mitigated. G. Irreversible Commitment of Resources may include a discussion of how the project preempts future energy development or future energy conservation. H. Short -Term Gains versus Long -Term Impacts can be compared by calculating the project's energy costs over the project's lifetime. I. Growth Inducing Effects may include the estimated energy consumption of growth induced by the project. Energy Demand Short-term energy demand would result from development construction pursuant to implementation of the proposed General Plan Amendments. This would include energy demand from worker and vendor vehicle trips and construction equipment usage. Long-term energy demand would result from operation of various development types pursuant to implementation of the proposed General Plan Amendments. This would typically include energy demand from vehicle trips, electricity and natural gas usage, and water and wastewater conveyance. This section generally describes the energy needs of these activities. Environmental Impact Report 6.0-11 6.0 Analysis of Long Term Impacts Construction Activities The proposed General Plan Amendments would not directly result in construction of any development or infrastructure; however, future development supported by the policies of the General Plan Amendments would result in short-term energy demand. Short-term energy demand would occur during site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and painting activities associated with new development. Energy demand results from use of equipment, worker, vendor, and hauling trips. Operational Activities The proposed General Plan Amendments would not directly result in operation of any development or infrastructure; however, future development supported by the policies of the General Plan Amendments would result in long-term energy demand. Long-term energy demand would occur primarily from mobile sources, electricity and natural gas use, and water use and wastewater generation. Mobile Sources Mobile source energy demand primarily is associated with individual vehicle energy demand and therefore gasoline and diesel fuel primarily as well as electricity increasingly for electric vehicles. Mobile source energy demand may also be associated with public transportation such as buses and trains associated with natural gas, diesel fuel, or electricity. Of all operational energy demands, the proposed General Plan Amendments seek most to reduce the energy demand of mobile sources through improved land use and circulation network planning to reduce reliance on individual vehicles and promote use of public transportation as well as non -motorized transportation such as walking and biking. By seeking to reduce the amount of individual vehicle usage, the proposed General Plan Amendments would achieve reductions in mobile source operational energy demand. Electricity and Natural Gas Use Electricity and natural gas would be required to provide energy to the proposed development of residential, commercial, industrial and other land uses provided for in the proposed General Plan Amendments. All new development and redevelopment would be subject to current California Building Code (CBC) requirements for building energy efficiency. In addition, the proposed General Plan Amendments encourage energy conservation for development, including facilitating green building standards and LEED (or similar) certification. Other opportunities would also continue to be available to existing and new development to incorporate energy saving features or renewable energy sources into buildings. Water and Wastewater Electricity would indirectly be required to treat and convey water to and convey wastewater away from development that implements the proposed General Plan Amendments. Pursuant to the City's landscape irrigation requirements and the Water Conservation in Landscaping Act, outdoor water use would continue to be regulated for new development to plan landscaping accordingly and conserve water. Energy Conservation The project would be subject to state water efficiency regulations pursuant to the CBC that would reduce long-term project energy demand. These requirements would reduce wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy over the long-term. 6.0-12 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendments Analysis of Long Term Effects 6.0 California Building Code Pursuant to the 2010 CBC CALGREEN requirements, the project would be subject to the following requirements (CBSC 2011): 20 percent reduction in water demand (5.303.2) 20 percent reduction in wastewater discharges (5.303.4) Reduce Water and Wastewater Demand (5.303.2 & 5.303.4) The minimum 20 percent reduction in water demand and wastewater discharges would decrease indoor water demand. This would result in a concurrent reduction in energy demand to supply, treat, and convey water and wastewater. Conclusion The conservation of energy would result from implementation of the California Building Code, the City's landscape irrigation regulations, Regional Greenhouse Gas Inventory and Reduction Plan, and General Plan policies seeking to reduce individual vehicle use. With implementation of existing regulations and proposed policies, energy demand for development that implements the proposed General Plan Amendments would not be wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary. Environmental Impact Report 6.0-13 6.0 Analysis of Long Term Impacts Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes 6.4 The General Plan Amendments provide a policy and regulatory framework to guide future growth into both infill sites and undeveloped areas. Once land is developed with a certain type of land use, reversion to open space for conservation, resource management, or other purposes is highly unlikely. An irreversible commitment of non-renewable natural resources is inherent in any development project, or in the case of the General Plan Amendments, numerous development projects over a long period of time. Such resources would include, but are not limited to, lumber and other related forest products; sand and gravel, native topsoil, a variety of metals used in the manufacture of building materials such as steel, copper piping and wiring, etc., along with hydrocarbon -based fuel sources that require extraction and chemical alteration and/or combustion of natural resources such as oil, natural gas, coal, and shale. Implementation of the General Plan Amendments represent a long-term commitment to the consumption of energy for electricity, water and space heating, water supply and treatment, industrial processes, as well as fuels to power various modes of mechanized transportation. Impacts associated with long-term energy consumption would depend on the energy sources and methods of producing energy. Typical hydrocarbon -based sources produce higher volumes of various criteria air pollutants and greenhouse gasses than renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power or alternative fuel sources such as biodiesel and cellulosic ethanol. To the extent that hydrocarbon based fuel sources are replaced with less polluting, renewable sources; the irreversible commitment of non-renewable resources would be reduced. 6.0-14 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendments Analysis of Long Term Effects 6.0 Unavoidable Significant Environmental Impacts 6.5 The analyses of the various environmental issues presented in Sections 4.1 to 4.17 conclude that the proposed General Plan Amendments would not result in any significant environmental impacts that cannot be avoided or reduced to less than significant through some mitigation strategy or compliance with an existing or proposed regulatory program with the exception of those impacts dealing with: air quality greenhouse gas emissions For both of the above issues, the proposed General Plan Amendments have the potential to conflict with the 2012 Air Quality Management Plan and with the 2012 SCAG RTP/SCS and CARB Scoping Plan (and thereby not attain GHG reductions targets) because land use policy does not support the same level of population growth projected. Environmental Impact Report 6.0-15 6.0 Analysis of Long Term Impacts References California Building Standards Commission. 2011 California Building Code. January 2011. California Dept. of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection. May 31, 2016. Email from Patrick Hennessy of DOC to Daniel Inloes, City of Costa Mesa. Regarding application of overlay designation for two agricultural parcels in Costa Mesa. 6.0-16 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendments Introduction 1 Executive Summary 2 Project Description 3 Environmental Impact Analysis 4 Alternatives 5 Analysis of Long Term Effects 6 Effects Found Not to be Significant 7 Preparation Team References 8 9 Effects Found Not to be Significant Effects Found Not to be Significant 7.0 The State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15128 requires that an EIR contain a statement briefly indicating the reasons that possible various significant effects of a project are not analyzed in the EIR. The inclusion of the Initial Study prepared for the project may serve that purpose. This EIR addresses all impact topic areas identified in the CEQA Checklist (State CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G). The City of Costa Mesa did not prepare an Initial Study to focus the scope of the EIR analysis. Environmental Impact Report 7-1 7.0 Effects Found Not to be Significant This page intentionally left blank. 7-2 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendments Introduction 1 Executive Summary 2 Project Description 3 Environmental Impact Analysis 4 Alternatives 5 Analysis of Long Term Effects 6 Effects Found Not to be Significant 7 Preparation Team 8 References 9 Preparation Team City of Costa Mesa Development Services Department City Hall 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, CA Claire Flynn, Assistant Development Services Director Minoo Ashabi, Princi alb R4 Planner Daniel Inloes, SeniorAsseeiate Planner Public Services Department Raja Sethuraman, Transportation Services Manager Pritam Deshmukh, Associate Engineer Preparation Team 8.0 Lead Agency 8.1 Consultants to Lead Agency 8.2 Land Use and Planning, Air Quality and Climate Change, and Environmental Analysis MIG, Inc. 537 S. Raymond Avenue Pasadena, CA 91105 www.migcom.com Laura Stetson, Principal Christopher Brown, Director of Environmental Services Victoria Harris, Senior Environmental Analyst Cameron Hile, Project Analyst Traffic and Transportation Stantec, Inc. 38 Technology Drive, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 Daryl Zerfass, PE, PTP Kendall Elmer, Transportation Specialist Environmental Impact Report 8-1 8.0 Preparation Team This page intentionally left blank. 8-2 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendments Introduction 1 Executive Summary 2 Project Description 3 Environmental Impact Analysis 4 Alternatives Analysis of Long Term Effects Effects Found Not to be Significant Preparation Team 5 6 7 8 References 9 References References 9.0 4.1 Aesthetics California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2015. California Scenic Highway Mapping System, Orange County, accessed on 11/12/2015, http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic highways/index.htm Google Earth Accessed on December 3, 2015. California Department of Developmental Services. 2015. Fairview Developmental Center, website accessed on December 3, 2015 at http://www.dds.ca.gov/fairview/. City of Costa Mesa, 2006. SoBECA Urban Plan, prepared by the Development Services Department, City of Costa Mesa, adopted April 4, 2006. 4.2 Agricultural and Forestry Resources California Department of Conservation. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, 2008. The City of Costa Mesa is indicated as "Urban and Built -Up Land" in the 2010 map of Orange County. ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/Ddf/2010/oralO.pdf [Accessed April 2015]. California Department of Conservation. Williamson Act Program, 2007. ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/wa/Orange WA 03 04.pdf [Accessed April 2015]. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Fire and Resources Assessment Program (FRAP). California Land Cover Map: Multi -Source Data Compiled in 2006. http://frap.cdf.ca.gov/data/frapqismaps/pdfs/fvegwhrl3b map.pdf [Accessed April 2015]. Google Earth, 2015. View of Segerstrom Home Ranch and Sakioka Lot 2 property in Costa Mesa. [Access December 2015]. Patrick Hennessy, California Dept. of Conservation, 2016. Communication to Planning Division staff (dated Tuesday, May 31, 2016 and June 2, 2016). RE: Confirmation that FMMP maps will be updated to reflect revised designation for two parcels in Costa Mesa. 4.3 Air Quality Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. City of Costa Mesa General Plan Update Traffic Analysis. February 12, 2016. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Clean Air Act. www.epa.gov/air/caa/ [November 16, 2015]. United States Environmental Protection Agency. EnviroMapper for Envirofacts. http://www.epa.gov/emefdata/em4ef.home [November 15, 2015]. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Particulate Matter. http://www.epa.gov/air/particlepollution/index.html [November 14, 2012]. Environmental Impact Report 9-1 9.0 References Western Regional Climate Center. Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary: Newport Beach Harbor, California (046175). http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cqi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca6175 [November 15, 2015]. 4.4 Biological Resources Bon Terra Consulting, 2000. Biological Consulting Services for the Conservation Element of the Costa Mesa General Plan, prepared by BonTerra Consulting, May 22, 2000. Calflora. 2015: Information on California plants for education, research and conservation, with data contributed by public and private institutions and individuals, including the Consortium of California Herbaria. [web application]. 2015. Berkeley, California: The Calflora Database [a non-profit organization]. Available: http://www.calflora.org/ (Accessed: Nov 19, 2015). California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation, March 7, 2012. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2015. CNDDB Search, November 2015. Costa Mesa. 2008. City of Costa Mesa Fairview Park Master Plan, March 1998, Revised February 2001 and November 2002, updated November 2008. Bartel,DepaFtment ef the lnteFieF, U.S. Fish & Wildlife SeNiGe, Gadsbad Fish and Wildlife OffiGe, 2000. GgtiGal Nabitat Designation for Endangered San Diego Fahy Shr*p, SG G 00 173, GentaGt: Andy Yuen, jim Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, 2007. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for Endangered San Diego Fairy Shrimp, (Branchinecta sandiogonensis); Final Rule. Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 238, December 12, 2007, Natural Communities Coalition. 2015. Reserve Map for Orange County NCCP/HCP. http://occonservation.org/land-areas/reserve-map/. Nurhus, Barry, Biologist, Fairview Park, City of Costa Mesa. 2016. Comments on DEIR. Western Regional Climate Center. 2015. Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary: Newport Beach Harbor, California (046175). http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cqi-bin/cliMAIN.PI?ca6175 [May 18, 2015]. 4.6 Geology and Soils Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources. 2015. Well Status, July 2015 Pidwirny, Michael. 2006. University of British Columbia, Okanagan. Fundamentals of Physical Geography. 2nd ed. Erosion and Deposition. 4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions United States Environmental Protection Agency. (US EPA 2015). Greenhouse Gas Emissions. www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/index.html [November 18, 2015]. 9-2 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendments 9.0 References Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (IPCC 2007). Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing (Working Group 1). Forth Assessment Report. 2007. California Natural Resources Agency. (CNRA 2009). California Climate Adaptation Strategy. California Climate Action Team. (CCAT 2010). Biennial Report. April 2010. Southern California Association of Governments. (SCAG 2015). Senate Bill 375 Fact Sheet. www.scag.ca.gov/sb375/factsheets.htm [November 18, 2015]. California Air Resources Board. (CARB 2008). Climate Change Scoping Plan. December 2008. California Air Resources Board. (CARB 2010a). AB 32 Climate Change, Scoping Plan Progress Report. September 2010. California Air Resources Board (CARB 2015).. Cap -and -Trade. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/capandtrade/capandtrade.htm [November 18, 20151. California Building Standards Commission. (CBSC 2010). California Code of Regulations Title 24. California Green Building Standards Code. 2010. South Coast Air Quality Management District. (SCAQMD 2010). CEQA Significance Thresholds Working Group. Meeting # 15, Main Presentation. September 28, 2010. California Air Resources Board. (CARB 2010b). California GHG Emissions - Forecast (2002-2020). October 2010. California Air Resources Board. (CARB 2010c). Scoping Plan Measures Implementation Timeline. October 2010. 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CALFIRE). 2015. Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA. Orange County. December 2015. California Division of the State Architect, 2015. http://www.dgs.ca.gov/dsa/Home.aspx, accessed on February 25, 2016 United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2015a. Cleanups in My Community. http://www2.epa.gov/cleanups/cleanups-my-community [December 4, 2015]. United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2015b. EnviroMapper: Costa Mesa, CA. http://www.epa.gov/emefdata/em4ef.home [December 4, 2015]. United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) 2015c.. EnviroFacts, CERCLIS Query Form. http://www.epa.gov/enviro/html/cerclis/cerclis query.html [May 21, 2015]. United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) 20154. EnviroFacts, RCRA Info Search: Costa Mesa. http://www3.epa.gov/enviro/facts/rcrainfo/search.html [December 4, 2015]. Environmental Impact Report 9-3 9.0 References United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2015e. EnviroFacts, TRI Query Form: Costa Mesa. http://www.epa.gov/enviro/tri-search [Accessed December 15, 2015].] California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2015. EnviroStor. http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/Cortese List.cfm [May 21, 2015]. State Water Resources Control Board (WRCB). 2015. GeoTracker, Advanced Search: Costa Mesa. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/search.asp [December 4, 2015]. California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal EPA) 2015. Cortese List, List of `active' CDO and CAO. http://www.calepa.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/CorteseLisVCDOCAOList.xls [December 4, 2015]. Orange County (OC). 2014. General Plan. Safety Element. July 2014. City of Costa Mesa (CM) 2002. General Plan. Safety Element. 2002. Orange County Airport Land Use Commission (OC ALUC). 2008. Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport. As amended through April 17, 2008. 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality California Regional Water Quality Control Board, 2015. Santa Ana Region. Order No. R8-2009-0030, NPDES No. CAS618030. May 26, 2015. California State Water Resources Control Board, 2015. Storm Water Program: Construction Storm Water Program. www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/construction.shtml [May 26, 2015]. California State Water Resources Control Board, 2009. Construction General Permit Fact Sheet. September 2, 2009. California Water Code. Division 7: Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act. January 1, 2010. City of Costa Mesa, 2006, Ordinance of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code Relating to Drainage. City of Costa Mesa, 2015a. Draft Conservation Element of the General Plan, 2015. City of Costa Mesa, 2015b. Draft Safety Element of the General Plan, 2015. Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2004. Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety. April 2004. Mesa Consolidated Water District, 2010, 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, Final, May 2011. Orange County Flood Control Agency, 2015. Website: http://ocflood.com/sarp/lower Orange County Public Works Dept. 2015. Website: http://ocwatersheds.com/programs/ourws/wmaareas/wmanorthoc Orange County Public Works, 2011. North Orange County Integrated Regional Watershed Management Plan, February 2011. 9-4 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendments 9.0 References Orange County Public Works, 2007. Central Orange County Integrated Regional Watershed Management Plan, August 2007. Santa Ana Water Quality Control Board, 2008. Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin. January 24, 1995, updated February 2008. United States of America. National Dam Safety Act. Public Law Sections 109-406. 2006. Western Regional Climate Center, 2015. Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary: Newport Beach Harbor, California (046175). http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca6l75 [May 15, 2015]. 4. 11 Mineral Resources City of Costa Mesa. 2015. Municipal Code. Chapter XIV, Section 13-288. City of Costa Mesa. 2002. General Plan. Safety Element. Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources. 2015. Well Status, July 2015. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. 2007. Chapter IV: Groundwater Basin Reports - Orange County Basin. September 2007. 4.12 Noise Federal Highway Administration. 2011. Highway Traffic Noise: Analysis and Abatement Guidance. (FHQA-HEP- 10-025). Original June 2010 and revised December 2011. California Governor's Office of Planning and Research. General Plan Guidelines. 2003 U.S. Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Assessment. FTA -VA -90-1003-06. Washington, DC. May 2006. City of Costa Mesa. 2006. Zoning Code, Chapter XIII. Noise Control. Ordinance 06-9, Revised April 2006. Caltrans. 2004. Transportation and Construction Induced Vibration Manual and Technical Advisory 04-01- R0201 (Transportation Related Earthborne Vibrations). Noise Quest. 2015. Information on sources of noise. (http://www.noiseguest.psu.edu/sourcesofnoise- overview.html). Accessed December 17, 2015 Caltrans. 2002. Transportation Related Earthborne Vibrations Technical Advisory (TAV-02-01-R9601). February 20, 2002 Jones & Stokes. 2004. Transportation- and construction -induced vibration guidance manual. June. (J&S 02- 039.) Sacramento, CA. Prepared for California Department of Transportation, Noise, Vibration, and Hazardous Waste Management Office, Sacramento, CA. Orange County, 2015. John Wayne Airport., About the John Wayne Airport (http://www.ocair.com/aboutjwa/). Accessed December 17, 2015 Environmental Impact Report 9-5 9.0 References Orange County Airport Land Uses Commission, 2008. Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport and Enivirons. Amended April 17, 2008. California Department of Transportation. Basics of Highway Noise: Technical Noise Supplement. November 2009 4.13 Population and Housing California Government Code, Section 65583.2 (Residential land inventory; definitions; inventory elements; suitability for regional housing needs; densities). City of Costa Mesa, 2014. General Plan Housing Element. Orange County Local Agency Formation Commission. 2010.2010 Islands Strategy Handbook, Islands Map. Southern California Association of Government, 2012. 2012-2035 Regional Transportation Plan: Sustainable Communities Strategy, April 2012. 4.14 Public Services City of Costa Mesa. City Council Agenda Report, November 17, 2015. http://www. costa mesaca.gov/ftp/council/agenda/2015/2015-11-17/NB-1.pdf [Accessed December 16, 2015]. City of Costa Mesa. City Website: Libraries. http://www.costamesaca.gov/index.aspx?page=602 [Accessed December 15, 20125]. City of Costa Mesa. Fire Department. http://www.costamesaca.gov/index.aspx?paqe=81 [Accessed December 13, 2015]. City of Costa Mesa. General Plan. Safety Element. 2002. City of Costa Mesa. Police Department Website. http://www.costamesaca.gov/index.aspx?page=302 [Accessed December 14, 2015]. City of Costa Mesa. Police Department Website: Crime Statistics (Compiled through October 2015). http://www.costamesaca.gov/index.aspx?page=382 [Accessed December 15, 2015]. Electronic Correspondence. Lieutenant Brian Glass. Costa Mesa Police Department. December 21, 2015. Newport -Mesa Unified School District. Facts at a Glance. http://web.nmusd.us/factsata Iq ance [June 1, 2015]. Orange County Fire Authority www.ocfa.org/Menu/Departments/Operations/OperationsServiceMap.aspx [Accessed December 13, 2015]. Orange County Sheriff -Coroner's Department: North Operations http://ocsd.org/divisions/fieldops/north [December 15, 2015]. 9-6 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendments 9.0 References 4.15 Recreation City of Costa Mesa Dept. of Parks and Recreation. 2015. Fairview Park Citizens Advisory Committee. On website http://www.costamesaca.gov/index.aspx?page=1619, accessed on December 10, 2015. City of Costa Mesa 2015 General Plan Update, Draft Open Space and Recreation Element, 2015. City of Costa Mesa Fairview Park Master Plan March 1998, Revised 2001, 2002, and 2008. City of Costa Mesa General Plan Land Use Map, July 2004. City of Costa Mesa Planning Commission. 2015. Planning Commission Agenda Report, August 10, 2015. 4.16 Transportation and Traffic California Department of Transportation. 2014 Traffic Volumes on the California State Highway System. 2014. John Wayne Airport Orange County. http://www.ocair.com/about'wa/ [Accessed March 2, 2016]. Orange County Transportation Authority. Annual Traffic Volume Maps. http://www.octa.neYFreeways-and- Streets/Streets/Master-Road-Plan/Annual-Traffic-Volume-Maps/?terms=traffic%20counts [Accessed February 12, 2016]. Orange County Transportation Authority 2009. OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan Orange County Transportation Authority 2016. http://www.octa.neVBike/The-OC-Loop/ [Accessed March 31, 20161 Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. City of Costa Mesa General Plan Update Traffic Analysis. February 12, 2016. 4.17 Utilities and Service Systems CalRecycle. (2015) Disposal Reporting System (DRS): Jurisdiction Disposal and Alternative Daily Cover (ADC) Tons by Facility. http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/ReportsNiewer.aspx?P=ReportYear%3d2014%26ReportName%3d Rep ortEDRSJurisDisposalBvFacility%26OriginJurisdictionlDs%34108 City of Costa Mesa. Master Plan of Drainage. Undated. City of Costa Mesa (CM 2013). Public Works Department. Capital Improvement Program. 2009/2013 City of Costa Mesa Planning Division. (CMPD 2010). Water Efficient Landscape Guidelines. January 2010. Costa Mesa Sanitary District. (CMSD 2015). District Website: Trash Services and Solid Waste. http://crosdca.gov/index.php/departments/solid-waste/trash-services [Accessed January 4, 2015]. Irvine Ranch Water District .(IRWD 2015a). IRWD Basics: A Snapshot. https://www.irwd.com/about-us [Accessed June 5, 2015]. Environmental Impact Report 9-7 9.0 References Irvine Ranch Water District. (IRWD 2015b). An Overview: Well -Grounded in Water Reliability. http://irwd.com/images/pdf/about-us/IRWD-FactSheet-8-14.pdf [Accessed June 5, 2015]. Mesa Consolidated Water District (MCWD 2015). Water District News. http://www.mesawater.org/pdf/JulyAugNews.pdf [Accessed June 5, 2015]. Mesa Consolidated Water District. (MCWD 2011). 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. May 2011. Orange County Flood Control District. (OCFCD 2015a). Flood Division Website: Drawings and Maps. http://ocflood.com/docs/drawings#maps [Accessed January 8, 2016]. Orange County Flood Control District. (OCFCD 2015b). Flood Division Website: Online Manuals. http://ocflood.com/docs/manuals [Accessed January 8, 2016]. Orange County Flood Control District. (OCFCD 2016a). Watershed D Map. http://ocflood.com/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=32724 [Accessed January 8, 2016]. Orange County Flood Control District. (OCFCD 2016b). Watershed F Map. http://ocflood.com/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=32728 [Accessed January 8, 2016]. Orange County Flood Control District. (OCFCD 2016c). Watershed G Map. http://ocflood.com/civicax/filebank/blobd load. aspx?blobid=32735 [Accessed January 8, 2016]. Orange County Sanitation District. (OCSD 2015) Final Administrative Facilities Implementation Plan. June 10, 2015. 6.0 Analysis of Long Term Effects California Building Standards Commission. 2011 California Building Code. January 2011. 9-8 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendments Response to Comments and Errata 10.0 Introduction These Response to Comments and Errata have been prepared to comply with Sections 15089 and 15132 of the State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Guidelines). As noted in §15089 (b) of the Guidelines, the focus of a FEIR should be on responses to comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). Accordingly, this document incorporates the Costa Mesa General Plan Amendments DEIR, Volumes I through II (State Clearinghouse No. 2015111053) by reference in its entirety. This section of this FOR include the following subsections. Responses to Comments The City published a Notice of Availability and circulated a DEIR for public review and comment for the period of March 4, 2016 through April 18, 2016. A total of 40 different pieces of correspondence were submitted to the City during the review period specific to the DEIR, including eight letters from public agencies, six letters from organizations (with one organization submitting multiple letters), and 24 letters and emails from individuals. This subsection includes a list of all correspondence materials submitted to the City of Costa Mesa, each identified by a letter for later reference, together with the authors and the dates the letters were issued. Following this list, all letters are presented, with numbered brackets to highlight specific comments that are responded to in the next section. For those letters that included extensive attachments, the attachments have been included following the letters. Section 15204 of the CEQA Guidelines provides guidance to the public in reviewing CEQA documents. This section is designed not to limit the scope of comments that can be submitted by the public but to focus comments on issues that are substantive to the environmental analysis. Commenting entities should focus on the adequacy of the document in identifying and analyzing impacts to the environment and identify any areas they believe to be inadequate. The guidance indicates that comments should be submitted in a manner that: ■ Identifies a specific environmental effect ■ Supports the effect and its significance with substantial evidence Comments should include alternatives or mitigation measures to avoid or reduce identified, specific environmental effects. This section reiterates that the lead agency is bound by "reasonableness" and "good faith" in its analysis and that the lead agency is not required to respond to comments in the FEIR that do not identify significant environmental issues. Each response provided herein is coded to correspond to the individual comment/author and each of the bracketed comments in that letter. A summary table is included with each response to identify if the response introduces "new significant information" under any of the four categories identified in Section 15088 et seq. of the CEQA Guidelines. Evaluation of Comments Section 15088 et seq. of the State CEQA Guidelines provides guidance on the evaluation and response to comments received during circulation of the DEIR. To summarize: The lead agency must evaluate all comments received during the public review period and prepare a written response to comments on significant environmental issues. The lead agency must provide the response to the commenting entity at least ten days prior to certification of the EIR. The response must: • Identify any significant environmental issues raised in the comment; • Explain, if necessary, why any recommendations provided in the comment were not accepted; and Environmental Impact Report 10.0-1 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata Be supported by reasoned analysis. ■ Responses may be provided as direct revisions to the DEIR or as a separate section of the FEIR with marginal notes in the DEIR text indicating that it was subsequently revised. A lead agency is required to recirculate the DEIR if "significant new information" is introduced during the public comment period. "Significant new information" includes: 1. New significant impacts 2. Substantial increases in the severity of impacts 3. Feasible alternatives or mitigation that would reduce significant impacts 4. Identification of inadequacies in the analysis Recirculation is not required when new information is not significant; this includes: ■ Revisions that clarify or amplify an adequate analysis ■ Insignificant modifications (such as spelling and grammar corrections) Errata This section identifies revisions to the DEIR to incorporate clarifications developed in response to comments on the DEIR. Additions to the text are underlined and deletions have been stricken through. No substantial revisions were made to the DEIR, and recirculation of the document is not required pursuant to CEQA. Notices and Distributions This consists of notices concerning the release of the Draft EIR for public review and comment, and the list of agencies, groups, and individuals who were sent notices and/or a copy of the Draft EIR. 10.0-2 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) beginning March 4, 2016 and ending April 18, members of the public during this time period Amendments is not addressed in this document. Responses to Comments 10.1 was circulated for a 45 -day public review and comment period 2016. Correspondence was received from several agencies and . Correspondence that pertained only the draft General Plan The correspondence listed in Table 1 (Draft EIR Comments Received) was submitted to the City of Costa Mesa concerning the DEIR. Written responses to each comment are subsequently provided. The following responses to comments include a summary to identify if the response will introduce "new significant information" under any of the four categories identified in Section 15088 et seq. of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines or if it does not introduce "new significant information." The four general categories are: 1. New significant impacts 2. Substantial increases in the severity of impacts 3. Feasible alternatives or mitigation that would reduce significant impacts 4. Identification of inadequacies in the analysis Table 1 Draft EIR Comments Received ID Commenting Agency Date A-1 California Department of Fish and Wildlife 4/18/2016 A-2 California Department of General Services 4/15/2016 A-3 California Department of Transportation 4/16/2016 A-4 City of Newport Beach 4/11/2016 A-5 Irvine Ranch Water District 4/14/2016 A-6 Orange County Airport Land Use Commission 4/14/2016 A-7 Orange County Transportation Authority 4/18/2016 A-8 City of Santa Ana 4/18/2016 Commenting Organization 0-1 Costa Mesa Affordable Housing Coalition 4/18/2016 0-2 Orange County Fairgrounds Preservation Society 4/06/2016 0-3 Public Law Center 4/18/2016 0-4 The Kennedy Commission 4/11/2016 4/18/2016 4/2/52016 0-5 Tribune Real Estate 4/18/2016 0-6 SoCalGas 4/21/2016 Commenting Individual 1-1 Eleanor Egan 4/04/2016 1-2 Kim Hendricks 4/18/2016 1-3 Cynthia McDonald 4/18/2016 1-4 Robin Leffler 4/18/2016 1-5 Elaine Dethlefsen 4/18/2016 1-6 Tamar Goldmann 4/18/2016 Environmental Impact Report 10.0-3 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata Table 1 Draft EIR Comments Received 1-7 Reggie Mundekis 4/18/2016 1-8 Corinne Stover 4/18/2016 1-9 Beth Morley 4/18/2016 1-10 William Harader, Laurene Keane, Lisa Lawrence, Judy Lindssay, James Locker, Ralph Taboada, Anna Vrska, Beverly Tazelaar, Janice Kressin, Georgette Quinn Various 1-11 Cindy Black, Flo Martin, Mary Spandoni Various 1-12 Brian Burnett 4/16/2016 1-13 Robert Hamilton, Hamilton Biological, Inc. 4/18/2016 10.0-4 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata Master Responses to Comments Response Master -1- Residential Incentive Overlay Zone and Affordable Housing Concerns Several comments were received that raised issues relating to the Residential Incentive Overlay Zone, the potential loss of low cost motels, and affordable housing Purpose of the Residential Incentive Overlay The purpose of the General Plan Amendments' Residential Incentive Overlay is to encourage high-density housing along major transportation corridors and the reuse and new development of underperforming uses. Harbor Boulevard and Newport Boulevard are major transportation corridors and well -served by public transit. Within the Residential Incentive Overlay there exist underutilized sites that are capable of being developed at a high-density for residential reuse or other new development. Some of the commercial parcels covered by the Overlay include uses that frequently violate City building, health and safety codes, require frequent police response, are otherwise magnets for crime, or evidence detrimental physical, economic and social conditions. Analysis of Housing and Population Impacts The Residential Incentive Overlay reflects the City's policy decision to encourage the reuse and new development of underutilized parcels within heavily urbanized areas along the City's main transportation corridors. The Draft EIR acknowledges that the Overlay has the potential to cause persons who have been long-term occupants in existing motels located within the Overlay zone to move from the motel room if a property owner were to develop a parcel with a new use. Thus, the potential for displacement of motel occupants was evaluated in the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR does not state that all displacement within the Residential Incentive Overlay is speculative. The Draft EIR states that the numbers of motels with the potential for reuse and new development under the higher densities allowed by the zone (or other permitted land use), the specific number of motel rooms used for long-term occupancy, the number of persons in long-term occupancy who might move if a property owner pursues new development, where such persons would relocate, or the types of housing or other permitted uses that would potentially replace existing motels, is currently unknown. (See DEIR, Impact 4.13.8.) The reasons these details are currently not known include the fact that the specific number of persons utilizing motels for long-term occupancy at the present time is not fully quantified or known, and even if it were known, this number may fluctuate monthly, seasonally, or annually. Further, the number of property owners who might choose to redevelop existing motel uses in the future is unknown, and will be influenced by future fluctuations in the housing and commercial use markets at the local, regional and national level. Any future land owner or housing developer may choose to develop a variety of product types, including new housing, new commercial, or new motel uses. Availing the higher densities allowed by the Residential Incentive Overlay is not mandatory. Even if a property owner chooses to develop residential uses, it is not a given that all new high-density residential development will be market rate or above -market rate. Zoning that allows high-density residential development, as well as many other State reforms and incentives and local incentives, facilitate and expedite the development of affordable housing. A number of incentives exist supporting the development of affordable housing, including exemptions from environmental review under CEQA for projects meeting certain requirements, the State Density Bonus Law, and government grants, subsidies or tax credits available to affordable housing developers and investors. Further, State law prohibits local agencies from denying permits for affordable housing projects on many grounds. Thus, while it may not be speculative to assume that some low-cost motels will be replaced with high- density housing uses as a result of the General Plan Amendments, it is speculative to assume both that each existing motel will result in the displacement of a specific number of motel rooms with long-term occupants, and that each Environmental Impact Report 10.0-5 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata parcel currently being used for low-cost motel use will be replaced by market and above -market housing. (See Anderson First Coalition v. City of Anderson (2005) 130 Cal.App. 4th 1173 [when assessment of a project's indirect effects would be speculative because it would require an analysis of hypothetical conditions, it is not obligated to evaluate the effect in the EIR].) The State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), the agency vested with oversight of cities' General Plans, encourages high-density land use and zoning. State law defines "high density" as residential density development that contains a minimum of 24 dwelling units per acre (du/ac). State HCD promulgates "Default Densities Appropriate to Accommodate Housing for Lower -Income Households by Region"; and, the City of Costa Mesa is included in the defined metropolitan jurisdictions for which properties zoned at a "default" density of 30 du/ac or more are presumed to accommodate lower-income households. (Govt. Code, § 65089.4(g)(1); see also http://www2.epa.gov/smartgrowth.) The concept of default densities was codified in 2004 by Assembly Bill 2348 (Mullin), which amended the State General Plan and Housing Element law to establish and clarify the ability to provide greater residential development certainty through higher default densities. Here, by establishing the Residential Incentive Overlay that allows development up to 40 du/ac (and through other General Plan Amendments that allow development of up to 80 du/ac) the City "sets the table" to accommodate housing for lower income households. This zoning to allow up to 40 du/ac serves State objectives relating to affordable housing. (See Govt. Code, § 65583.2(c)(3)(d)-(f). See also http://www.hcd.ca.gov/housing-policy-development/default_2010census_update.pdf.) The Draft EIR does analyze the impacts of potential displacement. Consistent with State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, the two thresholds analyzed are whether the project would "displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere" or "displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere." (See DEIR, Impacts 4.13.13 and 4.13.C.) The Draft EIR concluded that substantial numbers of existing housing will not be displaced because very few residential parcels will be subject to the Residential Incentive Overlay Zone and the number of motel rooms that are likely used for long-term occupancy is relatively small. The Draft EIR concluded that substantial numbers of persons will not be displaced, based on the same grounds. Finally, even if substantial numbers of displacement were to occur, the Draft EIR concluded that the General Plan Amendments do not "necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere." This is in part because the General Plan Amendments encourage the provision of more housing units than are currently provided in the City (or allowed under the existing General Plan and Zoning Code). For these reasons, the Draft EIR concluded Impacts 4.13.13 and 4.13.0 are less than significant. CEQA does not require the analysis of economic or socioeconomic impacts. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21080(e)(2); State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., §§ 15000 et seq.), § 15131(a) ["Economic or social effects of a project shall not be treated as significant effects on the environment."].) While issues relating to the availability or adequacy of affordable housing within the City of Costa Mesa may be valid policy and legislative issues—ones which constituents are entitled to raise with their local policymakers—they are not environmental considerations requiring detailed analysis or mitigation under CEQA. Nonetheless, the Draft EIR considered affordability issues in its analysis of Impacts 4.13.13 and 4.13.C. The analysis considered opportunities for persons to find housing in Costa Mesa in the future, the potential for high-density development to increase affordable housing opportunities in the City, and the availability of shelters and homeless services in the City for at -risk populations. Future Affordable Housinq Provision CEQA does not require that the City of Costa Mesa mandate that future developments include a given percentage of dwelling units to low income households. The decision to adopt an inclusionary housing ordinance, establish in -lieu fees, or implement some other mechanism requiring that affordable housing units be included in or paid for by future developments is a policy and legislative decision, left to the exercise of discretion and police powers by the local legislative body—the City Council. As described above, there are no potentially significant impacts identified in the Draft EIR relating to population and housing, therefore mitigation measures requiring inclusionary housing or in -lieu 10.0-6 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata fees are not required and would not reduce potentially significant impacts. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21080(e)(2); State CEQA Guidelines, § 15131.) The General Plan Amendments do "up zone" several parcels within the City to allow higher density residential developments, and more housing development opportunities overall, than are currently available or permitted in the City. Adoption of the General Plan Amendments will allow, by choice and by right, for new residential development at densities of up to 30, 40, and 80 dwelling units per acre, depending upon the location of the project site. As explained above, higher residential density, by -right zoning is generally accepted as being beneficial to and encourages the inclusion of affordable housing under State statutes and legal precedent. In addition, the General Plan Amendments increase and do not reduce the residential capacity of the City. The General Plan Amendments do not disallow residential development or reduce the allowable density of residential development on any of the parcels identified in the City's Housing Element as accommodating affordable housing or the City's fair share of the regional housing need. In fact, the General Plan Amendments do not "down zone" parcels within the City. The densities allowed under the Residential Incentive Overlay are not mandated densities; the standards provide a streamlined option for the City to encourage and meet density objectives and legal requirements. (See Northwood Homes, Inc. v. Town of Moraga (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 1197, 1204.) And, as noted, the Residential Incentive Overlay encourages high-density housing along major transportation corridors and the reuse and new development of underperforming uses. No analysis to establish the appropriateness of the default density is required under State law, and the State (HCD and other reviewing entities) must accept such higher densities as appropriate and implementing statewide policies that encourage high densities. While some Orange County cities might avoid higher densities, the City of Costa Mesa has used, and is using under the General Plan Amendments, higher densities to encourage residential development consistent with its State -certified Housing Element and the objectives and goals of the General Plan. Default densities are necessary and appropriate to accommodate housing for lower-income households, but, contrary to statements in some comment letters, inclusion of affordable housing is not mandatory under State law or legal precedent. Current law demonstrates that providing affordable housing in the community will be accomplished through opportunities, such as the Residential Incentive Overlay, not mandates. California courts have consistently held that cities are not required to ensure that affordable housing is actually built, and have rejected arguments that the General Plan requires a city itself to produce or acquire affordable housing. (Bownds v. City of Glendale (1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 875, 884; see also Govt. Code, § 65589(a)(1); see also Fonseca v. City of Gilroy (2007) 148 Cal.AppAth 1174.) The courts do not decide whether or not the policies in a Housing Element are likely to achieve specific affordable housing goals. (Ibid.) The local housing needs identified in the General Plan are simply goals, not mandated acts. (Northwood Homes, Inc. v. Town of Moraga, supra, 216 Cal.App.3d at p. 1204; see also Selby Realty Co. v. San Buenaventura (1973) 10 Cal.3d 110, 111; Govt. Code, § 65589(a)(1).) With the proposed General Plan Amendments, the City will provide the opportunity for, but does levy an obligation for, the inclusion of affordable housing in a new development in the event a property owner, such as an owner of an existing motel along Newport Boulevard or Harbor Boulevards, desires to avail the higher density allowed by the Residential Incentive Overlay. Financial Analysis/Affordable Housing Model The methodology applied in Chapter 3.14 of the Draft EIR to evaluate housing and population impacts adequately analyzed potential impacts, for the reasons identified above. There is no additional information or analysis that would be gained for purposes of the environmental analysis through the development or application of a new analysis model, or financial analysis focusing on affordable housing development potential. Where no substantially new information may be gleaned, an agency is not required to apply a new methodology to analyze potential environmental impacts. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15204(a).) Environmental Impact Report 10.0-7 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata Proposed Mitigation Measures Where substantial evidence supports a conclusion that impacts are less than significant, mitigation is not required. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.4(a).) In addition, mitigation measures that are infeasible, or will not reduce significant impacts, are not required. For these reasons, a mitigation measure requiring that 20 percent of all future residential development within the Harbor Mixed -Use Overlay, the Residential Incentive Overlay, the Sakioka 2 Site, and the SoBECA Overlay be made affordable is not mandated by CEQA. These are policy and legislative options the City Council is free to consider but are not legally required to be adopted or imposed under CEQA. The provision of relocation services to existing long-term occupants of motels located within the Residential Incentive Overlay is also not a required mitigation measure. As discussed above, there are no potentially significant impacts relating to displacement of persons or removal of existing residential development (if any) such that the construction of housing would be necessitated elsewhere. In addition, several supportive services and organizations operate within the City of Costa Mesa, including without limitation the Orange Coast Interfaith Center (providing transitional housing services, including assistance in securing permanent housing), SPIN (providing move -in costs to permanent housing for families with children, as well as other rehousing and transitional housing programs), the Hope Institute (providing transition housing for specific populations), Human Options (providing supportive services including counseling and shelter for women, children, and families), Share Our Selves Emergency Services (providing comprehensive case management services for the homeless), and Someone Cares Soup Kitchen (providing meal assistance). Similarly, drafting and adopting a plan addressing homelessness would not mitigate any potential impacts as a result of the General Plan Amendments. As discussed above, the Draft EIR determined that impacts relating to the potential for displacement of persons or removal of existing residential development (if any) necessitating the construction of housing elsewhere was less than significant. Thus, no mitigation is required. Further, a plan addressing homelessness is not feasible mitigation even if displacement impacts were, arguendo, significant. Mitigation measures must be concrete, specific, enforceable, and performance-based. Deferring mitigation to a later date through the drafting of a future plan does not meet these requirements. A plan addressing homelessness is not required, nor would it provide concrete, specific, enforceable, and performance-based mitigation for the displacement of persons or removal of existing residential development, if any, as a result of the Residential Incentive Overlay. Finally, identification and analysis of a land use alternative that specifically supports and encourages the development of homes affordable to lower income working households is not a feasible or effective alternative to the proposed General Plan Amendments. This is because the proposed General Plan Amendments in fact do encourage development of affordable housing through the upzoning of parcels throughout the City, to maximum densities of 30, 40 and 80 dwelling units per acre, as more fully discussed above. A land use alternative that mandates provision of affordable housing is also not a viable alternative, nor required by law. This is because the decision to mandate that affordable housing be provided in future developments is a policy and legislative decision— not a requirement under CEQA, the purpose of which is to address environmental impacts. Under CEQA, project alternatives must meet most of a project's objectives, be reasonably feasible, and reduce a project's significant environmental impacts. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; State CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.6(a) -(c).) A land use alternative that mandates affordable housing does not meet these requirements. 10.0-8 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata Agencies Response A-1- California Department of Fish and Wildlife A-1.1. This comment is introductory and explains the California Department of Fish and Wildlife's (CDFW) role as Trustee Agency with jurisdiction over natural resources affected by the project, and Responsible Agency over those aspects of the proposed project that come under the purview of the California Endangered Species Act and Fish and Game Code section 1600 et seq. A-1.2. This comment recommends that the City conduct more recent species surveys in the project area because the data used are 16 years old. The data, together with updated information obtained from the November 2015 CNDDB report, were deemed to be adequate for a program -level evaluation for the General Plan since those areas affected by the proposed General Plan Amendments (i.e., the General Plan Amendment planning areas) are already heavily impacted by development or agricultural use, and actual ground -disturbing activities are not authorized by the project. The November 2015 CNDDB report was generated for all land within the City, and the results were included in the DEIR (Table 4.4-6). The CNDDB report included new information on the southern tarplant, including a population near the Talbert Natural Preserve reported in 2014. Regarding DEIR Table CON -1, the City is not intending to update the species list in the DEIR because the City will require site-specific biological surveys and impact evaluations on a project -by -project basis pursuant to CEQA, and such evaluations would include site-specific surveys and an updated CNDDB search. A full biological survey of the entire City is not necessary for this project; as described above, those parcels affected by the General Plan Amendments comprise only four percent of the City's land area and are already highly disturbed by existing development and/or agricultural activities. The project does not propose any changes within areas supporting native habitats and species. This response does not identify any new information. A-1.3. This comment recommends the preparation of a biological resources technical report for the FEIR. Again, because the project does not authorize any land -altering activities and projects proposed pursuant to the amended General Plan would require project -specific CEQA compliance, the need for a technical report was deemed not to be warranted and would likely not provide new information, given that, as described above, those parcels affected by the General Plan Amendments are already highly disturbed by existing development and/or agricultural activities. This comment also recommends that the CNDDB be queried in order to obtain historical records of sensitive plants and wildlife within the City and its Sphere of Influence. As described above, a recent November 2015 CNDDB report was generated for all land within the City, and the results were included in the DEIR (Table 4.4-6). The CNDDB report included new information on the southern tarplant, including a population near the Talbert Natural Preserve reported in 2014. Also see Response A-1.1. This response does not identify any new information. A-1.4. This comment requests that City involve CDFW and USFWS in the review of the Costa Mesa Parks M ster Plan. The comment is not addressing the DEIR analysis nor is it relevant to any of the threshold criteria analyz d in the DEIR. All policy questions and recommended changes will be addressed through the public hearing process. This response does not identify any new information. A-1.5. This comment requests that Policy OSR-1.0 include language regarding the need to consult with the wildlife agencies also. The comment is not addressing the DEIR analysis nor is it relevant to any of the threshold criteria analyzed in the DEIR. All policy questions and recommended changes will be addressed through the public hearing process. This response does not identify any new information. Environmental Impact Report 10.0-9 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata A-1.5. This comment recommends addressing the Polyphagous Shot Hole Borer (SHB) and Kuroshio SHB (both invasive beetles) in the Conservation, Open Space and Recreation and other elements. The DEIR does not address the two species of SHB given the programmatic nature of the DEIR. This type of analysis would be conducted as part of a resource management plan for parks and open space areas, as well as be addressed by the County Department of Agricultural. The City Council may decide to include policies regarding the need to manage the spread of the SHBs in the Conservation and/or Open Space and Recreation Elements of the General Plan. This response does not address any specific issue in the DEIR. Response A-2 - California Department of General Services A-2.1. The State Department of General Services (DGS) information related to the closure plan for the Fairview Developmental Center (FDC) and the future development of affordable housing for individuals with developmental disabilities at Shannon's Mountains (Government Code Section 14670.36) is acknowledged and forwarded to the City's decision makers for review. Also, the comments regarding DGS's preferred land use designations for the Fairview Developmental Center property, as outlined in the October 6, 2015 letter, do not address any environmental issues. A-2.2. DGS has expressed concerns regarding the restrictive nature of the proposed residential density limits in the Fairview Developmental Center property, specifically as these concerns relate to the Legislature's and Governor's objectives for affordable housing for developmentally disabled individuals pursuant to Senate Bill 82. The General Plan Update proposes an overall limit of 500 dwelling units for the FDC site with maximum of 300 dwelling units for the Shannon's Mountain site. The Draft EIR does not evaluate or contemplate higher densities for this property. If the proposed "Multi Use Center designation" is adopted or the current "Public/Institutional designation" is unchanged, DGS would need to apply for a General Plan Amendment to allow greater residential densities. DGS suggests that consideration of higher densities would reduce the General Plan Amendments' impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions by reducing the vehicle -miles traveled of future residents. However, as a general rule, higher densities would result in additional units and additional vehicle trips by residents, which could potentially result in greater greenhouse gas emissions. An integrated mixed-use project at higher densities might have the potential to reduce emissions due to internal trip capture resulting from a mix of uses; however, that alternative is not outlined in the DGS letter for consideration. A-2.3. DGS suggests that the City consider higher densities in the FDC to maximize the use of the valuable infill site and provide housing opportunities for future transit dependent individuals. These comments are noted. The Draft EIR does not contemplate increased densities in the FDC nor provide EIR Alternatives analyses for greater densities beyond the 500 dwelling units. This change would require policy direction from the City's decision -makers. A-2.4. DGS objects to the proposed requirement that 25 percent of FDC (26.5 acres) be developed or retained as open space. DGS believes that this open space requirement in the Multi Use Center designation in FDC would exceed the General Plan's current park -to -population standard (5.73 acres of parks) for a future proposed residential development of 500 units. These comments are noted. DGS believes that it is the City's obligation to address the existing city-wide park service deficiency through a wider distribution of such spaces across the City, and not concentrated in the FDC area. These comments are noted. DGS believes that the open space requirement is burdensome and is considered an impediment to the State's affordable housing goals for the developmentally disabled. These comments are noted. A-2.5. As a policy document, the General Plan Amendments do not program specific recreational uses (i.e. soccer fields, sports parks, passive parks, ball fields, etc.) in the FDC. Subsequent environmental documentation will be required for any future development of FDC for active recreational uses. It would be speculative to assume air pollutant and GHC emissions and to identify roadway congestion based on future recreational uses which are 10.0-10 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata unknown at this time. DGS' comments regarding the required demolition of 1.1 million square feet of buildings and supporting infrastructure, in order to accommodate 26 acres of park and open space, are noted. Page 3, Paragraph 2: The development of specific projects in FDC area will require detailed traffic studies. The traffic analysis completed for the project assumed the general development of active sports fields without any specifics regarding future facilities. Page 3, Paragraph 3: The Draft EIR assumes land uses that currently exist on the FDC site as well as those permitted under the proposed General Plan Amendments. Please refer to Table 3-1 (Average Daily Traffic [ADT] Trip Generation Rates) on page 3.2 of the traffic study for the trip generation rates applied to existing and proposed uses. The suggestion to utilize the Institute of Transportation Engineer's (ITE) trip rate for "Government Office Complex" to estimate trips for future public facility uses is not consistent with the mix of uses currently envisioned by the General Plan for the site, which at this time does not include redevelopment as an office complex. The ITE Government Office Complex rate applies to government buildings that are similar to general office or business park uses. As stated in the General Plan, the Mixed -Use Center designation that is applied to this site will require a Master Plan for any future development project. At that time, the most appropriate trip generation rates for the proposed uses will be applied. Page 3, Paragraph 4: The General Plan DEIR assumed Passive Park usage for the 26 -acre site in the FDC. If specific usage such as soccer fields, private athletic fields, etc., are identified for this site in the future, detailed traffic studies will required to assess impacts. A-2.6. The suggestion to utilize the Institute of Transportation Engineer's (ITE) trip rate for "Government Office Complex" to estimate trips for future public facility uses is not consistent with the mix of uses currently envisioned by the General Plan for the site, which at this time does not include redevelopment as an office complex. The ITE Government Office Complex rate applies to government buildings that are similar to general office or business park uses. As stated in the General Plan, the Mixed -Use Center designation that is applied to this site will require a Master Plan for any future development project. At that time, the most appropriate trip generation rates for the proposed uses will be applied as part of the traffic analysis for a specific development project. This response does not identify any new information. A-2.7. The Alternatives analysis in the Draft EIR includes an Alternative involving no change to the FDC's current Public/Institutional General Plan designation. This Alternative is intended to evaluate reduced environmental effects compared to the proposed General Plan Amendments for this site (i.e., Multi Use Center designation). DGS requested that the City analyze an alternative that assumes a mixed density development plan for the FDC that takes advantage of the existing built infrastructure, the region's high quality transit areas, and planned development consistent with SB82. Evaluation of this alternative would involve speculative analyses assuming retention of all of the FDC buildings and specifying higher residential densities for the Shannon's Mountain property which are unknown at this time. Overall, more intense development on the FDC site (relative to that addressed in the Draft EIR) would have the potential to generate additional vehicle trips and pollutant emissions and thus not reduce the impacts associated with the project. No changes to the Draft EIR are proposed. Response A-3 - California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) A-3.1. This comment consists of introductory comments, and acknowledges Caltrans role as a responsible and commenting agency on the DEIR. A-3.2. The Circulation Element of the City's General Plan is applicable only to the City's network of roadways. Caltrans facilities, such as the freeway mainline and ramps, are not a part of the Circulation Element, and changes or modifications to Caltrans facilities are not addressed by the General Plan. As such, the traffic analysis that has been Environmental Impact Report 10.0-11 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata prepared in support of the General Plan Amendments focuses on City roadways using City analysis methodology. Future development that may occur in the City as a result of changes to the General Plan will be subject to project - level analysis, which includes evaluation of impacts to Caltrans facilities when applicable and using analysis methodologies for those facilities that are acceptable to Caltrans such as those noted in the comment. This response does not identify any new information. A-3.3. As noted in the Response to Comment A-3.1, the Circulation Element is applicable only to the City's network of roadways, and the traffic analysis that has been prepared in support of the General Plan Amendments focuses on these City roadways using City analysis methodology. The type of analysis that has been prepared is appropriate for a long-range planning study of this time. The comment to provide queuing analysis of off -ramps and evaluation of intersection turn pockets, including identification of turn pocket storage lengths, is not appropriate for a citywide planning study of this type. Future development that may occur in the City as a result of changes to the General Plan will be subject to project level analysis, which includes evaluation of impacts to Caltrans facilities when applicable and would include the detailed geometric design analysis requested by the comment. This response does not identify any new information. A-3.4. In lieu of turning movement diagrams, peak -hour turn movement volumes for each of the intersections and scenarios that were analyzed are provided in tabular format in the ICU worksheets attached at the end of the traffic study in Appendix C of the DEIR. Traffic movement diagrams are unnecessary due to the speculative nature of predicting turning movements citywide 30 years into the future. The approach to the analysis is consistent with analysis for comprehensive long-range planning projects. This response does not identify any new information. A-3.5. The buildout General Plan roadway system includes the extension of the SR 55 freeway from 19th Street to Industrial Way and is based on a conceptual approach using cut -and -cover construction of a four -lane freeway extension. Extending the SR 55 freeway allows for reducing the number of lanes on Newport Boulevard between 191h Street and 17th Street from seven lanes to six lanes, as evidenced by the traffic volume reductions noted on Newport Boulevard under the 2035 scenarios that assume buildout of the General Plan roadway system (i.e., traffic that is diverted to the SR 55 freeway extension results in lower volumes on Newport Boulevard). The cut -and -cover approach for the SR 55 extension is not expected to be implemented by the General Plan's planning horizon of 2035. Therefore, the traffic analysis included in Appendix C of the Draft EIR includes two highway plan scenarios for the year 2035. One scenario includes the SR 55 extension along with all other future roadway improvements that are a part of the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways. The second 2035 scenario includes only those improvements certain to occur prior to 2035, which is referred to as the "constrained" network. The constrained network does not include the SR 55 extension. Therefore, the Draft EIR addresses 2035 scenarios both with and without the SR 55 extension. This response does not identify any new information. A-3.5. Class IV bikeways are described in the General Plan on page C-19 and are illustrated in Figure C-5 on page C-18. Additionally, several potential locations for implementing future Class IV facilities are illustrated in Figure C-3 on page C-16. A reference to Class IV bikeways will be added to the EIR Section 4.16. This response does not identify any new information that has a bearing on the adequacy of the DEIR analysis. Response A-4 - City of Newport Beach A-4.1. The cut -and -cover approach for the SR 55 extension is not expected to be implemented by the General Plan's planning horizon of 2035. Therefore, the traffic analysis included in Appendix C of the Draft EIR includes two highway plan scenarios for the year 2035. One scenario includes the SR 55 extension, along with all other future roadway improvements that are a part of the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways. The second 2035 scenario includes only those improvements certain to occur prior to 2035, which is referred to as the "constrained" network. The constrained network does not include the SR 55 extension. Therefore, the Draft EIR addresses 2035 scenarios both with and without the SR 55 extension. This response does not identify any new information. 10.0-12 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata A-4.2. The City of Costa Mesa will initiate an MPAH amendment process with OCTA for each of the roadway downgrades and deletions proposed in the Circulation Element (see page C-13 of the DEIR for discussion). The cooperative studies associated with the MPAH amendment will be conducted with all of the stakeholders that are affected, including the City of Newport Beach for the downgrades and deletions that are in close proximity to Newport Beach. The only exception is the East 22nd Street downgrade between Newport Boulevard and Orange Avenue. This downgrade was approved by OCTA at its September 14, 2015 Board meeting. This downgrade did not have any impact outside of the Costa Mesa limits, as it is minor segment. This response does not identify any new information. A-4.3. The study previously prepared for deletion of the 19th Street bridge included mitigation at the Newport Boulevard/17th Street intersection and the Superior Avenue/17th Street intersection. The improvement at the Newport Boulevard/17th Street intersection required addition of a fourth northbound through lane. This was implemented with the Newport Boulevard widening project. The improvements identified at the Superior Avenue/17th Street intersection are identified for future implementation. The DEIR General Plan analysis uses the most recent land use forecasts, and no additional impacts were identified with the removal of 19th Street bridge. This response does not identify any new information. Response A-5 - Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) A-5.1. The commenter requests that the DEIR be updated with new information about the service area and facilities of the IRWD. The clarifications are herein acknowledged and are part of the FEIR administrative record. This response does not identify any new information that has a bearing on the analysis in the EIR. A-5.2. The commenter requests that in addition to the Water Resources Master Plan, the DEIR should use information provided in IRWD's most recent April 2016 Water Supply Assessment (WSA). According to the WSA provided by the IRWD, "currently available supplies of potable water are adequate to meet projected annual demands for both the baseline and with -project demand projects under the normal year conditions through the year 2036. Meeting both the single- and multiple -dry year annual demands for potable water at full buildout will require the completion of 'underdevelopment' supplies. 'Underdevelopment' supplies may necessitate the preparation and completion of environmental documents, regulatory approvals, and/or contracts prior to full construction and implementation. Adequate currently available potable water supply capacity is available to meet peak -flow (maximum day) demands for all demand projections through the year 2036." The WSA further states that "currently available supplies of non -potable water are adequate to meet projected annual demands for both the baseline and with -project demand projects under the normal year conditions through the year 2036." It should be noted that the IRWD serves only approximately 15% of the City; the majority is served by the Mesa Consolidated Water District (MCWD). MCWD did not provide any comments on the DEIR. As noted in the discussion on beginning on page 4.17-12 of the DEIR, the project will increase demand for water. This analysis does not account for any long-term water savings achieved through plumbing system retrofits, increased use of drought - tolerant landscaping, and other measures. Such programs will be implemented pursuant to General Plan policies, as described on pages 4.17-13 and 4.17-14 of the DEIR. Also, it should be noted that MCWD, in its 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, assumes a flat demand in the next 25 years even with growth. This reflects MCWD's assumptions of reduced per capita consumption over time. Because MCWD's service area generally is contiguous with the corporate Costa Mesa limits (other than properties served by IRWD), the City and MCWD can continue to work cooperatively to achieve water conservation goals and assure that new development pursuant to General Plan policies, together with existing development, can be provided with adequate water supplies. This response does not identify any new information that has a bearing on the analysis in the EIR. Environmental Impact Report 10.0-13 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata A-5.3. The correction regarding the San Joaquin Reservoir is acknowledged. This response does not identify any new information that has a bearing on the analysis in the EIR. A-5.4. The commenter requests that the DEIR reflect that the reflect IRWD's 2010 Urban Water Management Plan applies to the Santa Ana Heights area of Costa Mesa. The clarification is herein acknowledged and is part of the FEIR administrative record. This response does not identify any new information that has a bearing on the analysis in the EIR. Response A-6 - Orange County Airport Land Use Commission A-6.1. Comment noted. The ALUC staff recommends that the General Plan include height policy language and a mitigation measure in the Draft EIR stating that no new buildings will be allowed to penetrate the FAR Part 77 imaginary surfaces for John Wayne Airport to ensure protection of its airspace. The horizontal surface for JWA relates to a maximum 13 to 15 story (approximately) high-rise building. The California Public Utilities Code (Section 21676) requires that the City refer certain projects to the Airport Land Use Commission to determine consistency with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport. Existing high rise buildings in Costa Mesa which are greater than 15 stories in height have been found consistent with the AELUP or have undergone overrule proceedings through the State of California Division of Aeronautics. The North Costa Mesa Specific Plan area includes existing high rise office buildings (i.e. Center Tower, Plaza Tower), as well as unbuilt entitlements for future high-rise buildings comprising 18 stories or greater. Because the suggested height policy would render existing and future unbuilt entitlements inconsistent with the General Plan, the comment is noted for the record. The General Plan Amendments will be reviewed by the Airport Land Use Commission prior to final action by the City Council. Policy direction from the City's decision-making bodies is required to include this suggested policy. A-6.2. The General Plan references the old standard of 203.68 feet above mean sea level (AMSC) as the horizontal surface for JWA. The Land Use Element will be revised to reflect the current standard of 206 feet AMSL. A-6.3. As suggested by ALUC staff, the General Plan Land Use Element shall include the following policy: "Certain development proposals which may include the construction or alteration of structures more than 200 feet above ground level may require filing with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) pursuant to Federal and State Law. If a filing requirement is determined to be necessary in accordance with the procedures provided by State/Federal agencies, the filing of a Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration (FAA Form 7460-1) shall be required prior to review and consideration of the proposed development." Land Use Element (page LU -18) refers to the threshold stated above. It shall be amended to refer to Filing FAA Form 7460-1 Notice of Construction and Alteration, and not to Form 7480-1. A-6.4. Comment noted. The ALUC staff suggests that residential uses not be permitted within the 65 dB CNEL contour. Per the AELUP for JWA, all residential units within the 65 dB CNEL contour are typically inconsistent within this contour unless it can be shown conclusively that such units are sufficiently sound attenuated for present and projected noise exposure so as not to exceed an interior standard of 45 dB CNEL. The General Plan Noise Element indicates that single-family residential and multi -family residential uses are conditionally acceptable within the 65 dB CNEL for exterior areas. Because interior noise areas can be further attenuated to levels within 45 to 55 dBA, it is possible that residential uses feature proper noise attenuation to further reduce interior noise levels. Therefore, the comment is noted and forwarded to the City's decision makers. A-6.5. As suggested by ALUC staff, the Land Use Element will include the following policy: 10.0-14 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata "The City will ensure that development proposals including the construction or operation of a heliport or helistop comply fully with permit procedures under State law, including referral of the project to the ALUC by the applicant, and with all conditions of approval imposed or recommended by the Federal Aviation Administration, ALUC, and Caltrans, including the filing of Form 7480-1 (Notice of Landing Area Proposed) with the FAA. This requirement shall be in addition to all other City development requirements." A-6.6. As suggested by ALUC staff, the Land Use Element will include the following policy: "The City shall refer certain projects to the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County as required by Section 21676 of the California Public Utilities Code to determine consistency of the project(s) with the AELUP for JWA. " A-6.7. As noted in this comment, the City has submitted the General Plan Amendments and DEIR to the ALUC for a determination, between the City's Planning Commission and City Council hearings on the project. Response A-7 - Orange County Transportation Authority A-7.1. The Response to Paragraph 2 and 3 Comments: Figure C-8 on page C-29 will be updated with the changes noted in the 2016 Bus Service Plan and bus route numbers will be added to the map. This response does not identify any new information that has a bearing on the adequacy of the DEIR analysis. A-7.2. The Response to Paragraph 4 Comment: This comment addresses a policy in the General Plan regarding future funding of bus services and indicates that at the present time, OCTA does not have sufficient revenue to increase bus service levels. This comment is noted and the City understands that in the future, should additional revenue become available, resources will be allocated to bus service that meets OCTA service criteria. Response A-8 - City of Santa Ana A-8.1. Comments address policies in the General Plan only. They do not reference any deficiencies in the Draft EIR. Environmental Impact Report 10.0-15 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata Organizations Response 0-1— Costa Mesa Affordable Housing Coalition 0-1.1. This comment states that the Residential Incentive Overlays will result in the displacement of lower-income motel residents and that this should be identified as a significant impact in the DEIR. As discussed in Response Master -1, the Draft EIR analyzed impacts of potential displacement and determined that the relatively few numbers of existing motels, the relatively limited number of persons who may be long-term occupants at low-cost motels, and the fact that overall the General Plan Amendments increase the allowable densities on parcels throughout the City, indicate impacts will be less than significant. For additional information, please see Response Master -1 above, incorporated herein by reference. 