Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
11 - PH-1 - Attachment 1- Exhibits A-C - 5/4/2021
Attachment 1A This document is designed for double-sided printing to conserve natural resources. DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT VOLUME I One Metro West State Clearinghouse No. 2019050014 LEAD AGENCY: City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, California 92628 Contact: Minoo Ashabi 714.754.5245 February 2020April 2021 JN 172326 This document is designed for double-sided printing to conserve natural resources. ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I Acronyms and Abbreviations February 2020April 2021 Page i + .........................................Plus or Minus °C .......................................Degrees Celsius °F .......................................Degrees Fahrenheit 2014 WMP ........................2014 Water Master Plan 2016 AQMP ......................2016 Air Quality Management Plan 2016 RTP/SCS .................2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategies AADT ................................Annual Average Daily Trips AADTT .............................Annual Average Daily Truck Traffic AAQS .................................Ambient Air Quality Standards AB .......................................Assembly Bill AC ......................................Acre ACHP ................................Advisory Council on Historic Preservation ACM ...................................Asbestos-containing Material ADA ...................................Americans with Disabilities Act ADT ...................................Average Daily Trips AELUP ..............................Airport Environs Land Use Plan AERMOD .........................American Meteorological Society/Environmental Protection Agency Regulatory Model Version 18081 AF .......................................Acre-feet AFY ....................................Acre-feet per Year ALUC .................................Airport Land Use Commission AQMP ...............................Air Quality Management Plan AR4 ....................................2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report Basin Plan ..........................Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin (Region 8) BEE ....................................Building Energy and Efficiency bgs .....................................Below Ground Surface BMP ...................................Best Management Practice CAA ...................................Clean Air Act CAAQS ..............................California Ambient Air Quality Standards CAFE ................................Corporate Average Fuel Economy Cal/OSHA ........................California Occupational Safety and Health Administration CalARP ..............................California Accidental Release Prevention Program CalEEMod ........................California Emissions Estimator Model Version 2016.3 CalEPA ..............................California Environmental Protection Agency CALGreen .........................California Green Building Standards Code Caltrans ..............................California Department of Transportation CARB .................................California Air Resources Board CBC ....................................California Building Code CCR ....................................California Code of Regulations CEC ....................................California Energy Commission CEQA ................................California Environmental Quality Act CERCLA ...........................Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act CFC ....................................California Fire Code CFR ....................................Code of Federal Regulations cfs ......................................Cubic Feet per Second ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I Acronyms and Abbreviations Page ii April 2021February 2020 CGS ....................................California Geological Survey CH4 .....................................Methane CHRIS ...............................California Historical Resources Information System CIPP ...................................Cured-in-place Pipe City .....................................City of Costa Mesa CMFD ................................Costa Mesa Fire & Rescue Department CMP ...................................Congestion Management PlanProgram CMPD ................................Costa Mesa Police Department CMSD ................................Costa Mesa Sanitary District CNEL ................................Community Noise Equivalent Level CO ......................................Carbon Monoxide CO2 .....................................Carbon Dioxide COMM ..............................Commercial and Sportfishing CPTED ..............................Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design CPUC .................................California Public Utilities Commission CREC .................................Controlled Recognized Environmental Condition CRHR ................................California Register of Historical Resources CSHS ..................................California State Highway System CTC ....................................California Transportation CTP ....................................Clean Truck Program CUPA .................................Certified Unified Program Agency CWA ..................................Clean Water Act DAMP ...............................Drainage Area Management Plan dB ......................................Decibel dBA ...................................A-weighted Decibel DNL ...................................Day-Night Sound Level DOF ...................................California Department of Finance DPF ....................................Diesel Particulate Filter DPM ...................................Diesel Particulate Matter Draft EIR ..........................Draft Environmental Impact Report DRRP .................................Diesel Risk Reduction Plan DSOD ................................California Division of Safety of Dams DTSC .................................Department of Toxic Substances Control DU ......................................Dwelling Unit DWR ..................................Department of Water Resources EB .......................................Eastbound EC .......................................Electrical Conductivity EO ......................................Executive Order EOP ...................................Emergency Operations Plan EPA ....................................Environmental Protection Agency EPCRA ..............................Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 EST ....................................Estuarine Habitat EV ......................................Electric Vehicle FAA ....................................Federal Aviation Administration FAR ....................................Federal Aviation Regulation ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I Acronyms and Abbreviations February 2020April 2021 Page iii FAR ....................................Floor Area Ratio FCAA .................................Federal Clean Air Act FEMA ................................Federal Emergency Management Agency FIRM ..................................Flood Insurance Rate Map ft .........................................Feet FTA ....................................Federal Transit Administration g/L ......................................Grams Per Liter General Plan .....................City of Costa Mesa General Plan GHG ..................................Greenhouse Gases GMP ...................................Groundwater Management Plan gpd .....................................Gallons per Day GWh ...................................Gigawatt-hour GWP ..................................Global Warming Potential GWRS ................................Groundwater Replenishment System H2S .....................................Hydrogen Sulfide HAZWOPER ...................Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response HCD ...................................California Department of Housing and Community Development HCM ..................................Highway Capacity Manual HCS ....................................Highway Capacity Software HFC ....................................Hydrofluorocarbons HHDT ...............................Heavy Duty Trucks HI .......................................Hazard Index HPSR .................................Historic Property Survey Report HREC ................................Historical Recognized Environmental Condition HSP ....................................Health and Safety Plan HVAC ................................Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning Hz .......................................Hertz I-405 Freeway ...................Interstate 405 Freeway; San Diego Freeway IBC .....................................International Building Code ICU .....................................Intersection Capacity Utilization IIPP ....................................Injury and Illness Prevention Plan in/sec ................................Inches per Second IPCC ..................................Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IRWD ................................Irvine Ranch Water District IRWMP ..............................Integrated Regional Water Management Plan JWA ....................................John Wayne Airport kBTU .................................Kilo British Thermal Units kWh ...................................Kilowatt-hour L ..........................................Left LBP ....................................Lead-based Paint lbs/day ..............................Pounds Per Day Ldn .......................................Day-Night Sound Level LEPC .................................Local Emergency Planning Committees Leq .......................................Equivalent Continuous Noise Level LID .....................................Low Impact Development ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I Acronyms and Abbreviations Page iv April 2021February 2020 Ln ........................................Statistical Sound Level LOS ....................................Level of Service LST .....................................Localized Significance Threshold MAR ...................................Marine Habitat Master Plan .......................One Metro West Master Plan MCL ...................................Maximum Contaminant Level MEI ....................................Maximum Exposed Individual MEP ...................................Maximum Extent Practicable MERV ................................Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value Metropolitan .....................Metropolitan Water District of Southern California mg/L ..................................Milligrams per Liter mg/m3 ................................Milligrams per cubic meter mgd ...................................Million Gallons per Day MGFP ................................Management Guidelines for the Use of Fertilizers and Pesticides MICR .................................Maximum Individual Cancer Risk MLD ...................................Most Likely Descendent MMCF/day .......................Million Cubic Feet per Day MMT ..................................Million Metric Tons MND ..................................Mitigated Negative Declaration MP ......................................Industrial Park mph ...................................Miles Per Hour MPO ...................................Metropolitan Planning Organization MS4 ....................................Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System MTCO2e ............................Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent MUN ..................................Municipal and Domestic Supply Municipal Code ................Costa Mesa Municipal Code MW .....................................Megawatt MWD .................................Mesa Water District MWDOC ...........................Municipal Water District of Orange County MWELO ...........................Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance MWS ..................................Modular Wetlands System N2O ....................................Nitrous Oxide NA ......................................Not Available NAAQS .............................National Ambient Air Quality Standards NAHC ...............................Native American Heritage Commission NB ......................................Northbound NCHRP .............................National Cooperative Highway Research Program ND .....................................Negative Declaration NDIR .................................Non-Dispersive Infrared Photometry NDSP .................................National Dam Safety Program NEHRP .............................National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program NFIP ..................................National Flood Insurance Program NHPA ................................National Historic Preservation Act NMUSD ............................Newport-Mesa Unified School District NO .....................................Nitrogen Oxide ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I Acronyms and Abbreviations February 2020April 2021 Page v NO2 ....................................Nitrogen Dioxide NOI ....................................Notice of Intent NOP ...................................Notice of Preparation NOx ....................................Nitrogen Oxides NPDES ..............................National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NRHP ................................National Register of Historic Places O&M ..................................Operation and Maintenance O3 ........................................Ozone OBD-II ..............................On-Board Diagnostic OC Basin ...........................Orange County Groundwater Basin OCFA ................................Orange County Fire Authority OCFCD .............................Orange County Flood Control District OCHCA.............................Orange County Health Care Agency OCPL .................................Orange County Public Library OCSD ................................Orange County Sanitation District OCTA ................................Orange County Transportation Authority OCTAM ............................Orange County Transportation Analysis Model OCWD ..............................Orange County Water District OEHHA ............................California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment OES ....................................Office of Emergency Services OPR ...................................Governor’s Office of Planning and Research OSHA ................................Occupational Safety and Health Administration OWSC ................................One-Way Stop Controlled Pb ........................................Lead pc/mi/ln ............................Passenger Cars per Mile per Lane PCBs ...................................Polychlorinated Biphenyls PCE ....................................Passenger Car Equivalent PDR-HD ...........................Planned Development Residential – High Density PeMS ..................................Performance Measurement System PFC ....................................Perfluorocarbons Phase I ESA ......................Phase I Environmental Site Assessment PM10 ...................................Respirable Particulate Matter PM2.5 ..................................................... Fine Particulate Matter PMP ....................................Project Monitoring Plan POTW ...............................Publicly Owned Treatment Works ppb ....................................Parts Per Billion ppd ....................................Pounds per Day ppm ...................................Parts Per Million PPP .....................................Plans, Policies, Programs PPV ....................................Peak Particle Velocity PRIMP ...............................Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Program PUC ....................................Public Utilities Code R ..........................................Right RARE .................................Rare, Threatened or Endangered Species RCP ....................................Reinforced Concrete Pipe ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I Acronyms and Abbreviations Page vi April 2021February 2020 RCRA .................................Resource Conservation and Recovery Act REC ....................................Recognized Environmental Condition REC1 ..................................Water Contact Recreation REC2 ..................................Non-contact Water Recreation RFG-2 ................................Reformulated Gasoline RHNA ................................Regional Housing Needs Assessment RMS ....................................Root Mean Square ROG ...................................Reactive Organic Gas RPS .....................................Renewables Portfolio Standard RRP ....................................Renovation, Repair and Painting RTPA .................................Regional Transportation Planning Agency RWQCB ............................Regional Water Quality Control Board SAFP ..................................State Alternative Fuels Plan SARA .................................Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act SB .......................................Senate Bill SB .......................................Southbound SCA ....................................Standard Conditions of Approval SCAG .................................Southern California Association of Governments SCAQMD .........................South Coast Air Quality Management District SCCIC ................................South Central Coastal Information Center SCE ....................................Southern California Edison SCS .....................................Sustainable Communities Strategies SF6 ......................................Sulfur Hexafluoride SFHA .................................Special Flood Hazard Area SGMA ................................Sustainable Groundwater Management Act SHMA ................................Seismic Hazard Mapping Act SHPO .................................State Historic Preservation Officer SIP ......................................State Implementation Plan SMP ....................................Soils Management Plan SO2 .....................................Sulfur Dioxide SoCAB ...............................South Coast Air Basin SoCalGas ...........................Southern California Gas Company SOCO ................................South Coast Collection Specific Plan ......................One Metro West Specific Plan SR .......................................State Route SR-55 ..................................State Route 55; Costa Mesa Freeway SR-73 ..................................State Route 73; San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor SRA ....................................Source Receptor Area SWPPP ...............................Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan SWRCB ..............................State Water Resources Control Board T ..........................................Through TAC ....................................Toxic Air Contaminant T-BACT .............................Toxics Best Available Control Technology TCR ....................................Tribal Cultural Resources TDS ....................................Total Dissolved Solids ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I Acronyms and Abbreviations February 2020April 2021 Page vii TERPS ...............................Terminal En Route Procedures TMDL ................................Total Maximum Daily Load TSCA .................................Toxic Substances Control Act TSD ....................................Treatment, Storage, and Disposal TSF .....................................Thousand Square Feet TTCP .................................Traditional Tribal Cultural Places TWSC .................................Two-Way Stop Controlled U.S. .....................................United States UBC ....................................Uniform Building Code USGS .................................U.S. Geological Survey UST ....................................Underground Storage Tank UWMP ...............................Urban Water Management Plan VMT ...................................Vehicle Miles Traveled VOC ...................................Volatile Organic Compound WARM ...............................Warm Freshwater Habitat WB ......................................Westbound WILD .................................Wildlife Habitat WQMP...............................Water Quality Management Plan WSA ...................................Water Supply Assessment Zoning Ordinance ...........Costa Mesa Zoning Ordinance g/m3 .................................................. Micrograms per cubic meter ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I Acronyms and Abbreviations Page viii April 2021February 2020 This page intentionally left blank. ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I Table of Contents VOLUME I Contents Page April 2021February 2020 Page i 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................. 1-1 1.1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURES ...................................................................................................... 1-1 1.3 PROJECT LOCATION ................................................................................................................................ 1-3 1.4 PROJECT SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................. 1-3 1.5 SUMMARY OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES ......................................................................................... 1-4 1.56 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY ..................................................................................................................... 1-6 1.6 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND LEVELS OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION ......................................................................................... 1-4 1.7 SUMMARY OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES ..................................................................................... 1-398 2. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 PURPOSE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT .......................................................... 2-1 2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURES ...................................................................................................... 2-2 2.3 SCOPING PROCESS .................................................................................................................................... 2-4 2.4 SCOPE OF THIS DRAFT EIR ................................................................................................................... 2-6 2.5 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE .................................................................................................... 2-7 2.6 PUBLIC REVIEW OF THE DRAFT EIR ................................................................................................ 2-8 2.7 MITIGATION MONITORING ................................................................................................................. 2-8 3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 PURPOSE ........................................................................................................................................................ 3-1 3.2 PROJECT LOCATION ................................................................................................................................ 3-1 3.3 STATEMENT OF PROJECT OBJECTIVES ........................................................................................... 3-1 3.4 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS .............................................................................................................. 3-42 3.5 INTENDED USES OF THE EIR ............................................................................................................ 3-27 4. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ...................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................... 4-1 4.2 REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING........................................................................................ 4-1 4.3 LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ................................................................................................ 4-4 4.4 ASSUMPTIONS REGARDING CUMULATIVE IMPACTS .............................................................. 4-10 5. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS .................................................................................................... 5-1 5.1 AESTHETICS .............................................................................................................................................. 5.1-1 5.2 AIR QUALITY ............................................................................................................................................. 5.2-1 5.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES ....................................................................................................................... 5.3-1 5.4 ENERGY ...................................................................................................................................................... 5.4-1 5.5 GEOLOGY AND SOILS .......................................................................................................................... 5.5-1 5.6 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ....................................................................................................... 5.6-1 5.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS .................................................................................. 5.7-1 5.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ............................................................................................ 5.8-1 5.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING ............................................................................................................... 5.9-1 5.10 NOISE ......................................................................................................................................................... 5.10-1 5.11 POPULATION AND HOUSING ......................................................................................................... 5.11-1 5.12 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION ......................................................................................... 5.12-1 5.13 TRANSPORTATION ............................................................................................................................... 5.13-1 5.14 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES ..................................................................................................... 5.14-1 5.15 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ............................................................................................... 5.15-1 6. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS ................................................................ 6-1 7. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT ..................................................................... 7-1 7.1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................... 7-1 ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I Table of Contents Contents Page Page ii April 2021February 2020 7.2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED DURING THE SCOPING/PROJECT PLANNING PROCESS ................................................................................................................................ 7-3 7.3 ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS ............................................................. 7-4 7.4 NO PROJECT/NO DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE .................................................................... 7-4 7.5 REDUCED DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY ALTERNATIVE ........................................................ 7-10 7.6 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE ...................................................................... 7-18 8. IMPACTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT ............................................................................ 8-1 9. SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE CHANGES DUE TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT .................. 9-1 10. GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT .......................................... 10-1 11. ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED .................................................................... 11-1 12. BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................................................................................................... 12-1 APPENDICES (PROVIDED ON ATTACHED CD) Appendix A Notice of Preparation (NOP) Appendix B NOP Comments Appendix C Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis Appendix D Cultural Resources Survey `Report Appendix E Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Appendix F Paleontological Resources Assessment Appendix G Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report Appendix H Asbestos Survey Appendix I Preliminary Hydrology Report Appendix J Preliminary WQMP Appendix K Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis Appendix L Public Services and Utilities Correspondence Appendix M Traffic Impact Analysis Appendix N Water Supply Assessment Appendix O Biological Resources Technical Memorandum and Tree Removal Plan Appendix P Construction Phasing Memo ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I Table of Contents Figure Page April 2021February 2020 Page iii Figure 3-1 Regional Location ....................................................................................................................................... 3-2 Figure 3-2 Local Vicinity ............................................................................................................................................... 3-3 Figure 3-3 One Metro West Land Use Plan .............................................................................................................. 3-5 Figure 3-4 Areas of Disturbance ................................................................................................................................. 3-6 Figure 3-5 Conceptual Landscape Plan ................................................................................................................... 3-12 Figure 3-6 Sunflower Avenue Improvements ........................................................................................................ 3-15 Figure 3-7 Infrastructure Improvements – Domestic Water .............................................................................. 3-18 Figure 3-8 Infrastructure Improvements – Sanitary Sewer. ................................................................................. 3-19 Figure 3-9 Infrastructure Improvements – Storm Drain ..................................................................................... 3-20 Figure 3-10 Infrastructure Improvements – Dry Utilities ...................................................................................... 3-21 Figure 3-11a Building A Elevations ............................................................................................................................. 3-23 Figure 3-11b Building B Elevations ............................................................................................................................. 3-24 Figure 3-11c Building C Elevations ............................................................................................................................. 3-25 Figure 4-1 Cumulative Projects ................................................................................................................................ 4-12 Figure 5.1-1 Existing Conditions Photographs ........................................................................................................ 5.1-5 Figure 5.1-2 Proposed Shade/Shadow Patterns – Summer Solstice .................................................................. 5.1-22 Figure 5.1-3 Proposed Shade/Shadow Patterns – Autumnal Equinox ............................................................. 5.1-23 Figure 5.1-4 Proposed Shade/Shadow Patterns – Winter Solstice ..................................................................... 5.1-24 Figure 5.1-5 Proposed Shade/Shadow Patterns – Vernal Equinox ................................................................... 5.1-25 Figure 5.8-1 Existing Drainage Conditions ............................................................................................................ 5.8-10 Figure 5.8-2 Proposed Drainage Conditions .......................................................................................................... 5.8-24 Figure 5.13-1 Study Area Intersections...................................................................................................................... 5.13-9 Figure 7-1 Reduced Development Intensity Alternative ...................................................................................... 7-11 ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I Table of Contents Table Page Page iv April 2021February 2020 Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Imapcts, Mitigation Measures, and Levels of Signficance After Mitigation .................................................................................................. 1-19 Table 1-2 Comparison of Alternatives .................................................................................................................. 1-40 Table 2-1 NOP and Public Scoping Meeting Commenters .................................................................................. 2-5 Table 3-1 One Metro West Specific Plan Development Potential ...................................................................... 3-8 Table 3-2 Residential Unit Breakdown ..................................................................................................................... 3-8 Table 3-3 Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Uses ......................................................................................... 3-9 Table 3-4 General Development Standards .......................................................................................................... 3-11 Table 3-5 Proposed Parking Plan ........................................................................................................................... 3-16 Table 4-1 SCAG 2012-2040 Growth Forecasts ................................................................................................... 4-11 Table 4-2 Related Projects ........................................................................................................................................ 4-11 Table 5.1-1 Project Consistency with the Costa Mesa General Plan ................................................................ 5.1-17 Table 5.2-1 Ambient Air Quality Standards ............................................................................................................ 5.2-1 Table 5.2-2 Summary of Health Effects of the Major Criteria Air Pollutants .................................................. 5.2-5 Table 5.2-3 Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the South Coast Air Basin ......................................... 5.2-9 Table 5.2-4 Ambient Air Quality Monitored in the Project Vicinity ................................................................ 5.2-10 Table 5.2-5 Existing Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions ........................................................................................ 5.2-14 Table 5.2-6 SCAQMD Significance Thresholds ................................................................................................... 5.2-16 Table 5.2.7 Operational Localized Significance Thresholds .............................................................................. 5.2-18 Table 5.2-8 Construction Localized Significance Thresholds ............................................................................ 5.2-18 Table 5.2-9 SCAQMD Toxic Air Contaminants Incremental Risk Thresholds ............................................. 5.2-19 Table 5.2-10 Phased Short-term Regional Peak Day Construction Emissions ............................................... 5.2-221 Table 5.2-11 Phased Opening Year Regional Operational Emissions by Phase ............................................. 5.2-243 Table 5.2-12 Phase Regional Emissions for Overlapping Construction and Operational Emissions ............................................................................................................................... 5.2-25 Table 5.2-132 Construction Localized Significance Modeling Results ............................................................... 5.2-264 Table 5.2-143 Phased Construction Health Risk Levels for Residential Receptorss Near the Project Site ........................................................................................................................... 5.2-275 Table 5.2-154 Long-term Operational Localized Impacts Analysis .................................................................... 5.2-286 Table 5.2-165 Phased Short-term Regional Peak Day Construction Emissions with Mitigation .................. 5.2-353 Table 5.4-1 Existing Electricity Consumption ........................................................................................................ 5.4-5 Table 5.4-2 Existing Natural Gas Consumption .................................................................................................... 5.4-5 Table 5.4-3 Project Electricity Consumption .......................................................................................................... 5.4-9 Table 5.4-4 Project Natural Gas Consumption .................................................................................................... 5.4-10 Table 5.5-1 List of Historic Earthquakes in Southern California ........................................................................ 5.5-6 Table 5.5-2 Construction BMPs .............................................................................................................................. 5.5-11 ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Table of Contents Table Page April 2021February 2020 Page v Table 5.6-1 Global Warming Potential for Select Greenhouse Gases ................................................................ 5.6-3 Table 5.6-2 Existing Greenhouse Gas Emissions .................................................................................................. 5.6-9 Table 5.6-3 Phased Unmitigated Short-Term Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................ 5.6-11 Table 5.6-43 Phased Regional GHG Emissions for Overlapping Construction and Long-term Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions ....................................................................... 5.6-121 Table 5.6-54 Project Consistency with Applicable 2017 Scoping Plan Appendix B Measures .................... 5.6-154 Table 5.6-65 Phased Regional GHG Emissions for Overlapping Construction and Long-term Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions With Mitigation .......................................... 5.6-176 Table 5.8-1 Existing Conditions ................................................................................................................................ 5.8-9 Table 5.8-2 Construction Best Management Practices ........................................................................................ 5.8-17 Table 5.8-3 Existing and Proposed Drainage Conditions .................................................................................. 5.8-25 Table 5.9-1 Project Consistency with General Plan ............................................................................................... 5.9-6 Table 5.9-2 Project Consistency with 2016 RTP/SCS Goals............................................................................. 5.9-20 Table 5.10-1 Typical Vibration Level Effects ......................................................................................................... 5.10-4 Table 5.10-2 Noise and Land Use Compatibility Standards ................................................................................. 5.10-6 Table 5.10-3 City of Costa Mesa Noise Level Standards, dBA ............................................................................ 5.10-6 Table 5.10-4 Existing Long-Term Noise Level Measurements ........................................................................... 5.10-8 Table 5.10-5 Existing Short-Term Noise Level Measurements ........................................................................... 5.10-8 Table 5.10-6 Existing Traffic Noise Levels ............................................................................................................. 5.10-9 Table 5.10-7 General Assessment Construction Noise Criteria ........................................................................ 5.10-11 Table 5.10-8 Construction Vibration Damage Criteria ....................................................................................... 5.10-12 Table 5.10-9 Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels ............................................................................ 5.10-14 Table 5.10-10 Potential Construction Noise Impacts at Nearest Receptor ....................................................... 5.10-15 Table 5.10-11 Composite Noise Levels at Nearest Receptor ............................................................................... 5.10-18 Table 5.10-12 Vibration Source Amplitudes for Construction Equipment ....................................................... 5.10-18 Table 5.11-1 Population Trends ................................................................................................................................ 5.11-3 Table 5.11-2 SCAG Population, Housing, and Employment Projections ......................................................... 5.11-4 Table 5.11-3 Existing Housing Units ....................................................................................................................... 5.11-4 Table 5.11-4 City Employment by Industrial Sector (2017) ................................................................................. 5.11-5 Table 5.11-5 Jobs-Housing Ratio .............................................................................................................................. 5.11-6 Table 5.11-6 Project-Generated Employment ........................................................................................................ 5.11-8 Table 5.11-7 Projected Jobs-Housing Balance ........................................................................................................ 5.11-9 Table 5.12-1 NMUSD Schools Serving the Project Site ....................................................................................... 5.12-9 Table 5.12-2 Project-Generated Students .............................................................................................................. 5.12-17 Table 5.13-1 LOS Criteria for Signalized Intersections (ICU Methodology) .................................................. 5.13-11 ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I Table of Contents Table Page Page vi April 2021February 2020 Table 5.13-2 LOS Criteria for Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections (HCM Methodology) ................ 5.13-12 Table 5.13-3 LOS Criteria for Freeway Analysis .................................................................................................. 5.13-13 Table 5.13-4 Existing Intersection Level of Service Summary .......................................................................... 5.13-14 Table 5.13-5 Existing Freeway Segment and Ramp LOS ................................................................................... 5.13-16 Table 5.13-6 Project Trip Generation .................................................................................................................... 5.13-21 Table 5.13-7 Existing and Existing with Project Intersection Level of Service Summary ............................ 5.13-26 Table 5.13-8 Existing Freeway Segment and Ramp Levels of Service ............................................................. 5.13-28 Table 5.13-9 Future Short-Term Cumulative (2027) Intersection Level of Service Summary ..................... 5.13-31 Table 5.13-10 Future Short-Term Cumulative (2027) Freeway Segment and Ramp Levels of Service ................................................................................................................................... 5.13-33 Table 5.13-11 General Plan Buildout (2040) Intersection Level of Service Summary ..................................... 5.13-36 Table 5.13-12 General Plan Buildout (2040) Freeway Segment and Ramp Levels of Service ........................ 5.13-38 Table 5.13-13 Existing Regional and Project VMT Comparison ........................................................................ 5.13-39 Table 5.13-14 Driveway Queuing Analysis .............................................................................................................. 5.13-42 Table 5.13-15 Improvements for Intersections ...................................................................................................... 5.13-46 Table 5.13-16 Study Intersection No. 18 Level of Service with Recommended Improvements ................... 5.13-47 Table 5.13-17 Study Intersection No. 28 Level of Service with Recommended Improvements ................... 5.13-47 Table 5.15-1 MWD Actual Water Supplies (AF) .................................................................................................. 5.15-14 Table 5.15-2 MWD Projected Water Supplies (AF) ............................................................................................ 5.15-14 Table 5.15-3 Normal Year Supply and Demand Comparison (AF) .................................................................. 5.15-14 Table 5.15-4 Single Dry Year Supply and Demand Comparison (AF) ............................................................. 5.15-14 Table 5.15-5 Multiple Dry Years Supply and Demand Comparison (AF) ....................................................... 5.15-15 Table 5.15-6 Landfill Capacity ................................................................................................................................. 5.15-16 Table 5.15-7 Project-generated Wastewater .......................................................................................................... 5.15-20 Table 5.15-8 Existing Water Demands .................................................................................................................. 5.15-21 Table 5.15-9 Project Water Demands .................................................................................................................... 5.15-22 Table 5.15-10 Net Increase in Water Demand ....................................................................................................... 5.15-22 Table 5.15-11 Project-generated Solid Waste .......................................................................................................... 5.15-25 Table 7-1 Reduced Development Intensity Alternative Trip Generation ....................................................... 7-12 Table 7-2 Comparison of Alternatives ................................................................................................................... 7-19 ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I Table of Contents April 2021February 2020 Page vii DRAFT FINAL EIR AND APPENDICES ON CD ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I Table of Contents Page viii April 2021February 2020 This page intentionally left blank. ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I February 2020April 2021 Chapter 1.0 Executive Summary ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I February 2020April 2021 This page intentionally left blank. April 2021February 2020 Page 1-1 1. Executive Summary 1.1 INTRODUCTION This Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) addresses the environmental effects associated with the implementation of the proposed One Metro West (the project). The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that local government agencies consider the environmental consequences before taking action on projects over which they have discretionary approval authority. The intent of this EIR is to analyze the potential environmental consequences of the project, inform the public, and support informed decisions by the City of Costa Mesa and other local and State governmental agency decision makers. Issues considered potentially significant are addressed in Chapter 5, Environmental Analysis; issues determined to have no impact and how the determinations were made are provided in Chapter 8, Impacts Found Not to Be Significant. This Draft EIR has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of CEQA and the City of Costa Mesa’s CEQA procedures. The City of Costa Mesa, as the lead agency, has reviewed and revised all submitted drafts, technical studies, and reports as necessary to reflect its own independent judgment, including reliance on City technical personnel from other departments and review of all technical subconsultant reports. Data for this Draft EIR are derived from field observations; discussions with affected agencies; analysis of adopted plans and policies; review of available studies, reports, data, and similar literature; and specialized environmental assessments (air quality and greenhouse gas emissions, cultural resources, geological resources, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, transportation, and water supply. 1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURES This Draft EIR has been prepared pursuant to CEQA to assess the environmental effects associated with implementation of the proposed project, as well as anticipated future discretionary actions and approvals. CEQA established six main objectives for an EIR: 1. Disclose to decision makers and the public the significant environmental effects of proposed activities. 2. Identify ways to avoid or reduce environmental damage. 3. Prevent environmental damage by requiring implementation of feasible alternatives or mitigation measures. 4. Disclose to the public reasons for agency approval of projects with significant environmental effects. 5. Foster interagency coordination in the review of projects. 6. Enhance public participation in the planning process. ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 1. Executive Summary Page 1-2 April 2021February 2020 An EIR is the most comprehensive form of environmental documentation in CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines; it is intended to provide an objective, factually supported analysis, and full disclosure of the environmental consequences of a proposed project with the potential to result in significant, adverse environmental impacts. An EIR is one of various decision-making tools used by a lead agency to consider the merits and disadvantages of a project that is subject to its discretionary authority. Before approving a proposed project, the lead agency must consider the information in the EIR; determine whether the EIR was prepared in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines; determine that it reflects the independent judgment of the lead agency; adopt findings concerning the project’s significant environmental impacts and alternatives; and adopt a statement of overriding considerations if significant impacts cannot be avoided. 1.2.1 EIR Format Chapter 1. Executive Summary: Summarizes the background and description of the proposed project, the format of this EIR, project alternatives, any critical issues remaining to be resolved, and the potential environmental impacts and mitigation measures identified for the project. Chapter 2. Introduction: Describes the purpose of this EIR, background on the project, the notice of preparation, the use of incorporation by reference, and Final EIR certification. Chapter 3. Project Description: A detailed description of the project, including its objectives, its area and location, approvals anticipated to be required as part of the project, necessary environmental clearances, and the intended uses of this EIR. Chapter 4. Environmental Setting: A description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project as they existed at the time the notice of preparation was published, from local and regional perspectives. These provide the baseline physical conditions from which the lead agency determines the significance of the project’s environmental impacts. Chapter 5. Environmental Analysis: Each environmental topic is analyzed in a separate section that discusses: the thresholds used to determine if a significant impact would occur; the methodology to identify and evaluate the potential impacts of the project; the existing environmental setting; the potential adverse and beneficial effects of the project; the level of impact significance before mitigation; the mitigation measures for the proposed project; the level of significance after mitigation is incorporated; and the potential cumulative impacts of the proposed project and other existing, approved, and proposed development in the area. Chapter 6. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts: Describes the significant unavoidable adverse impacts of the proposed project. Chapter 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project: Describes the alternatives and compares their impacts to the impacts of the proposed project. Alternatives include the No Project Alternative and a Reduced Intensity Alternative. ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 1. Executive Summary April 2021February 2020 Page 1-3 Chapter 8. Impacts Found Not to Be Significant: Briefly describes the potential impacts of the project that were determined not to be significant by the Initial Study and were therefore not discussed in detail in this EIR. Chapter 9. Significant Irreversible Changes Due to the Proposed Project: Describes the significant irreversible environmental changes associated with the project. Chapter 10. Growth-Inducing Impacts of the Project: Describes the ways in which the proposed project would cause increases in employment or population that could result in new physical environmental impacts. Chapter 11. Organizations and Persons Consulted: Lists the people who prepared this EIR as well as the people and organizations that were contacted during the preparation of this EIR. Chapter 12. Bibliography: The technical reports and other sources used to prepare this EIR. Appendices: The appendices for this document (in PDF format on a CD attached to the table of contents) comprise these supporting documents: 1.2.2 Type and Purpose of this Draft EIR This Draft EIR has been prepared as a “Project EIR,” defined by Section 15161 of the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3). This type of EIR examines the environmental impacts of a specific development project and should focus primarily on the changes in the environment that would result from the development project. The EIR shall examine all phases of the project including planning, construction, and operation. 1.3 PROJECT LOCATION The 15.23-acre project site is located at 1683 Sunflower Avenue in the City of Costa Mesa, Orange County. The project site is bound by Sunflower Avenue to the north, the South Coast Collection (SOCO) retail center to the east, the Interstate 405 Freeway (I-405 Freeway; San Diego Freeway) to the south, and industrial and logistics uses to the west. The project site is currently occupied by Sakura Paper Factory, Robinson Pharma, South Coast Baking, and Dekra-Lite Industries, Inc. within an approximate 345,000-square foot one-story industrial building. 1.4 PROJECT SUMMARY The proposed project is a mixed-use development that consists of residential, specialty retail, creative office, and open space uses. The project is proposed to include up to 1,057 multi-family rental residential dwelling units, 25,000 square feet of commercial (creative office) space, 6,000 square feet of specialty retail, and 1.5- acres of open space. All existing buildings, structures, parking areas, drive aisles, and hardscape/landscape improvements are proposed to be demolished. The project would include off-site improvements to Sunflower Avenue and a bicycle trail connection from the project site west to the existing Santa Ana River Trail. Upgrades to Sunflower Avenue would include placing the existing Southern California Edison (SCE) 66- ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 1. Executive Summary Page 1-4 April 2021February 2020 kilovolt utility lines underground along the project site and upgrading the sidewalk and public landscape areas with a new sidewalk and bicycle trail to improve pedestrian and bicycle access to the regional Santa Ana River Trail system. The proposed project requires approval of a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Specific Plan, Master Plan, Development Agreement, Tentative Tract Map, Tree Removal Permit, Public Art Plan, and other ministerial permits. If approved by City Council, the project is also subject to Measure Y. 1.5 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY In accordance with Section 15123(b)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, the EIR summary must identify areas of controversy known to the lead agency, including issues raised by agencies and the public. Areas of controversy known to the City at this time include transportation impacts. Prior to preparation of the EIR, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) was distributed for comment, which extended from May 23, 2019 to June 21, 2019. Additionally, a public scoping meeting was conducted by the City on June 5, 2019 at the Costa Mesa Senior Center, 695 West 19th Street, Costa Mesa, California 92627. NOP comment letters received during the review period are summarized in Chapter 2, Introduction (see Section 2.3, Scoping Process, and Appendix B, NOP Comments). The City distributed a invites any and all input and comments from interested agencies, persons, and organizations regarding the Notice of Availability (NOA) for the One Metro West Public Review Draft EIR for public review from February 7, 2020 through March 30, 2020. Comment letters received and responses to those comments are provided in Volume II of this Final EIRCommenters must submit any comments in response to the NOA beginning February 7, 2020 and ending at 5:00 p.m. on March 23, 2020. 1.6 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND LEVELS OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION The City has determined that the project would result in no impact to the following topical areas as substantiated in Chapter 8, Impacts Found Not to Be Significant: Agriculture and Forestry Resources; Biological Resources; Mineral Resources; and Wildfire. The City determined the following 16 environmental factors required additional analysis, nine of which result in potentially significant impacts if the proposed project is implemented. This listing also includes the identified applicable regulatory requirements, such as plans, policies, programs (PPP), based on Federal, State, or local laws currently in place, or standard conditions of approval (SCA) applied to the project, if applicable. AESTHETICS PPP AES-1 Prior to issuance of the first building permit for the proposed project, the owner/developer would be required to submit a Design Plan for the Building “A” parking elevation (facade) ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 1. Executive Summary April 2021February 2020 Page 1-5 along the I-405 Freeway for review by the Planning Division and approval by the City’s Cultural Arts Committee. All architectural treatments including public art installations must comply with the regulations in the One Metro West Specific Plan. As such, architectural treatments would exclude the use of moving, flashing, or otherwise visually distracting elements or materials that are highly reflective or generate noise. PPP AES-2 The City of Costa Mesa would verify the proposed project is developed pursuant to the development standards and design guidelines included in the One Metro West Specific Plan. SCA AE-1 The City of Costa Mesa would be required to verify the proposed project is architecturally compatible (pertaining to building materials, style, colors, etc.) with the existing surrounding development and consistent with the One Metro West Specific Plan during the plan check review process. SCA AE-2 No modification(s) of the approved building elevations including, but not limited to, changes that increase the building height, removal of building articulation, or a change of the finish material(s), would be made during construction without prior Planning Division written approval. Failure to obtain prior Planning Division approval of the modification could result in requirement of the applicant to (re)process the modification through a discretionary review process, or modify the construction drawings to reflect the approved plans. SCA AE-3 No exterior roof access ladders, roof drain scuppers, or roof drain downspouts would be permitted. This condition relates to visually prominent features of scuppers or downspouts that not only detract from the architecture but may be spilling water from overhead without an integrated gutter system which would typically channel the rainwater from the scupper/downspout to the ground. An integrated downspout/gutter system painted to match the building would comply with the condition. This condition would be completed under the direction of the Planning Division. SCA AE-4 Permits would be required for all signs according to the provisions of the Costa Mesa Sign Ordinance. Freestanding signs would be subject to review and approval by the Planning Division/Development Services Director to ensure compatibility in terms of size, height, and location with the proposed/existing development and existing freestanding signs in the project vicinity. SCA AE-5 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the Applicant shall submit a Lighting Plan and Photometric Study for approval by the Development Services Director or designee. The Lighting Plan and Photometric Study shall demonstrate compliance with the following: The intensity and location of lights on buildings shall be limited to minimize nighttime light and glare to off-site residents. ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 1. Executive Summary Page 1-6 April 2021February 2020 All site lighting fixtures shall be provided with a flat glass lens. Photometric calculations shall indicate the effect of the flat glass lens fixture efficiency. Lighting design and layout shall limit light spillage to no more than 0.5 foot-candles at the property line of off-site residential properties. The level of on-site lighting shall be as determined necessary for safety and security purposes. Light standards shall be located and oriented in such a way as to minimize light spillage onto surrounding properties. Light shall be shielded, and pointed downward or otherwise directed away from off-site properties. The intensity of the parking deck lighting and lighting associated with any public art installation visible from off-site residential properties shall be reduced to low levels from 9:00 p.m. until dawn each day to minimize lighting impacts to off-site residential properties. Illuminated signs visible from off-site residential properties shall be completely shut off at 10:00 p.m., seven days a week. Refer to the following sections for a discussion of applicable PPPs: Hydrology and Water Quality, PPP HYD-1, SCA HYD-1, and SCA HYD-2; and Noise, PPP N-2. AIR QUALITY PPP AIR-1 New buildings are required to achieve the current California Building Energy and Efficiency (BEE) Standards (Title 24, Part 6) and California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) (Title 24, Part 11). PPP AIR-2 Construction activities are required to be conducted in compliance with 13 California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section 2499, which requires nonessential idling of construction equipment is restricted to five minutes or less. PPP AIR-3 Construction activities are required to comply with applicable South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) rules and regulations, including, but not limited, to the following: Rule 402, Nuisance, which states a project shall not “discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property;” and ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 1. Executive Summary April 2021February 2020 Page 1-7 Rule 1113, Architectural Coatings, which limits the volatile organic compound content of architectural coatings. PPP AIR-4 Construction activities are required to recycle/reuse at least 50 percent of the construction material including, but not limited to, soil, mulch, vegetation, concrete, lumber, metal, and cardboard, and to use green building materials such as those materials that are rapidly renewable or resource efficient, and recycled and manufactured in an environmentally friendly way, for at least ten percent of the project, as specified in the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery Sustainable Green Building Program. SCA PLNG-14 Demolition permits for existing structure(s) shall be obtained and all work and inspections completed prior to final building inspections. Applicant is notified that written notice to the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) may be required ten (10) days prior to demolition. SCA AQMD-3 Applicant shall contact the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) at (800) 288-7664 for potential additional conditions of development or for additional permits required by the district. SCA HYD-1 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403 would be adhered to, ensuring the cleanup of construction-related dirt on approach routes to the project site. Rule 403 prohibits the release of fugitive dust emissions from any active operation, open storage pile, or disturbed surface area beyond the property line of the emission sources. Particulate matter deposits on public roadways are also prohibited. SCA HYD-2 Adequate watering techniques would be employed to partially mitigate the impact of construction-generated dust particulates. Portions of the project site that are undergoing earth moving operations would be watered such that a crust is formed on the ground surface and then watered again at the end of the day. SCA HYD-3 Grading operations would be suspended during first and second stage ozone episodes or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour. CULTURAL RESOURCES PPP CUL-1 The proposed project is required to comply with California Public Resources Code 5097.9- 5097.991 (which protects Native American historical and cultural resources, and sacred sites) and Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 (pertaining to the discovery or recognition of any human remains). ENERGY PPP EN-1 New buildings are required to achieve the current California Building Energy and Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Part 6) and the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen; Title 24, Part 11). The 2016 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards became effective starting January 1, 2017, and the 2019 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards will become ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 1. Executive Summary Page 1-8 April 2021February 2020 effective January 1, 2020. The Building Energy and Efficiency Standards and CALGreen are updated tri-annually with a goal to achieve zero net energy for residential buildings by 2020 and non-residential buildings by 2030. PPP EN-2 To reduce water demands and energy use associated with landscape water use, the proposed project is required to implement a landscaping palette emphasizing drought-tolerant plants and water-efficient irrigation techniques consistent with provisions of the City’s Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO; Ordinance No. 16-03) requirements. PPP EN-3 To reduce water demands and associated energy use associated with indoor water use, the proposed project is required to provide plumbing fixtures that meet the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Certified WaterSense, 2019 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) standards or equivalent, faucets, toilets, and other plumbing fixtures. The water conservation strategy is required to demonstrate a minimum 20 percent reduction in indoor water usage compared to baseline water demand (total expected water demand without implementation of the water conservation strategy). PPP EN-4 The construction contractor is required to recycle/reuse at least 50 percent of the construction material including, but not limited to, soil, mulch, vegetation, concrete, lumber, metal, and cardboard, and to use “green building materials” such as those materials that are rapidly renewable or resource-efficient, and recycled and manufactured in an environmentally friendly way, for at least 10 percent of the project, as specified in the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) Sustainable (Green) Building Program. PPP EN-5 Per the 2019 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) standards, construction of the proposed project is required to include installation of electric vehicle (EV) charging stations and designated EV parking at non-residential and residential buildings. Preferential parking for low-emitting, fuel-efficient, and carpool/car share/van vehicles is required in all parking areas. PPP EN-6 Construction contractors are required to minimize non-essential idling of construction equipment during construction in accordance with California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section 2449, Title 13, Article 4.8, Chapter 9. GEOLOGY AND SOILS PPP GEO-1 As required by Municipal Code Section 5-1, the project is required to comply with the 2016 (or most recent) Edition of the California Building Code (CBC) to preclude significant adverse effects associated with seismic hazards. PPP GEO-2 As required by Municipal Code Section 5-1, the project is required to comply with the recommendations outlined in the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Multi-Family Residential Development 1683 Sunflower Avenue, Costa Mesa, California, prepared by Geocon West Inc. on July 24, 2019 (refer to Appendix E). ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 1. Executive Summary April 2021February 2020 Page 1-9 Refer to Hydrology and Water Quality, for a discussion of PPP HYD-1 through PPP HYD-4. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Refer to Energy, for a discussion of PPP EN-1 through PPP EN-5. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS PPP HAZ-1 Any project-related hazardous materials and hazardous wastes will be transported to and/or from the project site in compliance with any applicable State and Federal requirements, including the U.S. Department of Transportation regulations listed in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) (Title 49, Hazardous Materials Transportation Act); California Department of Transportation standards; and the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) standards. PPP HAZ-2 Any project-related hazardous waste generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal will be conducted in compliance with Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Title 40, Part 263), including the management of nonhazardous solid wastes. The proposed project will be designed and constructed in accordance with the regulations of the Orange County Environmental Health Department, which serves as the designated Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) and implements State and Federal regulations for the following programs: (1) Hazardous Waste Generator Program, (2) Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Program, (3) California Accidental Release Prevention, (4) Aboveground Storage Tank Program, and (5) Underground Storage Tank Program. PPP HAZ-3 A comprehensive asbestos and lead-based paint (LBP) survey shall be conducted at the project site. Any project-related demolition activities that have the potential to expose construction workers and/or the public to asbestos-containing material (ACM) or LBP will be conducted in accordance with applicable regulations, including, but not limited to: South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD’s) Rule 1403 California Health and Safety Code (Section 39650 et seq.) The California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) Administration Regulations (California Code of Regulations [CCR] Title 8, Section 1529 [Asbestos] and Section 1532.1 [Lead]) Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) (Title 40, Part 61 [asbestos]; Title 40, Part 763 [asbestos]; Title 40, Part 745 [lead]; and Title 29, Part 1926 [asbestos and lead]) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting Program Rules and Residential Lead-Based Paint Disclosure Program Sections 402, 404, and 403, as well as Title IV of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 1. Executive Summary Page 1-10 April 2021February 2020 PPP HAZ-4 The removal of other hazardous materials, such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), mercury-containing light ballast, and mold, will be completed in accordance with applicable regulations pursuant to 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 761 (PCBs), 40 CFR 273 (mercury-containing light ballast), and 29 CFR 1926 (molds) by workers with HAZWOPER training, as outlined in 29 CFR 1910.120 and 8 California Code of Regulations (CCR) 5192. PPP HAZ-5 Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77 establishes standards for determining whether objects constructed near airports would be considered obstructions in navigable airspace, sets forth notice requirements of certain types of proposed construction or alterations, and provides for aeronautical studies to determine the potential impacts of a structure on the flight of aircraft through navigable airspace. FAR Part 77 requires notification to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for any project that would be more than 200 feet in height above the ground level pursuant to FAR Part 77 Section 77.13. As the project is located within the FAR Part 77 Notification Area for John Wayne Airport, the project would be subject to FAR Part 77 requirements. SCA HAZ-1 Prior to removal of underground tanks, the applicant shall contact the Orange County Environmental Health Care Agency for application procedures and guidelines. Issuance of building permits will be held until a clearance report is issued by the health agency and is submitted to planning staff. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY PPP HYD-1 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with the Construction and Land Disturbance Activities, NPDES No. CAS000002. Compliance requires filing a Notice of Intent (NOI), a Risk Assessment, a Site Map, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) with associated best management practices (BMPs), an annual fee, and a signed certification statement. PPP HYD-2 Orange County MS4 Permit (R8-2009-0030, as amended by Order No. R8-2010-0062, or most recent): The MS4 Permit requires new development and redevelopment projects to: Control contaminants into storm drain systems; Educate the public about stormwater impacts; Detect and eliminate illicit discharges; Control runoff from construction sites; and Implement best management practices (BMPs) and site-specific runoff controls and treatments for new development and redevelopment. PPP HYD-3 As required by Municipal Code Section 8-32, Control of Urban Runoff, the proposed project would be undertaken in accordance with the County’s Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) and any conditions and requirements established by the Development Services ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 1. Executive Summary April 2021February 2020 Page 1-11 Department and the Public Services Department, which are reasonably related to the reduction or elimination of pollutants in stormwater runoff from the project site. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, building permit, or non-residential plumbing permit for any new development, or significant redevelopment, the Development Services Department and Public Services Department would review the project plans and impose terms, conditions, and requirements on the project in accordance with Municipal Code Section 8- 32. PPP HYD-4 As required by Municipal Code Section 13-107, Irrigation Requirements, irrigation systems would be designed to reduce overspray, runoff, and low-head drainage onto streets, sidewalks, windows, walls, and fences. Automatic systems for watering cycles would be scheduled to maximize ground infiltration rates and further minimize runoff. PPP HYD-5 Project dewatering would comply with the Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges to Land with a Low Threat to Water Quality (Order No. 2003-0003-DWQ) or the De Minimis Waste Discharge Requirements for the Santa Ana Region (Order No. R8- 2015-0004, NPDES No. CAG998001), as required. PPP HYD-6 As required by Municipal Code Section 8-32, the project is required to comply with the recommendations outlined in the Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (Preliminary WQMP), prepared by Urban Resource Corporation on April 30, 2019. A final WQMP must be submitted and approved by the City prior to the issuance of a grading permit. The WQMP includes site design measures, source control measures, and treatment measures that minimize the potential for erosion and siltation. In addition, the WQMP must include an operations and maintenance (O&M) plan and maintenance agreement for review and approval by the City to ensure the treatment measures installed at the site are maintained for perpetuity. Refer to Air Quality, for a discussion of SCA HYD-1 through SCA HYD-3. LAND USE AND PLANNING PPP LU-1 The proposed project would be designed and constructed as a Planned Development Residential-High Density (PDR-HD) in accordance with the applicable provisions of Municipal Code Section 13-20, Zoning Districts. As such, future development would be subject to the proposed One Metro West Specific Plan and Master Plan regulations. Where these documents are silent, the Municipal Code would prevail. NOISE PPP N-1 Residential stationary noise sources are required to comply with Municipal Code Section 13- 280, Exterior Noise Standard: 50 dBA from 11:00 pm to 7:00 am; and 55 dBA from 7:00 am to 11:00 pm. ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 1. Executive Summary Page 1-12 April 2021February 2020 PPP N-2 Construction activities are required to comply with the following standards detailed in Municipal Code Section 13-279, Exceptions for Construction: Allowed from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on Mondays through Fridays; Allowed from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays; and Prohibited on Sundays, New Year’s Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, and Christmas Day. SCA D-1 Commercial or multi-family residential zones may be considered. Preferred locations are close to a commercial area(s) with shops, restaurants, and other commercial activities and services such as banks and medical facilities. There should be easy access to bus service. Off- site pedestrian circulation should provide sidewalks that are convenient and safe to use. The project site should be free of odors, excessive noise, and aesthetically unattractive surroundings. SCA CONST HRS-2 All noise-generating construction activities shall be limited to 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. Saturday. Noise-generating construction activities shall be prohibited on Sunday and the following Federal holidays: New Year’s Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. SCA RES 40 If present and/or projected exterior noise exceeds 60 Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), California Noise Insulation Standards, Title 25, California Code of Regulations require a maximum interior noise level of 45 CNEL for residential structures. If required interior noise levels are achieved by requiring that windows be closed, the design for the structure must also specify the means that will be employed to provide ventilation, and cooling if necessary, to provide a habitable interior environment. SCA C/I 42 Prior to issuance of the first building permits, a detailed acoustical study based on architectural plans shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant and submitted to Planning Division for review and approval. The study shall demonstrate compliance with noise standards as required by the Project Specific Plan and the City’s General Plan. The acoustical study shall be prepared in compliance with the provisions of the California Administrative Code, Title 25, Chapter 1, Subchapter 1, Article 4. The applicant shall submit two copies of the study with the application for building permits. The acoustical analysis shall evaluate existing and projected noise levels, noise attenuation measures to be applied, and the noise insulation effectiveness of the proposed construction. The applicant shall demonstrate compliance with the recommendations of the acoustic analysis report prior to the issuance of building permits. The person preparing the report shall, under the direction of a person experienced in the field of acoustical engineering, perform an inspection of the project prior to or at the time of the framing inspection to certify that construction techniques comply with recommendations contained within the acoustical analysis. Upon completion of the subject structures, field tests may be required under the provisions of Title 25. ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 1. Executive Summary April 2021February 2020 Page 1-13 POPULATION AND HOUSING There are no plans, policies, programs (PPP), or standard conditions of approval (SCA) applicable to the project related to population and housing impacts. PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION Fire Protection and Emergency Services PPP FS-1 The proposed project is required to comply with the 2019 latest edition of the California Fire Code. PPP FS-2 The proposed project is required to comply with Municipal Code Title 5, Buildings and Structures, and all adopted State construction codes. PPP FS-3 The project is required to pay development impact fees established based on the Costa Mesa Fire Protection System Fee Study and as required in the Development Agreement. SCA FIRE-25 The on-site hydrant(s) shall be attached to the underground mains of the fire sprinkler system or installed to the standards of the Mesa Water District and be dedicated along with repair easements to the Mesa Water District. SCA FIRE-26 The applicant shall participate in the upgrading of fire protection facilities according to the formula developed by the Costa Mesa Fire & Rescue Department. The contribution shall be made prior to the issuance of building permits or as agreed in the Development Agreement. SCA FIRE-7 The applicant shall provide Class A fire hydrant(s) according to the Costa Mesa Fire & Rescue Department reviewed and approved Fire Master Plan for the project. SCA FIRE-8 Any required hydrants shall be installed and operable prior to the initiation of combustible construction. SCA FIRE-9 Water improvement plans shall be approved by the Costa Mesa Fire & Rescue Department. SCA FIRE-10 Water mains shall be of adequate size to deliver 1,000 gallons per minute simultaneously from the closest hydrants to any and all points of the development with a minimum residual pressure of 20 pounds per square inch. SCA FIRE-13 Fire apparatus access roadways identified in the approved Fire Master Plan for the project shall be maintained with access to all fire hydrants from the time that the hydrants are placed into service. Special consideration shall be given to maintaining the integrity of such roadways during periods of inclement weather. SCA FIRE-14 The applicant shall provide fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2A to be located within 75 feet of travel distance from all areas. Extinguishers may be of a type rated 2A, 10BC as these extinguishers are suitable for all types of fires and are less expensive. ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 1. Executive Summary Page 1-14 April 2021February 2020 SCA FIRE-15 The applicant shall provide approved smoke detectors to be installed in accordance with the latest edition of the Uniform California Fire Code. SCA FIRE-16 The applicant shall provide an approved automatic extinguishing system for all commercial cooking surfaces, hoods, and ducts. SCA FIRE-17 The applicant shall provide an automatic fire sprinkler system according to National Fire Protection Association requirements. Police Protection Services PPP PD-1 The project is required to pay development impact fees established based on the Citywide Fee Study and as required in the Development Agreement. SCA PD-49 Outside security lighting shall be provided under the direction and upon the recommendation of the City of Costa Mesa Development Services Department and/or the Police Department. SCA PD-58 The following list of security measures would be provided: 1. Cameras installed in all common areas and hallways. 2. Cameras monitored 24 hours per day, seven days a week, at a centralized location by the applicant’s property management team. 3. In the afternoon and through the night (such as from 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 a.m.), a third party courtesy patrol walks and patrols the property. School Services PPP SS-1 The project applicant shall pay developer fees per square foot for residential and commercial construction pursuant to the Newport-Mesa Unified School District (NMUSD) requirements. Library Services No existing regulatory requirements, such as plans, policies, programs, or standard conditions of approval related to library services apply to the proposed project. Park Facilities and Recreation Services PPP PS-1 The proposed project shall comply with Government Code Section 66477 (Quimby Act) and Measure Z as required by the Development Agreement, related to payment of an open space and public park impact fee. ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 1. Executive Summary April 2021February 2020 Page 1-15 TRANSPORTATION PPP T-1 Pursuant to Circulation Element Recommendation C-9.14, the applicant would provide detours through or around construction zones that are designed for safety and convenience, and with adequate signage for cyclists and pedestrians. PPP T-2 The City of Costa Mesa has a traffic impact fee program. This is a cumulative impact fee which would be determined in consultation with City of Costa Mesa Transportation Services Division staff to be paid in addition to direct project improvements required of the applicant. The City of Costa Mesa Transportation Services Division shall collect the project’s traffic impact fee prior to issuance of the project’s first residential building permit or as otherwise agreed to in the project’s Development Agreement. PPP T-3 The City of Costa Mesa has a fair share program. As projects are approved, and a need for a capital improvement(s) are identified, the City’s Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) list is updated accordingly on an annual basis. The master CIP list, overseen by the Public Services Department, identifies (by each specific capital improvement) the necessary improvement, the specific funding amount, and the status of the improvement. SCA T-1 The City of Costa Mesa Transportation Services Division will ensure that all mitigation measures identified in the Traffic Impact Analysis: One Metro West, City of Costa Mesa Orange County, California (TIA), prepared by LSA, dated November 2019 and/or One Metro West Environmental Impact Report have been implemented prior to issuance of the first occupancy permit. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES PPP TCR-1 The proposed project is required to comply with California Public Resources Code 5097.9– 5097.991 (which protects Native American historical and cultural resources, and sacred sites); Public Resources Code 21084.3 (avoid damaging effects to any tribal cultural resource); Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 (pertaining to the discovery or recognition of any human remains). UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Wastewater Treatment and Collection PPP USS-1 The project’s sewer infrastructure improvements are required to be designed, constructed, and operated in accordance with the Costa Mesa Sanitary District (CMSD) Operations Code. PPP USS-2 The project’s sewer infrastructure is required to be designed, constr ucted, and operated in accordance with the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) Ordinance Nos. 40 and 48, and all wastewater discharges into OCSD facilities shall be required to comply with the discharge standards set forth to protect the public sewage system/and Waters of the United States. ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 1. Executive Summary Page 1-16 April 2021February 2020 PPP USS-3 The project’s sewer infrastructure is required to be designed, constr ucted, and operated in accordance with Municipal Code Sections 15-6, Placing Oil On Streets or in Sewers Prohibited, 15- 67, Required Construction, 13-180, Application Requirements, and 13-71, Utility Requirements. Water Supply and Distribution Systems PPP USS-4 The project’s water infrastructure improvements are required to be designed, constructed, and operated in accordance with the Mesa Water District’s (MWD’s) Standard Specification and Standard Drawings for the Construction of Water Facilities. PPP USS-5 The proposed project is required to be planned, designed, installed, and maintained in accordance with Municipal Code Section 13-107, Irrigation Requirements, and Section 13-71, Utility Requirements. PPP USS-6 The project is required to comply with California Energy Code and Green Building Code provisions related to water and energy conservation. SCA FIRE-24 Water mains and hydrants shall be installed to the standards of Mesa Water District’s (MWD) and dedicated along with repair easements to MWD. Stormwater Infrastructure PPP USS-7 The project’s stormwater infrastructure shall be planned, designed, installed, and maintained in accordance with Municipal Code Section 8-35, Permits, which regulates permitted and illicit connections to the City’s storm drain system in accordance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements. SCA WQMP-66 Prior to or concurrent with submittal of plans for grading, building plan check, and/or submittal of the final subdivision map for engineering plan check, the applicant shall prepare and submit documentation for compliance with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Water Quality Order 99-08-DWQ; National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No. CAS000002 for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity (General Permit); the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (Santa Ana RWQCB) Order No. R8-2009-0030, as amended by Order No. R82010- 0062, or most recent (NPDES Permit No. CAS618030); and the City’s Ordinance No. 97-20 for compliance with the NPDES permit. Such documentation shall include a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) if over one acre and a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) identifying and detailing the implementation of applicable best management practices (BMPs). SCA ENG-18 Proposed storm drain facilities shall be constructed pursuant to the City of Costa Mesa Master Drainage Plan. SCA ENG-19 The project shall fulfill drainage ordinance fee requirements prior to approval of final maps and plans. ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 1. Executive Summary April 2021February 2020 Page 1-17 SCA ENG-21 Private on-site drainage facilities and parkway culverts or drains will not be maintained by the City and shall be maintained by the owner or developer of the property. Private lateral connections to City storm drains shall require a hold harmless agreement prior to issuance of grading or building permits. Refer to Hydrology and Water Quality, for a discussion of PPP HYD-2 through PPP-HYD-4. Solid Waste PPP USS-8 The proposed project’s solid waste infrastructure improvements are required to be designed, constructed, and operated in accordance with the applicable regulations in the Costa Mesa Sanitary District (CMSD) Operations Code. PPP USS-9 The proposed project is required to store and collect recyclable materials in compliance with AB 341 and handle green waste in accordance with AB 1826. PPP USS-10 The proposed project is required to recycle construction waste in accordance with the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) requirements. Other Utilities No existing regulatory requirements, such as plans, policies, programs, or standard conditions of approval related to other utilities apply to the proposed project. IMPACTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT PPP BIO-1 The proposed project is required to comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which governs the taking, killing, possession, transportation, and importation of migratory birds, their eggs, parts, or nests. PPP BIO-2 The proposed project is required to obtain a tree removal permit from the Parks, Arts & Community Services Commission (PACS) for any removal of trees within the City’s public right-of-way (Municipal Code Chapter V, Parkway Trees ). All permit terms for tree replacement would be implemented (at a ratio of 3:1). Before said trees are removed, the PACS shall provide recommendations and findings to the Director of Public Services. SCA BIO-1 Any vegetation removal should take place outside of the active nesting bird season (i.e., February 15–August 15), when feasible, to avoid impacts to nesting birds that are protected under the California Fish and Game Code. Should vegetation removal take place during this period, a qualified biologist should conduct a nesting bird survey prior to construction activities to ensure that birds are not engaged in active nesting within 100 feet of the project site. If nesting birds are discovered during preconstruction surveys, the biologist should identify an appropriate buffer (i.e., up to 500 feet depending on the circumstances and specific bird species) where no construction activities or other disturbances are allowed to occur until after the birds have fledged from the nest and the nest is no longer active (as determined by the qualified biologist). ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 1. Executive Summary Page 1-18 April 2021February 2020 Table 1-1, Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation, summarizes the conclusions of these environmental topic areas. Impacts are identified as less than significant or potentially significant, and mitigation measures are identified, if feasible, for potentially significant impacts. The level of significance after incorporation of the mitigation measures, if feasible, is also presented. ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 1. Executive Summary April 2021February 2020 Page 1-19 Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation 5.1 AESTHETICS Impact 5.1-1 – The proposed project could conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. Potentially Significant Impact AE-1 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the City’s Development Services Department shall verify that the Applicant’s Lighting Plan and Photometric Study prepared as part of SCA AE-5 demonstrates compliance with the following: The mounting height of lights on light standards shall not exceed 18 feet in any location on the project site unless approved by the Development Services Director. Rooftop lighting shall include cutoff optics to ensure lighting is aimed downward and does not contribute to sky brightness or skyglow. Parking structure lighting shall use shielding techniques to focus light into the parking lot areas and screen light from spilling to off-site areas, eliminating light trespass. The parking structure facade artistic treatment shall include light shields or baffles to eliminate glare to travelers along to I-405 Freeway. Exterior building lighting shall not exceed the Caltrans maximum brightness of 350 candelas per meter squared as measured from the adjacent freeway shoulder. Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Impact 5.1-2 – The proposed project could create a substantial new source of light and glare. Potentially Significant Impact. Refer to Mitigation Measure AE-1. Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Cumulative Impacts Impact 5.1-3 – Development of the proposed project and related projects could conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. Potentially Significant Impact. Refer to Mitigation Measure AE-1. Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Impact 5.1-4 – Development of the proposed project and related projects could create a Potentially Significant Impact. Refer to Mitigation Measure AE-1. Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 1. Executive Summary Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Levels of Significance After Mitigation, continued Page 1-20 April 2021February 2020 Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation substantial new source of light and glare. Incorporated. 5.2 AIR QUALITY Impact 5.2-1 – Construction activities associated with the proposed project could generate short-term emissions in exceedance of SCAQMD’s threshold criteria that would cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations in the Basin. Potentially Significant Impact. AIR-1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the grading plans shall stipulate that the contractor shall use construction equipment that meets the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Tier 3 level of emission controls fitted with Level 2 Diesel Particulate Filters (DPF) for all construction equipment 50 horsepower or more during construction activities. AIR-2 The project contractor shall only use interior paints with low VOC content with a maximum concentration of 30 grams per liter (g/L) for residential building architectural coating to reduce VOC emissions. All building and site plans shall note use of paints with a low VOC content with a maximum concentration of 30 g/L verified by the City of Costa Mesa prior to issuance of a building permit and during interior coating activities. Less Than Significant and Unavoidable Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Impact 5.2-2 – Operational air emissions associated with the proposed project would not exceed applicable SCAQMD threshold criteria. Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant Impact. Impact 5.2-3 – Project construction would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant Impact. Impact 5.2-4 – Project operations would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant Impact. Impact 5.2-5 – The proposed project is consistent with the applicable air quality management plan. Less than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant Impact. Impact 5.2-6 – The proposed project would not result in odors that affect a substantial number of people. Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant Impact. Cumulative Impacts Impact 5.2-7 – Cumulative construction activities associated with the proposed project Potentially Significant Impact. Refer to Mitigation Measures AIR-1 and AIR-2. Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 1. Executive Summary Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Levels of Significance After Mitigation, continued April 2021February 2020 Page 1-21 Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation could generate short-term emissions in exceedance of SCAQMD’s threshold criteria that would cumulatively contribute to the Basins’ nonattainment designations. Incorporatedand Unavoidable Impact. Impact 5.2-8 – Long-term project operations would not generate cumulative air emissions in exceedance of applicable SCAQMD thresholds. Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant Impact. Impact 5.2-9 – Construction of the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial cumulative pollutant concentrations. Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant Impact. Impact 5.2-10 – Project operations would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial cumulative pollutant concentrations. Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant Impact. Impact 5.2-11 – The proposed project is consistent with the applicable air quality management plan and would not cause a cumulative impact. Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant Impact. Impact 5.2-12 – The proposed project would not result in odors that affect a substantial number of people and would not cause a cumulative impact. Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant Impact. 5.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES Impact 5.3-1 – Development of the proposed project would not impact an identified historical resource. No Impact. No mitigation measures are required. No Impact. Impact 5.3-2 – Development of the project could impact archaeological resources. Potentially Significant Impact. CUL-1 Prior to issuance of any grading permits, the City of Costa Mesa shall ensure a qualified archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for professional archaeology has been retained for the project and shall be on-call during all demolition and grading/excavation. The qualified archaeologist shall ensure the following measures are followed for the project: Prior to any ground disturbance, the qualified archaeologist, or their designee, Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 1. Executive Summary Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Levels of Significance After Mitigation, continued Page 1-22 April 2021February 2020 Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation shall provide worker environmental awareness protection training to construction personnel regarding regulatory requirements for the protection of cultural (prehistoric and historic) resources. As part of this training, construction personnel shall be briefed on proper procedures to follow should unanticipated cultural resources be discovered during construction. Workers shall be provided contact information and protocols to follow in the event that inadvertent discoveries are made. The training can be in the form of a video or PowerPoint presentation. Printed literature (handouts) can accompany the training and can also be given to new workers and contractors to avoid the necessity of continuous training over the course of the project. Prior to any ground disturbance, the applicant shall submit a written Project Monitoring Plan (PMP) to the City’s Development Services Director for review and approval. The monitoring plan shall include monitor contact information, specific procedures for field observation, diverting and grading to protect finds, and procedures to be followed in the event of significant finds. In the event unanticipated cultural material is encountered during any stage of project construction, all construction work within 50 feet (15 meters) of the find shall cease and the qualified archaeologist shall assess the find for importance. Construction activities may continue in other areas. If the discovery is determined to not be important by the qualified archaeologist, work shall be permitted to continue in the area. If warranted based on the qualified archaeologist’s evaluation of the find, the archaeologist shall collect the resource and prepare a test-level report describing the results of the investigation. The test-level report shall evaluate the site including discussing the significance (depth, nature, condition, and extent of the resource), identifying final mitigation measures the City’s Development Services Director shall verify are incorporated into future construction plans, and providing cost estimates. If the qualified archaeologist determines that the find is prehistoric or includes Native American materials, affiliated Native American groups shall be invited to contribute to the assessment and recovery of the resource, as applicable. The qualified archaeologist and any applicable Native American contacts shall collect the resource and prepare a test-level report describing the results of the investigation. The test-level report shall evaluate the site including ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 1. Executive Summary Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Levels of Significance After Mitigation, continued April 2021February 2020 Page 1-23 Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation discussion of significance (depth, nature, condition, and extent of the resources), final mitigation recommendations, and cost estimates. Salvage operation requirements pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines shall be followed. Work within the area of discovery shall resume only after the resource has been appropriately inventoried, documented, and recovered, as applicable. Impact 5.3-3 – Grading activities would not disturb human remains. Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant Impact. Cumulative Impacts Impact 5.3-4 – Development of the proposed project and related projects would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts to historical resources. No Impact. No mitigation measures are required. No Impact. Impact 5.3-5 – Development of the proposed project and related projects could result in cumulatively considerable impacts to archaeological resources. Potentially Significant Impact. Refer to Mitigation Measure CUL-1. Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Impact 5.3-6 – Development of the proposed project and related projects would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts to human remains. Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant Impact. 5.4 ENERGY Impact 5.4-1 – The project would not result in a significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation. Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant Impact. Impact 5.4-2 – The project would not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant Impact. ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 1. Executive Summary Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Levels of Significance After Mitigation, continued Page 1-24 April 2021February 2020 Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Cumulative Impacts Impact 5.4-3 – The project would not result in a cumulatively significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation. Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant Impact. Impact 5.4-4 – The proposed project, in combination with related projects, would not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant Impact. 5.5 GEOLOGY AND SOILS Impact 5.5-1 – Development of the proposed project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects involving seismic-related hazards. Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant Impact. Impact 5.5-2 – Development of the proposed project would not result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil. Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant Impact. Impact 5.5-3 – Development of the proposed project would not be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant Impact. Impact 5.5-4 – The proposed project would not create substantial risks to life and property due to expansive soils. Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant Impact. Impact 5.5-5 – Development of the proposed project could impact unknown paleontological resources. Potentially Significant Impact. GEO-1 The project applicant shall retain a qualified paleontologist to develop a Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP) for this project. The PRIMP shall be consistent with the guidelines of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology and include the methods that shall be used to protect Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 1. Executive Summary Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Levels of Significance After Mitigation, continued April 2021February 2020 Page 1-25 Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation paleontological resources that may exist within the project area, as well as procedures for monitoring, fossil preparation and identification, curation into a repository, and preparation of a report at the conclusion of grading. A copy of the PRIMP shall be submitted to the Development Services Department prior to the issuance of a grading permit. GEO-2 Excavation and grading activities in deposits with high paleontological sensitivity shall be monitored by a qualified paleontological monitor following a PRIMP. No paleontological monitoring is required for activities in artificial fill or the young alluvial fan deposits from the surface to a depth of ten feet below ground surface (bgs). If paleontological resources are encountered during the course of ground disturbance activities, the paleontological monitor shall have the authority to temporarily redirect construction away from the area of the find in order to assess its significance. In the event paleontological resources are encountered when a paleontological monitor is not present, work in the immediate area of the find shall be redirected, and a paleontologist shall be contacted to assess the find for significance. If determined to be significant, the fossil shall be collected from the field. GEO-3 If paleontological resources are determined to be significant by the qualified paleontologist, the collected paleontological resources shall be prepared to the point of identification, identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible, cataloged, and curated into the permanent collections of a museum repository. At the conclusion of the monitoring program, a report of findings shall be prepared by the qualified paleontologist to document the results of the monitoring program, and a copy of the report shall be provided to the Development Services Department. Cumulative Impacts Impact 5.5-6 – Development of the proposed project and related projects would not result in cumulatively considerable geology and soils impacts. Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant Impact. Impact 5.5-7 – Development of the proposed project and related cumulative projects could result in cumulatively considerable impacts to Potentially Significant Impact. Refer to Mitigation Measures GEO-1 through GEO-3. Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 1. Executive Summary Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Levels of Significance After Mitigation, continued Page 1-26 April 2021February 2020 Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation paleontological resources. 5.6 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Impact 5.6-1 – Implementation of the proposed project could generate a net increase in GHG emissions that would have a significant impact on the environment. Potentially Significant Impact. GHG-1 Prior to issuance of a building permit, the City’s Planning Division shall verify that the applicant has designed the proposed parking areas to provide preferential parking for low-emitting, fuel-efficient, and carpool/van vehicles. At a minimum, the number of electric vehicle (EV) charging stations shall be equal to Tier 2 Nonresidential Voluntary Measures of the California Green Building Standards Code Section A5.106.5.1.2. GHG-2 Prior to issuance of a building permit, the City’s Building Division shall verify that the applicant has designed the proposed parking areas to provide electric vehicle (EV) charging stations. At a minimum, the number of EV charging stations shall be equal to the Tier 2 Nonresidential Voluntary Measures of the California Green Building Standards Code Section A5.106.5.3.2. Significant and Unavoidable Impact. Impact 5.6-2 – Implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant Impact. Cumulative Impacts Impact 5.6-3 – Implementation of the proposed project could generate a net increase in GHG emissions that would result in a cumulatively significant impact on the environment. Potentially Significant. Refer to Mitigation Measures GHG-1 and GHG-2. Significant and Unavoidable Impact. Impact 5.6-4 – Implementation of the proposed project, in combination with related projects, would not cumulatively conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant Impact. 5.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Impact 5.7-1 – Project construction and operation could create a significant hazard Potentially Significant Impact. HAZ-1 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Soils Management Plan (SMP) (prepared by Geocon Incorporated, dated July 24, 2019) shall be made Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 1. Executive Summary Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Levels of Significance After Mitigation, continued April 2021February 2020 Page 1-27 Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous waste. available to the contractor and City Engineer for use prior to and during grading activities. The following Performance Criteria shall be incorporated into the SMP prior to issuance of a grading permit: Site-specific health and safety requirements, pre-field activities, site control, excavation of impacted soil, dust and erosion control, air monitoring, decontamination, field documentation and confirmation soil sampling shall be implemented under the oversight of a licensed professional geologist or engineer and the appropriate regulatory oversight agencies (including DTSC and Santa Ana RWQCB) shall be notified, as required by law; If contaminated soil is encountered, the appropriate regulatory oversight agencies (e.g., DTSC, RWQCB, OCHCA) shall be notified; Soil sampling shall follow the protocols outlined in the DTSC Preliminary Endangerment Assessment Guidance Manual dated October 2015; and Soil import/export verification sampling shall be conducted by a qualified environmental professional to confirm the presence or absence of hazardous materials prior to hauling off-site. Proof of verification sampling shall be provided to the City Engineer prior to import/export. In the event potential contamination is encountered, the contamination shall be evaluated by the qualified environmental professional using appropriate collection and sampling techniques as determined by the appropriate regulatory oversight agency (e.g., DTSC, RWQCB, OCHCA). The nature and extent of contamination shall be determined and the appropriate handling, disposal, and/or treatment shall be implemented in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements. HAZ-2 Contractors shall be responsible for the health and safety of their own employees and are required to have their own Health and Safety Plan (HSP) and Injury and Illness Prevention Plans (IIPPs) to comply with OSHA. The HSP and IIPPs must be submitted to the Development Services Department prior to the issuance of a grading or demolition permit. The copy of the plan(s) must also The HSPs shall provide health and safety guidance such that field activities can be conducted in a safe manner. The plan must be kept on site Incorporated. ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 1. Executive Summary Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Levels of Significance After Mitigation, continued Page 1-28 April 2021February 2020 Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation during any soil disturbance and hauling activities, if required. Impact 5.7-2 – Project construction and operations could create a significant hazard through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials. Potentially Significant Impact. Refer to Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2. Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Impact 5.7-3 – The project would be located within an airport land use plan (or where such a plan has not been adopted) or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, but would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant Impact. Impact 5.7-4 – Project development could affect the implementation of an emergency responder or evacuation plan. Potentially Significant Impact. HAZ-3 At least three business days prior to any lane closure, the construction contractor shall notify the Costa Mesa Police Department and Costa Mesa Fire Department, along with the City of Costa Mesa Public Services Director, of construction activities that would impede movement (such as road or lane closures), to allow for uninterrupted emergency access of evacuation routes. Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Cumulative Impacts Impact 5.7-5 – Construction and operation of the proposed project and related projects could create a cumulatively considerable impact to the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous waste. Potentially Significant Impact. Refer to Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2. Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Impact 5.7-6 – Construction and operation of the proposed project and related projects could result in a cumulatively considerable impact through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials. Potentially Significant Impact. Refer to Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2. Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Impact 5.7-7 – The project and related projects could be located within an airport land use plan (or where such a plan has not been adopted) or Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant Impact. ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 1. Executive Summary Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Levels of Significance After Mitigation, continued April 2021February 2020 Page 1-29 Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, but would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. Impact 5.7-8 – Development of the proposed project and related projects could affect the implementation of an emergency responder or evacuation plan. Potentially Significant Impact. Refer to Mitigation Measure HAZ-3. Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. 5.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Impact 5.8-1 – The proposed project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality. Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant Impact. Impact 5.8-2 – The proposed project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant Impact. Impact 5.8-3 – The proposed project would not 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 a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant Impact. Impact 5.8-4 – The proposed project would not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff and result in flooding on- or off- site. Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant Impact. Impact 5.8-5 – The proposed project would not impede or redirect flood flows. Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant Impact. Impact 5.8-6 – The proposed project would not Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 1. Executive Summary Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Levels of Significance After Mitigation, continued Page 1-30 April 2021February 2020 Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. Impact. Cumulative Impacts Impact 5.8-7 – Development of the proposed project and related projects would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts to water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality. Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant Impact. Impact 5.8-8 – Development of the proposed project and related projects would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts to groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that sustainable groundwater management of the basin is impeded. Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant Impact. Impact 5.8-9 – Development of the proposed project and related projects would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts related to substantially altering 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 a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant Impact. Impact 5.8-10 – Development of the proposed project and related projects would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts related to substantially increasing the rate or amount of surface runoff and result in flooding on- or off- site. Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant Impact. Impact 5.8-11 – Development of the proposed project and related projects would not result in Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant Impact. ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 1. Executive Summary Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Levels of Significance After Mitigation, continued April 2021February 2020 Page 1-31 Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation cumulatively considerable impacts related to impeding or redirecting flood flows. Impact 5.8-12 –Development of the proposed project and related projects would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts related to conflicting with or obstructing implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant Impact. 5.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING Impact 5.9-1 – Project implementation would not conflict with applicable plans adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant Impact. Cumulative Impacts Impact 5.9-2 – Development of the proposed project in combination with related projects would not result in cumulatively considerable conflicts with applicable plans adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant Impact. 5.10 NOISE Impact 5.10-1 – Construction activities would not result in temporary noise increases in the project vicinity but would not exceed applicable standards. Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant Impact. Impact 5.10-2 – Long-term operational noise generated by the proposed project would not exceed applicable standards. Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant Impact. Impact 5.10-3 – The project would not generate excessive short- or long-term groundborne vibration or noise. Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant Impact. ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 1. Executive Summary Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Levels of Significance After Mitigation, continued Page 1-32 April 2021February 2020 Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Impact 5.10-4 – The proximity of the project site to the John Wayne Airport would not result in exposure of future residents and/or workers to excessive airport-related noise. No Impact. No mitigation measures are required. No Impact. Cumulative Impacts Impact 5.10-5 – Cumulative construction activities would not result in temporary noise increases that could exceed applicable standards. Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant Impact. Impact 5.10-6 – Implementation of the proposed project, in combination with related projects, would not result in a cumulatively significant long-term operation-related noise impacts. Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant Impact. Impact 5.10-7 – Implementation of the proposed project, in combination with related projects, would not cumulatively create excessive long-term or short-term groundborne vibration and groundborne noise. Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant Impact. Impact 5.10-8 – Project development, in combination with related projects, would not cumulatively expose future residents and/or workers to excessive airport-related noise. Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant Impact. 5.11 POPULATION AND HOUSING Impact 5.11-1 – The proposed project would not directly or indirectly result in substantial unplanned population growth in the project area. Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant Impact. Cumulative Impacts Impact 5.11-2 – Development of the proposed project and related projects would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts related to substantial unplanned population growth. Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant Impact. ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 1. Executive Summary Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Levels of Significance After Mitigation, continued April 2021February 2020 Page 1-33 Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation 5.12 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION Impact 5.12-1 – The proposed project could increase the intensity of the project site, thereby increasing the demand for fire protection facilities and personnel. Potentially Significant Impact. PS-1 Prior to issuance of the first occupancy permit, the applicant shall provide written documentation to the City of Costa Mesa Development Services Department that the existing traffic signals along the response corridors from Costa Mesa Fire & Rescue Department (CMFD) Stations 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 to the project site have been retrofitted with Emergency Vehicle Preemption (EVP) as required by CMFD. PS-2 In addition to compliance with standard fire protection requirements of the California Fire Code and referenced standards as adopted by the Costa Mesa Fire & Rescue Department (CMFD), the project shall provide the following three fire protection features in excess of minimum code requirements to ensure the proposed Building A and associated parking garage design meet CMFD’s fire apparatus access road and hose pull requirements: Wet standpipes with one, 2.5-inch connection shall be provided at, or near, the end of each of the 300-foot hose pull reaches; An increase fire sprinkler density of 0.20 gallons per minute (GPM)/1500 without any corresponding reduction in design area due to the use of quick response sprinkler heads shall be included in the sprinkler system design; and A two-hour firefighter tunnel shall be provided to reduce the project’s deficient hose pull. All other apparatus access roads, buildings, and structures on-site shall comply with the fire protection requirements of the California Fire Code and referenced standards as adopted by the CMFD. Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 1. Executive Summary Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Levels of Significance After Mitigation, continued Page 1-34 April 2021February 2020 Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Impact 5.12-2 – The proposed project would not significantly increase the intensity of development at the site, thereby increasing the demand for police protection facilities and personnel. Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant Impact. Impact 5.12-3 – The proposed project would introduce new students into the NMUSD service area, but would not adversely impact school enrollment capacities. Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant Impact. Impact 5.12-4 – Project development would not significantly increase residents in the OCPL service area, thus increasing demands for library facilities and services. Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant Impact. Impact 5.12-5 – Project development would introduce additional residents in the City, but would not substantially increase demands for park facilities and recreation services. Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant Impact. Cumulative Impacts Impact 5.12-6 – The project, combined with other related projects, could increase demand for CMFD services that could cause significant environmental impacts. Potentially Significant Impact. Refer to Mitigation Measures PS-1 and PS-2. Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Impact 5.12-7 – The project, combined with other cumulative projects, would not substantially increase demand for CMPD services that could cause significant environmental impacts. Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant Impact. Impact 5.12-8 – Development of the proposed project, in combination with related projects, would not adversely impact NMUSD’s facilities and resources. Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant Impact. Impact 5.12-9 – The project, combined with other cumulative projects, would not Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant Impact. ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 1. Executive Summary Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Levels of Significance After Mitigation, continued April 2021February 2020 Page 1-35 Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation substantially increase demands for OCPL services that could cause significant environmental impacts. Impact 5.12-10 – The project, combined with other cumulative projects, would not substantially increase demands for parks and recreational facilities that could cause significant environmental impacts. Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant Impact. 5.13 TRANSPORTATION Impact 5.13-1 – The project could conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. Potentially Significant Impact. T-1 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall contribute its fair share contribution to the City of Costa Mesa Transportation Division for the implementation of adding a southbound right-turn lane by restriping Susan Street at the intersection Susan Street/South Coast Drive (Study Intersection No. 18). Upon project approval, the City shall update the Capital Improvement Projects list accordingly. T-2 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall contribute its fair share contribution to the City of Fountain Valley Transportation Division for improvements to the intersection of Talbert Avenue/Mt. Washington Street (Study Intersection No. 28), including adding a traffic signal, restriping the northbound approach to a shared left through lane and a dedicated right turn lane, converting the southbound right turn lane to a dedicated channelized free right turn lane, and adding overlap phasing for a northbound right turn movement. Significant and Unavoidable Impact. Impact 5.13-2 – The project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant Impact. Impact 5.13-3 – The project would not result in inadequate emergency access. Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant Impact. Impact 5.13-4 – Development of the proposed project and related projects could cumulatively conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or Potentially Significant Impact. Refer to Mitigation Measures T-1 and T-2. Significant and Unavoidable Impact. ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 1. Executive Summary Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Levels of Significance After Mitigation, continued Page 1-36 April 2021February 2020 Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. Impact 5.13-5 – Development of the proposed project and related projects would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant Impact. Impact 5.13-6 – Development of the proposed project and related projects would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts to emergency access. Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant Impact. 5.14 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES Impact 5.14-1 – Development of the proposed project could impact unknown tribal cultural resources. Potentially Significant Impact. TCR-1 Prior to issuance of any grading permits, the qualified archaeologist (required pursuant to Mitigation Measure CUL-1) shall identify a Native American Monitor determined by the City of Costa Mesa and in consultation with the Native American Heritage Commission for the project grading activities and/or any other activities involving native soils. In the event unanticipated tribal cultural material is encountered during any stage of site disturbance/construction, the Native American Monitor shall be contacted and all construction work within 50 feet (15 meters) of the find shall cease until the find can be assessed. If, in consultation with the City, the discovery is determined to not be significant, work will be permitted to continue in the area. If the resources appear to be of significant tribal cultural value, they shall be professionally recovered pursuant to the requirements of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 and in consultation with the Native American Monitor identified. Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 1. Executive Summary Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Levels of Significance After Mitigation, continued April 2021February 2020 Page 1-37 Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Cumulative Impacts Impact 5.14-1 – Development of the proposed project and related projects could result in cumulatively considerable impacts to unknown tribal cultural resources. Potentially Significant Impact. Refer to Mitigation Measures TCR-1. Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. 5.15 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Impact 5.15-1 – Existing and proposed wastewater facilities would be able to accommodate project-generated wastewater. Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant Impact. Impact 5.15-2 – Existing water supply and delivery systems are adequate to meet project- generated water demand. Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant Impact. Impact 5.15-3 – Existing and proposed stormwater facilities would be able to accommodate project-generated stormwater flow. Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant Impact. Impact 5.15-4 – Existing solid waste facilities would be able to accommodate project- generated solid waste and the project would comply with existing solid waste regulations. Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant Impact. Impact 5.15-5 – Existing electricity and natural gas service providers would be able to accommodate project-generated utility demands. Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant Impact. Impact 5.15-6 – Development of the project, in combination with related projects, would not cumulatively impact existing and proposed wastewater facilities. Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant Impact. Impact 5.15-7 – Existing and planned water supply and delivery systems are adequate to meet water demands of the proposed project and related projects. Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant Impact. ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 1. Executive Summary Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Levels of Significance After Mitigation, continued Page 1-38 April 2021February 2020 Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Impact 5.15-8 – Development of the project, in combination with related projects, would not cumulatively impact existing and proposed storm drain facilities. Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant Impact. Impact 5.15-9 – The proposed project, in combination with related projects, would not adversely impact the capacity of existing solid waste facilities and would comply with existing solid waste regulations. Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant Impact. Impact 5.15-10 – Development of the project, in combination with related projects, would not cumulatively impact existing electricity and natural gas service providers. Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant Impact. ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 1. Executive Summary April 2021February 2020 Page 1-39 1.7 SUMMARY OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, this section provides a summary description of the alternatives to the project, which could feasibly attain most of the project’s basic objectives, while avoiding or substantially lessening the project’s significant effects. The evaluation considers the comparative merits of each alternative. The analysis focuses on alternatives capable of avoiding or substantially lessening the project’s significant environmental effects, even if the alternative would impede, to some degree, the attainment of the proposed project objectives. The following alternatives are considered in this EIR: No Project/No Development Alternative; and Reduced Development Intensity Alternative. Throughout Chapter 7, Alternatives to the Proposed Project, the alternatives’ impacts are analyzed for each environmental issue area, as examined in Sections 5.1 through 5.15 of this EIR. In this manner, each alternative was compared to the project on an issue-by-issue basis. The following is a summary description of each of the alternatives evaluated in Chapter 7. 1.7.1 No Project/No Development Alternative The No Project/No Development Alternative is required to discuss the existing conditions at the time the Notice of Preparation is published (May 2019) (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[e]). Therefore, the No Project/No Development Alternative assumes that the proposed Specific Plan would not be approved and no new development would occur on-site. The existing one-story 345,000-square foot industrial building would continue to operate similar to existing conditions. 1.7.2 Reduced Development Intensity Alternative The Reduced Development Intensity Alternative was selected to avoid or substantially lessen the proposed project’s significant unavoidable impacts related to air quality (construction), greenhouse gas emissions, and transportation. This alternative assumes a 20 percent reduction in residential units and elimination of the 25,000-square foot creative office building and 1.5-acre open space. Similar to the proposed project, and as shown on Figure 7-1, Reduced Development Intensity Alternative, the 845 residential units would be constructed in three multi-story buildings, however, Building B would be slightly relocated to the west where the 1.5-acre open space was previously proposed and one level of Building A would be eliminated, reducing its height to five stories. Similar to the proposed project, construction would occur in three phases with occupancy occurring after each building is completed. Additionally, Tthis alternative would still provide affordable units, but the number of units would be proportionally lower than the proposed project. Given the reduction in residential units, parking on-site would also be reduced by a proportional amount while still meeting the Specific Plan parking requirements. Under this alternative, the project would not be able to finance all proposed amenities and thus, would eliminate the 1,500-square foot community room, bicycle lockers, bicycle storage, bicycle repair facilities, ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 1. Executive Summary Page 1-40 April 2021February 2020 active transportation hub, Sunflower Avenue pedestrian and bicyclist facility improvements, and trail improvements along the western portion of the site towards the Santa Ana River Trail. Overall, the reduction in residential and non-residential development (212 fewer residential units, 25,000 fewer square feet of creative office space, and elimination of the 1.5-acre open space) would reduce associated vehicle trips and impacts related to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and transportation. Refer to Table 7-1, Reduced Development Intensity Alternative Trip Generation. Discretionary actions required under this alternative would be similar to the proposed project, and would include General Plan Amendments, Zone Change/Zoning Code Amendment, Specific Plan, Master Plan, Development Agreement, Tentative Tract Map, Tree Removal Permit, and Public Art Plan. Similarly, upon City Council approval, this alternative would be subject to Measure Y. 1.7.3 Environmentally Superior Alternative CEQA requires a lead agency to identify the “environmentally superior alternative” and, in cases where the “No Project” Alternative is environmentally superior to the proposed project, the environmentally superior development alternative must be identified. Table 1-2, Comparison of Alternatives, summarizes the comparative analysis presented above. As shown, the No Project/No Development Alternative results in the most “environmentally superior” or “neither environmentally superior nor inferior” topical areas and also eliminates the project’s significant and unavoidable impacts related to construction air quality and greenhouse gas emissions and transportation; thus, it is the environmentally superior alternative. Since the “No Project” Alternative is environmentally superior to the proposed project, the environmentally superior development alternative is the Reduced Development Intensity Alternative. Table 1-2 Comparison of Alternatives Sections Proposed Project No Project/No Development Alternative Reduced Development Intensity Alternative Aesthetics LTS/M = = Air Quality LTS/MS/U * Cultural Resources LTS/M = Energy LTS Geology and Soils LTS/M = Greenhouse Gas Emissions S/U * Hazards and Hazardous Materials LTS/M = = Hydrology and Water Quality LTS = Land Use and Planning LTS Noise LTS Population and Housing LTS = = Public Services and Recreation LTS/M Transportation S/U * * Tribal Cultural Resources LTS/M = Utilities and Service Systems LTS Notes: LTS = Less Than Significant; LTS/M = Less Than Significant With Mitigation; S/U = Significant and Unavoidable Indicates an impact that is greater than the project (environmentally inferior). Indicates an impact that is less than the project (environmentally superior). = Indicates an impact that is equal to the project (neither environmentally superior nor inferior). ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 1. Executive Summary April 2021February 2020 Page 1-41 * Indicates an impact that would eliminate one or more significant and unavoidable impacts associated with the project. Under the Reduced Development Intensity Alternative, impacts to air quality (construction), greenhouse gas emissions, and transportation would be reduced compared to the proposed project, but would remain significant and unavoidable. This alternative would also lessen the project’s less than significant impacts pertaining to air quality, energy, noise, public services and recreation, and utilities and service systems. This alternative would result in similar impacts in the areas of aesthetics, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, population and housing, and tribal cultural resources. Potential impacts related to land use and planning would be slightly greater due to reduction of on- site and off-site amenities. ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 1. Executive Summary Page 1-42 April 2021February 2020 This page intentionally left blank. ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I February 2020April 2021 Chapter 2.0 Introduction ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I February 2020April 2021 This page intentionally left blank. April 2021February 2020 Page 2-1 2. Introduction 2.1 PURPOSE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 2.1.1 California Environmental Quality Act Compliance The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that all State and local governmental agencies consider the environmental consequences of projects over which they have discretionary authority before taking action on those projects. This Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) has been prepared to satisfy CEQA, as amended (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines, as amended (California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et seq.). The Draft EIR is a public document designed to provide decision makers and the public with an analysis of the environmental effects of the proposed project, to indicate possible ways to reduce or avoid environmental damage, and to identify alternatives to the project. The EIR must also disclose significant environmental impacts that cannot be avoided; growth inducing impacts; effects found not to be significant; and significant cumulative impacts of all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. The intent of the Draft EIR is to provide enough information on the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project to allow the City of Costa Mesa (City) to make an informed decision regarding approval of the project. Specific discretionary actions to be reviewed by the City are described in Section 3.4, Intended Uses of the EIR. The overall purpose of this Draft EIR is to inform the lead agency, responsible agencies, decision makers, and the general public about the environmental effects of the construction and operation of the proposed project. This Draft EIR addresses effects that may be significant and adverse, identifies mitigation measures to reduce or avoid adverse effects, and evaluates alternatives to the project. 2.1.2 Lead Agency and Responsible Agencies The lead agency is defined as “the public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project which may have a significant effect upon the environment” (CEQA Guidelines Section 21067). The City has the principal responsibility for approval of the One Metro West project (project). For this reason, the City is the CEQA lead agency for this project. The City will has be reviewing reviewed and considering considered the determinations of the Final EIR prior to exercising its independent judgment to approve, modify, or reject the proposed project. A responsible agency is the public agency which has the responsibility to carry out or approve a project for which a lead agency is preparing or has prepared an environmental document. For the purposes of CEQA, the ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 2. Introduction Page 2-2 April 2021February 2020 term “responsible agency” includes all public agencies other than the lead agency which have discretionary approval power over the project. 2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURES This Draft EIR has been prepared pursuant to CEQA to assess the environmental effects associated with implementation of the proposed project, as well as anticipated future discretionary actions and approvals. The six main purposes of this document, as established by CEQA, are listed below: 1. To disclose to decision makers and the public the significant environmental effects of proposed activities. 2. To identify ways to avoid or reduce environmental damage. 3. To prevent environmental damage by requiring implementation of feasible alternatives or mitigation measures. 4. To disclose to the public reasons for agency approval of projects with significant environmental effects. 5. To foster interagency coordination in the review of projects. 6. To enhance public participation in the planning process. An EIR is the most comprehensive form of environmental documentation identified in CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines to provide the information needed to assess the environmental consequences of a proposed project. EIRs are intended to provide an objective, factually supported analysis and full disclosure of the environmental consequences of a proposed project with the potential to result in significant adverse environmental impacts. An EIR is also one of various decision-making tools used by a lead agency to consider the merits and disadvantages of a project that is subject to its discretionary authority. Before approving a proposed project, the lead agency must consider the information in the EIR; determine whether the EIR was properly prepared in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines; determine that it reflects the independent judgment of the lead agency; adopt findings concerning the project’s significant environmental impacts and alternatives; and adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations if the proposed project would result in significant environmental impacts even after incorporation of feasible mitigation measures, and if there are, on balance, overriding benefits which outweigh the remaining adverse impacts. 2.2.1 EIR Format This Draft EIR has been formatted as described below. Chapter 1. Executive Summary: Summarizes the background and description of the proposed project, project alternatives, any critical issues remaining to be resolved, and the potential environmental impacts and mitigation measures identified for the project. ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 2. Introduction April 2021February 2020 Page 2-3 Chapter 2. Introduction: Describes the purpose of this Draft EIR, background on the project, the format of this Draft EIR, the Notice of Preparation (NOP), the use of incorporation by reference, and Final EIR certification. Chapter 3. Project Description: Provides a detailed description of the project, including its objectives, area and location, approvals anticipated to be required as part of the project, necessary environmental clearances, and the intended uses of this Draft EIR. Chapter 4. Environmental Setting: Includes a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project as they existed at the time the NOP was published, from local and regional perspectives. This provides the baseline physical conditions from which the lead agency determines the significance of the project’s environmental impacts. Chapter 5. Environmental Analysis: Each environmental topic is analyzed in a separate section that discusses: Existing regulatory and environmental setting; Thresholds used to determine if a significant impact would occur; Applicable plans, programs, policies, and standard conditions of approval; Potential environmental impacts of the project; Potential cumulative impacts; Level of impact significance before mitigation; Mitigation measures for the proposed project; and Level of significance after mitigation is incorporated. Chapter 6. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts: Describes the significant unavoidable adverse impacts of the proposed project. Chapter 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project: Describes a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project and the impacts of the alternatives compared to the proposed project. Chapter 8. Impacts Found Not to Be Significant: Describes the potential impacts of the project that were determined not to be significant and were, therefore, not discussed in detail in this Draft EIR. Chapter 9. Significant Irreversible Changes Due to the Proposed Project: Describes the significant irreversible environmental changes associated with the proposed project. Chapter 10. Growth-Inducing Impacts of the Project: Describes the ways in which the proposed project would cause increases in employment or population that could result in new physical or environmental impacts. Chapter 11. Organizations and Persons Consulted: Lists the people who prepared this Draft EIR and organizations and persons contacted during the preparation of this Draft EIR. Chapter 12. Bibliography: Lists the technical reports and other sources used to prepare this Draft EIR. ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 2. Introduction Page 2-4 April 2021February 2020 Appendices: The appendices for this document comprise these supporting documents: Appendix A: Notice of Preparation (NOP) Appendix B: NOP Comments Appendix C: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis Appendix D: Cultural Resources Survey Report Appendix E: Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Appendix F: Paleontological Resources Assessment Appendix G: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report Appendix H: Asbestos Survey Appendix I: Preliminary Hydrology Report Appendix J: Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan Appendix K: Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis Appendix L: Public Services and Utilities Correspondence Appendix M: Traffic Impact Analysis Appendix N: Water Supply Assessment Appendix O : Biological Resources Technical Memorandum and Tree Removal Plan Appendix P: Construction Phasing Memo 2.2.2 Type and Purpose of This EIR This EIR has been prepared as a “Project EIR” as defined by Section 15161 of the CEQA Guidelines. This type of EIR examines the environmental impacts of a specific development project and should focus primarily on the changes in the environment that would result from the development project. The EIR examines all stages of the project, including planning, construction, and operation. 2.3 SCOPING PROCESS The City determined that an EIR would be required for this project and issued an NOP on May 23, 2019; refer to Appendix A, Notice of Preparation (NOP). The NOP was distributed for public review from May 23, 2019 to June 26, 2019, in exceedance of the required 30-day public review period. Comment letters received are provided in Appendix B, NOP Comments. The NOP process helps determine the scope of the environmental issues to be addressed in the Draft EIR. Based on this process, certain environmental categories were identified as having the potential to result in significant impacts. Issues considered potentially significant are addressed in Chapter 5, Environmental Analysis; issues determined to have no impact and how the determinations were made are provided in Chapter 8, Impacts Found Not to Be Significant. As detailed in Table 2-1, NOP and Public Scoping Meeting Commenters, thirteen agencies, two organizations, and 20 residents/interested parties responded to the NOP and/or provided comments during the public scoping ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 2. Introduction April 2021February 2020 Page 2-5 meeting conducted by the City on June 5, 2019 at the Costa Mesa Senior Center, 695 West 19th Street, Costa Mesa, California 92627. Table 2-1 NOP and Public Scoping Meeting Commenters Commenter Date Agencies Governor’s Office of Planning and Research – State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit May 23, 2019 Native American Heritage Commission June 7, 2019 Southern California Gas Company June 10, 2019 South Coast Air Quality Management District June 11, 2019 Department of Toxic Substances Control June 13, 2019 City of Fountain Valley – Planning Department June 14, 2019 Orange County Transportation Authority June 18, 2019 California Department of Transportation – District 12 June 19, 2019 City of Irvine – Community Development Department June 20, 2019 OC Public Works – Service Area/OC Development Services June 20, 2019 Southern California Association of Governments June 20, 2019 Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County June 20, 2019 City of Santa Ana – Planning and Building Agency June 21, 2019 Organizations Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians May 28, 2019 Earthjustice June 20, 2019 Individuals Amy and Maurice Mamo May 30, 2019 Bill Partnoff May 30, June 51, and June 21, 2019 Debra Marsteller May 30, 2019 Bob Rasch May 31, 2019 Kemmer Fitzsimmons May 31, 2019 Anna Vrska June 5, 20191 Jason Thesing June 5, 20191 Mary Spadoni June 5, 20191 Priscilla Rocco June 51 and June 21, 2019 Sandra Genis June 5, 20191 Andrew Nelson June 20, 2019 Russell Rowlands June 20, 2019 Jan Harmon June 21, 2019 Karen Klepack June 21, 2019 Noah and Marin Von Blom June 21, 2019 Sue Bright June 21, 2019 Kenneth J. Rhea June 21, 2019 Shawn McBride June 24, 2019 Mike Mullen June 25, 2019 Tim O’Brien February 25, 20192 Notes: 1 Comments received on June 5, 2019 were received during the public scoping meeting. 