0-1.2. This comment requests that the City mitigate impacts associated with displacement by including in the Residential Incentive Overlay Zone a requirement that 20% of new apartments be made affordable to low- and very low-income residents. As discussed in Response Master -1, the decision to require, or not, inclusionary housing related to future developments (or to establish in lieu fees, or not) involve policy decisions left to the City's legislative body, the City Council. The provision of affordable housing is not a CEQA requirement. There are no potentially significant impacts here to mitigate, therefore mitigation measures requiring inclusionary housing or in lieu fees are not required and would not reduce significant impacts. For additional information, please see Response Master -1 above, incorporated herein by reference. 0-1.3. This comment states that new housing within the City will likely not result in the provision of affordable housing. As described above in Response Master -1, it is not a given that all new high-density residential development will be market rate or above -market rate. Zoning that allows high density residential development, as well as many other State reforms and incentives and local incentives, facilitate and expedite the development of affordable housing. The State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), the agency vested with oversight of cities' General Plans, encourages high density zoning in part because it facilitates affordable housing. Here, by establishing the Residential Incentive Overlay that allows development up to 40 du/ac (and by establishing other densities within the City of up to 80 du/ac), the City "sets the table" to accommodate housing for lower income households, thereby this increase in the allowable densities serves State objectives. For additional information, please see Response Master -1 above, incorporated herein by reference. 0-1.4. This comment states that the displacement of long term residents from low cost motels is not speculative. As discussed above in Response Master -1, the Draft EIR does not state that all displacement within the Residential Incentive Overlay is speculative. The Draft EIR states that the numbers of motels with the potential for reuse and new development under the higher densities allowed by the zone (or other permitted land use), the specific number of motel rooms used for long-term occupancy, the number of persons in long-term occupancy who might move if a property owner pursues new development, where such persons would relocate, or the types of housing or other permitted uses that would potentially replace existing motels, is currently unknown. (See DEIR, Impact 4.13.B.) The reasons these details are currently not known include the fact that the specific number of persons utilizing motels for long-term occupancy at the present time is not fully quantified or known, and even if it were known, this number may fluctuate monthly, seasonally, or annually. Further, the number of property owners who might choose to redevelop existing motel uses in the future is unknown, and will be influenced by future fluctuations in the housing and commercial use markets at the local, regional and national level. Any future land owner or housing developer may choose to develop a variety of product types, including new housing, new commercial, or new motel uses. Availing the higher densities allowed by the Residential Incentive Overlay is not mandatory. For additional information, please see Response Master -1 above, incorporated herein by reference. 0-1.5. This comment states that private social services agencies operating in Orange County will not be able to meet the housing needs of all displaced motel residents, and that the DEIR does not discuss what services such groups 10.0-16 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata provide. As discussed in Response Master -1, the DEIR is a CEQA document, the purpose of which is to identify and disclose environmental impacts. CEQA does not require the analysis of economic or socio-economic impacts. As discussed above, there are no potentially significant environmental impacts relating to displacement of persons or removal of existing residential development (if any) such that the construction of housing would be necessitated elsewhere. Further, as discussed in the EIR, several supportive services and organizations operate within the City of Costa Mesa, including without limitation the Orange Coast Interfaith Center (providing transitional housing services, including assistance in securing permanent housing), SPIN (providing move -in costs to permanent housing for families with children, as well as other rehousing and transitional housing programs), the Hope Institute (providing transition housing for specific populations), Human Options (providing supportive services including counseling and shelter for women, children, and families), Share Our Selves Emergency Services (providing comprehensive case management services for the homeless), and Someone Cares Soup Kitchen (providing meal assistance). For additional information, please see Response Master -1 above, incorporated herein by reference. 0-1.6. This comment asks the City of Mesa to encourage the construction of new affordable housing. The encouragement of affordable housing construction is achieved through the General Plan Amendments, by way of increasing the allowable density on several parcels. For more information, please see Response Master -1, incorporated herein by reference. In addition, the decision to pass local ordinances requiring inclusion of affordable housing in new development is a policy consideration, left to the discretion of the City Council. Thus, the comment is noted and considered by the City's policy makers. Response 0-2 — Orange County Fairgrounds Preservation Society 0-2.1. The commenter requests that the full 2012 Pacific Amphitheater Settlement Agreement be included in the DEIR rather than just providing reference to the 1990 Court Order. The 2012 Settlement Agreement is on file at City Hall. It is acknowledged that the 2012 Settlement Agreement in effect sets forth noise requirements for the amphitheater, and the Settlement Agreement is, by way of the comment letter, part of the General Plan Amendments administrative record, and included in the Final EIR. The settlement agreement requirements will continue to apply irrespective of adoption of the General Plan Amendments. This response does not identify any new information that results in new significant impacts nor substantial increases in the severity of impacts. Response 0-3 — Public Law Center 0-3.1. This comment requests that the City conduct an analysis of affordable housing development "using both fixed and scattered site models for preserving/creating affordable housing" for existing long term residents that may be living in low cost motels. It is unclear what type of model or analysis is being requested. However, as discussed in Response Master -1, the DEIR does analyze the impacts of potential displacement. Consistent with State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, the two thresholds analyzed are whether the project would "displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere" or "displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere." (See DEIR, Impacts 4.13.6 and 4.13.C.) The Draft EIR concluded that substantial numbers of existing housing and persons will not be displaced, because very few residential parcels will be subject to the Residential Incentive Overlay Zone, and the number of motel rooms that are likely used for long-term occupancy is relatively small. Further, even if substantial numbers of displacement were to occur, the Draft EIR concluded that the General Plan Amendments do not "necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere." This is in part because the General Plan Amendments encourage the provision of more housing units than are currently provided in the City (or allowed under the existing General Plan and Zoning Code). For these reasons, the Draft EIR concluded Impacts 4.13.6 and 4.13.0 are less than significant. The methodology applied in Chapter 3.14 of the DEIR to evaluate housing and population impacts adequately analyzed potential impacts, for the reasons identified above. There is no additional information or analysis that would be gained for purposes of the environmental analysis through the development or application of a new analysis model, or financial analysis focusing on affordable housing development potential. Where no substantially new information may be gleaned, an agency is not required to apply a new methodology to analyze potential Environmental Impact Report 10.0-17 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata environmental impacts. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15204(a).) For additional information, please see Master Response -1, incorporated herein by reference. 0-3.2. This comment requests that "provisions with preference for the low income families who utilize motels" be included in future proposed development. Assuming that "provisions" means inclusion of affordable units, this is not required by CEQA on several grounds. As discussed in Response Master -1, CEQA does not require that the City mandate that future developments include a given percentage of dwelling units to low income households. The decision to adopt an inclusionary housing ordinance, establish in -lieu fees, or implement some other mechanism requiring that affordable housing units be included in or paid for by future developments is a policy and legislative decision, left to the exercise of discretion and police powers of the City Council. For additional information, please see Master Response -1, incorporated herein by reference. 0-3.3. This comment requests that displaced persons be identified as a "concretely impacted group in the EIR report." As discussed in Response Master -1, CEQA does not require the analysis of economic or socio-economic impacts. While issues relating to the availability or adequacy of affordable housing within the City of Costa Mesa may be valid policy and legislative issues—ones which constituents are entitled to raise with their local policymakers—they are not environmental considerations requiring detailed analysis or mitigation under CEQA. For additional information, please see Master Response -1, incorporated herein by reference. 0-3.4. This comment requests that relocation services and other necessary resources be provided to low income residents who may be displaced by the redevelopment of motel sites. The comment does not specify what other necessary resources beyond relocation services should be provided. As discussed in Response Master -1, the provision of relocation services to existing long-term occupants of motels is also not a required mitigation measure. There are no potentially significant impacts relating to displacement of persons or removal of existing residential development (if any) such that the construction of housing would be necessitated elsewhere. In addition, several supportive services and organizations operate within the City of Costa Mesa, including without limitation the Orange Coast Interfaith Center (providing transitional housing services, including assistance in securing permanent housing), SPIN (providing move -in costs to permanent housing for families with children, as well as other rehousing and transitional housing programs), the Hope Institute (providing transition housing for specific populations), Human Options (providing supportive services including counseling and shelter for women, children, and families), Share Our Selves Emergency Services (providing comprehensive case management services for the homeless), and Someone Cares Soup Kitchen (providing meal assistance). For additional information, please see Master Response -1, incorporated herein by reference. 0-3.5. This comment asks the City of Mesa to work together with property owners and affordable housing experts to redevelop sites into affordable housing. The encouragement of affordable housing construction is achieved through the General Plan Amendments, by way of increasing the allowable density on several parcels. For more information, please see Response Master -1, incorporated herein by reference. In addition, the decision to pass local ordinances requiring inclusion of affordable housing in new development is a policy consideration, left to the discretion of the City Council. Thus, the comment is noted and considered by the City's policy makers. Response 0-4 — The Kennedy Commission (April 25, 2016 Letter) 0-4.1. This comment asks the City to incorporate and implement the recommendations identified in the Kennedy Commission's April 18, 2016 letter. Please see the City's response to the April 18, 2016 letter, below. 0-4.2. This comment states that the City staff report recommends an affordable housing component as part of the Residential Incentive Overlay. The Staff Report dated April 7, 2016 does not include such a recommendation. As explained in Response Master -1, above, the decision to pass local ordinances requiring inclusion of affordable housing in new development is a policy consideration, left to the discretion of the City Council. Further, the proposed General Plan Amendments in fact do encourage development of affordable housing through the increase in allowable 10.0-18 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata densities on parcels throughout the City, to maximum densities of 30, 40 and 80 dwelling units per acre. For more information, see Response Master -1, incorporated herein by reference. 0-4.3. This comment requests that the General Plan incorporate "new and effective land use policies... that encourage the development of [affordable housing]." It is unclear specifically what additional land use policies the commenter wishes to be incorporated. However, the proposed General Plan Amendments encourage development of affordable housing by increasing the allowable density on parcels throughout the City, to maximum densities of 30, 40 and 80 dwelling units per acre. For more information, see Response Master -1, incorporated herein by reference. 0-4.4. This comment requests that population and housing impacts be identified as a significant impact. As discussed in Response Master -1, the Draft EIR analyzed impacts of potential displacement and determined that the relatively few numbers of existing motels, the relatively limited number of persons who may be long-term occupants at low-cost motels, and the fact that overall the General Plan Amendments increase the allowable densities on parcels throughout the City, indicate impacts will be less than significant. A financial model or study on affordable housing or homelessness would not provide additional information necessary to determine whether impacts would be potentially significant. A new land use alternative encouraging affordable housing is not required. The proposed General Plan Amendments already encourage affordable housing by allowing densities of up to 30, 40 and 80 dwelling units per acre. For more information, see Response Master -1, incorporated herein by reference. 0-4.5. This comment states that impacts relating to displacement of housing or persons are not speculative. As discussed in Response Master -1, the Draft EIR does not state that all displacement within the Residential Incentive Overlay is speculative. The Draft EIR states that the numbers of motels with the potential for reuse and new development, the specific number of motel rooms used for long-term occupancy, the number of persons in long-term occupancy who might move if a property owner pursues new development, or the types of housing or other permitted uses that will potentially replace existing motels is currently unknown. Similarly, it is not a given that all new high density residential development will be market rate or above -market rate. Zoning that allows high density residential development, as well as many other state reforms and incentives and local incentives, facilitate and expedite the development of affordable housing. For more information, see Response Master -1, incorporated herein by reference. 0-4.6. This comment states that redevelopment of the Costa Mesa Motor Inn is evidence that the Residential Incentive Overlay Zone will result in significant impacts. However, the Costa Mesa Motor Inn project was not redeveloped under the proposed Residential Incentive Overlay Zone, and therefore that project did not "benefit greatly from the Residential Overlay." The use or non-use of a density bonus at that property has no bearing on the General Plan Amendments. Further, the inclusion or lack of inclusion of affordable rental units in that project is not indicative of whether the General Plan Amendments do or do not encourage affordable housing. As discussed in Response Master -1, HCD, the State agency vested with oversight of cities' General Plans, encourages high density zoning in part because it facilitates affordable housing. Here, by establishing the Residential Incentive Overlay that allows development up to 40 du/ac (and by establishing other densities within the City of up to 80 du/ac), the City "sets the table" to accommodate housing for lower-income households; this increase in allowable densities serves State objectives. For more information, see Response Master -1, incorporated herein by reference. 0-4.7. This comment requests that relocation assistance and replacement housing be analyzed. As discussed in Response Master -1, the provision of relocation services to existing long-term occupants of motels located within the Residential Incentive Overlay is also not a required mitigation measure. There are no potentially significant impacts relating to displacement of persons or removal of existing residential development (if any) such that the construction of housing would be necessitated elsewhere. Therefore, mitigation, including relocation assistance services, is not required. For more information, see Response Master -1, incorporated herein by reference. 0-4.8. This comment requests that the General Plan Amendments be revised to allow for a high maximum density at the Fairview Development Center site. As discussed above in Responses A-2.1 through A-2.7, the General Plan Environmental Impact Report 10.0-19 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata Amendments propose an overall limit of 500 dwelling units for the Fairview Developmental Center site with maximum of 300 dwelling units for the Shannon's Mountain site. The Draft EIR does not evaluate or contemplate higher densities for this property. However, DGS is free to, in the future, apply for a General Plan Amendment to allow greater residential densities should DGS desire. This comment also requests that the City conduct a financial analysis regarding the feasibility of proposing an affordable housing development at differing densities. As discussed in Response Master -1, the methodology applied in Chapter 3.14 of the Draft EIR to evaluate housing and population impacts adequately analyzed potential impacts. There is no additional information or analysis that would be gained for purposes of the environmental analysis through the development or application of a new analysis model, or financial analysis focusing on affordable housing development potential. Where no substantially new information may be gleaned, an agency is not required to apply a new methodology to analyze potential environmental impacts. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15204(a).) For more information, see Response Master -1, incorporated herein by reference. 0-4.9. This comment requests that the Harbor Mixed -Use Overlay require that 20% of new developments be set aside for affordable housing purposes. However, where substantial evidence supports a conclusion that impacts are less than significant, mitigation is not required. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.4(a).) In addition, mitigation measures that are infeasible, or will not reduce significant impacts, are not required. For these reasons, a mitigation measure requiring that 20% of all future residential development within the Harbor Mixed -Use Overlay, be made affordable is not mandated by CEQA. These are policy and legislative options the City Council is free to consider, but are not legally required to be adopted or imposed under CEQA. For more information, please see Response Master -1, incorporated herein by reference. 0-4.10. This comment requests that the General Plan Amendments require that 20% of new development at the Sakioka Site 2 be set aside for affordable housing purposes. However, where substantial evidence supports a conclusion that impacts are less than significant, mitigation is not required. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.4(a).) In addition, mitigation measures that are infeasible, or will not reduce significant impacts, are not required. For these reasons, a mitigation measure requiring that 20% of all future residential development be made affordable is not mandated by CEQA. These are policy and legislative options the City Council is free to consider, but are not legally required to be adopted or imposed under CEQA. For more information, please see Response Master -1, incorporated herein by reference. 0-4.11 This comment requests that the General Plan Amendments require that 20% of new development within the Residential Incentive Overlay Zone be set aside for affordable housing purposes. However, where substantial evidence supports a conclusion that impacts are less than significant, mitigation is not required. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.4(a).) In addition, mitigation measures that are infeasible, or will not reduce significant impacts, are not required. For these reasons, a mitigation measure requiring that 20% of all future residential development be made affordable is not mandated by CEQA. These are policy and legislative options the City Council is free to consider, but are not legally required to be adopted or imposed under CEQA. For more information, please see Response Master -1, incorporated herein by reference. 0-4.12. This comment requests that the General Plan Amendments require that 20% of new development within the SoBECA Overlay Zone be set aside for affordable housing purposes. However, where substantial evidence supports a conclusion that impacts are less than significant, mitigation is not required. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.4(a).) In addition, mitigation measures that are infeasible, or will not reduce significant impacts, are not required. For these reasons, a mitigation measure requiring that 20% of all future residential development be made affordable is not mandated by CEQA. These are policy and legislative options the City Council is free to consider, but are not legally required to be adopted or imposed under CEQA. For more information, please see Response Master -1, incorporated herein by reference. 10.0-20 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata 0-4.13. This comment requests that the City conduct a study to evaluate the economic impacts of the General Plan Amendments. A fiscal analysis was conducted to analyze the fiscal impacts of the General Plan Amendments. However, as discussed in Response Master -1, CEQA does not require the analysis of economic or socio-economic impacts. Further, there is no additional information or analysis that would be gained for purposes of the environmental analysis through the development or application of a new analysis model, or financial analysis focusing on affordable housing development potential. Where no substantially new information may be gleaned, an agency is not required to apply a new methodology to analyze potential environmental impacts. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15204(a).) For more information, please see Response Master -1, incorporated herein by reference. 0-4.14. This comment requests that the City collaborate with community organizations and stakeholders to develop effective land use changes and residential incentive overlays. The comment does not specify what additional land use changes are being requested. Assuming these are the same changes identified elsewhere in the letter, please see comments 0-4.1 through 0-4.13, and Response Master -1, incorporated herein by reference. 0-4.15. The Kennedy Commission comment letter attaches the April 15, 2016 letter from DGS. For responses to the issues raised in the DGS letter, please see Responses A-2.1 through A-2.7 above, incorporated herein by reference. The Kennedy Commission (April 18, 2016 Letter) See Responses 0-4.1 through 0-4.15 above, and Response Master -1, incorporated herein by reference. The Kennedy Commission (April 11, 2016 Letter) See Responses 0-4.1 through 0-4.15 above, and Response Master -1, incorporated herein by reference. Response 0-5 — Tribune Real Estate 0-5.1. This comment is regarding property ownership and it is noted as part of FEIR administrative record. The errata reflect this change. This response does not identify any new information that has a bearing on the analysis in the EIR. 0-5.2. This comment is regarding corrected information about leaking underground storage tanks on the site (there are none) and it is noted as part of FEIR administrative record. The errata reflect this change. This response does not identify any new information that has a bearing on the analysis in the EIR. 0-5.3. This comment is regarding the proper proposed designation of the Los Angeles Times site as Commercial Center instead of Urban Center Commercial and it is noted as part of FOR administrative record. The errata reflect this change. This response does not identify any new information that has a bearing on the analysis in the EIR. Response 0-6 — SoCalGas 0-6.1. The commenter provided information regarding SoCalGas facilities and the services provided to the City and conditions under which SoCalGas provides services. This comment does not raise any issues with regard to the DEIR. No response is necessary. Environmental Impact Report 10.0-21 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata Individuals Response 1-1- Eleanor Egan 1-1.1. While the exterior noise standards for residential uses set forth in the City's Zoning Code specify 50 (dBA) to 55 (dBA) during certain time periods, the Costa Mesa General Plan further defines noise compatibility standards for residential uses to allow exterior noise levels at 65 CNEL. Specifically, the General Plan indicates that Costa Mesa's noise environment is dominated by vehicular traffic and aircraft operations at John Wayne Airport. To provide a baseline 2015 noise environment, noise contours were obtained from the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission and quantified for highway and local street traffic based on the General Plan traffic study. Traffic noise levels can be reliably predicted using formulas that take into account traffic volume, speed, and the percentage of trucks. Baseline 2015 noise contours were calculated for all of the City's primary and major arterials, as well as the three freeways (1-405, SR -55, SR -73). Select secondary and commuter streets were also modeled. Noise generation for each roadway segment was calculated, and the distance to the 60, 65, and 70 dBA CNEL contours was determined. Table N-3 of the General Plan provides a "Noise and Land Use Compatibility Matrix." For low-density residential uses and multi -family residential uses, community noise exposure (accounting for ambient traffic noise for example) is conditionally acceptable in the range of 60 to 70 CNEL and 65 to 75 CNEL, respectively. New construction of residential development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements and needed noise insulation features for both interior and exterior noise. Typical sound mitigation in the form of masonry sound walls may mitigate exterior noise levels to 65 dBA or lower. General Plan Policy N -1.A requires enforcement of "the maximum acceptable exterior noise levels for residential areas at 65 CNEL. Therefore, new residential development would require noise mitigation to attenuate exterior noise level of the 65 CNEL. Residential development projects in the City of Costa Mesa which have been approved since the adoption of the current General Plan in January 2002 have been found compliant with the exterior noise requirement of 65 CNEL. Exterior sound walls varying in height from six to eight feet are required in certain cases to provide the required noise mitigation. Future residential development in the proposed Residential Incentive Overlay and Harbor Mixed -Use Overlay will be required to comply with the General Plan's conditionally acceptable noise levels. This response does not identify any new information that has a bearing on the analysis in the EIR. Response 1-2 - Kim Hendricks 1-2.1. The commenter believes impacts on the burrowing owl should be considered "significant" in the DEIR rather than "less than significant with mitigation." The "less than significant with mitigation" conclusion is based on: 1) the fact that no impact will actually take place as a result of the City adopting the General Plan Amendments, and 2) the requirement of the DEIR that future development projects on both the Segerstrom Home Ranch site and the Sakioka site conduct site-specific surveys for the burrowing owl as part of CEQA review of the project prior to the City approving development on those sites. This response does not identify any new information. 1-2.2. This commenter questions why the DEIR concludes that there is no "critical habitat" in the planning area for the San Diego fairy shrimp when it is known to occur in Fairview Park and Talbert Regional Preserve. The reference to "critical habitat" refers to a formal designation applied by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service designated by a rule published in the Federal Register. Critical habitat receives protection under Section 7 of FESA through prohibition against destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat with regard to actions carried out, funded, or authorized by a Federal Agency. There is no officially designated critical habitat for the San Diego fairy shrimp in the planning 10.0-22 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata area (USFWS 2000). That does not mean that there is not important habitat for the fairy shrimp in the planning area. Vernal pools are addressed in the DEIR, but amendments to the General Plan do not affect the vernal pools. This response does not identify any new information. 1-2.3. The DEIR provided a table of more common plants and animals in the planning area but was not meant to be an exhaustive list. A special status species list was included in the DEIR based on a November 2015 CNDDB search. For any projects that involve ground -disturbing activities that could affect listed species, the City would require a biological evaluation as required by CEQA. Such a survey would require species surveys and impact analysis. This response does not identify any new information. 1-2.4. Illegal grading of a canyon in Fairview Park was not the subject the DEIR; the project consists only of specific amendments to the General Plan. No wetlands are contained within the specific amendment areas addressed in the DEIR. This response does not identify any new information. 1-2.5. Illegal grading of a canyon in Fairview Park was not the subject the DEIR; the project consists only specific amendments to the General Plan. Under CEQA, a project -specific cultural resource evaluation is required for any project that includes ground -disturbing activities that have the potential to support cultural resources. This response does not identify any new information. 1-2.6. The comment is not addressing the DEIR analysis nor is it relevant to any of the threshold criteria analyzed in the DEIR. All policy questions and recommended changes will be addressed through the public hearing process. This response does not identify any new information. 1-2.7. Regarding the parks acreages, City staff has reviewed the numbers presented in Table 4.15-3, which is drawn from the draft General Plan. The General Plan will be modified to include minor adjustments based on more refined GIS data which show the Orange County Fairgrounds to encompass 150.04 acres. The City considers the Fairgrounds as a recreation use, not an institutional use, given the multifunctional aspect of the facility. With regard to Vanguard University, the acreage is approximately 37 acres; the 47.06 acres cited in Table 4.15-3 includes adjacent City Hall and its associated open space areas. Any differences between data presented in the 2000 General Plan and the proposed General Plan Amendments is attributed to the more precise method of data collection (GIS data) for the Amendments and/or rounding errors in the current General Plan. The adjustments in numbers above do not materially change the conclusion in the DEIR on page 4.15-6 that the City will experience a deficiency in parkland based on its goal of 4.26 acres per 1,000 residents. The policies in the General Plan have been crafted to address the deficiency over the long term. This response does not identify any new information that has a bearing on the analysis in the DEIR. 1-2.8. The comment is not addressing the DEIR analysis nor is it relevant to any of the threshold criteria analyzed in the DEIR. All policy questions and recommended changes will be addressed through the public hearing process. This response does not identify any new information. 1-2.9. The comment is not addressing the DEIR analysis nor is it relevant to any of the threshold criteria analyzed in the DEIR. All policy questions and recommended changes will be addressed through the public hearing process. This response does not identify any new information. 1-2.10. The comment is not addressing the DEIR analysis nor is it relevant to any of the threshold criteria analyzed in the DEIR. All policy questions and recommended changes will be addressed through the public hearing process. his response does not identify any new information. 1-2.11. This comment reflects the opinion of the commenter only and requires no response Environmental Impact Report 10.0-23 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata 1-2.12. This comment GHG Commenter wants to know why greenhouse gas emissions are allowed to exceed SCAQMD standards. As stated in the DEIR the interim GHG emission thresholds are not intended to be applied to the program -level (for the entire general plan area), they are more accurately applied to specific projects. However, they do provide a guidepost for comparing incremental increases in emissions guided by the proposed General Plan Amendments. So while the projected full build out of the general plan could exceed thresholds, the general Plan does incorporate policies that support cooperation with and support of GHG reduction plans as well as requiring greenhouse gas emission analysis for individual projects. Response 1-3 - Cynthia McDonald 1-3.1. This comment notes that scenic vistas may be impacted by new development on the Segerstrom Home Ranch property due to allowable building heights in the amended General Plan. The General Plan does not contain any information regarding building heights; building intensity limits are stated only in terms of maximum floor area ratios (FAR). As stated in the DEIR, General Plan policies require developers to consider preserving and optimizing natural views in Costa Mesa. Such consideration of preserving views would be addressed in a project -specific CEQA document, as well as during design review of the project by the City. This response does not identify any new information. 1-3.2. This comment is not addressing the DEIR analysis nor is it relevant to any of the threshold criteria analyzed in the DEIR. All policy questions and recommended changes will be addressed through the public hearing process. This response does not identify any new information. 1-3.3. The DEIR text correction noted. This response does not identify any new information that affects the adequacy of the DEIR analysis. 1-3.4. See Response Master -1, above, incorporated herein by reference. 1-3.5. General Plan policies while not actual mitigation are considered regulations which all projects that require City approval must comply with. As part of the CEQA process projects are assessed as to how they comply with applicable plans and policies of the City and other public agencies. Furthermore, at the CEQA stage, projects are subject to laws and regulations in affect at the time of the environmental review. Thus, future measures determined necessary to reduce air pollutants that are adopted by the City or other responsible agencies would apply to the project. Other concerns voiced about specific pollution "hot spots' are acknowledged. 1-3.6. Please refer to response 1-2.12 above which addresses a similar concern. The concern about Banning Ranch is acknowledged. 1-3.7. This comment is concerned with the provision of mitigation relating to pedestrians and bicyclists exposed to traffic noise and noise echoed off tall building or sound walls. As part of the DEIR's noise analysis, thresholds relating to exposing persons to noise that is in excess of standards established by the local jurisdiction were considered. The City's noise standards apply to interior and exterior noise in residential areas, and to construction -related noise. Traffic noise generally is analyzed based on how it affects nearby residences and other sensitive land uses. Regarding noise impacts on pedestrians and cyclists, examination of the noise information for existing conditions indicates that noise levels along major streets today exceeds an Leq of 70 at many locations (see Table 4.12-1 on pages 4.12-4, 5 of the DEIR). As discussed on page 4.12-13 of the DEIR, noise levels are not anticipated to increase above the 3.0 dBA threshold except at two locations: Del Mar west of Santa Ana and 16th Street west of Newport Boulevard. Impacts on cyclists and pedestrians would not be significant. With regard to tall buildings, the General Plan provides for new development in dispersed, focused areas. Implementation of land use policy will not result in "canyons" of tall buildings. With regard to sound walls, no sound walls are proposed by the General Plan Amendments. This response does not identify any new information. 10.0-24 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata 1-3.8. The comment regarding the Residential Overlay designation proposed at location on Harbor and Newport Boulevards does not address the DEIR analysis nor is it relevant to any of the threshold criteria analyzed in the DEIR. All policy questions and recommended changes will be addressed through the public hearing process. This response does not identify any new information. 1-3.9. The City utilizes LOS D as the performance standard for intersections during the AM and PM peak hours. Since the peak hours are the time of heaviest traffic conditions, achieving LOS D during the peak hour will generally result in better conditions during the remainder of the day. The City has identified a number of improvements to maintain LOS D conditions or better with buildout of the General Plan (refer to Table 3-8 in the General Plan traffic study). Please note that this threshold is similar to those of other neighboring cities. In addition, Irvine and Huntington Beach have policies that allow LOS E at intersections in certain areas. The comment mentions that "21 additional intersections that will attain LOS D at one or more peak hours." Based on information in Table 4.16-13,16 additional intersections will attain LOS D during one or more peak hours. The current General Plan would result in 14 additional attaining LOS D. The comment points out one of the trade-offs faced by the City when balancing the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists with the needs of motorists. Often improving level of service for motorists will worsen conditions for pedestrians and bicyclists due to increased crossing distances and the potential loss of bicycle accommodations. The City utilizes LOS D as a target level of service for motorists (as opposed to utilizing LOS C or better), which minimizes the need to expand existing roadways with additional capacity and reduces impacts to pedestrians and bicyclists. Having a threshold of LOS C will require widening of most of arterials by one or two lanes. 1-3.10. Regarding accommodation of bicyclists and pedestrians, as referenced in the DEIR, the amended General Plan includes a comprehensive bicycle master plan and a pedestrian plan specifically purposed to address the long- term needs for active transportation. Please note that "Recommendations" under Active Transportation "Goals and Objectives" reflect the City Council direction. This response does not identify any new information. 1-3.11. This and other similar policies are included to limit automobile usage and encourage walking and using local shuttle if available. The City does not have any parking districts at this time. The costs for enforcement of current parking policies are realized from the revenues from the parking tickets. It is not anticipated to add any impacts to City budget. This is not an issue that affects any environmental issue and thus is not required to be addressed in the DEIR. 1-3.12. This comment questions whether the traffic analysis incorporates pass-through trips and the potential trips associated with density bonuses that could be applied to select properties. With regard to pass-through trips, the traffic model includes regional trips from destinations outside of Costa Mesa traveling through the City. With regard to potential residential density bonuses, the traffic model accounts for build -out consistent with proposed land use policy. This is a comprehensive approach that largely assumes full build -out of parcels. In practice, development does not occur at the maximum permitted densities. Thus, the model provides capacity for some projects to include density bonuses. In practice, the City receives very few requests for density bonuses. Therefore, the analysis is considered sufficient. The trip generation estimates cited in the comment reflect the estimate of trips generated within the City of Costa Mesa itself. The roadway traffic forecasts that are reported in the General Plan traffic study include trips generated outside of the City that pass through the City. These forecasts are prepared using a traffic forecasting model that covers the entire Southern California region. The City has multiple planned roadway and intersection improvements (refer to Table 3-8 in the General Plan traffic study) that will be implemented as the City builds out over time. These improvements have been developed to maintain the City's target threshold of LOS D. Environmental Impact Report 10.0-25 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata 1-3.13. The "Right of Way Reserve" classification on Garfield Avenue—Gisler Avenue bridge over Santa Ana River would be revisited in a few years and a determination of whether to remove this bridge from OCTA's Master Plan would be made. It is City's expectation that this bridge will be removed from the Master Plan as the City has largely complied with all the mitigations required for this removal, including the widening of Harbor Boulevard — Adams Avenue. Other major projects are also in progress. It is likely that OCTA may continue to maintain the "Right of Way Reserve" for several more years or remove that designation. If the designation is removed, it does not automatically mean that a bridge would be built. OCTA and other agencies recognize that building such a bridge will require mutual agreement among all agencies, in addition to major funding allocation. The City's current analysis follows the approved policies of OCTA and other agencies. The Banning Ranch project, as originally proposed in their Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) is included in traffic forecasting model used to prepare the General Plan traffic study. Therefore, the traffic forecasts shown in the traffic study includes the traffic generated by the Banning Ranch project. 1-3.14. The proposed 2015-2035 General Plan includes Fairview Park under Open Space Land Use as currently assigned and does not change the current land use designation or the Fairview Park Master Plan. The Fairview Park Master Plan was adopted by City Council as a tool for the orderly implementation of the approved improvements for Fairview Park. Changes to the Fairview Park Master Plan are considered in compliance with City Council Policy 500- 11, Implementation Procedures for the Fairview Park Master Plan. The Fairview Park Citizens Advisory Committee has been reconvened to review the current Master Plan and to recommend revisions or changes to the Master Plan. The Committee is currently on -hold pending the completion of the update of the City's Open Space Master Plan of Parks and Recreation. 1-3.15. The housing projections presented on page 4.13-6 refer to new housing just within the focus areas. The discussion on page 4.3-15 refers to residential development citywide based on land use policy, which assumes that additional development could occur in areas based on current land use policies and zoning. With regard to inclusionary housing, please refer to Master Response 1, incorporated herein by reference. With regard to the acreage citywide, the numbers cited in the comment do not appear on page 4.13-6. Table LU -2 in the draft Land Use Element accurately report 8,044 net acres citywide. 1-3.16. Please see the response to the Irvine Ranch Water District in Response A-5. The water supplier indicates that adequate supplies are available to meet projected future demand. 1-3.17. The alternatives analyzed were developed, as required by CEQA, to address alternatives that could reduce the potential significant adverse effects associated with the project. The concern that the alternatives do not reflect concerns or wishes of residents expressed during the Great Reach process is not an environmental issue but reflects a policy issue that will be addressed during the public hearing process. Response 1-4 - Robin Leffler 1-4.1. The current General Plan used the Low Density zoning designation to estimate the number of single-family units. With the proposed General Plan, more accurate aerial and GIS data were used to count the actual existing dwelling units by parcel. The discrepancy is made even greater due to the fact that the methodology used in 2000 cannot accurately compensate for the areas in the City historically down -zoned. These areas are zoned for single- family but have legal nonconforming higher densities that were built before the down -zoning occurred. Thus, the DEIR appropriately assesses impacts against a more accurate baseline condition. 10.0-26 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata Response 1-5 - Elaine Dethlefsen 1-5.1. This comment raises general concerns about impacts on quality of life, existing neighborhoods, parking, air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, noise, water use, public services, traffic, and lack of open space, traffic congestion, and water shortages. All of these issues are responded to more specifically throughout this response to comments section. This response does not identify any new information. Response 1-6 - Tamar Goldmann 1-6.1. The commenter is concerned about water availability to serve future development and the increase in impervious surfaces that could hinder drainage percolation. The Irvine Ranch Water District provided comments on the DEIR. In the comment letter IRWD attached a March 2016 Water Supply Assessment (WSA) for the City planning area (see letter A-5 and response A-5.2 which summarizes the findings of the WSA). In summary, IRWD concluded that currently available supplies of potable water are adequate to meet projected annual demands for both the baseline and with -project demand projects under the normal year conditions through the year 2036. Meeting both the single- and multiple -dry year annual demands for potable water at full buildout will require the completion of 'underdevelopment' supplies. 'Underdevelopment' supplies may necessitate the preparation and completion of environmental documents, regulatory approvals, and/or contracts prior to full construction and implementation. Adequate currently available potable water supply capacity is available to meet peak -flow (maximum day) demands for all demand projections through the year 2036." The full WSA is part of the FEIR and is on file at City Hall. With regard to impervious surfaces, any development project that goes forward in Orange County is subject to regulation by both the Santa Ana and the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Boards (Regional Boards or RWQCBs). The Regional Boards are responsible for implementing the Clean Water Act and the California Porter - Cologne Act. These regulations address stormwater runoff. New projects are evaluated by the City on a project -by - project basis to ensure all regulations are met. 1-6.2. The comment is not addressing the DEIR analysis nor is it relevant to any of the threshold criteria analyzed in the DEIR. All policy questions and recommended changes will be addressed through the public hearing process. This response does not identify any new information. 1-6.3. See Response Master -1, above, incorporated herein by reference. 1-6.4. The comment is not addressing the DEIR analysis nor is it relevant to any of the threshold criteria analyzed in the DEIR. All policy questions and recommended changes will be addressed through the public hearing process. This response does not identify any new information. Response 1-7 - Reggie Mundekis 1-7.1. The new location of the Huscroft House is acknowledged and is part of FEIR administrative record. The errata reflects this change. This response does not identify any new information that has a bearing on the analysis in the EIR. Response 1-8 - Corrine Stover 1-8.1. The comment does not address the DEIR analysis nor does it question any of the threshold criteria analyzed in the DEIR. All policy questions and recommended changes will be addressed through the public hearing process. This response does not identify any new information. Environmental Impact Report 10.0-27 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata Response 1-9 - Beth Morley 1-9.1. This comment raises general concerns about impacts on housing density, noise, air pollution, lack of open space, traffic congestion, and water shortages. All of these issues are responded to more specifically throughout this response to comments section. This response does not identify any new information. Response 1-10 - William Harader, Laurene Keane, Lisa Lawrence, Judy Lindssay, Ralph Taboada, Anna Vrska, James Locker, Beverly Tazelaar, Janice Kressin, and Georgette Quinn These comment letters and emails have been grouped as they all address the same comments. 1-10.1. The comments raise general concerns about impacts on quality of life, existing neighborhoods, parking, air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, noise, water use, public services, traffic, and lack of open space, traffic congestion, and water shortages. All of these issues are responded to more specifically throughout this response to comments section. This response does not identify any new information. 1-10.2. The alternatives analyzed were developed, as required by CEQA, to address alternatives that could reduce the potential significant adverse effects associated with the project. The concern that the alternatives do not reflect concerns or wishes of residents is not an environmental issue but reflects a policy issue that will be addressed during the public hearing process. Response I-11- Cindy Black, Flo Martin, and Mary Spandoni These comment letters and emails have been grouped as they all the issue of the timing of Planning Commission action on the DEIR and proposed General Plan Amendments. 1-11.1. The commenters were concerned that the City Planning Commission was going to certify the DEIR and adopt the General Plan before the end of the DEIR comment period, which was April 18, 2016. The Planning Commission hearing referenced was April 11, 2016. On that date, the Planning Commission voted to continue the hearing. Response 1-12 - Brian Burnett 1-12.1. The commenter was concerned that DEIR did not include surveys for the California gnatcatcher. Please refer to responses A-1.2 and A-1.3. 1-12.2. The commenter was concerned that DEIR did not include surveys for the burrowing owls. Please refer to responses A-1.2 and A-1.3 and I-2.1. 1-12.3. The commenter was concerned that the DEIR did not address past damage to tarplant habitat, vernal pools, etc. at Fairview Park. Please refer to responses to 1-3.4 and I-3.5. 1-12.4. The commenter was concerned that the DEIR did not include surveys for northern harriers. Please refer to responses A-1.2 and A-1.3 above and responses to Commenter 1-3. 1-12.5. The commenter was concerned that the DEIR did not address past damage to tarplant habitat, vernal pools, etc. at Fairview Park. Please refer to responses to 1-3.4 and 1-3.5. 1-12.6. The commenter was concerned that the DEIR did not include surveys of vernal pools. Vernal pools are limited to Fairview Park and adjacent open space and park areas. There are no areas that support vernal pools in 10.0-28 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata areas addressed by the General Plan Amendments. Also please refer to responses A-1.2 and A-1.3 above and responses to Commenter 1-3. 1-12.7. The commenter was concerned that the DEIR did not include surveys for other species. Please refer to responses A-1.2 and A-1.3 above and responses to Commenter 1-3. Response 1-13 — Robert Hamilton, Hamilton Biological 1-13.1. The commenter was concerned that DEIR did not include an exhaustive listing of all possible special -status plant species in Fairview Park. Please refer to responses A-1.2 and A-1.3. 1-13.2. The commenter was concerned that DEIR did not include an exhaustive listing of all possible bird species. Please refer to responses A-1.2 and A-1.3. 1-13.3. The commenter was concerned that DEIR did not include biological resource information available in resource documents prepared for the Fairview Park Master Plan, and the Fairview Park documents provide more recent information. Please refer to responses A-1.2 and A-1.3. Also, any amendments to the Fairview Park Master Plan that may occur pursuant to the City's current effort to update the citywide Parks Master Plan will include detailed biological resource studies. 1-13.4. The commenter questions the flora and fauna information presented in the tables and text in Section 4.4 (Biological Resources). Please refer to responses A-1.2 and A-1.3. With regard to listing the tables in alphabetical order rather than standard scientific order, alphabetic order may be considered easier for the public to review. 1-13.5. The commenter concludes that the biological resource information in the DEIR provides little guidance to decision -makers for moving forward to achieve overarching goals. The City notes that the DEIR provides sufficient information regarding the potential impact associated with adopting land use changes that would affect already developed areas of Costa Mesa, where none of the biological resources cited in the DEIR and in the comment letter are known to exist. The information provided in the comment letter does not present any new information that would change the conclusions in the DEIR. Environmental Impact Report 10.0-29 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata Errata 10.2 Throughout the FEIR, strikeout and underline text has been used to indicated changes made to the DEIR in response to public comments. This subsection highlights key changes made. No substantial revisions were made to the DEIR, and recirculation of the document is not required pursuant to CEQA. Throughout the DEIR, the document included policies from the amended General Plan Elements. Due to ongoing changes made by the City during the policy review process, some policies were reworded, renumbered, or otherwise altered from those include in the March 4, 2016 DEIR. The revised DEIR has corrected the policies so they match those that were included in the March 4, 2016 2015-2035 Draft General Plan. These changes are most notable in Section 4.3 Air Quality. Chapter 2 Executive Summary Table 2.0-2 properly provides the correct impact conclusion for three air quality thresholds, as cited on page 4.3-24 and based on the preceding analysis: significant and unavoidable since the proposed General Plan Amendments would interfere with the implementation of the 2012 AQMP. The conclusion presented in the heading on page 4.3-14 improperly reflects the analysis and conclusion cited and properly summarized in Table 2.0-2. Chapter 3 Project Description On page 3.0-11 under Fairview, the following test change been made: "The City proposes to establish the unique Fairview land use designation ("Multi -Use Center") to provide the framework for future site repurposing (Figure 3.0-5 Fairview Focus Area). The Multi -Use Centera+Niew land use designation allows up to 500 residences (300 at 25 units/acre and 200 at 15 units/acre), parks and open spaces on 25% of the site, and institutional uses on 50%." Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis Section 4.2, Agricultural and Forestry Resources. Page 4.2-1 under "Existing Conditions" the following replaces the first full paragraph. `The map of Important Farmland in California (2012) prepared by the Department of Conservation identifies the two existing agricultural use sites (Segerstrom Home Ranch and Sakioka Lot 2) as supporting Farmland of Statewide Importance (DOC 2012). Additionally, Segerstrom supports Prime Farmland as identified by DOC (DOC 2012). Although the existing agricultural land on the Segerstrom Home Ranch site and Sakioka Lot 2 remains mapped as Prime Farmland and/or as Farmland of Statewide Importance, the Department of Conservation applied an overlay on the parcels which specify that it is Land Committed to Nonagricultural Uses (DOC 2016). No Williamson Act contracts are active within the City limits (DOC 2007)." Page 4.2-4 under Impact 4.11.A.B.C.D the following replaces the first full paragraph: "The City of Costa Mesa is an almost fully developed, suburbanized area that does not contain any areas zoned or designated solely for commercial agriculture or forest resources. As described above, although two areas of the City support Prime Farmland, and/or Farmland of Statewide Importance, those lands are officially not committed to agricultural uses. This means that the conversion of Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance to a non-agricultural use as a result of build out of the General Plan was already foreseen and accepted by the City and Department of Conservation. No Williamson Act contracts are in effect within the planning area." 10.0-30 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata The following new reference was added to Section 4.2: California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection. May 31, 2016. Email from Patrick Hennessy of DOC to Daniel Inloes, City of Costa Mesa. Regarding application of overlay designation for two agricultural parcels in Costa Mesa. Section 4.3, Air Quality. The impact heading on page 4.3-14 improperly cites the analysis contained on pages 4.3-14 through 4.13-24 and summarized on page 4.3-24. The conclusion is properly stated on page 4.3-24 and summarized in Table 2.0-2 in the Executive Summary. Page 4.3-14 is hereby revised as follows: Environmental Impact The proposed General Plan Amendments would will not conflict with the 2012 Air IMPACT Quality Management Plan because land use policy would accommodate _growth that 4.3.A would exceed projections assumed in the the 2012 AQMP. Impact would be significant. 4.3.B will suppept the prqec-ted level of population growth. Also, projected c-umulative daily 4.3.0 pollutant emissiens program -wide will not exGeed SGAQMD thresholds fGF Gr4te pollutants Imparts at the program level would he less than sinnifinant Section 4.4, Biological Resources Page 4.4-10 under "San Diego Fairy Shrimp" the following text was added to the end of the first paragraph: Critical habitat was proposed for this species at Fairview Park in 2003, but was excluded in the Final Rule as explained here: "we are also excluding Fairview Regional Park, City of Costa Mesa (proposed subunit 1B) under section 4(b)(2) of the Act as we have determined that the City of Costa Mesa has completed and is implementing a management plan. We have determined that the benefits of excluding Fairview Regional Park outweigh the benefits of including this area in the critical habitat designation" (USFWS 2007). Page 4.4-19: The following new reference was added: Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, 2007. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for Endangered San Diego Fairy Shrimp, (Branchinecta sandiogonensis); Final Rule. Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 238, December 12, 2007, Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality Page 4.9-18 under "Impact 4.9.1, the first sentence of the second paragraph has been changed to: The Los Angeles Times, Segerstrom Home Ranch sites and a small portion of the Residential Incentive Overlay on Harbor Boulevard are contained in an area subject to inundation in the event of failure of either/or the Santiago Creek Dam and the Prado Dam (refer to Figure S-4 in the draft Safety Element). Environmental Impact Report 10.0-31 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning. Page 4.10-6 under "Proposed Land Use Element Amendments," first bulleted sentence should read: "A new land use designation (Fairview Multi -Use Center) that applies to the Fairview Development Center site to allow for the future repurposing of this State-owned property to residential and open space uses." Section 4.12, Noise. On page 4.12-11 under Impact 2.12.A, the following sentence has been added to the last paragraph under "Helicopter Services:" "Noise from helicopter services would not cause City residents to be exposed to noise above existing standards, and impacts would be less than significant." Page 4.12-14, the first paragraph under Impact 4.12.6 has been revised as follows: "Typical sources of groundborne vibration and noise come from +aelude construction activities. and heap, Veh Gle traffin Excessive vibration can lead to structural damage and general annoyance to the public. Vibration can also adversely affect delicate instruments such as electron microscopes and advanced technology production and research equipment." Section 4.16, Transportation and Traffic. Page 4.16-3. Delete entire section under "Regional Bicycle Facility Planning." Page 4.16-3 under Pedestrian Circulation, delete last sentence "A Met link Station Non_meterized AGGGSSibi4 Page 4.16-3 under "Railways:" The Metrolink station closest to Costa Mesa is the Tustin station at an-2ff1-Street_Edinger Avenue and Jamboree Road. Page 4.16-4, under Existing Traffic Conditions, LOS is a qualitative approach to describing roadway performance based on the V/C ratio. The lower the ration, the better the segment of read,^,,,, intersection performs, meaning freer -flowing traffic. Table 4.16-1 Intersection Level of Service Descriptions — Urban Streets "a 'nd Inte rse^+inns) summarizes LOS descriptions for urban streets anrJ intersections, as well as the VC ranges that correspond to LOS "A" through "F" for arterial reads intersections. Title of Table 4.16-1 should be "Intersection Level of Service Descriptions" instead of "Level of Service Descriptions — Urban Streets and Intersections." Page 4.16-49 Under "Fairview Road and Bristol Street Road Diets:" Table 4.16-2-2 19 (2035 Buildout Highway Network ADT Volumes and V/C Ratios with Bluff Read Road Diets). Page 4.16-51. Added sections on Impacts 4.16.0 and D that were missing from the hard copy documents. No significant impacts were identified. Section 4.17, Utilities and Service Systems. The following text on Page on Page 4.17-2, under Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) has been corrected by the IRWD and is replaced by the following text: IRWD ennnmpasses approximately 78,000 apres or 123 square miles in south Gentral Grange County. IRWI) serves all of the City of IrviRe and the MiRGOrperated areas of Foothill RaRGh , and Pertela Hills. in 1997, IRWID begaR providing water serViGe to the SaRta Ana Heights GE)MMURity. 10.0-32 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata IRWD seNes a population of 340,000 and provides water to approximately 103,000 deme6tiG GenneGtOORS, wh!Gh agFiGUNral users (IRVVD 2015a). FOF fiGGal year 20112i2013, !RVVD delivered 60,759 aGFe feet of treated (potable) water, 2,491 aGFe feet of untreated (non potable) water, and 29,952 aGre fBOt Of FeGlaimed water for a total of 93,037 aGFe foot nRVnm 20 iles in south-central Orange County. IRWD serves all of the City of Irvine and portions of Tustin, Santa Ana, Newport Beach, Lake Forest, Costa Mesa, Orange and unincorporated areas of Orange County. In 1997, IRWD began providing water service to the Santa Ana Heights community. IRWD serves a population of 380,000 and provides water to approximately 110,000 domestic connections, which includes residential, commercial, industrial, fire protection, public authorities, construction, landscape irrigation and agricultural users. For fiscal year 2013-2014, IRWD delivered 63,834 acre-feet of treated (potable) water, 2,665 acre-feet of untreated (non -potable) water and 31,932 acre-feet of recycled water for a total of 98,431 acre-feet. Approximately 23 percent of IRWD's water is purchased from MWD. This imported water comes from the Colorado River via the Colorado River Aqueduct and Northern California via the State Water Project. The remaining 77 percent of the supply comes from local groundwater wells. To alleviate its dependency of imported water, in 1979 IRWD began to develop a series of local wells called the Dyer Road Well Field Project. These wells, ranging from 400 to 1,200 feet in depth, extract high quality water from the Orange County Groundwater Basin. This groundwater now accounts for 77 percent of IRWD's total potable water supply. Page 4.17-9 of the DEIR is corrected to indicate that IRWD's San Joaquin Reservoir was converted from potable use to recycled use in later 2004. Page 4.17-9 is corrected to reflect that IRWD's 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) applies to the Santa Ana Heights area of Costa Mesa. IRWD, like Mesa Consolidated Water District, updates its UWMP every five years and is in the process of preparing its 2015 UWMP. IRWD's 2015 UWMP is scheduled for adoption in June 2016 and will be submitted to the Department of Water Resources by the July 1, 2016 deadline. Environmental Impact Report 10.0-33 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata This page intentionally left blank. 10.0-34 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata State of California — Natural Resources Aoencv EDMUND G. BROKW JR., Govern DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLIrON H. BONHAM, Director South Coast Region 3883 Ruffin Road COMMENT A-1 San Diego. CA 92123 {858} 467-4201 www.wildlife.ca.gov April 18, 2016 Ms. Claire Flynn City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 cla ire.fly n nQcostam es aca. gov Subject: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the City of Costa Mesa 2015 to 2035 General Plan (5CH# 2015111068) Dear Ms. Flynn: The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Department) has reviewed the draft environmental impact report (DEIR) for the City of Costa Mesa 2015 to 2035 General Plan Amendment project. The City of Costa Mesa (City) requested comments on the DEIR by April 18, 2016. The following statements and comments have been prepared pursuant to the Department's authority as Trustee Agency with jurisdiction over natural resources affected by the project (California Environmental Quality Act, [CEQAj Guidelines § 15386) and pursuant to our authority as a Responsible Agency under CEOA Guidelines section 15381 over those aspects of the proposed project that come under the purview of the Cal ifomia Endangered Species Act (CESA; Fish and Game Code § 2050 at seq.) and Fish and Game Code section 1600 at seq. The Department also administers the Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) program. The City is a non -participating landowner under the Central/Coastal Orange County NCCPIHabitat Conservation Plan (HCP). The project area is the City's entire sphere of influence; the City is located in the County of Orange and surrounded to the north by the City of Santa Ana, to the south by the City of Newport Beach, the west by the Cities of Huntington Beach and Fountain Valley, and the east by the City of Irvine. Fairview Park and Talbert Regional Park are included in this sphere of influence; Talbert Regional Park is part of the Central Coastal NCCPIHCP Reserve. The project proposes focused amendments to several elements of its General Plan, including Land Use, Circulation, Growth Management, Conservation, Open Space and Recreation, Noise, Safety, Community Design, and Historic and Cultural Resources. The Department offers the following comments and recommendations to assist the City in avoiding or minimizing potential project impacts on biological resources. The DEIR references Table CON -1 (BonTerra Consulting, 2000) when describing plant communities present within the project area. The Department is unclear why studies 16 years old were used to aggregate this data, as this may not be adequate to analyze potentially significant impacts to biological resources, nor does it reflect the City's efforts to restore or create plant communities. For example, Table CON -1 shows that southern tarplant (Hemixonia parryi ssp. austraiis; California Native Plant Society Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants list 1 B.1 ) as, "possibly present" when a population of southern tarplant was created in Fairview Park during wetlands restoration over the last several years. Conserving Ca;Ffornia's WMffife Since .1870 Environmental Impact Report 10.0-35 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata Ms. Claire Flynn City of Costa Mesa April 18, 20'€6 Page 2 of 3 We recommend that tables within the Conservation Element and Table CON -1 in particular be updated with recent survey data such that impacts to these plant communities may be appropriately analyzed under CEQA. 2. A Biological Resources Technical Report was not included with the DEIR. In order to adequately review the significance of impacts to biological resources, the Department recommends that such a report be made available in the final EIR as an appendix, and that it include the following: 1) up to date surveys showing plant and wildlife communities within the City; 2) a figure depicting their locations within the sphere of influence; 3) a fist of observed plant and animal species, including sensitive and listed species; we recommend that the CNDDB be queried in order to obtain historical records of sensitive plant species and wildlife within the sphere of influence; and 4) a list of appropriate mitigation measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate for impacts to plant and animal species and their habitats. 3. Whiie the Conservation Element of the DEIR states that, "there are no plans to convert any of the open spaces identified in the General Plan,' (CON page 14), it also states that, "... Fairview Park is one of the parks that may be repurposed to include other public amenities," (OSR page 18). Because of the diversity of biological resources present at Fairview Park and Talbert Regional Park, including sensitive species such as California gnatcatcher (Polioptilia californica cakfomica; Endangered Species Act (ESA) -listed threatened and a California Species of Special Concern), least Bell's vireo (Vireo belly pusillus; ESA- and CESA-listed endangered), and southern tarplant, we request the City involve the Department in the review of the Costa Mesa Master Parks Plan when it is updated. Additionally, we suggest that the City involve the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The DEIR should be amended to include review of the Master Parks Plan by the Department and the USFWS (Wildlife Agencies). 4. The Department requests that Policy OSR-1.0 (OSR page 30), which currently states that, 'Consult with law enforcement agencies, community policing groups, and Orange County Parks to create a safe and healthy environment at Talbert Regional Park, Fairview Park, and along the Santa Ana River," be amended in the final document to include consultation with the Wildlife Agencies. 5. The Polyphagous Shot Hole Borer (SHB) and Kuroshio SHB are invasive beetles (Euwallacea sp.) that vector a disease called Fusarium Dieback (FD). The FD interrupts the transport of water and nutrients in at least 38 tree species, including several species of sycamore, willow, and cottonwood, which can lead to death of the tree. FD is caused by the fungi the beetles use as a food source. The adult female beetle (1.8-2.5 mm long) bores tunnels beyond the tree's cambium where it lays its eggs and propagates the fungi species for food. With documented occurrences throughout Southern California, including the San Diego Creek drainage (University of California, Riverside (UCR); http:I/eskalenlab.ucr.edu/distribution.htmt). the spread of invasive SHBs could have significant impacts in Orange County ecosystems, specifically for those under analysis in the DEIR (e.g., parks and open spaces). Therefore, we recommend the final document consider the following with regard to the Conservation, Open Space and Recreation, and other elements: a. the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts that could occur from the potential spread of invasive SHBs as a result of proposed activities in the DFIR; 10.0-36 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata Ms. Claire Flynn City of Costa Mesa April 18, 2016 Page 3 of 3 b. an analysis of the likelihood of the spread of invasive SHBs as a result of the invasive species' proximity to above referenced activities; c. figures within a Biological Resources Technical Report (see comment 2) that depict potentially sensitive or susceptible vegetation communities within the project area, the known occurrences of invasive SHBs within the project area (if any), and invasive SHB's proximity to above referenced activities; and d. best management practices to reduce the spread of invasive SHBs. Examples of such BMPs and additional information can be found on the UCR's Eskalen lab website: http://eskaleniab.ucr-edu/avocadc.html. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the DEIR for this project and to assist the City in further minimizing and mitigating project impacts to biological resources. If you have any questions or comments regarding this letter please contact Jennifer Edwards at (858) 467-2717 or via email at Jennifer.Edwards@wildlife.ca.gov. Sincer ly, Gail K. Sevrens Environmental Program Manager South Coast Region ec: Christine Medak (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) Scott Morgan (State Clearinghouse) Environmental Impact Report 10.0-37 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata CALIFORNkA DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. April 15, 2016 VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS AND EMAIL Minoo Ashabi, Principal Planner City of Costa Mesa — Development Services Department 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Email: minoo.ashabi[cbcostamesaca.gov Re: Comments on Draft EIR for City of Costa Mesa Year 2015 — 2035 General Plan SCH# 2015111068 Dear Ms. Ashabi: On December 2, 2015 and January 26, 2016, the Department of General Services (DGS) provided comments on the Notice of Preparation for the City of Costa Mesa General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). Those comments focused on the City's proposed policies, plans, and intent with respect to the Fairview Developmental Center (FDC) and future development on the site. As explained in DGS's previous comments, the Department of Developmental Services (DDS) has submitted a closure plan for the FDC to the Legislature, (See http://www.dds.ca.gov/fairviewNews/). Senate Bill 82 signed in June 2015 (adding Government Code, § 14670.36; see attachment) authorizes the Director of DGS to lease up to 20 acres of the FDC site for the purpose of developing affordable housing for individuals with developmental disabilities (Shannon's Mountain), The success of Shannon's Mountain depends in large part on being able to retain flexibility in the number of units and density in order to attract affordable housing developers to propose economically feasible development for the site. The state is concerned that the City's proposed 300 -unit cap on the number of residential units and density and located on a 12 -acre site for the Shannon's Mountain Project may unreasonably restrict the attractiveness of the site for the development that the Legislature and the Governor envisioned with SB 82 and frustrate the state's mandate to develop housing for developmentally disabled individuals. The state lauds the City's goal in its proposed Land Use Element "to create new opportunities for housing and businesses, particularly in areas well served by transit and where reinvestment could enhance neighborhoods, districts, and nodes." But that goal would not be fulfilled with the short-sighted proposal to cap residential units in the FDC at 500 units, because doing so is likely to limit future decisions regarding transit service, as well as private investment and development decisions. This would particularly affect residents with developmental disabilities, who depend on public transit to a greater degree than other City residents. The City should consider allowing a greater number of Real Estate Services Division/Asset Management Branch I State or California I Government Operations Agency 707 3rd Street, 5th Floor I West Sacramento, CA 95605 1 1 916.376.1800 f 916.376.6219 10.0-38 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata Ms. Minoo Ashabi -2- April 15, 2016 units in the FRC to maximize the reuse of a valuable infill site, help the City realize fewer external vehicle trips, and reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) and other air pollutant emissions. As the DEIR concludes that impacts associated with GHG emissions are significant and unavoidable, the City has an obligation to consider changes to the General' Plan through alternative land use plans or mitigation that could help to reduce these impacts. DGS believes that allowing a greater number of units in the FDC, either through higher density land use designations or designating more land for more units, would improve the vehicle -miles -traveled by future FDC -area residents, visitors and employees. A portion of the FDC is placed in the City's proposed Open Space Element; however, the FDC is already developed with 1.1 million square feet of improvements. The FDC is located in Planning Area 2, which is well -served by parks and open spaces and exceeds the park -to -population standard for neighborhood and community paries of 426 acres for every 1,004 persons and within''/4- to'/ -mile walking distance to pedestrian access points. Planning Area 2 has 10.06 acres per 1,004 residents, and this ratio likely does not even include the shared use agreement for a portion of the FDC used for soccer fields. The additional amount of open space proposed to be designated within the FDC overburdens the state's property well in excess of the City's stated desired standard. With only 504 additional residential units, as proposed by the City, the area would require a minimum of 5.20 and a maximum of 5.73 acres of parks, depending on the housing product mix, not the 25.5 acres proposed in the General Plan. The City's obligation to address its existing City-wide park service deficiency is better addressed through a wider distribution of such spaces across the City, not concentrated In the FDC area. Addressing it in the manner proposed for the FDC places a disproportionate burden on the state and future developers in this area, rather than more evenly distributing it city-wide. The FDC area is already well -served by the City - owned sports fields at the Jack Hammett Sports Complex located 1.8 miles northeast of the FDC, the private open space and recreation facilities such as the surrounding golf courses, the Orange County Fair and Event Center, and joint use of school facilities. Moreover, the City does not appear to have considered the fact that the state transferred the land for the adjacent two 18 -hole golf courses to the City and land for the Fairview Regional Park to the County of Orange that was subsequently transferred to the City nor counted the golf courses or the state-owned fairgrounds in its open space/parks metrics. The City's proposed open space policies and implementation actions emphasize the need to pursue all means to expand and maximize benefits of a parks and recreation system. Therefore it does not seem reasonable to exclude the existing golf courses, fairgrounds and joint use facilities in the City's open space/parks calculations. The proposed designation of 25 percent or 26.5 acres of state-owned land in the FDC for open space far exceeds the City's in -lieu fee program for parks. The City's parkland impact fee program indicates that a developer gets a credit for land dedicated and park improvements completed. But this fee program would also appear to apply to any proposed development in the FDC after the proposed re -designation of 25 percent of Exr&hl r)ce in the Business of Government Environmental Impact Report 10.0-39 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata Ms. Minoo Ashabi -3- April 15, 2016 the FDC area as open space, further burdening future developers of the FDC and significantly impeding the state's goal of developing affordable housing for the developmentally disabled. Moreover, the City fails to consider the greater traffic impacts of concentrating so much of the City's additional recreational space in the FDC area, which increases vehicle trip lengths to this area from other areas of the City that do not have similar amenities and corresponding air pollutant and GHG emissions, as well as congestion on the roads leading to the FDC area. The traffic study prepared for the DE IR indicates that the baseline used assumes a 350 - bed hospital in the FDC; however, existing improvements already total 1.1 million square feet of buildings and supporting infrastructure. The traffic study assumes that in the future, 52 acres will be developed as public facilities and that it would generate only 434 average daily trips. Assuming a FAR of 0.25, this would support 566,000 square feet of development. A more appropriate trip generation rate would be Government Office Complex, which according to Trip Generation, 7th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Land Use 733, would generate 27.92 ADT per 1,000 square feet on weekdays, or 15,800 ADT for 566,000 square feet. The traffic study further assumes that 26 acres in the FDC will be developed as passive park use, generating only 49 trips per day. The City has indicated, however, that its interest in this area is for soccer fields and ball parks for private athletic club use. According to Trip Generation, 7th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Land Use 488, one soccer field generates ±71 weekday ADT, so 49 trips does not appear to be an accurate reflection of projected trip generation for these uses. Additionally, creating 26 acres of park and open space will require demolition some of the 1.1 million square feet of buildings and supporting infrastructure. The range of alternatives in the DEIR only considers the comparative effects of leaving certain areas of the City's land use designations unchanged, including one in which the FDC simply retains its institutional designation. In its scoping comments dated December 2, 2015, DGS requested that the City analyze an alternative that assumes a mixed density development plan for the FDC that takes advantage of the existing built infrastructure, the region's High -Quality Transit Areas (HQTA), and the planned development (consistent with SIB 82) to reduce per capita vehicle miles traveled and decrease per capita greenhouse gas emissions. The alternatives analysis presented in the DEIR does not acknowledge this suggested alternative, and the alternative analyzed in the DER that merely assumes a continued institutional use designation does not support the above goals. DGS reiterates its request for a good faith analysis of a more feasible and environmentally beneficial development alternative for the FDC. The state believes such a plan would better fulfill both the goals of the state for successful redevelopment of this area and the City's need for VMT, GHG, and air pollutant reductions. Exrellence in the business of Governmen[ 10.0-40 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata Ms. Minoo Ashabi -4- April 15, 2016 The Department desires to be a cooperative partner with the City in facilitating the implementation of a shared vision for future development of the FDC. We hope that the City will consider these comments in good faith and reevaluate both its proposed land use designations and resulting impacts analysis to better accommodate both the state's mandate to feasibly develop housing for developmentally disabled individuals and CEQA's mandate to analyze and disclose as accurately as possible the potential resulting impacts of proposed development. We would be happy to provide the City with any additional information it may require to improve its DEIR and proposed General Plan Update. We would also be pleased to meet and confer with the City prior to the issuance of the Final EIR to discuss our comments and suggestions for the FDC. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Sincerely, ROBERT W. MCKINNON Assistant Branch Chief Asset Management Branch Enclosures cc: Fariba Shahmirzadi, Assistant Deputy Director, Administrative Operations, Department of Developmental Services Marie W. Maddy, Chief, Facilities Planning and Support Section, Department of Development Services Excellence in the Business of Government Environmental Impact Report 10.0-41 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata ST,VfE O —CALIFORNIA STAIE TRANSPORTAY10N AUENCY EDMUND G. BROWN v ., DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 12 3347 MICHELSON DRIVE, SUITE 100 IRVINE, CA 92612-8894 PHONE (949) 724-2000 FAX (949) 724.2019 TTY 711 www.dot.ca.gov April 14, 2016 Ms. Minoo Ashabi Principal Planner 77 Fair Drive City of Costa Mesa Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Dear Ms. Ashabi: RM APR 16 2016 File: IGR/CEQA SCH#:2015111053 IGR Log #: 4573-A SR: 55, SR -73,1405 0 Serious Drought. Serious drought. Help save water! Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the City of Costa Mesa 2015-2035 General Plan Amendment Project. The City of Costa Mesa proposes the adoption of updates to Land Use, Circulation, Growth Management, Conservation, Noise, Safety, Historical & Cultural Resources, Community Design, and Open Space and Recreation Elements. The land use and Circulation Elements establish overall development capacity, serve as a policy guide for physical development and character, and provide for a balanced circulation system including "complete streets" and a bike master plan. Remaining elements updated for consistency with Land Use and Circulation Elements and to reflect current General Plan law. The 2015-2035 Plan will incorporate the Housing Element, which was previously adopted in January 2014 and is valid through 2021.The General Plan update will apply to all properties within the City of Costa Mesa and its sphere of influence. The planning area encompasses 15.7 square miles and has a total population of approximately 110, 000. The nearest State routes to the proposed sites are SR -55, SR -73 and 1- 405. Caltrans is a responsible and commenting agency on this project and has the following Comments: The DEIR does not include an analysis on the State facilities' mainlines (merge, diverge, weave and basic freeway) that are within the boundaries of the City of Costa Mesa. Please submit this analysis for our review and comments. As indicated in our previous letter dated December 7, 2015: "When analyzing impacts to the traffic on the Caltrans Transportation Facilities; note, that all Intersection Capacity Analysis conducted within Caltrans Right of Way shall be performed using the most recent Highway Capacity Manual Methodology. A Queue Analysis shall be conducted for the off -ramps to determine that traffic will not spill back to the Freeway Mainline." 2. The traffic analysis for Caltrans facilities should include, ramps, intersections, and the 95" percentile queues on the off -ramps and on the left -turn lanes to the on -ramps at the Provide a safe. sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California's economy and livability" 10.0-42 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata Ms. Minoo Ashabi April 14, 2016 Page 2 signalized intersections. Also, provide a table of summary to indicate if the off -ramp and left -turn vehicle storage lanes have sufficient vehicle storage lengths. 3. Please provide traffic movement diagrams for AM and PM peaks for all traffic conditions, including traffic movement diagrams of trip generations only for the Current and the Buildout of the General Plan. Traffic Study Page 2.2, Figure 2-1 and Page 3.19, Figure 3-4 Please explain the need for lane reduction on Newport Avenue segment south of 191h Street from a 7 -lane (7M) configuration of the Existing Roadway System condition to 6 -lane (6M) configuration for the Year 2035 Buildout Roadway System condition. Traffic Study- Page 2.3, Figure 2-2, Page 3.25 Figure 3-6 and Page 3.27 Figure 3-8 Please explain the reason for reduction of ADT volumes on Newport Avenue in the vicinity of 19`h Street comparing the Existing ADT Volumes with the 2035 Current General Plan ADT Volumes and Proposed General Plan ADT Volumes. For example, Newport Avenue north of 19" Street has 92,000 ADT volumes for the existing condition while 2035 Buildout condition will only have 55,000 ADT volumes; also, Newport Avenue south of 10 Street has 66,000 ADT and 79,000 ADT for the Existing condition while Buildout condition will only have 31,000 ADT and 44,000 ADT volumes. Please note that the Caltrans Highway Design Manual has been updated to include a new bicycle classification; Class IV Bikeways. Caltrans recommends to include this in Section 4.16 of the DEIR and Page C-15 of the Draft General Plan. Class IV — separated bikeways — Separated bikeways are for the exclusive use of bicycles and includes a separation required between the separated bikeway and the through vehicular traffic. The separation may include, but is not limited to, grade separation, flexible posts, inflexible physical barriers, or on -street parking. Please continue to keep us informed of this project and any future developments that could potentially impact State transportation facilities. If you have any questions or need to contact us, please do not hesitate to call Maryam Molavi at (949) 724-2241. Sincerely, MAUREEN EL HARAKE Branch Chief, Regional -Community -Transit Planning District 12 Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transpartaifon system in enhance California's economy and livabthty" Environmental Impact Report 10.0-43 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata COMMENT A-4 April 11, 2016 Via Electronic & Regular Mail m i noo.asha bi0costa mesaca.gov Minoo Ashabi, Principal Planner City of Costa Mesa Development Services Department 77 Fair Drive, P.O. Box 1200 Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1200 CITY OF PfFWPORTBEACH 106 Civic Cerner Drive Newport Seac h, Ca l iforn is 92560 949 644-3200 n au porrbeachr .govjcom m u n irydevalopm a nt Re: Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the City of Costa Mesa's Year 2015 - 2035 General Plan Dear Ms. Ashabi: Thank you of the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report {Draft EIR} for the City of Costa Mesa's Year 2015 - 2035 General Plan. The City of Newport Beach ("City") submits the comments below - The Circulation Element Page C-6 states that the "cut -and -cover approach" for the SR -55 extension "will not occur within the year 2035 planning horizon due to the significant costs and planning required". However, Page 4.16-27 in the Draft EIR shows that the 2035 Build -out Highway Network includes the four lane cut -and -cover freeway extension. In addition, Table 4.16-11 appears to show the cut -and -cover improvements as being included in the intersection analysis for the applicable intersections along Newport Boulevard. This needs to be clarified and consistent. If the cut -and -cover is feasible from a cost and planning perspective within the planning horizon, this needs to be fully explained. In the Circulation Element Page C-13, there are several roadway downgrades being proposed - Will the City of Costa Mesa request that the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) initiate the Master Pian of Arterial Highways (MPAH) Amendment process for these roadways? Will there be cooperative studies prepared for the amendments that include the adjacent stakeholder jurisdictions? In particular, Newport Beach is interested in the West 17th Street Downgrade, the East 22nd Street Downgrade, and the proposed Bluff Road Deletion - When the 19th Street Bridge study was completed, there were intersections identified as deficient in Costa Mesa. Are the recommended improvements in that study included in the Circulation Element or elsewhere in the General Plan? Good luck on your General Plan update and please feel free to contact me at (949) 644-3232 or PAlford0newnortbeachca-Dov if you have any questions - 10.0 -44 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata Sincerely, Patrick J. Alford Planning Program Manager cc: David Kiff, City Manager Kimberly Brandt, Community Development Director Brenda Wisneski, Deputy Community Development Director Environmental Impact Report 10.0-45 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata COMMENT A-5 IRS LOCH WATER DISTRICT 1560D Sand Canyon Ave., P.O. Box 57000, Irvine, CA 92619-7000 (949) 458-5300 April 14, 2016 Minoo Ashabi Principal Planner City of Costa Mesa Development Services Department 77 Fair Drive, P.O. Box 1200 Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1200 Re: Draft Environmental Impact Report for Costa Mesa's Year 2015-2035 General Plan Dear Minoo Ashabi: Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) has received and reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the City of Costa Mesa's 2015-2035 General Plan. IRWD offers the following comments. The DEIR page 4.17-2 should be revised to 'indicate that IRWD encompasses approximately 115,5 31 acres or 181 square miles in south-central Orange County. IRWD serves all of the City of Irvine and portions of Tustin, Santa Ana, Newport Beach, Lake Forest, Costa Mesa, Orange and unincorporated areas of Orange County. In 1997, IRWD began providing water service to the Santa Ana Heights community. IRWD serves a population of 380,000 and provides water to approximately 110,000 domestic connections, which includes residential, commercial, industrial, fire protection, public authorities, construction, landscape irrigation and agricultural users. For fiscal year 2013-2014, IRWD delivered 63,834 acre-feet of treated (potable) water, 2,665 acre- feet of untreated (non -potable) water and 31,932 acre-feet of recycled water for a total of 98,431 acre-feet. The DEIR page 4.17-3 should also be revised to indicate that approximately 23 percent of IRWD's water is purchased from MWD. This imported water comes from the Colorado River via the Colorado River Aqueduct and Northern California via the State Water Project. The remaining 77 percent of the supply comes from local groundwater wells. To alleviate its dependency of imported water, in 1979 IRWD began to develop a series of local wells called the Dyer Road Well Field Project. These wells, ranging from 400 to 1,200 feet in depth, extract high quality water from the Orange County Groundwater Basin. This groundwater now accounts for 77 percent of IRWD's total potable water supply. Additionally on page 4.17-3, the DEIR discusses the Water Resources Master Plan (WRMP). While WRMPs are important, they are not updated often which may result in outdated information. IRWD conducts additional analysis, Water Supply Assessments (WSAs), for specific projects or areas and they are updated more frequently that WRMPs. For sections of the 10.0-46 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata Minoo Ashabi Comment Letter Page 2 April 14, 2016 DEIR that discuss future groundwater supply and imports, IRWD recommends the City of Costa Mesa use the information presented in the most recent WSA, completed earlier this month. A copy of the most recent WSA completed is attached for your reference. Please contact IRWD's Planning Division at (949) 453-5300 for questions regarding WSAs. The DEIR on page 4.17-4 should be revised to indicate that IRWD's San Joaquin Reservoir was converted from potable use to recycled water in late 2004. Finally, on page 4.17-9 the DEIR should reflect that IRWD's 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) applies to the Santa Ana Heights area of Costa Mesa, IRWD, like Mesa Consolidated Water District, updates its UWMP every five years and is in the process of preparing its 2015 UWMP. IRWD's 2015 UWMP is scheduled for adoption in June 2016 and will be submitted to the Department of Water Resources by the July 1, 2016 deadline. Thank you for the opportunity to review this ISIMND. Please contact either the undersigned at (949) 453-5325 or Jo Ann Corey, Engineering Technician 111, at (949) 453-5326 if you have any questions, Sincerely, / Fiona M. Sanchez Director of Water Resources Attachment — Water Supply Assessment cc: Eric Akiyoshi, IRWD Jo Ann Corey, IRWD Environmental Impact Report 10.0-47 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata ORANGE I COUNTY April 14, 2016 AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION FOR ORANGE COUNTY 3160 Airway Avenue • Costa Mesa, California 92626 - 949.252.5170 fax: 949.252.6012 Minoo Ashabi, Principal Planner City of Costa Mesa — Development Services 77 Fair Drive, P.O. Box 1200 Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1200 Subject: DEIR for the City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment (2015-2035) Dear Ms. Ashabi: Thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment in the context of the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AEL UP) for John Wayne Airport (JWA). We wish to offer the following comments and respectfully request consideration of these comments as you proceed with your DEIR and General Plan (GP) Amendment. The City of Costa Mesa is located within the AELUP Notification Area for JWA. The DEIR and GP should address height restrictions and imaginary surfaces by discussing Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77 as the criteria for determining height restrictions for projects located within the airport planning area. To ensure the safe operation of aircraft activity at JWA, structures anywhere in the JWA airport planning area should not exceed the applicable elevations defined in FAR Part 77 (Objects Affecting Navigable Air Space). We recommend that the General Plan should include height policy language and a mitigation measure in the E1R that states that no new buildings will be allowed to penetrate the FAR Part 77 imaginary surfaces for JWA to ensure the protection of its airspace. Within the proposed Land Use Element, it states that the FAA standard that is of most concern in Costa Mesa is the horizontal surface for JWA. The General Plan references the old standard of 203.68 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) as the horizontal surface for JWA, but that figure should be updated to 206 feet AMSL. Also with respect to building heights, development proposals within the City, which include the construction or alteration of structures more than 200 feet above ground level, require filing with the FAA and Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) notification. Projects meeting this threshold must comply with procedures provided by Federal and State law, and with all conditions of approval imposed or recommended by FAA and ALUC including filing a Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration (FAA Form 7460-1). Depending on the maximum building heights that will be allowed within the General Plan, the City may wish to consider a mitigation and condition of approval specifying this 200 feet above ground level height threshold. In addition, any project that penetrates the Notification Surface for JWA is required to file FAA 10.0-48 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata ALUC Comments- DEIR Costa Mesa GP Update April W.20[6 page 2 Form 7460-1. The proposed Land Use Element (on page LU -18) discusses the threshold stated above but, instead of referring to filing FAA Form 7460-1 Notice of Construction and Alteration, the Land Use Element refers to filing a Notice of Landing Area Proposal (Form 7480-1) which is specific to heliports. Portions of the City of Costa Mesa fall within the 60 and 65 dB(A) CNEL noise contours for JWA. The DEIR and GP Update should include policies and mitigations for development within these contours, especially if residential development is considered. Per the AELUP for JWA, all residential units within the 65 dB CNEL contour are typically inconsistent in this area unless it can be shown conclusively that such units are sufficiently sound attenuated for present and projected noise exposure so as not to exceed an interior standard of 45 dB CNEL. However, the ALUC recommends that residential uses not be permitted within the 65 dB CNEL contour. As for residential development within the 60 dB CNEL contour, the ALUC may not find residential units incompatible in this area, but would strongly recommend that residential units be limited or excluded from this area unless sufficiently sound attenuated not to exceed an interior level of 45 dB. We appreciate that the proposed Land Use Element addresses consistency with the AELUP for Heliports by including the following language to your GP Update: "The City will ensure that development proposals including the construction or operation of a heliport or helistop comply fully with permit procedures under State law, including referral of the project to the ALUC by the applicant, and with all conditions of approval imposed or recommended by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), ALUC, and Caltrans, including the filing of a Form 7480-1 (Notice of Landing Area Proposal) with the FAA. This requirement shall be in addition to all other City development requirements." Section 21676(b) of the PUC requires that prior to the amendment of a general plan or specific plan, or the adoption or approval of a zoning ordinance or building regulation within the planning boundary established by the Airport Land Use Commission pursuant to Section 21675, the local agency shall first refer the proposed action to the ALUC. To ensure land use compatibility with JWA, we recommend that the City include policy in its General Plan and a mitigation measure in the EIR, that states that the City shall refer projects to the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for Orange County as required by Section 21676 of the California Public Utilities Code to determine consistency of projects with the AELUP for JWA. With respect to project submittals, please note that the Commission wants such referrals to be submitted to the ALUC for a determination, between the Local Agency's expected Planning Commission and City Council hearings. Since the ALUC meets on the third Thursday afternoon of each month, submittals must be received in the ALUC office by the first of the month to ensure sufficient time for review, analysis, and agendizing. Environmental Impact Report 10.0-49 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata ALt'C Commcnls-DEIR Costa Mesa GP Amendment April 14. 2016 Page 3 Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on the DEIR, Please contact Lea Choum at (949) 252-5123 or via email at lchoum a,ocair.com should any questions arise. Sincerely, Kari A. Rigour Executive Officer 10.0-50 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment COMMENT A-7 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata BOARD QF DIRECTORS April 18, 2016 LOri (7o+uhak Chair Aa"'r'a`'"e ,- a Sar WCeC Ms Minoo Ashabi, Principal Planner City of Costa Mesa usaa.earr oir¢cror Development Services Department 77 Fair Drive, P.O Box 1200 `r'dfeVDa Direcrar Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1200 sre"o Jonea Diryc,o, Subject: Environmental Impact Report for the City of Costa Mesa's Year 2015- 2035 General Plan Jim Kafapods D[r2ctor Dear Ms, Ashabi: AfflOy LaUorvay Dwector The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) has reviewed the above referenced Gary A. A0101 of -1c to. document. The following comments are provided for your consideration: R'4'°`�° Drrecror In February 2015, the OCTA Board of Directors approved the 2016 Bus Service Plan (Link: http:/Ywww.octa.netipdf/FINAL 2016 SERVICE CHANGE.pdf). This plan will - 5hawr, Nelson orrermr reallocate bus service with the intention of increasing ridership. Z r.,iguaFu;;d° Dlrearar Under Chapter 3: Circulation Element, Figure C-8: Transit Corridors on page C-29 'rim provides a map with the existing OCTA bus service by service type. Please include the ana" Direcror OCTA bus route numbers on the map, as well as, reflect the upcoming changes as provided in the aforementioned 2016 Bus Service Plan. Todd Spitzer D"PUor Though the General Plan under "Goal C-4: Promote Transportation Demand D irm;tet or of Management, Transit, and Efficiency" under Policy C-4.6.8 on Page C-41 indicates that 2 the City will work with OCTA to improve transit services, OCTA does not have sufficient T n Tarr DirB;:tnr revenue to increase bus service levels. If there is additional new revenue in the future, these resources will be allocated to bus service that meets OCTA's service criteria, F,arrk Uy Dia,aor including: sustaining ridership and increasing transit usage. GreporyT- Winterbottom Dire= for If you have any questions or comments, please contact me by phone at (714) 560-5907 or by.email at d hu octa.net. Ryan chamb,"'ram �%O1w17Q t1iCIP1iEf Sincerely, ailFFEXECUT1VFOFF;CE �� DamcfF Johnson Chief Executive Olh'cer Dan Phu - Manager, Environmental Programs Orange County Transportation Authority 550 Soutar Main Street/P.0. Box 141841Orarnge l4: alh`ornia 92863-15841(714) 560 -OCTA (6282 Environmental Impact Report 10.0-51 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata MAYOR Miguel A. Pulido MAYOR PRO TEM JL, 7: Td Vicente Sarmiento ff COUNCILMEMBERS Angelica Amezcua e P. David Benavides Michele Martinez Roman Reyna Sal Tinajerc CITY OF SANTA ANA PLANNING & BUILDING AGENCY 20 Civic Center Plaza P.O. Box 1988 • Santa Ana, California 92702 www.santa-ana.org/pba April 18, 2016 Minoo Ashabi , Principal Planner City of Costa Mesa Development Services Department 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92628 CITY MANAGER David Cavazos CITY ATTORNEY Sonia R. Carvalho CLERK OF THE COUNCIL Maria D. Huizar Subject: City of Costa Mesa 2015 to 2035 General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report. SCH# 2015111068 Dear Ms. Ashabi: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the 2015 to 2035 General Plan Update. Reviewing the proposal for the new General update, there are several similarities to those that the City of Santa Ana is envisioning with our General Plan update, especially those along the corridors that connect both cities. The proposal to Increa-e Tensity and construct mixed developments along major arterial strer ,_,.I of neighboring cities working together to address the concerns of the future, The City of Santa Ana has a few comments regarding concerns that may arise as future development is established. These concerns are regarding how we address landscaping and public transit measures. • We would like to encourage the use of drought tolerant landscaping with the construction of future development. Please include language regarding water consumption practices through alternate landscaping designs and materials in the General Plan Update. 10.0-52 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata City of Costa Mesa General Plan Update 2015-2035 • Please include collaboration measures between The Orange County Transit Authority (OCTA) and the City of Costa Mesa to help reduce daily trips and promote mass transit travel from the new residential projects, as well as the possibility of increasing points of access to the mass transit connections or stations within those project locations. We would like to express that the need for open space is imperative. The preservation of existing open space, like the Orange County Fairgrounds, can guarantee a better quality of life for residents and visitors. Additionally, places like the Fairgrounds create options for groups of diverse backgrounds and ages to promote community activities and participation. We hope that in the process of establishing the updated General Plan, the Fairgrounds are preserved. We look forward to the review of the Response to Comments, as well as any updates as the project progresses. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at (714) 667-2763 or at iorozco@santa-ana.org. Sincerely, Ivan Orozco Assistant Planner io: IOlcorrespondencerCosPaMesa GeneralPlan Updale2015.doex C: Hally Soboleske, Associate Planner Candida Neal, Planning Manager Environmental Impact Report 10.0-53 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata COMMENT 0-1 Cosh Mesa Affordable Housing Coalition April 18, 20 16 Chair Robert I.. Dickson, Jr. and Planning Conunission Members City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 RE: Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for 2015-2035 General Plan Dear Chair Dickson and Planning Commission Members: The Costa Mesa Affordable Housing Coalition (the Coalition) believes the DEIR is seriously deficient: It fails to report accurately and fully the negative impacts certain proposed General Plan amendments will have on the already meager supply of affordable housing available to lower income residents of our city. Specifically, the Coalition believes the proposed `residential incentive overlays" for Harbor Boulevard and Newport Boulevard (collectively, the motel zone overlays) will lead to the massive displacement of lower income motel residents. Moreover, the DF IH ignores this expected adverse impact, mischaracterizing the impact as "less than significant" and thus not requiring the eonslntclion of replacement housing. This City must correct this significant error in the "Population/Housing" section of the DEIR_ The City Council majority has been very clear about its intentions int regard to the proposed motel zone overlays. Repeatedly, the Council majority has expressed the (tope these overlays will "incentivize" a change of use in the motel properties located along Harbor Boulevard and Newport Boulevard which serve as last resort housing for Costa Mesa's poor. As the City well knows, these motels, collectively consisting of 789 rooms, have become a significant source of do facto affordable housing in Costa Mesa bceattse there is such a dearth of affordable housing available for lower income households. Disregarding the housing needs of lower income motel residents, the City Council majority has proposed the motel •none overlays as a way to lure motel owners into converting their properties from their current use as de facto affordable housing into a new use: market rate, high density housing for upper income residents. Of course, virtually none of the current motel residents could afford to rent these new market rate apartments. Consequently, the conversion of motels into market rate apartments would necessarily displace hundreds, perhaps thousands of lower income motel residents. Moreover, because Costa Mesa has almost no affordable housing for these residents to move into, it is highly likely this massive displacement of motel residents wi11 result in increased homelessness and overcrowding in the City, as well as the forced migration of motel residents from Costa Mesa to find affordable housing elsewhere. To mitigate this severe adverse impact, the Coalition has asked the City to include in the motel zone overlays a requirement that 20% of the new apartments be affordable to low and very low income residents_ the Council, however, has not acted on (his request. Consequently, if the Pew 7 of 3 10.0-54 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata motel zone overlays are adopted as currently proposed, motel residents will be displaced on a 12 massive scale as motel owners take advantage of the lucrative "residential incentive" offered by the City. In a stunning denial of this reality, the DEIR states as findings under Population Housing Impacts 4.13.13 and 4.13.0 that the proposed motel zone overlays will have "less than significant" impact, will not `result in the displacement of suhstantial numbers of people," and 3 will not necessitate "the constriction of replacement housing elsewhere." (1)i -a t EIR, 4.13-8 - 4.13-10) These defective findings flow from three "pie in the sky" assumptions (fictions, really) set forth in Impacts 4.13.B and 4.13. C. Firtinn #1 The DEIR states the hoped-for conversion of motels into market rate apartments will not result in a net loss of affordable housing because the increased densities offered in the city (40 units per acre in motel zone overlays, 80 units per acre in Sakioka Lot 2) will necessarily result in the construction of new affordable housing. What is the basis of this finding? The LlElR blithely assumes affordable housing will be constructed because "the City would have zoning in place to accommodate housing for lower-income households." (DEIR, 4.13-9) The fallacy in this reasoning is readily apparent from the recent example of the Costa Mesa Motor inn. With the City's encouragement and blessing, this 236 -room motel will be demolished and replaced by new market rate apartments at a density of 54 units per acre. Of the 224 new units, not a single unit will be affordable to lower income households. Clearly, the mere fact the allowable density will "ace ommcxfate" lower income housing is no guarantee any of the resulting housing will actually be lower income housing. Unless the City requires a percentage of new units to be affordable to lower income families, the motel zone overlays will result in no new affordable hauling and, instead, will cause a dramatic loss of affordable housing - Fiction #2 The DEIR states the "likelihood that motels being used as housing would be removed is speculative, and ... the potential for a `substantial number of people' being displaced is speculative." --(DEIR, 4.13-9-10) This statement is almost laughable. It ignores the fact the City is creating the motel zone overlays precisely because the Council majority believes the overlays will result in the conversion of motels intro market rate apartments—a goal the majority has long sought. Moreover, the statement ignores the powerful nature of the incentive offered. Again, the Costa Mesa Motor Inn stands as a cautionary example_ 'llie City's of%r to allow the motel owner to build high density market rate apartments (at 54 units per acre) in a commercial zone was an irresistible financial windfall for the property owner. The Costa Mesa Motor Inn owner jumped at die opportunity. The other motel owners in the city are no less savvy tltan the owner of the Costa Mesa Motor lin. Consequently, the fallowing doomsday scenario is entirely predictable, not speculative: If the City adopts the motel zone overlays as proposed, with their supercharged financial incentive for converting motel properties into high density, market rale apartments, the City will lose a significant existing supply of de facto affordable housing. In fact, the City could eventually lose Page 2 of 3 Environmental Impact Report 10.0-55 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata all 789 rooms. That loss would be catastrophic For the City's lower income households who rely 5 on motels as fast resort housing. Fiction #3 The final bit of magical thinking in the DEIR is that private social services agencies operating in the City (including IIOP E Institute, Iluman Options, Orange Coast Interfaith Shelter, Serving People in Necd Share Our Selves, Mercy Housing, Families Forward) will be able to meet the housing needs of displaced motel residents. Strikingly, the DEIR fails to include any discussion of the actual services these groups provide or any analysis of their ability to house the hundreds or thousands of motel residents who could be displaced if motels close and are replaced with market rate apartments. The undeniable truth is that there is no existing supply of available affordable housing in Costa Mesa that can accommodate the hundreds of households living in motels today. The need for afrordable housing in our community is undeniable. Costa Mesa must act to encourage the construction of new affordable housing. Until such housing is created, the City should do nothing to accelerate the loss of existing affordable homes. But accelerating loss is exactly what the proposed motel zone overlays will do— the zones will make nearly 800 existing affordable homes vanish. '1'here is nothing Fictional or speculative about that. The City should correct the DEIR so everyone in Costa Mesa knows what is really at stake in this decision on the General [']an amendmenLs. Sincerely, Kathy Esfahani For The Costa Mesa Affordable Housing Coalition Pew 3of3 10.0-56 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata COMMENT 0-2 April 6, 2016 Lisa Sabo, President Orange County Fairgrounds Preservation Society PO Box 4155 Orange, CA 92863 Minoo Ashabi, Principal Planner City of Costa Mesa — Development Services Department 77 Fair Drive, P.O. Sox 120o Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1200 Re: Draft Environmental Impact Report for the 2015-2035 General Plan March 4, 2016, State Clearinghouse No. 2015111068 Dear Ms. Ashahi, The Orange County Fairgrounds Presen ation Society (OCFPS) is submitting comments with regards to the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the 2015-2035 General Plan March 4, 2o16, State Clearinghouse No. 2015111o68 OCFPS is a group of stakeholders including businesses and community members, of the 32' District Agricultural Association (32°' DAA), more commonly known as the Orange County Fairgrounds and Orange County Fair and Event Center. In 2ox2, OCFPS reached as settlement agreement regarding the continued operation of the Pacific Amphitheatre located on the 32-"' DAA property (2o12 Pao Amp Settlement Agreement). The 2012 Pac Amp Settlement Agreement included existing noise standards, required the hiring and usage of a qualified sound monitor for all events in the Pacific Amphitheatre and required that all users of the Pacific Amphitheatre and talent be contractually obligated to obey the noise limits and directions of the qualified sound monitor. In Section 4 Environmental Impact Analysis, Noise 4.12, noise limits imposed by the terms of the 1990 Order are incorporated as part of the above referenced draft EIR. OCFPS requests that the entire agreement 2012 Pacific Ampitheatre Settlement Agreement be incorporated in the above referenced draft EIR. A copy of the 2012 Pacific Ampitheatre Settlement Agreement is attached to this document. Sincer ly,r� Asa Sabo OCFPS President Environmental Impact Report 10.0-57 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE AGREEMENT ORANGE COUNTY FAIRGROUNDS PRESERVATION SOCIETY vs. 32ND DISTRICT AGRICULTURAL ASSOCIATION, a public agency, (Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 30-2012.00538751) This Settlement and Release Agreement ("Agreement") is being made by and among the following Parties: (1) Orange County Fairgrounds Preservation Society ("SOCIETY") and (2) 32nd District Agricultural Association, a California public agency ("ASSOCIATION"). SOCIETY and ASSOCIATION may be referred to herein individually as a "Party" or collectively as "Parties." 1. BACKGROUND RECITALS 1.1 ASSOCIATION is a California state institution that operates the Orange County Fairgrounds. 1.2 SOCIETY is a California non-profit corporation organized to preserve the Orange County Fairgrounds as a valuable public asset consistent with the rights of the surrounding residents of the City of Costa Mesa, 1.3 As part of the operation of the Orange County Fairgrounds, the ASSOCIATION adopted a Master Plan for the Development of the Fairgrounds (the "Master Plan"). In the fall of 2011, the Board of Directors of the ASSOCIATION approved the initiation of a planning process for the implementation of the Master Plan with respect to the Pacific Amphitheater providing for the reengineering of the berm, the relocation of the main entry north of the existing entry and the creation of paved multi-purpose areas in the space created by the reengineered berm (the "Project"). The proposed extent of the Project is described in Exhibit A. IA The parties are in disagreement with respect to whether the initiation of the planning process amounted to a project within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act. 1.5 On December 15, 2011, the Board of Directors of the ASSOCIATION elected to treat the implementation of the Pacific Amphitheater improvements as a project under CEQA, reconsidering its previous action and approved proceeding with the design of Project. 1.6 On December 21, 2011, the ASSOCIATION filed a Notice of Determination with respect to the Project. 1.7 In the past there have been disputes among the ASSOCIATION, operators of the Pacific Amphitheater and homeowners living in adjacent neighborhoods with respect to the appropriate noise level standards that should apply to events at the Pacific Amphitheater. 1.8 In 1980, the City of Costa Mesa and the ASSOCIATION entered into a settlement agreement that, among other things, addressed noise related issues in residential zones. Settlement and Release Agreement 1 10.0-58 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata 1.9 In 1990, the court in the matter of Concerned Citizens of Costa Mesa, Inc. v. 32nd District Agricultural Association (Orange County Superior Court No. 42 07 28 and 55 65 08) established certain stair step sound level standards applicable to events at the Pacific Amphitheater. 1.10 Since 2003, when the ASSOCIATION commenced conducting events in the Pacific Amphitheater, the ASSOCIATION has employed a sound monitor (the "Sound Monitor") to monitor sound levels during Pacific Amphitheater events in the adjacent neighborhoods to ensure compliance with the Sound Level Standard. Since that time, very few complaints about noise from the Pacific Amphitheater have been received and all were resolved by the Sound Monitor by requiring the noise Ievels to be adjusted. 1.11 On January 20, 2012, SOCIETY filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate challenging the Project under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), Public Resources Code, Sections 21000 et seq., naming the ASSOCIATION as Respondent. the civil proceeding is known as Orange County Fairgrounds Preservation Society v. 32nd District Agricultural Association, a public agency, (Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 30-2012-00538751) ("Pacific Amphitheater Action"). That matter is now pending before Judge John C. Gastelum in Department C 09. 1.12 SOCIETY and ASSOCIATION desire to settle the Pacific Amphitheater Action once and for all in order to avoid the expense and delay of litigation and without any admission of liability. 1.13 The specific terms and conditions of this Agreement, as set forth in detail below, are a compromise and do not necessarily reflect the Parties' views of what may be required under CEQA or other laws. 1.14 Before executing this Agreement, each of the Parties consulted with separate, independent attorneys of their own respective choosing in order to review the terms and provisions of this Agreement and to satisfy themselves that executing it is in their respective best interests. Against this background and for a valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is now acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows: 2. OBLIGATIONS OF THE PARTIES 2.1 Obligations of ASSOCIATION 2.1.1 Marketing/Notice of Complaint System. The ASSOCIATION will maintain a complaint system both by telephone and internet which accepts and monitors complaints arising out of Pacific Amphitheater operations and promptly refers those complaints to the persons authorized to take remedial actions on the complaints. For sound complaints for an event at the Pacific Amphitheater, this referral shall be substantially immediate. The ASSOCIATION shall include advisements of contact information for the complaint system in its mailings to the nearby residential community including College Park, Mesa Del Mar and any other residential areas which may be Settlement and Release Agreement 2 Environmental Impact Report 10.0-59 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata substantially impacted by operation of the Pacific Amphitheater and shall post the complaint system and contact information on its website. 2.1.2 Construction of Improvements. The ASSOCIATION shall cause improvements to the Pacific Amphitheater to be in compliance with the Master Plan which was the subject of the EIR Certified on August 23, 2003, The ASSOCIATION agrees that the Project shall be designed so that the sound attenuation aspects of the Pacific Amphitheater shall be at least as effective as the current configuration. Upon completion of the Project, the ASSOCIATION shall conduct appropriate analysis to confirm that this design standard has been met. The Parties agree that the Project as defined herein is consistent with the Master Plan. Any further changes to the Project or the Pacific Amphitheater shall be reviewed as required by law. The ASSOCIATION shall continue to study sound attenuation for the Pacific Amphitheater in connection with any further improvements to the Pacific Amphitheater and shall incorporate improvements and methods of operation which reasonably reduce sound levels reaching the residential neighborhoods from the Pacific Amphitheater at the discretion of the ASSOCIATION. 2.1.3 Sound Limits for Events at the Pacific Amphitheater. The residential zones sound level standards and limits applicable to the Pacific Amphitheater shall be as follows (the "Pac Amp Sound Level Standards"): (a) Pacific Amphitheater Events During the Fair Season. For the purposes of this Agreement the term "Fair Season" shall mean one week prior to and one week following the state approved schedule for the Orange County Fair. Sound Level Standards Sound Level Time Period Day of Week 55 dB(A) 07:00 a.m. — 10:30 p.m. Sun. — Thur. 50 dB(A) 10:30 p.m. — 07:00 a.m. Sun. — Thur. 55 dB(A) 07:00 a.m. — 11:00 p.m. Fri. — Sat. 50 dB(A) 11:00 p.m. — 07:00 a.m. Fri. — Sat. (b) Events Outside of the Fair Season Sound Level Standards Sound Level Time Period Day of Week 50 dB(A) 07:00 a.m. — 10:30 p.m. Sun. — Thur. 45 dB(A) 10:30 p.m. — 07:00 a.m. Sun. — Thur. 50 dB(A) 07:00 a.m. — 11:00 p.m. Fri. — Sat. Settlement and Release Agreement 3 10.0-60 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata 50 dB(A) 11:00 p.m. — 07:00 a.m. Fri. — Sat. The sound levels emanating from the Pacific Amphitheaters shall not exceed: 1. The applicable Sound Level Standard for a cumulative period of more than thirty (30) minutes in any hour; or 2. The applicable Sound Level Standard plus five (5) dB(A) for a cumulative period of more than fifteen (15) minutes in any hour; or 3. The applicable Sound Level Standard plus ten (10) dB(A) for a cumulative period of more than five (5) minutes in any hour; or 4. The applicable Sound Level Standard plus fifteen (15) dB(A) for a cumulative period of more than one (1) minutes in any hour; or 5. The applicable Sound Level Standard plus twenty (20) dB(A) for any period of time. In the event the ambient noise level exceeds any of the first four sound limit categories set forth above, the cumulative period applicable to the category shall be increased to reflect the ambient noise level. In the event the ambient sound level exceeds the fifth sound level category, the maximum allowable sound level shall be increased to the reflect the ambient noise level. 2.1.4 Sound Level Monitoring. The ASSOCIATION shall monitor compliance with the Pac Amp Sound Standard as follows: (a) The ASSOCIATION shall employ a sound professional or professionals (the "Monitor") to monitor sound levels in the surrounding residential neighborhoods during all Pacific Amphitheater events. The Monitor shall have the authority to require the sound system in the Pacific Amphitheater to be adjusted in order to comply with the Pac Amp Sound Level Standard. Prior to the first seasonal event at the Pacific Amphitheater utilizing amplified speech or music, the Monitor shall calibrate the sound system in order to comply with the Pac Amp Sound Level Standard. (b) The monitoring to be conducted shall consist of aural observations and periodic readings from sound level meters. In the event the Monitor determines that the sound levels observed or measured exceed the Pac Amp Sound Standard in the Monitor's professional opinion, the Monitor shall cause the sound equipment within the Pacific Amphitheater to be adjusted in order to meet the Pac Amp Sound Standard. (c) In the event of a noise complaint received from a residential neighborhood during a Pacific Amphitheater event, the Monitor shall proceed to the location of the residence from which the complaint was received and shall reasonably Settlement and Release Agreement 4 Environmental Impact Report 10.0-61 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata promptly cause the sound equipment within the Pacific Amphitheater to be adjusted in order to conform to the Pae Amp Sound Level Standard if necessary. (d) In the event SOCIETY believes that the Pac Amp Sound Level Standard is not being met, the SOCIETY may request and, if so requested, Monitor shall conduct a noise level analysis (the "Compliance Analysis") at the location specified in the courts order in the case of Concerned Citizens of Costa Mesa, Inc. v. 32nd District Agricultural Association (Orange County Superior Court No, 42 07 28 and 55 65 08), 947 Serra Way, Costa Mesa, CA. The SOCIETY shall be advised of the time and place of the Compliance Analysis, which shall occur during the next performance at the Pacific Amphitheater, and shall have the opportunity to attend and observe the Compliance Analysis. In the event the Monitor determines that no violation of the Pac Amp Sound Level Standard is occurring and SOCIETY makes a subsequent demand for a Compliance Analysis during the same Fair Season that also demonstrates that no violation of the Fac Amp Sound Standard is occurring, SOCIETY shall reimburse the ASSOCIATION for the cost of any such subsequent Compliance Analysis in the amount of One Thousand Dollars ($1,000). 2.1.5 Compliance Riders and Monitoring. The ASSOCIATION shall not permit any event at the Pacific Amphitheater unless the persons staging and putting on the event have agreed to comply with this Agreement and the directions of the Sound Level Monitor, The ASSOCIATION shall cause any event at the Pacific Amphitheater involving amplified speech or music to be in compliance with this Agreement at its expense. This compliance effort shall include, but is not limited to, employment of the Monitor to evaluate sound levels in the adjacent neighborhoods during events at the Pacific Amphitheater and to respond to complaints as provided in Section 2.1.4.. Any complaints and all related sound level meter recordings shall be retained, noted and summarized in a report as to the number, the observed or sound level recorded, if any, and location of any complaints and compliance with this Agreement within 30 days after each event at the Pacific Amphitheater. The complaints, the record of the sound level meter recordings, and reports shall be public records of the ASSOCIATION, open for public inspection upon request, and maintained by the ASSOCIATION as required by law as a public records. 2.1.6 Avoidance of Simultaneous Events. Excluding events during the Fair, Pacific Amphitheater events shall not be scheduled during peak traffic hours or within one hour of the commencement or completion of another independent event on the Fairgrounds with a forecasted attendance of 10,000 persons or more. 2.1.7 Costs and Fees. The ASSOCIATION shall pay the Richard Spix, counsel for the SOCIETY, the sum of $7,500.00 as costs and fees. 2.2 Obligations of Petitioner SOCIETY 2.2.1 Dismissal of Pacific Amphitheater Action. Not more than five (5) days after SOCIETY's attorney's receipt of the payments referenced above in Paragraph 2.1.7, SOCIETY shall cause a Request for Dismissal to be filed with the Orange Superior Court Settlement and Release Agreement 5 10.0-62 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata in the Pacific Amphitheater Action, requesting the Court dismiss the Pacific Amphitheater Action in its entirety as to all parties with prejudice. Upon his receipt of a conformed copy of the Request for Dismissal and entry of Dismissal from the Court, SOCIETY'S attorney shall provide a copy of the same to ASSOCIATION. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, ASSOCIATION's actual disbursement of the amounts referenced above in Paragraph 2.1.7 to SOCIETY'S attorney is and shall be an express condition precedent to their filing of the Request for Dismissal. 3. GENERAL PROVISIONS 3.1 Reliance on Representations/Warranties. Each representation and warranty made in this Agreement by any of the Parties has substantially induced the other Parties to enter into this Agreement. Each Party acknowledges and affirms that the other Parties are entitled to rely on that Party's representations and warranties without independent verification and that such reliance is reasonable under the circumstances of this Agreement. 3.2 Integration. This Agreement, including its Exhibit, which are integral and essential parts of the Agreement, constitutes and contains the entire agreement and understanding between the Parties concerning the subject matter of this Agreement. Unless otherwise expressly stated herein, this Agreement supersedes and replaces all prior negotiations and all agreements, proposed or otherwise, whether written or oral, concerning its subject matter. Notwithstanding the foregoing, except to the extent expressly provided in this Agreement, no other agreement or policy adopted or entered into by the ASSOCIATION is intended to be modified in any way. This Agreement shall be given independent vitality notwithstanding any other agreement or policy adopted or entered into by the ASSOCIATION. 3.3 Cooperation. The Parties shall cooperate in performing their obligations under this Agreement, execute all supplementary documents that may be required or convenient to the fulfillment of their obligations, and take all additional actions that may be necessary or appropriate to give full force and effect to the terms and conditions of this Agreement and that are not inconsistent with such terms and conditions. Each Party, diligently and in good faith, shall undertake all actions and procedures reasonably required to carry out the purpose and intent of this Agreement. 3.4 Notices. Any and all notices or other communications required or permitted by this Agreement or by law to be served on or given to any of the Parties shall, unless otherwise required by law, be in writing and be deemed duly served and given (a) when personally delivered to the Party to whom it is directed; or (b) when deposited with the United States Postal Service and sent via certified mail (return receipt requested), first-class postage prepaid. The following addresses shall be used for any and all notices: For Orange County Preservation Society Richard L. Spix The Law Offices of Spix and Martin 1505 East 17th Street, Suite 230 Santa Ana, California 926705 For 32nd District Agricultural Association Roger A. Grable Settlement and Release Agreement 6 Environmental Impact Report 10.0-63 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP 695 Town Center Drive, 14th Floor Costa Mesa, California 92626 However, any Party may change the address to which notices or other communications are to be given under this Agreement by sending a notice of the change to the other Parties at their last address to have been designated under this Agreement. 3.5 Mutual Drafting, Use of Titles. The Parties participated equally in negotiating and drafting this Agreement, and nothing in it shall be construed against any particular Party on the basis that this Agreement was drafted by that Party. Headings and titles are used throughout this Agreement solely for the convenience of the Parties and are not an integral part of it. 3.6 Severability. If any term, condition, or application of this Agreement is held to be invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the Agreement's other terms, conditions, or applications that can be given effect without the invalid term, condition, or application. To this end, the Agreement is declared to be severable. 3.7 Waiver/Modification/Remedy Selection. No forbearance of enforcement or waiver of any breach of any term or condition of this Agreement shall be, nor shall it be construed to be, a waiver of any other breach of this Agreement, and no waiver shall be binding unless made in writing and signed by the Party waiving the breach. No change in the terms or conditions of this Agreement shall have any force or effect unless expressed in a writing signed by the Parties. A Party's pursuit or enforcement of fewer than all available remedies in the event of any breach or default under this Agreement shall not preclude that Party from pursuing or enforcing other or all available remedies in the event of any other breach or default under this Agreement unless otherwise prohibited by law. 3.8 Persons/Entities Bound. This Agreement shall be binding on and inure to the benefit of the Parties, jointly and severally, and to their successors, members, directors, officers, associates, employees, and agents. 3.9 Notice and Cure Procedure. Prior to initiating a judicial proceeding arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, the objecting Party shall first notify the responding Party in writing of its purported breach or failure, giving the responding a reasonable opportunity from receipt of such notice to cure such breach or failure. If the responding Party does not (a) cure the default; or (b) provides a mutually acceptable plan to cure the default, then the complaining Party may pursue its judicial remedies in accordance with this Agreement. 3.10 Enforcement by SOCIETY. The ASSOCIATION acknowledges that any action or proceeding arising out of this Agreement will satisfy the elements of the California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1021.5 that: the action enforces an important public right, involves a large number of persons, and that the burden of private enforcement outweighs the benefit conferred by the litigation. The ASSOCIATION further acknowledges that a breach of this Agreement constitutes irreparable harm and that damages would be inadequate within the Settlement and Release Agreement 7 10.0-64 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata meaning of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 527 for all purposes in any action or proceeding. 3.11 Efficacy of COPY/Countelparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, and each executed counterpart shall have the efficacy of a signed original. Photographic duplications of executed counterparts may be used, in the absence of any genuine issue as to their authenticity, in lieu of originals for any purpose. Each Party's executing signature may be transmitted to the others via facsimile, and such facsimile signature shall have the same effect as an original signature. 3.12 Effective Date. Unless otherwise explicitly set forth above, this Agreement shall take effect immediately upon its having been signed by each of the Parties. 3.13 Governing This Agreement shall be governed by, and all rights and liabilities under it shall be determined in accordance with, the laws of the State of California. 3.14 Legal Expenses and Costs. Except as provided in Paragraph 2.1.7, the Parties shall each bear their respective attorney fees and other legal expenses and costs incurred in connection with the Pacific Amphitheater Action through the Effective Date and incurred in connection with the negotiation and execution of this Agreement. 3.15 Authority to Bind. Each person signing this Agreement represents that he or she has full legal authority to bind the Party on whose behalf the person signs. Settlement and Release Agreement S Environmental Impact Report 10.0-65 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata COMMENT 0-3 PUBLIC LAWCENTER PROVIDING ACCESS TO JUSTICE FOR ORANGE COUNTY'S LOW INCOME RESIDENTS April 18, 2016 Chair Robert Dickson, Jr. and Planning Commission Members City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92628 RE: Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for 2015-2035 General Plan Dear Chairman Robert L. Dickson, Jr. and Planning Commission Members: This letter is a comment on the 2015-2016 Draft EIR Report. This letter is written on behalf of the Costa Mesa Motel Residents Association ("CMMRA"). CMMRA consists of long-term residents that have made the motels of Costa Mesa their home. A majority of the members of CMMRA currently reside at Costa Mesa Motor Inn ("CMMI"), the location of the proposed project. In general, the members of CMMRA and the other residents of the motel are low-, very- low-, and extremely -low-income families, veterans, and other residents, many of whom are disabled. The CMMRA encourages the Planning Commission to take the following steps: 1. The City should conduct its analyses of affordable housing development using both fixed site and scattered site models for preserving/creating affordable housing for the current motel residents who consider themselves part of the Costa Mesa community. The City can and should develop a model that integrates housing for disabled persons, elderly persons, and low-income working families into each of their proposed sites and all residential density proposals. The Commission has openly opined that they felt the motel standard of living was inadequate --they have the chance to remedy their own concerns by developing adequate, low-income housing in this instance. 2. Make provisions with preference for the low-income families who utilize motels, integrating target percentages for affordable units or homes in each proposed development. The developments should address housing types both for residents who utilize motels for their affordability and stability and for those who use motels as housing of last resort. 3. Address the dislocation of low-income motel residents who call Costa Mesa their home and include them as a concretely impacted group in the EIR report. As a result, reclassify the findings under the Population/Housing Impacts to be "significant" or "potentially significant." The report is incorrect when it says that the "specific number of persons using that particular motel for long-term occupancy" is unknown. Multiple statistical reports have been conducted and thus the city does know how many long-term occupants 601 Civic Center Drive West • Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 • (714)541-1010- Fax (714) 541.5157 10.0-66 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata are currently living in motels and would be adversely affected. Thus, they also know the scope of the likely population displacement. The City overtly acknowledges that the proposed land uses will reduce motel rooms citywide, so this negative impact on existing motel residents is not speculative, but highly likely, and the report should accurately reflect this reality. 4. Address and make provisions for relocation services and other necessary resources for those low-income residents who might be forced to move out of their units as a result of development at each site. Adopt a plan for homelessness prevention that can accommodate effected residents. It is this City's obligation to merge the interests of redevelopment and the interests of meeting the needs of its residents. The City wants these properties to be redeveloped, continually citing them as eyesores. Therefore, the City must work together with owners and affordable housing experts to redevelop these sites to include low-income housing, especially for the current long- term occupants in Costa Mesa motels. Please keep us informed of any updates to the City's General Plan Update and if you have any questions, please contact us at (741) 541-1010. Sincerely, & Ag Lili Graham Richard Walker Public Law Center Attorneys on behalf of CMMRA 601 Civic Center Drive West • Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 • (714) 541-1010 -Fax (714) S41-5157 Environmental Impact Report 10.0-67 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata www1cancdycomm ission.orli April 11, 2016 17701 Cowan Ave., Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92614 949 250 0909 Fax 949 263 0647 Chair Robert L. Dickson, Jr. and Planning Commissioner Members City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 RE: Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for 2015-2035 General Plan Dear Chair Dickson and Planning Commission Members: The Kennedy Commission (the Commission) is a broad based coalition of residents and community organizations that advocates for the production of homes affordable for families earning less than $20,000 annually in Orange County. Formed in 2401, the Commission has been successful in partnering and working with jurisdictions in Orange County to create effective policies that has led to the new construction of homes affordable to lower income working families. As the City moves forward with the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the 2015-2035 General Plan, the Commission urges the City to consider the following; 1. Prioritize the development of affordable homes by including an additional land use alternative that specifically supports and encourages the development of homes affordable to lower income working households. Re-classify the findings under Population/ Housing Impacts 4.1313 and 4,130 regarding the displacement of existing housing and residents from "less than significant impact" to "potentially significant impact" necessitating the construction of replacement housing. The DEIR should be re-evaluated to acknowledge that the General Plan amendments do propose policies that will result in the displacement of substantial numbers of existing housing and numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere in the City. While the proposed land use changes do not authorize a specific construction project, the proposed changes allows for development incentives that encourages future developments to occur. These future developments can potentially result in significant and direct impacts. According to the DEIR, the proposed land use changes were identified as Iess than significant due to the "... likelihood that motels being used as housing would be removed is speculative, and ... the potential for a `substantia] number of people' being displaced is speculative.i1 However, the likelihood of removing motels that are currently being used as long term housing in the City is not speculative. The potential for a substantial number of tenants being displaced is not speculative. The proposed conversion of the Costa Mesa Motor Inn (CMMI) to multi -family residential development and the displacement of many lower income long term tenants at the CMMI is currently happening. In addition, ' Draft Envi mo menial Report for the City of Costa Mesa's Vmr 2015.2035 General Pian, P. 4.13- 10, March 2016. Working fur systemic change resnIting in the production of homes affordable to Orange County's extremely low-income 110use IkoIds 10.0-68 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata Chair Dickson and Planning Commission Members April 11, 2016 Page 2 of 4 the City also acknowledges and anticipates the implementation of the proposed land uses will be utilized to reduce specific uses such as mote Is citywide.2 The City should re-evaluate the potential significant impacts on motel tenants who would be displaced from proposed market rate residential developments. Generally, motels provide last resort affordable housing for many lower income households and proposed market -rate residential developments will displace many at -risk families and lead them to homelessness. According to the DEIR, the report states: because any speciFie property redevelopment would occur in the future, the specific number of person using that particular motel for long-term occupancy is not known at this time. The type of residential development that would replace existing commercial uses, including motels, is also unknown, but could include new commercial uses, including hotel or motel uses, or new residential development that includes affordable housing which, based on the densities, could accommodate and encourage development of housing for low-income persons"' Redevelopment of specific projects will certainly happen in the future but the City already has one specific example of a proposed development, the CMMI, that is currently benefitting from the development incentives (i.e., change in land -use and increase in density) provided by the Residential. Incentive Overlay. The type of residential development replacing the CMMI will be 224 unit apartment complex at a site specific density of 54 du/ac, which notably is significantly higher than the Overlay's density of 40 du/ac. While the specific number of long-term occupants are not known at this time for future developments, the City has already identified that there are approximately 160 occupied rooms at the CMMI and of that, 49 rooms are occupied by 66 long-term residents. Because the proposed development includes aero units affordable to the lower income tenants who currently live in the CMMI, all these existing tenants will be displaced, including the 49 rooms that have been identified and grandfathered as long- term tenants. The DEIR identifies that the proposed amended Land Use Plan could increase residential development in the Focus Areas by 4,040 units.5 Of that total, 3,062 units have allowable densities of 40 du/ac which can accommodate the development of affordable housing.6 However, default densities of 30 du/ac and greater do not necessarily produce homes that are affordable to lower income working households. The proposed development at the = Notice of Preparation City of Costa Mesa Gcncral Pian AmeArrimt Program E1R, City of Costa Mesa, p.4, November 16, 2015, 3 Dmfs EnvironmenuiMcloore for the City of Costa Mesa's Year 2015-2035 General Plan, p. 4.13-9, Marth 2016. + City C'uwUcil Agenda Report: General Plan amendment GP -14-041 Rexene R-14.041 Zoning Cale Amendmaxit CO- 14-02/ And Master Pian PA -14.27 For Costs Mesa Apartments at 2277 Harbor Boulevard, City of Costa Mesa, p. 5, Navembcr 3, 2015. s Draft Envirrmmenral Report for the City of Costa Mesa's Year 2015-2035 General Plan, p. 4.13.6, Manch 2016, ° Draft r:nv irnnmcnral Report for the City of Costa Mesa's Year 2015-2035 General Plan, p. 4.13-6, March 2015. Environmental Impact Report 10.0-69 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata Chair Dickson and Planning Commission Members April 11, 2016 Page 3 of 4 CMMI is a cautionary example of project utilizing the Residential Overlay and not producing affordable homes. The proposed development at the CMM[ benefitted from the residential overlay and development incentives (i.e., change in land -use and increase in density) and did not set aside any homes that would be affordable to lower income households. While 20 units will be set-aside for moderate income families, the proposed rents, $1,600 - $1,$40 are out -of -reach and not affordable to current CMMI tenants or potential lower income tenants in the City. Fairview Developmental Center: Reinstate the General Plan land use overlay at the Fairview Developmental Center site that allows a development capacity of 1,000 du at a maximum density of 40 du/acre (not the currently proposed 500 du at 25 du/ac) as identified in the City Council/ Planning Commission Joint Study Session on September $, 2015. Considering the state is requiring a set-aside for the developmentally disabled, the site presents the greatest potential and opportunity for the development of affordable homes. The State Department of General Services (DGS) also submitted a letter that was submitted to the Costa Mesa City Council on October 6, 2016, stating L°The state requests that the City include the 20 acres specified in SB 82 in the general plan update allowing a maximu a of up to 40 units per acre..." It is clear that DGS supports a maximum density of 40 du/ac at the Fairview site. The density of 40 du/ac is also consistent to the other proposed residential incentive overlays along Harbor Boulevard, Newport Boulevard and SoBECA. At 40 du/ac versus 25 du/ac, the site will construct more units that will generate more rent subsidies/ revenue needed for the developmentally disabled households living at the Fairview Developmental Center. By decreasing the density to 25 du/ac versus 40 du/ac, the potential value of the center also decreases. In addition, the City should conduct a financial analysis regarding the feasibility of proposing an affordable housing development at a lower density versus a higher density to be better informed as to which densities would facilitate a more successful development. 4. South Harbor Boulevard Mixed -Use: Approve the Harbor Mixed -Use Overlay that allows a maximum residential density of 20 du/ac ONLY IF new residential developments proposed in the overlay set-aside 20 percent of homes as affordable to lower income working households. 10.0-70 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata Chair Dickson and Planning Commission Members April 11, 2016 Page 4 of 4 5. Sakioks Site 2: Approve a General PIan Iand use overlay at 5akioka Site 2 that allows a maximum residential density at 80 du/acre for up to 660 units ONLY IF new residential developments proposed at the site set-aside 20 percent of homes as affordable to lower income working households. In the City's 2014-2021 Housing Element, the Sakioka Site 2 was identified a potential opportunity site for the development of homes affordable to lower income households.' Harbor & Newport Boulevard Residential Overlay: Approve a residential incentive overlay that includes new high density residential uses of up to 40 du/acre along Harbor Boulevard and Newport Boulevard ONLY IF new residential developments proposed in the overlay set-aside 20 percent of homes as affordable to lower income working households. In addition, motels located in the overlay should not be included unless any future/new residential developments that are proposed on these sites dedicate at least 20 percent of the homes to lower income working households. 7. SoBECA Overlay: Approve a maximum of 450 units at a density of 40 du/acre at the SoBECA Urban Plan Area ONLY IF new residential developments proposed in the overlay set-aside 20 percent of homes as affordable to Iower income working households. 8. Conduct a study to evaluate the economic impacts of the proposed development incentives (i.e., land use changes/ rezoning and density increases) in the "focus areas." 