2 This date was likely incorrect on the letter and should be June 25, 2019. A summary of the primary issue areas, and where in the Draft EIR the issues are addressed, are as follows: Aesthetic and lighting impacts related to the existing visual character and quality of the project area (refer to Section 5.1, Aesthetics); Impacts related to air quality and health risk (refer to Section 5.2, Air Quality); ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 2. Introduction Page 2-6 April 2021February 2020 Impacts to cultural and archaeological resources (refer to Section 5.3, Cultural Resources); Impacts related to energy use (refer to Section 5.4, Energy); Greenhouse gas emissions impacts associated with project construction and operations (refer to Section 5.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions); Impacts related to hazardous materials in the project vicinity (refer to Section 5.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials); Hydrology, water quality, and flooding impacts related to project operations (refer to Section 5.8, Hydrology and Water Quality); Consistency with local and regional planning documentation, goals, and policies (refer to Section 5.9, Land Use and Planning); Noise created by project construction and operations in the site vicinity (refer to Section 5.10, Noise); Impacts on public services (refer to Section 5.12, Public Services); Traffic, circulation, and access impacts to local and regional roadway facilities, and impacts to pedestrians and bicyclists (refer to Section 5.13, Transportation); Impacts on existing infrastructure facilities (refer to Section 5.15, Utilities and Service Systems); and Consideration of other project alternatives (refer to Chapter 7, Alternatives to the Proposed Project). 2.4 SCOPE OF THIS DRAFT EIR The scope of the Draft EIR was determined based on review of the current conditions of the project site and surrounding area, the scope of the proposed project, comments received in response to the NOP, and comments received at the scoping meeting conducted by the City on June 5, 2019, at 3:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. at Costa Mesa Senior Center at 695 West 19th Street, Costa Mesa, California 92627. The purpose of the scoping meeting was to provide an open house forum for the public and other agencies to learn about the project and the CEQA process and to provide input on the environmental issues that should be addressed in the EIR. Attendees were instructed to provide written comments on the proposed project and EIR; comment letters received from attendees are included in Appendix B; refer also to Table 2-1. Appendix B summarizes the issues identified by commenting agencies or persons. Pursuant to Sections 15126.2 and 15126.4 of the CEQA Guidelines, the Draft EIR should identify any potentially significant adverse impacts and recommend mitigation that would reduce or eliminate these impacts to levels of insignificance. The information in Chapter 3, Project Description, establishes the basis for analyzing future, project-related environmental impacts. 2.4.1 Potentially Significant Adverse Impacts The City determined the following 16 environmental factors have potentially significant impacts if the proposed project is implemented: Aesthetics; Air Quality; Cultural Resources; ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 2. Introduction April 2021February 2020 Page 2-7 Energy; Geology and Soils; Greenhouse Gas Emissions; Hazards and Hazardous Materials; Hydrology and Water Quality; Land Use and Planning; Noise; Population and Housing; Public Services; Recreation; Transportation; Tribal Cultural Resources; and Utilities and Service Systems. The City has determined that the project would result in no impact to the following topical areas as substantiated in Chapter 8, Impacts Found Not to Be Significant: Agriculture and Forestry Resources; Biological Resources; Mineral Resources; and Wildfire. 2.4.2 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts This Draft EIR identifies significant and unavoidable adverse impacts, as defined by CEQA, that would result from implementation of the proposed project. Unavoidable adverse impacts may be considered significant on a project-specific basis, cumulatively significant, and/or potentially significant. The City must prepare a Statement of Overriding Considerations before it can approve the project, attesting that the decision-making body has balanced the benefits of the proposed project against its significant unavoidable environmental effects and has determined the benefits outweigh the adverse effects, and therefore the adverse effects are considered acceptable. The impacts found in the Draft EIR to be significant and unavoidable are in the following areas: Air Quality; Greenhouse Gas Emissions; and Transportation. 2.5 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE Several documents are incorporated by reference into this Draft EIR, consistent with Section 15150 of the CEQA Guidelines, and are available for review at the City of Costa Mesa, Development Services Department, 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, California 92626. ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 2. Introduction Page 2-8 April 2021February 2020 City of Costa Mesa, 2015–2035 General Plan, 2016. City of Costa Mesa, Final Environmental Impact Report for the 2015–2035 General Plan, State Clearinghouse No. 2015111053, prepared by MIG, Inc., June 26, 2016. City of Costa Mesa, Costa Mesa Municipal Code, current through Ordinance 9-12 and the July 2019 code supplement, updated July 2019. 2.6 PUBLIC REVIEW OF THE DRAFT EIR The EIR was prepared and distributed for a 45-day public review period (which was extended an additional week) beginning February 7, 2020 and ending March 30, 2020. This Draft EIR is being circulated for a 45-day public review period. Interested agencies and members of the public are were invited to provide written comments on the Draft EIR to: City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, California 92626 Attn: Minoo Ashabi, AIA, Principal Planner OMWPublicComments@costamesaca.gov Upon completion of the 45-day public review period, the City will reviewed all written comment letters received and prepared written responses for each comment letter. A Final Volume II of the EIR will incorporates the received comment letters, respond responses to each of the comment letters received, and as well as incorporates any changes to the Draft EIR that result from comments. The Final EIR will be was presented to the City for certification as the environmental document for the project. All persons who commented on the Draft EIR will be were notified of the availability of the Final EIR final document and the date of the public hearing before the City. The Draft EIR is available to the general public for review at the following locations: City of Costa Mesa, Development Services Department, 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, California 92626; and Mesa Verde Branch Library, 2969 Mesa Verde Drive East, Costa Mesa, California 92626; and City of Costa Mesa Website: https://www.costamesaca.gov/city-hall/city-departments/development- services/planning/environmental-notices-and-reports. 2.7 MITIGATION MONITORING Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 requires that agencies adopt a monitoring or reporting program for any project for which it has made findings pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081. Such a program is intended to ensure the implementation of all mitigation measures adopted through the preparation of an EIR. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the One Metro West project willhas been be completed as part of the Final EIR Volume II, prior to consideration of the project by the Costa Mesa City Council. ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I February 2020April 2021 Chapter 3.0 Project Description ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I February 2020April 2021 This page intentionally left blank. April 2021February 2020 Page 3-1 3. Project Description 3.1 PURPOSE Section 15124 of the CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations Section 15124) requires a project description for an EIR to contain (1) the precise location and boundaries of a project site; (2) a statement of objectives sought by a project including the underlying purpose of the project; (3) a general description of a project’s characteristics; and (4) a statement briefly describing the intended uses of the EIR, including a list of the agencies expected to use the EIR in decision making, a list of the permits and other approvals required to implement the project, and a list of related environmental review and consultation requirements required by Federal, State, or local laws, regulations, or policies. An adequate project description need not be exhaustive but should supply the detail necessary for project evaluation. 3.2 PROJECT LOCATION The 15.23-acre1 project site is located at 1683 Sunflower Avenue in the City of Costa Mesa, Orange County (see Figure 3-1, Regional Location, and Figure 3-2, Local Vicinity). The City of Costa Mesa (City) is surrounded by the cities of Huntington Beach, Fountain Valley, Santa Ana, Irvine, and Newport Beach, as well as unincorporated Orange County. The site is bound by Sunflower Avenue to the north, the South Coast Collection (SOCO) retail center to the east, the Interstate 405 Freeway (I-405 Freeway; San Diego Freeway) to the south, and industrial and logistics uses to the west. The project site is currently occupied by Sakura Paper Factory, Robinson Pharma, South Coast Baking, and Dekra-Lite Industries, Inc. within an approximate 345,000-square foot one-story industrial building. Regional access to the project site is provided by the I-405 Freeway, State Route 73 (SR-73; San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor), and State Route 55 (SR-55; Costa Mesa Freeway). Harbor Boulevard and Sunflower Avenue are the major roadways that provide local access to the site; Hyland Avenue and Cadillac Avenue extend perpendicularly from Sunflower Avenue to the east and west, respectively. 3.3 STATEMENT OF PROJECT OBJECTIVES Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15124(b), the EIR project description must include “[a] statement of objectives sought by the proposed project…The statement of objectives should include the underlying purpose of the project.” The proposed project objectives for One Metro West are to: 1 The entire project site is 15.756 acres; however, approximately 0.5237 acres along the southwest site boundary would be dedicated for the I-405 Freeway expansion. Therefore, the proposed development would occur on the remaining 15.23 acres. ONE METRO WEST ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Figure 3-1 Regional Location 04/21 JN 172326 NOT TO SCALE P A C I F I C O C E A N ORANGE COUNTY SAN DIEGO COUNTY RIVERSIDE COUNTY SAN BERNARDINO COUNTYLOS ANGELES COUNTY 261 241 241 142 1 1 22 39 5 5 133 55 405 405 605 15 5 57 91 72 91 71 90 74 73 IMPERIAL HWY. EDINGER AVE. WARNER AVE. IRVINE BLVD. CROWN VALLE Y P K W Y E A S T ERN TRANS. COR R . W HITTIER BLVD. BEACH BLVD. EL T O R O RD. SANTIAGO CANY O N R D . CHAPMAN AVE. IR V INE CENTER DR. M O U L T O N P R K Y . STR EET OF THE G OL D E N JAM BOREE RD. MAC AR T H UR B L V D . OLD NE WPO R T B LVD . Y O R BA LINDA BLVD . SAN J OAQUIN HILLS T R ANS. CORRIDOR P R OP. F O O T HILL T R A N S . C ORRIDOR HARBOR BLVD. KATELLA AVE. NewportBeach SanClemente SantaAna Anaheim Fullerton LaHabra Cypress BuenaPark YorbaLinda VillaPark AnaheimHills MissionViejo LakeForest LagunaBeach DanaPoint San JuanCapistrano LagunaNiguel Orange HuntingtonBeach CostaMesa SealBeach GardenGrove Tustin Irvine LosAlamitos PROJECTSITE ONE METRO WEST ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Figure 3-2 Local Vicinity Source: Google Earth Pro, 2019. SUNFLOWER AVE SA N T A A N A R I V E R HY L A N D A V E CADILLAC AVE NEW HAMPSHIRE DR SANTA A N A R IVER TR A I L 04/21 JN 172326 NOT TO SCALE AREAS OF DISTURBANCE: PROJECT SITE OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENT AREAS ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 3. Project Description Page 3-4 April 2021February 2020 1. Redevelop the project site with a mix of residential units and office and retail uses in a master-planned setting and in a manner that is fiscally neutral or fiscally positive for the City. 2. Increase the City’s housing stock, including affordable housing opportunities, by providing multi-family residential housing in areas with adequate public utilities and services and in close proximity to major employment centers. 3. Provide enhanced recreation and open space opportunities and opportunities for specialty retail and entertainment uses to serve future residents and commercial office tenants. 4. Encourage alternative modes of travel through enhancing pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure and by bringing residents in closer proximity to existing and proposed resident-serving retail and adjacent employment centers. 5. Improve jobs-housing ratio and reduce vehicle miles traveled by placing housing in proximity to a major employment center in support of Statewide housing and transportation regulations (Senate Bill 375 and Senate Bill 743). 6. Incorporate sustainable development practices that address energy efficiency, support active transportation, and comply with green building code standards. 7. Enhance the visual attributes of the project site and surrounding area through implementation of a high quality design, creative facades, consistent development standards, and design guidelines for streetscape, landscape, site design, and signage. 3.4 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS “Project,” as defined by the CEQA Guidelines, means the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and that is any of the following: (1)…enactment and amendment of zoning ordinances, and the adoption and amendment of local general plans or elements thereof pursuant to Government Code Sections 65100–65700 (14 California Code of Regulations Section 15378[a]). 3.4.1 Description of the Project The proposed project is a mixed-use development that consists of residential, specialty retail, creative office, and open space uses. The project would create a mixed-use community to provide housing near jobs in a master- planned setting with on-site amenities, a 1.5-acre open space, and connection to bicycle trails. The proposed site plan accommodates up to 1,057 multi-family residential rental units, 25,000 square feet of commercial (creative office) space, and 6,000 square feet of specialty retail use. Land uses proposed are shown on Figure 3-3, One Metro West Land Use Plan. Figure 3-4, Areas of Disturbance, shows the on-site and potential off-site impact areas of the proposed project. In order to redevelop the site, the existing building, structures, parking areas, drive aisles, and hardscape ONE METRO WEST ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Figure 3-3 One Metro West Land Use Plan Source: Rose Equities, 2021 04/21 JN 172326 NOT TO SCALE March 2021 Summary Booklet General Plan Screening December 2018 LI V E WO R K PL A Y Costa Mesa, CASpecific Plan | Costa Mesa, CANTS Exh 2-2 lAnd USE PlAn Exh 2-2: lAnd USE PlAn SUMMARY The purpose of the Land Use Plan exhibits is to show the tiers of land uses within One Metro West. The mixed-use development incorporates apartments with on-site amenities, rooftop terraces, and commercial retail uses on different levels within One Metro West. Multi-Family Residential: These 6- and 7-story buildings are designed with intermittent courtyards, open space connectivity, and private amenities. The location allows residents to easily reach surrounding neighborhood destinations, such as the South Coast Collection, The Press, and other nearby employment centers. By designing a parking structure between the southern-most building and the I-405 freeway, it acts as a buffer from freeway traffic noise, and air quality. Three Access Points from Sunflower Ave: Vehicle access on three points from Sunflower Avenue allows for residents to easily enter and exit the site from any of the three residential buildings. Three Different Building Types: There are three different building types: podium, wrap, and partial wrap. These building structures will include the residential and retail components, as well as most of the amenities for the project. OPEN SPACE COMMERCIAL RETAIL ROOFTOP TERRACES MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ROOFTOP AMENITIES PARKING STRUCTURE OF PARTIAL WRAP BUILDING LEGEND: AMENITIES ROOFTOP TERRACES (VARIOUS LEVELS) COMMERCIAL RETAIL CREATIVE OFFICE MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PARKING STRUCTURE FIRE LANE FIRE LANE GROUND LEVEL COURTYARDS ROOFTOP TERRACE OVER PARKING STRUCTURE FOR WRAP BUILDING ROOFTOP TERRACE OVER AMENITIES PODIUM BUILDING WITH AT-GRADE AND UNDERGROUND PARKING ELEVATED COURTYARDS SUNFLOWER AVENUE I-405 FREEWAY NOTE: Project design is flexible and schematic at this point in the planning process. The final details are dependent upon final design of the project and will be defined in greater detail in the One Metro West Master Plan. There is also proposed off-site improvements on Sunflower Avenue and trail improvements on the Santa Ana River trail connection. CREATIVE OFFICE BUILDING ONE METRO WEST ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Figure 3-4 Areas of Disturbance Source: Rose Equities, 2021 04/21 JN 172326 NOT TO SCALE March 2021 Summary Booklet General Plan Screening December 2018 LI V E WO R K PL A Y Costa Mesa, CASpecific Plan | Costa Mesa, CANTS Exh 2-8 ArEAS of diStUrbAncE Exh 2-8: ArEAS of diStUrbAncE POTENTIAL SANTA ANA RIVER TRAIL CONNECTION DISTURBANCE SUNFLOWER AVENUE INTERSECTION OF SUNFLOWER AVE. & HYLAND AVE. POTENTIAL AREA OF DISTURBANCE SUMMARY One Metro West Project will improve the adjacent Orange County trail connecting Sunflower Avenue to the Santa Ana River Trail. In addition to the trail connection improvements, Sunflower Avenue will also undertake road and streetscape improvements (see Exhibit 2-8: Sunflower Avenue Section). Potential Areas of Disturbance: There is a potential Area of Disturbance (green striped area in this exhibit) along Sunflower Avenue on the northern boundary of SOCO. Potential Areas of Disturbance may include putting underground the existing electrical transmission lines, and making landscape improvements along SOCO’s northern boundary. These changes may only be made along the parkway from the One Metro West site to the intersection of Sunflower Avenue and Hyland Avenue. The existing off-site Santa Ana River Trail on the western boundary of One Metro West may or may not be disturbed depending on the final plans for the trail and landscaping. AREAS OF DISTURBANCE: SUNFLOWER AVENUE ONE METRO WEST SPECIFIC PLAN POTENTIAL SANTA ANA RIVER TRAIL CONNECTION DISTURBANCE POTENTIAL AREA OF DISTURBANCE I-405 FREEWAY NOTE: Project design is flexible and schematic at this point in the planning process. The final details are dependent upon final design of the project and will be defined in greater detail in the One Metro West Master Plan. There is also proposed off-site improvements on Sunflower Avenue and trail improvements on the Santa Ana River trail connection. EXISTING OFF-SITE TRAIL & LAND- SCAPING POTENTIAL DISTURBANCE POTENTIAL OFF-SITE AREA OF DISTURBANCE ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 3. Project Description April 2021February 2020 Page 3-7 improvements would be demolished, and a number of mature ornamental trees and other landscape improvements throughout the site would be removed. As described in further detail below, the project would include off-site improvements to Sunflower Avenue and the bicycle trail connection from the project site west to the existing Santa Ana River Trail. Upgrades to Sunflower Avenue would include placing the existing Southern California Edison (SCE) 66-kilovolt utility lines underground and upgrading the sidewalk and public landscape areas with a new sidewalk and bicycle trail to improve pedestrian and bicycle access to the regional Santa Ana River Trail system. The proposed project requires approval of a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Specific Plan, Master Plan, Development Agreement, Tentative Tract Map, Tree Removal Permit, and Public Art Plan. On November 8, 2016, the citizens of Costa Mesa approved Measure Y, which is codified in Article 22, Chapter IX of Title 13, Zoning, of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code (Municipal Code). As relevant to this project, Measure Y requires, inter alia, that any proposed amendment or change to the City’s General Plan or Zoning Code or adoption of a new specific plan that meets specific criteria, including the addition of over 40 residential units, be submitted to the voters at either a general or special election. Measure Y also contains several exceptions, two of which provide that the measure does not apply to the extent that it would violate state or federal laws or to affordable housing projects required by state or federal law. 3.4.1.1 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT The Land Use Element would be amended to change the site’s existing Industrial Park land use designation to High Density Residential with a site-specific base density of 80 dwelling units per acre and a site-specific maximum building height of seven stories. This would allow up to 1,057 multi-family residential units, 25,000 square feet of commercial (creative office) space, and 6,000 square feet of specialty retail uses, consistent with the maximum development potential proposed in the One Metro West Specific Plan (Specific Plan). 3.4.1.2 ZONE CHANGE The proposed zone change would replace the site’s current Industrial Park (MP) zoning district with Planned Development Residential – High Density (PDR-HD). According to Municipal Code Section 13-20, Zoning Districts, PDR-HD districts are intended for multi-family residential developments containing any type or mixture of housing units, either attached or detached, including but not limited to clustered development, townhouses, patio houses, detached houses, duplexes, garden apartments, high rise apartments, or common interest developments. Complementary non-residential uses could also be included in the planned development. As such, the proposed zoning district would allow a mix of residential and non-residential uses and site-specific development standards pursuant to the proposed Specific Plan. 3.4.1.3 ONE METRO WEST SPECIFIC PLAN The proposed Specific Plan acts as a bridge between the General Plan and project development. When a specific plan is adopted, it replaces portions or all of the current zoning regulations for specified parcels within the specific plan area and establishes an independent set of zoning regulations that govern use and development of properties within the bounds of that specific plan. The Specific Plan would function as the regulatory ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 3. Project Description Page 3-8 April 2021February 2020 document for implementing zoning for the project site and a portion of Sunflower Avenue. The Specific Plan would establish the necessary land use plan, development standards, regulations, design guidelines, infrastructure systems, and implementation strategies on which subsequent, project-related development activities would be founded. Upon adoption of the Specific Plan, subsequent project-specific architectural plans, detailed site plans, grading and building permits, and any other actions requiring either ministerial or discretionary approvals would be required to demonstrate consistency with the Specific Plan. Proposed Land Uses and Buildout The Specific Plan allows for the development of three multi-family residential structures with up to 1,057 units, 6,000 square feet of specialty retail space, 25,000 square feet of commercial creative office space, open space, landscaping, streetscape improvements, and a Class-I bicycle trail system, as shown on Figure 3-3 and detailed in Table 3-1, One Metro West Specific Plan Development Potential. Table 3-1 One Metro West Specific Plan Development Potential Land Use Development Potential Residential Building A 449 units Building B 379 units Building C 229 units Specialty Retail 6,000 square feet Creative Office 25,000 square feet Open Space 1.5 acres Source: Rose Equities 2019. Residential Community The multi-family residential component would consist of up to 1,057 multi-family units within three buildings: Building A (six stories; 449 units), Building B (seven stories; 379 units), and Building C (seven stories; 229 units). The unit breakdown would consist of 132 studio units (12 percent), 481 one-bedroom units (46 percent), 406 two-bedroom units (38 percent), and 38 three-bedroom units (4 percent); refer to Table 3-2, Residential Unit Breakdown. The applicant is proposing to provide, at a minimum, 105 of the units as affordable housing units. Table 3-2 Residential Unit Breakdown Unit Type Area (square feet) Building A Building B Building C Total Studio 1 618 54 47 31 132 1 Bedroom A 745 61 66 77 204 1 Bedroom B 812 0 5 0 5 1 Bedroom C 820 148 110 14 272 2 Bedroom A 1,150 145 106 69 320 2 Bedroom B 1,170 12 9 13 34 2 Bedroom C 1,184 16 22 14 52 3 Bedroom A 1,526 13 14 0 27 3 Bedroom B 1,370 0 0 11 11 TOTAL 449 379 229 1,057 Source: Rose Equities 2019. ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 3. Project Description April 2021February 2020 Page 3-9 The residential buildings would also include approximately 54,500 square feet of indoor amenities exclusively for residents. These amenities may include a business center with meeting rooms; co-working space; a fitness center and wellness room; a club house/community room with a bowling alley, coffee bar, high-tech gaming center, and kitchen/dining facilities; a lobby and leasing area; and resort-style, saltwater swimming pools (one Junior Olympic size) with spas and cabana areas. The project would also include multiple courtyards and rooftop amenity terraces, community/art exhibit spaces, and solar panels on south-facing roofs. Specialty Retail The retail component of the project includes 6,000 square feet of specialty retail, focused primarily on tenant- serving service uses. Such uses may include a small boutique grocery, dry cleaners, and other service businesses. The commercial uses would be located on the ground floor of Building C, facing Sunflower Avenue. Creative Office The proposed creative office building would occupy a three-story, 25,000-square foot building with accessible parking spaces at-grade and shared parking with Building Aat-grade parking. Permitted uses within the creative office space component include professional services, such as advertising, business management, engineering, landscape architecture, and other service uses. Open Space The project proposes a 1.5-acre open space with seating and resting areas with creative landscaping/art pieces and shade structures. The applicant is proposing the open space area be privately maintained but available to the general public through the dedication of a public access easement. The open space would also be accessible to pedestrians from nearby employment centers, such as Vans, AAA, The Press, and SOCO, and by bicyclists via a connection to the Santa Ana River Trail. A 1,500-square foot community room would be integrated in Building B, accessible from the open space, and available for public and private events subject to the requirements of a Development Agreement with the City. Development Standards and Design Guidelines Section 3, Development Standards and Design Guidelines, of the Specific Plan includes development standards and design guidelines to guide the physical components of the proposed project. They are intended to provide for flexible and creative design solutions and produce a community that is consistent with the goals, policies, and regulations of the General Plan and Specific Plan. Table 3-3, Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Uses, details permitted and conditionally permitted land uses within the Specific Plan area. Table 3-3 Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Uses Use Permitted Conditionally Permitted General Mixed-Use Developments X Home Occupations that do not involve more than one customer/client at a time X Public Events, including City-sponsored events, in conjunction with open space area X Temporary Real Estate and Construction Offices X Community Clubs (for residents only) X ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 3. Project Description Page 3-10 April 2021February 2020 Table 3-3 Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Uses, continued Use Permitted Conditionally Permitted Civic Clubs (for residents and public use) X Off-Street Parking Areas and Structures X Bowling Alley (for residents only) X Physical Fitness Facility (for residents only) X Food Trucks MC Residential Multi-Family Residences X General Offices/Professional Offices Administrative X Advertising Agency X Attorney X Business Management/Consultant X Detective Agency X Economist X Employment Agency X Engineer and Surveyor X Insurance Broker X Landscape Architect X Psychologist X Public Accountant X Public Relations Consultant X Real Estate Broker X Service Offices (e.g., bookkeeping and data processing) X Commercial Antique Store X Art Shop/Gallery X Artist Studio X Bakery (Retail) X Barbershop X Beauty Shop X Bicycle Shop X Specialty Grocery Store and/or Neighborhood Bar MC Bookstore X Clothing/Apparel Store X Coffeehouse MC Commercial Art/Graphic Design X Convenience Store X MC Dry Cleaner MC Florist Shop/Flower Stand X Ice Cream/Frozen Yogurt Shop (with more than 300 square feet of public area) MC Jewelry Store X Outdoor Dining (within Commercial area of project site only) MC Pet Shop MC Photographer Studio X Tailor Shop X Recreational Playground X Small Performance Area (in conjunction with open space area) X Source: Rose Equities 2019. MC = Minor Conditional Use Permit; uses listed under Conditionally Permitted subject to MCUP review process. ONE METRO WEST DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 3. Project Description April 2021February 2020 Page 3-11 In addition, Table 3-4, General Development Standards, provides setback, building height, parking, and amenity development standards for the proposed residential and non-residential uses. Table 3-4 General Development Standards Building Setbacks Perimeter Sunflower Avenue 10 feet I-405 Freeway (Residential Building) 10 feet I-405 Freeway (Creative Office Building) 5 feet East Property Line (adjacent to SOCO) 10 feet West Property Line 10 feet Internal Center Line of Fire Lanes (Residential) 10 feet Creative Office/Open Space 0 feet Maximum Building Heights Residential Buildings 7 stories (98 feet) Creative Office Building 3 stories (52 feet) Parking Residential 1.30 spaces per unit / 0.89 spaces per bedroom Non-Residential 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet Amenities Minimum Indoor Amenities (Entire Site) 54,500 square feet Minimum Outdoor Amenities (Entire Site) 32,800 square feet Source: Rose Equities 2019. Development standards and design guidelines are also provided for several other project components, including pedestrian connectivity; parking; walls; lighting; signage; residential, commercial, and office uses; Sunflower Avenue; applicable noise standards; open space; and public art, among others; refer to Specific Plan Section 3, Development Standards and Design Guidelines. Landscaping As shown on Figure 3-5, Conceptual Landscape Plan, landscaping would be planted along the site perimeter, throughout the residential portion of the Specific Plan area, and within and adjacent to the open space area. Project landscaping would cover approximately ten percent of the project site. Extensive landscaping would be incorporated in the project frontage along Sunflower Avenue and in the westerly portion of the site to enhance the open space area and improve the connection to the Santa Ana River Trail. In addition, the project interior would have landscaped “nodes” to enhance the overall visual experience. California native or drought-tolerant and architecturally thematic plant material would be utilized to emphasize entry monuments, signage, walls, and hardscape elements. Specific landscape design guidelines are detailed in the Specific Plan. Generally, landscaping should be used to define building entrances, key activity hubs, and street edges; screen service areas, trash enclosures, and mechanical equipment; soften structural appearances; distinguish between public and private spaces; create focal points and architectural highlights; delineate on-site vehicular circulation; and protect users from excessive sun, glare, wind, noise, dust, and undesirable views. ONE METRO WEST ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Figure 3-5 Conceptual Landscape Plan Source: Rose Equities, 2021 04/21 JN 172326 NOT TO SCALE | 48CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN 6’ BLOCK WALL WITH VINES ALONG EAST PROPERTY LINE (10’ SETBACK FROM PROPERTY LINE TO FACE OF BUILDINGS) ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 3. Project Description April 2021February 2020 Page 3-13 Lighting Project lighting would be installed to illuminate pathways, stairways, entrances and exits, parking areas, mailbox areas, children’s play areas, recreation areas, pools, dumpster areas, and other locations required by the City to meet minimum safety requirements. A lighting plan is provided in the One Metro West Master Plan (Master Plan), which illustrates potential light pole locations throughout the site. Light poles are proposed along the site perimeter, between the proposed buildings, and around the open space area. All lighting on-site would be shielded and directed downward to avoid impacting adjacent uses. Project lighting adjacent to the I-405 Freeway would be low-glare in intensity to avoid impacting drivers along the I-405 Freeway as well as residential uses south of the I-405 Freeway. Any project lighting along the I-405 Freeway would be subject to consistency with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) standards. Specific lighting design standards and crime prevention through environmental design techniques are provided in the Specific Plan. Public Art The Specific Plan would allow for installation of public art within the proposed open space area and on major building walls within the development. The project would be required to prepare a public art plan to enhance long building walls on the project site, particularly the wall adjacent to the I-405 Freeway. Low-intensity illuminated wall art would be allowed subject to a separate review process and standards. Illumination may be static, up-lighted, or back-lighted and/or seasonal themes. The Specific Plan includes development standards and details regarding the required review process to ensure future artwork on the building wall adjacent to the I-405 Freeway does not adversely impact motorists traveling on the I-405 Freeway. Additionally, the Master Plan includes a public and private open space art plan detailing potential locations for public and private art installations. As shown, private art installations may be located in areas between Buildings A, B, and C, and public art installations may be located throughout the open space area. Transportation Improvements and Parking On-Site Improvements Vehicular access to the project site would be via three points off Sunflower Avenue. The main entry would be at the terminus of Sunflower Avenue near Cadillac Avenue on the western end of the project site; a central entry would be near the middle of the site from Sunflower Avenue; and an east entry would be on the eastern end of the project site adjacent to SOCO. All three driveways would connect to the project’s internal roadways. An active transportation hub, adjacent to the proposed open space area and Santa Ana River Trail connection, would be provided to encourage alternative modes of transportation. The active transportation hub may include amenities, such as bicycle lockers, bicycle storage, and bicycle repair facilities, and may host community- wide bicycle-share programs and events. Shared off-site bicycle or electric scooter programs, if proposed in the future, would be subject to separate City review and approval. ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 3. Project Description Page 3-14 April 2021February 2020 Off-Site Improvements As part of project improvements, Sunflower Avenue from Cadillac Avenue to Hyland Avenue would be improved with bicycle paths, new sidewalks, street parking, and landscape medians to enhance the neighborhood from an industrial setting to a mixed-use residential area. Cadillac Avenue and Sunflower Avenue provide vehicular, pedestrian, and emergency service access to the surrounding area. The existing rights-of-way, low traffic volumes, and street infrastructure provide an opportunity for the project to implement complete street design to enhance safe access and mobility for all users. As such, the proposed project would include the following improvements to Sunflower Avenue from Cadillac Avenue to Hyland Avenue: Narrow Sunflower Avenue from a four-lane roadway to a three-lane roadway with one travel lane in each direction with a center striped left turn lane; Add a six-foot sidewalk, eight-foot parkway, seven-foot bike lane, seven-foot landscaped median, and seven-foot parallel parking lane on the southern side of Sunflower Avenue adjacent to the project site; Add a six-foot bike lane and two-foot striped buffer median on the northern side of Sunflower Avenue; and Underground existing SCE poles and utility lines (only along the project frontage; although it may extend as far as Hyland Avenue, subject to coordination with the adjacent property owner). Proposed improvements to Sunflower Avenue are shown on Figure 3-6, Sunflower Avenue Improvements. The proposed improvements would also connect the new complete street section along the southern side of Sunflower Avenue with a new landscaped bicycle trail proposed along the southern side of the open space area; refer to Figure 3-4. This off-site improvement would include trail resurfacing and landscaping and would occur along the southwest portion of the project site westward to the utility easement before the Santa Ana River channel. Improvements to Sunflower Avenue may extend to Hyland Avenue and encompass the Sunflower Avenue/Hyland Avenue intersection. The project would also result in the retrofitting of existing traffic signals to include emergency vehicle preemption along major response corridors as required by the City. Parking The Specific Plan establishes parking standards for the proposed project and would provide a total of 1,914 spaces; refer to Table 3-5, Proposed Parking Plan. Each parking area on the project site would contain electric vehicle charging stations (approximately six percent of total parking spaces) as required by the California Building Code Standards and California Green Building Standards Code. An on-street parallel parking lane would also be provided along the southern side of Sunflower Avenue as part of the off-site transportation improvements. ONE METRO WEST ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Figure 3-6 Sunflower Avenue Improvements 04/21 JN 172326 March 2021 Summary Booklet General Plan Screening December 2018 LI V E WO R K PL A Y Costa Mesa, CASpecific Plan | Costa Mesa, CANTS Exh 5-1 ProPoSEd SUnflowEr AVEnUE SEction Exh 5-1: ProPoSEd SUnflowEr AVEnUE SEction 7’ PARALLEL PARKING AREA ADJACENT TO THE EASTBOUND LANE TWO 12’ THROUGH- LANES, ONE EASTBOUND AND ONE WESTBOUND 7’ WIDE BIKE LANE ADJACENT TO THE LANDSCAPE MEDIAN 7’ WIDE LANDSCAPE MEDIAN ADJACENT TO THE PARALLEL PARKING AREA GREEN-STRIPED BIKE CROSSINGS CONNECTION TO OPEN SPACE SUMMARY One Metro West proposes improving Sunflower Avenue to include separated bike lanes on both sides of the street, parallel parking on the south side of Sunflower Avenue (further separating the bike lane from road traffic), additional landscaping on Project site frontage, and green-striped bike crossings. NOTE: Project design is flexible and schematic at this point in the planning process. The final details are dependent upon final design of the project and will be defined in greater detail in the One Metro West Master Plan. There is also proposed off-site improvements on Sunflower Avenue and trail improvements on the Santa Ana River trail connection. SE C T I O N V I E W CONTINUES TO HYLAND AVENUE NOT TO SCALE Source: Rose Equities, 2021 ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 3. Project Description Page 3-16 April 2021February 2020 On-Site Infrastructure Improvements All proposed infrastructure improvements would be located on-site (except powerline undergrounding) with some lateral connections to connect to existing water, sewer, storm drain, and dry utility facilities in Sunflower Avenue. It is acknowledged that the project would underground powerlines along Sunflower at the project’s frontage; however, it is acknowledged that the project could continue the undergrounding further, to Hyland Avenue, depending upon agreement from adjoining property owners. Table 3-5 Proposed Parking Plan Area Buildout Parking Ratio1 Parking Demand Parking Supply Building A Dwelling Units 449 1.3 per dwelling units 584 Bedrooms 648 0.89 per bedroom 577 Office21 25,000 SF 4.0 per 1,000 SF 100 Total Building A 684 825 Building B Dwelling Units 379 1.3 per dwelling units 493 Bedrooms 544 0.89 per bedroom 484 Total Building B 493 668 Building C Dwelling Units 229 1.3 per dwelling units 298 Bedrooms 347 0.89 per bedroom 309 Retail 6,000 SF 4.0 per 1,000 SF 24 Total Building C 333322 421 Total Entire Site 1,5101,499 1,914 Source: LSA 2019e. Notes: SF = square feet; Bold indicates the higher calculation and the parking demand to be accommodated. 1 Per the parking study completed by LSA, the proposed parking rate is 0.89 per bedroom or 1.3 spaces per dwelling unit, whichever is greater. 12 Building A parking structure would dedicate 35 parking spaces for the office building. The remaining required parking spaces for the office building will be shared with the residential in Building A parking structure at the ground level. Domestic Water Existing and proposed domestic water systems are shown on Figure 3-7, Infrastructure Improvements – Domestic Water . The proposed project is served by an existing Mesa Water District (MWD) domestic water line in Sunflower Avenue. There is an existing 24-inch domestic water line in Sunflower Avenue located six feet south of the northerly curb, and there is an existing 18-inch domestic water line in Cadillac Avenue located six feet west of the easterly curb. These MWD water lines currently provide domestic water service and fire flow to the project site. The existing water infrastructure would have adequate pressure and flow to provide domestic and fire flow to the proposed project. Domestic water and fire service would be provided from connections to the existing 24- inch water line in Sunflower Avenue as well as by a proposed on-site water loop system. There is also potential for a looped point of connection to an existing water line serving SOCO near the northeast corner of the site. Sanitary Sewer Existing and proposed sanitary sewer systems are shown on Figure 3-8, Infrastructure Improvements – Sanitary Sewer. The proposed project is served by an existing Costa Mesa Sanitary District sewer system in Sunflower Avenue, including the following existing sewer lines: ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 3. Project Description April 2021February 2020 Page 3-17 Existing eight- and 12-inch vitrified concrete pipe sanitary sewer lines in Sunflower Avenue (18 feet south of the northerly curb), which collect and convey sewer flows to an existing 84-inch Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) mainline sewer that runs from east to west in Sunflower Avenue located 27 feet north of the southerly curb; Two existing six-inch sewer laterals from sewer lines in Sunflower Avenue; An existing 12-inch sewer stub from an existing manhole connection to the 84-inch OCSD mainline sewer to the south; and An existing 48-inch OCSD sanitary sewer line that flows diagonally through the site (via an easement) from the Cadillac Avenue and Sunflower Avenue intersection to approximately the midpoint of the site’s westerly property line. The project proposes an on-site sanitary sewer system comprised of public and private sewer components. The proposed sewer system would connect to the existing 12-inch sewer stub on the south side of the OCSD manhole in Sunflower Avenue. This would be a public connection that extends the sewer to the project site. OCSD would ultimately determine the extent of the sewer within the public right-of-way for Sunflower Avenue as public or private sewer. The remainder of the on-site sewer system would be private from this determined point of connection outside the public right-of-way. Final sewer connection locations, hydraulics, and capacities would be confirmed during the construction plan review process, including the preparation of the project’s sewer improvement plans, and would require approval by OCSD and Costa Mesa Sanitary District. Storm Drain Existing and proposed stormwater systems are illustrated on Figure 3-9, Infrastructure Improvements – Storm Drain. Project implementation is not anticipated to alter existing site hydrology and infrastructure hydraulics. Similar to existing conditions, on-site proposed storm drains would connect to an existing 66-inch storm drain line flowing north/south through the project site and an existing 18- to 24-inch line along the eastern project boundary. The existing 66-inch storm drain, owned and maintained by the City of Costa Mesa, runs from Sunflower Avenue to the I-405 Freeway through the western portion of the site and would convey stormwater from the western portion of the site after treatment in proposed biotreatment units. The existing 18- to 24- inch storm drain would be used to convey stormwater flows from the eastern portion of the site after treatment in the biotreatment units. The project would require approval from Caltrans to maintain the existing storm drain connection along the eastern project boundary. Dry Utilities As stated, the proposed project would include major upgrades to Sunflower Avenue, including undergrounding existing SCE pole lines along the project frontage. The SCE utility improvement would be coordinated closely between the City and SCE’s Right of Way and Environmental Departments to ensure the project complies with all California Public Utilities Commission procedures for such relocations and/or underground conversions. Southern California Gas Company would continue to provide natural gas services to the project site. In addition, existing telephone and cable television utility connections on-site would be utilized by the project. Refer to Figure 3-10, Infrastructure Improvements – Dry Utilities, for an illustration of existing and proposed dry utility infrastructure. ONE METRO WEST ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Figure 3-7 Infrastructure Improvements – Domestic Water 04/21 JN 172326 Source: Rose Equities, 2021 March 2021 Summary Booklet General Plan Screening December 2018 LI V E WO R K PL A Y Costa Mesa, CASpecific Plan | Costa Mesa, CANTS Exh 5-3 infrAStrUctUrE iMProVEMEntS - doMEStic wAtEr Exh 5-3: infrAStrUctUrE iMProVEMEntS - doMEStic wAtEr SUMMARY This exhibit illustrates the existing and proposed domestic water systems for One Metro West. NOTE: Project design is flexible and schematic at this point in the planning process. The final details are dependent upon final design of the project and will be defined in greater detail in the One Metro West Master Plan. There is also proposed off-site improvements on Sunflower Avenue and trail improvements on the Santa Ana River trail connection. March 2021 Summary Booklet General Plan Screening December 2018 LI V E WO R K PL A Y Costa Mesa, CASpecific Plan | Costa Mesa, CANTS Exh 5-3 infrAStrUctUrE iMProVEMEntS - doMEStic wAtEr Exh 5-3: infrAStrUctUrE iMProVEMEntS - doMEStic wAtEr SUMMARY This exhibit illustrates the existing and proposed domestic water systems for One Metro West. NOTE: Project design is flexible and schematic at this point in the planning process. The final details are dependent upon final design of the project and will be defined in greater detail in the One Metro West Master Plan. There is also proposed off-site improvements on Sunflower Avenue and trail improvements on the Santa Ana River trail connection. ONE METRO WEST ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Figure 3-8 Infrastructure Improvements – Sanitary Sewer 04/21 JN 172326 Source: Rose Equities, 2021 March 2021 Summary Booklet General Plan Screening December 2018 LI V E WO R K PL A Y Costa Mesa, CASpecific Plan | Costa Mesa, CANTS Exh 5-4 infrAStrUctUrE iMProVEMEntS - SAnitAry SEwEr Exh 5-4: infrAStrUctUrE iMProVEMEntS - SAnitAry SEwEr SUMMARY This exhibit illustrates the existing and proposed sanitary systems for One Metro West. NOTE: Project design is flexible and schematic at this point in the planning process. The final details are dependent upon final design of the project and will be defined in greater detail in the One Metro West Master Plan. There is also proposed off-site improvements on Sunflower Avenue and trail improvements on the Santa Ana River trail connection. March 2021 Summary Booklet General Plan Screening December 2018 LI V E WO R K PL A Y Costa Mesa, CASpecific Plan | Costa Mesa, CANTS Exh 5-5 infrAStrUctUrE iMProVEMEntS - StorM drAin Exh 5-5: infrAStrUctUrE iMProVEMEntS - StorM drAin SUMMARY This exhibit illustrates the existing and proposed storm drain for One Metro West. NOTE: Project design is flexible and schematic at this point in the planning process. The final details are dependent upon final design of the project and will be defined in greater detail in the One Metro West Master Plan. There is also proposed off-site improvements on Sunflower Avenue and trail improvements on the Santa Ana River trail connection. ONE METRO WEST ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Figure 3-9 Infrastructure Improvements – Storm Drain 04/21 JN 172326 NOT TO SCALE Source: Rose Equities, 2021 ONE METRO WEST ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Figure 3-10 Infrastructure Improvements – Dry Utilities 04/21 JN 172326 Source: Rose Equities, 2021 March 2021 Summary Booklet General Plan Screening December 2018 LI V E WO R K PL A Y Costa Mesa, CASpecific Plan | Costa Mesa, CANTS Exh 5-6 infrAStrUctUrE iMProVEMEntS - dry UtilitiES Exh 5-6: infrAStrUctUrE iMProVEMEntS - dry UtilitiES SUMMARY This exhibit illustrates the existing and proposed dry utilities for One Metro West. NOTE: Project design is flexible and schematic at this point in the planning process. The final details are dependent upon final design of the project and will be defined in greater detail in the One Metro West Master Plan. There is also proposed off-site improvements on Sunflower Avenue and trail improvements on the Santa Ana River trail connection. ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 3. Project Description Page 3-22 April 2021February 2020 3.4.1.4 MASTER PLAN The City adopts specific plans to act as the zoning for a site and to outline the allowed land uses, development standards, and general design guidelines. Master plans are provided to implement the specific plan and detail the specific architecture, landscape architecture, and civil engineering attributes of a project. As such, specific plans and master plans in the City are typically processed and approved concurrently. The One Metro West Master Plan (Master Plan) serves as a precise plan of development for the project site and includes schematic designs of the various project components (e.g., residential, commercial, office, public and private open space, pedestrian and vehicular access and pathways, trails, public art, and Sunflower Avenue improvements). In addition, the Master Plan provides more details regarding the project’s structural setbacks and distances between buildings; required right-of-way dedications and easements; property lines and dimensions; pedestrian access and circulation; landscape and open space areas; floor plans; roof plans; conceptual landscape plan; and renderings/streetscape views, among others. Overall, the Master Plan depicts the development plans that implement the Specific Plan’s development standards and design guidelines. A description of the proposed buildings is provided below. Building A As shown on Figure 3-3, Building A is proposed along the southern half of the project site adjacent to the I- 405 Freeway and would be six stories with a maximum height of 78 feet. Building elevations are shown on Figure 3-11a, Building A Elevations. The approximately 969,660-square foot building would consist of 449 residential units and amenities, including a leasing office, lobby, fitness center, ground-level internal courtyards, swimming pools and spa, and amenity terraces on the upper levels. In total, Building A would provide 35,000 square feet of indoor amenities and 4,000 square feet of outdoor amenities. Approximately 825 parking spaces would be provided at Building A. Building B Building B would be located in the central portion of the project site adjacent to Sunflower Avenue and would be a seven-story building with a maximum height of 88 feet; refer to Figure 3-3 and Figure 3-11b, Building B Elevations. The approximately 549,880-square foot building would include 379 residential units, lobbies, a community room, a bowling facility, bicycle parking, internal courtyards, a lounge, pool and spa, and amenity terraces on the upper levels. Building B would provide approximately 19,500 square feet of indoor amenities and 10,800 square feet of outdoor amenities. Approximately 668 parking spaces would be provided by three parking levels (one ground level and two subterranean). Building C As shown on Figure 3-3, Building C is proposed along the eastern portion of the project site adjacent to SOCO with a maximum building height of 98 feet. The seven-story building would consist of 229 residential units, 6,000 square feet of ground-level specialty retail, a lobby, and an 18,000-square foot amenity rooftop with a swimming pool and recreational structures; refer to Figure 3-11c, Building C Elevations. A total of 421 parking spaces would be provided at Building C. ONE METRO WEST ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Figure 3-11a Building A Elevations Source: Rose Equities, 2021 04/21 JN 172326 |37 BUILDING A SECTION 4' - 0 " 65 ' - 4 " 78 ' - 0 " 2nd 1st 6th Roof 3rd 4th 5th 12 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 4 " 10 ' - 4 " 10 ' - 4 " 10 ' - 4 " 12 ' - 0 " 12 ' - 0 " SITE SECTION - LOOKING NORTH Parking Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Elevators / Stairs SAN DIEGO FREEWAY / 405 (NORTHBOUND) Ty p e I I I Ty p e I Residential Parking Parking Parking Parking Parking ResidentialResidential Courtyard 1-Story Portal FIRE LANE Parking PL 10'-2" 48 31 279 ' 836' 36' Trash Trash Elect.UP UP 1-Sto r y P o r t a l 1-Stor y P o r t a l 8% 10% Lobby 18 HC79 Standard97 Total TYPE IA TYPE IA MECH MECH Move-In Lobby Leasing Amenity Fire T u n n e l Fire T u n n e l Fire T u n n e l Move-In Fire T u n n e l Pool 64'x136' Courtyard(Ground Level) 98'x106'Courtyard(Ground Level) 90'x106' Courtyard(Ground Level) 60'x170'Courtyard(Ground Level) Drop-off 16 Office Spaces 118 x 6 typ levels = 708ground level spaces = 97TOTAL SPACES = 805 required spaces = 786extra spaces = +19 25' 18' 18' Elect. Elect. BikeParkingLobby Lobby Lobby Trash 53 SpacesGate Gate Dn Trash Mail 8.5 % 17 % 8.5 % Dr o p O f f Drop Off Util. USPS Uti l i t y 55 Spaces CommunityRoom Amenity Amenity 16' 29 6 ' 20 ' 473' 21 2 ' Gate Dn 5% 25'-0 " 18'-0"25'-0" 8'-6 " TY P 18'-0"25'-0"18'-0" 5% 5% Dn Up 18'-0" Lobby R TRASH R T T Trash R T R T 17 % BikeRoom T RElect. 42 Spaces MailRoom R T Mech Sto r a g e 8.5 % 8.5 % USPSDrop Off Retail 11' 70' 46' 43 8 ' 43' 17 ' 201' 37 0 ' T R T R T R T R RR T C (7-Story) B (7-Story) A (6-Story) A1 B2B2 B1 B1 A1 C1 C1 C2 C2 5' 10' Entry Fire L a n e SUNFLOWER AVENUE SAN D I E G O F R E E W A Y ( I - 4 0 5 ) Open Space SOCO Loading Loading Lo a d i n g Lo a d i n g Fire L a n e Lo a d i n g Bike P a t h 38'17' 15' 20' 15' Creative Office Bldg(3 Levels) Fountain Offic e P a r k i n g ( 4 ) Dro p O f f Fire La n e Key Map: A1 4' - 0 " 65 ' - 4 " 78 ' - 0 " 2nd 1st 6th Roof 3rd 4th 5th 12 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 4 " 10 ' - 4 " 10 ' - 4 " 10 ' - 4 " 12 ' - 0 " 12 ' - 0 " SITE SECTION - LOOKING NORTH ParkingResidential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Elevators / Stairs SAN DIEGO FREEWAY / 405 (NORTHBOUND) Ty p e I I I Ty p e I Residential Parking Parking Parking Parking Parking ResidentialResidential Courtyard 1-Story Portal FIRE LANE Parking PL 10'-2" CONVENTIONAL ACCESS FROM ONE COURTYARD TO ANOTHER AT GROUND LEVEL. Section A1Building A ONE METRO WEST ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Figure 3-11b Building B Elevations Source: Rose Equities, 2021 04/21 JN 172326 | 38BUILDING B SECTIONS Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential 4' - 0 " 75 ' - 8 " 88 ' - 0 " 2nd 1st 6th 7th Roof 3rd 4th 5th 11 ' - 4 " 10 ' - 4 " 10 ' - 4 " 10 ' - 4 " 10 ' - 4 " 11 ' - 6 " 11 ' - 6 " Amenity Ty p e I I I Ty p e I Section B2 Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Parking Parking Parking Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Amenity Terrace Courtyard Courtyard Elevators / Stairs FIRE LANE ENTRY 4' - 0 " 75 ' - 8 " 88 ' - 0 " 2nd 1st 6th 7th Roof 3rd 4th 5th 11 ' - 4 " 10 ' - 4 " 10 ' - 4 " 10 ' - 4 " 10 ' - 4 " 11 ' - 6 " 11 ' - 6 " Section B1 Parking Parking Parking Courtyard Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Elevators / Stairs SUNFLOWER AVENUE Ty p e I I I Ty p e I Lobby FIRE LANE Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential 4' - 0 " 75 ' - 8 " 88 ' - 0 " 2nd 1st 6th 7th Roof 3rd 4th 5th 11 ' - 4 " 10 ' - 4 " 10 ' - 4 " 10 ' - 4 " 10 ' - 4 " 11 ' - 6 " 11 ' - 6 " Amenity Ty p e I I I Ty p e I Section B2 Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Parking Parking Parking Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Amenity Terrace Courtyard Courtyard Elevators / Stairs FIRE LANE ENTRY 4'-0"75'-8"88'-0"2nd1st6th7thRoof3rd4th5th11'-4"10'-4"10'-4"10'-4"10'-4"11'-6"11'-6" Section B1 Parking Parking Parking CourtyardResidentialResidentialResidentialResidentialResidentialResidentialResidentialResidentialResidentialResidentialResidentialResidential ResidentialResidentialResidentialResidentialResidentialResidentialResidentialResidentialResidentialResidentialResidentialElevators / StairsSUNFLOWERAVENUE Type IIIType ILobby FIRE LANE Ground Level Parking B1 Parking B2 Parking Ground Level Parking B1 Parking B2 Parking Building B Building B 48 31 279' 836' 36' Trash Trash Elect.UP UP 1-Sto r y P o r t a l 1-Sto r y P o r t a l 8% 10% Lobby 18 HC79 Standard97 Total TYPE IA TYPE IA MECH MECH Move-In Lobby Leasing Amenity Fire Tunn el Fire Tu n n el Fire Tu n n el Move-In Fire Tunnel Pool 64'x136' Courtyard(Ground Level) 98'x106'Courtyard(Ground Level) 90'x106' Courtyard(Ground Level) 60'x170'Courtyard(Ground Level) Drop-off 16 Office Spaces 118 x 6 typ levels = 708ground level spaces = 97TOTAL SPACES = 805 required spaces = 786extra spaces = +19 25' 18' 18' Elect. Elect. BikeParkingLobby Lobby Lobby Trash 53 SpacesGate Gate Dn Trash Mail 8.5 % 17 % 8.5 % Dr o p O f f Drop Off Util. USPS Uti l i t y 55 Spaces CommunityRoom Amenity Amenity 16 ' 29 6 ' 20 ' 473' 212 ' Gate Dn 5% 25'- 0 " 18'-0"25'-0" 8'-6"TYP 18'-0"25'-0"18'-0" 5% 5% Dn Up 18'-0" Lobby R TRASH R T T Trash R T R T 17% BikeRoom T RElect. 42 Spaces MailRoom R T Mech Sto r a g e 8.5 % 8.5 % USPSDrop Off Retail 11 ' 70' 46' 43 8 ' 43' 17 ' 201' 37 0 ' T R T R T R T R RR T C(7-Story) B (7-Story) A (6-Story) A1 B2B2 B1 B1 A1 C1 C1 C2 C2 5' 10' Entry Fire La n e SUNFLOWER AVENUE SAN D I E G O F R E E W A Y ( I - 4 0 5 ) Open Space SOCO Loading Loading Lo a d i n g Lo a d i n g Fire L a n e Lo a d i n g Bike P a t h 38'17' 15' 20' 15' Creative Office Bldg(3 Levels) Fountain Offic e P a r k i n g ( 4 ) Dro p O f f Fire La n e Key Map: B2 B1 Second Level Courtyard Second Level Courtyard Second Level Courtyard Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential 4' - 0 " 75 ' - 8 " 88 ' - 0 " 2nd 1st 6th 7th Roof 3rd 4th 5th 11 ' - 4 " 10 ' - 4 " 10 ' - 4 " 10 ' - 4 " 10 ' - 4 " 11 ' - 6 " 11 ' - 6 " Amenity Ty p e I I I Ty p e I Section B2 Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Parking Parking Parking Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Amenity Terrace Courtyard Courtyard Elevators / Stairs FIRE LANE ENTRY 4' - 0 " 75 ' - 8 " 88 ' - 0 " 2nd 1st 6th 7th Roof 3rd 4th 5th 11 ' - 4 " 10 ' - 4 " 10 ' - 4 " 10 ' - 4 " 10 ' - 4 " 11 ' - 6 " 11 ' - 6 " Section B1 Parking Parking Parking Courtyard Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Elevators / Stairs SUNFLOWER AVENUE Ty p e I I I Ty p e I Lobby FIRE LANE ONE METRO WEST ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Figure 3-11c Building C Elevations Source: Rose Equities, 2021 04/21 JN 172326 |39 BUILDING C SECTIONS Parking Parking Parking Parking Parking Parking Parking Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential 4' - 0 " 74 ' - 4 " 98 ' - 0 " 2nd 1st 6th 7th Roof 3rd 4th 5th 11 ' - 4 " 10 ' - 4 " 10 ' - 4 " 10 ' - 4 " 10 ' - 4 " 10 ' - 4 " 11 ' - 4 " Amenity Terrace Amenity Terrace Retail Elevators / Stairs Ty p e I I I Ty p e I SUNFLOWER AVENUE Section C2 ParkingParkingParkingParkingParkingParkingParkingParkingParkingParkingParkingParkingParkingParkingResidential ResidentialResidentialResidentialResidentialResidentialResidentialResidentialResidentialResidentialResidentialResidentialMail Room Residential4'-0"74'-4"98'-0"2nd1st6th7thRoof3rd4th5th11'-4"10'-4"10'-4"10'-4"10'-4"10'-4"11'-4"Amenity TerraceElevators / Stairs Type IIIType I Section C1 ENTRY ENTRY Parking Parking Parking Parking Parking Parking Parking Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential 4' - 0 " 74 ' - 4 " 98 ' - 0 " 2nd 1st 6th 7th Roof 3rd 4th 5th 11 ' - 4 " 10 ' - 4 " 10 ' - 4 " 10 ' - 4 " 10 ' - 4 " 10 ' - 4 " 11 ' - 4 " Amenity Terrace Amenity Terrace Retail Elevators / Stairs Ty p e I I I Ty p e I SUNFLOWER AVENUE Section C2 Parking Parking Parking Parking Parking Parking Parking Parking Parking Parking Parking Parking Parking Parking Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Mail Room Residential 4' - 0 " 74 ' - 4 " 98 ' - 0 " 2nd 1st 6th 7th Roof 3rd 4th 5th 11 ' - 4 " 10 ' - 4 " 10 ' - 4 " 10 ' - 4 " 10 ' - 4 " 10 ' - 4 " 11 ' - 4 " Amenity Terrace Elevators / Stairs Ty p e I I I Ty p e I Section C1 ENTRY ENTRY Building C Building C Recreational Facilities Recreational Facilities SECONDARY ENTRY (CENTRAL) 48 31 279 ' 836' 36' Trash Trash Elect.UP UP 1-Sto r y P o r t a l 1-Stor y P o r t a l 8% 10% Lobby 18 HC79 Standard97 Total TYPE IA TYPE IA MECH MECH Move-In Lobby Leasing Amenity Fire T u n n e l Fire T u n n e l Fire T u n n e l Move-In Fire T u n n e l Pool 64'x136' Courtyard(Ground Level) 98'x106'Courtyard(Ground Level) 90'x106' Courtyard(Ground Level) 60'x170'Courtyard(Ground Level) Drop-off 16 Office Spaces 118 x 6 typ levels = 708ground level spaces = 97TOTAL SPACES = 805 required spaces = 786extra spaces = +19 25' 18' 18' Elect. Elect. BikeParkingLobby Lobby Lobby Trash 53 SpacesGate Gate Dn Trash Mail 8.5 % 17 % 8.5 % Dr o p O f f Drop Off Util. USPS Uti l i t y 55 Spaces CommunityRoom Amenity Amenity 16 ' 296 ' 20' 473' 21 2 ' Gate Dn 5% 25' - 0 " 18'-0"25'-0" 8'-6 "TYP 18'-0"25'-0"18'-0" 5% 5% Dn Up 18'-0" Lobby R TRASH R T T Trash R T R T 17 % BikeRoom T RElect. 42 Spaces MailRoom R T Mech Sto r a g e 8.5 % 8.5 % USPSDrop Off Retail 11 ' 70' 46' 43 8 ' 43' 17' 201' 37 0 ' T R T R T R T R RR T C (7-Story) B (7-Story) A (6-Story) A1 B2B2 B1 B1 A1 C1 C1 C2 C2 5' 10' Entry Fire L a n e SUNFLOWER AVENUE SAN D I E G O F R E E W A Y ( I - 4 0 5 ) Open Space SOCO Loading Loading Lo a d i n g Lo a d i n g Fire L a n e Lo a d i n g Bike P a t h 38'17' 15' 20' 15' Creative Office Bldg(3 Levels) Fountain Offic e P a r k i n g ( 4 ) Dro p O f f Fire L a n e Key Map: C2 C1 SECONDARY ENTRY (EAST) Parking Parking Parking Parking Parking Parking Parking Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential 4' - 0 " 74 ' - 4 " 98 ' - 0 " 2nd 1st 6th 7th Roof 3rd 4th 5th 11 ' - 4 " 10 ' - 4 " 10 ' - 4 " 10 ' - 4 " 10 ' - 4 " 10 ' - 4 " 11 ' - 4 " Amenity Terrace Amenity Terrace Retail Elevators / Stairs Ty p e I I I Ty p e I SUNFLOWER AVENUE Section C2 Parking Parking Parking Parking Parking Parking Parking Parking Parking Parking Parking Parking Parking Parking Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Mail Room Residential 4' - 0 " 74 ' - 4 " 98 ' - 0 " 2nd 1st 6th 7th Roof 3rd 4th 5th 11 ' - 4 " 10 ' - 4 " 10 ' - 4 " 10 ' - 4 " 10 ' - 4 " 10 ' - 4 " 11 ' - 4 " Amenity Terrace Elevators / Stairs Ty p e I I I Ty p e I Section C1 ENTRY ENTRY ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 3. Project Description Page 3-26 April 2021February 2020 Creative Office Building The 25,000-square foot creative office building is proposed in the westernmost corner of the project site, adjacent to the I-405 Freeway and south of the proposed open space. The three-story creative office building would have a maximum building height of 52 feet and utilize shared parking spaces within Building A. According to the Master Plan, a six-foot block wall with vines would be constructed along the eastern project boundary adjacent to SOCO and an approximately 12-foot block sound wall would be constructed along the project edge facing the I-405 Freeway. The location, material, and design of the sound wall would be determined with construction documents and may be incorporated into the building structures as feasible. The conceptual open space plan, conceptual private open space plan, fence and wall plan, public and private open space art plan, and lighting plan are also included in the Master Plan. 3.4.1.5 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT The proposed project includes a Development Agreement between the project applicant and the City pursuant to California Government Code Sections 65864 et seq. Physical improvements identified in the Development Agreement are identified and evaluated in this EIR. 3.4.1.6 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP A tentative tract map is proposed to divide the site into five parcels and would be processed as a “Condominium” Map. Although a “Condominium” Map is proposed, the applicant intends for the product to be rental units and may choose not to exercise the map. The tentative tract map also proposes to dedicate an easement for public access of the open space and bicycle trail connection. 3.4.1.7 TREE REMOVAL PERMIT The proposed project would require removal of six trees along the City’s public right-of-way in order to implement the off-site improvements along Sunflower Avenue. A tree removal permit is required for the removal of any trees within the City’s public right-of-way subject to review by the City’s Parks, Arts, and Community Services Commission (PACS). 3.4.2 Project Construction Timeline Construction is expected to commence in one phase, over a period of five years, from January 2022 to January 2027, with each building built in a sequential phase, lasting approximately 5.5 years. The applicant would obtain certificates of occupancy for each building as each phase is completed (i.e., occupancy would begin as each building is completed). Overall, the phased construction schedule would involve the following: Phase 1 would involve Building A construction, which is anticipated to begin in July 2022 and take approximately 30 months to build. The proposed open space area would be constructed following construction of Building A. ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 3. Project Description April 2021February 2020 Page 3-27 Phase 2 would include construction of Building B, which is expected to begin in July 2024 and take approximately 26 months. Phase 3 would involve construction of Building C and the creative office building, which is anticipated to begin in January 2026 and last approximately 22 months. Prior to Phase 1, the existing 345,000-square foot industrial building, associated parking areas, drive aisles, hardscape improvements, and landscaping would be demolished. The site would then be cleared and graded for development of the proposed project.Construction of the on-site buildings would likely occur in the following order: Building A and open space, Building B, Building C, then the creative office building. First occupancy is anticipated in 2025, with final construction completed by 2027. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 13-279, Exceptions for Construction, construction activities would occur within the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and between 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Construction is not permitted outside of these hours or on Sundays or Federal holidays unless a temporary waiver is granted by the City. 3.5 INTENDED USES OF THE EIR This Draft EIR is a project-level EIR that examines the environmental impacts of the proposed project. This Draft EIR also addresses various actions by the City and others to adopt and implement the proposed project. It is the intent of this Draft EIR to evaluate the environmental impacts of the proposed project, thereby enabling the City, responsible agencies, and interested parties to make informed decisions with respect to the requested entitlements. The anticipated discretionary approvals (in addition to ministerial actions such as demolition permit, grading permit, building permits, certificates of occupancy, etc.) required for this project include, but are not limited to: Agency Action City of Costa Mesa Certification of the EIR Approval of the General Plan Amendment Approval of the Zone Change Adoption of the Specific Plan Adoption of the Master Plan Approval of the Development Agreement Approval of the Tentative Tract Map Approval of Tree Removal Permit Approval of Public Art Plan California Public Utilities Commission Approval of General Order 131D and Section 851 (Transfer or Encumbrance of Utility Property) Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD) Issuance of an Encroachment Permit within OCFCD right-of-way Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board Issuance of a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Issuance of a Dewatering Permit, if needed Orange County Sanitation District Approval of proposed sewer improvements Costa Mesa Sanitary District Approval of proposed sewer improvements Orange County Airport Land Use Commission Determination of Consistency with Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport City of Fountain Valley Implementation of recommended Mitigation Measure T-2 regarding traffic improvements ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 3. Project Description Page 3-28 April 2021February 2020 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Issuance of Encroachment Permit within Caltrans right-of-way, if needed Consultation regarding construction activities ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I February 2020April 2021 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Setting ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I February 2020April 2021 This page intentionally left blank. April 2021February 2020 Page 4-1 4. Environmental Setting 4.1 INTRODUCTION Pursuant to provisions of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, this section provides a “description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time the notice of preparation is published,. . . from both a local and a regional perspective” (California Environmental Quality Act [CEQA] Guidelines Section 15125[a]). The environmental setting provides the baseline physical conditions from which the lead agency will determine the significance of environmental impacts resulting from the proposed project. 4.2 REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 4.2.1 Regional Location The project site is in the northwest corner of the City of Costa Mesa (City) in south-central Orange County. The City is surrounded by the cities of Huntington Beach, Fountain Valley, Santa Ana, Irvine, and Newport Beach, and unincorporated Orange County (see Figure 3-1, Regional Location). The site is approximately five miles inland from the Pacific Ocean. Regional access to the project site is provided via the Interstate 405 Freeway (I-405 Freeway; San Diego Freeway), which abuts the southern project boundary; State Route 73 (SR- 73; San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor); and State Route 55 (SR-55; Costa Mesa Freeway). Local access is provided via Harbor Boulevard and Sunflower Avenue. 4.2.2 Regional Planning Considerations 4.2.2.1 SCAG REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN/SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES STRATEGY The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is a council of governments representing the counties of Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura. SCAG is the Federally recognized metropolitan planning organization for this region, which encompasses over 38,000 square miles. SCAG is a regional planning agency and a forum for addressing regional issues concerning transportation, the economy, community development, and the environment. SCAG is also the regional clearinghouse for projects requiring environmental documentation under Federal and State law. In this role, SCAG reviews proposed development and infrastructure projects to analyze their impacts on regional planning programs. The 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) was adopted in April 2016 (SCAG 2016). Major themes in the 2016 RTP/SCS include integrating strategies for land use and transportation; striving for sustainability; protecting and preserving existing transportation infrastructure; increasing capacity through improved systems managements; providing more transportation choices; leveraging technology; responding to demographic and housing market changes; supporting commerce, economic growth, and ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 4. Environmental Setting Page 4-2 April 2021February 2020 opportunity; promoting the links between public health, environmental protection, and economic opportunity; and incorporating the principles of social equity and environmental justice. The SCS portion of the RTP/SCS outlines a development pattern for the region, which, when integrated with the transportation network and other transportation measures and policies, would reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from transportation (excluding goods movement). The SCS is meant to provide growth strategies that will achieve the regional GHG emissions reduction targets identified by the California Air Resources Board. The SCS does not require local general plans, specific plans, or zoning be consistent with the SCS, but provides incentives to governments and developers for consistency. The proposed project’s consistency with applicable RTP/SCS policies is analyzed in detail in Section 5.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions. 4.2.2.2 SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN The City is in the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB), which is managed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Pollutants emitted into the ambient air by stationary and mobile sources are regulated by Federal and State law, and standards are detailed in the SoCAB 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (2016 AQMP). Air pollutants for which ambient air quality standards (AAQS) have been developed are known as criteria air pollutants, including ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), volatile organic compounds (VOC), nitrogen oxides (NOX), sulfur dioxide, coarse particulate matter (PM10), fine particulate matter (PM2.5), and lead. VOC and NOX are criteria pollutant precursors and go on to form secondary criteria pollutants, such as O3, through chemical and photochemical reactions in the atmosphere. Air basins are classified as attainment/nonattainment areas for particular pollutants depending on whether they meet AAQS for that pollutant. Based on the 2016 AQMP, the SoCAB is designated nonattainment for O3, PM2.5, PM10, and lead (Los Angeles County only) under the California and National AAQS and nonattainment for NOX under the California AAQS. The proposed project’s consistency with the applicable AAQS is discussed in Section 5.2, Air Quality. 4.2.2.3 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS REDUCTION LEGISLATION Current State guidance and goals for reductions in GHG emissions are generally embodied in Executive Order S-03-05. Executive Order B-30-15, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2008 (Assembly Bill [AB] 32), and the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act (Senate Bill [SB] 375). Executive Order S-03-05, signed June 1, 2005, set the following GHG reduction targets for the State: 2000 levels by 2010; 1990 levels by 2020; and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. AB 32 was passed by the State legislature on August 31, 2006, to place the State on a course toward reducing its contribution of GHG emissions. AB 32 follows the emissions reduction targets established in Executive Order S-3-05. SB 32 was passed September 8, 2016, to set an interim target consistent with AB 32, which became effective January 1, 2017. Executive Order B-30-15 also established an interim goal of a 40 percent reduction below 1990 levels by 2030. ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 4. Environmental Setting April 2021February 2020 Page 4-3 In 2008, SB 375 was adopted to connect GHG emissions reductions targets for the transportation sector to local land use decisions that affect travel behavior. Its intent is to reduce GHG emissions from light-duty trucks and automobiles by aligning regional long-range transportation plans, investments, and housing allocations to local land use planning to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and vehicle trips. SCAG established GHG reduction targets of eight percent per capita from 2005 GHG emission levels by 2020 and 13 percent per capita from 2005 GHG emission levels by 2035. In September 2016, Governor Brown signed SB 32 and AB 197, making the Executive Order B-30-15 goal for year 2030 into a State-mandated legislative target. AB 197 established a joint legislative committee on climate change policies and requires the California Air Resources Board to prioritize direct emissions reductions rather than the market-based cap-and-trade program for large stationary, mobile, and other sources. The project’s ability to meet these regional GHG emissions reduction target goals is analyzed in Section 5.6. The State legislature found that with the adoption of SB 375, the State had signaled its commitment to encourage land use and transportation planning decisions and investments that reduce VMT and thereby contribute to the reduction of GHG emissions, as required by AB 32. Additionally, AB 1358 requires local governments to plan for a balanced, multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of all users. Senate Bill 743 On September 27, 2013, SB 743 was signed into law, which started a process that would fundamentally change transportation impact analysis as part of CEQA compliance. These changes include the elimination of auto delay, level of service (LOS), and other similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion as a basis for determining significant impacts in many parts of California (if not Statewide). As part of the 2018 CEQA Guidelines, the new criteria “shall promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses.” (Public Resources Code Section 21099(b)(1)). The State Office of Planning and Research developed revisions to the CEQA Guidelines under SB 743 that establish new criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts and define alternative metrics to replace LOS as a method of analyzing traffic impacts under CEQA. SB 743 replaces LOS with VMT-related metric(s) and provides guidance on potential significance thresholds for development projects, land use plans, and transportation infrastructure projects. The 2018 CEQA Guidelines were approved by the Office of Administrative Law, filed with the Secretary of State, and became effective on December 28, 2018. However, until the State Office of Planning and Research revises the CEQA Guidelines and adopts VMT as the new metric for determining transportation impacts, LOS metrics will still be used, as is the case for the proposed project. Further, the legislation does not preclude the application of local general plan policies, zoning codes, conditions of approval, or any other planning requirements. 4.2.2.4 SANTA ANA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD BASIN PLAN Under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) has ultimate control over water quality policy and allocation of State water resources. The SWRCB, through its nine regional water quality control boards (RWQCBs), carries out the regulation, protection, and administration of water ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 4. Environmental Setting Page 4-4 April 2021February 2020 quality in each region. Each RWQCB is required to adopt a water quality control plan or basin plan. The City is in the Santa Ana River Basin, Region 8 and is regulated by the Santa Ana RWQCB. The Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin gives direction on the beneficial uses of the State’s waters in the Santa Ana River Basin, describes the water quality that must be maintained to support such uses, and provides programs, projects, and other actions necessary to achieve the standards. 4.3 LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 4.3.1 Location and Land Use 4.3.1.1 PROJECT LOCATION The project site is bounded by Sunflower Avenue to the north, South Coast Collection (SOCO) and The OC Mix retail centers to the east, the I-405 Freeway to the south, and industrial and logistics uses to the west. Sunflower Avenue, an east-west roadway bordering the northern project boundary, turns northward at the northwest corner of the site and continues as Cadillac Avenue. Site access is provided via three driveways along Sunflower Avenue. 4.3.1.2 EXISTING LAND USE On-site Uses The project site is developed with an approximate 345,000-square foot one-story industrial building (31 feet high), associated parking, and ornamental landscaping. The industrial building is occupied by Sakura Paper Factory, Robinson Pharma, South Coast Baking, and Dekra-Lite Industries, Inc; not all tenant spaces are in full operations. Existing landscaped areas are provided along the site boundary and surface parking lot. The industrial building represents the baseline conditions for purposes of this Draft EIR. Surrounding Land Use The project site is in an urbanized area and surrounded by industrial uses to the north; SOCO and The OC Mix, a commercial development consisting of retail (furniture and housewares), restaurants, and boutique specialty food stalls, to the east; the I-405 Freeway to the south; and commercial and industrial uses to the west. Across the I-405 Freeway to the south is a single-family residential community and the 1.7-acre Moon Park. The Santa Ana River and the Santa Ana River Trail are located 700 feet west of the project site. The Santa Ana River Trail currently extends from the Pacific Coast in Huntington Beach to Green River Golf Club in Corona but will eventually connect with other segments of the trail for 110 uninterrupted miles to Big Bear Lake in the San Bernardino Mountains (San Bernardino 2019). An existing bicycle path extends from the project’s western boundary to the Santa Ana River Trail and north along the western boundary to Cadillac Avenue. ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 4. Environmental Setting April 2021February 2020 Page 4-5 4.3.2 Aesthetics The project site is developed with an industrial building and surface parking lot in an urbanized area adjacent to the I-405 Freeway. There are no scenic features on-site. Existing trees on-site consist of ornamental species along the property boundary and within the surface parking lot. It is acknowledged that current construction activities associated with the widening of the I-405 Freeway southbound lanes are ongoing. These activities are visible from the project site, and sound walls along the I-405 Freeway southbound lanes have been removed and will be reconstructed as part of the I-405 Freeway Widening Project. Section 5.1, Aesthetics, provides a detailed analysis of the proposed project’s impact to scenic vistas, visual character, shade/shadow, and lighting. 4.3.3 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions The project site is approximately 4.7 miles inland from the Orange County coast in the western portion of the SoCAB. Temperatures are normally mild (62 to 85 degrees Fahrenheit [F]), with rare extremes above 100F or below freezing (32F). Precipitation is typically nine to 15 inches annually in the SoCAB. The climate of Orange County is typified by warm temperatures and light winds. The average monthly high temperatures range from about 52°F in the coastal areas in January to 85°F in the inland areas of the coastal plain in August. In contrast to a very steady pattern of temperature, rainfall is seasonally and annually highly variable. Almost all annual rains fall between November and April. Summer rainfall is normally restricted to widely scattered thundershowers near the coast, with slightly heavier shower activity in the east and over the mountains. Annual average humidity is 70 percent along the coast and 57 percent in the eastern portions of the SoCAB. The SoCAB is designated nonattainment for O3, PM2.5, PM10, and lead (Los Angeles County only) under the California and National AAQS and nonattainment for NO2 under the California AAQS. An air quality and greenhouse gas analysis was performed for the project and the results are discussed in Section 5.2, Air Quality and Section 5.6. 4.3.4 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources No cultural resources were identified in the project area as a result of the record search, background research, or field surveys. The existing industrial building on the project site was originally constructed in 1975, was last altered in 1995, and is not considered an historical resource (LSA 2019a). The project area is within the traditional tribal territory of the Gabrielino Indians who lived throughout Los Angeles, western San Bernardino and Riverside, and Orange Counties, and were also historically affiliated with Mission San Gabriel Archangel. A cultural resources assessment and tribal consultation was conducted pursuant to AB52. Refer to Section 5.3, Cultural Resources, and Section 5.14, Tribal Cultural Resources, for an analysis of project impacts on cultural and tribal cultural resources, respectively. ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 4. Environmental Setting Page 4-6 April 2021February 2020 4.3.5 Energy The project site is currently served by Southern California Edison (SCE), which has a service area that spans much of southern California – from Mono County to the north, to Orange and Riverside counties to the south, and Santa Barbara County on the west. Natural gas services on-site are provided by the Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas), which has a service area that spans most of southern California, from San Luis Obispo in the north to the Mexico border in the south. An analysis of project-related energy usage was conducted for the project, and the results are discussed in Section 5.4, Energy. 4.3.6 Geology and Soils The project site is flat and located in the central portion of the Orange County Coastal Plain, a relatively flat- lying alluviated surface with an average slope of less than 20 feet per mile. The lowland surface is bounded by hills and mountains to the north and east and by the Pacific Ocean to the south and southwest. Prominent structural features within the Orange County Coastal Plain include the central lowland plain, the northwest trending line of low hills and mesas near the coast underlain by the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone, and the San Joaquin Hills to the southeast. Natural sediments of the project area consist of Pleistocene to Holocene marine and non-marine sedimentary rocks that are unconsolidated and semi-consolidated. The project area lies directly within what was the prehistoric natural alignment of the Santa Ana River (LSA 2019a). Specifically, the site is underlain by artificial fill and unconsolidated Holocene age alluvial fan deposits consisting of sand, silt, and clay (Geocon West 2019). A geotechnical report and paleontological resources assessment were prepared to analyze project impacts related to geology, soils, and paleontological resources; refer to Section 5.5, Geology and Soils. 4.3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials The site was historically used for agriculture purposes from the 1930s until the 1970s. The existing industrial building was constructed in 1975 by Nissan Motor Corporation for automobile part storage and distribution, mechanic training, and administrative purposes. As stated above, the site is currently occupied by Sakura Paper Factory, Robinson Pharma, South Coast Baking, and Dekra-Lite Industries, Inc. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was prepared to evaluate potential hazards associated with past and existing uses on-site. Refer to Section 5.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, for an analysis of project impacts related to existing and proposed hazards and hazardous materials. 4.3.8 Hydrology The project site is in the Santa Ana River Watershed, which spans about 2,800 square miles within Orange County, western Riverside County, southwestern San Bernardino County, and a small portion of Los Angeles County. The Santa Ana River, the main channel in the watershed, passes about 700 feet west of the project site, ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 4. Environmental Setting April 2021February 2020 Page 4-7 ultimately flowing toward the Pacific Ocean. Receiving waters for the project are the Santa Ana River Reach 1 to Newport Slough. The project site is generally flat, with two main drainage areas that convey the majority of stormwater flow southwesterly and southeasterly. Drainage in Sunflower Avenue near the western portion of the site flows westward in a curb and gutter to storm drain inlets that connect to a 66-inch concrete pipe, which extends southward from Cadillac Avenue to the Greenville-Banning Channel about 0.25 mile to the south (URC 2019a). Drainage in Sunflower Avenue near the eastern portion of the site flows eastward in a curb and gutter to storm drain inlets that connect to a reinforced concrete box under Hyland Avenue, which extends south to the Greenville-Banning Channel (OCFCD 2000). The project site lies within the Main Orange County Groundwater Basin. Depth to groundwater on-site is between ten and 20 feet with an historical high groundwater depth of ten feet below ground surface (URC 2019a). A hydrology report and water quality management plan were prepared for the project to evaluate impacts on hydrology and water quality; refer to Section 5.8, Hydrology and Water Quality. 4.3.9 Land Use and Planning As stated above, the project site is currently occupied by Sakura Paper Factory, Robinson Pharma, South Coast Baking, and Dekra-Lite Industries, Inc., within an approximately 345,000-square foot one-story industrial building. The nearest residential uses are located to the south across the I-405 Freeway, approximately 300 feet from the project boundary. Based on the 2015-2035 General Plan (General Plan), the site is currently designated Industrial Park. The Industrial Park designation applies to large districts that contain a variety of industrial and compatible office and support commercial uses. They are characterized by large parcels and landscaped setbacks and are situated within proximity to freeways and other major transportation routes. According to the City of Costa Mesa Zoning Map, the project site is zoned Industrial Park (MP), which is intended for large, concentrated industrial areas where the aim of development is to create a spacious environment in a park-like setting. The site is also located within the City’s Measure X zone, which allows for certain marijuana-related manufacturing and distribution uses. No cultivation or dispensing is allowed. The project would require a general plan amendment and zone change. Additionally, the project proposes the One Metro West Specific Plan and Master Plan. Refer to Section 5.9, Land Use and Planning, for an analysis of project impacts related to land use and planning. 4.3.10 Noise The primary existing noise source on and near the site is vehicular traffic noise along the I-405 Freeway, Sunflower Avenue, and Cadillac Avenue. Other noise sources are industrial uses in the surrounding area. The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site are residential uses to the south across the I-405 Freeway. ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 4. Environmental Setting Page 4-8 April 2021February 2020 A noise analysis was conducted to evaluate short- and long-term noise impacts associated with the project; refer to Section 5.10, Noise. 4.3.11 Population and Housing There are no existing residents or housing on the project site. The existing tenants in the industrial building have an existing range of employment between approximately 40 to 70 employees on-site on any given day. For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed the existing on-site employment is 70 employees. Refer to Section 5.11, Population and Housing, for an analysis of project impacts related to population and housing growth, employment, and jobs-housing balance. 4.3.12 Public Services and Utilities and Service Systems The following public service and utility providers serve the project site: Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services: Costa Mesa Fire Department; Police Protection: Costa Mesa Police Department; Schools: Newport-Mesa Unified School District; Libraries: Orange County Public Library; Parks Maintenance: City of Costa Mesa Public Services Department; Recreation Services: City of Costa Mesa Parks and Community Services Department; Water: Mesa Water District; Sewers: Costa Mesa Sanitary District and Orange County Sanitation District; Wastewater Treatment: Orange County Sanitation District; Storm Drainage: City of Costa Mesa and OC Public Works; Electricity: Southern California Edison; and Natural Gas: Southern California Gas Company. A fire study was prepared to analyze project impacts on existing Costa Mesa Fire Department resources and response times. Additionally, a hydrology report, water quality management plan, and water supply assessment were prepared to analyze project impacts on storm drainage infrastructure and water services. Refer to Section 5.4; Section 5.12, Public Services; and Section 5.15, Utilities and Service Systems, for additional information and analyses of project impacts on energy, public services, and utilities and service systems, respectively. 4.3.13 Transportation Existing Study Area Regional/Local Roadways Regional access to the project site is provided by the I-405 Freeway, SR-73, and SR-55. Harbor Boulevard and Sunflower Avenue are the major roadways that provide local access to the site; Hyland Avenue and Cadillac Avenue extend perpendicularly from Sunflower Avenue to the east and west, respectively. The following is a brief description of the roadway network in the project site area: ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 4. Environmental Setting April 2021February 2020 Page 4-9 Harbor Boulevard: Harbor Boulevard is a north-south oriented, six-to-eight-lane divided roadway. The General Plan Circulation Element designates Harbor Boulevard as a Major Arterial. The speed limit is 40 miles per hour (mph). Curbside parking is not permitted on either side of the street. Sunflower Avenue: Sunflower Avenue is an east-west oriented, four-lane divided roadway that provides direct access to the project from the north. It is designated by the General Plan Circulation Element as a Primary Arterial between Hyland Avenue and Bear Street, and as a Major Arterial east of Bear Street. In the project vicinity, Sunflower Avenue terminates at the south end of Cadillac Avenue. The speed limit within the study area varies between 40 and 45 mph. Curbside parking is not permitted on either side of the street. Hyland Avenue: Hyland Avenue is a north-south oriented, four-lane undivided roadway and is designated as a Primary Arterial by the General Plan Circulation Element. The speed limit is 40 mph. Curbside parking is not permitted on either side of the street. Cadillac Avenue: Cadillac Avenue is a north-south oriented, two-lane undivided roadway. Cadillac Avenue is not classified in the General Plan Circulation Element. There is no posted speed limit on Cadillac Avenue. Curbside parking is not permitted on either side of the street. Euclid Street: Euclid Street is a divided north-south six-lane roadway within the City of Fountain Valley. The City of Fountain Valley’s General Plan designates it as an Augmented Primary Arterial north of Newhope Street and as a Primary Arterial south of Newhope Street. South of the I-405 Freeway, Euclid Street continues as Ellis Avenue. The speed limit along Euclid Street is 45 mph. Curbside parking is not permitted on either side of the street. Newhope Street: Newhope Street is a north-south oriented, four-lane divided roadway located within the City of Fountain Valley. South of Euclid Street, Newhope Street terminates at the I-405 Freeway as northbound ramps. The City of Fountain Valley’s General Plan designates it as a Secondary Arterial. The speed limit along Newhope Street is 40 mph. Curbside parking is not permitted on either side of the street. Talbert Avenue/West MacArthur Boulevard: Talbert Avenue is an east-west oriented, six-lane divided roadway within the City of Fountain Valley and City of Costa Mesa. Talbert Avenue continues as West MacArthur Boulevard (west of Harbor Boulevard) within the City of Santa Ana. It is designated by the City of Fountain Valley’s General Plan as a Primary Arterial west of Euclid Street and as an Augmented Primary Arterial east of Euclid Street. In the City of Costa Mesa, Talbert Avenue is designated by the General Plan as a Primary Arterial between the western City limit and Hyland Avenue, and as a Major Arterial between Hyland Avenue and the eastern City limit. MacArthur Boulevard is designated as a Major Arterial within the City of Santa Ana General Plan Circulation Element. The speed limit within the study area varies between 40 and 45 mph. Curbside parking is not permitted on either side of the street. South Coast Drive: South Coast Drive is an east-west oriented, four-lane divided roadway within the City of Costa Mesa. It is designated as a Primary Arterial in the General Plan Circulation Element. The speed limit is 45 mph. Curbside parking is not permitted on either side of the street. Susan Street: Susan Street is a north-south oriented, four-lane divided roadway between Sunflower Avenue and the I-405 Freeway, and a two-lane roadway north of Sunflower Avenue within the City of Costa Mesa. ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 4. Environmental Setting Page 4-10 April 2021February 2020 Though it is not classified in the General Plan Circulation Element, it functions as an arterial south of Sunflower Avenue and as a collector north of Sunflower Avenue. The speed limit is 35 mph. Curbside parking is not permitted on either side of the street. Fairview Road: Fairview Road is a north-south oriented, six-lane divided roadway. The General Plan Circulation Element classifies it as a Major Arterial. The speed limit is 45 mph. Curbside parking is not permitted on either side of the street. Additionally, the intersection of the I-405 Freeway Southbound Ramps/Ellis Avenue-Euclid Street is currently being improved as part of the I-405 Freeway Improvement Project by adding a new eastbound slip-on ramp from Ellis Avenue to the southbound I-405 Freeway, thereby eliminating the dual left-turn lanes from eastbound Ellis Avenue to the existing I-405 Freeway southbound on-ramp. A traffic impact analysis was conducted to analyze project impacts on surrounding roadways, intersections, and freeways. Refer to Section 5.13, Transportation, for a summary of the findings. 4.4 ASSUMPTIONS REGARDING CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines states that cumulative impacts shall be discussed where they are significant. It further states this discussion shall reflect the level and severity of the impact and the likelihood of occurrence, but not in as great a level of detail as is necessary for the project alone. Section 15355 of the CEQA Guidelines defines cumulative impacts as “…two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts.” Cumulative impacts represent the change caused by the incremental impact of a project when added to other proposed or committed projects in the vicinity. Section 15130 (b)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines states the information used in analysis of cumulative impacts should come from one of two sources: A. A list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the agency; and/or B. A summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document designed to evaluate regional or area-wide conditions. The cumulative impact analyses in this Draft EIR use both Methods A and B and are, therefore, highly conservative. The analysis uses the adopted Citywide and regional growth forecasts from SCAG’s RTP/SCS (refer to Table 4-1, SCAG 2012-2040 Growth Forecasts) for land use and planning impacts, or other long-range planning documents, such as the City of Costa Mesa 2015 Urban Water Management Plan for cumulative water supply analysis. This information was supplemented with analyses of related projects as described below. ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 4. Environmental Setting April 2021February 2020 Page 4-11 Table 4-1 SCAG 2012-2040 Growth Forecasts 2012 2040 Increase (2012 to 2040) Percent Increase (2012 to 2040) County of Orange Population 3,071,600 3,461,500 389,900 12.7% Households 999,500 1,134,300 134,800 13.5% Employment 1,526,500 1,898,900 372,400 24.4% City of Costa Mesa Population 111,200 116,400 5,200 4.7% Households 40,000 42,500 2,500 6.3% Employment 84,400 93,200 8,800 10.4% Source: SCAG 2016. Growth projections were supplemented with a list of related projects, based on data from the cities of Costa Mesa, Fountain Valley, and Santa Ana. A total of 24 related projects were identified; refer to Table 4-2, Related Projects, and Figure 4-1, Cumulative Projects. These projects are expected to be implemented in the vicinity of the project site at the time of project buildout. Refer to Chapter 5, Environmental Analysis for a discussion of the cumulative impacts associated with development and growth in the City and region for each environmental resource area. Table 4-2 Related Projects No. Project/Land Use Location Quantity Daily Trip Generation 1 Single-Family Homes 10460 Slater Avenue, Fountain Valley 12 DU 113 2 Wellbrook Assisted Living 11360 Warner Avenue, Fountain Valley 162 beds 444 3 Harbor Gateway Industrial Building 1585 MacArthur Boulevard, Costa Mesa 100,000 square feet 496 4 Affordable Housing Project 16790 Harbor Boulevard, Fountain Valley 50 DU 366 5 The Press 1375 Sunflower Street, Costa Mesa 665,000 square feet 6,477 6 Christ Our Savior Catholic Parish 2000 West Alton Avenue, Santa Ana 46,310 square feet 322 7 Shea Homes 2001 West MacArthur Boulevard, Santa Ana 42 DU 396 8 DeNova Homes 929 Baker Street, Costa Mesa 56 DU 366 9. Education First 3150 Bear St, Costa Mesa 68,000 square feet 1,771 10 Metro Town Square Expansion 3719 South Plaza Drive, Santa Ana 6,000 square feet 384 11 Orange County Museum of Art 3333 Avenue of the Arts, Costa Mesa 66,750 square feet 187 12 Symphony Apartments 595 Anton Boulevard, Costa Mesa 393 DU 1,434 13 Legacy Sunflower 651 West Sunflower Avenue, Santa Ana 226 DU 1,229 14 Legado at the Met 200 East First American Way, Santa Ana 278 DU 2,015 15 Industrial Campus Development 666 East Dyer Road, Santa Ana 495,670 square feet 1,670 16 Haphan Housing 3025 West Edinger Avenue, Santa Ana 18 DU 132 17 South Coast Speedwash 2402 South Bristol Street, Santa Ana 26,150 square feet for car wash 8,180 square feet for retail/restaurant 4,805 18 Bristol Office Plaza 1400 West St. Gertrude Place, Santa Ana 7,500 square feet 73 19 Our Lady of Guadalupe Office 542 East Central Avenue, Santa Ana 6,370 square feet 62 20 Tapestry by Hilton and Restaurant 1580 East Warner Avenue, Santa Ana 84,380 square feet 705 21 2277 Harbor Boulevard 2277 Harbor Boulevard, Costa Mesa 200 DU 1,464 22 17 West – The Lofts 671 West 17th Street, Costa Mesa 177 DU 1,296 23 VANS Headquarter Expansion 1588 South Coast Drive, Costa Mesa 91,020 square feet 887 24 Avenue of the Arts Hotel Expansion 3350 Avenue of the Arts, Costa Mesa 150 rooms 1,254 Totals 1,452 DU; 1,671,330 square feet; 162 beds; and 150 rooms 28,348 Source: LSA 2019d. Notes: DU = dwelling units ONE METRO WEST ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Figure 4-1 Cumulative Projects 04/21 JN 172326 NOT TO SCALE Source: LSA, 2019. Service Layer Credits: © 2019 Microsoft Corporation © 2019 DigitalGlobe ©CNES Service Layer Credits: © 2019 Microsoft Corporation © 2019 DigitalGlobe ©CNES SOURCE: ESRI Streetmap, 2013; Bing Aerial, 2015. I:\RSE1801\Reports\Traffic\fig4-2_Cumul_Projs.mxd (11/11/2019) FIGURE 4-2 One Metro West Traffic Impact Analysis Cumulative Project Locations LEGEND Project Location !(Cumulative Project Locations 0 2125 4250 FEET Service Layer Credits: © 2019 Microsoft Corporation © 2019 DigitalGlobe ©CNES Service Layer Credits: © 2019 Microsoft Corporation © 2019 DigitalGlobe ©CNES SOURCE: ESRI Streetmap, 2013; Bing Aerial, 2015. I:\RSE1801\Reports\Traffic\fig4-2_Cumul_Projs.mxd (11/11/2019) FIGURE 4-2 One Metro West Traffic Impact Analysis Cumulative Project Locations LEGEND Project Location !(Cumulative Project Locations 0 2125 4250 FEET ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I February 2020April 2021 Chapter 5.0 Environmental Analysis ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I February 2020April 2021 This page intentionally left blank. April 2021February 2020 Page 5-1 5. Environmental Analysis Chapter 5 examines the environmental setting of the proposed project, analyzes its effects and the significance of its impacts, and recommends mitigation measures to reduce or avoid impacts. This chapter has a separate section for each environmental issue area that was determined to need further study in this Draft EIR. This scope was determined, in part, by public and agency comments received on the Notice of Preparation (NOP), which was published on May 23, 2019, for a public review period from May 23, 2019 to June 26, 2019 (refer to Appendix A, Notice of Preparation [NOP]), as well as comments received during the scoping meeting held on June 5, 2019; refer to Appendix B, NOP Comments. Environmental issues analyzed in this Draft EIR and their corresponding sections include: 5.1 Aesthetics; 5.2 Air Quality; 5.3 Cultural Resources; 5.4 Energy; 5.5 Geology and Soils; 5.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions; 5.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials; 5.8 Hydrology and Water Quality; 5.9 Land Use and Planning; 5.10 Noise; 5.11 Population and Housing; 5.12 Public Services and Recreation; 5.13 Transportation; 5.14 Tribal Cultural Resources; and 5.15 Utilities and Service Systems. Section 5.1, Aesthetics, through Section 5.15, Utilities and Service Systems, provide a detailed discussion of the environmental setting, impacts associated with the proposed project, and mitigation measures designed to reduce significant impacts where required and when feasible. The residual impacts following the implementation of any mitigation measure are also discussed. Issues under an environmental topic determined by the City to not be significantly affected by implementation of the project are not discussed further in this chapter, but are presented in Chapter 8, Impacts Found Not to be Significant. ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis Page 5-2 April 2021February 2020 Organization of Environmental Analysis To assist the reader with comparing information between environmental issues, each section is organized under eight major headings: Environmental Setting; Thresholds of Significance; Plans, Programs, Policies, and Standard Conditions of Approval; Environmental Impacts; Cumulative Impacts; Level of Significance Before Mitigation; Mitigation Measures; and Level of Significance After Mitigation. In addition, Chapter 1, Executive Summary, includes a table summarizing all impacts by environmental issue. Terminology Used in This Draft EIR The level of significance is identified for each impact in this Draft EIR. Although the criteria for determining significance are different for each topic area, the environmental analysis applies a uniform classification of the impacts based on the following definitions consistent with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines: No Impact. The project would not change the environment. Less Than Significant Impact. The project would not cause any substantial, adverse change in the environment. Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The Draft EIR includes mitigation measures that avoid substantial adverse impacts on the environment. Significant and Unavoidable Impact. The project would cause a substantial adverse effect on the environment, and no feasible mitigation measures are available to reduce the impact to a less than significant level. ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I February 2020April 2021 Chapter 5.1 Aesthetics ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I February 2020April 2021 This page intentionally left blank. ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis April 2021February 2020 Page 5.1-1 5.1 AESTHETICS This section of the Draft EIR discusses the potential for the project to impact scenic vistas and resources, visual character, and result in light and glare. The information presented in this section is based on field reconnaissance, aerial photographs, and applicant-provided renderings and shade/shadow diagrams. 5.1.1 Environmental Setting 5.1.1.1 REGULATORY BACKGROUND Local General Plan According to the General Plan Community Design Element, the project site is located within the Harbor Gateway District. The Harbor Gateway District is described by the General Plan as having an office park character, with ample landscaping and large multi-story building complexes. The project site is adjacent to the South Coast Collection (SOCO), a lifestyle center identified as a local landmark in the General Plan. The Community Design Element includes the following goals, objectives, and policies pertaining to aesthetics: Goal CD-1: Vehicular and Pedestrian Corridors. Strengthen the image of the City as experienced from sidewalks and roadways. Objective CD-1A: Contribute to City beautification by enhancing the visual environment of Costa Mesa's vehicular and pedestrian paths and corridors. - Policy CD-1.3: Promote treatments for walls and fences and utility cabinets along public rights- of-way that contribute to an attractive street and sidewalk environment. Require that new walls and fences complement the style and character of the local district and adjacent buildings. Newly constructed or reconstructed walls and fences adjacent to sidewalks and roadways should incorporate architectural treatments such as pilasters, masonry, or wrought iron, and should integrate tiered plantings to soften their appearance. - Policy CD-1.4: Promote a consistent landscape character along City streets to reinforce the unique qualities of each corridor and district, including the development of landscaped medians. Support implementation of the recommended street tree palette for each City street, as identified in the City of Costa Mesa Streetscape and Median Development Guidelines. - Policy CD-1.5: Encourage electric and communication lines to be placed underground and electrical substations and telephone facilities to be screened to minimize visual impacts from sidewalks, streets, and adjacent properties. Support utility undergrounding through conditions of project approval, preparation of undergrounding plans, and the formation of assessment districts. Goal CD-2: Cohesive and Identifiable Districts. Enhance the existing character and strengthen the identity of Costa Mesa's districts. ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis AESTHETICS Page 5.1-2 April 2021February 2020 Objective CD-2A: Encourage future development and redevelopment to reinforce district scale, identity, and urban form. - Policy CD-2.2: Support and seek land uses and development that correspond or enrich our existing districts. Goal CD-4: Identifiable and Protected City Landmarks. Objective CD-4A: Promote the maintenance, use, and improvement of landmarks to enhance the visual image and identity of Costa Mesa. - Policy CD-4.1: Support efforts to introduce new monuments and landmarks, and preserve, maintain, and improve the condition of Costa Mesa landmarks. Goal CD-5: Utilize Costa Mesa's edges as opportunities to enhance the City's image along its boundaries. Objective CD-5A: Develop and implement programs that preserve and enhance City edges. - Policy CD-5.1: Preserve and optimize natural views and open spaces in Costa Mesa. Goal CD-6: Enhance opportunities for new development and redevelopment to contribute to a positive visual image for the City of Costa Mesa that is consistent with the district image. Objective CD-6A: Establish development policies and design guidelines that create an aesthetically pleasing and functional environment. - Policy CD-6.1: Encourage the inclusion of public art and attractive, functional architecture into new development that will have the effect of promoting Costa Mesa as the "City of the Arts." - Policy CD-6.2: Encourage the use of creative and well-designed signs that establish a distinctive image for the City. Goal CD-7: Quality Residential. Promote and protect the unique identity of Costa Mesa’s residential neighborhoods. Objective CD-7A: Encourage excellence in architectural design. - Policy CD-7.2: Preserve the character and scale of Costa Mesa's established residential neighborhoods where possible; when new residential development is proposed, encourage that the new structures are consistent with the prevailing character of existing development in the immediate vicinity, and that new development does not have a substantial adverse impact on adjacent areas. Goal CD-8: Quality Commercial Development. Achieve a high level of design quality for commercial development. ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis AESTHETICS April 2021February 2020 Page 5.1-3 Objective CD-8A. Encourage a high level of architectural and site design quality. - Policy CD-8.8: All required parking areas and driveways shall be illuminated under the direction of the planning division. Lights used to illuminate parking areas shall be directed away from any adjoining premises located in any residential zone under the direction of the planning division. Goal CD-9: Promote development of mixed-use projects that seamlessly integrate multiple uses both functionally and aesthetically. Objective CD-9A: Design mixed use development projects to achieve a high-quality character. - Policy CD-9.1: Require that mixed-use development projects be designed to mitigate potential conflicts between uses. Consider noise, lighting, and security. - Policy CD-9.2: Provide adequate parking, open space, and recreational facilities to serve residents in mixed-use development projects. Design parking and other areas to acknowledge different users (residents versus shoppers) and to be compatible with the architectural character of the building(s). Municipal Code Municipal Code Title 13, Planning, Zoning, and Development, identifies land use categories, development standards, and other provisions that ensure consistency between the General Plan and proposed development and redevelopment projects. Municipal Code Chapter V, Development Standards, addresses floor area ratios, the siting and height of structures, landscaping, signs, parking, and other requirements. Municipal Code Chapter III, Section 13-29, Planning Application Review Process, includes information regarding the City’s Design Review process. Pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter V, Article 6, Planned Development, planned developments can be created in appropriate locations with innovative planning and zoning concepts as long as the project meets the broader goals of the General Plan and Zoning Code by exhibiting high quality planning, design, and integration of uses, and protecting the integrity of neighboring development. The City’s landscaping standards are included in Municipal Code Chapter VII, Landscaping Standards. This chapter is intended to enhance the aesthetic appearance of the City by providing standards relating to quality, quantity, and functional aspects of landscaping. Chapter VII establishes minimum landscape standards to conserve water, control soil erosion, buffer and/or screen various uses, deter graffiti, and ensure ongoing maintenance of landscape areas. Municipal Code Chapter VIII, Signs, regulates the type, size, and placement of signs on properties to balance the identification and communication needs with an aesthetically pleasing and safe environment. ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis AESTHETICS Page 5.1-4 April 2021February 2020 5.1.1.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS Costa Mesa is situated on a plateau approximately one mile from the Pacific Ocean and is almost completely urbanized. The urban environment consists primarily of residential neighborhoods, with several commercial districts and concentrations of light industrial businesses. Overall, the aesthetic environment of the project area is urban and developed and is characterized by relatively flat terrain. The project area is generally dominated by transportation uses (I-405 Freeway) and a mixture of retail, industrial, and logistic uses. As discussed in Section 4.0, Environmental Setting, the project site is currently developed with an approximately 345,000-square foot one-story industrial building (31 feet high), associated parking, and ornamental landscaping; refer to Figure 5.1-1, Existing Conditions Photographs. The northern facade of the existing industrial building includes two loading docks facing Sunflower Avenue. Two paved surface parking lots with landscaped islands are located along the eastern and western portions of the project site. A landscaped area along Sunflower Avenue separates the public rights-of-way from the chain link-fenced project site. This area includes grass turf and scattered trees. Views of the existing industrial building and loading docks are available from Sunflower Avenue and neighboring properties. The southern portion of the project site includes a grass turf area with scattered trees that separates the existing building from the I-405 Freeway. The existing industrial building is fully visible from the I-405 Freeway and the residential properties south of the I-405 Freeway. Much of the surface parking lots are screened by trees from views along the I-405 Freeway and the business park to the northwest. Scenic Resources The City’s physical setting allows for views of scenic resources including the Pacific Ocean, Santa Ana River, Upper Newport Bay, and Santa Ana Mountains. Views of these resources are afforded at specific public locations within the City that provide uninterrupted, large expanse views of undeveloped land and these resources. According to the General Plan EIR, such locations include Fairview Park, Talbert Regional Park and its adjacent wildlife refuge, and the golf courses, parks, and ballfields in the City. These specific locations do not include views of the project site. The project site is located over 4.5 miles inland of the Pacific Ocean and over ten miles southwest of the Santa Ana Mountains. Views of the Pacific Ocean and Santa Ana Mountains are not afforded from the project site under existing conditions due to intervening topography, existing structures, and vegetation. Although the project site is located approximately 700 feet east of the Santa Ana River and a bicycle path extends from the project site’s western boundary to the Santa Ana River Trail, there are no visual resources at this segment under existing conditions. The proposed project is not adjacent to or near a State-designated scenic highway (Caltrans 2017). The closest officially designated State scenic highway is a portion of State Route 91 (SR-91), located over ten miles northeast of the site. Views of the project site are not afforded from SR-91 due to intervening topography, structures, and vegetation. ONE METRO WEST ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Figure 5.1-1 Existing Conditions Photographs 04/21 JN 172326 NOT TO SCALE View looking north towards Sunflower Avenue and light industrial uses to the north.View looking south towards Sunflower Avenue and existing on-site light industrial uses (Sakura Paper Factory). Industrial uses to the north of the project site.Industrial and logistics uses to the west of the project site. View of Sunflower Avenue, existing on-site light industrial uses (Rob-inson Pharmaceuticals), and surface parking.View of the South Coast Collection (SOCO) retail center to the east of the project site. ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis AESTHETICS Page 5.1-6 April 2021February 2020 Visual Character/Quality According to the General Plan EIR, the City is divided into sub-areas, or “districts,” each with its own visual pattern. Distinguishing features may include building type, use, activity, inhabitants, and/or topography. 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. According to the General Plan Community Design Element, the project site is located within the Harbor Gateway District. The Harbor Gateway District is described by the General Plan as having an office park character, with ample landscaping and large multi-story building complexes. The project site is adjacent to SOCO, a lifestyle center identified as a landmark in the General Plan. According to the General Plan, a “landmark” is a physical element that provides a point of reference or serves as a community identity marker. Most landmarks are also main destination locations within the City as well. As shown in Figure 5.1-1, the visual character of the site and its surroundings is dominated by the I-405 Freeway and a large mixture of retail, industrial, and logistic uses with varying styles of architecture. Light and Glare Lighting effects are associated with the use of artificial light during the evening and nighttime hours. There are two primary sources of light: light emanating from building interiors passing through windows, and light from exterior sources (i.e., street lighting, building illumination, security lighting, parking lot lighting, and landscape lighting). Light introduction can be a nuisance to adjacent residential areas, diminish the view of the clear night sky, and if uncontrolled, can cause disturbances. Uses such as residences are considered light sensitive since occupants have expectations of privacy during evening hours and may be subject to disturbance by bright light sources. Residential uses to the south of the project site represent the closest light-sensitive uses to the project. Light spill is typically defined as the presence of unwanted light on properties adjacent to the property being illuminated. With respect to lighting, the degree of illumination may vary widely depending on the amount of light generated, height of the light source, presence of barriers or obstructions, type of light source, and weather conditions. Glare is primarily a daytime occurrence caused by the reflection of sunlight or artificial light by highly polished surfaces such as window glass or reflective materials and, to a lesser degree, from broad expanses of light- colored surfaces. Perceived glare is the unwanted and potentially objectionable sensation as observed by a person as they look directly into the light source of a luminaire. Daytime glare generation is common in urban areas and is typically associated with buildings with exterior facades largely or entirely comprised of highly reflective glass. Glare can also be produced during evening and nighttime hours by the reflection of artificial light sources such as automobile headlights. Glare-sensitive uses include residences, transportation corridors, and aircraft landing corridors. The project site is developed with an existing industrial building and is surrounded on all sides by existing urban development. As a result, various sources of light and glare are present in the area. On-site lighting associated with the existing industrial building includes parking lot lighting, building illumination, and security lighting. Lighting caused by car headlights and street lighting associated with I-405 Freeway, Sunflower Avenue, and ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis AESTHETICS April 2021February 2020 Page 5.1-7 Cadillac Avenue further influence lighting in the project area. Adjacent sources of reflective materials, lighting, and electronic signage for existing development along I-405 Freeway also exists. SOCO includes large-scale billboards and retail display windows that face I-405 Freeway. SOCO also has three large pylon signs, one of which has an LED reader board, and metal halide cutoff fixtures along the I-405 Freeway edge, which produce intense focused light under the fixtures. Accent lighting fixtures are also present at the SOCO entryways. Currently, daytime glare is not readily apparent on-site. In the project area, existing glare sources include vehicle headlights along I-405 Freeway, surrounding roadways, and neighboring parking lots, as well as exterior security lighting in the area. Reflective materials, lighting, and electronic signage for existing developments along I-405 Freeway also contribute to nighttime glare. Shade/Shadow Shading refers to the effect of shadows cast upon adjacent areas by proposed structures. Consequences of shadows upon land uses may be positive, including cooling effects during warm weather, or negative, such as the loss of natural light necessary for solar energy purposes or the loss of warming influences during cool weather. Shadow effects are dependent upon several factors, including the local topography, height and bulk of the project’s structural elements, sensitivity of adjacent land uses, season, and duration of shadow projection. Facilities and operations sensitive to the effects of shading include: routinely usable outdoor spaces associated with residential, recreational, or institutional (e.g., schools, convalescent homes) land uses; commercial uses such as pedestrian-oriented outdoor spaces or restaurants with outdoor eating areas; nurseries; and existing solar collectors. These uses are considered sensitive because sunlight is important to their function, physical comfort, or commerce. Existing shadow-sensitive uses in the vicinity of the project site include residences to the south of the project site across I-405 Freeway, approximately 300 feet from the project boundary. 5.1.2 Thresholds of Significance According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would: AE-1 Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. AE-2 Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway. AE-3 In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings (public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point); in urbanized areas, conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. AE-4 Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area. ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis AESTHETICS Page 5.1-8 April 2021February 2020 No impacts relating to thresholds AE-1 and AE-2 were identified, as substantiated in Chapter 8, Impacts Found Not to be Significant, of this Draft EIR. These thresholds are not addressed in the following analysis. 5.1.3 Plans, Programs, Policies, and Standard Conditions of Approval The following are existing regulatory requirements, such as plans, policies, programs (PPP), or standard conditions of approval (SCA), applied to the project based on Federal, State, or local laws currently in place, and which effectively reduce impacts related to aesthetics/light and glare. PPP AES-1 Prior to issuance of the first building permit for the proposed project, the owner/developer would be required to submit a Design Plan for the Building “A” parking elevation (facade) along the I-405 Freeway for review by the Planning Division and approval by the City’s Cultural Arts Committee. All architectural treatments including public art installations must comply with the regulations in the One Metro West Specific Plan. As such, architectural treatments would exclude the use of moving, flashing, or otherwise visually distracting elements or materials that are highly reflective or generate noise. PPP AES-2 The City of Costa Mesa would verify the proposed project is developed pursuant to the development standards and design guidelines included in the One Metro West Specific Plan. SCA AE-1 The City of Costa Mesa would be required to verify the proposed project is architecturally compatible (pertaining to building materials, style, colors, etc.) with the existing surrounding development and consistent with the One Metro West Specific Plan during the plan check review process. SCA AE-2 No modification(s) of the approved building elevations including, but not limited to, changes that increase the building height, removal of building articulation, or a change of the finish material(s), would be made during construction without prior Planning Division written approval. Failure to obtain prior Planning Division approval of the modification could result in requirement of the applicant to (re)process the modification through a discretionary review process, or modify the construction drawings to reflect the approved plans. SCA AE-3 No exterior roof access ladders, roof drain scuppers, or roof drain downspouts would be permitted. This condition relates to visually prominent features of scuppers or downspouts that not only detract from the architecture but may be spilling water from overhead without an integrated gutter system which would typically channel the rainwater from the scupper/downspout to the ground. An integrated downspout/gutter system painted to match the building would comply with the condition. This condition would be completed under the direction of the Planning Division. SCA AE-4 Permits would be required for all signs according to the provisions of the Costa Mesa Sign Ordinance. Freestanding signs would be subject to review and approval by the Planning Division/Development Services Director to ensure compatibility in terms of size, height, and ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis AESTHETICS April 2021February 2020 Page 5.1-9 location with the proposed/existing development and existing freestanding signs in the project vicinity. SCA AE-5 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the Applicant shall submit a Lighting Plan and Photometric Study for approval by the Development Services Director or designee. The Lighting Plan and Photometric Study shall demonstrate compliance with the following: The intensity and location of lights on buildings shall be limited to minimize nighttime light and glare to off-site residents. All site lighting fixtures shall be provided with a flat glass lens. Photometric calculations shall indicate the effect of the flat glass lens fixture efficiency. Lighting design and layout shall limit light spillage to no more than 0.5 foot-candles at the property line of off-site residential properties. The level of on-site lighting shall be as determined necessary for safety and security purposes. Light standards shall be located and oriented in such a way as to minimize light spillage onto surrounding properties. Light shall be shielded, and pointed downward or otherwise directed away from off-site properties. The intensity of the parking deck lighting and lighting associated with any public art installation visible from off-site residential properties shall be reduced to low levels from 9:00 p.m. until dawn each day to minimize lighting impacts to off-site residential properties. Illuminated signs visible from off-site residential properties shall be completely shut off at 10:00 p.m., seven days a week. Refer to the following sections for a discussion of applicable PPPs: Section 5.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, PPP HYD-1, SCA HYD-1, and SCA HYD-2; and Section 5.10, Noise, PPP N-2. 5.1.4 Environmental Impacts 5.1.4.1 METHODOLOGY The assessment of aesthetic impacts is subjective by nature. Aesthetics generally refer to the identification of visual resources and the quality of what can be seen, as well as an overall visual perception of the environment. This analysis attempts to identify and objectively examine factors that contribute to the perception of aesthetic impacts. Potential aesthetic impacts can be evaluated by considering proposed grade separations, landform alteration, building setbacks, scale, massing, and landscaping features associated with the design of a project. This section includes an analysis of the consistency of the project with established visual resources policies and a qualitative assessment of aesthetic characteristics. ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis AESTHETICS Page 5.1-10 April 2021February 2020 5.1.4.2 IMPACT ANALYSIS The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which there may be potentially significant impacts. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets after the impact statement. Impact 5.1-1: The proposed project could conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. [Threshold AE-3] As discussed in Section 5.1.1.2, Existing Conditions, the project site is currently developed with an industrial building, associated parking, and ornamental landscaping and is surrounded on all sides by urbanized uses. As the project site is primarily surrounded by urbanized uses in all directions, and although the project would change the visual character of the site, project implementation would not degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site or its surroundings. The following discussion analyzes the project’s potential to conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. Construction Construction would involve the demolition of the existing on-site industrial building, associated parking, and ornamental landscaping to allow for construction of the proposed project. Following site preparation activities, the construction of the proposed project would occur. Construction staging and parking areas would be within the boundaries of the project site. The project’s construction-related visual impacts are considered temporary and would cease upon construction completion. Various controls would be implemented during construction to ensure the project does not conflict with applicable zoning or regulations. For example, construction and demolition activities would require compliance with the General Construction Permit Water Quality Order 2009-0009-DWQ (as amended by Order No. 2010-0014-DWQ and 2012-006-DWQ), which requires the preparation and implementation of a SWPPP pursuant to PPP HYD-1. The SWPPP would require implementation of various construction BMPs which would minimize visual impacts; refer to Table 5.8-2, Construction Best Management Practices. SCA HYD-1 through SCA HYD-3 would ensure dust suppression and site maintenance techniques are implemented during project construction. Further, all grading and earthwork activities would be conducted in accordance with an approved construction grading plan and grading permit issued by the City. As a result, constr uction-related impacts concerning the potential to conflict with applicable zoning or other regulations governing scenic quality would be less than significant. Operations The proposed project would redevelop a site close to the City’s eastern gateway along I-405 Freeway, redeveloping the site from an industrial building to a mixed-use development with multi-family residential, commercial creative office space, specialty retail, and open space. The proposed project includes a total of four buildings, outdoor open space areas, and roadway improvements to Sunflower Avenue. These features are described in detail below and are depicted on Figure 3-3, One Metro West Land Use Plan. Building A. Building A is located on the southern side of the project site adjacent to I-405 Freeway. Building A would be a maximum of six stories; refer to Figure 3-11a, Building A Elevations. Features associated with Building A would include residential units and amenity spaces, including outdoor terraces. ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis AESTHETICS April 2021February 2020 Page 5.1-11 The southern side of the building would include an enclosed six level parking garage that extends along the building frontage. Parking on the roof would be open air. As part of the project, the Building “A” Parking elevation (facade) would include public art to enhance the large wall space, as seen from the I-405 Freeway. Prior to issuance of the first building permit for the proposed project, the owner/developer is required to submit a design plan for the Building “A” facade along the I-405 Freeway for approval by the City Cultural Arts Committee (see PPP AES-1). The Specific Plan details the requirements for a Public Art Plan to include examples of murals or other works to be used to enhance building walls, particularly the I-405 Freeway facade (see PPP AES-2). Examples of artistic treatments that may be proposed for the length of the structure adjacent to, and facing, I-405 Freeway are discussed below under “Design Guidelines.” The artwork may include illumination to allow passing motorists view of the artwork at reasonable hours. Illumination may be static, up-lighted, back-lighted, or change according to computer program, and/or adopt seasonal themes. It is acknowledged that all proposed lighting features would be required to meet the Development Standards required as part of the Specific Plan. An Exterior Lighting Plan would be prepared, prior to issuance of the first building permit, that identifies and depicts locations, types, scale, and illumination power of lighting fixtures on all building exteriors (SCA AE-5). The Lighting Plan and Photometric Study would include performance standards to minimize the project’s potential to result in lighting impacts. Building B. Building B is located on the northwestern side of the project site along Sunflower Avenue; refer to Figure 3-11b, Building B Elevations. Building B would be a maximum of seven stories and includes a number of indoor amenity spaces. Outdoor amenity spaces provided on level two would largely be blocked from view from the public right-of-way along Sunflower Avenue, with the exception of the easternmost courtyard, which is open on the eastern side. Outdoor amenity terraces on levels three and seven, located on the west side of the building and at each corner of the building, respectively, may be visible from Sunflower Avenue. Residential dwelling units are provided on all stories. Parking would be provided interior to the building on level one and in two levels of subterranean parking. Building C. Building C is located on the northeast corner of the project site along Sunflower Avenue and east of Building B; refer to Figure 3-11c, Building C Elevations. Building C would be a maximum of seven stories. Ground floor retail space would be provided fronting Sunflower Avenue. Amenity terraces would be provided on the north and east side of the building on level seven, which may be visible to travelers on Sunflower Street. Building C would also include an amenity roof terrace with recreational buildings. Residential units are provided on all levels. Parking would be provided interior to the building on all levels. Creative Office Building. The creative office building is located on the southwest side of the project site. The creative office building is three stories and would be visible from I-405 Freeway. Open Space. On the west side of the project side, the proposed project would include an open space area of approximately 1.5 acres. The open space area would include seating and resting areas with creative landscaping/art pieces and shade structures. Landscaping would be highly emphasized along the perimeter ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis AESTHETICS Page 5.1-12 April 2021February 2020 of the site, throughout the residential portion, and within the open space area to help soften the landscape around and within One Metro West. Santa Ana River Trail Improvements. The project would install a new landscaped bicycle trail along the western side of the open space area. The bicycle trail would connect the southwest portion of the project site to the Santa Ana River Trail. Sunflower Avenue Improvements. The proposed project includes roadway improvements to Sunflower Avenue from Cadillac Avenue to the eastern project boundary; refer to Figure 3-6, Sunflower Avenue Improvements. Improvements would include new bicycle paths, sidewalks, street parking, and landscape medians to enhance the neighborhood from an industrial setting to a mixed-use residential area. Additionally, the existing utility poles and overhead lines would be relocated underground along the project frontage. Off-site improvements such as wide sidewalks, street trees, and decorative elements would improve the appearance of the streetscape, connecting the landscape with the adjacent SOCO. Fence and Wall Plan. The proposed project includes a six-foot block wall with vines that would be constructed along the eastern edge of the project site with a 10-foot setback from the property line or face of buildings. Specific Plan Section 3, Development Standards, Specific Plan Section 4, Design Guidelines, and the Master Plan would facilitate development of the project features discussed above (see PPP AES-2). Development Standards are indicators of firm requirements and pertain to such categories as building areas, building heights, building setbacks, residential density, parking, etc. As such, Development Standards are rules or measures pertaining to land uses and zoning that establish a level of quality or quantity that must be complied with or satisfied. Design Guidelines are intended to ensure the Specific Plan’s objectives and Development Standards are implemented throughout the project site. The Design Guidelines are not regulatory; rather, the Design Guidelines serve as guides for development of the Master Plan. The Master Plan illustrates and explains the development plans that implement Specific Plan Development Standards and Design Guidelines. These components are discussed in further detail below. Development Standards The proposed Specific Plan would guide future development of the project site. Specific Plan Section 3.3, Development Standards, provides the general development standards for development proposed within the Specific Plan area. Development Standards are rules or measures pertaining to land uses and zoning that establish a level of quality or quantity that must be complied with or satisfied. These standards specifically allow for a building height of up to seven stories for residential buildings and three stories for the creative office building. Perimeter and interior building setbacks are established for the project and range between 0 to 15 feet. Vehicular parking requirements are included for the project’s residential, retail, and creative office uses. The Development Standards also establish the project’s floor area ratio (FAR), total landscape coverage area, and total area of amenities. The intent of the Development Standards is to ensure future development within the Specific Plan area meets the vision and goals of the Specific Plan, while satisfying land use performance requirements. Development Standards are also included for the following project components: ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis AESTHETICS April 2021February 2020 Page 5.1-13 Proposed structures; Pedestrian connectivity; Parking design, parking structures, loading/unloading areas; Mechanical equipment; Fences and Walls; Outside furniture; Lighting; Bicycle support facilities; Active transportation hub; Signage; Residential, commercial, and office uses; Landscaping; Public art; and Sustainability. These regulations would supersede those regulations established by the City’s Municipal Code. If the Specific Plan does not address a specific issue, the City’s Municipal Code would apply. Design Guidelines Specific Plan Section 4, Design Guidelines, includes guidelines for site design and building architecture character and identifies the project’s landscape design guidelines, including establishing a general tree palette. The Design Guidelines also provide general requirements for the project’s proposed open space, public art, and Sunflower Avenue improvements, among other project features. Guidelines on use of hardscape, walls, signage, lighting, and street furniture are also included. According to the Design Guidelines, key components of the Specific Plan’s building architecture character would be clean lines, natural materials, and contemporary color palettes. Guidelines related to building material, color and finishes, building facade modulation, entryways, common and open space areas, storefronts, and other architectural elements are included to unify the project’s residential, commercial, and creative office uses. According to the Design Guidelines, landscaping with the Specific Plan would soften the structural appearance of large buildings and parking areas and provide a unified appearance along Sunflower Avenue. The Design Guidelines also recommend that areas between a building adjacent to Sunflower Avenue and the sidewalk are improved with a combination of softscape and hardscape including, but not limited to, planting beds and boxes, pavers, low shrubs, planter pots, street trees, and other landscape amenities. Based on the project’s tree palette, included as Exhibit 4-3 of the Specific Plan, project trees may include, but are not limited to, desert willow (Chilopsis linearis), ironwood (Lyonothamnus floribundus ssp. asplenifolius), western sycamore (Platanus racemose), Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii), hollyleaf cherry (Prunus ilicifolia), coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), Engelmann oak (Quercus engelmanii), Goodding’s willow (Salix gooddingii), Mexican elderberry (Sambucus mexicana), California bay (Umbellularia californica), and jacaranda (Jacaranda sp.). The tree species would reinforce the community’s character and would be planted in areas where they could grow to full maturity. ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis AESTHETICS Page 5.1-14 April 2021February 2020 As noted, the project would contain a 1.5-acre open space area within the western portion of the project site. This area is intended as a passive open space area with seating and resting areas, exercise area, creative landscaping, art pieces, and shade structures. The Design Guidelines establish that the open space component should be visible and prominent to the Sunflower Avenue/Cadillac Avenue intersection to soften the community’s hardscapes as experienced from this vantage point. The open space component is proposed to have a landscaped articulated edge to provide visual interest, pedestrian-scale amenities, softscape and hardscape, public art, entry monuments, and other features to contribute to the Specific Plan’s overall design. The Specific Plan also requires that the open space component links with adjoining outdoor spaces with comfortable paths and walks to create a network of spaces. As noted above, the project would install a new landscaped bicycle trail to connect the southwest portion of the project site to the Santa Ana River Trail. This project component would implement this aspect of the Specific Plan. Public art (particularly in the open space area) may include all forms of original creations, including, but not limited to, the following media: sculpture (which may be three-dimensional and in any material that is durable); painting; electronic treatments; pavement design; landscape; photography; stained glass; fabric; murals; and, mosaics. Selection of public art would be subject to the City’s Cultural Arts Committee approval to ensure the designs for the public art do not result in significant impacts to adjacent communities and vehicles travelling along I-405 Freeway (see PPP AES-1). The Design Guidelines call for artistic treatments to enhance blank building walls, particularly the blank building wall adjacent to I-405 Freeway. Examples of artistic treatments that could be proposed for the length of the structure adjacent to I-405 Freeway include the following: A fin system across the building façade that allows landscaping on the structure wall to emerge; an integrated LED lighting system; and exposure of the lower building facade to give the building the appearance of “floating” along I-405 Freeway. An open weave pattern made from recycled rubber that covers the building facade; a sub-structure composed of expressed concrete; photovoltaics integrated to generate energy for the lighting scheme; exposure of the lower building facade to give the building the appearance of “floating” along I-405 Freeway; and a projected carbon emissions map integrated across the open weave pattern. A photovoltaic, energy-efficient facade composed of multi-colored PV panels that would create a tapestry of color and translucency to the interior; illuminated photovoltaic panels integrated with lighting strips that celebrate the structure facade; integrated photovoltaics to generate energy for the lighting scheme; and exposed, elongated concrete structures at varying angles, along the building façade and an exposed lower level, to allow the building facade to seem to “float” along I-405 Freeway. Unless properly treated, the proposed public art could result in potentially significant lighting impacts to sensitive receptors. In order to reduce impacts related to public art lighting, the Specific Plan includes Development Standards which specify requirements to ensure exterior lighting is reduced to low levels during nighttime hours; does not generate light spill above 0.5 foot-candles at off-site residential properties; is shielded and directed downward or otherwise directed away from offsite properties; and does not incorporate moving, flashing, or otherwise visually distracting elements. The Development Standards also stipulate that project lighting adjacent to the I-405 Freeway would be required to meet applicable Caltrans standards. Selection of ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis AESTHETICS April 2021February 2020 Page 5.1-15 public art along the I-405 Freeway would be subject to the City’s Cultural Arts Committee approval to ensure the designs for the public art do not result in significant light and glare impacts to adjacent communities and vehicles travelling along I-405 Freeway (see PPP AES-1). The Development Standards require an Exterior Lighting Plan is prepared, prior to issuance of the first building permit, that identifies and depicts locations, types, scale, and illumination power of lighting fixtures on all building exteriors. SCA AE-5 would require preparation of a Lighting Plan and Photometric Study for review and approval by the City’s Development Services Department. The Lighting Plan and Photometric Study would include performance standards to minimize the project’s potential to result in lighting impacts. Despite implementation of PPP AES-1, PPP AES- 2, and SCA AES-5, there is a potential for light spillover to adjacent properties. Operational lighting impacts to visual character/quality would be potentially significant in this regard. The Design Guidelines also include guidelines for the project’s proposed improvements to Sunflower Avenue to provide for street trees, planting, and pedestrian-scale amenities. Stamped concrete, exposed aggregate, or colored concrete is encouraged at the Sunflower Avenue/Cadillac Avenue intersection subject to City approval. Design of materials and colors for chairs, tables, display standards, lighting, and other fixtures (including umbrellas and awnings) associated with ground-level commercial uses along Sunflower Avenue would be consistent with the architectural style and colors of the building with commercial/dining establishments and the quality of fixtures used in the public streetscape improvements. Walls and fences would be designed with materials and finishes that complement community architecture and should be accented with vines, shrubs, and trees. The Design Guidelines propose wall inserts and/or decorative columns or pilasters spaced every 20 feet for all non-transparent perimeter walls to provide relief or other method of aesthetic application of interest. Specific sign types would be permitted within the Specific Plan, including canopy/awning, projecting, wall- mounted, monument, ground-level, directional, and project entry signs. Special considerations for sign location, size, design, materials, and colors are included by the Design Guidelines. In accordance with SCA AE-4, permits would be required for all signs pursuant to the provisions of the Costa Mesa Sign Ordinance. Freestanding signs would be subject to review and approval by the Planning Division/Development Services Director to ensure compatibility in terms of size, height, and location with the proposed/existing development and existing freestanding signs in the project vicinity The Design Guidelines indicate decorative paving would be incorporated into parking lot design, driveway entries, pedestrian walkways, and crosswalks within the Specific Plan. Paving materials for the walkways and roadways would complement the project’s architectural design. Use of stamped concrete, stone, brick, pavers, exposed aggregate, or colored concrete is encouraged by the Design Guidelines. The design and placement of exterior lighting would add aesthetic value to the One Metro West community as well as contribute significantly to safety within the community. The Design Guidelines require lighting features to complement exterior building colors and materials, as well as add interest and focal points throughout the project site. Outside furniture would be unified through color or general appearance and would be selected to complement other elements of the community’s design. ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis AESTHETICS Page 5.1-16 April 2021February 2020 Master Plan The Master Plan serves as a precise plan of development for the project site and provides all project details that are not defined by the Specific Plan Development Standards and Design Guidelines. The Master Plan illustrates and explains the development plans that implement Specific Plan Development Standards and Design Guidelines. The Master Plan includes several graphics which depict the following project aspects: Use of hardscape throughout the community; Pedestrian connectivity between land uses in the community; Community-wide parking; Fire protection measures; Loading/unloading areas and mechanical equipment locations and screening; Wall design and standards; Outside furniture design and locations; Community-wide lighting; Bicycle trails and support facilities; Signage design; Building(s) architecture and design treatments; Landscape and hardscape treatment; Sunflower Avenue street scene; Open space; Public art design and potential locations; Sustainability design; and Safety design. Zoning The project site is currently zoned Industrial Park (MP), which is intended for large, concentrated industrial areas where spacious park-like environments are created. Implementation of the proposed project requires a zone change from MP to Planned Development Residential – High Density (PDR-HD) with a Specific Plan and Master Plan. According to Municipal Code Section 13-20, Zoning Districts, PDR-HD districts are intended for multi-family residential developments containing any type or mixture of housing units, either attached or detached, including but not limited to clustered development, townhouses, patio houses, detached houses, duplexes, garden apartments, high rise apartments, or common interest developments. Complementary non- residential uses could also be included in the planned development. As such, the proposed zoning district would allow a mix of residential and non-residential uses and site-specific development standards pursuant to the proposed Specific Plan. Upon City approval of the proposed zone change, the project would be consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. As discussed previously, the Development Standards and Design Guidelines included in the Specific Plan would supersede zoning requirements established by the City’s Municipal Code. If the Specific Plan does not address a specific issue, the City’s Municipal Code requirements for the PDR-HD district would apply. As such, the ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis AESTHETICS April 2021February 2020 Page 5.1-17 proposed project would not conflict with zoning regulations governing scenic quality as the Specific Plan and Master Plan establish the regulatory framework, including Development Standards and Design Guidelines, for development of the proposed project. Impacts would be less than significant. General Plan Scenic Quality Policies Consistency Analysis Table 5.1-1, Project Consistency with the Costa Mesa General Plan, provides a consistency analysis of the proposed project and relevant General Plan goals, objectives, and policies pertaining to scenic quality. Table 5.1-1 Project Consistency with the Costa Mesa General Plan General Plan Goal and Policies Project Compliance Goal CD-1 Strengthen the image of the City as experienced from sidewalks and roadways. Consistent. The Specific Plan’s design objectives encourage pedestrian and human-scale development on the project site and provide development standards and design guidelines to encourage pedestrian connectivity. As discussed above, the proposed project includes pedestrian and bicycle lane improvements on Sunflower Avenue and would provide a path connecting the Santa Ana River Trail to Sunflower Avenue. Pedestrian amenities would be provided on-site, including walking paths, lighting, wayfinding, and a 1.5-acre open space area. Additionally, Building B and Building C would provide pedestrian- scale architectural design by providing ground-floor retail space and residential units oriented toward Sunflower Avenue. The proposed project would be consistent with this goal. Objective CD-1A Contribute to City beautification by enhancing the visual environment of Costa Mesa’s vehicular and pedestrian paths and corridors. Consistent. Currently, the site is developed with an industrial building. Views along the existing driveways show minimal landscaping, chain link fencing, loading docks, and surface parking. Site access is limited by the fence and gates across the driveways. Views from I-405 Freeway show the grassy turf on the south side of the project site and the existing industrial building. The proposed project would open the site, visually and physically, compared to existing conditions. The proposed project would include the development of contemporary-style buildings, landscaping, lighting, and wayfinding. The proposed project would include artistic treatments for the Building “A” parking elevation (facade) along I-405 Freeway (see PPP AES-1). As such. the proposed project would enhance the visual environment of Costa Mesa’s vehicular and pedestrian paths and corridors. The proposed project would be consistent with this objective. Policy CD-1.3 Promote treatments for walls and fences and utility cabinets along public rights-of-way that contribute to an attractive street and sidewalk environment. Require that new walls and fences complement the style and character of the local district and adjacent buildings. Newly constructed or reconstructed walls and fences adjacent to sidewalks and roadways should incorporate architectural treatments such as pilasters, masonry, or wrought iron, and should integrate tiered plantings to soften their appearance. Consistent. From Sunflower Avenue, the proposed project would remove the existing fence and open the site to the street. The proposed project would include artistic treatments for the Building “A” parking elevation (facade) along I-405 Freeway (see PPP AES-1). Utility cabinets and mechanical equipment would be screened from view, and SCA AE-3 would ensure the project’s exterior features do not detract from the architecture by prohibiting roof access ladders, roof drain scuppers, and roof drain downspouts. The proposed project includes a contemporary design that would complement the surrounding buildings while serving as a gateway to the City. The proposed project would be consistent with this policy. Policy CD-1.4 Promote a consistent landscape character along City streets to reinforce the unique qualities of each corridor and district, including the development of landscaped medians. Support implementation of the recommended street tree palette for each City street, as identified in the City of Costa Mesa Streetscape and Median Development Guidelines. Consistent. The project proposes several improvements along Sunflower Avenue that would enhance the visual quality along the project frontage. Upgrades to Sunflower Avenue would include placing the existing Southern California Edison 66-kilovolt utility lines underground and implementing a new pedestrian sidewalk and protected bicycle lane. Extensive landscaping would also be planted ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis AESTHETICS Table 5.1-1 Project Consistency with the Costa Mesa General Plan, continued Page 5.1-18 April 2021February 2020 General Plan Goal and Policies Project Compliance along the southern side of Sunflower Avenue adjacent to the project frontage. The Specific Plan includes landscape development standards and design guidelines which would be consistent with the City’s Streetscape and Median Development Guidelines (see PPP AES-2). Policy CD-1.5 Encourage electric and communication lines to be placed underground and electrical substations and telephone facilities to be screened to minimize visual impacts from sidewalks, streets, and adjacent properties. Support utility undergrounding through conditions of project approval, preparation of undergrounding plans, and the formation of assessment districts. Consistent. The project proposes to underground existing Southern California Edison electric pole lines along the project frontage in Sunflower Avenue. Goal CD-2 Enhance the existing character and strengthen the identity of Costa Mesa’s districts. Consistent. The proposed project is located in the Harbor Gateway District, which is described as having an office park character, with ample landscaping and large multi-story building complexes. The proposed project provides a mixed-use development with a contemporary design and four multi-story buildings. Ample landscaping would be incorporated throughout the site and as part of the project’s off-site improvements to Sunflower Avenue. The design of the proposed project would complement the Harbor Gateway District and contribute to the image, identity, and character of the District and City. As stated in the Specific Plan, a goal of the project is to “contribute a positive physical image and identity of the community vicinity in North Costa Mesa from I-405 Freeway and neighboring properties.” Additionally, the proposed project would enhance the existing character of the district by replacing industrial uses with a contemporary designed project that would be highly visible from the surrounding area, including I-405 Freeway and SOCO. The proposed project would be consistent with this goal. Objective CD-2A Encourage future development and redevelopment to reinforce district scale, identity, and urban form. Consistent. While the proposed project would be taller than neighboring buildings in its vicinity, the proposed project would include architectural design elements, such as step backs, differentiated building materials, and landscaping, to visually break up the massing of the proposed project and visually reinforce the scale of the district. As discussed in the Specific Plan, the proposed project is designed to be pedestrian scale and reinforce a “sense of place.” The project’s contemporary design, architectural materials, and landscaping would reinforce the District’s identity and urban form. The proposed project would be consistent with this objective. Policy CD-2.2 Support and seek land uses and development that correspond or enrich our existing districts. Consistent. Refer to discussion for Goal CD-2, above. The proposed project would be consistent with this policy. Policy CD-3.2 Reinforce a sense of arrival into the City by promoting architecturally significant development and significant landscape plantings at key nodes. Undertake a visioning process to develop specific design guidelines that articulate the desired character for each node within Costa Mesa. Consistent. As detailed in the Specific Plan, a primary community entry to the project site would provide a sense of arrival. The entry design would be attractive and functional and convey a ceremonial sense of entry that reflects the community image and identity. Physical elements of an entry, including roadway archways, paving materials, signs, and landscape planting, would be considered and function together to physically define the entry. ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis AESTHETICS Table 5.1-1 Project Consistency with the Costa Mesa General Plan, continued April 2021February 2020 Page 5.1-19 General Plan Goal and Policies Project Compliance Policy CD-4.1 Support efforts to introduce new monuments and landmarks, and preserve, maintain, and improve the condition of Costa Mesa landmarks. Consistent. The Community Design Element defines landmarks as “a physical element that provides a point of reference or serves as a community identity marker. A landmark can be a structure, space, or natural feature that helps identify a particular area in the City. Most landmarks are also main destination locations within the City as well.” SOCO, which is located immediately adjacent to the project site to the east, is identified as a landmark site. The proposed project would support this existing landmark by developing well-designed mixed-use development with contemporary architecture, improvements to Sunflower Avenue, and landscaping. The proposed project would also provide increased landmark visibility along I-405 Freeway through proposed architectural treatments along the Building “A” parking structure facade (see PPP AES-1). The proposed project would be consistent with this policy. Goal CD-5 Utilize Costa Mesa’s edges as opportunities to enhance the City’s image along its boundaries. Consistent. Goal CD-5 relates to the City’s edges, which the Community Design Element defines as “linear elements that serve as a visual or physical boundary, barrier, or transition between districts and that define the boundaries of a place” (p. CD-16). The Community Design Element specifically identifies the Santa Ana River and I-405 Freeway. The project site is adjacent to I-405 Freeway to the south and is in close proximity to the Santa Ana River to the west. The proposed project would include artistic treatments for the Building “A” parking elevation (facade) along I-405 Freeway (see PPP AES-1). Landscaping would be highly emphasized along the perimeter of the site as visible from I-405 Freeway. As such, the proposed project would enhance the City’s image along I-405 Freeway. Additionally, the project would install a new landscaped bicycle trail to connect the southwest portion of the project site to the Santa Ana River Trail. As such, the proposed project would enhance the City’s image along its boundaries. The proposed project would be consistent with this goal. Objective CD-5A Develop and implement programs that preserve and enhance City edges. Consistent. Refer to the discussions for Goal CD-5 and Policy CD-5.1. The proposed project would be consistent with this objective. Policy CD-5.1 Preserve and optimize natural views and open spaces in Costa Mesa. Not Applicable. The project site does not contain natural views or open spaces; however, the project would provide a 1.5-acre open space area on the western portion of the project site with amenities, including seating and resting areas, creative landscaping, shade structures, and art pieces. Goal CD-6 Enhance opportunities for new development and redevelopment to contribute to a positive visual image for the City of Costa Mesa that is consistent with the district image. Consistent. Refer to the discussions above. The proposed project would redevelop the site with well-designed contemporary buildings and landscaping and would contribute to a positive visual image of the City of Costa Mesa. As detailed in the Specific Plan, public art would be incorporated throughout the project site, including within the open space and along the walking paths. In addition, the proposed project would include artistic treatments for the Building “A” parking elevation (facade) along I-405 Freeway (see PPP AES-1). Pursuant to SCA AE-1, the City would verify the proposed project is architecturally compatible (pertaining to building materials, style, colors, etc.) with the existing surrounding development and consistent with the One Metro West Specific Plan during the plan check review process. The proposed project would be consistent with this goal. Policy CD-6.1 Encourage the inclusion of public art and attractive, functional architecture into new development that will have the effect of promoting Costa Mesa as the “City of the Arts.” Consistent. Refer to the discussion for Goal CD-6, above. The proposed project would be consistent with this policy. ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis AESTHETICS Table 5.1-1 Project Consistency with the Costa Mesa General Plan, continued Page 5.1-20 April 2021February 2020 General Plan Goal and Policies Project Compliance Policy CD-6.2 Encourage the use of creative and well-designed signs that establish a distinctive image for the City. Consistent. The Specific Plan outlines development standards and design guidelines for the use of signs throughout the project site. The Specific Plan would ensure signs on-site would be creative and well- designed. The proposed project would also include entry, directional, identification, and open space signage to provide for wayfinding and placemaking. Pursuant to SCA AE-4, permits would be required for all signs according to the provisions of the Costa Mesa Sign Ordinance. Freestanding signs would be subject to review and approval by the Planning Division/Development Services Director to ensure compatibility in terms of size, height, and location with the proposed/existing development and existing freestanding signs in the project vicinity. The proposed project would be consistent with this policy. Policy CD-7.2 Preserve the character and scale of Costa Mesa’s established residential neighborhoods where possible; when new residential development is proposed, encourage that the new structures are consistent with the prevailing character of existing development in the immediate vicinity, and that new development does not have a substantial adverse impact on adjacent areas. Consistent. The proposed project is not located within a residential neighborhood and would, therefore, not conflict with the character and scale of established residential neighborhoods. The proposed project would redevelop the site with well-designed contemporary residential buildings consistent with the prevailing character of existing development in the immediate vicinity, particularly SOCO to the east. The proposed project would be consistent with this policy. Policy CD-8.8 All required parking areas and driveways shall be illuminated under the direction of the planning division. Lights used to illuminate parking areas shall be directed away from any adjoining premises located in any residential zone under the direction of the planning division. Consistent. Parking for these components would be provided interior to the buildings on-site. Parking areas would be illuminated as outlined in the Specific Plan. No residential zones immediately abut the project site. The proposed project would be consistent with this policy. Goal CD-9 Promote development of mixed-use projects that seamlessly integrate multiple uses both functionally and aesthetically. Consistent. The proposed project includes a mixed-use development that includes residential, retail, and creative office uses and a open space. The design of the proposed project would create a cohesive aesthetic and visual character that seamlessly integrates the on-site uses. The components of the project and on-site amenities functionally support the project’s uses and invites visitors to the site due to its location near a popular commercial area and open space. Functionally, the project would enhance the immediate area by providing residential uses within a major employment center. The proposed project would be consistent with this goal. Objective CD-9A Design mixed-use development projects to achieve a high quality character. Consistent. The proposed project is designed to achieve a high quality of character. One of the goals of the Specific Plan is to contribute positively to the image and character of Costa Mesa. The Specific Plan’s design and development standards would regulate the project’s building height, massing, architectural treatments, materials, facade details, landscaping, and wayfinding signage. The proposed project would be consistent with this objective. Policy CD-9.1 Require that mixed-use development projects be designed to mitigate potential conflicts between uses. Consider noise, lighting, and security. Consistent. Refer to the discussion for Impact 5.1-2. The proposed project would be consistent with this policy. Policy CD-9.2 Provide adequate parking, open space, and recreational facilities to serve residents in mixed-use development projects. Design parking and other areas to acknowledge different users (residents versus shoppers) and to be compatible with the architectural character of the building(s). Consistent. Development of the proposed project would result in a mix of uses, including residential, creative office, and supporting retail uses. Proposed recreational facilities would include a mix of private and public facilities to support the project. Private facilities include amenities such as pool, fitness gym, bowling alley, and BBQ areas. Public amenities include a 1.5-acre open space available for public use, trail connection improvements, and bicycle facilities along Sunflower Avenue. Parking design accommodates shared parking facilities with residents and creative office uses, as well as dedicated residential parking areas. Parking structure entrances, open space, and recreational components ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis AESTHETICS Table 5.1-1 Project Consistency with the Costa Mesa General Plan, continued April 2021February 2020 Page 5.1-21 General Plan Goal and Policies Project Compliance of the project would be designed to be visually consistent with the architectural character of the buildings proposed. The proposed project would be consistent with this policy. Sources: Costa Mesa 2016; One Metro West Specific Plan As demonstrated in Table 5.1-1, the proposed project is consistent with the City’s applicable goals, objectives, and policies related to scenic quality. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard. Shade/Shadow Analysis In order to identify the proposed project’s potential increase in shadow-related impacts, morning, noon, afternoon, and evening shade patterns were compared for the proposed project. Specifically, four dates were used for analysis purposes: the winter solstice (December 21), when the sun is at its lowest; the summer solstice (June 21), when the sun is at its highest; and the vernal and autumnal equinoxes (March 21 and September 21), when day and night are of approximately equal length. The longest shadows are cast during the winter months, and the shortest shadows are cast during the summer months. The following discussion describes the project’s potential to result in shadow-related impacts during the summer/winter solstices and vernal/autumnal equinoxes. Note that the analysis considers shadow effects associated with proposed building massing only; the shadow patterns associated with proposed landscaping are not addressed. The project’s shade/shadow patterns throughout the year are generally described in Figure 5.1-2 through Figure 5.1-5, Proposed Shade/Shadow Patterns. As illustrated, the only areas that would be substantially shaded include SOCO and Sunflower Avenue right-of-way in the fall, and winter, and spring months. However, this area is not considered shadow sensitive. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in any significant shading of light-sensitive uses (uses where sunlight is important for function). Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. ONE METRO WEST ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Figure 5.1-2 Proposed Shade/Shadow Patterns – Summer Solstice Source: Rose Equities, 2021 04/21 JN 172326 NOT TO SCALE |43SHADOW ANALYSIS - SUMMER SOLSTICE SOCO RETAIL/SHOPPING (NOT CONSIDERED SENSITIVE USE) ONE METRO WEST ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Figure 5.1-3 Proposed Shade/Shadow Patterns – Autumnal Equinox Source: Rose Equities, 2021 04/21 JN 172326 NOT TO SCALE | 44SHADOW ANALYSIS - AUTUMNAL EQUINOX SOCO RETAIL/SHOPPING (NOT CONSIDERED SENSITIVE USE) ONE METRO WEST ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Figure 5.1-4 Proposed Shade/Shadow Patterns – Winter Solstice Source: Rose Equities, 2021 04/21 JN 172326 NOT TO SCALE |45SHADOW ANALYSIS - WINTER SOLSTICE SOCO RETAIL/SHOPPING (NOT CONSIDERED SENSITIVE USE) ONE METRO WEST ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Figure 5.1-5 Proposed Shade/Shadow Patterns – Vernal Equinox Source: Rose Equities, 2021 04/21 JN 172326 | 46SHADOW ANALYSIS - VERNAL EQUINOX SOCO RETAIL/SHOPPING (NOT CONSIDERED SENSITIVE USE) NOT TO SCALE ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis AESTHETICS Page 5.1-26 April 2021February 2020 Conclusion The proposed project would not conflict with applicable zoning or other regulations governing scenic quality and would not result in significant shade/shadow impacts to off-site uses. The proposed project, although a change to the existing visual quality of the site, would create an attractive, well-designed mixed-use project with high quality details and design articulation, landscaping, and streetscaping. Provisions of the proposed project, including the Development Standards, Design Guidelines, and Master Plan, would ensure design details of the proposed project are context-sensitive and of high quality in terms of materials and craftsmanship. Development of the proposed project would also be subject to several Standard Conditions of Approval in place to minimize aesthetic impacts. For example, the City would verify future development associated with the project is architecturally compatible with regard to building materials, style, colors, etc., with the existing surrounding development and consistent with the One Metro West Specific Plan during the plan check process (see SCA AE-1). SCA AE-2 would ensure no modification(s) of the approved building elevations, including, but not limited to, changes that increase the building height, changes in building articulation, or a change of the finish material(s), are made during construction without prior Planning Division written approval. SCA AE- 3 would ensure the project’s exterior features do not detract from the architecture by prohibiting roof access ladders, roof drain scuppers, and roof drain downspouts. These standard conditions would ensure the project is compatible with existing development within the Harbor Gateway District. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard. Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant Impact. Impact 5.1-2: The proposed project could create a substantial new source of light and glare. [Threshold AE-4] A significant impact may occur if lighting, as part of the proposed project, exceeds adopted thresholds for light and glare, including exterior lighting or light spillover, or if the proposed project creates a substantial new source of light or glare. Residential uses to the south of the project site represent the closest light-sensitive uses to the project. Construction Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 13-279, Exceptions for Construction, construction hours are limited to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. through 6:00 p.m. Saturdays unless a temporary nighttime construction waiver is approved by the City’s Development Services Director (see PPP N-2). Construction is not allowed on Sundays and specified Federal holidays. As PPP N-2 would prohibit construction during the evening hours, and nighttime construction is not proposed (refer to Section 3.4.2, Project Construction Timeline), construction of the proposed project is not anticipated to result in new sources of light or glare. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard. ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis AESTHETICS April 2021February 2020 Page 5.1-27 Operation Nighttime illumination and glare impacts are the effects of a project’s exterior lighting upon adjoining uses. Operation of the project could result in impacts related to nighttime lighting, including towards sensitive residential uses to the south of the project site. The proposed project is located within a developed area of the City and currently developed with an industrial building. As a result, various sources of light and glare are present in the area. As stated, the existing character of the area includes several sources of artificial lighting, including interior lighting, landscaping lighting (highlighting signage, pathways, signs, and trees), parking lot lighting, security lighting, signs at SOCO, and streetlighting, especially along I-405 Freeway. Light and glare from vehicles on local streets, parking lots, and I- 405 Freeway are also present. Substantial traffic and light fixtures along I-405 Freeway contribute to existing light and glare. Existing light and glare in the project area are typical for an urban area. Project implementation would result in additional sources of lighting through the development of new residential structures, an office building, and open space amenities. New sources of light would emanate from residential and communal building interiors and exterior sources, including building illumination, parking and security lighting, and landscape lighting. Lighting would also be used to illuminate pedestrian paths and parking areas and highlight architectural features. Lighting and building finishes would be carefully selected and designed to avoid creating glare. The most visible source of lighting of the project site from the residences south of I- 405 Freeway would emanate from exterior lighting on Building A and interior parking structure lighting along the southern edge of the site. Parking structure lighting would be designed to minimize light spillover and installed to concentrate light on pedestrian and vehicle aisles and ramps with spillover lighting adequate to illuminate parking stalls (see PPP AES-2). Further, in order to reduce impacts related to light and glare from the parking facade, the Specific Plan includes Development Standards which specify project lighting requirements to ensure exterior lighting is shielded and directed downward, or otherwise directed away from off-site properties. The Development Standards also stipulate that project lighting adjacent to the I-405 Freeway would be required to meet applicable Caltrans standards. An Exterior Lighting Plan would be required, prior to issuance of the first building permit, that identifies and depicts locations, design, types, scale, and illumination power of lighting fixtures, including on all building exteriors and within the open space/trail connection areas. SCA AE-5 would require preparation of a Lighting Plan and Photometric Study for review and approval by the City’s Development Services Director. The Lighting Plan and Photometric Study would include performance standards to minimize the project’s potential to result in lighting impacts. Such standards include the following: The intensity and location of lights on buildings would be limited to minimize nighttime light and glare to off-site residents. All site lighting fixtures would include a flat glass lens. Photometric calculations would indicate the effect of the flat glass lens fixture efficiency. Lighting design and layout would limit light spillage to no more than 0.5 foot-candles at the property line of off-site residential properties. The level of on-site lighting would be as determined necessary for safety and security purposes. Light standards would be located and oriented in such a way as to minimize light ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis AESTHETICS Page 5.1-28 April 2021February 2020 spillage onto surrounding properties. Light would be shielded and pointed downward or otherwise directed away from off-site properties. The intensity of the parking deck lighting and lighting associated with any public art installation visible from off-site residential properties would be reduced to low levels from 9:00 p.m. until dawn each day to minimize lighting impacts to off-site residential properties. Illuminated signs visible from off-site residential properties would be completely shut off at 10:00 p.m., seven days a week. Despite implementation of PPP AES-1, PPP AES-2, and SCA AES-5, there is a potential for light spillover to adjacent properties, particularly with regard to the I-405 Freeway facade for Building A. Operational impacts related to lighting would be potentially significant in this regard. Future development consistent with the proposed Specific Plan would also introduce new potential sources of glare (i.e., new building materials) and new roadways, driveways, and parking structures that could result in glare impacts from vehicle headlights. It is acknowledged that existing similar building materials and vehicle headlights are already experienced in the area, including SOCO to the east. However, the project would propose additional building massing. The Development Standards include building and pavement surface requirements to minimize impacts related to glare, including use of low-glare paving, surfaces, and windows (see PPP AES- 2). The project’s proposed parking structure would be screened from view of residential uses to the south through the use of screening features; refer to Impact 5.1-1. Thus, potential new sources of glare would be less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant Impact. 5.1.5 Cumulative Impacts The cumulative impacts discussed below rely upon the list of cumulative development projects included in Table 4-2, Related Projects. The nearest cumulative projects to the project site identified in Table 4-2 is the Harbor Gateway Industrial Building (Cumulative Project 3) and the Press Project (Cumulative Project 5); refer to Figure 4-1, Cumulative Projects. Impact 5.1-3: Development of the proposed project and related projects could conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. [Threshold AE-3] All cumulative projects would be required to show consistency with applicable City development and design plans, including the City’s zoning requirements. All cumulative development would be subject to SCA AE-1, which would ensure future development is architecturally compatible with regard to building materials, style, colors, etc., with the existing surrounding development. SCA AE-2 would make certain that no modification(s) to approved building elevations, including, but not limited to, changes that increase the building height, removal of building articulation, or a change of the finish material(s), are made during construction without prior Planning Division written approval. SCA AE-3 would make sure the exterior features do not detract from the ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis AESTHETICS April 2021February 2020 Page 5.1-29 architecture by prohibiting roof access ladders, roof drain scuppers, and roof drain downspouts. These processes would ensure compliance with the City’s desired architectural styles, color schemes, materials, etc., for these specific areas. As a result, related development would not result in cumulatively considerable long- term visual impacts. As concluded in Impact 5.1-1, implementation of the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts pertaining to zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality upon compliance with the Specific Plan Design Guidelines, and Development Standards, Master Plan, and Standard Conditions of Approval. However, implementation of the proposed public art could result in potentially significant lighting impacts to visual character/quality. Thus, impacts would be cumulatively considerable. Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant Impact. Impact 5.1-4: Development of the proposed project and related projects could create a new substantial source of light and glare. [Threshold AE-4] Development of cumulative projects could result in increased lighting and glare in the City. General Plan Community Design Policy CD-8.1.H and Municipal Code Section 13-49 require outdoor lights to be shielded to avoid spillover onto adjacent properties and specifically, to be directed away from residential areas. Potential impacts would be minimized on a project-by-project basis, which would ensure proper lighting fixtures, placement, and minimal spillover. As a result, related development would not result in cumulatively considerable light and glare impacts. As discussed in Impact 5.1-2, selection of public art along the I-405 Freeway would be subject to the City’s Cultural Arts Committee approval (see PPP AES-1). As required by the Specific Plan Development Standards, an Exterior Lighting Plan would be prepared, prior to issuance of the first building permit, to identify and depict locations, types, scale, and illumination power of lighting fixtures on all building exteriors and within the open space/trail connection areas (see PPP AES-2). SCA AE-5 would require preparation of a Lighting Plan and Photometric Study for review and approval by the City’s Development Services Department. Nonetheless, there is a potential for light spillover to adjacent properties, particularly as a result of the Building A facade along the I-405 Freeway. Impacts would be cumulatively considerable in this regard. As discussed in Impact 5.1-2, the project’s operational glare impacts would be less than significant with implementation of the Specific Plan Development Standards. Further, construction activities would not result in new sources of light and glare following conformance with the Municipal Code’s allowable construction hours. Any construction work outside of the allowable hours would be subject to review by the Development Services Director to ensure nighttime construction would not result in light and glare. As such, the proposed project would not significantly contribute to cumulative construction-relative lighting impacts or operational glare impacts. Level of Significance before Mitigation: Potentially Significant Impact. ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis AESTHETICS Page 5.1-30 April 2021February 2020 5.1.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation Without mitigation, the following impacts would be potentially significant: Impact 5.1-1: The proposed project could conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. Impact 5.1-2: The proposed project could create a substantial new source of light and glare. Impact 5.1-3: Development of the proposed project and related projects could conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. Impact 5.1-4: Development of the proposed project and related projects could create a new substantial source of light and glare 5.1.7 Mitigation Measures AE-1 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the City’s Development Services Department shall verify that the Applicant’s Lighting Plan and Photometric Study prepared as part of SCA AE-5 demonstrates compliance with the following: The mounting height of lights on light standards shall not exceed 18 feet in any location on the project site unless approved by the Development Services Director. Rooftop lighting shall include cutoff optics to ensure lighting is aimed downward and does not contribute to sky brightness or skyglow. Parking structure lighting shall use shielding techniques to focus light into the parking lot areas and screen light from spilling to off-site areas, eliminating light trespass. Illumination levels shall not exceed 100 candelas per meter squared. The parking structure facade artistic treatment shall include light shields or baffles to eliminate glare to travelers along to I-405 Freeway. Exterior building lighting shall not exceed the Caltrans maximum brightness of 350 candelas per meter squared as measured from the adjacent freeway shoulder. ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis AESTHETICS April 2021February 2020 Page 5.1-31 5.1.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation Impact 5.1-1 As noted in Impact 5.1-1, despite review of the project’s public art and implementation of the project’s Exterior Lighting Plan and Lighting Plan and Photometric Study (see PPP AES-1, PPP AES-2, and SCA AES-5), there is a potential for the project’s public art to result in light spillover to adjacent properties. As a result, implementation of Mitigation Measure AE-1 would be required. Mitigation Measure AE-1 would ensure the project’s Lighting Plan and Photometric Study required under SCA AES-5 include additional lighting performance measures to demonstrate the project lighting meets minimum security lighting requirements and minimizes lighting impacts to surrounding uses. Specifically, Mitigation Measure AE-1 would ensure the parking structure facade artistic treatment includes light shields or baffles to eliminate glare to travelers along to I-405 Freeway and limits illumination levels to 100 candelas per meter squared. With implementation of Mitigation Measure AE-1, impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels. Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Impact 5.1-2 As noted in Impact 5.1-2, project implementation would result in additional sources of lighting. Despite review of the project’s public art and implementation of the project’s Exterior Lighting Plan and Lighting Plan and Photometric Study (see PPP AES-1, PPP AES-2, and SCA AES-5), there is a potential for light spillover to adjacent properties. As a result, implementation of Mitigation Measure AE-1 would be required. Mitigation Measure AE-1 would ensure the project’s Lighting Plan and Photometric Study required under SCA AES-5 include additional lighting performance measures in order to demonstrate that the project lighting meets minimum security lighting requirements and minimizes lighting impacts to surrounding uses. With implementation of Mitigation Measure AE-1, impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels. Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Impact 5.1-3 Refer to the discussion for Impact 5.1-1, above. With implementation of Mitigation Measure AE-1, potential lighting impacts associated with the project’s public art would be less than significant and would not be cumulatively considerable. Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Impact 5.1-4 Refer to the discussion for Impact 5.1-2, above. With implementation of Mitigation Measure AE-1, the project’s lighting impacts would be less than significant and would not be cumulatively considerable. Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis AESTHETICS Page 5.1-32 April 2021February 2020 This page intentionally left blank. ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I February 2020April 2021 Chapter 5.2 Air Quality ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I February 2020April 2021 This page intentionally left blank. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis April 2021February 2020 Page 5.2-1 5.2 AIR QUALITY This section of the Draft EIR provides a project-specific air quality impact analysis by examining the impacts of the proposed project on the region and nearby sensitive uses. The analysis in this section is based in part on the following information: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis, One Metro West Project, Costa Mesa, California (Air Quality/GHG Report), prepared by LSA and dated January 2020; and One Metro West Phased Project Construction Analysis (Construction Phasing Memo), prepared by LSA and dated February 2, 2021. A cComplete copiesy of this study is these studies are provided in this Draft EIR (Volume II, Appendix C, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis, and Appendix P, Construction Phasing Memo). 5.2.1 Environmental Setting 5.2.1.1 REGULATORY BACKGROUND Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards Both the State and Federal governments have established health-based ambient air quality standards (AAQS) for seven air pollutants. As detailed in Table 5.2-1, Ambient Air Quality Standards, these pollutants include ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter less than 10 microns in size (PM10), particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size (PM2.5), and lead. In addition, the State has set standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide (H2S), vinyl chloride, and visibility-reducing particles. These standards are designed to protect the health and welfare of the populace with a reasonable margin of safety. Table 5.2-1 Ambient Air Quality Standards Pollutant Averaging Time California Standards2 National Standards2 Concentration3 Method4 Primary3,5 Secondary3,6 Method7 Ozone (O3)8 1-Hour 0.09 ppm (180 μg/m3) Ultraviolet Photometry — Same as Primary Standard Ultraviolet Photometry 8-Hour 0.070 ppm (137 μg/m3) 0.070 ppm (137 μg/m3) Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10)9 24-Hour 50 μg/m3 Gravimetric or Beta Attenuation 150 μg/m3 Same as Primary Standard Same as Primary Standard Inertial Separation and Gravimetric Analysis Annual Arithmetic Mean 20 μg/m3 150 μg/m3 Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5)9 24-Hour — — 35 μg/m3 Same as Primary Standard Inertial Separation and Gravimetric Analysis Annual Arithmetic Mean 12 μg/m3 Gravimetric or Beta Attenuation 12.0 μg/m3 15 μg/m3 ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Page 5.2-2 April 2021February 2020 Table 5.2-1 Ambient Air Quality Standards, continued Pollutant Averaging Time California Standards2 National Standards2 Concentration3 Method4 Primary3,5 Secondary3,6 Method7 Carbon Monoxide (CO) 1-Hour 20 ppm (23 mg/m3) Non-Dispersive Infrared Photometry (NDIR) 35 ppm (40 mg/m3) — Non-Dispersive Infrared Photometry (NDIR) 8-Hour 9.0 ppm (10 mg/m3) 9 ppm (10 mg/m3) — 8-Hour (Lake Tahoe) 6 ppm (7 mg/m3) — — Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)10 1-Hour 0.18 ppm (339 μg/m3) Gas Phase Chemilumi- nescence 100 ppb (188 μg/m3) — Gas Phase Chemiluminescence Annual Arithmetic Mean 0.030 ppm (57 μg/m3) 53 ppb (100 μg/m3) Same as Primary Standard Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)11 1-Hour 0.25 ppm (655 μg/m3) Ultraviolet Fluorescence 75 ppb (196 μg/m3) — Ultraviolet Fluorescence; Spectrophotometry (Pararosaniline Method) 3-Hour — — 0.5 ppm (1300 μg/m3) 24-Hour 0.04 ppm (105 μg/m3) 0.14 ppm (for certain areas)11 — Annual Arithmetic Mean — 0.030 ppm (for certain areas)11 — Lead12,13 30-Day Average 1.5 μg/m3 Atomic Absorption — — High-Volume Sampler and Atomic Absorption Calendar Quarter — 1.5 μg/m3 (for certain areas)13 Same as Primary Standard Rolling 3-Month Average — — — Visibility-Reducing Particles14 8-Hour See footnote 14 Beta Attenuation and Transmittance through Filter Tape No National Standards Sulfates 24-Hour 25 μg/m3 Ion Chromatography Hydrogen Sulfide 1-Hour 0.03 ppm (42 μg/m3) Ultraviolet Fluorescence Vinyl Chloride12 24-Hour 0.01 ppm (26 μg/m3) Gas Chromatography Source: LSA 2020. Notes: °C = degrees Celsius μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter CARB = California Air Resources Board EPA = United States Environmental Protection Agency mg/m3 = milligrams per cubic meter ppb = parts per billion ppm = parts per million 1 California standards for ozone, carbon monoxide (except 8-hour Lake Tahoe), sulfur dioxide (1- and 24-hour), nitrogen dioxide, and particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5, and visibility-reducing particles), are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded. California ambient air quality standards are listed in the Table of Standards in Section 70200 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations. 2 National standards (other than ozone, particulate matter, and those based on annual arithmetic mean) are not to be exceeded more than once per year. The ozone standard is attained when the fourth highest 8-hour concentration measured at each site in a year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than the standard. For PM10, the 24-hour standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration above 150 μg/m3 is equal to or less than one. For PM2.5, the 24-hour standard is attained when 98 percent of the daily concentrations, averaged over three years, are equal to or less than the standard. 3 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 measurement method which can be shown to the satisfaction of CARB 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. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY April 2021February 2020 Page 5.2-3 Table 5.2-1 Ambient Air Quality Standards, continued 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 On October 1, 2015, the national 8-hour ozone primary and secondary standards were lowered from 0.075 to 0.070 ppm. 9 On December 14, 2012, the national annual PM2.5 primary standard was lowered from 15 μg/m3 to 12.0 μg/m3. The existing national 24-hour PM2.5 standards (primary and secondary) were retained at 35 μg/m3, as was the annual secondary standard of 15 μg/m3. The existing 24-hour PM10 standards (primary and secondary) of 150 μg/m3 also were retained. The form of the annual primary and secondary standards is the annual mean, averaged over 3 years. 10 To attain the 1-hour standard, the 3-year average of the annual 98th percentile of the 1-hour daily maximum concentrations at each site must not exceed 100 ppb. Note that the national 1-hour standard is in units of parts per billion (ppb). California standards are in units of parts per million (ppm). To directly compare the national 1-hour standard to the California standards, the units can be converted from ppb to ppm. In this case, the national standard of 100 ppb is identical to 0.100 ppm. 11 On June 2, 2010, the new 1-hour SO2 standard was established and the existing 24-hour and annual primary standards were revoked. To attain the 1-hour national standard, the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of the 1-hour daily maximum concentrations at each site must not exceed 75 ppb. The 1971 SO2 national standards (24-hour and annual) remain in effect until one year after an area is designated for the 2010 standard, except that in areas designated nonattainment for the 1971 standards, the 1971 standards remain in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2010 standards are approved. Note that the 1-hour national standard is in units of parts per billion (ppb). California standards are in units of parts per million (ppm). To directly compare the 1-hour national standard to the California standard, the units can be converted to ppm. In this case, the national standard of 75 ppb is identical to 0.075 ppm. 12 CARB 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. 13 The national standard for lead was revised on October 15, 2008, to a rolling three-month average. The 1978 lead standard (1.5 μg/m3 as a quarterly average) remains in effect until one year after an area is designated for the 2008 standard, except that in areas designated nonattainment for the 1978 standard, the 1978 standard remains in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2008 standards are approved. 14 In 1989, CARB converted both the general statewide 10-mile visibility standard and the Lake Tahoe 30-mile visibility standard to instrumental equivalents, which are “extinction of 0.23 per kilometer” and “extinction of 0.07 per kilometer” for the statewide and Lake Tahoe Air Basin standards, respectively. Air Pollutants of Concern Criteria Air Pollutants Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1970, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established the National AAQS (NAAQS). The NAAQS were established for six major pollutants, termed “criteria” pollutants,1 including O3, CO, NO2, SO2, lead (Pb), and particulate matter [PM10 and PM2.5]. In addition, the California CAA established California AAQS (CAAQS) for three additional pollutants (sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, visibility reducing particles). Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are not criteria air pollutants but act as criteria air pollutant precursors. A description of each of the primary and secondary criteria air pollutants and their known health effects are presented below. Ozone: O3 is formed by photochemical reactions between oxides of nitrogen and reactive organic gases (ROGs), rather than being directly emitted. O3 is a pungent, colorless gas typical of southern California smog. Elevated O3 concentrations result in reduced lung function, particularly during vigorous physical activity. This health problem is particularly acute in sensitive receptors (e.g., the sick, elderly, and young children). O3 levels peak during summer and early fall. The entire South Coast Air Basin (Basin) is designated as a nonattainment area for the State 1-hour and 8-hour O3 standards. The EPA has officially designated the status for most of the Basin regarding the 8-hour O3 standard as “Extreme Nonattainment,” which means the Basin has until 2024 to attain the Federal 8-hour O3 standard. Carbon Monoxide: CO is formed by the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels, almost entirely from automobiles. CO is a colorless, odorless gas that can cause dizziness, fatigue, and impairments to the central 1 Criteria pollutants are defined as those pollutants for which the Federal and State governments have established AAQS, or criteria, for outdoor concentrations to protect public health. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Page 5.2-4 April 2021February 2020 nervous system functions. The entire Basin is in attainment for the State standards for CO. The Basin is designated as an “Attainment/Maintenance” area under the Federal CO standards. Nitrogen Oxides: NO2, a reddish-brown gas, and nitric oxide (NO), a colorless, odorless gas, are formed from fuel combustion under high temperature or pressure. These compounds are referred to as nitrogen oxides, or NOX. NOX is a primary component of the photochemical smog reaction. It also contributes to other pollution problems, including a high concentration of fine particulate matter, poor visibility, and acid deposition (i.e., acid rain). NO2 decreases lung function and may reduce resistance to infection. The entire Basin is designated as attainment for the State NO2 standard, as an “Unclassified/Attainment” area under the Federal 1-hour NO2 standard, and as an “Attainment/Maintenance” area under the Federal annual NO2 standard. Sulfur Dioxide: SO2 is a colorless, irritating gas formed primarily from incomplete combustion of fuels containing sulfur. Industrial facilities also contribute to gaseous SO2 levels. SO2 irritates the respiratory tract, can injure lung tissue when combined with fine particulate matter, and reduces visibility and the level of sunlight. The entire Basin is in attainment under both Federal and State SO2 standards. Lead: Pb is found in old paints and coatings, plumbing, and a variety of other materials. Once in the bloodstream, Pb can cause damage to the brain, the nervous system, and other body systems. Children are highly susceptible to the effects of Pb. The portion of the Basin in which the project site is located is in attainment under both Federal and State standards. Particulate Matter: Particulate matter is the term used for a mixture of solid particles and liquid droplets found in the air. PM10 derives from a variety of sources, including windblown dust and grinding operations. Fuel combustion and the resultant exhaust from power plants, diesel buses, and trucks are primarily responsible for fine particle PM2.5 levels. Fine particles can also form in the atmosphere through chemical reactions. PM10 can accumulate in the respiratory system and aggravate health problems (e.g., asthma). The EPA’s scientific review concluded that PM2.5 particles, which penetrate deeply into the lungs, are more likely than coarse particles to contribute to adverse health effects. These health effects include premature death, increased hospital admissions and emergency room visits (primarily for the elderly and individuals with cardiopulmonary disease); increased respiratory symptoms and disease (particularly in children and individuals with cardiopulmonary disease [e.g., asthma]); decreased lung functions (particularly in children and individuals with asthma); and alterations in lung tissue, structure, and in respiratory tract defense mechanisms. The Basin is designated nonattainment for the Federal and State PM2.5 standards and State PM10 standard, and Attainment/Maintenance for the Federal PM10 standard. Volatile Organic Compounds: VOCs, also known as ROGs, form from the combustion of fuels and the evaporation of organic solvents. VOCs are not defined as criteria pollutants; however, because VOCs accumulate in the atmosphere more quickly during the winter when sunlight is limited and photochemical reactions are slower, they are a prime component of the photochemical smog reaction. There are no attainment designations for VOCs. Sulfates: Sulfates occur in combination with metal and/or hydrogen ions. In California, emissions of sulfur compounds occur primarily from the combustion of petroleum-derived fuels (e.g., gasoline and diesel fuel) that contain sulfur. This sulfur is oxidized to SO2 during the combustion process and subsequently is converted to sulfate compounds in the atmosphere. The conversion of SO2 to sulfates occurs rapidly in urban areas of the State due to regional meteorological processes. The entire Basin is in attainment for the State standard for sulfates. There are no Federal standards for sulfates. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY April 2021February 2020 Page 5.2-5 Hydrogen Sulfide: H2S is a colorless gas with the odor of rotten eggs. H2S forms during bacterial decomposition of sulfur-containing organic substances. In 1984, a California Air Resources Board (CARB) committee concluded the ambient standard for H2S is adequate to protect public health and to significantly reduce odor annoyance. The entire Basin is unclassified for the State standard for H2S. Visibility-reducing Particles: Visibility-reducing particles consist of suspended particulate matter, which is a complex mixture of tiny particles that consists of dry, solid fragments, solid cores with liquid coatings, and small droplets of liquid. These particles vary greatly in shape, size, and chemical composition and can be made up of many different materials (e.g., metals, soot, soil, dust, and salt). The State standard is intended to limit the frequency and the severity of visibility impairment from regional haze. The entire Basin is unclassified for the State standard for visibility-reducing particles. Table 5.2-2, Summary of Health Effects of the Major Criteria Air Pollutants, summarizes the primary health effects and sources of common air pollutants. Because concentration standards are set at levels that protect public health with an adequate margin of safety, these health effects would not occur unless the standards are exceeded by a large margin or for a prolonged period of time. The CAAQS are equal to or more stringent than the NAAQS. Among the criteria pollutants, O3 and particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10) are considered pollutants with regional effects, whereas the other criteria pollutants have a more localized effect. Table 5.2-2 Summary of Health Effects of the Major Criteria Air Pollutants Pollutant Health Effects Examples of Sources Particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10: less than or equal to 2.5 or 10 microns, respectively) Hospitalizations for worsened heart diseases; emergency room visits for asthma; and premature death Cars and trucks (especially diesel); fireplaces and woodstoves; and windblown dust from roadways, agriculture, and construction Ozone (O3) Cough, chest tightness; difficulty taking a deep breath; worsened asthma symptoms; and lung inflammation Precursor sources;1 motor vehicles; industrial emissions; and consumer products Carbon monoxide (CO) Chest pain in heart patients;2 headaches; nausea;2 reduced mental alertness;2 and death at very high levels2 Any source that burns fuel, such as cars, trucks, construction and farming equipment, and residential heaters and stoves Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) Increased response to allergens See CO sources Toxic Air Contaminants Cancer; chronic eye, lung, or skin irritation; and neurological and reproductive disorders Cars and trucks (especially diesels); industrial sources, such as chrome platers; neighborhood businesses, such as dry cleaners and service stations; and building materials and products Source: LSA 2020 Notes: CARB = California Air Resources Board 1 Ozone is not generated directly by these sources. Rather, chemicals emitted by these precursor sources react with sunlight to form ozone in the atmosphere. 2 Health effects from CO exposures occur at levels considerably higher than ambient. Toxic Air Contaminants The California Health and Safety Code defines a toxic air contaminant (TAC) as “an air pollutant which may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or in serious illness, or which may pose a present or potential hazard to human health.” A substance listed as a hazardous air pollutant pursuant to Section 112(b) of the Federal Act (42 United States Code Section 7412) is a TAC. Under State law, the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), acting through CARB, is authorized to identify a substance as a TAC if it ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Page 5.2-6 April 2021February 2020 determines the substance is an air pollutant that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious illness, or which may pose a present or potential hazard to human health. California regulates TACs primarily through Assembly Bill (AB) 1807 (Tanner Air Toxics Act), AB 2588 (Air Toxics “Hot Spot” Information and Assessment Act of 1987), and Senate Bill (SB) 25 (Children's Environmental Health Protection Act). The Tanner Air Toxics Act sets forth a formal procedure for CARB to designate substances as TACs. Once a TAC is identified, CARB adopts an “airborne toxics control measure” for sources that emit designated TACs. If there is a safe threshold for a substance at which there is no toxic effect, the control measure must reduce exposure to below that threshold. If there is no safe threshold, the measure must incorporate toxics best available control technology (T-BACT) to minimize emissions. Under AB 2588, TAC emissions from individual facilities are quantified and prioritized by the designated air quality management district or air pollution control district. High priority facilities are required to perform a Health Risk Assessment and, if specific thresholds are exceeded, are required to communicate the results to the public in the form of notices and public meetings. To date, CARB has designated nearly 200 compounds as TACs. Additionally, CARB has implemented control measures for a number of compounds that pose high risks and show potential for effective control. The majority of the estimated health risks from TACs can be attributed to relatively few compounds, the most important being particulate matter from diesel-fueled engines (diesel particulate matter [DPM]). Regional SCAQMD Air Quality Management Plan CARB is responsible for incorporating Air Quality Management Plans (AQMPs) for local air basins into a State Implementation Plan (SIP) for EPA approval. Significant authority for air quality control within them has been given to local air districts that regulate stationary-source emissions and develop local nonattainment plans. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) are responsible for formulating and implementing the AQMP for the Basin. The main purpose of an AQMP is to bring the area into compliance with Federal and State air quality standards. SCAQMD prepares a new AQMP every three years, updating the previous plan and 20-year horizon. The most recent plan is the 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (2016 AQMP), which incorporates the latest scientific and technological information and planning assumptions, including the SCAG 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategies (2016 RTP/SCS) and updated emission inventory methodologies for various source categories. The 2016 AQMP includes the integrated strategies and measures needed to meet the NAAQS, implementation of new technology measures, and demonstrations of attainment of the 1-hour and 8-hour O3 NAAQS as well as the latest 24-hour and annual PM2.5 standards. SCAQMD Rules and Regulations SCAQMD adopts rules and regulations to implement various portions of the AQMP. Several of these rules may apply to the project construction and/or operation. SCAQMD Rule 403 requires the implementation of ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY April 2021February 2020 Page 5.2-7 the best available fugitive dust control measure during active construction periods that can generate fugitive dust emissions. These construction periods typically include on-site earth-moving activities, construction/demolition activities, and construction equipment travel on paved and unpaved roads. The following SCAQMD rules and regulations would be applicable to the proposed project: SCAQMD Rule 403: Requires projects to incorporate fugitive dust control measures; SCAQMD Rule 1108: Limits the VOC content of asphalt; SCAQMD Rule 1113: Limits the VOC content of architectural coatings; and SCAQMD Rule 1143: Limits the VOC content of solvents used during construction. Local General Plan The Land Use and Conservation Elements of the General Plan include the following goals, objectives, and policies related to air quality: Objective LU-4A: Encourage new development and redevelopment that protects and improves the quality of Costa Mesa’s natural environment and resources. Policy CON-4.A.1: Support regional policies and efforts that improve air quality to protect human and environmental health and minimize disproportionate impacts on sensitive population groups. Policy CON-4.A.2: Encourage businesses, industries, and residents to reduce the impact of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of stationary and non-stationary pollution sources. Policy CON-4.A.3: Require that sensitive uses such as schools, childcare centers, parks and playgrounds, housing, and community gathering places are protected from adverse impacts of emissions. 5.2.1.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS Climate/Meteorology Air quality in the planning area is not only affected by various emission sources (e.g., mobile and industry), but also by atmospheric conditions (e.g., wind speed, wind direction, temperature, and rainfall). The combination of topography, low mixing height, abundant sunshine, and emissions from the second-largest urban area in the United States gives the Basin some of the worst air pollution in the nation. Temperature and Precipitation The annual average temperature varies little throughout the Basin, ranging from the low to mid 60 degrees Fahrenheit (°F). With a more pronounced oceanic influence, coastal areas show less variability in annual minimum and maximum temperatures than inland areas. The climatological station closest to the site is the Santa Ana Fire Station. The monthly average maximum temperature recorded at this station ranges from 66.1°F ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Page 5.2-8 April 2021February 2020 in January to 84.7°F in August, with an annual average maximum of 75.8°F. The monthly average minimum temperature recorded at this station ranges from 43.1°F in January to 61.6°F in August, with an annual average minimum of 52.0°F. January is typically the coldest month, and July and August are typically the warmest months in this area of the Basin. The majority of annual rainfall in the Basin occurs between November and April. Summer rainfall is minimal and is generally limited to scattered thundershowers in coastal regions and slightly heavier showers in the eastern portion of the Basin and along the coastal side of the mountains. Santa Ana Fire Station’s monitored precipitation shows that average monthly rainfall varies from 3.05 inches in February to 0.49 inch or less from May to October, with an annual total rainfall of 13.69 inches. Patterns in monthly and yearly rainfall totals are unpredictable due to fluctuations in the weather. Wind and Inversions The Basin experiences a persistent temperature inversion (increasing temperature with increasing altitude) as a result of the Pacific High. This inversion limits the vertical dispersion of air contaminants, holding them relatively near the ground. As the sun warms the ground and the lower air layer, the temperature of the lower air layer approaches the temperature of the base of the inversion (upper) layer until the inversion layer finally breaks, allowing vertical mixing with the lower layer. This phenomenon is observed in mid- to late afternoon on hot summer days when the smog appears to clear up suddenly. Winter inversions frequently break by mid- morning. Winds in the project area blow predominantly from the south-southwest, with relatively low velocities. Wind speeds in the project area average about five miles per hour (mph). Summer wind speeds average slightly higher than winter wind speeds. Low average wind speeds, together with a persistent temperature inversion, limit the vertical dispersion of air pollutants throughout the Basin. Strong, dry, north or northeasterly winds, known as Santa Ana winds, occur during the fall and winter months, dispersing air contaminants. The Santa Ana conditions tend to last for several days at a time. The combination of stagnant wind conditions and low inversions produces the greatest pollutant concentrations. On days of no inversion or high wind speeds, ambient air pollutant concentrations are the lowest. During periods of low inversions and low wind speeds, air pollutants generated in urbanized areas are transported predominantly onshore into Riverside and San Bernardino counties. In the winter, the greatest pollution problems are CO and NOX because of extremely low inversions and air stagnation during the night and early morning hours. In the summer, the longer daylight hours and the brighter sunshine combine to cause a reaction between hydrocarbons and NOX to form photochemical smog. Air Pollution Constituents and Attainment Status CARB coordinates and oversees both State and Federal air pollution control programs in the State, oversees activities of local air quality management agencies, and maintains air quality monitoring stations throughout the State in conjunction with EPA and local air districts. CARB has divided the State into 15 air basins based on meteorological and topographical factors of air pollution. Data collected at these stations are used by CARB and EPA to classify air basins as attainment, nonattainment, nonattainment-transitional, or unclassified, based on air quality data for the most recent three calendar years compared with the CAAQS. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY April 2021February 2020 Page 5.2-9 Attainment areas may be: Attainment/Unclassified. Areas designated under this category have never violated the air quality standard of interest or do not have enough monitoring data to establish attainment or nonattainment status; Attainment-Maintenance. This category applies only to NAAQS and is defined as areas that once violated a NAAQS that is currently in use (was nonattainment) in or after 1990, but now attains the standard and is officially redesignated as attainment by the EPA with a Maintenance SIP; Attainment. This category is usually only used for California AAQS, and is defined as areas which have adequate monitoring data to show attainment, have never been nonattainment, or, for NAAQS, have completed the official Maintenance period; or Nonattainment/Transitional. A subcategory of the nonattainment designation. An area is designated nonattainment/transitional to signify the area is close to attaining the AAQS for that pollutant. Nonattainment areas are imposed with additional restrictions as required by EPA. The air quality data are also used to monitor progress in attaining air quality standards. Table 5.2-3, Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the South Coast Air Basin, lists the attainment status for each criteria pollutant in the Basin. Table 5.2-3 Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the South Coast Air Basin Pollutant State Federal Ozone (O3) Nonattainment (1-hour) Nonattainment (8-hour) Extreme Nonattainment (1-hour) Extreme Nonattainment (8-hour) Particulate Matter 10 microns or greater (PM10) Nonattainment (24-hour) Nonattainment (Annual) Attainment/Maintenance (24-hour) Particulate Matter less than or equal to 2.5 microns (PM2.5) Nonattainment (Annual) Serious Nonattainment (24-hour) Moderate Nonattainment (Annual) Carbon Monoxide (CO) Attainment (1-hour) Attainment (8-hour) Attainment/Maintenance (1-hour) Attainment/Maintenance (8-hour) Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Attainment (1-hour) Attainment (Annual) Unclassified/Attainment (1-hour) Attainment/Maintenance (Annual) Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Attainment (1-hour) Attainment (24-hour) Unclassified/Attainment (1-hour) Unclassified/Attainment (Annual) Lead (Pb) Attainment1 (30-day average) Attainment1 (3-month rolling) All Others Attainment/Unclassified N/A Source: LSA 2020. Notes: 1 Only the Los Angeles County portion of the Basin is in nonattainment for lead. Existing Local Ambient Air Quality SCAQMD, together with CARB, maintains ambient air quality monitoring stations in the Basin. The air quality monitoring station closest to the site is the Costa Mesa Station at 2850 Mesa Verde Drive East, approximately 1.25 miles south of the project site. CO, NO2, O3, and SO2 were monitored at this station through 2017. The closest station that monitors the remaining pollutants (PM10 and PM2.5) is the Anaheim-Pampas Lane Station at 1630 West Pampas Lane, approximately 9.5 miles north of the project site. The air quality trends from these stations are used to represent the ambient air quality in the project area. The ambient air quality data in Table 5.2-4, Ambient Air Quality Monitored in the Project Vicinity, show pollutant levels are below the applicable ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Page 5.2-10 April 2021February 2020 State and Federal standards most of the time. Ozone exceeds standards one to four days a year, PM10 exceeds standards two to four days a year, and PM2.5 exceeds standards one to four days a year. Table 5.2-4 Ambient Air Quality Monitored in the Project Vicinity Pollutant Standard Year 2016 2017 2018 Carbon Monoxide (CO) – Costa Mesa Monitoring Station for 2016 and 2017, Anaheim Station for 2018 Maximum 1-hour concentration (ppm) 2.1 1.7 2.1 Number of days exceeded: State: > 20 ppm 0 0 0 Federal: > 35 ppm 0 0 0 Maximum 8-hour concentration (ppm) 1.7 1.4 1.7 Number of days exceeded: State: ≥ 9.0 ppm 0 0 0 Federal: ≥ 9 ppm 0 0 0 Ozone (O3) – Costa Mesa Monitoring Station for 2016 and 2017, Anaheim Station for 2018 Maximum 1-hour concentration (ppm) 0.090 0.088 0.112 Number of days exceeded: State: > 0.09 ppm 0 0 1 Maximum 8-hour concentration (ppm) 0.069 0.080 0.071 Number of days exceeded: State: > 0.07 ppm 0 4 1 Federal: > 0.07 ppm 0 4 1 Coarse Particulates (PM10) – Anaheim Monitoring Station Maximum 24-hour concentration (µg/m3) 74 95 94 Number of days exceeded: State: > 50 µg/m3 4 4 2 Federal: > 150 µg/m3 0 0 0 Annual arithmetic average concentration (µg/m3) 27.4 26.1 26.5 Exceeded for the year: State: > 20 µg/m3 Yes Yes Yes Fine Particulates (PM2.5) – Anaheim Monitoring Station Maximum 24-hour concentration (µg/m3) 44.4 54.7 63.1 Number of days exceeded: Federal: > 35 µg/m3 1 1 4 Annual arithmetic average concentration (µg/m3) 9.4 11.2 10.9 Exceeded for the year: State: > 12 µg/m3 No No No Federal: > 15 µg/m3 No No No Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) – Costa Mesa Monitoring Station for 2016 and 2017, Anaheim Station for 2018 Maximum 1-hour concentration (ppb) 60 45 66 Number of days exceeded: State: > 180 ppb 0 0 0 Federal: > 100 ppb 0 0 0 Annual arithmetic average concentration (ppb) 10 7.8 11.5 Exceeded for the year: State: > 30 ppb No No No Federal: > 53 ppb No No No Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) – Costa Mesa Monitoring Station Maximum 1-hour concentration (ppb) 3.3 1.7 NA Number of days exceeded: State: > 250 ppb 0 0 0 Federal: > 75 ppb 0 0 0 Sources: LSA 2020 Notes: µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; NA = Not Available; ppm = parts per million ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY April 2021February 2020 Page 5.2-11 Air Quality Improvement Trends in the Air Basin SCAQMD rule development through the 1970s and 1980s resulted in dramatic improvement in the Basin’s air quality. Nearly all control programs developed through the early 1990s relied on (i) the development and application of cleaner technology; (ii) add-on emission controls, and (iii) uniform CEQA review throughout the Basin. Industrial emission sources have been significantly reduced by this approach and vehicular emissions have been reduced by technologies implemented at the State level by CARB. As discussed above, SCAQMD is the lead agency charged with regulating air quality emission reductions for the entire Basin. SCAQMD created AQMPs which represent a regional blueprint for achieving healthful air on behalf of the 16 million residents of the Basin. The 2012 AQMP states, “the remarkable historical improvement in air quality since the 1970’s is the direct result of Southern California’s comprehensive, multi- year strategy of reducing air pollution from all sources as outlined in its AQMPs,” (LSA 2020). Ozone, NOX, VOC, and CO have been decreasing in the Basin since 1975 and are projected to continue to decrease through 2020 (LSA 2020). These decreases result primarily from motor vehicle controls and reductions in evaporative emissions. Although vehicle miles traveled in the Basin continue to increase, NOX and VOC levels are decreasing because of the mandated controls on motor vehicles and the replacement of older polluting vehicles with lower-emitting vehicles. NOX emissions from electric utilities have also decreased due to use of cleaner fuels and renewable energy. Ozone contour maps show the number of days exceeding the national 8-hour standard has decreased between 1997 and 2007. In the 2007 period, there was an overall decrease in exceedance days compared with the 1997 period. The overall trends of PM10 and PM2.5 in the air (not emissions) show an overall improvement since 1975. Direct emissions of PM10 have remained somewhat constant in the Basin, and direct emissions of PM2.5 have decreased slightly since 1975. Area-wide sources (fugitive dust from roads, dust from construction and demolition, and other sources) contribute the greatest amount of direct particulate matter emissions. Ozone levels in the Basin have decreased substantially over the last 30 years (LSA 2020). Today, the maximum measured concentrations are approximately one-third of concentrations within the late 70’s. As with other pollutants, the most recent PM10 statistics also show overall improvement. During the period for which data are available, the 24-hour national annual average decreased by almost 45 percent, from 103.7 µg/m³ in 1989 to 57.6 µg/m³ in 2014. Although the values in the late 1990’s show some variability, this is probably due to meteorology rather than a change in emissions. Despite the overall decrease, ambient concentrations still exceed the State annual and 24-hour PM10 standards. Similar to the ambient concentrations, the calculated number of days above the 24-hour PM10 standards has also shown an overall drop. During 1995, there were 25 calculated days above the national standard. By 2014, there was one calculated national standard exceedance day (LSA 2020). The most recent 24-hour average PM2.5 concentrations (Federal) in the Basin from 1999 through 2014. Overall, the annual average concentrations have decreased by almost 52 percent. The calculated number of days above the national standard also decreased, from about 88 days in 1999 to about 9 days in 2014. The Basin is currently designated as nonattainment for the State and Federal PM2.5 standards. Measures adopted as part of the ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Page 5.2-12 April 2021February 2020 upcoming PM2.5 SIP, as well as programs to reduce ozone and diesel PM, help in reducing public exposure to PM2.5 in this region. CO concentrations in the Basin have substantially decreased, with a total decrease of about 80 percent in the peak 8-hour concentration since 1986 (LSA 2020). The number of exceedance days has also declined. The entire Basin is now designated as attainment for both the State and National CO standards. Ongoing reductions from motor vehicle control programs should continue the downward trend in ambient CO concentrations. Over the last 50 years, NO2 values have decreased significantly; the peak 1-hour average for 2013 was almost 74 percent lower than what it was during 1963 (LSA 2020). The Basin attained the State 1-hour NO2 standard in 1994, bringing the entire State into attainment. A new State annual average standard of 0.030 ppm was adopted by CARB in February 2007 (LSA 2020). The new standard is just barely exceeded in the Basin. NO2 is formed from NOX emissions, which also contribute to O3. As a result, the majority of the future emission control measures will be implemented as part of the overall O3 control strategy. Many of these control measures will target mobile sources, which account for more than three-quarters of California’s NOX emissions. These measures are expected to bring the Basin into attainment of the State annual average standard. Toxic Air Contaminants Trends In 1984, as a result of public concern for exposure to airborne carcinogens, CARB adopted regulations to reduce the amount of air toxic contaminant emissions resulting from mobile and area sources, such as cars, trucks, stationary products, and consumer products. According to the Ambient and Emission Trends of Toxic Air Contaminants in California journal article, prepared for CARB, ambient concentration and emission trends for the seven TACs responsible for most of the known cancer risk associated with airborne exposure in California have declined significantly between 1990 and 2012 (LSA 2020). The decline in ambient concentration and emission trends of these TACs are a result of various regulations CARB has implemented to address cancer risk. CARB introduced two programs that aim at reducing mobile emissions for light- and medium-duty vehicles through vehicle emissions controls and cleaner fuel. Since 1996, light-duty vehicles sold in California are equipped with California’s second-generation On-Board Diagnostic (OBD-II) system as a result of about half of total car emissions stemming from emissions control device malfunctions. CARB’s phase II Reformulated Gasoline (RFG-2) regulation, adopted in 1996, also led to a reduction of mobile source emissions. Through such regulations, benzene levels declined 88 percent from 1990 to 2012. 1,3-Butadiene concentrations also declined 85 percent from 1990 to 2012 as a result of the motor vehicle regulations (LSA 2020). In 2000, CARB’s Diesel Risk Reduction Plan (DRRP) recommended the replacement and retrofit of diesel- fueled engines and the use of ultra-low-sulfur (less than 15 ppm) diesel fuel. As a result of these measures, DPM concentrations have declined 68 percent, even though the State’s population increased 31 percent and the amount of diesel vehicles miles traveled increased 81 percent (LSA 2020). With the implementation of these diesel-related control regulations, CARB expects a DPM decline of 71 percent for 2000 to 2020. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY April 2021February 2020 Page 5.2-13 Stationary Source Toxic Air Contaminants Various regulations led to a decrease in perchloroethylene and hexavalent chromium, with a 92 percent and 86 percent decline, respectively. By 1993, several local air districts required dry cleaning businesses to use a carbon absorber and refrigerated condenser, as well as dry-to-dry machines and closed-looped machines instead of vented transfer machines. Starting in 2003, California provided financial incentives for dry cleaners to use other solvents, and soon after, CARB banned the use of perchloroethylene in automotive products, aerosol coatings, and most consumer products. In 2007, CARB’s dry-cleaning regulation was amended to require phase-out of perchloroethylene machines by 2023, which would further reduce emissions to minimal levels (LSA 2020). Hexavalent chromium emissions began to decline in 1988 with the CARB regulations contributing to more than 97 percent emission reduction within four years. The various regulations include prohibiting the use of hexavalent chromium in cooling towers (1989), in motor vehicle and mobile equipment coatings (2001), and in thermal spraying operations (2005). By 2005, hexavalent chromium emissions were 99.97 percent less than in 1987, far exceeding expectations. In 2006, hexavalent chromium emissions were further reduced with the 2006 CARB regulation requiring add-on air pollution control devices and chemical fume suppressants. Secondary Toxic Air Contaminants Between 1996 and 2012, ambient concentrations of formaldehyde and acetaldehyde declined 22 percent and 21 percent, respectively. The decline in these TACs is attributed from increasingly stringent motor vehicle exhaust emission standards, vehicle fleet turnover, fuel reformulation, and the switch from MTBE (formaldehyde precursor) to ethanol in gasoline (LSA 2020). As previously discussed, ambient and emissions levels of TACs have reduced significantly from 1990 to 2012. The overall declining trend in TACs is expected to continue in California from implementation of toxic air controls. Diesel Regulations CARB and the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach have adopted several iterations of regulations for diesel trucks aimed at reducing DPM. More specifically, the CARB Drayage Truck Regulation, the CARB Statewide On-road Truck and Bus Regulation, and the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach “Clean Truck Program” (CTP) require accelerated implementation of “clean tr ucks” into the statewide truck fleet (LSA 2020). Older, more polluting trucks will be replaced with newer, cleaner trucks as a function of these regulatory requirements. Moreover, the average statewide DPM emissions for Heavy Duty Trucks (HHDT), in terms of grams of DPM generated per mile traveled, will dramatically be reduced due to the aforementioned regulatory requirements. Cancer Risk Trends Based on information available from CARB, overall cancer risk throughout the Basin has had a declining trend since 1990. Based on the SCAQMD MATES IV (MATES IV) study, the estimated basin-wide population- weighted risk decreased by approximately 57 percent since MATES III (MATES III). MATES IV modeling predicted an excess cancer risk of 482.86 in one million for the project area (LSA 2020). ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Page 5.2-14 April 2021February 2020 Sensitive Receptors Some land uses are considered more sensitive to air pollution than others due to the types of population groups or activities involved. Sensitive population groups include children, elderly, acutely ill, and chronically ill, especially those with cardiorespiratory diseases. Residential areas are also considered sensitive to air pollution because residents (including children and the elderly) tend to be at home for extended periods of time, resulting in sustained exposure to potential pollutants. Other sensitive receptors include retirement facilities, hospitals, and schools. Recreational land uses are considered moderately sensitive to air pollution. Although exposure periods are generally short, exercise places a high demand on respiratory functions, which can be impaired by air pollution. In addition, noticeable air pollution can detract from the enjoyment of recreation. Industrial, commercial, retail, and office areas are considered the least sensitive to air pollution. In these areas, exposure periods are relatively short and intermittent because the majority of the workers tend to stay indoors most of the time and are typically the healthiest of the general population. The closest sensitive receptors to the project site are residences to the south across I-405 Freeway, approximately 300 feet from the project boundary. Additionally, California Elementary School (3232 California Street, Costa Mesa) and Charles Tewinkle Middle School (3224 California Street, Costa Mesa) are located south of I-405 Freeway, approximately 1,500 feet from the project site. Existing Emissions The project site is developed with an approximate 345,000-square foot industrial building. The industrial building is currently occupied by Sakura Paper Factory, Robinson Pharma, South Coast Baking, and Dekra-Lite Industries, Inc. The existing land uses currently generate criteria air pollutant emissions from transportation (i.e., vehicle trips associated with the existing uses), area sources (e.g., landscaping equipment and consumer products), and energy sources (i.e., natural gas used for heating and cooking). Table 5.2-5, Existing Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions, shows existing operational emissions associated with the existing uses. Table 5.2-5 Existing Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Source Pollutant Emissions (lbs/Day) VOC NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Area 8 <1 <1 0 <1 <1 Energy <1 2 2 <1 <1 <1 Mobile <1 2 8 <1 4 1 Warehouse Equipment <1 3 5 <1 <1 <1 Total Existing Emissions 9 7 15 <1 4 1 Source: LSA 2020. Notes: lbs/day= pounds per day; VOC = volatile organic compounds; NOX = nitrous oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; SO2 = sulfur dioxides; PM10 = coarse particulate matter; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY April 2021February 2020 Page 5.2-15 5.2.2 Thresholds of Significance According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would: AQ-1 Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. AQ-2 Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard. AQ-3 Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. AQ-4 Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people. 5.2.2.1 SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT THRESHOLDS SCAQMD has established daily emissions thresholds for construction and operation of a proposed project in the Basin. The emissions thresholds were established based on the attainment status of the Basin with regard to air quality standards for specific criteria pollutants. Because the concentration standards were set at a level that protects public health with an adequate margin of safety, these emissions thresholds are regarded as conservative and would overstate an individual project’s contribution to health risks. Regional Emissions Thresholds The City uses the SCAQMD 1993 CEQA Air Quality Handbook to identify potentially significant impacts on air quality. For the purposes of this analysis, an impact is considered significant if a project: Generates total emissions (direct and indirect) in excess of the thresholds identified in Table 5.2-6, SCAQMD Significance Thresholds. Generates a violation of any ambient air quality standard when added to the local background; or Does not conform with the applicable attainment or maintenance plan(s). Table 5.2-6 lists the CEQA significance thresholds for construction and operational emissions established for the Basin. Projects in the Basin with construction- or operation-related emissions that exceed any of these emission thresholds would be considered significant under SCAQMD guidelines. These thresholds apply as both project-specific and cumulative thresholds. If a project exceeds these standards, it is considered to have a project-specific and cumulative impact. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Page 5.2-16 April 2021February 2020 Table 5.2-6 SCAQMD Significance Thresholds Air Pollutant Construction Phase Operational Phase Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) 75 lbs/day 55 lbs/day Carbon Monoxide (CO) 550 lbs/day 550 lbs/day Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) 100 lbs/day 55 lbs/day Sulfur Oxides (SOX) 150 lbs/day 150 lbs/day Particulates (PM10) 150 lbs/day 150 lbs/day Source: LSA 2020. Notes: lbs/day = pounds per day CO Hot Spot Threshold The significance of localized project impacts depends on whether ambient CO levels in the vicinity of the project are above or below State and Federal CO standards. Ambient CO levels throughout the Basin are below the standards, therefore, a project would have a significant CO impact if project emissions result in an exceedance of one or more of the 1-hour or 8-hour standards. The following are applicable local emission concentration standards for CO: California State 1-hour CO standard of 20 ppm; and California State 8-hour CO standard of 9 ppm. If ambient levels already exceed a State or Federal standard, then project emissions are considered significant if they increase ambient concentrations by a measurable amount. SCAQMD defines a measurable amount as 1.0 ppm or more for the 1-hour CO concentration or 0.45 ppm or more for the 8-hour CO concentration. Vehicular trips associated with the proposed project would contribute to congestion at intersections and along roadway segments in the project vicinity. Localized air quality impacts would occur when emissions from vehicular traffic increase as a result of the proposed project. The primary mobile source pollutant of local concern is CO, a direct function of vehicle idling time and, thus, of traffic flow conditions. CO transport is extremely limited; under normal meteorological conditions, CO disperses rapidly with distance from the source. However, under certain extreme meteorological conditions, CO concentrations near a congested roadway or intersection may reach unhealthful levels, affecting local sensitive receptors. Typically, high CO concentrations are associated with roadways or intersections operating at unacceptable levels of service or with extremely high traffic volumes. In areas with high ambient background CO concentrations, modeling is recommended to determine a project’s effect on local CO levels. At the time of the publishing of the 1993 CEQA Air Quality Handbook, the Basin was designated nonattainment under the CAAQS and NAAQS for CO. With the turnover of older vehicles, introduction of cleaner fuels, and implementation of control technology on industrial facilities, CO concentrations in the Basin and in California have steadily declined. In 2007, SCAQMD was designated in attainment for CO under both the CAAQS and NAAQS. As identified within SCAQMD’s 2003 Air Quality Management Plan and the 1992 Federal Attainment Plan for Carbon Monoxide, peak CO concentrations in the Basin were a result of unusual meteorological and topographical conditions and not a result of congestion at a particular intersection. Under existing and future vehicle emission rates, a project would have to increase traffic volumes at a single intersection by more than ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY April 2021February 2020 Page 5.2-17 44,000 vehicles per hour (or 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal air does not mix) in order to generate a significant CO impact. Localized Significance Threshold SCAQMD published the Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology in June 2003 and updated it in July 2008, which recommends air quality analyses to include assessments of both construction and operational impacts on nearby sensitive receptors. Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs) represent the maximum emissions from a project site that are not expected to result in an exceedance of the most stringent applicable NAAQS or CAAQS for CO, NO2, PM10 and PM2.5, as shown in Table 5.2-1. LST analyses only apply to CO, NO2, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions during construction and operation and are at the discretion of the lead agency. Screening‐level analysis of LSTs is only recommended for construction activities at project sites that are five acres or less. SCAQMD recommends that any project greater than five acres should perform air quality dispersion modeling to assess impacts to nearby sensitive receptors. Thus, dispersion modeling has been prepared for CO, NO2, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions for the proposed project. NOX to NO2 conversion is accounted for in the modeling to determine the maximum NO2 concentrations at the nearest sensitive receptors. SCAQMD has developed a methodology to assess the potential for localized emissions to cause an exceedance of applicable AAQS. In the case of CO and NO2, which are in attainment for the Basin, if ambient levels are below the standards, a project would have a significant impact if project emissions would result in an exceedance of one or more of these standards. If ambient levels already exceed a State or Federal standard, then project emissions would be considered significant if they increase ambient concentrations by a measurable amount. PM10 and PM2.5 are both nonattainment pollutants. Under SCAQMD Rules 403 and 1301, significance criteria for PM10 and PM2.5 are 10.4 µg/m3 for construction emissions and 2.5 µg/m3 for operational emissions, respectively. To avoid the need for every air quality analysis to perform air dispersion modeling, SCAQMD created look-up tables that correlate pollutant emissions rates with project size to screen out projects that are unlikely to generate enough emissions to result in a locally significant concentration of any criteria pollutant. These look-up tables can also be used as screening criteria for larger projects to determine whether dispersion modeling may be required. LSTs are based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant within a project’s Source Receptor Area (SRA) and the distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. Table 5.2-7, Operational Localized Significance Thresholds, and Table 5.2-8, Construction Localized Significance Thresholds, list the applicable LST emission rates for project operations and construction, respectively. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Page 5.2-18 April 2021February 2020 Table 5.2.7 Operational Localized Significance Thresholds On-site Emissions Sources Pollutants(lbs/day) NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 Operational Emissions1 200 2,349 13 5 Source: LSA 2020. Notes: lbs/day = pounds per day; NOX = Nitrogen Dioxide, CO = Carbon Monoxide, PM10 = Particulate Matter less than 10 microns in size, PM2.5 = Particulate Matter less than 2.5 microns in size 1. The project is located in Source Receptor Area (SRA) 18, North Orange County Coastal. The project would disturb five acres per day and the closest sensitive receptors are 300 feet away. Thus, the LST threshold for SRA 18 at a distance of 100 meters (328 feet ) with a disturbance five acres per day was utilized. Table 5.2-8 Construction Localized Significance Thresholds Pollutant Ambient Air Quality Standard Ambient Concentration Threshold CO (1-Hour) 20 ppm 2.1 ppm 17.9 ppm CO (8-Hour) 9.0 ppm 1.7 ppm 7.3 ppm NO2 (1-hour) 0.18 ppm <0.1 ppm 0.1 ppm NO2 (Annual) 0.03 ppm <0.1 ppm <0.1 ppm PM10 (24-hour)1 — — 10.4 µg/m3 PM10 (Annual)1 — — 1.0 µg/m3 PM2.5 (24-hour)1 — — 10.4 µg/m3 PM2.5 (Annual)1 — — 1.0 µg/m3 Source: LSA 2020. Notes: µg/m3 = microgram of pollutant per cubic meter of air; ppm = parts per million, NOX = Nitrogen Dioxide, CO = Carbon Monoxide, PM10 = Particulate Matter less than 10 microns in size, PM2.5 = Particulate Matter less than 2.5 microns in size 1 Because both PM10 and PM2.5 are in non-attainment, their thresholds are not based on AAQS exceedance, but rather a violation of SCAQMD Rule 403. Health Risk Thresholds Both the State and Federal governments have established health-based AAQS for seven air pollutants. For other air pollutants without defined significance standards, the definition of substantial pollutant concentrations varies. For TACs, “substantial” is taken to mean the individual health risk exceeds a threshold considered to be a prudent risk management level. The following limits for maximum individual cancer risk (MICR) and non-cancer acute and chronic Hazard Index (HI) from project emissions of TACs are considered appropriate for use in determining the health risk for projects in the Basin: MICR: MICR is the estimated probability of a maximum exposed individual (MEI) contracting cancer as a result of exposure to TACs over a period of 30 years for adults and children 9 years or older in residential locations. As a conservative measure, SCAQMD does not recognize indoor adjustments for residents. However, the typical person spends the majority of their time indoors.2 The MICR calculations include multi-pathway consideration, when applicable. The cumulative increase in MICR, the sum of the calculated 2 In May 1991, the California Air Resources Board Research Division, in association with the University of California, Berkeley, published research findings entitled: Activity Patterns of California Residents. The findings of that study indicate on average, adults and adolescents in California spent almost 15 hours per day inside their homes and six hours in other indoor locations, for a total of 21 hours (87 percent of the day). About two hours per day were spent in transit, and just over one hour per day was spent in outdoor locations. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY April 2021February 2020 Page 5.2-19 MICR values for all TACs, is considered significant if it results in an increased MICR greater than 10 in 1 million for any resident. Chronic HI: Chronic HI is the ratio of the estimated long-term level of exposure to a TAC for a potential MEI to its chronic reference exposure level. The chronic HI calculations include multi-pathway consideration, when applicable. Impacts are considered significant if the cumulative increase in total chronic HI for any target organ system exceeds 1.0 for any resident. Acute HI: Acute HI is the ratio of the estimated maximum 1-hour concentration of a TAC for a potential MEI to its acute reference exposure level. The project is considered significant if the cumulative increase in total acute HI for any target organ system exceeds 1.0 for any resident. Table 5.2-9, SCAQMD Toxic Air Contaminants Incremental Risk Thresholds, lists the TAC incremental risk thresholds for project operations. Table 5.2-9 SCAQMD Toxic Air Contaminants Incremental Risk Thresholds Maximum Incremental Cancer Risk ≥ 10 in 1 million Hazard Index (project increment) ≥ 1.0 Cancer Burden in areas ≥ 1 in 1 million > 0.5 excess cancer cases Source: LSA 2020. 5.2.3 Plans, Programs, Policies, and Standard Conditions of Approval The following are existing regulatory requirements, such as plans, policies, programs (PPP), or standard conditions of approval (SCA), applied to the project based on Federal, State, or local laws currently in place, and which effectively reduce impacts related to air quality. PPP AIR-1 New buildings are required to achieve the current California Building Energy and Efficiency (BEE) Standards (Title 24, Part 6) and Califo rnia Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) (Title 24, Part 11). PPP AIR-2 Construction activities are required to be conducted in compliance with 13 California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section 2499, which requires nonessential idling of construction equipment is restricted to five minutes or less. PPP AIR-3 Construction activities are required to comply with applicable South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) rules and regulations, including, but not limited, to the following: Rule 402, Nuisance, which states a project shall not “discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property;” and ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Page 5.2-20 April 2021February 2020 Rule 1113, Architectural Coatings, which limits the volatile organic compound content of architectural coatings. PPP AIR-4 Construction activities are required to recycle/reuse at least 50 percent of the construction material including, but not limited to, soil, mulch, vegetation, concrete, lumber, metal, and cardboard, and to use green building materials such as those materials that are rapidly renewable or resource efficient, and recycled and manufactured in an environmentally friendly way, for at least ten percent of the project, as specified in the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery Sustainable Green Building Program. SCA PLNG-14 Demolition permits for existing structure(s) shall be obtained and all work and inspections completed prior to final building inspections. Applicant is notified that written notice to the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) may be required ten (10) days prior to demolition. SCA AQMD-3 Applicant shall contact the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) at (800) 288-7664 for potential additional conditions of development or for additional permits required by the district. SCA HYD-1 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403 would be adhered to, ensuring the cleanup of construction-related dirt on approach routes to the project site. Rule 403 prohibits the release of fugitive dust emissions from any active operation, open storage pile, or disturbed surface area beyond the property line of the emission sources. Particulate matter deposits on public roadways are also prohibited. SCA HYD-2 Adequate watering techniques would be employed to partially mitigate the impact of construction-generated dust particulates. Portions of the project site that are undergoing earth moving operations would be watered such that a crust is formed on the ground surface and then watered again at the end of the day. SCA HYD-3 Grading operations would be suspended during first and second stage ozone episodes or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour. 5.2.4 Environmental Impacts Air pollutant emissions associated with the project would occur over the short-term from construction activities and over the long-term from operational activities including project-related vehicular trips and energy consumption (e.g., electricity and natural gas usage). 5.2.4.1 METHODOLOGY The California Emissions Estimator Model Version 2016.3. (CalEEMod) was used to model the project’s construction and operational emissions. The American Meteorological Society/Environmental Protection Agency Regulatory Model Version 18081 (AERMOD) is an EPA-approved air dispersion model that was used ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY April 2021February 2020 Page 5.2-21 to calculate localized pollutant concentrations for construction activities as part of the Health Risk Assessment. Appendix C provides detailed methodology and modeling assumptions for the project. 5.2.4.2 IMPACT ANALYSIS The following impact analysis addresses the thresholds of significance that may be potentially significant. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets after the impact statement. Impact 5.2-1: Construction activities associated with the proposed project could generate short-term emissions in exceedance of SCAQMD’s threshold criteria that would cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations in the Basin. [Threshold AQ-2] Impact Analysis: Regional Construction Emissions Construction activities associated with the proposed project would produce exhaust air emissions from various sources, including on-site heavy-duty construction vehicles, vehicles hauling materials to and from the site, and motor vehicles transporting construction crew. Demolition and grading activities would produce fugitive dust emissions (PM10 and PM2.5). Air pollutant emissions from construction activities on-site would vary daily as construction activity levels change. The proposed project is anticipated to start construction in January 2022 and conclude in January 2027, with each building built in a sequential phase, lasting (approximately five 5.5 years). Occupancy would begin for each building as each are completed; therefore, project-related construction and operational activities would overlap. The Construction Phasing Memo analysis assumes construction would be conducted in three phases; refer to Construction Phasing Memo Table C, Tentative Project Construction Schedule. Phase 1: Building A construction would last for approximately 30 months starting in July 2022; Phase 2: Building B construction would last approximately 26 months; and Phase 3: Building C and creative office building construction would require approximately 22 months, concluding in November 2027. During Phase 1, Tthe existing on-site industrial building and associated parking lot would be demolished. Construction of the project would require approximately 91,000 cubic yards of fill and 194,000 cubic yards of soil removal. The Construction Phasing Memo conservatively assumed that each construction activity would overlap with the subsequent activity and that building construction, architectural coating application, and paving activities would all overlap. Table 5.2-10, Phased Short-term Regional Peak Day Construction Emissions, identifies the worst- case construction emissions associated with the project. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Page 5.2-22 April 2021February 2020 Table 5.2-10 Phased Short-term Regional Peak Day Construction Emissions Construction Phase Maximum Daily Emissions (lbs/Day)1,2 VOC NOx CO SOx Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Phase 1 Demolition 33 3131 2323 <1<1 33 <11 <1<1 <11 Site Preparation 33 3333 2020 <1<1 77 <12 44 <11 Grading 44 7979 3435 <1<1 187 <11 53 <11 Building Construction 35 2124 2939 <1<1 59 <1<1 13 <1<1 Paving 1<1 109 1515 <1<1 <1<1 <1<1 <1<1 <1<1 Architectural Coating 11105 11 47 <1<1 <13 <1<1 <1<1 <1<1 Phase 1 Peak Daily 15 112 63 <1 26 10 Phase 2 Building Construction 3 18 26 <1 4 <1 1 <1 Paving <1 8 13 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Architectural Coating 10 1 3 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Phase 2 Peak Daily 14 27 42 1 5 2 Phase 3 Building Construction 3 20 26 <1 5 <1 1 <1 Paving <1 9 15 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Architectural Coating 7 1 3 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Phase 3 Peak Daily 11 30 44 1 6 1 Maximum Daily Emissions1 110 112 74 <1 17 8 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Exceeds Threshold? YesNo Yes No No No No Source: LSA 20202021. Note: lbs/day = pounds per day; SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District; µg/m3 = microgram of pollutant per cubic meter of air; ppm = parts per million; VOC = volatile organic compounds; NOX = nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; SO2X = sulfur oxides; PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in size; PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size 1. Assumes every phase overlaps with the subsequent phase and the Building Construction, Paving, and Architectural Coating phases overlap. PM10 and PM2.5 fugitive emissions are from the Mitigated results - the only "mitigation" applied in this modeling are required dust control measures per SCAQMD Rule 403. 2 Assumes worst-case emissions based on overlap of the grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating phases. The project would be required to comply 13 CCR Section 2499 (limiting idling to five minutes or less), limit fugitive dust and VOC emissions, and required recycling/reuse of at least 50 percent of the construction material (see PPP AIR-2, PPP AIR-3, and PPP AIR-4). The project would also be required to comply with SCA PLNG-14, SCA AQMD-3, and SCA HYD-1 through SCA HYD-3 pertaining to SCAQMD permits, compliance with Rule 403, and other dust control measures during constr uction. As shown in Table 5.2-10, project construction would result in VOC and NOX emissions in exceedance of applicable SCAQMD thresholds. Project-generated VOC, CO, SOX, and particulate matter would not exceed their respective thresholds. As such, short-term construction impacts would be potentially significant for VOC and NOX emissions. Health Effects of Criteria Air Pollutants The accumulation and dispersion of air pollutant emissions within an air basin is dependent upon the size and distribution of emission sources in the region and meteorological factors such as wind, sunlight, temperature, ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY April 2021February 2020 Page 5.2-23 humidity, rainfall, atmospheric pressure, and topography. As expressed in the amicus curiae brief submitted for the Sierra Club v. County of Fresno case (Friant Ranch Case),3 the air districts established and recommend CEQA air quality analyses of criteria air pollutants use significance thresholds that were set at emission levels tied to the region’s attainment status, based on emission levels at which stationary pollution sources permitted by the air district must offset their emissions. Such offset levels allow for growth while keeping the cumulative effects of new sources at a level that will not impede attainment of the NAAQS. The health risks associated with exposure to criteria pollutants are evaluated on a regional level, based on the region's attainment of the NAAQS. The mass emissions significance thresholds used in CEQA air quality analysis are not intended to be indicative of human health impacts that a project may have.4 Therefore, the project’s exceedance of the mass regional emissions threshold (i.e., project construction VOC and NOx NOX exceedances) from project-related activities does not necessarily indicate that the project would cause or contribute to the exposure of sensitive receptors to ground-level concentrations in excess of health-protective levels. As discussed earlier and shown in Table 5.2-3, the Basin is currently in State nonattainment status for O3, PM2.5, and PM10, as well as Federal nonattainment status for O3 and PM2.5. Although O3 would not be directly emitted by construction equipment for the proposed project, the O3 precursors (VOC and NOX) would be emitted, as well as, the other criteria pollutants of CO, SOX, PM10 and PM2.5. Given that O3 formation occurs through a complex photo-chemical reaction between NOX and VOC in the atmosphere with the presence of sunlight, the impacts of O3 are typically considered on a basin-wide or regional basis and not on a localized basis. The health-based ambient air quality standards for O3 are established as concentrations of O3 and not as tonnages of their precursor pollutants (i.e., NOX and VOC). It is not necessarily the tonnage of precursor pollutants that causes human health effects, but the concentration of resulting O3 or particulate matter. Because of the complexity of O3 formation and the non-linear relationship of O3 concentration with its precursor gases, and given the state of environmental science modeling in use at this time, it is not practical to determine whether, or the extent to which, a single project’s precursor (i.e., NOX and VOC) emissions would potentially result in the formation of secondary ground-level O3 and the geographic and temporal distribution of such secondary formed emissions. Meteorology, the presence of sunlight, seasonal impacts, and other complex photochemical factors all combine to determine the ultimate concentration and location of O3.5 Running the regional-scale photochemical grid model used for predicting O3 attainment with the emissions from any individual project can be done, but it would not yield reliable information regarding a measurable increase in O3 concentrations sufficient to accurately quantify O3-related health effects. Similarly, it would also not be feasible to identify a project’s impact on the days of nonattainment per year. Furthermore, available models today are designed to determine regional, population-wide health impacts, and cannot accurately quantify ozone-related health impacts caused by VOC or NOX emissions from a local level (an individual project). Notwithstanding this scientific constraint, CEQA air quality analyses have been using project-level mass- 3 SJVAPCD, 2014. Application for Leave to File Brief of Amicus Curiae Brief of San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District in Support of Defendant and Respondent, County of Fresno and Real Party In Interest and Respondent, Friant Ranch, L.P. In the Supreme Court of California. Sierra Club, Revive the San Joaquin, and League of Women Voters of Fresno v. County of Fresno. 4 Ibid; SCAQMD, 2014, Application of the South Coast Air Quality Management District for Leave to File Brief of Amicus Curiae in Support of Neither Party and Brief of Amicus Curiae. In the Supreme Court of California. Sierra Club, Revive the San Joaquin, and League of Women Voters of Fresno v. County of Fresno. 5 Ibid. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Page 5.2-24 April 2021February 2020 emission thresholds for ozone precursors (NOX and VOC), particulate matter, and other criteria pollutants, and the disconnect between project-level emissions and project-level health impact cannot be bridged at this time. Based on this information, a general description of the adverse health effects resulting from the project- level criteria pollutants, which is discussed previously, is all that can be feasibly provided at this time. Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant Impact. Impact 5.2-2: Operational air emissions associated with the proposed project would not exceed applicable SCAQMD threshold criteria. [Threshold AQ-2] Impact Analysis: Project buildout would result in criteria air pollutant emissions from transportation, area, and energy sources. As detailed in Table 5.13-6, Project Trip Generation, operation of the project at full buildout would generate 7,103 average daily trips (ADT) from the residential use, 244 ADT from the office use, 641 ADT from the retail use, 43 ADT from the community center use, and 1 ADT from the open space area. Project trips would be reduced by 803 trips due to internal capture. Using the same trip rates, operations of Building A would generate 2,716 ADT, and when Buildings A and B are occupied, the project would generate 5,009 ADT. Table 5.2-11, Opening Year Regional Operational EmissionsPhased Regional Operational Emissions by Phase, depicts long-term operational emissions associated with the proposed project by phase. As shown, operational emissions would not exceed applicable SCAQMD operational significance thresholds and thus, would not cumulatively contribute to the Basin’s nonattainment designations. Table 5.2-11 Phased Opening Year Regional Operational Emissions by Phase Source Pollutant Emissions (lbs/Day) VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Existing Operational Emissions Area 8 <1 <1 0 <1 <1 Energy <1 2 2 <1 <1 <1 Mobile <1 2 8 <1 4 1 Warehouse Equipment <1 3 5 <1 <1 <1 Total Existing Emissions 9 7 15 <1 4 1 Proposed ProjectPhase 1 Operational Emissions Area 1126 <11 3787 <1<1 <1<1 <1<1 Energy <1<1 <13 <11 <1<1 <1<1 <1<1 Mobile 39 1333 47112 <1<1 2153 614 Total Project EmissionsNet Increase from Existing for Phase 1 535 837 70200 <1<1 1753 515 Phase 1 and 2 Combined Operational Emissions Area 20 <1 68 <1 <1 <1 Energy <1 2 1 <1 <1 <1 Mobile 6 23 83 <1 38 10 Net Increase from Existing for Phase 1 and 2 Combined 17 19 137 <1 34 10 Total Project Buildout Operational Emissions Area 26 1 87 <1 <1 <1 ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY April 2021February 2020 Page 5.2-25 Energy <1 3 1 <1 <1 <1 Mobile 9 33 112 <1 53 14 Net Increase from Existing for Total Project Buildout 26 30 185 <1 49 14 Net Change Net Operational Emissions 26 30 185 <1 49 14 SCAQMD Operational Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No Source: LSA 20202021. Notes: lbs/day = pounds per day; VOC = volatile organic compounds; NOX = nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; SO2 = sulfur oxides; PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in size; PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size; SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District. As there would be periods of time when construction of one phase would occur simultaneously with the operations of previous phase(s), Table 5.2-12, Phased Regional Emissions for Overlapping Construction and Operational Emissions, shows the combined peak daily emissions that could occur during each construction phase. As shown in Table 5.2-12, the combined impact of overlapping construction and operational emissions would be less than significant. Table 5.2-12 Phased Regional Emissions for Overlapping Construction and Operational Emissions Source Pollutant Emissions (lbs/Day) VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Phase 1 Operational and Phase 2 Construction Emissions Net New Phase 1 Emissions 5 8 70 <1 17 5 Phase 2 Mitigated Construction 14 27 42 1 5 2 Total Combined Emissions 19 35 112 1 22 7 Phase 1 and 2 Combined Operational and Phase 3 Construction Emissions Phase 1 and 2 Net New Operational Emissions 17 19 137 <1 34 10 Phase 3 Mitigated Construction 11 30 44 1 6 1 Total Combined Emissions 28 49 181 1 40 11 SCAQMD Operational Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No Source: LSA 2021. Notes: lbs/day = pounds per day; VOC = volatile organic compounds; NOX = nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; SO2 = sulfur oxides; PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in size; PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size; SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District. Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Page 5.2-26 April 2021February 2020 Impact 5.2-3 Project construction would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. [Threshold AQ-3] Impact Analysis: Construction Localized Impact Analysis A localized significant impact may occur if a project generates pollutant concentrations to a degree that would significantly affect sensitive receptors near a project site. The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site are residents to the south of the I-405 Freeway, approximately 300 feet from the project site. Because precise construction schedule information is not available at this time, project construction activities were modeled as an area source for the entire 15.23-acre project site. Table 5.2-132, Construction Localized Significance Modeling Results, shows project-related pollutant concentrations from construction activities would not exceed the AAQS for all residences within the modeling range (500 meters [1,640 feet] from the project boundary). Impacts in this regard would be less than significant. Table 5.2-132 Construction Localized Significance Modeling Results Pollutant Threshold Maximum Project Concentration Increase Difference Exceeds Threshold? CO (1-Hour) 17.9 ppm 0.4 ppm -17.5 ppm No CO (8-Hour) 7.3 ppm 0.1 ppm -7.2 ppm No NO2 (1-hour) 0.1 ppm <0.1 ppm -0.1 ppm No NO2 (Annual) <0.1 ppm <0.1 ppm -<0.1 ppm No PM10 (24-hour) 1 10.4 µg/m3 3.3 µg/m3 -7.1 µg/m3 No PM10 (Annual) 1 1.0 µg/m3 0.1 µg/m3 -0.9 µg/m3 No PM2.5 (24-hour) 1 10.4 µg/m3 2.9 µg/m3 -7.5 µg/m3 No PM2.5 (Annual)1 1.0 µg/m3 <0.1 µg/m3 -1.0 µg/m3 No Source: LSA 2020. Note: µg/m3 = microgram per cubic meter; ppm = parts per million; NOX = nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in size; PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size 1 Because both PM10 and PM2.5 are in non-attainment, their thresholds are not based on AAQS exceedance, but rather a violation of SCAQMD Rule 403. Construction Health Risk Analysis The greatest potential for TAC emissions during construction activities are related to DPM emissions from heavy equipment operations. Incidental amounts of substances containing TACs (such as oils, solvents, and paints) could be used. However, these products would comply with all applicable SCAQMD rules (see PPP AIR-3, SCA PLNG-14, SCA AQMD-3, and SCA HYD-1) and would not contribute substantially to overall health risks from TACs. According to SCAQMD methodology, health effects from carcinogenic TACs are usually described in terms of individual cancer risk. Individual cancer risk is the likelihood that a person exposed to concentrations of TACs over a 30‐year residential lifetime will contract cancer, based on the use of standard risk assessment methodology. The SCAQMD 1993 CEQA Air Quality Handbook recommends that sensitive receptors located within 0.25-mile of a facility that emits TACs be considered in an evaluation of TAC-related ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY April 2021February 2020 Page 5.2-27 health impacts. Sensitive receptors located beyond the 0.25-mile distance are generally not required to be evaluated due to atmospheric mixing and dispersion of pollutants. Construction-related activities would result in short-term DPM emissions from off-road heavy-duty diesel equipment exhaust. Based on the project’s phased construction schedule, the health risk modeling, and the phased short-term peak construction emissions shown in Table 5.2-10, construction of the proposed project would not result in any substantial, long-term (i.e., 30-year) health risk levels to the future residents of Phases 1 and later Phase 2, while construction of Phases 2 and 3 occur, or existing residents off-site near the project site; refer to It was conservatively assumed that construction emissions from the proposed project would occur over a year and thus, the Health Risk Assessment analyzed the cancer risk for one year of exposure. As shown in Table 5.2-143, Construction Health Risk Levels for Residents Near the Project Site, project construction would not result in any substantial health risk levels for nearby residents. In addition, there would be no residual emissions or corresponding individual cancer risk after construction. As a result, construction TAC emissions would have a less than significant impact. Table 5.2-143 Phased Construction Health Risk Levels for Residents Near the Project SiteResidential Receptors Location Maximum Cancer Risk (risk per million) Maximum Noncancer Chronic Risk (Hazard Index) Off-Site Unmitigated Maximum Exposed Individual 2.8 per million 0.003 On-Site Unmitigated Maximum Exposed Individual 23.0 per million 0.0032 SCAQMD Significance Threshold 10 1.0 Exceeds Thresholds? No No Source: LSA 20210. Notes: SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. Impact 5.2-4: Project operations would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. [Threshold AQ-3] Operational Localized Impacts Analysis Impact Analysis: Table 5.2-154, Long-term Operational Localized Impacts Analysis, details the calculated emissions for the proposed operational activities compared with the appropriate LSTs. By design, the LST analysis only requires analysis of the on-site emissions sources. However, CalEEMod outputs do not separate on-site and off-site emissions for mobile sources. Thus, an assumption for on-site mobile sources was incorporated into the modeling. For a worst-case scenario assessment, the emission calculation includes all on-site project-related stationary sources and five percent of the project-related new mobile sources, which is an estimate of the percentage of vehicle travel that would occur on-site. CalEEmod assumes an average round-trip length of 14.7 miles for home-to- work, 5.9 miles for home-to-shopping, and 8.7 miles for other trip types. An average of these distances would be approximately 9.43 miles per trip. It is unlikely that the average on-site distance driven (including within the parking structure and exiting the site) would be more than 2,000 feet (0.38-mile), which is approximately four ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Page 5.2-28 April 2021February 2020 percent of total miles traveled. Therefore, considering the total trip length included in CalEEMod, the five percent assumption is conservative. Table 5.2-154 Long-term Operational Localized Impacts Analysis Emissions Sources NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 On-Site Emissions 3 93 3 1 Localized Significance Thresholds1 200 2,349 13 5 Exceeds Thresholds?2 No No No No Source: LSA 2020. Notes: NOX = nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in size; PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size 1 The LST thresholds for SRA 18: North Orange County, for a project with five acres disturbed per day with a receptor distance of 100 meters. 2 It is conservatively assumed that the on-site traffic is equal to 5 percent of the total project traffic. As shown in Table 5-2.154, long-term operational emission would not exceed the LSTs for sensitive receptors in the project area. Further, daily operational emissions would not exceed the daily thresholds of any criteria pollutant established by SCAQMD. Thus, the project would not result in a locally significant operational air quality impacts. Furthermore, the project would not include the use of diesel generators or other significant sources of TAC emissions. Overall, the project would not result in significant operational health risk impacts to the nearest residents. General Plan Air Quality Policies Pertaining to Local Emissions As detailed in Section 5.9, Land Use and Planning, Table 5.9-1, Project Consistency with General Plan, the following General Plan policies pertain to minimize exposure of sensitive receptors to air quality emissions. Policy CON-4.A.1: Support regional policies and efforts that improve air quality to protect human and environmental health, and minimize disproportionate impacts on sensitive population groups. Policy CON-4.A.2: Encourage businesses, industries and residents to reduce the impact of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of stationary and non-stationary pollution sources. Policy CON-4.A.3: Require that sensitive uses such as schools, childcare centers, parks and playgrounds, housing, and community gathering places are protected from adverse impacts of emissions. As detailed above, operational air quality impacts would be less than significant, and the project would not result in adverse impacts to nearby sensitive uses. Additionally, project operations would not result in adverse impacts from stationary and mobile pollution sources. Last, it is acknowledged that the project would place new housing near existing and proposed emissions during operations. However, all new multi-family residential buildings would install two-inch Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) 13 filters in accordance with CALGreen standards as detailed in the Specific Plan (see PPP LU-1). Thus, the proposed project would meet the intent of these General Plan policies and impacts in this regard would be less than significant. CO Hot Spot Analysis At the time of the publishing of the 1993 CEQA Air Quality Handbook , the Basin was designated nonattainment under the CAAQS and NAAQS for CO. With the turnover of older vehicles, introduction of cleaner fuels, and ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY April 2021February 2020 Page 5.2-29 implementation of control technology on industrial facilities, CO concentrations in the Basin and in California have steadily declined. In 2007, SCAQMD was designated attainment for CO under both the CAAQS and NAAQS. As identified within SCAQMD’s 2003 AQMP and the 1992 Federal Attainment Plan for Carbon Monoxide, peak carbon monoxide concentrations in the Basin were a result of unusual meteorological and topographical conditions and not a result of congestion at a particular intersection. A CO hot spot analysis was conducted at four busy intersections in Los Angeles County at the peak morning and afternoon periods and did not predict a violation of CO standards. Under existing and future vehicle emission rates, a project would have to increase traffic volumes at a single intersection by more than 44,000 vehicles per hour (or 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal air does not mix) in order to generate a significant CO impact. One of the top four worst intersections in the Basin (i.e., Sunset Boulevard/Highland Avenue) is in the City of Los Angeles, approximately 37 miles northwest of the proposed project. Because the SCAQMD modeled intersections do not exceed the CO standards, intersections within the proposed project study area with lesser volumes of traffic and under less extreme conditions would not exceed the CO standards. Buildout of the proposed project would not produce the volume of traffic (7,103 peak daily), required to generate a CO hot spot (LSA 2020). Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not be expected to result in CO hot spots, and impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. Localized Air Quality Health Impacts As evaluated above, the project’s air emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD’s LST thresholds, and CO hot spots would not occur as a result of the proposed project. Therefore, the project would not exceed the most stringent applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standards for emissions of CO, NOX, PM10, or PM2.5. It should be noted that the AAQS are developed and represent levels at which the most susceptible persons (e.g., children and the elderly) are protected. In other words, the AAQS are purposefully set in a stringent manner to protect children, elderly, and those with existing respiratory problems. Thus, air quality health impact associated with the project would be less than significant in this regard. Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. Impact 5.2-5: The proposed project is consistent with the applicable air quality management plan. [Threshold AQ-1] Impact Analysis: A consistency determination plays an essential role in local agency project review by linking local planning and unique individual projects to the air quality plans. A consistency determination fulfills the CEQA goal of fully informing local agency decision-makers of the environmental costs of the project under consideration at a stage early enough to ensure that air quality concerns are addressed. Only new or amended general plan elements, specific plans, and significantly unique projects need to undergo a consistency review because the air quality plan strategy is based on projections from local general plans. The AQMP is based on regional growth projections developed by SCAG. The proposed project is considered a regionally significant project because it would result in development of more than 500 dwelling units. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Page 5.2-30 April 2021February 2020 Consistency with the 2016 AQMP would be achieved if the project is consistent with the goals, objectives, and assumptions in the 2016 AQMP to achieve the Federal and State air quality standards. Per SCAQMD, there are two main criterion of a project’s consistency with the AQMP: Criterion 1: whether the project would increase the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the 2016 AQMP; and Criterion 2: whether the project would exceed the 2016 AQMP’s assumptions for 2040 or yearly increments based on the year of project buildout and phasing. With respect to determining the proposed project consistency with AQMP growth assumptions, the projections in the AQMP for achieving air quality goals are based on population, housing, and growth assumptions in the 2016 RTP/SCS. As described in Section 5.11, Population and Housing, according to the 2016 RTP/SCS, the population and employment for the City in 2012 was 111,200 residents and 84,400 employees. In 2040, the City is forecasted to have a population and employment of 116,400 residents and 93,200 employees. Therefore, the forecasted population for the City is anticipated to increase by approximately 5,200 residents and 8,800 employees between 2012 and 2040. The U.S. Census reports approximately 2.73 residents per dwelling unit in Costa Mesa; therefore, development of the project site with 1,057 new dwelling units could house up to 2,886 residents. The proposed residential community location would encourage alternative mode use as it is in close proximity to commercial, retail, business, and nearby trails. The community would include a park, trail connections, vanpool/carpool parking, electric vehicle (EV) charging stations, rideshare amenities, and bicycle share opportunities. Further, the project would be compliant with the latest BEE Standards which require solar ready rooftops, increased insulation, low flow fixtures, and energy efficient appliances. In general, the project would promote environmentally sustainable development principles by providing a mix of land uses in close proximity to employment centers. These project attributes are consistent with the goals identified in the 2016 AQMP. The proposed project is within an activity center with employment opportunities and a commercial center. As such, the proposed project would be a potential node of trip attractions with opportunities for short local trips or even alternative methods of commuting (i.e. cycling or walking). Thus, the proposed project has the potential to reduce automobile trips, compared to an isolated development that would not be near employment opportunities or a commercial center. As shown in Table 5.2-11, project operations would not result in an exceedance of applicable SCAQMD thresholds; therefore, the project is not expected to result in a violation of air quality standards. In summary, while the proposed project is a regionally significant project that would result in substantial population growth, project emissions would not substantially contribute to the Basin’s nonattainment designations and would not interfere with SCAQMD’s implementation of the 2016 AQMP. Due to these factors the proposed project would be consistent with the 2016 AQMP. Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less than Significant Impact. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY April 2021February 2020 Page 5.2-31 Impact 5.2-6 The proposed project would not result in odors that affect a substantial number of people. [Threshold AQ-4] Impact Analysis: Odors from Construction Activities Construction activities associated with the project may generate detectable odors from heavy-duty equipment exhaust and architectural coatings. However, construction-related odors would be short-term in nature and cease upon project completion. In addition, the project would be required to comply with CRR Title 13 Sections 2449(d)(3) and 2485 (see PPP-AIR-2), which require the project to minimize idling time of construction equipment either by shutting it off when not in use or by reducing the time of idling to no more than five minutes. This would further reduce the detectable odors from heavy-duty equipment exhaust. The project would also comply with SCAQMD Rule 402, Nuisances, and the Rule 1113, Architectural Coating (see PPP-AIR 3) which would minimize odor impacts from VOC emissions during architectural coating. As such, impacts to existing adjacent land uses would be less than significant. Odors from Operational Activities According to the SCAQMD 1993 CEQA Air Quality Handbook, land uses associated with operational odor complaints typically include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. The proposed project does not include any uses identified by the SCAQMD as being associated with odors. Therefore, the impacts associated with operational odors would be less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. 5.2.5 Cumulative Impacts Due to the extent of the area potentially impacted from cumulative project emissions (i.e., the Basin), SCAQMD considers a project cumulatively significant when project-related emissions exceed the SCAQMD regional emissions thresholds. Impact 5.2-7: Cumulative construction activities associated with the proposed project could generate short-term emissions in exceedance of SCAQMD’s threshold criteria that would cumulatively contribute to the Basins’ nonattainment designations. [Threshold AQ-2] Impact Analysis: The Basin is designated nonattainment for O3 and PM2.5 under the CAAQS and NAAQS and nonattainment for PM10 and Pb (Los Angeles County only) under the NAAQS. Construction of cumulative projects would further degrade the regional and local air quality. Air quality would be temporarily impacted during construction activities. As described in Impact Statement 5.2-1, the proposed project’s short-term construction emissions would exceed the SCAQMD established thresholds for NOx and VOC. As the project would exceed these ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Page 5.2-32 April 2021February 2020 thresholds and the Basin is in nonattainment for O3such, the proposed project’s contribution to cumulative air quality impacts would be cumulatively considerable and potentially significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant Impact. Impact 5.2-8: Long-term project operations would not generate cumulative air emissions in exceedance of applicable SCAQMD thresholds. [Threshold AQ-2] Impact Analysis: As stated in Impact 5.2-2, project operations would not result in emissions in exceedance of applicable SCAQMD thresholds. Therefore, the project would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard. Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. Impact 5.2-9 Construction of the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial cumulative pollutant concentrations. [Threshold AQ-3] Impact Analysis: Due to the extent of the area potentially impacted from cumulative project emissions (i.e., the Basin), SCAQMD considers a project cumulatively significant when project-related emissions exceed the SCAQMD LST emissions thresholds. As the project does not exceed the SCAQMD LST thresholds, less than significant cumulative impacts would occur. Further, as discussed in Impact 5.2-3 and Impact 5.2-8, the project would not have a cumulatively considerable impact with regard to CO hot spots and health risk impacts. Less than significant impacts would result in this regard. Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. Impact 5.2-10 Project operations would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial cumulative pollutant concentrations. [Threshold AQ-3] Impact Analysis: Per Impact 5.2-4, operational source emissions for the project would not exceed the applicable SCAQMD LSTs thresholds. Thus, the project’s operational localized emissions impacts would not be cumulatively considerable toward exposing sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY April 2021February 2020 Page 5.2-33 Impact 5.2-11: The proposed project is consistent with the applicable air quality management plan and would not cause a cumulative impact. [Threshold AQ-1] Impact Analysis: As discussed under Impact 5.2-5, the project’s anticipated population growth is within SCAG’s 2040 forecast population projection for the City and region and is accounted for in the 2016 AQMP. Furthermore, the project’s operational air emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD regional thresholds, and localized emissions during construction would be below SCAQMD LST thresholds. Thus, the project would be consistent with the types, intensity, and patterns of land use envisioned for the project vicinity per the 2016 RTP/SCS and would be consistent with the 2016 AQMP. As such, the project would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to impacts in this regard, and a less than significant impact would occur. Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. Impact 5.2-12: The proposed project would not result in cumulatively considerable odors that affect a substantial number of people. [Threshold AQ-4] Impact Analysis: As discussed under Impact 5.2-6, the proposed project does not include any uses identified by the SCAQMD as being associated with odors. Further, the project be required to minimize the idling time of construction equipment (see PPP AIR-2) and VOC emissions during architectural coating (see PPP-AIR 3). As such, the project’s incremental contribution to impacts in this regard would be less than cumulatively considerable, and a less than significant impact would occur. Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. 5.2.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation Upon implementation of regulatory requirements, the following impacts would be less than significant: Impacts 5.2-2 through 5.2-6 and Impacts 5.2-8 through Impacts 5.2-12. However, without mitigation, the following impacts would be potentially significant: Impact 5.2-1: Construction activities associated with the proposed project could generate short- term emissions in exceedance of SCAQMD’s threshold criteria that would cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations in the Basin. Impact 5.2-7: Cumulative construction activities associated with the proposed project could generate short-term emissions in exceedance of SCAQMD’s threshold criteria that would cumulatively contribute to the Basins’ nonattainment designations. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Page 5.2-34 April 2021February 2020 5.2.7 Mitigation Measures Impact 5.2-1 AIR-1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the grading plans shall stipulate that the contractor shall use construction equipment that meets the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Tier 3 level of emission controls fitted with Level 2 Diesel Particulate Filters (DPF) for all construction equipment 50 horsepower or more during construction activities. AIR-2 The project contractor shall only use interior paints with low VOC content with a maximum concentration of 30 grams per liter (g/L) for residential building architectural coating to reduce VOC emissions. All building and site plans shall note use of paints with a low VOC content with a maximum concentration of 30 g/L verified by the City of Costa Mesa prior to issuance of a building permit and during interior coating activities. Impact 5.2-7 Refer to Mitigation Measures AIR-1 and AIR-2. 5.2.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation Impact 5.2-1 Mitigation Measure AIR-1 would require the construction contractor to utilize newer, Tier 3, construction equipment fitted with Level 2 diesel particulate filters (DPF), which would reduce NOX and PM emissions. Mitigation Measure AIR-2 requires the use of low VOC paints, which would reduce VOC emissions. As shown in Table 5.2-165, Phased Short Term Regional Peak Day Construction Emissions with Mitigation, NOX emissions would be reduced below the SCAQMD thresholds with implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-1. As such, impacts in this regard would be reduced to less than significant levels.However, even with implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-2, VOC emissions would still exceed the applicable SCAQMD threshold. No other feasible mitigation exists to reduce VOC impacts from architectural coating. Thus, VOC emissions associated with project construction would result in a significant and unavoidable impact. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY April 2021February 2020 Page 5.2-35 Table 5.2-165 Phased Short-term Regional Peak Day Construction Emissions with Mitigation Construction Phase Maximum Daily Emissions (lbs/Day)1 VOC NOx CO SOx Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Phase 1 Demolition 1 24 27 <1 3 <1 <1 <1 Site Preparation 1 19 23 <1 7 <1 4 <1 Grading 3 73 379 <1 187 <1 53 <1 Building Construction 4 24 3141 <1 59 <1 13 <1 Paving <1 11 18 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Architectural Coating 10511 2 47 <1 <13 <1 <1 <1 Phase 1 Peak Daily 14 94 68 <1 23 10 Phase 2 Building Construction 2 19 28 <1 4 <1 1 <1 Paving <1 9 14 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Architectural Coating 10 1 3 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Phase 2 Peak Daily 13 27 42 1 5 2 Phase 3 Building Construction 2 22 28 <1 5 <1 1 <1 Paving <1 11 18 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Architectural Coating 7 1 3 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Phase 3 Peak Daily 11 34 49 1 6 1 Maximum Daily Emissions2 109 92 80 <1 17 8 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Exceeds Threshold? NoYes No No No No No Source: LSA 2020. Notes: lbs/day = pounds per day; SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District; VOC = volatile organic compounds; NOX = nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; SO2 = sulfur oxides; PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in size; PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size 1 Assumes the Building Construction, Paving, and Architectural Coating phases overlap. PM10 and PM2.5 fugitive emissions are from the Mitigated results. The only "mitigation" applied in this modeling are required dust control measures per SCAQMD Rule 403. 2 Assumes worst-case emissions based on overlap of the grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating phases. Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant and Unavoidable Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Impact 5.2-7 As described in Section 5.2.7, Level of Significance After Mitigation, the project’s NOx emissions would be below the SCAQMD thresholds with implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-1. Thus, cumulative impacts regarding construction-related NOx emissions would be reduced to less than significant levels and would not be cumulatively considerable. However, even with implementation of Mitigation Measures AIR-2, the project’s VOC emissions would exceed the established SCAQMD thresholds. Thus, the proposed project would have a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact for VOC emissions. Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant and Unavoidable Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Page 5.2-36 April 2021February 2020 This page intentionally left blank. ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I February 2020April 2021 Chapter 5.3 Cultural Resources ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I February 2020April 2021 This page intentionally left blank. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis April 2021February 2020 Page 5.3-1 5.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES Cultural resources comprise archaeological and historical resources. Archaeology studies human artifacts, such as places, objects, and settlements, that reflect group or individual religious, cultural, or everyday activities. Historical resources include sites, structures, objects, or places that are at least 50 years old and are significant for their engineering, architecture, cultural use, or association, etc. In California, historic resources cover human activities over the past 12,000 years. Cultural resources provide information on scientific progress, environmental adaptations, group ideology, or other human advancements. This section of Draft EIR evaluates the potential for project implementation to impact cultural resources. The analysis in this section is based in part on the following information: Cultural Resource Survey Report, One Metro West, Costa Mesa, Orange County, California, LSA, May 2019. A complete copy of this study is included in the technical appendices of this Draft EIR (Volume II, Appendix D, Cultural Resources Survey Report). 5.3.1 Environmental Setting 5.3.1.1 REGULATORY BACKGROUND Federal and State National Historic Preservation Act Enacted in 1966 and amended in 2000, the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) coordinates public and private efforts to identify, evaluate, and protect the nation’s historic and archaeological resources. The act authorized the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), which lists districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that are significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture. The NHPA also established the position of State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), provided for the designation of State Review Boards, set up a mechanism to certify local governments to carry out the purposes of the NHPA, assisted Native American tribes to preserve their cultural heritage, and created the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP). Section 106 (Protection of Historic Properties) of the NHPA requires Federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. Section 106 Review ensures historic properties are considered during Federal project planning and implementation. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, an independent Federal agency, administers the review process with assistance from the state historic preservation offices. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties Evolving from the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Historic Preservation Projects with Guidelines for Applying the Standards that were developed in 1976, the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings were published in 1995 and codified as Title 36, Section 67 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Neither technical nor prescriptive, ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis CULTURAL RESOURCES Page 5.3-2 April 2021February 2020 these standards are “intended to promote responsible preservation practices that help protect our Nation’s irreplaceable cultural resources.” “Preservation” acknowledges a resource as a document of its history over time and emphasizes stabilization, maintenance, and repair of existing historic fabric. “Rehabilitation” not only incorporates the retention of features that convey historic character, but also accommodates alterations and additions to facilitate continuing or new uses. “Restoration” involves the retention and replacement of features from a specific period of significance. “Reconstruction,” the least used treatment, provides a basis for recreating a missing resource. These standards have been adopted, or are used informally, by many agencies at all levels of government to review projects that affect historic resources. California Public Resources Code Archaeological and historical sites are protected under a wide variety of State policies and regulations in the California Public Resources Code (Public Resources Code). In addition, cultural resources are recognized as nonrenewable resources and receive protection under the Public Resources Code and CEQA. CEQA requires a lead agency determine whether a project may have a significant effect on historical resources (Public Resources Code Section 21084.1). A historical resource is a resource listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), a resource included in a local register of historical resources, or any object building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript that a lead agency determines to be historically significant (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[a][1-3]). A resource is considered historically significant if it meets any of the following criteria: 1. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage; 2. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; 3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or 4. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. In addition, if it can be demonstrated that a project would cause damage to a unique archaeological resource, the lead agency may require reasonable efforts be made to permit any or all of these resources to be preserved in place or left in an undisturbed state. To the extent resources cannot be left undisturbed, mitigation measures are required (Public Resources Code Section 21083.2[a], [b], and [c]). Public Resources Code Section 21083.2(g) defines a unique archaeological resource as an archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability it meets any of the following criteria: 1. Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information; 2. Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type; or ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis CULTURAL RESOURCES April 2021February 2020 Page 5.3-3 3. Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person. Public Resources Code Sections 5097.9 to 5097.991 provide protection to Native American historical and cultural resources and sacred sites; identify the powers and duties of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC); require descendants to be notified when Native American human remains are discovered; and provide for treatment and disposition of human remains and associated grave goods. Health and Safety Code The discovery of human remains is regulated per California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, which states: In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation…until the coroner…has determined…that the remains are not subject to…provisions of law concerning investigation of the circumstances, manner and cause of any death, and the recommendations concerning the treatment and disposition of the human remains have been made to the person responsible…. The coroner shall make his or her determination within two working days from the time the person responsible for the excavation, or his or her authorized representative, notifies the coroner of the discovery or recognition of the human remains. If the coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his or her authority and…has reason to believe that they are those of a Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission. California Register of Historical Resources Created in 1992 and implemented in 1998, the CRHR is “an authoritative guide in California to be used by State and local agencies, private groups, and citizens to identify the State’s historical resources and to indicate what properties are to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change.” Certain properties, including those listed in or formally determined eligible for listing in the NRHP and California Historical Landmarks numbered 770 and higher, are automatically included in the CRHR. Other properties recognized under the California Points of Historical Interest program, identified as significant in historical resources surveys or designated by local landmarks programs, may be nominated for inclusion in the CRHR. A resource, either an individual property or a contributor to a historic district, may be listed in the CRHR if the State Historical Resources Commission determines it meets one or more of the criteria modeled on the NRHP criteria. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis CULTURAL RESOURCES Page 5.3-4 April 2021February 2020 Local General Plan The Historical and Cultural Resources Element of the General Plan includes the following goals, objectives, and policies to protect cultural resources within the City: Goal HCR-1: Historical, Archeological, and Paleontological Resource Preservation. The City of Costa Mesa supports focused efforts to provide residents with a sense of community and history through the protection and preservation of historical and cultural resources. Objective HCR-1A: Encourage preservation and protection of the City’s archaeological, paleontological, and historical resources. - Policy HCR-1.1: 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-1.2: Encourage the preservation of significant historical resources (as identified in Table HCR-1) 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. - Policy HCR-1.3: Promote context-sensitive design that respects and celebrates the history and historical character of sites and resources while meeting contemporary needs of the community. - Policy HCR-1.4: 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. - Policy HCR-1.5: 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. - Policy HCR-1.7: 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., prehistorical sites, historical sites, and isolated artifacts and features) in the project area, determine their eligibility for inclusion in the California Register of Historical 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. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis CULTURAL RESOURCES April 2021February 2020 Page 5.3-5 - Policy HCR-1.8: Comply with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act regarding protection and recovery of archaeological resources discovered during development activities. Municipal Code Municipal Code, Title 13, Chapter IX, Article 14, Historic Preservation, is intended to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare by providing for the identification, protection, enhancement, perpetuation and use of improvements, buildings, structures, sites, districts, neighborhoods, natural features and significant permanent landscaping having special historical, archaeological, cultural, architectural, or community value in the City. Pursuant to Article 14, no person, owner, or other entity shall restore, rehabilitate, alter, develop, construct, demolish, remove, or change the appearance of any cultural resource on the local Register of Historic Places without first having applied for and been granted a certificate of appropriateness to do so by the Planning Commission (or other commission/committee designated by the City Council). 5.3.1.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS Prehistory Of the many chronological sequences proposed for Southern California, two primary approaches are used in archaeological literature. The first, advanced by Wallace in 1955 and updated in 1978, is a typological approach that defines four cultural horizons, each with characteristic local variations: Early Horizon (9000–6500 BC), Milling Stone Horizon (6500–2000 BC), Intermediate Horizon (2000 BC–AD 200), and Late Prehistoric Horizon (AD 500–historic). The second is an ecological approach, with four periods in southern California prehistory defined by Warren (1984): Pinto (4000–3000 BC), Gypsum (1000 BC–AD 1), Saratoga Springs (AD 500–1000), and Protohistoric (AD 1500–historic). Warren viewed cultural patterns in terms of various significant environmental shifts, defining the ecological approach for archaeological research of the California deserts and coast. Many changes in settlement pattern and subsistence focus are viewed as cultural adaptations to a changing environment, beginning with the gradual environmental warming in the late Pleistocene and followed by the desiccation of the desert lakes during the early Holocene, a short return to pluvial conditions during the middle Holocene, and finally a general warming and drying trend, with periodic reversals, that continues to this day. Ethnohistory The Late Prehistoric Period ended in 1769, when Franciscan friars and Spanish soldiers began establishing mission outposts along the California coast. At that time, the project area was occupied by the Gabrielino Indians. The word “Gabrielino” refers to the Shoshonean (Takic) speaking Native Americans who lived throughout Los Angeles, western San Bernardino and Riverside, and Orange Counties, and who were historically affiliated with Mission San Gabriel Archangel. Some of these Shoshonean people also called themselves Tong-va. The Gabrielino were hunters and gatherers who used both inland and coastal food resources. They caught and collected seasonally occurring food resources and evolved a semi-sedentary lifestyle, living in permanent and ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis CULTURAL RESOURCES Page 5.3-6 April 2021February 2020 semi-permanent villages along inland watercourses and coastal estuaries. These villages took advantage of the varied resources available at such locales. Seasonally, as foods became available, the Gabrielino moved to temporary gathering camps and collected plant foods such as acorns, buckwheat, chia, berries, or fruits. They also periodically established camps along the coast or at estuaries to gather shellfish or to hunt waterfowl. The Gabrielino lived in small, semi-permanent villages that were the focus of family life. Patrilineally linked extended families lived within each village. These kin groups were affiliated in several village clans. Both the clans and the villages were apparently exogamous and patrilocal, as Mission records suggest that after her marriage, a woman resided at her husband’s village. Gabrielino villages were politically independent even when marriage ties existed. The village was administered by a headman who inherited his position from his father. Shamans guided religious and medical activities, and group hunting or fishing was supervised by individual male specialists. An active and elaborate Gabrielino ritual system was present when the Spanish padres arrived to establish Mission San Gabriel. Rituals included individual rites of passage, village rites, and participation in the widespread Chinigchinich cult. The cult of the culture hero, Chinigchinich, was observed and recorded by Franciscan Friar Geronimo Boscana while he resided at Missions San Juan Capistrano and San Luis Rey. Historical Setting The first Europeans to visit Costa Mesa (literally translated to “coastal tableland” or “coastal plateau”) were the padres from Mission San Juan Capistrano, which was founded in 1776. During the early 1800s, Capistrano cattle grazed in the Costa Mesa area, and in 1810, the area was part of the Spanish land grant of Santiago Del Santa Ana made to Jose Antonio Yorba. After Yorba passed away, settlers began buying portions of the rancho from his heirs and established the town of Fairview by 1880. In early 1889, a storm washed out the railroad and brought financial disaster to the community, which reverted to farming soon after. By the same time, the town of Harper had been founded and its first post office was established in 1909. On May 11, 1920, Harper officially changed its name to Costa Mesa and continued to function and grow as an agricultural community. Building and oil drilling industries were beginning to bring continued growth to the City when the Great Depression hit Southern California. As a result, industries collapsed, and the local bank closed. The Long Beach earthquake hit the town in 1933, damaging businesses and a school. World War II brought thousands of people to the area for training at the Santa Ana Army Air Base. After the war ended, men and women returned to the area with their families and began a population boom that continues to this day. On June 29, 1953, the City of Costa Mesa incorporated with an area of 3.5 square miles and a population of 16,840. By 1988, the City had grown to 17 square miles and the population had risen to 90,000; in 2005, the Census noted the City’s population at more than 113,000 people. History of the Project Area The earliest aerial photograph for the project area dates to 1953, at which time the project area and surrounding land were undeveloped. Interstate 405 (I-405) was developed between 1963 and 1972, and the existing building ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis CULTURAL RESOURCES April 2021February 2020 Page 5.3-7 on the project site was constructed between 1972 and 1995. According to the aerial photographs, no changes have occurred within the project area since the building was constructed. The earliest historic map of the project area dates to 1896 and shows the project area as being within the natural alignment of the Santa Ana River. The river was channelized prior to 1932, and development in the project area took place between 1974 and 1981. The project site is currently occupied by an approximate 345,000 square foot one-story industrial building, associated surface parking lot, drive aisles, hardscape improvements, and landscaping. Records Search A records search was conducted by LSA at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System, located at California State University, Fullerton. The records search included a review of all recorded historic and prehistoric archaeological sites within a 0.5-mile radius of the project area, as well as a review of known cultural resource survey and excavation reports (refer to Appendix B, Record Search Results, of Appendix D). The NRHP, CRHR, California Historical Landmarks, California Points of Historical Interest, and California Historic Resources Inventory were also examined. The record search identified two previously conducted cultural resources studies that included portions of the project area and an additional 15 studies that have been conducted within 0.5-mile radius of the project area. The studies within the project area consist of a data compilation report and a Historic Property Survey Report (HPSR). Studies within 0.5 mile of the project area include a cultural resource evaluation, five archaeological surveys, a Phase II excavation, an environmental impact evaluation, two record search reviews, two HPSRs, an environmental impact report, a Finding of No Adverse Effect, and archaeological monitoring. Previous cultural resource work in the project vicinity has resulted in the recording of one cultural resource within 0.5 mile of the project area. No previously recorded cultural resources exist within the project area. The one resource within 0.5 mile of the project area is identified as an historic industrial building district. Field Survey LSA conducted an intensive-level field survey of the project area on April 11, 2019. The survey focused on open, undeveloped portions of the project area. On May 30, 2019, a supplemental survey was conducted of additional project areas consisting of off-site improvements (Sunflower Avenue). At least 90 percent of the project area is either paved street, paved parking lot, or built environment containing an industrial warehouse. As such, the field surveys were restricted to open areas, which were mostly along the fenced periphery of the property and in ornamental vegetation areas along roads and walkways. The surveyed area consisted of grassy landscaping with less than five percent visibility. No archaeological resources were observed during the field survey. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis CULTURAL RESOURCES Page 5.3-8 April 2021February 2020 5.3.2 Thresholds of Significance According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would: C-1 Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5. C-2 Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5. C-3 Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries. 5.3.3 Plans, Programs, Policies, and Standard Conditions of Approval The following are existing regulatory requirements, such as plans, policies, or programs (PPP), or standard conditions of approval (SCA), applied to the project based on Federal, State, or local laws currently in place, and which effectively reduce impacts related to cultural resources. PPP CUL-1 The proposed project is required to comply with California Public Resources Code 5097.9- 5097.991 (which protects Native American historical and cultural resources, and sacred sites) and Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 (pertaining to the discovery or recognition of any human remains). 5.3.4 Environmental Impacts 5.3.4.1 METHODOLOGY Pursuant to CEQA requirements, LSA prepared a Cultural Resources Survey Report for the project site which included a record search, additional background research, and field surveys. Refer to Section 5.3.1.2, Existing Conditions, for a description of the Cultural Resources Survey Report’s methodology. 5.3.4.2 IMPACT ANALYSIS The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which significant impacts could occur. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets after the impact statement. Impact 5.3-1: Development of the proposed project would not impact an identified historical resource. [Threshold C-1] Impact Analysis: Historical Resources Under CEQA, a project has a significant impact on a historical resource if it “would result in the physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis CULTURAL RESOURCES April 2021February 2020 Page 5.3-9 significance of an historical resources would be materially impaired” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)(1)). Material impairment would occur if the project would result in demolition or material alteration of those physical characteristics that convey the resource’s historical significance (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)(2)) As described above, there are no known potential historical resources in the study area. The existing building on the project site was constructed in 1975. As the existing building in the project area is not 50 years old, it is not old enough to be considered an historical resource. Thus, the proposed project would have no direct or indirect impact to known historical resources. Level of Significance Before Mitigation: No Impact. Impact 5.3-2: Development of the project could impact archaeological resources. [Threshold C-2] Impact Analysis: Archaeological Resources No archaeological resources were identified in the records search or were observed during the field survey conducted by LSA in April 2019 and May 2019. There is very little likelihood of encountering archaeological resources during ground-disturbing project activities based on the project area’s location within the prehistoric natural alignment of the Santa Ana River. Additionally, because nearly 90 percent of the project area is either paved street, paved parking lot, or built environment containing an industrial warehouse, the likelihood of encountering archaeological resources is further reduced. However, as proposed excavation could be as deep as 50 feet below ground surface, native soils would be encountered during excavation. As such, there still remains the possibility that undiscovered, buried archaeological resources could potentially be encountered where grading occurs in native soils. The potential to encounter previously undiscovered archaeological resources during grading is a potentially significant impact. Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant Impact. Impact 5.3-3: Grading activities would not disturb human remains. [Threshold C-3] Impact Analysis: Human Remains Due to the project area’s urbanized environment, it is not anticipated that human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries, would be encountered during excavation or grading activities. In the unlikely event that human remains are encountered, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states no further disturbance shall occur until the County coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to State Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 (PPP CUL-1). The County coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the County coroner would notify the NAHC, which would determine and notify a Most Likely Descendent (MLD). With the permission ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis CULTURAL RESOURCES Page 5.3-10 April 2021February 2020 of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection and make recommendations or preferences for treatment within 48 hours of being granted access to the site. The MLD recommendations may include scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials, preservation of Native American human remains and associated items in place, relinquishment of Native American human remains and associated items to the descendants for treatment, or any other culturally appropriate treatment. Following compliance with existing State regulations (PPP CUL-1), which detail the appropriate actions necessary in the event human remains are encountered, impacts concerning disturbance of human remains would be less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. 5.3.5 Cumulative Impacts Impact 5.3-4 Development of the proposed project and related projects would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts to historical resources. [Threshold C-1] Impact Analysis: Historical Resources Table 4-2, Related Projects, identifies the related projects and other possible development in the area determined as having the potential to interact with the proposed project to the extent that a significant cumulative effect may occur. The potential destruction of historic resources associated with cumulative development could be cumulatively considerable. However, individual projects would be evaluated on a project-by-project basis to determine the extent of potential impacts to historic resources. Such investigations would identify resources on the affected project sites that are or appear to be eligible for listing on the National, California, or local registers. Such investigations would also recommend mitigation measures to reduce impacts to historic resources. Following adherence to Federal, State, and local statutes, as well as project-specific mitigation measures, related development would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts to historical resources. As concluded in Section 5.3.4, Environmental Impacts, the project site does not support historical resources. Thus, the proposed project would not result in cumulatively considerable significant impacts to historical resources. Level of Significance Before Mitigation: No Impact. Impact 5.3-5 Development of the proposed project and related projects could result in cumulatively considerable impacts to archaeological resources. [Threshold C-2] Impact Analysis: Archaeological Resources Like the proposed project, the related cumulative projects identified in Table 4-2 would be located within an urbanized environment on sites that have been previously disturbed as a result of existing development. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis CULTURAL RESOURCES April 2021February 2020 Page 5.3-11 Nonetheless, the possibility remains that undiscovered, buried archaeological resources could potentially be encountered where grading encounters native soils. As discussed in Impact 5.3-2, the proposed project has the potential to impact buried or previously undiscovered archaeological resources during construction. Thus, the proposed project, combined with other related cumulative projects, may cause a cumulatively considerable significant impact to previously undiscovered archaeological resources. Potential cumulatively considerable significant impacts would result in this regard. Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant Impact. Impact 5.3-6 Development of the proposed project and related projects would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts to human remains. [Threshold C-3] Impact Analysis: Human Remains Like the proposed project, the related cumulative projects identified in Table 4-2 would be located within an urbanized environment on sites that have been previously disturbed as a result of existing development. Nonetheless, the possibility remains that human remains could be uncovered as a result of ground disturbance activities. The potential destruction of human remains associated with ground disturbance activities at cumulative project sites could be cumulatively considerable, due to the collective loss of human remains and knowledge regarding the culture of the people who lived at the respective sites. However, individual projects would be evaluated on a project-by-project basis to determine the extent of potential impacts to human remains. Such investigations would recommend mitigation measures to reduce impacts to cultural resources and would be required to demonstrate compliance with Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code (PPP CUL-1). Following adherence to existing regulatory requirements, as well as project-specific mitigation measures, cumulative impacts to human remains would be reduced to less than significant levels. As concluded in Section 5.3.4, Environmental Impacts, the project site has a low potential to support human remains. Further, compliance with Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code (PPP CUL-1) would ensure cumulative impacts to burial sites are reduced to less than significant levels. Therefore, the project would not result in significant cumulatively considerable impacts to human remains; impacts in this regard would be less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. 5.3.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation Upon implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval, the following impacts would be no impact or less than significant: Impacts 5.3-1, 5.3-3, 5.3-4, and 5.3-6. Without mitigation, the following impacts would be potentially significant: Impact 5.3-2: Development of the project could impact archaeological resources. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis CULTURAL RESOURCES Page 5.3-12 April 2021February 2020 Impact 5.3-5: Development of the proposed project and related projects could result in cumulatively considerable impacts to archaeological resources. 5.3.7 Mitigation Measures Impact 5.3-2 CUL-1 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the City of Costa Mesa shall ensure a qualified archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for professional archaeology has been retained for the project and shall be on-call during all demolition and grading/excavation. The qualified archaeologist shall ensure the following measures are followed for the project: Prior to any ground disturbance, the qualified archaeologist, or their designee, shall provide worker environmental awareness protection training to construction personnel regarding regulatory requirements for the protection of cultural (prehistoric and historic) resources. As part of this training, construction personnel shall be briefed on proper procedures to follow should unanticipated cultural resources be discovered during construction. Workers shall be provided contact information and protocols to follow in the event that inadvertent discoveries are made. The training can be in the form of a video or PowerPoint presentation. Printed literature (handouts) can accompany the training and can also be given to new workers and contractors to avoid the necessity of continuous training over the course of the project. Prior to any ground disturbance, the applicant shall submit a written Project Monitoring Plan (PMP) to the City’s Development Services Director for review and approval. The monitoring plan shall include monitor contact information, specific procedures for field observation, diverting and grading to protect finds, and procedures to be followed in the event of significant finds. In the event unanticipated cultural material is encountered during any stage of project construction, all construction work within 50 feet (15 meters) of the find shall cease and the qualified archaeologist shall assess the find for importance. Construction activities may continue in other areas. If the discovery is determined to not be important by the qualified archaeologist, work shall be permitted to continue in the area. If warranted based on the qualified archaeologist’s evaluation of the find, the archaeologist shall collect the resource and prepare a test-level report describing the results of the investigation. The test-level report shall evaluate the site including discussing the significance (depth, nature, condition, and extent of the resource), identifying final mitigation measures the City’s Development Services Director shall verify are incorporated into future construction plans, and providing cost estimates. If the qualified archaeologist determines that the find is prehistoric or includes Native American materials, affiliated Native American groups shall be invited to contribute ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis CULTURAL RESOURCES April 2021February 2020 Page 5.3-13 to the assessment and recovery of the resource, as applicable. The qualified archaeologist and any applicable Native American contacts shall collect the resource and prepare a test-level report describing the results of the investigation. The test- level report shall evaluate the site including discussion of significance (depth, nature, condition, and extent of the resources), final mitigation recommendations, and cost estimates. Salvage operation requirements pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines shall be followed. Work within the area of discovery shall resume only after the resource has been appropriately inventoried, documented, and recovered, as applicable. Impact 5.3-5 Refer to Mitigation Measure CUL-1. 5.3.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation Impact 5.3-2 As noted in Impact 5.3-2, no archaeological resources were identified in the records search or observed during the field survey conducted by LSA in April 2019 and May 2019. Additionally, there is very little likelihood of encountering archaeological resources during the project’s ground-disturbing activities based on the project site’s developed condition and its location within the prehistoric natural alignment of the Santa Ana River. Nonetheless, implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would ensure the project applicant and construction contractors are aware of potential undocumented cultural resources in native soils on-site and have specified construction-related procedures in place to ensure these potentially uncovered resources are not damaged during grading and construction activities. The mitigation measure requires any archaeological resources encountered during project ground-disturbing activities be preserved and/or recovered, evaluated, and curated, if necessary, by a qualified archaeologist, thus reducing potential impacts associated with archaeological resources to a level that is less than significant. With implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1, impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels. Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Impact 5.3-5 Refer to the discussion above. With implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1, project impacts to archaeological resources would be less than significant and would not be cumulatively considerable. Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis CULTURAL RESOURCES Page 5.3-14 April 2021February 2020 This page intentionally left blank. ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I February 2020April 2021 Chapter 5.4 Energy ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I February 2020April 2021 This page intentionally left blank. ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis April 2021February 2020 Page 5.4-1 5.4 ENERGY This section of the Draft EIR addresses the proposed project’s impacts related to energy. Information found herein, as well as other aspects of the proposed project’s energy implications, are discussed in greater detail in Sections 3.0, Project Description, 5.2, Air Quality, 5.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, 5.13, Transportation, and 5.15, Utilities and Services Systems. The analysis in this section is based in part on: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis (Air Quality/GHG Report), prepared by LSA and dated January 2020; and One Metro West Phased Project Construction Analysis (Construction Phasing Memo), prepared by LSA and dated February 2, 2021. A cComplete copiesy of this study is these studies are provided in this Draft EIR (Volume II, Appendix C, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis, and Appendix P, Construction Phasing Memo). 5.4.1 Environmental Setting 5.4.1.1 REGULATORY BACKGROUND Federal Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 seeks to provide the nation with greater energy independence and security by increasing the production of clean renewable fuels; improving vehicle fuel economy; and increasing the efficiency of products, buildings, and vehicles. It also seeks to improve the energy performance of the Federal government. The act sets increased Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards; the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS); appliance energy efficiency standards; building energy efficiency standards; and accelerated research and development tasks on renewable energy sources (e.g., solar energy, geothermal energy, and marine and hydrokinetic renewable energy technologies), carbon capture, and sequestration (EPA 2019). State Renewables Portfolio Standard The California Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) was established in 2002 under Senate Bill (SB) 1078 and amended most recently in 2018. The RPS program requires investor-owned utilities, electric service providers, and community choice aggregators to increase the use of eligible renewable energy resources to 33 percent of total procurement by 2020. The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) is required to provide quarterly status reports on progress toward RPS goals. The RPS has accelerated the development of renewable energy projects throughout the State. Based on the 3rd quarter 2014 report, the three largest retail energy utilities provided an average of 20.9 percent of its supplies from renewable energy sources. Since 2003, 8,248 megawatts (MW) of renewable energy projects have started operations. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis ENERGY Page 5.4-2 April 2021February 2020 SB 350 was signed into law in September 2015 and establishes tiered increases to the RPS: 40 percent by 2024, 45 percent by 2027, and 50 percent by 2030. SB 350 also set a new goal to double the energy-efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas through energy efficiency and conservation measures. SB 100, passed in 2018, puts California on the path to 100 percent fossil-fuel free electricity by 2045 (CEC 2017a). State Alternative Fuels Plan The State Alternative Fuels Plan (SAFP) was signed into law under Assembly Bill (AB) 1007 and requires the California Energy Commission (CEC) to prepare a plan to increase the use of alternative fuels in California. The SAFP was prepared by the CEC with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and in consultation with other Federal, State, and local agencies to reduce petroleum consumption; increase use of alternative fuels (e.g., ethanol, natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas, electricity, and hydrogen); reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions; and increase in-state production of biofuels. The SAFP recommends a strategy that combines private capital investment, financial incentives, and advanced technology that will increase the use of alternative fuels; result in significant improvements in the energy efficiency of vehicles; and reduce trips and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) through changes in travel habits and land management policies. The Alternative Fuels and Vehicle Technologies Funding Program legislation (AB 118, Statutes of 2007) proactively implements this plan (CEC 2007). Appliance Efficiency Regulations California’s Appliance Efficiency Regulations (California Code of Regulations [CCR] Title 20, Parts 1600–1608) contain energy performance, energy design, water performance, and water design standards for appliances (e.g., refrigerators, ice makers, vending machines, freezers, water heaters, fans, boilers, washing machines, dryers, air conditioners, pool equipment, and plumbing fittings) that are sold or offered for sale in California. These standards are updated regularly to allow consideration of new energy efficiency technologies and methods (CEC 2017b). Building Energy Efficiency Standards Energy conservation standards for new residential and non-residential buildings were adopted by the California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission, now the CEC, in June 1977. The Building Energy Efficiency (BEE) Standards, more commonly known as Title 24, requires the design of building shells and building components in a manner that conserves energy. The standards are updated periodically to allow for consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. On June 10, 2015, the CEC adopted the 2016 BEE Standards, which went into effect on January 1, 2017. The 2019 BEE Standards were recently adopted on May 9, 2018 and take effect January 1, 2020. The 2016 BEE Standards improve upon the previous 2013 BEE Standards for new construction, additions, and alterations to residential and non-residential buildings. Under the 2016 BEE Standards, residential and non- residential buildings are generally 28 and 5 percent more energy efficient than those constructed under the 2013 BEE Standards, respectively. Buildings that were constructed in accordance with the 2013 BEE Standards are 25 percent (residential) to 30 percent (non-residential) more energy efficient than that constructed under the previous 2008 BEE Standards as a result of better windows, insulation, lighting, ventilation systems, and other ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis ENERGY April 2021February 2020 Page 5.4-3 features. Although the 2016 BEE Standards do not achieve zero net energy, the reductions nearly achieve the State’s goal and take important steps toward changing residential building practices in California. The 2019 BEE Standards move toward reducing energy use in new homes by more than 50 percent and will require installation of solar photovoltaic systems for single-family homes and multi-family buildings of three stories and less. The 2019 BEE Standards focus on four key areas: 1) smart residential photovoltaic systems; 2) updated thermal envelope standards (preventing heat transfer from the interior to exterior and vice versa); 3) residential and non-residential ventilation requirements; 4) and non-residential lighting requirements (CEC 2018a). Under the 2019 BEE Standards, multi-family buildings will be 30 percent more energy efficient compared to those constructed under the 2016 BEE Standards, and single-family homes will be seven percent more energy efficient due to energy conservation associated with more stringent photovoltaic system, thermal envelope, ventilation, and lighting requirements (CEC 2018b). Green Building Standards Code On July 17, 2008, the California Building Standards Commission adopted the nation’s first green building standards. The California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen; CCR Title 24 CCR, Part 11) was adopted as part of the California Building Standards Code. It includes mandatory requirements for new residential and non-residential buildings throughout California. CALGreen is intended to reduce GHG emissions from buildings; promote environmentally responsible, cost-effective, healthier places to live and work; reduce energy and water consumption; and respond to the directives by the Governor. The mandatory provisions of CALGreen became effective January 1, 2011, and were last updated in 2016. The 2016 CALGreen became effective on January 1, 2017. On October 3, 2018, the CEC adopted the voluntary standards of the 2019 CALGreen, which takes effect on January 1, 2020. Overall, CALGreen was established to reduce construction waste, make buildings more efficient in the use of materials and energy, and reduce environmental impacts during and after construction. CALGreen contains requirements for construction site selection; stormwater control during construction; construction waste reduction; indoor water use reduction; material selection; natural resource conservation; site irrigation conservation; and more. CALGreen provides for flexible design options, allowing the designer to determine how best to achieve compliance for a given site or building condition. CALGreen also requires building commissioning, which is a process for verifying that all building systems (e.g., heating and cooling equipment and lighting systems) are functioning at their maximum efficiency (CBSC 2019). Assembly Bill 1493 California vehicle GHG emission standards were enacted under AB 1493 (Pavley I). Pavley I is a clean car standard intended to reduce GHG emissions from new passenger vehicles (light-duty auto to medium-duty vehicles). California implements the Pavley I standards through a waiver granted to California by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In 2012, the EPA issued a Final Rulemaking that sets even more stringent fuel economy and GHG emissions standards for model year 2017 through 2025 light-duty vehicles. In January 2012, CARB approved the Pavley Advanced Clean Cars program (formerly known as Pavley II) for model years 2017 through 2025. The program combines the control of smog, soot, and global warming gases and requirements for greater numbers of zero-emission vehicles into a single package of standards. Under ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis ENERGY Page 5.4-4 April 2021February 2020 the Pavley Advanced Clean Car program, new automobiles are anticipated to emit 34 percent fewer global warming gases and 75 percent fewer smog-forming emissions by 2025 (CARB 2017). Local General Plan The Conservation Element of the General Plan includes the following goals, objectives, and policies to encourage energy conservation within the City: Objective CON-2.A: Work to conserve energy resources in existing and new buildings, utilities, and infrastructure. Policy CON-2.A.1: 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.A.2: 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.A.3: 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.A.4: 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 CON-2.A.5: Promote environmentally sustainable development principles for buildings, master planned communities, neighborhoods, and infrastructure. Policy CON-2.A.6: Encourage construction and building development practices that reduce resource expenditures throughout the lifecycle of a structure Policy CON-4.A.7: Encourage installation of renewable energy devices for businesses and facilities and strive to reduce communitywide energy consumption. 5.4.1.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS Electricity The project site is in the service area of Southern California Edison (SCE), which has a service area that spans much of southern California from Orange and Riverside counties to the south to Santa Barbara County on the west and Mono County to the north. Total mid-electricity consumption in SCE’s service area was 106,080 gigawatt-hour (GWh) in 2015 and is forecast to increase to 118,803 GWh in 2027 (CEC 2015a). ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis ENERGY April 2021February 2020 Page 5.4-5 Operation of the existing industrial building on-site consumes electricity for various purposes, including, but not limited to, heating, cooling, and ventilation of buildings; water heating; operation of electrical systems; security and control center functions; lighting; and use of on-site equipment and appliances. Based on historical electricity consumption data, the existing industrial building consumed an average of 3,489,138 kilowatt-hours (kWh) annually. Existing electricity consumption on-site is shown in Table 5.4-1, Existing Electricity Consumption. Table 5.4-1 Existing Electricity Consumption Land Use Electricity (kWh/year) Existing Building 3,333,210 Existing Parking Lot 155,928 Total 3,489,138 Source: Refer to Appendix C. Notes: kWh/year = kilowatt-hours per year Natural Gas The Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) provides natural gas services to Costa Mesa, including the project site. SoCalGas’ service area spans much of southern California from Imperial County on the southeast, to San Luis Obispo County on the northwest, to part of Fresno County on the north, and to Riverside County and most of San Bernardino County on the east (CEC 2015b). Total natural gas supplies available to SoCalGas was approximately 3,055 million cubic feet per day (MMcf/day) in 2018 and approximately 3,385 MMcf/day in 2019 (CGEU 2018). In 2018, total natural gas consumption in SoCalGas’ service area was approximately 719,423 MMcf, which is equivalent to 1,971 MMcf/day (CEC 2019). The existing industrial building on-site generates an average natural gas demand of 7,633,560 kilo British thermal units (kBTU) per year; refer to Table 5.4-2, Existing Natural Gas Consumption. Table 5.4-2 Existing Natural Gas Consumption Land Use Natural Gas (kBTU/year) Existing Building 7,633,560 Existing Parking Lot 0 Total 7,633,560 Source: Refer to Appendix C. Notes: kBTU/year = kilo British thermal units per year 5.4.2 Thresholds of Significance According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would: E-1 Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation. E-2 Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis ENERGY Page 5.4-6 April 2021February 2020 5.4.3 Plans, Programs, Policies, and Standard Conditions of Approval The following are existing regulatory requirements, such as plans, policies, programs (PPP), or standard conditions of approvals (SCA), applied to the project based on Federal, State, or local laws currently in place, and which effectively reduce impacts related to energy. PPP EN-1 New buildings are required to achieve the current California Building Energy and Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Part 6) and the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen; Title 24, Part 11). The 2016 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards became effective starting January 1, 2017, and the 2019 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards will become effective January 1, 2020. The Building Energy and Efficiency Standards and CALGreen are updated tri-annually with a goal to achieve zero net energy for residential buildings by 2020 and non-residential buildings by 2030. PPP EN-2 To reduce water demands and energy use associated with landscape water use, the proposed project is required to implement a landscaping palette emphasizing drought-tolerant plants and water-efficient irrigation techniques consistent with provisions of the City’s Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO; Ordinance No. 16-03) requirements. PPP EN-3 To reduce water demands and associated energy use associated with indoor water use, the proposed project is required to provide plumbing fixtures that meet the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Certified WaterSense, 2019 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) standards or equivalent, faucets, toilets, and other plumbing fixtures. The water conservation strategy is required to demonstrate a minimum 20 percent reduction in indoor water usage compared to baseline water demand (total expected water demand without implementation of the water conservation strategy). PPP EN-4 The construction contractor is required to recycle/reuse at least 50 percent of the construction material including, but not limited to, soil, mulch, vegetation, concrete, lumber, metal, and cardboard, and to use “green building materials” such as those materials that are rapidly renewable or resource-efficient, and recycled and manufactured in an environmentally friendly way, for at least 10 percent of the project, as specified in the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) Sustainable (Green) Building Program. PPP EN-5 Per the 2019 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) standards, construction of the proposed project is required to include installation of electric vehicle (EV) charging stations and designated EV parking at non-residential and residential buildings. Preferential parking for low-emitting, fuel-efficient, and carpool/car share/van vehicles is required in all parking areas. PPP EN-6 Construction contractors are required to minimize non-essential idling of construction equipment during construction in accordance with California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section 2449, Title 13, Article 4.8, Chapter 9. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis ENERGY April 2021February 2020 Page 5.4-7 5.4.4 Environmental Impacts 5.4.4.1 METHODOLOGY Per CEQA Guidelines Appendix F, Energy Conservation, in order to ensure energy implications are considered in project decisions, CEQA 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 energy consumption (Public Resources Code Section 21100(b)(3)). Environmental effects may include: The proposed project’s energy requirements and its energy use efficiencies by amount and fuel type during demolition, construction, and operation; The effects of the proposed project on local and regional energy supplies; The effects of the proposed project on peak and base period demands for electricity and other forms of energy; The degree to which the proposed project complies with existing energy standards; The effects of the proposed project on energy resources; and The proposed project’s projected transportation energy use requirements and its overall use of efficient transportation alternatives, if applicable. 5.4.4.2 IMPACT ANALYSIS The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance that may be potentially significant impacts. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets after the impact statement. Impact 5.4-1: The project would not result in a significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation. [Threshold E-1] Impact Analysis: Construction Construction of the proposed project would create temporary increased demands for electricity and vehicle fuels compared to existing conditions and would result in short-term transportation-related energy use. Electricity Construction of the proposed project would require electricity to power construction equipment. The electricity use during construction would vary during different stages of construction. For example, the majority of construction equipment utilized during demolition and grading would be gasoline- or diesel-powered, and the later construction stages for interior construction and architectural coating would utilize electricity-powered equipment. Overall, electricity use would be temporary in nature and would fluctuate according to construction stages. Additionally, it is anticipated that the majority of electric-powered construction equipment would be hand tools (e.g., power drills, table saws, and compressors) and lighting, which would result in minimal electricity ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis ENERGY Page 5.4-8 April 2021February 2020 consumption. Therefore, project-related construction activities would not result in wasteful or unnecessary electricity demands and impacts would be less than significant in this regard. Natural Gas Construction equipment associated with the proposed project would not be powered by natural gas; therefore, no natural gas demand is anticipated during construction. No impact would occur in this regard. Transportation Transportation energy use depends on the type and number of trips, VMT, fuel efficiency of vehicles, and travel mode. During construction, transportation energy use would come from the transport and use of construction equipment, delivery vehicles and haul trucks, and construction employee vehicles that utilize diesel fuel and/or gasoline. The use of energy resources by these vehicles fluctuate according to the construction stage and would be temporary in nature. As stated above, the majority of off-road construction equipment, such as those used during demolition and grading, are anticipated to be gasoline- or diesel-powered. Construction contractors are required to minimize non-essential idling of construction equipment during construction in accordance with CCR Section 2449, Title 13, Article 4.8, Chapter 9 (see PPP EN-6). Such required practices would limit wasteful and unnecessary energy consumption. Therefore, it is expected that construction fuel associated with the proposed project would not be any more inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary than similar development projects and impacts would be less than significant with respect to transportation energy. Operations Project operations would create additional demands for electricity and natural gas compared to existing conditions through increased transportation energy use; heating, cooling, and ventilation of buildings; water heating; operation of electrical systems, use of on-site equipment and appliances; and indoor, outdoor, perimeter, and parking lot lighting. Electricity As previously stated, the existing industrial building on-site consumes an annual average of 3,489,138 kWh. The proposed project would demolish the existing building and parking lot, and redevelop the site with residences, retail, office, associated parking, and an open space area. Existing and proposed electricity consumption for the project site are shown in Table 5.4-3, Project Electricity Consumption. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis ENERGY April 2021February 2020 Page 5.4-9 Table 5.4-3 Project Electricity Consumption Land Use Electricity (kWh/year) Existing Conditions Existing Building 3,333,210 Existing Parking Lot 155,928 Subtotal – Existing Conditions 3,489,138 Proposed Project Open Space 0 Residential 3,357,260 Creative Office 262,313 Specialty Retail 51,480 Enclosed Parking with Elevator 2,102,570 Unenclosed Parking with Elevator 453,378 Subtotal – Proposed Project 6,227,001 Net Increase +2,737,863 Source: Refer to Appendix C. Notes: kWh/year = kilowatt-hours per year Electrical service to the proposed project would be provided by SCE through connections to existing off-site electrical lines and new on-site infrastructure. As shown in Table 5.4-3, electricity usage on-site would increase by approximately 2,737,863 kWh/year, or approximately 78 percent, compared to existing conditions. This is primarily due to electricity usage associated with the proposed residential uses and enclosed parking structures. The project would be required to comply with PPP EN-1 through PPP EN-5. These existing regulations would require the proposed project to meet 2019 California Building Energy and Efficiency (Title 24) Standards and 2019 CALGreen Standards; implement a landscaping palette that emphasizes drought-tolerant plants and water- efficient irrigation techniques; reducing water demand by installed certified plumbing fixtures; and recycle/reuse at least 50 percent of construction materials. The project would also encourage sustainable design features to conserve energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including, but not limited to: Limiting landscape irrigation when possible and incorporating drought-tolerant plant species and non- potable water sources; Installing green roofs, using alternative paving materials, and providing tree canopy shading; Installing solar ready rooftops; Utilizing recycled and reclaimed materials for surface parking areas, sidewalks, unit paving, and curbs; Incorporating permeable paving, low-glare and low-heat intensive surfaces; and Promoting stormwater retention through capture and harvest for re-use in landscaped areas. Upon implementation of PPP EN-1 through PPP EN-5, the project would not result in wasteful or unnecessary electricity demands. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a significant impact related to electricity. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis ENERGY Page 5.4-10 April 2021February 2020 Natural Gas Existing and proposed natural gas consumption on-site is detailed in Table 5.4-4, Project Natural Gas Consumption. Table 5.4-4 Project Natural Gas Consumption Land Use Natural Gas (kBTU/year) Existing Conditions Existing Building 7,633,560 Existing Parking Lot 0 Subtotal – Existing Conditions 7,633,560 Proposed Project Open Space 0 Residential 12,078,800 Creative Office 228,500 Specialty Retail 12,000 Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0 Unenclosed Parking with Elevator 0 Subtotal – Proposed Project 12,319,300 Net Increase +4,685,740 Sources: Refer to Appendix C. Notes: kBTU/year = kilo British thermal units per year As shown, natural gas demand would increase with project development due to higher natural gas consumption from the proposed residential, specialty retail, and creative office uses. Natural gas usage on-site would increase by approximately 4,685,740 kBTU/year, or approximately 62 percent beyond existing conditions. However, because the proposed project would be required to comply with the BEE Standards and CALGreen pursuant to PPP EN-1, it would not result in wasteful or unnecessary natural gas demands. Furthermore, the proposed project would be more energy efficient than the existing industrial building due to more stringent California BEE Standards and CALGreen requirements, and the Specific Plan includes several development standards related to energy efficiency and conservation, as detailed above. Therefore, project operations would result in less than significant impacts with respect to natural gas usage. Transportation The proposed project would consume transportation energy during operations from motor vehicle use. Because the efficiency of motor vehicle use (e.g., average miles per gallon) are unknown and varied, estimates of transportation energy use is assessed based on overall VMT and related transportation energy use. Total annual VMT for the existing industrial building is approximately 1,896,668 miles; refer to Appendix C. The proposed project would increase total annual VMT by approximately 13,757,664 miles, to a total of 15,654,332 miles. The proposed project is an infill development that would provide residential development within a highly urbanized area with nearby employment opportunities, dining, amenities, and public transit options. The project site’s close proximity to employment opportunities and amenities has the potential to reduce project-generated VMT and associated transportation energy use. In addition, the proposed project would include bicycle racks, storage, and lockers in addition to bicycle repair facilities and would potentially host community-wide bicycle-share programs. These project features would contribute in minimizing VMT and transportation-related fuel usage. Thus, it is expected that operation-related fuel usage associated with the ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis ENERGY April 2021February 2020 Page 5.4-11 proposed project would not be any more inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary than similar development projects. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant in this regard. Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. Impact 5.4-2: The project would not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. [Threshold E-2] Impact Analysis: The proposed project would be constructed in accordance with BEE Standards and CALGreen requirements. The BEE Standards and CALGreen are updated tri-annually with a goal to achieve zero net energy for residential buildings by 2020 and non-residential buildings by 2030. The non-residential standard applies to multi-family buildings over three stories in height. The proposed project would also provide solar ready hook- ups to meet the 2030 zero net energy goal. The City does not have an applicable local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with any State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency, and impacts are less than significant in this regard. Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. 5.4.5 Cumulative Impacts Impact 5.4-3: The project would not result in a cumulatively significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation. [Threshold E-1] Impact Analysis: Related projects considered for cumulative impacts to electricity and natural gas supplies are those within SCE and SoCalGas’ service areas, respectively. Cumulative projects would increase electricity and natural gas demands. However, all projects within the SCE and SoCalGas service areas would be required to comply with the BEE Standards and CALGreen requirements, which would help minimize wasteful energy consumption. Other related projects in the project vicinity would also increase transportation energy demands. There is a Statewide effort to reduce transportation energy through stringent fuel economy standards and reduced VMT by placing new residences near employment centers and transit priority areas. Additionally, as stated, CARB approved the Pavley Advanced Clean Cars program (formerly known as Pavley II) for model years 2017 through 2025. The program combines the control of smog, soot, and global warming gases and requirements for greater numbers of zero-emission vehicles into a single package of standards. Under the Pavley Advanced Clean Cars program, by 2025, new automobiles will emit 34 percent fewer global warming gases and 75 percent fewer smog-forming emissions. Therefore, cumulative impacts would be less than significant. As discussed, the project would increase electricity and natural gas demands on-site compared to existing conditions. However, the project would be required to comply with PPP EN-1 through EN-6 related to ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis ENERGY Page 5.4-12 April 2021February 2020 compliance with the BEE Standards and CALGreen. The Specific Plan also includes a number of development standards related to energy conservation and energy efficiency as listed above. As the project would result in less than significant impacts in this regard, the project’s cumulative impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. Impact 5.4-4: The proposed project, in combination with related projects, would not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. [Threshold E-2] Impact Analysis: The project and cumulative projects within the project area would utilize electricity provided by SCE. It is anticipated that SCE’s energy portfolio will be comprised of approximately 33 percent renewable energy by 2020 and 50 percent renewable energy by 2030. Furthermore, the project and other cumulative projects in the vicinity would be subject to the most current version of the BEE Standards and CALGreen pursuant to PPP EN-1. As the project would result in less than significant impacts in regard to conflicting with State or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency, the project’s cumulative impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. Impacts would be less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. 5.4.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation Upon implementation of regulatory requirements, the following impacts would be less than significant: Impacts 5.4-1 through 5.4-4. 5.4.7 Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required. 5.4.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation Impacts would be less than significant. ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I February 2020April 2021 Chapter 5.5 Geology and Soils ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I February 2020April 2021 This page intentionally left blank. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis April 2021February 2020 Page 5.5-1 5.5 GEOLOGY AND SOILS This section of the Draft EIR evaluates the potential for the project to impact geological and soil resources, paleontological resources, or unique geologic features. The analysis in this section is based in part on the following technical reports: Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Multi-Family Residential Development 1683 Sunflower Avenue, Costa Mesa, California (Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation), Geocon West Inc., July 24, 2019. Paleontological Resources Assessment, One Metro West Project, Costa Mesa, Orange County, California (Paleontological Resources Assessment), LSA, June 2019. A complete copy of these studies are included in the technical appendices to this Draft EIR (Volume II, Appendix E, Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, and Appendix F, Paleontological Resources Assessment, respectively). 5.5.1 Environmental Setting 5.5.1.1 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK Refer to Section 5.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, for a discussion of Federal, State, and regional laws, regulations, plans or guidelines in place to reduce impacts related to soil erosion and loss of topsoil. Federal Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act The Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act was enacted in 1997 to “reduce the risks to life and property from future earthquakes in the United States through the establishment and maintenance of an effective earthquake hazards and reduction program.” It established the National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program (NEHRP), which refined the description of agency responsibilities, program goals, and objectives. NEHRP’s mission includes improved understanding, characterization, and prediction of hazards and vulnerabilities; improvement of building codes and land use practices; risk reduction through post-earthquake investigations and education; development and improvement of design and construction techniques; improvement of mitigation capacity; and accelerated application of research results. NEHRP designates the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as the lead agency of the program and assigns it several planning, coordinating, and reporting responsibilities. Programs under NEHRP help inform and guide planning and building code requirements such as emergency evacuation responsibilities and seismic code standards. Uniform Building Code The Uniform Building Code (UBC) is published by the International Conference of Building Officials and forms the basis for California Building Code (CBC), as well as approximately half of the state building codes in the United States. It has been adopted by the California Legislature to address the specific building conditions and structural requirements for California, as well as provide guidance on foundation design and structural engineering for different soil types. The UBC defines and ranks the regions of the United States according to ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis GEOLOGY AND SOILS Page 5.5-2 April 2021February 2020 their seismic hazard potential. There are four types of regions defined by Seismic Zones 1 through 4, with Zone 1 having the least seismic potential and Zone 4 having the highest. U.S. Geological Survey Landslide Hazard Program The primary objective of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Landslide Hazard Program is to reduce long-term losses from landslide hazards by improving our understanding of the causes of ground failure and suggesting mitigation strategies. The Landslide Hazard Program provides information on landslide hazards, including information on current landslides, landslide reporting, real-time monitoring of landslide areas, mapping of landslides through the National Landslide Hazards Map, local landslide information, landslide education, and research. The Landslide Hazard Program works closely with States, other bureaus within the Department of the Interior, and other Federal and State agencies to reduce landslide losses. State Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act was signed into State law in 1972. Its primary purpose is to mitigate the hazard of fault rupture by prohibiting the location of structures for human occupancy across the trace of an active fault. The act delineates “Earthquake Fault Zones” along faults that are “sufficiently active” and “well defined.” The act also requires 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 displacement from future faulting. Pursuant to this act, structures for human occupancy are not allowed within 50 feet of the trace of an active fault. Seismic Hazard Mapping Act The Seismic Hazard Mapping Act (SHMA) was adopted by the State in 1990 to protect the public from the effects of non-surface fault rupture earthquake hazards, including strong ground shaking, liquefaction, seismically induced landslides, or other ground failure caused by earthquakes. The goal of the AHMA is to minimize loss of life and property by identifying and mitigating seismic hazards. The California Geological Survey (CGS) prepares and provides local governments with seismic hazard zone maps that identify areas susceptible to amplified shaking, liquefaction, earthquake-induced landslides, and other ground failures. SHMA requires responsible agencies to only approve projects within seismic hazard zones following a site-specific investigation to determine if the hazard is present, and if so, the inclusion of appropriate mitigation(s). In addition, the SHMA requires real estate sellers and agents at the time of sale to disclose whether a property is within a designated Seismic Hazard Zone. California Building Code Current law states every local agency enforcing building regulations, such as cities and counties, must adopt the provisions of the California Building Code (CBC) within 180 days of its publication. The publication date of the CBC is established by the California Building Standards Commission, and the CBC is also known as Title 24, Part 2 of the California Code of Regulations. The most recent building standard adopted by the legislature and used throughout the State is the 2019 version of the CBC (effective January 1, 2020). The CBC provides ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis GEOLOGY AND SOILS April 2021February 2020 Page 5.5-3 minimum standards to protect property and public safety by regulating the design and construction of excavations, foundations, building frames, retaining walls, and other building elements to mitigate the effects of seismic shaking and adverse soil conditions. The CBC contains provisions for earthquake safety based on factors including occupancy type, the types of soil and rock onsite, and the strength of ground shaking with specified probability of occurring at a site. Natural Hazards Disclosure Act The Natural Hazards Disclosure Act requires 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, including a Seismic Hazard Zone. California law also requires when houses built before 1960 are sold, the seller must give the buyer a completed earthquake hazards disclosure report and a booklet titled “The Homeowners Guide to Earthquake Safety.” This publication was written and adopted by the California Seismic Safety Commission. Soils Investigation Requirements Requirements for soils investigations for subdivisions requiring tentative and final maps, and for other specified types of structures, are in California Health and Safety Code Sections 17953–17955 and in Section 1802 of the California Building Code. Testing of samples from subsurface investigations is required, such as from borings or test pits. Studies must be done as needed to evaluate slope stability, soil strength, position and adequacy of load-bearing soils, the effect of moisture variation on load-bearing capacity, compressibility, liquefaction, differential settlement, and expansiveness. California Public Resources Code Paleontological sites are protected under a wide variety of State policies and regulations in the California Public Resources Code. In addition, paleontological resources are recognized as nonrenewable resources and receive protection under the Public Resources Code and CEQA. Public Resources Code Division 5, Chapter 1.7, Section 5097.5, and Division 20, Chapter 3, Section 30244 states: No person shall knowingly and willfully excavate upon, or remove, destroy, injure or deface any historic or prehistoric ruins, burial grounds, archaeological or vertebrate paleontological site, including fossilized footprints, inscriptions made by human agency, or any other archaeological, paleontological or historical feature, situated on public lands, except with the express permission of the public agency having jurisdiction over such lands. Violation of this section is a misdemeanor. This statute prohibits the removal, without permission, of any paleontological site or feature from lands under the jurisdiction of the State or any city, county, district, authority, or public corporation, or any agency thereof. As a result, local agencies are required to comply with Public Resources Code Section 5097.5 for their own activities, including construction and maintenance, as well as for permit actions (e.g., encroachment permits) undertaken by others. Public Resources Code Section 5097.5 also establishes the removal of paleontological ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis GEOLOGY AND SOILS Page 5.5-4 April 2021February 2020 resources as a misdemeanor and requires reasonable mitigation of adverse impacts to paleontological resources from developments on public (State, county, city, and district) lands. Local General Plan The Safety Element of the General Plan includes the following goals, objectives, and policies pertaining to geology and soils: 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-1A: Work to mitigate and prevent potential adverse consequences of natural and human- caused disasters. - Policy S-1.1: Continue to incorporate geotechnical hazard data into future land use decision- making, site design, and construction standards. - Policy S-1.5: Enforce applicable building codes relating to the seismic design of structures to reduce the potential for loss of life and property damage. - Policy S-1.7: 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-1.8: Consider site soils conditions when reviewing projects in areas subject to liquefaction or slope instability. Municipal Code Section 5-1, Construction Codes Adopted, of the Municipal Code adopts the CBC, 2016 Edition, based on the 2015 International Building Code (IBC) as published by the International Code Council for the purpose of prescribing regulations for construction, demolition, occupancy, equipment use, height, and area of buildings and structures. Costa Mesa Disaster Plan The Costa Mesa Disaster Plan serves as the community’s Emergency Operations Plan (EOP), which provides guidance during emergency situations and natural disasters. The plan addresses potential large-scale disasters that require a coordinated and immediate response. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis GEOLOGY AND SOILS April 2021February 2020 Page 5.5-5 The EOP identifies key personnel and agencies in the Costa Mesa Emergency Management Organization that are organized to protect life and property in the community. The EOP also identifies sources of outside support that may be provided by State and Federal agencies, the private sector, and through mutual aid by other jurisdictions. In addition, the EOP specifies emergency operations to be implemented during an emergency, assigns responsibilities, and provides an explanation of how the plan is to be administered. These activities involve a number of City departments and facilities, including the Police Department, Fire Department, public health officials, and care and shelter operations. 5.5.1.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS Regional Geologic Setting The project site is located in the central portion of the Orange County Coastal Plain, a relatively flat-lying alluviated surface with an average slope of less than 20 feet per mile. The lowland surface is bounded by hills and mountains on the north and east and by the Pacific Ocean to the south and southwest. Prominent structural features within the Orange County Coastal Plain include the central lowland plain, the northwest trending line of low hills and mesas near the coast underlain by the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone, and the San Joaquin Hills to the southeast. According to the General Plan Safety Element, 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. Regional Faulting The project site is not within a State-designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone for surface fault rupture hazards (CGS 2018). No active or potentially active faults with the potential for surface fault rupture are known to pass directly beneath the site nor in the immediate vicinity. However, the site is located in the seismically active Southern California region, and could be subjected to moderate to strong ground shaking in the event of an earthquake on one of the many active Southern California faults. The closest surface trace of an active fault to the site is the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone located approximately 3.7 miles to the southwest. Other nearby active faults are the Whittier Fault, the Elsinore Fault Zone, and the Palos Verdes Fault (Offshore Segment) located approximately 16 miles northeast, 20.5 miles northeast, and 14.5 miles southwest of the site, respectively. The active San Andreas Fault Zone is located approximately 48 miles northeast of the site (CGS 2018). The faults in the vicinity of the site are shown on Figure 3, Regional Fault Map, of the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation (refer to Appendix E). Several buried thrust faults, commonly referred to as blind thrusts, underlie the Los Angeles Basin (including the Orange County Coastal Plain) at depth. The San Joaquin Thrust underlies the site at depth. This thrust fault and others in the greater Los Angeles/Orange County area are not exposed at the surface and do not present a potential surface fault rupture hazard at the site; however, these deep thrust faults are considered active ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis GEOLOGY AND SOILS Page 5.5-6 April 2021February 2020 features capable of generating future earthquakes that could result in moderate to significant ground shaking at the site. Regional Seismicity As with all of Southern California, the site has experienced historic earthquakes from various regional faults. Table 5.5-1, List of Historic Earthquakes in Southern California, shows moderate to major magnitude earthquakes that have occurred in the Southern California area within the last 100 years and includes the distance and direction of the proposed site to the epicenter of each earthquake listed. Table 5.5-1 List of Historic Earthquakes in Southern California Earthquake (Oldest to Youngest) Date of Earthquake Magnitude Distance to Epicenter (Miles) Direction to Epicenter Near Redlands July 23, 1923 6.3 44 E/NE Long Beach March 10, 1933 6.4 6 S/SW Tehachapi July 21, 1952 7.5 109 NW San Fernando February 9, 1971 6.6 56 NW Whittier Narrows October 1, 1987 5.9 27 N/NW Sierra Madre June 28, 1991 5.8 39 N Landers June 28, 1992 7.3 92 E/NE Big Bear June 28, 1992 6.4 72 E/NE Northridge January 17, 1994 6.7 50 NW Hector Mine October 16, 1999 7.1 114 E/NE Source: Geocon West 2019; refer to Appendix E. Local Geologic Setting Based on the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, the project site is underlain by artificial fill and unconsolidated Holocene age alluvial fan deposits consisting of sand, silt, and clay. Artificial fill was encountered in field explorations to a maximum depth of 5.5 feet below ground surface (bgs). The artificial fill generally consists of light brown to brown to gray brown silty sand and sandy silt and sandy clay. The artificial fill is characterized as slightly moist to moist and soft to firm or medium dense. The fill is likely the result of past grading or construction activities at the site. The artificial fill is underlain by Holocene age alluvial fan deposits that generally consist of brown to olive and gray brown sandy clay, sandy silt, clay, and both poorly graded and well-graded sands. In general, the upper 20 to 25 feet of alluvial deposits consist of relatively soft to firm clay and silt which is underlain by approximately 10 to 15 feet of medium dense to dense sand. Groundwater According to the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, the historically highest groundwater level in the area is approximately 10 feet bgs. Groundwater was encountered on site at depths ranging from approximately 10 to 20 feet bgs. Seepage was also noted at seven feet during project borings. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis GEOLOGY AND SOILS April 2021February 2020 Page 5.5-7 Geologic Hazards Liquefaction Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which loose, saturated, relatively cohesionless soil deposits lose shear strength during strong ground motions. Primary factors controlling liquefaction include intensity and duration of ground motion, gradation characteristics of the subsurface soils, in-situ stress conditions, and the depth to groundwater. The State of California Seismic Hazard Zone Map for the Anaheim and Newport Beach Quadrangle indicates the site is in an area identified as having a potential for liquefaction. Also, according to the General Plan Safety Element, the site is located within an area identified as having a potential for liquefaction. Liquefaction analysis performed for the site as part of the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation indicates the alluvial soils below the historic high groundwater could be prone to liquefaction-induced settlement during earthquake ground motion. Slope Stability and Landslides The topography at the site is relatively level, and the site is not located within an area identified as having a potential for slope instability. Additionally, the site is not located within an area identified as having a potential for earthquake-induced landslides. No known landslides have occurred near the site, nor is the site in the path of any known or potential landslides. Lateral Spreading Lateral spreading is a phenomenon in which surface sediment moves downslope due to liquefaction in a subsurface layer. The potential for liquefaction is anticipated at the project site and, therefore, the potential for lateral spreading is also possible. Subsidence Subsidence occurs when a large portion of land is displaced vertically, usually due to the withdrawal of groundwater, oil, or natural gas. Soils that are particularly subject to subsidence include those with high silt or clay content. According to the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, the site is not located within an area of known ground subsidence. Further, no large-scale extraction of groundwater, gas, oil, or geothermal energy is occurring or planned at the site or in the general site vicinity. There appears to be little or no potential for ground subsidence due to withdrawal of fluids or gases at the site. Ground Settlement and/or Collapse The potential hazard posed by settlement due to seismic ground shaking and liquefaction is considered to be moderate, based on the compressibility of the underlying alluvial soils and the presence of shallow groundwater. Strong ground shaking can cause settlement of alluvial soils underlying the site by allowing sediment particles to become more tightly packed. Alluvial deposits are especially susceptible to this phenomenon. Artificial fills, if not adequately compacted, may also experience seismically induced settlement. Because unconsolidated soils and undocumented fill material are present on site, seismically induced settlement and/or collapse are potential impacts; refer to Appendix E. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis GEOLOGY AND SOILS Page 5.5-8 April 2021February 2020 Furthermore, the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation determined the existing alluvium could yield excessive static and differential settlements upon application of foundation loads. There is also a zone of alluvial soils that contains a relatively high percentage of organic deposits that may be subject to settlement. Expansive Soils Expansive soils occur when the moisture content in the soil causes swelling or shrinking as a result of cyclic wet/dry weather cycles, installation of irrigation systems, change in landscape plantings, or changes in grading. Swelling and shrinking soils can result in differential movement of structures, including floor slabs and foundations, and site work including hardscape, utilities, and sidewalks. According to the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, the upper portion of existing site soils have a medium expansive potential and could be subject to heave and settlement if the soil is subjected to repeated wetting and drying. Paleontological Resources Geologic mapping indicates the project area contains Holocene to late Pleistocene (less than 126,000 years ago) young alluvial fan deposits and areas with artificial fill. According to the Paleontological Resources Assessment, the young alluvial fan deposits have low paleontological sensitivity from the surface to a depth of 10 feet, and artificial fill does not have the potential to contain scientifically significant paleontological resources. However, there is a high paleontological sensitivity at the project site in soils below a depth of 10 feet. 5.5.2 Thresholds of Significance According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would: G-1 Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? G-2 Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? G-3 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? ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis GEOLOGY AND SOILS April 2021February 2020 Page 5.5-9 G-4 Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? G-5 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.? G-6 Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? No impacts relating to Threshold G-5 were identified, as substantiated in Chapter 8, Impacts Found Not to Be Significant. This threshold is not addressed in the following analysis. 5.5.3 Plans, Programs, Policies, and Standard Conditions of Approval The following are existing regulatory requirements, such as plans, policies, programs (PPP), or standard conditions of approval (SCA), applied to the project based on Federal, State, or local laws currently in place, and which effectively reduce impacts related to geology and soils. PPP GEO-1 As required by Municipal Code Section 5-1, the project is required to comply with the 2016 (or most recent) Edition of the California Building Code (CBC) to preclude significant adverse effects associated with seismic hazards. PPP GEO-2 As required by Municipal Code Section 5-1, the project is required to comply with the recommendations outlined in the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Multi-Family Residential Development 1683 Sunflower Avenue, Costa Mesa, California, prepared by Geocon West Inc. on July 24, 2019 (refer to Appendix E). Refer to Section 5.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, for a discussion of PPP HYD-1 through PPP HYD-4. 5.5.4 Environmental Impacts The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which there may be potentially significant impacts. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets after the impact statement. Impact 5.5-1: Development of the proposed project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects involving seismic-related hazards. [Thresholds G-1(i), (ii), (iii), and (iv)] Impact Analysis: Rupture of a Known Fault Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones are regulatory zones established by the CGS around active faults with the potential to cause surface rupture. The zones vary in width, but the average is approximately one-quarter mile wide. The CGS has not published any Alquist-Priolo map containing the project site. The site is not within ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis GEOLOGY AND SOILS Page 5.5-10 April 2021February 2020 a State-designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone for surface fault rupture hazards (CGS 2018). No impacts would result in this regard. Ground Shaking Although the proposed project would introduce new buildings and associated workers, occupants, and visitors, the project itself would not exacerbate ground shaking on-site or in the area. The Southern California region regularly experiences seismic activity, and there are several nearby active faults that could cause moderate to strong ground shaking. Nearby active or known faults include Newport-Inglewood Fault, Whittier Fault, Elsinore Fault, Palos Verdes Fault, and San Andreas Fault. However, future development would be designed and constructed to comply with seismic design requirements detailed under Section 8.16 of the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation (Appendix E), and the CBC. These design requirements would minimize potential for building collapse and general building damage during seismic ground shaking. Adherence to the seismic design parameters included in the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation and CBC (see PPP GEO-1 and GEO-2) would be confirmed at plan check and building design review with the City of Costa Mesa. Therefore, compliance with the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation’s recommendations and the CBC would ensure project implementation would not result in direct or indirect substantial adverse effects involving strong seismic ground shaking. Impacts related to seismic ground shaking would be less than significant in this regard. Seismic-related Ground Failure Including Liquefaction The State of California Seismic Hazard Zone Map for the Anaheim and Newport Beach Quadrangle and General Plan Safety Element identify the site as having a potential for liquefaction. In addition, liquefaction analysis performed for the site as part of the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation indicates the alluvial soils below the historic high groundwater could be prone to liquefaction-induced settlement during earthquake ground motion. Future development associated with the project would be required to comply with the seismic design requirements detailed under the CBC (see PPP GEO-1). Furthermore, the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation includes specific design recommendations that would reduce potential liquefaction settlement impacts during an earthquake event (see PPP GEO-2). Adherence to the seismic design parameters included in the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation and required by the CBC (see PPP GEO-1 and GEO-2, respectively) would be confirmed at plan check and building design review with the City of Costa Mesa. As a result, impacts concerning seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction would be less than significant. Landslides The topography at the site is relatively level, and the site is not located within an area identified as having a potential for earthquake-induced landslides. No known landslides were observed at or near the site, nor is the site in the path of any known or potential landslides. No impact would occur in this regard. Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis GEOLOGY AND SOILS April 2021February 2020 Page 5.5-11 Impact 5.5-2: Development of the proposed project would not result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil. [Threshold G-2] Impact Analysis: Project Construction Refer to Section 5.8, Impact 5.8-3 for a full discussion of the project’s impacts and regulatory requirements pertaining to soil erosion during construction. The following discussion paraphrases these impacts for the purposes of geology and soil. Site grading and project construction activities would disturb and expose soil and could, thus, accelerate erosion if effective soil erosion measures are not used. Construction projects of one acre or more, including the proposed project, are regulated under the Statewide Construction General Permit. Projects obtain coverage under the Construction General Permit by developing and implementing a SWPPP estimating sediment risk from construction activities to receiving waters and specifying BMPs that would be used by the project to minimize pollution of stormwater (see PPP HYD-1). Categories of BMPs used in SWPPPs are described below in Table 5.5-2, Construction BMPs. The project would also be subject to the Orange County Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) Permit and 2013 Drainage Area Master Plan (DAMP) requirements (see PPP HYD-2 and PPP-HYD-3, respectively). Implementation of BMPs (see PPP HYD-1) would reduce construction impacts on stormwater quality and soil erosion to less than significant levels. Table 5.5-2 Construction BMPs Category Purpose Examples Erosion Controls and Wind Erosion Controls Consists of using project scheduling and planning to reduce soil or vegetation disturbance (particularly during the rainy season), preventing or reducing erosion potential by diverting or controlling drainage, as well as preparing and stabilizing disturbed soil areas. Scheduling, preservation of existing vegetation, hydraulic mulch, hydroseeding, soil binders, straw mulch, geotextile and mats, wood mulching, earth dikes and drainage swales, velocity dissipation devices, slope drains, streambank stabilization, compost blankets, soil preparation/roughening, and non-vegetative stabilization Sediment Controls Filter out soil particles that have been detached and transported in water. Silt fence, sediment basin, sediment riprap, check dam, fiber rolls, gravel bag berm, street sweeping and vacuuming, sandbag barrier, straw bale barrier, storm drain inlet protection, manufactured linear sediment controls, compost socks and berms, and biofilter bags Wind Erosion Controls Consists of applying water or other dust palliatives to prevent or minimize dust nuisance. Dust control soil binders, chemical dust suppressants, covering stockpiles, permanent vegetation, mulching, watering, temporary gravel construction, synthetic covers, and minimization of disturbed area Tracking Controls Minimize the tracking of soil off-site by vehicles. Stabilized construction roadways and construction entrances/exits, and entrance/outlet tire wash. Non-storm Water Management Controls Prohibit discharge of materials other than stormwater, such as discharges from the cleaning, maintenance, and fueling of vehicles and equipment. Conduct various construction operations, including paving, grinding, and concrete curing and finishing, in ways that minimize non-stormwater discharges and contamination of any such discharges. Water conservation practices, temporary stream crossings, clear water diversions, illicit connection/discharge, potable and irrigation water management, and the proper management of the following operations: paving and grinding, dewatering, vehicle and equipment cleaning, fueling and maintenance, pile driving, concrete curing, concrete finishing, demolition adjacent to water, material over water, and temporary batch plants. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis GEOLOGY AND SOILS Table 5.5-2 Construction BMPs, continued Page 5.5-2 April 2021February 2020 Category Purpose Examples Waste Management and Controls (i.e., good housekeeping practices) Management of materials and wastes to avoid contamination of stormwater. Stockpile management, spill prevention and control, solid waste management, hazardous waste management, contaminated soil management, concrete waste management, sanitary/septic waste management, liquid waste management, and management of material delivery storage and use. Source: CASQA 2012. Project Operation In compliance with the NPDES, small MS4 post-construction control measures to minimize the potential for erosion and siltation are required. A final Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) must be submitted and approved by the City prior to the start of construction (see PPP HYD-2). The WQMP includes site design measures, source control measures, and treatment measures that minimize the potential for erosion and siltation. The operational phase of the proposed project would include landscaping and the project-related water quality design features discussed under Impact 5.8-1. In addition, the WQMP must include an operations and maintenance (O&M) plan and maintenance agreement for review and approval by the City to ensure treatment measures installed at the site are maintained for perpetuity. The project would be subject to Municipal Code Section 13-107 to ensure irrigation systems are designed so that overspray, runoff, and low-head drainage onto streets, sidewalks, windows, walls, and fences are minimized. PPP HYD-3 would also ensure automatic systems for watering cycles are scheduled to maximize ground infiltration rates and further minimize runoff. Implementation of the BMPs outlined in the SWPPP and WQMP and Municipal Code requirements (see PPP HYD-1 through PPP HYD-3) would ensure impacts related to erosion and siltation are less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. Impact 5.5-3: Development of the proposed project would not 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. [Threshold G-3] Impact Analysis: Slope Stability and Landslides As concluded above, the site is not located within an earthquake-induced landslide area, and no evidence of nearby landslides was identified. Furthermore, the topography at the site is relatively level, and the site is not located within an area identified as having a potential for slope instability. Thus, landslide and slope instability are not anticipated, and no impact would result in this regard. Subsidence The site is not located within an area of known ground subsidence, and there are no large-scale extractions of groundwater, gas, oil, or geothermal energy occurring or planned at the site or in the general site vicinity. Thus, ground subsidence is not anticipated, and no impact would result in this regard. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis GEOLOGY AND SOILS April 2021February 2020 Page 5.5-1 Lateral Spreading and Liquefaction The potential for liquefaction is anticipated at the project site and, therefore, the potential for lateral spreading is also possible. As analyzed under Impact 5.5-1, the grading and foundation recommendations presented in the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation would minimize the effects of liquefaction settlement (see PPP GEO-2). The project would also be designed and constructed to comply with the CBC (see PPP GEO-1). These design requirements would minimize the impacts from land spreading and liquefaction to less than significant. Adherence to the seismic design parameters of the CBC would be confirmed at plan check and building design review with the City of Costa Mesa. Impacts concerning lateral spreading and liquefaction would be less than significant. Settlement and/or Collapse Because unconsolidated soils are present on-site, seismically induced settlement and/or collapse could occur. Furthermore, the existing alluvium could yield excessive static and differential settlements upon application of foundation loads. There is also a zone of alluvial soils that contains a relatively high percentage of organic deposits that may be subject to settlement. Recommendations of the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation related to seismically induced settlement are discussed under Impact 5.5-1. These recommendations are also applicable to settlement due to foundation loads and organic deposits. The grading and foundation recommendations presented in the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation (see PPP GEO-2) would minimize the impacts of settlement and/or collapse to less than significant levels. Furthermore, the seismically induced settlement would be reduced by adhering to the seismic design parameters of the CBC (see PPP GEO-1). Impacts concerning settlement and/or collapse would be less than significant . Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. Impact 5.5-4: The proposed project would not create substantial risks to life and property due to expansive soils. [Threshold G-4] Impact Analysis: Expansive Soils Based on the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, the near surface soils underlaying the project site are considered to have a “very low” to “medium” expansive potential and are classified as “expansive.” Recommendations related to expansive soils are included in the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, which include: Utilizing flexible connections on all utilities traversing through existing site soils to minimize the damage to underground installations caused by potential soil movements. Maintaining the moisture content of untreated subgrade soils at two to three percent above optimum moisture content prior to and at the time of concrete placement. If the subgrade is allowed to dry out, presaturation, and/or moisture conditioning and recompacting will be required. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis GEOLOGY AND SOILS Page 5.5-2 April 2021February 2020 Maintaining the moisture content of the slab subgrade and sprinkling as necessary to maintain a moist condition as would be expected in any concrete placement. Furthermore, consideration should be given to doweling slabs into adjacent curbs and foundations to minimize movements and offsets which could lead to a potential tripping hazard. As an alternative, the upper 18 inches of soil could be replaced with granular, non-expansive soils which will reduce the potential for movements and offsets. With the implementation of the recommendations in the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation (see PPP GEO-2), impacts due to expansive soils would be less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. Impact 5.5-5: Development of the proposed project could impact unknown paleontological resources. [Threshold G-6] Impact Analysis: Paleontological Resources As indicated in Section 5.5.1.2, the young alluvial fan deposits have a high paleontological sensitivity below a depth of 10 feet. Maximum excavation for the proposed project could have the potential of reaching 50 feet bgs, with remedial excavation across the project area extending up to an additional three to 12 feet. As such, excavation during development of the project is expected to extend into deposits with high paleontological sensitivity and has the potential to encounter undocumented scientifically significant paleontological resources. Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant Impact. 5.5.5 Cumulative Impacts Impact 5.5-6 Development of the proposed project and related projects would not result in cumulatively considerable geology and soils impacts. [Thresholds G-1 through G-4] Impact Analysis: For the purposes of geology and soils, cumulative impacts are considered for cumulative projects outlined in Table 4-2, Related Projects. The cumulative projects’ regional geologic setting and regional seismicity would be similar; however, the local geologic setting, surficial geology, and subsurface soil conditions would vary according to site. Geology and soils impacts related to the proposed project would be specific to the project site and its users and would not be common or contribute to the impacts (or shared with, in an additive sense) on other sites. Compliance with applicable State and local building regulations would be required of all development in the City. Individual projects would be designed and built in accordance with applicable standards in the CBC and the existing building regulations (see PPP GEO-1 and PPP GEO-2), including pertinent seismic design criteria. Site-specific geologic hazards would be addressed by the engineering geologic report and/or geotechnical report required for each building. These geologic investigations would identify the specific geologic and seismic ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis GEOLOGY AND SOILS April 2021February 2020 Page 5.5-3 characteristics on a site and provide guidelines for engineering design and construction to maintain the structural integrity of proposed structures and infrastructure. As concluded in Impacts 5.5-1 through 5.5-4 above, compliance with the CBC, Municipal Code, and Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation’s recommendations for design and construction would ensure potential impacts to the proposed project concerning exposure to strong seismic ground shaking, secondary seismic hazards (i.e., liquefaction and seismically induced settlement), and unstable/expansive soils would be less than significant. Therefore, the project’s incremental effects involving exposure of people and structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving strong seismic ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure, unstable geologic units or soils, or expansive soils would not be cumulatively considerable. Construction activities associated with cumulative development could also result in soil erosion or loss of topsoil. The degree of impact would depend upon each respective cumulative site’s topography and on-site soils’ susceptibility to erosion. The potential for erosion would be evaluated on a project-by-project basis through site-specific soil investigations. Construction activities associated with cumulative development would be subject to compliance with the established regulatory requirements (i.e., NPDES and Municipal Code requirements), which would ensure less than significant impacts involving soil erosion or the loss of topsoil (see PPP HYD-1 through PPP HYD-3). As discussed above, implementation of the BMPs outlined in the SWPPP and WQMP, in addition to the project’s proposed landscaping and water quality design features, would address the project’s anticipated and expected erosion and siltation impacts during the construction and operational phases of the proposed project. Therefore, the project’s incremental effects involving erosion and loss of topsoil would not be cumulatively considerable. Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. Impact 5.5-7 Development of the proposed project and related cumulative projects could result in cumulatively considerable impacts to paleontological resources. [Threshold G-6] Impact Analysis: Cumulative impacts to paleontological resources would occur when the impacts of the proposed project, in conjunction with other projects and development in the City, result in cumulatively considerable impacts to paleontological resources. Like the proposed project, the related cumulative projects identified in Table 4-2 could encounter undiscovered paleontological resources where grading occurs in native soils. As concluded in Impact 5.5-5, previously undiscovered or unknown paleontological resources could potentially be affected during the project’s ground-disturbing activities (i.e., grading and excavation). Thus, the proposed project, combined with other related cumulative projects, may cause a cumulatively considerable significant impact to previously undiscovered paleontological resources. Potential cumulatively considerable impacts would result in this regard. Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant Impact. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis GEOLOGY AND SOILS Page 5.5-4 April 2021February 2020 5.5.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation Upon implementation of existing regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval, the following impacts would be less than significant: Impacts 5.5-1 through 5.5-4 and 5.5-6. Without mitigation, the following impacts would be potentially significant: Impact 5.5-5: Development of the proposed project could impact unknown paleontological resources. Impact 5.5-7: Development of the proposed project and related cumulative projects could result in cumulatively considerable impacts to paleontological resources. 5.5.7 Mitigation Measures Impact 5.5-5 GEO-1 The project applicant shall retain a qualified paleontologist to develop a Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP) for this project. The PRIMP shall be consistent with the guidelines of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology and include the methods that shall be used to protect paleontological resources that may exist within the project area, as well as procedures for monitoring, fossil preparation and identification, curation into a repository, and preparation of a report at the conclusion of grading. A copy of the PRIMP shall be submitted to the Development Services Department prior to the issuance of a grading permit. GEO-2 Excavation and grading activities in deposits with high paleontological sensitivity shall be monitored by a qualified paleontological monitor following a PRIMP. No paleontological monitoring is required for activities in artificial fill or the young alluvial fan deposits from the surface to a depth of ten feet below ground surface (bgs). If paleontological resources are encountered during the course of ground disturbance activities, the paleontological monitor shall have the authority to temporarily redirect construction away from the area of the find in order to assess its significance. In the event paleontological resources are encountered when a paleontological monitor is not present, work in the immediate area of the find shall be redirected, and a paleontologist shall be contacted to assess the find for significance. If determined to be significant, the fossil shall be collected from the field. GEO-3 If paleontological resources are determined to be significant by the qualified paleontologist, the collected paleontological resources shall be prepared to the point of identification, identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible, cataloged, and curated into the permanent collections of a museum repository. At the conclusion of the monitoring program, a report of findings shall be prepared by the qualified paleontologist to document the results of the monitoring program, and a copy of the report shall be provided to the Development Services Department. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis GEOLOGY AND SOILS April 2021February 2020 Page 5.5-5 Impact 5.5-7 Refer to Mitigation Measures GEO-1 through GEO-3. 5.5.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation Impact 5.5-5 Because fossils may be present at depths greater than ten feet bgs, and the proposed project could involve excavations as deep as 50 feet bgs, with remedial excavation across the project area extending to depths of three to 12 feet more, paleontological monitoring in these areas would be necessary to reduce impacts involving undocumented paleontological resources during excavation. Mitigation Measures GEO-1 through GEO-3 would require a paleontological monitor to ensure any paleontological finds are properly excavated and preserved and grading is halted to assess the find for significance. With implementation of these mitigation measures, potential impacts associated with paleontological resources would be reduced to less than significant. Therefore, impacts in this regard would be reduced to less than significant levels, and no significant unavoidable adverse impacts relating to paleontological resources would result. Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Impact 5.5-7 Refer to the discussion above. With implementation of Mitigation Measures GEO-1 through GEO-3, project impacts to paleontological resources would be reduced to less than significant levels and would not be cumulatively considerable. Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis GEOLOGY AND SOILS Page 5.5-6 April 2021February 2020 This page intentionally left blank. ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I February 2020April 2021 Chapter 5.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I February 2020April 2021 This page intentionally left blank. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis April 2021February 2020 Page 5.6-1 5.6 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS This section of the Draft EIR provides a project-specific climate change impact analysis by examining the impacts of the proposed project on the region and nearby sensitive uses. This analysis is based in part on the following sources: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis (Air Quality/GHG Report), prepared by LSA and dated January 2020; and One Metro West Phased Project Construction Analysis (Construction Phasing Memo), prepared by LSA and dated February 2, 2021. A cComplete copiesy of these studies are this study is provided in this Draft EIR (Volume II, Appendix C, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis, and Appendix P, Construction Phasing Memo). 5.6.1 Environmental Setting 5.6.1.1 GREENHOUSE GASES AND CLIMATE CHANGE Global Climate Change Global climate change is the observed increase in the average temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere and oceans along with other significant changes in climate (e.g., precipitation or wind) that last for an extended period of time. The term “global climate change” is often used interchangeably with the term “global warming,” but “global climate change” is preferred to “global warming”, because it helps convey that there are other changes in addition to rising temperatures. Climate change refers to any change in measures of weather (e.g., temperature, precipitation, or wind) lasting for an extended period (decades or longer). Climate change may result from natural factors (e.g., changes in the sun’s intensity), natural processes within the climate system (e.g., changes in ocean circulation), or human activities (e.g., the burning of fossil fuels, land clearing, or agriculture). The primary observed effect of global climate change has been a rise in the average global tropospheric1 temperature of 0.36 degrees Fahrenheit (F) per decade, determined from meteorological measurements worldwide between 1990 and 2005. Climate change modeling shows that further warming may occur, which may induce additional changes in the global climate system during the current century. Changes to the global climate system, ecosystems, and the environment of the State could include higher sea levels, drier or wetter weather, changes in ocean salinity, changes in wind patterns, or more energetic aspects of extreme weather, including droughts, heavy precipitation, heat waves, extreme cold, and increased intensity of tropical cyclones. Specific effects in the State might include a decline in the Sierra Nevada snowpack, erosion of the State’s coastline, and seawater intrusion in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. 1 The troposphere is the zone of the atmosphere characterized by water vapor, weather, winds, and decreasing temperature with increasing altitude. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Page 5.6-2 April 2021February 2020 Global surface temperatures have risen by 1.33F plus or minus ( ±) 0.32F over the last 100 years. The rate of warming over the last 50 years is almost double that over the last 100 years. The latest projections, based on state-of-the-art climate models, indicate that temperatures in the State are expected to rise 3 to 10.5F by the end of the century. The prevailing scientific opinion on climate change is that “most of the warming observed over the last 60 years is attributable to human activities.” Increased amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) are the primary causes of the human-induced component of warming. The observed warming effect associated with the presence of GHGs in the atmosphere (from either natural or human sources) is often referred to as the greenhouse effect.2 GHGs are present in the atmosphere naturally, are released by natural sources, or are formed from secondary reactions taking place in the atmosphere. The GHGs that are widely seen as the principal contributors to human-induced global climate change are:3 CO2; Methane (CH4); Nitrous oxide (N2O); Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs); Perfluorocarbons (PFCs); and Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). Over the last 200 years, human activities have caused substantial quantities of GHGs to be released into the atmosphere. These extra emissions are increasing GHG concentrations in the atmosphere and enhancing the natural greenhouse effect. While GHGs produced by human activities include naturally occurring GHGs (e.g., CO2, CH4, and N2O), some gases (e.g., HFCs, PFCs, and SF6) are completely new to the atmosphere. Certain other gases (e.g., water vapor) are short-lived in the atmosphere compared to these GHGs that remain in the atmosphere for significant periods of time, contributing to climate change in the long term. Water vapor is generally excluded from the list of GHGs, because it is short-lived in the atmosphere and its atmospheric concentrations are largely determined by natural processes (e.g., oceanic evaporation). For the purposes of this air quality study, the term “GHGs” collectively refer to the six gases identified in the bulleted list provided above. These GHGs vary considerably in terms of global warming potential (GWP), which is a concept developed to compare the ability of each GHG to trap heat in the atmosphere. GWP is based on several factors, including the relative effectiveness of a gas in absorbing infrared radiation and the length of time that the gas remains in the atmosphere (“atmospheric lifetime”). The GWP of each gas is measured relative to CO2, the most abundant GHG. The definition of GWP for a particular GHG is the ratio of heat trapped by one unit mass of the GHG to the ratio of heat trapped by one unit mass of CO2 over a specified time period. For example, N2O is approximately 265 to 298 times more potent at contributing to global warming than CO2. GHG emissions are 2 The temperature on Earth is regulated by a system commonly known as the “greenhouse effect.” Just as the glass in a greenhouse allows heat from sunlight in and reduces the amount of heat that escapes, GHGs such as CO2, CH4, and N2O in the atmosphere keep the Earth at a relatively even temperature. Without the greenhouse effect, the Earth would be a frozen globe; thus, the naturally occurring greenhouse effect is necessary to keep our planet at a comfortable temperature. 3 The GHGs listed are consistent with the definition in Assembly Bill 32 (Government Code 38505), as discussed later in this section. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS April 2021February 2020 Page 5.6-3 typically measured in terms of metric tons4 of CO2 equivalents (MTCO2e). Table 5.6-1, Global Warming Potential for Select Greenhouse Gases, identifies the GWP for the applicable GHGs. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and California Air Resources Board (CARB) use GWP values from the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). Table 5.6-1 Global Warming Potential for Select Greenhouse Gases Greenhouse Gas Atmospheric Lifetime (Years) Global Warming Potential (100-year Time Horizon)1 Carbon Dioxide (CO2) ~1002 1 (by definition) Methane (CH4) 12 25 – 34 Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 121 265 – 298 Sources: LSA 2020. Notes: 1 The 100-year global warming potential estimates are based on the GWPs from the AR4. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has published the 2013 IPCC Fifth Assessment Report with updated GWP values; however, the EPA and CARB use GWP values from AR4. 2 CO2 has a variable atmospheric lifetime and cannot be readily approximated as a single number. The following discussion summarizes the characteristics of the six primary GHGs: CO2. In the atmosphere, carbon generally exists in its oxidized form as CO2. Natural sources of CO2 include the respiration (breathing) of humans, animals, and plants; volcanic outgassing; decomposition of organic matter; and evaporation from the oceans. Human caused (anthropogenic) sources of CO2 include the combustion of fossil fuels and wood, waste incineration, mineral production, and deforestation. Carbon sequestration processes (e.g., photosynthesis by land- and ocean-dwelling plant species) cannot keep pace with this extra input of anthropogenic CO2; consequently, CO2 is building up in the atmosphere. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen approximately 30 percent since the late 1800s. The transportation sector is the largest source of GHG emissions, representing 41 percent of California’s GHG emission inventory in 2016. The largest emissions category within the transportation sector is on-road, which consists of passenger vehicles (e.g., cars, motorcycles, and light-duty trucks) and heavy-duty trucks and buses. Emissions from on-road sources constitute more than 92 percent of the transportation sector total. Industry and electricity generation were California’s second- and third-largest categories of GHG emissions, respectively. CH4. CH4 is produced when organic matter decomposes in environments lacking sufficient oxygen to produce CO2. Natural sources of CH4 include fires, geologic processes, and bacteria that produce CH4 in a variety of settings (most notably, wetlands). Anthropogenic sources include rice cultivation, livestock, landfills and waste treatment, biomass burning, and fossil fuel combustion (e.g., the burning of coal, oil, and natural gas). As with CO2, the major removal process of atmospheric CH4 (a chemical breakdown in the atmosphere) cannot keep pace with source emissions, and CH4 concentrations in the atmosphere are increasing. N2O. N2O is produced naturally by a wide variety of biological sources, particularly microbial action in soils and water. Tropical soils and oceans account for the majority of natural source emissions. N2O is also a product of the reaction that occurs between nitrogen and oxygen during fuel combustion. Both mobile 4 A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 tons. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Page 5.6-4 April 2021February 2020 and stationary combustion sources emit N2O. The quantity of N2O emitted varies according to the type of fuel, technology, and pollution control device used, as well as maintenance and operating practices. Agricultural soil management and fossil fuel combustion are the primary sources of human-generated N2O emissions in California. HFCs. HFCs are primarily used as substitutes for ozone-depleting substances regulated under the Montreal Protocol.5 PFCs and SF6 are emitted from various industrial processes, including aluminum smelting, semiconductor manufacturing, electric power transmission and distribution, and magnesium casting. There is no aluminum or magnesium production in California; however, the rapid growth in the semiconductor industry, which is active in the State, has led to greater use of PFCs. As there are no known project-related emissions of these three GHGs, these substances are not discussed further in this analysis. Emissions Sources and Inventories An emissions inventory that identifies and quantifies the primary human-generated sources and sinks of GHGs is a well-recognized and useful tool for addressing climate change. This section summarizes the latest information on Federal, State, and local GHG emission inventories. However, because GHGs persist for a long time in the atmosphere, accumulate over time, and are generally well mixed, their impact on the atmosphere and climate cannot be tied to a specific point of emission. United States GHG Emissions In 2017, the United States emitted approximately 6.5 billion metric tons CO2 equivalent (MTCO2e). Total United States emissions have decreased by 0.5 percent from 2016 to 2017. This decrease was largely driven by a decrease in emissions from fossil fuel combustion, which was a result of multiple factors, including continued shift from coal to natural gas, and increased use of renewables in the electric power sector, and milder weather that contributed to less overall electricity use. In 2017, nationwide GHG emissions in 2017 were 13 percent below 2005 levels. State of California GHG Emissions According to CARB emission inventory estimates, the State emitted 429.4 million metric tons of CO2e (MMTCO2e) emissions in 2016. This is a decrease of 12 MMTCO2e from 2015, a 13 percent decrease since peak levels in 2004, and 2 MMTCO2e below the 1990 level and the State’s 2020 GHG target. The CARB estimates that transportation was the source of approximately 36 percent of the State’s GHG emissions in 2016, followed by electricity generation (both in-State and out-of-State) at 20 percent, and industrial sources at 21 percent. The remaining sources of GHG emissions were residential and commercial activities (at 9 percent), agriculture (at 8 percent), high-GWP gases (at 4 percent), and recycling and waste (at 2 percent). 5 The Montreal Protocol is an international treaty that was signed on January 1, 1989 to protect the ozone layer by phasing out the production of several groups of halogenated hydrocarbons believed to be responsible for ozone depletion and are also potent GHGs. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS April 2021February 2020 Page 5.6-5 5.6.1.2 REGULATORY BACKGROUND Federal Federal Clean Air Act The United States has historically had a voluntary approach to reducing GHG emissions. However, on April 2, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the EPA has the authority to regulate CO2 emissions under the Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA). On December 7, 2009, the EPA Administrator signed a final action under the FCAA, finding that six GHGs (i.e., CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6) constitute a threat to public health and welfare, and that the combined emissions from motor vehicles cause and contribute to global climate change. State Executive Order S-03-05 Executive Order (EO) S-3-05 was signed on June 1, 2005, which proclaimed that California is vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. To combat those concerns, EO S-3-05 established the following GHG emissions reduction targets for the State: State GHG emissions reduced to 2000 levels by 2010; State GHG emissions reduced to 1990 levels by 2020; and State GHG emissions reduced to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Assembly Bill 32 California’s major initiative for reducing GHG emissions was provided by Assembly Bill (AB) 32, which passed on August 31, 2006. AB 32 aims at reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The CARB established the level of GHG emissions in 1990 to be approximately 427 million MTCO2e. The annual emissions target of 427 million metric tons (MMT) requires the reduction of 169 MMT from the State’s projected business-as- usual 2020 emissions of 596 MMT. AB 32 also required CARB to prepare a Scoping Plan that outlines the State’s main strategies for meeting the 2020 deadline and reducing GHGs that contribute to global climate change. The Scoping Plan includes CARB- recommended GHG reductions for each emissions sector of the State’s GHG inventory. The Scoping Plan calls for the largest reductions in GHG emissions to be achieved by implementing the following measures and standards: Improved emissions standards for light-duty vehicles (estimated annual reduction of 31.7 million MTCO2e); Low Carbon Fuel Standard (15 million MTCO2e per year); Energy efficiency measures in buildings and appliances and the widespread development of combined heat and power systems (26.3 million MTCO2e per year); and ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Page 5.6-6 April 2021February 2020 A renewable portfolio standard for electricity production (21.3 million MTCO2e per year). The Scoping Plan identifies 18 emissions reduction measures that address cap-and-trade programs, vehicle gas standards, energy efficiency, low carbon fuel standards, renewable energy, regional transportation-related GHG targets, vehicle efficiency measures, goods movement, solar roof programs, industrial emissions, high-speed rail, green building strategies, recycling, and sustainable forests, water, and air. Implementation of the measures would result in a total annual reduction of 174 million MTCO2e by 2020. The CARB approved the first update to the 2008 Scoping Plan (First Update) on May 22, 2014. The First Update identifies opportunities to leverage existing and new funds to further drive GHG emission reductions through strategic planning and targeted low carbon investments. The First Update defines CARB’s climate change priorities until 2020 and also sets the groundwork to reach long-term goals set forth in EO S-03-05. The First Update highlights California’s progress toward meeting the near-term 2020 GHG emission reduction goals as defined in the initial Scoping Plan. It also evaluates how to align the State’s longer-term GHG reduction strategies with other State policy priorities for water, waste, natural resources, clean energy, transportation, and land use. CARB released a second update to the 2008 Scoping Plan, the 2017 Scoping Plan (2017 Scoping Plan), to reflect the 2030 target set by EO B-30-15 and codified by Senate Bill (SB) 32, as described below. Executive Order B-30-15 EO B-30-15 was passed by the State legislature on April 29, 2015, which added the immediate target of reducing GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. All State agencies with jurisdiction over sources of GHG emissions were directed to implement measures to achieve reductions of GHG emissions to meet the 2030 and 2050 targets. The mid-term target is critical to help frame the suite of policy measures, regulations, planning efforts, and investments in clean technologies and infrastructure needed to continue reducing emissions. Senate Bill 32 and Assembly Bill 197 In 2016, the State legislature passed SB 32, and AB 197. SB 32 affirms the importance of addressing climate change by codifying into statute the GHG emissions reductions target (40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030) from EO B-30-15. SB 32 builds on AB 32 and keeps the State on a path toward achieving the 2050 objective of reducing emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels. The companion bill to SB 32, AB 197, provides additional direction to CARB related to the adoption of strategies to reduce GHG emissions. Additional direction in AB 197 provides easier public access to air emissions data collected by CARB. Senate Bill 375 The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act (SB 375), establishes mechanisms for the development of regional targets for reducing passenger vehicle GHG emissions. On September 23, 2010, the CARB adopted vehicular GHG emissions reduction targets that was developed in consultation with the metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs). The targets require a six to 15 percent reduction in GHG emissions by 2020 and between 13 to 19 percent reduction by 2035 for each MPO. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS April 2021February 2020 Page 5.6-7 SB 375 recognizes the importance of achieving significant GHG emissions reductions by working with cities and counties to change land use patterns and improve transportation alternatives. Through the SB 375 process, MPOs, such as the Southern California Association of Government (SCAG), work with local jurisdictions in the development of Sustainable Communities Strategies (SCS). These strategies are designed to integrate development patterns and the transportation network in a way that reduces GHG emissions, while also meeting the housing needs and other regional planning objectives. Pursuant to SB 375, the SCAG reduction targets for per capita vehicular emissions are eight percent by 2020 and 13 percent by 2035. Assembly Bill 1493 In response to the transportation sector’s significant contribution to California’s GHG emissions, AB 1493 was enacted on July 22, 2002. AB 1493 requires CARB to set GHG emission standards for passenger vehicles and light duty trucks (and other vehicles whose primary use is noncommercial personal transportation in the State) manufactured in 2009 and all subsequent model years. These standards (starting in model years 2009 to 2016) were approved by CARB in 2004, but the needed waiver of FCAA Preemption was not granted by the EPA until June 30, 2009. The CARB responded by amending its original regulation, now referred to as Low Emission Vehicle III, to take effect for model years starting 2017 to 2025. Senate Bill 100 On September 10, 2018, SB 100 was passed, which raises California’s Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) requirements to 60 percent by 2030, with interim targets, and 100 percent by 2045. The bill also establishes a State policy that eligible renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources supply 100 percent of all retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers and 100 percent of electricity procured to serve all State agencies by December 31, 2045. Under SB 100, the State cannot increase carbon emissions elsewhere in the western grid or allow resource shuffling to achieve the 100 percent carbon-free electricity target. Senate Bill 350 SB 350, the Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act, was signed into law on October 7, 2015. SB 350 updates and enhances AB 32 by introducing the following set of objectives in clean energy, clean air, and pollution reduction for 2030: Raise California’s renewable portfolio standard from 33 to 50 percent; and Increase energy efficiency in buildings by 50 percent by the year 2030. The 50 percent renewable energy standard is regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) for the private utilities and by the California Energy Commission (CEC) for municipal utilities. Each utility must submit a procurement plan showing the purchase of clean energy to displace other non-renewable resources. The 50 percent increase in energy efficiency in buildings must be achieved through the use of existing energy efficiency retrofit funding and regulatory tools already available to State energy agencies under existing law. The ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Page 5.6-8 April 2021February 2020 addition made by SB 350 requires State energy agencies to plan for and implement those programs in a manner that achieves the energy efficiency target. Executive Order B-55-18 EO B-55-18, signed on September 10, 2018, sets a goal “to achieve carbon neutrality as soon as possible, and no later than 2045, and achieve and maintain net negative emissions thereafter.” EO B-55-18 directs CARB to work with relevant State agencies to ensure future Scoping Plans identify and recommend measures to achieve the carbon neutrality goal. The goal of carbon neutrality by 2045 is in addition to other Statewide goals, meaning not only should emissions be reduced to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, but that, by no later than 2045, the remaining emissions be offset by equivalent net removals of GHGs from the atmosphere, including through sequestration in forests, soils, and other natural landscapes. Building Energy Efficiency Standards The California Building Energy Efficiency (BEE) Standards for new residential and non-residential buildings were adopted by the California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission, now the CEC, in June 1977 and most recently revised in 2019 (Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations). The BEE Standards require the design of building shells and building components to conserve energy. The BEE Standards are updated periodically to allow for consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. On June 10, 2015, the CEC adopted the 2016 BEE standards, which took effect on January 1, 2017. The 2019 BEE standards were recently adopted on May 9, 2018 and take effect on January 1, 2020. Green Building Standards In November 2008, the California Building Standards Commission established the California Green Building Standards (CALGreen), which sets performance standards for residential and non-residential development to reduce environmental impacts and encourage sustainable construction practices. CALGreen addresses energy efficiency, water conservation, material conservation, planning and design, and overall environmental quality. CALGreen was most recently updated in 2019 to include new mandatory measures for residential and non- residential uses, which take effect on January 1, 2020. Local General Plan The Land Use and Conservation Elements of the General Plan include the following goals, objectives, and policies related to GHG within the City: 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. Policy CON-4.A.2: Encourage businesses, industries and residents to reduce the impact of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of stationary and non-stationary pollution sources. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS April 2021February 2020 Page 5.6-9 5.6.1.3 EXISTING CONDITIONS The 15.23-acre project site is developed with an approximate 345,000-square foot industrial building, an associated parking lot, and ornamental landscaping. The industrial building is occupied by Sakura Paper Factory, Robinson Pharma, South Coast Baking, and Dekra-Lite Industries, Inc. The existing land uses currently generate GHG emissions from transportation (i.e., vehicle trips associated with the proposed new use), area (e.g., landscaping equipment, consumer products), and energy (i.e., natural gas used for heating and cooking) sources. Table 5.6-2, Existing Greenhouse Gas Emissions, details GHG emissions associated with the existing uses. As shown in Table 5.6-2, the existing land uses at the project site emit approximately 2,860 MTCO2e per year. Table 5.6-2 Existing Greenhouse Gas Emissions Source GHG Emissions (MTCO2e/Yr) Area <1 Energy 1,526 Mobile 607 Warehouse Equipment 70 Waste 215 Water 441 Total Existing Emissions 2,860 Source: LSA 2020. Notes: GHG = greenhouse gas; MTCO2e/yr = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year 5.6.2 Thresholds of Significance According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would: GHG-1 Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. GHG-2 Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) has formed a GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Working Group (Working Group) to provide guidance to local lead agencies on determining significance for GHG emissions in their CEQA documents. As of the most recent Working Group meeting (Meeting No. 15) held in September 2010, the SCAQMD is proposing to adopt a tiered approach for evaluating GHG emissions for development projects where SCAQMD is not the lead agency. With the tiered approach, the project is compared with the requirements of each tier sequentially and would not result in a significant impact if it complies with any tier. Tier 1 excludes projects that are specifically exempt under Senate Bill 97 from resulting in a significant impact. Tier 2 excludes projects that are consistent with a GHG reduction plan that has a certified final CEQA document and complies with Assembly Bill 32 GHG reduction goals. Tier 3 excludes projects with annual emissions lower than a screening threshold. For all non- industrial projects, the SCAQMD is proposing a screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2eq per year. SCAQMD ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Page 5.6-10 April 2021February 2020 concluded that projects with emissions less than the screening threshold would not result in a significant cumulative impact. 5.6.3 Plans, Programs, Policies, and Standard Conditions of Approval The following are existing regulatory requirements, such as plans, policies, programs (PPP), or standard conditions of approval (SCA), applied to the project based on Federal, State, or local laws currently in place, and which effectively reduce impacts related to GHGs. Refer to Section 5.4, Energy, for a discussion of PPP EN-1 through PPP EN-5. 5.6.4 Environmental Impacts 5.6.4.1 METHODOLOGY The analysis below is based on methodologies and information available to the City at the time this analysis was prepared. Estimation of GHG emissions in the future does not account for all changes in technology that may reduce such emissions; therefore, the estimates are based on past performance and represent a scenario that is worse than that which is likely to be encountered (after future energy-efficient technologies have been implemented). Construction and operation of the proposed project would generate GHG emissions, with the majority of energy consumption (and associated generation of GHG emissions) occurring during the project’s operation (as opposed to during its construction). Typically, more than 80 percent of the total energy consumption takes place during the use of buildings, and less than 20 percent of energy is consumed during construction. Overall, the following activities associated with the proposed project could directly or indirectly contribute to the generation of GHG emissions. Construction Activities: During construction of the project, GHGs would be emitted through the operation of construction equipment and from worker and vendor vehicles, each of which typically uses fossil-based fuels to operate. The combustion of fossil-based fuels creates GHGs (e.g., CO2, CH4, and N2O). Furthermore, CH4 is emitted during the fueling of heavy equipment. Gas, Electricity, and Water Use: Natural gas use results in the emission of CH4 (the major component of natural gas) and CO2 (from the combustion of natural gas). Electricity use can result in GHG production if electricity is generated by combusting fossil fuel. Additionally, California’s water conveyance system is energy-intensive. Approximately 19 percent of the State’s electricity and 30 percent of its non-power plant natural gas is used to store, convey, conserve, and treat water and wastewater. Solid Waste Disposal: Solid waste generated by the project could contribute to GHG emissions in a variety of ways. Landfilling and other methods of disposal use energy for transporting and managing the waste, and they produce additional GHGs to varying degrees. Landfilling, the most common waste management practice, results in the release of CH4 from the anaerobic decomposition of organic materials. CH4 is 25 times more potent than CO2. However, landfill CH4 can also be a source of energy. In addition, ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS April 2021February 2020 Page 5.6-11 many materials in landfills do not decompose fully, and the carbon that remains is sequestered in the landfill and not released into the atmosphere. Motor Vehicle Use: Transportation associated with the proposed project would result in GHG emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels in automobile and truck engines. Appendix C provides detailed methodology and modeling assumptions for the project. GHG emissions from vehicular traffic, energy consumption, water conveyance and treatment, and waste generation were also calculated using the California Emissions Estimator Model Version 2016.3.2 (CalEEMod). Based on SCAQMD guidance, construction emissions were amortized over 30 years (a typical project lifetime) and added to the project’s total operational emissions. 5.6.4.2 IMPACT ANALYSIS The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which there may be potentially significant impacts. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets after the impact statement. Impact 5.6-1: Implementation of the proposed project could generate a net increase in GHG emissions that would have a significant impact on the environment. [Threshold GHG-1] Impact Analysis: Development of the proposed project would contribute to global climate change through direct and indirect GHG emissions from land uses associated with the proposed project. GHG emission estimates presented in Table 5.6-3, Long-term Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions, details the emissions associated with the project’s phased construction schedulelevel of development envisioned for the project at opening year. Table 5.6-3 Phased Unmitigated Short-Term Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions Construction Activity and Phase Total Emissions Per Phase (MT/yr) Total Emissions per Phase (MTCO2e) CO2 CH4 N2O 2022 Demolition 299 <1 0 301 Site Preparation 58 <1 0 58 Grading 812 <1 0 815 2023 Grading 224 <1 0 225 Building 1 Construction 938 <1 0 941 2024 Building 1 and 2 Construction 1,161 <1 0 1,163 Building 1 Architectural Coating 121 <1 0 121 Building 1 Paving 21 <1 0 21 2025 Building 2 Construction 850 <1 0 852 Building 2 Architectural Coating 33 <1 0 33 2026 ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Page 5.6-12 April 2021February 2020 Building 2 and 3 Construction 1,403 <1 0 1,408 Building 2 Architectural Coating 83 <1 0 83 Building 2 Paving 16 <1 0 16 2027 Building 3 and Creative Office Construction 612 <1 0 613 Building 3 and Creative Office Architectural Coating 87 <1 0 87 Building 3 and Creative Office Paving 21 <1 0 21 Total Emissions for Entire Construction Process 6,758 MTCO2e Total Construction Emissions Amortized Over 30 Years 225 MTCO2e Source: LSA 2021. Notes: CO2 = carbon dioxide; CH4 = methane; N2O = nitrous oxide; MT = metric tons; MTCO2e/yr = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year Based on SCAQMD guidance, construction emissions were amortized over 30 years and added to the total project annual operational emissions to determine overall impacts; refer to Table 5.6-4, Phased Regional GHG Emissions for Overlapping Construction and Operational Emissions. Table 5.6-43 Phased Regional GHG Emissions for Overlapping Construction and Long-term Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions Source Pollutant Emissions (MT/yr) Bio- CO2Existing Emissions (MTCO2e) Project- Generated Emissions (MTCO2e)NBio- CO2 Net Change (MTCO2e)Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Total Existing GHG Emissions 112 2,527 2,639 8 0 2,860 GHG Emissions from Total Project Buildout AmortizedArea Total Phased Construction Emissions 0<1 22518 22517 <1 0 225 Area 0 18 18 <1 0 18 Energy 01,526 3,3663,380 3,3661,854 <1 <1 3,380 Mobile 0607 7,4217,432 7,4216,825 <1 0 7,428 Waste 111215 0274 11159 7 0 274 Water 24441 478482 50241 2 <1 581 Warehouse EquipmentNet Increase from Existing for Total Project Buildout 2270 8,982— 9,004-70 1 0 9,046 Amortized Construction1 239 239 Total Emissions 2,860 11,825 8,965 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 3,000 3,000 Exceeds Threshold? Yes Yes Source: LSA 20210. Notes: MT/yr = metric tons per year; Bio-GHG = greenhouse gas; MTCO2e/yr = biologically generated CO2m; NBio-CO2 e= non-biologically generated CO2; CO2 = carbon dioxide; CH4 = methane; N2O = nitrous oxide; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalenttric tons of carbon dioxide-equivalent per year 1 Construction emissions are amortized over 30 years. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS April 2021February 2020 Page 5.6-13 As shown, the proposed project would generate a net increase of 9,0468,965 MTCO2e per year, which would exceed the SCAQMD’s threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year.6 As such, impacts would be potentially significant in this regard. Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant Impact. Impact 5.6-2: Implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. [Threshold GHG-2] Impact Analysis: Applicable plans adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions include SCAG’s 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategies (2016 RTP/SCS) and CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan. A consistency analysis with these plans is presented below. SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS Consistency Analysis Adopted April 7, 2016, the 2016 RTP/SCS identifies that land use strategies that focus on new housing and job growth in areas served by high quality transit and other opportunity areas would be consistent with a land use development pattern that supports and complements the proposed transportation network. The project site is located within close proximity to employment opportunities and amenities as well as recreational opportunities associated with the nearby Santa Ana River. The proposed project would include pedestrian, bicycle, and trail improvements to connect the site to adjacent uses. The project would also include vanpool/carpool parking, EV charging stations, rideshare amenities, and bicycle share opportunities. A consistency analysis is presented in Table 5.9-2, Project Consistency with 2016-2040 RTP/SCS Goals, in Section 5.9, Land Use and Planning. As detailed in Table 5.9-2, the proposed project is consistent with the 2016 RTP/SCS. 2017 Scoping Plan Consistency Analysis The 2017 Scoping Plan outlines the main strategies for meeting the State’s emission reduction targets and reducing GHGs that contribute to global climate change. Pursuant to AB 32, the Scoping Plan must “identify and make recommendations on direct emission reduction measures, alternative compliance mechanisms, market-based compliance mechanisms, and potential monetary and nonmonetary incentives” in order to achieve the 2020 goal, and achieve “the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective greenhouse gas emission reductions” by 2020 and maintain and continue reductions beyond 2020. The companion bill to SB 32, AB 197, provides additional direction to CARB on the following areas related to the adoption of strategies to reduce GHG emissions. Additional direction in AB 197, meant to provide easier public access to air emissions data that are collected by CARB, was posted in December 2016. The measures 6 During the Notice of Preparation (NOP) scoping process, a commenter requested that the City use a significance threshold of zero for GHG impacts. Global warming is an inherently cumulative issue and there is no basis in fact to assert a zero threshold of significance. Nevertheless, if the City were to use a threshold of significance of zero, it would result in the same conclusion as identified in Table 5.6-2, an exceedance of the significance threshold. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Page 5.6-14 April 2021February 2020 applicable to the proposed project include energy efficiency measures, water conservation and efficiency measures, and transportation and motor vehicle measures, as discussed below. Energy efficient measures are intended to maximize energy efficiency building and appliance standards, pursue additional efficiency efforts including new technologies and new policy and implementation mechanisms, and pursue comparable investment in energy efficiency from all retail providers of electricity in California. In addition, these measures are designed to expand the use of green building practices to reduce the carbon footprint of California’s new and existing inventory of buildings. PPP EN-1 would require the project to comply with the 2019 California BEE standards and the 2019 CALGreen requirements. PPP EN-5 would implement EV charging stations and preferential parking for low emitting, fuel efficient vehicles on-site. Therefore, with compliance with regulatory requirements, the proposed project would not conflict with energy efficient measures. Water conservation and efficiency measures are intended to continue efficiency programs and use cleaner energy sources to move and treat water. Increasing the efficiency of water transport and reducing water use would reduce GHG emissions. PPP EN-2 would require the project to comply with CALGreen Code Tier 1 and 2 measures and would include low-flow plumbing fixtures, drought-tolerant landscaping, and other features that would reduce water demand. Further, the project would be required to reduce water usage by complying with the City’s Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance requirements and installing EPA-certified WaterSense plumbing fixtures (see PPP EN-3). Therefore, with compliance with regulatory requirements, the proposed project would not conflict with any water conservation and efficiency measures. The goal of transportation and motor vehicle GHG emissions reduction measures is to develop regional GHG emissions reduction targets for passenger vehicles. Specific regional emission targets for transportation emissions would not directly apply to the proposed project. However, the project would promote initiatives to reduce vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled as a mixed-use development near employment centers and amenities, and would encourage the use of multimodal transportation. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with transportation and motor vehicle measures. A summary of the proposed project’s consistency with the 2017 Scoping Plan is provided in Table 5.6-54, Project Consistency with Applicable 2017 Scoping Plan Appendix B Measures. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS April 2021February 2020 Page 5.6-15 Table 5.6-54 Project Consistency with Applicable 2017 Scoping Plan Appendix B Measures 2017 Scoping Plan Appendix B Measures Project Consistency Dedicate on-site parking for shared vehicles. Consistent. The proposed project would include preferential parking for low-emitting, fuel-efficient, and carpool/car share/van vehicles in all parking areas and electric vehicle charging stations at non-residential and residential buildings (PPP EN-5). Require cool roofs and “cool parking” that promotes cool surface treatment for new parking facilities as well as existing surface lots undergoing resurfacing. Consistent. The proposed project would incorporate cool roof materials and meet the CALGreen Tier 1 and 2 measures for roof slope (PPP EN-1). Require solar-ready roofs. Consistent. The proposed project would include provisions for photovoltaic solar panel on roofs, as specified in Title 24 Part 6 and the CALGreen Tier 1 and 2 measures (PPP EN-1). Require low-water landscaping in new developments (see CALGreen Divisions 4.3 and 5.3 and the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance [MWELO], which is referenced in CALGreen). Require water efficient landscape maintenance to conserve water and reduce landscape waste. Consistent. The proposed project would include new low-water landscaping and trees throughout the project site. Additionally, weather-based smart irrigation controllers would be installed (PPP EN-2 and PPP EN-3). Encourage new construction, including municipal building construction, to achieve third-party green building certifications, such as the GreenPoint Rated program, LEED rating system, or Living Building Challenge. Consistent. The proposed project would be constructed to meet CALGreen Tier 1 and 2 measures (PPP EN-1). Expand urban forestry and green infrastructure in new land development. Consistent. The proposed project would include new low-water landscaping and trees throughout the project site. Additionally, weather-based smart irrigation controllers would be installed (PPP EN-2). Provide electric outlets to promote the use of electric landscape maintenance equipment to the extent feasible on parks and public/quasi-public lands. Consistent. The proposed project would provide outdoor electric outlets to promote the use of electric landscaping equipment. Require the landscaping design for parking lots to utilize tree cover and compost/mulch. Consistent. The proposed project would include new low-water landscaping and trees throughout the project site. Additionally, weather-based smart irrigation controllers would be installed (PPP EN-2). Source: LSA 2020. As detailed, the proposed project would not conflict with applicable Statewide action measures. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs and impacts would be less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. 5.6.5 Cumulative Impacts Impact 5.6-3: Implementation of the proposed project could generate a net increase in GHG emissions that would result in a cumulatively significant impact on the environment. [Threshold GHG-1] Impact Analysis: Project-related GHG emissions are not confined to a particular air basin; instead, GHG emissions are dispersed worldwide. No single project is large enough to result in a measurable increase in global concentrations of GHG emissions. Therefore, impacts identified under Impact 5.6-1 are not project-specific impacts to global ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Page 5.6-16 April 2021February 2020 climate change, but the proposed project’s contribution to this cumulative impact. As discussed above, the proposed project’s GHG emissions would exceed the SCAQMD significance threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year; refer to Table 5.6-43. Therefore, the proposed project’s GHG emissions and contribution to global climate change impacts are considered cumulatively considerable. Level of Significance After Mitigation: Potentially Significant Impact. Impact 5.6-4: Implementation of the proposed project, in combination with related projects, would not cumulatively conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. [Threshold GHG-2] Impact Analysis: As stated, GHG impacts are recognized as exclusively cumulative impacts, and there are no non-cumulative GHG emission impacts from a climate change perspective. As such, significant direct impacts associated with the project also serve as the project’s cumulative impact. Impact 5.6-2 concludes that the project would be consistent with the applicable measures in the 2016 RTP/SCS and 2017 Scoping Plan. Thus, the project would not cumulatively contribute to GHG impacts and impacts in this regard would be less than significant. Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. 5.6.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation Upon implementation of regulatory requirements, the following impacts would be less than significant: Impacts 5.6-2 and 5.6-4. However, without mitigation, the following impacts would be potentially significant: Impact 5.6-1 Implementation of the proposed project could generate a net increase in GHG emissions that would have a significant impact on the environment. Impact 5.6-3 Implementation of the proposed project could generate a net increase in GHG emissions that would result in a cumulatively significant impact on the environment. 