9. Collaborate with the Costa Mesa Affordable Housing Coalition and community stakeholders to develop effective land use changes and residential incentive overlays in the General Plan Update that will increase affordable home opportunities for lower income working households. PIease keep us informed of any updates to the City's General Plan Update and if you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (949) 250-0909 or cesarc@kennedycommission.org. Sincerely, Cesar Covarrubias Executive Director cc: Kathy Esfahani, Costa Mesa Affordable Housing Coalition ' I loosing Fhent for the Costa Mesa General Plan 2013.2021, p. 56, January 2I, 2014, Environmental Impact Report 10.0-71 10. 0 Response to Comments and Errata Orange County Fairgrounds Preservation Society Date: —Z(51 2 APP]. 0 VE 4S T' ) FO IR M By - Richard L, SpiV-" The Law Office of Spix and Martin Counsel for Orange County Fah�grcunds Preservation Society Dat4# /2012 By' ro ell Hoban, Ch" xecutive Officer 321 1 District . >riculturot Association Dam 2012 All M0 A, TO FOR V BY' Roger A Grable Mfi-.matt, & Phillips, IAT Counsel for 32nd District Agricultural Association T )ate! e -__l 6_ 2012 S I ullinnenlandRoloase Agreement 9 10.0-72 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata 1 IV COMMENT 0-5 Tribune Real Estate April 18, 2016 Minoo Ashabi, Principal Planner City of Costa Mesa — Development Services Department 77 Fair Drive, P.O. Box 1200 Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1200 Re: Former LA Times Printing Press Property Draft EIR Comments Dear Ms. Ashabi, On behalf of the Joint Venture of Kearny Real Estate Company and Tribune Media, which owns the Los Angeles Times site located at 1375 Sunflower Avenue, we offer the following comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report ("Draft EIR") for the Costa Mesa Year 2015-2035 General Plan. As a general matter, we are supportive of the City's long-awaited effort to update its General Plan, and are appreciative of your efforts. To that end, we offer the following technical comments and corrections: First, the owner of the Los Angeles Times site is referred to as "Tribune Publishing" throughout the document. The current owner of the Property is in fact a joint venture of Kearny Real Estate Company and Tribune Media Company. Moreover, the ownership of the property isn't relevant to the environmental impacts of the project. We respectfully request that the ownership references be updated to simply reflect the property as the "former LA Times printing press property" for identification, and use the word "owner" with reference to the former LA Times printing press property to avoid confusion. Second, the Draft EIR, at page 4.8-6 includes the Los Angeles Times North Tanks on Table 4.8- 4 (Leaking Underground Storage Tanks). This reflects outdated and therefore inaccurate information that we respectfully request be updated to reflect current information. Specifically, there are no leaking tanks on the site, and the remedial extraction system concluded its work in April 2014. Groundwater monitoring has been occurring in accordance with Orange County Health Care Authority ("OCHCA") monitoring requirements. The OCHA is reviewing data collected to -date to determine whether the site satisfies the criteria for no further action. Groundwater sampling will continue until OCHCA so determines. The most recent monitoring data is attached for further reference. Finally, we understand that the General Plan designates the Los Angeles Times site as Commercial Center. However, page 4.10-6, states that the Los Angeles Times site would be designated as Urban Center Commercial. We request that this and all such references be corrected to reflect the proper General Plan designation of Commercial Center. 202 WEST FIRST STREET I LOS ANGELES, CA 190012 Environmental Impact Report 10.0-73 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR, and we took forward to working with you as the General Plan process moved forward. Very truly yours, LLC Tribune R�- - tate Holdings, LLC Encl. 202 WEST FIRST STREET I LOS ANGELES, CA 190012 10.0-74 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment COMMENT 0-6 SoCaMas A Lo5�- Srinp<<< Luce;} ut,i,ty April 21, 2016 City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Dr PO Box 1700 Costa Mesa, CA 92628 Atin: Minoo Ashabi 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata 1919 S. State Cdlege AW. Anaheim, GA 92806-6114 Subject: Environmental Impact Report for Year 2015-2035 General Plan; Costa Mesa Thank you for providing the opportunity to respond to this Environmental Document. This letter is not to be interpreted as a contractual commitment to serve the proposed project but only as an information service. Its intent is to notify you that the 5otuhem California Gas Company has facilities in the area where the above named project is proposed. Gas facilities within the seryice area of the project could be installed, altered or abandoned as necessary without any significant impact on the environment. The availability of natural gas service is based upon conditions of gas supply and regulatory agencies. As a Public Utility, Southern California Gas Company is under the jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission Our ability to serve can also be affected by actions of federal regulatory agencies. Should these agencies take any action, which affect gas supply or the conditions under which service is available, gas service will be provided in accordance with the revised conditions, This letter is also provided without considering any conditions or non-utility laws and regulations (such as environmental regulations), which could affect construction of a main and/or service line extension (i.e., if hazardous wastes were encountered in the process of installing the line)- The regulations can only be determined around the time contractual arrangements are made and construction has begun. Information regarding construction particulars and any costs associated with initiating service may be obtained by contacting our area Service Center at $00-427-2200. Sincerely, Katrina Megan Planning Supervisor SourhFast Region - Anaheim Planning & Engineering xa,ri AR da Environmental Impact Report 10.0-75 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata NN0161Mi>+OMMI April 4, 2016 TO THE IIONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CrrY OF C OSTA MESA: PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE DEIR FOR TINE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS OF 2016 TO BE INCLUDED IN THE FINAL EIR. The proposed amendments "Residential Incentive Overlay Harbor Boulevard" and "Harbor Mixed Use Overlay" and the discussion of them in the Land Use Element portion of the DEIR are inconsistent with the DEIR's Noise Element findings. All the following facts and figures are taken from the General flan and EIR. Section 13-280 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code sets the residential exterior noise standard of 55 dB(A) from 7:00 A.M. through 11:04 P.M. and 50 dB(A) from 11:44 P.M. through 7:00 A.M. In contrast, the measured noise levels along the segment of Harbor Boulevard that is to transition to high-density residential measure 71.5 Leq at IIarbor and Adams (one block north of the Azulon senior housing complex) and 73.1 Leq at IIarbor and 19th Street. The maximum measured at those locations are, respectively, 88.5 and 86.9 l.max. The EIR declares no significant impact because it states that implementing the City's Municipal Code and the proposed General Plan Amendment policies will prevent the obvious impact from occurring. But it is impossible to implement a law limiting noise to 50 or 55 dB(A,) on a major traffic corridor where the measured noise level is already far higher. Policy N -1.A says, "Enforce the maximum acceptable exterior noise levels for residential areas at 65 CNE L" Even that policy, referring to a higher noise level, cannot reconcile the high noise volume on harbor Boulevard with a level acceptable for residential development. Therefore, implementing the City's Municipal Code and General Plan Amendment policies means necessarily prohibiting residential development along the I larbor Boulevard corridor. 'I'hercf,rc, the proposed "Residential Incentive Overlay Harbor Boulevard" and "Harbor Mixed Use Overlay" cannot be adopted nor implemented, and therefore, the DEIR is internally inconsistent. Respec:lfully submitted, ]Sleanor M. 1?gan 10.0-76 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment COMMENT I-2 April 18, 2016 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata Greetings Draft Environmental Impact (DE IR) Review Staff, Here are a few of my comments on the (DEI R) and references in the DElR that lead to the draft general plan 2015. 1 have also included a few references to the 2000EIR for comparison purposes. 1. In Costa Mesa's Draft Environmental Impact Report 2016 (DREI) , page 4.4-15 under'BiologIca I Resources' -Impact 4.3A states: "Impacts to special status species and their habitat would be less than significant with impiemen tat! an of draft General Plan policies and Mitigation Measure 4.3.A-1". It states impacts to the burrowing owl less than significant with mitigation measures in the title yet in the body it says otherwise and concludes with "Impacts on special status species, other than the burrowing owl, are considered less than significant." (Bold type mine). Trying to make the impact appear as less than significant even with mitigation is not according to CEQA when it really is significant. The city therefore should place the burrowing owl under 'significant' instead of trying to lessen the impact by putting in under 'insignificant with mitigation'. The goal of the city should be to preserve natural resources not mitigate them. I refer you to CEQ4 legislature on page 1-2, item J where it states that the lead agency (City of Costa Mesa) should "Prevent the elimination ,,,,and preserve for future generations representations of all plant and animal communities and examples of the major periods of California history." Therefore, the draft eir should be corrected anywhere it states impacts to the burrowing owl 'less than significant with mitigation' and should properly state 'significant'. Where are the environmental surveys for the burrowing owl at the Segerstrom Home Ranch and Sakiota Lot 2 sites, which have potential for impacts according to page 4.4-16 of the ❑EiR? 2. This leads me into the next point of the words -'Planning area, Project, and Amendments to the General Plan Area, and in particular, the critical habitat for the Endangered San Diego fairy shrimp. 0n pages 4. 4-10 under "San Diego Fairy Shrimp', and 4.4-12 under' Critical Habitat', it says there is no critical habitat for Environmental Impact Report 10.0-77 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata the San Diego fairy shrimp in the planning area but in other parts of the DEIR, such as page 4.4-8 when it says: "Of these, only 10 species and two natural communities are located with the planning area and all occurrences are found either in Fairview Park, Talbert Regional Park or the adjacent wildlife preserve." (and 4.4-9 )it talks about the whole of Costa Mesa (project area) as a planning area as well as many other places in the DEIR (pgs.4.14-8, 4.14-9, 4.15-1, 5-4 etc.) So, to summarize, since planning and project are used synonymously, then there IS INDEED Critical Habitat in the planning area (Costa Mesa). Also, the draft generalplan, it states on OSR-18, the city's vision of repurposing Fairview Park - which is part of Costa Mesa - whatever area you want to call it. AND, vernal pools on the east side of Fairview Park have been omitted from the draft general plan on page CON -5. These vernal pools are part of the Fairview Park Master Plan (FPMP) page 129 and should be noted as such_ 3. Why are so many plant and animal species that are present in Fairview Park, omitted from the DEIR? Southern Tarplant on page 4.4-10 says it is only present in Talbert Nature Preserve. There was Southern Tarplant in Fairview Park recently and the vegetative map in FPMP shows where. The city scraped the mouth of the canyon with a front loader - I have pictures - when I asked them why they were doing this, I was told it was to spread seeds. Very odd way of spreading seeds I thought. Why isn't the Northern Harrier included and of course, California G natcatcher? 4. Also page 4.4-16 IMPACT 4.3C says no impact to section 404 wetlands would occur as a result - but the 2009-2013 illegal filIingfgrading of the canyon in Fairview Park has affected and impacted the habitat in that riverine area of Fairview Park and should be included in the draft. It is home to the California Endangered Gnat Catcher and was filled graded illegally by the city. (I have documents showing this). Where are the surveys for the California Gnatcatcher? 5. This filling grading of the Fairview Park canyon impacted two archaeological core sites of ORA -58. (See FPMP)The city is supposed to be preserving and maintaining historical and cultural resources but has failed miserably once again. 6. Page 4.6-13 - Shouldn't Costa Mesa have a URM ordinance before building all s these high density houses? 10.0-78 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata 7. 'Open Space' Recreation Element. First of all, what happened to the 'Open 5pace' part of the title? There are some errors in the calculations of open space per 1,000 residents. First of all, please note on page. 4.12-11, the OC Fair and Event Center includes the OC Fairgrounds. On page 4.15-1- is says that the OC 7 Fair and Event Center has 150.04 acres. On page 4.15-3 - it states that OC Fairgrounds has 149.47 acres. But it has been included as part of the'InstitutionaI Uses' acreage on page 4.15-1 AND ADDED AGAIN as the OC Fair and Event Center. This artificially increases the open space by 150.00 acres but wait that's not all. The acreage of the schools in 2000EIR to D E I R 2016 have differences which can't be accounted for as well. Most of the differences are a few acres but Van Guard University had an increase of 33.16 acres. I contacted VanGuard University and found out that no new acreage had been obtained and no change of land usage. No way to account for this increase of 33.16 acres. The acreage of open space is off by 200 acres from the 2000 EIRto this draft eir. Please note under Recreation (not open space/trails recreation like in 2000 EIR) on page 4.15-1 it says we have 1,925.15 acres of open -space recreation but in 2000EIR we had only 1,706.74 acres (pg. 4.12-1 2000EIR). Besides OC Fairgrounds being added twice, Harbor Lawn Cemetery has been included in the 2016 acreage. Also OCC went from 20 acres in 2000 to 64.40 acres in 2016. That's an increase of 44.40 more acres. Also, the school matrix does not show what types of fields are at each school like the 2000 E I R did. Most of the schools have added acreage to them and the schools I contacted had no idea why - they didn't grow or change land usage. So, this actually puts Costa Mesa even further behind in their goal for having 4.26 acres of open space per 1000 residents. It's not 3.66 acres per 1,000 residents like stated on page 4.14-9 under 'Public Services' but more like 2.0 acres per 1,000 residents, so please correct his. I think the draft eir is evidence for the destruction of the city's ability to provide its residents with the proper amount of 4.26 acres of Open Space per 1000 residents and should not be allowed. 8. Page 4.15-5 Under 'Recreation' (still what happened to Open Space and Trails 8 even?) 9. Page 4.15-6 under 'Policy OSR-1.C' This map of deficient park areas as outlined in Figure OSR-3 of the draft generalplan 2016, has some errors. OSR-3 is based on 9 OSR-2 (page OSR-14 in draft general plan 2016) which has miscalculations. Please notice the areas designated as within 1/4 mile and 1/2 mile from a park as well as Environmental Impact Report 10.0-79 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata the pink areas to represent the "underserved' areas. I brought this up at the planning commission meetings and was told by Ms. Stetson that I had calculated their miscalculations based on 'how the crow flies'. She is mistaken and I am attaching the google maps to show you. I have also used other maps to make sure and this is indeed WALKING not driving or'how the crow flies' as Ms. Stetson stated. This miscalculation of distance is THE FOUNDATION FOR EVEN GREATER ERRORS BECAUSE this map misrepresents the residents being served. More residents are being served than stated and there is not access problems like stated in draft general plan 2015 under Table OSR-4 Park/Population Ratios and page OSR-19. If there is disagreement again, I would like to see your maps used. 10. The miscalculation of open -space area and underserved areas is right in line with the complete lack of public representation in the draft general plan 2015. Having attended the various workshops put on by the city and reviewing the event summaries, I was pleased to see the event summaries did indeed represent what actually happened at the workshops. What happened to the draft general plan? There is no representation of what actually happened in the workshops in the draft general plan 2015. For example, residents stated over and over again that natural open space was very important to them. Fairview Park not been included in the Costa Mesa Open Spaces area but instead included in the Neighborhood Park area - there are myths perpetuated about needing sport fields throughout the OSR element. First of all, that would undermine the Open Space Survey and Field Usage Survey that was conducted and results have not been released yet. Secondly, there is a Fairview Park Master Plan that governs Fairview Park and for the city to state that Fairview Park could be repurposed for the increased demand for sport fields (OSR-18) is undermining the Fairview Park Master Plan, ignoring the publics' input for two and a half years, and perpetuating a lie with no factual basis. Secondly, not including Fairview Park as an Open Space with all of its unique biological and archaeological resources is once again trying to lessen what Fairview Park actually contains and the value it has for the community. 10 10 As a side note to anyone reading this - this onslaught against Fairview Park didn't 11 begin with the draft eir. Our councilman Mr. Mens inger was allowed to sit as council on the Fairview Park Citizens Advisory Committee when he admitted to 10.0-80 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata asking city staff to maw a path in vernal pool 6 and 7? (I have O.C.Register article to support this) Oh 6y The Way, MIG still didn't get the acronym correct on OSR-5, 11 it's FPCAC not FPAC) There are numerous other errors in the e i r such as, why is Early College School not included in the draft eir but included in the draft general pla n? 10. Why are the Green House Gas Emissions allowed to exceed SCAQM 12 standards? Ms. Stetson said that SCAQM just needed to update their report. I would like Costa Mesa to abide by the SCAQM standards instead of trying to redefine them. 11. The ❑EIR should have been done by a more reputable and honest company instead of MIG. One that would reflect the workshops and not the mayars wishes (last city council meeting - said we need more sport fields - ignoring parks and rec.'s data once again.) Sincerely, Kim Hendricks Costa Mesa Resident Environmental Impact Report 10.0-81 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata 2208-2250 National Ave, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 to 2277-2399 Cany... https://www.google.com/maps/dir/33.6552564,-117.9369954/33.6579... Google Maps 2208-2250 National Ave, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Walk 0.4 mile, 8 min to 2277-2399 Canyon Dr, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Google Maps I of 1 4/8/2016 12:44 PM 10.0-82 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment s nn s � x S�BneeGx„, - S.Shp %4y� EI CdpISP1�l _ f'wac�ns {iNrt. _ -c '� 5� — �- WOm®ge Loony' Es mxn idgh 5clmd a t 2277-2399C.ry..Dr(+� -... - � s• Nanr:(L� loznr. s[ _:l A�1R �� JOittO St :.� 8�mreli ifi 8 min st oa,(ep se u I r5'wLon51 .�...`%.....r wPollsan 5t ltt ttilean st Suar Cir 02208.2250 National A 3 _-Cny'vW St P 6enamSt- t� '�0� j(;en9rC3a St ... Ci�ngte55 $i Cmigresa 9l ::Eangress 9t Nc. GovTrnoi St -GovPsiwr SY:.: Gmxrnw 5[ Gov¢mce 5[ $i SIY [einilln.i r�' _ - S Sen Bieflo: - v,¢m Mmr9t .J nrlhon 3 .. Map data t@2016 Google 500 ft r via W Wilson St and Canyon Dr 8 min 0.4 mile Google Maps I of 1 4/8/2016 12:44 PM 10.0-82 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata 858 W Wilson St, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 to 2277 Canyon Dr, Costa ... https://www.google,com/maps/dir/33.6560959,-117.9347209/33.6579_. GoE. gle Mads 858 W Wilson St, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 to 2277 Walk 0.5 mile, 10 min Canyon Dr, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Vwn!,�P.an slnFPn Ci! S c _. rexihu9n schen y - 3 m � CSencc C'r � j _ E [¢!cia HqL Scrypyl;. y2 v _ _ Yrel9n!f R'nwir .Ai v of?nrgetwn[y - im,ty nmo. w; oraonnns. - wa!mytp� loanosr roam �. comerarwx ar `-° Dann nr -, _ 10min ! oarrcG SF w " � s 5piIL1r •-�� WWiiSnn.Si �aaatat•i��¢aNWaiaaai'a065&W Wilson St MSRen.lunier F _ � y3 W�nm M _ Stier Ce k� fM,rmx*r Schrol " !+.gl!:elwn3s - � Cf+4fls[SI r a Fw. eot -. _ .. 4¢ 'Conyrns 6f Cangess St' fnn9!ese Sl " fi � � G¢ve!nOr Sl. - Gov!onw SV GnYUlAO(5Y v YIE Pnc.nc^r � ViU ,l _. L < Sl Y-flev[ cel rero - x "" a �•<vrcl u¢ias o ¢ 3 $. — u ¢ Oak51 S �'h. � n Lintlen l'I L. S Map data ©2616 Google 5oD it- via W Wilson 5t and Canyon Dr Google Maps 1 of 1 10 min 0.5 mile 4/8/2016 12:53 PM Environmental Impact Report 10.0-83 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata 888-890 Joann St, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 to 2277-2399 Canyon Dr, C... https://www.google.com/maps/dir/33.6575426,-117.9360083/33.6578... Google Maps 227 -2399 Canyon 0Joann St, D, Coststa a Mesa, CA 92627 esa, CA 92627 to Walk 0.5 mile, 10 min Google Maps I of] 4/F 1 Off 10.0-84 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment rnly { 2277-2999 GanYcn Qrc Nancy Ln! 86&-990 Jaann 510 - Jaann:;i 5[ U""W1 ooneli 5[ „_ a W wl-51 !!•! !!^ f4!!!w� WW:Isan S, WWt- St WLY Icon 51 fi ip wu»m a€ '�_ es,mm„ry Sdwl.T � CepIIDl51 _. Y `�n9rcss p�4 y Congreve Sr Congress 8l L'„eiyieea Sl' v WK 91 �„ � Gommvr 5[ GavenoY Sf Govnnor 5l _� Gn+remw Sr $' n �'' q V y Y-ilrmn �rC.Y40 S1 4Pa'til 6 VIC16f 1J! a g vi ni Go �✓C},,.'!gle a n F _ w�ar„s+ nnm,imns[ Map data 02016 Google 500 ft r via W Wilson St and Canyon Dr 10 min 0.5 mile Google Maps I of] 4/F 1 Off 10.0-84 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata 2248 Continental Ave, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 to 2277-2399 Canyon D... https://www.google.com/maps/dir/33.6559887,-117.9346565/33.6578... Go�,,gle Maps 2248 Continental Ave, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 to Walk 0.5 mile, 9 min 2277-2399 Canyon Dr, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 k T� J 2277-2399 Canyon D,1 1 .. b- � -0 wgw'f aw• w www0 02248 Contiafn[al AvC -. w'W'I.-5, :V W],en S!. J wilyn a P +' El�+np�++nrY san«i - T. �pm151 tapbel 5i ' SemmSt � `� 5enatefi �° a S - Cw+gte¢s 5[ Co�prcx SS 'er+g+ess St .prngresg 5! �pyerao+61 GOYCmO/6t 60YlIml S Goanw 5[ � J -. EI �•� tiu nn,.z .e _- v=r to St Map data ©2616 Gcogie 500 ft via W Wilson St and Canyon Dr 9 min 0.6 mile Google Maps 4/8/2016 12:38 P€VI Environmental Impact Report 10.0-85 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata 858 W Wilson St, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 to 2277-2399 Canyon Dr, C... https://www.google.com/maps/dir/33.656078,-117.9347423/33.657846.. Goggle Maps 858 W Wilson St, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 to Walk 0.5 mile, 10 min 2277-2399 Canyon Dr, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Google Maps 4/8/2016 12:43 PM 10.0-86 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment -'. Z Cliff Dr-'- srnmaar sr9Vet Cii SSF�I S FCapren Dr - € a+•mnv Field � - -' vim, A WWnwl � 3 - nv EaenciA lLyh Sthoo]v rX Vn-2399 Canyon Ur& - - Narrcy ln� JJinrlti! JOY1n5t 3liann St S � Dane or e '� - � � 10 min �:u[e115! OarcHl51 � 31.1 hr. - WI%ansi-.•......i 4 la yam •w • Os58WWlson sr wK•dns¢_.. >, rlemmwrvsa�nw '" � sner Gr it � v Capiln�st � � eeplla�sl �� + P" Can � 9rcas wgrc.w SY Cen9ican 5l C 9 SY m Cbi SE :grecs ' _ a. c� ,t" C.- �� Gnvnmor aV �r Cevemet St fnvanfr Sr M1 Gevarnw St 9iU V1L: 13 Si 1n' � s r GQ .g1,1m w Nami€iW€,.�an::hi4i poi;s Sle. Sea 91u:: W S s k X ? � Hamilton 51 r Homill Map data 02015 Google 500 ft, - via W Wilson St and Canyon Dr 10 min 0.5 mile Google Maps 4/8/2016 12:43 PM 10.0-86 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata lo/ ral Ave, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 to Estancia High Scho... https://www.google.com/maps/dir/33.6560959,-117.933133iEstancia... Google Maps 2201-2275 Federal Ave, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Walk 0.5 mile, 10 min to Estancia High School a In� p ^yam' T 3gnet Ur .,,-.. _ •��� - y a y3�p�Y "3 � GICOpNPR Pi y r . 3 Pnz F {dY • 0• E kancia High StAool g'mv-tl-"'ry . '� S Honcl Ln ;foanrt SY oi•••' Jcem+a[ Jwnn S[ - Dm1e1191 • x ❑enaEJr m so�'�t clr � Ison v� w g WWds6n 51 ZM12278 fed-- A- - wiq' a, Swrv:ir , v�nsnn m Cgil[a39t - y, - 5ennle 5l -. w Fenate Sl 4�''� � canmee=s. cmisrei:s< cm,arrsns _ enng[e�a st y,� c��emn[sa sa.ec�>ar sl ro.nnor sl � k eo.enor sl.. I -Sea Wy(1 vt n Hemiltw� SY hamitton 91 Map data 02016 _ d Google 500 ft via Placentia Ave 10 min 0.5 mile Google Maps fl 4/8/2016 12:42 PM Environmental Impact Report 10.0-87 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata COMMENT I-3 Cynthia McDonald 1181 Atlanta Way Costa Mesa, CA 92626 (714)549-5884 cmcdonald.home('_@gmail.com April 18, 2016 VIA EMAIL ONLY City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Re: Comments to Draft Environmental Impact Report prepared in connection with General Plan update Ladies and Gentlemen: The following are my comments to the Draft Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR") and some, but not all, of my comments with respect to the Draft General Plan ("DGP"). Please make these comments and requests for additional information and/or modification to the DEIR and DGP part of the public record. Overall Cohesive Plan for the City The General Plan does not include a vision of how the City will develop an overall cohesive plan for the City for the next 20 years. While it contains suggestions that developers focus on creating gathering spots in their projects, there is no specific direction for that. Mention is made that the Triangle should be considered the downtown area. The closest thing we have to a central gathering place is the Neighborhood Community Center ("NCC"), which is slated to be reduced in size, rather than expanded. Walking in that area is not enjoyable and no new bike lanes are currently planned so that we can avoid automobile trips and transform the city to a bikeable/walkable city. There are no transit centers or hubs planned near the NCC or South Coast Plaza. The zoning for new housing along Harbor and Newport Boulevards is not specified to be strictly the true mixed-use type of development that would encourage people to get out of their cars and visit businesses on foot or by bike. While the most dense/intense land uses are focused away from the neighborhoods with single-family homes, the health and safety of the residents are jeopardized by the proposed changes to land use because of the impacts of increased traffic levels, air pollution and lack of adequate open space. 10.0-88 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata City of Costa Mesa April 18, 2016 Page 2 Vision Statements While the vision statements are a welcome addition to the DGP, the residents suggested changes to the vision statements and requested additional statements that were ignored. What we see are vision statements that reflect the needs of developers, and not the direction that the residents want for the City. Protecting the residents is the primary responsibility of the City, and yet protecting and promoting the health, safety and quality of life of the residents is ignored. Aesthetics Impact 4.1.A, 4.1.B found on page 4.1-5 states: "Impacts to scenic vistas and resources would be less than significant with implementation of draft General Plan policies." In the following paragraph it further explains "As described above, scenic vistas within the City are limited to large areas of undeveloped land that offer views of scenic resources such as Upper Newport Bay, the Santa Ana River, and the Santa Ana Mountains. The proposed project will not alter scenic vistas located in existing parks or open space areas as none are subject to land use change. New development built on the Segerstrom Home Ranch and Sakioka Lot 2 sites could impact existing views of the Santa Ana Mountains since current land use policy allows buildings of heights greater than two stories; the proposed General Plan land use policies will continue this condition. However, with the implementation of the following Community Design Policies CD -5.A through CD -5.F below, potential impacts on scenic vistas and resources would be less than significant:" What follows is Policy CD -5.A which provides for the preservation and optimization of natural views and open spaces in Costa Mesa. However, there is no assurance that views can be preserved because the buildings in the Segerstrom Home Ranch project are limited only by FAR and could be anywhere from five (5) to twelve (12) stories in height. These buildings have the potential to impede the view of the Santa Ana Mountains for residents who live west of that project. This impact needs to be added to the DEIR. Land Use Element The proposed changes will have irreversible impacts on the residents, some of which result in the form of air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions and noise pollution, which are discussed below. There are also impacts to the quality of life of the residents. There is no plan for the City to create either central or neighborhood gathering spots, no inclusionary agreement for affordable housing and the proposed high-density housing is not located in walkablefbikeable areas or near Environmental Impact Report 10.0-89 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata City of Costa Mesa April 18, 2016 Page 3 a transit center. Removal of height limitations for buildings south of the San Diego Freeway will degrade the quality of life for the residents. With respect to the Existing Land Use Distribution on 4.10-1 of the DEIR, the Santa Ana Colleen Street Island has already been incorporated into the City. The DEIR does not address what happens to displaced residents as a result of the rezoning of "problem motels" to high-density mixed-use residential. The City seems to think these people will move elsewhere, but since so many have family in the area, including children attending Newport -Mesa schools, and a few have employment, this subject matter needs to be addressed. Further, this displacement is an intentional attempt to change the demographics of the City. Environmental Impacts Air Pollution and Greenhouse Gas Emissions As noted on page 2.4-1 of the DEIR: "... the updated General Plan Amendments has the potential to result in significant, unavoidable environmental effects with regard to the following environmental issue areas: • Air Quality Aesthetics (due to inconsistency with regional plans) • Greenhouse Gas Emissions (due to inconsistency with regional plans)" On page 4.3-15 of the DEIR, we see that the proposed General Plan Amendments will have the impact of the deterioration of air quality caused by the addition of 9,271 more dwelling units, 21,166 more residents and about 5.6 million square feet of nonresidential development. That section of the DEIR says: "This could result in potentially significant impacts because air quality attainment goals could be delayed since the strategies adopted in the AQMP would not account for land use changes in the planning area." In other words, the City does not have a plan in place that can deal with the air pollution that comes with all this new development. Further, it says: "Therefore, the proposed General Plan is inconsistent with the growth projections in the RTP/SCS and would be inconsistent with the 2012 AQMP." 10.0-90 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata City of Costa Mesa April 18, 2016 Page 4 Despite that, the DEIR states that: "the following policies in the updated General Plan support attainment of air quality goals through assessment and mitigation of future development projects ..." What is listed after that, among other things, are policies of the General Plan that would mitigate the impacts of the proposed development, some of which came out of the proposed Active Transportation Plan ("ATP"). However, those policies in the ATP were reclassified as "recommendations" at the time the City Council approved it. Mitigation needs to be something that is a concrete measure that can be taken to prevent an impact. It cannot be something that falls into the category of being a choice that might be opted for, or a wish list. Unless the City Council is going to change the DGP so that all the "recommendations" in the ATP are restored to policies, the DEIR needs to be edited to eliminate any reference to those policies/ recommendations. Not having an adequate plan to deal with air pollution puts the health of the residents at risk, I note that the monitoring station is located in an area that benefits from unimpeded breezes off the ocean due to its location near Costa Mesa Golf Course and Fairview Park and is not near the existing emission locations shown on Figure 4.3.2. There are other areas that receive a greater impact of air pollution, for example, the comer of Baker and Bear Streets which not only is impacted by the air pollution of three (3) nearby freeways, but also a busy arterial and the airport. While repurposing some of the light industrial in the SoBECA area might help air quality, it is not going to come close to eliminating the air pollution coming from the freeways, airport and the adjoining industrial park. Should the City allow a mixed-use component of 40- 50* dwelling units per acre to be introduced to that area and other areas in the city, it would be at a significant risk to the health of all residents. *50 dwelling units with a density bonus applied. There currently exists a toxic carbon monoxide "hot spot" at Hyland and MacArthur. Any increase in traffic caused by an increase in the use of land by elevating the allowable FAR in areas close to that hot spot would require mitigation. Expansion of the Los Angeles Times building is not likely to reduce that problem as it will bring an increase in traffic to that area over what currently exists. Any repurposing of the building needs to be accompanied by a plan to reduce auto and truck traffic. The adjacent rail line is an opportunity to provide pedestrian/bicycle access to that parcel and others in the area and should be incorporated into any redevelopment plan. With respect to greenhouse gases, the California Air Resources Board has identified a cap and trade program as one of the strategies it will be using to reduce greenhouse gases. The City needs to anticipate that it will be required to be a part of that program and institute a plan to reduced greenhouse gases. As noted in Impact 4.7.B: "The proposed General Plan Amendments have the potential to conflict with the 2012 SCAG RTP/SCS and CARB Scoping Plan—and thereby not attain GHG reductions Environmental Impact Report 10.0-91 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata City of Costa Mesa April 18, 2016 Page 5 targets ---because land use policy does not support the same level of population growth projected. Impacts at the Program level are significant and unavoidable." [Emphasis added] In addition, I note there is no mention of the impacts by the proposed Banning Ranch development. While the City is not responsible for that development, it is certain to be a part of the cumulative effects of the proposed General Plan Amendments. That cumulative impact and the impact of the proposed General Plan Amendments are unacceptable and need to be modified and a plan needs to be instituted to mitigate or eliminate those impacts. Noise In Section 4.12 of the DEIR much discussion is made to accommodating development of additional commercial, residential and mixed-use development in the specific focus areas and some attention is given to the impacts of the noise generated by that development. Mitigation includes Policy N -2-A which provides: "Require the use of walls, berms, interior noise insulation, double -paned windows, and other noise mitigation measures, as appropriate, in the design of new residential or other new noise sensitive land uses that are adjacent to arterials, freeways, or adjacent to industrial or commercial uses." Page 4.12-16 contains the following explanation of Impact 4.12.C: "Future population growth within the planning area would result in increased traffic and the need for roadway and intersection improvements necessary to maintain desired levels of service, despite this increase in traffic. Increases in traffic could result in permanent increases in ambient noise levels, e.g., where a roadway segment is proposed to be expanded with additional travel lanes over the long-term to achieve level of service standards. Roadway noise could also increase on an existing roadway that will carry increasing traffic volumes. In either set of circumstances, roadway noise levels could increase to beyond the levels considered acceptable for the adjacent land uses. This issue is addressed under Impact 4.12.C." However, no mitigation is provided for pedestrians and bicyclists who are continuously exposed to these increased noise levels. Further, no explanation is given as to how the City intends to mitigate the noise that is echoed off tall buildings or the sound walls that are required to mitigate noise so that it does not travel beyond the arterial into adjacent buildings. Zoning The rezoning of selected properties along Harbor Boulevard and Newport Boulevard from g commercial to mixed-use overlay is nothing more than spot zoning in those areas, as the adjacent 10.0-92 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata City of Costa Mesa April l8, 2016 Page 6 properties will not be rezoned as well. This constitutes a targeted action by the City designed to benefit certain property owners and not others. Further, the impacts of traffic due to the eastside of Newport Boulevard being a one-way arterial will direct the traffic back into the Eastside neighborhood bringing air poI€ution impacts noted above. In addition, in the prior General Plan buildings south of the San Diego Freeway were limited to no taller than four (4) stories in height. The General Plan Amendments indicate that there is no limitation to which development must conform—all is needed to exceed this height is permission from the City Council. This shows a complete disregard for the wishes of the residents to retain the low profile coastal town feel. Circulation (Transportation and Traffic) Element At the end of Section 4.16 of the DEIR there is a statement that no mitigation is necessary because no impacts would result. While it is noted that an intersection is not considered to be at failure level to the City unless it is rated as a LOS of "F", we have two intersections that currently attain LOS "D" at peak hours. One of those is Newport Boulevard and 17d' Street, which is at "D" at both the AM and PM peak hours. The other is Newport Boulevard and 18' Street/Rochester Street in the PM peak hour. Many residents, myself included, feel that a LOS of "D" is unacceptable. With the proposed General Plan Amendments, Table 4.16-13 shows twenty-one (21) additional intersections that will attain LOS "D" at one or more peak hours. While some of those intersections will be "improved" to add lanes by 2035, that mitigation effort will only exacerbate the problems faced by pedestrians and bicycles trying to cross wide intersections. If bicyclists and pedestrians cannot cross a street safely, then mobility is severely limited, access is denied, and cycling and walking as a mode of travel is discouraged. More than two percent (2%o) of the residents of Costa Mesa ride a bicycle to work and that 10 number is growing. It is imperative that the City reverse its decision to label the policies in the ATP recommendations. Those policies were written as a direct response from residents requesting better and safer connectivity and facilities in the City. Further, as noted above, to use those policies as mitigation for impacts, they need to be classified as such. Policy C -4.A.3 proposes implementation of "park -once approaches for multiuse districts and regional destinations areas", which are commonly known as "parking districts." While the concept of parking districts is a good one, implementation would require the hiring of additional parking enforcement personnel. On page 4.15-54 it is stated that: "These policies, in conjunction with the parking supply and design standards requirements of the City's Zoning Code, would ensure that adequate parking is provided on a project -by -project basis. Impacts would be less than significant." However, since the need for additional parking enforcement personnel would be ongoing, the impact on the City budget would be significant. The DEIR does not indicate that these parking districts would be located in areas with business improvement districts that would fund the cost 11 Environmental Impact Report 10.0-93 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata City of Costa Mesa April 18, 2016 Page 7 of the additional personnel. Clarification is needed to frilly assess the impacts of these parking districts. Table 4.16-6 indicates that there are currently 1,018,790 ADTs generated in the City and an estimated 1,244,140 ADT. This does not appear to include the 150,000 additional passthrough 12 trips we currently experience or whether the passthrough trips are anticipated to increase. Was a calculation made to increase the trips in accordance with a density bonus that could be applied to selected properties? Please provide that information. While mention is given to the downgrade of the Gisler Avenue/Garfield Avenue crossing of the Santa Ana River to a "Right -of -Way Reserve" status on the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways, it is not clear if this is a fait accompli. If a formal change in status has not occurred, what will be the impact(s)? Please provide more information. One glaring omission from the Circulation Element is the traffic impacts from the Banning Ranch project in Newport Beach. While that project is not part of the proposed General Plan Amendments, seven (7) intersections will be impacted by the Banning Ranch project, many of which are the included in the twenty-one (21) impacted intersections show on Table 4.16-13. Will the addition of Banning Ranch traffic cause any of those seven (7) intersections to drop in level of service? Please provide a detailed answer to this, including what level of service is anticipated with the addition of Banning Ranch traffic given the current plans for that project. In looking at this data and factoring in that there will be some impacts felt by the Banning Ranch project, I believe the statement that no mitigation is necessary is false. The additional traffic that comes with the proposed General Plan Amendments is one of the greatest impacts on the quality of life for the residents of Costa Mesa and steps need to be taken to eliminate those impacts. Open Space On page 4.14-9 of the DEIR it states: "The City of Costa Mesa currently does not meet its goal of providing 4.26 acres of parkland per 1,000 persons." Further down the page it is stated: "As of 2015, the City had an estimated population of 110,524 residents. Based on the City's park standard goal of 4.26 acres for every 1,000 persons, approximately 471 acres of parkland are required to meet the City's goal. Assuming a build -out population of 131,690 residents, 561 acres would need to be acquired to achieve the goal." 13 14 10.0-94 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata City of Costa Mesa April 18, 2016 Page 8 On page 4.14-10 of the DEIR it asserts: "Given the paucity of vacant land within the planning area, it could be reasonably assumed that acquisition and provision of an additional 561 acres of parkland would not [be] feasible. However, this impact is not considered significant since the possible inability of the City to meet its goal would not result in any direct or indirect environmental impact." Costa Mesa is comprised of more than just buildings and people. The most "livable" cities are as known for their open space. Having open space in cities provides many advantages: formal and informal sports and recreation, preservation of natural environments, provision of green space and even urban storm water management. Thus green space must be a key consideration in Costa Mesa if the health of a city and its residents are both considered important. There is a growing body of research showing a connection between human health and well-being and the design and structure of towns, cities and regions. It is believed that planning decisions have a key role to play in combating growing levels of obesity and helping prevent lifestyle - related diseases through facilitating physical activity and positive mental health. The health benefits associated with access to public open space and parks include better perceived general health, reduced stress levels, reduced depression and more. An evaluation of the largest 85 cities in the United States found the health savings from parks was an estimated $3.08 billion. Thus, there are significant impacts from continually falling behind on acquiring new parkland for use by the residents. The City needs to identify priority areas for new parkland and pursue the acquisition and construction of facilities on that land. Failure to do so will result in substantial deterioration of existing facilities. With respect to Fairview Park, on page OSR-18 of the DGP it states: "Due to its size, Fairview Park is one of the parks that may be repurposed to include other public amenities. However, a balance between passive and active open space opportunities within the park will continue to be a key consideration. Due to the sensitive environmental and archeological issues of Fairview Park, this park must be left in a natural state and only requires efforts with respect to remediation or enhancement of that natural state. Simply stated: leave it alone. Population and Housing Data found on page 4.13-6 of the DEIR indicates that the City anticipates the addition of 11,078 more residents by 2035 or an increase of 9.76%. It also indicates the addition of 4,040 dwelling units by that same year (an increase of 9.48%). The increase in jobs is anticipated to be 17,147 more jobs by 2035 (19.64%). Note that some of these numbers do not comport with the numbers 14 14 15 Environmental Impact Report 10.0-95 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata City of Costa Mesa April 18, 2016 Page 9 found on page 4.3-15 of the DEIR. Please provide an apples -to -apples comparison or a corrected set of numbers. It is not indicated what type of industries that anticipate this increase in employment and the wage levels of these new workers. The unavailability of suitable affordable housing for employees has proven to be a problem in the past for industries in that they are not able to retain skilled employees for this reason. It is important that the City adopt an inclusionary housing ordinance for this reason. In addition, on page 4.13-6 of the DEIR it indicates there are 8,032 net acres in the City. In the second column of Table LU -2 on page LU -11 of the DGP it indicates there are 8,044. However, adding the numbers in that column, the number is actually 7,942.20. Please review the calculations in both documents and adjust for inconsistencies. Utilities and Service Systems Impact 14A found on page 14.17-12 states: "Implementation of the proposed General Plan Amendments would not require new or expanded water supply entitlements to be secured, and the proposed General Plan Amendments incorporate policies aimed at conserving water supplies." This indicates that there will be no impact by the addition of 9,271 dwelling units and 21,166 more residents to the City. Residents have been required to minimize water consumption because of the current drought conditions. Our water supply has not been completely replenished by the recent rains and we have been told that we need to continue curtailing our water consumption. To say that providing water service to 21,166 new residents will have no impact to the current residents is incredible. Please provide a detailed plan and policies for how the City is going to handle the lack of water and still add water service without any impact. Alternatives 15 16 None of the proposed alternatives reflect the concerns or wishes of the residents that were expressed in the outreach meetings. Those concerns include, but are not limited to acquiring 17 more open space, maintaining neighborhood character, bikeability and walkability of public streets, safe and efficient traffic circulation, and increasing homeownership to balance the ratio between homeownership to rental housing. In addition, affordable housing is a concern, particularly with respect to housing for seniors and those who have low and very low incomes. 10.0-96 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata City of Costa Mesa April 18, 2016 Page 10 Please note that any request for information contained herein may not be my final request, as when I receive additional information that may generate more questions. Therefore, I reserve my right to make additional information requests. In addition, there are typographical, mathematical and other errors in the DGP that I will address separately when time allows. Thank you for your attention and I look forward to reviewing the City's response. Very truly yours, Cynthia McDonald /cm Environmental Impact Report 10.0-97 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata COMMENT I-4 From: Robin Leffler [mailto:wre2lef@sbcglobal.netl Sent: Monday, April 18, 20164:49 PM To: FLYNN, CLAIRE CLAIRE.FLYNNCa@costamesaca.gov; General Plan <GeneralPlan@ci.costa- mesa.ca.us> Subject; Comments to the QEIR In the areas I looked at most closely there seem to be discrepancies in some of the figures presented for traffic and housing. The traffic consultant who spoke at the 414116 Planning Commission said the General Plan Update would generate only 16,000 more trips than build -out of the current General Plan. During the 415116 City Council meeting a different consultant, one hired to analyze impacts from the "Smart Growth" voter initiative, reported traffic would increase by 15,015 trips if the proposed General Plan Updates were fully built. I am concerned that the City Council will not know which figures to rely on, or if either is accurate. These analyses are at odds, and the discrepancy must be resolved before the EIR is deemed complete. From the 918115 Joint City Council and Planning Commission Study session, the traffIo analyst supplied data to the City Council, Planning Commission and Public [attachment 5, pg 41 ], that said Hospitals (inol. the Fairview Hospital Property) are deemed to generate 6,138 existing trips. With proposed Updates, the Property would generate 1, 579 trips, for a stated loss of -4,529 trips from current GP. The motel properties are deemed to generate 12, 793 existing trips and the same if the current GP is built out. With the proposed Updates, there would be a stated loss of -7,466 trips. Since neither Fairview Hospital or many of the Motels have been operating at peak capacity for many years the lower trip numbers are not accurate for existing conditions. The EIR should provide a more realistic view of the probable changes in traffic conditions before the EIR is deemed complete. There also seem to be approximately 5000 housing units that are missing in the final analyses. (At this point they are MIA. Please send in a recovery unit to determine if they are dead, wounded, or POW. If possible, bring them out alive... (- sorry, this stuff gets so serious, I just had to do that.)) There does appear to bean approximate 5000 unit discrepancy. Before the EIR is deemed complete, the discrepancy must be accounted for. This will also affect final traffic figures and may affect other areas such as rentallownershi a ratio or jobslhousing ratios. All joking aside, it is critically important that Decision makers have an accurate idea of how traffic could change before they make their decision on the acceptability of the EIR. Thank you for your consideration, Robin Leffler 3030 Ceylon Road Costa Mesa, Ca, 92625 10.0-98 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata COMMENT I-5 From: Elaine ©ethlefsen [maitto:eddethL@aol.com] Sent: Monday, April 18, 201612:41 PM To: ARMSTRONG, GARY GARY.ARMSTRONG@costamesaca.gov> Subject: General Plan Impact draft 1 writing you to express my deep concern with the purposed General Plan Amendments. These are a few of items that concern me. By allowing more and more apartments, this 111 increase the transit population, and decreases the homeowner population. Apartment dwellers do nat have a vested interest in the ccmmunity. By not enforcing the height limitations on buildings, this has a big impact on the neighborhoods. Costa Mesa seems to be on a fast track to try and the second Los Angeles. Right now this city is a good example of very poor planning of neighborhood and business concerns. It is as if someone is throwing darts at the map of Costa Mesa, and where the dart lands, that is where the new buildings go up. There is not any mention of plans for senior living, low income, hiking accommodations, and new parks. I don't mean "sports fields". !Neither the city council, the planning cam missicn, or the purposed draft address the following; • Increased parking issues • Air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions Increase noise pollution from construction, cars, and high buildings creating canyons of pollutionlnoise. • Increase water usage • Increase need for fire and police Please keep in mind, the crime rate in Costa Mesa if now at 33%. • Increase 1n trafric. Right now it is impossible to travel In Cesta Mesa at certain times of the day without running into a traffic jam. • The negative impact of this unbridled building on the citizens' quality of life This unchecked building phase that the government of Costa Mesa is forcing upon the citizens of Costa Mesa has got to STOP. There are new houses going up at the end of my street right now. When I look at the houses, they do not have any yards, they are two story, and there is not any parking for the own erslguests. Can you explain where the children of these homeowners are going to play? Where are going to park? The architecture does not fit with the neighborhood. Who is the architect for these projects -M The new apartments and homes going up allover town looks like a five-year-old designed them. They are all square boxes. Thank you far your attention to this matter. Elaine Qethefsen 1 Environmental Impact Report 10.0-99 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata COMMENT I-6 April 19, 2016 (city general plan draft eir) City Council and Staff: The following are my comments regarding the ]Draft Environmental Impact Report. Please make them part of the public record. A very detailed Draft 1IR still leaves several important issues in need of additional research and serious consideration. WATER: The draft EIR mentions several probable impacts of filature development. I will focus on two where the problems are obvious to any educated layman: " necessity for additional water resources' and impact on "groundwater recharge by increasing impervious surfaces that could hinder percolation of drainage into subsurface aquifers." Unfortunately, what was hoped to be a short-term drought is now seen as a likely long-tenn grid period. Several articles have recently been published warning that "Even when the epic drought ends,... California will still be losing water" (Jay Miglietti Senior water scientist at NASA JPL G.A. Times, April 16, 2016). Unfortunately, the reduction of permeable surfaces is already common in permitted developments with first, reduced required setbacks, and then additional variances and the allowance of rooftop decks as "open space." These practices must be stopped. In addition, any further reduction of permeable surfaces must not he permitted. 'llie increased high density construction proposed in the draft general plan must not be allowed. "Necessity for additional water resources" is painfully obvious. Our water district has done an outstanding job managing our resources through engineering and through encouraging conservation by residents resulting in Costa Mesa meeting its goal of a 20% reduction. The EIR duly recognizes these efforts. However, it is an unacceptable premise that additional technological advancer and sacci f ce on the part of residents wi1I increase to accommodate the increased population invited through the General Plan draft. Many residents have risen to the challenge. IIowever_ questions such as "Why should I €ake shorter showers in order to bring in excessive new population?" are increasingly voiced_ 'there is no justification for a statement that more of the same, following the already substantial cutbacks, will reduce water consumption enough to accommodate this increasing population_ In order to claim "less than significant impacts" the city is obligated to provide proof through additional studies, and noljusl general statements. Among other studies, average water usage per residence should be tallied, and the additional wafer cuts necessary per family based on the number (if additional residences projected should he published. Current residents deserve to know what this increased density means in terms of less water for their families. 1 10.0-100 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata In addition, credible projections for possible additional state-wide shortages must be researched and considered. RESIDENTIAL DENSITY AND RESPECT FOR CITY RESIDENTS: Current residents have spoken clearly that we wish to maintain the suburban atmosphere of Costa Mesa_ Years ago, density and height limitations were discros;ed at length and maintenance of low-rise building south of the 405 was affinned. More recently, a couple years ago, the city held a "Great Outreach," inviting families from all overthe city. Two outcomes which should be honored but have been ignored are notable: I. Speakers—most of whom had not spoken in a public forum before --lined up to say, essentially, "Leave the Westside alone." 2. A presentation of building types among which the attendees were supposed to choose Wag presented in a meeting room_ 'I7ie choices for style and density were, essentially choices between "bad" and "worse." }eventually there was a general rebellion on the part of the attendees saying that none of the choices were acceptable. Since that request foe public opinion, however, the city councilmen have ignored the will of the people and approved development far worse that the worst that the presenters had to offer. ELIMINATION OF LOW-INCOME HOUSING VIA HARRASSMENT OF MOTEL OWNERS While addition of low-income housing is a difficult problem, the current push for elimination of such housing is unconscionable. Developers are often given incentives and/or variances to tear down modest low-rise housing and put in the crowded, intrusive developments I mentioned above. Even worse, through a concerted effort of harassment of mole) owners and persistent demonizing of the motels and their residents, the limited amount of last -resort housing is being diminished. It's important to note that this housing is available through mutual agreements between the residents and the private business owners, with no demands for additional taxation or city interference. Besides the elimination of this mutually and privately agreed upon decision, the city is also interfering in private enterprise in a inost unseemly manner. Until and unless reasonable alternatives become available, the current private -sector solutions should absolutely be encouraged. PARKING: Despite the repealed protestations by councilmen that "Costa Mesa" has the tightest parking requirements in the county, it is obvious that parking issues are serious and getting worse. 4 We regularly hear requests in Council meetings for resident permit only parking. Excessive and increasing overflow parking is intrUding on many neighborhoods and interfering wills the "quiet enjoyment- of our homes and neighborhoods_ 19iis problem could he easily addressed, but the councilmen turn a deaf ear, and continue to make the problem worse. Sufficient resident and guest parking could easily be required of all new development—based on current parking needs Environmental Impact Report 10.0-101 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata and habits—not those of 20 years ago. Appropriate studies and inclusion in the general plan can easily be accomplished if the council heeds the demands of the public 4 hi areas where excessive parking is already a problem, the city has some obligation to develop creative solutions. "Mitigation" is already sorely needed. Increase of this problem is inexcusable and avoidable. AIR QUALITY: Air quality seems to be an area where significant impacts are acknowledged. While hard for a resident to see or quantify, it is extremely important. Air pollution is obviously diminished with 5 increased traffic and idling at overburdened intersections. Reduction of the density which many residents are objecting to can help to protect our air quality. Thank you for your attention, and a special thank you to city staff members who work so hard to meet competing demands. Tannar Goldmann 10.0-102 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata COMMENT 0-7 From: Reggie Mundekis [mailto:repyie mundekis@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 8:32 AM To: ASHABI, MINOO<MINOO.ASHABI@costamesaca.goy> Subject: General Plan EIR Comment Please incorporate the following uaformation into the EIR For the new General Plan. P94.5-3 and 4-5-4,Table CLRI i City ofCosta Mgam Historic Resources Inventory, Fooniote i repi-ding sszFi ..The house formerly located at 2529 Santa Anative, the Huscroft House, is listed as "relocated boa temporary location at the Orange County Fairgrounds until a permanent locations can be determined-" This house is no long at the Orange County Fairgrounds. Thank you, Reggie Mundekis Environmental Impact Report 10.0-103 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata COMMENT I -S From: Corinne Stover [mailto:calcs12240gmail.coml Seat: Monday, April 18, 2016 11:32 AM To: ARMSTRONG, GARY GARY.ARMSTRONGacostamesaca.gov>; GREEN, BRENDA -�brenda.greenftcOstamesaca.go FLYNN, CLAIRE CLAIRE.FLY NNacostamesaca.00v>; rdickson.cmocagmail.com: twsesler0gmaiI_com; colinkmecarthyftyah co.com sandraniannyahoo.com; aventmenca.rr.com Subject: development Planning April 18, 2016 From: Corinne P. Stover 1224 Conway Avenue Costa Mesa, CA 92626 To: Cary Armstrong City of Costa Mesa Development Department Two -hundred forty-one years ago, Paul Revere rode through the countryside warning his countrymen, "The SriGsh are coming!" (According to poet Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, anyway.) On this April 18'. your Costa Mesan "countrymen/women" hope to impress upon the Planning department Planning Commission the need for a close look at what is being developed in this city. In a time of severe drought, the concept "less is more" applies to a need for being qualitative about development. it is not feasible to continue building quantitatively, filling available areas with apartments! In my opinion, the live -work concept was not thoroughly "vetted" for Costa Mesa. The developer, thinking it a good idea, did not plan funding for a monitoring system for compliance! The Environmental Impact Report (EI R) is not meant to stymie development. It gives parameters for quality development. Isn't that why we have criteria for compliance? Isn't it fitting far developers and planners to think firstto accommodate compliance, rather than plan for modifications' Where is quality when projects continually provoke modification? This is what I see happening in Costa Mesa: minimize area between buildings, let 2"° floors overhang lower floors, rooftops as °open space.'' To paraphrase Longfellow, "The Developers are here!" This countrywoman wants our city's growth to be smart, watenmse, design -worthy, and allow for more mobility. Compliance begins and ends in the development department, equipped with all the concerns of its constituents from Summer, 2013. There were no hammers at those meetings! "The man with a hammer walks in search of a nail." Copies: Brenda Green Claire Flynn Planning Commissioners: Robertdickson, Jr., Tim Sesler, Colin McCarthy Stephan Andranian Jeff Matthews 10.0-104 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata COMMENT I-9 From: Beth Morley [mailto:Beth@SupplyTechnology.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 20161:43 PM To: General Plan cGeneraIP[an@ci.costa -mesa.ca. us7 Cc: GREEN, BRENDA ¢brenda.green@costamesaca.gav>; ARMSTRONG, GARY ¢GARY.ARMSTRONG[la costamesaca.govn Subject: Opposed to the General Plan Ammendmen ts ToAU- I am very concerned, as well as opposed to the proposed General Pian Amendments. I am a 30 year resident on the West side of Costa 1ksa My specific ohjections is the. lack of mitigation that the impact of housing density, noise and air pollution, lack of Open space, enormous traffic congestion and scarcity of water will create. PLEASE the draft Environmental Impact Report General Pian Amendments need to be REWRITTEN! Thank you for your consideration -- Beth Morley 1072 Spinnaker Run Costa Mesa, CA 92527 714-323-5188 Environmental Impact Report 10.0-105 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata COMMENT I-10 From: William Harader [mailto:billcarolhPaol.coml Sent: Monday, April 18, 20169:57 AM To: General PlancGeneralPlan@ci.costa-mesa.ca.us7 Subject: Comments to the HEIR associated with CxeneraI Plan update The changes to certain parts of the City by proposed General Plan Amendments are not acceptable because of the impacts those changes will have on C. M.residents. Those impacts are the following: Additional density that does not bring more homeownership opportunities to the City, but instead brings more apartments. Need for height limitations on buildings south of 4135 freeway; Displacement of residents as a result of redevelopment of selected properties without a plan to provide replacement housing; No plan to provide affordable housing for seniors and low income residents; No concrete plan to add walkabiIity and bikeabiIity to the City; Increased parking issues, Lowering the level of service at 21 intersections in the City to the level of congestion experienced at NB Blvd. and 17th St.; Increased air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions; Increased air noise levels as a result of the canyon effect created by tall buildings and sound attenuating walls on arterial roads, Inability to provide new parks and open space to keep up with substantial deterioration of existing facilities by the increase in use due to increase in population; and No plan to address the scarcity of water sources. There are virtually none of the alternatives offered by the City to mitigate these impacts. The alternatives do not address protecting the health, safety, and quality of life of the residents. The draft E nvlro nm a ntaI Impact Report needs to be rewritten to address the concerns of residents to acquiring more open space, maintaining neighborhood character, bikeability and walkability of public streets, safe and efficient traffic circulation, increasing homeownership to balance the ratio between homeownership to rental housing, and providing for more affordable housing. Thank you for your consideration. William C Harader 2802 Loreto Ave. Costa Mesa, CA 92525 714 545 6840 10.0-106 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata From: Laurene Keane [mailto:getlaurene[Pyahoo.com] Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 3:10 PM To: General Plan <GeneralPlan@ci.costa-mesa.ca.us7; GREEN, 13RENDA <brenda. green@ costa m esa ca. gov>; ARMSTRONG, GARY¢GARY.ARMSTRONG @Costamesaca. gov> Subject: General plan draft EIR resident comment- please add to the report and make part of the public record. To Whom it May Concern: Re: Draft E I R General plan -Costa Mesa The following are my comments to the Draft Environmental Impact Report. Please make them part of the public record. The changes to certain parts of the City by the proposed General Plan Amendments are unacceptable to me because of the impacts those changes will have on the residents. The impacts that concern me are as follows Additional density that does not bring more homeownership opportunities to the City, but instead brings more apartments; Loss of height limitations on buildings south of the 405 freeway; Displacementof residents as a result of redevelopmentof selected properties without a plan to provide replacement housing; No plan to provide affordable housing for seniors and low and very -low income residents; No concrete plan to add walkability and bikea bility to the City; Increased parking issues; Lowering the level of service at 21 intersections in the City to the level of congestion experienced at Newport Boulevard and 17th Street; Increased air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions; Increased noise levels as a result of the canyon effect created by tall buildings and sound attenuating walls on arterial roads; inability to provide new parks and open space to keep up with the substantial deterioration of existing facilities by the increase in use due to increase in population; and No plan to address the scarcity of water sources. None of the alternatives offered by the City mitigate these impacts. The alternatives do not address protecting the health, safety and quality of life of the residents. The Draft Environmental Impact Report 2 needs to be rewritten to address the concerns of the residents, including acquiring more open space, maintaining neighborhood character, bikeability and walkabilityof public streets, safe and efficient traffic circulation, increasing homeownership to balance the ratio between homeownership to rental housing, and providing for more affordable housing. I have attended many meetings where residents have voiced their concerns, and offered suggestions I would like to see included in the General plan. Thank you for your consideration. Laurene Keane Costa Mesa Resident Environmental Impact Report 10.0-107 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata From: Lisa Lawrence [mailto:lrlawrence@prodi_gy.netl Sent: Monday, April 18, 201612:51 PM To: General Plan <GeneralPlan@ci.costa-mesa.ca.us7 Cc: ARMSTRONG, GARY <GARY.ARMSTRONG@costamesaca.gov;�-; GREEN, BRENDA tbrenda. green M#costam esaca.gov> Suhjeclr Draft environmental impact report To whom it may concern, The changes to certain parts of the City by the proposed General Plan Amendments are unacceptable because of the impacts those changes will have on the residents. Those impacts are as follows: Displacement of residents as a result of redevelopment of selected properties without a plan to provide replacement housing; No plan to provide affordable housing for seniors and law and very -low income residents, No concrete plan to add walkabilityand bikeability to the City, Increased parking issues; Lowering the level of service at 21 intersections in the City to the level of congestion experienced at Newport Boulevard and 1VI Street; Increased air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions; Increased noise levels as a result of the canyon effect created by tall buildings and sound attenuating walls on arterial roads; Inability to provide new parks and open space to keep up with the substantial deterioration of existing facilities by the increase in use due to increase in population; and No plan to address the scarcity of water sources. Thank you for your consideration, Sincerely, Lisa Lawrence 1014 W. 19th Street Costa Mesa, CA 02627 10.0-108 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata The following are my comments to the Draft Environmental Impact Report. Please make them part of the public record. The changes to certain parts of the City by the proposed General Plan Amendments are unacceptable because of the impacts those changes will have on the residents. Those impacts are as follows: Additional density that does not bring more homeownership opportunities to the City; but instead brings more apartments; Loss of height limitations on buildings south of the 405 freeway; Displacement of residents as a result of redevelopment of selected properties without a plan to provide replacement housing; No plan to provide affordable housing for seniors and low and very -low income residents; No concrete plan to add waIkabiIity and bikeabiIity to the City; Increased parking issues, Lowering the level of service at 21 intersections in the City to the level of congestion experienced Newport Boulevard and 171"Street; Increased air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions; Inoreased noise levels as a result of the canyon effect created by tall buildings and sound attenuating walls on arterial roads; Inability to provide new parks and open space to keep up with the substantial deterioration of existing facilities by the increase in use due to increase in population, and No plan to address the scarcity of water sources. None of the alternatives offered by the City mitigate these impacts. The alternatives do not address protecting the health, safety and quality of life of the residents. The Draft Environmental Impact Report 2 needs to be rewritten to address the concerns of the residents including acquiring more open space, maintaining neighborhood character, bikeabiIity and walkability of publio streets, safe and efficient traffic circulation, increasing homeownership to balance the ratio between homeownership to rental housing, and providing for more affordable housing. Thank you for your consideration. Judy Lindssay 269 Sierks St. Costa Mesa Environmental Impact Report 10.0-109 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata From: Ralph Taboada [maiito:taboa da1Psbcgloba1.net l Sent: Monday, April 18, 201612:01 PM To: General Plan<GeneraIPlan@ci.costa -mesa.ca. us> Cc: GREEN, BRENDA ¢brenda.green@costamesaca.gav>; ARMSTRONG, GARY <G A RY. A R MST RONG @costa mesaca . gov n Suhjeclr GP Draft EIR I have many concerns about the draft El R. I do not believe it adequately addresses the following; 1. loss of height limitations on buildings especially south of the 405 freeway 2. no plan for replacement housing for residents displaced by redevelopment of selected properties 3. -- no plan to provide affordable housing for seniors and low and very low income residents 4. -- no concrete plan to add walkability and bikeability to the City 5. -- lowering of level of service at 21 intersections in the City to the level of congestion experienced at Newport Blvd and 17th Street. 6. -- additional density that does not bring more homeownership opportunities to the City but instead brings in more apartments 7. -- increased noise levels as a result of the canyon effect created by tall buildings 8. inability to provide new parks and open space to keep up with the substantial deterioration of existing facilities by the increase in use due to increase in population 9_ -- increased air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions 10- -- no plan to address the scarcity of water resources The E I R needs to be revised because it does not address protecting the health, safety, and quality of life of Costa Mesa residents. The draft needs to be revised because it does not address the concems of residents such as acquiring more open space, maintaining neighborhood character, bikeability and the walkability of public streets. Thank you Ralph Taboada 10.0-110 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata CITY CLERK April 18, 2016 16 APR Ig AN 8. 2l Cij- I f;T5,1 Re: Environmental Impact Report General Plan Amendments CC: Brenda Green, City Clerk Gary Armstrong, Development Dep. The following are my comments to the Draft Environmental Impact Report. Please make them part of the public record. The changes to certain parts of the proposed General Plan Amendments are unacceptable because of the impact those changes would have on residents. Those impacts are as follows: Additional density that does not bring more home ownership opportunities to the City, but instead brings more apartments Loss of height limitations on buildings south of the 405 freeway Displacement of residents as a result of the development of selected properties without a plan to provide replacement housing. Environmental Impact Report 10.0-111 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata Page 2 Environmental Impact Report General Plan Amendments No plan to provide affordable housing for seniors and low and very low income residents. No concrete plan to add walk ability and bike ability to the City Increased parking issues Lowering the level of service at 21 intersections in the City to the level of the congestion experience at Newport Boulevard and 17th Street Increased air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions Increased noise levels as a result of the canyon effect created by tall buildings and sound attenuating walls on arterial roads Inability to provide new parks and open space to keep up with the substantial deterioration of existing facilities by the increase in use due to the increase in population No plan to address the scarcity of water sources None of the alternatives offered by the City mitigate these impacts. The alternatives do not address protecting the health, safety and quality of life of the residents. 10.0-112 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata Page 3 The Draft Environment Impact Report needs to be rewritten to address the concerns of the residents including acquiring more open space and maintaining the neighborhood character the concerns of the residents including acquiring more open space and maintaining neighborhood character Public streets need to be made safer with walk ability and bike ability as well as efficient traffic circulation Increasing home ownership to balance the ratio with rental housing and providing more affordable housing TSI _a/_n.kyouu for your, consideration. J�ih�i LG LST/ James Locker 323 Sydney Lane Costa Mesa, CA 92627 714.713.1477 Environmental Impact Report 10.0-113 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata From: Anna Vrska [mailto:avrska7@gmail.coml Sent: Monday, April 18, 20164:23 PM To: General Plan <General Plan@ci.costa-mesa.ca.us> Cc: GREEN, BRENDA ¢brenda.green@costamesaca.gav>; ARMSTRONG, GARY <G A RY. A R MST RONG @costa mesaca .gov n Suhjecir Draft E I R Corn ments Good Afternoon, The following are my comments to the Draft Environmental Impact Report. Please make them part of the public record. The changes to certain parts of the City by the proposed General Plan Amendments are unacceptable because of the impacts those changes will have an residents. Those impacts are: Additional density that does not bring more homeownership opportunities to the City, but instead brings more apartments; Loss of height limitations on buildings south of the 405 freeway; Displacement of residents as a result of redevelopment of selected properties without a plan to provide replacement housing; No plan to provide affordable housing for seniors and low and very -low income residents, No concrete plan to add walkability and bikeability to the City Increased parking issues; Lowering the level of service at 21 intersections in the City to the level of congestion experienced at Newport Boulevard and 171h Street; Increased air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, Increased noise levels as a result of the canyon effect created by tall buildings and sound attenuating walls on arterial roads; Inadequate proteotive measures for biological and archeological resources at Fairview Park; Inability to provide new parks and open space to keep up with the substantial deterioration of existing facilities by the increase in use due to increase in population; and No plan to address the scarcity of water sources. None of the altematives offered by the City mitigate these impacts. The alternatives do not address protecting the health, safety and quality of life of the residents. The Draft Environmental Impact Report needs to be rewritten to address the concerns of the residents including acquiring more open space, maintaining neighborhood character, bikeability and walkability of public streets, safe and efficient traffic circulation, increasing homeownership to balance the ratio between homeownership to rental housing, and providing for more affordable housing. Thank you. Anna Vrska 2744 Orange Avenue. 6 Costa Mesa. 92627 10.0-114 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata it LCEiVkL, CITY CLERK April 18, 2016 15 APR I9 M 9 N Re: Environmental Impact Report General Plan Amendments CC: Brenda Green, City Clerk Gary Armstrong, Development Dep. The following are my comments to the Draft Environmental Impact Report. Please make them part of the public record. The changes to certain parts of the proposed General Plan Amendments are unacceptable because of the impact those changes would have on residents. Those impacts are as follows: Additional density that does not bring more home ownership opportunities to the City, but instead brings more apartments Loss of height limitations on buildings south of the 405 freeway Displacement of residents as a result of the development of selected properties without a Plan to provide replacement housing. Environmental Impact Report 10.0-115 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata Page 2 Environmental Impact Report General Plan Amendments No plan to provide affordable housing for seniors and low and very low income residents. No concrete plan to add walk ability and bike ability to the City Increased parking issues Lowering the level of service at 21 intersections in the City to the level of the congestion experience at Newport Boulevard and 17#h Street Increased air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions Increased noise levels as a result of the canyon effect created by tall buildings and sound attenuating walls on arterial roads Inability to provide new parks and open space to keep up with the substantial deterioration of existing facilities by the increase in use due to the increase in population No plan to address the scarcity of water sources None of the alternatives offered by the City mitigate these impacts. The alternatives do not address protecting the health, safety and quality of life of the residents. 10.0-116 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata Page 3 The Draft Environment Impact Report needs to be rewritten to address the concerns of the residents including acquiring more open space and maintaining the neighborhood character the concerns of the residents including acquiring more open space and maintaining neighborhood character Public streets need to be made safer with walk ability and bike ability as well as efficient traffic circulation Increasing home ownership to balance the ratio with rental housing and providing more affordable housing Thank you for your consideration. everly__Ta_4- la 120-A Lisa Costa Mesa, Ca 92627 949.646.3595 Environmental Impact Report 10.0-117 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata H'L'tI'/t=u CITY CLERK April 18, 2016 16 APR 19 AM r1 27 Re: Environmental Impact Report General Plan Amendments CC: Brenda Green, City Clerk Gary Armstrong, Development Dep. The following are my comments to the Draft Environmental Impact Report. Please make them part of the public record. The changes to certain parts of the proposed General Plan Amendments are unacceptable because of the impact those changes would have on residents. Those impacts are as follows: Additional density that does not bring more home ownership opportunities to the City, but instead brings more apartments Loss of height limitations on buildings south of the 405 freeway Displacement of residents as a result of the development of selected properties without a plan to provide replacement housing. 10.0-118 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata Page 2 Environmental Impact Report General Plan Amendments No plan to provide affordable housing for seniors and low and very low income residents. No concrete plan to add walk ability and bike ability to the City Increased parking issues Lowering the level of service at 21 intersections in the City to the level of the congestion experience at Newport Boulevard and 17th Street Increased air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions Increased noise levels as a result of the canyon effect created by tall buildings and sound attenuating walls on arterial roads Inability to provide new parks and open space to keep up with the substantial deterioration of existing facilities by the increase in use due to the increase in population No plan to address the scarcity of water sources None of the alternatives offered by the City mitigate these impacts. The alternatives do not address protecting the health, safety and quality of life of the residents. Environmental Impact Report 10.0-119 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata Page 3 The Draft Environment Impact Report needs to be rewritten to address the concerns of the residents including acquiring more open space and maintaining the neighborhood character the concerns of the residents including acquiring more open space and maintaining neighborhood character Public streets need to be made safer with walk ability and bike ability as well as efficient traffic circulation Increasing home ownership to balance the ratio with rental housing and providing more affordable housing Thank you for your consideration. 9anice Kressin 2415 Santa Ana Avenue Costa Mesa, CA 92627 10.0-120 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata From: Georgette Quinn [mailto:gguinn2Aca.rr.com1 Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 6.33 AM To: MONAHAN, GARY <GARY.MONAHANacastamesaca.aov>; RIGHEIMER, JIM <JIM.RIGHEIMERAcostamesaca.gov>; FOLEY, KATRINA <KATRINA.FOLEYAcostamesaca.gov7; GENIS, SANDRA SANDRA.GENiSacostamesaca.goy>; Mayor < Mavgr[d�costamesaca.00vy Subject: General Plan Amendments Hello, I arty concerned about the fact that the city council is making changes to our city without listening to the residents. We could accept change if the changes took into consideration the of making Costa Mesa a city that is livable to a]l. Nat just cramming in wherever you can high density housing that will bring in the following impacts: Additional density that does not bring more homeownership opportunities to the City, but instead brings more apartments; Loss of height limitations on buildings south of the 405 freeway; Displacement of residents as a result of redevelopment of selected properties without a plan to provide replacement housing; No plan to provide affordable housing for seniors and low and very -low income residents; No concrete plan to add walkability and bikeability to the City; Increased parking issues; Lowering the level of service at 21 intersections in the City to the level of congestion experienced at Newport Boulevard and 17'hStreet; Increased air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions; Increased noise levels as a result of the canyon effect created by tall buildings and sound attenuating walls on arteria] roads; Inability to provide new parks and open space to kccp up with the substantial deterioration of existing facilities by the increase in use due to increase in population; and No plan to address the scarcity of water sources. None of the alternatives offered by the City mitigate these impacts. The alternatives do not address protecting the health, safety and quality of life of the residents. The Draft Environmental Impact Report needs to be rewritten to address the concerns ofthe residents including acquiring more open space, maintaining neighborhood character, bikeability and walkability of public streets, safe and efficient traffic circulation, increasing homeownership to balance the ratio hctween homeownership to rental housing, and providing for more affordable hauling - Thank you for your consideration. Ceoroeftt M. 0AL..vn, nKST DCA55E Delegate 2015-2015 1750 Whittier Ave 714-319-5053 Environmental Impact Report 10.0-121 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata 2442 Andover Place Costa Mesa, CA 92626 April 11, 2016 TO: ROBERT L. DICKSON, JR. Chair, Costa Mesa Planning Commission JEFF MATHEWS, Vice Chair, Costa Mesa Planning Commissioner STEPHAN ANDRANIAN, Costa Mesa Planning Commissioner COLIN MCCARTHY, Costa Mesa Planning Commissioner TIM SESLER, Costa Mesa Planning Commissioner As per Page 9 of the Planning Commission's agenda for tonight's meeting, I read, "The Draft EiR and Technical Appendices will be available for review and comment for 45 [forty-five] days commencing March 4, 2016 at 8:00 am and ending on April 18, 2016 at 5:00 pm. Costa Mesa's Office of the City Clerk provided me with a CD that has the targe PDF of the Proposed General Plan, the Draft EIR and all Technical Appendices. I was intending to further study this material and submit comments all during this coming week. On Page 14 of tonight's agenda, I read ''...Costa Mesa Planning Commission hereby recommends... PASSED AND ADOPTED this 11`h day of April, 2016." I request that you not pass Item 1 of tonight's agenda. Please respect the citizens of Costa Mesa by following the letter of the law and providing us with the full 45 -day period in which to summit our comments. Respectfully submitted, Flo Martin, 49 -year resident of Costa Mesa, CA Received Clty of Costa Mesa Development Services Department APR 112016 10.0-122 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata I am filing an objection to the above item. The comments and public input is, according to your documents, open for one more week. I question the ability to cut short the time for residents to make comments and submit emails and letters. Hopefully, this was a typographical error and will be corrected, forthwith. 1� C, Sincerely, Mary Spadoni 2474 Orange Avenue Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Environmental Impact Report 10.0-123 .7) To. Mrs. Brenda Green, City Clerk RE: Planning Commission 04/11/16 -c � W'. � wC ' c sC = FT Public Hearing, item 1 is ! < Fl Date: 04/11/2016 RC-0 77- ` I am filing an objection to the above item. The comments and public input is, according to your documents, open for one more week. I question the ability to cut short the time for residents to make comments and submit emails and letters. Hopefully, this was a typographical error and will be corrected, forthwith. 1� C, Sincerely, Mary Spadoni 2474 Orange Avenue Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Environmental Impact Report 10.0-123 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata COLGAN, JULIE Subject: Violation of process of CEQA From: C B (ma iltc:cblack949@hot mail.com] Sent. Monday, April 11, 2016 4:38 PM To: GREEN, BRENDA<bre nda.greenPcostamesa ca.eov>; DUNN, MICHAEL<MICHAEL.DUNN@costamesaca.gov>; HATCH, THOMAS <THOMAS.HATCH @costamesaca.gov_> Subject: Violation of process of CEQA Attn: Tom Hatch City Manager/CEO of Costa Mesa Brenda Green -City Clerk of Costa Mesa Hello, I am writing to voice my objection to what I believe a gross violation of due process of the California Enviromental Quality Act-CEQA. Listed as notice on the planning commission agenda for April 11, 2016: Agenda notice for tonights Planning Commission: Approve by adoption of Planning Commission Resolutions for the following actions: I . Recommend that the City Council certify Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) — SCH No. 2015111068 and; 2. Recommend that the City Council adopt 2015-2035 General Plan htt://rrw,vv.costamesaca.aov/index.as x? aQe-1966 The DEIR cannot certify and/or adopt the General Plan prior to the close of the comment period, which was noticed as March 4 2016 through April 18 2016. "The General Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Report and Technical Appendices are available for review and comment for 45 days commencing March 4, 2016 at 8:00 am and ending on April 18, 2016 at 5:00 pm. Written comments on the Draft EIR must be submitted by April 18, 2016 by 5:00 pm to the City of Costa Mesa." Please correct this error and clarify to the public that a mistake has been made. I also suggest that the comment period be extended as result of this error in notification. Thank you, Cindy Black 10.0-124 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata COMMENT I-12 From: Brian Burnett <post.haniotoof ccbmmaiI-ccm> Subject; Costa Mesa General Plan Update Draft E I R Ccmments And Questions Date: April 16, 2016 at 12:39:33 AM PDT To: generalplanAcostamesaca.gov The following are questions, comments, and requests regarding the Costa Mesa General Plan Update Draft EIR: 1. The city has surveys of confirmed observations that prove the endangered Califomia Gnatcatcher is in the park. Local park users, photographers, amateur biologists, and professional biologists have pictures and coordinates of them. There are also confirmed observations of nesting pairs.Where are the surveys including breeding surveys for California G natc atchers? Why were the surveys including breeding surveys not included far Califomia Gnatcatchers'� There needs to be a California Gnatcatcher survey that includes a breeding season survey. 2. There is n mention of Burrowing Owls past 2006 in the draft El yet there have been confirmed observations and pictures of them in the park up until 2016. Where are the surveys including breeding surveys 2 far the Burrowing Owls? Why were surveys including breeding surveys not included for the Burrowing Owls? There needs to be a Burrowing Owl survey that includes a wintering and breeding season survey. 3. The city has inadvertently or purposely destroyed or degraded Southern Tarplant, Vernal Pool, Burrowing l 3 Owl, Rive rine, Riparian, and other habitat over the years. Where is the study to shows the effects of this I inadvertent or purposeful destruction or degradation of habitat in Fairview Park? There needs to be a study of past destruction and degradation of the park and what its effects were. 4. The city knows about a nesting pair of Northern Harriers in Fairview Park. They have been residents in the 4 park for quite some time. Where are the surveys including breeding surveys for the Northern Harriers? Why were surveys including breeding surveys not included far the Northem Harriers? There needs to be a survey including a breeding survey for Northern Harriers. 5. The city had contractors restore numerous large sections of the rare, endangered, and protected Southern 5 Tarplant over the years in Fairview Park. There status has been confirmed many times over the years and would only not be in the park unless the plants were purposely destroyed. Where are the surveys for Southem Tarplant? Why were surveys tar Southern Tarpiafit nat included? 6. Fairview Park has some of the last coastal vernal pools in Califomia. Vernal Pool 1 is the largest coastal vernal pool west of the Mississippi. Despite their federally protected status, they have been degraded by the city of Costa Mesa either inadvertently or purposely over the years. Where are the surveys that document the 6 destruction of this habitat? Where are the surveys that document the current status of the vernal pools and their recommendations to restore them? Where are the management plans to protect the vemaI pools for future generations? Where is the correspondence from the USFWS regarding the vernal pools? There needs to be surveys that document previous destruction or degradation of the vernal pools to help prevent anymore destruction or degradation in the future. There needs to be surveys to document the current status of the vemaI pools East and West of Placentia Avenue. 7. Where is the rare or endangered plant survey? There needs to be an endangered plant survey. 8_ Where is the vegetation mapping? 9. Where is the long term maintenance plan? 10. Where is the entomological survey? 11 - Where is the herpetological survey? 12. Where is the pacific chorus frog survey? 13. Where is the spade foot toad survey? Environmental Impact Report 10.0-125 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata 14. Where is the biological inventory survey? 15. Where are the surveys including breeding surveys for the Yellow Breasted Chat.? 16. Where is the trap door spider survey? 17. Where are the surveys including breeding surveys for all of the ether rare, of concern, special status, or endangered species? 10.0-126 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata Letter 1-13 HAMILTON BIOLOGICAL April 18, 2016 Ms. Claire Flynn Assistant Development Services Director City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, California 92626 SUBJECT: COMMENTS ON CITY OF COSTA MESA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Dear Ms. Flynn, On behalf of Hamilton Biological, Inc., I provide these comments on the Draft EIR for the City of Costa Mesa's General Plan Update. I submit these comments out of my own concern for the City and its natural resources. I am a professional biological consultant with 28 years of experience worlang primarily in Orange County and surrounding ju- ris dic tio ns. In 1994, I planned and initiated the volunteer restoration of coastal sage scrub in the carryon near the entrance to Fairview Park, and in 1995 I prepared the bio- logical resources section of the original Fairview Park Master Plan. Since then, I have remained interested in the biological resources of Fairview P ark and the wider lower Santa Ana River ecosystem My comments address Section 4.4, Biological Resources. I am qualified to pro vide this review, having prepared the biological resources section for numerous CEQA documents throughout Orange County and the wider region, and also having reviewed many such documents, my Curriculum Vitae is attached. PAGE 4-4.1: SOURCES OF INFORMATION 1-13.1 The DEIR lists several sources of information consulted. For plants, primary sources of occurrence information should be the C onsortiurn of C alifornia Herbaria and C alflora: http: / / ucj ep s. berkeley. edu/c onsortiuml http:/ jwww.calflora.org/ The c ons o rtium p ro vide s a consolidated list of plant specimens collected all over the state, and maps of the locations can be accessed through Calfora. Calflora also accepts photo -documented records and maps their locations. The DEIR does cite Calflora in the accounts of special status species recoiled in Fairview Park, but Calffora and the Con- sortium should also have been consulted for the lists of plant species reported to have 315 Monrovia Avenueti� Long Beach, CA 90803 ti0--'552-477-21 robbahamiltonbiological.com Environmental Impact Report 10.0-127 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata Lefter 1-13 Review of Costa Mesa General Plan Update DEIR Hamilton Biological, Inc. April 14, 2016 Page 2 o6 6 "confirmed observations" in Table 4.4-3 of the DEIR. As discussed subsequently, sever- al entries are questionable. For bird records (Table 4.4-5), it is standard for CEQA documents to utilize the eBisd 1-13.2 data base as a source of basic distribution information: http://ebird.org/ The eSird web page provides vetted, updated records of bird species recorded in vari- ous parts of Costa Mesa, including Fairview Park and many other locations. Some rec- ords in eBird may be questionable in spite of vetting, meaning that the biologist prepar- ing the CEQA document should have adequate experience to know which records are suspect. Nevertheless eSird must be consulted for any CEQA document that attempts to assemble a reasonably complete bird species list in a city the size of Costa Mesa. Itis not dear whether the Fairview Park Master Plan and its supporting biological doc- 1-13.3 uments were actually consulted as part of the descriptions of plant and wildlife species known or expected to occur in Costa Mesa. The tables of species do not reflect what is contained in the Master Plan. For example, a report prepared for the City by LSA Asst} ciates, Inc., dated June 28, 2Ed7, entitled, "Update to the Biological Constraints and in- formation for the Fairview bark Master Plan, City of Costa Mesa, County of Orange, California," contains a considerable amount of information that is inconsistent with the information contained in the General Plan Update DEIR. The letter is available ordine: littp:/ / www.ci.costa-mesa.ca.us/ fairviewpark/ dors/ Fairview-Park-Biological- Survey.pdf This letter is referred to hereaf ter as (LSA 20W). TABLE 4-4.1: PLAINTS OF GRASSLAND COMMUNITIES I-13.4 This table indicates various plant species with very limited distributions in Orange County as having been confirmed as being present in Costa Mesa. To my knowledge, most of them are very unlikely to have been recorded in Costa Mesa in modern times, if ever. Questionable species include Desert Needlegrass (Achnatherum speciosum), Red - skinned Onion (Allium haematochiton), and Southwestern Feardgrass (Andropogon glom- eratus), but many others are similarly unlikely to have been recorded in Costa Mesa. At the same time, Table 411.2 is missing numerous common plant species known to occur in Costa Mesa (e.g., Ripgut Brome Bromus diandrus and Short -podded Mustard Hirsch- feldia incana). Additionally, many plant species names are misspelled or represent older names no longer in use (e.g., "Hemixonia ,Parryi ssp. Australis" should be Centromadia parryi ssp. australis). It is requested that the EIR preparer review Table 4-44.1 against the distributional and taxonomic information available through Calfloxa/Consortium of California Herbaria, as well as the Fairview Park Master Plan and supporting biological reports. Species not known from Costa Mesa should be removed, all species that have been recorded in Costa Mesa should be added, and taxonomy and spelling should be 10.0-128 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata Letter 1-13 Review of Costa Mesa General Plan Update DEIR Hamilton Biological, Inc. April 18, 2016 Page 3 of 6 carefully reviewed in order for Table 4-4.1 to provide a valid reference. As it stands, this table is far more confusing that, it is useful. TARLEs 4-4.1, 4-4.21 4-4.3 These tables indicate that various plant species have been confirmed as being present, but that seem to me very unlikely to have been recorded in Costa Mesa in modern times, if ever. Questionable species include Desert Needlegrass (Achnafherum spedosum), Red -skinned Onion (Allium haematochit n), Southwestern Beardgxass (Andropogan glom- eratus), and Chocolate Lily (Fritillaria bif2ora), Bt -leaf Maple (Acer mar_rophyIlum), Sword Ferir (Polystichum munitum), Canyon Live Oak (Quercus chrysoIepis), and California Bay Laurel (Umbellularis californica), but several others are similarly unlikely to have been recorded in Costa Mesa. At the same time, these tables are missing numerous common plant species known to occur in these communities in Costa Mesa (e.g., Ripgut Brome Bromus diandrus and Short -podded Mustard Hirschfeldia incana). Additionally, many plant species names are misspelled or represent older names no longer in use (e.g., "Hemixonia Parryi ssp. Austrahs" should be Centromadia parryi ssp. australis). It is re- quested that the EIR preparer review these tables against the distributional and taxo- nornic information available through Calflora f Consortium of California Herbaria, as well as the Fairview Park Master Plan and supporting biological reports. In order for these tables to provide valid reference information, species not known from Costa Mesa should be removed, species that have been recorded in Costa Mesa should be added, and taxonomy and spelling should be carefully reviewed. In addition, vernal pools represent one of the most important plant communities found in Costa Mesa. Therefore, either Table 4-4.1 should be expanded to include vernal pool plants in addition to grassland plants, or another table should be provided to include vernal pool plants. PACE 4-4.5: LEAST BELL'S VIREO This page states, "Least Bell's vireo (Vireo belly pusillus) which inhabits riparian and ter- restrial fields, shrubland, chaparral, and woodlands." This isnot an accurate descrip- tion of the plant communities used by this listed species, which in the City of Costa Me- sa is limited to patches of riparian scrub and woodland habitat. The EIR should specify where in Costa Mesa the Least Bell's Vireo has been found in recent years. This is true of all special -status species discussed in the EIR. PAGE54-4.5, 4-4.9: BURROWING OWL Page 4-4.5 states, "The burrowing owl is a wild indigenous species of predatory bird that uses abandoned rodent burrows for nests. It is currently on the Audubon Society Blue List of rare birds and is a California Species of Special Concern." To the best of my knowledge, the National Audubon Society has not maintained its "Blue List' for many 1-13.4 I-13.4 I-13.4 Environmental Impact Report 10.0-129 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata Letter 1-13 Review of Costa Mesa General Plan Update DEIR Hamilton Biological, Inc. April 14, 2016 Page 4 of 6 years, and it is questionable whether the "Blue List" ever had any regulatory relevance for CEQA. At this point, it is inappropriate to cite the "Blue List" in a CEQA document. Page 4-4.9 states, "Although most burrowing owl breeders are migratory, both locally and long distance, Southern California populations are generally considered resident." If the EER preparer is aware of Burrowing Owls being resident in Fairview Park, or elsewhere in Costa Mesa, the source of this information should be disclosed. It is my best understanding that this owl presently occurs only as a migrant and winter visitor (e.g. LSA 2004 PAGE 4-4.8: BELDING`S SAVANNAH SPARROW I-13.4 This page states, "Btlding's savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis belding?) is one of few species of birds that reside year-round in coastal salt marshes of Southern Cah- fornia. It inhabits coastal salt marshes from Santa Barbara south through San Diego County. It nests in pickleweed (Salicornia virginica) on and about the margins of tidal flats. Locally it is known from the Santa Ana River mouth." Do any Belding's Savannah Sparrows actually occur within the City of Costa Mesa, or are they limited to nearby ar- eas, such as the Santa Ana River mouth? PAGE 4-4.5: COAST HORNED LIZARD 2-13 A This page refers to the "Coast horned lizard (Phrynosorna loronatum)", which is currently known as Blainville's Horned Lizard (Phrynosoma blainvilf i). I am unaware of any rec- ords of this reptile from Costa Mesa during modern times, and would be surprised to find it, even in Fairview Park. On what basis is it reported as occurring anywhere in the City, even rarely? TABLE 4.4-4: AMPHIBIANS, REPTILES, AND MAMMALS I-13.4 Questions and comments: • As a general comment, listing species in alphabetical order makes it difficult for biologists to review the lists. It would be greatly preferable to organize tables ac- cording to the standard scientific order. • The San Diego Black -tailed Jackrabbit (Lepus californicus benneth) is a California Species of Special. Concern (although not so indicated in the table). I observed this haze in the lower Santa Ana liver area during the early 1990s but have not seen one there in more than 20 years. It was not reported during biological sur- veys completed in 2005 and 2006 (LSA 2007). Are there any recent records from Costa Mesa? • The Desert Woodrat (Neotoma lepida) is a California Species of Special Concern, not so indicated in the table. 10.0-130 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata Letter 1-13 Review of Costa Mesa General Plan Update DEIR Hamilton Biological, Inc. April 18, 2016 Page 5 o6 6 • When was the last time a Long-tailed Weasel was recorded in Costa Mesa? • The Coast Patch -nosed Snake is a California Species of Special Concern, not so indicated in the table. • On what basis is the Western Terrestrial Garter Snake (Thamnophis elegans) a "confirmed observation"? The range of this species does not include Orange County. • Why is there no mention of the Southwestern Pond Turtle (Actinemys pallidu)? TABLE 4.4-5: BIRDS Questions and comments: I-13.4 • The Cactus Wren (Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus) appears to have been extir- pated from the lower Santa Ana River ecosystem, including Fairview Park, with- in the past decade. LSA (2007) did not report any sightings from Fairview Park, and the last bird was recorded at nearby Banning Ranch in 2009. Unless the EIR preparer is aware of recent records, this species should be presumed extirpated. • Why is there no mention of the Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Pohoptila califor- nica Californica) anywhere in the DN W This federally threatened species has been repeatedly documented in various parts of Fairview Park over a period of many years. Does Costa Mesa include any designated Critical Habitat for the gnat - catcher? • The Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus), a California Species of Special Concern, has been documented in Fairview Park (e.g., LSA 2007, eBird data). The Yellow -breasted Chat (Icteria wens), a California Species of Special Concern has been documented in Fairview Park (e.g., ISA 2007). • On what basis does the DEIR claim that the Slack-chirined Sparrow (Spizella arta- gularis) has been observed in Costa Mesa? PAGE 4-4.11: SOUTHERN COASTAL SALT MARSH 1-13.4 The DEIR discusses this plant community, but fails to identify where in Costa Mesa it occurs. Where does it occur? PAGE 4-4.11: SENSITIVE COMMUNITIES NOT DISCUSSED 2-13.4 The DEIR fails to mention coastal sage scrub, coastal bluff scrub, vernal pools, riparian scrub, and native grasslands, all natural communities of special interest that occur iTt Costa Mesa. Environmental Impact Report 10.0-131 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata Letter 1-13 Review of Costa Mesa General Plan Update DEIR Hamilton Biological, Inc. April 18, 2016 Page 6 of 6 CONCLUSION I-13.5 The Biological Resources section of the DEIR shows no indication that the EIR preparer has meaningful familiarity with the natural communities present in the City of Costa Mesa, or the special -status species known/potentially present there. The section is poor- ly organized, rife with errors, and provides little effective guidance on how decision - makers in the City should move forward to achieve some of the overarching goals in the document, such as, "Carefully balance natural lands, habitat, and protection of multiple species with the need to accommodate development." To achieve such a goal, the EIR should provide detailed and reliable information on the resources present in the City, the locations where they are found, and the planning framework needed to conserve important populations. Unfortunately, the DEIR falls far short of that goal. It would be preferable that the DEIR be revised to provide the requisite information in readable form, but beyond that perhaps the FEIR can correct some of the more egregious errors contained in the DEIR. Sincerely, Robert A. Hamilton President, Hamilton Biological, Inc. Attachment: Curriculum Vitae 10.0-132 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata Letter 1-13 Robert A. Hamilton President, Hamilton Biological, Inc. Expertise Robert A. Hamilton has been providing biological Endangered Species Surveys consulting services in southern California since 1988. He General Biological Surveys spent the formative years of his career at the firm of LSA CEQA Analysis Associates in Irvine, where he was a staff biologist and Population Monitoring project manager. He has worked as an independent and Vegetation Mapping on-call consultant since 1994, incorporating his business Construction Monitoring as Hamilton Biological, Inc., in 2009. The consultancy Noise Mon itofing Open Space Planning specializes in the practical application of environmental Natural Lands Management politics and regulations to land management and land use Biological Consultant, Hamilton decisions in southern California. Education A recognized authority on the status, distribution, and 1988. Bachelor of Science degree in identification of birds in California, Mr. Hamilton is the Biological Sciences, lead author of two standard references describing aspects university of California, of the state's avifauna: The Birds of Orange County: Status & Irvine Distribution and Rare Birds of California. Mr. Hamilton has also conducted extensive studies in Baja California, and for Professional Experience seven years edited the Baja California Peninsula regional reports for the journal North American Birds. He served ten 1994 to Present. Independent years on the editorial board of Western Birds and regularly Biological Consultant, Hamilton publishes in peer-reviewed journals. He is a founding Biological, Inc. member of the Coastal Cactus Wren Working Group and in 1988 to 1994. Biologist, LSA 2011 updated the Cactus Wren species account for The Associates, Inc. Birds of North America Online. Mr. Hamilton's expertise includes vegetation mapping. From 2007 to 2010 he Permits worked as an on-call biological analyst for the County of Lo Angeles Department of Regional Planning. From 2010 Federal Permit No. TE -799557 to to present he has conducted construction monitoring and survey for the Coastal California focused surveys for special -status bird species on the Gnatcatcher and Southwestern Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project (TRTP). He is Willow Flycatcher a former member of the Los Angeles County Significant MOUs with the California Dept. of Ecological Areas Technical Advisory Committee (SEATAC). Fish and Game to survey for Coastal California Gnatcatcher and Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Mr. Hamilton conducts general and focused hiningical surveys of small and large properties as necessary to California Srienlific Collecting obtain various local, state, and federal permits, Permit No. SC -001107 agreements, and clearances. He also conducts landscape - level surveys needed by land managers to monitor songbird populations. Mr. Hamilton holds the federal and state permits and MOUS listed to the left, and he is recog- nized by federal and state resource agencies as being highly qualified to survey for the Least Bell's Vireo. He also provides nest -monitoring services in compliance with the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish & Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5 and 3513. Environmental Impact Report 10.0-133 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata Letter 1-13 Curriculum Vitae for Robert A. Hamilton Page 2 of 8 Board Memberships, Advisory Mr. Hamilton monitors noise as it relates to nesting or Positions, Etc. roosting birds using an advanced Quest SoundPro unit that Coastal Cactus Wren Working can provide second -by -second logging of noise levels at the Group (2008 -present) nest; this allows documentation of the varying sound Los Angeles County Significant pressure levels that nesting birds are exposed to during Ecological Areas Technical Advisory construction and evaluation of any effects associated with Committee (SEATAC) {2010-101 a} different levels. He is an expert photographer, and typically provides photo -documentation and/or video American 8irdingAssociation: Baja documentation as part of his services. Calif. Peninsula Regional Editor, NorthAmerican 8irds(2000-2006) Drawing upon a robust, multi -disciplinary understanding Western Field Ornithologists: of the natural history and ecology of his home region, Mr. Associate Editor of Western Birds (1999-2008) Hamilton works with private and public land owners, as well as governmental agencies and interested third California Bird Records Committee parties, to apply the local, state, and federal land use (1998-2001 j policies and regulations applicable to each particular Nature Reserve of Orange County-- situation. Mr. Hamilton has amassed extensive experience Technical Advisory Committee in the preparatton and critical review of CEQA documents, (1996-2001) from relatively simple Negative Declarations to complex California Native Plant Society, supplemental and recirculated Environmental Impact Orange County Chapter: Conservation Chair (1992-2003) Reports. In addition to his knowledge of CEQA and its Guidelines, Mr. Hamilton understands how each Lead Agency brings its own interpretive variations to the CEQA Professional Affiliations review process. American Ornithologists' Union Representative Project Experience Cooper 0rnithologicaI Society Institute for Bird Populations From 2D10 to present, working on-call for ICF International and Forde Biological Consulting, Mr. California Native Plant Society Hamilton has (a) conducted focused surveys and noise Southern California Academy of monitoring for Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, Least Sciences Bell's Vireo, California Gnatcatcher, and Burrowing Owl, Western Foundation of Vertebrate (b) conducted nesting bird surveys, and (c) monitored Zoology construction, for the Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project [T RTP). This large, complex project involves replacing 175 miles of transmission lines from the California deserts, over the San Gabriel Mountains, and cast to San Bernardino County. Mr. Hamilton has received various forms of specialized training and is very familiar with Southern California Edison's FRED system [Field Reporting Environmental Database]. He has served as a 'lead biologist" for nesting birds, listed passerine species, and Burrowing Owls, and has helped to prepare the annual reports on the focused survey efforts as well as conducting many of the surveys. Mr. Hamilton has also participated in discussions with state regulators concerning the methods and results of focused surveys. 10.0-134 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment Letter 1-13 Curriculum Vitae for Robert A. Hamilton 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata Page 3 of 8 Insurance From 2012 to 2014, under contract to Cooper Ecological $3,000,000 professional li8bility Monitoring, Mr. Hamilton collaborated with Dan Cooper on policy (Hanover Insurance Group) A Conservation Analysis for the Santo Monica Mountains $2,000,000 general liability policy "Coastal Zon e" in Las Angeles County, and worked with Mr. (The I IaWord) Cooper and the County of Los Angeles to secure a certified Local Coastal Program (LCP) for 52,000 acres of 31,0auto liability policy unincorporated County Ian ds in the Santa Monica [statee Farm) Mountains coastal zone. The work involved synthesizing Other Relevant Experience large volumes of existing baseline information on the biological resources of the study area, evaluating existing Field Ornithologist, San Diego land use policies, and developing new policies and Natural History Museum Sc ientific guidelines for future development within this large, Collecting Expedition to Central and ecologically sensitive area. A coalition of environmental Southern Baja California, October/November 1997 and organizations headed by the Surfrider Foundation selected November 2003. this project as the "Best 2014 California Coastal Field Ornithologist, Island Commission Vote" Conservation and Ecology Group [hap://wwwsurfrider.erg/irrogcs/up]oads/'1014CCC_Vote Chart FiNAL.pdQ. Expedition to the Tres Marfas Islands, Nayarit, Mexico, 23 January In 2010, under contract to CAA Planning, served as to 8 February 2002. principal author of the Conservation & Management Plan Field Ornithologist, Algal ita Marine for Marina del Rey, Los Angeles County, California. This Research Foundation neustonic comprehensive planning document has two overarching plastic research voyages in tt,e goals: (1) to promote the long-term conservation of all Pacific: Ocean, 15 August to 4 native species that exist in, or that may he expected to September 1999 and 14 to 28 July return to, Marina del Rey, and (2) to diminish the potential 2000- for conflicts between wildlife populations and both Field Assistant, Bird Banding Study, existing and planned human uses of Marina del Rey (to the Rfo Nambi Reserve, Colombia, benefit of humans and wildlife alike). After peer -review, January to March 1997. the Plan was accepted by the Coastal Commission as an appropriate response to the varied challenges posed by References colonial waterbirds and other biologically sensitive resources colonizing urban areas once thought to have Provided upon request. little resource conservation value. From 2007 to 2010, under contract to Sigma Engineering (now EORM1, Mr. Hamilton worked as an on-call analyst for the County of Los Angeles Department of Regional Planning. This work involved reviewing biological technical reports, impact/mitigation analyses, landscape plans, and other environmental documents submitted to the County by project proponents, and preparing CEQA documents. Mr. Hamilton worked on more than 20 projects during this time. From 2002 to 2005, under contract to the City of Orange, prepared the Biological Resources section of a hybrid Supplemental E1R/Draft EIR for the 5,900 -acre Santiago Environmental Impact Report 10.0-135 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata Letter 1-13 Curriculum Vitae for Robert A. Hamilton Page 4 of 8 Hills Il/East Orange Planned Community project in central Orange County. This complicated document covered one proposed development area that already had CEQA clearance, but that required updating for alterations to the previously approved pian, and a much larger area that was covered under an existing Natural Communities Conservation Plan (N CCP). The SEIR/EIR was certified in November 2005. From 1995 to 2001, worked with study -design specialists and resource agency representatives to develop a long- term passerine bird monitoring program for the 37,000 - acre Nature Reserve of Orange County, and directed its implementation with subsequent contract work. Tasks included (1) annual monitoring of 40 California Gnatcatcher and Cactus Wren study sites, f j oversight of up to 10 constant -effort bird handing stations from 1999 to 2003 under the Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship (MAPS) program, and (3) focused surveys for the Cactus Wrcn, and detailed mapping of cactus scrub habitat, across the NROC's coastal reserve in 2005 and 2007. Third Party Review of CEQA Documents Under contract to cities, conservation groups, homeowners' associations, and other interested parties, have reviewed EIRs and other project documentation for the following projects: The Ranch at Laguna Beach (resort, City of Laguna Beach) • Banning Ranch (residential/commercial, City of Newport Beach) • Sunset Ridge Park (city park, City of Newport Beach) • The Ranch Plan (residential/commercial, County of Orange] • Southern Orange County Transportation Infrastructure Improvement Project (Foothill South Toll Road, County of Orange) • Gregory Canyon Landfill Restoration Plan (proposed mitigation, County of San Diego) • Montebello Hills Specific Plan EIR (residential, City of Montebello; 2009 and 2014 circulations) 10.0-136 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata Letter 1-13 Curriculum Vitae for Robert A. Hamilton Page 5 of 8 • Cabrillo Mobile Home Park Violations (illegal wetland filling, City of Huntington Beach) • Newport Hyatt Regency (timeshare conversion project, City of Newport Beach) • Lower San Diego Creels "Emergency Repair Project" (flood control, County of Orange) • Tonner Hills (residential, City of Brea) • The Bridges at Santa Fe Units 6 and 7 (residential, County of San Diego) • Villages of La Costa Master Plan (residential/commercial, City of Carlsbad) • Whispering Hills (residential, City of San Juan Capistrano) • Santiago Hills II (residential/commcrcial, City of Orange) • Rancho Potrero Leadership Academy (youth detention facility/road, County of Orange) • Saddle Creek/Saddle Crest (residential, County of Orange) • Frank G. Bonelli Regional County Parr Master Plan (County of Los Angeles) Contact Information Robert A. Hamilton President, Hamilton Biological, Inc. 316 Monrovia Avenue Long Beach, CA 40803 562-477-2181 (office, mobile) robb@hamiltonbiological.com http://hamiltonbiological.com Environmental Impact Report 10.0-137 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata Letter 1-13 Curriculum Vitae for Robert A. Hamilton Page 6 of 8 Selected Presentations Hamilton, R. A. and D. S. Cooper. Nesting Bird Policy: We Can Do Better. 2016. 20 -minute multimedea presentation delivered at The Wildlife Society Western Section Conference in Pomona, 26 February. Hamilton, R. A. Six Legs Good. 2012-2014.90-minutc multimedia presentation on the identification and photography of dragonflies, damselflies, butterflies, and other invertebrates, given at various Audubon Society chapter meetings and similar gatherings. Hamilton, R. A. 2012. Identification of Focal Wildlife Specics for Restoration, Coyote Creek Watershed Master Plan. Twenty -minute multimedia presentation given at the Southern California Academy of Sciences annual meeting at Occidental College, Eagle Rock, 4 May. Abstract published in the Bulletin of the Southern California Academy of Sciences No. 111[1):39. Hamilton, R. A, and Cooper, D. S. 2009-2010. Conservation & Management Plan for Marina del Rey. Twenty -minute multimedia presentation given to different governmental agencies and interest groups. Hamilton, R. A. 2008. Cactus Wren Conservation Issues, Nature Reserve of Orange County. One- hour multimedia presentation for Sea & Sage Audubon Society, Irvine, California, 25 November. Hamilton, R A, Miller, W. B., Mitrovich, M. 1. 2008. Cactus Wren Study, Nature Reserve of Orange County. Twenty-minutc multimedia presentation given at the Nature Reserve of Orange County's Cactus Wren Symposium, Irvine, California, 30 April 2008. Hamilton, R. A. and K. Messer. 2006. 1999-2004 Results of Annual California Gnatcatcher and Cactus Wren Monitoring in the Nature Reserve of Orange County. Twenty -minute multimedia presentation given at the Partners In Flight meeting: Conservation and Management of Coastal Scrub and Chaparral Birds and Habitats, Starr Ranch Audubon Sanctuary, 21 August 2004; and at the Nature Reserve of Orange County 101h Anniversary Symposium, Irvine, California, 21 November. Publications Hamilton, R. A. 2014. Bonk review: The Sibley Guide to Birds, Second Edition. Western Birds 45:154-157. Cooper, D. S., R. A. Hamilton, and S. D. Lucas. 2012. A population census of the Cactus Wren in coastal Los Angeles County. Western Birds 43:151-163. Hamilton, R. A., J. C. Burger, and S. H. Anon. 2012. Use of artificial nesting structures by Cactus Wrens in Orange County, California. Western Birds 43:37-46. Hamilton, R. A., Proudfoot, G. A., Sherry, D. A., and Johnson, S. 2011. Cactus Wren (Campylorhyn- ch us brunneicapillus), in The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, ed.). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY. Hamilton, R. A. 2008. Cactus Wrens in central & coastal Orange County: How will a worst-case scenario play out under the NCCP? Western Tanager 75:2-7. 10.0-138 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata Letter 1-13 Curriculum Vitae for Robert A. Hamilton Page 7 of 8 Erickson, R. A, R. A. Hamilton, R. Carmona, G. Ruiz -Campos, and Z. A. Henderson. 2008. Value of perennial archiving of data received through the North American Birds regional reporting system: Examples from the Baja California Peninsula. North American Birds 6 2:2-9. Erickson, R. A, R. A. Hamilton, and S. G. Mlodinow. 2008. Status review of Bclding's Yellowthroat Geo thlypis heldingi, and implications for its conservation. Bird Conservation International 18:219-220. Hamilton, R. A. 2008. Fulvous Whistling -Duck (Dendrocygna bicolor). Pp. 68-73 in California Bird Species of Special Concern: A ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California (Shuford, W. D. and T_ Gardali, eds.). Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, CA, and California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA. California Bird Records Committee (R. A. Hamilton, M. A. Patten, and R. A. Erickson, editors.). 2007. Rare Birds of California. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, CA. Hamilton, R. A., R. A. Erickson, E. Palacios, and R. Carmona. 2001-2007. North American Birds quarterly reports for the Baja California Peninsula Region, Fall 2000 through Winter 2006/2007. Hamilton, R. A. and P. A. Gaede. 2005. Pink -sided x Gray -headed Juncos. Western Birds 36:150- 152. Mlodinow, S. G. and R. A. Hamilton. 2005. Vagrancy of Painted Bunting (Fasserina ciris) in the United States, Canada, and Bermuda. North American Birds 59:172-183. Erickson, R. A, R. A. Hamilton, S. GonzAlez-Guzman, G. Ruiz -Campos. 2002. Primeros registros de anidau6n del Pato Friso (Anus strepera) en Mexico. Anales del Instituto de Biologia, Universidad Nacional Aut6noma de Mexico, Scrie Zoologia 73(1):67-71. Hamilton, R. A. and J. L. Dunn. 2002. Red-naped and Red -breasted sapsuckers. Western Birds 33:128-130. Hamilton, R. A. and S. N. G. Howell. 2002. Gnatcatcher sympatry near San Felipe, Baja California, with notes on other species. Western Birds 33:123-124. Hamilton, R. A. 2001. Book review. The Sibley Guide to Birds. Western Birds 32:95-96. Hamilton, R. A. and R. A. Erickson. 2 001. Noteworthy breeding bird records from the Vi2caiino Desert, Baja California Peninsula. Pp. 102-105 in Monographs in Field Ornithology No. 3. American Birding Association, Colorado Springs, CO. Hamilton, R. A. 2001. Log of bird record documentation from the Baja California Peninsula archived at the San Diego Natural History Museum. Pp. 242-253 in Monographs in Field Ornithology No. 3. American Birding Association, Colorado Springs, CO. Hamilton, R. A. 2001. Records of caged birds in Baja California. Pp. 254-257 in Monographs in Field Ornithology No. 3. American Birding Association, Colorado Springs, CO. Erickson, R. A, R. A. Hamilton, and. S. N. G. Howell. 2001. New information on migrant birds in northern and central portions of the Baja California Peninsula, including species new to Mexico. Pp. 112-170 in Monographs in Field Ornithology No. 3. American Birding Association, Colorado Springs, CO. Environmental Impact Report 10.0-139 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata Letter 1-13 Curriculum Vitae for Robert A. Hamilton Page 8 of 8 Howell, S. N. G., R. A. Erickson, R. A. Hamilton, and M. A. Patten. 2001. An annotated checklist of the birds of Baja California and Baja California Sur. Pp. 171-203 in Monographs in Field Ornithology No. S. American Birding Association, Colorado Springs, CO. Ruiz -Campos, G., Gonzalez -Guzman, S., Erickson, R. A., and Hamilton, R. A. 2001. Notable bird specimen records from the Baja California Peninsula. Pp. 238-241 in Monographs in Field Ornithology No. 3. American Birding Association, Colorado Springs, CO. Wurster, T. E., R. A. Erickson, R. A. Hamilton, and S. N. G. Howell. 2001. Database of selected observations: an augment to new information on migrant birds in northern and central portions of the Baja California Peninsula. Pp. 204-237 in Monographs in Field Ornithology No. 3. American Birding Association, Colorado Springs, CO. Erickson, R. A. and R. A. Hamilton, 2001. Report of the California Bird Rccords Com mittcc: 1998 records. Western Birds 32:13-49. Hamilton, R. A., J. E. Pike, T. E. Wurster, and K. Radamaker. 2000. First record of an Olive -backed Pipit in Mexico. Western Birds 31:117-119. Hamilton, R. A. and N. J. Schmitt. 2000. Identification of Taiga and Black Merlins. Western Birds 31:65-67. Hamilton, R. A. 1998. Boole review: Atlas of Breeding Birds, orange County, California. Western Birds 29:129-130. Hamilton, R. A. and D. R. Willick. 1996. The Birds of Orange County, California: Status and Distribution. Sea & Sage Press, Sea & Sage Audubon Society, Irvine. Hamilton, R. A. 1996-98. Photo Quizzes. Birding 27(4):298-301, 28(1):46-50, 28(4):309-313, 29(1): 59-64, 30(1):55-59. Erickson, R. A, and Hamilton, R. A. 1995. Geographic distribution: Gampropeltisgetula californiae (California Kingsnake) in Baja California Sur. Herpetological Review 26(4):210. Bontrager, D. R., R. A. Erickson, and R. A. Hamilton. 1995. Impacts of the October 1993 Laguna fire on California Gnatcatchers and Cactus Wrens. in J. E. Keeley and T. A. Scott (editors). Wildfires in California Brushlands: Ecology and Resource Management. International Association of Wildland Fire, Fairfield, Washington. Erickson, R. A, R. A. Hamilton, S. N. G. Howell, M. A. Patten, and P. Pyle. 1995. First record of Marbled Murrelet and third record of Ancient Murrelet for Mexico. Western Birds 26: 39- 45. Erickson, R. A, and R. A. Hamilton. 1993. Additional summer bird records for southern Mexico. Euphonia 2(4): 81-91. Erickson, R. A, A. D. Barron, and R. A. Hamilton. 1992. A recent Black Rail record for Baja California. Euphonic 1(1): 19-21. 10.0-140 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata Notices and Distribution 9.3 The following includes a list of agencies and organizations receiving the Notice of Availability of the DEIR and copies of the Notice of Availability/Notice of Completion. Environmental Impact Report 10.0-141 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata POSTED MAR 10 2016 HUGH NGUYEN. CLERK -RECORDER BY, W~ DEPUTY REVISED PUBLIC NOTICE CITY OF COSTA MESA - DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE CITY OF COSTA MESA'S YEAR 2015.2035 GENERAL PLAN NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of Costa has prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Year 2015-2035 General Plan, which is being distributed for public review. Pursuant to the California Public Resources Code and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (CEQA Guidelines), the City of Costa Mesa is the Lead Agency for the proposed General Plan Amendments. Project Title: The City of Costa Mesa Year 2015 - 2035 General Plan State Clearinghouse Number: SCH# 2015111053 (corrected number) Project Location The City of Costa Mesa is located in the extensively developed west -central portion of Orange County. Costa Mesa is surrounded by the cities of Newport Beach, Huntington Beach, Santa Ana, Fountain Valley, and Irvine. Major transportation facilities serving the City include Interstate 405 (1-405), State Route 55 (SR -55), State Route 73 (SR - 73), and John Wayne -Orange County (SNA) Airport. The area covered by the General Plan consists of the 15.8 square mile within the corporate City limits, as well as lands within the City's unincorporated sphere of influence. Project Description The project consists of the adoption of updated Land Use, Circulation, Growth Management, Conservation, Noise, Safety, Historical & Cultural Resources, Community Design, and Open Space and Recreation Elements of the City of Costa Mesa General Plan, The 2015 -2035 General Plan will incorporate the Housing Element, which was previously adopted in January 2014 and is valid through 2021. The updated Land Use Element establishes overall development capacity for the City and surrounding areas, and serves as a policy guide for determining the appropriate physical development and character of the City. The updated Circulation Element provides for a circulation system in balance with the Land Use Plan, and addresses City goals to provide "complete streets" consistent with State law. The Circulation Element includes a comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan. The remaining elements have been updated to ensure consistency with the Land Use and Circulation Elements and to reflect current laws relating to General Plans. The updated elements and the General Plan as a whole apply to all properties within the City of Costa Mesa and its sphere of influence. Focused amendments are proposed to the Land Use Element that will provide new development opportunities in targeted areas and along specific corridors. These land use changes represent four percent of the land area in the entire City. The amended Land Use Plan includes: ■ A new land use designation (Multi -Use Center) that applies to the Fairview Development Center ■ Two new land use overlays (Residential Incentive Overlay Zone and Harbor Mixed -Use Overlay Zone) • Site-specific FAR of 0.84 for the Segerstrom Home Ranch site ■ Site-specific density of 80 dwelling units per acre for Sakioka Lot 2 ■ Amended General Plan designation of Commercial Center and site specific FAR of 0.54 to 0.64 for the Los Angeles Times site 10.0-142 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata The Draft EIR includes an analysis of potential environmental impacts associated with the long-term implementation of the updated General Plan in relation to all the topics contained in the State CEQA Checklist (Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. Unavoidable significant impacts have been identified with regard to air quality and greenhouse gas emissions. Sites exist within the City that are listed as hazardous waste facilities, hazardous waste properties, and/or hazardous waste disposal sites, as enumerated under California Government Code 65962.5. In addition, the Draft EIR evaluates four project alternatives: • Alternative No. 1 - No Project Alternative (current General Plan) • Alternative No. 2 — Fairview Development Center site remaining as a Public/Institutional land use • Alternative No. 3 — Los Angeles Times site remaining an Industrial Park land use • Alternative No. 4 - Segerstrom Home Ranch site remaining at the current development capacity of 0.40 FAR Public Hearings An initial hearing before the Planning Commission has been set for Monday, March 14, 2016 at 6:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, located at 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, CA 92627. Future Planning Commission and City Council hearing dates will be determined. Public Review and Comment The Draft EIR and Technical Appendices are available for review and comment for 45 days commencing March 4, 2016 at 8:00 A.M. and ending on April 18, 2016 at 5:00 P.M. The Draft EIR and Technical Appendices are available for review at: 1) Costa Mesa City Hall, Development Services Department, 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa 2) Mesa Verde Library, 2969 Mesa Verde Drive East, Costa Mesa 3) Costa Mesa Library, 1855 Park Avenue, Costa Mesa 4) City website: www.costamesaca.gov Written comments on the Draft EIR and technical appendices must be received no later than 5:00 P.M. on April 18, 2016. Submit written comments to: faire Flynn, ACP Assistant Director Development Services Minoo Ashabi, Principal Planner City of Costa Mesa — Development Services Department 77 Fair Drive, P.0, Box 1200 Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1200 Email: minoo.ashabi@costamesaca.gov Fax: 7141754-4856 Phone: 7141754-5610 Date; POSTED MAR 10 2016 HUGH NGUYEN, CLERK -RECORDER 6Y: rvr v rDEPUTY Environmental Impact Report 10.0-143 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata NOTICE OF PREPARATION POSTED Noy 16 2015 Ht,GH t4GUYEN, CLERK -RECORDER DEPUTY 8Y: To: County Clerk -Recorder From: City of Costa Mesa County of Orange Development Services Dept. P.O. Box 238, Santa Ana, CA 92702-0238 77 Fair Drive, P.O. Box 1200 Costa Mesa, CA 92628 0 Post for 30 days _ No Filing Fee Applicable ❑ DISTRIBUTION LIST SUBJECT: NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT The City of Costa Mesa will be the Lead Agency and will prepare an environmental impact report for the project identified below. The City needs to know the views of your agency as to the scope and content of the environmental information which is germane to your agency's statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project. Your agency will need to use the EIR prepared by our agency when considering your permit or other approval for the project. The project description and location, are contained in the attached materials. Due to the time limits mandated by State law, your response must be sent at the earliest possible date but not later than 30 days by December 17, 2015. Please send your response to at the address shown above. Please also include the name for a contact person in your agency. City of Costa Mesa 2015-2025 General Plan Update Project Title City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive, CA 92627 Project Applicant, if any 11-16-2015 Date 7e Flynr�,_A CP Sign re Asst. Director, Development Services Title 714/754-5278 Telephone Reference: California Code of Regulations, Title 14, (CEQ.4 Guidelines) Sections 15082(2), 15103, 15375. Form Updated September 2007 10.0-144 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata NOTICE OF PREPARATION City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment Program EIR Date: November 16, 2015 To: State Clearinghouse State Responsible and Trustee Agencies County Cleric City Departments Federal Agencies Interested individuals and organizations Subject: Notice of Preparation for the City of Costa Mesa 2015-2025 General Plan Amendment Project Environmental Impact Report The City of Costa Mesa is the California Environmental Quality Act (CECIA) Lead Agency for the City of Costa Mesa 2015-2025 General Plan Amendment Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Project Title: City of Costa Mesa 2015-2025 General Plan Update Project Applicant: City of Costa Mesa Project location: City of Costa Mesa, Orange County Project Description: The City of Costa Mesa proposes to adopt focused amendments to the following General Plan elements: Land Use, Circulation, Growth Management, Conservation, Open Space and Recreation, Noise, Safety, Community Design, and Historic and Cultural Resources. The purpose of this NOP is to request comments from responsible and trustee agencies, federal agencies, and any other person or organization concerned with the environmental effects of the project regarding the scope and content of the environmental review the City of Costa Mesa will conduct on the 2015-2025 General Plan Amendment. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15082 (b), you have 30 days from the date of receipt of this NOP to respond. Please send your comments by the earliest possible date, but no later than 5:00 P.M. December 17, 2015. Please send your responses to Ms. Claire Flynn, Assistant Development Services Director, City of Costa Mesa at 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, California 92626 or to Claire.FlynnPcostamesaca.eov. (Please enter "General Plan Amendment NOP" in Costa Mesa 2015-2025 General Plan Amendments — NOP and Public Scoping Meeting Notice City of Costa Mesa — November 17, 2015 Environmental Impact Report 10.0-145 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata the "Subject" line.) Agency responses should include the name of a contact person at the agency. The City of Costa Mesa encourages all interested individuals, organizations, and agencies to attend the scoping meeting for the Program EIR as follows: Monday, November 30, 2015 Emergency Operations Center, City Hall 99 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, CA 6:00 pm -5:00 pm Additional project information is available on the City of Costa Mesa's 2015-2025 General Plan Amendments Information Website: http://www.costamesaca.gov/index.aspx?page=1592 CECIA Guidelines Section 15168(a) permits a lead agency to prepare a program EIR on a series of actions that can be categorized as one large project and are related either: 1) geographically, 2) as logical parts in the chain of contemplated actions, 3) in connection with issuance of rules, regulations, plans, or other general criteria to govern the conduct of a continuing program, or 4) as individual activities carried out under the same authorizing statutory or regulatory authority and having generally similar environmental effects which can be mitigated in similar ways. The 2015-2025 General Plan Amendment represents a logical series of actions that are connected, would occur in approximately the same geographic area, and would result in generally similar environmental effects that can be mitigated in similar ways. Accordingly, the City of Costa Mesa is preparing a program EIR for the project. Signature:Date: 11/16/2015 Claire Flynn, Assis ant Development Services Director Costa Mesa 2015-2025 General Plan Amendments— NOP and Public Scoping Meeting Notice City of Costa Mesa — November 17, 2015 10.0-146 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata COSTA MESA 2015-2025 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS PROJECT DESCRIPTION The City of Costa Mesa proposes to adopt focused amendments to several elements of its General Plan: Land Use, Circulation, Growth Management, Conservation, Open Space and Recreation, Noise, Safety, Community Design, and Historic and Cultural Resources. The Housing Element for the 2015-2021 cycle was adopted on January 21, 2014 and will not be updated as part of this project. The proposed General Plan Update is a long-range planning program intended to guide the orderly growth and development of the Costa Mesa planning area over the long term. The updated General Plan communicates the City's vision of its future and establishes a policy framework to govern decision-making concerning the physical development of the community and the public services and infrastructure systems that support existing and planned development. The planning area, which includes the corporate City limits and unincorporated properties within the City's designated sphere of influence, encompasses 15.7 square miles and has a total population of approximately 110,000. The General Plan Amendments would not authorize any specific development project or other form of land use approval or any kind of public facilities or capital facilities expenditures or improvements. Later activities proposed pursuant to the goals and policies of the General Plan will be reviewed in light of this EIR and may focus on those site-specific and localized environmental issues that could not be examined in sufficient detail as part of this program EIR. Project Location The project "planning area" encompasses the entire City of Costa Mesa and its sphere of Influence. The City is located in coastal Orange County and is surrounded to the north by the city of Santa Ana, to the south by city of Newport Beach, the west by the cities of Huntington Beach and Fountain Valley, and to the east by the city of Irvine. Costa Mesa lies approximately one mile northeast of the Pacific Ocean. Figure 1 identifies the City's location and the planning area. Summary of Proposed Changes to General Plan Elements The City proposes focused amendments to the General Plan elements to encourage targeted investment/property improvements and to respond to State laws that have become effective in the past 10 years. Land Use Element The City proposed changes to the land use plan in eight "focus areas," which are considered strategic areas and corridors that can accommodate new development. The focus areas and the proposed changes are as follows: Costa Mesa 2015-2025 General Plan Amendments - NOP and Public Scoping Meeting Notice City of Costa Mesa - November 17, 2015 Environmental Impact Report 10.0-147 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata 1) The Fairview Developmental Center property, proposed to accommodate up to 500 new residential units at specified densities and 25.6 acres of active open space uses. 2) South Harbor Boulevard, with a new proposed Harbor Boulevard Mixed -Use on select properties, allowing up to 20 units per acre and a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 1.00 to 1.25, 3) The Segerstrom Home Ranch property to allow up to 1.2 million square feet of development at a maximum FAR of 0.64 for corporate headquarters and FAR of 0.54 for commercial/retail uses 4). The site of the former Los Angeles Times printing operation, proposed to be redesignated as a commercial land use designation to allow a maximum FAR of 0.64 for corporate headquarters and FAR of 0.54 for commercial/retail uses. 5) Sakioka Site 2 at Sunflower Avenue and Main Street, proposed to allow residential development at up to 80 units per acre but not to exceed the existing total unit allocation of 660 units and not to exceed the established trip budget. 6) Harbor Boulevard Residential Overlay, which proposes an overlay on targeted sites to allow up to 40 units per acre (without any changes to the base zoning districts. 7) Newport Boulevard Residential Overlay, which proposes an overlay on targeted sites to allow up to 40 units per acre (without any changes to the base zoning districts). 8) ScBECA Overlay, which proposes up to 40 units per acre and a maximum residential unit count of 450 units within the SoBECA Urban Plan area. The proposed land use changes would result in an increase in residential dwelling units, office space, and general and regional commercial uses. The following land uses are anticipated to be reduced in scope citywide: motels, light industrial and storage, hospital, agricultural, and vacant land. Figure 2 presents the proposed amended Land Use Policy Map. Circulation Element The City does not propose any changes to roadway configurations or capacity as part of the circulation element update. The element is being amended to incorporate "complete streets" policies and to establish a framework for a new bicycle master plan. New goals, policies, and exhibits have been developed to illustrate the City's future direction related to walking, bicycling, and transit improvements. Growth Management Element The Growth Management Element is being amended to reflect the updated land use and circulation elements, with the aim to balance new development with the ability of the street network to accommodate that development. This element is required by Orange County Measure M2 and provides for the City to remain eligible for future transportation funding improvements. Conservation Element This element is being amended to reflect new policies regarding sustainability initiatives, particularly with regard to preservation of coastal wildlife habitat areas and landforms, natural resource conservation and environmental sustainability, water conservation and water quality, and air quality and climate change. Costa Mesa 2015-2025 General Plan Amendments — NOP and Public scoping Meeting Notice City of Costa Mesa — November 17, 2015 10.0-148 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata Open Space and Recreation Element The City is in the process of updating its Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Amendments to the Open Space and Recreation Element propose a revised policy framework for the Master Plan. The updated open space and recreation element will identify future park and open space improvements to accommodate the population growth identified in the Land Use Plan. New goals and policies are proposed to establish new revenue streams to fund the acquisition and maintenance of future and established parks. New cultural arts goals and policies will also be introduced. Noise Element This element is being amended to reflect new baseline (2015) noise conditions. The element will include updated exhibits and analysis that depict the future noise environment pursuant to the changes in the Land Use and Circulation Elements. New goals and policies are proposed to create compatibility among new residential and industrial uses located within mixed-use districts. Safety Element This element is being amended to reflect current conditions regarding wildland fires, seismic hazards, flooding, aviation hazards, and emergency services, and to establish more modern policies appropriate to the hazards present. Community Design The goals and policies in this element are proposed to be updated to reflect changes in the Land Use Element. Historic and Cultural Resources Element This element is being amended to reflect current framework conditions and more direct policy statements regarding historic and cultural resources. Most specifically, the element will address Post -World War II historical resources and policies that encourage compatibility between historic resource sites and new development. Potential Environmental Effects The focused amendments to the General Plan are proposed to reflect changes in the City resulting from changing demographics, economics, socialization, and technological advances. To a large degree, the proposed amendments reflect new policies, regulations, and laws meant to preserve the desirable qualities of Costa Mesa and protect the environment. Since the amendments would not authorize any specific development project or other forms of land use change, the impacts to be addressed in the EIR would be indirect effects. However, since the City's action ultimately could lead to the impact, such impacts must be analyzed and be subject to public scrutiny. Costa Mesa 2015-2025 General Plan Amendments — NOP and Public Scoping Meeting Notice City of Costa Mesa — November 17, 2015 Environmental Impact Report 10.0-149 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata Most physical effects of the land use changes would occur in the eight focus areas described above where opportunities for development or redevelopment are still present. New development has the potential to affect the following resources, which would be examined in detail in the EIR: aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use, mineral resources, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation and traffic, and utility and service systems. The proposed project is expected to have no impact on agriculture and forest resources, as these resources either do not exist within the project area or would not be affected. Accordingly, the EIR will not present a detailed analysis of the project's potential impacts on agriculture and forest resources. In accordance with the requirements of CEQA, the City of Costa Mesa has determined that an EIR for the proposed project should be prepared because the proposed activities have the potential to result in one or more adverse environmental effects to the resources listed above. The City will further refine the scope of the technical issues to be addressed in the EIR during the CEQA process, including input received in response to this NOP. Costa Mesa 2015-2025 General Plan Amendments — NOP and Public Scoping Meeting Notice City of Costa Mesa — November 17, 2015 10.0-150 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment Hogle-Ireland 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata -„ , Senln gun ti avuK ` rc ! E�,, r Cope ro est Project L tion 24 ! •lam �� 1�.iww N.lo � Regional 1 Planning Area ? � J Con. Nm � a f rtFwpoti E�w h Vicirlty I1 Scab Exhibit 1 Regional and Vicinity Map Costa Mesa General Plan Update Cnsn P5".esa Gal€frrn�i Costa Mesa 2015-2025 General Plan Amendments — NOP and Public scoping Meeting Notice City of Costa Mesa — November 17, 2015 Environmental Impact Report 10.0-151 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata G—V Plan Lang U— LJ•IG Vse 1—Us s Urban Pyla Ind SPee00 H- - D..V Aes,xe 3aui]CI I CrnaeCurcrcmv ayv.'Nnca1rcirtM40a 11 0YNn:Abalr- irlrN M.s.•. Paecp aaee.eal., t±eu'xI (� Cu►ra Aeq Camr .,—] w.aa w a wa X ]✓ 115 FAAI�i..Yi" ''� M— ww 90, ubn Pon — IAT �-V Fk—.:O iL 1031 a0, {FMI Q INaa Waa 9ncaaal SWECA LRLa•Fa•-40 Cu'ae: 9eara Lsmrt+N call Cane Uv40— •+Ia aeneee asl aus li Csnnava Cwea. (� FaeOo,Ms —.—Cey Gundry �.-50 4SH— li '�p�%ldnitwM flar�^li Frvaw =.',gym 25 awxl �; Satda SY'Lp.I 0501 µuly kale Exhibit 2 Draft Land Use Plan ® Hogle-Ireland Costa Mesa General Plan Update Custa Mrsa. CdI'fo"w Costa Mesa 2015-2025 General Plan Amendments — NOP and Public Scoping Meeting Notice City of Costa Mesa — November 17, 2015 10.0-152 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment F SS in,es Overla 1 ruy. 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata i— Mc & e.w.7ar y�yy co.na- K* i esi en tial Incen l� tive- Newoort /1 Nn[ m Trrie Exhibit 3 l=ocus Area Overview Map H Ie Ireland Costa Mesa General Plan Update IY�Li (.") Mes.,. CAfomia Costa Mesa 2015-2025 General Plan Amendments — NOP and Public Scoping Meeting Notice City of Costa Mesa — November 17, 2015 Environmental Impact Report 10.0-153 esi entia Incentive- - Harbor - Overlay a ar or Mixed -Use Overla 1 ruy. 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata i— Mc & e.w.7ar y�yy co.na- K* i esi en tial Incen l� tive- Newoort /1 Nn[ m Trrie Exhibit 3 l=ocus Area Overview Map H Ie Ireland Costa Mesa General Plan Update IY�Li (.") Mes.,. CAfomia Costa Mesa 2015-2025 General Plan Amendments — NOP and Public Scoping Meeting Notice City of Costa Mesa — November 17, 2015 Environmental Impact Report 10.0-153 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata Existing Context Kr'r Clip Proposed General Plan: New land Use Designation - Fairview Wr40 Hogle-Ireland Current Generai Plan Designation Low Densty Residential 0 dtdac) ® Wdium Density Residenhal (12 dulacl Figh Density Res dentia) (20 duiaey General Commensal rdeighborhood Commercial PublicAnstitut canal Golf Course Exhibit 4 Fairview Focus Area Costa Mesa General Plan Update C.sn K1— Gah,— Costa Mesa 2015-2025 General Pian Amendments — NOP and Public Scoping Meeting Notice City of Costa Mesa — November 17, 2015 10.0-154 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment ta.+i+g (a .. ��Naud 4aw•ar M� Bwr4a Ney Map 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata Current General Ptan Oesignabon Low aensty Resdentwt (8 duiacl s Medurn Densly Resrdeftd (12 du4O FmHgh Density Residential (20 dufac) General Cornrnercal Neghbaftod Carrinwroal Light tndustnal E� PubhGlrrsttvconat "Course Exhibit 5 Residential Incentive- Harbor Blvd. Overlay Focus Area ® Hogle-Ireland Costa Mesa General Plan Update :'Mra Wsa.caiiromie Costa Mesa 2015-2025 General Plan Amendments — NOP and Public Scoping Meeting Notice City of Costa Mesa — November 17, 2015 Environmental Impact Report 10.0-155 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata I..., [.— Key Map Ca1R9nt Land Veb Dnio 9allan Lim rWr IV Re,.demla 11 AL-aal .� Lledlw n LWs.ly Resdedlllial 112 wi3L. , Mgt[ ]erslty Residennal ,;211 yw'ac'p ConF,rer:'.al ReG41eaiial f17,d t� Genemi Cammerelal "Ma hwd Commercial Lightmduli mal •� Pu4`Wru11lwlluea �— cerr c4mrse Exhibit 6 Residential Incentive- Newport Blvd. Overlay Focus Area © HSI-IrPlard Costa Mesa General Plan Update Curia M.- Caffw"+e Costa Mesa 2015-2025 General Plan Amendments — NOP and Public Scoping Meeting Notice City of Costa Mesa — November 17, 2015 10.0-156 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment Existing Context Key Map 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata Proposed 4eneral Plan: Overlay ©' ® Hogle-Ireland Current Genera! Plan Designation Lswr Density Reside nM (8 dv/ac) Medium Density Residential (12 durac) — Figh Density Residential (20 "ac) FF_General Commeraal Exhibit 7 Harbor Mixed -Use Overlay Focus Area Costa Mesa General Nan Update Costa Mesa 2015-2025 General Plan Amendments — NOP and Public Scoping Meeting Notice City of Costa Mesa — November 17, 2015 Environmental Impact Report 10.0-157 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata Existing Context i� Proposed General Plan: Overlay Current General Plan Designation F Industrial Park General Commercial Commercial Center Exhibit 8 LATimes Overlay Focus Area Costa Mesa General Plan Update Costa Mrsa. CaLrorma Costa Mesa 2015-2025 General Plan Amendments — NOP and Public Scoping Meeting Notice Cdy of Costa Mesa — November 17, 2015 10.0-158 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment Existing Context Proposed General Plan- Overlay Key Map 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata Current General Plan Designation Low Density Residential (S dulac) Medium Density Residential (12 dwac) Kigh Density Resider" (20 dulac) General Commercial I>li tight Industnal F� Pub€iV"tdutional Exhibit 9 SoSECA Focus Area Costa Mesa General Plan Update �1�� :,.)