5.6.7 Mitigation Measures Impact 5.6-1 GHG-1 Prior to issuance of a building permit, the City’s Planning Division shall verify that the applicant has designed the proposed parking areas to provide preferential parking for low- emitting, fuel-efficient, and carpool/van vehicles. At a minimum, the number of electric vehicle (EV) charging stations shall be equal to Tier 2 Nonresidential Voluntary Measures of the California Green Building Standards Code Section A5.106.5.1.2. GHG-2 Prior to issuance of a building permit, the City’s Building Division shall verify that the applicant has designed the proposed parking areas to provide electric vehicle (EV) charging ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS April 2021February 2020 Page 5.6-17 stations. At a minimum, the number of EV charging stations shall be equal to the Tier 2 Nonresidential Voluntary Measures of the California Green Building Standards Code Section A5.106.5.3.2. Impact 5.6-3 Refer to Mitigation Measures GHG-1 and GHG-2. 5.6.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation Impact 5.6-1 Table 5.6-65, Phased Regional GHG Emissions for Overlapping Construction and Long-term Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions With Mitigation, details project-generated GHG emissions upon implementation of Mitigation Measures GHG-1 and GHG-2. As shown, emissions would continue to exceed the SCAQMD significance threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year. Therefore, GHG emissions impacts would be significant and unavoidable. Table 5.6-6 Phased Regional GHG Emissions for Overlapping Construction and Operational Emissions With Mitigation Source Pollutant Emissions (MT/yr) Bio-CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Total Existing GHG Emissions 112 2,527 2,639 8 0 2,860 GHG Emissions from Total Project Buildout With Mitigation Amortized Total Phased Construction Emissions 0 225 225 <1 0 225 Area 0 18 18 <1 0 18 Energy 0 3,366 3,366 <1 <1 3,380 Mobile 0 5,171 5,171 <1 0 5,177 Waste 111 0 111 7 0 274 Water 19 400 418 2 <1 482 Net Increase from Existing for Total Project Buildout 17 6,653 6,671 0 0 6,696 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 3,000 Exceeds Threshold? Yes Source: LSA 2021. Notes: MT/yr = metric tons per year; Bio-CO2 = biologically generated CO2; NBio-CO2 = non-biologically generated CO2; CO2 = carbon dioxide; CH4 = methane; N2O = nitrous oxide; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent Table 5.6-5 Long-term Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions With Mitigation Source Existing Emissions (MTCO2e) Project-Generated Emissions With Mitigation (MTCO2e) Net Difference (MTCO2e) Area <1 18 17 Energy 1,526 3,380 1,854 Mobile 607 5,179 4,572 Waste 215 274 59 Water 441 482 41 ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Page 5.6-18 April 2021February 2020 Warehouse Equipment 70 0 -70 Amortized Construction1 -- 239 239 Total Emissions 2,860 9,572 6,712 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 3,000 Exceeds Threshold? Yes Source: LSA 2020. Notes: GHG = greenhouse gas; MTCO2e/yr = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year 1 Construction emissions are amortized over 30 years. Level of Significance After Mitigation: Significant and Unavoidable Impact. Impact 5.6-3 As analyzed above, operational GHG emissions associated with the proposed project would continue to exceed the SCAQMD significance threshold with implementation of Mitigation Measures GHG-1 and GHG-2. Therefore, the project’s cumulative contribution would be significant and unavoidable. Level of Significance After Mitigation: Significant and Unavoidable Impact. ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I February 2020April 2021 Chapter 5.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I February 2020April 2021 This page intentionally left blank. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis April 2021February 2020 Page 5.7-1 5.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS This section evaluates the potential impacts of the proposed project on human health and the environment due to exposure to hazardous materials or conditions associated with the project site, project construction, and project operations. The analysis in this section is based, in part, upon the following sources: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report, 1683 Sunflower Avenue, Costa Mesa, California (Phase I ESA), Geocon Incorporated, March 12, 2019. Asbestos Survey for One Building Located at 1683 Sunflower Avenue, Costa Mesa, California (Asbestos Survey), Panacea, Inc., September 9, 2013. Complete copies of these studies are included in the technical appendices of this Draft EIR (Volume II, Appendix G, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report and Appendix H, Asbestos Survey). 5.7.1 Environmental Setting 5.7.1.1 REGULATORY BACKGROUND Federal, State, regional, and local laws, regulations, plans, or guidelines that are potentially applicable to the proposed project are summarized below. Federal Toxic Substances Control Act The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976 provides the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with authority to require reporting, record-keeping and testing requirements, and restrictions relating to chemical substances and/or mixtures. TSCA addresses the production, importation, use, and disposal of specific chemicals including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), asbestos, radon, and lead-based paint (LBP). Title IV of the TSCA directs EPA to regulate LBP hazards. TSCA Sections 402 and 404 require those engaged in lead abatements, risk assessments, and inspections in homes or child-occupied facilities (such as day care centers and kindergartens) built prior to 1978 be trained and certified in specific practices to ensure accuracy and safety. TSCA Section 403, Residential Hazard Standards for Lead in Paint, Dust and Soil, sets standards for dangerous levels of lead in paint, household dust, and residential soil. Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act The purposes of the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act are to: Develop a national strategy to build the infrastructure necessary to eliminate LBP hazards in all housing as expeditiously as possible; Reorient the national approach to the presence of LBP in housing to implement, on a priority basis, a broad program to evaluate and reduce LBP hazards in the Nation's housing stock; ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Page 5.7-2 April 2021February 2020 Encourage effective action to prevent childhood lead poisoning by establishing a workable framework for LBP hazard evaluation and reduction and by ending the current confusion over reasonable standards of care; Ensure the existence of LBP hazards is taken into account in the development of Federal, State, and local housing policies and in the sale, rental, and renovation of homes and apartments; Mobilize national resources expeditiously, through a partnership among all levels of government and the private sector, to develop the most promising, cost-effective methods for evaluating and reducing LBP hazards; Reduce the threat of childhood lead poisoning in housing owned, assisted, or transferred by the Federal Government; and Educate the public concerning the hazards and sources of LBP poisoning and steps to reduce and eliminate such hazards. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) is a law developed to protect the water, air, and soil resources from the risks created by past chemical disposal practices. This law is also referred to as the Superfund Act and regulates sites on the National Priority List (also known as Superfund sites). This law (U.S. Code Title 42, Chapter 103) provides broad Federal authority to respond directly to releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances that may endanger public health or the environment. CERCLA establishes requirements concerning closed and abandoned hazardous waste sites; provides for liability of persons responsible for releases of hazardous waste at these sites; and establishes a trust fund to provide for cleanup when no responsible party can be identified. Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act In 1986, Congress passed the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA). Title III of this regulation is called the “Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986” (EPCRA). EPCRA requires the establishment of State commissions, planning districts, and local committees to facilitate the preparation and implementation of emergency plans. Under its requirements, local emergency planning committees (LEPCs) are responsible for developing a plan for preparing for and responding to a chemical emergency, including: An identification of local facilities and transportation routes where hazardous materials are present. The procedures for immediate response in case of an accident (this must include a community-wide evacuation plan). A plan for notifying the community that an incident has occurred. The names of response coordinators at local facilities. A plan for conducting drills to test the plan. The emergency plan is reviewed by the State Emergency Response Commission and publicized throughout the community. The LEPC is required to review, test, and update the plan each year. The Orange County Health Care Agency (OCHCA) Environmental Health Division is responsible for coordinating hazardous material and ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS April 2021February 2020 Page 5.7-3 disaster preparedness planning and appropriate response efforts with city departments and local and State agencies. The goal is to improve public and private sector readiness and to mitigate local impacts resulting from natural or man-made emergencies. Another purpose of EPCRA is to inform communities and citizens of chemical hazards in their areas. Sections 311 and 312 of EPCRA require businesses to report to State and local agencies the location and quantities of chemicals stored onsite. Under Section 313 of EPCRA, manufacturers are required to report chemical releases for more than 600 designated chemicals. In addition to chemical releases, regulated facilities are also required to report off-site transfers of waste for treatment or disposal at separate facilities, pollution prevention measures, and chemical recycling activities. The EPA maintains the Toxic Release Inventory database that documents the information regulated facilities are required to report annually. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) is the principal Federal law that regulates generation, management, and transportation of hazardous waste. Hazardous waste management includes the treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous waste. Clean Water Act The Clean Water Act (CWA) is a 1977 amendment to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972. The CWA is the principal statute governing water quality. It establishes the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into the Waters of the United States1 and gives the EPA the authority to implement pollution control programs, such as setting wastewater standards for the industry. Under the CWA, the EPA has developed national water quality criteria recommendations for pollutants in surface waters. The statute’s goal is to end all discharges entirely and to restore, maintain, and preserve the integrity of the Nation’s waters. The CWA regulates both the direct and indirect discharge of pollutants into the Nation’s waters. The CWA sets water quality standards for all contaminants in surface waters and makes it unlawful for any person to discharge any pollutant from a point source into navigable waters, unless a permit is obtained under its provisions. The CWA mandates permits for wastewater and stormwater discharges, requires States to establish site-specific water quality standards for navigable bodies of water, and regulates other activities that affect water quality, such as dredging and the filling of wetlands. The CWA also funded the construction of sewage treatment plants and recognized the need for planning to address nonpoint sources of pollution. Several sections of the CWA are discussed in Section 5.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this Draft EIR. Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response Standards The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) issued the Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER) standards, 29 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1910.120 and 29 CFR 1 Waters of the United States generally include surface waters—lakes, rivers streams, bays, the ocean, dry streambeds, wetlands, and storm sewers that are tributary to any surface water body. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Page 5.7-4 April 2021February 2020 1926.65, to protect workers and enable them to handle hazardous substances safely and effectively. The latter standard is for the construction industry and is identical to 29 CFR 1910.120. The HAZWOPER standard covers employers performing the following general categories of work operations: Hazardous waste site cleanup operations; Operations involving hazardous waste that are conducted at treatment, storage, and disposal (TSD) facilities; and Emergency response operations involving hazardous substance releases. The HAZWOPER standards provide information and training criteria to employers, emergency response workers, and other workers potentially exposed to hazardous substances to improve workplace safety and health and reduce workplace injuries and illnesses from exposures to hazardous substances. It is critical that employers and their workers understand the scope and application of HAZWOPER and can determine which sections apply to their specific work operations. Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 61 Subpart M Title 40 CFR Section 61 Subpart M, National Emissions Standards for Asbestos, sets forth emissions standards for asbestos from demolition and renovation activities, and for waste disposal from such activities. Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 761.61 Title 40 CFR Section 761.61, PCB Remediation Waste, provides cleanup and disposal options for PCB remediation waste. Any person cleaning up and disposing of PCBs managed under Title 40 CFR Section 761.61 is required to do so based on the concentration at which the PCBs are found. This section does not prohibit any person from implementing temporary emergency measures to prevent, treat, or contain further releases or mitigate migration to the environment of PCBs or PCB remediation waste. Title 29 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 1926.62 Title 29 CFR Section 1926.62, Lead, sets standards for occupational health and environmental controls for lead exposure in construction, regardless of the lead content of paints and other materials. The standards include requirements addressing exposure assessment, methods of compliance, respiratory protection, protective clothing and equipment, hygiene facilities and practices, medical surveillance, medical removal protection, employee information and training, signs, recordkeeping, and observation and monitoring. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting Program Rules EPA’s 2008 Lead-Based Paint Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP) Rule (as amended in 2010 and 2011) aims to protect the public from LBP hazards associated with renovation, repair, and painting activities. These activities can create hazardous lead dust when surfaces with lead paint, even from many decades ago, are disturbed. The rule requires workers to be certified and trained in the use of lead-safe work practices, and requires renovation, repair, and painting professionals to be EPA-certified. These requirements became fully effective April 22, 2010. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS April 2021February 2020 Page 5.7-5 Federal Air Regulations, Part 77 The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is charged with the review of construction activities that occur in the vicinity of airports. Their role in reviewing these activities is to ensure new structures do not result in hazards to navigation and thus derogate the safety of the National Airspace System. The regulations contained in Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77 are designed to ensure no hazards are allowed to exist that would endanger the public. Proposed structures are also evaluated against Terminal En Route Procedures (TERPS), which ensure a structure does not adversely impact flight procedures. The construction of tall structures, such as buildings, construction cranes, and cell towers, in the vicinity of an airport can be hazardous to the navigation of airplanes. The FAA, through FAR Part 77, established a method of identifying surfaces that should be free from penetration by obstructions in order to maintain sufficient airspace around airports. FAR Part 77, in effect, identifies the maximum height at which a structure would be considered an obstacle at any given point around an airport. The extent of the off-airport coverage needing to be evaluated for tall-structure impacts can extend miles from an airport facility. In addition, FAR Part 77 establishes standards for determining whether objects constructed near airports would be considered obstructions in navigable airspace, sets forth notice requirements of certain types of proposed construction or alterations, and provides for aeronautical studies to determine the potential impacts of a structure on the flight of aircraft through navigable airspace. State Hazardous Materials Release Notification Many State statutes require emergency notification of a hazardous chemical release. These include, but are not limited to: California Health and Safety Codes Sections 25270.8 and 25507; Vehicle Code Section 23112.5; Public Utilities Code Section 7673 (PUC General Orders #22-B, 161); Government Code Sections 51018, 8670.25.5(a); Water Codes Sections 13271 and 13272; and California Labor Code Section 6409.1(b)10. Requirements for immediate notification of all significant spills or threatened releases cover owners, operators, persons in charge, and employers. Notification is required regarding significant releases from facilities, vehicles, vessels, pipelines, and railroads. In addition, all releases that result in injuries or harmful exposure to workers must be immediately reported to the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal OSHA) pursuant to the California Labor Code Section 6409.1(b). Department of Toxic Substances Control The responsibility for implementation of RCRA was given to California EPA’s Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) in August 1992. The DTSC is also responsible for implementing and enforcing California’s own hazardous waste laws, which are known collectively as the Hazardous Waste Control Law. Although similar to RCRA, the California Hazardous Waste Control Law and its associated regulations define hazardous waste ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Page 5.7-6 April 2021February 2020 more broadly and regulate a larger number of chemicals. Hazardous wastes regulated by California, but not by EPA, are called “non-RCRA hazardous wastes.” Hazardous Materials Business Plans Both the Federal government (through the CFR) and the State of California (through the California Health and Safety Code) require all businesses that handle more than a specified amount, or “reporting quantity,” of hazardous or extremely hazardous materials to submit a hazardous materials business plan to its Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA). According to OCHCA guidelines, the preparation, submittal, and implementation of a business plan is required by any business that handles a hazardous material or a mixture containing a hazardous material in specified quantities. Business plans must include an inventory of the hazardous materials at the facility. Businesses must update the whole plan at least every three years and the chemical portion every year. Also, business plans must include emergency response plans and procedures to be used in the event of a significant or threatened significant release of a hazardous material. These plans need to identify the procedures for immediate notification of all appropriate agencies and personnel, identification of local emergency medical assistance appropriate for potential accident scenarios, contact information for all company emergency coordinators, a listing and location of emergency equipment at the business, an evacuation plan, and a training program for business personnel. OCHCA currently reviews submitted business plans and updates. Businesses that handle hazardous materials are required by law to provide an immediate verbal report of any release or threatened release of hazardous materials if there is a reasonable belief the release or threatened release poses a significant present or potential hazard to human health and safety, property, or the environment. OCHCA is also charged with the responsibility of conducting compliance inspections of regulated facilities in Orange County. California Accidental Release Prevention Program The California Accidental Release Prevention Program (CalARP) became effective on January 1, 1997, in response to Senate Bill (SB) 1889 (Chapter 715, Statutes of 1996). CalARP aims to be proactive and therefore requires businesses to prepare risk management plans, which are detailed engineering analyses of the potential accident factors present at a business and the mitigation measures that can be implemented to reduce this accident potential. This requirement is coupled with the requirements for preparation of hazardous materials business plans under the Unified Program, implemented by the CUPA. California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4.5 Title 22, Division 4.5 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) sets forth the requirements for hazardous- waste generators; transporters; and owners or operators of treatment, storage, or disposal facilities. These regulations include the requirements for packaging, storing, labeling, reporting, and general management of hazardous waste prior to shipment. In addition, the regulations identify standards applicable to transporters of hazardous waste. These regulations specify the requirements for transporting shipments of hazardous waste, including manifesting, vehicle registration, and emergency accidental discharges during transportation. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS April 2021February 2020 Page 5.7-7 California Fire Code The 2013 2019 California Fire Code (CCR Title 24 Part 9) sets requirements pertaining to fire safety and life safety, including for building materials and methods, fire protection systems in buildings, emergency access to buildings, and handling and storage of hazardous materials. California Building Code Per CCR Title 24, Part 2, Section 907.2.11.2, smoke alarms shall be installed and maintained on the ceiling or wall outside of each separate sleeping area in the immediate vicinity of bedrooms, in each room used for sleeping purposes, and in each story within a dwelling unit. The smoke alarms shall be interconnected in such a manner that the activation of one alarm will activate all of the alarms in the individual unit. Smoke alarms shall receive their primary power from the building wiring and shall be equipped with a battery backup. California Health and Safety Code, Sections 17920.10 and 105255 California Health and Safety Code Sections 17920.10 and 105255 require lead hazards to be contained during demolition activities. Lead hazards refer to deteriorated LBP, lead-contaminated dust, lead-contaminated soil, or disturbing lead-based paint without containment. California Code of Regulations: Worker Safety Standards: Asbestos and Lead CCR Title 8 Section 1529 sets forth worker safety standards for lead exposure for employees conducting demolition, construction, and renovation work, including painting and decorating. CCR Title 8 Section 1532.1 sets forth worker safety standards for activities involving construction, demolition, renovation, and maintenance. Regional South Coast Air Quality Management District South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 1403 governs the demolition of buildings containing asbestos materials. Rule 1403 specifies work practices with the goal of minimizing asbestos emissions during building demolition and renovation activities, including the removal and associated disturbance of asbestos-containing material (ACM). The requirements for demolition and renovation activities include asbestos surveying, notification, ACM removal procedures and time schedules, ACM handling and cleanup procedures, and storage and disposal requirements for ACM waste. Local City of Costa Mesa General Plan The Safety Element of the City of Costa Mesa General Plan (General Plan) includes the following goals, objectives, and policies to protect cultural resources within the City: Goal S-2: High Level of Police and Fire Services and Emergency Preparedness ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Page 5.7-8 April 2021February 2020 Objective S-2A: Plan, promote, and demonstrate a readiness to respond and reduce threats to life and property through traditional and innovative emergency services and programs. - Policy S-2.13: Continue to consult with the County of Orange in the implementation of the Orange County Hazardous Waste Management Plan. - Policy S-2.14: Ensure that appropriate in-depth environmental analysis is conducted for any proposed hazardous waste materials treatment, transfer, and/or disposal facility. - Policy S-2.15: 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-2.16: Require the safe production, transportation, handling, use, and disposal of hazardous materials that may cause air, water, or soil contamination. - Policy S-2.17: Encourage best practices in hazardous waste management, and ensure consistency with City, County, and Federal guidelines, standards, and requirements. - Policy S-2.18: Consult with Federal, State, and local agencies and law enforcement to prevent the illegal transportation and disposal of hazardous waste City of Costa Mesa Fire & Rescue Community Risk Reduction Prevention Program The City of Costa Mesa Fire & Rescue Community Risk Reduction Prevention Program develops and enforces local fire, life safety, property, and environmental protection standards; enforces State-adopted fire and life safety codes; reviews building construction plans; conducts building construction and business inspections; investigates citizen complaints; manages the City's hazardous materials disclosure program; provides training to department personnel in regard to fire and life safety codes; and assists professional trades with technical fire code requirements and department public education efforts (Costa Mesa 2019c). 5.7.1.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS Current Use of Property The site is developed with an approximate 345,000 square foot building, which is located in the center of and covers most of the site. The building is currently occupied by Sakura Paper Factory, Robinson Pharma, South Coast Baking, and Dektra-Lite Industries, Inc. The remainder of the site consists of landscaped areas and surface parking lots. Based on the Phase I ESA, Robinson Pharma occupies the western portion and majority of the site. The interior of the warehouse portion is used for storing various products used in the manufacturing of vitamins and supplements. No processing or manufacturing of these products is conducted on-site. The shipping and receiving of these products occur at the loading docks located on the north sides of the building. A parts room is located on the northeastern portion of the Robinson Pharma warehouse where employees construct metal ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS April 2021February 2020 Page 5.7-9 parts to be shipped off-site for use in vitamin manufacturing. Several metal fabricating (cutting and drilling) machines were observed in this area, and operations involve the use of coolants, lubricants, and hydraulic oils. These materials were contained in properly labeled and sealed 55-gallon drums and retail-sized 5-gallon buckets, with no evidence of leaks or spills. The space occupied by South Coast Baking on the eastern portion of the warehouse building consists of miscellaneous stored items associated with typical baking supply and merchandise. Loading docks were observed on the northern side of the warehouse. No hazardous materials or petroleum products were observed in this area. The space occupied by Dektra Lite, Inc., on the easternmost portion of the warehouse building consists of miscellaneous stored items associated with large-scale entertainment and corporate party-related events. Loading docks were observed on the northern side of the warehouse. No hazardous materials or petroleum products were observed in this area. Historic Use of Property The site was used for agriculture purposes from at least the 1930s until the 1970s. The existing building was constructed in 1975 by Nissan Motor Corporation for use as storage and distribution of car parts, training for car mechanics, and administrative purposes. The original building was 230,000 square feet. An addition to the building was constructed in 1987. Nissan Motor Corporation was the sole occupant of the site from approximately 1975 to 2014. Regulatory Database Search The Phase I ESA included a search of Federal, State, and local databases regarding the use, storage, disposal, or release of hazardous substances and/or petroleum products for the site and area within one mile of the site. Nissan Motor Corporation is listed on the HAZNET database. The listing indicates from 1996 to 2006 Nissan Motor Corporation removed approximately 10.69 tons of a combination of oil-containing waste, organic solid waste, and aqueous waste solution with organic residues from the site and disposed of it at a landfill. No releases or violations are noted with respect to the HAZNET listing, and the listing does not suggest conditions would be likely to have caused a recognized environmental condition (REC) at the site. Other properties and facilities within a 0.25-mile radius of the site are listed on various non-release-related databases and, therefore, are not anticipated to have caused a REC at the site. Asbestos-Containing Materials The Asbestos Survey (included in Appendix H) concluded there is a high likelihood that ACMs are present in concentrations greater than one percent (friable) in the on-site building currently on the project site. Lead Based Paints Based on the construction date of the building on-site, it is possible LBP was used historically on-site. Personnel were not aware of the presence of any LBP on structures at the facility, and the site reconnaissance performed for the Phase I ESA observed the paint to be in good condition. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Page 5.7-10 April 2021February 2020 Polychlorinated Biphenyls As discussed by DTSC’s NOP comment letter (Appendix B, NOP Comments), the existing building has the potential to contain PCBs in building materials. PCBs are a group of toxic chemicals used for a variety of purposes including electrical applications, carbonless copy paper, adhesives, hydraulic fluids, and caulking compounds. PCBs do not breakdown easily and are listed as cancer-causing agents by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Airport-Related Hazards The proposed project is located approximately 3.5 miles northwest of John Wayne Airport and is outside the airport safety impact zone (OCALUC 2008). However, based on a letter received from the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County (ALUC), dated June 20, 2019, the project site is located within the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport (AELUP) planning area and is subject to FAR Part 77 Notification Area for John Wayne Airport. Emergency Response Planning The Costa Mesa Disaster Plan serves as the community’s Emergency Operations Plan (EOP), which provides guidance during emergency situations and natural disasters. The plan addresses potential large-scale disasters that require a coordinated and immediate response. The EOP identifies key personnel and agencies in the Costa Mesa Emergency Management Organization that are organized to protect life and property in the community. The EOP also identifies sources of outside support that may be provided by State and Federal agencies, the private sector, and through mutual aid by other jurisdictions. In addition, the EOP specifies emergency operations to be implemented during an emergency, assigns responsibilities, and provides an explanation of how the plan is to be administered. These activities involve a number of City departments and facilities, including the Police Department, Fire Department, public health officials, and care and shelter operations. The City’s emergency evacuation routes are shown in Figure S-9, Public Safety Facilities and Emergency Evacuation Routes, of the General Plan’s Safety Element. The Police Chief coordinates all emergency evacuation activities and issues evacuation orders based on information gathered from emergency experts. Evacuation operations are also managed by law enforcement agencies, highway/road/street departments, and public and private transportation providers (Costa Mesa 2019d). Schools The nearest schools to the project site are California Elementary School and Charles W. Tewinkle Middle School, located approximately 0.20 mile southeast of the project site at 3232 and 3224 California Street, respectively. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS April 2021February 2020 Page 5.7-11 Wildland Fires The project site and surrounding land are built out with urban land uses; no wildland vegetation that could fuel wildfires is present. The nearest Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone to the project site mapped by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection is about 6 miles to the southeast (CAL FIRE 2011). 5.7.2 Thresholds of Significance According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would: HAZ-1 Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. HAZ-2 Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. HAZ-3 Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substance, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. HAZ-4 Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. HAZ-5 For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area. HAZ-6 Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. HAZ-7 Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. Impacts relating to thresholds HAZ-3, HAZ-4, and HAZ-7 were determined to be less than significant or no impact, as substantiated in Chapter 8, Impacts Found Not to Be Significant. These thresholds are not addressed in the following analysis. 5.7.3 Plans, Programs, Policies, and Standard Conditions of Approval The following are existing regulatory requirements, such as plans, policies, programs (PPP), or standard conditions of approval (SCA), applied to the project based on Federal, State, or local laws currently in place, and which effectively reduce impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials. PPP HAZ-1 Any project-related hazardous materials and hazardous wastes will be transported to and/or from the project site in compliance with any applicable State and Federal requirements, ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Page 5.7-12 April 2021February 2020 including the U.S. Department of Transportation regulations listed in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) (Title 49, Hazardous Materials Transportation Act); California Department of Transportation standards; and the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) standards. PPP HAZ-2 Any project-related hazardous waste generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal will be conducted in compliance with Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Title 40, Part 263), including the management of nonhazardous solid wastes. The proposed project will be designed and constructed in accordance with the regulations of the Orange County Environmental Health Department, which serves as the designated Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) and implements State and Federal regulations for the following programs: (1) Hazardous Waste Generator Program, (2) Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Program, (3) California Accidental Release Prevention, (4) Aboveground Storage Tank Program, and (5) Underground Storage Tank Program. PPP HAZ-3 A comprehensive asbestos and lead-based paint (LBP) survey shall be conducted at the project site. Any project-related demolition activities that have the potential to expose construction workers and/or the public to asbestos-containing material (ACM) or LBP will be conducted in accordance with applicable regulations, including, but not limited to: South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD’s) Rule 1403 California Health and Safety Code (Section 39650 et seq.) The California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) Administration Regulations (California Code of Regulations [CCR] Title 8, Section 1529 [Asbestos] and Section 1532.1 [Lead]) Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) (Title 40, Part 61 [asbestos]; Title 40, Part 763 [asbestos]; Title 40, Part 745 [lead]; and Title 29, Part 1926 [asbestos and lead]) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting Program Rules and Residential Lead-Based Paint Disclosure Program Sections 402, 404, and 403, as well as Title IV of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) PPP HAZ-4 The removal of other hazardous materials, such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), mercury-containing light ballast, and mold, will be completed in accordance with applicable regulations pursuant to 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 761 (PCBs), 40 CFR 273 (mercury-containing light ballast), and 29 CFR 1926 (molds) by workers with HAZWOPER training, as outlined in 29 CFR 1910.120 and 8 California Code of Regulations (CCR) 5192. PPP HAZ-5 Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77 establishes standards for determining whether objects constructed near airports would be considered obstructions in navigable airspace, sets forth notice requirements of certain types of proposed construction or alterations, and ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS April 2021February 2020 Page 5.7-13 provides for aeronautical studies to determine the potential impacts of a structure on the flight of aircraft through navigable airspace. FAR Part 77 requires notification to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for any project that would be more than 200 feet in height above the ground level pursuant to FAR Part 77 Section 77.13. As the project is located within the FAR Part 77 Notification Area for John Wayne Airport, the project would be subject to FAR Part 77 requirements. SCA HAZ-1 Prior to removal of underground tanks, the applicant shall contact the Orange County Environmental Health Care Agency for application procedures and guidelines. Issuance of building permits will be held until a clearance report is issued by the health agency and is submitted to planning staff. 5.7.4 Environmental Impacts 5.7.4.1 METHODOLOGY The Phase I ESA was conducted in general accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR Part 312, Standards and Practices for All Appropriate Inquiries, as required under Sections 101(35)(B)(ii) and (iii) of CERCLA. The purpose of conducting an all appropriate inquiries investigation into the previous ownership and uses of a property is to meet the provisions necessary for the landowner, contiguous property owner, and/or bona fide prospective purchaser to qualify for certain landowner liability protections under CERCLA. The purpose of the Phase I ESA was to identify evidence or indications of RECs. RECs are defined as the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at a property: Due to release to the environment; Under conditions indicative of a release to the environment; or Under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment. Additionally, an Historical REC (HREC) is a past release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products that has occurred in connection with the property and has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority or meeting unrestricted use criteria established by a regulatory authority, without subjecting the property to any required controls. Controlled REC (CREC) is defined as a recognized environmental condition resulting from a past release of hazardous substances or petroleum products that has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority (for example, as evidenced by the issuance of a no further action letter or equivalent, or meeting risk-based criteria established by regulatory authority), with hazardous substances or petroleum products allowed to remain in place subject to the implementation of required controls (for example, property use restrictions, activity and use limitations, institutional controls, or engineering controls). 5.7.4.2 IMPACT ANALYSIS The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which there may be potentially significant impacts. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets after the impact statement. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Page 5.7-14 April 2021February 2020 Thresholds HAZ-3, HAZ-4, and HAZ-7 have no impacts and are included in Chapter 8. Impact 5.7.1: Project construction and operation could create a significant hazard through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous waste. [Threshold HAZ-1] Impact Analysis: Construction Construction of the proposed project would involve demolition, grading, and construction of new buildings. Potentially hazardous materials used during construction include substances such as paints, sealants, lubricants, solvents, adhesives, cleaners, and diesel fuel. There is potential for these materials to spill or to create hazardous conditions. The materials used, however, would not be in such quantities or stored in such a manner as to pose a significant safety hazard. These activities would also be short term and would cease upon completion of construction. To prevent hazardous conditions, existing local, State, and Federal laws such as those listed under Section 5.7.1.1, Regulatory Framework, are to be enforced at the construction sites. For example, compliance with existing regulations would ensure construction workers and the general public are not exposed to any risks related to hazardous materials during demolition and construction activities. Cal/OSHA has regulations concerning the use of hazardous materials, including requirements for safety training, exposure warnings, availability of safety equipment, and preparation of emergency action/prevention plans. For example, all spills or leakage of petroleum products during construction activities are required to be immediately contained, the hazardous material identified, and the material remediated in compliance with applicable State and local regulations for the cleanup and disposal of that contaminant. All contaminated waste encountered would be required to be collected and disposed of at an appropriately licensed disposal or treatment facility. The Phase I ESA did not identify any RECs in connection with the property, therefore, grading activities would not be expected to encounter hazardous materials due to current or historical operations. The past use of the project site, however, as an automotive warehouse suggests the potential for past use/storage of hazardous substance and/or petroleum products and the presence of undocumented underground storage tanks (USTs) and/or other subsurface equipment. Excavation and grading activities have the potential to encounter undocumented USTs and releases of hazardous substances and/or petroleum products. If USTs are encountered, the applicant would be required to contact OCHCA for application procedures and guidelines in compliance with SCA HAZ-1. However, impacts related to releases of hazardous substances and/or petroleum products, as well as subsurface equipment, would be potentially significant during the construction phase. There is a high likelihood that ACMs are present in association with the on-site building, since the building was constructed by 1975, before asbestos was generally phased out of use in the 1980s. Based on the Asbestos Survey, there is a high likelihood that ACMs are present on-site in concentrations greater than one percent (friable). Demolition of the existing building has the potential to expose and disturb ACMs. The EPA specifies that ACM classified as friable, or that could become friable, is to be removed prior to renovation or demolition activities. According to the EPA, nonfriable ACM represents a minimal hazard to the occupants of a building as long as the material is in a generally undamaged condition and used for its intended purpose. In addition, ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS April 2021February 2020 Page 5.7-15 the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants and SCAQMD require that both friable ACM and nonfriable ACM that could become friable be removed prior to renovation or demolition activities (see PPP HAZ-3). In addition to ACMs, it is possible that LBPs were used historically on-site and PCBs are in building materials. As such, demolition of the existing building has the potential to expose and disturb LBP and PCBs. Abatement of all hazardous materials encountered during building demolition would be required to be conducted in accordance with the applicable laws and regulations, including those of DTSC, EPA, OSHA, Cal/OSHA, and SCAQMD (see PPP HAZ-1 through PPP HAZ-4). Compliance with these regulations would ensure the safe handling, treatment, removal, and disposal of ACMs, LBP, and PCBs. As such, impacts pertaining to demolition of the existing building would be less than significant. The use, storage, transport, and disposal of construction-related hazardous materials would be required to conform to existing laws and regulations (see PPP HAZ-1 and PPP HAZ-2). Compliance with applicable laws and regulations governing the use, storage, transportation, and disposal of hazardous materials would ensure all potentially hazardous materials are used and handled in an appropriate manner and would minimize the potential for safety impacts. For example, all spills or leakage of petroleum products during construction activities are required to be immediately contained, the hazardous material identified, and the material remediated in compliance with applicable State and local regulations for the cleanup and disposal of that contaminant. All contaminated waste would be required to be collected and disposed of at an appropriately licensed disposal or treatment facility. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant. Operation Operation of the proposed residential, retail, office, and recreational uses would involve the use of small amounts of hazardous materials, such as cleansers, paints, fertilizers, and pesticides for cleaning and maintenance purposes. However, the proposed land uses are not associated with uses that use, generate, store, or transport large quantities of hazardous materials; such uses generally include manufacturing, industrial, medical (e.g., hospital), and other similar uses. Additionally, the use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials would be governed by existing regulations of several agencies, including DTSC, EPA, U.S. Department of Transportation, Cal/OSHA, and OCHCA.2 Compliance with applicable laws and regulations governing the use, storage, transportation, and disposal of hazardous materials would ensure all potentially hazardous materials are used and handled in an appropriate manner and would minimize the potential for safety impacts. Therefore, substantial hazards to the public or the environment arising from the routine use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials during long-term operation of the proposed project would not occur. Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant Impact. 2 OCHCA is the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) for most of Orange County, including the City of Costa Mesa; the Certified Unified Program coordinates and makes consistent enforcement of several State and Federal regulations governing hazardous materials. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Page 5.7-16 April 2021February 2020 Impact 5.7-2: Project construction and operations could create a significant hazard through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials. [Threshold HAZ-2] Impact Analysis: The proposed project would be constructed and operated with strict adherence to all emergency response requirements set forth by OCHCA and the City of Costa Mesa’s EOP. Additionally, the use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials would be governed by existing regulations of several agencies, including DTSC, EPA, U.S. Department of Transportation, Cal/OSHA, and OCHCA. However, as the project site historically operated as an automotive warehouse, there is a potential that hazardous materials, petroleum products, USTs, and other subsurface equipment may be present on-site. Excavation and grading activities have the potential to encounter undocumented USTs and releases of hazardous substances and/or petroleum products. If USTs are encountered, the applicant would be required to contact OCHCA for application procedures and guidelines in compliance with SCA HAZ-1. However, hazards to the public or the environment arising from reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the disturbance of hazardous materials in soils would be a potentially significant impact. Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant Impact. Impact 5.7-3: The project would be located within an airport land use plan (or where such a plan has not been adopted) or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, but would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. [Threshold HAZ-5] Impact Analysis: The closest airport to the project site is the John Wayne Airport, located approximately 3.5 miles to the southeast. The project site is not located within the airport’s Safety Compatibility Zones (OCALUC 2008). However, the project site is located within the AELUP Notification Area for John Wayne Airport (OCALUC 2008). The ALUC has adopted FAR Part 77 as the criteria for determining height restrictions in Orange County. Any project that would be more than 200 feet in height above the ground level is required to notify the FAA, pursuant to FAR Part 77 Section 77.13 (see PPP HAZ-5). The project would involve construction of a mixed- use development. The proposed project would not exceed FAA’s notification requirement of 200 feet and would not introduce a safety hazard associated with airport operations. Thus, a less than significant impact would occur in this regard. Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS April 2021February 2020 Page 5.7-17 Impact 5.7-4: Project development could affect the implementation of an emergency responder or evacuation plan. [Threshold HAZ-6] Impact Analysis: The proposed project would not physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Project construction activities could result in short-term temporary impacts to street traffic along Sunflower Avenue. While temporary lane closures may be required, travel along surrounding roadways would remain open and would not interfere with emergency access in the site vicinity. According to the General Plan, the City maintains an EOP, which addresses the City’s planned responses to natural and human-caused disasters. The City of Costa Mesa Fire Department provides emergency medical and fire protection support, and the Costa Mesa Police Department is responsible for coordinating law enforcement and traffic control operations in emergency situations. The project would not affect the existing emergency service operations. As such, impacts in this regard would be less than significant. As shown on Figure S-9, Public Safety Facilities and Emergency Evacuation Routes, of the General Plan’s Safety Element, the nearest designated emergency evacuation route is Harbor Boulevard, to the east of the project site. Project construction activities could result in short-term temporary impacts to street traffic along Sunflower Avenue as temporary lane closures may be required. Therefore, emergency access to evacuation routes may be interrupted and impacts would be potentially significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant Impact. 5.7.5 Cumulative Impacts Impact 5.7.5: Construction and operation of the proposed project and related projects could create a cumulatively considerable impact to the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous waste. [Threshold HAZ-1] Impact Analysis: Construction Cumulative projects are not anticipated to result in a cumulatively considerable hazardous materials impact during construction. All construction activities would be subject to compliance with existing laws and regulations (see PPP HAZ-1 and PPP HAZ-4) related to hazardous materials. Future development would be required to evaluate their respective hazards and hazardous materials impacts on a project-by-project basis. However, like the proposed project, the related cumulative projects identified in Table 4-2, Related Projects, would have the potential to encounter hazardous substances and/or petroleum products during construction. As discussed in Impact 5.7.1, the proposed project has the potential to encounter undocumented USTs and releases of hazardous substances and/or petroleum products during excavation and grading activities. Thus, the proposed project, combined with other related cumulative projects, may cause a cumulatively considerable significant impact through the routine transportation, use, disposal or release of hazardous materials during construction. Potential cumulatively considerable impacts would result in this regard. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Page 5.7-18 April 2021February 2020 Operation Cumulative development would include some industrial and commercial uses, which could involve the use of various hazardous products in greater quantities; refer to Table 4-2. Cumulative residential development would also increase the use of household-type hazardous materials. The use, storage, disposal, and transport of hazardous materials could result in a foreseeable number of spills and accidents. All new development would be subject to compliance with applicable laws and regulations related to hazardous materials. Future development would be required to evaluate their respective hazards and hazardous materials impacts on a project-by-project basis. Compliance with all Federal, State, and local regulations during the operation of new developments would ensure there are no cumulatively considerable significant hazards to the public or the environment associated with the routine transportation, use, disposal, or release of hazardous materials during operations. As concluded in Impact 5.7.1, substantial hazards to the public or the environment arising from the routine use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials during long-term operation of the proposed project would not occur. Thus, the proposed project would not result in cumulatively considerable significant impacts through the routine transportation, use, disposal, or release of hazardous materials during operations. Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant Impact. Impact 5.7-6: Construction and operation of the proposed project and related projects could result in a cumulatively considerable impact through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials. [Threshold HAZ-2] Impact Analysis: Cumulative projects could result in the increase in handling of hazardous materials, potential for accidental conditions, or an increase in the transport of hazardous materials, particularly during site disturbance/demolition/remedial activities. However, with compliance with DTSC, OCHCA, EPA, and Cal/OSHA laws and regulations, these impacts would be minimized. Compliance with all applicable Federal and State laws and regulations related to the handling of hazardous materials would reduce the likelihood and severity of accidents. As discussed in Impact 5.7-2, implementation of the proposed project would result in a potentially significant impact regarding reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials. Therefore, the proposed project would have a potentially significant cumulatively considerable impact involving hazards and hazardous materials. Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant Impact. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS April 2021February 2020 Page 5.7-19 Impact 5.7-7: The project and related projects could be located within an airport land use plan (or where such a plan has not been adopted) or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, but would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. [Threshold HAZ-5] Impact Analysis: As concluded in Impact 5.7-3, the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact with regard to airport safety hazards for people residing or working in the project area. Like the proposed project, the related cumulative projects identified in Table 4-2 would be subject to the applicable laws and regulations, including those of the FAA and ALUC. Therefore, the proposed project, in conjunction with other related cumulative projects, would not be cumulatively considerable with regard to airport safety hazards for people residing or working in the project area; impacts would be less than significant in this regard. Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. Impact 5.7-8: Development of the proposed project and related projects could affect the implementation of an emergency responder or evacuation plan. [Threshold HAZ-6] Impact Analysis: Cumulative projects in the area would be analyzed for impairment of emergency access vehicles and consistency with the City’s EOP on a project-by-project basis and would be required to comply with all City roadway design standards to ensure adequate emergency access is not impacted. However, as concluded in Impact 5.7-4, the proposed project was determined to have a potentially significant impact regarding emergency access to evacuation routes due to lane closures. Therefore, the proposed project would have a potentially significant cumulatively considerable impact with regard to interfering with an emergency responder or evacuation plan. Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant Impact. 5.7.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation Upon implementation of regulatory requirements, the following impacts would be less than significant: Impacts 5.7-3 and 5.7-7. However, without mitigation, the following impacts would be potentially significant: Impact 5.7-1: Project construction and operation could create a significant hazard through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous waste. Impact 5.7-2: Project construction and operations could create a significant hazard through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials. Impact 5.7-4: Project development could affect the implementation of an emergency responder or evacuation plan. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Page 5.7-20 April 2021February 2020 Impact 5.7-5: Construction and operation of the proposed project and related projects could create a cumulatively considerable impact to the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous waste. Impact 5.7-6: Construction and operation of the proposed project and related projects could result in a cumulatively considerable impact through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials. Impact 5.7-8: Development of the proposed project and related projects could affect the implementation of an emergency responder or evacuation plan. 5.7.7 Mitigation Measures Impact 5.7-1 HAZ-1 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Soils Management Plan (SMP) (prepared by Geocon Incorporated, dated July 24, 2019) shall be made available to the contractor and City Engineer for use prior to and during grading activities. The following Performance Criteria shall be incorporated into the SMP prior to issuance of a grading permit: Site-specific health and safety requirements, pre-field activities, site control, excavation of impacted soil, dust and erosion control, air monitoring, decontamination, field documentation and confirmation soil sampling shall be implemented under the oversight of a licensed professional geologist or engineer and the appropriate regulatory oversight agencies (including DTSC and Santa Ana RWQCB) shall be notified, as required by law; If contaminated soil is encountered, the appropriate regulatory oversight agencies (e.g., DTSC, RWQCB, OCHCA) shall be notified; Soil sampling shall follow the protocols outlined in the DTSC Preliminary Endangerment Assessment Guidance Manual dated October 2015; and Soil import/export verification sampling shall be conducted by a qualified environmental professional to confirm the presence or absence of hazardous materials prior to hauling off-site. Proof of verification sampling shall be provided to the City Engineer prior to import/export. In the event potential contamination is encountered, the contamination shall be evaluated by the qualified environmental professional using appropriate collection and sampling techniques as determined by the appropriate regulatory oversight agency (e.g., DTSC, RWQCB, OCHCA). The nature and extent of contamination shall be determined and the appropriate handling, disposal, and/or treatment shall be implemented in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements. HAZ-2 Contractors shall be responsible for the health and safety of their own employees and are required to have their own Health and Safety Plan (HSP) and Injury and Illness Prevention Plans (IIPPs) to comply with OSHA. The HSP and IIPPs must be submitted to the Development Services Department prior to the issuance of a grading or demolition permit. The copy of the plan(s) must also beThe HSPs shall provide health and safety guidance such ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS April 2021February 2020 Page 5.7-21 that field activities can be conducted in a safe manner. The plan must be kept on site during any soil disturbance and hauling activities, if required. Impact 5.7-2 Refer to Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2. Impact 5.7-4 HAZ-3 At least three business days prior to any lane closure, the construction contractor shall notify the Costa Mesa Police Department and Costa Mesa Fire Department, along with the City of Costa Mesa Public Services Director, of construction activities that would impede movement (such as road or lane closures), to allow for uninterrupted emergency access of evacuation routes. Impact 5.7-5 Refer to Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2. Impact 5.7-6 Refer to Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2. Impact 5.7-8 Refer to Mitigation Measure HAZ-3. 5.7.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation Impact 5.7-1 The project would be required to comply with Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2, which would ensure the safe handling of any suspicious soil or unknown features that may be encountered during grading activities. If encountered, these areas of concern would be assessed by a qualified environmental professional and handled per the requirements provided the Soil Management Plan and the performance criteria as outlined in Mitigation Measure HAZ-1. With implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2, impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels. Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Impact 5.7-2 Refer to the discussion above. With implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2, project impacts with regard to hazards to the public or the environment arising from reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving hazardous materials would be reduced to less than significant levels. Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Page 5.7-22 April 2021February 2020 Impact 5.7-4 The project would be required to comply with Mitigation Measure HAZ-3, which requires the project applicant to notify the Costa Mesa Police Department, Costa Mesa Fire Department, and the City of Costa Mesa Public Services Director of construction activities that would impede movement (such as road or lane closures) along Sunflower Avenue. Compliance with Mitigation Measure HAZ-3 would allow for uninterrupted emergency access to evacuation routes. Thus, project impacts with regard to interfering with an emergency responder or evacuation plan would be reduced to less than significant levels. Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Impact 5.7-5 Refer to the discussion above. With implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2, project impacts through the routine transportation, use, disposal, or release of hazardous materials would be less than significant and would not be cumulatively considerable. Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Impact 5.7-6 Refer to the discussion above. With implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2, project impacts with regard to hazards to the public or the environment arising from reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving hazardous materials would be less than significant and would not be cumulatively considerable. Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Impact 5.7-8 Refer to the discussion above. With implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-3, project impacts with regard to interfering with an emergency responder or evacuation plan would be less than significant and would not be cumulatively considerable. Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I February 2020April 2021 Chapter 5.8 Hydrology and Water Quality ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I February 2020April 2021 This page intentionally left blank. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis April 2021February 2020 Page 5.8-1 5.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY This section of the Draft EIR evaluates the potential for the project to impact hydrology and water quality. Hydrology is related to the distribution and circulation of water, both on land and underground. Water quality is related to the quality of surface water and groundwater. Surface water includes lakes, rivers, streams, and creeks; groundwater is under the Earth’s surface. The analysis in this section is based in part on the following information: Preliminary Hydrology Report (Preliminary Hydrology Report), Urban Resource Corporation, November 1, 2019; Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (Preliminary WQMP), Urban Resource Corporation, August 14, 2019; and California Senate Bill 610 Water Supply Assessment for Mesa Water District One Metro West Project (WSA), Michael Baker International, October 2019. Complete copies of these studies are included in the technical appendices of this Draft EIR (Volume II, Appendix I, Preliminary Hydrology Report, Appendix J, Preliminary WQMP, and Appendix N, Water Supply Assessment). 5.8.1 Environmental Setting 5.8.1.1 REGULATORY BACKGROUND Federal Clean Water Act The Clean Water Act (CWA) is a 1977 amendment to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972. The CWA is the principal statute governing water quality. It establishes the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into the Waters of the United States1 and gives the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the authority to implement pollution control programs, such as setting wastewater standards. The statute’s goal is to end all discharges entirely and to restore, maintain, and preserve the integrity of the Nation’s waters. The CWA regulates both the direct and indirect discharge of pollutants into the Nation’s waters. The CWA sets water quality standards for all contaminants in surface waters and makes it unlawful for any person to discharge any pollutant from a point source into navigable waters, unless a permit is obtained under its provisions. The CWA mandates permits for wastewater and stormwater discharges, requires states to establish site-specific water quality standards for navigable bodies of water, and regulates other activities that affect water quality, such as dredging and the filling of wetlands. The CWA also funded the construction of sewage treatment plants and recognized the need for planning to address nonpoint sources of pollution. The following CWA sections assist in ensuring water quality in surrounding water bodies: 1 Waters of the United States generally include surface waters(e.g., lakes, rivers streams, bays, the ocean, dry streambeds, wetlands, and storm sewers) that are tributary to any surface water body. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Page 5.8-2 April 2021February 2020 Section 208 requires the use of best management practices (BMPs) to control discharge of pollutants in stormwater during construction. Section 303(d) requires creation of a list of impaired water bodies by states, territories, and authorized tribes; evaluation of lawful activities that may impact impaired water bodies;2 and preparation of plans to improve the quality of these water bodies. Water bodies on the list do not meet water quality standards, even after point sources of pollution have installed the minimum required levels of pollution-control technology. Section 402(p) establishes a framework to control water pollution by regulating point source discharges under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program. Point source discharges are readily identifiable, discrete inputs where waste is discharged to receiving waters from a pipe or drain. Nonpoint discharges occur over a wide area and are associated with particular land uses (such as urban runoff from streets and stormwater from construction sites). National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Under the NPDES program (CWA Section 402), all facilities that discharge pollutants from any point source into Waters of the United States must have a NPDES permit. The term “pollutant” broadly applies to any type of industrial, municipal, and agricultural waste discharged into water. Point sources can be publicly owned treatment works (POTWs), industrial facilities, and urban runoff. It is acknowledged that the NPDES program addresses certain agricultural activities, but the majority are considered nonpoint sources and are exempt from NPDES regulation. Direct sources discharge directly to receiving waters, and indirect sources discharge to POTWs, which in turn discharge to receiving waters. The NPDES program issues two basic permit types: individual and general. Also, the EPA has recently focused on integrating the NPDES program further into watershed planning and permitting (USEPA 2012). The NPDES program has a variety of measures designed to minimize and reduce pollutant discharges. All counties with storm drain systems that serve a population of 100,000 or more, as well as construction sites one acre or more in size, must file for and obtain a NPDES permit. Another measure for minimizing and reducing pollutant discharges to a publicly owned conveyance or system of conveyances (including roadways, catch basins, curbs, gutters, ditches, man-made channels, and storm drains, designed or used for collecting and conveying stormwater) is the EPA’s Storm Water Phase I Final Rule. The Phase I Final Rule requires an operator of a regulated municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) to develop, implement, and enforce a program (e.g., BMPs, ordinances, or other regulatory mechanisms) to reduce pollutants in post-construction runoff to the City’s storm drain system from new development and redevelopment projects that result in land disturbance of greater than or equal to one acre. National Dam Safety Act of the Federal Emergency Management Agency 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), the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is responsible for coordinating 2 Impaired water bodies are water bodies that do not meet, or are not expected to meet, water quality standards. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY April 2021February 2020 Page 5.8-3 efforts to secure the safety of dams throughout the United States. NDSP targets the improvement of dams and the safety of those who live in surrounding communities. National Flood Insurance Program The National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 and the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 are intended to reduce the need for large, publicly funded flood control structures and disaster relief by restricting development on floodplains. The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) provides a means for property owners to financially protect themselves from flood damage. The NFIP offers flood insurance to homeowners, renters, and business owners if their community participates in the program. Participating communities agree to adopt and enforce ordinances that meet or exceed FEMA requirements to reduce the risk of flooding. The County of Orange and City of Costa Mesa are participants and must adhere to the NFIP. Through its Flood Hazard Mapping Program, FEMA identifies flood hazards, assesses flood risks, and partners with states and communities to provide accurate flood hazard and risk data. Flood Hazard Mapping is an important part of the NFIP, as it is the basis of the NFIP regulations and flood insurance requirements. FEMA maintains and updates data through Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and risk assessments. A FIRM is an official map of a community on which FEMA has delineated both the special hazard areas and the risk premium zones applicable to the community. A Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) is an area within a floodplain having a one percent or greater chance of flood occurrence within any given year (commonly referred to as the 100-year flood zone). SFHAs are delineated on flood hazard boundary maps issued by FEMA. The Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 and the National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1994 make flood insurance mandatory for most properties in SFHAs. State Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Water Code Sections 13000 et seq.) is the basic water quality control law for California. Under this act, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) has ultimate control over State water rights and water quality policy. In California, the EPA has delegated authority to issue NPDES permits to the SWRCB. The State is divided into nine regions related to water quality and quantity characteristics. The SWRCB, through its nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) carries out the regulation, protection, and administration of water quality in each region. Each RWQCB is required to adopt a Water Quality Control Plan or Basin Plan that recognizes and reflects the regional differences in existing water quality, the beneficial uses of the region’s groundwater and surface water, and local water quality conditions and problems. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Page 5.8-4 April 2021February 2020 General Construction Permit Pursuant to the CWA, in 2001, the SWRCB issued a Statewide general NPDES Permit for stormwater discharges from construction sites (NPDES No. CAS000002). Under this Statewide General Construction Permit, discharges of stormwater from construction sites with a disturbed area of one or more acres are required to either obtain individual NPDES permits for stormwater discharges or be covered by the General Construction Permit. Coverage by the General Construction Permit is accomplished by completing and filing a Notice of Intent with the SWRCB and developing and implementing a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Each applicant under the General Constr uction Permit must ensure a SWPPP is prepared prior to grading and is implemented during construction. The SWPPP must list BMPs implemented on the construc- tion site to protect stormwater runoff. It must also contain a visual monitoring program, a chemical monitoring program for “nonvisible” pollutants to be implemented if there is a failure of BMPs, and a monitoring plan if the site discharges directly to a water body listed on the State’s 303(d) list of impaired waters. Sustainable Groundwater Management Act The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) established a framework for sustainable, local groundwater management. SGMA requires groundwater-dependent regions to halt overdraft and bring basins into balanced levels of pumping and recharge. With passage of the SGMA, the Department of Water Resources (DWR) launched the Sustainable Groundwater Management Program to implement the law and provide ongoing support to local agencies around the State. The SGMA: Establishes a definition of “sustainable groundwater management;” Requires a Groundwater Sustainability Plan be adopted for the most important groundwater basins in California; Establishes a timetable for adoption of Groundwater Sustainability Plans; Empowers local agencies to manage their groundwater basins sustainably; Establishes basic requirements for Groundwater Sustainability Plans; and Provides for a limited State role. California Geological Survey Tsunami Inundation Maps A tsunami is a sea wave generated by an earthquake, landslide, volcanic eruption, or even by a large meteor hitting the ocean. The California Geological Survey provides geologic and seismic expertise to the public, other State government offices, and local government agencies. The California Geological Survey works with the California Emergency Management Agency and the University of Southern California Tsunami Research Center to produce Statewide tsunami inundation maps. These maps, which were prepared to assist cities and counties in identifying their tsunami hazard, are used by coastal communities to prepare emergency evacuation plans. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY April 2021February 2020 Page 5.8-5 Regional Santa Ana River Basin Watershed Management Area Water Quality Control Plan The City is in the Santa Ana River Basin in the Upper Santa Ana Watershed. The Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin (Region 8) (Basin Plan) was last updated by the Santa Ana RWQCB in June 2019. The Basin Plan gives direction on the beneficial uses of the State waters in Region 8 (Chapter 3); describes the water quality that must be maintained to support such uses (Chapter 4); and provides programs, projects, and other actions necessary to achieve the standards established by the Santa Ana RWQCB. North and Central Orange County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan The North and Central Orange County Watershed Management Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP) was prepared to identify and implement water management solutions on a regional scale. Agencies, organizations, and stakeholders collaborated to identify water resource needs, develop goals to improve water resource management, and evaluate projects for increased regional self-reliance. The goals of the IRWMP are to increase water supply, protect water quality, enhance the environment and habitat, provide flood risk management, improve the quality of life, and address climate change. The IRWMP accomplishes these goals through an established process of ranking projects to help further State and regional goals (OCPW 2018). Orange County Water District Groundwater Management Plan The goal of the Orange County Water District Groundwater Management Plan (OCWD GMP) is to provide a planning framework to operate and manage the groundwater basin in a sustainable manner to ensure a long-term reliable supply for beneficial uses among all stakeholders in the Orange County Groundwater Basin (OC Basin). The purpose of the OCWD GMP is to develop consensus among stakeholders on issues and solutions related to groundwater; build relationships among stakeholders within the OC Basin and between local, State, and Federal agencies; and define actions for developing project and management programs to ensure the long-term sustainability of groundwater resources in the OC Basin. Orange County MS4 Permit MS4 permits are issued by local RWQCBs to provide the means to address stormwater quality issues specific to the local watershed or region. MS4 permits require permittees to develop and implement a stormwater management program with the goal of reducing the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable (MEP). The stormwater management program or drainage area management plan, as it is referred to in the Orange County MS4 Permit (Order No. R8-2009-0030 [NPDES Permit No. CAS618030]), must specify BMPs approved by the Santa Ana RWQCB. The proposed project and its facilities would discharge into the MS4 within the jurisdiction of Costa Mesa. Pursuant to the Orange County MS4 Permit, the City is responsible for controlling or limiting urban pollutants generated by post-construction activities from reaching their MS4s. The proposed project is, therefore, subject ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Page 5.8-6 April 2021February 2020 to the requirements of the Orange County MS4 Permit (Santa Ana Region) as it is applied by the permittee and its co-permittees. De Minimis Waste Discharge Requirements for the Santa Ana Region Order No. R8-2015-0004, NPDES No. CAG998001, includes general waste discharge requirements for discharges to surface waters that pose an insignificant (de minimis) threat to water quality and regulates dewatering discharges for the Santa Ana Region. The Order regulates proposed groundwater-related discharges and/or de minimis discharges within the San Diego Creek/Newport Bay Watershed that do not contain nutrients, selenium, and other pollutants of total maximum daily load (TMDL) concern at levels that pose a threat to water quality. Construction dewatering wastes, among other wastewater discharges, are regulated under this Order. Model Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) and Technical Guidance Document (TGD) Model Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), dated May 2011) and Technical Guidance Document (TGD) (dated December 2013) have been developed to aid the County of Orange, the Orange County Flood Control District, and cities of Orange County (the Permittees) and development project proponents with addressing post-construction urban runoff and stormwater pollution from new development and significant redevelopment projects that qualify as Priority Projects. The criteria for defining a “Priority Project” is provided in the Model WQMP and TGD. The Model WQMP and TGD describe the process that Permittees employ for developing a WQMP for individual new development and significant redevelopment projects. A WQMP is a plan for minimizing the adverse effects of urbanization on site hydrology, runoff flow rates and pollutant loads. A WQMP, consistent with the Model WQMP and TGD, is required by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit administered by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Local General Plan The Conservation Element and Safety Element of the General Plan include the following goals, objectives, and policies pertaining to hydrology and water quality: 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.A: Work towards the protection and conser vation of existing and future water resources by recognizing water as a limited resource that requires conservation. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY April 2021February 2020 Page 5.8-7 - Policy CON-3.A.5: 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.A.6: Continue to develop strategies to promote stormwater management techniques and storm drain diversion programs that collectively and naturally filter urban runoff. - Policy CON-3.A.7: 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.A.8: Require that all applicable development projects be reviewed with regards to requirements of both the on-site Water Quality Management Plan and State requirements for runoff and obtaining a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) permit. 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-1A: Work to mitigate and prevent potential adverse consequences of natural and human- caused disasters. - Policy S-1.9: 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-1.10: Regularly review and update Article 10 - Floodway and Floodplain Districts of the City’s Municipal Code consistent with federal and State requirements. - Policy S-1.11: Improve and maintain local storm drainage infrastructure in a manner that reduces flood hazards. - Policy S-1.14: Minimize flood hazard risks to people, property, and the environment by addressing potential damage tsunamis and sea level rise. - Policy S-1.15: 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. - Policy S-1.16: Develop emergency response, early warning notification, and evacuation plans for areas that are within dam inundation areas, where feasible. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Page 5.8-8 April 2021February 2020 Municipal Code The Municipal Code addresses hydrology and water quality issues through Section 8-32, Control of Urban Runoff, and Article 10, Floodway and Floodplain Districts. The City’s irrigation requirements are regulated through Section 13-107, Irrigation Requirements. Municipal Code Section 8-32 mandates all new development within the City is undertaken in accordance with the County’s DAMP and any conditions and requirements established by the City of Costa Mesa Development Services Department and the Public Services Department. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, building permit, or non-residential plumbing permit for any new development or significant redevelopment, the Development Services Department and the Public Services Department must review the project plans and impose terms, conditions, and requirements on a project in accordance with Municipal Code Section 8-32. According to Municipal Code Title 13, Chapter 5, Article 10, 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. Municipal Code Section 13-107 requires irrigation systems be designed so that overspray, runoff, and low-head drainage onto streets, sidewalks, windows, walls, and fences are minimized. Automatic systems for watering cycles should be scheduled to maximize ground infiltration rates and further minimize runoff. 5.8.1.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS Regional Drainage The City is located within the Santa Ana River Hydrologic Unit. This unit covers an area of approximately 2,700 square miles, which is within most of the Santa Ana RWQCB’s jurisdictional area and includes portions of Orange, Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties. Within this hydrologic unit, the City encompasses both the Santa Ana River Watershed (northern portion) and the Newport Bay Watershed (southern portion). The project site is in the Santa Ana River Watershed, which covers approximately 210 square miles within the County. This watershed contains the Santa Ana River and Santiago Creek (OCPW 2011). The Santa Ana River passes about 1,000 feet northwest of the project site; refer to Figure 3-2, Local Vicinity. The City provides storm drain service to the majority of the City and has approximately 42 miles of storm drains and 1,165 catch basins. City staff is responsible for inspection, maintenance, and repair of the City’s storm drain system. This includes clearing blocked drains, removing debris from storm drain/catch basins structures, and cleaning and repairing damaged drain pipes. The objective is to reduce debris and pollution from reaching the ocean in compliance with the NPDES (Costa Mesa 2019e). The Orange County Resources and Development Management Department maintains the regional drainage facilities in the City, including the Santa Ana River and San Diego Creek. Local Drainage The existing site consists of surface parking, ornamental landscaping, and an industrial building. Approximately 18 percent of the site is pervious (2.7 acres), and the remaining 82 percent is impervious (12.5 acres). ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY April 2021February 2020 Page 5.8-9 Existing Conditions The site is generally flat and divided into nine drainage sub-areas; refer to Figure 5.8-1, Existing Drainage Conditions. The sub-areas drain into either: An existing 66-inch cured-in-place pipe (CIPP) storm drain (running from Sunflower Avenue to the Interstate 405 (I-405) Freeway along the west side of the site), or An existing 24-inch reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) storm drain located along the eastern edge of the site. The peak flow rates for the 25- and 10-year storms under existing conditions are described in Table 5.8-1, Existing Conditions. Table 5.8-1 Existing Conditions Peak Drainage Q25 (cfs) Peak Drainage Q10 (cfs) Existing 66-inch Storm Drain Line 113.07 89.23 Existing 24-inch Storm Drain Line 14.60 12.15 Source: URC 2019 (refer to Appendix I). Notes: Q25= peak drainage from 25-year storm Q10= peak drainage from 10-year storm cfs = cubic feet per second Surface Water Quality The Santa Ana River Reach 1 and the Newport Slough receive runoff from the project site. The Santa Ana River Reach 1 is on the CWA Section 303(d) List of Water Quality Limited Segments for Enterococcus, Fecal Coliform, and Total Coliform3 (SWRCB 2019). There are no 303(d) listed impairments for the Newport Slough. According to the Basin Plan, the following beneficial uses are identified for the Santa Ana River Reach 1: Municipal and Domestic Supply (MUN): MUN waters are used for community, military, municipal, or individual water supply systems. These uses may include, but are not limited to, drinking water supply. Water Contact Recreation (REC1): REC1 waters are used for recreational activities involving body contact with water where ingestion of water is reasonably possible. These uses may include, but are not limited to, swimming, wading, water-skiing, skin and scuba diving, surfing, whitewater activities, fishing, and use of natural hot springs. Non-contact Water Recreation (REC2): REC2 waters are used for recreational activities involving proximity to water, but not normally involving body contact with water where ingestion of water would be reasonably possible. These uses may include, but are not limited to, picnicking, sunbathing, hiking, beachcombing, camping, boating, tidepool and marine life study, hunting, sightseeing, and aesthetic enjoyment in conjunction with the above activities. 3 Enterococcus, Fecal Coliform, and Total Coliform are indicators of the presence of fecal material in water. ONE METRO WEST ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Figure 5.8-1 Existing Drainage Conditions Source: Urban Resource Corporation, 2019. 04/21 JN 172326 NOT TO SCALE ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY April 2021February 2020 Page 5.8-11 Warm Freshwater Habitat (WARM): WARM waters support warmwater ecosystems that may include, but are not limited to, preservation and enhancement of aquatic habitats, vegetation, fish, and wildlife, including invertebrates. Wildlife Habitat (WILD): WILD waters support wildlife habitats that may include, but are not limited to, the preservation and enhancement of vegetation and prey species used by waterfowl and other wildlife. Beneficial uses identified for the Newport Slough include MUN, REC1, REC2, and WILD, as well as the following: Commercial and Sportfishing (COMM): COMM waters are used for commercial or recreational collection of fish or other organisms, including those collected for bait. These uses may include uses involving organisms intended for human consumption. Rare, Threatened or Endangered Species (RARE): RARE waters support the habitats necessary for the survival and successful maintenance of plant or animal species designated under State or Federal law as rare, threatened, or endangered. Marine Habitat (MAR): MAR waters support marine ecosystems that include, but are not limited to, preservation and enhancement of marine habitats, vegetation (e.g., kelp), fish, and shellfish, and wildlife (e.g., marine mammals and shorebirds). Estuarine Habitat (EST): EST waters support estuarine ecosystems, which may include, but are not limited to, preservation and enhancement of estuarine habitats, vegetation, fish, and shellfish, and wildlife (e.g., waterfowl, shorebirds, and marine mammals). Groundwater Extensive portions of the County are underlain by deep deposits of permeable, water-bearing sedimentary geologic strata. Groundwater occurs in semi-consolidated to moderately consolidated sand, gravel, and silt occurring in aquifers extending from approximately 40 to over 2,500 feet below ground surface (bgs) in Costa Mesa. Depths to the uppermost aquifer vary throughout the City from approximately 40 feet bgs in the northern portions to over 100 feet bgs near the coast. Groundwater is present at depths of less than 40 feet bgs along the Santa Ana River. Groundwater for Costa Mesa is withdrawn from the OC Basin. The OCWD manages the amount and quality of groundwater in the OC Basin (Costa Mesa 2016). The Mesa Water District (MWD) supplies water to the City and owns and operates eight groundwater production wells. As of 2019, MWD relies on approximately 16,065 acre-feet per year (AFY) of groundwater from the OC Basin (Michael Baker 2019). This source of supply meets approximately 94 percent of MWD’s total annual demand. Perched groundwater occurs at the site at a depth between 10 and 20 feet bgs. Additionally, the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation specifies the historic high perched groundwater depth is approximately 10 feet bgs; refer to Appendix E, Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Page 5.8-12 April 2021February 2020 Groundwater Quality Salinity and nitrates are significant water quality problems in many parts of Southern California, including Orange County. Salinity is a measure of the dissolved particles and ions in water, which can be measured as total dissolved solids (TDS) or electrical conductivity (EC). OCWD continuously monitors the levels of TDS in wells throughout the OC Basin. TDS currently has a California Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 500 milligrams per liter (mg/L). The portions of the OC Basin with the highest levels are generally located in the cites of Irvine, Tustin, Yorba Linda, Anaheim, and Fullerton. There is also a broad area in the central portion of the OC Basin where TDS ranges from 500 to 700 mg/L. Sources of TDS include the water supplies used to recharge the OC Basin and on-site wastewater treatment systems, also known as septic systems. The TDS concentration in the OC Basin is expected to decrease over time as the TDS concentration of water used to recharge the OC Basin is approximately 50 mg/L. Nitrates are one of the most common and widespread contaminants in groundwater supplies, originating from fertilizer use, animal feedlots, wastewater disposal systems, and other sources. The MCL for nitrate in drinking water is set at 10 mg/L. OCWD regularly monitors nitrate levels in groundwater and works with producers to treat wells that have exceeded safe levels of nitrate concentrations. OCWD manages the nitrate concentration of water recharged by its facilities to reduce nitrate concentrations in groundwater. This includes the operation of the Prado Wetlands, which was designed to remove nitrogen and other pollutants from the Santa Ana River before the water is diverted to be percolated into OCWD’s surface water recharge system (MWD 2016). Flooding Hazards Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Zone According to the FEMA FIRM No. 06059C0258J, the project site is located in Zone X, which indicates an area of minimal flood hazard, not within a 100-year flood zone. However, it is acknowledged the site is an area of reduced flood risk due to the levees on the Santa Ana River and may be exposed to flood risk if overtopping of the levee occurs (FEMA 2009). Dam Inundation The project site is in the dam inundation area for the Prado Dam and Santiago Creek Dam; refer to General Plan Safety Element Figure S-5, Local Flooding Hazards. The Prado Dam is 21 miles northeast from the project site. Although the dam was designed in the 1930s, risk of inundation as a result of dam failure has decreased 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 would 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, the Seven Oaks Dam would 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 the County. The Prado Dam has been designed to protect against a 100-year flood (or a one percent chance event). ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY April 2021February 2020 Page 5.8-13 The Santiago Creek Dam is 13 miles northeast of the project site. The dam is located near the City of Irvine and was constructed in 1931. Santiago Creek Dam is jointly owned by the Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) and Serrano Water District. The dam is inspected twice a year by the California Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD). DSOD deemed the dam safe for continued use. In addition to State-mandated inspections, IRWD retains geotechnical consultants that specialize in dams to perform an extra semi-annual inspection of the dam. IRWD staff visually inspect the dam daily and have caretakers who live on-site and also observe the dam daily. Measurements of drain flows, monitoring wells, and piezometers are taken monthly. Piezometers are used to measure groundwater and other fluid pressure levels. Dam crest survey markers, which give the ability to measure horizontal or vertical movement of the dam, are measured by a licensed surveyor annually (IRWD 2019). Tsunamis Tsunamis are large ocean waves caused by underwater seismic activity. When tsunamis hit the coast, they can cause considerable damage to property and put the public at risk. The project site is located approximately 4.5 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean. According to the California Department of Conservation, the project site is not within a tsunami hazard zone (DOC 2015). Seiches A seiche is a surface wave created in an enclosed or partially enclosed body of water, which can be compared to the back-and-forth sloshing in a bathtub. Seiches usually occur as a result of earthquake activity. According to the General Plan EIR, 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 seiches at the project site. 5.8.2 Thresholds of Significance According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would: HYD-1 Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality. HYD-2 Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. HYD-3 Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: i) Result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Page 5.8-14 April 2021February 2020 iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. iv) Impede or redirect flood flows. HYD-4 In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation. HYD-5 Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. No impacts relating to Threshold HYD-4 were identified, as substantiated in Chapter 8, Impacts Found Not to Be Significant, of this Draft EIR. This threshold is not addressed in the following analysis. 5.8.3 Plans, Programs, Policies, and Standard Conditions of Approval The following are existing regulatory requirements, such as plans, policies, programs (PPP), or standard conditions of approval (SCA), applied to the project based on Federal, State, or local laws currently in place, and which effectively reduce impacts related to hydrology and water quality. PPP HYD-1 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with the Construction and Land Disturbance Activities, NPDES No. CAS000002. Compliance requires filing a Notice of Intent (NOI), a Risk Assessment, a Site Map, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) with associated best management practices (BMPs), an annual fee, and a signed certification statement. PPP HYD-2 Orange County MS4 Permit (R8-2009-0030, as amended by Order No. R8-2010-0062, or most recent): The MS4 Permit requires new development and redevelopment projects to: Control contaminants into storm drain systems; Educate the public about stormwater impacts; Detect and eliminate illicit discharges; Control runoff from construction sites; and Implement best management practices (BMPs) and site-specific runoff controls and treatments for new development and redevelopment. PPP HYD-3 As required by Municipal Code Section 8-32, Control of Urban Runoff, the proposed project would be undertaken in accordance with the County’s Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) and 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. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, building permit, or non-residential plumbing permit for any new development, or significant redevelopment, the Development Services Department and Public Services Department would review the project plans and impose terms, conditions, and requirements on the project in accordance with Municipal Code Section 8-32. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY April 2021February 2020 Page 5.8-15 PPP HYD-4 As required by Municipal Code Section 13-107, Irrigation Requirements, irrigation systems would be designed to reduce overspray, runoff, and low-head drainage onto streets, sidewalks, windows, walls, and fences. Automatic systems for watering cycles would be scheduled to maximize ground infiltration rates and further minimize runoff. PPP HYD-5 Project dewatering would comply with the Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges to Land with a Low Threat to Water Quality (Order No. 2003-0003-DWQ) or the De Minimis Waste Discharge Requirements for the Santa Ana Region (Order No. R8- 2015-0004, NPDES No. CAG998001), as required. PPP HYD-6 As required by Municipal Code Section 8-32, the project is required to comply with the recommendations outlined in the Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (Preliminary WQMP), prepared by Urban Resource Corporation on April 30, 2019. A final WQMP must be submitted and approved by the City prior to the issuance of a grading permit. The WQMP includes site design measures, source control measures, and treatment measures that minimize the potential for erosion and siltation. In addition, the WQMP must include an operations and maintenance (O&M) plan and maintenance agreement for review and approval by the City to ensure the treatment measures installed at the site are maintained for perpetuity. Refer to Section 5.2, Air Quality, for a discussion of SCA HYD-1 through SCA HYD-3. 5.8.4 Environmental Impacts 5.8.4.1 METHODOLOGY The Preliminary Hydrology Report and Preliminary WQMP analyzed drainage and water quality impacts on- site; refer to Appendix I and Appendix J, respectively. The proposed condition rational method peak flows included in the Preliminary Hydrology Report were analyzed using the Advance Engineering Software package for Orange County, which complies with the Orange County Hydrology Manual, 1996, Addendum No. 1 85 Percent Upper Confidence Level Procedure. The analysis evaluated 25- and 10-year storm events consistent with City requirements. The Preliminary WQMP was prepared to comply with the water quality requirements of the local NPDES Stormwater Program to meet the City’s MS4 Permit requirements. 5.8.4.2 IMPACT ANALYSIS The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which there may be potentially significant impacts. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets after the impact statement. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Page 5.8-16 April 2021February 2020 Impact 5.8-1: The proposed project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality. [Threshold HYD-1] Impact Analysis: Urban runoff resulting from storms or nuisance flows (runoff during dry periods) from development projects can carry pollutants to receiving waters. Runoff can contain pollutants such as oil, fertilizers, pesticides, trash, soil, and animal waste. This runoff can flow directly into local streams or lakes or into storm drains and continue through pipes until it is released untreated into a local waterway and eventually the ocean. Untreated stormwater runoff degrades water quality in surface waters and groundwater and can affect drinking water, human health, and plant and animal habitats. As discussed, the project site is a tributary to Santa Ana River Reach 1 and the Newport Slough. The Santa Ana River Reach 1 is listed on the CWA Section 303(d) List of Water Quality Limited Segments for Enterococcus, Fecal Coliform, and Total Coliform (SWRCB 2019). There are no 303(d) listed impairments for the Newport Slough. Construction General Construction Permit Construction activities associated with the proposed project may impact water quality due to sheet flow, causing erosion of exposed soils. Project construction is expected to generate sediment, nutrients, metals, trash and debris, and oil and grease. Nutrients include nitrogen and phosphorus. To reduce short-term water quality impacts, construction and demolition activities would require compliance with the General Construction Permit Water Quality Order 2009-0009-DWQ (as amended by Order No. 2010- 0014-DWQ and 2012-006-DWQ), which requires the preparation and implementation of a SWPPP pursuant to PPP HYD-1. The SWPPP would specify BMPs to be implemented to minimize demolition- and construction-related stormwater pollution impacts. Categories of BMPs included in SWPPPs are described in Table 5.8-2, Construction Best Management Practices. Compliance with the SWPPP and implementation of BMPs would ensure impacts associated with demolition and construction activities are minimized. Further, the project would be subject to compliance with SCA HYD-1 through SCA HYD-3, which would ensure construction BMPs are implemented to minimize potential impacts to water quality. With the implementation of the SWPPP and BMPs during all construction activities and compliance with the City’s erosion and sediment control requirements, the impact to water quality during construction activities would be less than significant. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY April 2021February 2020 Page 5.8-17 Table 5.8-2 Construction Best Management Practices Category Purpose Examples Erosion Controls and Wind Erosion Controls Consists of using project scheduling and planning to reduce soil or vegetation disturbance (particularly during the rainy season), preventing or reducing erosion potential by diverting or controlling drainage, as well as preparing and stabilizing disturbed soil areas. Scheduling, preservation of existing vegetation, hydraulic mulch, hydroseeding, soil binders, straw mulch, geotextile and mats, wood mulching, earth dikes and drainage swales, velocity dissipation devices, slope drains, streambank stabilization, compost blankets, soil preparation/roughening, and non-vegetative stabilization Sediment Controls Filter out soil particles that have been detached and transported in water. Silt fence, sediment basin, sediment riprap, check dam, fiber rolls, gravel bag berm, street sweeping and vacuuming, sandbag barrier, straw bale barrier, storm drain inlet protection, manufactured linear sediment controls, compost socks and berms, and biofilter bags Wind Erosion Controls Consists of applying water or other dust palliatives to prevent or minimize dust nuisance. Dust control soil binders, chemical dust suppressants, covering stockpiles, permanent vegetation, mulching, watering, temporary gravel construction, synthetic covers, and minimization of disturbed area Tracking Controls Minimize the tracking of soil off-site by vehicles. Stabilized construction roadways and construction entrances/exits, and entrance/outlet tire wash. Non-Storm Water Management Controls Prohibit discharge of materials other than stormwater, such as discharges from the cleaning, maintenance, and fueling of vehicles and equipment. Conduct various construction operations, including paving, grinding, and concrete curing and finishing, in ways that minimize non- stormwater discharges and contamination of any such discharges. Water conservation practices, temporary stream crossings, clear water diversions, illicit connection/discharge, potable and irrigation water management, and the proper management of the following operations: paving and grinding, dewatering, vehicle and equipment cleaning, fueling and maintenance, pile driving, concrete curing, concrete finishing, demolition adjacent to water, material over water, and temporary batch plants. Waste Management and Controls (i.e., good housekeeping practices) Management of materials and wastes to avoid contamination of stormwater. Stockpile management, spill prevention and control, solid waste management, hazardous waste management, contaminated soil management, concrete waste management, sanitary/septic waste management, liquid waste management, and management of material delivery storage and use. Source: CASQA 2012. Construction Dewatering Discharge As previously noted, perched groundwater on-site is shallow and groundwater was encountered between 10 and 20 feet bgs. Therefore, it is likely that perched groundwater would be encountered during excavation. If groundwater is present above the proposed excavated bottom, the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation indicates temporary dewatering would be required to maintain a safe working environment during excavation and construction activities. The Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation also recommends a qualified dewatering consultant be retained to design the dewatering system. Temporary dewatering may consist of perimeter wells with interior well points as well as gravel-filled trenches (French drains) placed adjacent to the shoring system and interior of the site. The French drains would direct the collected seepage to a sump where it would be pumped out and disposed. If dewatering discharge is piped to an infiltration basin during construction, the Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges to Land with a Low Threat to Water Quality (Order No. 2003-0003-DWQ) would be required pursuant to PPP HYD-5. If dewatering discharge is piped to ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Page 5.8-18 April 2021February 2020 storm drains, the requirements of the De Minimis Waste Discharge Requirements for the Santa Ana Region (Order No. R8-2015-0004, NPDES No. CAG998001) would govern dewatering activities during construction pursuant to PPP HYD-5. Compliance with Order No. 2003-0003-DWQ/Order No. R8-2015-0004, NPDES No. CAG998001 would ensure project construction dewatering would not cause State waste discharge and Federal NPDES permit requirements to be exceeded. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard. Operation Project operations would alter the existing land uses of the project site and, consequently, alter the potential pollutant sources generated at the site. Operational activities are expected to generate similar types of pollutants that construction would, although with a reduced possibility of sediment pollution, as well as pathogens and pesticides. Low-Impact Development BMPs Low-impact development (LID) is an approach to land development (or redevelopment) that works with nature to manage and treat stormwater as close to its source as possible. LID employs principles such as preserving and recreating natural landscape features to minimize effective imperviousness and create functional, appealing site drainage that treats stormwater as a resource rather than a waste product. There are many practices that have been used to adhere to these principles, including bioretention facilities, rain gardens, vegetated rooftops, rain barrels, and permeable pavements. By implementing LID principles and practices, water can be managed in a way that reduces the impact of built areas and promotes the natural movement of water within an ecosystem or watershed. Applied on a broad scale, LID can maintain or restore a watershed’s hydrologic and ecological functions (USEPA 2016). The project is required to infiltrate, harvest and use, evapotranspire, or biotreat/biofilter the 85th percentile, 24-hour storm event, which constitutes the design capture volume. The Preliminary WQMP includes 19 proposed modular wetlands systems (MWS) or an approved similar system (see Figure 3-9, Infrastructure Improvements – Storm Drain) (PPP HYD-6). MWS are highly effective at removing sediments, oil and grease, and trash and debris, and moderately to highly effective at removing nutrients and pathogens/bacteria. MWS use multi-stage treatment processes, including screening media filtration, settling, and biofiltration. The pretreatment chamber contains the first three stages of treatment and includes a catch basin inlet filter to capture trash, debris, gross solids, and sediments; a settling chamber for separating out larger solids; and a media filter cartridge for capturing fine sediment, metals, nutrients, and bacteria. Runoff then flows through the wetland chamber. As stormwater passes down through the planting soil, pollutants are filtered, adsorbed, biodegraded, and sequestered by the soil and plants. The discharge chamber at the end of the unit collects treated flows and discharges back into the storm drain system. Compliance with the design recommendations identified in the Preliminary WQMP would be required based on PPP HYD-6. Site Design BMPs Site design BMPs reduce post-project runoff by implementing design features with performance standards that minimize impervious areas and using infiltration features and/or detention/retention basins, as appropriate. In conformance with PPP HYD-2 and PPP HYD-3, the Preliminary WQMP specifies the following site design BMPs for the proposed project: ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY April 2021February 2020 Page 5.8-19 Minimize Impervious Areas. Impervious areas would be minimized with proposed outdoor landscaped amenities. Building A, B, and C would incorporate landscaping within courtyards and around the buildings. Additionally, the 1.5-acre open space would be a significant source of pervious area. Maximize Natural Infiltration Capacity: There would be natural infiltration throughout the site due to proposed pervious areas within courtyards, around buildings, and at the proposed open space. However, using infiltration BMPs to meet LID requirements is considered infeasible due to shallow groundwater on- site. Preserve Existing Drainage Pattern and Time of Concentration. Existing drainage patterns would be maintained, and the rate of discharge off-site would be reduced, compared to existing conditions; refer to Impact 5.8-3. Project runoff would ultimately drain southeasterly and southwesterly to existing storm drains, mimicking existing drainage patterns. The proposed condition would convey flows with the use of on-site vegetated swales, street gutters, area drain lines, and storm drain lines. Disconnect Impervious Surfaces: Some proposed impervious areas, such as walkways, would be graded to direct surface flows through landscaping prior to entering the storm drain system. Revegetate Disturbed Areas: A number of mature ornamental trees and other landscape improvements throughout the site would be removed as a result of project construction. However, landscaping would be planted along the site perimeter and throughout the site. Use Xeriscape Landscaping: Proposed landscaping would include practical turf areas and efficient irrigation to reduce water and energy use. Source Control BMPs Structural Source Control BMPs Structural source control BMPs are used in a project’s design to both minimize runoff and keep pollutants from entering runoff. The Preliminary WQMP prescribes the following structural source control BMPs, which also ensure compliance with PPP HYD-2 and PPP HYD-3: Provide storm drain system stenciling and signage: Catch basins would be stenciled with the phrase “No Dumping – Drains to Ocean” to alert the public to the destination of pollutants discharged into stormwater. The Property Owner/Owner Representative would be required to inspect stenciling at least once per year and re-stencil as necessary. Design and construct trash and waste storage areas to reduce pollution: All trash containers would include attached lids to prevent rain infiltration. No trash area drains would be constructed that drain to the municipal storm drain. Trash container areas would be paved with an impervious surface. Property Owner/Owner Representative would be required to maintain trash container areas monthly during regular maintenance activities, provide litter patrol, and empty trash receptacles noting and investigating any trash disposal violations by tenants or employees. Use efficient irrigation systems and landscape design, water conservation, smart controllers, and source control: Fertilizer/pesticide/herbicide and irrigation management practices and landscape management practices would be maintained consistent with the County Ordinance Amending the Zoning ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Page 5.8-20 April 2021February 2020 Code regarding the conservation of water in landscaping for common areas of multi-family and non- residential development. Fertilizer and pesticide usage would be administered consistent with the County’s Management Guidelines for the Use of Fertilizers and Pesticides (MGFP). The design and maintenance of the irrigation system would incorporate methods to minimize both the amount of water applied and the amount of runoff. The system would also be designed with the criteria established by the County and City. These methods may include: Employing shutoff devices to prevent irrigation after precipitation; Designing irrigation systems to each landscape area’s specific water requirements; Using flow reducers or shutoff valves triggered by a pressure drop to control water loss in the event of broken sprinkler heads or lines; Designing the timing and application methods of irrigation water to minimize excess irrigation water into the municipal storm drain system; Grouping plants with similar water requirements and choosing plants with low irrigation requirements; Immediately correcting irrigation design or maintenance deficiencies that cause excessive runoff of irrigation water (the MS4 permit encourages use of weather-based evapotranspiration irrigation controllers for new developments); and Checking that water sensors are functioning properly to eliminate overspray in hardscape areas and to verify irrigation timing and cycle lengths are adjusted in accordance with water demands, given time of year, weather, and day or nighttime temperatures (the Property Owner/Owner Representative would check the system once a week in conjunction with maintenance activities). Nonstructural Source Control BMPs Nonstructural source control BMPs are activities and practices that reduce the potential for pollutants to contaminate runoff. The Preliminary WQMP specifies the following nonstructural source control BMPs for use in the proposed project, which also ensure compliance with PPP HYD-2 and PPP HYD-3: Education for Property Owners, Tenants and Occupants: Prior to occupancy, the developer would provide environmental awareness education materials to the new tenants. Activity Restrictions: The Specific Plan prohibits the outdoor storage of materials. Common Area Landscape Management: City-approved landscape construction plans would be prepared for the project. All landscape maintenance activities would conform to the County’s MGFP. Landscape management is the responsibility of the developer. A monthly review of landscape maintenance and irrigation procedures would be performed. The developer would also manage landscaping in accordance with the County of Orange Water Conservation Ordinance No. 3802 and with management guidelines for use of fertilizers and pesticides, or City equivalent. The key applicable landscape BMPs include, but are not limited to: Minimize irrigation runoff by using controllers to provide several short cycles instead of one long cycle for each area. The irrigation controller can be mechanical or electrical; however, the new systems are typically electromechanical or electronic controllers. Weather-based evapotranspiration irrigation controllers are encouraged by the MS4 Permit and would be considered for use on this project. Most ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY April 2021February 2020 Page 5.8-21 controllers have a capability for setting the frequency of irrigation, the start time, and the duration of watering. Immediately correct any irrigation design or maintenance deficiencies that cause excessive runoff of irrigation water. Follow the recommendations of the Orange County MGFP, Sections 2.0.4 and 2.0.5 for the application, storage, handling, and transportation of fertilizer. Prohibit application of chemicals less than three days prior to predicted chance of rain. Follow all fertilizer application with light irrigation to permit the fertilizer to soak into the landscape area. Conduct annual testing of turf soil until results stabilize and an accurate determination can be made of fertilization needs with the goal of reducing the application of unnecessary fertilizers. Soil testing and pursuant recommendations for fertilizer use would be conducted by a qualified fertilizer specialist as recommended in the Orange County MGFP., Section 2.3.1. Limit weed control to either mechanical methods or EPA-labeled herbicides. Use pesticides only after recommendation from a State-licensed pest control advisor per the Orange County MGFP, Section 3.3.1. Only apply pesticides by, or under the direct supervision of, a State-licensed or certified pesticide applicator or by workers with equivalent training per the Orange County MGFP., Section 3.4.1. Follow the recommendations of the Orange County MGFP., Section 3.0 for the storage, handling, and transportation of pesticides. BMP Maintenance: The developer would be responsible for implementing each of the stated nonstructural BMPs. These inspections would be done with regular maintenance activities on a monthly basis. Common Area Litter Control: The developer would implement trash management and litter control procedures on-site aimed at reducing pollution of drainage water. The property management company may contract with its landscape maintenance firm to provide this service during regularly scheduled maintenance. The service would consist of litter patrol and emptying of trash receptacles. Maintenance includes weekly sweeping and trash pickup within landscape areas and outside walkways. In addition, daily inspection of trash receptacles to ensure lids are closed and any excess trash on the ground is picked up would be provided. Employee Training: Employee training would be provided to maintenance personnel and is the responsibility of the developer. Implementation would be provided monthly for both maintenance personnel and employees. Concepts can include, but are not limited to, training on the proper storage and use of fertilizers and pesticides, or training on implementation of hazardous spill contingency plans. Common Area Catch Basin Inspection: The catch basins would be inspected, and cleaned if necessary, prior to the storm season and no later than October 1st of each year. Effective post-construction maintenance of storm collection and conveyance facilities would ensure not only their intended use but would also prevent excessive pollutants from entering the drainage system. Occasionally, catch basins and other drainage facilities become clogged by sediment and debris accumulation. In addition, it is not ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Page 5.8-22 April 2021February 2020 uncommon for illicit dumping of waste material, particularly used motor oil, to occur at catch basins and drainage facilities. Periodic cleaning of catch basins and storm drains would provide the following benefits: Removal of pollutant loads from storm drain system; Reduction of high pollutant concentration during the "first flush" event; and Prevention of clogging of the downstream stormwater conveyance system. Street Sweeping Private Streets and Parking Lots: The developer will be responsible for weekly sweeping of streets and parking areas. Inspection and maintenance would be intensified around October 1st of each year prior to the “first flush” storm, according to the City’s street sweeping program schedule. Post-project water quality impacts would be less than significant after construction, operation, and maintenance of the BMPs specified in the Preliminary WQMP. Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. Impact 5.8-2: The proposed project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. [Threshold HYD-2] Impact Analysis: The project site overlies the OC Basin and is currently largely covered with impervious surfaces. According to the DWR, the OC Basin is identified as a Medium priority basin (DWR 2019). OCWD manages the OC Basin through its GMP, which sets forth basin management goals and objectives and describes how the OC Basin is managed. The OCWD GMP’s goals are: 1) to protect and enhance the groundwater quality of the OC Basin; 2) to protect and increase the sustainable yield of the OC Basin in a cost-effective manner; and 3) to increase the efficiency of OCWD operations. Construction Perched groundwater underlies the project site between 10 and 20 feet bgs and could be encountered during excavation. As a result, dewatering would likely be necessary. If dewatering discharge is piped to an infiltration basin during construction, the Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges to Land with a Low Threat to Water Quality (Order No. 2003-0003-DWQ) would be implemented pursuant to PPP HYD- 5. If dewatering discharge is piped to storm drains, the requirements of the De Minimis Waste Discharge Requirements for the Santa Ana Region (Order No. R8-2015-0004, NPDES No. CAG998001) would govern dewatering activities during construction pursuant to PPP HYD-5. However, construction activities would be temporary in nature and would not result in a substantial depletion of groundwater supplies that could result in a lowering of the groundwater table. Therefore, impacts to groundwater supplies during construction would be less than significant following conformance with PPP HYD-5. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY April 2021February 2020 Page 5.8-23 Operation The proposed project lies within MWD’s water service area. Implementation of the proposed project would lead to an increased demand in water, and, therefore, would lead to an increase in groundwater pumping. According to MWD’s 2016 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), local groundwater provides approximately 94 percent of the City’s total supply. The UWMP indicates the MWD would have sufficient water supplies to meet demands in single dry years and multiple dry years (that is, three consecutive dry years) over the period of 2020-2040 (MWD 2016). Further, a WSA was prepared for the proposed project to analyze the project’s impact on future water supply. The WSA identifies a sufficient program of water supply for MWD, now and into the future, including sufficient water supply for the One Metro West development. Therefore, impacts to groundwater supplies during project operations would be less than significant. In addition to water use consideration, the project site is not located within a local groundwater recharge area, and no groundwater extraction would occur as part of operations of the project. Thus, the project would not result in any groundwater extraction or depletion of groundwater supplies during operations and is not anticipated to interfere with the OCWD GMP. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard. Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. Impact 5.8-3: The proposed project would not 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 a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. [Thresholds HYD-3 (i) and HYD-3(iii)] Impact Analysis: Proposed Drainage Similar to existing conditions, on-site storm drains would connect to an existing 66-inch storm drain line flowing north/south through the project site and an 18- to 24-inch line along the eastern project boundary; refer to Figure 5.8-2, Proposed Drainage Conditions. The existing 66-inch storm drain, owned and maintained by the City, runs from Sunflower Avenue to the I-405 Freeway through the western portion of the site. The existing 24-inch storm drain (located at the southeastern portion of the project site) would be used to convey stormwater flows from the eastern portion of the site. Stormwater at the project site would be conveyed into on-site inlets, then to the 19 proposed MWS, and ultimately drain into the two existing on-site main storm drain lines (to the west and southeast). Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area. The peak flow rates for the 25- and 10-year storms under existing and proposed conditions are provided in Table 5.8-3, Existing and Proposed Drainage Conditions. ONE METRO WEST ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Figure 5.8-2 Proposed Drainage Conditions 04/21 JN 172326 Source: Urban Resource Corporation, 2019. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY April 2021February 2020 Page 5.8-25 Table 5.8-3 Existing and Proposed Drainage Conditions Peak Drainage Q25 (cfs) Peak Drainage Q10 (cfs) Existing 66-inch Storm Drain Line Existing Conditions 113.07 89.23 Proposed Conditions 112.41 88.44 Existing 24-inch Storm Drain Line Existing Conditions 14.60 12.15 Proposed Conditions 10.11 8.36 Source: URC 2019 (refer to Appendix I). Notes: Q25= peak drainage from 25-year storm Q10= peak drainage from 10-year storm cfs = cubic feet per second Although the percentage of impervious surfaces would increase slightly with the proposed project (85 percent impervious compared to 82 percent impervious under existing conditions), the peak flow rates for both the 25- and 10-year storm events would be reduced. This change is attributed to the construction of 19 MWS (or an approved similar system) to detain and treat stormwater on-site prior to discharge to the existing storm drains (refer to Figure 5.8-2). As such, the proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site and does not involve the alteration of any natural drainage channels, streams, or rivers. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard. Erosion and Siltation The project would involve site improvements that require grading, excavation, and soil exposure during construction, with the potential for erosion or siltation to occur. If not controlled, the transport of these materials to local waterways could temporarily increase suspended sediment concentrations and release pollutants attached to sediment particles. To minimize this impact, the project would be required to comply with all of the requirements in the General Construction Permit, including preparation of a NOI and SWPPP prior to the start of construction activities pursuant to PPP HYD-1; see Impact 5.8-1. The SWPPP would describe the BMPs to be implemented during the project’s construction activities. Examples of BMPs that may be implemented during the construction phase could include the following: Install on-site sediment basins to prevent off-site migration of erodible materials; Implement dust control measures, such as silt fences and regular watering of open areas; Stabilize construction entrances/exits; Install storm drain inlet protection measures; and Install sediment control measures around the site, including silt fences or gravel bag barriers. In addition, the County requires preparation of an erosion and sediment control plan for projects that disturb more than one acre of land and implementation of BMPs to control erosion, debris, and construction-related pollutants. This would further reduce the potential for erosion and siltation during project construction. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Page 5.8-26 April 2021February 2020 There are also required post-construction control measures to minimize the potential for erosion and siltation. A final WQMP must be submitted and approved by the City prior to the issuance of a grading permit. The WQMP includes site design measures, source control measures, and treatment measures that minimize the potential for erosion and siltation. The operational phase of the proposed project would include landscaping and the project-related water quality design features discussed under Impact 5.8-1. In addition, the WQMP must include an O&M plan and maintenance agreement for review and approval by the City to ensure the treatment measures installed at the site are maintained for perpetuity (see PPP HYD-6). Further, the project would be subject to compliance with SCA HYD-1 through SCA HYD-3, which would ensure construction BMPs are implemented to reduce potential impacts to water quality. Collectively, implementation of the BMPs outlined in the SWPPP, the erosion and sediment control plan, and the proposed landscaping and water quality design features would address the anticipated and expected erosion and siltation impacts during project construction and operations (see PPP HYD-1 through PPP HYD-4, PPP HYD-6, and SCA HYD-1 through SCA HYD-3). Therefore, the proposed project would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site and impacts would be less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. Impact 5.8-4: The proposed project would not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff and result in flooding on- or off-site. [Threshold HYD-3 (ii)] Impact Analysis: As discussed under Impact 5.8-3, the site is already developed and is expected to reduce the rate of stormwater discharge, compared to existing conditions. However, the project would increase impervious surfaces on-site, and, as a result, is required to install appropriate storm drainage infrastructure to properly convey flows, improve water quality, and control the amount of runoff leaving the site at a given time. Project development would increase impervious areas on-site from 12.5 acres (82 percent of the site) to 12.9 acres (85 percent of the site), a net increase of 0.4 acre. Proposed pervious areas would include landscaping and a 1.5-acre open space area. Landscaping would be emphasized along the site perimeter, throughout the residential areas, and at the open space. As indicated under Impact 5.8-3, the proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site. Also, as shown in Table 5.8-3, the peak flows to the storm drain system from the 25- and 10-year storm events would decrease with implementation of the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would not increase the rate or amount of surface runoff leaving the site and is not anticipated to result in flooding on- or off-site during these storm events. Impacts would be less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY April 2021February 2020 Page 5.8-27 Impact 5.8-5: The proposed project would not impede or redirect flood flows. [Threshold HYD-3 (iv)] Impact Analysis: According to the FIRM for the project area, the entire project site is located within Zone X and is outside of any 100-year flood hazard area. Therefore, there would be no impact in regard to impeding or redirecting flood flows as a result of project development. The project site is within the dam inundation zones of both the Prado and Santiago Creek Dams. The Prado Dam is located about 21 miles northeast of the project site, and the Santiago Creek Dam is located 13 miles northeast of the site. As previously stated, the potential threat of a catastrophic failure of the Prado Dam has been reduced with the upstream construction of the Seven Oaks Dam. During a flood, the Seven Oaks Dam would store floodwaters destined for the Prado Dam for as long as the reservoir pool at the Prado Dam is rising. When the flood threat has passed, the Seven Oaks Dam would begin to release its floodwater 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 the County. Improvements to the Prado Dam are currently underway to increase the dam’s capacity, and the Santa Ana River Mainstream Project is almost complete, which increases the channel capacity of the river, further reducing the potential for flooding. The latest available dam inundation map for the Prado Dam was produced in 1985 by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. It was prepared prior to dam improvements, construction of the Seven Oaks Dam, and increase in the Santa Ana River flow capacity. As a result, this map overestimates the dam inundation area and potential for flooding. According to the dam inundation map, the peak outflow of the hypothetical flood wave would reach the site in about 15 hours, which would allow sufficient time to implement emergency provisions and public safety measures, as specified in the General Plan Safety Element. The Santiago Creek Dam is approximately 13 miles northeast of the project site, and the dam inundation map was produced by the Irvine Ranch Water District in 1973. According to the map, the arrival time of a flood wave at the site would be approximately 11 hours, which also would be adequate time to implement evacuation procedures for affected residents and occupants at the site in accordance with the City’s Emergency Operations Plan. The probability of dam failure is extremely low, and the City has never been impacted by a major dam failure. 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 plans have been prepared in accordance with the Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety. The evacuation plans identify modes of dam failure, map inundation areas, classify hazard potential within inundation areas, determine available time for response under slow, rapid, or instantaneous failure scenarios, and establish notification procedures. The proposed project would not exacerbate an existing flood hazard related to dam failure. Due to the length of time required for released water to reach the site if the Prado Dam or the Santiago Creek Dam were to ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Page 5.8-28 April 2021February 2020 catastrophically fail, as well as the implementation of the City’s Emergency Operations Plan, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk, and the construction of the project would not impede or redirect flood flows. Continued inspection and maintenance of the two dams and the procedures outlined in the Emergency Operations Plan are considered adequate precautions to reduce impacts due to potential dam inundation to less than significant. Therefore, the proposed project would not impede or redirect flood flows, and impacts would be less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. Impact 5.8-6: The proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. [Threshold HYD-5] Impact Analysis: The project site is located in the Santa Ana River Watershed. The Basin Plan was last updated in 2016 and gives direction on the beneficial uses of the State waters in Region 8; describes the water quality that must be maintained to support such uses; and provides programs, projects, and other actions necessary to achieve the standards in the Basin Plan. As discussed under Impact 5.8-1, development of the proposed project’s SWPPP and WQMP and implementation of the requirements of the NPDES General Construction Permit and MS4 Permit would ensure compliance with the objectives and standards of the Basin Plan (see PPP HYD-1 and PPP HYD-2). Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict or obstruct implementation of the Basin Plan, and impacts would be less than significant. The project site is also within the jurisdiction of the OCWD GMP. As discussed under Impact 5.8-2, the proposed project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict or obstruct the groundwater management plan, and impacts would be less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. 5.8.5 Cumulative Impacts For the purposes of hydrology and water quality, cumulative impacts are considered for cumulative projects located within the same watershed as the proposed project (Santa Ana River Watershed). All projects identified in Table 4-2, Related Projects, are located within the Santa Ana River Watershed and, thus, have the potential to interact with the proposed project to the extent that a cumulative effect may occur. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY April 2021February 2020 Page 5.8-29 Impact 5.8-7 Development of the proposed project and related projects would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts to water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality. [Threshold HYD-1] Impact Analysis: Like the proposed project, the related projects identified in Table 4-2, as well as existing and planned developed within the Santa Ana River Watershed, could result in cumulatively considerable impacts to water quality due to construction activities and increases in post-development runoff. All construction projects that disturb one or more acres of land are subject to the NPDES General Construction Permit requirements for implementation of individual SWPPPs, which outline erosion control, sediment control, wind erosion control, tracking control, non-stormwater management and waste management BMPs (see PPP HYD-1). Additionally, new development and redevelopment projects are required to prepare and implement WQMPs and implement LID BMPs requiring specified amounts of runoff be infiltrated, evapotranspired, harvested and reused, or treated (see PPP HYD-2). Implementation of such BMPs would reduce the amount of runoff entering public storm drain systems. Thus, pollutants generated within the project and cumulative projects within the Basin would be mitigated during construction activities and project operation. Compliance with the Santa Ana RWQCB’s requirements for waste discharge requirements and water quality certifications would also prevent long-term water quality impacts. As discussed under Impact 5.8-1, the proposed project’s impact to water quality during construction activities would be less than significant with implementation of the SWPPP and BMPs during all construction activities and compliance with the City’s erosion and sediment control requirements (see PPP HYD-1). Compliance with Order No. 2003-0003-DWQ/Order No. R8-2015-0004, NPDES No. CAG998001 requirements would ensure project construction dewatering would not cause State waste discharge and Federal NPDES permit requirements to be exceeded. PPP HYD-5 would ensure project dewatering would comply with the Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges to Land with a Low Threat to Water Quality (Order No. 2003-0003-DWQ) or the De Minimis Waste Discharge Requirements for the Santa Ana Region (Order No. R8-2015-0004, NPDES No. CAG998001), as required. Further, the project would be subject to compliance with SCA HYD-1 through SCA HYD-3, which would ensure construction BMPs are implemented to mitigate potential impacts to water quality. To reduce operational impacts to water quality, the project would be subject to compliance with the project recommendations outlined in the Preliminary WQMP and prepare a Final WQMP prior to the issuance of a grading permit (see PPP HYD-2 and PPP HYD-3). Following conformance with NPDES and Santa Ana RWQCB requirements, the project would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts to water quality or surface or groundwater quality. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Page 5.8-30 April 2021February 2020 Impact 5.8-8 Development of the proposed project and related projects would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts to groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that sustainable groundwater management of the basin is impeded. [Thresholds HYD-2] Impact Analysis: Cumulative development could result in changes to the amounts of impervious surfaces on each respective development site. According to the OCWD GMP, the majority of the OC Basin area is highly urbanized. The related projects identified in Table 4-2 are considered infill development, and it is not anticipated that buildout of these projects would substantially impact recharge of the OC Basin. Individual development projects would be required to mitigate drainage conditions through conformance with applicable local, State, and Federal regulatory requirements, as well as project-specific mitigation. Cumulative development located within MWD’s water service area would also lead to an increased demand in water, and, therefore, would lead to an increase in groundwater pumping. Individual projects would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to ensure adequate groundwater supply is available. The proposed project, combined with related development, could result in changes to the amounts of impervious surfaces within the project area and/or lead to an increase in groundwater pumping. As discussed under Impact 5.8-2, the project site is not located within a groundwater recharge area, and no groundwater extraction would occur as part of the project. Further, the project would generally involve comparable amounts of impervious surfaces as compared to existing conditions, with only a slight increase in impervious surfaces overall (a net increase of 0.4 acre). Although dewatering of perched groundwater may be required during project construction (see PPP HYD-5), the project would not result in any groundwater extraction or depletion of groundwater supplies and is not anticipated to interfere with the OCWD GMP. Therefore, the project would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts to groundwater supplies and groundwater recharge. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. Impact 5.8-9 Development of the proposed project and related projects would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts related to substantially altering 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 a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. [Thresholds HYD-3 (i) and HYD-3(iii)] Impact Analysis: Project implementation, combined with related cumulative projects, would incrementally change regional drainage patterns and would increase potential for impacts related to erosion or siltation. As discussed, the majority of the watershed area is highly urbanized, and the projects identified in Table 4-2 are considered infill development. As a result, cumulative development is not anticipated to substantially alter the drainage pattern of the site or area in a manner which would result in substantial soil erosion or siltation on- or off-site. Cumulative development projects would be required to mitigate impacts related to erosion or siltation through ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY April 2021February 2020 Page 5.8-31 conformance with applicable local, State, and Federal regulatory requirements, as well as project-specific mitigation, as required. As discussed under Impact 5.8-3, although the percentage of impervious surfaces would increase slightly with the proposed project, the peak flow rates for the 25- and 10-year storms would be approximately 16 to 17 percent less for the proposed project as compared to existing conditions. The proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site and does not involve the alteration of any natural drainage channels, streams, or rivers. Additionally, the project’s proposed MWS would decrease surface runoff compared to existing conditions. Collectively, implementation of the BMPs outlined in the SWPPP, implementation of the erosion and sediment control plan, and the project’s proposed landscaping and water quality design features would address the anticipated and expected erosion and siltation impacts during the construction and operational phases of the proposed project (see PPP HYD-1 through PPP HYD-4, PPP HYD-6, and SCA HYD-1 through SCA HYD-3). As a result, the proposed project would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts concerning substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. Impact 5.8-10 Development of the proposed project and related projects would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts related to substantially increasing the rate or amount of surface runoff and result in flooding on- or off-site. [Threshold HYD-3 (ii)] Impact Analysis: Project implementation, combined with related cumulative projects, would incrementally change regional drainage patterns. However, the cumulative developments identified in Table 4-2 are considered infill development, and it is not anticipated their implementation would substantially alter the drainage pattern of the site or area in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site. Individual development projects would be required to mitigate impacts related to flooding through conformance with applicable local, State, and Federal regulatory requirements, as well as project-specific mitigation. The project would generally involve comparable amounts of impervious surfaces as compared to existing conditions, with only a slight increase in impervious surfaces overall. As discussed under Impact 5.8-4, peak flows to the storm drain system would decrease with installation of the biotreatment areas throughout the site that are designed to temporarily retain stormwater runoff prior to discharge to the storm drain system. As a result, the project would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts concerning flooding on- or off-site. Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Page 5.8-32 April 2021February 2020 Impact 5.8-11 Development of the proposed project and related projects would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts related to impeding or redirecting flood flows. [Threshold HYD-3 (iv)] Impact Analysis: Project implementation, combined with related cumulative projects, would incrementally change regional drainage patterns. Based on the FEMA Flood Map Service Center, cumulative projects identified in Table 4-2 are not located within a mapped flood hazard area (FEMA 2019). These projects are considered infill development, and it is not anticipated that their implementation would substantially alter the drainage pattern of the site or area in a manner which would impede or redirect flood flows. Individual development projects would be required to mitigate impacts related to flood flows through conformance with applicable local, State, and Federal regulatory requirements, as well as project-specific mitigation. Further, impacts related to dam failure would be assessed at the project-level and are not anticipated to result in cumulatively considerable impacts in this regard. As discussed under Impact 5.8-5, the project site is not located within a mapped flood hazard area and would result in a minimal increase in impervious surfaces compared to existing conditions. The proposed project also would not exacerbate an existing flood hazard related to dam failure. Project implementation would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts concerning flood flows in this regard. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. Impact 5.8-12 Development of the proposed project and related projects would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts related to conflicting with or obstructing implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. [Threshold HYD-5] Impact Analysis: Refer to the Impact 5.8-8 cumulative analysis, above, concerning the project’s and cumulative development’s potential to conflict with or obstruct implementation of the OCWD GMP. Cumulative development occurring within the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana RWQCB would be subject to all applicable water quality control plans, policies, and objectives identified in the Basin Plan. As discussed, cumulative development would be subject to NPDES requirements and the MS4 Permit to ensure compliance with the objectives and standards of the Basin Plan (see PPP HYD-1 and PPP HYD-2). As a result, related development would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts related to conflicting with or obstructing implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. As discussed above, development of the proposed project’s SWPPP and WQMP and implementation of the requirements of the NPDES General Construction Permit and the MS4 Permit would ensure compliance with the objectives and standards of the Basin Plan (see PPP HYD-1 and PPP HYD-2). As a result, project implementation would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts related to conflicting with or obstructing implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY April 2021February 2020 Page 5.8-33 Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. 5.8.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation Upon implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval, the following impacts would be less than significant: Impacts 5.8-1 through 5.8-12. 5.8.7 Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required. 5.8.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation Impacts would be less than significant. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Page 5.8-34 April 2021February 2020 This page intentionally left blank. ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I February 2020April 2021 Chapter 5.9 Land Use and Planning ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I February 2020April 2021 This page intentionally left blank. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis April 2021February 2020 Page 5.9-1 5.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING This section of the Draft EIR evaluates the potential land use impacts from implementation of the proposed project. Land use impacts can be either direct or indirect. Direct impacts are those that result in land use incompatibilities, division of neighborhoods or communities, or interference with other land use plans, including habitat or wildlife conservation plans. This section focuses on direct land use impacts. Indirect impacts are secondary effects resulting from land use policy implementation, such as an increase in demand for public utilities or services or increased traffic on roadways. Indirect impacts are addressed in other sections of this Draft EIR. The proposed project is evaluated in this section for its consistency with adopted regulating plans and programs, including the General Plan. The proposed project’s consistency with other applicable regional plans and programs, such as the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) 2016 Air Quality Management Plan, is addressed in Sections 5.2, Air Quality, and 5.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions. 5.9.1 Environmental Setting 5.9.1.1 REGULATORY BACKGROUND Regional Southern California Association of Governments The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is a regional council of governments representing Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura counties, which encompass over 38,000 square miles. SCAG is the Federally recognized metropolitan planning organization for this region and a forum for addressing regional issues concerning transportation, the economy, community development, and the environment. SCAG is also the regional clearinghouse for projects requiring environmental documentation under Federal and State law. In this role, SCAG reviews proposed development and infrastructure projects to analyze their impacts on regional planning programs. As the southern California region’s metropolitan planning organization, SCAG cooperates with the SCAQMD, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and other agencies in preparing regional planning documents. SCAG has developed regional plans to achieve specific regional objectives, as discussed below. The proposed project is considered a project of “regionwide significance” pursuant to the criteria in SCAG’s Intergovernmental Review Procedures Handbook (November 1995) and Section 15206 of the CEQA Guidelines. Therefore, this section addresses the proposed project’s consistency with the applicable SCAG regional planning guidelines and policies. Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy On April 7, 2016, SCAG adopted the 2016–2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (2016 RTP/SCS), a long-range visioning plan that balances future mobility and housing needs with economic, environmental, and public health goals. The 2016 RTP/SCS includes a strong commitment to reduce emissions ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING Page 5.9-2 April 2021February 2020 from transportation sources to comply with Senate Bill 375, improve public health, and meet the national ambient air quality standards. This long-range plan, required by the State and Federal government, is updated by SCAG every four years as demographic, economic, and policy circumstances change. The 2016 RTP/SCS is a living, evolving blueprint for the region’s future (SCAG 2016). Local General Plan The General Plan is the City’s guiding document for long-range planning and policymaking. The General Plan was updated from its first adoption in 1957 and most recently amended in 2016. The current General Plan includes the following ten elements. Land Use Element. The Land Use Element serves as the long-range planning guide for development in the City by indicating the location and extent of development to be allowed. The element guides land use planning in the City, which impacts various issues addressed in other elements of the General Plan. Accompanying the Land Use Element is the Land Use Map that identifies the distribution and location of land use types within the City. Circulation Element. The Circulation Element establishes policies governing the system of roadways, intersections, bicycle paths, pedestrian ways, and other components of the circulations system, which collectively provide for the movement of persons and goods throughout Costa Mesa. This element includes goals, objectives, and policies that help the City make decisions regarding transportation improvements related to the expansion of bicycle and pedestrian travel capabilities, effective and efficient management of the established roadway system, enhancement of transit facilities, and implementation of “complete street” strategies. 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. The Circulation and Land Use Elements provide most of the foundation for the Growth Management Element. The Circulation Element establishes the City’s goals, objectives, and policies regarding the transportation network, while the Land Use Element establishes the City’s goals, objectives, and policies regarding the use of property, foremost by ensuring that compatible relationships exist between properties that have physical, visual, or proximity relationships. Housing Element. The Housing Element is a program extending from 2013 to 2021, unlike other General Plan elements that typically cover a minimum ten-year planning period. This Housing Element identifies strategies and programs that focus on: 1) conserving and improving existing affordable housing; 2) providing adequate housing sites; 3) assisting in the development of affordable housing; 4) removing governmental and other constraints to the housing development; and 5) promoting equal housing opportunities. State law requires jurisdictions provide their fair share of regional housing needs. The State of California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is mandated to determine the Statewide housing need. In cooperation with HCD, local governments and Councils of Governments (e.g., Southern ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING April 2021February 2020 Page 5.9-3 California Association of Governments [SCAG]) are charged with making a determination of the existing and projected housing needs as a share of the Statewide housing need of their city or region. The Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) is an assessment process performed periodically as part of housing element and general plan updates at the local level. The RHNA quantifies the housing need by income group within each jurisdiction during specific planning periods. The 5th Cycle Final RHNA Allocation Plan was adopted by the SCAG Regional Council on October 4, 2012 and covers the planning period from October 15, 2013 to October 15, 2021. The 6th RHNA cycle covers the housing element planning period from October 2021 through October 2029. The Draft 6th Cycle RHNA Allocation Plan is anticipated to be distributed in February 2020 with final adoption in October 2020. Housing elements for the 6th cycle RHNA are due to HCD in October 2021. Conservation Element. The purpose of the Conservation Element is to preserve, protect, and replenish the limited natural resources in the City, including water, open space, and sensitive habitats. In addition, this element addresses the management of energy resources and opportunities to integrate sustainability considerations into City policies. The element establishes a policy framework that identifies areas in Costa Mesa with substantial natural resources that the City is committed to manage and prevent from waste, destruction, and neglect, and provides for programs aimed at resource conservation for the benefit of future generations. Noise Element. The Noise Element identifies noise sources in Costa Mesa and defines strategies for reducing the negative impact of noise on the community. The element also identifies baseline and projected noise levels so that this information can guide future land use decisions in a manner that limit noises and its effect on the community. Safety Element. The Safety Element identifies and evaluates public health and safety hazards and provides measures that can reduce unreasonable risks and minimize potential losses in the event of natural or human- caused disasters. The element also addresses emergency preparedness and coordinated response, police and fire protection, and emergency services. Community Design Element. The Community Design Element promotes quality design for every aspect of a community, such as buildings, structures, paths, corridors, districts, nodes, landmarks, natural features, and significant landscaping. It ensures each development in the private or public realm enhances the sense of place for the City, district, and the site itself. The goals, objectives, and policies in this element aim to express the City’s parameters for quality design and development. Open Space and Recreation Element. The purpose of the Open Space and Recreation Element is to sustain the City’s network of open space and recreation resources. The goals, policies, and objectives contained in this element aim to protect, maintain, and enhance open spaces for all purposes and to meet recreation needs. This element also describes how Costa Mesa can promote the City’s identity as a “City of the Arts.” Historical and Cultural Resources Element. Costa Mesa’s historical and cultural resources provide an important connection to the past, while shaping the community’s identity and direction for the future. To foster this connection, the Historical and Cultural Resources Element provides the regulatory framework for identifying, maintaining, and restoring the City’s historical and cultural resources. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING Page 5.9-4 April 2021February 2020 Municipal Code Title 13 of the Municipal Code is the Costa Mesa Zoning Ordinance (Zoning Ordinance). The Zoning Ordinance and associated Zoning Map act as implementation tools for the General Plan Land Use Element. Both the Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map work together by designating specific zoning districts within the City and establishing each district’s allowed intensities and development standards. 5.9.1.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS On-site Land Uses The 15.23-acre1 project site location at 1683 Sunflower Avenue and is developed with an approximate 345,000- square foot industrial building currently occupied by Sakura Paper Factory, Robinson Pharma, South Coast Baking, and Dekra-Lite Industries. The site is also developed with two parking lots on the east and west sides of the existing industrial building and landscaped areas along the building and site perimeter. The site is accessible from two driveways along Sunflower Avenue. Based on the General Plan Land Use Map, the project site is currently designated Industrial Park, which is intended for large districts that support a variety of industrial, office, or commercial uses. According to the Zoning Map, the site is zoned Industrial Park (MP), which is intended for large, concentrated industrial areas where spacious park-like environments are created. Surrounding Land Uses Surrounding land uses include industrial uses to the north, the South Coast Collection (SOCO) retail center to the east, I-405 (San Diego Freeway) to the south, and industrial and logistics uses to the west. The Santa Ana River and Santa Ana River Trail are located approximately 700 feet to the west of the project site. According to the General Plan Land Use Map, all surrounding uses are designated Industrial Park. Based on the Zoning Map, industrial uses to the north are zoned MP and the industrial, logistics, and retail uses to the east and west are zoned Planned Development Industrial (PDI). 5.9.2 Thresholds of Significance According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would: LU-1 Physically divide an established community. LU-2 Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. 1 The entire project site is 15.756 acres; however, approximately 0.5237 acres along the southwest site boundary would be dedicated for the I-405 Freeway expansion. Therefore, the proposed development would occur on the remaining 15.23 acres. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING April 2021February 2020 Page 5.9-5 No impacts relating to Threshold LU-1 were identified, as substantiated in Chapter 8, Impacts Found Not to Be Significant. This threshold is not addressed in the following analysis. 5.9.3 Plans, Programs, Policies, and Standard Conditions of Approval The following are existing regulatory requirements, such as plans, policies, programs (PPP), or standard conditions of approval (SCA), applied to the project based on Federal, State, or local laws currently in place, and which effectively reduce impacts related to land use and planning. PPP LU-1 The proposed project would be designed and constructed as a Planned Development Residential-High Density (PDR-HD) in accordance with the applicable provisions of Municipal Code Section 13-20, Zoning Districts. As such, future development would be subject to the proposed One Metro West Specific Plan and Master Plan regulations. Where these documents are silent, the Municipal Code would prevail. 5.9.4 Environmental Impacts 5.9.4.1 METHODOLOGY This analysis evaluates the proposed project’s consistency with regional and local plans, policies, and regulations for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Specifically, the proposed project is analyzed with respect to applicable planning guidelines and strategies of the 2016 RTP/SCS, General Plan, and Zoning Ordinance. 5.9.4.2 IMPACT ANALYSIS The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which there may be potentially significant impacts. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets after the impact statement. Impact 5.9-1: Project implementation would not conflict with applicable plans adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. [Threshold LU-2] Impact Analysis: Project implementation would require the following discretionary approvals: General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Specific Plan, Master Plan, Development Agreement, Tentative Tract Map, Tree Removal Permit, and Public Art Plan. An evaluation of the proposed project’s consistency with applicable regional and local plans and programs that have been adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect is provided below. General Plan According to the General Plan Land Use Map, the project site is designated Industrial Park, which allows for large areas dedicated to industrial, office, and commercial use. Implementation of the proposed project would require a General Plan Amendment to change the site’s current land use designation from Industrial Park to ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING Page 5.9-6 April 2021February 2020 High Density Residential with a site-specific base density of 80 dwelling units per acre and a site-specific maximum building height of seven stories. Project consistency with applicable General Plan goals and policies is detailed in Table 5.9-1, Project Consistency with General Plan. Although the General Plan contains numerous goals and policies beyond those discussed in Table 5.9-1, those goals and policies are not closely related to the “purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect” and are therefore not analyzed. As analyzed, the project would be consistent with all applicable General Plan goals and policies with the exception of Policies LU-1.3, C-3.1, C-3.8, and GM-2.5. Overall, the project would be generally consistent with the General Plan. Table 5.9-1 Project Consistency with General Plan Applicable General Plan Goal and Policies Consistency Analysis Land Use Element Land Use Goal LU-1: A Balanced Community with a Mix of Land Uses to Meet Resident and Business Needs 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. Consistent: The proposed project is a mixed-use community that consists of residential, specialty retail, creative office, and open space uses. The vision of the project is to create a mixed-use community with housing near employment centers in a master planned setting with on-site amenities, a 1.5- acre open space area, and pedestrian and bicycle connections to the Santa Ana River Trail. Thus, the project would develop a mix and balance of housing, commercial, and employment opportunities in Costa Mesa. 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. Inconsistent: While the proposed project would provide 1,057 multi-family residences, the residences are currently proposed as rental units. Therefore, the project would be inconsistent with this policy and the City’s goal to improve the balance between rental and ownership housing opportunities. Land Use Goal LU-2: Preserve and Protect Residential 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. Consistent: The proposed buildings would have a maximum height of seven stories (ranging from 78 to 98 feet). Surrounding land uses include industrial uses to the north, SOCO to the east, I-405 to the south, and industrial and logistics uses to the west. The locations of the proposed buildings on-site would not result in light, air, privacy, or solar access issues to existing uses in the project vicinity. More specifically, Building A (up to 78 feet) and the creative office building (three stories [52 feet] in height) would be adjacent to I-405; Building B would be located in the center of the site and physically separated from adjacent uses by Sunflower Avenue, and Building C would be adjacent to the back of commercial buildings associated with the SOCO retail center. The closest residences to the project site are approximately 300 feet to the south of the I-405 Freeway. The nearest project feature to these residences would be the parking structure facade for Building A and the three story office building. Further, screening features are proposed along the Building A facade. Therefore, the project would not impact the lighting, air, or privacy of surrounding uses. Additionally, the project’s shade and shadow impacts was evaluated in Section 5.1, Aesthetics. As concluded, the project would not result in significant shade/shadow impacts to off-site uses during summer/winter solstice and vernal/autumnal equinox, including the residences to the south and the adjacent SOCO retail center; refer to Figure 5.1-2, Proposed Shade/Shadow Patterns – Summer Solstice, through Figure 5.1-5, Proposed Shade/Shadow Patterns – Vernal Equinox. Thus, the project would not impact solar access. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING Table 5.9-1 Project Consistency with General Plan, continued April 2021February 2020 Page 5.9-1 Applicable General Plan Goal and Policies Consistency Analysis Land Use 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. Consistent: The proposed mixed-use development would include residential, commercial, office, and open space components within a single project. Policy LU-3.8: Ensure that new development reflects existing design standards, qualities, and features that are in context with nearby development and surrounding residential neighborhoods. Policy LU-3.12: Ensure that new development reflects existing design standards, qualities, and features that are in context with nearby development. Consistent: As detailed in Section 5.1, the project is intended to create an attractive, well-designed mixed-use project with a high level of design articulation, landscaping, and streetscape. Provisions of the proposed project, including the Development Regulations, Design Guidelines, street improvements, lighting plan, and community connectivity would ensure that design details of the proposed project are context-sensitive and of high quality (PPP AES-2). The proposed architectural design and visual character of the mixed-use community are intended to complement the design of the nearby SOCO retail center. Land Use Goal LU-4: New development that is sensitive to Costa Mesa’s Environmental 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 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Stormwater Permit during the planning, project review, and permitting processes. Consistent: In compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and PPP HYD-1, the project is required to comply with the City’s municipal storm sewer system (MS4) permit and is required to develop a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The project is also required to implement best management practices (BMPs) for soil erosion and sediment control (PPP HYD-6). Refer to Section 5.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, for additional analysis on project impacts to hydrology and water quality. 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. Consistent: As discussed in Section 5.8, the project is required to comply with the NPDES Stormwater Permit and the City’s Local Implementation Plan, which includes low impact development measures, site design, and source control BMPs to ensure that post-project water quality impacts would be less than significant. 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. Consistent: As discussed in Section 5.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions primarily due to mobile emissions (i.e., increase in vehicular trips). However, the project would incorporate principles of sustainability that contribute towards the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and comply with State-mandated goals. The project would be required to comply with the latest California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen; CCR, Title 24, Part 11), which requires solar ready rooftops, increased insulation, low flow fixtures, and energy efficient appliances, among others (PPP EN-1). The proposed project would include installation of electric vehicle charging stations in non-residential and residential buildings (PPP EN-5). Preferential parking for low-emitting, fuel-efficient, and carpool/car share/van vehicles would be included in all parking areas. In addition, the project would promote environmentally sustainable development principles by providing a mix of land uses close to employment centers. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING Table 5.9-1 Project Consistency with General Plan, continued Page 5.9-2 April 2021February 2020 Applicable General Plan Goal and Policies Consistency Analysis Land Use Goal LU-5: Adequate Community Services, Transportation System, and Infrastructure to Meet Growth Policy LU-5.5: Ensure that new development pays its fair share of impact fees such as park fees and traffic impact fees. This can also include impact fees related to community services (police protection services and fire emergency response services) or library facilities, once adopted and applicable. Consistent: As part of the plan check process, the City would ensure the project applicant pays its fair share of development impact fees applicable to the proposed project, including park, traffic, polices, fire, and library fees. 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. Consistent: The project is a mixed-use development and would incorporate walkable spaces between the residential, commercial, and office buildings. The project is also in the vicinity of other employment centers such as SOCO and The OC Mix. 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. Consistent: Section 5.15, Utilities and Service Systems, includes an evaluation of project impacts on utility services and infrastructure, including water, wastewater, and solid waste. 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. Consistent: An analysis of the proposed project’s impacts on transportation and circulation in the project vicinity is included in Section 5.13. A Traffic Impact Analysis is prepared for the project to evaluate the ability of the existing circulation system to support the proposed level of development; refer to Appendix M, Traffic Impact Analysis. As detailed, the project would be required to implement mitigation measures to reduce impacts to several roadway intersections and freeway segments and ramps to the extent reasonable and feasible. Notwithstanding, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable after implementation of required mitigation. Nonetheless, the Traffic Impact Analysis was prepared, considering full buildout of the proposed project, in order to demonstrate the circulation systems ability to support the proposed project. Land Use Goal LU-6: Economically Viable and Productive Land Uses that Increase the City’s Tax 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. Consistent: Redevelopment of the project site would result in the loss of industrially-zoned land and therefore, manufacturing jobs. However, as a mixed-use development, the project would provide employment opportunities associated with future tenants of the commercial retail and creative office spaces. The new retail and office uses would also be coupled with housing provided in close proximity to employment centers in a jobs rich area of the Costa Mesa. Further, as detailed in Table 3-2, Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Uses, the project would allow a number of general office/professional office and commercial uses to provide employment at all income levels. Policy LU-6.19: Provide flexibility and support for development 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. Consistent: The project would include a mix of residential, office, and retail uses within a site that is located adjacent to major corridors (e.g., I-405 and Sunflower Avenue). The project would also serve local residents as future housing, retail, and employment opportunities. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING Table 5.9-1 Project Consistency with General Plan, continued April 2021February 2020 Page 5.9-3 Applicable General Plan Goal and Policies Consistency Analysis Circulation Element Circulation 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. Policy C-1.5: Implement road diets on street segments with excess capacity to enhance bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Consistent: The proposed project would enhance bikeways and walkways on Sunflower Avenue and would upgrade the existing bicycle path that connects to the Santa Ana Regional Trail system. The proposed improvements would along Sunflower Avenue would require a road diet along Sunflower Avenue to enhance bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Circulation Goal C-3: Enhance Regional Mobility and Coordination. Encourage development of a regional transportation network that addresses regional mobility needs for all modes of travel. Policy C-3.1: 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. Inconsistent: As detailed in Section 5.13, project-generated impacts on the level of service of study area intersections was analyzed and would result in potentially significant impacts. Mitigation Measures TR-1 and TR-2 would be required to reduce such impacts; however, several impacts would remain significant and unavoidable as right-of-way constraints limit the feasibility of mitigation. Thus, the project would not be consistent with Policy C-3.1. Policy C-3.3: 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. Consistent: Table 5.9-2, Project Consistency with 2016 RTP/SCS Goals, provides an assessment of the proposed project’s relationship to pertinent 2016 RTP/SCS goals. As demonstrated, the proposed project is consistent with the goals identified in the 2016 RTP/SCS. Policy C-3.8: 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 or joint control. Intersection Level of Service analyses for General Plan conditions for locations under State or joint control will be updated periodically and presented to the City Council. Inconsistent: Refer to response to Policy C-3.1. Additionally, the project would result in potentially significant impacts to several freeway mainline and ramps. To mitigate the impacts at the identified locations, freeway mainline and/or freeway ramp widening would be required. However, this type of infrastructure is extremely costly and is typically infeasible for one development project to undertake. The City also cannot assure the construction of improvements to freeway facilities that are under the jurisdiction of another agency (i.e., Caltrans). Circulation Goal C-5: Ensure coordination between the Land Use and Circulation Systems. Facilitate close coordination between development of land use and circulation system. Policy C-5.2: Require that large developments and redevelopments provide short-term and long-term vehicular traffic impact studies. Consistent: A project-specific traffic impact analysis was conducted for the proposed development; refer to Appendix M, Traffic Impact Analysis. Policy C-5.3: Encourage permitted General Plan land uses which generate high traffic volumes to be located near major transit and transportation corridors to minimize vehicle use, congestion, and delay. Consistent: The proposed mixed-use development would be located near major transit and transportation corridors, such as Harbor Boulevard and MacArthur Boulevard. The closest bus stops to the project site are located at the intersections of Harbor Boulevard/ Sunflower Avenue, approximately 0.5- mile east of the project site, and Scenic Avenue/Hyland, approximately 0.5- mile north of the project site. Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) bus lines 794 (express bus), 211, and 43 have stops at the intersection of Harbor Boulevard/Sunflower Avenue, and OCTA bus line 794 (express bus) serves the Scenic Avenue/Hyland Avenue stop. Additionally, the OCTA Santa Ana Bus Base is located at the intersection of Hyland Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard, approximately one mile from the project site. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING Table 5.9-1 Project Consistency with General Plan, continued Page 5.9-4 April 2021February 2020 Applicable General Plan Goal and Policies Consistency Analysis Policy C-5.5: Promote development of mixed-use projects to reduce number of vehicle trips. Consistent: The proposed project is a mixed-use development consisting of residential, retail, creative office, and open space uses. Policy C-5.6: Coordinate the design and improvement of pedestrian and bicycle ways in major residential, shopping and employment centers, parks, schools, other public facilities, public transportation facilities, and bicycle networks with adjacent cities. Consistent: The project would include off-site pedestrian and bicyclist improvements along Sunflower Avenue, including upgraded sidewalks and protected bicycle lanes to improve pedestrian and bicycle access to the regional Santa Ana River Trail system. Additionally, the project would implement trail improvements from the project’s western boundary to the existing Santa Ana River Trail, including trail resurfacing and landscaping. Policy C-5.9: Require that circulation necessary to provide or attain the minimum traffic level of service standard at an intersection to which a development project contributes measurable traffic be completed within three years of issuance of the first building permit for such development project, unless additional right-of-way or coordination with other government agencies is required to complete the improvement. Improvements may be required sooner if, because of extraordinary traffic generation characteristics of the project or extraordinary impacts to the surrounding circulation system, such improvements are necessary to prevent significant adverse impacts. Consistent: As detailed in Section 5.13, the project is required to implement Mitigation Measures TR-1 and TR-2, which require payment of fair share fees to of improve the intersections of Susan Street/South Coast Drive (Study Intersection No. 18) and Talbert Avenue/Mt. Washington Street (Study Intersection No. 28). Payment of the fair share fees is required prior to issuance of the first building permit. Once the full cost of the proposed improvements is collected by the City, the City would implement the required improvements. Policy C-5.13: Require that new development projects improve access to and accommodations for multimodal transportation. Consistent: Refer to response to Policy C-5.6. Policy C-5.15: Consider the needs of the transportation and infrastructure system early for large developments and coordinate with developers to design projects that minimize traffic impacts and infrastructure demands, and implement complete streets wherever feasible. Alternatively, address transportation and infrastructure system impacts through the implementation of development agreements. Consistent: The project’s transportation impacts are analyzed and mitigated, where feasible, in Section 5.13. Mitigation Measures TR-1 and TR-2, PPP T- 1, PPP T-2, and SCA T-1 would be implemented as part of the project’s Development Agreement. Growth Management Element Growth Management Goal GM-1: Inter-jurisdictional Coordination Policy GM-1.5: Continue to require that any new large developments prepare a master plan and environmental impact analysis. This allows the City to anticipate the impacts of large projects prior to development of any portion and permits more time to plan for public services and facilities needed to support the project. Consistent: The proposed project would require discretionary approval of a Master Plan, which is evaluated as part of this Draft EIR. Policy GM-2.4: Support uses and development which create synergistic relationships with neighboring uses and development, especially those whose addition does not create mutually exclusive additional vehicular trips but adds to the value of the destination by any potential visitor. Consistent: The proposed mixed-use development is located in the vicinity of the SOCO and The OC Mix retail centers and industrial developments. Future residents, employees, and visitors of the project site could also visit SOCO and The OC Mix, creating a synergistic relationship between the neighboring uses. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING Table 5.9-1 Project Consistency with General Plan, continued April 2021February 2020 Page 5.9-5 Applicable General Plan Goal and Policies Consistency Analysis Policy GM-2.5: Support creative and flexible solutions that provide for additional economic or physical growth within the City but does not place greater impact on the circulation system. These would include shared parking agreements, offset hours of operation, and clustering of harmonious and supportive uses. Inconsistent: The project involves developing residential, commercial, office, and open space on-site. As detailed in Section 5.13, the project results in significant and unavoidable transportation impacts to roadway intersections and freeway mainlines and ramps and thus, places a greater burden on the City’s existing circulation system. However, parking for all proposed uses would be provided on-site with overflow parking available along the southern side of Sunflower Avenue. Parking provided in Building A would also include shared office/residential parking spaces. Thus, the project would cluster compatible uses within one mixed-use community. Nevertheless, since the project results in significant and unavoidable transportation impacts, the project would be inconsistent with Policy GM-2.5. Housing Element Housing Goal HOU-3: Provision of Adequate Sites HOU-3.1: Encourage the conversion of existing marginal or vacant motels, commercial, and/or industrial land to residential, where feasible and consistent with environmental conditions that are suitable for new residential development. Consistent: The project site is currently developed with one industrial building and associated parking and landscaped areas. The project would convert the industrial use into a mixed-use community that includes a residential component with up to 1,057 multi-family rental units, including affordable housing. HOU-3.2: 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. Consistent: The proposed mixed-use development would be a master planned community and include residential, commercial, office, and open space components within a single project site. Conservation Element Conservation Goal CON-1: Preserve and Restored Natural Coastal Habitat and Landforms Policy CON-1.A.6: Minimize soil depletion and erosion in development projects. Prevent erosion caused by construction activities, and encourage preservation of natural vegetation and topography. Consistent: Refer to response to Policy LU-4.1 above. Policy CON-1.A.7: Improve access to large-scale natural areas in the City. These areas should be open for controlled access to improve public enjoyment. Access should be limited where natural habitat is extremely sensitive. Work with transit agencies to improve connections and access to open space and recreation facilities from all Costa Mesa neighborhoods. Consistent: The project would include off-site pedestrian and bicyclist improvements along Sunflower Avenue, including upgraded sidewalks and protected bicycle lanes to improve pedestrian and bicycle access to the regional Santa Ana River Trail system. Additionally, the project would implement trail improvements from the project’s western boundary to the existing Santa Ana River Trail, including trail resurfacing and landscaping. The proposed improvements are not located in areas with extreme natural habitat sensitivity. Conservation Goal CON-2: Conserved Natural Resources Through Environmental Sustainability Policy CON-2.A.1: 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.A.2: 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. Consistent: The project would be required to comply with PPP EN-1 through PPP EN-5. These existing regulations would require the proposed project to meet 2019 California Building Energy and Efficiency (Title 24) Standards and 2019 CALGreen Standards; implement a landscaping palette that emphasizes drought-tolerant plants and water-efficient irrigation techniques; reducing water demand by installed certified plumbing fixtures; and recycle/reuse at least 50 percent of construction materials. The project would also encourage sustainable design features to conserve energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including, but not limited to: ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING Table 5.9-1 Project Consistency with General Plan, continued Page 5.9-6 April 2021February 2020 Applicable General Plan Goal and Policies Consistency Analysis Policy CON-2.A.4: 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 CON-2.A.5: Promote environmentally sustainable development principles for buildings, master planned communities, neighborhoods, and infrastructure. Policy CON-2.A.6: Encourage construction and building development practices that reduce resource expenditures throughout the lifecycle of a structure. Limiting landscape irrigation when possible and incorporating drought- tolerant plant species and non-potable water sources; Installing green roofs, using alternative paving materials, and providing tree canopy shading; Installing solar ready rooftops; Utilizing recycled and reclaimed materials for surface parking areas, sidewalks, unit paving, and curbs; Incorporating permeable paving, low-glare and low-heat intensive surfaces; and Promoting stormwater retention through capture and harvest for re-use in landscaped areas. Policy CON-2.A.9: Encourage waste management programs that promote waste reduction and recycling to minimize materials sent to landfills. Maintain robust programs encourage residents and businesses to reduce, reuse, recycle, and compost. Policy CON-2.A.10: Support waste management practices that provide recycling programs. Promote organic recycling, landfill diversion, zero waste goals, proper hazardous waste collections, composting, and the continuance of recycling centers. Policy CON-2.A.11: Continue construction and demolition programs that require recycling and minimize waste in haul trips. Consistent: The proposed project would be required to abide by City and State waste collection and recycling mandates and legislation including the: Municipal Code Chapter IV, Garbage, Rubbish and Weeds (PPP USS- 8); Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989; Assembly Bill (AB) 939, State law to recycle at least 50 percent of all trash generated; AB 341, Mandatory Commercial and Multi-Family recycling (PPP USS- 9); and AB 1826, Mandatory Organics Commercial and Multi-Family Recycling (PPP USS-9). Conservation Goal CON-3: Improve Water Supply and Quality Policy CON-3.A.2: Encourage residents, public facilities, businesses, and industry to minimize water consumption, especially during drought years. Consistent: Sustainable water design features and operational programs would be incorporated into the proposed project, including those required by CALGreen (PPP EN-1). Landscaping would be required to comply with the City’s Landscape Water Conservation Ordinance. Water conservation techniques detailed in the Specific Plan that may be implemented include implementing comprehensive stormwater management that emphasizes retaining on-site through infiltration and evapotranspiration; promoting retention of stormwater through capture and harvesting for re-use in landscaped areas in a low-flow irrigation system; showcasing sustainable features such as permeable, low-glare paving, drought tolerant landscaping, rain gardens, and fountains using reclaimed water in the open space area; installing sensor-operated faucets in public restrooms in the creative office building; utilizing dual flush or other toilets using less than 1.6 gallons per flush or latest requirements in the creative office building; and installing waterless urinals in non-residential buildings. Policy CON-3.A.3: 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. Consistent: Project landscaping would be required to comply with the City’s Landscape Water Conservation Ordinance. The project would also limit landscape irrigation when possible and incorporate drought-tolerant plant species, non-potable water sources, and weather-based smart irrigation controllers (PPP EN-2 and PPP EN-3). ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING Table 5.9-1 Project Consistency with General Plan, continued April 2021February 2020 Page 5.9-7 Applicable General Plan Goal and Policies Consistency Analysis Policy CON-3.A.5: 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.A.8: Require that all applicable development projects be reviewed with regards to requirements of both the on-site Water Quality Management Plan and State requirements for runoff and obtaining a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) permit. Consistent: Refer to response to Policy LU-4.1 above. Conservation Goal CON-4: Improved Air Quality Policy CON-4.A.1: Support regional policies and efforts that improve air quality to protect human and environmental health, and minimize disproportionate impacts on sensitive population groups. Policy CON-4.A.2: Encourage businesses, industries and residents to reduce the impact of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of stationary and non-stationary pollution sources. Policy CON-4.A.3: Require that sensitive uses such as schools, childcare centers, parks and playgrounds, housing, and community gathering places are protected from adverse impacts of emissions. Consistent: Project-related air quality impacts are addressed in Section 5.2, Air Quality. As detailed, operational air quality impacts would be less than significant, and the project would not result in adverse impacts to nearby sensitive uses. Additionally, project operations would not result in adverse impacts from stationary and mobile pollution sources. Last, it is acknowledged that the project would place new housing near existing and proposed emissions during operations. All new multi-family residential buildings would install two-inch Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) 13 filters in accordance with CALGreen standards as detailed in the Specific Plan (PPP LU-1). Policy CON-4.A.5: Encourage compact development, infill development, and a mix of uses that are in proximity to transit, pedestrian, and bicycling infrastructures. Policy CON-4.A.6: Enhance bicycling and walking infrastructure, and support public bus service, pursuant to the Circulation Element’s goals, objectives, and policies. Consistent: The proposed project would redevelop the project site from an industrial use to a residential mixed-use community within an employment center area. The proposed mix of land uses, including residential, creative office, specialty retail, and recreation, which would reduce the number of commuter trips between residences, employment centers, and services. The project would also enhance connectivity to the Santa Ana River Trail by implementing protected bicycle lanes along Sunflower Avenue, improving the trail connection, and creating an Active Transportation Hub near the proposed open space area that may include bicycle lockers, bicycle storage, and repair facilities. The proposed Sunflower Avenue improvements would also include landscaped medians and sidewalks to enhance walking infrastructure along the project frontage. Policy CON-4.A.7: Encourage installation of renewable energy devices for businesses and facilities and strive to reduce communitywide energy consumption. Consistent: The proposed project would construct solar ready rooftops and electric vehicle charging stations. Noise Element Noise Goal N-1: Noise Hazards and Conditions. The City of Costa Mesa aims to protect residents, local workers, and property from injury, damage, or destruction from noise hazards and to work toward improved noise abatement. Policy N-1.5: Apply the standards contained in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations as applicable to the construction of all new dwelling units. Consistent: The project would be required to comply with all 2019 Title 24 Standards. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING Table 5.9-1 Project Consistency with General Plan, continued Page 5.9-8 April 2021February 2020 Applicable General Plan Goal and Policies Consistency Analysis Policy N-1.6: Discourage sensitive land uses from locating within the 65 CNEL noise contour of John Wayne Airport. Should it be deemed by the City as appropriate and/or necessary for a sensitive land use to locate in the 65 CNEL noise contour, ensure that appropriate interior noise levels are met and that minimal outdoor activities are allowed. Consistent: Refer to response to Policy S-1.17. The project site is not located within the 65 CNEL noise contour of John Wayne Airport. Noise 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. Policy N-2.1: 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. Consistent: As analyzed in Section 5.10, Noise, project design is required to meet the noise standards included in the Specific Plan as well as 2019 Title 24 Standards. Policy N-2.2: Require, as a part of the environmental review process, that full consideration be given to the existing and projected noise environment. Consistent: The project’s short-term construction and long-term operational noise impacts are fully analyzed in Section 5.10 and Appendix K, Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis. Policy N-2.4: Require that all proposed projects are compatible with adopted noise/land use compatibility criteria Consistent: Refer to response to Policy N-2.1. Policy N-2.8: Require new mixed-use developments to site loading areas, parking lots, driveways, trash enclosures, mechanical equipment, and other noise sources away from the residential portion of the development and adjacent established residential development. Consistent: The proposed residential units are designed within Buildings A, B, and C away from loading areas, parking lots/garages, driveways, trash enclosures, and mechanical equipment. As analyzed in Section 5.10, stationary and mobile sources associated with project operations would not exceed City-established interior or exterior noise standards. Safety Element Safety Goal S-1: Risk Management of Natural and Human-Caused Disasters Policy S-1.7: 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-1.8: Consider site soils conditions when reviewing projects in areas subject to liquefaction or slope instability. Consistent: As detailed in Section 5.5, Geology and Soils, liquefaction analysis performed for the project site indicates that the alluvial soils below the historic high groundwater could be prone to liquefaction induced settlement during earthquake ground motion. However, future development associated with the project would be required to comply with the seismic design requirements detailed under the California Building Code (CBC) (PPP GEO-1). Furthermore, the project’s Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation includes specific design recommendations that would reduce potential liquefaction settlement impacts during an earthquake event (PPP GEO-2). Adherence to the seismic design parameters included in the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation and required by the CBC would be confirmed during plan check and building design review and impacts related to liquefaction hazards would be less than significant. Policy S-1.11: Improve and maintain local storm drainage infrastructure in a manner that reduces flood hazards. Consistent: As detailed in Section 5.8, the project is expected to generate less stormwater runoff than under existing conditions. Impervious areas on- site would slightly increase; however, modular wetlands would be installed on-site to temporarily retain stormwater runoff prior to discharge into the City’s storm drain system, thereby reducing stormwater runoff compared to existing conditions. Policy S-1.17: Utilize the John Wayne Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) as a planning resource for evaluation of land use compatibility and land use intensity in areas affected by airport operations. In particular, future land use Consistent: As detailed in Section 5.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the closest airport to the project site is the John Wayne Airport, located approximately 3.5 miles to the southeast. The project site is not located within the airport’s Safety Compatibility Zones but is located within the AELUP ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING Table 5.9-1 Project Consistency with General Plan, continued April 2021February 2020 Page 5.9-9 Applicable General Plan Goal and Policies Consistency Analysis decisions within the Safety/Runway Protection Zone will be evaluated in light of the risk to life and property associated with aircraft operations. Policy S-1.18: Comply with Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) and the John Wayne AELUP requirements relative to Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace. Policy S-1.19: Use the Federal Aviation Regulations as a guideline to establish the ultimate height of structures as defined in FAR Part 77. Policy S-1.20: Minimize hazards to aeronautical operations by ensuring land uses do not emit excessive glare, light, steam, smoke, dust, or electronic interference in compliance with FAR regulations and the John Wayne AELUP. Notification Area. The Airport Land Use Commission has adopted the Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77 as the criteria for determining height restrictions in Orange County. FAR Part 77 requires notification to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for any project that would be more than 200 feet in height above the ground level pursuant to FAR Part 77 Section 77.13. The project would involve construction of a mixed-use development with seven-story buildings (up to 98 feet in height). As such, the project would not exceed FAA’s notification requirement of 200 feet and would not introduce a safety hazard associated with airport operations. Nevertheless, given that the project requires General Plan Amendments and Zone Change, the project requires a consistency determination from the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) to determine whether the project is consistent with the John Wayne Airport AELUP. As detailed in Section 3.5, Intended Uses of the EIR, the Orange County ALUC is identified as a responsible agency to provide a consistency determination. If the project is deemed inconsistent with the ALUC plan, a local government may override the ALUC decision by a two-thirds vote of its governing body, if it makes specific findings that the proposed action is consistent with the purposes stated in Section 21670(a)(2) of the Public Utilities Code: “to protect public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring the orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public’s exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards in areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses.” Safety Goal S-2: High Level of Police and Fire Services and Emergency Preparedness Policy S-2.6: Require that water supply systems for development are adequate to combat structural fires in terms of location and minimum required fire-flow pressures. Consistent: The project’s potential impacts to fire protection services, including water supply and fire flow pressures, is detailed in Section 5.12, Public Services. The project would be subject to several standard conditions of approval requiring the installation of on-site fire hydrants, fire extinguishers, smoke detectors, and fire sprinkler systems, and approval of final project plans by the Costa Mesa Fire & Rescue Department (CMFD) to ensure adequate emergency access, fire hydrant availability, and fire flow pressures (SCA FIRE-7 through SCA FIRE-10 and SCA FIRE-13 through SCA FIRE- 17). Additionally, Mitigation Measure PS-2 requires additional fire protection features in excess of minimum code requirements to ensure the proposed Building A and associated parking garage design meet CMFD’s fire apparatus access road and hose pull requirements. Policy S-2.7: Require development to contribute its fair share toward funding the provision of appropriate fire and emergency medical services as determined necessary to adequately serve the project. Consistent: As detailed in Section 5.12, the project would be required to pay its fair share of development impact fees related to fire and emergency medical services. PPP FS-3 requires the applicant to pay development impact fees established based on the Costa Mesa Fire Protection System Fee Study and as required in the Development Agreement. Policy S-2.16: Require the safe production, transportation, handling, use, and disposal of hazardous materials that may cause air, water, or soil contamination. Consistent: As detailed in Section 5.7, project compliance with applicable laws and regulations governing the use, storage, transportation, and disposal of hazardous materials would ensure that all potentially hazardous materials are used and handled in an appropriate manner and would minimize the potential for safety impacts. Community Design Element Community Design Goal CD-1: Vehicular and Pedestrian Corridors Policy CD-1.4: Promote a consistent landscape character along City streets to reinforce the unique qualities of each corridor and district, including the development of Consistent: The project proposes several improvements along Sunflower Avenue that would enhance the visual quality along the project frontage. Upgrades to Sunflower Avenue would include placing the existing Southern ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING Table 5.9-1 Project Consistency with General Plan, continued Page 5.9-10 April 2021February 2020 Applicable General Plan Goal and Policies Consistency Analysis landscaped medians. Support implementation of the recommended street tree palette for each City street, as identified in the City of Costa Mesa Streetscape and Median Development Guidelines. California Edison 66-kilovolt utility lines underground and implementing a new pedestrian sidewalk and protected bicycle lane. Extensive landscaping would also be planted along the southern side of Sunflower Avenue adjacent to the project frontage. The Specific Plan includes landscape development standards and design guidelines which would be consistent with the City’s Streetscape and Median Development Guidelines (PPP AES-2). Policy CD-1.5: Encourage electric and communication lines to be placed underground and electrical substations and telephone facilities to be screened to minimize visual impacts from sidewalks, streets, and adjacent properties. Support utility undergrounding through conditions of project approval, preparation of undergrounding plans, and the formation of assessment districts. Consistent: The project proposes to underground existing Southern California Edison electric pole lines along the project frontage in Sunflower Avenue. Community Design Goal CD-3: High Quality and Visually Interesting Nodes Policy CD-3.2: Reinforce a sense of arrival into the City by promoting architecturally significant development and significant landscape plantings at key nodes. Undertake a visioning process to develop specific design guidelines that articulate the desired character for each node within Costa Mesa. Consistent: As detailed in the Specific Plan, a primary community entry to the project site would provide a sense of arrival. The entry design would be attractive and functional and convey a ceremonial sense of entry that reflects the community image and identity. Physical elements of an entry, including roadway archways, paving materials, signs, landscape planting, would be considered and function together to physically define the entry. The project also proposes an open space art plan, which would include a design feature along the Building A parking garage wall adjacent to I-405. Community Design Goal CD-5: Edges Policy CD-5.1: Preserve and optimize natural views and open spaces in Costa Mesa. Consistent: The project site does not contain natural views or open spaces. However, the project would provide a 1.5-acre open space area on the western portion of the project site with amenities, including seating and resting areas, creative landscaping, shade structures, and art pieces. The open space would be available to the general public by a dedicated easement. Policy CD-5.3: Develop open space corridors and trails along the edges of Costa Mesa where feasible and connect these trails to existing and potential future trails throughout the City. Consistent: The project would enhance the area’s connection to the Santa Ana River Trail which runs along the western boundary of the project site and City by providing walking and bicycling amenities along Sunflower Avenue, resurfacing and landscaping the existing trail west of the project site towards the Santa Ana River Trail, and the proposed open space. Policy CD-5.6: Continue to work with Caltrans to improve the design quality of freeway edges. Consistent: The southern project boundary is adjacent to I-405. The Building A parking garage would be located adjacent to I-405 and is proposed as a public art piece. Specifically, the Specific Plan details the requirements for a Public Art Plan to include examples of murals or other works to be used to enhance blank building walls, particularly the blank Building A wall adjacent to I-405 (PPP AES-2). The artwork may include illumination to allow passing motorists view of the artwork at reasonable hours. In accordance with the Specific Plan, Cultural Arts Committee approval is required to ensure the designs for the public art along the I-405 do not result in significant impacts to adjacent communities and vehicles travelling along the I-405 (PPP AES- 1). Additionally, SCA AE-5 and Mitigation Measure AE-1 requires the applicant to submit a lighting plan and photometric study for City approval. All project lighting along I-405 would be required to meet Caltrans lighting standards. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING Table 5.9-1 Project Consistency with General Plan, continued April 2021February 2020 Page 5.9-11 Applicable General Plan Goal and Policies Consistency Analysis Community Design Goal CD-6: Image Policy CD-6.1: Encourage the inclusion of public art and attractive, functional architecture into new development that will have the effect of promoting Costa Mesa as the “City of the Arts”. Policy CD-6.2: Encourage the use of creative and well- designed signs that establish a distinctive image for the City. Consistent: The proposed project would redevelop the site with well- designed contemporary buildings and landscaping and would contribute to a positive visual image of the City of Costa Mesa. As detailed throughout the Specific Plan, public art would be incorporated throughout the project site, including within the open space and along the walking paths. In addition, the proposed project would include artistic treatments for the Building “A” parking elevation (façade) along the I-405 freeway (PPP AES-1). Pursuant to SCA AE-1, the City would verify the proposed project is architecturally compatible (pertaining to building materials, style, colors, etc.) with the existing surrounding development during the plan check process. The Specific Plan outlines development standards and design guidelines for the use of signs throughout the project site. The Specific Plan would ensure that on-site signs would be creative and well-designed. The proposed project would also include entry, directional, identification, and open space signage to provide for wayfinding and placemaking. Pursuant to SCA AE-4, permits would be required for all signs according to the provisions of the Costa Mesa Sign Ordinance. Freestanding signs would be subject to review and approval by the Planning Division/ Development Services Director to ensure compatibility in terms of size, height, and location with the proposed/existing development, and existing freestanding signs in the project vicinity. The proposed project would be consistent with this policy in this regard. Community Design Goal CD-7: Quality Residential Policy CD-7.3: Ensure that California native plants are used to support the local ecology and save water. Develop landscaping guidelines that reflect the local community. Consistent: Project landscaping would be required to comply with the City’s Landscape Water Conservation Ordinance. The project would also limit landscape irrigation when possible and incorporate drought-tolerant plant species, non-potable water sources, and weather-based smart irrigation controllers (PPP EN-2 and PPP EN-3). Community Design Goal CD-9: Mixed-Use Policy CD-9.1: Require that mixed-use development projects be designed to mitigate potential conflicts between uses. Consider noise, lighting, and security. Consistent: The project’s potential impacts related to noise, lighting, and security (police protection), are detailed in Sections 5.10, 5.1, and 5.12, which conclude impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels with mitigation, plans, programs, and policies, and standard conditions of approval incorporated. Policy CD-9.2: Provide adequate parking, open space and recreational facilities to serve residents in mixed-use development projects. Design parking and other areas to acknowledge different users (residents versus shoppers) and to be compatible with the architectural character of the building(s). Consistent: Parking areas for the proposed project would be in an enclosed parking structure within Buildings A, B, and C and would not be visible from the outdoors or from public rights-of-way (except for parking driveways and entrances). The proposed project would include artistic treatments for the Building A parking elevation (façade) along the I-405 freeway (PPP AES-1). No parking structure entrances would be visible from Sunflower Avenue. Parking structure entrances would be designed to be visually consistent with the architectural character of the buildings. The proposed project would be consistent with this policy in this regard. Policy CD-9.6: Support efforts to mix compatible uses and activities. Encourage the siting of community-oriented services, businesses, and amenities in and near mixed-use neighborhoods, including schools, libraries, open space, and parks. Consistent: The project is a mixed-use development and would provide residential, commercial, office, and open space uses on-site. The project is also adjacent to other retail developments, such as SOCO. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING Table 5.9-1 Project Consistency with General Plan, continued Page 5.9-12 April 2021February 2020 Applicable General Plan Goal and Policies Consistency Analysis Community Design Goal CD-12: Public Safety Through Design Policy CD-12.1: Decrease the opportunity for criminal activity by addressing high-risk circumstances (e.g., dark alleys, enclosed stairwells, and dark entrances). Involve the Police and Fire Departments in reviewing and making design recommendations during the project review process. Policy CD-12.2: Continue to implement and refine development standards and/or guidelines based on Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) for new development and redevelopment with emphasis on site and building design to minimize vulnerability to criminal activity. Consistent: The proposed Specific Plan includes CPTED techniques in the project design to reduce crime through site, structural, and environmental designs and management. CPTED measures to be incorporated into the project design may include: implementing project landscaping and site lighting that avoids creating blind spots or hiding places; creating open spaces in full view; designing pedestrian walkways to be unobstructed from outdoor furniture; installing property maintenance and surveillance; maintaining shrubbery no taller than three feet; accentuating building entrances and parking areas with architectural elements, lighting, and landscaping; fully illuminating tenant spaces at night; and constructing parking garage stairwells to be visible (without solid walls). Open Space and Recreation Element Open Space and Recreation Goal OSR-1: Balanced and Accessible System of Parks and Open Spaces Policy OSR-1.5: Maximize public space by requiring plazas and public gathering spaces in private developments that can serve multiple uses, including recreation and social needs. Consistent: The proposed 1.5-acre of open space would include passive recreational amenities, such as seating and resting areas, creative landscaping, shade structures, and art pieces for residents, employees, and visitors. An Active Transportation Hub is also proposed adjacent to the proposed open space area and Santa Ana River Trail. The Active Transportation Hub may include amenities, such as bicycle lockers, bicycle storage, and repair facilities, and may host community-wide bicycle-share programs and events. Additional common spaces are also proposed throughout the residential community, including gathering spaces between the buildings. Policy OSR-1.18: Provide a minimum of 4.26 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. Consistent: As detailed in Section 5.12, the project would be required to dedicate land and/or pay in-lieu fees sufficient for acquisition and development of parkland in accordance with the Quimby Act and Ordinance No. 2016-07 (Measure Z), or as otherwise required by the terms and conditions of the Development Agreement. Policy OSR-1.20: Enhance pedestrian, bicycle, and transit linkages to meet the needs of residents and to provide better access to parks, recreation, and public spaces. Consistent: Refer to response to Policies CON-1.A.7, CON-4.A.5, and CON- 4.A.6 above. Policy OSR-1.21: Provide opportunities for public access to all open space areas, except where sensitive resources may be threatened or damaged, public health and safety may be compromised, or access would interfere with the managed production of resources. Consistent: The proposed project includes development of a 1.5-acre open space area. In addition, the project would enhance bicycle and pedestrian connections to the Santa Ana River Trail. The proposed open space amenities would not interfere with sensitive resources. Open Space and Recreation Goal OSR-3: Conserved open space Policy ORS-3.1: Preserve open space areas along the Santa Ana River, large open space parks, and along the mesa formations to protect natural habitat and to maintain the integrity of the natural environment. Not applicable: The project is not within an existing open space area and does not contain natural habitat. However, the project proposes a 1.5-acre open space area on the western end of the project site, adjacent to the Santa Ana River. Open Space and Recreation Goal OSR-4: Extensive Arts and Culture Programs and Services Policy OSR-4.16: Pursue the placement of public art in prominent locations, particularly along major travel corridors to enliven and beautify the public realm. Consistent: Refer to response to Policies CD-6.1 and CD-6.2. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING Table 5.9-1 Project Consistency with General Plan, continued April 2021February 2020 Page 5.9-13 Applicable General Plan Goal and Policies Consistency Analysis Historical and Cultural Resources Element Historical and Cultural Resources Goal HCR-1: Historical, Archaeological, and Paleontological Resource Preservation Policy HCR-1.4: 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. Policy HCR-1.7: 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., prehistorical sites, historical sites, and isolated artifacts and features) in the project area, determine their eligibility for inclusion in the California Register of Historical 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-1.8: Comply with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act regarding protection and recovery of archaeological resources discovered during development activities. Policy HCR-1.9: 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-1.10: Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act regarding the protection and recovery of paleontological resources during development activities. Consistent: A Cultural Resources Survey Report and Paleontological Resources Paleontological Resources Assessment were prepared to evaluate the project’s potential impacts on paleontological, archaeological, and historical resources. Refer to Sections 5.3, Cultural Resources, and 5.5, Geology and Soils, for additional analysis. Zoning Ordinance As indicated previously, the project site is zoned Industrial Park (MP). MP districts allow for large, concentrated industrial areas developed to create a spacious park-like environment. Implementation of the proposed project requires a Zone Change from MP to Planned Development Residential – High Density (PDR-HD). According to Municipal Code Section 13-20, Zoning Districts, PDR-HD districts are intended for multi-family residential developments containing any type or mixture of housing units, either attached or detached, including but not limited to clustered development, townhouses, patio houses, detached houses, duplexes, garden apartments, high rise apartments, or common interest developments. Complementary non-residential uses could also be included in the planned development. As such, the proposed zoning district would allow a mix of residential and non-residential uses and site-specific development standards pursuant to the proposed Specific Plan. Upon City approval of the proposed Zone Change, the project would be consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING Page 5.9-14 April 2021February 2020 Section 3, Development Standards and Design Guidelines, of the Specific Plan includes a number of development standards that would guide future development of the site. Table 3-3, Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Uses, in Chapter 3, Project Description, details permitted and conditionally permitted land uses within the Specific Plan area. In addition, Table 3-4, General Development Standards, provides setback, building height, parking, and amenity requirements for the proposed residential and non-residential uses. Future development on-site would be required to comply with the Specific Plan development standards and thus, would be consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. 2016 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Table 5.9-2, Project Consistency with 2016 RTP/SCS Goals, provides an assessment of the proposed project’s relationship to pertinent 2016 RTP/SCS goals. The 2016 RTP/SCS goals are directed toward transit, transportation and mobility, and protection of the environment and health of residents. As demonstrated, the proposed project is consistent with the goals identified in the 2016 RTP/SCS. Table 5.9-2 Project Consistency with 2016 RTP/SCS Goals RTP/SCS Goal Project Compliance with Goal RTP/SCS G1: Align the plan investments and policies with improving regional economic development and competitiveness. Consistent: The project would allow development of a multi-family mixed-use development with creative office space, tenant-serving retail, and open space. The proposed development would provide additional employment opportunities within the City and improve regional economic development. RTP/SCS G2: Maximize mobility and accessibility for all people and goods in the region. RTP/SCS G3: Ensure travel safety and reliability for all people and goods in the region. RTP/SCS G4: Preserve and ensure a sustainable regional transportation system. RTP/SCS G5: Maximize the productivity of our transportation system. Not Applicable: RTP SCS Goals 2 through 5 are related to enhancing the mobility, accessibility, safety, sustainability, and productivity of the regional transportation system. While considered a project of regional significance, the proposed project would not have an impact on the regional transportation system. The project is located along Sunflower Avenue, which is not a regional roadway within Costa Mesa or the County. Nevertheless, from a local, project-level perspective, the project involves several off-site improvements along Sunflower Avenue that would increase pedestrian connectivity and visual experience; increase cyclist safety; and enhance site access. Improvements to Sunflower Avenue along the project frontage involve reducing vehicle lanes from four to two lanes and providing upgraded sidewalks, parkways, protected bicycle lanes, and landscaped medians. RTP/SCS G6: Protect the environment and health of our residents by improving air quality and encouraging active transportation (non- motorized transportation, such as bicycling and walking). Consistent: Sections 5.2, Air Quality, and 5.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, address air quality and global climate change impacts that would occur as a result of implementation of the project, and identify regulatory requirements and mitigation measures required to reduce any impacts, as applicable and feasible. The project would encourage active transportation by enhancing pedestrian and bicycle facilities along Sunflower Avenue towards the Santa Ana River to the west and developing an active transportation hub, adjacent to the proposed open space area and Santa Ana River Trail. The Active Transportation Hub may include amenities, such as bicycle lockers, bicycle storage, repair facilities, and host community-wide bicycle-share programs and events. Patrons would also be able to safely and conveniently walk from the parking areas to the common area and buildings via the decorative aggregate paving of the parking areas. Parking and access pathways throughout the site would comply with the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING Table 5.9-2 Project Consistency with 2016 RTP/SCS Goals, continued April 2021February 2020 Page 5.9-15 RTP/SCS Goal Project Compliance with Goal RTP/SCS G7: Actively encourage and create incentives for energy efficiency, where possible. Consistent: Energy-saving and sustainable design features and operational programs would be incorporated into the proposed project, including those required by CALGreen (PPP EN-1). As detailed in Specific Plan Section 2.4, Community Sustainability, the project would install electric vehicle charging stations (PPP EN-5), accommodate future installation of solar panels on appropriate roofs, install energy efficient major appliances in all residential units, implement a water conservation strategy that demonstrate a minimum 20 percent reduction in indoor water usage (compared to baseline water allowance) (PPP EN-3), integrate a landscaping palette that emphasizes drought- tolerant species, and utilize water-efficient irrigation techniques (PPP EN-2). Additional sustainable design and operation techniques are detailed in Section 3, Development Standards and Design Guidelines, of the Specific Plan. RTP/SCS G8: Encourage land use and growth patterns that facilitate transit and active transportation. Consistent: See responses to RTP/SCS Goals G2 through G6. RTP/SCS G9: Maximize the security of the regional transportation system through improved system monitoring, rapid recovery planning, and coordination with other security agencies. Not Applicable: This policy addresses the security of the regional transportation system, which is beyond the proposed project’s scope. Source: SCAG 2016. Conclusion Based on the analysis, implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, including the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and 2016 RTP/SCS. Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. 5.9.5 Cumulative Impacts Impact 5.9-2: Development of the proposed project in combination with related projects would not result in cumulatively considerable conflicts with applicable plans adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. [Threshold LU-2] Impact Analysis: General Plan Upon approval of the required discretionary approvals, the project would be consistent with the applicable General Plan policies and would be consistent with the General Plan Land Use Map and Zoning Map. Related development projects within the City would undergo a similar plan review process to determine potential land use planning policy and regulation conflicts. Each cumulative project would be analyzed independent of other projects, within the context of their respective land use and regulatory setting. As part of the review process, each project would be required to demonstrate compliance with the provisions of the applicable land use designation(s). As with the proposed project, each cumulative project would be analyzed to ensure consistency ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING Page 5.9-16 April 2021February 2020 with the goals and policies of the General Plan. As the project would be consistent with the General Plan upon approval, the project would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts in this regard. Zoning Ordinance Future cumulative projects would undergo a similar plan review process to determine potential inconsistencies with the Zoning Ordinance, within the context of their respective zoning and regulatory setting. Similar to land use consistency, each project would be required to demonstrate compliance with the provisions of the applicable zoning district(s). Thus, as the project would be consistent with the Zoning Ordinance upon approval, the project would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts in this regard. 2016 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy SCAG reviews environmental documents for regionally significant projects for their consistency with the adopted 2016 RTP/SCS. SCAG refers to CEQA Guidelines Section 15206, Projects of Statewide, Regional or Areawide Significance, in determining whether a project meets the criteria to be deemed regionally significant. Each cumulative project would be evaluated on a project-by-project basis, to determine its regional significance, if any. As stated, the project would be consistent with the 2016 RTP/SCS goals. Thus, the project would not cumulatively contribute to impacts resulting from inconsistencies with the 2016 RTP/SCS. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard. Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. 5.9.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation Upon implementation of regulatory requirements, the following impacts would be less than significant: Impacts 5.9-1 and 5.9-2. 5.9.7 Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required. 5.9.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation Impacts would be less than significant. ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I February 2020April 2021 Chapter 5.10 Noise ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I February 2020April 2021 This page intentionally left blank. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis April 2021February 2020 Page 5.10-1 5.10 NOISE This section of the Draft EIR evaluates noise source and vibration impacts on-site and to surrounding land uses as a result of implementation of the proposed project. The analysis in this section is based in part on the following information: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis (Air Quality/GHG Report), LSA, January 2020; Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis (Noise/Vibration Analysis), LSA, January 2020; Traffic Impact Analysis: One Metro West, City of Costa Mesa Orange County, California (TIA), LSA, January 2020; and One Metro West Phased Project Construction Analysis (Construction Phasing Memo), LSA, February 2, 2021Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis (Air Quality/GHG Report), LSA, January 2020. Complete copies of these studies are included in the technical appendices of this Draft EIR (Volume II, Appendix C, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis, Appendix K, Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis, and Appendix M, Traffic Impact Analysis, and Appendix P, Construction Phasing Memo). 5.10.1 Environmental Setting Noise and Vibration Fundamentals Noise is defined as unwanted sound and is known to have several adverse effects on people, including hearing loss, speech and sleep interference, physiological responses, and annoyance. Although sound can be easily measured, the perception of noise and the physical response to sound complicate the analysis of its impact on people. People judge the relative magnitude of sound sensation in subjective terms such as “noisiness” or “loudness.” Based on these known adverse effects of noise, the Federal, State, and local governments have established criteria to protect public health and safety and to prevent disruption of certain human activities. The following are brief definitions of terminology used in this chapter. Sound. A disturbance created by a vibrating object, which, when transmitted by pressure waves through a medium such as air, is capable of being detected by a receiving mechanism, such as the human ear or a microphone. Noise. Sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or otherwise undesirable. Decibel (dB). A unitless measure of sound on a logarithmic scale. A-Weighted Decibel (dBA). An overall frequency-weighted sound level in decibels that approximates the frequency response of the human ear. Equivalent Continuous Noise Level (Leq) or Energy-Equivalent Noise Level. The value of an equivalent, steady sound level which, in a stated time period (often over an hour) and at a stated location, has the same A-weighted sound energy as the time-varying sound. Thus, the Leq metric is a single numerical value that represents the equivalent amount of variable sound energy received by a receptor over the specified duration. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE Page 5.10-2 April 2021February 2020 Statistical Sound Level (Ln). The sound level that is exceeded “n” percent of time during a given sample period. For example, the L50 level is the statistical indicator of the time-varying noise signal that is exceeded 50 percent of the time (during each sampling period); that is, half of the sampling time, the changing noise levels are above this value and half of the time they are below it. This is called the “median sound level.” The L10 level, likewise, is the value that is exceeded ten percent of the time (i.e., near the maximum) and this is often known as the “intrusive sound level.” The L90 is the sound level exceeded 90 percent of the time and is often considered the “effective background level” or “residual noise level.” Day-Night Sound Level (Ldn or DNL). The energy-average of the A-weighted sound levels occurring during a 24-hour period, with 10 dB added to the sound levels occurring during the period from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). The energy average of the A-weighted sound levels occurring during a 24-hour period, with 5 dB added from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and 10 dB from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. For general community/environmental noise, the CNEL and Ldn values rarely differ by more than 1 dB (with the CNEL being only slightly more restrictive, that is, higher than the Ldn value). As a matter of practice, Ldn and CNEL values are interchangeable and are treated as equivalent in this assessment. Peak Particle Velocity (PPV). The peak signal value of an oscillating vibration velocity waveform usually expressed in inches per second (in/sec). Sensitive Receptor. Noise- and vibration-sensitive receptors include land uses where quiet environments are necessary for enjoyment and public health and safety. Examples include residences, schools, motels and hotels, libraries, religious institutions, hospitals, and nursing homes. Sound Fundamentals Sound is a pressure wave transmitted through the air. It is described in terms of loudness or amplitude (measured in decibels), frequency or pitch (measured in Hertz [Hz] or cycles per second), and duration (measured in seconds or minutes). The standard unit of measurement of the loudness of sound is the decibel (dB). Changes of 1 to 3 dBA are detectable under quiet, controlled conditions and changes of less than 1 dBA are usually indiscernible. A 3 dBA change in noise levels is considered the minimum change that is detectable with human hearing in outside environments. A change of 5 dBA is readily discernable to most people in an exterior environment whereas a 10 dBA change is perceived as a doubling (or halving) of the sound. The human ear is not equally sensitive to all frequencies. Sound waves below 16 Hz are not heard at all and are “felt” more as a vibration. Similarly, while people with extremely sensitive hearing can hear sounds as high as 20,000 Hz, most people cannot hear above 15,000 Hz. In all cases, hearing acuity falls off rapidly above about 10,000 Hz and below about 200 Hz. Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to sound at all frequencies, a special frequency dependent rating scale is usually used to relate noise to human sensitivity. The dBA performs this compensation by discriminating against frequencies in a manner approximating the sensitivity of the human ear. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE April 2021February 2020 Page 5.10-3 Sound Measurement Unlike linear units such as inches or pounds, decibels are measured on a logarithmic scale, representing points on a sharply rising curve. On a logarithmic scale, an increase of 10 dBA is 10 times more intense than 1 dBA, while 20 dBA is 100 times more intense, and 30 dBA is 1,000 times more intense. A sound as soft as human breathing is about 10 times greater than 0 dBA. The decibel system of measuring sound gives a rough connection between the physical intensity of sound and its perceived loudness to the human ear. Ambient sounds generally range from 30 dBA (very quiet) to 100 dBA (very loud). Sound levels are generated from a source and their decibel level decreases as the distance from that source increases. Sound dissipates exponentially with distance from the noise source. This phenomenon is known as “spreading loss.” For a single point source, sound levels decrease by approximately 6 dBA for each doubling of distance from the source. This drop-off rate is appropriate for noise generated by on-site operations from stationary equipment or activity at a project site. If noise is produced by a line source, such as highway traffic, the sound decreases by 3 dBA for each doubling of distance in a hard site environment. Line source noise in a relatively flat environment with absorptive vegetation decreases by 4.5 dBA for each doubling of distance. Psychological and Physiological Effects of Noise Physical damage to human hearing begins at prolonged exposure to noise levels higher than 85 dBA. Exposure to high noise levels affects our entire system, with prolonged noise exposure in excess of 75 dBA increasing body tensions, and thereby affecting blood pressure, functions of the heart and the nervous system. In comparison, extended periods of noise exposure above 90 dBA could result in permanent hearing damage. When the noise level reaches 120 dBA, a tickling sensation occurs in the human ear even with short-term exposure. This level of noise is called the threshold of feeling. As the sound reaches 140 dBA, the tickling sensation is replaced by the feeling of pain in the ear. This is called the threshold of pain. A sound level of 190 dBA will rupture the eardrum and permanently damage the inner ear. Vibration Fundamentals Vibration is an oscillatory motion through a solid medium, such as the ground or a building. Vibration is normally associated with activities stemming from operations of railroads or vibration-intensive stationary sources, but can also be associated with construction equipment such as jackhammers, pile drivers, and hydraulic hammers. Amplitude Vibration amplitudes are usually described in terms of either the PPV or the root mean square (RMS) velocity. PPV is the maximum instantaneous peak of the vibration signal, and RMS is the square root of the average of the squared amplitude of the signal. PPV is more appropriate for evaluating potential building damage. The units for PPV are normally in/sec. Typically, groundborne vibration generated by human activities attenuates rapidly with distance from the source of the vibration. The way in which vibration is transmitted through the earth is called propagation. As vibration waves propagate from a source, the energy is spread over an ever-increasing area such that the energy level striking a given point ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE Page 5.10-4 April 2021February 2020 is reduced with the distance from the energy source. This geometric spreading loss is inversely proportional to the square of the distance. The amount of attenuation provided by material damping varies with soil type and condition as well as the frequency of the wave. As with airborne sound, annoyance with vibrational energy is a subjective measure, depending on the level of activity and the sensitivity of the individual. To sensitive individuals, vibrations approaching the threshold of perception can be annoying. Persons accustomed to elevated ambient vibration levels (e.g., urban environments) may tolerate higher vibration levels. Table 5.10-1, Typical Vibration Level Effects, details the human response and the effects on buildings resulting from continuous vibration (in terms of various levels of PPV). Table 5.10-1 Typical Vibration Level Effects Vibration Level Peak Particle Velocity Human Reaction Effect on Buildings 0.006 – 0.019 in/sec Threshold of perception; possibility of intrusion. Vibrations unlikely to cause damage of any type. 0.08 in/sec Vibrations readily perceptible. Recommended upper level of vibration to which ruins and ancient monuments should be subjected. 0.10 in/sec Level at which continuous vibration begins to annoy people. Virtually no risk of “architectural” (i.e., not structural) damage to normal buildings. 0.20 in/sec Vibrations annoying to people in buildings. Threshold at which there is a risk to “architectural” damage to normal dwelling – houses with plastered walls and ceilings. 0.4–0.6 in/sec Vibrations considered unpleasant by people subjected to continuous vibrations and unacceptable to some people walking on bridges. Vibrations at a greater level than normally expected from traffic, but would cause “architectural” damage and possibly minor structural damage. Source: LSA 2020. Notes: in/sec = inches per second 5.10.1.1 REGULATORY BACKGROUND State California Building Code California Building Code (CBC), Title 24, Section 1207.11.2, Allowable Interior Noise Levels, requires that interior noise levels attributable to exterior sources not exceed 45 dBA in any habitable room. The noise metric is evaluated as either Ldn or CNEL, consistent with the noise element of the local general plan. California Green Building Standards Code The California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) has requirements for insulation that affect exterior- interior noise transmission for non-residential structures. Pursuant to CALGreen Section 5.507.4.1, Exterior Noise Transmission, an architectural acoustics study may be required when a project site is within a 65 dBA CNEL or Ldn noise contour of an airport, freeway or expressway, railroad, industrial source, or fixed-guideway source. Where noise contours are not readily available, if buildings are exposed to a noise level of 65 dBA Leq during any hour of operation, specific wall and ceiling assembly and sound-rated windows may be necessary to reduce interior noise to acceptable levels. A performance method may also be used per CALGreen Section 5.507.4.2 to show compliance with State interior noise requirements. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE April 2021February 2020 Page 5.10-5 Local General Plan The Noise Element of the General Plan includes the following goals, objectives, and policies to minimize adverse noise conditions within the City: Objective N-1A: Control noise levels within the City for the protection of residential areas, park areas, and other sensitive land uses from excessive and unhealthful noise. Policy N-1.1: Enforce the maximum acceptable exterior noise levels for residential areas at 65 CNEL. Policy N-1.4: 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-1.4: Apply the standards contained in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations as applicable to the construction of all new dwelling units. Objective N-2A: Plan for the reduction in noise impacts on sensitive receptors and land uses. Policy N-2.1: 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-2.2: Require, as a part of the environmental review process, that full consideration be given to the existing and projected noise environment. Policy N-2.4: Require that all proposed projects are compatible with adopted noise/land use compatibility criteria. Policy N-2.5: Enforce applicable interior and exterior noise standards. In addition, the Noise Element sets forth land use compatibility guidelines to protect residential neighborhoods and noise-sensitive receptors from potentially harmful noise sources. The noise and land use compatibly standards are detailed in Table 5.10-2, Noise and Land-Use Compatibility Standards. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE Page 5.10-6 April 2021February 2020 Table 5.10-2 Noise and Land Use Compatibility Standards Land Use Community Noise Exposure (CNEL or Ldn, dBA) Normally Acceptable Conditionally Acceptable Normally Unacceptable Clearly Unacceptable Residential: Low Density 50 - 60 60 - 70 70 - 75 75 or greater Residential: Multiple Family 50 - 65 65 - 70 70 - 75 75 or greater Mixed Use 50 - 65 65 - 70 70 - 75 75 or greater Transient Lodging-Motel, Hotels 60 - 65 65 - 70 70 - 80 80 or greater School, Libraries, Churches, Hospitals, Nursing Homes 50 - 60 60 - 65 65 - 80 80 or greater Auditoriums, Concert Halls, Amphitheaters NA 50 - 70 NA 80 or greater Sports Arenas, Outdoor Spectator Sports NA 50 - 75 NA 80 or greater Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks 50 - 67.5 NA 67.5 - 75 75 or greater Golf Courses, Riding Stables, Water Recreation, Cemeteries 50 - 70 NA 70 - 80 80 or greater Office Buildings, Business Commercial and Professional 50 - 67.5 67.5 - 77.5 77.5 - 85 85 or greater unless appropriately insulated Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities, Agriculture 50 - 70 70 - 80 80 - 85 NA Source: LSA 2020. Notes: CNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level; Ldn = Day Night Level; dBA = A-weighted decibels; NA = not applicable Municipal Code Interior and Exterior Noise Standards Municipal Code Sections 13-280, Exterior Noise Standards, 13-281, Interior Noise Standards, and 13-282, Noise Near Schools, Hospitals, Churches, establish permissible noise levels at the property line of nearby sensitive receptors. Sections 13-280 and 13-281 establish interior and exterior noise level standards for residential land uses affected by stationary noise sources. Section 13-282 applies the exterior noise standards from Section 13-280 to any school, hospital, or church while it is in use. Table 5.10-3, City of Costa Mesa Noise Level Standards, dBA, summarizes the City’s noise level standards based on the land use, measurement location (exterior/interior), and time period. Table 5.10-3 City of Costa Mesa Noise Level Standards, dBA Land Use Exterior/ Interior Time Period L50 L25 L8 L2 Lmax Residential Exterior 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. 55 60 65 70 75 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 50 55 60 65 70 Interior 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. — — 55 60 65 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. — — 45 50 55 School, Hospital or Church1 Exterior 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. 55 60 65 70 75 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 50 55 60 65 70 Source: LSA 2020. Notes: dBA = A-weighted decibels, L50=noise level exceeded 50 percent of the time, L25= noise level exceeded 25 percent of the time. L8= noise level exceeded 8 percent of the time, L2= noise level exceeded 2 percent of the time, Lmax = maximum sound level 1 The exterior noise standards are applicable to schools, hospitals, and churches while they are in use. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE April 2021February 2020 Page 5.10-7 In the event ambient noise levels exceed any of the noise limit categories above, the cumulative period applicable to the category shall be increased to reflect said ambient noise level. In the event the ambient noise level exceeds the last noise limit category, the maximum allowable noise level under the category shall be increased to reflect the maximum ambient noise level. Construction Noise Standards Municipal Code Section 13-279, Exceptions for Construction, establishes allowed times for construction activities and includes special provisions for sensitive land uses. The Municipal Code allows construction to occur between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Mondays through Fridays, and between 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Construction is not permitted outside of these hours or on Sundays or New Year’s Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, and Christmas Day, unless a temporary waiver is granted by the City of Costa Mesa Development Services Director or his/her authorized representative or in emergencies, including maintenance work in the City rights-of-way. The limitations on construction activity also apply to vehicles and equipment involved with deliveries, loading or transferring materials, equipment service, or maintenance of any equipment. 5.10.1.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS Noise monitoring and traffic noise modeling were used to quantify existing noise levels at the project site and vicinity. Associated monitoring data are summarized below and included in Appendix K. Noise monitoring data was gathered at multiple locations in the project vicinity for the purpose of calibrating the SoundPLAN noise model. This allows for an accurate assessment of existing noise generated along the I-405 Freeway, which is the dominate source of noise in the project vicinity, including the residential uses south of the I-405 Freeway and the project site. In the City, vehicular traffic is the primary source of noise. Other noise sources that contribute to the ambient noise levels include noise from aircraft overflights, industrial uses, construction, and mechanical equipment. Existing Noise Levels To assess existing noise levels, four long-term noise measurements and two short-term noise measurements were conducted in the vicinity of the project site. The long-term noise measurements were recorded from March 29 through April 2, 2019 and captured noise data to calculate the hourly Leq and CNEL at each location, including nighttime hours. Sources that dominate the existing noise environment include vehicular traffic along the I-405 Freeway and Sunflower Avenue and occasional aircraft overflights. The short-term noise measurements were recorded on April 1, 2019 and captured the major traffic noise sources listed above. Noise measurement data collected are summarized in Table 5.10-4, Existing Long-Term Noise Level Measurements, and Table 5.10-5, Existing Short-Term Noise Level Measurements. Noise monitoring locations are provided in Appendix K. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE Page 5.10-8 April 2021February 2020 Table 5.10-4 Existing Long-Term Noise Level Measurements Location Description Date Daytime Noise Levels1 (dBA Leq) Nighttime Noise Levels2 (dBA Leq) Daily Noise Levels (dBA CNEL) Highest Daily Noise Level (dBA CNEL) LT-1 1683 Sunflower Avenue, at the southeast corner of the property. 3/29/2019 66.8–75.8 67.4–74.0 78.1 79.6 3/30/2019 70.4–75.6 64.3–73.9 77.6 3/31/2019 75.3–76.0 66.6–75.8 79.6 4/1/2019 66.7–76.7 67.2–76.3 79.4 LT-2 1683 Sunflower Avenue, south of the walkway to the entrance of Robinson Pharma. This site is lower in elevation than the I-405 Freeway, resulting in shielding by existing terrain. 3/29/2019 63.6–69.8 58.7–66.8 70.6 72.5 3/30/2019 65.6–70.0 57.9–67.3 70.7 3/31/2019 68.0–70.3 59.1–68.6 72.5 4/1/2019 62.5–69.1 58.0–68.6 71.7 LT-3 1683 Sunflower Avenue, in a tree approximately 60 feet from Sunflower Avenue, near the northwestern portion of the property. 3/29/2019 55.7–62.5 50.5–58.0 61.9 63.7 3/30/2019 56.3–62.0 51.1–58.9 62.7 3/31/2019 59.0–62.6 51.3–59.7 63.6 4/1/2019 58.3–64.2 50.2–60.6 63.7 LT-4 1683 Sunflower Avenue, near the eastern property line, approximately 600 feet north of the southern property line. 3/29/2019 54.3–58.3 50.6–58.0 61.2 63.7 3/30/2019 55.2–58.1 53.3–59.7 62.3 3/31/2019 55.7–59.4 50.1–59.1 62.0 4/1/2019 55.3–64.9 51.1–61.5 63.7 Source: LSA 2020. Notes: CNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level; dBA = A weighted decibels; Leq = equivalent continuous sound levels 1 Daytime Noise Levels = noise levels during the hours from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 2 Nighttime Noise Levels = noise levels during the hours from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Table 5.10-5 Existing Short-Term Noise Level Measurements Location Description Measured Noise Level (dBA Leq) Daytime Noise Levels2 (dBA Leq) Evening Noise Levels3 (dBA Leq) Nighttime Noise Levels4 (dBA Leq) Average Daily Noise Level (dBA CNEL) ST-1 1683 Sunflower Avenue, south of the building. 71.4 62.2 – 72.2 69.6 – 70.3 62.7 – 71.8 74.9 ST-2 1683 Sunflower Avenue, northwest portion of the western parking lot. 59.6 57.0 – 62.9 56.8 – 57.8 48.9 – 59.3 62.4 Source: LSA 2020. Notes: dBA = A-weighted decibels; CNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level; Leq=equivalent continuous sound level 1 Hourly noise levels were calculated based on a 20-minute short-term measurement and then adjusting it to the pattern of the nearest acoustically equivalent long- term measurement on the corresponding day. 2 Daytime Noise Levels = noise levels during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. 3 Evening Noise Levels = noise levels during the hours of 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. 4 Nighttime Noise Levels = noise levels during the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Aircraft Noise Airport-related noise levels are primarily associated with aircraft engine noise made during take off, landing, or idling on the tarmac. The closest airport to the project site is the John Wayne Airport (JWA), approximately 3.4 miles to the southeast in the City of Santa Ana. The project site is outside the JWA 60 dBA CNEL noise contour (LSA 2020). ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE April 2021February 2020 Page 5.10-9 Traffic Noise The guidelines included in the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) were used to evaluate traffic-related noise conditions along local roadway segments in the project vicinity. The details of traffic noise modeling are included in Appendix K. Table 5.10-6, Existing Traffic Noise Levels, provides the existing traffic noise levels in the project vicinity. These traffic noise levels are representative of a worst-case scenario that assumes a flat terrain and no shielding between the traffic and the noise contours. Table 5.10-6 Existing Traffic Noise Levels Roadway Segment ADT Centerline to 70 dBA CNEL (feet) Centerline to 65 dBA CNEL (feet) Centerline to 60 dBA CNEL (feet) CNEL (dBA) 50 feet from Centerline of Outermost Lane Talbert Avenue west of Euclid Street 32,620 85 167 353 69.7 Talbert Avenue from Euclid Street to Newhope Street 33,960 87 172 363 69.8 MacArthur Boulevard/Talbert Avenue from Newhope Street to Mt. Washington Street 38,195 92 185 392 70.3 MacArthur Boulevard/Talbert Avenue from Mt. Washington Street to Hyland Avenue 45,685 101 207 441 71.3 MacArthur Boulevard from Hyland Avenue to Harbor Boulevard 31,190 70 135 283 68.3 MacArthur Boulevard from Harbor Boulevard to Fairview Street 27,175 66 124 258 67.7 Euclid Street from Talbert Avenue to Newhope Street 16,065 < 50 108 222 66.7 Euclid Street from Newhope Street to Ellis Avenue 19,505 65 121 252 67.6 West Lake Center Drive/Scenic Avenue west of Harbor Boulevard 4,740 < 50 < 50 69 59.4 West Lake Center Drive /Scenic Avenue east of Harbor Boulevard 5,850 < 50 < 50 75 61.3 Sunflower Avenue west of Project Driveway 1 2,480 < 50 < 50 < 50 49.8 Sunflower Avenue from Project Driveway 1 to Project Driveway 2 2,500 < 50 < 50 57 58.1 Sunflower Avenue from Project Driveway 2 to Project Driveway 3 2,565 < 50 < 50 58 58.2 Sunflower Avenue from Project Driveway 3 to Hyland Avenue 4,830 < 50 < 50 84 60.9 Sunflower Avenue from Hyland Avenue to Harbor Boulevard 10,480 < 50 67 138 64.3 Sunflower Avenue from Harbor Boulevard to Susan Street 15,635 < 50 86 179 66.1 Sunflower Avenue from Susan Street to Fairview Road 14,590 < 50 82 171 65.8 Hyland Avenue from MacArthur Boulevard to Sunflower Avenue 13,560 < 50 79 163 65.4 Hyland Avenue from Sunflower Avenue and South Coast Drive 13,350 < 50 78 161 65.4 Harbor Boulevard north of Segerstrom Avenue 32,090 84 166 349 69.6 ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE Table 5.10-6 Existing Traffic Noise Levels, continued Page 5.10-2 April 2021February 2020 Roadway Segment ADT Centerline to 70 dBA CNEL (feet) Centerline to 65 dBA CNEL (feet) Centerline to 60 dBA CNEL (feet) CNEL (dBA) 50 feet from Centerline of Outermost Lane Harbor Boulevard from Segerstrom Avenue to MacArthur Boulevard 31,500 83 164 345 69.5 Harbor Boulevard from MacArthur Boulevard to Westlake Center Drive/Scenic Avenue 34,255 87 173 365 69.9 Harbor Boulevard from Westlake Center Drive/Scenic Avenue to Sunflower Avenue 34,450 75 144 302 68.6 Harbor Boulevard from Sunflower Avenue to South Coast Drive 39,850 86 160 333 68.8 Harbor Boulevard from South Coast Drive to I-405 Freeway NB Off-Ramp 49,665 95 184 385 69.8 Harbor Boulevard from I-405 Freeway NB Off- Ramp to I-405 Freeway SB Off-Ramp 36,170 80 150 312 68.6 Harbor Boulevard from I-405 Freeway SB Off- Ramp to Gisler Avenue 50,120 94 184 387 70.0 Harbor Boulevard south of Gisler Avenue 43,680 87 169 353 69.4 Susan Street from Sunflower Avenue to South Coast Drive 12,950 < 50 63 128 63.8 I-405 Freeway NB On-Ramp from Hyland Avenue 7,850 55 118 254 69.9 South Coast Drive from Hyland Avenue/I-405 Freeway NB Ramps to Harbor Boulevard 16,155 < 50 105 221 67.5 South Coast Drive from Harbor Boulevard to Susan Street 17,130 < 50 109 230 67.7 South Coast Drive from Susan Street to Fairview Street 17,245 < 50 84 175 65.9 Fairview Street north of MacArthur Boulevard 34,480 89 174 367 69.7 Fairview Street/Fairview Road from MacArthur Boulevard to Sunflower Avenue 33,470 88 171 359 69.6 Fairview Road from Sunflower Avenue to South Coast Drive 36,500 92 181 381 70.0 Fairview Road from South Coast Drive to I- 405 Freeway NB Ramps 46,800 105 211 448 71.1 Fairview Road from I-405 Freeway NB Ramps to I-405 Freeway SB Ramps 43,430 106 204 428 70.2 Fairview Road south of I-405 Freeway SB Ramps 37,410 76 151 318 69.2 Source: LSA 2020. Notes: ADT = average daily traffic; CNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level; dBA = A-weighted decibels; I-405 = Interstate 405; NB = northbound; SB = southbound 5.10.2 Thresholds of Significance According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would: ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE April 2021February 2020 Page 5.10-1 N-1 Generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. N-2 Generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. N-3 For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, if the project would expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. Significance Thresholds Construction Noise Construction noise level limits are regulated in the City by the allowable hours of construction, as described in the Municipal Code. Therefore, construction noise was assessed using criteria from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. Table 5.10-7, General Assessment Construction Noise Criteria, shows the FTA’s noise criteria based on the composite noise levels of the two noisiest pieces of equipment per construction stage. Table 5.10-7 General Assessment Construction Noise Criteria Land Use Daytime 1-hour Leq (dBA) Nighttime 1-hour Leq (dBA) Residential 90 80 Commercial 100 100 Industrial 100 100 Source: LSA 2020. Notes: dBA = A-weighted decibels; Leq = equivalent continuous sound level Traffic Noise A project normally has a significant effect on the environment related to noise if it substantially increases the ambient noise levels for adjoining areas. Most people can detect changes in sound levels of approximately 3 dBA under normal, quiet conditions, and changes of 1 to 3 dBA are detectable under quiet, controlled conditions. Changes of less than 1 dBA are usually indiscernible. A change of 5 dBA is readily discernible to most people in an exterior environment. As such, traffic noise impacts are considered significant if sensitive receptors experience 3 dBA or more increases in ambient noise levels with implementation of the project. Stationary Noise The City’s noise level standards summarized in Table 5.10-3 are the applicable significance threshold for stationary noise sources associated with the project. Impacts would be considered significant if proposed stationary sources exceed these standards. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE Page 5.10-2 April 2021February 2020 Vibration Table 5.10-8, Construction Vibration Damage Criteria, lists the potential vibration building damage criteria associated with construction activities, as suggested in the FTA’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. The FTA guidelines show that a vibration level of up to 0.3 in/sec PPV is considered safe for buildings consisting of engineered concrete and masonry and would not result in any construction vibration damage. For a non-engineered timber and masonry building, the construction building vibration damage criterion is 0.2in/sec PPV. Table 5.10-8 Construction Vibration Damage Criteria Building Category PPV (in/sec) Reinforced concrete, steel, or timber (no plaster) 0.50 Engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster) 0.30 Non-engineered timber and masonry buildings 0.20 Buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage 0.12 Source: LSA 2020. Notes: PPV = peak particle velocity, in/sec = inch/inches per second 5.10.3 Plans, Programs, Policies, and Standard Conditions of Approval The following are existing regulatory requirements, such as plans, policies, programs (PPP), or standard conditions of approvals (SCA), applied to the project based on Federal, State, or local laws currently in place, and which effectively reduce impacts related to noise. PPP N-1 Residential stationary noise sources are required to comply with Municipal Code Section 13- 280, Exterior Noise Standard: 50 dBA from 11:00 pm to 7:00 am; and 55 dBA from 7:00 am to 11:00 pm. PPP N-2 Construction activities are required to comply with the following standards detailed in Municipal Code Section 13-279, Exceptions for Construction: Allowed from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on Mondays through Fridays; Allowed from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays; and Prohibited on Sundays, New Year’s Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, and Christmas Day. SCA D-1 Commercial or multi-family residential zones may be considered. Preferred locations are close to a commercial area(s) with shops, restaurants, and other commercial activities and services such as banks and medical facilities. There should be easy access to bus service. Off-site pedestrian circulation should provide sidewalks that are convenient and safe to use. The ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE April 2021February 2020 Page 5.10-3 project site should be free of odors, excessive noise, and aesthetically unattractive surroundings. SCA CONST HRS-2 All noise-generating construction activities shall be limited to 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. Saturday. Noise-generating construction activities shall be prohibited on Sunday and the following Federal holidays: New Year’s Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. SCA RES 40 If present and/or projected exterior noise exceeds 60 Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), California Noise Insulation Standards, Title 25, California Code of Regulations require a maximum interior noise level of 45 CNEL for residential structures. If required interior noise levels are achieved by requiring that windows be closed, the design for the structure must also specify the means that will be employed to provide ventilation, and cooling if necessary, to provide a habitable interior environment. SCA C/I 42 Prior to issuance of the first building permits, a detailed acoustical study based on architectural plans shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant and submitted to Planning Division for review and approval. The study shall demonstrate compliance with noise standards as required by the Project Specific Plan and the City’s General Plan. The acoustical study shall be prepared in compliance with the provisions of the California Administrative Code, Title 25, Chapter 1, Subchapter 1, Article 4. The applicant shall submit two copies of the study with the application for building permits. The acoustical analysis shall evaluate existing and projected noise levels, noise attenuation measures to be applied, and the noise insulation effectiveness of the proposed construction. The applicant shall demonstrate compliance with the recommendations of the acoustic analysis report prior to the issuance of building permits. The person preparing the report shall, under the direction of a person experienced in the field of acoustical engineering, perform an inspection of the project prior to or at the time of the framing inspection to certify that construction techniques comply with recommendations contained within the acoustical analysis. Upon completion of the subject structures, field tests may be required under the provisions of Title 25. 5.10.4 Environmental Impacts 5.10.4.1 IMPACT ANALYSIS Impact 5.10-1: Construction activities would not result in temporary noise increases in the project vicinity but would not exceed applicable standards. [Threshold N-1] Impact Analysis: Two types of short-term noise impacts would occur during project construction: Equipment delivery and construction worker commutes; and Project construction activities. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE Page 5.10-4 April 2021February 2020 The first type of short-term construction noise would result from transport of construction equipment and materials to the project site and construction worker commutes. The project would generate approximately 1,760 hauling truck trips over a 100-day demolition stage (18 trips per day) and approximately 24,250 hauling truck trips over a 400-day grading and excavation stage (61 trips per day) based on CalEEMod output as detailed in Appendix C. These transportation activities would incrementally increase noise levels on access roads leading to the site. It is assumed that larger trucks used for equipment delivery would generate higher noise impacts than trucks and passenger vehicles associated with worker commutes. As shown in Table 5.10-4, existing noise in the project vicinity is as high as 79.6 dBA CNEL. The single-event noise from equipment trucks passing at a distance of 50 feet from a sensitive noise receptor would reach a maximum level of 84 dBA Lmax. However, the pieces of heavy equipment for grading and construction activities would be moved on-site just one time and would remain on-site for the duration of each construction stage. This one-time trip, when heavy construction equipment is moved on- and off-site, would not add to the daily traffic noise in the project vicinity. The total number of daily construction vehicle trips would be minimal when compared to existing traffic volumes on the affected streets. Furthermore, these daily construction trips would cease once construction is complete. Thus, long-term noise level change associated with these would not be perceptible. Therefore, equipment transport noise and construction-related worker commute impacts would be short term and would not result in a significant off-site noise impact. The second type of short-term noise impact is related to noise generated during demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, architectural coating, and paving on-site. Construction is undertaken in discrete steps, each of which has its own mix of equipment, and, consequently, its own noise characteristics. These various sequential stages would change the character of the noise generated on-site. Therefore, the noise levels vary as construction progresses. Despite the variety in the type and size of construction equipment, similarities in the dominant noise sources and patterns of operation allow construction-related noise ranges to be categorized by work stage. Table 5.10-9, Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels, lists the maximum noise levels of typical construction equipment based on a distance of 50 feet between the equipment and a noise receptor. Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve one to two minutes of full power operation followed by three to four minutes at lower power settings. Table 5.10-9 Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels Equipment Description Acoustical Usage Factor (%)1 Maximum Noise Level (Lmax) at 50 Feet1 Compressor 40 78 Cranes 16 81 Dozers 40 82 Drill Rig 20 79 Flat Bed Trucks 40 74 Forklift 20 75 Front-end Loaders 40 79 Generator 50 82 Man-lift 20 81 Impact Pile Driver 20 101 Rollers 20 80 Water Truck 40 76 ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE April 2021February 2020 Page 5.10-5 Table 5.10-9 Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels, continued Equipment Description Acoustical Usage Factor (%)1 Maximum Noise Level (Lmax) at 50 Feet1 Welder 40 74 Source: LSA 2020. Notes: Lmax = maximum instantaneous sound level 1 Noise levels reported in this table are rounded to the nearest whole number. Construction noise levels are expected to be highest during site preparation/grading and building construction stages. The composite noise level of each construction stage was calculated. Table 5.10-10, Potential Construction Noise Impacts at Nearest Receptor, shows the nearest uses to the project site, their distance from proposed construction activities, and noise levels expected during construction when site preparation occurs at the closest edge of construction and when pile driving activities occur at the closest on-site building. These noise level projections are conservative, as intervening topography or barriers are not taken into account. Table 5.10-10 Potential Construction Noise Impacts at Nearest Receptor Receptor Location Construction Stage Composite Noise Level (dBA Leq) at 50 feet Distance (feet) Composite Noise Level (dBA Leq) Residential (South) Paving 86.5 240 72.9 Building Construction With Pile Driving 94.7 260 80.4 Commercial (East) Paving 86.5 45 87.4 Building Construction With Pile Driving 94.7 85 90.1 Source: LSA 2020. Notes: dBA = A-weighted decibels; Leq = average A-weighted hourly noise level Composite noise levels during construction at the nearest residential land uses to the south would reach 72.9 dBA Leq and 80.4 dBA Leq during the paving and building construction with pile driving stages, respectively. It is expected that composite noise levels during construction at the nearest commercial land uses to the east would reach 87.4 dBA Leq and 90.1 dBA Leq during the paving and building construction with pile driving stages, respectively. These predicted noise levels would only occur when all construction equipment is operating simultaneously at the closest point of construction and therefore, are conservative in nature. Further, proposed construction activities are regulated by the Municipal Code. Specifically, construction activities would be allowed only between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Mondays through Fridays, and between 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. No construction is permitted outside of these hours or on Sundays and specified Federal holidays, including New Year’s Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, and Christmas Day (PPP N-2 and SCA CONST HRS-2). It should be noted that because construction-related noise impacts are based on a conservative scenario of a maximum hourly noise impact when construction occurs at the project property line, the project’s construction phasing schedule has no influence on the impact determination. For project phases located further from the project property line, construction noise levels would be reduced. In addition, construction-related noise impacts would remain below the 90 dBA Leq and 100 dBA Leq 1-hour construction noise level criteria as established by the FTA for residential and commercial land uses, respectively, ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE Page 5.10-6 April 2021February 2020 and therefore would be considered less than significant. As such, short-term construction impacts associated with the project would be less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. Impact 5.10-2 Long-term operational noise generated by the proposed project would not exceed applicable standards. [Threshold N-1] Impact Analysis: Mobile Noise Long-term operational noise generated by the project was modeled using the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108); refer to Appendix K. Noise levels were modeled for: Existing conditions with and without the project (Noise/Vibration Analysis Table L, Existing Traffic Noise Levels Without and With Project); Future short-term cumulative year (2027) with and without the project (Noise/Vibration Analysis Table M, Future Short-Term Cumulative Year (2027) Pending Without and With Project); and Buildout-year (2040) with and without the project ( Noise/Vibration Analysis Table N, Build Out Year (2040) Without and With Project). The modeled noise levels are representative of the worst-case scenario with no shielding provided between the generated traffic and location where the noise contours are drawn. As shown in Noise/Vibration Analysis Table L, Existing Traffic Noise Levels Without and With Project, project-related noise would generally increase existing ambient noise levels along study area roadway segments by approximately 1 dBA CNEL or less, except for: An increase of approximately 2.7 dBA CNEL along Sunflower Avenue from Project Driveway 1 to Project Driveway 2; 4.3 dBA CNEL along Sunflower Avenue from Project Driveway 2 to Project Driveway 3; and 3.8 dBA CNEL along Sunflower Avenue from Project Driveway 3 to Hyland Avenue. Noise level increases above 3 dBA may be perceptible to some people in an outdoor environment, but the expected increase is less than the readily perceptible threshold of 5.0 dBA. Additionally, all uses along Sunflower Avenue are commercial and industrial in nature and do not have noise-sensitive exterior areas. Therefore, traffic noise impacts from project-related traffic on off-site sensitive receptors would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required. Building Reflection The project would demolish the existing industrial building and construct taller buildings in their place. The proposed buildings would potentially expose existing residences to the south (across the I-405 Freeway) to higher traffic noise levels due to reflection of noise off the proposed buildings’ façades. To determine the future noise impacts from building reflection to the noise sensitive uses, a three-dimensional (3D) noise model, ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE April 2021February 2020 Page 5.10-7 SoundPLAN, was used to incorporate the site topography, future traffic volumes, and reduction provided by the existing noise barrier (currently in construction for a replacement) on the southbound side of the I-405 Freeway. Existing traffic volumes along the I-405 Freeway were obtained from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Performance Measurement System (PeMS). The vehicle mix on the I-405 Freeway was obtained from Annual Average Daily Truck Traffic (AADTT) on the California State Highway System (CSHS). Refer to Appendix K for the full methodology utilized in the SoundPLAN noise model. As modeled, the projected increase in traffic noise levels due to increased reflection of traffic noise would be no greater than 0.6 dBA at the existing residences to the south. As stated, a noise level increase of 3 dBA is considered barely perceptible in an outdoor environment, and an increase of 1 dBA cannot be perceived except in carefully controlled interior settings (e.g., laboratory experiments). Therefore, traffic noise impacts from project-related increase in noise reflection would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required. Mechanical Equipment The proposed buildings would include rooftop heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) units, which could operate 24 hours per day. Rooftop HVAC equipment would generate a noise level of approximately 71 dBA Leq at 5 feet. The closest off-site residences to where the HVAC units would potentially be installed are located on the southbound side of the I-405 Freeway, approximately 350 feet to the south of the project site. The on-site HVAC equipment would be shielded by four foot parapets and would be placed on the rooflines, which would provide additional noise level reduction by blocking the direct travel of the noise from the HVAC units to these sensitive receptors. SoundPLAN modeling was conducted to calculate the noise levels at the nearest off-site residential uses from the on-site HVAC equipment with four foot parapets; refer to Appendix K. The model demonstrates that, at the nearest off-site residential uses, noise levels from HVAC equipment would approach approximately 30 dBA Leq. This noise level would not exceed the City’s exterior daytime (7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.) or nighttime (11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) noise standards of 55 dBA Leq and 50 dBA Leq, respectively. Therefore, noise levels from rooftop mechanical equipment would be less than significant. Truck Loading Dock Activities A truck loading area in the interior of the project (on the southeastern portion of the project site) is proposed. The truck loading dock activity analysis conservatively assumes that loading activities could occur during any hour of the day and could last for up to 30 minutes. Typical truck loading activities generate a noise level of approximately 95 dBA Lmax at 5 feet. The closest off-site uses are the residences on the southbound side of the I-405 Freeway, approximately 480 feet from the nearest proposed truck loading area location. SoundPLAN modeling demonstrates that noise levels from loading activities would approach 47 dBA Leq at the nearest off-site residential land uses; refer to Appendix K. Therefore, this noise level would not exceed the City’s exterior daytime (7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.) noise standard of 55 dBA Leq. Although nighttime loading is not expected to occur, the analysis indicates that this noise level also would not exceed the City’s nighttime (11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) noise standard of 50 dBA Leq. Thus, a less than significant impact would occur in this regard. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE Page 5.10-8 April 2021February 2020 Composite Noise Levels Table 5.10-11, Composite Noise Levels at Nearest Receptor, presents a summary of the composite noise levels at the nearest off-site residential uses to the south. As shown in Table 5.10-11, assuming a conservative scenario in which both HVAC equipment and loading area operations occur during nighttime hours, the noise impacts associated with the proposed project would not cause an increase in noise experienced at these off-site residential uses to the south. Therefore, impacts in this regard would be less than significant. Table 5.10-11 Composite Noise Levels at Nearest Receptor Receptor Location Stationary Noise Sources Traffic Noise1 (dBA Leq) Composite Noise Level (dBA Leq) HVAC Equipment (dBA Leq) Loading Area (dBA Leq) Residential uses south of the I-405 Freeway 30.0 47.0 58.0 58.0 Source: LSA 2020. Notes: dBA = A-weighted decibels; Leq = equivalent continuous sound level 1 Typical nighttime noise levels from the I-405 Freeway as modeled at the residential uses to the south, measured from the center of the rear yards as detailed in Appendix K. Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. Impact 5.10-3: The project would not generate excessive short- or long-term groundborne vibration or noise. [Threshold N-2] Impact Analysis: Construction Construction activities would temporarily generate groundborne vibration in the project vicinity. Table 5.10- 12, Vibration Source Amplitudes for Construction Equipment, provides context of vibration levels expected from typical construction equipment. For example, a large bulldozer would generate approximately 0.089 PPV of groundborne vibration at 25 feet and a pile driver would generate up to 1.518 PPV when measured at 25 feet. Table 5.10-12 Vibration Source Amplitudes for Construction Equipment Equipment Reference PPV (in/sec) at 25 feet Pile Driver (impact, upper range) 1.518 (impact, typical) 0.644 Hoe Ram 0.089 Large Bulldozer 0.089 Caisson Drilling 0.089 Loaded Trucks 0.076 Jackhammer 0.035 Small Bulldozer 0.003 Source: LSA 2020. Notes: in/sec = inches per second; PPV = peak particle velocity ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE April 2021February 2020 Page 5.10-9 Per the FTA thresholds, it would take a minimum of 0.2 in/sec PPV for a non-engineered timber and masonry building, and a minimum of 0.3 in/sec PPV for an engineered concrete or masonry building to potentially cause architectural damage. The closest structures to the project site are existing commercial buildings to the east, approximately 85 feet from the proposed pile driving activities. These buildings are assumed to be engineered concrete and masonry. At this distance, pile driving operations is estimated to generate groundborne vibration levels of up to 0.242 in/sec PPV and would not exceed the 0.3 in/sec PPV threshold. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard. Further, it should be noted that because construction-related vibration impacts are assessed based on a conservative scenario in which construction activities occur at the project property line and are closest to surrounding structures, the project’s construction phasing schedule has no influence on the impact determination in this regard. For project phases located further from the project property line, construction vibration levels would be reduced. Operations Operational groundborne vibration typically occurs for uses like railroads or subways. Upon project completion, the proposed mixed-use and creative office buildings and open space would not generate groundborne vibration, and thus, no impact would occur. Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. Impact 5.10-4: The proximity of the project site to the John Wayne Airport would not result in exposure of future residents and/or workers to excessive airport-related noise. [Threshold N-3] Impact Analysis: As stated, the closest airport to the project site is JWA, approximately 3.4 miles to the southeast in the City of Santa Ana. The project site is located outside the 60 dBA CNEL noise contour of JWA (LSA 2020), and thus, no impacts would occur in this regard. Level of Significance Before Mitigation: No Impact. 5.10.5 Cumulative Impacts Impact 5.10-5: Cumulative construction activities would not result in temporary noise increases that could exceed applicable standards. [Threshold N-1] Impact Analysis: Construction activities associated with the proposed project and cumulative projects may overlap, resulting in construction noise in the project vicinity. However, construction noise impacts primarily affect the areas immediately adjacent to the construction site. The closest project to the proposed project would be the VANS ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE Page 5.10-10 April 2021February 2020 Headquarter Expansion Project located at 1588 South Coast Drive, over 950 feet to the east. At this distance, it is expected that short-term construction noise impacts related to the VANS Headquarter Expansion Project would not be audible at the sensitive receptors potentially affected by the proposed project. Further, construction activities at the VANS Headquarter Expansion Project, and all related projects within the City, would be required to comply with the City’s allowable construction hours pursuant to Municipal Code Section 13-279, and mitigate their respective construction noise impacts, as required. As the project’s construction noise impacts would be less than significant, the project’s cumulative impacts in this regard would not be cumulatively considerable. A less than significant impact would occur. Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. Impact 5.10-6 Implementation of the proposed project, in combination with related projects, would not result in a cumulatively significant long-term operation-related noise impacts. [Threshold N- 1] Impact Analysis: Mobile Noise A project’s contribution to a cumulative traffic noise increase would be considered significant when the combined effect exceeds perception level (i.e., auditory level increase) thresholds. The cumulative effects of the proposed project are detailed under the build out year (2040) without and with project conditions; refer to Noise/Vibration Analysis Table N, Build Out Year (2040) Without and With Project. This comparison accounts for the traffic noise increase generated by the proposed project combined with traffic noise increases generated by cumulative projects. As shown in Noise/Vibration Analysis Table N, the maximum dBA increase due to the proposed project would be approximately 4.0 dBA (58.8 dBA versus 62.8 dBA) at Sunflower Avenue from Project Driveway 2 to Project Driveway 3 segment. As noted above, noise level increases above 3.0 dBA may be perceptible to some people in an outdoor environment, but the expected increase is less than the readily perceptible threshold of 5.0 dBA. In addition, it should be noted that the land uses along this roadway segment (Sunflower Avenue) are commercial and industrial in nature. The “Build Out Year (2040) with Project” noise level along this segment would be 62.8 dBA, which is below the top range of the land use compatibility for “Normally Acceptable CNEL” thresholds (Table 5.10-2) for mixed-use (50-65 dBA) and office buildings, business commercial, and professional (50-67.5 dBA) uses. Therefore, the project, in combination with related projects, would not result in significant cumulatively considerable traffic noise impacts. Stationary Noise Although cumulative projects have been identified within the project vicinity, noise generated by stationary sources on a given site cannot be quantified due to the speculative nature of each development. Each cumulative project would require separate discretionary approval and CEQA assessment, which would address potential noise impacts and identify necessary attenuation measures, where appropriate. Additionally, as noise dissipates as it travels away from its source, noise impacts from stationary sources would be limited to each of the ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE April 2021February 2020 Page 5.10-11 respective sites and their vicinities. The nearest cumulative project to the project site would be the VANS Headquarter Expansion Project located over 950 feet to the east. At this distance, any stationary noise from the proposed project would be attenuated and dissipate rapidly before reaching the VANS Headquarter Expansion site. As such, cumulative stationary noise impacts would not occur due to distance and intervening structures and traffic noise. As noted above, the proposed project would not result in significant stationary noise impacts that would significantly affect surrounding sensitive receptors. Thus, the proposed project would not result in cumulatively considerable stationary noise impacts. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. Impact 5.10-7: Implementation of the proposed project, in combination with related projects, would not cumulatively create excessive long-term or short-term groundborne vibration and groundborne noise. [Threshold N-2] Impact Analysis: As stated above, construction activities associated with the proposed project and cumulative projects may overlap. However, cumulative development projects would be required to conduct project-specific analysis to determine potential impacts and implement any required mitigation measures that may be deemed necessary on a project-by-project basis. Despite the potential for overlap, groundborne vibration generated at the project site during construction would not exceed the FTA’s 0.3-in/sec PPV threshold. The nearest cumulative project is located at 1588 South Coast Drive, over 950 feet to the east. Given the distance, no cumulative short- or long-term vibration impacts would occur. As such, the project’s contribution to cumulative vibration impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable. Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. Impact 5.10-8: Project development, in combination with related projects, would not cumulatively expose future residents and/or workers to excessive airport-related noise. [Threshold N-3] Impact Analysis: As stated, the closest airport to the project site is JWA, approximately 3.4 miles to the southeast in the City of Santa Ana. The project site is located outside the 60 dBA CNEL noise contour of JWA, and thus, no impacts would occur. Therefore, the project’s contribution to cumulative airport-related noise hazards would be less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. 5.10.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation Upon implementation of regulatory requirements, the following impacts would be less than significant: Impacts 5.10-1 through 5.10-8. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE Page 5.10-12 April 2021February 2020 5.10.7 Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required. 5.10.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation Impacts would be less than significant. ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I February 2020April 2021 Chapter 5.11 Population and Housing ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I February 2020April 2021 This page intentionally left blank. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis April 2021February 2020 Page 5.11-1 5.11 POPULATION AND HOUSING This section of the Draft EIR examines the potential socioeconomic effects of the proposed project, including changes in population, employment generation, and demand for housing. This section evaluates the proposed project’s relationship to regional and local housing and jobs policies of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and the adopted General Plan, with a particular emphasis on jobs-housing balance in the City and County. For information purposes, the population and employment projections discussed in the Summary Memorandum – Fiscal Impacts Resulting from the Proposed One Metro WEST Community at 1683 Sunflower Avenue (Former Robinson Pharma) (Fiscal Memorandum), prepared by David Taussig & Associates (DTA), dated December 12, 2018, has been referenced where relevant. 5.11.1 Environmental Setting 5.11.1.1 REGULATORY BACKGROUND Regional Southern California Association of Governments SCAG is the responsible agency for developing and adopting regional housing, population, and employment growth forecasts for local governments from Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura counties. SCAG’s demographic data is developed to enable the proper planning of infrastructure and facilities to adequately meet the needs of anticipated growth. On April 7, 2016, SCAG adopted its 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (2016 RTP/SCS), which presents the transportation vision for the SCAG region through the year 2040 and provides a long-term investment framework for balancing future mobility and housing needs with economic, environmental and public health goals. Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) State law requires jurisdictions provide their fair share of regional housing needs. The State of California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is mandated to determine the Statewide housing need. In cooperation with HCD, local governments and Councils of Governments (e.g., SCAG) are charged with making a determination of the existing and projected housing needs as a share of the Statewide housing need of their city or region. The Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) is an assessment process performed periodically as part of housing element and general plan updates at the local level. The RHNA quantifies the housing need by income group within each jurisdiction during specific planning periods. The 5th Cycle Final RHNA Allocation Plan was adopted by the SCAG Regional Council on October 4, 2012 and covers the planning period from October 15, 2013 to October 15, 2021. The 6th RHNA cycle covers the housing element planning period from October 2021 through October 2029. The Draft 6th Cycle RHNA Allocation Plan is anticipated to be distributed in ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis POPULATION AND HOUSING Page 5.11-2 April 2021February2020 February 2020 with final adoption in October 2020. Housing elements for the 6th cycle RHNA are due to the HCD in October 2021. The RHNA allows communities to anticipate growth, so that collectively the region can grow in ways that enhance quality of life, improve access to jobs, promote transportation mobility, and address social equity and fair share housing needs. Local City of Costa Mesa 2013-2021 Housing Element The purpose of a housing element is to set forth policies and programs to encourage and facilitate housing development and preservation. Some of the State-required issues to be analyzed in a housing element include affordability, overcrowding, overpayment, governmental constraints, and opportunities for housing for people with disabilities and those experiencing homelessness. The City of Costa Mesa 2013-2021 Housing Element (Housing Element) was adopted on January 21, 2014, and includes data demonstrating housing issues and trends in Costa Mesa, an inventory of resources pertaining to the existing conditions of the City, and specific housing goals, policies, and objectives. The Housing Element includes the following goals, objectives, and policies relevant to the proposed project: Policy HOU-1.1: Develop standards and/or guidelines for new development with emphasis on site (including minimum site security lighting) and building design to minimize vulnerability to criminal activity. 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-3.1: Encourage the conversion of existing marginal or vacant motels, commercial, and/or industrial land to residential, where feasible and consistent with environmental conditions that are suitable for new residential development. Policy HOU-3.2: 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 HOU-3.3: Cooperate with major employers, the Chamber of Commerce, and major commercial and industrial developers to identify and implement programs to balance employment growth with the ability to provide housing opportunities affordable to the incomes of the newly created jobs. According to the 5th Cycle Final RHNA Allocation Plan, SCAG determined the housing needs of the City for the 2014-2021 projection period to be: One unit: Extremely Low/Very Low Income (up to 50 percent of area median income [AMI]); and One unit: Low Income (51 to 90 percent of AMI). ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis POPULATION AND HOUSING April 2021February 2020 Page 5.11-3 As detailed in the Housing Element, the City identified underutilized sites in the 19 West Urban Plan area with the capacity to accommodate 75 units. Furthermore, Sakioka Lot 2 has the potential to accommodate 739 units, which is more than adequate to accommodate the City’s 2014-2021 RHNA requirements. 5.11.1.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS Population Population Trends Table 5.11-1, Population Trends, exhibits the population growth trends in the City and County (DOF 2019). According to the California Department of Finance (DOF), population has steadily increased in the City from 2010 to 2017 (with the exception of a slight decrease of 0.09 percent from 2017 to 2018). The County has experienced a steady increase in population from 2010 to 2019 with the largest percentage increase from 2011 to 2012 at 1.19 percent. Table 5.11-1 Population Trends Year City of Costa Mesa County of Orange Population Percent Change Population Percent Change 2010 109,960 — 3,010,232 — 2011 110,468 0.46 3,040,125 0.99 2012 111,661 1.08 3,076,373 1.19 2013 112,797 1.02 3,109,213 1.07 2014 112,858 0.05 3,131,411 0.71 2015 114,048 1.05 3,155,578 0.77 2016 114,609 0.49 3,174,945 0.61 2017 114,637 0.02 3,199,509 0.77 2018 114,536 -0.09 3,213,275 0.43 2019 115,830 1.13 3,222,498 0.29 Source: DOF 2019. Notes: 1 It is acknowledged that the project’s Fiscal Memorandum identifies the 2018 estimated City population to be 115,296. SCAG Population, Housing, and Employment Projections SCAG’s regional forecast population, housing, and employment projections for 2012 and 2040 for the City and County are shown in Table 5.11-2, SCAG Population, Housing, and Employment Projections. Population, housing, and employment are anticipated to grow within the City and County over the next two decades. Specifically, SCAG anticipates the City’s population, housing, and employment to increase by 5,200 people, 2,500 units, and 8,800 jobs between 2012 and 2040 (SCAG 2016). ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis POPULATION AND HOUSING Page 5.11-4 April 2021February2020 Table 5.11-2 SCAG Population, Housing, and Employment Projections 2012 2040 Change, 2012-2040 Percent Change, 2012-2040 County of Orange Population (persons) 3,072,000 3,461,000 389,000 12.66 Housing (units) 999,000 1,152,000 153,000 15.32 Employment (jobs) 1,526,500 1,898,900 372,400 24.4 City of Costa Mesa Population (persons) 111,200 116,400 5,200 4.68 Housing (units) 40,000 42,500 2,500 6.25 Employment (jobs) 84,400 93,200 8,800 10.43 Source: SCAG 2016. Notes: It is acknowledged that the project’s Fiscal Memorandum identifies the 2018 estimated City employment to be 85,940 jobs. Housing As shown in Table 5.11-3, Existing Housing Units, the DOF estimates there are currently approximately 43,406 housing units in the City and 1,104,164 housing units Countywide (DOF 2019). Characteristics of occupied and vacant housing units in the City and County are also shown in Table 5.11-3. Table 5.11-3 Existing Housing Units City of Costa Mesa Orange County By Unit Type Single-Family Detached 17,049 554,030 Single-Family Attached 4,362 131,446 Two to Four 5,695 94,403 Five Plus 15,370 290,766 Mobile Homes 930 33,519 Total (units) 43,406 1,104,164 Average Household Size 2.73 3.03 Vacancy Rate 4.4 percent 5.2 percent Source: DOF 2019. SCAG housing projections for the County and City are detailed in Table 5.11-2 and show an increase of 153,000 and 2,500 units, respectively, by 2040. Employment According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2013–2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table 5.11-4, City Employment by Industrial Sector (2017), details the City’s estimated employment in 2017 based on industrial sectors. The industrial sector with the most number of jobs is retail trade (10.9 percent). ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis POPULATION AND HOUSING April 2021February 2020 Page 5.11-5 Table 5.11-4 City Employment by Industrial Sector (2017) Industry Sector City of Costa Mesa Jobs Percent of Total Jobs Retail Trade 6,904 10.9 Accommodation and Food Services 6,759 10.7 Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 6,496 10.3 Manufacturing 6,037 9.6 Health Care and Social Assistance 5,926 9.4 Administrative and Support and Waste Management Services 4,778 7.6 Educational Services 4,429 7.0 Other Services, Except Public Administration 3,966 6.3 Finance and Insurance 3,456 5.5 Construction 3,216 5.1 Real Estate and Rental Leasing 2,274 3.6 Arts, Entertainment and Recreation 2,144 3.4 Wholesale Trade 2,013 3.2 Transportation and Warehousing 1,499 2.4 Public Administration 1,319 2.1 Information 1,149 1.8 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting 441 0.7 Utilities 287 0.5 Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction 72 0.1 Management of Companies and Enterprises 40 0.1 Total 63,205 100% Source: USCB 2017. However, a more accurate estimate of the City’s 2018 employment was calculated in the project’s Fiscal Memorandum, which was approximately 85,940 jobs (DTA 2018). SCAG employment projections for the County and City are detailed in Table 5.11-2 and show an increase of 372,400 and 8,800 jobs, respectively, by 2040. Jobs-Housing Balance The jobs-housing ratio is a general measure of the total number of jobs and housing units in a defined geographic area, without regard to economic constraints or individual preferences. The balance of jobs and housing in an area, in terms of the total number of jobs and housing units as well as the type of jobs versus the price of housing, has implications for mobility, air quality, and the distribution of tax revenues. The jobs- housing ratio is one indicator of a project’s effect on growth and quality of life in the project area. SCAG applies the jobs-housing ratio at the regional and subregional levels to analyze the fit between jobs, housing, and infrastructure. A major focus of SCAG’s regional planning efforts has been to improve this balance. SCAG defines the jobs-housing balance as follows: Jobs and housing are in balance when an area has enough employment opportunities for most of the people who live there and enough housing opportunities for most of the people who ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 5. Environmental Analysis POPULATION AND HOUSING Page 5.11-2 April 2021February2020 work there. The region as a whole is, by definition, balanced…. Job-rich subregions have ratios greater than the regional average; housing-rich subregions have ratios lower than the regional average. Ideally, job-housing balance would… assure not only a numerical match of jobs and housing but also an economic match in type of jobs and housing. Jobs-housing goals and ratios are advisory only. No ideal jobs-housing ratio is adopted in State, regional, or City policies. However, SCAG considers an area balanced when the jobs-housing ratio is 1.36; communities with more than 1.36 jobs per dwelling unit are considered job-rich; those with fewer than 1.36 are housing-rich (Weitz 2003). A jobs-housing imbalance can indicate potential air quality and traffic problems associated with commuting, among others. As shown in Table 5.11-5, Jobs-Housing Ratio, the jobs-housing ratio in the City is forecasted to increase slightly between 2012 and 2040 from 2.11 to 2.19. The City is shown to have a disproportionate number of employment opportunities to housing and is expected to remain job-rich. Table 5.11-5 Jobs-Housing Ratio Jurisdiction Year Employment (jobs) Housing (units) Jobs-Housing Ratio City of Costa Mesa 2012 84,400 40,000 2.11 2040 93,200 42,500 2.19 County of Orange 2012 1,526,500 999,000 1.53 2040 1,898,900 1,152,000 1.65 Source: SCAG 2016. Furthermore, as shown in Table 5.11-5, the County is also expected to increase its jobs-housing ratio between 2012 and 2040 from 1.53 to 1.65, and would continue to be job-rich. 5.11.2 Thresholds of Significance According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would: PH-1 Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure). PH-2 Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No impacts relating to Threshold PH-2 were identified, as substantiated in Chapter 8, Impacts Found Not to Be Significant. This threshold will not be addressed in the following analysis. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 5. Environmental Analysis POPULATION AND HOUSING April 2021February 2020 Page 5.11-3 5.11.3 Plans, Programs, Policies, and Standard Conditions of Approval There are no plans, policies, programs (PPP), or standard conditions of approval (SCA) applicable to the project related to population and housing impacts. 5.11.4 Environmental Impacts 5.11.4.1 METHODOLOGY The proposed project’s demographics are examined in the context of existing and projected populations for the County and City and consider consistency with the growth projections in the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS and General Plan. Information on population, housing, and employment is obtained from several sources, including the U.S. Census, California DOF, and SCAG. Potential project impacts were evaluated relative to the City and County’s existing and projected population, housing, employment, and jobs-housing balance. The proposed project would be considered consistent with the General Plan and 2016-2040 RTP/SCS if it is compatible with the general intent of such plans and would not preclude attainment of their primary goals. 5.11.4.2 IMPACT ANALYSIS The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which there may be potentially significant impacts. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets after the impact statement. Impact 5.11-1: The proposed project would not directly or indirectly result in substantial unplanned population growth in the project area. [Threshold PH-1] Impact Analysis: The project proposes to develop a mixed-use community with residential, specialty retail, and creative office uses that would provide housing near jobs in a campus-like setting with on-site amenities, a 1.5-acre open space area, and pedestrian and bicycle connections to adjacent uses. Buildout of the Specific Plan would allow up to 1,057 multi-family residential units, 25,000 square feet of creative office space, and 6,000 square feet of specialty retail space. A minimum of 105 of the proposed units would be provided as affordable housing and would assist the City in meeting its RHNA requirements. Population According to Table 5.11-4, the City has an average household size of 2.73 residents per dwelling unit. Using this average, the proposed 1,057 units have the potential to support up to 2,886 residents. Additionally, the proposed 25,000 square feet of creative office space and 6,000 square feet of specialty retail space would generate employment opportunities that could directly increase the City’s population (e.g., future employees relocating to the City). Approximately 129 jobs associated with the creative office, specialty retail, community room, and leasing office would be created; refer to Table 5.11-6, Project-Generated Employment. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 5. Environmental Analysis POPULATION AND HOUSING Page 5.11-4 April 2021February2020 Table 5.11-6 Project-Generated Employment Non-Residential Land Use Square Feet Square Feet per Employee Total Employees Creative Office 25,000 287 88 Specialty Retail 6,000 704 9 Community Room 1,500 325 5 Leasing Office Not Applicable Not Applicable 271 Total Employees 129 Source: SCAG 2001. 