�lA hlr.a, wAllli:l llli Costa Mesa 2015-2025 General Plan Amendments — NOP and Public Scoping Meeting Notice City of Costa Mesa — November 17, 2015 Environmental Impact Report 10.0-159 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata Existing Context Proposed General Plan: Commercial Center Key MI Current General Plan Designation Low Density Residential (8 duiac) Medium Density Residential { Q dutacI I� High Density Revidenaal (20 duiac) General Commeresal Commercial Center Urban Center Commercdal Industrial Park Pubiici9nstitutional Exhibit 10 Segerstrom Home Ranch Focus Area ® Hogle-Ireland Costa Mesa General Plan Update C.,w NA—, rAfomla Costa Mesa 2015-2025 General Plan Amendments — NOP and Public Scoping Meeting Notice City of Costa Mesa — November 17, 2015 10.0-160 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment Existing Context Key Map 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata Proposed General Plan: Urban Center Commercial Current General Plan Designation eMUM High Density Residenoat tZO du/act Urban Center Commercial Exhibit 11 Sakioka Focus Area Mage I ela a Costa Mesa General Plan Update Com Mma, Calibm, Costa Mesa 2015-2025 General Plan Amendments — NOP and Public Scoping Meeting Notice City of Costa Mesa — November 17, 2015 Environmental Impact Report 10.0-161 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata City of Newport Eeach Community PLANNING DIRECTOR PLANNING DIRECTOR Development Department CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEY CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Attn: Kimberly Brandt, AICD 10200 SLATER AVENUE POST OFFICE BOX 190 Community Development Director FOUNTAIN VALLEY CA 92708 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 100 Civic Center Drive COSTA MESA CA 92527 30p NORTH FLOWER STREET Newport Beach, CA 92558 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA ROOM 235 POST OFFICE BOX 4048 PLANNING DIRECTOR COMMUNIY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DIRECTOR CITY OF SANTA ANA DIRECTOR CITY OF IRVINE CITY OF TUSTIN PLANNING AND BUILDING AGENCY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 300 CENTENNIAL WAY POST OFFICE BOX 1988 1 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA POST OFFICE BOX 3539 SANTA ANA CA 92702 P.O. Box 19575 TUS71N CA 92781-3539 00 NORTH FLOWER STREET IRVINE, CA 92623-9575 550 SOUTH MAIN STREET ROBERT PALA770LA PAUL REED CM BRAHMBHATT COSTA MESA HISTORICAL NEWPORT MESA UNIFIED COAST COMMUNITY COLLEGE SOCIETY SCHOOL DISTRICT DISTRICT P.O. BOX 1764 1601 SIXTEENTH STREET 1370 ADAMS AVENUE COSTA MESA CA 92628 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92883 COSTA MESA CA 92626 PLANNING DIRECTOR HERB NAKAONE COUNTY OF ORANGE JOYCE ORANGE CO FLOOD CONTROL AIRPORT DIRECTOR AGENCYCROSTHFORMAITE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION 1400 TENTH STREET PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION DISTRICT PLANNING & DEV. SERVICES COSTA MESA CA 92527 30p NORTH FLOWER STREET POST OFFICE BOX 4048 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA ROOM 235 POST OFFICE BOX 4048 SANTA ANA CA 92702-4048 SANTA ANA CA 92701 S SANTA ANA CA 92702-4048 KEVIN THOMAS CALTRANS DISTRICT 12 CA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME ORANGE CO HARBORS BEACHES VICKI WILSON PLANNING MANAGER SACRAMENTO CA 95812 OC PUBLIC FACILITIES& OCTA 3ARKS RESOURCES DEPT DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY 00 NORTH FLOWER STREET 300 NORTH FLOWER STREET 550 SOUTH MAIN STREET POST OFFICE BOX 4048 PRESERVATION STATE OF CA ORANGE CA 92613 SANTA ANA CA 92702-4048 SANTA ANA CA 92702-4048 BOARD KARI RIGONI WALTER D KREUTZEN PLANNER MANAGER FACILITIES STEVE SMITH PHD TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AIRPORT DIRECTOR SCAQMD 1400 TENTH STREET AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION 21865 EAST COPLEY DRIVE AGENCIES 3160 AIRWAY AVENUE COSTA MESA CA 92527 POST OFFICE BOX 53770 COSTA MESA CA 92625 DIAMOND BAR CA 91765-4182 IRVINE CA 92619-3770 ALAN MURPHY STEVE BEAZLEY OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH AIRPORT DIRECTOR OC FAIR & EVENT CENTER 1400 TENTH STREET `WA 88 FAIR DRIVF POST OFFICE BOX 3044 3160 AIRWAY AVE COSTA MESA CA 92527 SACRAMENTO CA 95812-3044 COSTA MESA CA 92626 CA AIR RESOURCES BOARD RYAN P CHAMBERLAIN REGION 6 1001 T STREET CALTRANS DISTRICT 12 CA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME POST OFFICE BOX 2815 3337 MICH ELSON DRIVE #380 4949 VIEW RIDGE AVE SACRAMENTO CA 95812 IRVINE CA 92612-8894 SAN DIEGO CA 92123 DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY OFFICE OF HISTORIC RESOURCES AGENCY PRESERVATION STATE OF CA STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL 1416 NINTH STREET SUITE 1311 POST OFFICE BOX 94288 BOARD SACRAMENTO CA 95814 1001 1 STREET SACRAMENTO CA 94296 SACRAMENTO CA 95814-2828 Mark Adelson JOHNSON P ABRAHAM 222v" COMMUNICATIONS SQUADRON SANTA ANA RWQB DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC STATE OF CA NATIONAL GUARD 3737 MAIN STREET f/500 SU BSTA N GES CO NTRO L 2551 NEWPORT BLVD RIVERSIDE CA 92501 5796 CORPORATE AVENUE COSTA MESA CA 92627 CYPRESS CA 90630 10.0-162 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER SANDRA L GENIS DIANE PRITCHETT EXEC DIRECTOR 625 N Grand Ave 1586 MYRTLE WOOD SOUTH COAST METRO ALLIANCE Santa Ana, CA 92701-4347 COSTA MESA CA 92626 1631 W SUNFLOWER AVE STE C-37 SANTA ANA CA 92704-7460 BOB FERNANDEZ 1 JEFF REESE WILL SMITH CM CHAMBER OF COMMERCE CJ SEGERSTROM & SONS GREENLAW PARTNERS 1700 ADAMS AVE SUITE 101 MV. PARTNERS 18301 Von Karman Ave, Suite 250 COSTA MESA CA 92526 3315 Fairview Road Irvine, CA 92612 Costa Mesa, CA 92625 LARRY VINZANT US FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE ROBERT STERLING FEDERAL HIGHWAY CARLSBAD FISH & WILDLIFE OFFICE & STATE OF CA OF DEVELOP SVCS ADMINISTRATION SAN DIEGO NATIONAL VVI LDLIFE 2501 HARBOR BLVD 980_ 9TH STREET SUITE 400 REFUGE COMPLEX COSTA MESA CA 92626 SACRAMENTO CA 95814 2177 SALK AVE. ST 250 DANIEL PIETENPOL Lee & Associates -Newport Beach, Inc., CARLSBAD, CA 92008-7385 SCOTT CARROLL PAUL SHOENBERGER County GENERAL MANAGER MESA CONSOLIDATED WATER JAMES HERBERG COSTA MESA SANITARY DISTRICT DISTRICT OC SANITATION DISTRICT 628 W 19"' STREET 1965 PLAC ENTIA AVENUE POST OFFICE BOX 8127 COSTA MESA CA 92627 COSTA MESA CA 92627 FOUNTAIN VALLEY CA 92728 LAND USE PLANNING f PUBLIC SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON LAND USE PLANNING f PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMPANY AFFAIRS PACIFIC BELL LOCAL GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS SOUTHERN CA GAS COMPANY 200 WEST HARBOR PLACE ROOM 825 LAND USE. ENVIRONMENTAL 2244 WALNUT GROVE AVE. 1919 S STATE COLLEGE BLVD ANAHEIM CA 92805 ROSEMEAD, CA 91770 ANAHEIM CA 92808 JENNIFER GONZALE7 DISTRICT DISTRICT PUBLIC AFFAIRS MANAGER DAILY PILOT LOS ANGELES TIMES SOUTHERN CA GAS CO Talbert Ave, Suite 300W 10540 Talbert Ave, Suite 30OW 1919 S STATE COLLEGE BLVD Fountain Valley, CA 92708 SC8310 Fount Fountain Valley, CA 92708 ANAHEIM CA 92806 ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER SANDRA L GENIS DIANE PRITCHETT EXEC DIRECTOR 625 N Grand Ave 1586 MYRTLE WOOD SOUTH COAST METRO ALLIANCE Santa Ana, CA 92701-4347 COSTA MESA CA 92626 1631 W SUNFLOWER AVE STE C-37 SANTA ANA CA 92704-7460 BOB FERNANDEZ 1 JEFF REESE WILL SMITH CM CHAMBER OF COMMERCE CJ SEGERSTROM & SONS GREENLAW PARTNERS 1700 ADAMS AVE SUITE 101 MV. PARTNERS 18301 Von Karman Ave, Suite 250 COSTA MESA CA 92526 3315 Fairview Road Irvine, CA 92612 Costa Mesa, CA 92625 Environmental Impact Report 10.0-163 MARK LES BILL LANG TOM SPARKS 1525 MESA VERDE DRIVE EAST, COMMERCE REALTY 1500 ADAMS AVENUE, SUITE 300 SUITE 209 149 PALO VERDES BLVD., SUITE 3 COSTA MESA, CA 92525 COSTA MESA, CA 92628 REDONDO BEACH, CA 90277 Costa Mesa Property Managers Michael Balsamo DANIEL PIETENPOL Lee & Associates -Newport Beach, Inc., Building Industry Association of Orange NEWPORT RETAIL CENTER 3991 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 100 County 4360 PRENTISS DRIVE Newport Beach, CA 92660 24 Executive Park Suite 100 YORBA LINDA, CA 92886 Iryine, CA 92614 SHAHEEN SADEGHI Robin Leffler THE CAMPITHE LAB BURNHAM USA EQUITIES, INC. 2930 Bristol Street, Suite B-102 1100 Newport Center Drive, Suite 150 3000 Ceylon Costa Mesa, CCA A 92626 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Newport Beach, CA 82650 JERRY VI LANDER PHIL LAURI Alan Cook MESA CONSOLIDATED WATER MESA CONSOLIDATED WATER MESA CONSOLIDATED WATER DISTRICT DISTRICT DISTRICT 1965 PLACENTIA AVENUE 1965 PLAC ENTIA AVENUE 1985 PLACENTIA AVENUE COSTA MESA CA 92627 COSTA MESA CA 92627 COSTA MESA CA 92627 Environmental Impact Report 10.0-163 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata Michael Recupero Recupero and Associates, Inc. 31877 Del Obispo St., Suite 204 San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 GP ONLY Wayne Iwamoto 31103 Rancho Viejo Rd., #02015 Sen Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 Cynthia Breatore 1989 Federal Ave Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Tom Williams, Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage 4 San Joaquin Plaza, Suite 260 Newport Beach, CA 92660 GP only 10.0-164 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment Juanerio Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation David Belardes, Chairperson 32161 Avenida Los Amigos San Juan Capp, CA 92675 Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians Anthony Morales, Chairperson P.O. Box 693 San Gabriel, CA 91778 Gabrieleno Tongva Nation Sam Dunlap, Chairperson P.O. Box 86908 LA. CA 90086 Soboba Band of Luise no Indians Joseph Ontiveros P.O. Box 487 San Jacirdo, CA 92581 Juanerlo Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation Joyce Perry, Representing Tribal Chair 4955 Paseo Segovia Irvine, CA 92612 Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians Andrew Salas, Chairperson P.O. Box 393 Covina, CA 91723 Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Alfred Cruz, Cultural Resources Crdrdr P.O. Box 25628 Santa Ana, CA 92799 Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians Kizh Nation Andrew Salas, Chairperson P.O. Box 393 Covina, CA 91723 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata Juanen❑ Band of Mission Indians Sonia Johnston, Tribal Chairperson P.O. Box 25628 Santa Ana, CA 92799 Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe Linda Candelaria, Chairwoman 1875 Century Pic East, # 1500 LA, CA 90067 Juane no Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation Anthony Rivera, Chairman 31411-A La Matanza St. San Juan Capo, CA 92675-2674 Environmental Impact Report 10.0-165 10.0 Response to Comments and Errata Gabrieleno£fongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians Anthony Morales, Chairperson P. Q Box 693 San Gabriel, CA 91778 Michael Mirelez Torres Martinez Desert Gahuilla Indians P.O. Box 1160 Thermal, CA 92274 Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe Linda Candelaria, Co -Chairperson 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Gabrielinot Tongva Nation Sandonne Goad, Chairperson 106 f Judge John Ai so St., #231 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Gab rieleno Band of Mission Indians- Kizh Nation Andrew Salas, Chairperson P.O. Box 393 Covina, CA 91723 Garielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council Attn: Robert F. Dorame, Tribal Chair P.O. Box 490 Bellflower. CA 90707 10.0-166 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment ATTACHMENT 10 Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Count Dates Intersection Count Date 1. Harbor & Scenic/Lake Center 06/21/2012 2. Harbor & Sunflower 2012 3. Susan & Sunflower 06/26/2012 4. Fairview & Sunflower 5/23/2012 5. Wimbledon &Sunflower 06/21/2012 6. Fuchsia/Rant & Sunflower 2012 7. Bear & Sunflower 2012 9. Bristol & Sunflower 10/27/2011 11. Ave of the Arts & Sunflower 2012 12. Sakioka & Sunflower 2012 3. Anton & Sunflower 2012 14. Harbor & Law Court 10/07/2015 15. Bear & Crystal Court 07/11/2012 16. Bristol & Town Center 07/10/1012 17. Hyland & South Coast/1-405 NB On -Ram 06/27/2012 18. Harbor & South Coast 10/25/2011 19. Susan & South Coast 07/11/2012 20. Fairview & South Coast 10/25/2011 24. Bear & South Coast 2012 25. Bristol & Anton 10/27/2011 27. Ave of the Arts & Anton 07/12/2012 28. Sakioka & Anton 07/11/2012 30.H land & MacArthur 09/03/2014 36. Bear & Metro Point 2012 38. Harbor & 1-405 NB Romps 2012 39. Harbor & 1-405 SB Ramps 2012 40. Fairview & 1-405 NB Romps 5/24/2012 41. Fairview & 1-405 SB Ramps 5/24/2012 42. Bristol & 1-405 NB Romps 1 1 /01 /2011 43. Bristol & 1-405 SB Ramps 10/27/2011 44. Harbor & Gisler 10/25/2011 45. Harbor & Date 10/07/2015 46. Harbor & Nutmeg 10/07/2015 47. Fairview & Paularino 5/17/2012 48. Bear & Paularino 2012 49. Bristol & Paularino 06/26/2012 51. SR -55 SB Ramps & Paularino 10/27/2011 52. SR -55 NB Ramps & Paularino 10/27/2011 53. Redhill & Paularino 2012 54. Bear & SR 73 NB Romps 2012 55. Bear & SR -73 SB Ramps 2012 56. Harbor & Baker 10/25/2011 57. College & Baker 06/13/2013 58. Fairview & Baker 10/25/2011 59. Coolidge & Baker 06/13/2013 Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Count Dates Intersection Count Date 60. Mendoza & Baker 2012 61. Babb & Baker 06/13/2013 62. Milbro & Baker 06/13/2013 63. Bear & Baker 06/20/2012 64. Bristol & Baker 10/27/2011 65. SR -55 SB Ramps & Baker 10/26/2011 66. SR -55 NB Ramps & Baker 10/26/2011 67. Red Hill & Baker 06/26/2012 74.Royal Palm & Baker 06/13/2013 76. Bristol & Bear 10/27/2011 77. Bristol & Newport SB 2012 78. Bristol & Newport NB 06/28/2012 79. Bristol & Red Hill 06/28/2012 80. Shantar & Adams 06/19/2012 81. Placentia/Mesa Verde W & Adams 10/25/2011 82. Mesa Verde E & Adams 2012 83. Royal Palm & Adams 06/20/2011 84. Harbor & Adams 10/25/2011 85. Pinecreek & Adams 09/04/2014 86. Fairview & Adams 5/24/2012 88. Harbor & Mesa Verde 2012 90. Fairview & Arlington 5/17/2012 91. Harbor & Merrimac 06/13/2012 92. Fairview & Merrimac _ 5/17/2012 93. Newport SB & Mesa 2012 94. Newport NB & Mesa 2012 95. Harbor& Fair 06/19/2012 97. Fairview & Fair 5/23/2012 100. Newport SB & Fair 06/28/2012 101. Newport NB & Del Mar 2012 102. Newport SB & Van uard 06/27/2012 103. Newport NB & Santa Isabel 2012 104. Harbor & Harbor Center 10/07/2015 115. Placentia & Wilson 2012 116. Harbor & Wilson 2012 117. Fairview & Wilson 5/17/2012 118. Newport SS & Wilson 2012 119. Newport NB & Wilson 07/11/2012 _ 121. Valley & Victoria 06/06/2013 122. Canyon & Victoria 06/06/2013 123. American & Victoria 06/06/2013 124. National & Victoria 06/06/2013 125. Placentia & Victoria 10/27/2011 126. Pomona & Victoria 06/13/2012 127. Harbor & Victoria 06/13/2012 Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Count Dates Intersection Count Date 128. Newport SB & Victoria 06/19/2012 129. Newport NB & 22nd 06/27/2012 130. Harbor & Hamilton 2012 131. Harbor & Bay 06/19/2012 132. Newport SB & Bay 06/28/2012 133. Newport NB & Bay 06/28/2012 134. Placentia & 19th 07/10/2012 135. Pomona & 19th 2012 136. Meyer & 19th 01/20/2011 137. Anaheim & 19th 06/19/2012 138. Park & 19th 06/19/2012 139. Harbor & 19th 06/19/2012 140. Newport & 19th 10/26/2011 141. Newport & Broadway 10/27/2011 142. Newport & Harbor 10/27/2011 143. Placentia & 18th 06/14/2012 144. Newport & 18th/Rochester 10/26/2011 145. Maple & Victoria 06/06/2013 150. Placentia & 17th 06/14/2012 151. Superior & 17th 10/26/2011 152. Newport & 17th 11/01/2011 153. Orange & 17th 10/25/2011 154. Santa Ana & 17th 10/25/2011 155. Tustin & 17th 10/25/2011 156. Irvine & 17th 10/25/2011 157. Newport 8, 16th 06/28/2012 158. Placentia & 16th 06/14/2012 159. Superior & 16th 2012 160. Newport & Industrial 2012 Average Daily Traffic Volume Count Dates Roadway ADT Count Date Adams w/o Placentia 39,000 11/2/2010 Adams e/c Placentia 38,000 11/2/2010 Adams e/o Mesa Verde E. 38,000 11/2/2010 Adams w/o Harbor 37,000 11/2/2010 Adams e/o Harbor 29,000 11/2/2010 Adams w/o Fairview 26,000 11/2/2010 _ Anaheim s/o 19th 5,000 2/18/2004 Anaheim n/c Superior 6,000 2/18/2004 Anton e/o Bristol 23,000 9/16/2004 Anton s/o Sunflower 5,000 5/6/2004 Arlington e/o Fairview 5,000 9/16/2004 Ave of the Arts n/o Anton 7,000 3/9/2004 Baker e/o Mesa Verde 9,000 10/27/2010 Baker w/o Harbor 14,000 11/2/2010 Baker e/o Harbor 19,000 10/26/2010 Baker w/o Fairview 23,000 11/2/2010 Baker e/o Fairview 32,000 10/28/2010 Baker e/o Coolidge 30,000 11/2/2010 Baker w/o Bear 31,000 10/28/2010 Baker w/o Randolph 24,000 11/3/2010 Baker w/o SR -55 27,000 11/2/2010 Baker w/o Pullman 20,000 11/3/2010 Baker e/o Pullman 15,000 11/2/2010 _ Ba e/o Harbor 4,000 11/2/2004 Ba e/o Newport 6,000 11/2/2004 Bear s/a Sunflower 26,000 5/6/2004 Bear n/o South Coast 30,000 10/27/2010 Bear n/o Paularino 27,000 5/11/2004 Bristol s/o Sunflower 41,000 10/27/2010 Bristol n/o Anton 47,000 10/27/2010 Bristol s/o Anton 65,000 10/28/2010 Bristol n/o Paularino 36,000 10/27/2010 Bristol n/o Baker 31,000 10/28/2010 Bristoln/o Bear 22,000 10/28/2010 Bristol s/o Bear 26,000 10/27/2010 Bristol e/o Newport 26,000 10/26/2010 Bristol w/o Redhill 25,000 10/28/2010 Canyon n/o Victoria 3,000 9/23/2004 Country Club n/o Mesa Verde 4,000 9/16/2004 Del Mar w/o Orange 12,000 10/26/2010 Del Mar w/o Santa Ana 6,000 10/26/2010 Del Mar/University w/o Irvine 6,000 10/26/2010 EI Camino e/o Fairview 6,000 10/13/2004 EI Camino w/o Mendoza 3,000 3/10/2004 Elden n/o 22nd 2,000 5/4/2004 atantec Average Daily Traffic Volume Count Dates ADT Count Date -Roadway e/o Harbor 14,000 05/04/2004 -Fair Fair e/o Fairview 21,000 06/30/2004 Fair w/o Newport 24,000 05/04/2004 Fairview n/o South Coast 42,000 10/28/2010 Fairview s/o South Coast 61,000 10/28/2010 Fairview s/o 1-405 44,000 10/27/2010 Fairview s/o Baker 48,000 10/28/2010 Fairview s/o Adams 33,000 10/28/2010 Fairview n/o Fair 23,000 10/26/2010 Fairview n/o Wilson 13,000 10/27/2010 Fairview s/o Wilson 12,000 10/27/2010 Gisler w/o Harbor 11,000 5/4/2004 Hamilton e/o Placentia 3,000 03/04/2004 Hamilton w/o Harbor 8,000 05/04/2004 Harbor No Sunflower 44,000 11/04/2010 Harborn/o South Coast 50,000 11/04/2010 Harbor No Baker 59,000 11/04/2010 Harborn/c Village 62,000 11/02/2010 Harbor No Adams 55,000 11/04/2010 Harbor s/o Adams 47,000 11/04/2010 Harborn/o Fair 43,000 11/04/2010 Harbor No Wilson 40,000 11/03/2010 Harbor n/o Victoria 39,000 11/03/2010 -Harbor n/o Bay 27,000 11/03/2010 Harborn/o 19th 27,000 11/03/2010 s/o 19th 18,000 11/04/2010 -Harbor -Hyland s/o MacArthur 10,000 05/12/2004 s/o Scenic 7,000 05/12/2004 -Hyland Hyland s/o Sunflower 7,000 05/12/2004 Industrial w/o Newport 5,000 05/12/2004 Irvine s/o Bristol 26,000 04/24/2004 rvine n/o Mesa 21,000 04/14/2004 Wine n/o University 26,000 04/14/2004 Irvine n/o 22nd 28,000 04/14/2004 Irvine s/o 22nd 26,000 04/14/2004 Irvine n/o 19th 29,000 06/02/2004 Irvine n/o 17th 20,000 07/01/2004 Irvine n/c 16th 14,000 07/01/2004 MacArthur w/o Harbor 23,000 05/12/2004 Merrimac e/o Harbor 10,000 05/12/2004 Merrimac w/o Fairview 10,000 10/13/2004 Mesa w/o Orange 7,000 03/16/2004 Mesa e/o Santa Ana 7,000 05/31/2004 Mesa Verde W. n/o Adams 7,000 09/23/2004 Mesa Verde W. w/o Country Club 7,000 09/16/2004 Average Daily Traffic Volume Count Dates Roadway ADT Count Date Mesa Verde E. n/o Baker 4,000 09/23/2004 Mesa Verde E. n/o Adams 6,000 09/23/2004 Mesa Verde E. s/c Adams 10,000 10/13/2004 Mesa Verde E. w/o Harbor 11,000 9/23/2004 Monrovia s/o 19th 6,000 02/05/2004 Monrovia n/o 17th 6,000 02/04/2004 Newport SB n/o Mesa 26,000 4/14/2004 Newport SB n/c Fair/Del Mar 24,000 4/14/2004 Newport SB n/o Santa Isabel 10,000 4/21/2004 Newport SB n/o Victoria 30,000 4/14/2004 Newport SB s/o Victoria 11,000 04/27/2004 Newport SB s/o Ford 8,000 4/14/2004 Newport NB n/o Mesa 7,000 4/14/2004 _ Newport NB n/o Fair/Del Mar 24,000 4/14/2004 Newport NB n/o Santa Isabel 13,000 4/21/2004 Newport NB n/o 22nd 28,000 4/14/2004 Newport NB s/o 22nd 13,000 6/16/2004 Newport NB s/o 20th 9,000 4/14/2004 Newport n/c 17t 79,000 10/28/2010 Newport n/o 19th 92,000 10/28/2010 Newport n/o Industrial 51,000 10/28/2010 Ogle e/c Orange 2,000 3/9/2004 Orange n/o Del Mar 2,000 6/8/2004 Orange n/o Santa Isabel 3,000 6/22/2004 Orange n/o 22nd 4,000 6/22/2004 Orange n/o 21st 6,000 6/22/2004 Orange n/o 19th 7,000 6/22/2004 Orange n/o 17th 12,000 2/18/2004 Orange n/o 16th 8,000 6/24/2004 Orange n/o 15th 5,000 6/24/2004 Park s/o 19th 5,000 10/14/2004 Paularino e/o Fairview 6,000 04/27/2004 Paularino e/o Bear 8,000 04/27/2004 Paularino e/o Bristol 16,000 04/27/2004 Paularino w/o Redhill 12,000 09/21/2004 Placentia s/o Adams 11,000 09/23/2004 Placentia n/o Wilson 12,000 10/28/2010 Placentia n/o Victoria 16,000 10/28/2010 Placentia n/o Hamilton 27,000 03/04/2004 Placentia s/o Hamilton 24,000 10/28/2010 Placentia s/o 19th 24,000 10/28/2010 Placentia n/o 17th 17,000 10/28/2010 Placentia n/o 16th 15,000 02/04/2004 Pomona n/o Viiltctoria 4,000 09/09/2004 Pomona n/o Hamon 8,000 03/04/2004 ,., StanteC Average Daily Traffic Volume Count Dates Roadway ADT Count Date Pomona n/o 19th 7,000 09/09/2004 Pomona n/o 18th 7,000 11/03/2004 Pomona s/o 18th 10,000 06/08/2004 Pomona n/o 17th 5,000 04/27/2004 Red Hill n/o Airport Loop 17,000 11/03/2010 Red Hill n/o Paularino 19,000 04/27/2004 Red Hill n/o Baker 18,000 11/03/2010 Redhill n/o Kalmus 15,000 11/03/2010 Red Hill n/o Bristol 19,000 11/03/2010 Sakioka n/o Anton 6,000 03/09/2004 Santa Ana s/c Bristol 10,000 6/22/2004 Santa Ana n/o Del Mar/University 7,000 6/22/2004 Santa Ana n/o Santa Isabel 6,000 6/28/2004 Santa Ana n/o 22nd 6,000 6/22/2004 Santa Ana n/o 21st 5,000 6/22/2004 Santa Ana n/o 19th 6,000 6/22/2004 Santa Ana n/o 17th 8,000 2/18/2004 Santa Ana n/o 16th 6,000 6/22/2004 Santa Ana n/o 15th 5,000 6/22/2004 Santa Isabel e/o Newport 4,000 3/18/2004 Santa Isabel e/o Orange 3,000 03/18/2004 South Coast w/o Harbor 11,000 06/16/2004 South Coaste/o Harbor 12,000 10/14/2004 South Coast w/o Fairview 13,000 04/27/2004 South Coast e/o Wimbledon 16,000 10/13/2004 South Coast w/o Bear 16,000 04/29/2004 Sunflower e/o Hyland 5,000 05/06/2004 Sunflower w/o Harbor 7,000 09/23/2004 Sunflower 9/o Harbor 13,000 05/06/2004 Sunflower w/o Susan 13,000 05/06/2004 Sunflower w/o Fairview 17,000 05/06/2004 Sunflower w/o Fuschia/Raitt 18,000 05/06/2004 Sunflower w/o Bristol 31,000 05/06/2004 Sunflower e/o Bristol 25,000 05/06/2004 Sunflower w/o Anton 19,000 09/21/2004 Sunflower w/o Main 22,000 05/06/2004 Superior s/o Anaheim 12,000 09/21/2004 Superior r/o 16th/Industrial 23,000 09/21/2004 Tustin n/o 21 st 3,000 6/15/2004 Tustin n/o 20th 2,000 4/22/2004 Tustin n/o 19th 4,000 6/1/2004 Tustin n/o 17th 5,000 7/1/2004 Tustin n/o 16th 7,000 6/15/2004 Victoria w/o Pacific 30,000 11/03/2010 Victoria w/o National 28,000 11/03/2010 Victoria w/o Placentia 30,000 11/03/2010 Victoria e/c Placentia 27,000 11/03/2010 atanteC Average Daily Traffic Volume Count Dates Roadway ADT Count Date Victoria e/o Harbor 29,000 11/03/2010 Victoria w/o Harbor 31,000 11/03/2010 Victoria e/o College 28,000 11/03/2010 Wilson w/o Placentia 7,000 11/03/2010 Wilson e/o Placentia 12,000 11/02/2010 Wilson e/o Pomona 15,000 03/04/2004 Wilson w/o Harbor 17,000 11/03/2010 Wilson e/o Harbor 17,000 11/03/2010 Wilson e/o Fairview 13,000 11/03/2010 Wilson e/o Newport 6,000 5/27/2004 15th e/o Newport 2,000 2/5/2004 W. 16th e/o Monrovia 4,000 09/09/2004 W. 16th e/o Placentia 5,000 02/04/2004 16th w/o Newport 2,000 04/22/2004 16th e/o Newport 4,000 6/24/2004 16th e/o Orange 3,000 2/5/2004 16th e/o Santa Ana 3,000 6/22/2004 16th e/o Tustin 3,000 2/5/2004 W. 17th w/o Monrovia 5,000 2/4/2004 W. 17th w/o Placentia 7,000 06/22/2004 W. 17th e/o Placentia 9,000 02/05/2004 W. 17th w/o Pomona 10,000 10/26/2010 17th w/o Orange 35,000 10/26/2010 17th w/o Westminster 34,000 10/26/2010 17th w/o Santa Ana 33,000 10/26/2010 17th e/c Santa Ana 34,000 10/26/2010 17th w/o Irvine 30,000 10/26/2010 W. 18th e/o Monrovia 5,000 02/05/2004 W. 18th e/o Placentia 7,000 02/05/2004 W. 18th w/o Anaheim 10,000 02/18/2004 W. 181h w/o Park 11,000 09/16/2004 W. 19th w/o Placentia 13,000 02/05/2004 W. 19th e/o Placentia 22,000 02/05/2004 W. 19th w/o Park 32,000 10/26/2010 W. 19th e/o Harbor 32,000 10/26/2010 19th e/o Newport 12,000 10/26/2010 19th w/o Orange 11,000 10/26/2010 19th e/o Orange 8,000 10/26/2010 19th e/o Santa Ana 6,000 10/26/2010 19th w/o Irvine 6,000 10/26/2010 20th e/o Newport 4,000 5/25/2004 20th e/o Tustin 3,000 3/11/2004 21st e/o Newport 3,000 6/24/2004 21 st w/o Irvine 2,000 3/2/2004 22nd e/o Newport 10,000 6/3/2004 22nd e/o Orange 7,000 7/1/2004 22nd e/o Santa Ana 6,000 4/15/2004 22nd/Santiago w/o Irvine 5,000 7/1/2004 ATTACHMENT 11 NGE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION FOR ORANGE COUNTY ✓..1Luc� 3160 Airway Avenue • Costa Mesa, California 92626.949.252, 517Qgax: 949.252.6012 IN Subject: City of Costa Mesa 2015-2035 General Plan Update Dear Mr. Inloes: During the meeting held on May 19, 2016, the Airport Land Use Commission (.ALUC) for Orange County considered the subject project. The matter was duly discussed, moved, seconded and carried by a unanimous vote (7-0) by the Commission to find the City of Costa Mesa's proposed 2015-2035 General Plan Update to be Consistent with the Commission's Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport (JYyA) with the inclusion of the following policy revisions: 1) "Nero residential developments within the 60 dB CNEL noise contour shall provide designated outdoor signage informing the public of the presence of operating aircraft. " 2) Policy LU -3.14 will be revised as follows to address proposed new development within the FAR Part 77 notification area for'JWA: Policy L U-3.14 "C'ervain development proposals whichmay include the construction or alteration of snructztres more than 300 (ret above ground level or are located within the F.AR Part -_ notification areufor.l4PA. mala, require. filing with the Federal Aviation ldmiaistratiou (l -A.'0 and Airport Land Use Con m.iiiou (ALI'(') pursuant to Federal and State Law. If a filing requirement r determined to he neces-smr in accir, daneewith the procedures provided by Saite 1 Lderul ergencies, the Jilin, of a Aottce of P1oposed ('on.%truc'tion or Alteration ti A_t Norm ?160-1) shall he required prior. to veneer and consideration of the proposed aevelopntent." May 26, 2016 Daniel haloes, Senior Planner' City of Costa Mesa P.O. Box 1200 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92628 Subject: City of Costa Mesa 2015-2035 General Plan Update Dear Mr. Inloes: During the meeting held on May 19, 2016, the Airport Land Use Commission (.ALUC) for Orange County considered the subject project. The matter was duly discussed, moved, seconded and carried by a unanimous vote (7-0) by the Commission to find the City of Costa Mesa's proposed 2015-2035 General Plan Update to be Consistent with the Commission's Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport (JYyA) with the inclusion of the following policy revisions: 1) "Nero residential developments within the 60 dB CNEL noise contour shall provide designated outdoor signage informing the public of the presence of operating aircraft. " 2) Policy LU -3.14 will be revised as follows to address proposed new development within the FAR Part 77 notification area for'JWA: Policy L U-3.14 "C'ervain development proposals whichmay include the construction or alteration of snructztres more than 300 (ret above ground level or are located within the F.AR Part -_ notification areufor.l4PA. mala, require. filing with the Federal Aviation ldmiaistratiou (l -A.'0 and Airport Land Use Con m.iiiou (ALI'(') pursuant to Federal and State Law. If a filing requirement r determined to he neces-smr in accir, daneewith the procedures provided by Saite 1 Lderul ergencies, the Jilin, of a Aottce of P1oposed ('on.%truc'tion or Alteration ti A_t Norm ?160-1) shall he required prior. to veneer and consideration of the proposed aevelopntent." ALUC Determination Letter 5%26116 Page 2 3) The proposed General Plan Amendment and the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan will be updated to reflect a maximum height of 120 feetl8 stories for Sakioka Lot 2. The maximum height allowed will be 161 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). Please contact ALUC staff at (949) 252-5123 or via email at lchoum!.cbocair.com if you require additional information or have questions regarding this proceeding. Sincerely, Kari A. Rigoni Executive OFticer ATTACHMENT 12 June 10, 2016 Claire L. Flynn Asst. Development Services Director 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Re: 2850 Mesa Verde Drive East, APN 139-313-09 Dear Ms. Flynn, I am one of the property owners of approximately 2 acres located at the above address in the Mesa Verde area of Costa Mesa. I would like to request that the City consider taking the necessary steps to amend the general plan and proceed with a change in zoning to allow for low density residential use on the subject property. I would like to know if it is possible to include this property in the latest update to the general plan that the City is processing currently or if the City Council could direct City Staff to proceed independently of the general plan update. Thanks you very much for your consideration. Sincerely, Leonard Family Trust By: David Leonard, Esq. ATTACHMENT 2 2015-2035 GENERAL PLAN ERRATA (JUNE 14, 2016) Introduction Page 1-10 Located on the "coastal tableland" above Newport Bay, Costa Mesa was once grazing grounds for cattle belenging te the Mission Sa.n. Capistrane. At the beginning of the 19th century, n es o"sh'� rth@ adobe structures like the "Estancia" were built as waystations for the cattle drivers who tended the herds. This structure still stands and was restored and transformed by the City into a museum at 1900 Adams Avenue. Page 1-15 Figure 1-3: Regulating Use of Property, will be altered to include an additional bullet point under the General plan for "Recommendations". Figure 1-3: Regulating Use of Property Land Use Element Page LU —9 Municipal Code Land Use Plans Zoning Code Specific Plans Subdivisions Urban Plans Building Code Within Table LU -1: Public and Institutional Lands, the Costa Mesa Farm Soccer Complex shall be replaced with Jack R. Hammett Sports Complex. Page LU -16 The FAA standard that is of the most concern in Costa Mesa is the horizontal surface for John Wayne Airport. This surface is 206 203.66 feet above the mean sea level and extends nearly two miles from the airport. Page LU -18 The City will also ensure that development proposals including the construction or alteration of a structure more than 200 feet above ground level, reference North American Vertical Datum 1988 (NAV88), must fully comply with procedures provided by Federal and State law, including with the referral requirements of the ALUC, and filing a Notice of Construction and Alteration (Form 7460-1). (Fern 7480 1). Page LU -42 Figure LU -6 required a modification to the Maximum Building Height for the site per the Airport Land Use Commission consistency determination on May 19th, 2016. Revised figure attached. Page LU -58 Revised Figure LU -9: due to the cluster of parcels at the Mesa Verde and Adams Street Intersection being removed from the Residential Incentive Overlay per City Council direction on May 17th. Revised Figure attached. Page LU -60 Revised Table LU -16: Residential Incentive Overlay. Table LU -15: Residential Incentive Overlay Source: City of Costo Mesa, 2015. Page LU -61 Revised Figure LU -10: Residential Incentive Overlay: Harbor Boulevard due to the cluster of parcels at the Mesa Verde and Adams Street Intersection being removed from the overlay per City Council direction on May 17th. Revised Figure attached. Page LU -77 Additional policies per Airport Land Use Commission consistency finding with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan. Policy LU -3.14 Certain development proposals which may include the construction or alteration of structures more than 200 feet above ground level or are located within the FAR Part 77 notification area for J.W.A. may require Baseline (2015) Residential Incentive Overlay (DU/AC) N/A 40 Harbor Boulevard 84 204 -,GW Units Newport Boulevard 237 1,210 Total Units 321 1,630 272744 Floor -Area Ratio (FAR) Building Harbor Boulevard 356,800 178,400 Square Newport Boulevard 582,000 291,100 Feet Total Building Square Feet 938,800 469,500 Source: City of Costo Mesa, 2015. Page LU -61 Revised Figure LU -10: Residential Incentive Overlay: Harbor Boulevard due to the cluster of parcels at the Mesa Verde and Adams Street Intersection being removed from the overlay per City Council direction on May 17th. Revised Figure attached. Page LU -77 Additional policies per Airport Land Use Commission consistency finding with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan. Policy LU -3.14 Certain development proposals which may include the construction or alteration of structures more than 200 feet above ground level or are located within the FAR Part 77 notification area for J.W.A. may require filing with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) pursuant to Federal and State Law. If a filing requirement is determined to be necessary in accordance with the procedures provided by State/Federal agencies, the filing of a Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration (FAA Form 7460-1) shall be required prior to review and consideration of the proposed development. Policy LU -3.15 The City will ensure that development proposals including the construction or operation of a heliport or helistop comply fully with permit procedures under State law, including referral of the project to the ALUC by the applicant, and with all conditions of approval imposed or recommended by the Federal Aviation Administration, ALUC, and Caltrans, including the filing of Form 7480-1 (Notice of Landing Area Proposed) with the FAA. This requirement shall be in addition to all other City development requirements. Policy LU -3.16 The City shall refer certain projects to the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County as required by Section 21676 of the California Public Utilities Code to determine consistency of the project(s) with the AELUP for JWA. Policy LU -3.17 New residential developments within the 60 dB CNEL noise contour of the airport shall provide designated outdoor signage informing the public of the presence of operating aircraft. Conservation Element Page CON -5 Modifications to Figure OSR-2 to update legend information. Revised map attached. Safety Element Page S-2 The City lies approximately Ove -one miles from the Pacific Ocean and thus is susceptible to flooding from tsunamis. Open Space and Recreation Element Page OSR-5 In April 2013, the Costa Mesa City Council voted to reconvene the Fairview Park Citizens Advisory Committee (FPAC) to examine several issues regarding the park, and to evaluate the Fairview Park Master Plan relative to the City's needs. Based on those needs, the FPAC will recommend the addition, reduction, elimination, and modification of park uses and master -planned elements. Key elements !nc!udcd prov,d;a^ varieus speFts fields,aa As part of the citywide Open Space Master Plan of Parks and Recreation initiated in 2015, the community will be engaged in further discussion of improvement plans for Fairview Park. Page OSR-15 Modifications to Figure OSR-2 to update legend and source information. Revised map attached. Page OSR-18 Modifications to Figure OSR-3 to update legend and source information. Revised map attached. Aerial General Plan Key Map General Plan Designations High Density Residential (20 du/ac) Urban Center Commercial Baseline (2015) Square Feet, ... - ........ 0.0 Total Area..................33 acres Land Use Plan Residential Units.................660 Density................................80 DU/AC FAR....................................1.00 FAR* Maximum Building Height .... .8 stories Building intensity shall not exceed maximum allowable development set forth by the trip budget in the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan. '�O 3 / d o -- � MacArthur Blvd m �- Mry of -- -- Sana Ana Ells Ave- Sh6ower Ave. South Coast Coan ca Blvd. Plaza Garfield Ave. Gisler Ave. - -® a 1 .. m � r no �J 2 m � LL o �a Bakar,t � 1 Cd of _ m Huntington - - s t Beach %: ears eve r S y - Or Cod Oeasf allege � - y Arlington Dr. 1' Fairview ` % h.Q Park - }, OC Fair Event Center r *air„r �I, • A Talbert Pegwnal - s:n 3 - =-' - IPah - ; 1 - �I• �- 1 I ` 1ir F-1 r �. ?¢. z , ��a m City of Newport Beach Chyof &: Newport Beach $A Overlays Westside Urban Plans Sc,,, 3,ri ), Cosia Man. 2C1 L 1 ° sidential Incentive Overlay j�-___ 19 West Urban Plan r__-� aBECA Mixed Use Overlay L�_._ Mesa West Bluffs Urban Plan 11 ZOOM 1:80 31"0 7C o j_>_€__ Harbor Mixed -Use OverlayL ___�7 Mesa West Residential N , 11� 4—ijN1 11111111111 �1 W as 7111 a�i'�/i MIA ubmim 111►Q �Q ■ [Damon/ -8 Illry.`�, YIga ��C, una111� � 111111/Q� _ + Ii11p�1a 1 1 1111 1111 BaMee SL BaYel Sl + X11 1111 1111 . 1111 - eia mnn sena. anal Illegal Illegal Atlame Aw. L liy 1 � WWI A � i E' - r' A1eMmaa wry My —. AM, I \`='1 j7.. 'IlllyllDalnn1111�11i1 1i'il _I ^fl. MINE 1_ ��Pill!' ; pp� A ,� 1111111111■111.11 ■CRIlo mens...... mn 42-q- -� M•o IN T J M 117 Ili IM Elm Bu (H� .i..�uD �i HiQ 6 111531 i I� 1 cam: Mn' Vlclmia SI Yk14�.','. SN • Hamilton 51 m♦ Hamilmn 51 n. I m r .il ♦'.anYA1 t_ i � tette = F - eav s9 ®Yum a+v sl 111111 1 Ave Parks and Open Space Inventory Walking Shed Analysis Souse: coy of Cnsa Vesasolo zrr,IS NerIc', lnaryst and Cosa Mesa she .t. er er renes ,poryFmesi Neighbonc�od Parks 1i4 Mile or Less Walking Distance to Park Community Parks �.:,�,'''�, 1/2 Mile or Less Walking Distance to Park 1� . Orange County Parks Residential Underserved Areas Feet 0 1A00 2,Oo0 i,p `�o S.WO 3,m Golf Courses (Greater than 112 Mile Walking Distance) — Community Gardens Pedestrian Barriers — Public Facilities and Institutional Uses City of Santo Ana In TaberP Aveential as served by Park .blacAchur Blv but si en coin ex r' —' ., ijI private not by public park , i served by p to parks, but I not by p blt parks Eliis Aee. d q E t �aulhr �r i South E64R .Coast — Plaza Gadfleld Ave. Geer A,— _. . Baker St. (ityof Huntington Beath • • r rl a • r L� is e? Li ._.J oa°� '\ (ityof Yewport a \ 82arh \ P`a *• city If Newport Beach Ave Parks and Open Space Inventory Walking Shed Analysis Souse: coy of Cnsa Vesasolo zrr,IS NerIc', lnaryst and Cosa Mesa she .t. er er renes ,poryFmesi Neighbonc�od Parks 1i4 Mile or Less Walking Distance to Park Community Parks �.:,�,'''�, 1/2 Mile or Less Walking Distance to Park 1� . Orange County Parks Residential Underserved Areas Feet 0 1A00 2,Oo0 i,p `�o S.WO 3,m Golf Courses (Greater than 112 Mile Walking Distance) — Community Gardens Pedestrian Barriers — Public Facilities and Institutional Uses Serst ,n Ove. City of et Ana \ Son y y Talbers Ave. a t eso \ 3 Residentlal al MacArthur Blvd. Z served by private park! , butFes" en I co'mpl not by public Park i served by pri to parks; but not by A blir parks Ells Ave, Haver Ave . sear r Pr — -�r _ sanrn Cce" �1 FfaID _rv' Garfield Ave. � • � �- Y �1 P Baker St. Qo' City of \ _ �♦if Nuntingtan�/� 8endr If 5 A p r r - Orange Const O ,College Afwgtar --r Fairview b• ` m r - Perk 'P ��' - OCfaif S Event Center is 6^ ` eau 7r. Talbert m Regional Pork s — < • x An,nSt � ill r i P ,..I. f 4 P 1ih "t P City of Q Ne'Npnrt O ea, Beach - 4 City of e Newport �S - s° e. ogee Piz �?�� /sNi p� Sr t > Underserved Park Areas Sa,'cce. al 3 r a Mesa ra > , 3 A,ertiarcaealysr t�p Park Priority Area find S,.s"a Ne a I ,en I f s n"yiine-j ® Residential Underserved Areas 1 (Grestar than 1,2 %1ile Walking Distance) ���• Neighborhood Planning Areas ") raoo 1000 �:�ao "MO s,:ou 1 ATTACHMENT 3 Alternative Multi -Use Center Total Residential Units 582 -Units at 5 du/ac 250 (51 acres) -Units at40du/ac 332 (9 acres) Open Space Acres 25.6(25%) Public/Institutional Acres 16.6(16%) }�{ �� 16% Institutional R t 4.; 33 2 w i _1 Affordable t t t oil Housing Units a, lw.� •�~� jam,; • Ilk, `iFsr3 n4 ••> •� r%^ IL � ,gF .• 113 -s .+ � �i�� �• • w • .�.s�=' ,� � =fit 1.. mer • • *� R� �; -.yam_' T .. ,_ •�j r25% Single Family �,,: `� �' Open Space �l r ' Homes ly • R •C 1 C � ATTACHMENT 4 ® Stantec Memo To: Daniel Inloes, Senior Planner From: Daryl Zerfass City of Costa Mesa Stantec File: Costa Mesa General Plan Update Date: June 1, 2016 Traffic Analysis (2073007190) Reference: Costa Mesa General Plan Update - Fairview Mixed -Use Center Traffic Analysis This memorandum summarizes the results of a supplemental traffic analysis conducted by Stantec Consulting Services Inc. (Stantec) to evaluate the Mixed -Use Center designation that is being considered for Fairview Developmental Center as part of the City of Costa Mesa General Plan update. The Mixed -Use Center development plan evaluated in this supplemental traffic analysis involves a higher intensification of land use and trip generation compared to the future development plan assumed for the Fairview Developmental Center site in the February 2016 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Update Traffic Analysis report prepared by Stantec. Table 1 (attached) summarizes the future land use and trip generation for the Fairview Developmental Center site based on the General Plan traffic study assumptions and the proposed Mixed -Use Center designation. The trip generation estimates are based on trip rates from the Costa Mesa Traffic Model (CMTM), which is the traffic model that was applied in the General Plan traffic study. As the table indicates, compared to the General Plan traffic analysis the proposed Mixed -Use Center plan generates 290 more AM peak hour trips, 307 more PM peak hour trips and 2,400 more daily trips. The potential traffic impacts of the Mixed -Use Center designation for the Fairview Developmental Center site were evaluated based on year 2035 General Plan buildout conditions assuming the constrained highway network scenario described in the General Plan update traffic analysis report. Table 2 (attached) summarizes AM and PM peak hour intersection capacity utilization (ICU) values for intersection locations in the vicinity of the Fairview Developmental Center under year 2035 traffic conditions based on the development plan assumed in the General Plan traffic analysis and the proposed Mixed -Use Center development plan (ICU worksheets are attached at the end of this memorandum). As the table indicates, all of intersections that were analyzed are forecast to operate at an acceptable level of service (LOS) "D" or better under year 2035 conditions based on the Mixed -Use Center development plan (i.e., the inclusion of the Mixed -Use Center designation for the Fairview Developmental Center site in the General Plan update does not result in any significant traffic impacts). STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES INC. Daryl Zerfass, PE, PTP Principal, Transportation Planning and Traffic Engineering Phone: (949) 923-6058 Daryl.Zerfass@stantec.com Attachments: Table 1 - Land Use and Trip Generation Summary (Fairview Developmental Center Site) Table 2 - Long -Range (2035) Intersection LOS Summary Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Worksheets Design with community in mind \2073\active\2073007190\correspondence\memos\ mm o_ cmgpu_fairview_park_ana lysis_2016060I Table 1 Land Use and Trip Generation Summary (Fairview Developmental Center Site) Land Use Units AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ADT In Out Total In F Out Total GENERAL PLAN TRAFFIC STUDY Medium Density Residential 200 DU 30 98 128 104 60 164 1,634 High Density Residential 300 DU 30 123 153 120 66 186 1,995 Public Facility 52 Acres 2 2 4 4 4 8 98 Passive Park 26 Acres 1 1 2 2 2 4 49 Total Trip Generation 63 224 287 230 132 362 3,776 PROPOSED MIXED-USE CENTER DESIGNATION Low Density Residential 250 DU 48 140 188 158 93 251 2,380 Hi h Density Residential 332 DU 33 136 169 133 73 206 2,208 Institutional Office 139.66 TSF 191 27 218 35 173 208 1,540 Passive Park 25.65 Acres 1 1 2 2 2 4 48 Total Trip Generation 273 304 577 328 341 669 6,176 DIFFERENCE MIXED-USE CENTER DESIGNATION VERSUS GENERAL PLAN TRAFFIC STUDY Trip Generation Increase 210 80 1 290 98 1 209 1 307 1 2,400 Abbreviations: ADT- average daily trips DU - dwelling unit TSF - thousand square feet Design with community in mind \2073\active\2073007190\correspondence\memos\m m o_cmg pu_f0New_park_0na lysis_20160601 Table 2 Long -Range (2035) Intersection LOS Summary Intersection General Plan Traffic Study Land Uses on the Fairview Develo mental Center Site AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ICU LOS ICU LOS Proposed Mixed -Use Center Designation for Fairview Develo mental Center Site AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ICU LOS ICU LOS 38. Harbor & 1-405 NB Romps .81 D .89 D .81 D .90 D 39. Harbor & 1-405 SB Rams .62 B .73 C .63 B .73 C 40. Fairview & 1-405 NB Ramps .68 B .75 C .68 B .75 C 41. Fairview & 1-405 SB Rams .65 B .70 B .65 B .70 B 44. Harbor & Gisler .58 A .78 C .59 A .78 C 45. Harbor & Date .49 A .60 A .49 A .60 A 46. Harbor & Nutmeg .48 A .67 B .48 A .67 B 47. Fairview & Paularino .58 A .57 A .58 A .57 A 56. Harbor & Baker .55 A .79 C .56 A .79RD 57. College & Baker .43 A .65 B .43 A .65 58. Fairview & Baker .77 C .81 D .78 C .8280. Shantar & Adams .56 A .69 B .56 A .6981. Placentia/Mesa Verde W & Adams .85 D .89 D .86 D .8982. Mesa Verde E & Adams .61 B .66 B .62 B .6783. Ro al Palm & Adams .57 A .76 C .57 A .76 84. Harbor & Adams .86 D .84 D .86 D .85 D 85. Pinecreek & Adams .71 C .73 C .72 C .73 C 86. Fairview & Adams .78 C .75 C .79 C .76 C 88. Harbor & Mesa Verde .51 A .75 C .53 A .78 C 90. Fairview & Arlin ton .36 A .47 A .37 A .47 A 91. Harbor & Merrimac .49 A 1 .67 B .49 A .68 B 92. Fairview & Merrimac .36 A .43 A .37 A .45 A 93. Newport SB & Mesa .32 A .65 B .32 A .65 B 94. Newport NB & Mesa .40 A .52 A .40 A .52 A 95. Harbor & Fair .45 A .63 B .47 A .65 B 97. Fairview & Fair .57 A .68 B .58 A .69 B 100. New ort SB & Fair .35 A .54 A .35 A .55 A 101. New orf NB & Del Mar .79 C54 A .79 C .56 A 104. Harbor & Harbor Center 52 A .64 B 53 A .64 B Design with corrin nlfy in mind \2073\active\2773007190\correspondence\memos\mmo_cmgpu fairview_park_analysis 20160601 Table 2 Long -Range (2035) Intersection LOS Summary (continued) Intersection General Plan Traffic Study Land Uses on the Fairview Develo mental Center Site Proposed Mixed -Use Center Designation for Fairview Develo mental Center Site AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS 116. Harbor & Wilson .57 A .69 B .58 A .70 B 117. Fairview & Wilson .62 B .86 D .62 B .86 D 127. Harbor & Victoria .76 C .87 D .76 C .88 D Abbreviations: ICU - intersection capacity utilization LOS - level of service Design with community in mind 1-073`ti '0'3C07�10\zprresppndence ,_memos`.mmc_�mgp�_�o�r iiew_oarY._�n � Iys'is_'O I O0 0' ATTACHMENTS = PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) WORKSHEETS Design with community in mind \2073\active\2073007190\correspondence\memos\ m m c_c mg pu_fa irview_park_ana lysis_20160601 38. Harbor 6 I-405 NB Ramps 2035 Proposed General Plan (Constrained Network) AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 NBT 4 6800 2300 .45* 1670 .33 NBR 0 0 1170 .69 1270 .75 SBL 0 0 0 0 SBT 4 6800 2300 .34 3070 .45* SBR 0 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 0 0 EBT 0 0 0 0 EBR 0 0 0 0 WBL 1.5 370 .22* 940 WBT 0 5100 0 0 (.35}* WBR 1.5 820 .24 980 Right Turn Adjustment Multi .09* NBR .04* Clearance Interval .05* .05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .81 .89 39, Harbor & I-405 SB 2035 Proposed General Plan (Constrained Network) AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 NBT 3 5100 1390 .27* 1740 .34 NBR f 270 490 SBL 0 0 0 0 SBT 4 6800 1510 .22 2760 .41* SBR f 1190 1240 EBL 1.5 830 (.30)* 220 .13* EBT 0 5100 0 {.30) 0 EBR 1.5 760 930 .27 WBL 0 0 0 0 WBT 0 0 0 0 WBR 0 0 0 0 Right Turn Adjustment EBR .14* Clearance Interval .05* .05* 2035 Proposed GP (Const.) + Fairview Mixed -Use Center AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 NBT 4 6800 2300 .45* 1670 .33 NBR 0 0 1180 .69 1290 .76 SBL 0 0 0 0 SBT 4 6800 2320 .34 3080 .45* SBR 0 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 0 0 EBT 0 0 0 0 EBR 0 0 0 0 WBL 1.5 370 .22* 940 WBT 0 5100 0 0 (.35)* WBR 1.5 820 .24 980 Right Turn Adjustment Multi .09* NBR .05* Clearance Interval .05* .05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .81 .90 2035 Proposed GP (Const.) + Fairview Mixed -Use Center AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 NBT 3 5100 1400 .27* 1760 .35 NBR f 270 490 SBL 0 0 0 0 SBT 4 6800 1540 .23 2780 .411 SBR f 1190 1240 EBL 1.5 830 (.31}* 220 .13* EBT 0 5100 0 (.31} 0 EBR 1.5 790 930 .27 WBL 0 0 0 0 WBT 0 0 0 0 WBR 0 0 0 0 Right Turn Adjustment EBR .14* Clearance Interval .05* .05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .62 .73 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .63 .73 40. Fairview & I-405 NB Ramps 2035 Proposed General Plan (Constrained Network) AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1700 270 .16* 320 .19* NBT 3 5100 1160 .23 1580 .31 NBR 0 0 0 0 SBL 0 0 0 0 SBT 6 10200 1870 .18* 2500 .25* SBR 1 1700 300 .18 260 .15 EBL 0 0 0 0 EBT 0 0 0 0 EBR 0 0 0 0 WBL 2 3400 520 .15* 900 .26* WBT 0 0 0 0 WBR 2 3400 1250 .37 980 .29 Right Turn Adjustment WBR .14* Clearance Interval .05* .05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .68 .75 41. Fairview & I-405 SB Ramps 2035 Proposed General Plan (Constrained Network) AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 NBT 3.5 8500 1150 .23* 1400 {.21)* NBR 1.5 1180 .35 510 (.19) SBL 3 5100 1150 .23* 1490 .29* SBT 3 5100 1210 .24 1900 .37 SBR 0 0 0 0 EBL 2 3400 310 .09* 510 .15* EBT 0 0 0 0 EBR 2 3400 370 .11 440 .13 WBL 0 0 0 0 WBT 0 0 0 0 WBR 0 0 0 0 Right Turn Adjustment NBR .05* Clearance Interval .05* 05} 2035 Proposed GP (Const.) + Fairview Mixed -Use Center AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1700 270 .16* 320 .19* NBT 3 5100 1160 .23 1590 .31 NBR 0 0 0 0 SBL 0 0 0 0 SBT 6 10200 1880 .18* 2510 .25* SBR 1 1700 300 .18 260 .15 EBL 0 0 0 0 EBT 0 0 0 0 EBR 0 0 0 0 WBL 2 3400 520 .15* 900 .26* WBT 0 0 0 0 WBR 2 3400 1250 .37 980 .29 Right Turn Adjustment WBR .14* Clearance Interval .05* .05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .68 .75 2035 Proposed GP (Const.) + Fairview Mixed -Use Center AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 NBT 3.5 8500 1150 .23* 1410 (.21}* NBR 1.5 1180 .35 510 (.19} SBL 3 5100 1150 .23* 1490 .29* SBT 3 5100 1220 .24 1910 .37 SBR 0 0 0 0 EBL 2 3400 310 .09* 510 .15* EBT 0 0 0 0 EBR 2 3400 370 .11 440 .13 WBL 0 0 0 0 WBT 0 0 0 0 WBR 0 0 0 0 Right Turn Adjustment NBR .05* Clearance Interval .05* 05t TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .65 .70 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .65 .70 44. Harbor & Gisler 2035 Proposed General Plan (Constrained Network) AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1700 110 .06* 150 .09* NBT 5 8500 2320 .27 2470 .29 NBR 0 0 10 30 SBL 1 1700 100 .06 200 .12 SBT 4 6800 2320 .34* 3470 .51* SBR 1 1700 160 .09 460 .27 EBL 3 5100 540 .11 500 .10* EBT 1 1700 60 .11* 30 .08 EBR 0 0 130 110 WBL 1 1700 30 .02* 60 .04 WBT 1 1700 20 .01 50 .03* WBR 1 1700 160 .09 130 .08 Clearance Interval .05* .05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .58 .78 45. Harbor 6 Date 2035 Proposed General Plan (Constrained Network) AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1700 30 .02 50 .03* NBT 4 6800 2450 .36* 2590 .38 NBR 0 0 0 0 SBL 1 1700 50 .03* 50 .03 SBT 4 6800 2400 .36 3030 .46* SBR 0 0 30 70 EBL 0 0 40 40 EBT 1 1700 0 .05* 0 .06* EBR 0 0 50 70 WBL 0 0 0 0 WBT 0 0 0 0 WBR 0 0 0 0 Clearance In-erval .05* .05, 2035 Proposed GP (Const,) + Fairview Mixed -Use Center AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1700 110 .06* 150 .09* NBT 5 8500 2330 .28 2490 .30 NBR 0 0 10 30 SBL 1 1700 100 .06 200 .12 SBT 4 6800 2370 .35* 3490 .51* SBR 1 1700 160 .09 460 .27 EBL 3 5100 540 .11 500 .10* EBT 1 1700 60 .11* 30 .08 EBR 0 0 130 110 WBL 1 1700 30 .02* 60 .04 WBT 1 1700 20 .01 50 .03* WBR 1 1700 160 .09 130 .08 Clearance Interval .05* .05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .59 .78 2035 Proposed GP (Const.) + Fairview Mixed -Use Center AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1700 30 .02 50 .03* NBT 4 6800 2460 .36* 2620 .39 NBR 0 0 0 0 SBL 1 1700 50 .03* 50 .03 SBT 4 6800 2450 .36 3050 .46* SBR 0 0 30 70 EBL 0 0 40 40 EBT 1 1700 0 .05* 0 .06* EBR 0 0 50 70 WBL 0 0 0 0 WBT 0 0 0 0 WBR 0 0 0 0 Clearance Interval .05* .05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .49 .60 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .49 .60 46. Harbor & Nutmeg 2035 Proposed General Plan (Constrained Network) AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1700 40 .02 80 .05* NBT 4 6800 2250 .33* 2530 .37 NBR 1 1700 100 .06 160 .09 SBL 2 3400 100 .03* 190 .06 SBT 4 6800 2260 .34 2680 .41* SBR 0 0 60 110 EBL 0 0 70 110 EBT 1 1700 10 .05* 20 .08* EBR 1 1700 50 .03 60 .04 WBL 0 0 20 (.01)* 130 [.08)* WBT 1 1700 10 .02 10 .08 WBR 1 1700 90 .05 120 .07 Right Turn Adjustment WBR .01* Clearance Interval .05* .05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .48 .67 47. Fairview & Paularino 2035 Proposed General Plan (Constrained Network) AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 NBT 3 5100 1980 .41* 1740 .37 NBR 0 0 110 150 SBL 1 1700 110 .06* 150 .09 SBT 3 5100 1530 .30 2430 .48* SBR 0 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 0 0 EBT 0 0 0 0 EBR 0 0 0 0 WBL 1 1700 80 .05* 70 .04* WBT 0 0 0 0 WBR 1 1700 190 .11 160 .09 Right Turn Adjustment WBR .01* Clearance Interval .05* .05* 2035 Proposed GP (Const.) + Fairview Mixed -Use Center AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1700 40 .02* 80 .05* NBT 4 6800 2260 .33 2560 .38 NBR 1 1700 100 .06 160 .09 SBL 2 3400 100 .03 190 .06 SBT 4 6800 2310 .35* 2700 .41* SBR 0 0 60 110 EBL 0 0 70 110 EBT 1 1700 10 .05* 20 .08* ESR 1 1700 50 .03 60 .04 WBL 0 0 20 [.01}* 130 [.OB)* WBT 1 1700 10 .02 10 .08 WBR 1 1700 90 .05 120 .07 Clearance Interval .05* .05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .48 .67 2035 Proposed GP (Const.) + Fairview Mixed -Use Center AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 NBT 3 5100 1980 .41* 1750 .37 NBR 0 0 110 150 SBL 1 1700 110 .06* 150 .09 SBT 3 5100 1540 .30 2440 .48* SBR 0 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 0 0 EBT 0 0 0 0 EBR 0 0 0 0 WBL 1 1700 80 .05* 70 .04* WBT 0 0 0 0 WBR 1 1700 190 .11 160 .09 Right Turn Adjustment WBR .01* Clearance Interval .05* .05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .58 .57 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .58 .57 56. Harbor & Baker 2035 Proposed General Plan (Constrained Network) AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3400 50 .01 120 .04* NBT 4 6800 2070 .30* 2120 .31 NBR 1 1700 270 .16 210 .12 SBL 2 3400 190 .06* 300 .09 SBT 4 6800 1880 .28 2800 .41* SBR 1 1700 170 .10 420 .25 EBL 2 3400 270 .08* 280 .08* EBT 2 3400 230 .07 230 .07 EBR d 1700 60 .04 70 .04 WBL 2 3400 180 .05 590 .17 WBT 2 3400 190 .06* 710 .21* WBR 1 1700 120 .07 230 .14 Clearance Interval .05* .05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .55 .79 57. College & Baker 2035 Proposed General Plan (Constrained Network) AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1700 50 .03 200 .12* NBT 1 1700 0 .11* 0 .05 NBR 0 0 180 .16 80 .12 SBL 1 1700 40 .02* 140 .08 SBT 1 1700 0 .02 0 .02* SBR 0 0 30 .10 40 .25 EBL 1 1700 20 .01 20 .01* EBT 2 3400 710 .21* 590 .17 EBR 1 1700 50 .03 110 .06 WBL 1 1700 70 .04* 90 .05 WBT 2 3400 480 .16 1460 .45* WBR 0 0 50 .07 60 .14 Clearance Interval .05* .05* .05* 2035 Proposed GP (Const.) + Fairview Mixed -Use Center AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3400 50 .01 120 .04* NBT 4 6800 2080 .31* 2150 .32 NBR 1 1700 270 .16 210 .12 SBL 2 3400 190 .06* 300 .09 SBT 4 6800 1930 .28 2820 .41* SBR 1 1700 170 .10 420 .25 EBL 2 3400 270 .08* 280 .08* EBT 2 3400 230 .07 230 .07 EBR d 1700 60 .04 70 .04 WBL 2 3400 180 .05 590 .17 WBT 2 3400 190 .06* 710 .21* WBR 1 1700 120 .07 230 .14 Clearance Interval .05* .05* .05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .56 .79 2035 Proposed GP (Const.) + Fairview Mixed -Use Center AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1700 50 .03 200 .121 NBT 1 1700 0 .11* 0 .05 NBR 0 0 180 80 SBL 1 1700 40 .02* 140 .08 SBT 1 1700 0 .02 0 .02* SBR 0 0 30 40 EBL 1 1700 20 .01 20 .01* EBT 2 3400 710 .21* 590 .17 EBR 1 1700 50 .03 110 .06 WBL 1 1700 70 .04* 90 .05 WBT 2 3400 480 .16 1460 .45* WBR 0 0 50 60 Clearance Interval .05* .05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .43 .65 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .43 .65 58. Fairview & Baker 2035 Proposed General Plan (Constrained Network) AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3400 130 .04 230 .07 NBT 3 5100 1650 .32* 1450 .28* NBR 1 1700 790 .46 520 .31 SBL 2 3400 280 .08* 300 .09* SBT 4 6800 1150 .17 1730 .25 SBR 1 1700 190 .11 430 .25 EBL 2 3400 330 .10 260 .08* EBT 2 3400 520 .15* 620 .18 EBR 1 1700 130 .08 160 .09 WBL 2 3400 390 .11* 540 .16 WBT 3 5100 320 .06 1600 .311 WBR 1 1700 90 .05 130 .08 Right Turn Adjustment NBR .06* Clearance Interval .05* .05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .77 .81 80. Shantar & Adams 2035 Proposed General Plan (Constrained Network) AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1700 30 .02* 30 .02* NBT 1 1700 10 .01 10 .01 NBR 1 1700 110 .06 60 .04 SBL 1 1700 20 .01 20 .01 SBT 1 1700 10 .01* 10 .01* SSR 1 1700 30 .02 20 .01 EBL 1 1700 30 .02 80 .05* EBT 3 5100 2210 .44* 1170 .24 EBR 0 0 10 40 WBL 1 1700 20 .01* 90 .05 WBT 3 5100 810 .16 2820 .56* WBR 0 0 10 20 Right Turn Adjustment NBR .03* Clearance Interval .05* .05* 2035 Proposed GP (Const.) + Fairview Mixed -Use Center AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3400 130 .04 230 .07 NBT 3 5100 1650 .32* 1460 .29* NBR 1 1700 800 .47 530 .31 SBL 2 3400 280 .08* 300 .09* SBT 4 6800 1160 .17 1740 .26 SBR 1 1700 190 .11 430 .25 EBL 2 3400 330 .10 260 .08* EBT 2 3400 520 .15* 620 .18 EBR 1 1700 130 .08 160 .09 WBL 2 3400 390 .11* 540 .16 WBT 3 5100 320 .06 1600 .31* WBR 1 1700 90 .05 130 .08 Right Turn Adjustment NBR .07* Clearance Interval .05* .05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .78 .82 2035 Proposed GP (Const.) + Fairview Mixed -Use Center AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LAVES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1700 30 .02* 30 .02* NBT 1 1700 10 .01 10 .01 NBR 1 1700 110 .06 60 .04 SBL 1 1700 20 .01 20 .01 SBT 1 1700 10 .01* 10 .01* SBR 1 1700 30 .02 20 .01 EBL 1 1700 30 .02 80 .05* EBT 3 5100 2230 .44* 1170 .24 EBR 0 0 10 40 WBL 1 1700 20 .01* 90 .05 WBT 3 5100 810 .16 2840 .56* WBR 0 0 10 20 Right Turn Adjustment NBR .03* Clearance Interval .05* 5' TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .56 .69 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .56 .69 81. Placentia/Mesa Verde W & Adams 2035 Proposed General Plan (Constrained Network) AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3400 230 .07 240 .07* NBT 1 1700 210 .12* 140 .08 NBR 1 1700 250 .15 230 .14 SBL 1 1700 40 .02* 50 .03 SBT 2 3400 210 .06 140 .04* SBR 1 1700 70 .04 330 .19 EBL 1 1700 80 .05 60 .04* EBT 3 5100 2920 .57* 1170 .23 EBR 1 1700 110 .06 350 .21 WBL 1 1700 150 .09* 190 .11 WBT 3 5100 610 .13 2860 .57* WBR 0 0 30 50 Right Turn Adjustment SBR .12* Clearance Interval .05* .05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .85 .89 82, Mesa Verde E & Adams 2035 Proposed General Plan (Constrained Network) AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1.5 80 (.041* 210 NBT 0,5 3400 70 .04 60 .08* NBR 1 1700 80 .05 110 .06 SBL 1 1700 30 .02 50 .03* SBT 2 3400 100 .03* 80 .02 S3R 1 1700 60 .04 160 .09 EBL 1 1700 60 ,04 50 .03* EBT 3 5100 2280 .45* 1620 .32 EBR 1 1700 270 .16 140 .08 WBL 1 1700 60 .04* 10 .01 WBT 3 5100 590 .13 2110 .43* WBR 0 0 80 80 Right Turn Adjustment SBR .04* Clearance Interval .05* .05* 2035 Proposed GP (Const.) + Fairview Mixed -Use Center AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3400 230 .07 240 .07* NBT 1 1700 210 .12* 140 .08 NBR 1 1700 250 .15 230 .14 SBL 1 1700 40 .02* 50 .03 SBT 2 3400 210 .06 140 ,04* SBR 1 1700 70 .04 330 .19 EBL 1 1700 80 ,05 60 .04* EBT 3 5100 2940 ,58* 1170 .23 EBR 1 1700 110 .06 350 .21 WBL 1 1700 150 .09* 190 .11 WBT 3 5100 610 ,13 2880 .57* WBR 0 0 30 50 Right Turn Adjustment SBR .12* Clearance Interval .05* .05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .86 .89 2035 Proposed GP (Const.) + Fairview Mixed -Use Center AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1.5 90 1,051* 230 NBT 0.5 3400 70 .05 60 .09* NBR 1 1700 80 .05 110 ,06 SBL 1 1700 30 .02 50 ,03* SBT 2 3400 100 .03* 80 .02 SBR 1 1700 60 .04 160 .09 EBL 1 1700 60 .04 50 .03* EBT 3 5100 2280 .45* 1620 .32 EBR 1 1700 290 .17 140 .08 WBL 1 1700 60 ,04* 10 .01 WBT 3 5100 590 .13 2110 .43* WBR 0 0 80 80 Right Turn Adjustment SBR ,04* Clearance Interval 05` 05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .61 .66 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .62 ,67 83. Royal Palm & Adams 2035 Proposed General Plan (Constrained Network) AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1700 20 .01* 120 .07* NBT 1 1700 10 .02 50 .05 NBR 0 0 20 30 SBL 1 1700 20 .01 60 .04 SBT 1 1700 10 .05* 30 .14* SBR 0 0 70 210 EBL 1 1700 40 .02 80 .05* EBT 3 5100 2270 .45* 1030 .22 EBR 0 0 30 80 WBL 1 1700 10 .01* 40 .02 WBT 3 5100 750 .15 2300 .45* WBR 1 1700 30 .02 60 .04 Clearance Interval .05* .05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .57 .76 84. Harbor & Adams 2035 Proposed General Plan (Constrained Network) AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 3 5100 180 .04 600 .12* NBT 3 5100 1540 .30* 1740 .34 NBR 1 1700 80 .05 190 .11 SBL 2 3400 380 .11* 330 .10 SBT 4 6800 1400 .21 2340 .34* SBR 2 3400 200 .06 770 .23 EBL 3 5100 860 .17 370 .07* EBT 3 5100 1840 .36* 760 .15 EBR 1 1700 150 .09 140 .08 WBL 2 3400 120 .04* 180 .05 WBT 3 5100 390 .08 1340 .26* WBR 1 1700 60 .04 290 .17 Clearance Interval .05* .05* 2035 Proposed GP (Const.) + Fairview Mixed -Use Center AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1700 20 .01* 120 .07* NST 1 1700 10 .02 50 .05 NBR 0 0 20 30 SBL 1 1700 20 .01 60 .04 SBT 1 1700 10 .05* 30 .14* SBR 0 0 70 210 EBL 1 1700 40 .02 80 .05* EBT 3 5100 2270 .45* 1030 .22 EBR 0 0 30 80 WBL 1 1700 10 .01* 40 .02 WBT 3 5100 750 .15 2300 .45* WBR 1 1700 30 .02 60 .04 Clearance Interval .05* .05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .57 .76 2035 Proposed GP (Const.) + Fairview Mixed -Use Center AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 3 5100 180 .04 600 .12* NBT 3 5100 1550 .30* 1770 .35 NBR 1 1700 80 .05 190 .11 SBL 2 3400 380 .11* 330 .10 SBT 4 6800 1460 .21 2360 .35* SBR 2 3400 200 .06 770 .23 EBL 3 5100 860 .17 370 .07* EBT 3 5100 1840 .36* 760 .15 EBR 1 1700 150 .09 140 .08 WBL 2 3400 130 .04* 180 .05 WBT 3 5100 390 .08 1340 .26* WBR 1 1700 60 .04 290 .17 Clearance Interval .05* .05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .86 .84 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .86 .85 85. Pinecreek & Adams 2035 Proposed General Plan (Constrained Network) AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1.5 40 [.01}* 450 [.14}* NBT 0.5 3400 10 .01 40 .14 NBR 1 1700 40 .02 190 .11 SBL 0 0 80 50 SBT 1 1700 60 .08* 50 .061 SBR 1 1700 60 .04 80 .05 ESL 1 1700 40 .02 50 .03* EBT 3 5100 1680 .47* 810 .24 EBR 0 0 740 430 .25 WBL 2 3400 350 .10* 270 .08 WBT 2 3400 530 .17 1350 .45* WBR 0 0 60 170 Clearance Interval .05* .05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .71 .73 86. Fairview & Adams 2035 Proposed General Plan (Constrained Network) AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3400 70 .02 440 .13* NBT 3 5100 900 .19* 1250 .25 NBR 0 0 90 40 SBL 1 1700 60 .04* 50 .03 SBT 3 5100 880 .17 1210 .24* SBR f 640 1130 EBL 2 3400 1510 .44* 820 .24* EBT 1 1700 100 .06 120 .07 EBR 1 1700 200 .12 200 .12 WBL 0.5 80 50 WBT 1.5 3400 130 .06* 260 .09* WBR 1 1700 50 .03 60 .04 Clearance Interval .05* .05* 2035 Proposed GP (Const.) + Fairview Mixed -Use Center AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1.5 40 [.01)* 450 [.14)* NBT 0.5 3400 10 .01 40 .14 NBR 1 1700 40 .02 190 .11 SBL 0 0 80 50 SBT 1 1700 60 .08* 50 .06* SBR 1 1700 60 .04 80 .05 EBL 1 1700 40 .02 50 .03* EBT 3 5100 1690 .48* 830 .24 EBR 0 0 740 430 .25 WBL 2 3400 350 .10* 270 .08 WBT 2 3400 540 .18 1350 .45* WBR 0 0 60 170 Clearance Interval .05* .05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .72 .73 2035 Proposed GP (Const.) + Fairview Mixed -Use Center AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3400 70 .02 440 .13* NBT 3 5100 900 .19* 1250 .25 NBR 0 0 90 40 SBL 1 1700 60 .04* 50 .03 SBT 3 5100 880 .17 1210 .24* SBR f 650 1130 EBL 2 3400 1520 .45* 840 .25* EBT 1 1700 100 .06 120 .07 EBR 1 1700 200 .12 200 .12 WBL 0.5 80 50 WBT 1.5 3400 130 .06* 260 .09* W3R 1 1700 50 .03 60 .04 Clearance Interval .05* .05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .78 .75 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .79 .76 88. Harbor & Mesa Verde 2035 Proposed General Plan (Constrained Network) AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3400 110 .03 530 .16* NBT 3 5100 1520 .30* 2260 .45 NBR 0 0 20 60 SBL 1 1700 20 .01* 40 .02 SBT 3 5100 1330 .27 1870 .42* SBR 0 0 60 280 EBL 1 1700 130 .08 100 .06* EBT 0.5 3400 60 1.131* 30 1.031 EBR 1.5 430 270 WBL 1 1700 40 .02* 120 .07 WBT 1 1700 20 .02 70 .06* WBR 0 0 10 30 Clearance Interval .05* .05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .51 .75 90. Fairview & Arlington 2035 Proposed General Plan (Constrained Network) AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3400 80 .02 70 .02* NBT 3 5100 930 .18* 1230 .24 NBR 1 1700 260 .15 40 .02 SBL 2 3400 190 .06* 20 .01 SBT 3 5100 870 .17 1390 .27* SBR 1 1700 50 .03 60 .04 EBL 1 1700 10 .01* 60 .04 EBT 1 1700 20 .01 80 .05* EBR 1 1700 10 .01 120 .07 WBL 1.5 180 240 1.081* WBT 0.5 3400 40 .06* 20 .08 WBR 1 1700 130 .08 170 .10 Clearance Interval .05* .05* 2035 Proposed GP (Const.) + Fairview Mixed -Use Center AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3400 110 .03* 530 .16* NBT 3 5100 1530 .30 2270 .46 NBR 0 0 20 60 SBL 1 1700 20 .01 40 .02 SBT 3 5100 1400 .29* 1870 .43* SBR 0 0 60 300 EBL 1 1700 130 .08 130 .08* EBT 0.5 3400 70 1.141* 50 1.031 EBR 1.5 430 270 WBL 1 1700 40 .02* 120 .07 WBT 1 1700 20 .02 70 .06* WBR 0 0 10 30 Clearance Interval .05* .05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .53 .78 2035 Proposed GP (Const.) + Fairview Mixed -Use Center AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3400 80 .02 70 .02* NBT 3 5100 930 .18* 1230 .24 NBR 1 1700 260 .15 50 .03 SBL 2 3400 190 .06* 20 .01 SBT 3 5100 870 .17 1390 .27* SBR 1 1700 50 .03 60 .04 EBL 1 1700 10 .01* 60 .04 EBT 1 1700 20 .01 80 .05* EBR 1 1700 10 .01 120 .07 WBL 1.5 190 250 {.08)* WBT 0.5 3400 40 .07* 20 .08 WBR 1 1700 130 .08 170 .10 Clearance interval .05* .05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .36 .47 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .37 .47 91. Harbor & Merrimac 2035 Proposed General Plan (Constrained Network) AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1700 20 .01 30 .02 NBT 3 5100 1490 .31* 2340 .48* NBR 0 0 90 110 SBL 2 3400 240 .07* 150 .04* SBT 3 5100 1450 .30 2350 .47 SBR 0 0 60 70 EBL 1 1700 60 .04 40 .02* EBT 1 1700 40 .05* 10 .02 EBR 0 0 40 30 WBL 1 1700 20 .01* 50 .03 WBT 0.5 3400 10 (.01) 30 (.08)* WBR 1.5 70 280 Clearance Interval .05* .05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .49 .67 92. Fairview & Merrimac 2035 Proposed General Plan (Constrained Network) AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3400 40 .01 180 .05* NBT 3 5100 1270 .25* 1330 .26 NBR 1 1700 0 .00 10 .01 SBL 2 3400 0 .00 0 .00 SBT 3 5100 1030 .20 1640 .32* SBR 1 1700 50 .03 90 .05 EBL 1.5 70 (.02}* 50 {.01}* EBT 0.5 3400 0 .02 0 .01 EBR 1 1700 170 .10 90 .05 WBL 0 0 0 0 WBT 2 3400 0 .00* 0 .00* WBR 0 0 0 10 Right Turn Adjustment EBR .04* Clearance Interval .05* .05* 2035 Proposed GP (Const.) + Fairview Mixed -Use Center AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1700 20 .01 30 .02 NBT 3 5100 1490 .31* 2340 .48* NBR 0 0 90 110 SBL 2 3400 240 .07* 150 .04* SBT 3 5100 1450 .31 2350 .47 SBR 0 0 130 70 EBL 1 1700 70 .04 50 .03* EBT 1 1700 40 .05* 20 .03 EBR 0 0 40 30 WBL 1 1700 20 .01* 50 .03 WBT 0.5 3400 10 (.01} 50 (.08)* WBR 1.5 70 280 Clearance Interval .05* .05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .49 .68 2035 Proposed GP (Const.) + Fairview Mixed -Use Center AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3400 40 .01 190 .06* NBT 3 5100 1270 .25* 1330 .26 NBR 1 1700 0 .00 10 .01 SBL 2 3400 0 .00 0 .00 SBT 3 5100 1030 .20 1640 .32* SBR 1 1700 60 .04 100 .06 EBL 1.5 70 (.02)* 60 (.02)* EBT 0.5 3400 0 .02 0 .02 EBR 1 1700 180 .11 90 .05 WBL 0 0 0 0 WBT 2 3400 0 .00* 0 .00* WBR 0 0 0 10 Right Turn Adjustment ESR .05* Clearance Interval .05* .05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .36 .43 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .37 .45 93. Newport SB & Mesa 2035 Proposed General Plan (Constrained Network) Network) AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 20 0 30 NBT 0 0 0 730 0 580 NBR 0 0 0 110 0 100 SBL 1 1700 350 .21* 450 .26 SBT 4 6800 1120 .16 2760 .41* SBR 1 1700 10 .01 10 .01 EBL 0 0 0 70 0 270 EBT 1 1700 10 .01* 20 .01* EBR 1 1700 10 .01 10 .01 WBL 1 1700 90 .05* 310 .18* WBT 1 1700 10 .01 10 .01 WBR 0 0 0 70 0 50 Clearance Interval Clearance Interval .05* .05* .05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .32 .65 94. Newport NB & Mesa 2035 Proposed General Plan (Constrained Network) AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1700 20 .01 30 .02 NBT 2 3400 730 .25* 580 .20* NBR 0 0 110 100 SBL 0 0 0 0 SBT 0 0 0 0 SBR 0 0 0 0 EBL 2 3400 70 .02* 270 .08* EBT 1 1700 120 .07 260 .15 EBR 0 0 0 0 WBL 0 0 0 0 WBT 1 1700 70 .08* 270 .19* WBR 0 0 70 50 Clearance Interval .05* .05* 2035 Proposed GP (Const.) + Fairview Mixed -Use Center AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 NBT 0 0 0 0 NBR 0 0 0 0 SBL 1 1700 350 .21* 460 .27 SBT 4 6800 1170 .17 2780 .41* SBR 1 1700 10 .01 10 .01 EBL 0 0 0 0 EBT 1 1700 10 .01* 20 .01* EBR 1 1700 10 .01 10 .01 WBL 1 1700 90 .05* 310 .18* WBT 1 1700 10 .01 10 .01 WBR 0 0 0 0 Clearance Interval .05* .05` TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .32 .65 2035 Proposed GP (Const.) + Fairview Mixed -Use Center AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1700 20 .01 30 .02 NBT 2 3400 730 .25* 580 .20* NBR 0 0 110 100 SBL 0 0 0 0 SBT 0 0 0 0 SBR 0 0 0 0 EBL 2 3400 70 .02* 270 .08* EBT 1 1700 120 .07 260 .15 EBR 0 0 0 0 WBL 0 0 0 0 WBT 1 1700 70 .08* 270 .10` WBR 0 0 70 50 Clearance Interval .05* 05° TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .40 .52 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .40 .52 95. Harbor & Fair 2035 Proposed General Plan (Constrained Network) AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1700 40 .02 20 .01 NBT 3 5100 1330 .26* 1870 .37* NBR 1 1700 300 .18 130 .08 SBL 2 3400 230 .07* 270 .08* SBT 3 5100 1160 .24 1920 .38 SBR 0 0 60 20 EBL 1 1700 40 .02* 20 .01 EBT 1 1700 40 .02 40 .02* EBR 1 1700 40 .02 30 .02 WBL 2 3400 130 .04 390 .11* WBT 0.5 3400 70 [.05)* 40 [.10) WBR 1.5 180 390 Clearance Interval .05* .05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .45 .63 97. Fairview 6 Fair 2035 Proposed General Plan (Constrained Network) AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1700 60 .04 90 .05 NBT 3 5100 550 .11* 690 .14* NBR 1 1700 150 .09 50 .03 SBL 2 3400 410 .12* 510 .15* SBT 3 5100 550 .11 800 .16 SBR 1 1700 140 .08 130 .08 EBL 1 1700 250 .15* 100 .06* EBT 2 3400 670 .20 300 .09 EBR 1 1700 20 .01 30 .02 WBL 1 1700 20 .01 40 .02 WBT 1.5 5100 260 [.14}* 940 {.28}* WBR 1.5 620 680 Clearance Interval .05* .05* .05* 2035 Proposed GP (Const.) + Fairview Mixed -Use Center AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1700 40 .02 20 .01 NBT 3 5100 1350 .26* 1880 .37* NBR 1 1700 300 .18 130 .08 SBL 2 3400 250 .07* 330 .10* SBT 3 5100 1170 .24 1940 .38 SBR 0 0 60 20 EBL 1 1700 40 .02* 20 .01 EBT 1 1700 40 .02 40 .02* EBR 1 1700 40 .02 30 .02 WBL 2 3400 130 .04 390 .11* WBT 0.5 3400 70 (.07)* 40 [.10} W3R 1.5 240 420 Clearance Interval .05* .05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .47 .65 2035 Proposed GP (Const.) + Fairview Mixed -Use Center AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1700 60 .04 90 .05 NBT 3 5100 550 .11* 690 .14* NBR 1 1700 150 .09 50 .03 SBL 2 3400 420 .12* 510 .15* SBT 3 5100 550 .11 800 .16 SBR 1 1700 140 .08 130 .08 EBL 1 1700 250 .15* 100 .06* EBT 2 3400 690 .20 350 .10 EBR 1 1700 30 .02 30 .02 WBL 1 1700 20 .01 40 .02 WBT 1.5 5100 310 {.15)* 970 {.29}* WBR 1.5 620 690 Clearance Interval .05* .05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .57 .68 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .58 .69 100. Newport SB & Fair 2035 Proposed General Plan (Constrained Network) AM PK AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 160 0 NBT NBT 0 0 0 880 0 NBR NBR 0 0 0 130 0 SBL SBL 1 1700 130 .08 270 .16 SBT 3 5100 440 .09* 1770 .35* SBR 2 3400 630 .19 1050 .31 EBL 0 0 0 520 0 EBT EBT 4 6800 990 .15* 620 .09* EBR 0 0 40 0 10 WBL WBL 1 1700 100 .06* 90 .05* WBT 2 3400 150 .04 410 .12 WBR 0 0 0 120 0 Clearance Interval Clearance Interval .05* .05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .35 .54 101. Newport NB & Del Mar 2035 Proposed General Plan (Constrained Network) AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0.5 40 160 NBT 2.5 5100 1570 .34* 880 .23* NBR 0 100 130 SBL 0 0 0 0 SBT 0 0 0 0 SBR 0 0 0 0 EBL 2 3400 970 .29* 520 .15* EBT 2 3400 220 .06 420 .12 EBR 0 0 0 0 WBL 0 0 0 0 WBT 1.5 5100 200 .11* 370 .11* WBR 1.5 360 120 .07 Clearance Interval .05* .C31 2035 Proposed GP (Const.) + Fairview Mixed -Use Center AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 NBT 0 0 0 0 NBR 0 0 0 0 SBL 1 1700 130 .08 270 .16 SBT 3 5100 440 .09* 1770 .35* SBR 2 3400 680 .20 1070 .31 EBL 0 0 0 0 EBT 4 6800 1010 .15* 670 .10* EBR 0 0 40 10 WBL 1 1700 100 .06* 90 .05* WBT 2 3400 160 .05 420 .12 WBR 0 0 0 0 Clearance Interval .05* .05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .35 .55 2035 Proposed GP (Const.) + Fairview Mixed -Use Center AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0.5 40 160 NBT 2.5 5100 1570 .34* 880 .23* NBR 0 100 130 SBL 0 0 0 0 SBT 0 0 0 0 SBR 0 0 0 0 EBL 2 3400 980 .29* 570 .17* EBT 2 3400 230 .07 420 .12 EBR 0 0 0 0 WBL 0 0 0 0 WBT 1.5 5100 210 .11* 380 .11* WBR 1.5 360 120 .07 Clearance Interval 05* 05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .79 .54 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .79 .56 104. Harbor & Harbor Center 2035 Proposed General Plan (Constrained Network) AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 NBT 3 5100 1870 .38* 1930 .40* NBR 0 0 90 100 SBL 1 1700 80 .05* 180 .11* SBT 3 5100 1460 .29 2420 .47 SBR 0 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 0 0 EBT 0 0 0 0 EBR 0 0 0 0 WBL 1 1700 60 .04* 130 .08* WBT 0 0 0 0 WBR 1 1700 90 .05 150 .09 Clearance Interval .05* .05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .52 .64 116. Harbor & Wilson 2035 Proposed General Plan (Constrained Network) AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1700 40 .02 110 .06 NBT 3 5100 1440 .28* 1650 .32* NBR 1 1700 120 .07 140 .08 SBL 1 1700 70 .04* 150 .09* SBT 3 5100 1030 .20 1640 .32 SBR 1 1700 100 .06 280 .16 EBL 2 3400 260 .08 250 .071 EBT 2 3400 470 .14* 240 .07 EBR 1 1700 30 .02 70 .04 WBL 2 3400 210 .06* 410 .12 WBT 2 3400 210 .06 540 .16* WBR 1 1700 70 .04 130 .08 Clearance Interval .05* .05* 2035 Proposed GP (Const.) + Fairview Mixed -Use Center AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 NBT 3 5100 1890 .39* 1940 .40* NBR 0 0 90 100 SBL 1 1700 80 .05* 180 .11* SBT 3 5100 1470 .29 2440 .48 SBR 0 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 0 0 EBT 0 0 0 0 EBR 0 0 0 0 WBL 1 1700 60 .04* 130 .08* WBT 0 0 0 0 WBR 1 1700 90 .05 150 .09 Clearance Interval .05* .1131 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .53 .64 2035 Proposed GP (Const.) + Fairview Mixed -Use Center AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1700 40 .02 110 .06 NBT 3 5100 1460 .29* 1660 .33* NBR 1 1700 120 .07 140 .08 SBL 1 1700 70 .04* 150 .09* SBT 3 5100 1040 .20 1660 .33 SBR 1 1700 100 .06 280 .16 EBL 2 3400 260 .08 250 .07* EST 2 3400 470 .14* 240 .07 ESR 1 1700 30 .02 70 .04 WBL 2 3400 210 .06* 410 .12 WBT 2 3400 210 .06 540 .16* WBR 1 1700 70 .04 130 .08 Clearance Interval .05* .05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .57 .69 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .58 .70 117. Fairview & Wilson 2035 Proposed General Plan (Constrained Network) AM PK AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1700 80 .05* 180 .11* NBT 2 3400 280 .09 570 .17 NBR 0 0 40 .07 20 .09 SBL 1 1700 120 .07 50 .03 SBT 2 3400 410 .12* 660 .19* SBR 1 1700 130 .08 240 .14 EBL 1 1700 190 .11 230 .14* EBT 1 1700 650 .39* 380 .25 EBR 0 0 20 .05 40 .08 WBL 1 1700 10 .01* 40 .02 WBT 1 1700 200 .18 510 .37* WBR 0 0 100 .05 120 .05 Clearance Interval interval .05* .05* .05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .62 .86 127. Harbor & Victoria 2035 Proposed General Plan (Constrained Network) AM PK AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1700 50 .03 140 .08 NBT 3 5100 920 .18* 1490 .29* NBR 1 1700 120 .07 150 .09 SBL 1 1700 70 .04* 120 .07* SBT 3 5100 920 .18 1310 .26 SBR 1 1700 130 .08 410 .24 EBL 2 3400 420 .12 250 .07* EBT 2 3400 1570 .46* 660 .19 EBR 1 1700 90 .05 130 .08 WBL 2 3400 110 .03* 140 .04 WBT 2 3400 580 .17 1330 .39* WBR 1 1700 90 .05 80 .05 Clearance interval .05* .05* .05* .05* 2035 Proposed GP (Const.) + Fairview Mixed -Use Center Center AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1700 80 .05* 180 .11* NBT 2 3400 280 .09 570 .17 NSR 0 0 40 120 20 150 SBL 1 1700 120 .07 50 .03 SBT 2 3400 410 .12* 660 .19* SBR 1 1700 130 .08 240 .14 EBL 1 1700 190 .11 230 .14* EBT 1 1700 650 .39* 380 .25 EBR 0 0 20 90 40 130 WBL 1 1700 10 .01* 40 .02 WBT 1 1700 200 .18 510 .37* WBR 0 0 100 90 120 80 Clearance Interval Clearance Interval .05* .05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .62 .86 2035 Proposed GP (Const.) + Fairview Mixed -Use Center AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1700 50 .03 140 .08 NBT 3 5100 940 .18* 1500 .29* NBR 1 1700 120 .07 150 .09 SBL 1 1700 70 .04* 130 .08* SBT 3 5100 930 .18 1330 .26 SBR 1 1700 130 .08 410 .24 EBL 2 3400 420 .12 250 .07* EBT 2 3400 1570 .46* 660 .19 EBR 1 1700 90 .05 130 .08 WBL 2 3400 110 .03* 140 .04 WBT 2 3400 580 .17 1330 .39* WBR 1 1700 90 .05 80 .05 Clearance Interval .05* .05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .76 .87 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .76 .88 ■ Mm,rv,uc Way mn 1 A&.,Aue l• . 5L Mtt,lmac Way X,x j. _ fair pr. Mm,rv,uc Way ATTACHMENT 6 MEMORANDUM TO: Daniel Inloes, AICP DATE: June 6, 2016 Senior Planner Change FY 2014-2015 City of Costa Mesa Through General Fund FROM: Roger Dale, Managing Principal FILE: #4034 $113.0 million The Natelson Dale Group, Inc. (TNDG) 13% Total Expenditures SUBJECT: General Plan Fiscal Impact Analysis— 14% Responses to City Council Comments During the General Plan presentation and discussion at the May 17, 2016 City Council meeting, members of the City Council provided three questions/comments on the Fiscal Impact Analysis: 1. How many future hotel rooms does the analysis assume? How would the fiscal impact projections change if all currently approved hotel rooms in the City are assumed to be built by the study's 2035 horizon year? 2. What is the "most revenue -generating" land use? 3. What budget year was used for the Analysis? The current budget is over $150 million. This memorandum provides responses to the three questions, based on follow-up analysis completed by TNDG. As background to the individual responses, the baseline fiscal forecasts for General Plan buildout (summarized at the May 17 City Council meeting) are recapped as follows: 24835 E. La Palma Avenue, Suite I, Yorba Linda, California 92887 Phone: (714) 692-9596 . Fax: (714) 692-9597 Projected Percentage Budget at Change FY 2014-2015 Buildout Through General Fund Actual (2015$) Buildout Total Revenues $113.0 million $128.1 million 13% Total Expenditures $109.4 million $125.0 million 14% Net Fiscal Cash Flow $3.6 million $3.1 million 24835 E. La Palma Avenue, Suite I, Yorba Linda, California 92887 Phone: (714) 692-9596 . Fax: (714) 692-9597 Memorandum to Daniel Intoes June 6, 2016 Page 2 How many future hotel rooms does the analysis assume? How would the fiscal impact projections change if all currently approved hotel rooms in the City are assumed to be built by the study's 2035 horizon year? The baseline fiscal impact analysis (summarized at the May 17 City Council presentation) assumes that 200 additional hotel rooms would be built in the City by 2035. This is consistent with the assumptions in the General Plan traffic analysis. As we emphasized during the City Council presentation, the fiscal impact analysis is purposely based on relatively conservative assumptions in order to avoid overstating potential City revenues as Costa Mesa approaches buildout. Given the number of currently proposed/approved hotels in the City, the assumption of 200 additional rooms would appear to be very conservative. As a supplemental analysis, TNDG has evaluated the potential enhancement to the City's General Fund cash flow from an additional 450 hotel rooms (i.e., the 200 new rooms already assumed plus 450 more, for a total increment of 650 rooms). The results of this supplemental analysis are summarized as follows: As noted previously, the baseline fiscal impact forecast for 2035 is a positive General Fund cash flow of $3.1 million per year. Under the "enhanced" projection (i.e., with the 450 additional hotel rooms), the General Fund cash flow would increase to $4.2 million per year, or approximately $1.1 million more than the baseline scenario. This enhanced scenario assumes that the 450 additional hotel rooms would displace 483 high-density residential units. What is the "most revenue -generating" land use? In order to answer this question, TNDG utilized the fiscal impact model to test the net fiscal impact of one acre of prototypical development for each land use category. The calculations assume that the hypothetical one -acre development would be built to the following densities for each land use category: 24835 E. La Palma Avenue, Suite I, Yorba Linda, California 92887 Phone: (714) 692-9596 . Fax: (714) 692-9597 Projected Cash General Fund FY 2014-2015 Flow at Buildout Cash Flow Actual (2015$) Baseline Projection $3.6 million $3.1 million Enhanced Projection (with 450 additional hotel rooms) $3.6 million $4.2 million Difference (over baseline) — $1.1 million As noted previously, the baseline fiscal impact forecast for 2035 is a positive General Fund cash flow of $3.1 million per year. Under the "enhanced" projection (i.e., with the 450 additional hotel rooms), the General Fund cash flow would increase to $4.2 million per year, or approximately $1.1 million more than the baseline scenario. This enhanced scenario assumes that the 450 additional hotel rooms would displace 483 high-density residential units. What is the "most revenue -generating" land use? In order to answer this question, TNDG utilized the fiscal impact model to test the net fiscal impact of one acre of prototypical development for each land use category. The calculations assume that the hypothetical one -acre development would be built to the following densities for each land use category: 24835 E. La Palma Avenue, Suite I, Yorba Linda, California 92887 Phone: (714) 692-9596 . Fax: (714) 692-9597 Memorandum to Daniel Inloes June 6, 2016 Page 3 • Low density residential —8 dwelling units per acre (DUA) • Medium density residential — 12 DUA • High density residential — 20 DUA • Overlay zone residential -40 DUA • Retail — 0.35 floor -area ratio (FAR) • Office — 0.40 FAR • Industrial -0.40 FAR • Hotels —100 rooms per acre Based on these assumed development densities, the per -acre net fiscal impact of each land use is estimated as follows: Land Use Category Annual Fiscal Impact Per Acre Low density residential (8 DUA) +$4,000 Medium density residential (12 DUA) +$4,500 High density residential (20 DUA) +$500 Overlay zone residential (40 DUA) —$3,000 Retail (0.35 FAR) +70,000 Office (0.40 FAR) Neutral Industrial (0.40 FAR) +$4,500 Hotel (100 rooms per acre) +$270,000 We should emphasize that, for purposes of this simple comparison, the residential land uses have been evaluated as "stand alone" development projects; the per -acre estimates above do not take into account the retail sales (and associated sales tax revenue) that the residents of these projects would generate in the City. If the sales tax revenues attributable to new residents were included in the analysis, the net fiscal impact of residential development would be more favorable. What budget year was used for the Analysis? The current budget is over $150 million. TNDG's detailed calculations are based on the latest (2015/2016) adopted budget. However, for comparison purposes, the summary slides shown at the May 17 City Council meeting showed information for FY 2014/2015 (since 2014/2015 is the latest year for which "actual" numbers were available at the time TNDG completed the analysis). Actual General Fund revenue in FY 2014/2015 totaled $109,451,662. The General Fund is only a portion of the total budget; it is the component of the budget used for the fiscal impact analysis because it represents the 24835 E. La Palma Avenue, Suite I, Yorba Linda, California 92887 Phone: (714) 692-9596 . Fax: (714) 692-9597 Memorandum to Daniel Inloes June 6, 2016 Page 4 discretionary portion of the City's budget that will be most significantly impacted by new development. The budget discussed by the City Council was the 2015/2016 total budget which is $154,189,869 and includes General Fund revenue of $115,202,900. Please feel free to contact us if you have additional questions or would like to discuss any aspect of the Fiscal Impact Analysis. 24835 E. La Palma Avenue, Suite I, Yorba Linda, California 92887 Phone: (714) 692-9596 . Fax: (714) 692-9597 ATTACHMENT 7 Land Use Element Goals, Objectives, and Policies Maintaining and enhancing the great quality of life in Costa Mesa is the foundation of this General Plan. The City will look towards focusing future change within targeted growth areas. Some of these areas already have a mix of commercial, office, hotel, and residential uses, and are located along roadways that will be enhanced with "Complete Streets" features (see Circulation Element), improved landscaping, and expanded public spaces (such as parks and plazas). In turn, the City will also protect and enhance neighborhoods throughout Costa Mesa to ensure these largely residential areas continue to provide value to residents and the community as whole. Foremost, attention will be given to protecting the character and quality of residential neighborhoods, including those features that distinguish an area, such as building scale, historical structures, well-maintained rental housing, mature vegetation, and attractive streetscapes. The goals, objectives, and policies that address land use are as follows. Goal LU -1: A Balanced Community with a Mix of Land Uses to Meet Resident and Business Needs 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. Policy LU -1.1 Provide for the development of a mix and balance of housing opportunities, commercial goods and services, and employment opportunities in consideration of the needs of the business and residential segments of the community. Policy LU -1.2 Balance economic gains from new development while preserving the character and densities of residential neighborhoods. Costa Mesa General Plan I LU -75 Land Use Element Policy LU -1.3 Strongly encourage the development of residential uses and owner -occupied housing (single-family detached residences, condominiums, townhouses) where feasible to improve the balance between rental and ownership housing opportunities. Policy LU -1.4 Promote housing and employment opportunities within planned development areas to the extent feasible. Policy LU -1.5 Maintain a land use structure that strives to balance jobs and housing with available infrastructure and public and human services. Goal LU -2: Preserve and Protect Residential Neighborhoods Objective LU -2. Promote land use patterns and development that contribute to community and neighborhood identity. Policy LU -2.1 In the event of damage or destruction, allow any legal conforming use in existence at the time of adoption of the General Plan that is located in a nonconforming development to be rebuilt to its original building intensity, as Fong as any such rebuilding would not increase the development's nonconformity, and the damage or destruction was in no way brought about by intentional acts of any owner of such use or property. Policy LU -2.2 Pursue maximum use of utility company funds and resources in undergrounding existing overhead lines, and encourage undergrounding of utilities in the public right- of-way for residential development consisting of five units or more, to the extent feasible and practical. LU -76 I Costa Mesa General Plan Land Use Element Policy LU -2.4 Do not allow "rounding up" when calculating the number of permitted residential units, except for lots existing as of March 16, 1992, zoned R2 -MD that have less than 7.260 square feet in area, and no less than 6,000 square feet where density calculation fractions of 1.65 or greater ma be rounded up to two units. Policy LU -2.5 Allow creation of parcels without street frontage if sufficient easements are provided for planned developments or common -interest developments consistent with the neighborhood character. This policy does not apply to small lot subdivisions. Policy LU -2.6 Encourage increased private market investment in declining or deteriorating neighborhoods. Policy LU -2.7 Permit the construction of buildings over two stories or 30 feet only when it can be shown that the construction of such structures will not adversely impact surrounding developments and deprive existing land uses of adequate light, air, privacy, and solar access. Policy LU -2.8 Limit building height to four stories above grade south of the 1-405 Freeway, except for special purpose housing, such as elderly, affordable, or student housing, unless otherwise approved by a General Plan amendment. (A four-story/five-level parking structure with roof deck parking on the fifth level is considered a four-story structure.) Policy LU -2.9 Require appropriate building setbacks, structure orientation, and the placement of windows to consider the privacy of adjacent residential structures within the same project and on adjacent properties. Policy LU -2.10 Promote lot consolidation of residential properties to the extent feasible and practical, including the creation of larger single-family residential lots that exceed the minimum 6,000 square foot requirement in neighborhoods where the prevailing residential subdivision pattern features larger -sized residential lots. Policy LU -2.11 Ensure adequate noise attenuation in urban design, such as walls for sound attenuation, development of landscaped greenbelts, provision of landscape berms, etc. Costa Mesa General Plan I LU -77 Land Use Element Goal LU -3: Development that Maintains Neighborhood Integrity and Character Objective LU -3. Establish policies, standards, and procedures to minimize blighting influences, and maintain the integrity of stable neighborhoods. Policy LU -3.1 Protect existing stabilized residential neighborhoods, including mobile home parks (and manufactured housing parks), from the encroachment of incompatible or potentially disruptive land uses and/or activities. Policy LU -3.2 Actively enforce existing regulations regarding derelict or abandoned vehicles, outdoor storage, and substandard or illegal buildings, and establish regulations to abate weed - filled yards when any of the above are deemed to constitute a health, safety, or fire hazard. Policy LU -3.3 Continue code enforcement as a high priority with regard to the regulation of property maintenance standards citywide and group homes and sober living homes in the single-family and multi -family residential areas. Policy LU -3.4 Ensure that residential densities can be supported by the infrastructure and are compatible with existing residential neighborhoods In the surrounding area. Policy LU -3.5 Provide opportunities for the development of well- planned and designed projects which, through vertical or horizontal integration, provide for the development of compatible residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, or public uses within a single project or neighborhood. Polity LU -3.6 Facilitate revitalization of aging commercial centers by working with property owners, developers, local businesses, and other community organizationsto coordinate efforts. Policy LU -3.7 Promote development/design flexibility that encourages older or poorly maintained high-density residential uses to be rehabilitated. Policy LU -3.8 Ensure that new development reflects existing design standards, qualities, and features that are in context with LU -78 I Costa Mesa General Plan Land Use Element nearby development and surrounding residential neighborhoods. Policy LU -3.9 Locate high-intensity developments or high traffic in accordance with the procedures Provided by Construction or Alteration (FAA Form 7460-1) shall be required prior to review and consideration of the and Alteration, and not to Form 7480-1. Policy LU -3.15. The City will ensure that development proposals helistop comply fully with Permit Procedures under State law, including referral of the protect to the ALUC by the applicant and with all conditions of approval imposed or recommended by the Federal Aviation Administration. ALUC. and Caltrans Costa Mesa General Plan I LU -79 generating uses away from low-density residential in order to buffer the more sensitive land uses from the potentially adverse impacts of the more intense development or uses. Policy LU -3.10 Minimize effects of new development on the privacy and character of surrounding neighborhoods. Policy W-3.11 Promote small lot residential development on long, narrow, single parcels or combined residential lots. Policy LU -3.12 Ensure that new development reflects existing design standards, qualities, and features that are in context with nearby development. Policy LU -3.13 Prohibit construction of buildings which would present a hazard to air navigation, as determined by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAAI. Policy 1.1.1-3.14 Certain development proposals which may include the construction or alteration of structures more than 200 feet above ground level may require filing with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) pursuant to Federal and State in accordance with the procedures Provided by Construction or Alteration (FAA Form 7460-1) shall be required prior to review and consideration of the and Alteration, and not to Form 7480-1. Policy LU -3.15. The City will ensure that development proposals helistop comply fully with Permit Procedures under State law, including referral of the protect to the ALUC by the applicant and with all conditions of approval imposed or recommended by the Federal Aviation Administration. ALUC. and Caltrans Costa Mesa General Plan I LU -79 Land Use Element Area Proposed) with the FAA. This requirement shall be in addition to all other City development requirements. Policy LU -3.16 The City shall refer certain projects to the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County as required by Section 21676 of the California Public Utilities Code to determine consistency of the croiectfs) with the AELUP for JWA. Goal LU -4: New Development that Is Sensitive to Costa Mesa's Environmental Resources Objective LU -4. Encourage new development and redevelopment that protects and improves the quality of Costa Mesa's natural environment and resources. Policy LU -4.1 Ensure that appropriate watershed protection activities are applied to all new development and significant redevelopment projects that are subject to the NPDES Stormwater Permit during the planning, project review, and permitting processes. Policy LU -4.2 Avoid conversion of areas particularly susceptible to erosion and sediment loss (e.g., steep slopes) and/or establish development guidelines that identifies these areas and protects them from erasion and sediment loss. Policy LU -4.3 Preserve or restore areas that provide water quality benefits and/or are necessary to maintain riparian and aquatic biota. Policy LU -4.4 Promote site development that limits impact on and protects the natural integrity of topography, drainage systems, and water bodies, and protect the integrity of the bluff crest. Policy LU -4.5 Promote integration of stormwater quality protection into construction and post -construction activities, as required by the NPDES Stormwater Permit and the City's Local Implementation Plan. LU -80 i Costa Mesa General Plan Land Use Element Policy LU -4.6 Incorporate the principles of sustainability into land use planning, infrastructure, and development processes to reduce. greenhouse gas emissions consistent with State goals. Goal LU -5: Adequate Community Services, Transportation System, and Infrastructure to Meet Grorvto Objective LU -5. Ensure availability of adequate community facilities and provision of the highest level of public services possible, taking into consideration budgetary constraints and effects on the surrounding area. Policy LU -5.1 Pursue annexation of certain areas within the City's Sphere of Influence to provide land use regulation and city services within its jurisdiction. Policy LU -5.2 Strongly encourage protection and preservation of Costa Mesa General Plan I LU -81 existing, but underutilized, school sites for future recreational, social, or educational uses. Policy LU -53 x5a56ropnate and Lmely consider the estab11sInme. Development impact fee program(s) to fund addition 'and police personnel, library facilities, and related ment to meet the demands of additional growth in Policy LU -5.4 Require appropriate site and environmental analysis for future fire and police station site locations or for the relocation or closure of existing Fire and police facilities. Policy LU.5.5 Ensure that new development pays its fair share for parkland impacts and traffic impacts. This includes fees related to community services (police protection services and fire emergency response services) or library facilities, once adopted and applicable. Policy LU -5.6 Promote development of revenue -generating land uses that help defray the costs of high quality public services. Policy LU -5.7 Encourage new development that is organized around compact, walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods and Costa Mesa General Plan I LU -81 Land Use Element districts to conserve open space resources, minimize infrastructure costs, and reduce reliance on the automobile. Policy LU -5.8 Include an evaluation of impacts on utility systems and infrastructure in EIRs for all major general plan amendment, rezone, and development applications. Policy LU -5.9 Phase or restrict future development in the City to that which can be accommodated by infrastructure at the time of completion of each phase of a multi -phased project. Policy LU -5.10 Building densities/intensities for proposed new development projects shall not exceed the trip budget for applicable land use classifications, as identified in the Land Use Element. Building intensities for proposed new development projects shall not exceed the applicable floor area standards, except for the following conditions: (a) Limited deviations from the graduated floor area ratio standards for the commercial and industrial land use designations may be approved through a discretionary review process. No deviation shall exceed a 0.05 increase in the `AR in the moderate traffic category, and no deviation shall be allowed in the very -low, low, and high traffic categories. Deviations from the FAR standards shall not cause the daily trip generation for the property to be exceeded when compared to the existing daily trip generation for the site without the proposed project or maximum allowable traffic generation for the Moderate Traffic FAR category, whichever is greater. (b) Additions to existing nonconforming non-residential developments may be allowed if the additions do not affect the overall traffic generation characteristics of the development, and, if the additions do not substantially affect the existing height and bulk of the development. Additions to non-residential developments shall be limited to those land uses with traffic generation rates based on variables other than building area square footage. Examples of such additions include, but are not limited to: 1) Hotels/Motels: increases in the LU -82 I Costa Mesa General Plan Land Use Element size of hotel rooms or lobbies where no increase in the total number of rooms is proposed; 2) Theaters: Increases to "back -stage" support areas or lobbies where no increase in the total number of seats is proposed. (c) In the above conditions, the new development shall be compatible with surrounding land uses. Additional criteria for approving deviations from the FAR standards may be established by policy of the City Council. Policy LU -5.11 Development Plans shall be required for all phased development and approvals and shall be approved by the Planning and Transportation Services Divisions prior to the issuance of building permits. Policy LU -5.12 Development Plans shall include an overall buildout plan, which can demonstrate the ability of the circulation system to support the proposed level of development. Policy LU -5.13 The City shall continue its annual preparation of the Development Phasing and Performance Monitoring Program. The annual review will specifically address major intersection operations in any mixed-use overlay area. Goal LU -6: Economically Viable and Productive Land Uses that Increase the City's Tax Base Objective LU -6: Ensure the long term productivity and viability of the community's economic base. Policy LU -6.1 Encourage a mixed of land uses that maintain and improve the City's long-term fiscal health. Policy LU -6.2 Continue to promote and support the vitality of commercial uses to meet the needs of local residents and that support regional -serving commercial centers. Costa Mesa General Plan I LU -83 Land Use Element Policy LU -6.3 Continue to prioritize commercial and industrial park use of properties north of 1-405 and within the Airport Industrial District. Policy LU -6.4 Support the continued presence of incubator businesses in the action sports industry and jobs -producing businesses in the Westside. Policy LU -6.5 Encourage revitalization of existing, older commercial and industrial areas in the Westside with new mixed-use development consisting of ownership housing stock and Jive/work units. Policy LU -6.6 Continue to encourage and retain land uses that generate sustainable sales and property tax revenues, including regional commercial destinations and automobile dealerships. Policy LU -6.7 Encourage new and retain existing businesses that provide local shopping and services. Policy LU -6.9 Provide efficient and timely review of development proposals while maintaining quality customer service standards for the business, development, and residential community. Policy LU -6.9 Support the retention and growth of Class A office tenants, including corporate headquarters for the action sports industry, pharmaceuticals, and high technology companies within the City. Objective LU -613: Encourage and facilitate activities that expand the City's revenue base. Policy LU -6.10 Encourage a broad range of business uses that provide employment at all income levels and that make a positive contribution to the City's tax base. Policy LU -6.11 Provide opportunities for mixed-use, office, manufacturing, and retail development that respond to market and community needs in terms of size, location, and cost. Policy LU -6.12 Track retail trends and tailor regulations to respond to market changes, maximize revenue, and maintain the appropriate the business mix. LU -84 I Costa Mesa General Plan Land Use Element Policy LU -6.13 Encourage new development along major corridors that are pedestrian oriented and includes a mixture of retail/service, residential, and office uses. Policy LU -6.14 Improve ease and accessibility to information to capture opportunities for businesses to establish in Costa Mesa and bring high -skill and professional jobs and new revenue sources into the community. Policy LU -6.15 Promote unique and specialized commercial and industrial districts within the City which allow for incubation of new or growing businesses and industries. Policy LU -6.16 Examine options for the development of new infrastructure for new technologies and businesses that use those technologies. Objective Lil Retain and expand the City's diverse employment base, including office, retail/service, restaurants, high-tech, action sports, boutique or prototype manufacturing, and industrial businesses. Policy LU -6.17 Engage in activities that promote Costa Mesa as a geed great place to live, work, and develop a business. Policy LU -6.18 Continue to work with surrounding cities to strengthen regional economic development. Policy LU -6.19 Provide flexibility and support for development or residential, office, small retail centers, and similar uses that would serve local residents and would also benefit from the high visibility along major corridors outside of significant commercial or industrial nodes. Goal LU -7: A Sound Local Sustainable Economy that Attracts Investment, Creates Educational Opportunities, and Generates Employment Opportunities Policy LU -7.1 Endeavor to create mixture of employment opportunities for all economic levels of residents and businesses. Policy LU -7.2 Support linkages between local educational institutions and local industries and businesses. Foster training, collaboration with employers, and new innovative Costa Mesa General Plan I LU -85 Land Use Element programs that increase job opportunities for residents and students attending school locally. Policy LU -7.3 Foster and provide useful and efficient partnerships to implement economic opportunities with private, non- profit, or other public agencies. Policy LU -7.4 Cultivate an entrepreneurial and academic environment that fosters innovation through non-traditional housing developments, flexible office spaces, experiential development, and. ensuring the diversity of retail/service throughout the urban districts. Policy LU -7.5 Support and provide flexibility for development projects and businesses which produce, care, and maintain material goods or fixed assets meant to supportthe production of market goods, especially for niche industries within the City of Costa Mesa. Policy LU -7.6 Seek out opportunities to attract primary businesses within stable industries or industries that already exist within the City. Policy LU -7.7 Explore economic and employment opportunities to retain and strengthen the unique industry niches along Bristol and Paularmo, in the Westside, on 17`^ Street, and throughout North Costa Mesa. Policy LU -7.8 Support the development of pedestrian plazas and gathering places, and institutional spaces as well as the more efficient use of existing spaces to support economic growth and branding of existing industries within the City. Goal LU -8: Promote a range of multiple uses at the Fairview Developmental Center site Policy LU -8.1 In anticipation of the potential closure or repurposing of the Fairview Development Center site, the City will work with appropriate State agencies or private entity (if the property is sold) to plan for a complementary mix of low - scale residential, institutional, public facilities, open spaces, and recreational uses within a campus setting. LU -86 I Costa Mesa General Plan Land Use Element Goal LU -9: Ensure that Fairgrounds uses are consistent with the General Plan designation Policy LU -9.1 Discourage changes in the allowable uses specified in the Fairgrounds General Plan land use designation for the Orange County Fair & Event Center property. Ensure that amendments to this General Plan designation are approved by the electorate. Costa Mesa General Plan I LU -87 Circulation Element Goals, Objectives, and Policies The following goals, objectives, and policies work in concert with those in the Land Use Element. Goal C-1: Implement "Complete Streets" Policies on Roadways in Costa Mesa Plan, develop, and implement a comprehensive transportation system that serves all users and modes of travel. Objective C -1.A: Create a transportation network that meets the mobility needs of all Costa Mesa residents, businesses, and visitors. Policy C -1.A.1: Update the City's engineering standards for public and private streets to provide for safe, comfortable, and attractive access and travel for pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and transit users of all ages, abilities, and travel mode preferences. Policy C -1.A.2: Allow for flexible use of public rights-of-way to accommodate all users of the street system while maintaining safety standards. Policy C -1.A.3: Complete and annually maintain a needs assessment for traffic service levels and traffic safety. Develop and. annually update a priority list of improvement projects, with priorities based on: 1) correcting identified hazards; 2) accommodating multimodal trips; 3) improving and/or maintaining peak -hour traffic volumes at critical intersections; 4) improving efficiency of existing' infrastructure utilization; and 5) intergovernmental coordination. Policy C -1.A.4: Pursue downgrade of arterials that no longer have the demand requiring their buildout to planned capacity. Policy C -1.A.5: Implement road diets on street segments with excess capacity to enhance bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Policy C -1.A.6: Encourage the conversion of excess on -street parking spaces for expanded sidewalk gathering places or landscaping. Costa Mesa General Plan i C-33 Circulation Element Policy C -1.A.7: Encourage community participation in City processes and programs focused on improving mobility and transportation facilities. Objective C-1.8: Preserve the character of our residential neighborhoods Policy C -1.B.1: Implement traffic calming measures that discourage speeding and cut -through traffic on residential streets. Policy C-1.6.2: Encourage non -motorized transportation in residential' areas by providing sidewalks and implementing bicycle friendly design of local streets. Policy C-1.8.3: Reduce or eliminate intrusion of traffic related to non- xAW,P,r,WWjW&Lo,paent on local streets in resWMial; Policy C -1.B.4: Prioritize intersection improvements which improve through traffic flow on Major, Primary, and Secondary Arterials, and reduce impacts on local neighborhood streets with emphasis on pedestrian safety. Policy C-1.6.5: Promote engineering improvements such as physical measures constructed to lower speeds, improve safety, and otherwise reduce the impacts of motor vehicles. Policy C -1.B.6: Design and Implement transportation projects to meet local and regional system capacity needs in accordance with the Master Plan of Streets and Highways. Policy C-1.6.7: Implement neighborhood approved traffic -calming measures in residential neighborhoods and appropriate commercial areas, such as street narrowing, curb extensions, roundabouts, landscaped medians, and radar speed feedback signs. Policy C-1.6.8: Establish priority -ranking system to evaluate traffic - calming requests for implementation throughout the City. Policy C-1.13.9: Pursue programs that reduce vehicle speeds and cut - through traffic on local streets. C-34 I Costa Mesa General Plan Circulation Element Goal C-2: Effectively Manage and ImprovW the Roadway System Develop and maintain a robust and efficient vehicular circulation network. Objective C -2.A: Implement policies that encourage and accommodate an users while maintaining the efficiency of the circulation system. Policy C -2.A.1: Establish a citywide crosswalk policy to address installation, maintenance, removal, and enhancements of crosswalks at intersections and mid -block locations. Crosswalk locations and treatment will be based on criteria including, but not limited to safety, traffic volume, and concentration of pedestrian activity. Potential enhancements may include leading pedestrian intervals at signalized intersections, bulb -outs, and median refuges to reduce crossing distances. Policy C -2.A.2: Avoid creation of frequent driveways for new development access in active pedestrian areas that create conflict points between pedestrians and vehicles. Policy C -2.A.3: Encourage property owners to use shared driveway access and interconnected roads within blocks, where feasible. Require driveway access closures or consolidations, or both when a site is remodeled or redeveloped. Policy C -2.A.4: Collaborate with law enforcement and public safety organizations to coordinate policies and programs that would reduce injuries and deaths on the roadways. Policy C -2.A.5: Designate routes for truck traffic to minimize potential conflicts between trucks and cars, pedestrians, bicycles, transit, and vehicle access and circulation. Establish by ordinance a truck map that depicts allowable truck routes within the City. Policy C -2.A.6: Periodically review and update traffic signal timing at all signalized intersections to maintain traffic signal coordination and to accommodate bicycle and pedestrian needs. Costa Mesa General Plan I C -3S Circulation Element Policy C -2.A.7: Develop new traffic level of services criteria in accordance with SB 743 to meet the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Policy C -2.A.8; Continue the use of the Intersection Capacity Utilization CU) methodology to address local traffic level of service nd impacts, with Level of Servi "D" as the threshold fqs mee' Ci, Objective C-2.8: Construct street improvements and apply congestion management tools to obtain efficient performance of the transportation system. Policy C-2.6.1: Incorporate the street system improvements identified in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) into the Capital Improvement Program. Policy C ->,l}., [wer ntinue to deploy intelligent transportation systems S) strategies—such as adaptive signal controls, fiber tic communication equipment, closed circuit television meras, real-time transit information, and real- time rking availability information—to reduce traffic delays, greenhouse gas emissions, improve travel times, and enhance safety for drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists. Policy C-2.6.3: Investigate all operational measures, including the use of one-way streets, to improve traffic circulation and to minimize congestion for all travel modes. Policy C-2.6.4: Investigate and utilize state-of-the-art transportation system management technology and industry practices to address recurring and non-rey rring traffic events 4'peciJWW�Ident/er_q1dNkpy managemend Policy C-2.B.S: Continue to evaluate and pursue design and operational improvements (medians, driveway closures, signal synchronization or phasing, parking or turn restrictions, etc.) to improve the efficiency of intersections. C-36 I Costa Mesa General Plan Circulation Element Goal C-3: Enhance Regional Mobility Coordination Encourage development of a regional transportation network that addresses regional mobility needs for all modes of travel. Objective C-3. A: Promote development of transportation projects along regional corridors. Policy C -3.A.1: Maintain compliance with Orange County Congestion Management Plan (CMP) requirements, including consistency with CMP level of service standards, adoption of a seven-year capital improvement program, analysis of impacts of land use decisions on the CMP highway system, and adoption and implementation of deficiency plans when intersections do not meet adopted performance standards. Policy C -3.A.2: Support the goals and objectives of the Orange County Long Range Transportation Plan, including expansion of transportation system choices, improvement of transportation system performance, and sustainability of transportation infrastructure. Policy C -3.A.3: Support the goals and objectives of the SCAG Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), including expansion of transportation system choices, improvement of transportation system performance, and sustainability of transportation infrastructure. Policy C -3.A.4: Coordinate signal timing on all major arterials with a local! signal synchronization program consistent with the Orange County Traffic Signal Synchronization Master Plan! (TSSMP). Policy C -3.A.5: Ensure Costa Mesa's input, participation, and discretionary review of applicable region -wide transportation system policies, programs, and construction. Policy C -3.A.6: Develop short-term and long-term improvements to the SR -55 corridor in coordination with Caltrans and OCTA to address regional mobility needs. Costa Mesa General Plan I C-37 Circulation Element Policy C -3.A.7: Promote the City's preferred alternative of undergrounding the SR -55 freeway south of 19' Street within the City limits. Objective C -3.B: Coordinate and partner with local and regional agencies to promote projects and polices that improve regional mobility. Policy C -3.B.1: Coordinate with adjacent jurisdictions to maintain or improve mobility within the City to achieve a standard Level of Service no worse than "D" at all intersections under State orjoint control. Intersection Level of Service analyses for General Plan conditions for locations under State orjoint control will be updated periodically and presented to the City Council. Policy C-3.13.2: Consult with Caltrans and OCTA regarding the 1-405 widening project to minimize adverse impacts to Costa Mesa's neighborhoods, businesses, and streets. Policy C -3.B.3: Coordinate with OCTA and other juris Gisler Avenue Bridge over the Santa AnTRWRTMMM Cit 's Master Plan of Streets and Hi 4yIa„ysland Coact Plan of Arterial Highways Policy C-3.6.4: Collaborate with Caltrans and neighboring jurisdiction to improve signal timing and coordination along major arterials across jurisdictional boundaries. Policy C -3.B.5: Work closely with the State of California and other government agencies to control traffic—related impacts of uses on State- or other agency -owned land (i.e., Orange County Fairgrounds, Orange Coast College, etc.). Policy C -3.B.6: Coordinate with other responsible agencies the planning, funding, prioritization, and implementation of bicycle, pedestrian, and transit programs and supporting infrastructure. C-38 I Costa Mesa General Plan Circulation Element Goal C-4: Promote Transportation Demand Management, Transit, and Efficiency Utilize Transportation Demand Management strategies to manage demand and maximize available capacity. Objective C -4.A: Encourage greater utilization of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies to reduce dependence on single -occupancy vehicles. Policy C -4.A.1: Support South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) trip reduction programs, including park and ride lots, transit subsidies, carpool and vanpool programs, flexible working hours, bicycle facilities, and other traffic reduction strategies. Policy C -4.A.2: Support local and multi -jurisdictional car -sharing and bike -sharing programs. Policy C -4.A.3: Consider implementing park -once approaches for multiuse districts and regional destinations areas. Policy C -4.A.4: Embrace innovative parking solutions that reduce the required spaced needed for parking, such as automated parking lifts and elevators. Policy C -4.A.5: Encourage and provide incentives for commercial, office, and industrial development to provide preferred parking for carpools, vanpools, electric vehicles, and flex cars. Policy C -4.A.6: Encourage and support programs that increase vehicle occupancy, including the provision of traveler information, shuttles, preferential parking for ca rpools/van pools, transit pass subsidies, and other methods. Policy C -4.A.7: Promote the combination of TDM measures as much more effective than any single measure. Costa Mesa General Plan I C-39 Circulation Element Policy C -4.A.8: Require discussion of transportation system management (TSM) and TDM measures in all EIRs prepared for major projects. Policy C -4.A.9: Encourage the integration of compatible land uses and housing into major development projects to reduce vehicle use. Policy C -4.A.10: Allow the application of transportation management rideshare programs, integration of complementary land uses, and other methods to reduce project related average daily and peak hour vehicle trips to achieve consistency with allocated trip budgets. Objective C-4.8: Promote regional and local transit services as an alternative to automobile travel. Policy C-4.6.1: Ensure that roadways designated as transit routes can accommodate transit vehicle circulation and convenient pedestrian access to and from transit stops. Policy C -4.B.2: Review all capital improvement projects to ensure improvements located on existing and planned transit routes include modification of street, curb, and sidewalk configurations to allow for easier and more efficient transit operations and improved passenger access. Policy C -4.B.3: Provide transit stop amenities that facilitate access to and from transit stops and transfer locations. These may include pedestrian pathways approaching stops, high- quality benches and shelters, traveler information systems (real-time transit arrival information), and bike storage and bicycle connections. Bus stops should accommodate timed transfers between buses and other transit services where necessary. Policy C-4.8.4: Encourage new development along major transit corridors to provide efficient and safe access to transit stops and public sidewalks. C-40 I Costa Mesa General Plan Circulation Element Policy C-4.6.5: Support and participate with OCTA ACCESS Service in providing transportation assistance to senior citizens and the handicapped. Policy C -4.B.6: Consult with OCTA for transit services, such as changes to bus routes, bus stops, and hours of operation. Additionally, coordinate with OCTA for changes to transit services provided for seniors, the disabled, and transit dependent populations. Policy C-4.6.7: Consult with the Newport -Mesa Unified School District to maintain school bus services provided for local schoolchildren. Policy C -4.B.8: Coordinate with OCTA to improve transit services in the City, including strategies such as bus rapid transit, express services, community circulators, and other strategies. Policy C-4.6.9: Encourage new local transit programs in coordination with OCTA, consisting of shuttle services to local and regional destinations. Policy C -4.B.10: Coordinate with OCTA to construct bus turnouts at appropriate locations, with attractive shelters designed for safe and comfortable use. Policy C -4.B.11: Require discussion of transit service needs and site design amenities for transit ridership in EIR for major projects. Goal C-5: Ensure Coordination between the Land Use and Circulation Systems Facilitate close coordination between development of land use and circulation system. Objective C -5.A: Coordinate land use policies and development activities that support a sustainable transportation system. Policy C-S.A.1: Ensure that new development projects are consistent with the vehicular trip budgets, where adopted. Costa Mesa General Plan I C-41 Costa Mesa General Plan LU -1 E.2 Development Plans shall be required for all phased development and approvals and shall be approved by the Planning and Transportation Services Divisions prior to the issuance of building permits. LU -1E.3 Development Plans shall include an overall buildout plan, which can demonstrate the ability of the circulation system to support the proposed level of development. LU -1 EA The City shall continue its annual preparation of the Development Phasing and Performance Monitoring Program. The annual review will specifically address major intersection operations in any mixed-use overlay area. Objective LU -11F. Establish policies, standards, and procedures to minimize blighting influences and maintain the integrity of stable neighborhoods. LU -1 F.1 Protect existing stabilized residential neighborhoods, including mobile home parks (and manufactured housing parks) from the encroachment of incompatible or potentially disruptive land uses and/or activities. LU -1 F.2 Actively enforce existing regulations regarding derelict or abandoned vehicles, outdoor storage, and substandard or illegal buildings and establish regulations to abate weed -filled yards when any of the above are deemed to constitute a health, safety, or fire hazard. LU -1 F.3 Continue code enforcement as a high priority and provide adequate funding and staffing to support code enforcement programs. LU -1 FA Ensure that residential densities can be supported by the infrastructure and that high-density residential areas are not permitted in areas, which cause incompatibility with existing single-family areas. LU -1 F.5 Provide opportunities for the development of well planned and designed projects which, through vertical or horizontal integration, provide for the development of compatible residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, or public uses within a single project or neighborhood. GOAL LU -2: DEVELOPMENT It is the goal of the City of Costa Mesa to establish development policies that will create and maintain an aesthetically pleasing and functional environment and minimize impacts on existing physical and social resources. Objective LU -2A. Encourage new development and redevelopment to improve and maintain the quality of the environment. PAGE LU -54 • LAND USE ELEMENT and configuration of parcels experiencing development pressures. LU -2A.2 Continue to implement, review, and update the redevelopment plan for the adopted project area LU -2A.3 Prepare a specific plan to ensure that the portion of the Route 55 extension from 19th Street through the Redevelopment Area is compatible with the Redevelopment Area and to review �1�+yy oAm _nl:r�lated i ++s nth .: Ln"coder f®hP�lionm nYn LU -2A.4 In the event of damage or destruction, allow any legal conforming use in existence at the time of adoption of the General Plan that is located in a nonconforming development to be rebuilt to its original building intensity, as long as any such rebuilding would not increase the development's nonconformity, and the damage or destruction was in no way brought about by intentional acts of any owner of such use or property. LU -2A.5 Develop standards, policies, and other methods to encourage the grouping of individual parcels to eliminate obsolete subdivision patterns and to provide improved living environments while retaining the single-family zoning or single-family character of such areas in the City. LU -2A.6 Do not allow "rounding up" when calculating the number of permitted residential units except for lots existing as of March 16, 1992, zoned R2 -MD that have less than 7,260 square feet in area, and no less than 6,000 square feet, where density calculation fractions of 1.65 or greater may be rounded up to two units. LU -2A.7 Allow creation of parcels without street frontage if sufficient easements are provided for planned developments or common - interest developments. LU -2A.8 Encourage increased private market investment in declining or deteriorating neighborhoods. LU -2A.9 Pursue maximum use of utility company funds and resources in undergrounding existing overhead lines. LU -2A.10 Ensure that appropriate watershed protection activities are applied to all new development and significant redevelopment projects that are subject to the NPDES Stormwater Permit, during the planning, project review, and permitting processes. LU -2A.11 Avoid conversion of areas particularly susceptible to erosion and sediment loss (e.g., steep slopes) and/or establish development guidelines that identifies these areas and protects them from erosion and sediment loss. LU -2A.12 Preserve or restore areas that provide water quality benefits and/or are necessary to maintain riparian and aquatic biota. LAND USE ELEMENT • PAGE LU -55 Coa�—Genf et Plan Objective CON -11). Work towards the orderly, balanced utilization and conservation of the City's coastal resources. CON -1 D.1 Coordinate City planning efforts with the County of Orange, the City of Newport Beach, and other agencies to develop uniform and consistent policies regarding the future use and development of the River Park Project. CON -11D.2 Preserve and enhance existing wetlands areas. CON -11D.3 Review existing public works facility planning efforts to ensure that adequate water, sewer, and circulation systems are available to serve uses in the Coastal Zone and to limit planned capacities to conform to the demands created by development which is consistent with the Coastal Act. CON -1 DA Require the provision of adequate visitor serving on-site parking facilities that do not impact sensitive resources within the Coastal Zone. CON -1 D.5 Coordinate the development of plans, policies, and design standards for projects within the Coastal Zone with appropriate local, regional, state, and federal agencies. Objective CON -1 E. Pursue the prevention of the significant deterioration of local and regional air and water quality. CON -1E.1 Cooperate with and support regional, State, and Federal agencies to improve air quality throughout the South Coast Air Basin. CON -1E.2 Require, as a part of the environmental review procedure, an analysis of major development or redevelopment project impacts on local and regional air and water quality. CON -15 3 Devi op and' 'imp men a Reasonable ai e = , -onro i Measure Pian (including employee ridesharing, traffic signal, y cnroniza.ion, bicycle/pedestrian facilities,energy onseriation straet lighting, modified work schedules, r.fer ntal carpool parking, or other equivalent control easurs) :n conformance with the Air Quality Management Plan for the South Coast Air Basin. PAGE CON -46 • CONSERVATION ELEMENT Objective CON -1D. Work towards the orderly, balanced utilization and conservation of the City's coastal resources. CON-1D.t Coordinate City planning efforts with the County of Orange, the City of Newport Beach, and other agencies to develop uniform and consistent policies regarding the future use and development of the River Park Project. CON -1D.2 Preserve and enhance existing wetlands areas. CON -1D.3 Review existing public works facility planning efforts to ensure that adequate water, sewer, and circulation systems are available to serve uses in the Coastal Zone and to limit planned capacities to conform to the demands created by development which is consistent with the Coastal Act. CON -113.4 Require the provision of adequate visitor serving on-site parking facilities that do not impact sensitive resources within the Coastal Zone. CONAD.5 Coordinate the development of plans, policies, and design standards for projects within the Coastal Zone with appropriate local, regional, state, and federal agencies. Obiective CON -1E. Pursue the prevention of the significant deterioration of local and regional air and water quality. CON -1E.1 Cooperate with and support regional, State, and Federal agencies to improve air quality throughout the South Coast Air Basin. CON -1E.2 Require, as a part of the environmental review procedure, an analysis of major development or redevelopment project impacts on local and regional air and water quality. CvN-1;= 3 Measure Plan (including e synchronization, bicycle. conservationstreet light p-eferential carpool parki measures) in conformance CON -1E.4 Develop and implement comprehensive watershed management plans for drainage basins in Costa Mesa. Closely coordinate with the County, surrounding cities, and the various special districts whose decisions and activities affect City and County watersheds and other natural resources. CON -1 E_5 Implement urban runoff pollution control measures and programs to attempt to reduce and control the discharge of pollutants into storm drains to the maximum extent practicable. CON -1E,6 Reduce the quantity of runoff and discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable by integrating surface runoff controls into new development and redevelopment land use decisions. PAGE CON -46 • CONSERVATION ELEMENT Costa Mesa Generallan COORDINATION WITH ADJACENT JURISDICTIONS Apart from coordination with subregional or inter -jurisdictional forums (such as the City -County Coordinating Committee), the City separately works with other cities and agencies in the immediate area to develop mutual agreements for review and possible conditioning of development projects. 4.6 GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES Policies moved to Land Use (1A.1 1A.2) and Circulation Elements (1A.3 to 1A.6) The following goals and policies are designed to meet all the Growth Management Element requirements for Developed Communities as set forth by Measure M and elaborated by the Countywide Growth Management Program Implementation Manual. GOAL GM -1: GROWTH MANAGEMENT It is the goal of the City of Costa Mesa to reduce traffic congestion and to ensure that adequate transportation facilities are provided for existing and future residents of the community through effective and comprehensive growth management practices consistent with the Land Use Element. Objective GM -1A. To provide and maintain a circulation system thmwww within established traffic level of service standards. GM -1A.1 Recognizing the constraints of existing physical development conditions, the City shall strive to achieve a balance of land uses whereby residential, commercial, industrial and public land uses are proportionally balanced. GM -1A.2 Maintain balance between land use and circulation systems by phasing new development to levels that can be accommodated by roadways existing or planned to exist at the time of completion of each phase of the project. GM -1A.3 The established level of service standard shall not apply to intersections under the jurisdiction of another city, the County of Orange or the State of California or to intersections included on the Deficient Intersection List as established by Congestion Management Program (CMP) and/or the City. Every new development project shall pay its share of costs ssociated with the mitigation of project generated impacts. GM -1A.5 New Measure M sales tax revenues shall not be used to replace private developer funding which has been committed for any ;project. GM -1A.6 The City's seven year capital improvement program shall be adopted and maintains¢ in conformance wi L Bions of Measure M for the p of maintaining' aevel f service standard.; Development Phasing and Performance Monitoring Program. Refer to Goal LU -1, Land Use Objective LU -1 EA found in the Land Use Element. PAGE GM -6 • GROWTH btANAGEYIENT ELEMENT Costa Mesa (iene_ral P an GOAL CIR-2: TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT It is the goal of the City of Costa Mesa to provide for standard service levels at signalized intersections by constructing capacity improvements for all various modes of circulation, adopting land use intensities commensurate with planned circulation improvements and implementing traffic demand reduction programs, thereby creating a more energy efficient transportation system. Objective CIR-2A. To coordinate efforts with other regional agencies and pursue operational improvements towards enhancing the capacity of the system of freeways and arterial highways in the City. CIR-2A.1 Coordinate with Caltrans for future consideration of the extension of Route 55 (the Costa Mesa Freeway) from 19`" Street to the southern City boundary. CIR-2A.2 Coordinate with the Orange County Transportation Authority and with adjacent jurisdictions to improve signal timing and coordination along major arterials. CIR-2A.3 Continue to work with Caltrans to synchronize and coordinate traffic signals on arterials at intersections controlled by Caltrans. CIR-2A.4 Continue to evaluate and pursue design and operational improvements (medians, driveway closures, signal synchroni- zation or phasing, parking or turn restrictions, etc.) to improve the efficiency of intersections. Objective CIR-28. To promote the use of high occupancy vehicular modes of transportation in and through the City. CIR-213.1 Coordinate with OCTA to construct bus turnouts at appropriate locations with attractive shelters designed for safe and comfortable use. Objective CIR-2C. To invest capital via a rationally phased allocation process for implementing transportation projects and programs. CIR-2C.1 Support efforts to design and construct an urban rail project as it extends through Costa Mesa. CIR-2C.2 Complete and annually maintain a needs assessment for traffic service levels and traffic safety. Develop and annually update a priority list of improvement projects, with priorities based on 1) correcting identified hazards; 2) improving/maintaining peak hour traffic volumes; 3) improving efficiency of existing infrastructure utilization; and 4) intergovernmental coordination. CIRCULATION ELEMENT • PAGE CIR-25 Costa Mesa General I Plan CD -10A.2 The design of industrial buildings should consider the visual and physical relationship to adjacent uses. An industrial structure which dominates its surrounding environment by its relative size shall generally be discouraged. CD -10A.3 Materials and colors should be used to produce diversity and visual interest in industrial buildings. The use of various siding materials (i.e. masonry, concrete texturing, cement or plaster) can produce effects of texture and relief that provide architectural interest. CD-10AA Consistent with the Zoning Code, landscaping should be used to define areas such as entrances to industrial buildings and parking lots, define the edges of developments, provide transition between neighboring properties, and provide screening for outdoor storage, loading and equipment areas. Landscaping should be in scale with adjacent buildings and be of an appropriate size at maturity to accomplish its intended purpose. CD -10A.5 The design of lighting fixtures and their structural support should be of a scale and architectural design compatible with on-site industrial buildings. Large areas should be illuminated to minimize the visual impact and amount of spillover light onto surrounding projects. Objective CD -1013. Control the development of industrial projects to ensure they are a positive addition to the City's community setting, and that they do not result in adverse impacts with adjacent uses. CD -10.61 Require industrial projects to incorporate landscape setbacks, screening walls and/or other elements that mitigate negative impacts with adjacent uses. CD -10.132 Protect transitional areas between industrial and other uses. Storage yards, parking areas, and service areas should be screened from public view. „ i -R -SERVATION Promote preservation of the City's historically and architecturally significant buildings and revitalization oftraditionalneighborhoods and commercial areas. Obiective°CD-11. Integrate historic preservation design practices into planning for areas with historic significance. CD. -111 Enforce existing policies that protect historic and cultural iesources to deter the demolition of historically, architecturally rd: culturally significart,structuras., CD -11.2 Encourage the restoration and adaptive re -use of older commercial structures which contribute to the sense of historic and cultural identity of Costa Mesa. Support financial incentives, tax relief programs, and flexibility in zoning regulations to promote historic preservation and adaptive re -use of older commercial buildings. PAGE CD -22 • COMMUNITY" DESIGN ELEMENT Costa Mesaesa Gene`i-at Plan CD -11 3 As a condition of project approval, ensure that new development respects Costa Mesa's heritage by requiring compatibility withi istoric traditions and character, where applicable, of the local,} GOAL CD -12: PUBLIC ART Promote understanding and awareness of the visual arts by providing art in the public environment. _Objective Cl Generate appreciation for public art and promote involvement in the community through public art programs. Cl Develop a diverse public arts program that involves the entire community and benefits the image of Costa Mesa. Adopt guidelines to encourage the placement of public art within and adjacent to public rights-of-way. GOAL CD -13: SIGNS Ensure that signs contribute positively to Costa Mesa's image and overall economic development. Objective Cl Facilitate the installation of signs that contribute to a positive image of the public realm, consistent with the Costa Mesa Zoning Code. Cl Encourage homeowners' associations and neighborhoods to maintain existing housing tract entrance signs in an attractive manner and encourage the placement of such signs at the entrance of major developments which do not have such identification. CD -13.2 Encourage the use of common design elements in signs for commercial and industrial centers through the development of planned sign programs to improve center identity by publicizing the benefits of such programs to developers and local business operators. Cl Consider developing citywide sign design guidelines that promote creativity and flexibility while upholding design quality. Design guidelines could include the design and placement of business signs, public street graphics, street signs, locational and directional signs, traffic signs, etc. COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT • PAGE CD -23 ATTAPLJMUT 8 Figure 1 Stantec ADT Trip Generation Difference (Proposed General Plan Buildout vs. Current General Plan Buildout) S} r� Figure 2 - Northwest ial tec ADT Trip Generation Difference (Proposed General Plan Buildout vs. Current General Plan Buildout) w O 334 //t` 1 rZ-413 rF r �3 2� l / Legend - 3000 - 4800 Fewer Trips - 2999 - 2000 Fewer Trips - 1999 - 1000 Fewer Trips ® 999 - 500 Fewer Trips - 499 -1 Fewer Trips No Change r 1 1 - 500 Additional Trips 500 - 1000 Additional Trips 1000 - 2000 Additional Trips - 2000 - 5000 Additional Trips - 5000 - 10000 Additional Trips - 10000+ Additional Trips /Iif� Figure 3- Northeast Sta I Iter ADT Trip Generation Difference (Proposed General Plan Buildout vs. Current General Plan Buildout) N Legend '22 / -3000-4800 Fewer Trips 2999 - 2000 Fewer Trips F 41999-1000 Fewer Trips 999-500 Fewer Trips 0 499 -1 Fewer Trips No Change 1- 500 Additional Trips �, i ♦ i .500- 1000 Additional Trips 1000-2000 Additional Trips 4,, ♦ 41, M2000- 5000 Additional Trips w A - 5000 - 10000 Additional Trips h O - 10000+ Additional Trips A Stdntec Figure 4 -Southeast ADT Trip Generation Difference (Proposed General Plan Buildout vs. Current General Plan Buildout) 769 334 1 a � 396 t 544 292 i cRla � 260 v♦. 812_1696-�i♦ 1229 i �� �� j -954 ♦.��♦ 5452 , � 475. F �� 11 � v ♦ s9L n T � N Legend '22 / -3000-4800 Fewer Trips 2999 - 2000 Fewer Trips F 41999-1000 Fewer Trips 999-500 Fewer Trips 0 499 -1 Fewer Trips No Change 1- 500 Additional Trips �, i ♦ i .500- 1000 Additional Trips 1000-2000 Additional Trips 4,, ♦ 41, M2000- 5000 Additional Trips w A - 5000 - 10000 Additional Trips h O - 10000+ Additional Trips A Stdntec Figure 4 -Southeast ADT Trip Generation Difference (Proposed General Plan Buildout vs. Current General Plan Buildout) Figure 5 - Southwest S} a ntec ADT Trip Generation Difference (Proposed General Plan Buildout vs. Current General Plan Buildout) Figure 11 Stantec ADT Trip Generation Difference (Current General Plan Buildout vs. Existing Conditions) ,i# 21 1535 iv ` XI 894 u39 ri 746 2757 1532 83" 1012 i,i 2771 ' J i 67 41 CII 51 }r �J 1121 2244 3196 266 58 ' 1426' 2238 289 Legend `— 2610 14496 _3000-4800 Fewer Tops t - - 2999 - 2000 Fewer Trips M1999-1000 Fewer Trips -999-500 Fewer Trips - ® 499 - i Fewer Trips 533 - �NoChange ' O 1 - 500 Additional Trips - -- - 500 - 1000 Additional Trips ®1000- 2000 Additional Tops -- - 2000 - 5000 Additional Trips _ - -5000- 10000 Additional Trips _- -10000+ Additional Trips 75 599 ! 241 Figure 12 - Northwest Sta ntec ADT Trip Generation Difference (Current General Plan Buildout vs. Existing Conditions) Figure 13 - Northeast Sta ntec ADT Trip Generation Difference (Current General Plan Buildout vs. Existing Conditions) Figure 14 - Southeast tmySta ntec ADT Trip Generation Difference (Current General Plan Buildout vs. Existing Conditions) Figure 15 - Southwest Sta ntec ADT Trip Generation Difference (Current General Plan Buildout vs. Existing Conditions) rt\{. Figure b Sl.a nteADT Trip Generation Difference (Proposed General Plan Buildout vs. Existing Conditions) ��C1t�G Figure 7 - Northwest ADT Trip Generation Difference (Proposed General Plan Buildout vs. Existing Conditions) Figure 8 - Northeast Stantec ADT Trip Generation Difference (Proposed General Plan Buildout vs. Existing Conditions) Figure 9 - Southeast Stantec ADT Trip Generation Difference (Proposed General Plan Buildout vs. Existing Conditions) Figure 10 - Southwest Sta ap1l} .ec ADT Trip Generation Difference (Proposed General Plan Buildout vs. Existing Conditions) - -�� 6xAra Pve 1p�pus 48 ___ - .,• c 0 18 146.53 t .^56 ^ 63 6d 654 X10 r2)3 143 7 44 45 183" B4 37 OB ,-� Y C X41 54 55 85 i 96 184 105,. Atlaar4A 89 ) Ft )5 �]6 1Ji 18 80]9 02 83. 88 i naPu10' _ 1 -� B1 90 0 186 104 X180 10) O 3` Hpv S los - 190 yt 27 1 � 1015; 106 -- lOB[a 91 99+� o 9) M _ 112 192 189 < $ 107 va.,<- �i 193 -�. 191 113 196 .. .194.. . 'y 27 2 X109 111 19) I ce, ,h,en J 92 108 199 x.198 195 a` 93 99 100 ? 1 200 '. ...204 d._ 95 X96 101_102 103 115 117119 114 20I 205 201 10y �' $i 94 _ - t .116 IIB 120 .140 08r"206 .j6, 122 ll0'' 131 141 148 - 210 209r 211 -i� 123 128 1 3 149 215 �21Y', 13 P f 132 133 134 100 141 I51 {� 216 f 124 rons , _�12J� 160 152' 222 411 214'++ 128126 I 1 138139 155223,t� I -Pian i- 129135 136 142 143 156 225 224`. 218 160 16) 168 2341 226 GJ 158 159 -161 169 170 144145235 2D 220 219 . 231 .'240 238¢° d5 L a 268 171 LI 72 146 236 228 221 m 162 -163 164 .. r 211 '= 232 y3' .y, - I]3 174 1244. .239 v246 229 §$ .a. 1 7269 `` -242, '- 1)6 1J8P254 243 24B 233 Y d I65 166 195 245 24J 256 251,252 250 24919 2589 251 a 165` 260\1 253 'a4" 261 62 a M a v4.aA 1' 270 261 266 1263 . a'wyS. 'Newport BeachI el aI r. u... 4...� .,9, r '\1 4y New ort HerrLN a+^aaa 4la,saw,y, Stant@CCity of Costa Mesa MTN1 Traffic Analysis one (TAA) Map ATTACHMENT 9 A fayntam � Ile y z ea �'or...R4 1E - e w9 a�tlV Ma 1�> v eyvNOW' # 11 pv re r 1 3 t u.Y41 w I{pGajlbM1R 9M4 y i II° 4 2 m 17 ? r _ n ata 6] /r I - 5 _ i l - 19 0 2 20 25 26 uau 10 j 6133 L , 14 IS IB 21. 22 yJ 28 ..i29 34 ..`` - -�� 6xAra Pve 1p�pus 48 ___ - .,• c 0 18 146.53 t .^56 ^ 63 6d 654 X10 r2)3 143 7 44 45 183" B4 37 OB ,-� Y C X41 54 55 85 i 96 184 105,. Atlaar4A 89 ) Ft )5 �]6 1Ji 18 80]9 02 83. 88 i naPu10' _ 1 -� B1 90 0 186 104 X180 10) O 3` Hpv S los - 190 yt 27 1 � 1015; 106 -- lOB[a 91 99+� o 9) M _ 112 192 189 < $ 107 va.,<- �i 193 -�. 191 113 196 .. .194.. . 'y 27 2 X109 111 19) I ce, ,h,en J 92 108 199 x.198 195 a` 93 99 100 ? 1 200 '. ...204 d._ 95 X96 101_102 103 115 117119 114 20I 205 201 10y �' $i 94 _ - t .116 IIB 120 .140 08r"206 .j6, 122 ll0'' 131 141 148 - 210 209r 211 -i� 123 128 1 3 149 215 �21Y', 13 P f 132 133 134 100 141 I51 {� 216 f 124 rons , _�12J� 160 152' 222 411 214'++ 128126 I 1 138139 155223,t� I -Pian i- 129135 136 142 143 156 225 224`. 218 160 16) 168 2341 226 GJ 158 159 -161 169 170 144145235 2D 220 219 . 231 .'240 238¢° d5 L a 268 171 LI 72 146 236 228 221 m 162 -163 164 .. r 211 '= 232 y3' .y, - I]3 174 1244. .239 v246 229 §$ .a. 1 7269 `` -242, '- 1)6 1J8P254 243 24B 233 Y d I65 166 195 245 24J 256 251,252 250 24919 2589 251 a 165` 260\1 253 'a4" 261 62 a M a v4.aA 1' 270 261 266 1263 . a'wyS. 'Newport BeachI el aI r. u... 4...� .,9, r '\1 4y New ort HerrLN a+^aaa 4la,saw,y, Stant@CCity of Costa Mesa MTN1 Traffic Analysis one (TAA) Map Costa Mesa Traffic Model Land Use and ADT Trip Generation Summary Zone Land Use Cte o a Units Exist no Amount a ADT 2035 Current General Plan b Amount ADT 2035 Proposed General Plan do Amount ADT fblmin Amount ADT Difference c minus a Amount ADT c minus Amount b ADT 1 10. Light Industrial TSF 543 3.]85 543 3,785 543 3.785 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 3,785 3,785 3.785 0 0 0 2 6. General Office TSF 73 805 73 805 73 805 0 0 0 0 0 0 9. Regional Commercial TSF 313 7,449 313 7,449 313 7.449 0 0 0 0 0 0 10. Light lndubmal TSF 1.153 8,036 1,507 10,504 1,507 10.504 354 2,468 354 2,468 0 0 SUBTOTAL 16,290 18,758 18,758 2,468 2,468 0 3 6. Genem[ Office TSF 228 2,515 201 2,217 201 2,217 -27 .298 -27 -298 0 0 B. General Commercial TSF 4 213 4 213 4 213 0 0 0 0 0 0 10. Li ht Industrial TSF 171 1,192434 3,025 434 3.025 263 1,833 263 1,833 0 0 23. Motel Room 1 51 287 51 287 51 2871 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 4,207 5,742 5,742 11535 1,535 0 4 6. General Office TSF 338 3,728 235 2,592 235 2.592 -103 -1,136 -103 -1,136 0 0 10. Light Industrial TSF 367 2,558 887 6,182 887 6,182 520 3,624 520 3,624 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 6,286 8774 8,774 2,488 2,488 0 5 6. General Office TSF 229 2.526 229 2,526 229 2.526 0 0 0 0 0 0 B. General Commercial TSF 5 266 19 1,012 19 1,012 14 746 14 746 0 0 10. Light Industrial TSF 384 2.676 384 2,676 384 2.676 0 0 0 0 0 0 14. Colle,eMUnIversty Student 564 694 564 694 564 694 0 0 0 0 0 0 23. Motel Room 161 906 161 906 161 906 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 7,068 7,814 7,814 746 746 1 0 6 16. General Office TSF 1 99 1,092 99 1.092 754 8,317 0 0 655 7,225 655 7.225 1O. Light Induct,.] TSF 374 2,607 374 2.607 0 0 0 0 374 -2,607 -374 -2,607 14. Cold,d/Unversity Student 3201 3941 320 394 320 394 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 4,093 4,093 8,711 0 4,618 4,618 ] B. General Office TSF 172 1,897 253 2.791 253 2,791 81 894 81 894 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 1,897 2.791 2,791 894 894 0 8 9. Regional Commercial TSF 313 7449 313 7,449 313 7,449 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUBTOTAL 7,449 7,449 7.449 0 0 0 9 1, Low Conrail, Residential DU 60 571 60 571 60 571 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Medium Density Residential DU 83 671 83 671 83 671 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 1,242 1,242 1,242 i 0 0 0 10 6. General Office TSF 117 7,909 1171 6fifi666 967 10.666 250 2,]5] 250 2,757 0 0 SUB -TOTAL ],909 10. 10.666 1 2,757 2,757 0 Started Consulting December 21, 2015 Costa Mesa Traffic Model Land Use and ADT Trip Generation Summary Zane Land Use Category Units Exist ng Amount ADT 2035 Current General Plan b Amount ADT 2035 Praposed General Plan c Amount ADT b minus Amount a ADT Difference Amount inns ADT Amount 'nu s b ADT 11 6. General Office TSF 0 0 0 0 1,200 13,236 0 0 1,200 13,236 1,200 13,236 26.Agriculture Acre 39 0 0 0 0 0 -39 0 -39 0 0 0 30. Home Ranch Trip Cap TSF 0 0 759 8,372 0 0 759 8,372 0 0 -759 -8.3]2 SUB -TOTAL 0 8,372 13,236 8,372 13.236 4.864 12 2. Medium Density Residential DU 270 2.184 270 2,184 270 2,184 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 2,184 2,184 2,184 0 0 0 13 1. Low Ceres, Residential DU 546 5.198 546 5,198 546 51198 0 0 0 0 0 0 IHigh Densi Residential DU 9 60 9 60 9 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 25. Passive Park Acre 4 8 4 8 4 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 1 5,266 5,266 5,266 0 0 0 14 1. Low Density Residential DO 414 3,941 414 3,941 4141 3,941 0 0 0 0 0 0 IHigh Densi Residential DU 296 1,968 296 11968 2961 1,968 0 0 0 0 0 0 6. General Once TSF 80 882 80 882 801 882 0 0 0 0 0 0 9. Regional Commercial TSF 39 928 39 928 391 928 0 0 0 0 0 0 25. Passive Park Acre 10 19 10 19 10 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL ],]38 ],]38 ],]38 0 0 0 15 9. Regional Commercial TSF 483 11,495 483 11,495 483 11,495 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 11,495 11,495 11.495 0 0 0 16 6. General Office TSF 220 2,427 220 2,427 220 2.427 0 0 0 0 0 0 9. Regional Commercial TSF 385 9,163 385 9,163 385 9.163 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 1 11,590 11,590 11.590 0 0 0 17 2. Medium Density Residential OU 135 1,092 135 1.092 135 1.092 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 1,092 1,092 1.092 0 0 0 18 9.R tonal Commercial TSF 430 10,234 530 12,614 530 12,614 100 2,380 100 2.380 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 10.234 12.614 12,614 2,380 2,380 0 19 9. Regional Commercial TSF 50 1,190 150 3,570 150 3,570 100 2,380 100 2,380 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 11190 3,570 3,570 2,380 2,380 0 20 9. Regional Commercial TSF 90 2.142 190 4.522 190 4,522 100 2.380 100 2,380 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 2.142 4,522 4,522 2,380 2.380 0 21 9.R tonal Commercial TSF 360 8.568 360 8,568 360 8.568 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 8.568 8,568 8,568 0 0 0 22 9. Regional Cc named TSF 337 8.021 337 8,021 337 8,021 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 8.021 8.021 8,021 0 0 0 23 9.R Regional Ccmmercial TSF ]48 17,802 848 20,182 848 20.182 ID,i 2,380 100 2,380 0 0 Stantec Consulting December 21, 2015 Costa Mesa Traffic Model Land Use and ADT Trip Generation Summary Zone Land Use Category Units Existinq Amount I (al ADT 2035 Current General Plan b Amount ADT 2035 Proposed General Plan c Amount I ADT b minus Amount a ADT Difference (cl minus Amount a AOT c minus b Amount ADT SUB -TOTAL 17,802 20,182 20,182 2,380 2.380 0 24 9. Regional Commercial TSF 235 5,593 335 7,973 335 7,973 100 2,380 100 2.380 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 5,593 7,973 7,973 2.380 2.380 0 25 6. General Office TSF 98 1,081 437 4,820 437 4.820 339 3,739 339 3,739 0 0 22. Hotel Room 0 0 200 1,634 200 11634 200 1,634 200 1.634 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 1,081 SAM 6.454 5,373 5.373 0 26 6, General Office TSF 465 5,129 655 7,225 655 7,225 190 2,096 190 2,096 0 0 19, Performance Theater TSF 237 292 294 362 294 362 57 70 57 70 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 1 5.421 7,587 7,587 2,166 2.166 0 27 3. High Density Readen0al DU 0 0 80 532 80 532 80 532 80 532 0 0 6, General Once TSF 746 8,228 795 8.769 795 8,769 49 541 49 541 0 0 8, General Commercial TSF 25 1,332 94 51008 94 5.008 69 3,676 69 3,676 0 0 19. Perlormance Theater TSF 78-428-397 488 397 488 49 60 49 60 0 0 22. Hotel Room 392 3,203 392 3,203 392 3203, 0 0 0 0 0 0 29. Museum TSF 0 0 140 7,874 140 7,874 140 7.874 140 7,874 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 13,191 25,874 25,874 12,683 12,683 0 28 3, High DensiResitlentlal DU ]]0 5.121 1,120 ].448 1,120 7,448 350 2,327 350 2,327 0 0 B. General Commercial TSF 21 1,119 21 11119 21 1,119 0 0 0 0 0 0 22. Hotel Room 491 4.011 491 4,011 491 4,011 0 0 fl 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 10,251 12,578 12,578 2,327 2,327 0 29 3. High DensityResitlen5al DU 890 5,919 890 5,919 890 5.919 0 0 0 0 0 0 15. Public FacilityAcre 1 2 1 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 5,921 5.921 5,921 0 0 0 30 6. General ONce TSF 191 2,107 400 4.412 400 4.412 209 2.305 209 2,305 0 0 B. General Commercial TSF 5 266 0 0 0 0 -5 -266 -5 -266 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 2.373 4,412 4,412 2.039 2.039 0 31 6. General Office TSF 642 7,081 876 9,662 876 9,662 234 2.581 234 2.581 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 7,081 9,662 9,662 2,581 2,581 0 32 3. HI h De Resitlentlal DU 0 0 484 3,219 484 3.219 484 3,219 484 3,219 0 0 6. General Office TSF 764 8.427 1,409 15.541 1,409 15,541 645 7.114 645 7.114 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 8,427 18.]60 18.]60 10,333 10,333 0 Stanlec Consult, December 21, 2015 Costa Mesa Traffic Model Land Use and ADT Trip Generation Summary Zone Land Use Cate o Units Exis do Amount a AOT 2035 Current General Plan b Amount ADT 2035 Proposed General Plan c Amount AOT b minusa Amount AOT Difference ' nus a AmountADT c minus Amount b ADT 33 6. General Office TSF 555 6,122 01 0 01 0 .555 -6,122 -555 -6,122 0 0 26.A culture Acre 9 0 0 0 0 0 -9 0 9 0 0 0 31. Sakioka Lot 2 Trio Cap TSF 0 0 635 7,004 635 7,004 635 7,004 635 7,004 0 0 SU&TOTAL 6,122 7,004 7,004 882 882 0 34 6. General Once TSF 0 0 357 3,938 35] 3.938 357 3,938 357 3.938 0 0 26. MccoAture Acre 24 0 0 9 0 0 -24 0 -24 0 0 0 31. Sakioka Lot 2 Trip Cap TSF 0 0 227 2,504 227 2.504 227 2.504 227 2,504 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 0 6,442 6.442 6,442 6,442 0 35 1. Low Density Residential DO 765 7,283 765 7.283 765 7,283 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. Rib Density Residential DU 140 931 140 931 240 1,596 0 0 100 665 100 665 B. General Commercial TSF 8 426 34 1,812 34 1.812 26 1.386 26 1,386 0 0 12. Elements (Middle School Student 1,134 1,463 1 24 11609 1.247 1,609 113 146 113 1461 0 0 15. Public Facalifty Acre 4 8 4 8 41 a 0 0 00 0 0 23. Motel Room 125 704 125 704 0 0 0 0 -125 -704 -125 404 25. Passive Parc Acre 2 4 2 4 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 10,819 12,351 12,312 1.532 1.493 -39 36 1. Low Density Residential DU 184 1.752 184 1.752 184 1,752 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. High Density Residential DO 59 392 59 392 59 392 0 0 0 0 0 0 11. Golf Course Acre 143 721 143 721 143 721 0 0 0 0 0 0 15. Public Facility Acre 17 321 17 32 17 32 0 0 0 0 01 0 SUB -TOTAL 2.897 2.89] 2,897 0 0 0 37 1. Low Density Residential DU 220 2,094 220 2094 220 2.094 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 1 2.094 1 2.094 2.094 0 1 0 0 38 1. Low Density Residential DO 73 695 73 695 73 695 0 0 0 0 0 0 25. Passive Parc Acre 19 36 19 36 19 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUBTOTAL 731 731 731 0 0 0 39 1,Low Density Residential DU 434 4,132 434 4,132 434 4,132 0 0 0 0 0 0 13. High School Student 237 405 261 446 261 446 24 41 24 41 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 4,537 4,578 4,578 41 41 0 40 1. Low Density Residential DU 51 486 51 486 51 486 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. Hi h Deraftv Residential DO 405 2,693 415 2,760 415 2,760 10 67 10 15. Public Fact Acre 28 53 28 53 28 53 0 0 0 0 0 0 25. Passive Park Acre 3 6 3 6 3 6 0 0 0 0 00 SUB -TOTAL 3,238 3,305 31305 67 67 0 41 B. General Commercial TSF 43 2.291 95 5.062 95 5,062 52 2]]1 52 2,]]1 0 0 SU&TOTAL2.291 5,062 5.062 2,]]1 2.]]1 0 42 6. General OfOce TSF 4] 518 4] 516 4] 518 0 0 0 0 0 0 Stantec Consulting December 21. 2015 Costa Mesa Traffic Model Land Use and ADT Trip Generation Summary Zone Land Use Categor, Units Exlsdn Amount ADT 2035 Current General Plan b Amount ADT 2035 Proposed General Plan c Amount I ADT b minusa Amount ADT Difference 'nus Amount ADT c minus Amount b AOT B. General Commercial TSF 61 3,570 110 5.861 110 5,861 43 2.291 43 2,291 0 0 13. High SCM1aoI Student 32 55 32 55 32 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 4,143 6,434 6,434 2.291 2,291 0 43 1. Low Density Residential DO 490 4,665 490 4.665 490 4,665 0 0 0 0 0 0 6. General Office TSF 54 596 54 596 54 596 0 0 0 0 0 0 12. ElamentaryMiddle School Student 447 577 492 635 492 635 45 58 45 58 0 0 25. Passive Park Acre 3 6 3 6 3 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 27, Religious F cility TSF 35 319 35 319 35 319 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 6,163 6,221 6,221 58 58 0 44 1. Low Density Residents DU 1 347 3,303 W1 3,303 347 3,303 0 0 0 0 0 0 6. General Office TSF 38 419 281 419 38 419 0 0 0 0 0 0 B. General Commercial TSF 30 1,598 631 3.357 63 3,357 33 1.759 33 1,759 0 0 15. Public Facility Acre 5 9 5 9 5 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 27. Religious Facility TSF 9 82 9 82 9 82 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 5,411 7.170 7,170 1.759 1,759 0 45 1. Low Density Residential DO 26 248 26 248 26 248 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.High Density Residential DO 206 1,370 206 1,370 206 1,370 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 1,618 1,618 1.618 0 0 0 46 6. General Office TSF it 121 11 121 11 121 0 0 0 0 0 0 B. General Commercial TSF 46 2,451 51 2,71] 51 2,717 5 266 5 266 0 0 24. Auto Dealership TSF 24 775 24 775 24f 775 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 3,347 3,613 3,613 266 266 0 47 8. General Commercial TSF 76 4,049 118 6.287 118 6,287 42 2,236 42 2,238 0 0 2d. Auto Dealership TSF 42 1,35] 42 1,357 42 1,35] 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL SAN 7644 7,644 2.238 2.238 0 48 3.H1 h DensityResidential DO 0 0 0 0 117 778 0 0 117 778 117 778 B. General Commercial TSF 17 906 36 1,918 36 1,918 19 1,012 19 1,012 0 5 23. Motel Rao. 186 1.047 186 1.047 0 0 0 0 186 .1,04] -186 -1,047 SUB -TOTAL 1,953 2.965 2,696 1,012 743 -269 49 1. Low DensityResidential DO 36 343 36 343 36 343 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Middle. Densi Residential OU 80 647 80 647 80 647 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 990 990 990 0 0 0 50 B. General Commercial TSF 472 25.148 472 25.148 412 25,148 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUBTOTAL 25,148 25,148 25,148 0 of 0 Stantee Consulting Dece.ber21,2015 Costa Mesa Traffic Model Land Use and ADT Trip Generation Summary Zone Land Use Categor, Units E.I.It do Amount I 1.)General ADT 2035 Current Plan b Amount I AOT 2035 Proposed General Plan c Amount AOT b minus(a) Amount ADT Difference mil us (a) I Amount ADT icl minus b Amount I ADT 51 1. Low DensResidential OU Ilul 1,999 210 1,999 210 1.999 0 0 0 0 0 0 15. Public Facility Acre 3 6 3 6-3-6 0 0 0 0 0 0 25. Passive Park Acre 3 6 3 6 3 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 2,011 2,011 2,011 0 0 0 52 1. Low D.d.,ty Reaiden5al DU 370 3,522 370 3,522 370 3,522 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Medium Density Residential DU 1 8 1 8 1 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 12. Elements IMiddle School Student 394 508 433 559 433 559 39 51 39 51 0 0 25. Passive Park Acre 5 9 5 9 5-9-0 0 0 0 0 0 27. Religious Facilit, TSF 22 200 22 200 22200 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 4,247 4,298 4.2981 51 51 0 53 8, General Commercial TSF 46 2,451 66 3,516 66 3,516 20 1,065 20 1,065 0 0 10. Light Industrial TSF 106 739 114 795 114 795 8 56 8 56 0 0 24. Auto DealershipTSF 18 581 18 581 18 581 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 3,771 4.892 4,892 1,121 1,121 0 54 B. General Commercial TSF 5 266 5 266 5 266 0 0 0 0 0 0 24. Auto Oealershi TSF 180 5.814 180 5.814 180 5,814 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 61080 6,080 6,080 0 _0__0 55 3. High BareResitlenEal OU 715 4,755 911 6.058 911 6,0513 196 1,303 196 1.303 0 0 8. General Commercial TSF 2 107 2 107 2 107 0 0 0 0 0 0 14. Cole,eUriversity Student 11000 1,230 11100 1,353 1,100 1,353 100 123 100 1231 0 0 24, Auto Oaralership TSF 18 581 18 581 181 5811 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 1 6,673 8,099 81099 1.426 1.426 0 56 1. Low Der,sit, Residen5al OU 1 10 1 10 1 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. High Density Residential OU 187 1.244 188 1,250 188 1,250 1 6 1 6 0 0 B. General Commercial TSF 51 2.717 93 4.955 93 4955 42 2,238 42 2,238 0 0 10. Light lndustdal TSF 402 2,802 402 2,802 402 2,802 0 0 0 0 0 0 13. HI h SQmol Student 40 68 40 68 40 68 0 0 0 0 0 0 15. Public F.milty Acre 1 2 1 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 9. Storage TSF 36 90 36 90 36 90 0 0 -0-0-0 0 SUB -TOTAL 6,933 9,177 9.177 2,244 2,244 0- 67 1. Low Density Residential DU 38 362 381 92-38-362 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. High Density Residential DU 652 4,336 6524,336 652 4,336 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUBTOTAL 41698 4.698 i 4,698 0 0 0 56 11. Low U.d.ity Residential OU 2MI Z.Zbbi 23UI 2.2661 2381 2,266 0 0 D 0 0 0 SUG-TOTAL 2,266 2,266 2,266 0 ul 0 Started Consulting December 21, 2015 Costa Mesa Traffic Model Land Use and ADT Trip Generation Summary Zane Land Use Catagor, Units E.ial, no Amount a ADT 2035 Current General Plan b Amount ADT 2035 Proposed General Plan c Amount ADT b minus Amount a ADT Difference c minus a Amount ADT e minus b Amount ADT 59 1. Low Density Residential DU 171 1,628 171 1,628 171 1,628 0 0 0 0 0 0 12. Elements IMlddle School Student 437 564 481 620 481 620 44 56 44 56 0 0 25. Passive Park Acre 2 4 2 4 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 2,196 2,252 2,252 56 56 0 60 1, Low Density Residential OU 205 1.952 205 1,952 205 1,952 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Medium Density Residential DU 111 898 111 898 111 898 0 0 0 0 0 0 8, General Commemial TSF 16 852 16 852 16 852 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 3.702 3,702 3,702 0 0 0 61 1. Low Density Residential Du 60 571 60 571 60 571 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. High Density Residential DU 44 293 44 293 44 293 0 0 0 0 0 0 B. General Commercial TSF 52 2771 52 2,771 621 2,771 0 0 0 01 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 1 3,635 3,635 3,635 1 01 0 0 62 1. Low Density Residential OU 80 762 80 762 80 762 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. High Density Residential DU 126 838 126 838 126 838 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 11600 1,600 1,600 0 0 0 63 3. High Density Residential Ou 40 266 40 266 40 266 0 0 0 0 0 0 B. General Commercial TSF 159 8,472 208 11.082 208 11,082 49 2,610 49 2,610 0 0 10. Light lndustral TSF 226 1,575 310 2,161 310 2.161 84 586 84 586 0 0 17. Storage TSF 6 15 6 15 6 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 10,3281 13,524 13.524 3,196 3,196 1 0 64 LLow Density Residential DU 63 600 631 600 63 600 0 0 0 0 0 0 27. Religious Facility TSF 51 465 51 465 511 4651 0 0 01 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 11065 1.065 1 1,0651 0 0 0 65 1. Law D,rd,ty Residential OU 15 143 15 143 15 143 0 0 0 0 0 0 6. General Office TSF 82 904 82 904 82 904 0 0 0 0 0 0 B. General Commercial TSF 16 852 16 852 16 852 0 0 0 0 0 0 17. Storage TSF 82 205 82 205 82 205 0 0 0 0 0 0 23. Motel Rao. 144 811 144 811 144 811 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 2.915 2,915 2,915 0 0 0 fib 1. Low Onsity Residential Du 1321 1,257 132 1.257 132 1,257 0 0 0 Ol 0 0 25. Passive Park Acre 61 111 6 11 6 11 0 0 0 01 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 1.268 1.268 1,268 0 0 0 67 1. Low Densi Residential Du 270 2.570 270 2.570 270 2,570 0 0 0 0 0 0 6. General Office TSF 83 915 83 915 83 915 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 3.485 3.485 3,485 0 0 0 Started Consulting December 21, 2015 Costa Mesa Traffic Model Land Use and ADT Trip Generation Summary Zone Land Use Cate a Units Exist ad Amount ADT 2035 Current General Plan b Amount I ADT 2035 Proposed General Plan e Amount I ADT b minus Amount a ADT I Difference 'nus AmountADT amnus b AmountADT 68 6. General Once TSF 14 154 141 154 141 154 0 0 0 0 0 0 B. General Commercial TSF 56 2.984 721 3.836 72 3,836 16 852 16 852 0 0 22. Hotel Room 224 1,830 2241 1,830 224 1.830 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 4,968 5,820 5,820 852 852 0 69 1. Low Density Residential DU 12 114 0 0 0 0 -12 -114 -12 -114 0 0 2. Medium Density Residential DU 160 1,294 160 1.294 160 1,294 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.High Density Residential DU 380 2,527 392 2,607 392 2,607 12 80 12 80 0 0 6. General Once TSF 10 110 10 110 10 110 0 0 0 0 0 0 B. General Commercial TSF 58 3,090 64 3,410 64 3,410 6 320 6 320 0 0 13. High School Student 37 63 37 63 37 63 0 0 0 0 0 0 15. Public Factilty Acre 1 1 2 1 2 1 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 7,200 7,486 7,486 286 286 0 70 3.High Density Residential DU 0 0 175 1,164 176 1,170 175 1,164 176 1,170 1 6 B. General Commercial TSF 80 4.262 62 3.303 fit 3,303 -18 -959 -18 -959 0 0 10. Light Industrial TSF 159 1,108 86 599 86 599 -73 -509 -73 -509 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 5,370 5.066 5,072 -304 -298 6 71 6, General Once TSF 533 5,879 533 5,8]9 533 5,879 0 0 0 0 0 0 B. General Commercial TSF 6 320 6 320 6 320 0 0 0 0 0 0 22. Hotel Room 486 3.971 486 3,9]1 486 3,971 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 10.170 10,1]0 10.170 0 0 0 72 1. Low DensityResidential DU 236 2.247 236 2.247 236 2,247 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. High Densi Residential DU 485 3,225 485 3,225 485 3.225 0 0 0 0 0 0 15. Public FacilityAcre 1 2 1 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 25, Passive Par, Acre 2 4 2 4 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 5.478 5.478 5.478 0 0 0 73 3. High DensityResidential DU 258 11716 258 1,716 258 1,716 0 0 0 0 0 0 6. General Office TSF 60 662 60 662 60 662 0 0 0 0 0 0 B. General Commercial TSF 86 4,582 115 6,12] 115 6,12] 29 1,545 29 1,545 0 0 10. Light Industrial TSF 104 725 109 ]60 109 760 5 35 5 35 0 0 SUB -TOTAL ],685 9,265 9,265 1,580 11580 0 74 3. High DensityResidentlal DU 716 4,761 716 4,]61 716 4,761 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 4,761 4761 4,761 0 0 0 75 1. Lav DensityResitlenval DU 205 1,952 205 1,952 205 1,952 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 1,952 1.952 1,952 0 0 0 76 1. Low DensityResidential DU 118 1,123 118 1,123 118 1.123 0 0 0 0 0 0 27. Rell icus Facill TSF 17 155 17 155 P1 1*gl 0 Ul ul 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL i 1.278 1.278 1278 ol I0 0 Stamen, Consulting December 21. 2015 Costa Mesa Traffic Model Land Use and ADT Trip Generation Summary Zone Land Use Cale o Units Exist no Amount a ADT 2636 Current General Plan (Ibl Amount ADT 2035 Proposed General Plan c Amount ADT b m Amount loos ADT Difference c minus Amount a ADT nus Amount' b AOT 77 1. Low DensityResidential DU 304 2.894 304 2,894 304 2,894 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Medium Densi Residential DU 23 186 23 186 23 186 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. High DensityResidential DU 956 6,357 956 6,39 956 6,357 0 0 0 0 0 0 25. Passive Park Acre 7 13 7 13 7 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 9,450 9,450 9,450 0 0 0 78 1. Low DensityResidential DU 75 714 75 714 75 714 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 714 714 714 0 0 0 79 B. General Commercial TSF 150 7,992 150 7,992 150 7,992 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 7,992 7,992 7,992 0 0 0 80 5. Age Qualified HousingDU 215 740 215 740 215 740 0 0 0 0 0 0 SU&TOTAL 740 740 740 0 0 0 81 3. High DensityResidential DU 84 559 84 559 387 2,574 0 0 303 2,015 303 2,015 B. General Commercial TSF 74 3.943 74 3,943 76 4,049 0 0 2 106 2 106 23. Motel Room 69 388 69 388 0 0 0 0 -fig .388 .69 -388 SU&TOTAL 4,890 4,890 6,623 0 1,733 1.733 82 B. General Commercial TSF 113 6,021 162 8,631 162 8.631 49 2.610 49 2,610 0 0 SUBTOTAL 6,021 8,631 8,631 2.610 2.610 0 83 3. High DensityResidential DU 417 2.773 417 2,773 417 2,773 0 0 0 0 0 D 14. C.11 alUniversi Student 22.145 27,238 22,145 27,238 22.145 27,238 0 0 0 0 0 0 24. Auto Dealership TSF 35 1.131 35 1,131 35 1,131 0 01 0 0 0 0 32. OCC Master Plan SG 0 0 100 14.496 100 14,4961 100 14.496 100 14.496 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 31.1421 1 45,638 45,638 14.496 14,496 0 84 1. Low Density Residential DU 177 11686 177 11685 177 1,685 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. High Density Residential DU 30 200 30 200 30 200 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 11885 1,885 1.885 0 0 0 85 1.Low Density Residential DU 64 609 64 609 64 609 0 0 0 0 0 0 IHigh Densi Residential Ou 320 2,128 320 2,128 320 2,128 0 0 0 0 0 6 SUB -TOTAL 2,737 2.737 2.737 0 01 0 86 1. Low Densi Residential DU 338 3,218 338 3.218 338 3.218 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. Hi hDensi Resitlential DU 133 219 33 219 33 219 0 0 0 0 0 0 12.Elementa (Middle School Student 566 730 566 730 566 730 0 01 0 0 0 0 SUB-TOTgL i 4,167 4.167 4,167 0 0 0 Stantec Consulting December 21, 2015 Costa Mesa Traffic Model Land Use and ADT Trip Generation Summary Zone Land Use Candor, Units Exist did Amount a ADT 2035 Current General Plan lot Amount ADT 2035 Proposed General Plan c Amount ADT b minus Amount a ADT Difference c minus a Amount ADT c minus Amount b ADT 87 3.Hi h Density Residential DU 70 466 70 466 70 466 0 0 0 0 0 0 6. General Ofice TSF 67 739 67 739 67 739 0 0 0 0 0 0 B. General Commercial TSF 20 1.066 104 5.541 104 5,541 84 4.475 84 4.475 0 0 20. Convalescent Care ead 40 106 40 106 40 106 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 2,377 6,852 6,852 4,475 4,475 0 88 1. Low Density Residential OU 43 409 43 409 43 409 0 0 0 0 0 0 13. High School Student 1,693 2,895 1,862 3.184 1,862 3,164 169 289 169 289 0 0 25. Passive Park Acre 18 34 18 34 18 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 27. Religious Facility TSF 14 128 14 128 14 128 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 3.466 3,755 3,755 289 289 0 89 1. Low Density Residential DU 191 1,818 191 1,818 191 11816 0 0 0 0 0 0 27. Religious FacilityTSF 7 64 7 64 7 64 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 1,882 1,882 1,862 0 0 0 90 1. Low DensityResidential DU 52 495 52 495 52 495 0 0 0 0 0 0 12. Elements /Middle School Student 496 640 546 704 546 704 50 64 50 64 0 0 15. Public Facli Acre 8 15 8 15 8 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 25. Passive Park Acre 43 81 43 81 43 81 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 1.231 1,295 1,295 64 64 0 91 13. Hi h School Student 500 855 550 941 550 941 50 86 50 86 0 0 15. Public Facili Acre 11 21 11 21 11 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 25. Passive Park Acre 149 282 149 282 149 262 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 1.158 1 1.244 1.2441 86 86 0 92 1. Low Density Residential OU 30 286 30 286 30 286 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Medium Density Residential DU 129 1,044 129 1.044 129 1,044 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.High Density Residential OU 516 3,431 520 3,458 Us 3,498 4 27 10 67 6 40 15. Public Facility Acre 39 74 39 74 39 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 25. Passive Park Acre 99 187 99 187 99 187 0 0 0 0 0 0 27. Religious Facility TSF 5 46 5 46 5 46 0 0 0 0 0 0 28. vacant Acre 1 0 0 0 0 0 -1 0 -1 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 5,068 5.095 5.135 27 67 40 93 1, Low Density Residential DU 199 1,894 199 1.894 199 1,894 0 0 0 ul 0 0 3. High Density Residential DU 27 180 27 180 27 180 0 0 0 01 0 0 SU&TOTAL 2,074 2,074 2,074 0 01 10 94 1, Low Densi Residenral DU 45 426 45 428 45 428 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.ru h Densil Residential DU 125 831 136 904 136 904 11 73 ii 733 0 0 SU&TOTAL 1 1,2591 1 1,332 1,332 '31 1 13 0 Slantec Consulting December 21. 2015 Costa Mesa Traffic Model Land Use and ADT Trip Generation Summary Zane Land Use Categow Units Exist no Amount a ADT 2035 Current General Plan b Amount ADT 2035 Proposed General Plan c Amount ADT b minus Amount a ADT Difference c minusa Amount ADT inu s Amount b ADT 95 1. Low Density Residential DU 169 1,609 169 11609 169 11609 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 11609 1,609 1,609 0 0 0 96 1. Law Density Residential DU 140 1,333 140 1.333 140 1,333 0 0 0 0 0 0 12. EIam.nm,r,IMTdde School Student 552 712 607 783 607 783 55 71 55 71 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 2,045 2,116 2,116 71 71 0 97 11. GOR Course Acre 237 1,194 237 1,194 237 1,194 0 0 0 0 0 0 15. Public Facility Acre 7 13 7 13 ] 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 1,207 1.207 1,207 0 0 0 98 1. Low Density Residential DU 1 129 1.228 129 1,228 129 1,228 0 0 0 01 0 0 2. Medium Density Residential DU 600 4,045 5001 4.045 700 5.663 0 0 200 11618 200 1.618 3.High Densi Residential DU 0 0 0 0 Mot 11995 0 0 300 1.995 300 11995 15, Public Facility Acre 0 0 0 0 521 98 0 0 52 98 52 98 21. Hos ital Bed 350 4,529 350 4.529 0 0 0 0 -350 -4.529 -350 -4.529 25. Passive Park Acre 0 0 0 0 26 49 0 0 26 49 26 49 SUB -TOTAL 9,802 9,802 9.033 0 -769 -769 99 1, Low DensityResidential DU 13 124 13 124 13 124 0 0 0 8 0 0 2, Medium DensityResidential DU 17 138 17 138 17 138 0 0 0 0 0 0 3, High DensityResidential DU 136 904 136 904 136 904 0 0 0 0 0 0 27. Religious FacilityTSF 20 182 20 182 20 182 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 1.348 1,348 11348 0 0 0 100 1, Low DensityResidential DU 55 524 55 524 55 524 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Medium Dense, Residential DU 56 453 56 453 56 453 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. Hi M1 Densi Residential DU 333 2.214 341 2,268 513 3,411 8 54 180 1,197 172 1,143 B. General Commercial TSF 12 639 32 1,705 52 2,771 20 1,066 40 2,132 20 1.066 23. Motel Rao. 322 1,813 322 1,813 0 0 0 0 -322 -1,813 -322 -11813 SUB -TOTAL 5.643 6763 7,159 1,120 1,516 396 101 1. Low DensResidential OU 65 619 65 619 65 619 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Medium Density Residential DU 25 202 65 526 65 526 40 324 40 324 0 0 3.High Densi Residential DU 223 1.483 397 2.640 397 2,640 174 1.157 174 1,15] 0 0 27. Religious Facility TSF 25 228 25 228 25 228 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 2,532 4,013 4,013 1.481 14811 1 0 102 1. Low Densi Residential DU 132 1,257 132 1.251 132 1,25] 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. Hi M1Densi Residential DU 8] 5)9 8] 579 87 5]9 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 1 1,836 1,836 1,836 10 0 0 Stamen, Consulflng December 21, 2015 Costa Mesa Traffic Model Land Use and ADT Trip Generation Summary Zone Land Use Category Units Exist up Amount ADT 2035 Current General Plan b Amount ADT 2035 Proposed General Plan let Amount ADT nus (b)an... Amount a ADT Difference minus a Amount ADT p minus Amount b ADT 103 1. Lary Density Residential DO 82 981 82 781 82 781 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Medium Deni Residential DO 90 728 90 728 90 728 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.High Density Residential DO 238 11583 249 1,656 293 1.948 11 93 55 365 44 292 B. General Commercial TSF 40 2.131 41 2,184 41 2,184 1 53 1 53 0 0 23. Motel Room 58 327 58 327 58 32] 0 0 0 0 0 0 24, Auto Leadership TSF 1 32 1 32 1 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUBTOTAL 5,582 5,708 6,000 126 418 292 104 3.High Density Residential DO 123 818 123 818 123 818 0 0 0 0 0 0 S. General Commercial TSF 53 2,824 63 3,357 63 3,357 10 533 10 533 0 0 24. Auto Deaterahin TSF 29 937 29 937 29 939 0 0 0 0 0 0 29. Religious Facility TSF 1 6 55 6 55 6 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 4,634 5,167 5,167 533 533 0 105 1. Low Density Residential DO 154 1,466 154 1,466 154 1,466 0 0 0 0 0 0 6. General Office TSF 22 243 22 243 22 243 0 0 0 0 0 0 B. General Commercial TSF 1 53 13 693 13 693 12 640 12 640 0 0 24. Auto Dealership TSF 18 581 18 581 18 581 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUBTOTAL 2,343 2,983 2.983 640 640 0 106 LLow Ourst, Residential DO 301 2.866 301 2.866 301 2,866 0 0 0 0 0 0 29. Religious Facility TSF 8 73 8 93 8 93 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUBTOTAL 2,939 2.939 2,939 0 0 0 109 11. Low Oemi Residential DO 24 228 24 228 24 228 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. High Density Residential OU 1 508 3,3]8 508 3,3]8 508 3.3]8 0 0 0 0 0 0 24. Auto Dealership TSF 26 840 26 Bd0 2fi 840 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 4,446 4,446 4,446 0 0 0 108 B. General Commercial TSF 3]0 19.]14 382 20,353 382 20.353 12 639 12 639 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 19,]14 20.353 20,353 639 639 0 109 1. Low Densi Residential DO 523 4,9]9 523 4.999 523 4,9]9 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.High DensityResidential DO 99 658 99 658 99 658 0 0 0 0 0 0 B. General Commercial TSF 26 1,385 26 1.385 26 1,385 0 0 0 0 0 0 12. Elements IMiddle School Student 580 )53 fi42 828 642 828 58 75 58 75 0 0 25. Passive Park Acre 4 8 4 8 4 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL ],]83 ],858 7,858 75 ]5 0 110 16. Furaround. Acre iSsl 1.8451 1501 1,845 150 1,845 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUb-R)Al. 1.845 1.845 1.845 0 0 0 Stamm, Consulting December 21.2015 Costa Mesa Traffic Model Land Use and ADT Trip Generation Summary Zone Land Use Cate o Units exist n Amount a ADT 2035 Current General Plan b Amount ADT 2835 Proposed General Plan c Amount ADT b m' nus Amount a ADT Difference c a minus Amount ADT c minus Amount b ADT 111 3. High Density Residential DU 929 6.178 931 6,191 931 6,191 2 13 2 13 0 0 11. General Commercial TSF 2 107 13 693 13 693 11 586 11 586 0 0 15. Publics ilii Acre 4 B 4 8 4 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 25. Passive Park Acre 2 4 2 4 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 6,297 6,896 6,896 599 599 0 112 18. City Hall TSF 133 3.713 133 3,713 133 3,713 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 3,713 3,713 3,713 0 0 0 113 2. Medium Density Residential DU 87 704 87 704 87 704 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. High Density Residential OU 96 638 96 638 96 638 0 0 0 0 0 0 14. GoileginUriversity Student 1,9611 2.412 2.157 2.653 2,157 2.6531 196 241 196 241 0 0 SUB-70TAL 3.754 1 3,995 3,995 241 2411 0 114 6. General Office TSF 40 441 40 441 40 441 0 0 0 0 0 0 B. General Commercial TSF 31 1,652 31 1.652 31 1.652 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUBTOTAL 2,093 2,093 2,093 0 0 0 115 3. High Density Residential DU 0 0 0 0 97 645 0 0 97 645 97 645 8. General Commercial TSF 245 13.054 294 15.664 294 15.664 49 2.610 49 2,610 0 0 23. Motel Rao. 18 101 18 101 0 0 0 0 -18 -101 -18 -101 SUB -TOTAL 13,155 15.765 16.309 2.610 3.154 544 116 f2. Medium Density Residential DU 15 121 30 243 30 243 15 122 15 122 0 0 3. High Density Residential DU 1 202 1,343 205 1.363 205 1,363 3 20 3 20 0 0 28. Vacant Acre 1 0 0 0 01 0 -1 0 -11 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 1,464 1:606 1,606 142 142 0 117 1. Low Density Residential DU 11 105 11 105 11 105 0 0 0 0 0 0 2, Medium Density Residential DU 106 858 106 8511 106 858 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. High Density Residential DU 290 1,929 290 1,929 290 1,929 0 0 0 0 0 0 27. Religious Facility TSF 10 91 10 91 10 91 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUBTOTAL 2.983 2,983 2,983 0 0 0 118 2. Medium Density Residential DU 3a 275 34 275 34 275 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. High Density Residential OU 383 2,547 389 2.587 389 2.587 6 40 6 40 0 0 6. General Office TSF 4 44 4 44 4 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 20. Convalescent Care eetl 79 210 79 210 79 210 0 0 0 0 0 0 28. Vacant Acre 1 0 0 0 0 0 -1 0 -1 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 1 3,076 3.1161 i 3,116 40 40 0 Stinted Consulting December 21, 2015 Costa Mesa Traffic Model Land Use and ADT Trip Generation Summary Zone Land Use Categotr Units Exist do Amount I a AOT 2035 Current General Plan b Amount AOT 2035 Proposed General Plan c Amount ADT b minus Amount a ADT Difference c minus a Amount ADT c minus Amount I b ADT 119 1. Levi Density Residential DO ill 105 11 105 11 105 0 0 0 0 ol 0 2, Medium Derent, Residential DO 59 477 59 477 59 477 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. High Density Residential DO 82 545 82 545 82 545 0 0 0 0 0 0 B. General Commercial TSF 11 586 15 799 15 799 4 213 4 213 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 1,713 1,926 1,926 213 213 0 120 1. Law Density Residential DO 1 10 0 0 0 0 -1 -10 -1 -10 0 0 2. Medium Density Residential DO 2 16 0 0 0 0 -2 -16 -2 -16 0 0 3. High Density Residential DO 74 492 78 519 78 519 4 27 4 27 0 0 6. General Office TSF 36 397 36 397 36 397 0 0 0 0 0 0 B. General Commercial TSF 20 1,066 72 3,836 72 3,836 52 2,770 52 2,770 0 0 10. Light Industrial TSF 7 49 6 42 6 42 -1 q -1 4 0 0 27. Religious Facility TSF 38 346 38 346 38 M61 0 0 01 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 2.376 1 5,140 5.140 2.764 2,764 0 121 1, Low Density Residential OU 217 2.066 217 2.066 220 2,094 0 0 3 28 3 M S. General Commercial TSF 78 4,156 88 4,689 88 4,689 10 533 10 533 0 0 10. Light Industrial TSF 22 153 28 195 28 195 6 42 6 42 0 0 25. Passive Park Acre 7 13 ] 13 7 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 27. Religious Facility TSF 3 27 3 27 3 27 0 0 0 0 0 6 SUB -TOTAL 6,415 6.990 7,018 575 603 28 122 1, Low Density Residential OU 78 743 78 743 78 743 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. High Density Residential DO 144 9581 144 958 144 958 0 0 0 0 0 0 12. ElementarvNiddleSchool Student 411 530 452 583 452 583 41 53 41 53 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 2,231 2,284 2.284 53 53 0 123 1. Low Density Residential DO 278 2,647 278 2,647 278 2,647 0 0 0 0 0 0 2, Metlium Cadet, Residen8al DO 8 65 8 65 8 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUBTOTAL 2,712 2,712 2.712 0 0 0 124 15. Public Facility Are 30 57 30 57 30 57 0 0 0 0 0 0 25. Passive Park Acre 73 138 73 138 73 138 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 195 195 195 0 0 0 126 1, Low Density Residen0 it DO 161 11533 161 1,533 161 1.533 0 0 0 0 0 0 25. Passive Perk Acre 1 35 66 35 66 0 0 0 01 ol 0 SUB -TOTAL 1,5991 11599 11599 0 0 0 127 1. LOW Densi Residential DU 183 1,]42 183 1.742 183 1,]42 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 1 1.742 1,742 1 7421 i 0 1 0 0 Started Consulting December 21, 2015 Costa Mesa Traffic Model Land Use and ADT Trip Generation Summary Zone Land Use Cate o Units Exist no Amount ADT 2035 Current General Plan b Amount ADT 2035 Proposed General Plan 1.1 Amount ADT (blminus Amount a ADT Difference mi us Amount ADT c minus Amount b AOT 128 3.High DensityResidential DU 55 366 129 858 129 858 74 492 74 492 0 0 6. General Office TSF 6 66 5 55 5 55 -1 -11 -1 -11 0 0 B. General Cammemial TSF 117 6,234 65 3,463 65 3.463 -52 -2,771 -52 -2,771 0 0 10 Light lntlustrial TSF 158 1,101 115 802 115 802 -43 -299 -43 -299 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 7,767 5,178 5,178 -2.589 .2,589 0 129 3,High Density Residential DU 0 0 2 13 2 13 2 13 2 13 0 6 B. General Commercial TSF 13 693 19 1,012 19 1,012 6 319 6 319 0 0 10. Li ht lntlustrial TSF 98 683 40 279 10 70 -58 -404 -88 -613 -30 -209 SUB -TOTAL 1,376 1,304 11095 -72 -281 -209 130 1, Low Density Residential OU 63 600 63 600 63 600 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. High Density Residential OU 40 266 46 306 48 319 6 40 8 53 2 13 B. General Commercial TSF 31 1,652 311 11652 31 1,652 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 4518 i 2.558 2.571 40 53 13 131 1. Lary Density Residential DU 21 200 153 1.457 153 1,457 132 1,257 132 1,257 0 0 2. Medium Density Residential DU 26 210 80 647 80 647 54 437 54 437 0 0 3.High Density Residential DU 415 2,760 859 5,712 898 5,972 444 2,952 483 3,212 39 260 B. General Commercial TSF 21 1,119 21 1,119 21 1,119 0 0 0 0 0 0 13. High School Student 106 181 106 181 106 181 0 0 0 0 0 0 27. Religious Facility TSF 21 191 21 191 21 191 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 41661 9,307 9,567 4,646 4,906 260 132 1. Low Density Residential DU 4 38 12 114 12 114 8 76 8 76 0 0 2. Medium Density Residential DU 2 16 6 49 61 491 4 33 4 33 0 0 3.High Density Residential DU 2A] L643 415 2,760 415 2,760 168 1,117 1681 1.117 0 0 6. General Once TSF 4 44 0 0 0 0 -4 -44 -4 -44 0 0 B. General Commercial TSF 15 799 21 1.119 21 11119 6 320 6 320 0 0 10. Light lntlustnal TSF 1 191 1,3311 801 558 80 558 -111 -773 -111 -773 0 0 SUB -TOTAL I 3,8711 i 4,600 4,600 729 729 0 133 1. Low Density Residential DU 9 86 39 371 39 371 30 285 30 285 0 0 2, Medium Density Residential DU 18 146 50 405 50 405 32 259 32 259 0 0 3. High Density Residential DU 330 2,195 526 3,498 526 3,498 196 1.303 196 1,303 0 0 13. High School Student 370 633 407 696 407 696 37 63 37 63 0 0 SUB TOTAL 3,060 4,970 4,970 1.910 1,910 0 Residential DU 134 1,276 212 2,018 212 2,018 78 742 78 742 0 0 Medium Density Residential DU 16 129 40 324 40 324 24 195 24 195 0 0 Ow Resitlential DU 17 113 43 286 43 286 26 173 2fi 173 0 0 IM itltlle $CM1ool Student 476 614 524 676 524 616 46 62 48 62 0 0 2,132 3,304 3,304 1,172 1,172 0 Stantec Consulting December 21. 2015 Costa Mesa Traffic Model Land Use and ADT Trip Generation Summary Zone Land Use Categor, Units Exis no Amount a ADT 2035 Current General Plan fbl Amount ADT 2035 Proposed General Plan let Amount ADT (b)minus Amount a ADT Difference c minus Amount a ADT c minus Amount b ADT 135 3. High Density Residential DU 55 366 81 539 81 539 26 173 26 173 0 0 8. General Commercial TSF 37 13971 71 3,783 71 3,783 34 1,812 34 1,812 0 0 10 Light Industrial TSF 31 216 9 63 9 63 -22 453 -22 .153 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 2,553 4,385 4.385 1,832 1,832 0 136 3. High Density Residential DU 270 1,796 273 11815 273 1,815 3 19 3 19 0 0 6. General OfOce TSF 2 22 3 33 3 33 1 11 1 11 0 0 8. General Commercial TSF 27 1,439 52 2,771 52 2.771 25 1,332 25 1.332 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 3,257 4,619 4,619 1,362 1,362 0 137 1. Low Density Residential DU 44 419 54 514 54 514 10 95 10 95 0 0 2. Medium Density Residential DU 1 3 24 101 81 10 8111 7 57 7 57 0 0 3. High Density Residents] OU 45 2991 931 618 93 618 48 3191 48 319 0 0 27. Religious Facility TSF 9 821 9 82 9 82 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 824 1,295 1.295 471 471 0 138 1. Low Density Residential DU 19 181 49 466 49 466 30 285 30 285 0 0 2. Medium Density Residential DU 63 510 99 801 99 801 36 291 36 291 0 0 3. Hi n Carisift, Residential DU 124 825 220 1,463 220 1,463 96 638 96 608 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 1,516 2.730 2,730 1,214 1,214 0 139 1. Low Density Residential DU 37 352 95 904 95 904 58 552 58 552 0 0 2. Medium Density Residential DU 4 32 7 57 7 57 3 25 3 25 0 0 3. High Cousin, Residential DU 179 1.190 259 1,722 259 1 722 80 532 80 532 01 0 SUB -TOTAL 1,574 2,683 2,683 11109 11109 0 140 1. Low Density Residential DU 13 124 63 600 631 600 50 476 50 476 0 0 2. Medium D.,rit, Residential DU 52 421 131 1,060 131 1.060 79 639 79 639 0 0 3. High Density Residential DU 263 1.749 388 2,580 388 2,580 125 831 125 831 0 0 13. High School Student 15 26 15 26 15 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 2.320 4,266 4.266 1,946 1.946 0 141 2. Medium Densit Residential OU 2 16 0 0 0 0 -2 -16 -2 46 0 0 3. High Density Residential DU 0 0 13 86 270 1,796 13 86 270 1,796 257 1,710 6. General Office TSF 4 44 0 0 D 0 -4 44 -4 -44 0 0 B. General Commercial TSF 64 3,410 224 11,935 174 9.271 160 8,525 110 51861 -50 -2,664 10. Light Internist TSF 37 258 0 0 0 0 -37 -258 -37 -258 0 0 17. Stora a TSF 28 70 0 0 0 0 -28 -70 -28 -]0 0 0 24. Aum DealemM1i TSF 3 97 3 97 3 97 0 0 0 0 01 0 28. VacantI Acre 2 0 00 0 0 -2 0 -2 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 3,895 12,118 11,164 8,223 1 7,269 -954 Slantec Consulting December 21, 2015 Costa Mesa Traffic Model Land Use and ADT Trip Generation Summary Zone Land Use Cate o Units Existlnq Amount (at ADT 2035 Current General Plan b Amount ADT 2035 Proposed General Plan c Amount ADT b minus Amount a ADT Difference c minus a Amount AOT c minus Amount b AOT 142 1, Low DensityResidential DU 2 19 0 0 0 0 -2 -19 -2 -19 0 0 3. High DensityResidential DU 0 0 6 40 6 40 6 40 6 40 0 0 B. General Commercial TSF 28 1,492 53 2,824 53 2,824 25 1.332 25 1,332 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 1,511 2.864 2.864 1.353 1,353 0 143 2. Medium DensityResidential DU 47 380 77 623 77 623 30 243 30 243 0 0 3. High DensityResidential DU 6 40 16 106 16 106 10 66 10 66 0 0 B. General Commercial TSF 57 3,037 57 3.037 57 3,037 0 0 0 0 0 D SUB -TOTAL 3,457 3,766 3,766 309 309 0 144 3. High DensityResidential DU 160 1,064 160 1,064 160 1.064 0 0 0 0 0 0 15. Public FacilityAcre 4 8 4 8 4 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 25. Passive Park Acre 1 9 17 91 17 9 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 SU&TOTAL 1,089 11089 11089 0 0 0 145 3. High Density Residential DU 75 499 75 499 75 499 0 0 0 0 0 0 6, General Once TSF 5 55 5 55 5 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 9. Regional Commercial TSF 172 4,094 172 4,094 172 4,094 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 4,648 4,648 4,648 0 0 0 146 1. Low Density Residential DU 11 105 11 105 11 105 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Medium Density Residential DU 4 32 4 32 4 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. High Density Residemal DU 11 73 13 86 13 86 2 13 2 13 0 0 B. General Commercial TSF 48 2,557 53 2,824 53 2,824 5 267 5 267 01 0 10. Light Industrial TSF 20 139 20 139 20 139 0 0 0 D 0 0 15. Public Facility Acre 1 2 1 2 1 21 0 01 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 2,908 3.188 3.1881 280 280 0 147 1. Low Diareit, Residential DU 61 581 61 581 61 581 0 0 0 0 0 0 2, Medium Density Residential DU 23 186 23 186 23 186 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. High Density Residential DU 223 1.483 224 1.490 298 1,982 1 7 75 499 74 492 8, General Commercial TSF 22 1,172 51 2,717 57 3.037 29 11545 35 11865 6 320 24, Auto Dealki-ship TSF 52 1,680 52 1,680 52 11680 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 51102 61654 7,466 1,552 2,364 812 148 1. Low Density Residential DU 15 143 15 143 15 143 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Medium Density Residential DU 5 40 5 40 5 40 0 0 0 ol 0 0 3. Hi hDensit Residential DU 73 485 73 485 73 485 0 0 0 0 0 0 B. General Commercial TSF 2 107 2 107 2 107 0 0 0 0 0 0 21. .. ma use 122 1,579 122 1,579 122 1,579 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 2.354 2,354 2.354 0 0 0 Stantec Consulting Derember21,2015 Costa Mesa Traffic Model Land Use and ADT Trip Generation Summary Zone Land Use Cate o Units Exist no Amount ADT 2035 Current General Plan b Amount ADT 2035 Proposed General Plan (.1 Amount ADT Odminus Amount a ADT Difference e minus fal I Amount AOT (c)minus Amount b AOT 149 1. Low Deni Residential DU 1 10 1 10 1 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Medium Density Residential DU 28 227 28 227 28 2270 0 0 0 0 0 3. High Density Residential DU 0 0 0 0 260 1,729 0 0 260 1,729 260 1.729 7. Medical Office TSF 36 1.301 36 1,301 36 1.301 0 0 0 0 0 0 B. General Commercial TSF 19 1,012 54 2,8]] 6 320 35 1,865 -13 -692 -48 -2,557 17. Storage TSF 347 868 347 868 0 0 0 0 -347 -868 -347 -868 27. Religious Facility TSF 58 528 58 528 58 528 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 3,946 51811 4,115 1.865 169 -1.696 150 3. HI h DenaResidential OU 0 0 0 0 255 1,696 0 0 255 1,696 255 1,696 8. General Commercial TSF 61 3,25095 5.062 171 9.111 34 1,812 110 51861 76 4,049 23. Motel Room 1 52 293 52 293 0 0 0 0 -52 -293 -52 -293 24. Auto Dealership TSF 2 65 2 65 2 65 0 0 0 of 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 31608 1 5,420 10,872 1.812 1 7,264 5.452 151 1. Low Density Residen0al DU 17 162 17 162 17 162 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Medium Oared, Residential OU 12 97 12 97 12 97 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. High Density Residential OU 261 1,736 261 1,736 261 1,736 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUBTOTAL 1,995 11995 11995 0 0 0 152 1. Low Density Residential DU 1 10 0 0 0 0 -1 -10 4 -10 0 0 2. Medium Dendby Residential DU 75 607 75 607 75 607 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.High Donsit, Roxidarri DU 0 0 1 7 156 1.051 1 7 158 1,051 157 1,044 B. General Commercial TSF 14 746 79 4,209 79 4,209 65 3.463 65 3,463 0 0 10. Light Industrial TSF 4 28 0 0 0 0 -4 -28 -4 -28 0 0 23. Motel Room 10K410 9 101 569 0 0 0 0 -101 -569 -101 -569 SUB -TOTAL 0 5,392 5,867 3,432 3,907 4]5 153 24. Auto DealershipTSF 30 39 1,260 39 1,260 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 0 1,260 1,260 0 0 0 154 1. Low Donau, Reaidentiel DU 9 3 29 3 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.High DensityResidential OU 23 39 259 39 259 10 66 10 66 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 2 288 288 66 66 0 155 8, General Commercial TSF 318 36 1.918 36 1.918 0 0 0 0 0 0 17. Storage TSF 10 4 10 4 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 Room 57 58 327 58 327 0 0 0 0 0 0SUB-TOTAL 5 2,255 2,255 0 0 0 156 3.Hi h Densi Resitlential DU 111 113 ]51 113 751 0 0 0 0 0 0 6. General Quire TSF 135 131 1.445 131 1.445 0 0 0 0 0 0 B. General Commercial TSF 19 23 1.225 23 1,225 5 266 5 266 0 0 27. Reli ious Facili TSF 22 20 182 20 182 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUBTOTAL ] 3,603 3,fiO3 266 266 0 Stantec Consulting December 21, 2015 Costa Mesa Traffic Model Land Use and ADT Trip Generation Summary Zone Land Use Category Units ExisOn Amount a ADT 2035 Current General Plan b Amount ADT 2035 Proposed General Plan let Amount ADT Amount flirun uV00 Difference inus a ADT c minus b Amount ADT 157 9. Rei Commercial TSF 185 4,403 185 4,403 185 4,403 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 4,403 4,403 4,403 0 0 158 1. Low DensityResidential DU 161 1,533 158 1,504 158 1,504 -33 -29 0 0 2. Medium DensityResidential DU 1 8 1 8 1 8 0 0 0 0 3.High Densit Residential DU 45 299 26 173 26 173 -199 -126 0 0 10. Lightlndustrial TSF 136 948 A 537 ]Y 537 -599 -411 0 0 25. Passive Park Acre 2 4 2 4 2 4 00 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 2,792 2.226 2,226 -566 0 159 1. Low DensityResidential DU 1 10 9 86 9 86 88 76 0 0 2. Medium DensityResidential DU 191 1.545 191 1,545 191 1,545 00 0 0 0 3. high Density Residential DU 395 2.627 501 3,332 Wit 3,332 106 705 106 705 0 0 6. General Office TSF 8 88 4 44 4 q4 -4 -44 -4 -44 0 0 B. General Commercial TSF 2 107 2 107 2 107 0 0 0 0 0 0 10. Light industrial TSF 3 21 3 21 3 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 12. Elements (Middle School Student 772 996 849 11095 849 1,095 ]] 99 A 99 0 0 17. Storage TSF 8 20 8 20 B 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 5,414 6,250 6,250 836 836 0 160 3. Hi,h Density, Residential OU 112 745 124 825 124 825 12 80 12 80 0 6 B. General Commercial TSF 58 3,090 106 5.648 106 5,648 48 2,558 48 2.558 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 3,835 6.473 6.473 2,638 2,638 0 161 1. Low Density Residential DU 461 438 42 400 42 400 4 .38 .4 -38 0 0 3. High Density Residential DU 286 1,902 297 1,975 297 1,975 11 73 Ill 73 0 0 6. General Office TSF 16 i]6 14 154 10 154 -2 .22 -2 -22 0 0 10. Li htlndustrial TSF 55 383 44 307 44 307 -11 -76 -11 -76 0 0 SUBTOTAL 2,899 2.836 2,836 -63 .63 0 162 1. Low DensityResidential DU 1 10 1 10 1 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 10. Li htlndustrial TSF 228 1.589 228 11589 228 1,589 0 0 0 0 0 0 17. Storage TSF 127 318 12] 318 12] 318 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 1,91] 1,917 1,917 0 0 0 163 1. Low DensityResidential DU 12 114 0 0 0 0 -12 414 -12 -114 0 0 2. Medium DensityResidential DU 10] 866 92 ]44 92 744 -15 -122 -15 -122 0 0 3. Hi M1 Densil Residential DU 24 160 121 805 121 805 97 fi45 97 645 0 0 B. General Commercial TSF 2 10] 6 320 6 320 4 213 4 213 0 0 10. Lem TSF 19] 1,373 185 1.289 185 1,289 -12 84 -12 -84 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 2,620 3,158 3.158 538 5351 1 0 Stantec Consulting December 21, 2015 Costa Mesa Traffic Model Land Use and ADT Trip Generation Summary Zone Land Use Cana o Units Exist no Amount a ADT 2035 Current General Plan fbl Amount ADT 2035 Proposed General Plan c) Amount ADT flat minus Amount a ADT Difference e minus Amount fm ADT c minus b Amount ADT 164 3.High Density Residential DU 0 0 27 180 27 180 27 160 27 180 0 0 10. Light Industrial TSF 591 4,119 281 1,959 281 1.959 -310 -2,160 -310 -2,160 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 4.119 2,139 2,139 -1.980 -1.980 0 165 1. Low Deport, Residential DU 3 29 0 0 0 0 -3 -29 -3 -29 0 0 2, Mai Domait, Residential DU 176 1,424 Ili 1,383 171 1,383 .5 -41 -5 -41 0 0 3,High Densit Residential DU 0 0 19 126 19 126 19 126 19 126 0 0 10. Li tit lndushial TSF 301 2,098 147 1.025 147 1,025 -154 -1,073 -154 -1,073 0 0 17. Storage TSF fib 165 13 33 13 33 -53 -132 -53 -132 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 3,716 2,567 2,567 -1.149 -1.149 0 166 1, Low Density Residential DU 1 5 48 0 0 0 0 -5 -48 -5 -48 0 0 3,High Density Residential DU 5 33 69 459 69 459 64 426 64 426 0 0 -5, Age Camille tl Housing DU 185 636 185 636 185 636 0 0 0 0 0 0 10. Light lndushial TSF 271 1,889 169 1.178 169 11178 -102 411 402 411 0 0 15, Public Facility Acre 3 6 3 6 3 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 26. Vacant Acre 3 0 0 0 0 0 -3 0 -3 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 2,612 2,279 2,279 -333 -333 0 167 3.Hi h Donafty Residential DU 23 153 41 273 41 273 18 120 18 120 0 0 6. General Once TSF 7 T] 0 0 0 0 -7 47 -7 -77 0 0 B. General Commercial TSF 56 2.984 117 6,234 117 6,234 61 3,250 fit 3,250 0 0 10. Light Industrial TSF 1 7 0 0 0 0 -1 -7 -1 -7 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 3.221 6,W] 6,507 3,286 3,286 1 0 168 1. Low Density Residential DU 4 38 171 162 17 1621 13 124 13 124 0 0 3. High Density Residential DU 2 13 351 233 35 233 33 2201 33 220 0 0 6. General Office TSF i] 188 17 188 17 188 0 0 0 0 0 0 B. General Commercial TSF 13 693 35 1.865 35 1,865 22 1,172 22 1,172 0 0 15. Public Facility Acre 3 6 3 6 3 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Religious Facility TSF 4 36 0 36 4 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 974 2.490 2.490 11516 1,516 0 169 1. Low Density Residential OU 31 295 159 1,514 159 1.514 128 1,219 128 1,219 0 0 2. Medium Density Residential DU 42 340 106 858 106 858 64 518 64 518 0 0 3.Hi h Dumb, Residential DU 267 1,776 369 2.454 369 2.454 102 678 102 678 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 2,411 4,826 4,826 2,415 2,415 0 170 11. Low Dei Residential I DU 20 190 97 923 97 923 77 733 77 733 0 0 2. Medium Density Residential DU 37 299 109 8821 1091 882 72 583 72 583 0 0 3.High Densit Residential DU 255I ,6961 51] 3,438 517 3.438 262 1,742 262 1,742 0 0 6. General Office TSF ] 77 ] 77 ] P 0 0 0 0 0 0 20. Convalescent Care Bed I out Zlil 80 213 80 "JI Ul Ul 0 0 0 0 SUBTOTAL 2.475 5,533 5,5331 1 3,0581 3,058 0 171 3. High Density Residential DU 36] 2.441 434 2,886 434 2,886 671 4451 67 445 0 0 Stantec Consu01n9 December2t 2015 Costa Mesa Traffic Model Land Use and ADT Trip Generation Summary Zone Land Use Late o Units Exist no Amount ADT 2035 Current General Plan b Amount I ADT 2035 Proposed General Plan c Amount ADT b minus Amount a ADT Difference loos Amount ADT c minus b Amount ADT SUB -TOTAL 2,441 1 2,886 2,886 445 445 0 172 L Low Density Residential DU 28 267 34 324 34 324 6 57 6 57 0 0 3. High Density Residential DU 182 1,210 306 2.035 306 2,035 124 825 124 825 0 0 27. Religious Facility TSF 4 36 4 36 4 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 1.513 2.395 2,395 882 882 0 173 2. Medium Density Residential DU 49 396 49 396 49 396 0 0 0 0 0 6 3. High Density Residential DU 0 0 6 40 6 40 6 40 6 40 0 0 B. General Commercial TSF 8 426 6 320 6 320 -2 -106 -2 -106 0 0 10. Light lndusldal TSF 170 1.185 90 627 90 627 -80 -558 -80 .558 0 0 17. Storage TSF 1 48 120 19 48 19 48 -29 -72 -29 -72 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 2,127 1,431 1,431 -696 -696 0 174 3,High Disonty Residential DU 01 01 60 399 60 399 60 399 60 399 0 0 B. Geral Commercial TSF 73 3,889 120 6.394 120 6,394 47 2505 47 2.505 0 0 10. Light Industrial TSF 79 551 39 2]2 39 272 -40 -279 -40 -279 0 0 17. Storage TSF 11 28 18 45 18 45 7 17 7 17 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 4,468 7,110 7,110 2,642 2,642 0 175 3.High Density Residential DU 0 0 51 339 51 339 51 339 51 339 0 0 B. General Commercial TSF 1 53 2 10> 2 1W 1 54 1 54 0 0 10. Light Industrial TSF 642 4,475 320 2.230 320 2.230 -322 -2.245 -322 -2.245 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 4,528 2,676 2.676 -1,852 -1,852 0 176 3.High Density Residential DU 22 146 221 1,4701 2211 1,470 199 1,324 199 1.324 0 0 B. General Commercial TSF 0 0 18 959 18 959 18 959 18 959 0 0 10. Light Industrial TSF 150 1,046 112 781 112 781 -38 .265 -38 -265 0 0 28. Vacant Acre 1 01 0 0 0 0 -1 0 -1 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 1.192 3,210 3,210 2.018 2.018 0 177 B. General Commercial TSF 17 906 29 1.545 29 1,545 12 639 12 639 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 906 1,545 1.545 639 639 0 178 3.High Density Residential DU 0 0 8 53 8 53 8 53 8 53 0 0 B. General Commercial TSF 41 2.184 0 0 0 0 -41 -2,184 -41 -2.184 0 0 10. Light Industrial TSF 12 84 0 0 0 0 -12 -84 -12 -84 0 0 23. Motel Room 137 771 137 771 137 771 0 0 0 0 0 0 24. Auto DealeShi TSF 4 129 4 129 4 129 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 3,168 953i 953 -2,215 -2.215 0 Stantec Consulting December 21, 2015 Costa Mesa Traffic Model Land Use and ADT Trip Generation Summary Zone Land Use Catenor, Units Exist no Amount a ADT 2035 Current General Plan (Ill Amount ADT 2035 Proposed General Plan c Amount ADT IN minus Am aunt a ADT Difference c minus a Amount ADT c minus b Amount ADT 179 2. Medium Densi Residential DO 122 987 122 987 122 987 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. High DensityResidential DO 0 0 73 485 73 485 73 465 73 485 0 0 8. General Commercial TSF 77 4,103 104 5,541 104 51541 27 1.438 27 1.438 0 0 10. Light Industral TSF 104 725 54 376 54 376 -50 .349 -50 -349 0 0 17. Storage TSF 216 540 36 90 36 90 -180 -450 -180 -450 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 6,355 ],4]9 7,479 1,124 1,124 0 180 10. Light Industrial TSF 760 5.297 762 5,311 762 5,311 2 14 2 14 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 5,297 5,311 5,311 14 14 0 181 10. Li ht lndusNal TSF 1,073 7,479 1,089 7,590 1,089 7,590 16 111 16 111 0 0 28. Vacant Acre 2 0 0 0 0 0 -2 0 -2 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 7,479 7,590 7,590 111 I 111 0 182 10. Light Industrial TSF 278 11938 303 2,112 303 2.112 25 174 25 174 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 1,938 2,112 2,112 174 174 0 183 10. Light Industrial TSF 429 2,990 546 3,806 546 3,806 117 816 117 816 0 0 SUBTOTAL 2.990 3,806 3,806 816 816 0 184 3,High Density Residential OU 0 0 240 1,596 240 1,596 240 1,596 240 1,596 0 0 10. Light lndusUVa1 TSF 842 5,869 881 6,141 881 6.141 39 272 39 272 0 0 SUBTOTAL 5,869 7,737 7,737 11868 1,868 0 185 10. Light Industrial TSF 727 5.067 727 5.067 727 5,067 0 0 0 0 0 0 27. Rairgmus Facility TSF 77 701 77 701 771 7011 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUBTOTAL 5,768 5.768 1 5,7681 0 0 0 186 B. General Commemial TSF 73 3,889 73 3.889 73 31889 0 0 0 0 0 0 10. Light Industrial TSF 559 3,896 559 3,896 559 3,896 0 0 0 0 0 0 28. Vacant Acre 6 0 6 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 7,785 ],]85 7,785 0 0 0 187 B. General Commercial TSF 13 693 19 1,012 19 1,012 6 319 6 319 0 0 10. Light Industrial TSF 826 5.757 967 6,740 967 6,740 141 983 141 983 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 6,450 7,752 7.752 1.302 1,302 0 188 1. Low Densi Residential DO 1 10 1 10 1 10 0 0 0 0 01 0 2. Medium Density Residential DU 21 170 21 170 21 170 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.High Density Residential DU 104 692 104 692 104 692 0 0 0 0 0 0 6. General OfficeTSF 60 662 59 651 59 651 -1 -11 -1 -11 D 0 B. General Commercial TSF 5 266 46 2,451 O61 2.4511 41 2,185 41 2,185 0 0 9. "mage TSF I 97 243 97 243 97 243 u 0 0 0 0 0 23. Motel Room 1 120 676 120 676 lzul 6,bl 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 1 2.719 4.8931 1 4.8931 2,174 2,174 0 Stantec Consulting December 21, 2015 Costa Mesa Traffic Model Land Use and ADT Trip Generation Summary Zone Land Use Cate o Units Exist n Amount AOT 2035 Current General Plan b Amount ADT 2035 Proposed General Plan c) Amount ADT led m Amount rnus ADT Difference Amount inns ADT c minus Amount b ADT 189 S. General Commercial TSF 148 7,885 153 8.152 153 8,152 5 267 5 267 0 0 15. Public Facility Acre 1 2 1 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 22. Hotel Room 284 2.320 284 2,320 284 2,320 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 10,207 10,474 10,474 267 267 0 190 1. Low Density Residential DU 14 133 14 133 14 133 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Medium Density Residential DU 21 170 21 170 21 170 0 0 0 0 0 0 11. Golf Course Acre 130 655 130 655 130 655 0 0 0 0 0 0 is. Public F.Wity Acre 2 4 2 4 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 962 962 962 0 0 0 191 11. GOIf Course Acre 1 251 126 25 126 25126 0 0 0 01 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 126 126 126 0 0 0 192 1 L.DerstyRadidential OU 2 19 2 19 2 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Medium Density Residential OU 3 24 3 24 3 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.High Density Residential DU 97 645 99 658 210 1,397 2 13 113 752 111 739 6. General Office TSF 7 77 0 0 0 0 4 -77 -7 -77 0 0 B. General Commercial TSF 40 2,131 16 852 12 639 -24 -1,279 -28 -1,492 -4 -213 17. Storage TSF 11 28 0 0 0 0 -11 -28 -11 -28 0 0 23. Motel Room 131 738 131 738 97 546 0 0 -34 .192 -34 492 SUB -TOTAL 3,662 2.291 2.625 -11371 -1,037 334 193 1. Low Density Residential OU 22 2091 22 209 221 209 0 0 0 0 01 0 2. Medium DansiW Residential DU 19 154 19 154 19 164 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.High Density Residential OU 154 1,024 157 1,0441 157 1,044 3 20 3 20 0 0 15. Public Facility Acre 1 2 1 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 20. Convalescent Care Bed 112 298 112 298 112 298 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 1,687 1,707 1,707 20 20 0 194 1. Low Density Residential DU 141 1,342 141 1.342 141 1,342 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Medium Density Residential DU 21 170 21 170 21 170 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.High Density Residential DU 123 818 131 871 131 871 8 53 8 53 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 2.330 2,383 2.383 53 53 0 195 2. Medium Density Residential DU 54 437 57 461 57 461 3 24 3 24 0 0 13. Hi h School Student 18 31 18 31 18 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 468 492 492 24 24 0 Stantec Consulting December21.2015 Costa Mesa Traffic Model Land Use and ADT Trip Generation Summary Zone Land Use Catmor,r Units Exist do Amount ADT 2035 Current General Plan b Amount ADT 2035 Proposed General Plan c Amount ADT b minus Amount a ADT Difference minus Amount a ADT c Mnps Amount I b ADT 196 1.1 -ow Oensi Residential DU 10 95 10 95 10 95 0 0 0 0 Ol 0 2. Medium Density Residential DU 87 704 65 526 65 526 -22 -178 -22 -118 0 0 3. High Density Residential DU 97 645 122 811 109 725 25 166 12 80 -13 -Bfi 6. General Office TSF 5 55 5 55 5 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 B. General Commercial TSF 66 3.516 25 1,332 25 1.332 -41 -2.184 -41 -2.184 0 0 20. Convalescent Care Bed 137 364 13 364 137 364 0 0 0 0 0 0 23. Motel Room 58 327 58 327 0 0 0 0 -58 -327 -58 -327 SUB -TOTAL 5,706 3.510 3.097 -2,196 -2.609 -413 197 1. Low Dersityr Residential DU 23 219 23 219 23 219 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Medium Denali,Residential DU 15 121 15 121 15 121 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. High Density Residential DU 196 1,303 199 1,323 199 1,3231 3 20 3 20 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 1,643 1.663 1,663 20 20 0 198 1. Low Density Residentlal DU 132 1,257 132 1.257 132 1.257 0 0 01 0 0 0 2. Medium Density Residential DU 11 89 11 89 11 89 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. High Density Residential DU 139 924 149 991 149 991 10 67 10 67 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 2.270 2,337 2.337 67 67 0 199 1. Low Dens,Residential DU 13 124 13 124 13 124 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Medium Density Residential DU 29 235 29 235 29 235 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. HihDensi Residential DU 174 1,15] 198 1,317 198 1,317 24 160 24 160 0 0 B. General Commercial TSF 45 2.398 33 1,758 33 1.758 -12 -640 -12 -640 0 0 10. Light industrial TSF 1 ] 1 ] 1 ] 0 0 0 0 01 0 17. Storage TSF 15 38 15 38 15 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 23. Motel Roc. 58 327 58 327 58 327 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 4.286 3,806 3,806 -480 480 0 200 1. Low Density Residential DU 30 286 30 286 30 286 0 D 01 0 0 0 2, Medium Density Residentlal DU 5 40 5 40 5 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. High Density Residential DU 200 1,330 203 1.350 203 1,350 3 20 3 20 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 1.656 1,676 1,676 20 20 0 201 1, Law Density Residential DU 152 1.447 152 1,447 152 1,447 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Metlium Density Residential DU 27 218 27 218 27 218 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. High Density Residential DU 5 33 5 33 5 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 25. Passive Par, Acre 3 6 3 6 3 6 0 0 0 ul u 0 SUB -TOTAL 1]04 1,704 1,704 0 01 1 202 1. Low Donsit, Residential DU 13 124 13 124 1311 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Medium Density Residentlal DU 21 170 21 170 21 170 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.Hi hDensi Residential DU 245 1.629 245 1,629 245 1.629 u 0 0 0 0 0 13. HihSehool Student ld 280 180 Judi 1uul 308 16 28 tfi 28 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 2.203 2,231 2,231 28 28 0 Standee Consulting December 21, 2015 Costa Mesa Traffic Model Land Use and ADT Trip Generation Summary Zone Land Use Category Units Existln Amount ADT 2035 Current General Plan (In Amount ADT 2035 Proposed General Plan c Amount ADT b minus Amount a ADT Difference c minus a Amount ADT c minus Amount flat ADT 203 1. Low Density Residential DU 32 305 32 305 32 305 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Medium Density Residential DU 201 1,626 201 1.626 201 1,626 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. High Density Residential DU 155 "031 158 11051 158 11051 3 20 3 20 0 0 15. Public Fadlity Acre 1 2 1 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 2,964 2,984 2,984 20 20 0 204 1. Low Density Residential DU 13 124 13 124 13 124 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Medium Density Residential DU 3 24 3 24 3 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. High Density Residential DU 270 1,796 270 1,796 270 1,796 0 0 0 0 0 0 B. General Commercial TSF 22 1.172 22 1,172 22 1,172 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 3,116 3,116 3,116 0 0 0 205 1. Low Density Residential DU 11 105 11 105 11 105 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Medium Density Residential DU 1 ) 57 71 57 71 57 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. High Density Residential DU 46 306 58 386 58 386 12 80 12 80 0 0 SUBTOTAL 468 548 548 80 80 0 206 1. Low Density Residential DU 58 552 56 533 56 533 -2 -19 -2 -19 0 0 2. Medium Density Residential DU 9 73 9 73 9 73 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. High Density Residential DU 21 140 27 180 27 180 6 40 6 40 0 0 SUBTOTAL 765 786 786 21 21 0 207 1. Low Density Residential DU 2 19 2 19 2 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Medium Density Residential DU 5 401 5 40 5 40 0 0 0 0 Or 0 3. Hi h Density Residential DU 127 845 127 845 127 845 0 0 0 0 0 0 B. General Commercial TSF 32 1.705 32 1,705 32 1,7051 0 0 0 0 0 0 SU&TOTAL 2.609 2,609 2.6091 0 0 0 208 i. Low Density Residential DU 35 333 35 333 35 333 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Medium Dendit, Residential DU 15 121 15 121 15 121 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. Hi h Density Residential DU 72 479 72 479 72 479 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUBTOTAL 933 933 933 0 0 0 209 1. Low Density Residential DU 60 571 60 571 60 571 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Medium Density Residential DU 3 24 3 24 3 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. High Density Residential DU 8 53 18 120 18 120 10 67 10 67 0 0 25. Passive Park Acre 9 17 9 17 9 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 665 732 732 67 6) 0 210 1. Low Density Residential DU 15 143 15 143 15 143 0 01 01 0 0 0 2. Medium Density Residential DU ) 57 ] 57 ] 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. High DensityResidential DU 85 565 87 579 87 5)9 2 14 2 14 0 0 B. General Commercial TSF 30 1.5911 30 1,598 30 "598 0 0 0 0 0 0 23. Motel Room 310 1,745 310 1,)45 Ol Ol 0 0 -310 -1.745 310 -1,745 2). mi ions Facili TSF 101 911 10 911 101 911 0 0 ul 0 0 0 SU&TOTAL 1 1 4,1991 1 4.2131 1 2,4681 14 1 -1,131 4,)45 Started Consulting December 21, 2015 Costa Mesa Traffic Model Land Use and ADT Trip Generation Summary Zone Land Use Caterer, Units Existin Amount a ADT 2035 Current General Plan b Amount ADT 2035 Proposed General Plan c Amount ADT b m' nus Amount a ADT Difference c m Amount it ADT c minus Amount b ADT 211 1, Low Canon, Residential DU 33 314 33 314 33 314 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Medium Dureft, Residential DU 49 396 49 396 49 396 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.High Density Residential DU 86 572 86 572 86 572 0 0 0 0 0 0 13. High School Student 9 15 9 15 9 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 1,297 1,297 1.297 0 0 0 212 1. Low Density Residential DU 156 1.504 158 1.504 158 11504 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Medium Density Residential DU 10 81 10 81 10 81 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. High Dernetv Residential OU 42 279 48 319 48 319 6 40 6 40 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 1,864 1,904 1.904 40 40 0 213 1. Low Density Residential DU 13 124 13 124 13 124 0 0 0 0 0 0 2, Medium Density Residential DU 8 65 8 65 8 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.High Densit Residential OU 121 805 133 884 133 884 12 79 12 79 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 994 1,073 1.073 79 79 0 214 1, Low Density Residential DU 25 238 25 238 25 238 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 238 238 238 0 0 0 215 1. Low Density Residential DU 29 276 29 276 29 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.High Density Residential DU 223 1.483 223 1.483 451 2,999 0 0 228 1.516 228 11516 B. General Commercial TSF 50 2.664 6 320 6 320 -44 -2,344 -44 -2,344 0 0 10. Light Industrial TSF 11 ]] 11 Y] 11 ]] 0 0 0 0 01 0 23, Motel Room 51 287 51 287 0 0 0 0 -51 -287 -51 -287 SUB -TOTAL 1 4.7871 1 2.443 1 3.672 -2,344 -11115 1,229 216 1. Low Density Residential DU 24 228 24 228 24 228 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Medium Densi Residential DU 4 32 4 32 4 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.High Density Residential DU 202 1.343 220 1,463 220 1.463 18 120 18 120 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 1.603 1.723 1,723 120 120 0 217 1. Law Density Residential DU 162 1.542 162 1.542 162 1,542 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Medium Density Residential OU 14 113 14 113 14 113 0 0 0 0 0 0 I High Density Residential DU 35 233 41 273 41 273 6 40 6 40 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 11888 1,928 1.928 40 40 0 218 11. Lary Densib, Residential DU 46 438 46 438 46 438 0 0 0 0 01 0 2. Medium Den try Residential DU 98 793 98 793 98 793 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.Hi h0ensi Resitlential DU 22 146 22 146 22 146 0 0 0 0 0 0 12. Elements (Middle School Stutlenl 618 ]9] 680 8]] 680 877 62 80 62 80 0 0 25. Passive Park Acre 2 4 2 4 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 1 2.116 2,25ul 1 2,258 80 I 80 0 Stanteo Consulting December 21. 2015 Costa Mesa Traffic Model Land Use and ADT Trip Generation Summary Zone Land Use Category Units Exis no Amount I lalGeneral ADT 2035 Current Plan fbl Amount ADT 2035 Proposed General Plan c Anemot ADT b urious Amount ADT Difference c minus Amount a ADT c minus Amount b ADT 220 1. Low Density Residential DU 45 428 45 428 45 428 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Medium Density Resitlential DU 36 291 36 291 36 291 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.High Density Residential DU 252 1.676 274 1,822 274 1.022 22 146 22 146 0 0 12. Elements rAddle School Student 498 642 548 707 548 707 50 65 50 65 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 3.037 3,248 3.248 211 211 D 221 1. Low Density Residential DU 91 866 91 866 91 866 0 0 0 0 0 D 2. Medium Donsit, Residential DU 36 291 36 291 36 291 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 1.15] 1,15] 1.157 0 0 0 222 1, Low Density Residential DU 40 381 40 381 40 381 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Medium Density Residential DU 114 922 114 922 114 922 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. High Density Residential DU 40 266 47 313 47 3131 7 47 71 47 0 0 5.A a Qualified Housing DU 50 172 50 172 50 172 0 0 0 0 0 6 8. General COmmerciel TSF 8 426 0 0 0 0 -8 -426 -8 426 0 0 23. Motel Room 62 349 62 349 62 349 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 2,516 2,137 2.137 -379 -379 0 223 1. Low Density Residential DU 12 114 12 114 12 114 0 0 0 0 0 6 2. Medium Density Residential DU 3 24 3 24 3 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.High Density Residential DU 232 1.543 235 1,563 235 1.563 3 20 3 20 0 0 B. General Commercial TSF 15 799 15 799 15 799 0 0 0 0 0 0 17. Stour a TSF 47 118 47 118 47 118 0 0 0 0 0 0 27. Religious Facility TSF 9 82 9 82 9 82 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 2,680 2,700 2.700 20 20 0 224 1. Lox Density Residential DU 166 1.500 166 11580 1661 1.5801 0 01 01 0 0 0 2. Medium Density Residential DU 6 49 6 49 6 49 0 0 0 0 0 0 I High Density Residential DU 34 226 61 406 61 406 27 180 27 180 0 0 13. Hi n School Student 29 5a 29 50 29 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 1.905 2,085 2.085 180 180 0 225 L Lox Density Residential DU 39 371 37 352 37 352 -2 49 -2 -19 0 0 2. Medium Density Residential DU 4 32 4 32 4 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. Hi,h Density Resitlential DU 63 419 65 432 387 2,574 2 13 324 2,155 322 2.142 6, General Office TSF 4 44 2 22 2 22 .2 -22 -2 -22 0 0 B. General Commercial TSF 45 2,398 57 3,03] 17 906 12 639 -28 -1692 -40 -2.131 10. Li Mintlusbial TSF 4 28 4 28 4 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 27. Reli ious Facili TSF 4 36 4 36 4 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 3.328 3.939 3.950 611 622 11 226 1. Low Density Residential DU 52 495 52 495 52 495 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. Hi M1 Densit Resitlential DU 32 213 36 239 36 239 4 26 4 26 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 1 708 1 734 (Ml I Zbl I 26 0 Slantec Consulting December 21, 2015 Costa Mesa Traffic Model Land Use and ADT Trip Generation Summary Zone Land Use Cate o Units Exist ng Amount ADT 2035 Current General Plan b Amount ADT 2035 Proposed General Plan c Amount ADT b mloos Amount ADT Difference c m Amount tnus ADT c minus b Amount I ADT 227 1. Low Unni Residential DU 73 695 73 695 73 695 0 0 0 0 01 0 2. Medium Density Residential DU 21 170 21 170 21 170 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. High Density Residential DU 59 392 69 459 69 459 10 67 10 67 0 0 27. Religious Facility TSF 5a 492 54 492 54 492 0 0 0 0 0 0 28. Vacant Acre 1 0 0 0 0 0 -1 0 -1 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 1.749 1,816 1.816 67 67 0 228 1. Low Density Residential DU 116 1,104 116 1,104 116 1,104 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Medium Density Residential DU 20 162 20 162 20 162 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. High Density Residential DU 16 106 16 106 16 106 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 1.372 1,372 1,372 0 0 0 229 1. Low DensityResidential DU 116 1,104 116 1.104 116 1,104 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 1,104 1.104 1,104 0 0 0 230 LLow DensityResidential DU 9 86 9 86 9 86 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Medium DensityResidential DU 5 40 5 40 5 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 I High DensityResidential DU 22 146 24 160 24 160 2 14 2 14 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 272 286 286 14 14 0 231 1. Low Density Residential OU 24 228 24 228 24 228 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Medium Density Residential DU 16 129 16 129 16 129 0 0 0 0 0 0 I High Density Residential DU 24 160 24 160 24 160 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 517 517 517 0 0 l 0 232 1 Law Density Resitlentlal DU 1 39 371 39 371 39 3711 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Medium Density Residential DU 8 65 8 65 8 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,H1 h Density Residential DU 21 131 2 13 2 13 0 01 01 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 449 449 449 0 0 0 233 1. Low Density Residen0al DU 40 381 40 381 40 381 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 381 381 381 0 0 0 234 3,High Density Residential DU 6 40 6 40 6 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 6. General Office TSF 9 99 9 99 9 99 0 0 0 0 0 0 B. General Commemial TSF 42 2,238 54 2,877 54 2.877 12 639 12 639 0 0 SUBTOTAL 2,377 3,016 3,016 639 639 0 235 11. Low Density Residential DU 20 190 20 190 20 190 0 0 0 0 0 0 2, Medium Density Residential i OU 12 97 12 97 12 97 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. H1 h Densi Residential DU 71 472 86 572 86 572 15 100 15 100 0 0 B. General Commercial TSF 8 426 8 42bj 81 42bi 0 0 0 SUBTOTAL 1 i'lU51 .285 1,2851 100 0 Standee Consulting December21,2015 Costa Mesa Traffic Model Land Use and ADT Trip Generation Summary Zone Land Use Call Units E.I.t rpi Amount a ADT 2035 Current General Plan b Amount ADT 2035 Proposed General Plan c Amount ADT b minus Amount a ADT Difference gnus Amount ADT minus b AmountADT 236 1. Low Detroit, Residential DU 62 590 62 590 62 590 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Medium Density Residential DU 2 16 2 16 2 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. High Density Residential DU 62 412 62 412 62 412 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 1,018 11018 1,018 0 0 0 237 B. General Commercial TSF 67 3,570 87 4,635 87 4,635 20 1,065 20 1.065 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 3,570 4,635 4,635 1,065 1,065 0 238 1. Low Density Residential DU 14 133 14 133 14 133 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Medium Donsit, Residential DU 14 113 14 113 14 113 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. Hi b Densitv Residential DU 120 798 128 851 128 851 8 53 8 53 0 0 6, General Office TSF 1 6 66 6 66 6 661 0 0 0 0 0 0 B. General Commercial TSF 3 160 3 160 3 160 0 01 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 1,270 1 1,323 1,323 53 53 0 239 1. Low Density Residential DU 76 724 76 724 76 724 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Medium Density Residential DU 1 8 1 8 1 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. High Denely Residential DU 37 246 37 246 37 246 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUBTOTAL 978 978 978 0 0 0 240 2, Medium Density Residential DU 32 259 32 259 32 259 0 0 0 0 0 0 8. General Commercial TSF 49 2,611 85 4,529 85 4,529 36 11918 36 11918 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 21870 4,788 4,788 1,918 1,918 0 241 1. Low Deceit, Residen0a1 DU 21 200 21 200 21 200 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Medium Density Residential DU 1 10 81 10 81 101 Bit 0 0 01 0 0 0 3. High Density Residential DU 221 1,470 225 1,496 225 1,496 4 26 4 26 0 5 6. General Office TSF 5 551 51 55 5 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 B. General Commercial TSF 4 213 4 213 4 213 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 2,019 2,045 2,045 26 26 0 242 1. Low Density Residential DU 23 219 21 200 21 200 -2 -19 -2 -19 0 0 2. Medium Density Residential OU 6 49 10 81 10 81 4 32 4 32 0 0 3. High Density Residential OU 43 286 227 11510 227 11510 184 1,224 184 1.224 0 0 6. General Otfce TSF 34 375 31 342 31 342 .3 -33 -3 -33 0 0 S. General Commemiel TSF 2 107 10 533 10 533 8 426 8 426 0 0 27. Religious Facility TSF 8 73 8 73 8 73 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 1,109 2,739 2,739 1,630 1.630 0 243 1. Low Densi Residantlal DU1 10 95 10 95 10 95 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. HighDensi Resitlential DU 205 1,363 205 1,363 205 1,363 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 1.4581 1,458 1 1,45HI 01 1 0 0 Stantec Consulting December 21, 2015 Costa Mesa Traffic Model Land Use and ADT Trip Generation Summary Zone Land Use Categog Units Existin Amount I ADT 2035 Current General Plan b Amount ADT 2035 Proposed General Plan c Amount ADT b alin Amount 1.1 ADT Difference to)minas a Amount ADT c minus b Amount I ADT 244 1. Low Density Residential DU 6 9 6 57 6 57 0 0 0 0 01 0 6. General Office TSF 6 66 5 55 5 55 -1 -11 -1 -11 01 0 B. General Commercial TSF 90 4,795 135 7.193 135 7.193 45 2,398 45 2,398 0 0 10. Light Industrial TSF 2 14 2 14 2 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 4,932 7.319 7.319 2,387 2,387 0 245 B. General Commercial TSF 175 9,324 181 9.644 181 9,644 6 320 6 320 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 9,324 9.644 9,644 320 320 0 246 1. Low Densitv Residential DU 75 714 75 714 75 714 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Medium Density Residential DU 2 16 2 16 2 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. High Density Residential DU 30 200 30 200 30 200 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 930 930 930 0 1 0 0 247 1. Low Density Residential DU 80 762 80 762 80 762 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Medium Density Residential DU 4 32 4 32 4 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 790 794 794 0 0 0 248 1. Low Density Residential DU 59 562 59 562 59 562 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Medium Dens,Residential DU 14 113 14 113 14 113 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.High Density Residential DU 27 180 31 206 31 206 4 26 4 26 0 0 13. High School Student 10 9 10 17 10 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 27. Religious Facility TSF ] 64 ] 64 ] 64 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 9361 962 962 26 26 0 249 1. Low Density Residential DU 75 714 75 714 75 714 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Medium Densicy Residential DU 8 65 8 65 8 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 I High Density Residential DU 2 13 2 13 21 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 792 792 792 0 0 0 250 1. Low Density Residential DU 32 305 32 305 32 305 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Medium Density Residential DU 8 65 8 65 8 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 I High DenisResidential DU 271 11802 280 1,862 280 1.862 9 60 9 60 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 2.172 2,232 2,232 60 60 0 251 1. Low Density Residential DU 82 781 82 781 82 781 0 0 0 01 0 0 I High Density Residential DU 21 13 4 27 4 27 2 14 2 141 0 0 25, Passive P.M Acre 91 17 9 ll 9 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUBTOTAL 8111 825 825 14 14 0 252 1 High Density Residential DU 22 146 221 146 22 146 0 0 0 0 0 0 S. General Commercial TSF 85 4,529 131 6,980 131 S. M 46 2.451 46 2.451 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 4,675 ].126 ],126 2.451 2.451 0 253 B. General Commercial TSF 96 51115 1211 6.441 1211 6,447 251 1,3321 25 1,332 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 5,115 1 6,447 6.44Il I 1.332 1,332 0 Stouter, Consulting December 21.2015 Costa Mesa Traffic Model Land Use and ADT Trip Generation Summary Zone Land Use Cate o Units Exist ing Amount ADT 2035 Current General Plan b Amount ADT 2035 Proposed General Plan c Amount ADT b minus Amount a ADT Difference c m Amount on ADT c minus b Amount ADT 254 1. Low Density Residential DU 1 10 0 0 0 0 .1 -10 .1 -10 0 0 3. High Density Residential DU 58 386 59 392 59 392 1 6 1 6 0 0 ]. Medical Office TSF 76 2,746 76 2,746 76 2.746 0 0 0 0 0 0 B. General Commercial TSF 106 5,648 175 9,324 175 9.324 69 3,676 69 3.676 0 0 17. Storage TSF 22 55 22 55 22 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUBTOTAL 8,845 12,517 12,517 3,672 3.672 0 255 8, General Commercial TSF 76 4,049 158 8,418 158 8,418 82 4,369 82 4,369 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 4,049 8,418 8,418 4,369 4,369 0 256 1. Low DensityResidents l DU ] 67 7 67 7 67 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Medium DensityResidential DU 2 16 2 16 3 24 0 0 1 8 1 8 3. High DensityResidential DU 140 931 142 944 144 958 2 13 4 27 2 14 SUB -TOTAL 1,014 1,027 1.049 13 35 22 257 8. General Commercial TSF 104 5,541 123 6,553 123 6.553 19 1,012 19 1,012 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 5,541 6,553 6.553 1,012 1.012 0 258 1, Low Denali,Residential DU 5 48 5 48 5 48 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. High DensityResidential DU 142 944 145 964 145 964 3 20 3 20 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 992 1,012 1.012 20 20 0 259 6. General Commercial TSF 117 6,23Pli 140 7,459 140 7,459 23 1,225 23 1,225 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 6,234 7,459 1 7,459 1,225 1,225 1 0 260 1 Low Density Residential DU 3 29 3 29 3 29 0 0 01 0 0 0 2, Medium Density Residential DU 8 65 8 65 8 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. High Density Residential DU 56 372 56 372 56 372 0 0 0 0 0 0 25. Passive Park Acre 3 6 3 6 3 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 472 472 472 0 0 0 261 1, Low Density Residential DU 35 333 35 333 35 333 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Medium Density Residential DU 45 364 45 364 45 364 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. High Density Residential DU 89 592 113 751 113 751 24 159 24 159 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 1,289 1,448 1,448 159 159 0 262 3, Hip Dai Residential DU 81 531 8 531 8 53 0 0 0 01 0 0 B. General Commercial TSF ]246 182 9,69] 182 9,69] 46 2,451 46 2,451 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 7299 9]509,750 2,451 2,451 0 263 1. Low Densi ResidentialDU 1,295 136 1,295 136 1,295 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Metlium Densi ResitlenGal DU ]136 16 2 16 2 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. Hi h Densi Residential DU 166 25 166 25 166 0 0 01 l 0 Il SUB -TOTAL 1.477 1,477 1,4]] 1 0 0 0 Starter, Consulting December 21, 2015 Costa Mesa Traffic Model Land Use and ADT Trip Generation Summary Zane Land Use Calegor,r Units Exist ng Amount I ADT 2035 Current General Plan b Amount ADT 2035 Proposed General Plan let Amount AOT (b)minus Amount a) ADT Difference (.1 it Amount a ADT c minus Amount b ADT 264 1. Low Density Residential DU 1 10 1 10 1 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 B. General Commemial TSF 42 2,238 59 3,144 59 3,144 17 906 17 906 0 0 10. Light lndustral TSF 2 14 3 21 3 21 1 7 1 7 0 0 SUBTOTAL 2,262 3,1]5 3.175 913 913 0 265 1. Low Density Residential OU 97 923 97 923 97 923 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Medium Density Residential OU 39 316 39 316 39 316 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. High Basalt, Residential DU 169 1,124 185 1,230 185 1,230 16 106 16 106 0 0 13. High School Student 19 32 0 0 0 0 -19 -32 -19 -32 0 0 25. Passive Park Acre 3 6 3 6 3 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 2,401 2,475 2,475 74 74 0 266 1, Low Density Residential DU ]] 733 77 733 77 733 0 0 01 0 0 0 2. Medium Density Residential DU 29 235 29 235 291 235 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. High Density Residential DU 83 552 113 751 113 751 30 199 30 199 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 1.520 1,719 1,719 199 199 0 271 25. Passive Padr Acre 56 106 56 106 56 106 0 0 0 0 0 5 SUB -TOTAL 106 106 106 0 0 0 272 13. High School Student 1,311 2,242 1,442 2,466 1,442 2,466 131 224 131 224 0 0 SUBTOTAL 2,242 2,466 2,466 224 224 0 273 1 High Density Residential DU 0 01 108 718 108 718 108 718 108 718 at 0 B. General Commercial TSF 63 3,357 62 3,303 62 3.303 -1 -54 -1 -54 0 0 10. Light Industrial TSF 49 342 39 272 39 272 -10 -70 -10 -70 0 0 SUBTOTAL 3,699 4.293 4,293 594 1 594 0 274 1 High Density Residential DU 0 0 169 1,124 166 1.104 169 1,124 166 1,104 -3 -20 6. General Office TSF 51 563 125 1,379 125 1,3]9 74 816 74 816 0 0 B. General Commercial TSF 53 2,824 66 3,516 66 3.516 13 692 13 692 0 0 10. Light Industrial TSF 27 188 17 118 1] 118 -10 -70 -10 -70 0 0 SUB -TOTAL 3,575 6,137 6,11] 2,562 2.542 -20 275 S. General Commercial TSF 15 799 20 1.066 2p 1.066 5 267 5 267 0 0 SUB -TOTAL i 799 1,066 1,O6fi 267 267 0 Stantec Consulting December 21. 2015 Costa Mesa Traffic Model Land Use and ADT Trip Generation Summary Zone Land Use Cate o Units Exist no Amount a ADT 20035 Current General Plan b Amount ADT 2035 Proposed General Plan c Amount ADT b m Amount loos AOT Difference c minus a Amount ADT Amount Ino s b ADT TOTAL 1,L. Commit, Residential GU 14,210 135.290 14,788 140.789 14,791 140,817 578 5,499 581 5,527 3 28 2. Medium DensityResidential OU 4.370 35,349 4791 38]58 4,992 40,384 421 3,409 622 5,035 201 1,626 3. High Densi Residential DU 23,593 156,896 28,830 191,720 31.661 210,548 5,237 34,824 81068 53,652 2,831 18.828 5. Age Ousified HousingDU 450 1.548 450 1.548 450 1,548 0 0 0 0 0 0 6. General Office TSF 7,112 78,442 8,820 97,282 10,675 117.743 1,708 18,840 3,563 39,301 1,855 20,461 7, Medical Office TSF 112 4,047 112 4,047 112 4,047 0 0 0 0 0 0 B. General Commercial TSF 5,601 298,423 7,337 390,916 7.299 388.892 1,736 92,493 1,698 90,469 -38 -2,024 9. R im al Commercial TSF 4,140 98.531 4,640 110.431 4.640 110,431 500 11,900 500 11,900 0 0 10. Light lndusidal TSF 13,087 91,217 13,108 91,365 12704 68.549 21 148 -383 .2,668 -404 -2,816 11. Golf Course Acre 535 2.696 535 2,696 535 2,696 0 0 0 0 0 0 12. Elements /Middle School Student 7.385 9,526 8.067 10,406 8,067 10.406 682 880 682 880 0 0 13. High School Student 4,590 7.848 4,998 8,547 4.998 8.547 408 699 408 699 0 0 14. Call mUnivemi Student 25,990 31,968 26.286 32,332 26,286 32,332 296 364 296 364 0 0 15. Public FacilityAcre 176 336 176 336 228 434 0 0 52 98 52 98 16. Fair rounds Acre 150 1.845 150 1,845 150 1,845 0 0 0 0 0 0 17. Storage TSF 1,171 2,931 877 2,196 530 1,328 .294 435 -641 -1,603 -347 -868 18. Ci Hall TSF 133 3.713 133 3,713 133 3.713 0 0 0 0 0 0 19. Performance Theater TSF 585 720 691 850 691 850 106 130 106 130 0 0 20. Convalescent Care Bed 448 1,191 448 11191 448 1,191 0 0 0 0 0 6 21. Hospital Bed 472 6,108 472 61108 122 1,579 0 0 -350 -4,529 -350 -4,529 22. Hotel Room 1,877 15,335 2,077 16,969 2,077 16.969 200 1,634 200 1.634 0 0 23. Motel Room 2,212 12.793 2,272 12,793 946 5,327 0 0 -1,326 -7,466 -1,326 -7,466 24. Auto DealershipTSF 491 15,860 491 15,860 491 15.860 0 0 0 0 0 0 25, Passive Park Acre 592 1,122 592 1,122 618 1,171 0 0 26 49 26 49 26.A riculture Acre 72 0 0 0 0 0 42 0 42 0 0 0 27. Religious FacilityTSF 555 5,055 555 51055 555 5,055 0 0 0 0 0 0 28. Vacant Acre 18 0 6 0 61 0 -12 0 0 0 29. Museum TSF 0 0 140 7,874 140 T874 140 7,874 140 7,874 0 0 30. Home Ranch Tri Ca TSF 0 0 759 8,372 0 0 759 8372 01 0 459 -8,372 31. Sauoka Lot 2 Trip Cap TSF 0 0 862 9,5051 8621 8621 9 mJ81 3h2l 91508 0 0 32. OCC Master Plan SG 01 0 100 14.4961 1001 14,4951 1001 144961 1001 14,496 0 0 TOTAL 1 1,0181790 1.229,1251 1 1,244J401 1 2103351 1 225.350 15,015 Slantec Consulting December 21, 2015 IKEA Costa Mesa Trip Generation and Trip Rates Land Use Amount AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ADT Unit In jOut Total In lOut Total IKEA 308 1 TSF 1 341 91 431 1821 2491 4311 6,394 Trip Rates IKEA TSF 0.111 0.031 0.141 0.591 0.811 1.401 20.76 Source: Home Ranch EIR, 2001