1 Estimated number of employees for the leasing office were provided by Competitive Analytics. The existing industrial building currently employs up to 70 workers; therefore, the project would result in a net increase of 59 jobs. Many factors influence personal housing location decisions (i.e., family income levels and the cost and availability of suitable housing in the local area). Further, many future project employees could already live in Costa Mesa. Thus, it would be highly speculative to estimate the number of future employees who would relocate to the City. Conservatively assuming all employees relocate to the City, project implementation could result in a population increase of 2,945 people. As shown in Table 5.11-2, SCAG projects the City’s population to increase from 111,200 to 116,400 people by 2040, an increase of approximately 5,200 people. Thus, the residents and employees of the proposed project would account for approximately 57 percent of the population growth forecasted by SCAG in Costa Mesa between 2012 and 2040. It should also be noted the project is located in an urban area with existing infrastructure that can support the proposed infill development. All proposed infrastructure improvements (i.e., sewer, water, and storm drains) are located on-site to support anticipated growth generated by the project. The potential physical environmental impacts of such improvements are analyzed in Section 5.15, Utilities and Service Systems. No additional infrastructure improvements (e.g., roadways and utilities) would be implemented that could indirectly induce population growth elsewhere in the City. Employment Construction Project construction would generate temporary employment opportunities, including short-term design, engineering, and construction jobs. Construction-related jobs would not result in a significant population increase as they would be filled by workers in the region and would only last for the duration of the construction and design stage. Additionally, it is unlikely that workers would relocate as permanent residents of Costa Mesa for temporary jobs. Therefore, temporary construction-related jobs would not result in a substantial population increase in the City, and impacts would be less than significant. Operation As stated above, the project would generate approximately 59 net jobs at full buildout. Table 5.11-2 shows employment within the City is anticipated to increase from 84,400 jobs in 2012 to 93,200 jobs in 2040, an ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 5. Environmental Analysis POPULATION AND HOUSING April 2021February 2020 Page 5.11-5 increase of approximately 8,800 jobs. As such, the project-generated jobs would represent only approximately 0.7 percent of the City’s anticipated employment growth. Therefore, project-related employment growth impacts are anticipated to be less than significant. Jobs-Housing Balance As shown in Table 5.11-7, Projected Jobs-Housing Balance, project implementation would reduce the City’s jobs- housing ratio from 2.19 to 2.14 in 2040. The project would improve the City’s jobs-housing ratio by introducing more housing in a job-rich area. Furthermore, the project would place additional needed housing nearby a major employment center. Additionally, as shown in Table 5.11-7, project buildout would not affect the County’s anticipated jobs-housing balance in 2040 as it would remain 1.65. Table 5.11-7 Projected Jobs-Housing Balance Year Employment Housing Jobs-Housing Ratio City of Costa Mesa 2012 84,400 40,000 2.11 2040 93,200 42,500 2.19 Net Increase from Proposed Project 59 1,057 Not Applicable1 2040 With Proposed Project 93,259 43,557 2.14 County of Orange 2012 1,526,500 999,000 1.53 2040 1,898,900 1,152,000 1.65 Net Increase from Proposed Project 59 1,057 Not Applicable 2040 With Proposed Project 1,898,959 1,153,057 1.65 Source: SCAG 2016. 1 Jobs-housing ratios are identified for regions and subregions and are not applicable to an area as small as the project site. Overall, buildout of the proposed project would introduce up to 2,945 people (residents and workers), 1,057 dwelling units, and 59 net jobs in Costa Mesa. The proposed residential community would provide housing in a job-rich City and County and provide an opportunity for existing and future employees to live close to where they work. The anticipated population and employment growth generated by the project would be within SCAG projections for year 2040. It is acknowledged that the City’s 6th cycle RHNA allocations will substantially increase from its 5th cycle allocation of two low income units. Thus, the City anticipates Citywide policy changes to accommodate more housing in infill and mixed-use environments to meet its RHNA requirements for the next planning period from 2021 through 2029. Given the project would provide a minimum of 105 units as affordable housing, the project would help the City meet its affordable housing allocations and contribute towards the City’s future housing goals. Given the proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change from industrial to residential use, it is acknowledged that the project involves unplanned population growth outside of the scope of the General Plan and SCAG projections. However, the environmental impacts of such unplanned population growth are evaluated, planned for, and mitigated as part of the project throughout this EIR. Additionally, implementation of the proposed project would not induce indirect unplanned population growth. The project would not result in land use changes that substantially increase employment opportunities, nor implement any new policies that ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 5. Environmental Analysis POPULATION AND HOUSING Page 5.11-6 April 2021February2020 could induce substantial unplanned population growth. Further, the project site is situated within an urban area and would not install new infrastructure that could induce population growth. Thus, impacts would be less than significant in this regard. Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. 5.11.5 Cumulative Impacts Impact 5.11-2 Development of the proposed project and related projects would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts related to substantial unplanned population growth. [Threshold PH-1] Impact Analysis: Cumulative impacts involving population and housing are analyzed in terms of consistency with SCAG growth assumptions for Costa Mesa. As stated above, the project would introduce up to 2,945 additional people (residents and workers) and 1,057 additional dwelling units to the City. Although the project involves unplanned population growth outside of the scope of the General Plan and SCAG projections, the environmental impacts of such unplanned population growth are evaluated, planned for, and mitigated as part of the project throughout this EIR. Additionally, the project would not result in land use changes that substantially increase employment opportunities, nor implement any new policies that could induce substantial unplanned population growth. The project’s population and employment growth would also be offset by the more substantial increase in housing units, a portion of which would include affordable housing to help meet the City’s 6th cycle RHNA allocations. Additionally, the project does not involve any infrastructure improvements that would induce unplanned population growth elsewhere in the City. As such, development of the proposed project in conjunction with the related projects listed in Table 4-2, Related Projects would not result in cumulatively considerable unplanned population and housing impacts. It should be noted the proposed project would provide a mixed-use community with both housing and jobs in a concentrated employment area of Costa Mesa and would improve the jobs-housing balance in the City; refer to Table 5.11-7. Related projects would be reviewed by the City and required to show consistency with adopted State and City plans and policies to minimize the effect of potential population and housing growth on the environment. The City would also continue to monitor the extent of residential and nonresidential development and monitor employment growth and housing production in order to enhance the jobs-housing balance in the City. Overall, the project would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts in this regard, and impacts would be less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. 5.11.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation The following impacts would be less than significant: Impacts 5.11-1 and 5.11-2. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 5. Environmental Analysis POPULATION AND HOUSING April 2021February 2020 Page 5.11-7 5.11.7 Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required. 5.11.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation Impacts would be less than significant. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 5. Environmental Analysis POPULATION AND HOUSING Page 5.11-8 April 2021February2020 This page intentionally left blank. ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I February 2020April 2021 Chapter 5.12 Public Services and Recreation ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I February 2020April 2021 This page intentionally left blank. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis April 2021February 2020 Page 5.12-1 5.12 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION This section of the Draft EIR addresses the proposed project’s impacts to public services and recreation, including fire protection and emergency services, police protection, school services, library services, and park facilities and recreational services (there is no separate “Recreation” section in this Draft EIR). The analysis in this section is based in part on the following correspondence: Costa Mesa Fire & Rescue Department’s analysis of the impacts and mitigation measures as a result of the One Metro West development at 1683 Sunflower Avenue, Jon Neal, Fire Marshal, Costa Mesa Fire & Rescue, February 3, 2020; and One Metro West Project Impacts to Police Services, Bryan Glass, Acting Chief of Police, City of Costa Mesa Police Department, February 3, 2020. Complete copies of this correspondence are provided in this Draft EIR (Volume II, Appendix L, Public Services and Utilities Correspondence). Public and private utilities and service systems, including water, wastewater, storm drain, and solid waste services and systems, are addressed in Section 5.15, Utilities and Service Systems. 5.12.1 Environmental Setting 5.12.1.1 REGULATORY BACKGROUND Fire Protection and Emergency Services State California Fire Code The California Fire Code (CFC; California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 9) is based on the International Fire Code and contains complete regulations and general construction building standards, including administrative, fire and life safety, and field inspection provisions. The CFC is updated every three years; the 2019 CFC takes effect on January 1, 2020. California Health and Safety Code Sections 13000 et seq. Sections 13000 et seq. of the California Health and Safety Code include fire regulations for building standards (also in the California Building Code [CBC], California Code of Regulations Title 24 Part 2); fire protection and notification systems; fire protection devices, such as extinguishers and smoke alarms; high-rise building and childcare facility standards; and fire suppression training. Local General Plan The Safety and Land Use Elements of the General Plan includes the following goals, objectives, and policies related to fire protection and emergency services within the City: ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION Page 5.12-2 April 2021February 2020 Goal S-2: 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-2A: Plan, promote, and demonstrate a readiness to respond and reduce threats to life and property through traditional and innovative emergency services and programs. - Policy S-2.4: Provide a high level of police and fire service in the community. Secure adequate facilities, equipment, and personnel for police and fire. - Policy S-2.5: Consult with neighboring jurisdictions and partner agencies to respond appropriately to emergencies and incidents in all parts of the City. - Policy S-2.6: Require that water supply systems for development are adequate to combat structural fires in terms of location and minimum required fire-flow pressures. - Policy S-2.7: Require development to contribute its fair share toward funding the provision of appropriate fire and emergency medical services as determined necessary to adequately serve the project. - Policy S-2.9: Emphasize prevention and awareness of fire safety guidelines to minimize risk and potential damage to life, property, and the environment. In areas designated by the Costa Mesa Fire & Rescue Department as having a high fire hazard, ensure adequate fire equipment, personnel, firebreaks, facilities, water, and access for a quick and efficient response in any area. - Policy S-2.12: Continue to maintain adequate police and fire staffing, facilities, equipment, and maintenance sufficient to protect the community. Objective LU-5A: 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.5.5: Ensure that new development pays its fair share of impact fees such as park fees and traffic impact fees. This can also include impact fees related to community services (police protection services and fire emergency response services) or library facilities, once adopted and applicable. Municipal Code Municipal Code Title 5, Buildings and Construction, requires building construction activities to comply with all adopted State construction codes, including the CBC and CFC. Municipal Code Sections 7-14, Adoption of the California Fire Code, adopt, with modifications, the triennially updated CFC. Municipal Code Section 13-270, Establishment of Development Impact Fee, details the City’s development impact fee based on the Costa Mesa Fire Protection System Fee Study. The revenues raised by the development impact fee are used to fund fire protection facilities and equipment. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION April 2021February 2020 Page 5.12-3 Police Protection Services Local General Plan The Safety and Land Use Elements of the General Plan includes the following goals, objectives, and policies related to police protection services within the City: Goal S-2: 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-2A: Plan, promote, and demonstrate a readiness to respond and reduce threats to life and property through traditional and innovative emergency services and programs. - Policy S-2.1: Promote crime prevention strategies and provide a high level of response to incidents. - Policy S-2.2: Emphasize and prioritize crime prevention strategies, such as pedestrian-scale lighting in targeted areas. - Policy S-2.3: Timely response to incidents and monitoring areas with high crime rates should be part of a comprehensive strategy to reduce crime in the community. - Policy S-2.4: Provide a high level of police and fire service in the community. Secure adequate facilities, equipment, and personnel for police and fire. - Policy S-2.5: Consult with neighboring jurisdictions and partner agencies to respond appropriately to emergencies and incidents in all parts of the City. - Policy S-2.12: Continue to maintain adequate police and fire staffing, facilities, equipment, and maintenance sufficient to protect the community. Objective LU-5A: 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.5.5: Ensure that new development pays its fair share of impact fees such as park fees and traffic impact fees. This can also include impact fees related to community services (police protection services and fire emergency response services) or library facilities, once adopted and applicable. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION Page 5.12-4 April 2021February 2020 School Services State Senate Bill 50 Senate Bill 50 (SB 50) was enacted in 1998 to address how schools are financed and how development projects may be assessed for associated school impacts. It has been incorporated into State law as Government Code Section 65995. SB 50 establishes a process for determining the amount of fees developers may be charged to mitigate the impact of development on school facilities resulting from increased enrollment and allows the State to offer funding to school districts to acquire school sites, construct new school facilities, and modernize existing school facilities. SB 50 provides three ways to determine funding levels for school districts. The Newport-Mesa Unified School District (NMUSD) falls under the default level (Level 1) fee structure, which allows it to levy development fees to support school construction necessitated by development and receive a 50 percent match from State bond money. According to Government Code Section 65996, development fees authorized by SB 50 are deemed to be “full and complete school facilities mitigation.” Local Newport-Mesa Unified School District Developer Fees As stated above, NMUSD utilizes a Level 1 fee structure to establish developer fees anticipated to offset development impacts on existing NMUSD facilities and resources. Based on the current fee structure, NMUSD charges $1.84 per square foot of residential development and $0.30 per square foot of commercial development (NMUSD 2019). Library Services Local General Plan The Land Use Element of the General Plan includes the following goals, objectives, and policies related to library services within the City: Objective LU-5A: 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.5.5: Ensure that new development pays its fair share of impact fees such as park fees and traffic impact fees. This can also include impact fees related to community services (police protection services and fire emergency response services) or library facilities, once adopted and applicable. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION April 2021February 2020 Page 5.12-5 Park Facilities and Recreation Services State California Public Park Preservation Act The primary instrument for protecting and preserving parkland is the State’s Public Park Preservation Act of 1971. Cities and counties may not acquire any real property that is in use as a public park for any non-park use unless compensation, land, or both are provided to replace the parkland acquired. This ensures no net loss of parkland and facilities. Quimby Act The Quimby Act (Government Code Section 66477), established in 1965, provides provisions in the State Subdivision Map Act for the dedication of parkland and/or payment of in-lieu fees as a condition of approval of certain types of residential projects. The Quimby Act authorizes local jurisdictions to require dedication of parkland and/or payment of fees in the amount of up to three acres of parkland per 1,000 added residents; local jurisdictions may require higher ratios for affected development projects. Before 2018, a city or county could only use these fees to provide parks that served the developer’s proposed subdivision. However, Assembly Bill 1359 (AB 1359), signed in 2013, allows cities and counties to use developer-paid Quimby Act fees to provide parks in neighborhoods other than the one in which the developer’s subdivision is located. Overall, AB 1359 provides cities and counties with opportunities to improve parks and create new parks in areas that would not have benefited before. It also allows a city or county to enter a joint/shared use agreement with one or more public districts to provide additional park and recreational access. Local General Plan The Open Space and Recreation Element of the General Plan includes the following goals, objectives, and policies related to park facilities and recreation services within the City: Goal OSR-1: Provide a high-quality environment through the development of recreation resources and preservation of open space that meets community needs in Costa Mesa. Objective OSR-1A: Maintain and preserve existing parks, and strive to provide additional parks, public spaces, and recreation facilities that meet the community’s evolving needs. - Policy OSR-1.1: Maintain a system of Neighborhood and Community Parks that provide a variety of active and passive recreational opportunities throughout the City. - Policy OSR-1.2: 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. - Policy OSR-1.5: Maximize public space by requiring plazas and public gathering spaces in private developments that can serve multiple uses, including recreation and social needs. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION Page 5.12-6 April 2021February 2020 - Policy OSR-1.6: Provide maximum visibility and accessibility for future public parks by locating facilities in close proximity to public streets. - Policy OSR-1.8: Require that parks and recreation facilities reflect new trends and population changes, and are developed with facilities appropriate to all ages, including athletic fields, active play areas, passive open space, tot lots, and picnic areas. - Policy OSR-1.13: Design and reform parks to reflect the latest recreational features that respond to demographic changes and community needs. - Policy OSR-1.18: Provide a minimum of 4.26 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. - Policy OSR-1.20: Enhance pedestrian, bicycle, and transit linkages to meet the needs of residents and to provide better access to parks, recreation, and public spaces. - Policy OSR-1.21: Provide opportunities for public access to all open space areas, except where sensitive resources may be threatened or damaged, public health and safety may be compromised, or access would interfere with the managed production of resources. Municipal Code Municipal Code Article 5, Park and Recreation Dedications, requires dedication of land and/or payment of in-lieu fees by residential development projects meeting certain criteria in the amount of 4.26 acres per 1,000 residents added by such residential projects. The City’s parkland standard is 4.26 acres per 1,000 residents; the City also arranges with the NMUSD to provide an additional 1.5 acres of school sites per 1,000 residents available for public park and recreation purposes. Measure Z, passed in November 2016, adds Article 4 to Municipal Code Title 13, Chapter XII, Special Fee Assessments, to establish an open space and public park impact fee. The fee is applicable to all new development located both north of the I-405 Freeway and west of Fairview Drive and is due upon issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The fee is established to offset the impact of development upon recreational opportunities and is used solely for the purpose of increasing active recreation, open space, and public park facilities within the City. 5.12.1.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS Fire Protection and Emergency Services The Costa Mesa Fire & Rescue Department (CMFD) provides fire protection and emergency medical services to the project site. CMFD has six fire stations in the City that are staffed 24 hours a day, every day. The closest station that responds to calls at the project site is Station 1, located at 1570 Adams Avenue, approximately 2.8 miles south and recently reconstructed in 2018. The next closest station that responds to calls at the project site is Station 6, located at 3350 Sakioka Drive, approximately 4.2 miles east of the site (CMFD 2019a). ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION April 2021February 2020 Page 5.12-7 The CMFD currently has 84 full-time staff (78 sworn positions and six non-sworn positions) and part-time staff amounting to 3.25 full-time-equivalent positions (CMFD 2019b). In 2018, CMFD responded to 13,045 incidents, of which approximately 74 percent (9,639) were emergency medical services/rescue calls, 15 percent (1,918) were good intent calls,1 two percent (261) were fire calls, and the remaining nine percent (1,227) were other types of calls (CMFD 2019c). Automatic Aid All fire departments in Orange County participate in an automatic aid agreement to ensure the closest resources are dispatched to an emergency. Automatic aid includes engines, trucks, paramedics, and battalion chiefs. The two nearest service areas of other departments to the project site are the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA), which serves the nearby City of Santa Ana, and the Fountain Valley Fire Department, which serves the City of Fountain Valley. The nearest fire station, outside of the CMFD, to the project site is Fountain Valley Fire Department Station 2 at 16767 Newhope Street in Fountain Valley, approximately 2.7 miles to the north (OCFA 2019). Emergency Response Planning CMFD is responsible for emergency planning for the City. The City adopted the City of Costa Mesa Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) in July 2013. The EOP includes vulnerability assessments for a variety of hazards and roles and responsibilities of City officials in hazard mitigation and emergency preparedness, response, and recovery (Costa Mesa 2013). Calls for Service and Response Times According to CMFD, the existing industrial use on-site generated nine calls for service over the last five years. Six of the nine calls were false alarms, two of the calls occurred on Sunflower Avenue in front of the site, and one call was for a dumpster fire in the parking lot. The call history at the site is well below the standard for similar industrial uses (Neal 2020). A Fire Services Deployment Analysis was also conducted for the proposed project, which included assessing historical response times to the project site and nearby neighborhoods. Historical incident response data to the project site was obtained from CMFD, and a geographic mapping travel time analysis model was conducted to compare projected travel time from existing fire stations and historical response times in the immediate area adjacent to the site. Based on the analysis, it was concluded that travel times to 90 percent of the calls for service from all CMFD fire stations ranged from 6:30 minutes to the project site, 9:31 minutes to the east of the site, 7:00 minutes to the north of the site, and 5:51 minutes to the northeast of the site. These times were aligned with the Geographic Information System (GIS) travel time model, which indicates that the project site, as well as the surrounding area, is not within the 4:00-minute travel time for first-due unit coverage based on City and national best practice goals for positive outcomes. Similar to the single-unit coverage scenario, the project site, as well as the surrounding area, is also not within the 8:00-minute travel time objective for the last-needed City unit to achieve a multiple unit Effective Response Force for the site based on City and national best practice 1 Good intent calls are often mistakes, such as calls regarding steam or dust mistaken for smoke or multiple fire alarms pulled for one fire. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION Page 5.12-8 April 2021February 2020 goals for positive outcomes. Overall, average response time to the project site is 10:43 minutes based on historical data. This is 2:13 minutes longer than a desirable urban best practices average response time goal of 7:30 minutes (Neal 2020). CMFD stated it is challenging to provide a faster response time to the project site, even from mutual aid fire stations, given the project’s location alongside the I-405 Freeway and the Santa Ana River drainage channel. The project site, from a street network view, is similar to that of a large, dead-end, cul- de-sac (Citygate 2019). Police Protection Services The Costa Mesa Police Department (CMPD) provides police protection services to the City, including the project site. CMPD is divided into three department divisions: Administration, Field Operations, and Support Services. CMPD staffing currently consists of 212 full-time positions (136 sworn and 76 civilian positions), as well as part-time staff totaling to 21.76 full-time-equivalent positions. Based on the City’s existing population and 136 sworn officers, the City’s existing per capita ratio is 1.17 officers per 1,000 residents (Costa Mesa 2019f). The City is divided into two patrol areas; the project site is in Patrol Area 2. In 2018, City crime statistics totaled 10,769 crimes, consisting of 4,051 Part 1 crimes and 6,718 Part 2 crimes (CMPD 2019).2 The CMPD station is located at 99 Fair Drive about 4.9 miles southeast of the project site. Mutual Aid Agreements The City also participates in local mutual aid agreements under the Orange County Chiefs’ of Police and Sheriff’s Association (Costa Mesa 2013). The Orange County Sheriff’s Department Law Enforcement Mutual Aid Bureau provides mutual aid to law enforcement agencies in Orange County (OCSD 2019). Participation in mutual aid agreements ensures CMPD and neighboring jurisdictions’ police departments have additional support in regard to resources and staffing to respond to calls in the region. School Services The NMUSD boundary spans approximately 59 square miles and includes the cities of Costa Mesa and Newport Beach. NMUSD consists of 32 schools, including 22 elementary schools, two intermediate schools, two middle/high schools (grades 7-12), two high schools (grades 9-12), three alternative schools/programs, and one adult education program (partnered with the Huntington Beach Adult School). District-wide enrollment in the 2017-2018 school year was 20,641 students (CDE 2019). The project site is located in the attendance boundaries of the three schools listed in Table 5.12-1, NMUSD Schools Serving the Project Site. 2 Part I crimes consist of violent felonies such as homicide, rape, and robbery, and some serious property crimes such as larceny. Part II crimes are less serious offenses such as other assault, fraud, vandalism, and drug abuse violations. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION April 2021February 2020 Page 5.12-9 Table 5.12-1 NMUSD Schools Serving the Project Site School and Address Grades Enrollment (2017-2018) Student Capacity Residual Capacity Permanent Classrooms Portable Classrooms Total California Elementary School 3232 California Avenue, Costa Mesa K-6 429 425 150 575 146 TeWinkle Middle School 3224 California Avenue, Costa Mesa 7-8 654 1,188 189 1,377 751 Estancia High School 2323 Placentia Avenue, Costa Mesa 9-12 1,269 1,971 0 1,971 703 Sources: NMUSD 2018a, 2018b, and 2018c. Calculations by JCJ Partners, LLC. Library Services The Orange County Public Library (OCPL) provides library services to the City, including the project site. OCPL has 33 branch libraries in 24 incorporated cities and unincorporated areas of the County and has a system-wide collection of approximately 2.5 million items (Orange 2005). The City has two branch libraries operated by OCPL: the Donald Dungan Library, located at 1855 Park Avenue, and the Mesa Verde Library, located at 2969 Mesa Verde Drive. The closest library to the project site is the Mesa Verde Library approximately 2.3 miles to the south. OCPL has the following service standards: 0.2 square feet of library space per capita, 1.3 volumes per capita for library collections, and a circulation of 4.5 items per capita (Cowell 2014). OCPL is a special district governed by the Orange County Board of Supervisors and, thus, is funded mostly by taxes (e.g., property, sales, and utilities taxes) (Davis 2010). Park Facilities and Recreation Services The City’s Parks and Community Services Department provides recreation services at City parks, and the City’s Public Services Department maintains the City parks. Overall, the City maintains 30 parks, totaling approximately 415 acres. The nearest City parks to the project site include: Moon Park: The 1.7-acre Moon Park is located at 3377 California Street, about 500 feet west of the project site across the I-405 Freeway and adjacent to the Santa Ana River Trail. Moon Park has a playground and picnic tables (Costa Mesa 2019g). Suburbia Park: The 0.6-acre Suburbia Park is located at 3302 Alabama Circle, approximately 0.3 mile southwest of the project site and is an informal dog park (Costa Mesa 2019h). Smallwood Park: Smallwood Park is 3.4 acres and is located at 1646 Corsica Place, approximately 2.0 miles south of the project site. Smallwood Park has playgrounds, a softball field, picnic tables, and restrooms (Costa Mesa 2019i). Additionally, Fairview Park, located at 2501 Placentia Avenue, is the largest City park in Costa Mesa, totaling 210 acres and is approximately 3.8 miles south of the project site. Amenities at Fairview Park include a miniature railroad, shelters, picnic tables, and restrooms (Costa Mesa 2019j). ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION Page 5.12-10 April 2021February 2020 Regional Recreation Facilities Santa Ana River Trail The Santa Ana River Trail extends 30 miles in Orange County from Huntington Beach to the Riverside County boundary and another 40 miles intermittently in parts of Riverside and San Bernardino counties (San Bernardino 2019). Several City parks have access to the Santa Ana River Trail, including Moon Park, Suburbia Park, Fairview Park, and Vista Park. Near the project site, an access trail near Sunflower Avenue and Cadillac Avenue extends westerly towards the Santa Ana River Trail, located adjacent to the I-405 Freeway. The Santa Ana River channel is owned and operated by the Orange County Flood Control District and is not open to the public. OC Parks Facilities Talbert Regional Park is a 180-acre OC Parks facility consisting mostly of native habitat and a large trail system. The park is located at 1298 Victoria Street in Costa Mesa and abuts the southwest side of Fairview Park (OC Parks 2019a). Mile Square Regional Park, a 607-acre urban park at 16801 Euclid Street in the City of Fountain Valley, is 2.8 miles north of the project site. Park amenities include three golf courses, three soccer fields, three baseball fields, three softball diamonds, an archery range, a nature area, two fishing lakes, bicycle and paddle boat concessions, and picnic areas with shelters (OC Parks 2019b). 5.12.2 Thresholds of Significance According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would: PSR-1 Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provisions 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 i) Fire protection; ii) Police protection; iii) Schools; iv) Other public facilities; or v) Parks. PSR-2 Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION April 2021February 2020 Page 5.12-11 PSR-3 Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. 5.12.3 Plans, Programs, Policies, and Standard Conditions of Approval The following are existing regulatory requirements, such as plans, policies, programs (PPP), or standard conditions of approval (SCA), applied to the project based on Federal, State, or local laws currently in place, and which effectively reduce impacts related to public services and recreation. Fire Protection and Emergency Services PPP FS-1 The proposed project is required to comply with the 2019 latest edition of the California Fire Code. PPP FS-2 The proposed project is required to comply with Municipal Code Title 5, Buildings and Structures, and all adopted State construction codes. PPP FS-3 The project is required to pay development impact fees established based on the Costa Mesa Fire Protection System Fee Study and as required in the Development Agreement. SCA FIRE-25 The on-site hydrant(s) shall be attached to the underground mains of the fire sprinkler system or installed to the standards of the Mesa Water District and be dedicated along with repair easements to the Mesa Water District. SCA FIRE-26 The applicant shall participate in the upgrading of fire protection facilities according to the formula developed by the Costa Mesa Fire & Rescue Department. The contribution shall be made prior to the issuance of building permits or as agreed in the Development Agreement. SCA FIRE-7 The applicant shall provide Class A fire hydrant(s) according to the Costa Mesa Fire & Rescue Department reviewed and approved Fire Master Plan for the project. SCA FIRE-8 Any required hydrants shall be installed and operable prior to the initiation of combustible construction. SCA FIRE-9 Water improvement plans shall be approved by the Costa Mesa Fire & Rescue Department. SCA FIRE-10 Water mains shall be of adequate size to deliver 1,000 gallons per minute simultaneously from the closest hydrants to any and all points of the development with a minimum residual pressure of 20 pounds per square inch. SCA FIRE-13 Fire apparatus access roadways identified in the approved Fire Master Plan for the project shall be maintained with access to all fire hydrants from the time that the hydrants are placed into service. Special consideration shall be given to maintaining the integrity of such roadways during periods of inclement weather. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION Page 5.12-12 April 2021February 2020 SCA FIRE-14 The applicant shall provide fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2A to be located within 75 feet of travel distance from all areas. Extinguishers may be of a type rated 2A, 10BC as these extinguishers are suitable for all types of fires and are less expensive. SCA FIRE-15 The applicant shall provide approved smoke detectors to be installed in accordance with the latest edition of the Uniform California Fire Code. SCA FIRE-16 The applicant shall provide an approved automatic extinguishing system for all commercial cooking surfaces, hoods, and ducts. SCA FIRE-17 The applicant shall provide an automatic fire sprinkler system according to National Fire Protection Association requirements. Police Protection Services PPP PD-1 The project is required to pay development impact fees established based on the Citywide Fee Study and as required in the Development Agreement. SCA PD-49 Outside security lighting shall be provided under the direction and upon the recommendation of the City of Costa Mesa Development Services Department and/or the Police Department. SCA PD-58 The following list of security measures would be provided: 1. Cameras installed in all common areas and hallways. 2. Cameras monitored 24 hours per day, seven days a week, at a centralized location by the applicant’s property management team. 3. In the afternoon and through the night (such as from 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 a.m.), a third party courtesy patrol walks and patrols the property. School Services PPP SS-1 The project applicant shall pay developer fees per square foot for residential and commercial construction pursuant to the Newport-Mesa Unified School District (NMUSD) requirements. Library Services No existing regulatory requirements, such as plans, policies, programs, or standard conditions of approval related to library services apply to the proposed project. Park Facilities and Recreation Services PPP PS-1 The proposed project shall comply with Government Code Section 66477 (Quimby Act) and Measure Z as required by the Development Agreement, related to payment of an open space and public park impact fee. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION April 2021February 2020 Page 5.12-13 5.12.4 Environmental Impacts The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which there may be potentially significant impacts. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets after the impact statement. Fire Protection and Emergency Services Impact 5.12-1: The proposed project could increase the intensity of the project site, thereby increasing the demand for fire protection facilities and personnel. [Threshold PSR-1(i)] Impact Analysis: Construction Development of the proposed project would require demolition of the existing industrial building and associated parking area and construction of the proposed residential, specialty retail, creative office, and open space uses. Construction activities would be subject to compliance with applicable State and local regulations in place to reduce risk of fire, such as installation of a temporary construction fencing to restrict site access and maintenance of a clean construction site. Specifically, construction would be subject to Municipal Code Title 5, Buildings and Structures, and all adopted State construction codes, including the CBC and CFC (see PPP FS-2). Specifically, Municipal Code Section 7-14, Adoption of the California Fire Code (see PPP FS-1), includes site access requirements and fire safety precautions associated with construction activities. Project compliance with applicable State and local regulations related to fire protection would result in less than significant construction- related impacts. Operations Upon construction completion, the proposed project is anticipated to introduce up to 2,886 residents and 59 net employees. Therefore, project development would generate an increase in demands for fire protection and emergency medical services. As stated above, the existing industrial building on-site generated only nine calls for service in the last five years, which is well below the standard for similar industrial uses. Based on input from CMFD, an industrially zoned property similar in size to the existing building would generate approximately 14 calls for service per year while the proposed uses would generate approximately 101 calls for service per year, resulting in an increase of approximately 87 calls for service per year. As stated, the project site is located adjacent to the I-405 Freeway and a drainage channel, which makes it challenging for CMFD to provide faster response times to the project site, even from mutual aid fire stations. The Fire Services Deployment Analysis concluded CMFD does not have the response capabilities to reach the project site or adjacent areas within a 4:00 or 8:00 minute travel time or the desirable urban best practices average response time goal of 7:30 minutes as discussed above (Citygate 2019). Further, during the project review process, it was identified that Building A with its associated parking garage design and location would not meet CMFD’s fire apparatus access road or hose pull requirements due to its proximity to the I-405 Freeway. In order to meet Uniform Fire Code requirements, CMFD approved an Alternative Materials, Alternative ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION Page 5.12-14 April 2021February 2020 Design, and Methods of Construction request for the parking garage including requiring additional fire protection features in excess of Code requirements, as discussed further in Mitigation Measure PS-2. The City’s demands on CMFD’s services would be offset through the collection of development impact fees established based on the Costa Mesa Fire Protection System Fee Study, the proportional increase in the City’s General Fund through taxes (or other similar revenues) generated by the project, and/or as required per the Development Agreement and Municipal Code Section 13-270, Establishment of Development Impact Fee (PPP FS- 3). The project would also be subject to SCA FIRE-7, -8, -14, -15, -17, and -25, requiring the installation of on- site fire hydrants, fire extinguishers, smoke detectors, and fire sprinkler systems in accordance with National Fire Protection Association and Uniform California Fire Code requirements. SCA FIRE-16 requires installation of an automatic extinguishing system for all commercial cooking surfaces, hoods, and ducts in residential kitchens, and SCA FIRE-9 and -10 require the project’s water improvement plans be reviewed and approved by CMFD, including required fire flow and pressure. Prior to the issuance of building permits, SCA FIRE-26 requires the applicant to participate in the upgrading of fire protection facilities as requested by the City. Additionally, SCA FIRE-13 requires fire access roads to be adequately sized to provide proper fire truck access to on-site fire hydrants. Overall, the final project plans would be reviewed and approved by the CMFD, which would ensure adequate emergency access, fire hydrant availability, and compliance with all applicable State and local codes and standards. However, as stated above, CMFD does not have response capabilities to reach the project site within a “best practices” amount of time, and the Building A and parking garage design and locations do not meet CMFD’s fire apparatus access road or hose pull requirements. Therefore, impacts related to fire protection services are potentially significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant Impact. Police Protection Services Impact 5.12-2: The proposed project would not significantly increase the intensity of development at the site, thereby increasing the demand for police protection facilities and personnel. [Threshold PSR-1(ii)] Impact Analysis: Construction Construction activities may create a temporary increase in demand for CMPD services to the construction site. However, project construction activities would be required to comply with Municipal Code Title 5, Buildings and Structures, and all adopted State construction codes (see PPP FS-2). Specifically, the CBC includes emergency site access requirements that would minimize site safety hazards and potential construction-related impacts to police services. Therefore, with compliance with these requirements, the project construction would not result in the need for additional police protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significance environmental impacts, and would not adversely impact service ratios, response times, or other CMPD performance standards. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION April 2021February 2020 Page 5.12-15 Operations Project operation is anticipated to introduce up to 2,886 residents and 59 net employees, as well as 1,057 multi- family residential units, 25,000 square feet of creative office space, 6,000 square feet of specialty retail use, and a 1.5-acre open space area. The project would introduce new land uses to a predominately industrial area. The change in use from a less intensive to a more intensive use with more people living and working in the project area would increase calls for service, traffic and traffic-related calls, community policing, and crime prevention outreach for both residential and businesses. Additionally, it would require a shift in patrol strategies based on the need to patrol the area at a greater frequency than is currently provided, which could incrementally increase patrol response times. The City does not have an established development impact fee for new development or an adopted generation factor to determine the appropriate number of additional personnel or patrol cars based on population, response times, or other similar metrics. However, considering the City’s existing per capita ratio of 1.17 officers per 1,000 residents, the project’s contribution of 2,886 additional residents to the City’s population would reduce the service ratio below existing levels. Based on the change in the character of the area and the resulting demand for additional police patrols, the CMPD has determined a minimum of three sworn police personnel and associated police vehicles would be necessary in order to offset the incremental increase in service demands resulting from the project. The project would not result in the need for a new police station or expansion to existing stations or any other similar physical improvement. The City’s demands on CMPD services are addressed through the City’s General Fund, whose revenues are collected from property, sales, and utilities taxes. Further, although the City does not have a development impact fee for Police services, the City is currently undergoing a Citywide Development Impact Fee Study, which may establish such a fee. Further, the project would be required to provide additional funding consistent with the terms of the Development Agreement. Thus, the collection of development impact fees established through the Citywide Fee Study and Municipal Code Section 13-270, Establishment of Development Impact Fee, the proportional increase in the City’s General Fund through taxes (or other similar revenues) generated by the project, and/or payment of funds as required per the Development Agreement would ensure the applicant provides adequate funds to address its fair share demand for CMPD services. Additionally, new staffing and equipment would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts or require the need for new or physically altered CMPD facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts. Further, implementation of the proposed project would include installation of security features and natural surveillance (i.e., providing observable spaces in the community). Project lighting would illuminate pathways, stairways, entrances and exits to the project site, parking areas, mail box areas, children’s play areas, recreation areas, pools, dumpster areas and other locations as required by the City and CMPD. Specific lighting design standards and “Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design” techniques are also proposed in the Specific Plan. For the proposed residential buildings, project landscaping and site lighting would be designed to avoid creating blind spots or hiding places; paving treatments would be installed to guide visitors to desired entrances and pedestrian pathways; pedestrian walkways would be unobstructed from outdoor furniture, ground-level lighting, and landscaping; and the multi-family buildings would be positioned around large courtyards that encourage public views. For the commercial areas, each tenant space would be fully illuminated at night and have rear public access and windows; shrubbery height would be maintained at three feet; private recreation areas would be visible from residential units; and parking areas and pedestrian walkways would be illuminated ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION Page 5.12-16 April 2021February 2020 adequately during nighttime hours. For the creative office building, windows and exterior doors would be visible from neighboring buildings and areas; public entrances would be clearly defined with architectural elements, lighting, landscaping, paving, or signage; and effective lighting would be utilized at all exterior doors, common areas, and hallways. For parking garages, stretched cable railings would be utilized (rather than opaque barrier walls) to maximize interior visibility; all parking areas and driving lanes would be fully illuminated and under surveillance of security cameras; stairwells would be visible with no solid walls; emergency telephones would be provided on all parking garage levels; and elevators would be installed close to main entrances. For the open space, all benches would have seat dividers; all trash receptables would be durable and vandal-resistant; open space rules would be posted at the entry to the open space; and the bicycle and pedestrian trail would be positioned along Sunflower Avenue to make users more observable by others. Additionally, on-site security would be provided (SCA PD-58). Cameras are proposed to be installed in all common areas and hallways. Cameras would be monitored 24 hours per day, seven days a week, at a centralized location by the applicant’s property management team. Further, in the afternoon and through the night, a third- party courtesy patrol would patrol and walk the property. Overall, development of the proposed project would result in an incremental increase in demands on CMPD services but would not adversely impact CMPD’s ability to maintain its current response times and police staffing levels. As stated above, the CMPD is a full-service police agency providing a wide range of crime suppression, education, and prevention services to the community. CMPD would continue to add staff and equipment on an as-needed basis to accommodate the incrementally increasing demands from future development, including the proposed project. Thus, impacts in this regard would be less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. School Services Impact 5.12-3: The proposed project would introduce new students into the NMUSD service area, but would not adversely impact school enrollment capacities. [Threshold PSR-1(iii)] Impact Analysis: Construction The project does not propose the construction of any new or physically altered school facilities. Additionally, the project is not located near any existing schools such that its construction would disrupt school services. Due to its temporary nature, project construction activities would not generate additional students, and no impacts to school services would occur. Operations As shown in Table 5.12-2, Project-Generated Students, the proposed project is estimated to generate approximately 85 students, consisting of 54 elementary school (grades K-6) students, ten middle school (grades 7-8) students, and 21 high school (grades 9-12) students. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION April 2021February 2020 Page 5.12-17 Table 5.12-2 Project-Generated Students School Level (Grades) Student Generation Rate Per Unit Project Buildout Students Generated Elementary (K-6) 0.051 1,057 dwelling units 54 Middle (7-8) 0.009 10 High (9-12) 0.020 21 Total 0.080 85 Source: Ramirez 2019. Note: Projections rounded to the nearest whole number. The residual capacities at the three schools serving the project site include 146 seats at California Elementary School, 751 seats at TeWinkle Middle School, and 703 seats at Estancia High School. Therefore, there is adequate existing capacity at the three NMUSD schools serving the project site to accommodate future students associated with the proposed project. Additionally, pursuant to SB 50, the project applicant is required to pay developer fees per square foot for residential and commercial construction to offset development impacts on NMUSD’s facilities and resources (see PPP SS-1). As the project would be required to pay these developer fees, which are deemed to be full mitigation, and existing school capacities would accommodate future students generated by the project, impacts to school services would be less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. Library Services Impact 5.12-4: Project development would not significantly increase residents in the OCPL service area, thus increasing demands for library facilities and services. [Threshold PSR-1(iv)] Impact Analysis: Construction The project does not propose the construction of any new or physically altered library facilities. Due to its temporary nature, project construction activities would not generate an increase in the City’s population, and no impacts in this regard would occur. Operations Project operations are anticipated to introduce up to 2,886 people to the City, thereby increasing demands for OCPL facilities and resources. Based on OCPL’s service standards of 0.2 square feet of library space per capita, 1.3 volumes of library collections per capita, and 4.5 items in circulation per capita, the project would require approximately 578 square feet of library space, 3,752 collection volumes, and 12,987 items. Funding for OCPL services is provided through County property taxes dedicated to the library. These funds would be used to upgrade and expand existing facilities, as needed. Project impacts are anticipated to be adequately funded by an increase in tax revenue, over an extended period of time, relative to the increase in development intensity. Additionally, the Donald Dungan Library and Mesa Verde Library in Costa Mesa would have access to a ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION Page 5.12-18 April 2021February 2020 circulation of more than two million volumes at all branch libraries of the OCPL system, including those in surrounding communities. As such, library services would not have significant and adverse impacts. Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. Park Facilities and Recreation Services Impact 5.12-5: Project development would introduce additional residents in the City, but would not substantially increase demands for park facilities and recreation services. [Thresholds PSR- 1(v), PSR-2, and PSR-3] Impact Analysis: The proposed project would provide a variety of residential recreational amenities on-site, including a fitness center and wellness room; a club house/community room with a bowling alley, high-tech gaming center, kitchen/dining facilities, and resort-style saltwater swimming pools (one Junior Olympic-size) with spas and cabana areas. The project would also include multiple courtyards and rooftop amenity terraces, community/art exhibit spaces, and solar panels on south-facing roofs. Notwithstanding, at project buildout, the project would introduce up to 2,886 residents in the City (based on an average household size of 2.73), thereby increasing demands for recreational facilities provided by the City’s Parks and Community Services Department. As stated above, the City has a parkland standard of 4.26 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. As such, the project would be required to provide 12.29 acres of parkland. Future residents associated with the project could accelerate the normal wear and tear on existing nearby park facilities, including Moon Park, Suburbia Park, and Smallwood Park. However, the project site is within proximity to two regional parks within the City: the 210-acre Fairview Park and 180-acre Talbert Regional Park owned and maintained by OC Parks. Additionally, the project includes the development of a 1.5-acre open space area that would serve the residents and visitors in the project area. The open space would include seating and resting areas in addition to creative landscaping/art pieces and shade structures. The area would be privately maintained but available to the general public through the dedication of a public access easement. The open space would also be accessible to pedestrians from the nearby employment centers, such as SOCO and The OC Mix, and by bicyclists via a connection to the Santa Ana River Trail to the west. A 1,500-square foot community room would be integrated in Building B (to the east of the open space) and would be available for public and private events. Further, an active transportation hub is proposed adjacent to the proposed open space and Santa Ana River and could include bicycle lockers, bicycle storage, bicycle repair facilities, and space for community-wide bicycle-share programs and events. Furthermore, the project proposes major multimodal improvements to Sunflower Avenue to enhance the pedestrian and bicyclist experience and to connect to the regional Santa Ana River Trail system. Sunflower Avenue improvements include separated bicycle lanes on both sides of the street, parallel parking on the south side of Sunflower Avenue (further separating the proposed bicycle lane from vehicular traffic), additional landscaping along the project frontage, and striped bicycle crossings. Trail connection improvements, including trail resurfacing and landscaping, are also proposed along the southwest portion of the site westward towards the Santa Ana River Trail. The proposed recreational improvements are analyzed throughout Chapter 5.0, ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION April 2021February 2020 Page 5.12-19 Environmental Analysis. The development of the open space and recreational amenities in the project area would not result in significant impacts to the environment. The project is also required to comply with the Quimby Act and Measure Z, which require dedication of parkland and/or payment of in-lieu fees and payment of impact fees related to open space (see PPP PS-1). Therefore, the project applicant would be required to dedicate land and/or pay in-lieu fees under the terms and conditions of the Development Agreement. Compliance with these regulatory requirements, along with the development of the proposed recreational amenities, would ensure project impacts to park and recreational services are less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. 5.12.5 Cumulative Impacts Fire Protection and Emergency Services Impact 5.12-6: The project, combined with other related projects, could increase demand for CMFD services that could cause significant environmental impacts. [Threshold PSR-1(i)] Impact Analysis: For purposes of fire protection services analysis, cumulative impacts are considered for projects which would also contract with CMFD (i.e., related projects within the City). However, cumulative development would also be subject to payment of development impact fees to offset their respective increases in demand for fire and emergency services. Related projects would also be required to comply with applicable State and local regulations intended to reduce risk of fire and impacts on fire protection services. Cumulative projects would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis at the project-level, as they are implemented, for their potential to impact CMFD’s services. As discussed, project implementation would introduce additional residential, specialty retail, and creative office uses, which would increase demands for CMFD fire protection and emergency services. The project would be required to pay development impact fees collected in accordance with Municipal Code Section 13-270, Establishment of Development Impact Fee or as required per the Development Agreement (see PPP FS-3). In addition, the project would be subject to conformance with PPP FS-1 and -2, SCA FIRE-7 through -10, -13, through -17, -25, and -26, which reduce risk of fire. However, as stated above, CMFD does not have response capabilities to reach the project site within a “best practices” amount of time, and the Building A and parking garage design and locations do not meet CMFD’s fire apparatus access road or hose pull requirements. Therefore, the project’s cumulative impacts to fire protection services would be potentially significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant Impact. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION Page 5.12-20 April 2021February 2020 Police Protection Services Impact 5.12-7: The project, combined with other cumulative projects, would not substantially increase demand for CMPD services that could cause significant environmental impacts. [Threshold PSR-1(ii)] Impact Analysis: For purposes of police protection services analysis, cumulative impacts are considered for projects which would also receive CMPD services (i.e., future development within Costa Mesa). Cumulative development would also contribute to the City’s General Fund through collection of property, sales, and utilities taxes. Future cumulative projects would be reviewed by the CMPD prior to development permit approval to ensure adequate security measures are provided for each site-specific development. Overall, cumulative development would be evaluated on a case-by case basis at the project level, as they are implemented, for their potential to impact CMPD services. Project implementation would introduce residential, specialty retail, creative office, and open space uses, which would increase demands for CMPD services. However, the project’s impact to police protection services would be reduced through implementation of the Development Agreement, which includes payment to provide three sworn police personnel and associated vehicles, as well as collection of property, sales and utilities taxes that contribute to the City’s General Fund. Additionally, the project would implement several crime prevention and security design features, per the Specific Plan. As the project would result in less than significant impacts regarding police protection services, the project’s cumulative impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard. Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. School Services Impact 5.12-8: Development of the proposed project, in combination with related projects, would not adversely impact NMUSD’s facilities and resources. [Threshold PSR-1(iii)] Impact Analysis: For purposes of school services analysis, cumulative impacts are considered for projects also within the NMUSD school boundary (i.e., projects within Costa Mesa and Newport Beach). Cumulative projects would also be subject to SB 50 development impact fees, where are deemed to be full mitigation. Project implementation would introduce additional residential development, which would increase demands for NMUSD school services. However, project implementation would be subject to SB 50, which allows school districts to collect impact fees from developers of new commercial and residential building space. Per PPP SS- 1, the project would be required to pay these development impact fees, which are deemed to be full mitigation. Additionally, the NMUSD schools that would serve the project site have adequate capacity to accommodate future students associated with the project. As the project would result in less than significant impacts regarding ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION April 2021February 2020 Page 5.12-21 school services, the project’s cumulative impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard. Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. Library Services Impact 5.12-9: The project, combined with other cumulative projects, would not substantially increase demands for OCPL services that could cause significant environmental impacts. [Threshold PSR-1(iv)] Impact Analysis: For purposes of library service analysis, cumulative impacts are considered for projects which would also be within the OCPL service area (i.e., future development within the County). Cumulative projects would proportionally fund the County’s funds from property taxes, a portion of which would be dedicated to OCPL services. Cumulative development would be evaluated on a case-by case basis at the project level, as they are implemented, for their potential to impact OCPL services. Project implementation would introduce residents into OCPL’s service area and increase demands for library services. However, the project would contribute towards County property taxes that fund OCPL services throughout the County. These funds would be utilized to upgrade and expand existing and/or planned library facilities and resources, as needed. As the project would result in less than significant impacts in regard to library services, the project’s cumulative impacts would not be cumulatively considerable and would be less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. Park Facilities and Recreation Services Impact 5.12-10: The project, combined with other cumulative projects, would not substantially increase demands for parks and recreational facilities that could cause significant environmental impacts. [Thresholds PSR-1(v), PSR-2, and PSR-3] Impact Analysis: For purposes of parkland and recreational facilities analysis, cumulative impacts are considered for projects which would also result in increased demands on City parks and recreational facilities (i.e., future residential development within Costa Mesa). Cumulative development would also be subject to conformance with PPP PS-1 and dedication of parkland and/or payment of in-lieu fees. Cumulative development would be evaluated on a case-by case basis at the project level, as they are implemented, for their potential to impact City-owned parks and recreational facilities. Project implementation would introduce residents in the City that could increase demands for City parks and recreational facilities. However, the project’s impact to existing parks and recreational services would be reduced ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION Page 5.12-22 April 2021February 2020 to less than significant levels following conformance with PPP PS-1. Specifically, the project would be required to pay in-lieu fees or other impact fees as required per the Development Agreement to offset the project’s anticipated parkland demands. The project also proposes a 1.5-acre open space area, pedestrian and bicyclist improvements along Sunflower Avenue, improved trail connections to the Santa Ana River Trail, and residential recreational amenities. As the project would result in less than significant impacts regarding park and recreation services, the project’s cumulative impacts would not be cumulatively considerable, and impacts in this regard would be less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. 5.12.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation Upon implementation of regulatory requirements, the following impacts would be less than significant: Impacts 5.12-2, 5.12-3, 5.12-4, 5.12-5, 5.12-7, 5.12-8, 5.12-9, and 5.12-10. Without mitigation, the following impacts would be potentially significant: Impact 5.12-1: The proposed project could increase the intensity of the project site, thereby increasing the demand for fire protection facilities and personnel. Impact 5.12-6: The project, combined with other related projects, could increase demand for CMFD services that could cause significant environmental impacts. 5.12.7 Mitigation Measures Impact 5.12-1 PS-1 Prior to issuance of the first occupancy permit, the applicant shall provide written documentation to the City of Costa Mesa Development Services Department that the existing traffic signals along the response corridors from Costa Mesa Fire & Rescue Department (CMFD) Stations 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 to the project site have been retrofitted with Emergency Vehicle Preemption (EVP) as required by CMFD. PS-2 In addition to compliance with standard fire protection requirements of the California Fire Code and referenced standards as adopted by the Costa Mesa Fire & Rescue Department (CMFD), the project shall provide the following three fire protection features in excess of minimum code requirements to ensure the proposed Building A and associated parking garage design meet CMFD’s fire apparatus access road and hose pull requirements: Wet standpipes with one, 2.5-inch connection shall be provided at, or near, the end of each of the 300-foot hose pull reaches; An increase fire sprinkler density of 0.20 gallons per minute (GPM)/1500 without any corresponding reduction in design area due to the use of quick response sprinkler heads shall be included in the sprinkler system design; and ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION April 2021February 2020 Page 5.12-23 A two-hour firefighter tunnel shall be provided to reduce the project’s deficient hose pull. All other apparatus access roads, buildings, and structures on-site shall comply with the fire protection requirements of the California Fire Code and referenced standards as adopted by the CMFD. Impact 5.12-6 Refer to Mitigation Measures PS-1 and PS-2. 5.12.8 Level of Significance after Mitigation Impact 5.12-1 As stated, the project site is located adjacent to the I-405 Freeway and a drainage channel, which makes it challenging for CMFD to provide faster response times to the project site, even from mutual aid fire stations. The Fire Services Deployment Analysis concluded that CMFD does not have the response capabilities to reach the project site or adjacent areas within a 4:00 or 8:00 minute travel time or the desirable urban best practices average response time goal of 7:30 minutes as discussed above. It is also acknowledged that the proposed project is estimated to incrementally increase calls for service at the site from 14 to 101 and contributes traffic incrementally to the surrounding street system. As such, in consultation with CMFD, the project is required to retrofit existing traffic signals along the response corridors from CMFD Stations 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 to include Emergency Vehicle Preemption (EVP) as required by CMFD per Mitigation Measure PS-1. CMFD states that implementation of Mitigation Measure PS-1 is acceptable mitigation to incrementally improve response capabilities to the site. Further, in addition to compliance with standard fire protection requirements of the California Fire Code and referenced standards as adopted by the CMFD, the project is required to provide the following three fire protection features in excess of minimum code requirements to ensure Building A and the associated parking garage design meet CMFD’s fire apparatus access road and hose pull requirements (Mitigation Measure PS-2): Wet standpipes with one, 2.5-inch connection are required at, or near, the end of each of the 300-foot hose pull reaches; An increase fire sprinkler density of 0.20 gallons per minute (GPM)/1500 without any corresponding reduction in design area due to the use of quick response sprinkler heads is required in the sprinkler system design; and A two-hour firefighter tunnel is required to reduce the deficient hose pull. All other apparatus access roads, buildings, and structures on-site are required to comply with the fire protection requirements of the California Fire Code and referenced standards as adopted by the CMFD. CMFD also indicated that, although there are no current plans to increase the number of personnel service in the project area, additional staffing, apparatus, and facilities need to be considered. CMFD is currently conducting a comprehensive Citywide Standards of Coverage Assessment and deployment analysis that is ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION Page 5.12-24 April 2021February 2020 independent of the proposed project. The City is also concurrently conducting a Development Impact Fee Study to account for similar changes of use that result in net increases to call volumes. In the meantime, to mitigate the impacts of the project-generated increase in anticipated calls for service, CMFD has accepted PPP FS-3, which requires the negotiation of fees through the Development Agreement with an understanding that the developer will be required to pay its pro-rata share of additional staffing, apparatus, and facilities. As stated above, the project would be required to pay development impact fees established based on the Citywide Standards of Coverage Assessment and the Development Impact Fee Study and as required in the Development Agreement in accordance with PPP FS-3 and Municipal Code Section 13-270, Establishment of Development Impact Fee. The revenues raised by the development impact fee, the Development Agreement, and the proportionate revenues generated through the project’s ongoing payment of taxes (and other similar project-related revenues) would fund fire protection staffing, facilities, and equipment and would offset the project’s incremental impacts to fire services. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measures PS-1 and PS-2 and all relevant SCAs and PPPs, impacts related to fire protection services would be less than significant. Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Impact 5.12-6 Refer to the discussion above. The project’s impacts would be offset by implementation of Mitigation Measures PS-1 and PS-2, which require retrofitting existing traffic signals along the response corridors from CMFD Stations 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 to the project site with EVP and implementing fire protection features in excess of minimum California Fire Code and CMFD requirements for proposed Building A and its associated parking garage. Further, development impact fees collected in accordance with Municipal Code Section 13-270, Establishment of Development Impact Fee, funds as required per the Development Agreement (PPP FS-3), and the proportionate revenues generated through the project’s ongoing payment of taxes (and other similar project- related revenues) would offset the project’s demands on CMFD services. In addition, the project would be subject to conformance with PPP FS-1 and -2, SCA FIRE-7 through -10, -13, through -17, -25, and -26, which reduce risk of fire. As the project would result in less than significant impacts regarding fire facilities with implementation of Mitigation Measures PS-1 and PS-2 and all applicable PPPs and SCAs, the project’s cumulative impacts to fire protection services would not be cumulatively considerable. Impacts in this regard are less than significant. Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I February 2020April 2021 Chapter 5.13 Transportation ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I February 2020April 2021 This page intentionally left blank. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis April 2021February 2020 Page 5.13-1 5.13 TRANSPORTATION This section of the Draft EIR evaluates the potential for the project to impact transportation infrastructure on-site and in the project area. The analysis in this section is based in part on: the Traffic Impact Analysis: One Metro West, City of Costa Mesa Orange County, California (TIA), LSA, January 2020; and One Metro West Phased Project Construction Analysis (Construction Phasing Memo), LSA, February 2, 2021. A cComplete copiesy of this study is these studies are provided in this Draft EIR (Volume II, Appendix M, Traffic Impact Analysis, and Appendix P, Construction Phasing Memo). 5.13.1 Environmental Setting 5.13.1.1 REGULATORY BACKGROUND State Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act (Senate Bill [SB] 375) was signed into law on September 30, 2008. SB 375 provides incentives for cities and developers to bring housing and jobs closer together and to improve public transit. The goal behind SB 375 is to reduce automobile commuting trips and length of automobile trips, thus helping to meet the Statewide targets for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions set by the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill [AB] 32). SB 375 requires each metropolitan planning organization to add a broader vision for growth, called a “sustainable communities strategy” (SCS), to its transportation plan. The SCS must lay out a plan to meet the region’s transportation, housing, economic, and environmental needs in a way that enables the area to lower greenhouse gas emissions. The SCS should integrate transportation, land use, and housing policies to plan for achievement of the regional emissions target. Senate Bill 743 On September 27, 2013, SB 743 was signed into law. The legislature found that with the adoption of the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 (SB 375), the State had signaled its commitment to encourage land use and transportation planning decisions and investments that reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and thereby contribute to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, as required by AB 32. SB 743 started a process that changes how transportation impacts are analyzed under CEQA. These changes include the elimination of automobile delay, level of service (LOS), and similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion as the basis for determining significant impacts under CEQA. As part of the new CEQA Guidelines, the new criteria “shall promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses.” The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) developed alternative metrics and thresholds based on VMT. The guidelines were certified by ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION Page 5.13-2 April 2021February 2020 the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency in December 2018 to specify that automobile delay, as described solely by LOS or similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion, is not considered a significant impact on the environment. Agencies have until July 1, 2020 to adopt new VMT-based criteria for evaluating traffic impacts.1 OPR also published a Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (Technical Advisory) in December 2018 to provide technical recommendations regarding assessment of VMT, thresholds of significance, and mitigation measures (OPR 2018). California Department of Transportation Intersections associated with freeway on-ramps and off-ramps fall under the California Department of Transportation’s (Caltrans) jurisdiction. Caltrans is the primary State agency responsible for transportation issues. Caltrans approves the planning, design, and construction of improvements for all State-controlled facilities, including the San Diego Freeway (I-405 Freeway). Caltrans has established standards for roadway traffic flow and developed procedures to determine if State-controlled facilities require improvements. Caltrans utilizes the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (HCM) methodology to evaluate intersections within its jurisdiction. LOS criteria for unsignalized intersections differ from LOS criteria for signalized intersections as signalized intersections are designed for heavier traffic and therefore, a greater delay. Unsignalized intersections are also associated with more uncertainty for users, as delays are less predictable, which can reduce users’ delay tolerance. Regional Southern California Association of Governments The Southern California Association of Governments’ (SCAG) 2016 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) provides a regional transportation plan for six counties in Southern California: Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Los Angeles, Ventura, and Imperial. The primary goal of the regional transportation plan is to increase mobility for the region. With recent legislation, this plan also encompasses sustainability as a key principle in future development. Current and recent transportation plan goals generally focus on balanced transportation and land use planning that: Maximize mobility and accessibility for all people and goods in the region. Ensure travel safety and reliability for all people and goods in the region. Preserve and ensure a sustainable regional transportation system. Maximize the productivity of our transportation system. Protect the environment and health of residents by improving air quality and encouraging active transportation (e.g., bicycling and walking). Encourage land use and growth patterns that facilitate transit and active transportation. 1 The analysis included in this section evaluates the traffic impacts of the proposed project based on LOS. Although the City has yet to adopt specific VMT criteria, VMT considerations are made as well.. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION April 2021February 2020 Page 5.13-3 Orange County Transportation Authority Congestion Management PlanProgram The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) is the subregional planning agency for Orange County. In June 1990, the Proposition 111 gas tax increase required California’s urbanized areas (areas with populations of 50,000 or more) to adopt a Congestion Management Program (CMP). The CMP is intended to link transportation, land use, and air quality decisions and to address the impact of local growth on the regional transportation system. Compliance with CMP requirements ensures a city’s eligibility to compete for State gas tax funds for local transportation projects. The Orange County CMP was established in 1991, and the most recent CMP was adopted in 2017. An updated CMP was considered by the OCTA Board of Directors on November 25, 2019 and is currently being considered by SCAG for a finding of regional consistency (OCTA 2019a). Local General Plan The Growth Management Element and Circulation Element of the General Plan includes goals, objectives, recommendations, and policies related to circulation and mobility. Most notably, Policy C-2.8 of the Circulation Element establishes Level of Service (LOS) “D” as the threshold for meeting the City’s significance criteria. Other relevant goals, policies, and objectives referenced in this analysis are identified below. 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-1A: Create a transportation network that meets the mobility needs of all Costa Mesa residents, businesses, and visitors. - Policy C-1.5: Implement road diets on street segments with excess capacity to enhance bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Goal C-3: Enhance Regional Mobility and Coordination. Encourage development of a regional transportation network that addresses regional mobility needs for all modes of travel. Objective C-3A: Promote development of transportation projects along regional corridors. - Policy C-3.1: 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-3.3: 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. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION Page 5.13-4 April 2021February 2020 Objective C-3B: Coordinate and partner with local and regional agencies to promote projects and polices that improve regional mobility. - Policy C-3.8: 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 or joint control. Intersection Level of Service analyses for General Plan conditions for locations under State or joint control will be updated periodically and presented to the City Council. 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-5A: Coordinate land use policies and development activities that support a sustainable transportation system. - Policy C-5.2: Require that large developments and redevelopments provide short-term and long- term vehicular traffic impact studies. - Policy C-5.3: Encourage permitted General Plan land uses which generate high traffic volumes to be located near major transit and transportation corridors to minimize vehicle use, congestion, and delay. - Policy C-5.5: Promote development of mixed-use projects to reduce number of vehicle trips. - Policy C-5.6: Coordinate the design and improvement of pedestrian and bicycle ways in major residential, shopping and employment centers, parks, schools, other public facilities, public transportation facilities, and bicycle networks with adjacent cities. - Policy C-5.9: Require that circulation necessary to provide or attain the minimum traffic level of service standard at an intersection to which a development project contributes measurable traffic be completed within three years of issuance of the first building permit for such development project, unless additional right-of-way or coordination with other government agencies is required to complete the improvement. Improvements may be required sooner if, because of extraordinary traffic generation characteristics of the project or extraordinary impacts to the surrounding circulation system, such improvements are necessary to prevent significant adverse impacts. Objective C-5B: Establish strategies and processes that allow large developments to analyze and mitigate traffic impacts and infrastructure needs. - Policy C-5.13: Require that new development projects improve access to and accommodations for multimodal transportation. - Policy C-5.15: Consider the needs of the transportation and infrastructure system early for large developments and coordinate with developers to design projects that minimize traffic impacts and infrastructure demands, and implement complete streets wherever feasible. Alternatively, address ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION April 2021February 2020 Page 5.13-5 transportation and infrastructure system impacts through the implementation of development agreements. Goal C-7: Promote a Friendly Active Transportation System in Costa Mesa. Create a bicycle and pedestrian friendly environment throughout Costa Mesa for all types of users and all trip purposes in accordance with the five “Es:” Education, Encouragement, Enforcement, Engineering, and Evaluation. Objective C-7A: Expand, enhance, and protect the existing bicycle and pedestrian network to provide a comprehensive, system of Class I, Class II, Class III, and Class IV facilities to increase connectivity between homes, jobs, schools transit, and recreational resources in Costa Mesa. - Recommendation C-7.1: Develop an extensive bicycle and pedestrian backbone network through the use of standard and appropriate innovative treatments. - Recommendation C-7.4: Where feasible, Class I shared-use paths should be a priority for future developments. - Recommendation C-7.10: Support bicycle improvement projects that close gaps in the regional bicycle network either by implementing specific projects recommended in the Plan or through other treatments. - Recommendation C-7.11: Encourage bicycle projects that connect local facilities and neighborhoods to major bicycle corridors. Objective C-7B: Provide end-of-trip facilities that support the bicycle network. - Recommendation C-7.22: Pursue public-private partnerships to furnish local businesses with secure bike parking and other related amenities. - Recommendation C-7.26: Prioritize the installation of bicycle-scale and/or pedestrian-scale lighting. Objective C-9B: Integrate bicycle and pedestrian facility improvements during planning, design and implementation of transportation projects. - Recommendation C-9.3: Require new developments provide adequate bicycle parking and pedestrian access. - Recommendation C-9.5: Encourage the integration of compatible land uses and housing into major development projects to reduce vehicle use. - Recommendation C-9.14: Detours through or around construction zones should be designed for safety and convenience, and with adequate signage for cyclists and pedestrians. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION Page 5.13-6 April 2021February 2020 Existing Roadway Network Existing Study Area Regional/Local Roadways Regional access to the project site is provided by the I-405 Freeway, State Route 73 (SR-73; San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor), and State Route 55 (SR-55; Costa Mesa Freeway). Harbor Boulevard and Sunflower Avenue are the major roadways that provide local access to the site; Hyland Avenue and Cadillac Avenue extend perpendicularly from Sunflower Avenue to the east and west, respectively. The following is a brief description of the roadway network in the project site area: Harbor Boulevard: Harbor Boulevard is a north-south oriented, six-to-eight-lane divided roadway. The General Plan Circulation Element designates Harbor Boulevard as a Major Arterial. The speed limit is 40 miles per hour (mph). Curbside parking is not permitted on either side of the street. Sunflower Avenue: Sunflower Avenue is an east-west oriented, four-lane divided roadway that provides direct access to the project from the north. It is designated as a Primary Arterial between Hyland Avenue and Bear Street, and as a Major Arterial east of Bear Street by the General Plan Circulation Element. In the vicinity of the project, Sunflower Avenue terminates at the south end of Cadillac Avenue. The speed limit within the study area varies between 40 and 45 mph. Curbside parking is not permitted on either side of the street. Hyland Avenue: Hyland Avenue is a north-south oriented, four-lane undivided roadway and is designated as a Primary Arterial by the General Plan Circulation Element. The speed limit is 40 mph. Curbside parking is not permitted on either side of the street. Cadillac Avenue: Cadillac Avenue is a north-south oriented, two-lane undivided roadway. Cadillac Avenue is not classified in the General Plan Circulation Element. There is no posted speed limit on Cadillac Avenue. Curbside parking is not permitted on either side of the street. Euclid Street: Euclid Street is a divided north-south six-lane roadway within the City of Fountain Valley. It is designated as an Augmented Primary Arterial north of Newhope Street and as a Primary Arterial south of Newhope Street in the City of Fountain Valley’s General Plan. South of the I-405 Freeway, Euclid Street continues as Ellis Avenue. The speed limit along Euclid Street is 45 mph. Curbside parking is not permitted on either side of the street. Newhope Street: Newhope Street is a north-south oriented, four-lane divided roadway located within the City of Fountain Valley. South of Euclid Street, Newhope Street terminates at the I-405 Freeway as northbound ramps. It is designated as a Secondary Arterial in the City of Fountain Valley’s General Plan. The speed limit along Newhope Street is 40 mph. Curbside parking is not permitted on either side of the street. Talbert Avenue/W. MacArthur Boulevard: Talbert Avenue is an east-west oriented, six-lane divided roadway within the City of Fountain Valley and City of Costa Mesa. Talbert Avenue continues as West MacArthur Boulevard (west of Harbor Boulevard) within the City of Santa Ana. It is designated as a Primary Arterial west of Euclid Street and as an Augmented Primary Arterial east of Euclid Street by the City of Fountain Valley General Plan. In the City of Costa Mesa, Talbert Avenue is designated as a Primary Arterial between the western City limit and Hyland Avenue, and as a Major Arterial between Hyland Avenue and the eastern City limit per the General Plan. MacArthur Boulevard is designated as a Major Arterial ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION April 2021February 2020 Page 5.13-7 within the City of Santa Ana General Plan Circulation Element. The speed limit within the study area varies between 40 and 45 mph. Curbside parking is not permitted on either side of the street. South Coast Drive: South Coast Drive is an east-west oriented, four-lane divided roadway within the City of Costa Mesa. It is designated as a Primary Arterial in the City’s Circulation Element. The speed limit is 45 mph. Curbside parking is not permitted on either side of the street. Susan Street: Susan Street a north-south oriented, four-lane divided roadway between Sunflower Avenue and I-405 Freeway and a two-lane roadway north of Sunflower Avenue within the City of Costa Mesa. Though it is not classified in the General Plan Circulation Element, it functions as an arterial south of Sunflower Avenue and as a collector north of Sunflower Avenue. The speed limit is 35 mph. Curbside parking is not permitted on either side of the street. Fairview Road: Fairview Road is a north-south oriented, six-lane divided roadway. The General Plan Circulation Element classifies it as a Major Arterial. The speed limit is 45 mph. Curbside parking is not permitted on either side of the street. Additionally, the intersection of the I-405 Freeway Southbound Ramps/Ellis Avenue-Euclid Street is currently being improved as part of the I-405 Freeway Improvement Project by adding a new eastbound slip-on ramp from Ellis Avenue to the southbound I-405 Freeway, thereby eliminating the dual left-turn lanes from eastbound Ellis Avenue to the existing I-405 Freeway southbound on ramp. This improvement would be completed prior to the proposed project’s opening year. Therefore, these improvements have been considered as the intersection configuration under future short-term cumulative (2027) and General Plan buildout (2040) conditions. Study Area Intersections The study area for the project was identified per the City’s Transit Impact Analysis guidelines, based on those intersections where the project would add 50 or more trips. In addition, based on agency consultation, the TIA also includes study intersections in neighboring cities of Fountain Valley and Santa Ana. As a result, the study area consists of the following 29 intersections within the jurisdictions of Costa Mesa, Fountain Valley, Santa Ana, and Caltrans; refer to Figure 5.13-1, Study Area Intersections: 1. Euclid Street/Talbert Avenue (Fountain Valley); 2. Euclid Street/I-405 Freeway Northbound Ramps-Newhope Street (Caltrans); 3. I-405 Freeway Southbound Ramps-Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) Driveway/Ellis Avenue-Euclid Street (Caltrans); 4. Newhope Street/Talbert Avenue (Fountain Valley); 5. Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) Bus Base-Hyland Avenue/MacArthur Boulevard (Costa Mesa/Santa Ana); 6. Hyland Avenue/Sunflower Avenue (Costa Mesa); 7. Hyland Avenue/I-405 Freeway Northbound Ramps-South Coast Drive (Caltrans); 8. Harbor Boulevard/MacArthur Boulevard (Costa Mesa/Santa Ana); 9. Harbor Boulevard/Scenic Avenue-West Lake Center Drive (Costa Mesa/Santa Ana); 10. Harbor Boulevard/Sunflower Avenue (Costa Mesa/Santa Ana); 11. Harbor Boulevard/South Coast Drive (Costa Mesa); ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION Page 5.13-8 April 2021February 2020 12. Harbor Boulevard/I-405 Freeway Northbound Off-Ramp-I-405 Freeway Southbound On-Ramp (Caltrans); 13. Harbor Boulevard/I-405 Freeway Southbound Off-Ramp-I-405 Freeway Northbound On-Ramp (Caltrans); 14. Harbor Boulevard/Gisler Avenue (Costa Mesa); 15. Harbor Boulevard/Nutmeg Place (Costa Mesa); 16. Harbor Boulevard/Baker Street (Costa Mesa); 17. Susan Street/Sunflower Avenue (Costa Mesa/Santa Ana); 18. Susan Street/South Coast Drive (Costa Mesa); 19. Fairview Street/MacArthur Boulevard (Santa Ana); 20. Fairview Road/Sunflower Avenue (Costa Mesa/Santa Ana); 21. Fairview Road/South Coast Drive (Costa Mesa); 22. Fairview Road/I-405 Freeway Northbound Ramps (Caltrans); 23. Fairview Road/I-405 Freeway Southbound Ramps (Caltrans); 24. Fairview Road/Baker Street (Costa Mesa); 25. Cadillac Avenue-Driveway 1/Sunflower Avenue (Costa Mesa); 26. Driveway 2/Sunflower Avenue (Costa Mesa); 27. FedEx Driveway-Driveway 3/Sunflower Avenue (Costa Mesa); 28. Talbert Avenue/Mt. Washington Street (Fountain Valley); and 29. Harbor Boulevard/Segerstrom Avenue (Costa Mesa). ONE METRO WEST ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Figure 5.13-1 Study Area Intersections 04/21 JN 172326 NOT TO SCALE ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! §¨¦405 §¨¦405 SOUTH COAST DRIVE SUNFLOWER AVENUE FA I R V I E W R O A D HA R B O R B O U L E V A R D TALBERT AVENUE ELLIS AVENUE NEWHOPE STREET WEST LAKE CENTER DRIVESCENIC AVENUE GISLER AVENUE BAKER STREET SUSAN STREET FAIRVIEW STREET SEGESTORM AVENUE EUCLID STREET NUTMEG PLACE MACARTHUR BOULEVARD HYLAND AVENUE CADILLAC AVENUEMT WASHINGTON STREET 14 12 15 16 11 10 9 6 7 13 85 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 41 2 3 24 272625 29 28 SOURCE: ESRI Streetmap, 2013. I:\RSE1801\Reports\Traffic\fig1-4_Study_Intersections.mxd (9/27/2019) FIGURE 1-4 One Metro West Traffic Impact Analysis Study Area Intersections 0 1000 2000 FEET S!!N LEGEND Project Location Project Driveway !Study Intersection Source: LSA, 2019. ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! §¨¦405 §¨¦405 SOUTH COAST DRI VE SUNFLOWER AVENUE FA I R V I E W R O A D HA R B O R B O U L E V A R D TALBERT AVENUE ELLIS AVENUE NEWHOPE STREET WEST LAKE CENTER DRIVESCENIC AVENUE GISLER AVENUE BAKER STREET SUSAN STREET FAIRVIEW STREET SEGESTORM AVENUE EUCLID STREET NUTMEG PLACE MACARTHUR BOULEVARD HYLAND AVENUE CADILLAC AVENUEMT WASHINGTON STREET 14 12 15 16 11 10 9 6 7 13 85 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 41 2 3 24 272625 29 28 SOURCE: ESRI Streetmap, 2013. I:\RSE1801\Reports\Traffic\fig1-4_Study_Intersections.mxd (9/27/2019) FIGURE 1-4 One Metro West Traffic Impact Analysis Study Area Intersections 01000 2000 FEET S!!N LEGEND Project Location Project Driveway !Study Intersection ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION Page 5.13-10 April 2021February 2020 Freeway Segments Freeway mainline segments typically have a peak hour capacity of 2,300 vehicles per hour per lane. As such, for a four lane freeway (two lanes each direction), the total capacity is 9,200 vehicles per lane. A project has the potential to create an impact if it adds greater than 1 percent or more two-way peak hour project traffic (approximately 100 peak hour trips) to the freeway. This is the approach Caltrans typically recommends for inclusion in traffic impact assessments to determine project impacts at Caltrans facilities. Therefore, a merge/diverge analysis was conducted at interchanges where the project adds more than 100 two-way peak hour project trips. Additionally, freeway segments with more than 100 two-way peak hour project trips were also included in the analysis. The following freeway ramp merge/diverge and segments were analyzed: Northbound I-405 Freeway 1. I-405 Freeway segment, south of Fairview Road On-Ramp; 2. Fairview Road On-Ramp (merge); 3. I-405 Freeway segment, between Fairview Road On-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard On-Ramp; 4. Harbor Boulevard On-Ramp (merge); 5. I-405 Freeway segment, between Harbor Boulevard On-Ramp and Hyland Avenue On-Ramp; and 6. Hyland Avenue On-Ramp (merge). Southbound I-405 Freeway 1. Harbor Boulevard Off-Ramp (diverge); 2. I-405 Freeway segment, between Harbor Boulevard Off-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Loop On- Ramp; 3. Harbor Boulevard Loop On-Ramp (merge); 4. I-405 Freeway segment, between Harbor Boulevard Loop On-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Slip-On Ramp; 5. Harbor Boulevard Slip-On Ramp (merge); and 6. I-405 Freeway segment, between Harbor Boulevard Slip-On Ramp and Fairview Road Off-Ramp (weave). 5.13.1.2 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES Intersection Level of Service Methodology LOS is a qualitative assessment of the quantitative effects of such factors as traffic volume, roadway geometrics, speed, delay, and maneuverability on roadway and intersection operations. LOS is assigned along the following letter gradient where LOS A represents free-flow activity, and LOS F represents overcapacity operation. LOS definitions using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) and HCM methodologies are provided below. Consistent with City standards, study area intersections under the jurisdiction of the City were analyzed using ICU methodology for signalized intersections and HCM (6th Edition) methodologies for unsignalized intersections. The City’s ICU worksheets and the Synchro 10 software were utilized to determine the LOS for signalized and unsignalized intersections, respectively. These programs calculate LOS based on traffic volume ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION April 2021February 2020 Page 5.13-11 and intersection geometry inputs. LOS for study intersections under the jurisdiction of the Caltrans was determined using both ICU and HCM methodologies. Intersection Capacity Utilization ICU methodology compares the level of traffic during peak hours (volume) to the amount of traffic an intersection is able to process (capacity). The resulting volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratio is expressed in terms of LOS. The ICU establishes LOS A through F for intersections. Table 5.13-1, LOS Criteria for Signalized Intersections (ICU Methodology) describes LOS A through F criteria for signalized intersections using the ICU methodology. Table 5.13-1 LOS Criteria for Signalized Intersections (ICU Methodology) LOS Signalized Intersection Volume-to-Capacity Ratio Description A < 0.600 No approach phase is fully utilized by traffic, and no vehicle waits longer than one red indication. Typically, the approach appears quite open, turns are made easily, and nearly all drivers find freedom of operation. B 0.601 – 0.700 This service level represents stable operation, where an occasional approach phase is fully utilized, and a substantial number are nearing full use. Many drivers begin to feel restricted within platoons of vehicles. C 0.701– 0.800 This level still represents stable operating conditions. Occasionally, drivers may have to wait through more than one red signal indication, and backups may develop behind turning vehicles. Most drivers feel somewhat restricted, but not objectionably so. D 0.801– 0.900 This level encompasses a zone of increasing restriction approaching instability at the intersection. Delays to approaching vehicles may be substantial during short peaks within the peak period; however, enough cycles with lower demand occur to permit periodic clearance of developing queues, thus preventing excessive backups. E 0.901– 1.000 Capacity occurs at the upper end of this service level. It represents the most vehicles that any particular intersection approach can accommodate. Full utilization of every signal cycle is attained no matter how great the demand. F > 1.000 This level describes forced-flow operations at low speeds, where volumes exceed capacity. These conditions usually result from queues of vehicles backing up from a restriction downstream. Speeds are reduced substantially, and stoppages may occur for short or long periods of time due to the congestion. In the extreme case, speed can drop to zero. Source: LSA 2020b. Highway Capacity Manual In the HCM methodology, control delay alone is used to characterize LOS for the entire intersection. Control delay quantifies the increase in travel time due to the traffic signal control and is a surrogate measure of driver discomfort and fuel consumption. A complete description of the meaning of LOS can be found in the Transportation Research Board Special Report 209. The HCM establishes LOS A through F for intersections. Table 5.13-2, LOS Criteria for Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections (HCM Methodology) describes the LOS A through F criteria for signalized and unsignalized intersections using the HCM methodology. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION Page 5.13-12 April 2021February 2020 Table 5.13-2 LOS Criteria for Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections (HCM Methodology) LOS Unsignalized Intersection Average Delay per Vehicle (sec.) Signalized Intersection Average Delay per Vehicle (sec.) Description A ≤ 10 ≤ 10 Traffic operations with a control delay of 10 seconds per vehicle or less and a volume- to-capacity ratio no greater than 1.0. This level is typically assigned when the volume- to-capacity ratio is low and either progression is exceptionally favorable or the cycle length is very short. If LOS A is the result of favorable progression, most vehicles arrive during the green indication and travel through the intersection without stopping. B > 10 and ≤ 15 > 10 and ≤ 20 Traffic operations with control delay between 10 seconds per vehicle and 20 seconds per vehicle and a volume-to-capacity ratio no greater than 1.0. This level is typically assigned when the volume-to-capacity ratio is low and either progression is highly favorable or the cycle length is short. More vehicles stop than with LOS A. C > 15 and ≤ 25 > 20 and ≤ 35 Traffic operations with control delay between 20 and 35 seconds per vehicle and a volume-to-capacity ratio no greater than 1.0. This level is typically assigned when progression is favorable or the cycle length is moderate. Individual cycle failures (i.e., one or more queued vehicles are not able to depart as a result of the insufficient capacity during the cycle) may begin to appear at this level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant, although many vehicles still pass through the intersection without stopping. D > 25 and ≤ 35 > 35 and ≤ 55 Traffic operations with control delay between 35 and 55 seconds per vehicle and a volume-to-capacity ratio no greater than 1.0. This level is typically assigned when the volume-to-capacity ratio is high and either progression is ineffective or the cycle length is long. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable. E > 35 and ≤ 50 > 55 and ≤ 80 Traffic operations with control delay between 55 and 80 seconds per vehicle and a volume-to-capacity ratio no greater than 1.0. This level is typically assigned when volume-to-capacity ratio is high, progression is unfavorable, and the cycle length is long. Individual cycle failures are frequent. F > 50 > 80 Traffic operations with control delay exceeding 80 seconds per vehicle or a volume-to- capacity ratio greater than 1.0. This level is typically assigned when the volume-to- capacity ratio is very high, progression is very poor, and the cycle length is long. Most cycles fail to clear the queue. Source: LSA 2020b. Freeway Level of Service Methodology Basic freeway segments have uniform traffic conditions and roadway characteristics. The measure used to provide an estimate of LOS is density, where density is calculated from the average vehicle flow rate per lane and the average speed. Table 5.13-3, LOS Criteria for Freeway Analysis, shows the correlation between LOS and flow density. LOS A represents a freeway segment with density less than or equal to 11 passenger cars per mile per lane (pc/mi/ln). LOS F represents a freeway segment with density greater than 45 pc/mi/ln. Based on the HCM, the LOS for freeway ramps is determined by traffic flow density. Table 5.13-3 shows the correlation between LOS and traffic flow density defined in the HCM. LOS A represents traffic flow density less than or equal to 10 pc/mi/ln (all vehicles will be converted to the equivalent of passenger cars). LOS F represents overflow conditions with high density and congestion. Based on the HCM, the LOS for freeway weaving segments is determined by traffic flow density. Table 5.13-3 shows the correlation between LOS and traffic flow density defined in the HCM. LOS A represents traffic flow density less than or equal to 10 pc/mi/ln (all vehicles will be converted to the equivalent of passenger cars). ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION April 2021February 2020 Page 5.13-13 LOS F represents a freeway weaving segment with a density greater than 43 pc/mi/ln, or where demand exceeds capacity. For freeway segments, ramp merge/diverge study areas, and weaving segments, the Highway Capacity Software Sixth Edition (HCS 6) was used. The software calculates freeway segments and ramp merge/ diverge densities using the HCM 6 methodologies. Table 5.13-3 LOS Criteria for Freeway Analysis LOS LOS Criteria for Freeway Segments (Density: pc/mi/ln) LOS Criteria for Ramps and Ramp Junctions (Density: pc/mi/ln) LOS Criteria for Freeway Weaving Segments (Density: pc/mi/ln) A ≤ 11 ≤ 10 ≤ 10 B >11 and <18 > 10–20 > 10–20 C >17 and <26 > 20–28 > 20–28 D >26 and <35 > 28–35 > 28–35 E >35 and <45 > 35 > 35–43 F >45 Demand exceeds capacity >43 or demand exceeds capacity Source: LSA 2020b. Traffic Count Methodology Existing traffic volumes are based on a.m. and p.m. peak hour turning movement counts collected by Counts Unlimited in March 2019. Traffic conditions were examined for the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour conditions. The a.m. peak hour is defined as the one hour of highest traffic volumes occurring between 7:00 and 9:00 a.m. The p.m. peak hour is the one hour of highest traffic volumes occurring between 4:00 and 6:00 p.m. However, due to ongoing construction activities related to the I-405 Improvement Project, some of the I-405 ramps on Fairview Road were closed at the time the counts were collected. Also, some of the traffic on Fairview Street/Fairview Road was diverted because of this closure. As a result, counts collected by Counts Unlimited in September 2018 (prior to these construction activities) were used instead for all the intersections on Fairview Street/Fairview Road. A one percent growth was then added to the September 2018 counts at the study intersections along Fairview Street/Fairview Road to develop year 2019 counts at these intersections. Detailed count sheets are provided in Appendix A of the TIA; refer to Appendix M. Typically, freeway traffic volumes are developed using Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) volume data published by Caltrans. The most recent Caltrans AADT are from year 2017. These volumes were utilized to develop existing (2019) conditions freeway volumes, which was used to prepare a LOS analysis. However, as shown in Appendix B of the TIA, the LOS results along the freeway segments do not appropriately reflect the traffic conditions that currently exist. Therefore, existing freeway segment bidirectional volumes are derived from the I-405 Improvement Project Final Environmental Impact Report (I-405 Freeway Improvement Project FEIR), dated March 2015. The I-405 Freeway Improvement Project FEIR analyzed freeway volumes under year 2009 and 2020 conditions. Freeway volumes for year 2019 were developed by interpolating the volumes between 2009 and 2020 provided in the No Build Alternative. For ramp influence areas, vehicles entering and exiting a ramp are based on peak hour turning movement counts shown in TIA Figure 4-1, Existing Peak Hour Traffic Volumes , of Appendix M. The percentage of trucks at study area freeway segments is reflective of the historic truck volume percentages from volume data published by Caltrans in 2017. For the project study area, trucks ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION Page 5.13-14 April 2021February 2020 consist of 3.49 percent of the daily AADT volume. The daily percentage was applied to both peak hours to estimate the number of trucks during the peak hours. The resulting trucks were converted to Passenger Car Equivalent (PCE) volumes. The concept of PCE accounts for the larger impact of trucks on traffic operations. It does so by assigning each type of truck a PCE factor that represents the number of passenger vehicles that could travel through an intersection in the same time that a particular type of truck could. Consistent with the HCM methodologies, a PCE factor of 2.0 was used for freeway segments and ramps. Existing Traffic Conditions As discussed above, the TIA prepared for the project includes 29 study intersections and 12 freeway ramp merge/diverge locations and segments. Existing Traffic Level of Service An intersection LOS analysis was conducted for existing conditions using the methodologies discussed above. Table 5.13-4, Existing Intersection Level of Service Summary, summarizes the results of the analysis and shows that the following intersections are currently operating at a deficient LOS: 2. Euclid Street/I-405 Freeway Northbound Ramps - Newhope Street (a.m. peak hour only); 3. I-405 Freeway Southbound Ramps/Ellis Avenue Street (p.m. peak hour only); and 28. Talbert Avenue/Mt. Washington Street (both a.m. and p.m. peak hours based on the City of Fountain Valley LOS Standards). Table 5.13-4 Existing Intersection Level of Service Summary No. Intersection Jurisdiction Traffic Control AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay LOS Delay LOS 1 Euclid Street/Talbert Avenue Fountain Valley Signal 0.66 B 0.85 D 2 Euclid Street/I-405 Northbound Ramps - Newhope Street Caltrans Signal 0.96 E 0.77 C HCM 30.70 C 34.80 C 3 I-405 Southbound Ramps/Ellis Avenue - Euclid Street[1] Caltrans Signal 0.77 C 0.76 C HCM Signal 41.10 D 73.00 E 4 Newhope Street/Talbert Avenue Fountain Valley Signal 0.82 D 0.73 C 5 OCTA Bus Base - Hyland Avenue/MacArthur Boulevard Costa Mesa Signal 0.57 A 0.75 C Santa Ana Signal 0.60 A 0.75 C 6 Hyland Avenue/Sunflower Avenue Costa Mesa Signal 0.28 A 0.60 A 7 Hyland Avenue/I-405 Northbound Ramps - South Coast Drive Caltrans Signal 0.29 A 0.51 A HCM 23.20 C 21.20 C 8 Harbor Boulevard/MacArthur Boulevard Costa Mesa Signal 0.76 C 0.77 C Santa Ana Signal 0.77 C 0.78 C 9 Harbor Boulevard/Scenic Avenue - West Lake Center Drive Costa Mesa Signal 0.64 B 0.82 D Santa Ana Signal 0.65 B 0.83 D 10 Harbor Boulevard/Sunflower Avenue Costa Mesa Signal 0.57 A 0.72 C Santa Ana Signal 0.58 A 0.72 C 11 Harbor Boulevard/South Coast Drive Costa Mesa Signal 0.50 A 0.68 B 12 Harbor Boulevard/I-405 NB Off-Ramp - I-405 SB On-Ramp Caltrans Signal 0.61 B 0.69 B HCM 14.90 B 20.60 C ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION Table 5.13-4 Existing Intersection Level of Service Summary, continued April 2021February 2020 Page 5.13-1 No. Intersection Jurisdiction Traffic Control AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay LOS Delay LOS 13 Harbor Boulevard/I-405 SB Off-Ramp - I-405 NB On-Ramp Caltrans Signal 0.50 A 0.64 B HCM 10.00 A 12.70 B 14 Harbor Boulevard/Gisler Avenue Costa Mesa Signal 0.58 A 0.72 C 15 Harbor Boulevard/Nutmeg Place Costa Mesa Signal 0.49 A 0.55 A 16 Harbor Boulevard/Baker Street Costa Mesa Signal 0.54 A 0.60 A 17 Susan Street/Sunflower Avenue Costa Mesa Signal 0.38 A 0.72 C Santa Ana Signal 0.38 A 0.73 C 18 Susan Street/South Coast Drive Costa Mesa Signal 0.39 A 0.75 C 19 Fairview Street/MacArthur Boulevard Santa Ana Signal 0.69 B 0.84 D 20 Fairview Road/Sunflower Avenue Costa Mesa Signal 0.68 B 0.65 B Santa Ana Signal 0.68 B 0.65 B 21 Fairview Road/South Coast Drive Costa Mesa Signal 0.69 B 0.77 C 22 Fairview Road/I-405 Northbound Ramps Caltrans Signal 0.64 B 0.64 B HCM 29.10 C 21.30 C 23 Fairview Road/I-405 Southbound Ramps Caltrans Signal 0.82 D 0.62 B HCM 20.90 C 16.20 B 24 Fairview Road/Baker Street Costa Mesa Signal 0.66 B 0.64 B 25 Cadillac Avenue - Driveway 1/Sunflower Avenue HCM Costa Mesa OWSC 8.40 A 9.50 A 26 Driveway 2/Sunflower Avenue HCM Costa Mesa OWSC 8.80 A 0.00 A 27 FedEx Driveway - Driveway 3/Sunflower Avenue HCM Costa Mesa TWSC 9.90 A 10.40 B 28 Talbert Avenue/Mt. Washington Street HCM Fountain Valley TWSC >100 F >100 F 29 Harbor Boulevard/Segerstrom Avenue Santa Ana Signal 0.85 D 0.85 D Source: LSA 2020b. Notes: OWSC = One-Way Stop Control ; TWSC = Two-Way Stop Control; HCM = Highway Capacity Manual Delay is reported in seconds. Shaded cell indicates deficient LOS [1] Intersection geometry changes in future scenarios as part of the I-405 Freeway Improvement Project. Study intersections analyzed in this report are under the jurisdictions of the Cities of Costa Mesa, Fountain Valley, and Santa Ana. All three cities consider intersections with a v/c ratio of 0.90 (LOS D) as the upper limit of satisfactory operations for signalized intersections Table 5.13-5, Existing Freeway Segment and Ramp LOS, summarizes the existing peak hour ramp merge/diverge and freeway segment LOS and shows that the following are currently operating at a deficient LOS: Northbound I-405 6. Hyland Avenue On-Ramp (p.m. peak hour only). Southbound I-405 7. Harbor Boulevard Off-Ramp (a.m. peak hour only); 8. Harbor Boulevard Off-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Loop On-Ramp (a.m. peak hour only); 9. Harbor Boulevard Loop On-Ramp (a.m. peak hour only); 10. Harbor Boulevard Loop On-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Slip-On Ramp (a.m. peak hour only); 11. Harbor Boulevard Slip-On Ramp (a.m. peak hour only); and 12. Harbor Boulevard Slip-On Ramp and Fairview Road Off-Ramp (a.m. peak hour only). ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION Page 5.13-2 April 2021February 2020 Table 5.13-5 Existing Freeway Segment and Ramp LOS I-405 Freeway Type Mainline Lanes AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Speed (mi/hr) Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Speed (mi/hr) Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Northbound 1. South of Fairview Road On-Ramp Basic 6 58.1 32.2 D 55.7 37.0 E 2. Fairview Road On-Ramp Ramp (merge) 6 54.0 31.8 D 51.0 35.6 E 3. Fairview Road On-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard On-Ramp Basic 6 57.0 34.6 D 53.9 40.0 E 4. Harbor Boulevard On-Ramp Ramp (merge) 6 52.7 34.1 D 45.3 40.5 E 5. Harbor Boulevard On-Ramp and Hyland Avenue On-Ramp Basic 6 55.0 37.7 E 51.0 44.6 E 6. Hyland Avenue On-Ramp Ramp (merge) 6 53.0 33.5 D -- -- F Southbound 7. Harbor Boulevard Off-Ramp Ramp (diverge) 6 -- -- F 53.1 33.0 D 8. Harbor Boulevard Off-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Loop On-Ramp Basic 6 -- -- F 54.1 39.3 E 9. Harbor Boulevard Loop On-Ramp Ramp (merge) 6 -- -- F 42.5 38.4 E 10. Harbor Boulevard Loop On-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Slip-On Ramp Basic 7 -- -- F 56.0 35.3 E 11. Harbor Boulevard Slip-On Ramp Ramp (merge) 7 -- -- F 31.7 42.4 E 12. Harbor Boulevard Slip-On Ramp and Fairview Road Off-Ramp Basic (weave) 7 -- -- F 53.9 35.5 E Source: LSA 2020b. Notes: mi/hr = miles per hour; pc/mi/hr = passenger cars per mile per lane; “—” indicates stopped traffic where measurements are not possible. Shaded cells indicate deficient LOS. Bicycle, Pedestrians, and Transit Costa Mesa follows Caltrans’ standards and recognizes four classes of bicycle facilities: Class I – Bike Paths or Bike Trails, Class II – Bike Lanes, Class III – Bike Routes (On-Street), and Class IV – Protected Bike Lanes. Within the study area, Class II bike lanes exist along Hyland Avenue, Susan Street, Fairview Road, MacArthur Boulevard, Sunflower Avenue, and South Coast Drive. New bike lanes have been proposed along Harbor Boulevard, Gisler Avenue, and Baker Street in the Costa Mesa Bicycle Master Plan. The City supports the integration of pedestrian-oriented improvements and amenities within the circulation system to improve walkability. Within the City, districts with heavy pedestrian activity have several zones that accommodate pedestrians. The zones include a frontage zone, pedestrian-through zone, street furniture zone, and an enhancement/buffer zone. TIA Figure 3-6, City of Costa Mesa Pedestrian Opportunity Zones, illustrates the main pedestrian districts in Costa Mesa; refer to Appendix M. Within the study area, the section of Harbor Boulevard south of Gisler Avenue has been classified as a Pedestrian Priority Area. The Santa Ana River and the Santa Ana River Trail are located 700 feet west of the project site. The Santa Ana River Trail currently extends from Pacific Coast Highway in Huntington Beach to Green River Golf Club in Corona but will eventually connect with other segments of the trail for 110 uninterrupted miles to Big Bear Lake in the San Bernardino Mountains (SBCRP 2019). An existing bicycle path extends from the project’s western boundary to the Santa Ana River Trail and nor th along the western boundary to Cadillac Avenue. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION April 2021February 2020 Page 5.13-3 OCTA provides local bus and paratransit services within Orange County. OCTA has several bus routes in the City. It also has a limited-stop bus service route (Route 543) along Harbor Boulevard that stops less frequently than local service. The service originates from the Fullerton Transportation Center and passes through Anaheim, Garden Grove, and Santa Ana, before terminating at MacArthur Boulevard. The closest bus stops to the project site are located at the intersections of Harbor Boulevard/Sunflower Avenue, approximately 0.5- mile east of the project site, and Scenic Avenue/Hyland Avenue, approximately 0.5-mile north of the project site. OCTA bus lines 794 (express bus), 211, and 43 have stops at the intersection of Harbor Boulevard/Sunflower Avenue. OCTA bus line 794 (express bus) serves the Scenic Avenue/Hyland Avenue stop. The OCTA Santa Ana Bus Base is located at the intersection of Hyland Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard, approximately one mile from the project site. 5.13.2 Thresholds of Significance According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would: T-1 Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. T-2 Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b).2 T-3 Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). T-4 Result in inadequate emergency access. Level of Service Procedures and Thresholds Study intersections analyzed in this report are under the jurisdictions of the cities of Costa Mesa, Fountain Valley, and Santa Ana. All three cities consider intersections with a v/c ratio of 0.90 (LOS D) as the upper limit of satisfactory operations for signalized intersections. A project is considered to have a significant impact at a signalized intersection under the following conditions: If the project causes the LOS at an intersection to deteriorate from D to E or F. If an intersection already operates at LOS E or F and the project contributes to a v/c ratio greater than 0.01. As for unsignalized intersections, a project is considered to have a significant impact under the following conditions: 2 While this Appendix G Checklist Question has been modified by the Natural Resources Agency to address consistency with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b), which relates to use of the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as the methodology for evaluating traffic impact, the City has not yet adopted a VMT methodology to address this updated Appendix G Checklist Question. Thus, the analysis is based on the City’s adopted traffic analysis methodology, which requires use of Level of Service (LOS) to evaluate traffic impacts of a project. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION Page 5.13-4 April 2021February 2020 If the project causes the LOS at an intersection to deteriorate from D to E or F. If an intersection already operates at LOS E or F and the project contributes to the existing deficiency. Intersections located at freeway on-ramps and off-ramps are under the jurisdiction of Caltrans. Caltrans considers an acceptable level of service to be between C and D at all intersections under its jurisdiction (delay of 45 seconds at signalized intersections and delay of 30 seconds at unsignalized intersections). However, for freeway segments and ramp merge/diverge locations, the Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies (2002) states that transition between LOS C and D may not be feasible and allows the local jurisdictions to set the LOS threshold based on local conditions. As a result, most jurisdictions in Orange County require LOS E, which is in accordance with Orange County CMP guidelines, dated October 2017. As noted, an updated CMP was considered by the OCTA Board of Directors on November 25, 2019 and is currently being considered by Southern California Association of Governments for a finding of regional consistency (OCTA 2019a). In 1990, the voters of the State passed Proposition 111, which increased gas taxes in areas of the State with populations of 50,000 or more. Proposition 111 also required that these jurisdictions adopt CMPs. The goal of CMPs are to support regional mobility and air quality objectives by reducing traffic congestion and providing a mechanism to coordinate land decisions and infrastructure financing. CMPs are required to be tailored to local conditions. Local agencies are therefore required to adopt locally-designed thresholds of significance based on local conditions. The City of Costa Mesa deems LOS E as the appropriate LOS for freeway segments and ramp merge/diverge locations because it is consistent with local conditions and practices throughout the County. Caltrans does not have significant impact criteria for study intersections, freeway segments, and freeway merge/diverge locations. Therefore, a significant impact occurs when the project causes a deficient condition or when the project contributes to an existing deficiency. 5.13.3 Plans, Programs, Policies, and Standard Conditions of Approval The following are existing regulatory requirements, such as plans, policies, programs (PPP), or standard conditions of approvals (SCA), applied to the project based on Federal, State, or local laws currently in place, and which effectively reduce impacts related to traffic. PPP T-1 Pursuant to Circulation Element Recommendation C-9.14, the applicant would provide detours through or around construction zones that are designed for safety and convenience, and with adequate signage for cyclists and pedestrians. PPP T-2 The City of Costa Mesa has a traffic impact fee program. This is a cumulative impact fee which would be determined in consultation with City of Costa Mesa Transportation Services Division staff to be paid in addition to direct project improvements required of the applicant. The City of Costa Mesa Transportation Services Division shall collect the project’s traffic impact fee prior to issuance of the project’s first residential building permit or as otherwise agreed to in the project’s Development Agreement. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION April 2021February 2020 Page 5.13-5 PPP T-3 The City of Costa Mesa has a fair share program. As projects are approved, and a need for a capital improvement(s) are identified, the City’s Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) list is updated accordingly on an annual basis. The master CIP list, overseen by the Public Services Department, identifies (by each specific capital improvement) the necessary improvement, the specific funding amount, and the status of the improvement. SCA T-1 The City of Costa Mesa Transportation Services Division will ensure that all mitigation measures identified in the Traffic Impact Analysis: One Metro West, City of Costa Mesa Orange County, California (TIA), prepared by LSA, dated November 2019 and/or One Metro West Environmental Impact Report have been implemented prior to issuance of the first occupancy permit. 5.13.4 Environmental Impacts 5.13.4.1 METHODOLOGY The TIA is intended to satisfy the requirements established by the City, as well as the requirements for the disclosure of potential impacts and mitigation measures pursuant to CEQA. The TIA examines traffic operations in the vicinity of the proposed project under the following six scenarios: Existing Conditions; Existing Plus Project Conditions; Future Short-Term Cumulative (2027) Baseline Conditions; Future Short-Term Cumulative (2027) with Project Conditions; General Plan Buildout (2040) Baseline Conditions; and General Plan Buildout (2040) with Project Conditions. Project Traffic Project Trip Generation The development of trip generation for the project was the subject of much research and collaboration between LSA and the City of Costa Mesa. A number of multifamily residential projects have been proposed and analyzed, and some approved, in the City where trip generation rates were established and vetted through the CEQA and entitlement process. While LSA originally recommended use of the ITE Trip Generation Manual (10th Edition) for the residential use in the proposed project, the City directed LSA to use trip rates from the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Westside Lofts Project (located at Monrovia Avenue and 16th Street). These rates are higher than the ITE rates for this specific use, generating an additional 2 trips a day for each dwelling unit, and are therefore considered for a more conservative assumption than the ITE rates. The Westside Lofts Project residential trip rates are similar to and slightly greater than rate schedules for multifamily residential use in previous editions of the ITE Trip Generation Manual. Based on ITE Trip Generation rates for multifamily, the project would generate 437 net trips in the a.m. and 533 net trips in the p.m. Based on the Westside Lofts Project residential trip rates, the project would generate 485 net trips in the a.m. and 590 net trips in the p.m. peak hour. As such, the trip generation for the residential component represents a higher ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION Page 5.13-6 April 2021February 2020 standard for trip making for more suburban setting multifamily residential use and does not reflect the context (mixed use in a more urban setting) or the intent of the One Metro West Project (active transportation and linked multi-purpose) trips within the greater SOCO/South Coast Metro environment. As for the non-residential uses, the trip generation was developed using rates from the ITE Trip Generation Manual (10th Edition) for Land Uses 411 – “Public Park,” 495 – “Recreational Community Center,” 710 – “General Office Building,” and 850 – “Supermarket.” These rates are industry standards for the specific land use types and have been used in other traffic impact analyses in the City of Costa Mesa. Since the project is a mixed-use development, it is estimated that a certain percentage of trips between the land uses would be made on-site and these internal trips do not utilize the major street system. The internal trips can be made either by walking within the project site or by vehicles using internal roadways without using external streets. An internal capture rate of 10 percent was used for both residential and non-residential uses based on City experience at other South Coast Metro locations. It should be noted that the internal trip capture does not account for investments made into active transportation for trips off-site (e.g., bicycle amenities, Santa Ana River Trail, enhanced connections for walking) and the proximity of other destinations and attractions within walking distance (e.g., SOCO). Vehicular trip reductions could be greater when considering the local context of attractions, destinations and networks linking them. The internal capture rate was applied to the overall trip generation for both uses to determine the number of internal trips for these uses. Further, the internal trips were subtracted from the overall trip generation to establish the total external trips for the uses. Trip credits were taken for the existing industrial use to be demolished for the development of the project. The credits were calculated by obtaining existing peak hour and daily counts at the existing project driveways. The existing driveway traffic counts are included in Appendix A of the TIA; refer to Appendix M. Table 5.13-6, Project Trip Generation, summarizes the project trip generation, which shows the proposed project would generate 498 net trips in the a.m. peak hour, 662 net trips in the p.m. peak hour, and 6,800 net daily trips. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION April 2021February 2020 Page 5.13-7 Table 5.13-6 Project Trip Generation Land Use Units AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily In Out Total In Out Total Existing Uses General Light Industrial 345.41 TSF Existing Trip Generation[1] -- 34 3 37 1 7 8 429 Proposed Uses Apartment 1,057 DU Trip Generation[2] -- 106 433 539 423 233 656 7,103 Internal Capture [6] (11) (43) (54) (42) (23) (66) (710) Project Trip Generation (Residential) 95 390 485 381 210 590 6,393 Open Space 1.50 AC Trips / Unit[3] -- 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.05 0.11 0.78 Trip Generation -- 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Community Center 1.50 TSF Trips / Unit[4] 1.16 0.60 1.76 1.09 1.22 2.31 28.82 Trip Generation 2 1 3 2 2 4 43 General Office Building 25.00 TSF Trip / Unit[5] -- 1.00 0.16 1.16 0.18 0.97 1.15 9.74 Trip Generation -- 25 4 29 5 24 29 244 Supermarket 6.00 TSF Trips / Unit[6] -- 2.29 1.53 3.82 4.71 4.53 9.24 106.78 Trip Generation -- 14 9 23 28 27 55 641 Project Trip Generation Subtotal 41 14 55 35 53 88 929 Internal Capture[7] (4) (1) (5) (4) (5) (9) (93) Project Trip Generation (Non-Residential) 37 13 50 31 48 79 836 Net Total Project Trip Generation 98 399 498 411 250 662 6,800 Source: LSA 2020b. Notes: TSF = Thousand Square Feet; DU = Dwelling Units; AC = Acres [1] Trip generation is based on driveway counts (peak hours and daily) collected on September 11th, 2019. [2] Trip generation obtained from the Westside Lofts IS/MND. [3] Rates based on Land Use 411 - "Public Park" from the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition, Setting/Location - "General Urban/Suburban." [4] Rates based on Land Use 495 - "Recreational Community Center" from the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition, Setting/Location - "General Urban/Suburban." [5] Rates based on Land Use 710 - "General Office Building" from the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition, Setting/Location - "General Urban/Suburban." [6] Rates based on Land Use 850 - "Supermarket" from the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition, Setting/Location - "General Urban/Suburban." [7] An internal capture rate of 10 percent has been used based on City experience at other South Coast Metro locations. Project Trip Distribution and Assignment The project trip distribution was developed using select zone model runs obtained from Orange County Transportation Analysis Model (OCTAM). Three separate distributions were considered for the existing use, and the proposed residential and non-residential uses. The select zone model plots for the proposed project have been included in Appendix D of the TIA; refer to Appendix M. TIA Figure 5-1A, Trip Distribution – Existing Use (a.m. peak hour), through Figure 5-3, Project Trip Distribution – Non-Residential, show the trip distribution for the residential and non-residential uses at the study intersections; refer to Appendix M. The trip generation for each land use was applied to the corresponding trip distribution pattern to develop the trip assignment for the land use. TIA Figure 5-4, Trip Assignment – Existing Use, through Figure 5-6, Project Trip ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION Page 5.13-8 April 2021February 2020 Assignment – Non-Residential, show the trip assignments for existing and project uses; refer to Appendix M. The final project trip assignment was developed by eliminating the trips from the existing use at each study intersection and adding back the trip assignment from the proposed project. TIA Figure 5-7, Total Net Project Trip Assignment, illustrates the total net project trip assignment; refer to Appendix M. Future Traffic Volumes Future Short-Term Cumulative (2027) Baseline Traffic Volumes The proposed project would open by the year 2027. To present a future short-term cumulative traffic condition, a regional ambient growth rate of 1 percent per annum was identified and traffic volumes from approved/pending projects were developed, both of which were added to the existing traffic counts. Cumulative project information was obtained from City staff and from the adjacent jurisdictions of Fountain Valley and Santa Ana. Table 4-2, Related Projects, lists the cumulative projects included in this analysis and Figure 4-1, Cumulative Projects, illustrates the cumulative project locations; refer to Chapter 4, Environmental Setting. The trip generation for cumulative projects was developed using rates from the ITE Trip Generation Manual (10th Edition) and from traffic studies conducted for these projects. The cumulative projects are expected to generate 2,774 trips in the a.m. peak hour, 2,618 trips in the p.m. peak hour, and 28,348 daily trips. Table 5.13-10, Future Short-Term Cumulative (2027) Freeway Segment and Ramp Traffic Volumes, summarizes future short-term cumulative baseline peak hour PCE volumes at study area freeway ramp merge/diverge locations and freeway segments. As part of the I-405 Improvement Project, the intersection of I-405 Southbound Ramps/Ellis Avenue - Euclid Street intersection would be improved by adding an eastbound slip-on ramp from Ellis Avenue to the southbound I-405, thereby eliminating the dual left-turn lanes from eastbound Ellis Avenue to the existing I- 405 southbound on-ramp. This freeway improvement project is scheduled to be completed before the project opening year 2027. Therefore, these improvements have been implemented for this intersection under future short-term cumulative and General Plan buildout conditions for the purpose of the TIA analysis. General Plan Buildout (2040) Baseline Peak Hour Traffic Volumes General Plan buildout conditions traffic volumes were developed using forecast volumes obtained from OCTAM and by applying the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) post-processing methodologies. The methodology was applied to all study intersections. Table 5.13-13, General Plan Buildout (2040) Freeway Segment and Ramp Traffic Volumes, summarizes General Plan buildout PCE volumes at study area freeway ramp merge/diverge locations and freeway segments. VMT Methodology The Technical Advisory states that existing VMT may be measured at the regional or city level. However, as noted before, the study area for the proposed project is distributed among three cities (Costa Mesa, Santa Ana, and Fountain Valley). Additionally, it is expected that project trips are forecast to travel beyond the study area. Therefore, for purposes of this analysis, all of Orange County has been considered as the region. OCTAM has been used to estimate both the regional and project VMT, since it is consistent with the forecasts included in the 2018 Orange County Long Range Transportation Plan. OCTAM socioeconomic database for both ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION April 2021February 2020 Page 5.13-9 the base (2012) and future (2040) scenario were updated with the project land uses to calculate project VMT. Regional and project VMT were calculated from the OCTAM model runs as described below: Regional Estimates: The regional (Orange County) VMT for both base (2012) and future (2040) model scenarios were obtained from OCTAM runs. Existing (2019) VMT was developed by interpolating between base and future year VMT data, which was obtained from OCTAM. Project Estimate: Project select zone model runs were utilized to develop project VMT. Project VMT per capita was calculated for both base (2012) and future (2040) model scenarios. The existing (2019) project VMT per capita was developed by interpolating between the base and future year VMT per capita for the project. 5.13.4.2 IMPACT ANALYSIS The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which there may be potentially significant or less than significant impacts. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets after the impact statement. Impact 5.13-1: The project could conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. [Thresholds T-1 and T-2] Impact Analysis: Construction Traffic It is anticipated that construction activities would include demolition/site preparation, grading/trenching, building construction, and asphalt paving/architectural coatings. Construction of the proposed project is not anticipated to require complete closures of any street. Construction activities would result in partial street closures on Sunflower Avenue on a temporary and intermittent basis to allow for construction activities such as roadway improvements and utility undergrounding/hook ups. Any lane closures require an encroachment permit and are subject to the review and approval of the City of Costa Mesa, Transportation Services. Per the City’s Circulation Element, a detour would be required to be provided around the construction zone that would be designed to ensure the safety of cyclists and pedestrians (PPP T-1). Because any lane and sidewalk closures would be temporary and complete roadway closures are not anticipated, impacts relating to lane and sidewalk closures would be less than significant. The construction activities would require the use of construction vehicles, delivery vehicles, and haul trucks. All hauling truck trips would occur during Phase 1 of project construction. The project would generate approximately 1,760 hauling truck trips over a 100-day demolition stage (18 trips per day) and approximately 24,250 hauling truck trips over a 400-day grading and excavation stage (61 trips per day) based on the California Emission Estimator Model, Version 2016.3.2 output detailed in Appendix C, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis. As such, the proposed project would generate short-term constructed-related vehicle trips. However, the proposed project’s construction-related vehicle trips (up to 61 ADT) would be less than one percent of the project’s operational trips (6,800 ADT) and a small fraction of the vehicle trips in the overall ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION Page 5.13-10 April 2021February 2020 study area. Upon completion of construction, such trips would cease. As such, a less than significant impact would occur relating to construction trips. Project Trip Generation (LOS) This analysis describes the proposed project’s operational impacts on the circulation system in the project vicinity. Existing, future short-term cumulative, and General Plan buildout plus project traffic volumes were developed by subtracting the trips for the existing uses from the corresponding baseline scenarios and adding the project traffic. Existing Plus Project Intersection Analysis Analysis of the existing with project scenario is provided to identify direct project impacts if the project were to be built and in operation today. This scenario eliminates the effects of ambient growth and other cumulative projects and deals specifically with project impacts. TIA Figure 6-1, Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes, illustrates existing plus project peak hour traffic volumes at study intersections under existing conditions; refer to Appendix M. TIA Table 4-A, Existing Freeway Segment and Ramp Traffic Volumes, summarizes peak hour PCE volumes at study area freeway ramp merge/diverge locations and freeway segments under existing conditions and existing plus project conditions; refer to Appendix M. An intersection LOS analysis was conducted for existing plus project conditions using the methodologies previously discussed. Table 5.13-7, Existing and Existing with Project Intersection Level of Service Summary, summarizes the results of the analysis and shows that all intersections are projected to operate at an acceptable LOS standard, except for the following: 2. Euclid Street/I-405 Freeway Northbound Ramps - Newhope Street (a.m. peak hour only); 3. I-405 Freeway Southbound Ramps/Ellis Avenue - Euclid Street (p.m. peak hour only); and 28. Talbert Avenue/Mt. Washington Street (both a.m. and p.m. peak hours based on the City of Fountain Valley LOS standards). As indicated in Table 5.13-7, all three intersections currently operate at a deficient LOS under existing without project conditions. The intersection of I-405 Freeway Southbound Ramps/Ellis Avenue - Euclid Street would be reconfigured as part of the I-405 Freeway Improvement Project. This intersection would operate at an acceptable LOS under all future scenarios with implementation of the reconfigured geometry. Therefore, no mitigation is necessary in this regard. Based on the cities’ criteria for determining significant traffic impacts, the proposed project would result in a potentially significant impact at the following intersection under the existing with project condition: Talbert Avenue/Mt. Washington Street (Study Intersection No. 28, based on the City of Fountain Valley LOS Standards). ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION April 2021February 2020 Page 5.13-11 Since Study Intersection Nos. 2 and 3 do not contribute a v/c ratio greater than 0.01 as indicated in Table 5.13- 7, these intersections are not considered significant impacts under the existing plus project condition. Freeway Analysis Table 5.13-8, Existing Freeway Segment and Ramp Levels of Service, summarizes the existing plus project peak hour ramp merge/diverge and freeway segment LOS and shows that all freeway segments, ramp merge/diverge locations, and weaving areas are projected to operate at an acceptable LOS standard, except for the following: Northbound I-405 6. Hyland Avenue On-Ramp (p.m. peak hour only). Southbound I-405 7. Harbor Boulevard Off-Ramp (a.m. peak hour only); 8. Harbor Boulevard Off-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Loop On-Ramp (a.m. peak hour only); 9. Harbor Boulevard Loop On-Ramp (a.m. peak hour only); 10. Harbor Boulevard Loop On-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Slip-On Ramp (a.m. peak hour only); 11. Harbor Boulevard Slip-On Ramp (a.m. peak hour only); and 12. Harbor Boulevard Slip-On Ramp and Fairview Road Off-Ramp (a.m. peak hour only). As indicated in Table 5.13-8, these seven freeway ramps/segments also operate at a deficient LOS under existing conditions. As discussed under Section 5.13.2, Thresholds of Significance, a significant impact occurs when the project causes a deficient condition or when the project contributes to an existing deficiency. Therefore, the project would result in a potentially significant impact at the identified freeway ramps/segments. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION Page 5.13-12 April 2021February 2020 Table 5.13-7 Existing and Existing with Project Intersection Level of Service Summary No. Intersection Jurisdiction Traffic Control Existing Existing Plus Project Peak-Hour Change Significant Impact? AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ICU Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS AM PM 1 Euclid Street/Talbert Avenue Fountain Valley Signal 0.66 B 0.85 D 0.68 B 0.86 D 0.02 0.01 No 2 Euclid Street/I-405 Northbound Ramps - Newhope Street Caltrans Signal 0.96 E 0.77 C 0.96 E 0.77 C 0.00 0.00 No HCM 30.70 C 34.80 C 30.80 C 34.80 C - - No 3 I-405 Southbound Ramps/Ellis Avenue - Euclid Street[1] Caltrans Signal 0.77 C 0.76 C 0.77 C 0.76 C 0.00 0.00 No HCM Signal 41.10 D 73.00 E 41.10 D 73.00 E - - Yes[1] 4 Newhope Street/Talbert Avenue Fountain Valley Signal 0.82 D 0.73 C 0.82 D 0.74 C 0.00 0.01 No 5 OCTA Bus Base - Hyland Avenue/MacArthur Boulevard Costa Mesa Signal 0.57 A 0.75 C 0.58 A 0.75 C 0.01 0.00 No Santa Ana Signal 0.60 A 0.75 C 0.61 B 0.75 C 0.01 0.00 No 6 Hyland Avenue/Sunflower Avenue Costa Mesa Signal 0.28 A 0.60 A 0.40 A 0.63 B 0.12 0.03 No 7 Hyland Avenue/I-405 Northbound Ramps - South Coast Drive Caltrans Signal 0.29 A 0.51 A 0.32 A 0.54 A 0.03 0.03 No HCM 23.20 C 21.20 C 23.20 C 21.20 C - - No 8 Harbor Boulevard/MacArthur Boulevard Costa Mesa Signal 0.76 C 0.77 C 0.76 C 0.77 C 0.00 0.00 No Santa Ana Signal 0.77 C 0.78 C 0.77 C 0.78 C 0.00 0.00 No 9 Harbor Boulevard/Scenic Avenue - West Lake Center Drive Costa Mesa Signal 0.64 B 0.82 D 0.64 B 0.82 D 0.00 0.00 No Santa Ana Signal 0.65 B 0.83 D 0.66 B 0.83 D 0.01 0.00 No 10 Harbor Boulevard/Sunflower Avenue Costa Mesa Signal 0.57 A 0.72 C 0.61 B 0.76 C 0.04 0.04 No Santa Ana Signal 0.58 A 0.72 C 0.62 B 0.76 C 0.04 0.04 No 11 Harbor Boulevard/South Coast Drive Costa Mesa Signal 0.50 A 0.68 B 0.60 A 0.70 B 0.10 0.02 No 12 Harbor Boulevard/I-405 NB Off-Ramp - I-405 SB On-Ramp Caltrans Signal 0.61 B 0.69 B 0.61 B 0.73 C 0.00 0.04 No HCM 14.90 B 20.60 C 15.00 B 21.60 C - - No 13 Harbor Boulevard/I-405 SB Off-Ramp - I-405 NB On-Ramp Caltrans Signal 0.50 A 0.64 B 0.51 A 0.64 B 0.01 0.00 No HCM 10.00 A 12.70 B 10.00 A 12.90 B - - No 14 Harbor Boulevard/Gisler Avenue Costa Mesa Signal 0.58 A 0.72 C 0.59 A 0.73 C 0.01 0.01 No 15 Harbor Boulevard/Nutmeg Place Costa Mesa Signal 0.49 A 0.55 A 0.49 A 0.56 A 0.00 0.01 No 16 Harbor Boulevard/Baker Street Costa Mesa Signal 0.54 A 0.60 A 0.54 A 0.60 A 0.00 0.00 No 17 Susan Street/Sunflower Avenue Costa Mesa Signal 0.38 A 0.72 C 0.40 A 0.75 C 0.02 0.03 No Santa Ana Signal 0.38 A 0.73 C 0.40 A 0.75 C 0.02 0.02 No 18 Susan Street/South Coast Drive Costa Mesa Signal 0.39 A 0.75 C 0.40 A 0.77 C 0.01 0.02 No ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION Table 5.13-7 Existing and Existing with Project Intersection Level of Service Summary, continued April 2021February 2020 Page 5.13-13 No. Intersection Jurisdiction Traffic Control Existing Existing Plus Project Peak-Hour Change Significant Impact? AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ICU Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS AM PM 19 Fairview Street/MacArthur Boulevard Santa Ana Signal 0.69 B 0.84 D 0.69 B 0.84 D 0.00 0.00 No 20 Fairview Road/Sunflower Avenue Costa Mesa Signal 0.68 B 0.65 B 0.70 B 0.66 B 0.02 0.01 No Santa Ana Signal 0.68 B 0.65 B 0.70 B 0.66 B 0.02 0.01 No 21 Fairview Road/South Coast Drive Costa Mesa Signal 0.69 B 0.77 C 0.70 B 0.76 C 0.01 (0.01) No 22 Fairview Road/I-405 Northbound Ramps Caltrans Signal 0.64 B 0.64 B 0.64 B 0.64 B 0.00 0.00 No HCM 29.10 C 21.30 C 29.10 C 21.60 C - - No 23 Fairview Road/I-405 Southbound Ramps Caltrans Signal 0.82 D 0.62 B 0.82 D 0.62 B 0.00 0.00 No HCM 20.90 C 16.20 B 20.90 C 16.20 B - - No 24 Fairview Road/Baker Street Costa Mesa Signal 0.66 B 0.64 B 0.66 B 0.64 B 0.00 0.00 No 25 Cadillac Avenue - Driveway 1/Sunflower Avenue HCM Costa Mesa OWSC 8.40 A 9.50 A 8.90 A 9.20 A - - No 26 Driveway 2/Sunflower Avenue HCM Costa Mesa OWSC 8.80 A 0.00 A 9.90 A 9.80 A - - No 27 FedEx Driveway - Driveway 3/Sunflower Avenue HCM Costa Mesa TWSC 9.90 A 10.40 B 15.00 C 23.10 C - - No 28 Talbert Avenue/Mt. Washington Street HCM Fountain Valley TWSC >100 F >100 F >100 F >100 F - - Yes 29 Harbor Boulevard/Segerstrom Avenue Santa Ana Signal 0.85 D 0.85 D 0.85 D 0.85 D 0.00 0.00 No Source: LSA 2020b. Notes: OWSC = One-Way Stop Control ; TWSC = Two-Way Stop Control; HCM = Highway Capacity Manual Delay is reported in seconds. For OWSC and TWSC intersections, the reported delay is for the worst-case movement. Highlighted cell indicates deficient LOS [1] Intersection geometry changes in future scenarios as part of the I-405 Improvement Project. The I-405 Improvement Project is currently under construction and is anticipated to be completed by 2023 (prior to opening of the proposed project). Upon completion of the I-405 Improvement Project, the proposed project would not result in a significant impact at this intersection. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION Page 5.13-14 April 2021February 2020 Table 5.13-8 Existing Freeway Segment and Ramp Levels of Service I-405 Freeway Segment / Ramp Mainline Lanes Without Project With Project AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Speed (mi/hr) Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Speed (mi/hr) Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Speed (mi/hr) Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Speed (mi/hr) Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Northbound 1. South of Fairview Road On-Ramp 6 58.1 32.2 D 55.7 37.0 E 58.1 32.2 D 55.7 37.0 E 2. Fairview Road On-Ramp 6 54.0 31.8 D 51.0 35.6 E 54.0 31.8 D 51.0 35.6 E 3. Fairview Road On-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard On-Ramp 6 57.0 34.6 D 53.9 40.0 E 57.0 34.6 D 53.9 40.0 E 4. Harbor Boulevard On-Ramp 6 52.7 34.1 D 45.3 40.5 E 52.7 34.1 D 45.3 40.5 E 5. Harbor Boulevard On-Ramp and Hyland Avenue On-Ramp 6 55.0 37.7 E 51.0 44.6 E 55.0 37.7 E 51.0 44.6 E 6. Hyland Avenue On-Ramp 6 53.0 33.5 D - - F 52.8 33.8 D - - F Southbound 7. Harbor Boulevard Off-Ramp 6 - - F 53.1 33.0 D - - F 53.0 33.2 D 8. Harbor Boulevard Off-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Loop On-Ramp 6 - - F 54.1 39.3 E - - F 54.1 39.3 E 9. Harbor Boulevard Loop On-Ramp 6 - - F 42.5 38.4 E - - F 41.8 38.8 E 10. Harbor Boulevard Loop On-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Slip-On Ramp 7 - - F 56.0 35.3 E - - F 55.9 35.5 E 11. Harbor Boulevard Slip-On Ramp 7 - - F 31.7 42.4 E - - F 30.7 42.7 E 12. Harbor Boulevard Slip-On Ramp and Fairview Road Off-Ramp 7 - - F 53.9 35.5 E - - F 53.9 35.6 E Source: LSA 2020b. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION April 2021February 2020 Page 5.13-15 Future Short-Term (2027) Cumulative Plus Project Intersection Analysis An intersection LOS analysis was conducted for future short-term cumulative plus project conditions using the methodologies discussed in Section 5.13.4.1, Methodology. TIA Figure 6-2, Future Short-Term Cumulative (2027) Plus Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes, illustrates the peak hour traffic volumes at study intersections under future short-term cumulative plus project condition; refer to Appendix M. Table 5.13-9, Future Short-Term Cumulative (2027) Intersection Level of Service Summary, summarizes the results of the analysis and shows that all intersections are projected to operate at an acceptable LOS standard, except for the following: 1. Euclid Street/Talbert Avenue (both a.m. and pm. peak hours based on City of Fountain Valley LOS standards); 2. Euclid Street/I-405 Northbound Ramps - Newhope Street (a.m. peak hour only); 9. Harbor Boulevard/Scenic Avenue – West Lake Center Drive (p.m. peak hour only; based on City of Santa Ana LOS standards); 19. Fairview Street/MacArthur Boulevard (p.m. peak hour only based on City of Santa Ana LOS standards); 28. Talbert Avenue/Mt. Washington Street (both a.m. and p.m. peak hours based on City of Fountain Valley LOS standards); and 29. Harbor Boulevard/Segerstrom Avenue (both a.m. and p.m. peak hours based on City of Santa Ana LOS standards). As indicated in Table 5.13-9, all six intersections are forecast to operate at a deficient LOS even under future short-term cumulative baseline conditions (all except Intersection No. 23). The intersection of Fairview Road/I-405 Southbound Ramps (Study Intersection No. 23) is forecast to operate at a deficient LOS under future short-term cumulative plus project conditions using ICU methodology. However, since this intersection is under Caltrans’ jurisdiction, a significant impact at this intersection is based on Caltrans’ significant impact criteria which uses HCM methodology. As shown in Table 5.13-9, this intersection is forecast to operate at a satisfactory LOS under both without and with project conditions using HCM methodologies. Therefore, the project does not have a significant impact at this intersection. Based on the cities’ criteria for determining significant traffic impacts, the proposed project would result in a potentially significant impact at the following intersection under the future short-term cumulative plus project conditions: Talbert Avenue/Mt. Washington Street (Study Intersection No. 28, based on the City of Fountain Valley LOS Standards). Since Study Intersection Nos. 1, 2, 9, 19, and 29 do not contribute a v/c ratio greater than 0.01 as indicated in Table 5.13-9, these intersections are not considered significant impacts under the future short-term cumulative plus project conditions. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION Page 5.13-16 April 2021February 2020 Freeway Analysis Table 5.13-10, Future Short-Term Cumulative (2027) Freeway Segment and Ramp Levels of Service, summarizes the future short-term cumulative plus project peak hour ramp merge/diverge and freeway segment LOS and shows that all ramp merge/diverge and freeway segments are projected to operate at an acceptable LOS standard, except for the following: Northbound I-405 3. Fairview Road On-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard On-Ramp (p.m. peak hour only); 4. Harbor Boulevard On-Ramp (p.m. peak hour only); 5. Harbor Boulevard On-Ramp and Hyland Avenue On-Ramp (p.m. peak hour only); and 6. Hyland Avenue On-Ramp (p.m. peak hour only). Southbound I-405 7. Harbor Boulevard Off-Ramp (both a.m. and p.m. peak hours); 8. Harbor Boulevard Off-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Loop On-Ramp (both a.m. and p.m. peak hours); 9. Harbor Boulevard Loop On-Ramp (both a.m. and p.m. peak hours); 10. Harbor Boulevard Loop On-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Slip-On Ramp (a.m. peak hour); 11. Harbor Boulevard Slip-On Ramp (a.m. peak hour); and 12. Harbor Boulevard Slip-On Ramp and Fairview Road Off-Ramp (a.m. peak hour). As indicated in Table 5.13-10, all ten freeway ramps operate at a deficient LOS under future short-term cumulative baseline conditions. As discussed under Section 5.13.2, a significant impact occurs when the project causes an unsatisfactory condition or when the project contributes to an existing deficiency. Therefore, impacts would be potentially significant at the identified freeway ramps. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION April 2021February 2020 Page 5.13-17 Table 5.13-9 Future Short-Term Cumulative (2027) Intersection Level of Service Summary No. Intersection Jurisdiction Traffic Control Future Short-Term Cumulative (2027) Future Short-Term Cumulative (2027) Plus Project Peak-Hour Change Significant Impact? AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ICU Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS AM PM 1 Euclid Street/Talbert Avenue Fountain Valley Signal 0.73 C 0.91 E 0.73 C 0.91 E 0.00 0.00 No 2 Euclid Street/I-405 Northbound Ramps - Newhope Street Caltrans Signal 1.04 F 0.82 D 1.04 F 0.83 D 0.00 0.01 No HCM 31.80 C 36.10 D 31.90 C 36.10 D - - No 3 I-405 Southbound Ramps/Ellis Avenue - Euclid Street Caltrans Signal 0.80 C 0.60 A 0.80 C 0.60 A 0.00 0.00 No HCM Signal 24.90 C 19.10 B 24.90 C 19.20 B - - No 4 Newhope Street/Talbert Avenue Fountain Valley Signal 0.89 D 0.80 C 0.90 D 0.80 C 0.01 0.00 No 5 OCTA Bus Base - Hyland Avenue/MacArthur Boulevard Costa Mesa Signal 0.61 B 0.81 D 0.62 B 0.81 D 0.01 0.00 No Santa Ana Signal 0.64 B 0.81 D 0.65 B 0.81 D 0.01 0.00 No 6 Hyland Avenue/Sunflower Avenue Costa Mesa Signal 0.34 A 0.58 A 0.42 A 0.68 B 0.08 0.10 No 7 Hyland Avenue/I-405 Northbound Ramps - South Coast Drive Caltrans Signal 0.33 A 0.64 B 0.37 A 0.66 B 0.04 0.02 No HCM 21.70 C 24.60 C 21.70 C 24.60 C - - No 8 Harbor Boulevard/MacArthur Boulevard Costa Mesa Signal 0.84 D 0.83 D 0.84 D 0.83 D 0.00 0.00 No Santa Ana Signal 0.85 D 0.85 D 0.85 D 0.85 D 0.00 0.00 No 9 Harbor Boulevard/Scenic Avenue - West Lake Center Drive Costa Mesa Signal 0.72 C 0.91 E 0.72 C 0.91 E 0.00 0.00 No Santa Ana Signal 0.73 C 0.92 E 0.72 C 0.92 E (0.01) 0.00 No 10 Harbor Boulevard/Sunflower Avenue Costa Mesa Signal 0.66 B 0.84 D 0.71 C 0.87 D 0.05 0.03 No Santa Ana Signal 0.68 B 0.84 D 0.73 C 0.87 D 0.05 0.03 No 11 Harbor Boulevard/South Coast Drive Costa Mesa Signal 0.57 A 0.79 C 0.66 B 0.80 C 0.09 0.01 No 12 Harbor Boulevard/I-405 NB Off-Ramp - I-405 SB On-Ramp Caltrans Signal 0.79 C 0.77 C 0.79 C 0.82 D 0.00 0.05 No HCM 19.50 B 24.10 C 19.90 B 25.80 C - - No 13 Harbor Boulevard/I-405 SB Off-Ramp - I-405 NB On-Ramp Caltrans Signal 0.58 A 0.71 C 0.59 A 0.72 C 0.01 0.01 No HCM 12.30 B 13.40 B 12.40 B 13.70 B - - No 14 Harbor Boulevard/Gisler Avenue Costa Mesa Signal 0.63 B 0.85 D 0.64 B 0.85 D 0.01 0.00 No 15 Harbor Boulevard/Nutmeg Place Costa Mesa Signal 0.56 A 0.61 B 0.56 A 0.61 B 0.00 0.00 No 16 Harbor Boulevard/Baker Street Costa Mesa Signal 0.58 A 0.64 B 0.58 A 0.64 B 0.00 0.00 No ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION Table 5.13-9 Future Short-Term Cumulative (2027) Intersection Level of Service Summary, continued Page 5.13-18 April 2021February 2020 No. Intersection Jurisdiction Traffic Control Future Short-Term Cumulative (2027) Future Short-Term Cumulative (2027) Plus Project Peak-Hour Change Significant Impact? AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ICU Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS AM PM 17 Susan Street/Sunflower Avenue Costa Mesa Signal 0.47 A 0.79 C 0.49 A 0.81 D 0.02 0.02 No Santa Ana Signal 0.47 A 0.79 C 0.49 A 0.82 D 0.02 0.03 No 18 Susan Street/South Coast Drive Costa Mesa Signal 0.42 A 0.82 D 0.43 A 0.84 D 0.01 0.02 No 19 Fairview Street/MacArthur Boulevard Santa Ana Signal 0.75 C 0.93 E 0.75 C 0.93 E 0.00 0.00 No 20 Fairview Road/Sunflower Avenue Costa Mesa Signal 0.78 C 0.74 C 0.79 C 0.74 C 0.01 0.00 No Santa Ana Signal 0.79 C 0.79 C 0.80 C 0.78 C 0.01 (0.01) No 21 Fairview Road/South Coast Drive Costa Mesa Signal 0.78 C 0.87 D 0.79 C 0.86 D 0.01 (0.01) No 22 Fairview Road/I-405 Northbound Ramps Caltrans Signal 0.69 B 0.70 B 0.69 B 0.70 B 0.00 0.00 No HCM 34.50 C 26.30 C 34.60 C 26.30 C - - No 23 Fairview Road/I-405 Southbound Ramps Caltrans Signal 0.90 D 0.67 B 0.90 D 0.67 B 0.00 0.00 No HCM 28.30 C 17.80 B 28.30 C 17.80 B - - No 24 Fairview Road/Baker Street Costa Mesa Signal 0.72 C 0.71 C 0.72 C 0.71 C 0.00 0.00 No 25 Cadillac Avenue - Driveway 1/Sunflower Avenue HCM Costa Mesa OWSC 8.40 A 9.50 A 8.90 A 9.20 A - - No 26 Driveway 2/Sunflower Avenue HCM Costa Mesa OWSC 8.80 A 0.00 A 9.90 A 9.80 A - - No 27 FedEx Driveway - Driveway 3/Sunflower Avenue HCM Costa Mesa TWSC 9.90 A 10.50 B 15.20 C 23.90 C - - No 28 Talbert Avenue/Mt. Washington Street HCM Fountain Valley TWSC >100 F >100 F >100 F >100 F - - Yes 29 Harbor Boulevard/Segerstrom Avenue Santa Ana Signal 0.93 E 0.93 E 0.93 E 0.93 E 0.00 0.00 No Source: LSA 2020b. Notes: OWSC = One-Way Stop Control ; TWSC = Two-Way Stop Control; HCM = Highway Capacity Manual Delay is reported in seconds. For OWSC and TWSC intersections, the reported delay is for the worst-case movement. Highlighted cell indicates deficient LOS 1 This intersection is forecast to operate at a deficient LOS under future short-term cumulative plus project conditions using ICU methodology. However, since this intersection is under Caltrans’ jurisdiction, a significant impact at this intersection is based on Caltrans’ significant impact criteria which uses HCM methodology. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION April 2021February 2020 Page 5.13-19 Table 5.13-10 Future Short-Term Cumulative (2027) Freeway Segment and Ramp Levels of Service I-405 Freeway Segment / Ramp Mainline Lanes Without Project With Project AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Speed (mi/hr) Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Speed (mi/hr) Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Speed (mi/hr) Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Speed (mi/hr) Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Northbound 1. South of Fairview Road On- Ramp 6 56.3 35.9 E 52.5 42.4 E 56.3 35.9 E 52.5 42.4 E 2. Fairview Road On-Ramp 6 51.9 34.7 D 41.7 41.8 E 51.9 34.7 D 41.7 41.8 E 3. Fairview Road On-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard On-Ramp 6 54.5 39.1 E - - F 54.5 39.1 E - - F 4. Harbor Boulevard On-Ramp 6 46.7 39.6 E - - F 46.7 39.6 E - - F 5. Harbor Boulevard On-Ramp and Hyland Avenue On-Ramp 6 51.7 43.4 E - - F 51.7 43.4 E - - F 6. Hyland Avenue On-Ramp 6 45.7 39.9 E - - F 45.1 40.2 E - - F Southbound 7. Harbor Boulevard Off-Ramp 6 - - F - - F - - F - - F 8. Harbor Boulevard Off-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Loop On-Ramp 6 - - F - - F - - F - - F 9. Harbor Boulevard Loop On-Ramp 6 - - F - - F - - F - - F 10. Harbor Boulevard Loop On-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Slip-On Ramp 7 - - F 53.1 40.9 E - - F 52.9 41.1 E 11. Harbor Boulevard Slip-On Ramp 7 - - F 0.0 50.7 E - - F 0.0 51.0 E 12. Harbor Boulevard Slip-On Ramp and Fairview Road Off-Ramp 7 - - F 41.2 41.0 E - - F 41.1 41.2 E Source: LSA 2020b. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION Page 5.13-20 April 2021February 2020 General Plan Buildout (2040) Plus Project Intersection Analysis An intersection LOS analysis was conducted for General Plan buildout conditions using the methodologies previously discussed. TIA Figure 6-3, General Plan Build Out (2040) Plus Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes, illustrates the General Plan buildout condition plus project at peak hour traffic volumes at study intersections; refer to Appendix M. TIA Table 7-F, General Plan Buildout (2040) Freeway Segment and Ramp Traffic Volumes, summarizes peak hour PCE volumes at study area freeway ramp merge/diverge locations and freeway segments under General Plan buildout (2040) plus project condition; refer to Appendix M. Table 5.13-11, General Plan Buildout (2040) Intersection Level of Service Summary, summarizes the results of this analysis and shows that all intersections are projected to operate at an acceptable LOS standard, except for the following: 1. Euclid Street/Talbert Avenue (p.m. peak hour only based on City of Fountain Valley LOS standards); 2. Euclid Street/I-405 Northbound Ramps - Newhope Street (both a.m. and p.m. peak hours); 4. Newhope Street/Talbert Avenue (a.m. peak hour only based on City of Fountain Valley LOS standards); 9. Harbor Boulevard/Scenic Avenue – West Lake Center Drive (p.m. peak hour only; based on City of Santa Ana LOS standards); 18. Susan Street/Sunflower Avenue (p.m. peak hour only based on City of Costa Mesa LOS standards); 19. Fairview Street/MacArthur Boulevard (p.m. peak hour only based on City of Santa Ana LOS standards); 21. Fairview Road/South Coast Drive (p.m. peak hour only based on City of Costa Mesa LOS standards); 23. Fairview Road/I-405 Southbound Ramps (a.m. peak hour only); 28. Talbert Avenue/Mt. Washington Street (both a.m. and p.m. peak hours based on City of Fountain Valley LOS standards); and 29. Harbor Boulevard/Segerstrom Avenue (both a.m. and p.m. peak hours based on City of Santa Ana LOS standards). As indicated in Table 5.13-11, ten intersections are forecast to operate at a deficient LOS even under future General Plan buildout conditions (all except Intersection No. 23). The intersection of Fairview Road/I-405 Southbound Ramps (Study Intersection No. 23) is forecast to operate at a deficient LOS under future General Plan buildout conditions using ICU methodology. Since this intersection is under Caltrans’ jurisdiction, a significant impact at this intersection is based on Caltrans’ significant impact criteria which uses HCM methodology. As shown in Table 5.13-11, this intersection is forecast to operate at a satisfactory LOS under both without and with project conditions using HCM methodologies. Therefore, the project does not have a significant impact at this intersection. Based on the cities’ criteria for determining significant traffic impacts, the proposed project would result in potentially significant impacts at the following intersections under the General Plan buildout plus project condition: Susan Street/South Coast Drive (Study Intersection No. 18, based on City of Costa Mesa LOS standards); and ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION April 2021February 2020 Page 5.13-21 Talbert Avenue/Mt. Washington Street (Study Intersection No. 28, based on City of Fountain Valley LOS standards). Since Study Intersection Nos. 1, 2, 4, 9, 19, 21, 23, and 29 do not contribute a v/c ratio greater than 0.01 as indicated in Table 5.13-11, these intersections are not considered significant impacts under the General Plan buildout plus project conditions. Freeway Analysis Table 5.13-12, General Plan Buildout (2040) Freeway Segment and Ramp Levels of Service, summarizes the General Plan buildout plus project peak hour ramp merge/diverge and freeway segment LOS and shows that all ramp merge/diverge locations and freeway segments are projected to operate at an unacceptable LOS standard: Northbound I-405 1. South of Fairview Road On-Ramp (p.m. peak hour only); 2. Fairview Road On-Ramp (p.m. peak hour only); 3. Fairview Road On-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard On-Ramp (p.m. peak hour only); 4. Harbor Boulevard On-Ramp (p.m. peak hour only); 5. Harbor Boulevard On-Ramp and Hyland Avenue On-Ramp (both a.m. and p.m. peak hours); and 6. Hyland Avenue On-Ramp (both a.m. and p.m. peak hours). Southbound I-405 7. Harbor Boulevard Off-Ramp (both a.m. and p.m. peak hours); 8. Harbor Boulevard Off-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Loop On-Ramp (both a.m. and p.m. peak hours); 9. Harbor Boulevard Loop On-Ramp (both a.m. and p.m. peak hours); 10. Harbor Boulevard Loop On-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Slip-On Ramp (a.m. peak hour only); 11. Harbor Boulevard Slip-On Ramp (both a.m. and p.m. peak hours); and 12. Harbor Boulevard Slip-On Ramp and Fairview Road Off-Ramp (both a.m. and p.m. peak hours). As indicated in Table 5.13-12, all twelve freeway ramps are forecast to operate at a deficient LOS under General Plan buildout conditions. As discussed under Section 5.13.2, a significant impact occurs when the project causes a deficient condition or when the project contributes to an existing deficiency. As such, a potentially significant impact would occur at all twelve identified freeway roadway ramps. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION Page 5.13-22 April 2021February 2020 Table 5.13-11 General Plan Buildout (2040) Intersection Level of Service Summary No . Intersection Jurisdiction Traffic Control General Plan Buildout (2040) Baseline General Plan Buildout (2040) Baseline Plus Project Peak-Hour Change Significant Impact? AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ICU ICU/ Delay LOS ICU/ Delay LOS ICU/ Delay LOS ICU/ Delay LOS AM PM 1 Euclid Street/Talbert Avenue Fountain Valley Signal 0.76 C 0.94 E 0.77 C 0.94 E 0.01 0.00 No 2 Euclid Street/I-405 Northbound Ramps - Newhope Street Caltrans Signal 1.15 F 1.02 F 1.15 F 1.03 F 0.00 0.01 No HCM 34.30 C 37.50 D 34.40 C 37.50 D - - No 3 I-405 Southbound Ramps/Ellis Avenue - Euclid Street Caltrans Signal 0.80 C 0.65 B 0.80 C 0.64 B 0.00 (0.01) No HCM Signal 25.60 C 21.70 C 25.60 C 21.70 C - - No 4 Newhope Street/Talbert Avenue Fountain Valley Signal 0.96 E 0.85 D 0.96 E 0.85 D 0.00 0.00 No 5 OCTA Bus Base - Hyland Avenue/MacArthur Boulevard Costa Mesa Signal 0.63 B 0.85 D 0.65 B 0.85 D 0.02 0.00 No Santa Ana Signal 0.66 B 0.85 D 0.68 B 0.85 D 0.02 0.00 No 6 Hyland Avenue/Sunflower Avenue Costa Mesa Signal 0.32 A 0.68 B 0.44 A 0.69 B 0.12 0.01 No 7 Hyland Avenue/I-405 Northbound Ramps - South Coast Drive Caltrans Signal 0.34 A 0.66 B 0.38 A 0.69 B 0.04 0.03 No HCM 21.40 C 25.80 C 21.40 C 25.80 C - - No 8 Harbor Boulevard/MacArthur Boulevard Costa Mesa Signal 0.88 D 0.88 D 0.88 D 0.88 D 0.00 0.00 No Santa Ana Signal 0.89 D 0.89 D 0.89 D 0.89 D 0.00 0.00 No 9 Harbor Boulevard/Scenic Avenue - West Lake Center Drive Costa Mesa Signal 0.75 C 0.96 E 0.75 C 0.96 E 0.00 0.00 No Santa Ana Signal 0.76 C 0.96 E 0.75 C 0.97 E (0.01) 0.01 No 10 Harbor Boulevard/Sunflower Avenue Costa Mesa Signal 0.69 B 0.86 D 0.75 C 0.90 D 0.06 0.04 No Santa Ana Signal 0.72 C 0.86 D 0.78 C 0.90 D 0.06 0.04 No 11 Harbor Boulevard/South Coast Drive Costa Mesa Signal 0.60 A 0.83 D 0.69 B 0.83 D 0.09 0.00 No 12 Harbor Boulevard/I-405 NB Off-Ramp - I-405 SB On-Ramp Caltrans Signal 0.83 D 0.82 D 0.84 D 0.86 D 0.01 0.04 No HCM 21.80 C 26.10 C 22.50 C 28.30 C - - No 13 Harbor Boulevard/I-405 SB Off-Ramp - I-405 NB On-Ramp Caltrans Signal 0.61 B 0.74 C 0.61 B 0.75 C 0.00 0.01 No HCM 12.50 B 13.80 B 12.50 B 14.00 B - - No 14 Harbor Boulevard/Gisler Avenue Costa Mesa Signal 0.67 B 0.89 D 0.67 B 0.88 D 0.00 (0.01) No 15 Harbor Boulevard/Nutmeg Place Costa Mesa Signal 0.58 A 0.64 B 0.58 A 0.64 B 0.00 0.00 No 16 Harbor Boulevard/Baker Street Costa Mesa Signal 0.60 A 0.68 B 0.61 B 0.68 B 0.01 0.00 No 17 Susan Street/Sunflower Avenue Costa Mesa Signal 0.51 A 0.82 D 0.53 A 0.84 D 0.02 0.02 No ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION Table 5.13-11 General Plan Buildout (2040) Intersection Level of Service Summary, continued April 2021February 2020 Page 5.13-23 No . Intersection Jurisdiction Traffic Control General Plan Buildout (2040) Baseline General Plan Buildout (2040) Baseline Plus Project Peak-Hour Change Significant Impact? AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ICU ICU/ Delay LOS ICU/ Delay LOS ICU/ Delay LOS ICU/ Delay LOS AM PM 18 Susan Street/South Coast Drive Santa Ana Signal 0.44 A 0.91 E 0.45 A 0.93 E 0.01 0.02 Yes 19 Fairview Street/MacArthur Boulevard Costa Mesa Signal 0.78 C 0.97 E 0.78 C 0.97 E 0.00 0.00 No 20 Fairview Road/Sunflower Avenue Santa Ana Signal 0.81 D 0.78 C 0.82 D 0.78 C 0.01 0.00 No Costa Mesa Signal 0.81 D 0.82 D 0.82 D 0.82 D 0.01 0.00 No 21 Fairview Road/South Coast Drive Santa Ana Signal 0.82 D 0.91 E 0.83 D 0.91 E 0.01 0.00 No 22 Fairview Road/I-405 Northbound Ramps Costa Mesa Caltrans Signal Signal 0.73 C 0.72 C 0.73 C 0.72 C 0.00 0.00 No HCM 40.10 D 30.60 C 40.20 D 30.60 C - - No 23 Fairview Road/I-405 Southbound Ramps Caltrans Signal 0.92 E 0.69 B 0.92 E 0.69 B 0.00 0.00 No HCM 33.10 C 19.40 B 33.10 C 19.40 B - - No 24 Fairview Road/Baker Street 0.74 C 0.82 D 0.74 C 0.82 D 0.00 0.00 No 25 Cadillac Avenue - Driveway 1/Sunflower Avenue HCM Costa Mesa Signal 8.50 A 9.60 A 9.00 A 9.30 A - - No 26 Driveway 2/Sunflower Avenue HCM Costa Mesa OWSC 8.90 A 0.00 A 10.00 A 9.90 A - - No 27 FedEx Driveway - Driveway 3/Sunflower Avenue HCM Costa Mesa OWSC 10.00 A 10.60 B 15.30 B 24.80 C - - No 28 Talbert Avenue/Mt. Washington Street HCM Costa Mesa TWSC >100 F >100 F >100 F >100 F - - Yes 29 Harbor Boulevard/Segerstrom Avenue Fountain Valley TWSC 0.98 E 0.96 E 0.98 E 0.96 E 0.00 0.00 No Source: LSA 2020b. Notes: OWSC = One-Way Stop Control ; TWSC = Two-Way Stop Control; HCM = Highway Capacity Manual Delay is reported in seconds. For OWSC and TWSC intersections, the reported delay is for the worst-case movement. Highlighted cell indicates deficient LOS 1 This intersection is forecast to operate at a deficient LOS under future short-term cumulative plus project conditions using ICU methodology. However, since this intersection is under Caltrans’ jurisdiction, a significant impact at this intersection is based on Caltrans’ significant impact criteria which uses HCM methodology. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION Page 5.13-24 April 2021February 2020 Table 5.13-12 General Plan Buildout (2040) Freeway Segment and Ramp Levels of Service I-405 Freeway Segment / Ramp Mainline Lanes Without Project With Project AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Speed (mi/hr) Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Speed (mi/hr) Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Speed (mi/hr) Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Speed (mi/hr) Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Northbound 1. South of Fairview Road On- Ramp 6 54.6 38.9 E - - F 54.6 38.9 E - - F 2. Fairview Road On-Ramp 6 47.5 38.5 E - - F 47.5 38.5 E - - F 3. Fairview Road On-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard On-Ramp 6 52.3 42.8 E - - F 52.3 42.8 E - - F 4. Harbor Boulevard On-Ramp 6 38.7 43.6 E - - F 38.7 43.6 E - - F 5. Harbor Boulevard On-Ramp and Hyland Avenue On-Ramp 6 - - F - - F - - F - - F 6. Hyland Avenue On-Ramp 6 - - F - - F - - F - - F Southbound 7. Harbor Boulevard Off-Ramp 6 - - F - - F - - F - - F 8. Harbor Boulevard Off-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Loop On-Ramp 6 - - F - - F - - F - - F 9. Harbor Boulevard Loop On-Ramp 6 - - F - - F - - F - - F 10. Harbor Boulevard Loop On-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Slip-On Ramp 7 - - F 50.7 44.8 E - - F - - F 11. Harbor Boulevard Slip-On Ramp 7 - - F - - F - - F - - F 12. Harbor Boulevard Slip-On Ramp and Fairview Road Off-Ramp 7 - - F - - F - - F - - F Source: LSA 2020b. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis April 2021February 2020 Page 5.13-25 Project VMT Trip Generation The City of Costa Mesa has not yet formally adopted VMT thresholds of significance for purposes of determining transportation impacts under CEQA. Notwithstanding, in order to address the provisions of SB 743, a VMT comparison was completed for the residential and non-residential components of the project per the California Office of Administrative Law guidance for VMT analysis. The project VMT per capita has been compared with the regional VMT per capita to provide a comparison between the two and has been included as a conservative approach. Residential Land Use Since residential uses represent the project’s primary land use, the project VMT per capita for the residential portion of the project has been compared with the regional VMT per capita. Table 5.13-13, Existing Regional and Project VMT Comparison, illustrates the comparison between the estimated VMT per capita for the region and the residential portion of the project. As shown in Table 5.13-13, VMT per capita for the residential portion of the project would be 18 percent lower than the regional estimate. As the residential portion of the project would not generate VMT per capita greater than the region (Orange County), impacts would be less than significant. Non Residential (Retail) Land Use The project retail component is a minor component of the project with only nine anticipated retail employees. As such, the retail (supermarket) would primarily be used by residents of the project and would be a local serving retail development that would help reduce home-based retail trips and thereby reduce VMT. Additionally, per the OPR TA, for mixed-use projects, only the “project’s dominant use” may be considered for VMT analysis. Since the retail component of the proposed project is not a major component and would primarily serve residents of the project itself, a separate VMT assessment is not considered. Table 5.13-13 Existing Regional and Project VMT Comparison Land Use Region (Orange County) Project % Change Residential 18.0 14.8 -18% Office 25.0 25.9 3% Source: Orange County Transportation Analysis Model (OCTAM); LSA 2020b. Notes: Vehicle Miles Traveled Non-Residential (Office) Land Uses VMT per employee measure for the office use was used to compare the office component of the project to the region. Table 5.13-13 illustrates the comparison between the VMT per employee for the region and the office portion of the project. VMT per employee for the office portion of the project would be three percent higher than the regional estimate. Thus, although the City has not formally adopted VMT thresholds of significance, the office component of the project would result in potentially significant VMT impacts. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION Page 5.13-26 April 2021February 2020 Bicycles, Pedestrians, and Transit The City of Costa Mesa pursues strategies and programs for vehicle circulation along with other forms of mobility, including but not limited to bicycles, pedestrians, and transit. The City applies a “complete streets” strategy for street improvements. As substantiated by the discussion below, the proposed project would uphold the City’s policy to require new development projects to improve access to and accommodations for multimodal transportation (Policy C-5.13). Bicycles The General Plan Circulation Element provides goals and policies for a bikeway system throughout the City; refer to Section 5.13.1. As stated above, Class II bike lanes exist along Hyland Avenue, Susan Street, Fairview Road, MacArthur Boulevard, Sunflower Avenue, and South Coast Drive within the project vicinity. Additionally, new bike lanes are anticipated along Harbor Boulevard, Gisler Avenue, and Baker Street per the Costa Mesa Bicycle Master Plan. The proposed project would enhance bikeways and walkways on Sunflower Avenue and would upgrade the existing bike path that connects to the Santa Ana Regional Trail system. The project’s bikeway and walkway enhancements on Sunflower Avenue would uphold the City’s policy to implement road diets on street segments with excess capacity to enhance bicycle and pedestrian facilities (Policy C-1.5). A bicycle parking/active transportation hub adjacent would be installed at the 1.5-acre open space area. The proposed project would also support bicycle facilities by providing bicycle parking on-site. The project’s proposed bikeway system would further the City’s goal to develop an extensive bicycle and pedestrian backbone network through the use of standard and appropriate innovative treatments (Recommendation C-7.1). As such, the proposed project would support and enhance existing bicycle facilities and would be consistent with the City’s goals, policies, and recommendations in place to promote development of active transportation systems. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard. Pedestrians The General Plan Circulation Element provides goals and policies for pedestrian mobility throughout the City; refer to Section 5.13.1. The City supports the integration of pedestrian-oriented improvements and amenities within the circulation system to improve walkability. As discussed above, the proposed project would enhance walkways on Sunflower Avenue and enhanced connectivity to the Santa Ana Regional Trail system. As such, the proposed project would support and enhance existing pedestrian facilities. The proposed project is consistent with the City’s goals of promoting active transportation systems. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard. Transit The OCTA provides bus service for the City of Costa Mesa and in the vicinity of the project site. As noted in Section 5.13.1, the closest bus stops to the project site are located at the intersections of Harbor Boulevard/Sunflower Avenue, approximately 0.5-mile east of the project site, and Scenic Avenue/Hyland, approximately 0.5-mile north of the project site. OCTA bus lines 794 (express bus), 211, and 43 have stops at ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION April 2021February 2020 Page 5.13-27 the intersection of Harbor Boulevard/Sunflower Avenue. OCTA bus line 794 (express bus) serves the Scenic Avenue/Hyland Avenue stop. The OCTA Santa Ana Bus Base is located at the intersection of Hyland Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard, approximately one mile from the project site. Ridership may increase slightly with the addition of residents and workers to the project area. However, the project would not interrupt or displace any bus routes or facilities. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard. Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant Impact. Impact 5.13-2: The project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). [Threshold T-3] Impact Analysis: Access to the project site would be provided via three driveways on Sunflower Avenue. All three driveways would be full-access driveways. As such, a driveway analysis was conducted to evaluate traffic operations at the project driveways under all scenarios. As illustrated in Table 5.13-7, Table 5.13-9, and Table 5.13-11, all study intersections with a driveway (Study Intersections Nos. 25, 26, and 27) would not result in a significant impact under any scenario. Driveway 1 and Driveway 2 would operate at LOS A under all scenarios. Driveway 3 operates at a satisfactory LOS under all scenarios. Additionally, Sunflower Avenue from Cadillac Avenue to the eastern project boundary would be improved with bike paths, new sidewalks, street parking, and landscape medians to enhance the neighborhood from an industrial setting to a mixed-use residential area. The proposed improvements would also connect the new complete street section along the southern side of Sunflower Avenue with a new landscaped bicycle trail proposed along the western side of the open space area. The bicycle trail would connect the southwest portion of the project site to the Santa Ana River Trail. The complete street design is intended to enhance safe access and mobility for all users. Therefore, the proposed project would not increase hazards due to driveway location, and a less than significant impact would occur. Based on traffic counts collected for the TIA, a maximum of 270 vehicles travel along the project frontage during the a.m. peak hour, while a maximum of 280 vehicles travel during the p.m. peak hour. Because of the low through traffic on Sunflower Avenue and the presence of the center two-way left-turn lane, project traffic would have adequate gaps to maneuver in and out of the project driveways. As such, a queuing analysis was performed using SimTraffic to determine the queues for the various movements at the driveways. Table 5.13- 14, Driveway Queuing Analysis, summarizes the 95th percentile back-of-queue lengths at the study intersections under all scenarios. As illustrated in Table 5.13-14, the queues for the different movements at the driveways do not exceed 75 feet (the existing available turn pocket storage lengths) under any condition. Thus, there would not be any significant queues at the project driveways. According to the TIA, adequate corner sight distance would also be available at the project driveways. Therefore, the proposed project would not increase hazards due to driveway location and design, and a less than significant impact would occur. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION Page 5.13-28 April 2021February 2020 Table 5.13-14 Driveway Queuing Analysis Intersection Movement Queue Lengths (ft) [1] Existing (2019) Cumulative (2027) General Plan Buildout (2040) No Project Plus Project Baseline Plus Project Baseline Plus Project AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM 25. Cadillac Avenue - Driveway 1/ NBLR 15 0 60 55 15 25 60 55 15 25 65 60 Sunflower Avenue EBTR 0 0 0 35 0 0 0 30 0 0 10 25 OWSC WBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 30 26. Driveway 2/Sunflower Avenue NBLR 0 0 60 60 0 0 65 60 20 0 65 65 OWSC WBL 0 0 30 55 0 0 30 60 10 0 25 45 27. FedEx Driveway - Driveway 3/ NBLTR 0 0 70 55 0 0 70 60 0 0 75 60 Sunflower Avenue SBLTR 0 30 15 60 0 30 15 55 10 50 20 55 TWSC EBTR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBL 0 0 45 60 0 0 50 55 0 0 45 50 Source: LSA 2020b. Notes: ft = feet; OWSC = One-Way Stop Control; TWSC = Two-Way Strop Control; NB = Northbound; SB = Southbound; EB = Westbound; WB = Westbound; L = Left; T = Through; R = Right [1] All queues reported are 95th percentile queues. Since Synchro does not report queues for unsignalized intersections, all queues have been reported from SimTraffic. Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. Impact 5.13-3: The project would not result in inadequate emergency access. [Threshold T-4] Impact Analysis: Sunflower Avenue would continue to offer emergency access to the project site and surrounding properties during and after construction. Project construction activities could result in short-term temporary impacts to street traffic along Sunflower Avenue. While temporary lane closures may be required, travel along surrounding roadways would remain open and would not interfere with emergency access in the site vicinity. Per the City’s Circulation Element, a detour would be required to be provided around the construction zone that would be designed to ensure the safety of cyclists and pedestrians (PPP T-1). Construction-related impacts would be less than significant in this regard. The site plan for the proposed project includes a fire lane through the project site to ensure adequate emergency access to all proposed buildings on-site. As discussed above, the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact to site access. As such, the proposed project would not result in inadequate site access or design elements, and operational impacts to emergency access would be less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION April 2021February 2020 Page 5.13-29 5.13.5 Cumulative Impacts Impact 5.13-4: Development of the proposed project and related projects could cumulatively conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. [Thresholds T-1 and T-2] Impact Analysis: Cumulative traffic impacts for future short-term cumulative (2027) and General Plan buildout (2040) using LOS are analyzed under Impact 5.13-1. Cumulative traffic impacts consider the impacts of future growth of the City and vicinity of the project site. For the future short-term cumulative (2027) scenario, potentially significant impacts were identified for the following intersection: Talbert Avenue/Mt. Washington Street (Study Intersection No. 28, based on the City of Fountain Valley LOS Standards). For the General Plan buildout (2040) scenario, potentially significant impacts were identified for the following intersections: Susan Street/South Coast Drive (Study Intersection No. 18, based on City of Costa Mesa LOS standards); and Talbert Avenue/Mt. Washington Street (Study Intersection No. 28, based on the City of Fountain Valley LOS Standards). Future and cumulative growth would also lead to freeway ramps operating at deficient LOS. For the future short-term cumulative (2027) scenario, potentially significant impacts were identified for the freeway ramps: Northbound I-405 3. Fairview Road On-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard On-Ramp (p.m. peak hour only); 4. Harbor Boulevard On-Ramp (p.m. peak hour only); 5. Harbor Boulevard On-Ramp and Hyland Avenue On-Ramp (p.m. peak hour only); and 6. Hyland Avenue On-Ramp (p.m. peak hour only). Southbound I-405 7. Harbor Boulevard Off-Ramp (both a.m. and p.m. peak hours); 8. Harbor Boulevard Off-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Loop On-Ramp (both a.m. and p.m. peak hours); 9. Harbor Boulevard Loop On-Ramp (both a.m. and p.m. peak hours); 10. Harbor Boulevard Loop On-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Slip-On Ramp (a.m. peak hour); 11. Harbor Boulevard Slip-On Ramp (a.m. peak hour); and 12. Harbor Boulevard Slip-On Ramp and Fairview Road Off-Ramp (a.m. peak hour). ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION Page 5.13-30 April 2021February 2020 For the General Plan buildout (2040) scenario, potentially significant impacts were identified for the following freeway segments and ramps: Northbound I-405 1. South of Fairview Road On-Ramp (p.m. peak hour only); 2. Fairview Road On-Ramp (p.m. peak hour only); 3. Fairview Road On-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard On-Ramp (p.m. peak hour only); 4. Harbor Boulevard On-Ramp (p.m. peak hour only); 5. Harbor Boulevard On-Ramp and Hyland Avenue On-Ramp (both a.m. and p.m. peak hours); and 6. Hyland Avenue On-Ramp (both a.m. and p.m. peak hours). Southbound I-405 7. Harbor Boulevard Off-Ramp (both a.m. and p.m. peak hours); 8. Harbor Boulevard Off-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Loop On-Ramp (both a.m. and p.m. peak hours); 9. Harbor Boulevard Loop On-Ramp (both a.m. and p.m. peak hours); 10. Harbor Boulevard Loop On-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Slip-On Ramp (both a.m. and p.m. peak hours); 11. Harbor Boulevard Slip-On Ramp (both a.m. and p.m. peak hours); and 12. Harbor Boulevard Slip-On Ramp and Fairview Road Off-Ramp (both a.m. and p.m. peak hours). Potentially significant impacts would be cumulatively considerable with regard to freeway segments and ramps. The project, and cumulative projects, would also increase VMT in the region. The project’s cumulative contribution to VMT would be cumulatively considerable as well. The proposed project is consistent with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities and the performance and safety of such facilities. The proposed project would not combine with the related projects to result in significant impacts to such facilities. As a result, the project would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts to transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant Impact. Impact 5.13-5: Development of the proposed project and related projects would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). [Threshold T-3] Impact Analysis: As discussed in Impact 5.13-2, a queuing analysis was conducted to determine whether future queuing of cars would result in hazardous traffic conditions. Results of the queuing analysis detailed in Table 5.13-14 show that the proposed project would not result in significant queues at the project driveways. Further, according to the ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION April 2021February 2020 Page 5.13-31 TIA, adequate corner sight distance would be available at the project driveways. Based on Figure 4-1, the closest cumulative projects to the project site would not have the potential to interact with the proposed project and result in hazards due to geometric design features or incompatible uses. As a result, the project would not combine with other related projects to result in cumulatively considerable impacts due to geometric design features or incompatible uses. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. Impact 5.13-6: Development of the proposed project and related projects would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts to emergency access. [Threshold T-4] Impact Analysis: As discussed in Impact 5.13-3, project construction activities would not result in inadequate emergency access during construction or operations. Although short-term construction activities along Sunflower Avenue may require temporary lane closures, travel along surrounding roadways would remain open and would not interfere with emergency access in the site vicinity. Per the City’s Circulation Element, a detour would be required to be provided around the construction zone that would be designed to ensure the safety of cyclists and pedestrians (PPP T-1). Based on Figure 4-1, the closest cumulative projects to the project site would not have the potential to interact with the proposed project and result in cumulatively considerable impacts to emergency access. As a result, the project would not combine with other related projects to result in cumulatively considerable impacts to emergency access or create hazardous conditions. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. 5.13.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation Upon implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval, the following impacts would be less than significant: Impacts 5.13-2, 5.13-3, 5.13-5, and 5.13-6. Without mitigation, the following impacts would be potentially significant: Impact 5.13-1: The project could conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. Impact 5.13-4: Development of the proposed project and related projects could cumulatively conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. 5.13.7 Mitigation Measures Impact 5.13-1 T-1 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall contribute its fair share contribution to the City of Costa Mesa Transportation Division for the implementation ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION Page 5.13-32 April 2021February 2020 of adding a southbound right‐turn lane by restriping Susan Street at the intersection Susan Street/South Coast Drive (Study Intersection No. 18). Upon project approval, the City shall update the Capital Improvement Projects list accordingly. T-2 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall contribute its fair share contribution to the City of Fountain Valley Transportation Division for improvements to the intersection of Talbert Avenue/Mt. Washington Street (Study Intersection No. 28), including adding a traffic signal, restriping the northbound approach to a shared left through lane and a dedicated right turn lane, converting the southbound right turn lane to a dedicated channelized free right turn lane, and adding overlap phasing for a northbound right turn movement. Impact 5.13-4 Refer to Mitigation Measures T-1 and T-2. 5.13.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation Impact 5.13-1 Intersections Table 5.13-15, Improvements for Intersections, summarizes the scenarios and intersections where a potentially significant impact would occur. The table also summarizes the proposed improvements to mitigate the impacts. TIA Chapter 8, Circulation Improvements and Funding Sources, provides a discussion of each improvement; refer to Appendix M. Table 5.13-15 Improvements for Intersections Intersection Existing (2019) Plus Project Future Short-Term Cumulative (2027) Plus Project General Plan Buildout (2040) Plus Project 18. Susan Street/South Coast Drive No improvements required. No improvements required. Add a southbound right-turn lane by restriping Susan Street (Mitigation Measure T-1). 28. Talbert Avenue/Mt. Washington Street Add a traffic signal (Mitigation Measure T-2) Add a traffic signal. Restripe the northbound approach to a shared left through lane and a dedicated right turn lane, and convert the southbound right turn lane to a dedicated free right turn channelized lane (Mitigation Measure T-2). Add a traffic signal. Restripe the northbound approach to a shared left through lane and a dedicated right turn lane, and convert the southbound right turn lane to a dedicated free right turn channelized lane. Add overlap phasing to the northbound right turn movement (Mitigation Measure T-2). Source: LSA 2020b. Study Intersection No. 18: Susan Street/South Coast Drive As shown in Table 5.13-15, a significant impact would occur at the Susan Street/South Coast Drive intersection under General Plan Buildout (2040) Plus Project scenario. The project would be responsible for contributing towards its fair share for implementation of the proposed improvements (Mitigation Measure T-1). Mitigation ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION April 2021February 2020 Page 5.13-33 Measure T-1 would require the project applicant to contribute its fair share contribution to the City of Costa Mesa Transportation Division for the implementation of adding a southbound right‐turn lane by restriping Susan Street at the intersection Susan Street/South Coast Drive (Study Intersection No. 18). As shown in Table 5.13-16, Study Intersection No. 18 Level of Service with Recommended Improvements, with incorporation of Mitigation Measure T-1, traffic impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels for the General Plan Buildout (2040) Plus Project scenario. However, although fair share funds to this improvement would be made, there is no guarantee that the full improvement funds would be secured nor that these improvements would be constructed. Thus, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable for the General Plan Buildout (2040) Plus Project scenario at Susan Street/South Coast Drive (Study Intersection No. 18). Table 5.13-16 Study Intersection No. 18 Level of Service with Recommended Improvements 18. Susan Street/South Coast Drive Jurisdiction Without Mitigation With Mitigation AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ICU/ Delay LOS ICU/ Delay LOS ICU/ Delay LOS ICU/ Delay LOS General Plan Build Out (2040) Plus Project Costa Mesa 0.45 A 0.93 E 0.40 A 0.78 C Study Intersection No. 28: Talbert Avenue/Mt. Washington Street As shown in Table 5.13-15, a significant impact would occur at the Talbert Avenue/Mt. Washington Street intersection under all scenarios. The Talbert Avenue/Mt. Washington Street intersection is located in the City of Fountain Valley. The project would be responsible for contributing towards its fair share for implementation of the proposed improvements (Mitigation Measure T-2). Mitigation Measure T-2 would require the project applicant to contribute its fair share contribution to the City of Fountain Valley Transportation Division for improvements to the intersection of Talbert Avenue/Mt. Washington Street (Study Intersection No. 28), including adding a traffic signal, restriping the northbound approach to a shared left through lane and a dedicated right turn lane, converting the southbound right turn lane to a dedicated channelized free right turn lane, and adding overlap phasing for a northbound right turn movement. As shown in Table 5.13-17, Study Intersection No. 28 Level of Service with Recommended Improvements, with incorporation of Mitigation Measure T-2, traffic impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. While improvements are identified for this intersection, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable, since the intersection is not located within the City of Costa Mesa and there is no guarantee that the improvements identified would be implemented. As such, although impacts to this intersection could be reduced to less than significant with recommended improvements, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Table 5.13-17 Study Intersection No. 28 Level of Service with Recommended Improvements 28. Talbert Avenue/Mt. Washington Street Without Mitigation With Mitigation AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ICU/ Delay LOS ICU/ Delay LOS ICU/ Delay LOS ICU/ Delay LOS Existing (2019) Plus Project >100 F >100 F 0.71 C 0.72 C Future Short-Term Cumulative (2027) Plus Project >100 F >100 F 0.76 C 0.70 B General Plan Build Out (2040) Plus Project >100 F >100 F 0.89 D 0.73 C Source: LSA 2020b. Delay is reported in seconds. Highlighted cell indicates deficient LOS ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION Page 5.13-34 April 2021February 2020 Freeway Segments and Ramps Impact 5.13-1 shows that the identified deficient freeway segments and ramps would operate at a deficient LOS with and without the proposed project. The proposed project would contribute to the segments and ramps’ deficient status. Therefore, there are project-level and cumulative impacts to the freeway system near the project site. To mitigate the impacts at the identified locations, freeway main-line and/or freeway ramp widening would be required. However, this type of infrastructure is extremely costly and is typically infeasible for one development project to undertake. The City cannot assure the construction of improvements to freeway facilities that may be needed to improve traffic flow. Improvements to State highway facilities are planned, funded, and constructed by the State of California through a legislative and political process involving the State legislature; the California Transportation Commission (CTC); the California Business, Transportation, and Housing Agency; Caltrans; and the Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA). Although potential impacts to the freeway mainline segments and ramps have been evaluated, implementation of the transportation improvements to Caltrans facilities listed above is the primary responsibility of Caltrans. Caltrans has recognized that private development has a role to play in funding fair share improvements to impacts on these facilities, but neither Caltrans nor the State has adopted a program that can ensure that locally contributed impact fees would be tied to improvements to freeway mainlines. Only Caltrans has jurisdiction over mainline improvements. State and Federal fuel taxes generate most of the funds used to pay for improvements. Funds expected to be available for transportation improvements are identified through a fund estimate prepared by Caltrans and adopted by the CTC. These funds, along with other fund sources, are deposited in the State highway account to be programmed and allocated to specific project improvements by the CTC. However, since there is no guarantee that these programs would be implemented by the agencies with the responsibility to do so, the project’s identified impacts to the freeway system are considered significant and unavoidable. Project VMT Trip Generation The project VMT per capita has been compared with the regional VMT per capita to provide a comparison between the two. As discussed in Table 5.13-13, proposed residential/retail components of the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts pertaining to VMT. However, the project also includes a creative office building. VMT per employee measure for the office use was used to compare the office component of the project to the region. Table 5.13-13 illustrates the comparison between the VMT per employee for the region and the office portion of the project. VMT per employee for the office portion of the project would be three percent higher than the regional estimate. Thus, although the City has not formally adopted VMT thresholds of significance, the office component of the project would result in significant VMT impacts. It should be noted, that the project is a mixed-use development that would add housing to an area within walking and biking distance to existing employment, retail, restaurant, and entertainment opportunities that could potentially further reduce VMT for the entire project. In fact, the mixed-use nature of the project along with the pedestrian and bikeway improvements are all intended to reduce the project’s overall VMT. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION April 2021February 2020 Page 5.13-35 In addition, the proposed Specific Plan and proposed project features encourage/implement VMT reduction strategies. These strategies include pedestrian network improvements, traffic calming measures (to encourage biking/walking), car-sharing programs, encouraging telecommuting and alternative work schedule, as well as encourage the use of ride-share programs. However, it is not reasonable or feasible to require these measures and/or quantify the number of reduced VMT. Thus, although these VMT reduction strategies reduce VMT impacts from the proposed creative office use, the project impacts would remain significant and unavoidable with respect to the office component and, thereby, the project as a whole. Impact 5.13-4 Refer to the discussion above. Despite implementation of Mitigation Measures T-1 and T-2, project impacts to the identified intersections and freeway ramps would be significant and unavoidable under the existing (2019), future short-term cumulative (2027) plus project, and General Plan buildout (2040) plus project conditions. Further, the project’s VMT associated with the creative office use would be significant and unavoidable. Thus, cumulative impacts would be significant and unavoidable in this regard. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION Page 5.13-36 April 2021February 2020 This page intentionally left blank. ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I February 2020April 2021 Chapter 5.14 Tribal Cultural Resources ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I February 2020April 2021 This page intentionally left blank. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis April 2021February 2020 Page 5.14-1 5.14 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES This section of the Draft EIR evaluates the potential for implementation of the proposed project to impact tribal cultural resources. Tribal cultural resources include landscapes, sacred places, or objects with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe. Other potential impacts to cultural resources (i.e., prehistoric, historic, and disturbance of human remains) are evaluated in Section 5.3, Cultural Resources. The analysis in this section is based in part on the following information: Cultural Resource Survey Report, City of Costa Mesa, County of Orange, California, LSA, May 2019. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Multi-Family Residential Development 1683 Sunflower Avenue, Costa Mesa, California, Geocon West Inc., July 24, 2019. A complete copy of each study is in the technical appendices of this Draft EIR (Volume II, Appendix D, Cultural Resources Survey Report and Appendix E, Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation). 5.14.1 Environmental Setting 5.14.1.1 REGULATORY BACKGROUND Federal Archaeological Resources Protection Act The Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 regulates the protection of archaeological resources and sites that are on Federal lands and Indian lands. Recognizing that archaeological resources are an irreplaceable part of America's heritage, the Act’s purpose was to secure, for the present and future benefit of the American people, the protection of archaeological resources and sites that are on public lands and Indian lands, and to foster increased cooperation and exchange of information between governmental authorities, the professional archaeological community, and private individuals. Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act is a Federal law passed in 1990 that provides a process for museums and Federal agencies to return certain Native American cultural items, such as human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony, to lineal descendants and culturally affiliated Indian tribes. State Public Resources Code Archaeological resources are protected pursuant to several State policies and regulations enumerated under the California Public Resources Code. In addition, cultural resources are recognized as a nonrenewable resource and, therefore, receive protection under the California Public Resources Code and CEQA. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES Page 5.14-2 April 2021February 2020 California Public Resources Code 5097.9–5097.991 provides protection to Native American historical and cultural resources, and sacred sites and identifies the powers and duties of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). It also requires notification to descendants of discoveries of Native American human remains and provides for treatment and disposition of human remains and associated grave goods. Health and Safety Code The discovery of human remains is regulated per California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, which states: In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation…until the coroner…has determined…that the remains are not subject to…provisions of law concerning investigation of the circumstances, manner and cause of any death, and the recommendations concerning the treatment and disposition of the human remains have been made to the person responsible…. The coroner shall make his or her determination within two working days from the time the person responsible for the excavation, or his or her authorized representative, notifies the coroner of the discovery or recognition of the human remains. If the coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his or her authority and…has reason to believe that they are those of a Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission. Senate Bill 18 Existing law provides limited protection for Native American prehistoric, archaeological, cultural, spiritual, and ceremonial places. These places may include sanctified cemeteries, religious, ceremonial sites, shrines, burial grounds, prehistoric ruins, archaeological or historic sites, Native American rock art inscriptions, or features of Native American historic, cultural, and sacred sites. Senate Bill 18 (SB 18) on Traditional Tribal Cultural Places (TTCP) was signed into law in September 2004 and went into effect on March 1, 2005. It places new requirements upon local governments for developments within or near traditional tribal cultural places TTCPs. SB 18 requires local jurisdictions to provide opportunities for involvement of California Native Americans in the land planning process for the purpose of preserving traditional tribal cultural places. The Final Tribal Guidelines recommend the NAHC provide written information as soon as possible, but no later than, 30 days after receiving notice of the project to inform the lead agency if the proposed project is determined to be in proximity to a TTCP and another 90 days for tribes to respond to a local government if they want to consult with the local government to determine whether the project would have an adverse impact on the TTCP. There is no statutory limit on the consultation duration. Forty-five days before the action is publicly considered by the local government council, the local government refers action to agencies, following the CEQA public review time frame. The CEQA public distribution list may include tribes listed by the NAHC who have requested consultation, or it may not. If the NAHC, the tribe, and interested parties agree upon the mitigation measures necessary for the proposed project, it would be included in the project’s EIR. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES April 2021February 2020 Page 5.14-3 Per SB 18, the law institutes a new process which would require a city or county to consult with the NAHC and any appropriate Native American tribe for the purpose of preserving relevant TTCP prior to the adoption, revision, amendment, or update of a city’s or county’s general plan. Although SB 18 does not specifically mention consultation or notice requirements for adoption or amendment of specific plans, the Final Tribal Guidelines advise that SB 18 requirements extend to specific plans as well, since State planning law requires local governments to use the same process for amendment or adoption of specific plans as general plans (defined in Government Code Section 65453). In addition, SB 18 provides a new definition of TTCP, requiring a traditional association of the site with Native American traditional beliefs, cultural practices, or ceremonies or the site must be shown to actually have been used for activities related to traditional beliefs, cultural practices, or ceremonies. Previously, the site was defined to require only an association with traditional beliefs, practices, lifeways, and ceremonial activities. In addition, SB 18 law also amended Civil Code Section 815.3 and adds California Native American tribes to the list of entities that can acquire and hold conservation easements for the purpose of protecting their cultural places. Assembly Bill 52 The Native American Historic Resource Protection Act (AB 52) took effect July 1, 2015, and incorporates tribal consultation and analysis of impacts to tribal cultural resources (TCR) into the CEQA process. It requires TCRs to be analyzed like any other CEQA topic and establishes a consultation process for lead agencies and California tribes. Projects that require a Notice of Preparation of an EIR or Notice of Intent to adopt a Negative Declaration (ND) or Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) are subject to AB 52. A significant impact on a TCR is considered a significant environmental impact, requiring feasible mitigation measures. TCRs must have certain characteristics: 1. Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes (must be geographically defined), sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historic Resources or included in a local register of historical resources. (Public Resources Code Section 21074(a)(1)) 2. The lead agency, supported by substantial evidence, chooses to treat the resource as a TCR. (Public Resources Code Section 21074(a)(2)) The first category requires the TCR qualify as an historical resource according to Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. The second category gives the lead agency discretion to qualify that resource under the conditions that it supports its determination with substantial evidence and considers the resource’s significance to a California tribe. The following is a brief outline of the process (Public Resources Code Sections 21080.3.1–3.3). 1. A California Native American tribe asks agencies in the geographic area with which it is traditionally and culturally affiliated to be notified about projects. Tribes must ask in writing. 2. Within 14 days of deciding to undertake a project or determining that a project application is complete, the lead agency must provide formal written notification to all tribes who have requested it. 3. A tribe must respond within 30 days of receiving the notification if it wishes to engage in consultation. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES Page 5.14-4 April 2021February 2020 4. The lead agency must initiate consultation within 30 days of receiving the request from the tribe. 5. Consultation concludes when both parties have agreed on measures to mitigate or avoid a significant effect to a TCR, or a party, after a reasonable effort in good faith, decides that mutual agreement cannot be reached. 6. Regardless of the outcome of consultation, the CEQA document must disclose significant impacts on TCRs and discuss feasible alternatives or mitigation that avoid or lessen the impact. Local General Plan The Historical and Cultural Resources Element of the General Plan includes the following goals, objectives, and policies to protect tribal cultural resources within the City: Goal HCR-1: Historical, Archeological, and Paleontological Resource Preservation. The City of Costa Mesa supports focused efforts to provide residents with a sense of community and history through the protection and preservation of historical and cultural resources. Objective HCR-1A Encourage preservation and protection of the City’s archaeological, paleontological, and historical resources. - Policy HCR-1.4: 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. - Policy HCR-1.7: 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., prehistorical sites, historical sites, and isolated artifacts and features) in the project area, determine their eligibility for inclusion in the California Register of Historical 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 who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards in prehistorical or historical archaeology. - Policy HCR-1.8: Comply with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act regarding protection and recovery of archaeological resources discovered during development activities. Municipal Code Municipal Code Article 14, Historic Preservation, is intended to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare by providing for the identification, protection, enhancement, perpetuation and use of improvements, buildings, structures, sites, districts, neighborhoods, natural features, and significant permanent landscaping ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES April 2021February 2020 Page 5.14-5 having special historical, archaeological, cultural, architectural, or community value in the City. Pursuant to Article 14, no person, owner, or other entity shall restore, rehabilitate, alter, develop, construct, demolish, remove, or change the appearance of any cultural resource on the local Register of Historic Places without first having applied for and been granted a certificate of appropriateness to do so by the planning commission (or other commission/committee designated by the City council). 5.14.1.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS Natural Setting The project site is currently occupied by an approximate 345,000 square foot one-story industrial building, associated surface parking lot, drive aisles, hardscape improvements, and landscaping. The surrounding area is entirely built out and consists of similar one- to two-story industrial and office park buildings and retail uses. The elevation of the project area is approximately 28 to 30 feet above mean sea level. The site is underlain by artificial fill and unconsolidated Holocene age alluvial fan deposits consisting of sand, silt, and clay (Geocon 2019). The project area is approximately 750 feet southeast of the current channelized alignment of the Santa Ana River. Based on historic topographic quadrangles, the project area lies directly within what was the prehistoric natural alignment of the Santa Ana River. Ethnography The project area is within the traditional tribal territory of the Gabrielino Indians. The word “Gabrielino” refers to the Shoshonean (Takic) speaking Native Americans who lived throughout Los Angeles, western San Bernardino and Riverside, and Orange Counties, and who were historically affiliated with Mission San Gabriel Archangel. Some of these Shoshonean people also called themselves Tong-va. The Gabrielino were hunters and gatherers who used both inland and coastal food resources. They caught and collected seasonally occurring food resources and evolved a semi-sedentary lifestyle, living in permanent and semi-permanent villages along inland watercourses and coastal estuaries. These villages took advantage of the varied resources available at such locales. Seasonally, as foods became available, the Gabrielino moved to temporary gathering camps and collected plant foods such as acorns, buckwheat, chia, berries, or fruits. They also periodically established camps along the coast or at estuaries to gather shellfish or to hunt waterfowl. The Gabrielino lived in small, semi-permanent villages that were the focus of family life. Patrilineally linked extended families lived within each village. These kin groups were affiliated in several village clans. Both the clans and the villages were apparently exogamous and patrilocal, as Mission records suggest that after her marriage, a woman resided at her husband’s village. Gabrielino villages were politically independent even when marriage ties existed. The village was administered by a headman who inherited his position from his father. Shamans guided religious and medical activities, and group hunting or fishing was supervised by individual male specialists. An active and elaborate Gabrielino ritual system was present when the Spanish padres arrived to establish Mission San Gabriel. Rituals included individual rites of passage, village rites, and participation in the ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES Page 5.14-6 April 2021February 2020 widespread Chinigchinich cult. The cult of the culture hero, Chinigchinich, was observed and recorded by Franciscan Friar Geronimo Boscana while he resided at Missions San Juan Capistrano and San Luis Rey. Records Searches in the Project Area and Surrounding Vicinity Known Historical Resources As analyzed in Impact 5.3-1, there are no known potential historical resources in the study area. As such, development of the proposed project would not adversely impact any resources listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) or in a local register of historical resources per Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k). Sacred Lands File Search and Consultation On April 5, 2019, a Sacred Lands File search was conducted by NAHC to determine if any sacred lands or traditional cultural properties had been identified near the project site. NAHC did not identify any recorded sites within the project area that could be impacted by the proposed project. 5.14.2 Thresholds of Significance According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would: TCR-1 Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k); or ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. No impacts relating to Threshold TCR-1(i) were identified, as substantiated in Chapter 8, Impacts Found Not to Be Significant. This threshold is not addressed in the following analysis. 5.14.3 Plans, Programs, Policies, and Standard Conditions of Approval The following are existing regulatory requirements, such as plans, policies, programs (PPP), or standard conditions of approval (SCA), applied to the project based on Federal, State, or local laws currently in place, and which effectively reduce impacts related to tribal cultural resources. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES April 2021February 2020 Page 5.14-7 PPP TCR-1 The proposed project is required to comply with California Public Resources Code 5097.9– 5097.991 (which protects Native American historical and cultural resources, and sacred sites); Public Resources Code 21084.3 (avoid damaging effects to any tribal cultural resource); Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 (pertaining to the discovery or recognition of any human remains). 5.14.4 Environmental Impacts 5.14.4.1 METHODOLOGY Cultural Resources Records Search On March 27, 2019, LSA conducted a record search at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), located at California State University, Fullerton. The record search included a review of all recorded historic and prehistoric archaeological sites within a 0.5-mile radius of the project area, as well as a review of known cultural resource survey and excavation reports (refer to Appendix B, Record Search Results, of Appendix D). In addition, the following inventories were examined: National Register of Historic Places California Register of Historical Resources California Historical Landmarks California Points of Historical Interest California Historic Resources Inventory Pedestrian Field Survey LSA conducted an intensive-level field survey of the project area on April 11, 2019. The survey focused on open, undeveloped portions of the project area. On May 30, 2019, LSA conducted a supplemental survey of additional project areas consisting of off-site improvements (Sunflower Avenue). Native American Consultation In May 2019, the City of Costa Mesa conducted Native American consultation pursuant to SB 18 and AB 52 requirements. Each Native American group or individual listed was sent a project notification letter and map and was asked to convey any knowledge regarding prehistoric or Native American resources (archaeological sites, sacred lands, or artifacts) located within the study area or surrounding vicinity. The letter included information such as study area location and a brief description of the proposed project. Letters were sent to the following Tribes and individuals: Jeff Grubbe, Chairperson, Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians Ralph Goff, Chairperson, Campo Band of Diegueno Mission Indians Andrew Salas, Chairperson, Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation Robert Pinto, Chairperson, Ewiiaapaayp Tribe Michael Garcia, Vice Chairperson, Ewiiaapaayp Tribe ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES Page 5.14-8 April 2021February 2020 Anthony Morales, Chairperson, Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians Sandonne Goad, Chairperson, Gabrielino/Tongva Nation Robert Dorame, Chairperson, Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council Charles Alvarez, Chairperson, Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe Erica Pinto, Chairperson, Jamul Indian Village Lisa Cumper, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, Jamul Indian Village Sonia Johnston, Chairperson, Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Matias Belardes, Chairperson, Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation Teresa Romero, Chairperson, Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation - Romero Fred Nelson, Chairperson, La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians Gwendolyn Parada, Chairperson, La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians Javaughn Miller, Tribal Administrator, La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians Angela Elliott Santos, Chairperson, Manzanita Band of Kumeyaay Nation Michael Linton, Chairperson, Mesa Grande Band of Diegueno Mission Indians Robert Smith, Chairperson, Pala Band of Mission Indians Temet Aguilar, Chairperson, Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians Mark Macarro, Chairperson, Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians Jim McPherson, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians Bo Mazzetti, Chairperson, Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians San Luis Rey Tribal Council, San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians Allen Lawson, Chairperson, San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians Scott Cozart, Chairperson, Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians Cody J. Martinez, Chairperson, Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation Robert Welch, Chairperson, Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians John Valenzuela, Chairperson, San Fernando Band of Mission Indians 5.14.4.2 IMPACT ANALYSIS The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance that may have potentially significant impacts. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets after the impact statement. Impact 5.14-1: Development of the proposed project could impact unknown tribal cultural resources. [Threshold TCR-1(ii)] Impact Analysis: Conducting consultation early in the CEQA process allows tribal governments, public lead agencies, and project proponents to discuss the level of environmental review, identify and address potential adverse impacts to TCRs, and reduce the potential for delay and conflict in the environmental review process. The intent of the consultations is to provide an opportunity for interested Native American contacts to work together with the City during the project planning process to identify and protect TCRs. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES April 2021February 2020 Page 5.14-9 AB 52 and SB 18 Consultation As noted in Section 5.3, no cultural resources were identified in the records search or were observed during the field survey conducted by LSA in April 2019 and May 2019. Additionally, given the presence of fill materials in the top five feet of on-site soils and the project site’s location within the prehistoric natural alignment of the Santa Ana River, the presence of TCRs is not anticipated. However, in compliance with AB 52 and SB 18, the City sent notification letters to the Native American contacts provided by the NAHC, formally inviting tribes to consult with the City on the proposed project. Of the 30 Tribal members that were sent an invitation to consult, one Tribe responded to the City’s request for consultation: Andrew Salas, Chairperson, Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation. The City conducted a formal consultation via conference call with Andrew Salas on August 20, 2019. Mr. Salas indicated there was a high potential to encounter unknown buried TCRs due to the project’s proximity to a sacred village (Lupukunga), a historical water course (Santa Ana River), and a major traditional trade route (the Southern Pacific Railroad). Thus, proposed excavation/grading activities within native soils on-site have the potential to inadvertently unearth or impact undocumented TCRs. This is considered a potentially significant impact. Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant Impact. 5.14.5 Cumulative Impacts Impact 5.14-2 Development of the proposed project and related projects could result in cumulatively considerable impacts to unknown tribal cultural resources. [Threshold TCR-1(ii)] Impact Analysis: Table 4-2, Related Projects, identifies the related projects and other possible development in the area determined as having the potential to interact with the proposed project to the extent that a significant cumulative effect may occur. Cumulative impacts to TCRs would occur when the impacts of the proposed project, in conjunction with other projects, result in cumulatively considerable impacts to TCRs in the area. Each future project considered for approval would be required to comply with California Public Resources Codes 5097.9–5097.991 (which protects Native American historical and cultural resources, and sacred sites), 21084.3 (avoids damaging effects to any tribal cultural resource), and Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 (pertaining to the discovery or recognition of any human remains), and would be required to include measures on a project-by-project basis to protect these resources if they are uncovered during grading activities (PPP TCR-1). Like the proposed project, the related cumulative projects identified in Table 4-2 would be located within an urbanized environment on sites that have been previously disturbed as a result of existing development. Nonetheless, the possibility remains that undiscovered, buried TCRs could potentially be encountered where excavation/grading occurs in native soils. As discussed in Impact 5.14-1, the proposed project has the potential to impact unknown TCRs. The potential to encounter previously undiscovered TCRs during excavation/grading is a potentially cumulatively considerable impact. Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant Impact. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES Page 5.14-10 April 2021February 2020 5.14.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation Without mitigation, the following impacts would be potentially significant: Impact 5.14-1: Development of the proposed project could impact unknown tribal cultural resources. Impact 5.14-2: Development of the proposed project and related projects could result in cumulatively considerable impacts to unknown tribal cultural resources. 5.14.7 Mitigation Measures Impact 5.14-1 TCR-1 Prior to issuance of any grading permits, the qualified archaeologist (required pursuant to Mitigation Measure CUL-1) shall identify a Native American Monitor determined by the City of Costa Mesa and in consultation with the Native American Heritage Commission for the project grading activities and/or any other activities involving native soils. In the event unanticipated tribal cultural material is encountered during any phase of site disturbance/construction, the Native American Monitor shall be contacted and all construction work within 50 feet (15 meters) of the find shall cease until the find can be assessed. If, in consultation with the City, the discovery is determined to not be significant, work will be permitted to continue in the area. If the resources appear to be of significant tribal cultural value, they shall be professionally recovered pursuant to the requirements of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 and in consultation with the Native American Monitor identified. Impact 5.14-2 Refer to Mitigation Measures TCR-1. 5.14.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation Impact 5.14-1 Mitigation Measure TCR-1 would reduce potential impacts associated with unknown TCRs to a level that is less than significant. Mitigation Measure TCR-1 would ensure a qualified Native American Monitor is present during excavation activities involving native soils. If evidence of potential subsurface tribal cultural materials are found during site disturbance/excavation activities and the qualified archaeologist/Native American Monitor determines that the find is prehistoric or includes Native American materials, Mitigation Measure TCR-1 would ensure affiliated Native American groups are invited to contribute to the assessment and recovery of the found resource. With implementation of Mitigation Measure TCR-1, impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels. Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES April 2021February 2020 Page 5.14-11 Impact 5.14-2 Refer to the discussion above. With implementation of Mitigation Measure TCR-1, project impacts to unknown TCRs would be reduced to less than significant levels and would not be cumulatively considerable. Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES Page 5.14-12 April 2021February 2020 This page intentionally left blank. ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I February 2020April 2021 Chapter 5.15 Utilities and Service Systems ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I February 2020April 2021 This page intentionally left blank. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis April 2021February 2020 Page 5.15-1 5.15 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS This section of the Draft EIR discusses the current conditions of utility providers, including water, wastewater, stormwater, solid waste, electricity, and natural gas services, and the project’s potential effects on these utilities. The analysis in this section is based in part on the following information: Preliminary Hydrology Report (Hydrology Report), Urban Resource Corporation, November 1, 2019; Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (Preliminary WQMP), Urban Resource Corporation, August 14, 2019; and California Senate Bill 610 Water Supply Assessment for Mesa Water District One Metro West Project (WSA), Michael Baker International, October 2019. Complete copies of these studies are included in the technical appendices of this Draft EIR (Volume II, Appendix I, Preliminary Hydrology Report; Appendix J, Preliminary WQMP; and Appendix N, Water Supply Assessment). 5.15.1 Environmental Setting 5.15.1.1 REGULATORY BACKGROUND Wastewater Treatment and Collection Federal Clean Water Act and National Pollution Elimination Discharge System The Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) establishes regulations to control the discharge of pollutants into the Waters of the United States and regulates water quality standards for surface waters (United States Code, Title 33, Section 1251 et seq.). Under the CWA, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is authorized to set wastewater standards and administers the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Under the NPDES program, permits are required for all new developments that discharge directly into waters of the United States. The CWA requires wastewater treatment of all effluent before it is discharged into surface waters. NPDES permits for such discharges in the project region are issued by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). State State Water Resources Control Board Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements The State Water Resources Control Board’s (SWRCB) General Waste Discharge Requirements specify that all Federal and State agencies, municipalities, counties, districts, and other public entities that own or operate sewer systems greater than one mile in length that collect and/or convey untreated or partially treated wastewater to a publicly owned treatment facility in the State need to develop a Sewer Master Plan. The Sewer Master Plan is required to evaluate existing sewer collection systems and provide a framework for undertaking the construction of new and replacement facilities in order to maintain proper levels of service. The Sewer Master Plan also includes: ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Page 5.15-2 April 2021February 2020 Inflow and infiltration studies to analyze flow monitoring and water use data; A capacity assurance plan to analyze the existing system with existing land use and unit flow factors; A condition assessment and sewer system rehabilitation plan; and A financial plan with recommended capital improvements and financial models. Regional Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board General Waste Discharge Requirements The project is regulated under the NPDES Phase I Municipal Stormwater Permits issues by the Santa Ana RWQCB for Orange County (Order No. R8-2009-0030 [NPDES Permit No. CAS618030]) (RWQCB 2009). The Order requires dischargers to adopt a Sewer System Management Plan and a grease (e.g., fats, oils and grease) control ordinance to require commercial food establishments to install and maintain sewer interceptors. The Order also requires dischargers establish other legal authority to preserve the integrity of the sewer system and prevent sewer system spills. Orange County Sanitation District NPDES Permit Wastewater discharge requirements for the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) Reclamation Plant No. 1 and Treatment Plant No. 2 are detailed in Order No. R8-2012-0035 (NPDES Permit No. CA0110604) (RWQCB 2012). The permit includes the conditions needed to meet applicable technology-based requirements. The permit includes limitations more stringent than applicable Federal technology-based requirements, where necessary, to achieve applicable water quality standards. Orange County Sanitation District Capital Facilities Charges The OCSD Capital Facilities Charge (Ordinance No. 40) is imposed when a property newly connects to the OCSD system or a previously connected property expands its use. Revenue generated from the charge is used for the acquisition, construction, and reconstruction of OCSD’s wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal facilities; repayment of principal and interest on debt instruments; and repayment of Federal and State loans for the construction and reconstruction of sewage facilities, together with costs of administration and provisions for necessary reserves. Orange County Sanitation District Ordinance No. 48 OCSD Ordinance No. 48 sets limits on wastewater that is discharged to sewers and conveyed to OCSD wastewater treatment plants. Ordinance No. 48 also limits concentrations of certain substances, including metals and hazardous materials, such as pesticides and petroleum-derived oil and grease. Local Costa Mesa Sanitary District Operations Code The Costa Mesa Sanitary District (CMSD) is responsible for providing wastewater collection and transmission to OCSD facilities for treatment and disposal. The CMSD Operations Code codifies all existing CMSD regulations that pertain to ongoing CMSD operations to provide staff and the public with useful references to CMSD regulations. The Operations Code ensures wastewater facilities are complete, correctly operating, and ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS April 2021February 2020 Page 5.15-3 in compliance with government codes and wastewater industry practices. The Operations Code also provides interested parties with procedures, policies, and requirements for the design and construction of new CMSD wastewater infrastructure. General Plan The Conservation Element of the General Plan includes the following goals, objectives, and policies related to wastewater within the City: Policy CON-3.A.9: 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. Municipal Code Municipal Code Section 15-6, Placing Oil On Streets or in Sewers Prohibited, states it is unlawful to place, cause, or permit to be placed or discharged any oil or petroleum products into or upon any sewers, streets, or sidewalks in the City. Municipal Code 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. Additionally, Municipal Code Section 13-180, Application Requirements, establishes limits and prohibitions on discharges into the City’s sewer system and establishes a permitting process for connection to the sewer system. Municipal Code Section 13-71, Utility Requirements, regulates connections to the City’s water and sewer system. Water Supply and Distribution Systems State Water Conservation Act of 2009 Water Code Sections 10800, et seq., creates a framework for future planning and actions by urban (and agricultural) water suppliers to reduce California’s water use. The law requires urban water suppliers to reduce Statewide per capita water consumption by 20 percent by 2020. Additionally, the State was required to make incremental progress towards this goal by reducing per capita water use by at least ten percent by 2015. Each urban retail water supplier was required to develop water use targets and an interim water use target by July 1, 2011. Each urban retail water supplier was required, by July 2011, to include in a water management plan the baseline daily per capita water use, water use target, interim water use target, and compliance daily per capita water use. Urban Water Management Planning Act The Urban Water Management Planning Act of 1983 (Water Code Sections 10610 et seq.), requires water suppliers to: Plan for water supply and assess reliability of each source of water over a 20-year period in 5-year increments; Identify and quantify adequate water supplies, including recycled water, for existing and future demands, in normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry years; and Implement conservation and the efficient use of urban water supplies. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Page 5.15-4 April 2021February 2020 Significant new requirements for quantified demand reductions were added by the Water Conservation Act of 2009, which amends the Urban Water Management Planning Act and adds new water conservation provisions to the Water Code. Senate Bill 221 Senate Bill (SB) 221 prohibits approval of a tentative map, a parcel map for which a tentative map was not required, or a development agreement for subdivisions of more than 500 dwelling units unless the legislative body of a city or county provides written verification from the applicable public water system that a sufficient water supply is available or will be available prior to completion of the project. Sufficient water supply is defined as “the total water supplies available during normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry years within a 20-year projection that will meet the projected demand associated with the proposed subdivision, in addition to existing and planned future uses, including, but not limited to, agricultural and industrial uses”(CLI 2016). In determining sufficient water supply, all of the following factors must be considered: Availability of water supplies over a historical record of at least 20 years; Applicability of an urban water shortage contingency analysis prepared pursuant to Water Code Section 10632 that includes actions to be undertaken by the public water system in response to water supply shortages; Reduction in water supply allocated to a specific water use sector pursuant to a resolution or ordinance adopted or a contract entered into by the public water system; and Amount of water from other water supply projects such as conjunctive use, reclaimed water, water conservation, and water transfer. In addition, the written verification of the public water system’s ability or inability to provide a sufficient water supply to meet the projected demands from the proposed subdivision must be supported by substantial evidence. If the written verification relies on projected water supplies that are not currently available, the availability of said supplies must be based on written contracts or other proof of valid rights to the identified water supply; copies of a capital outlay program for financing the delivery of a sufficient water supply; securing of applicable Federal, State, and local permits for construction of necessary infrastructure; and any necessary regulatory approvals. Senate Bill 610 SB 610 amended the Urban Water Management Planning Act to mandate that a city or county approving certain projects subject to CEQA: 1) identify any public water system that may supply water for the project and 2) request those public water systems to prepare a specified Water Supply Assessment (WSA).1 The WSA must include: A discussion of whether the public water system’s total projected water supplies available during normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry water years during a 20-year projection would meet the projected water demand 1 Under Water Code Section 10912(a)(1), SB 610 applies to a CEQA project defined as “a proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units.” Thus, a water supply assessment was prepared for the proposed project. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS April 2021February 2020 Page 5.15-5 associated with the proposed project, in addition to the public water system’s existing and planned future uses, including agricultural and manufacturing uses; The identification of existing water supply entitlements, water rights, or water service contracts relevant to the identified water supply for the proposed project and water received in prior years pursuant to those entitlements, rights, and contracts; A description of the quantities of water received in prior years by the public water system under the existing water supply entitlements, water rights, or water service contracts; A demonstration of water supply entitlements, water rights, or water service contracts; The identification of other public water systems or water service contract holders that receive a water supply or have existing water supply entitlements, water rights, or water service contracts with the same source of water as the public water system; and Additional information related to groundwater if it is included in the supply for the proposed project. If SB 610 applies to a project, the WSA must be included in the environmental document prepared for the project and may include an evaluation of information in that environmental document. The WSA must determine if the projected water supplies will be sufficient to satisfy the demands of the project as well as existing and planned future uses. A WSA was prepared for the proposed project and is included as Appendix N. Additionally, SB 610 requires new information to be included as part of an urban water management plan (UWMP) if groundwater is identified as a source of water available to the supplier. Information must include a description of all water supply projects and programs that may be undertaken to meet total projected water use. SB 610 prohibits eligibility for funds from specified bond acts until the UWMP is submitted to the State. Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill 1881) The Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 2006, Assembly Bill (AB) 1881 required the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) to update the State Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO) by 2009. The State’s model ordinance was issued on October 8, 2009. Under AB 1881, cities and counties were required to adopt a State-updated model landscape water conservation ordinance by January 31, 2010, or adopt a different ordinance that is at least as effective in conserving water as the State’s updated MWELO. It also requires reporting on the implementation and enforcement of local ordinances. Executive Order B-29-15 Updated State Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance To improve water savings in the landscaping sector, the MWELO was updated in accordance with Executive Order B-29-15. The updated MWELO promotes efficient landscapes in new developments and retrofitted landscapes through more efficient irrigation systems, greywater usage, and on-site stormwater capture, and by limiting the portion of landscapes that can be covered in turf. New development projects that include landscaped areas of 500 square feet or more are subject to the MWELO. This applies to residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional projects that require a permit, plan check, or design review. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Page 5.15-6 April 2021February 2020 Local Mesa Water District 2015 Urban Water Management Plan The Urban Water Management Planning Act requires all urban water suppliers to prepare, adopt, and file a UWMP with the DWR every five years. The Mesa Water District’s (MWD’s) 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (2015 UWMP) outlines current water demands, sources, and supply reliability to the City by forecasting water use based on climate, demographics, and land use changes. The plan also provides demand management measures to increase water use efficiency for various land use types, and it details a water supply contingency plan in case of shortage emergencies. Mesa Water District Standard Specification and Standard Drawings for the Construction of Water Facilities The purpose of MWD’s Standard Specification and Standard Drawings for the Construction of Water Facilities procedural guide is to provide developers and their agents with the general steps for procuring water service from MWD, as well as provide the general design requirements for the preparation and processing of water improvement plans for new or expanded water service from MWD. General Plan The Conservation and Safety Elements of the General Plan include the following goals, objectives, and policies related to water supply and conservation within the City: Policy S-2.6: Require that water supply systems for development are adequate to combat structural fires in terms of location and minimum required fire-flow pressures. Objective CON-3.A: Work towards the protection and conservation of existing and future water resources by recognizing water as a limited resource that requires conservation. Policy CON-3.A.1: 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.A.2: Encourage residents, public facilities, businesses, and industry to minimize water consumption, especially during drought years. Policy CON-3.A.3: 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. Municipal Code Municipal Code Section 13-107, Irrigation Requirements, describes water-efficient irrigation requirements in the City. This section establishes water-efficient landscape regulations, pursuant to AB 1881 and implements the MWELO. Municipal Code Section 13-107 requires irrigation systems be designed so that overspray, runoff, and low-head drainage onto streets, sidewalks, windows, walls, and fences are minimized. Automatic systems for watering cycles should be scheduled to maximize ground infiltration rates and further minimize runoff. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS April 2021February 2020 Page 5.15-7 Municipal Code Section 13-71, Utility Requirements, regulates connections to the City’s water and sewer system. Stormwater Infrastructure Regional Orange County Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Permit Municipal storm sewer system (MS4) permits are issued by local RWQCBs to provide the means to address stormwater quality issues specific to the local watershed or region. MS4 permits require permittees to develop and implement a stormwater management program with the goal of reducing the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable (MEP). The stormwater management program or drainage area management plan, as it is referred to in the Orange County MS4 Permit (Order No. R8-2009-0030 [NPDES Permit No. CAS618030]), must specify best management practices (BMPs) approved by the Santa Ana RWQCB. The proposed project and its facilities would discharge into the MS4 within the jurisdiction of Costa Mesa. Pursuant to the Orange County MS4 Permit, the City is responsible for controlling or limiting urban pollutants generated by post-construction activities from reaching their MS4s. The proposed project is, therefore, subject to the requirements of the Orange County MS4 Permit (Santa Ana Region) as it is applied by the permittee and its co-permittees. Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan The County’s 2003 Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) describes the agreements, structures and programs that: Provide the legal authority for prohibiting unpermitted discharges into the storm drain system and for requiring BMPs in new development and significant redevelopment; Improve existing municipal pollution prevention and removal BMPs to further reduce the amount of pollutants entering the storm drain system; Educate the public about the issue of urban stormwater and non-stormwater pollution and obtain their support in implementing pollution prevention BMPs; Ensure all new development and significant redevelopment incorporates appropriate site design, source control and treatment control BMPs to address specific water quality issues; Ensure construction sites implement control practices that address control of construction-related pollutant discharges, including erosion and sediment control and on-site hazardous materials and waste management; Ensure that existing development address discharges from industrial facilities, selected commercial businesses, residential development, and common interest areas/homeowner associations; Detect and eliminate illegal discharges/illicit connections to the municipal storm drain system; Identify impacted receiving waters and produce environmental quality information to direct management activities, including prioritization of pollutants to support the development of specific controls to address these problems; and Assess watersheds and manage urban runoff on a watershed basis (OCPW 2019). ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Page 5.15-8 April 2021February 2020 Local General Plan The Land Use and Conservation Elements of the General Plan include the following goals, objectives, and policies related to storm drains within the City: 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-4.5: 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. Policy CON-3.A.5: 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.A.6: Continue to develop strategies to promote stormwater management techniques and storm drain diversion programs that collectively and naturally filter urban runoff. Policy CON-3.A.7: Continue to comply with the NPDES Program by participating in the Countywide DAMP, which stipulates water quality requirements for minimizing urban runoff and discharge from new development and requires the provisions of applicable BMPs. Policy CON-3.A.8: Require that all applicable development projects be reviewed with regards to requirements of both the on-site Water Quality Management Plan and State requirements for runoff and obtaining a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) permit. Municipal Code Municipal Code Section 13-107, Irrigation Requirements, requires irrigation systems be designed to reduce overspray, runoff, and low-head drainage onto streets, sidewalks, windows, walls, and fences. Automatic systems for watering cycles are required to maximize ground infiltration rates and further minimize runoff. Additionally, Municipal Code Section 8-35, Permits, regulates permitted and illicit connections to the City’s storm drain system. Solid Waste Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations), Part 258 contains regulations for municipal solid waste landfills and requires states to implement their own permitting ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS April 2021February 2020 Page 5.15-9 programs incorporating the Federal landfill criteria. The Federal regulations address the location, operation, design (liners, leachate collection, run-off control, etc.), groundwater monitoring, and closure of landfills. State Assembly Bill 939 AB 939 (Integrated Solid Waste Management Act of 1989; California Public Resources Code Section 40050 et seq.) established an integrated waste management system that focuses on source reduction, recycling, composting, and land disposal of waste. AB 939 requires every city and county in California to divert 50 percent of its waste from landfills whether through waste reduction, recycling, or other means. Compliance with AB 939 is measured in part by comparing solid waste disposal rates for a jurisdiction with target disposal rates. Actual rates at or below target rates are consistent with AB 939. AB 939 also requires California counties to show 15 years of disposal capacity for all jurisdictions in the county or show a plan to transform or divert its waste. Assembly Bill 341 AB 341 (Chapter 476, Statutes of 2011) increased the Statewide solid waste diversion goal to 75 percent by 2020. The law also mandates recycling for commercial and multi-family residential land uses as well as school districts. Assembly Bill 1826 AB 1826 (California Public Resources Code Sections 42649.8 et seq.) requires recycling of organic matter by businesses generating such wastes in amounts over certain thresholds. AB 1826 also requires that local jurisdictions implement an organic waste recycling program to divert organic waste generated by businesses and multi-family developments that consist of five or more units (CalRecycle 2019a). California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991 The California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991 instructs the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) to draft a “model ordinance” for the disposal of construction waste associated with development projects. This act also requires local agencies to ensure development projects have adequate areas for the collection and loading of recyclable materials. California Green Building Standards Code Section 5.408, Construction Waste Reduction, Disposal, and Recycling, of the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) (Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 11) requires at least 50 percent of nonhazardous construction and demolition waste from non-residential construction operations be recycled and/or salvaged for reuse. CALGreen is updated on a three-year cycle; the 2016 CALGreen took effect on January 1, 2017. The 2019 CALGreen takes effect on January 1, 2020. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Page 5.15-10 April 2021February 2020 Local Costa Mesa Sanitary District Operations Code The intent of the CMSD Operations Code codifies all existing CMSD regulations that pertain to ongoing CMSD operations to provide staff and the public with useful references to CMSD regulations. The Operations Code ensures solid waste facilities are complete, correctly operating, and in compliance with government codes and solid waste industry practices. General Plan The Conservation Element of the General Plan includes the following goals, objectives, and policies related to solid waste within the City: Policy CON-2.A.9: Encourage waste management programs that promote waste reduction and recycling to minimize materials sent to landfills. Maintain robust programs encourage residents and businesses to reduce, reuse, recycle, and compost. Policy CON-2.A.10: Support waste management practices that provide recycling programs. Promote organic recycling, landfill diversion, zero waste goals, proper hazardous waste collections, composting, and the continuance of recycling centers. Policy CON-2.A.11: Continue construction and demolition programs that require recycling and minimize waste in haul trips. Other Utilities State California Energy Commission The California Energy Commission (CEC) was created in 1974 as the State’s principal energy planning organization. The CEC is charged with six basic responsibilities when designing State energy policies: Forecast Statewide electricity needs; License power plants to meet those needs; Promote energy conservation and efficiency measures; Develop renewable energy resources and alternative energy technologies; Promote research, development, and demonstration; and Plan for and direct the State’s response to energy emergencies. California Energy Benchmarking and Disclosure AB 1103 (2007) requires electric and gas utility service providers maintain records of energy consumption data for all nonresidential buildings to which they provide service. It also required by January 1, 2009, upon authorization of a non-residential building owner or operator, an electric or gas utility provider shall upload all available energy consumption data for the specified building to the California Environmental Protection ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS April 2021February 2020 Page 5.15-11 Agency Energy Star Portfolio Manager in a manner that preserves the confidentiality of the customer. This statute further requires a non-residential building owner or operator disclose Energy Star Portfolio Manager benchmarking data and ratings for the most recent 12-month period to a prospective buyer, lessee, or lender. Enforcement of the latter requirement began on January 1, 2014. On October 8, 2015, AB 802 was signed into law. AB 802 directs the CEC to establish a Statewide energy benchmarking and disclosure program and enhances the CEC’s existing authority to collect data from utility providers and other entities for the purposes of energy forecasting, planning, and program design. Among the specific provisions, AB 802 would require utility providers to maintain records of energy usage data of all buildings to which they provide service for at least the most recent 12 complete months. Beginning January 1, 2017, AB 802 required each utility provider, upon the request and the written authorization or secure electronic authorization of the owner, owner’s agent, or operator of a covered building, to deliver or provide aggregated energy usage data for a covered building to the owner, owner’s agent, operator, or to the owner’s account in the Energy Star Portfolio Manager, subject to specified requirements. Local General Plan The Conservation Element of the General Plan includes the following goals, objectives, and policies related to energy within the City: Objective CON-2.A: Work to conserve energy resources in existing and new buildings, utilities, and infrastructure. Policy CON-2.A.1: 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.A.2: 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.A.3: 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.A.4: 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 CON-2.A.5: Promote environmentally sustainable development principles for buildings, master planned communities, neighborhoods, and infrastructure. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Page 5.15-12 April 2021February 2020 Policy CON-2.A.6: Encourage construction and building development practices that reduce resource expenditures throughout the lifecycle of a structure. Policy CON-2.A.7: Continue to require all City facilities and services to incorporate energy and resource conservation standards and practices and require that new municipal facilities be built within the LEED Gold standards or equivalent. Policy CON-2.A.8: Continue City green initiatives in purchases of equipment, and agreements that favor sustainable products and practices. Policy CON-4.A.7: Encourage installation of renewable energy devices for businesses and facilities and strive to reduce communitywide energy consumption. 5.15.1.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS Wastewater Treatment and Collection Wastewater Treatment Wastewater from the project site is treated at OCSD’s two treatment facilities: Reclamation Plant No. 1 in Fountain Valley and Treatment Plant No. 2 in Huntington Beach. Reclamation Plant No. 1 has a treatment capacity of 182 million gallons per day (mgd) for average daily flows and 274 mgd for peak wet weather flows. Treatment Plant No. 2 has a treatment capacity of 150 mgd for average daily flows and 317 mgd for peak wet weather flows. Together, the two plants currently treat approximately 185 mgd from customers throughout north and central Orange County (OCSD 2016). Therefore, the two plants have a residual capacity of approximately 147 mgd for average daily flows. Approximately 120 mgd of wastewater treated at Reclamation Plant No. 1 is sent to the Orange County Water District (OCWD) for further treatment at the groundwater replenishment system (GWRS) facility in Fountain Valley. OCWD is currently planning to expand the GWRS capacity from 100 to 130 mgd with anticipated completion by 2023 (OCWD 2019). Water treated at the GWRS is pumped and percolated into the Orange County Groundwater Basin (OC Basin), partly to create a barrier against seawater intrusion into the OC Basin and partly for future potable reuse. An additional three mgd of effluent from Reclamation Plant No. 1 are sent to the OCWD for additional treatment in a separate facility; this reclaimed water is then delivered to customers for irrigation use. Existing Wastewater Generation The project site is developed with an approximate 345,000-square foot industrial building, associated surface parking lot, and ornamental landscaping. The existing generation rate for industrial uses, 3,167 gallons per acre per day (gpad), is based on OCSD’s design and constr uction requirements for sanitary sewers (OCSD 2015). Therefore, approximately 25,083 gpad of wastewater is generated on-site by the existing industrial use. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS April 2021February 2020 Page 5.15-13 Wastewater Conveyance As shown on Figure 3-8, Infrastructure Improvements – Sanitary Sewer, the project site is currently served by an existing CMSD wastewater system in Sunflower Avenue, including the following sewer lines: Existing 8- and 12-inch vitrified concrete pipe sewer lines in Sunflower Avenue (18 feet south of the northerly curb), which collect and convey sewer flows (via a 12-inch stub) to an existing 84-inch OCSD mainline sewer that runs from east to west in Sunflower Avenue located 27 feet north of the southerly curb; Two 6-inch sewer laterals from sewer lines in Sunflower Avenue; An existing 48-inch OCSD sewer line that flows diagonally through the site from the Cadillac Avenue and Sunflower Avenue intersection to approximately the midpoint of the site’s westerly property line. Water Supply and Distribution Systems MWD provides water service to approximately 108,000 customers through approximately 23,760 metered service connections (MWD 2016). Residential uses encompass the majority (approximately 70 percent) of MWD’s water demand while commercial, industrial, and institutional uses encompass approximately 21 percent. Dedicated landscape irrigation encompasses approximately eight percent and construction hydrant meters and fire-line testing encompass the remaining less than one percent of MWD’s water demand. Water Supplies MWD currently relies on a combination of clear and amber-tinted groundwater from the OC Basin for 100 percent of its demands. MWD works together with three primary agencies, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan), Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC), and Orange County Water District (OCWD) to ensure a safe and reliable water supply to serve the community in periods of drought and shortage. MWD also has the ability to supplement its local groundwater with imported water purchased from Metropolitan through MWDOC. Metropolitan’s principal sources of water are the Colorado River via the Colorado River Aqueduct and the Lake Oroville watershed in Northern California through the State Water Project. The water obtained from these sources is treated at the Robert B. Diemer Filtration Plant located north of Yorba Linda. Although MWD has historically relied on imported water to supplement its demands, MWD is projected to meet its future demands using local groundwater through 2040. Historically, local groundwater has been the cheapest and most reliable source of supply for MWD. In fiscal year 2018, MWD relied on approximately 16,065 acre-feet (AF) of groundwater from the OC Basin. This water supply source meets approximately 94 percent of MWD’s total annual demand. Actual and projected water supply sources and volumes for the year 2018 through 2040 are provided in Table 5.15-1, MWD Actual Water Supplies and Table 5.15-2, MWD Projected Water Supplies. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Page 5.15-14 April 2021February 2020 Table 5.15-1 MWD Actual Water Supplies (AF) Actual Volumes 2015 2018 Groundwater – OC Basin 16,844 16,065 Total 16,844 16,065 Source: Michael Baker International 2019. Notes: AF = acre-feet Table 5.15-2 MWD Projected Water Supplies (AF) Water Supply 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Groundwater – Clear Wells 11,161 14,047 14,095 14,142 14,190 Groundwater – Amber Wells 4,087 5,463 5,481 5,500 5,519 In-Lieu/Coastal Pumping Transfer Program 1,000 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 Total 16,248 20,610 20,676 20,742 20,809 Source: Michael Baker International 2019. Notes: AF = acre-feet Water Demands Potable water demands in MWD’s service area are forecast to increase from 16,248 AF in 2020 to 20,809 AF in 2040; refer to Table 5.15-3, Normal Year Supply and Demand Comparison. MWD’s available water supply is anticipated to meet projected demand. Table 5.15-3 Normal Year Supply and Demand Comparison (AF) 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Supply Total 16,248 20,610 20,676 20,742 20,809 Demand Total 16,248 20,610 20,676 20,742 20,809 Difference 0 0 0 0 0 Source: Michael Baker International 2019. Notes: AF = acre-feet MWD also anticipates having sufficient water supplies to meet demands in single dry years and multiple dry years over the 2020 to 2040 period, as shown in Table 5.15-4, Single Dry Year Supply and Demand Comparison, and Table 5.15-5, Multiple Dry Years Supply and Demand Comparison. Table 5.15-4 Single Dry Year Supply and Demand Comparison (AF) 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Supply Total 21,847 21,917 21,987 22,058 22,126 Demand Total 21,847 21,917 21,987 22,058 22,126 Difference 0 0 0 0 0 Source: Michael Baker International 2019. Notes: AF = acre-feet ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS April 2021February 2020 Page 5.15-15 Table 5.15-5 Multiple Dry Years Supply and Demand Comparison (AF) 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 First Year Total Supply 21,847 21,917 21,987 22,058 22,126 Total Demand 21,847 21,917 21,987 22,058 22,126 Difference 0 0 0 0 0 Second Year Total Supply 21,847 21,917 21,987 22,058 22,126 Total Demand 21,847 21,917 21,987 22,058 22,126 Difference 0 0 0 0 0 Third Year Total Supply 21,847 21,917 21,987 22,058 22,126 Total Demand 21,847 21,917 21,987 22,058 22,126 Difference 0 0 0 0 0 Source: Michael Baker International 2019. Notes: AF = acre-feet Water Conveyance The project site is served by an existing 24-inch MWD domestic water line in Sunflower Avenue located six feet south of the northerly curb and an existing 18-inch domestic water line in Cadillac Avenue located six feet west of the easterly curb; refer to Figure 3-7, Infrastructure Improvements – Domestic Water. These MWD lines currently provide domestic water service as well as fire flow to the project site. Stormwater Infrastructure Regional Drainage The City is located within the Santa Ana River Hydrologic Unit. This unit covers an area of approximately 2,700 square miles, which is within most of the Santa Ana RWQCB jurisdiction and includes portions of Orange, Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties. Within the Santa Ana River Hydrologic Unit, the City encompasses both the Santa Ana River Watershed (northern portion) and the Newport Bay Watershed (southern portion). The project site is in the Santa Ana River Watershed, which covers approximately 210 square miles within Orange County and is the largest watershed in the County. This watershed contains the Santa Ana River and Santiago Creek (OCPW 2011). The Santa Ana River passes about 1,000 feet northwest of the project site. The City provides storm drain services to most of Costa Mesa and has approximately 42 miles of storm drains and 1,165 catch basins. The City is responsible for inspection, maintenance, and repair of the storm drain system. Maintenance activities include clearing blocked drains, removing debris from storm drain/catch basins structures, and cleaning and repairing damaged drain pipes. Regular maintenance and inspections assist in reducing debris and pollution from reaching the Pacific Ocean in compliance with NPDES program requirements (Costa Mesa 2019). Local Drainage The project site is generally flat and divided into nine drainage sub-areas that eventually drain into either an existing 66-inch cured-in-place pipe (CIPP) storm drain running from Sunflower Avenue to the I-405 Freeway along the western project boundary or a 24-inch reinforced concrete pipe storm drain located along the eastern ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Page 5.15-16 April 2021February 2020 project boundary; refer to Figure 3-9, Infrastructure Improvements – Storm Drain. The existing 66-inch storm drain line is owned and maintained by the City within an existing dedicated easement. Solid Waste Solid Waste Collection, Recycling, and Disposal CMSD contracts curbside refuse and recycling collection services with CR&R Environmental Services. (CMSD 2019a). In 2017, about 93 percent of solid waste landfilled from Costa Mesa was disposed of at two facilities: the Frank R. Bowerman Sanitary Landfill in Irvine and the Prima Deshecha Landfill in San Juan Capistrano (CalRecycle 2017a). The landfills are both operated by the OC Waste and Recycling Department. Table 5.15-6, Landfill Capacity, details existing capacity information for the two landfills. Table 5.15-6 Landfill Capacity Landfill Facility Current Remaining Capacity (cubic yards) Maximum Daily Disposal Capacity Average Daily Disposal (2017)1 Residual Daily Disposal Capacity Estimated Close Date Frank R. Bowerman Sanitary Landfill 11002 Bee Canyon Access Road Irvine, CA 92618 205,000,000 cubic yards 11,500 tons 7,632 tons 3,868 tons 2053 Prima Deshecha Landfill 32250 Avenida La Pata San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 134,300,000 cubic yards 4,000 tons 1,763 tons 2,237 tons 2102 Total 339,300,000 cubic yards 15,500 tons 9,395 tons 6,105 tons Sources: CalRecycle 2019c, 2019d, 2017b. Notes: 1 Average daily disposal is estimated based on 300 operating days per year. Each facility is open six days per week, Monday through Saturday, except certain holidays. Solid Waste Diversion Compliance with AB 939 is measured in part by actual solid waste disposal amounts compared to targets; disposal amounts equal to or lower than targets are consistent with AB 939. In 2017, solid waste disposal targets for the City were 8.5 pounds per day (ppd) for residents and 11.3 ppd for employees; actual disposal amounts were 4.8 ppd for residents and 6.2 ppd for employees (CalRecycle 2018). As such, the City is currently meeting its solid waste disposal targets pursuant to AB 939. Existing Solid Waste Generation Based on a solid waste generation factor of six pounds per 1,000 square feet per day for industrial uses, full occupancy of the industrial building would generate approximately 2,070 ppd of solid waste (CalRecycle 2019b). ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS April 2021February 2020 Page 5.15-17 Other Utilities The project site is served by Southern California Edison (SCE) and Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) for electricity and natural gas services, respectively. Figure 3-10, Infrastructure Improvements – Dry Utilities, illustrates existing dry utility improvements in the project vicinity. Electricity The service area of SCE spans much of southern California from Orange and Riverside counties to the south to Santa Barbara County on the west and Mono County to the north. Total mid-electricity consumption in SCE’s service area was 106,080 gigawatt-hour (GWh) in 2015 and is forecasted to increase to 118,803 GWh in 2027 (CEC 2016). Natural Gas The SoCalGas service area spans much of southern California, from San Luis Obispo in the north to the Mexico border in the south. Total natural gas supplies available to SoCalGas in the year 2019 are estimated at 3,385 million cubic feet per day (MMCF/day). Supplies are forecasted to remain constant at 3,775 MMCF/day from 2020 through 2035. Total natural gas consumption in SoCalGas’s service area is forecasted to decline slightly from 2,591 MMCF/day in 2019 to 2,313 MMCF/day in 2035 (CGEU 2018). 5.15.2 Thresholds of Significance According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would: U-1 Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. U-2 Have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. U-3 Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. U-4 Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. U-5 Not comply with Federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Page 5.15-18 April 2021February 2020 5.15.3 Plans, Programs, Policies, and Standard Conditions of Approval The following existing regulatory requirements, such as plans, policies, or programs (PPP), or standard conditions of approvals (SCA), applied to the project based on Federal, State, or local laws currently in place, and which effectively reduce impacts related to utilities and service systems. Wastewater Treatment and Collection PPP USS-1 The project’s sewer infrastr ucture improvements are required to be designed, constructed, and operated in accordance with the Costa Mesa Sanitary District (CMSD) Operations Code. PPP USS-2 The project’s sewer infrastructure is required to be designed, constr ucted, and operated in accordance with the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) Ordinance Nos. 40 and 48, and all wastewater discharges into OCSD facilities shall be required to comply with the discharge standards set forth to protect the public sewage system/and Waters of the United States. PPP USS-3 The project’s sewer infrastructure is required to be designed, constr ucted, and operated in accordance with Municipal Code Sections 15-6, Placing Oil On Streets or in Sewers Prohibited, 15- 67, Required Construction, 13-180, Application Requirements, and 13-71, Utility Requirements. Water Supply and Distribution Systems PPP USS-4 The project’s water infrastructure improvements are required to be designed, constructed, and operated in accordance with the Mesa Water District’s (MWD’s) Standard Specification and Standard Drawings for the Construction of Water Facilities. PPP USS-5 The proposed project is required to be planned, designed, installed, and maintained in accordance with Municipal Code Section 13-107, Irrigation Requirements, and Section 13-71, Utility Requirements. PPP USS-6 The project is required to comply with California Energy Code and Green Building Code provisions related to water and energy conservation. SCA FIRE-24 Water mains and hydrants shall be installed to the standards of Mesa Water District’s (MWD) and dedicated along with repair easements to MWD. Stormwater Infrastructure PPP USS-7 The project’s stormwater infrastructure shall be planned, designed, installed, and maintained in accordance with Municipal Code Section 8-35, Permits, which regulates permitted and illicit connections to the City’s storm drain system in accordance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements. SCA WQMP-66 Prior to or concurrent with submittal of plans for grading, building plan check, and/or submittal of the final subdivision map for engineering plan check, the applicant shall prepare ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS April 2021February 2020 Page 5.15-19 and submit documentation for compliance with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Water Quality Order 99-08-DWQ; National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No. CAS000002 for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity (General Permit); the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (Santa Ana RWQCB) Order No. R8-2009-0030, as amended by Order No. R82010-0062, or most recent (NPDES Permit No. CAS618030); and the City’s Ordinance No. 97-20 for compliance with the NPDES permit. Such documentation shall include a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) if over one acre and a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) identifying and detailing the implementation of applicable best management practices (BMPs). SCA ENG-18 Proposed storm drain facilities shall be constructed pursuant to the City of Costa Mesa Master Drainage Plan. SCA ENG-19 The project shall fulfill drainage ordinance fee requirements prior to approval of final maps and plans. SCA ENG-21 Private on-site drainage facilities and parkway culverts or drains will not be maintained by the City and shall be maintained by the owner or developer of the property. Private lateral connections to City storm drains shall require a hold harmless agreement prior to issuance of grading or building permits. Refer to Section 5.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, for a discussion of PPP HYD-2 through PPP-HYD-4. Solid Waste PPP USS-8 The proposed project’s solid waste infrastructure improvements are required to be designed, constructed, and operated in accordance with the applicable regulations in the Costa Mesa Sanitary District (CMSD) Operations Code. PPP USS-9 The proposed project is required to store and collect recyclable materials in compliance with AB 341 and handle green waste in accordance with AB 1826. PPP USS-10 The proposed project is required to recycle construction waste in accordance with the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) requirements. Other Utilities No existing regulatory requirements, such as plans, policies, programs, or standard conditions of approval related to other utilities apply to the proposed project. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Page 5.15-20 April 2021February 2020 5.15.4 Environmental Impacts The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which there may be potentially significant impacts. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets after the impact statement. Wastewater Treatment and Collection Impact 5.15-1: Existing and proposed wastewater facilities would be able to accommodate project-generated wastewater. [Thresholds U-1 and U-3] Impact Analysis: Project Wastewater Generation The proposed project would allow development of up to 1,057 multi-family residential units, 25,000 square feet of commercial (creative office) space, 1,500 square feet of public/private community room use, 6,000 square feet of specialty retail use, and a 1.5-acre open space area. Based on CMSD’s wastewater generation rates for the proposed land uses, the project would generate approximately 138,025 gpd of wastewater with a net wastewater generation of approximately 112,942 gpd after demolition of the existing industrial building; refer to Table 5.15-7, Project-generated Wastewater. Table 5.15-7 Project-generated Wastewater Land Uses Proposed Buildout Wastewater Generation Rate Project-generated Wastewater (gpd) Proposed Project Open Space 1.5 acres 200 gpd per acre 300 Multi-Family Residential 1,057 units 125 gpd per unit 132,125 Office 25,000 square feet 200 gpd per 1,000 square feet 5,000 Retail 6,000 square feet 100 gpd per 1,000 square feet 600 Total – Proposed Project 138,025 Existing Wastewater Generation – Existing Industrial Building -25,083 Net Wastewater Generation 112,942 Source: CMSD 2019a. Note: gpd = gallons per day As stated above, OCSD Reclamation Plant No. 1 and Treatment Plant No. 2 have approximately 147 mgd of residual capacity based on current average flows. Therefore, the project-generated 112,942 gpd of wastewater would represent a nominal 0.07 percent of the two plants’ residual capacity and would be adequately treated. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard. Wastewater Conveyance As part of the project, an on-site sewer system comprised of public and private sewer components would be constructed; refer to Figure 3-8. The on-site sewer system would connect to the existing 12-inch sewer stub on the south side of the OCSD manhole in Sunflower Avenue. CMSD issued a will-serve letter indicating sufficient ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS April 2021February 2020 Page 5.15-21 sewer capacity exists in the CMSD and OCSD sewer mains in Sunflower Avenue to accommodate wastewater generated by the proposed project (CMSD 2019b). Additionally, pursuant to PPP USS-1 and PPP USS-2, the project’s sewer infrastructure improvements would be designed, constructed, and operated in accordance with the CMSD Operations Code and OCSD Ordinance Nos. 40 and 48. The project would also be required to comply with PPP USS-3, which details construction requirements related to new wastewater infrastructure development in the City pursuant to Municipal Code Sections 15-6, 15-67, 13-180, and 13-71. As such, project impacts related to wastewater conveyance would be less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. Water Supply and Distribution Systems Impact 5.15-2: Existing water supply and delivery systems are adequate to meet project-generated water demand. [Thresholds U-1 and U-2] Impact Analysis: Water Demands Construction Short-term demand for water may occur during demolition, excavation, grading, and construction activities. Water demand for soil watering (fugitive dust control), cleanup, masonry, painting, and other activities would be temporary and would cease upon construction completion. Overall, short-term demolition and construction activities would require minimal water and are not expected to adversely impact existing MWD water supply sources. Operation The project site is currently developed with an industrial building. Based on MWD’s meter data for fiscal year 2019, the existing industrial building had a water demand of approximately 16,024 gallons per day; refer to Table 5.15-8, Existing Water Demands. Table 5.15-8 Existing Water Demands Land Use Site Acreage Building Square Footage Average Day Demand Maximum Day Demand Peak Hour Demand gpd gpm gpd gpm gpm Industrial 16.2 345,900 16,024 11.13 24,036 16.69 25.04 Source: Michael Baker International 2019. Notes: gpd = gallons per day; gpm = gallons per minute As detailed in the WSA, the proposed land use changes would result in increased water demands. The proposed water demands were estimated based upon demand factors and peaking factors established in the MWD’s 2014 Water Master Plan (2014 WMP). It is assumed the demand factors listed in the 2014 WMP account for both ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Page 5.15-22 April 2021February 2020 indoor and outdoor water consumption based on their respective land use category. However, the 2014 WMP does not specify irrigation demand factors based on land use type. Since there is a significant portion of the project site that would require irrigation (i.e., open space and landscaped areas), a separate irrigation demand factor based on industry standards in similarly developed cities was utilized by the WSA; refer to Table 5.15-9, Project Water Demands. Table 5.15-9 details anticipated project water demands based on the proposed residential, commercial (including the creative office and specialty retail uses), and irrigation demands. Table 5.15-9 Project Water Demands Land Use Category Dwelling Units Acres Average Day Demand Maximum Day Demand Peak Hour Demand gpd gpm gpd gpm gpm Residential Mid/High 1,057 -- 190,260 132.13 285,390 198.19 297.28 Commercial -- -- 0.71 1,779 1.24 2,669 1.85 2.78 Irrigation -- -- 2.25 5,400 3.75 13,500 9.38 25.03 Total 197,439 137.1 301,559 209.4 325.1 Source: Michael Baker International 2019. Notes: gpd = gallons per day; gpm = gallons per minute Further, although not included in the calculations, it is acknowledged the Specific Plan includes a number of development standards related to water conservation. These include the following: Limiting landscape irrigation when possible and incorporating drought-tolerant plant species and non- potable water sources in the community’s landscape plan; Promoting retention of stormwater through capture and harvesting for re-use in landscaped areas in a low- flow irrigation system; Installing sensor-operated faucets in public restrooms; and Utilizing dual flush water-conserving toilets. The project would also be required to comply with California Energy Code and Green Building Code provisions related to water and energy conservation (see PPP USS-6). Compared to the existing industrial building on-site, the project would increase water demand by approximately 181,416 gpd during average day demands, 277,523 gpd during maximum day demands, and 300.06 gallons per minute during peak hour demands; refer to Table 5.15-10, Net Increase in Water Demand. Table 5.15-10 Net Increase in Water Demand Condition Average Day Demand Maximum Day Demand Peak Hour Demand gpd gpm gpd gpm gpm Existing 16,024 11.13 24,036 16.69 25.04 Proposed 197,439 137.11 301,559 209.42 325.09 Net Increase 181,416 125.98 277,523 192.72 300.06 Source: Michael Baker International 2019. Notes: gpd = gallons per day; gpm = gallons per minute ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS April 2021February 2020 Page 5.15-23 Overall, the project would result in a net average water demand increase of 181,416 gpd (or 203 acre-feet per year [AFY]). As shown in Table 5.15-2, MWD anticipates water demand in year 2040 to be approximately 20,809 AFY. Therefore, total MWD water demand would increase to 21,012 AFY (or by 0.97 percent) by 2040 under normal water year conditions. MWD has a total groundwater well production capacity of 28,937 AFY and anticipates meeting future water demands, including the demands for the proposed project (203 AFY), from existing water supply sources. Therefore, water demands associated with the proposed project and existing and future MWD customers through year 2040 would be adequately met with MWD’s existing groundwater supply. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant. Water Conveyance Domestic water and fire flow on-site would be provided via connections to the existing 24-inch water line in Sunflower Avenue as well as a planned on-site water loop system; refer to Figure 3-7. There is also the potential for on-site water lines to connect to an existing water line associated with the SOCO retail center near the northeast corner of the site. Any proposed public water systems within the project site would be located within an easement dedicated to MWD and would be subject to MWD’s Standard Specification and Standard Drawings for the Construction of Water Facilities per PPP USS-4. Compliance with SCA FIRE-24 would also ensure water mains and hydrants are installed to the standards of MWD and dedicated along with repair easements to MWD. Additionally, in accordance with PPP USS-5, the project is required to be planned, designed, installed, and maintained in accordance with Municipal Code Section 13-107, Irrigation Requirements, and Section 13-71, Utility Requirements. All on-site private water systems would be owned and maintained by the property owner and/or maintenance association. The proposed water infrastructure improvements could cause significant environmental effects associated with construction. However, the project’s potential environmental impacts are evaluated throughout this Draft EIR; refer to Sections 5.1 through 5.15. Construction activities related to the project’s water connection lines would be subject to compliance with all applicable local, State, and Federal laws, ordinances, and regulations, as well as the specified mitigation measures identified in this Draft EIR. As documented through the WSA, no off-site water conveyance facilities are required to support the project. Compliance with existing regulations would ensure the project’s construction-related environmental impacts associated with new water facilities on-site would be reduced to less than significant levels. Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Page 5.15-24 April 2021February 2020 Stormwater Infrastructure Impact 5.15-3: Existing and proposed stormwater facilities would be able to accommodate project-generated stormwater flow. [Threshold U-1] Impact Analysis: The project site is currently developed with an industrial building, associated surface parking, and ornamental landscaping. Approximately 2.7 acres of the site (18 percent) is pervious, and the remaining 12.5 acres (82 percent) is impervious. The proposed project would include an internal system of storm drains in seven sub- areas that eventually discharge to the 66-inch CIPP storm drain along the western portion of the site and to the 24-inch storm drain along the eastern edge of the site; refer to Figure 3-9. Prior to discharge into the existing storm drain system, the collected stormwater would flow through 19 modular wetlands systems or an approved similar system for temporary retention and treatment prior to discharge. The Hydrology Report, prepared to evaluate existing and proposed drainage conditions on-site, is in Appendix I. The peak flow rates for the 25- and 10-year storms under existing and proposed conditions were modeled and are shown in Table 5.8-3, Existing and Proposed Drainage Conditions, in Section 5.8 of this Draft EIR. As shown in Table 5.8-3, peak flow rates for the 25- and 10-year storms would be less under proposed conditions compared to existing conditions. The reduction in peak flow rates is attributed to the modeling parameters and the slightly higher area average (Ap), and the slightly higher time of concentration for the proposed condition hydrology analysis. Therefore, the proposed project would not adversely impact existing storm drains downstream, and project runoff would be adequately accommodated. Additionally, pursuant to PPP HYD-2, the project would be required to comply with the County’s MS4 Permit by controlling contaminants from construction and operational project activities and implementing BMPs and site-specific runoff controls. PPP HYD-4 requires the project’s irrigation systems be designed to reduce overspray, runoff, and low-head drainage onto streets, sidewalks, windows, walls, and fences. Compliance with PPP USS-7 would ensure all proposed storm drain improvements are planned, designed, installed, and maintained in accordance with Municipal Code Section 8-35, Permits. Implementation of SCA WQMP-66 would also require the project to prepare and implement a SWPPP, WQMP, and associated BMPs. Further, SCAs ENG-18, -19, and -21 require the project to construct storm drain facilities pursuant to the City of Costa Mesa Master Drainage Plan, pay drainage ordinance fees, and maintain on-site drainage facilities. Project compliance with PPP HYD-2, PPP HYD-4, PPP USS-7, SCA WQMP-66, and SCAs ENG-18, -19, and -21 would ensure impacts are less than significant in this regard. Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS April 2021February 2020 Page 5.15-25 Solid Waste Impact 5.15-4: Existing solid waste facilities would be able to accommodate project-generated solid waste and the project would comply with existing solid waste regulations. [Thresholds U-4 and U- 5] Impact Analysis: Construction According to the air quality modeling conducted for the proposed project, demolition of the industrial building and associated surface parking lot is estimated to generate about 19,397 tons of demolition debris; refer to Appendix C, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis. Since at least 50 percent of demolition debris and construction waste would be recycled and/or reused in accordance with CALGreen requirements, the proposed project would generate a maximum of approximately 9,699 tons of demolition waste that would be disposed of in local landfills. Table 5.15-6 identifies the two landfills that accept the majority of the City’s solid waste and also accept construction and demolition debris. The approximate 9,699 tons of demolition waste (or 147 tons per day over the proposed 66-day demolition stage) that would be disposed of in landfills would be one- time in nature and would not exceed the daily residual capacity of the landfills serving the City (6,105 tons per day). As such, project construction activities would not adversely impact existing solid waste facilities and impacts would be less than significant. Operation Project operation is estimated to generate approximately 3,738 net ppd of solid waste (or 1.9 tons per day), as detailed in Table 5.15-11, Project-generated Solid Waste. The project would nominally increase daily disposal at the two landfills by approximately 0.02 percent, reducing the daily disposal capacities of the two landfills to 6,103 tons per day. As shown in Table 5.15-6, there is adequate landfill capacity at the Frank R. Bowerman Sanitary Landfill and Prima Deshecha Landfill to accommodate project-generated solid waste during project operations. Thus, impacts would be less than significant in this regard. Table 5.15-11 Project-generated Solid Waste Land Uses Proposed Buildout Solid Waste Generation Rate (ppd) Project-generated Solid Waste (ppd) Proposed Project Open Space 1.5 acres 0 0 Multi-Family Residential 1,057 units 5.31 5,613 Creative Office 25,000 square feet 0.006 150 Community Room 1,500 square feet 0.006 9 Specialty Retail 6,000 square feet 0.006 36 Total – Proposed Project 5,808 Existing Solid Waste Generation – Existing Industrial Building -2,070 Net Solid Waste Generation 3,738 Source: CalRecycle 2019b. Note: ppd = pounds per day ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Page 5.15-26 April 2021February 2020 Compliance with Solid Waste Regulations Project construction and operations would be required to comply with regulations governing solid waste disposal. The Specific Plan includes development standards that promote waste reduction by providing recycling receptacles in compliance with AB 341 and the use of recycled and reclaimed materials for construction of surface parking areas, sidewalks, unit paving, and curbs. Operation of the project would include recycling of green waste in accordance with AB 1826 and PPP USS-9. Furthermore, at least 50 percent of construction and demolition debris would be recycled and/or salvaged for reuse in compliance with CALGreen Section 5.408 and PPP USS-10. Pursuant to PPP USS-8, the proposed project’s solid waste infrastructure would be designed, constructed, and operated in accordance with the regulations of the CMSD Operations Code. Overall, implementation of PPP USS-8 through -10 would ensure the proposed project complies with existing solid waste regulations and impacts in this regard would be less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. Other Utilities Impact 5.15-5: Existing electricity and natural gas service providers would be able to accommodate project- generated utility demands. [Threshold U-1] Impact Analysis: Electricity Project operation is anticipated to generate a net electricity demand of approximately 2,737,863 kilowatt hours per year; refer to Table 5.4-3, Project Electricity Consumption, in Section 5.4, Energy. Total mid-electricity consumption in SCE’s service area is forecast to increase by approximately 12,723 GWh between 2015 and 2027 (CEC 2016). SCE forecasts it will have sufficient electricity supplies to meet demands in its service area, and the project’s electricity demand is within the forecast increase in SCE’s electricity supplies. Thus, project development would not require SCE to obtain new or expanded electricity supplies, and impacts would be less than significant. The project proposes to underground the existing 66-kilovolt SCE electric poles along the south side of Sunflower Avenue adjacent to the project’s northern boundary, with the potential to underground eastward to Hyland Avenue, subject to coordination with the adjacent property owner; refer to Figure 3-10. The proposed improvement would tie into the existing transmission alignment in the current SCE easement. Physical impacts to the environment associated with this off-site improvement are addressed throughout this Draft EIR. Compliance with existing regulations and measures identified throughout this Draft EIR would ensure impacts remain less than significant. The undergrounding of the SCE utility poles would be coordinated closely between the applicant and SCE’s Right of Way and Environmental Departments to ensure all California Public Utilities Commission procedures for such relocations and/or underground conversions are followed. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS April 2021February 2020 Page 5.15-27 Natural Gas Project operations are estimated to generate a net natural gas demand of approximately 4,385,740 kilo British Thermal Units (kBTU) per year (or approximately 0.012 MMCF/day); refer to Table 5.4-4, Project Natural Gas Consumption. SoCalGas’ residual supplies were forecast to remain constant at 3,775 MMCF/day from 2020 through 2035. Therefore, SoCalGas forecasts it will have sufficient natural gas supplies to meet future gas demands in its service area. The project does not propose any improvements to existing SoCalGas infrastructure off-site, and the project would be adequately served by existing facilities. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard. Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. 5.15.5 Cumulative Impacts Wastewater Treatment and Collection Impact 5.15-6: Development of the project, in combination with related projects, would not cumulatively impact existing and proposed wastewater facilities. [Thresholds U-1 and U-3] Impact Analysis: Cumulative development would result in increased wastewater generation within the project vicinity, which would require wastewater conveyance by CMSD and OCSD facilities and wastewater treatment by OCSD. Cumulative development would be subject to payment of sewer connection fees and ongoing user fees, on a project-by-project basis, which would be used in part to defray the costs of any necessary wastewater infrastructure upgrades. Payment of these fees, along with compliance with Santa Ana RWQCB-issued permits, would ensure cumulative impacts to wastewater treatment facilities are less than significant. Additionally, future related projects would also be required to comply with PPP USS-1 through PPP USS-3 to ensure future sewer infrastructure improvements are designed, constructed, and operated in accordance with the CMSD Operations Code, OCSD Ordinance No. 48, and Municipal Code Sections 15-6, 15-67, 13-180, and 13-71. As discussed, project implementation would not cause the OCSD wastewater treatment plants to exceed existing capacities. Additionally, existing CMSD and OCSD sewer mains in Sunflower Avenue would be able to accommodate project-generated wastewater. The project would also be required to pay relevant OCSD connection fees and ongoing user fees. Therefore, the project’s impacts to wastewater treatment would not be significantly cumulatively considerable. Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Page 5.15-28 April 2021February 2020 Water Supply and Distribution Systems Impact 5.15-7: Existing and planned water supply and delivery systems are adequate to meet water demands of the proposed project and related projects. [Thresholds U-1 and U-2] Impact Analysis: Water Supply and Demand For purposes of water supply impacts, cumulative impacts are considered for projects also located within the MWD service area. Cumulative development would generate increased demands for water services. Similar to the proposed project, cumulative development that satisfies one or more of the criteria for a “water demand project,” as defined by Water Code Section 10912(a), would be required to prepare a Water Supply Assessment in conformance with SB 221 and SB 610. Future cumulative projects would be required to evaluate potential impacts on existing and planned MWD water supplies to determine whether sufficient water supply is available to serve anticipated demands in normal, single dry, and multiple dry year conditions. Thus, cumulative impacts to water supplies would be less than significant. As discussed above, the project would result in a net average water demand increase of 181,416 gpd (or 203 AFY), which would be adequately met by MWD’s existing groundwater supplies through year 2040. Thus, as the project would result in less than significant impacts in regard to water supply and demand, the project’s incremental impact on MWD’s water supply would not be cumulatively considerable. Water Conveyance Cumulative development would likely require the construction of water facilities. Cumulative projects would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis at the project level, as they are implemented, for their potential to result in construction-related impacts. All projects would be subject to the review and approval of the City and applicable water purveyors and would be subject to compliance with PPP USS-4 through USS-6. Thus, cumulative impacts to water conveyance facilities would be less than significant. Project implementation would include new water infrastructure improvements to connect to existing MWD water lines in the project vicinity. As discussed, construction activities related to the project’s water connection lines would be subject to MWD’s Standard Specification and Standard Drawings for the Construction of Water Facilities per PPP USS-4. Compliance with SCA FIRE-24 would also ensure water mains and hydrants are installed to the standards of MWD and dedicated along with repair easements to MWD. Additionally, in accordance with PPP USS-5, the proposed utility improvements are required to be planned, designed, installed, and maintained in accordance with Municipal Code Section 13-107, Irrigation Requirements, and Section 13-71, Utility Requirements. Compliance with these existing regulations would ensure the project’s incremental effects related to the construction of water facilities are not cumulatively considerable. Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS April 2021February 2020 Page 5.15-29 Stormwater Infrastructure Impact 5.15-8: Development of the project, in combination with related projects, would not cumulatively impact existing and proposed storm drain facilities. [Threshold U-1] Impact Analysis: The cumulative projects identified in Table 4-2, Related Projects, in addition to the project, could result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or the expansion of existing facilities. Similar to the proposed project, all cumulative development would be subject to the County’s MS4 Permit pursuant to PPP HYD-2, and on-site irrigation systems would be designed to reduce runoff onto streets, sidewalks, windows, walls, and fences pursuant to PPP HYD-4. Further, PPP USS-7 would ensure storm drain improvements associated with cumulative projects are designed, installed, and maintained in accordance with Municipal Code Section 8-35, Permits. Preparation of project-specific Water Quality Management Plans and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans would also be required pursuant to SCA WQMP-66. Further, SCAs ENG-18, -19, and -21 would require future cumulative projects construct storm drain facilities pursuant to the City of Costa Mesa Master Drainage Plan, pay drainage ordinance fees, and maintain on-site drainage facilities. Following conformance with existing regulations in place for stormwater drainage facilities, cumulative impacts to stormwater drainage facilities would be less than significant. As discussed, the project would involve the construction of on-site stormwater drainage facilities and biotreatment units that would reduce stormwater flow for the 25- and 10-year storms compared to existing conditions. The project would also comply with all existing regulations related to drainage and flood control. As a result, project implementation is not anticipated to require the relocation or construction of new or expanded stormwater treatment facilities. Following implementation of all applicable City, County, and Santa Ana RWQCB NPDES requirements, the project’s impacts to stormwater drainage facilities would not be cumulatively considerable. Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. Solid Waste Impact 5.15-9: The proposed project, in combination with related projects, would not adversely impact the capacity of existing solid waste facilities and would comply with existing solid waste regulations. [Thresholds U-4 and U-5] Impact Analysis: Cumulative development within the project area would increase demands for solid waste disposal services. Related projects would be subject to conformance with relevant laws, ordinances, and regulations in place for solid waste disposal. This includes implementation of PPP USS-8 through -9, which include compliance with AB 341 and 1826 as well as CALGreen Section 5.408. Further, the landfills identified in Table 5.15-6 have a total of 6,105 tons of residual daily disposal capacity. Thus, following conformance with existing regulations in place for solid waste disposal, cumulative impacts to solid waste would be less than significant. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 5. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Page 5.15-30 April 2021February 2020 As discussed above, project-generated solid waste would be adequately accommodated at the Frank R. Bowerman Sanitary Landfill and Prima Deshecha Landfill and would be required to comply with PPP USS-8 through -9. Further, solid waste generated by project operations would represent 0.03 percent of the residual daily disposal capacity of the two landfills. Therefore, project impacts would not be significantly cumulatively considerable in this regard. Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. Other Utilities Impact 5.15-10: Development of the project, in combination with related projects, would not cumulatively impact existing electricity and natural gas service providers. [Threshold U-1] Impact Analysis: The cumulative projects identified in Table 4-2, in addition to the project, could result in the construction of new dry utilities or the expansion of existing dry utilities. Cumulative development would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis at the project level, as they are implemented, for their potential to result in environmental impacts. All projects would be subject to the review and approval of the City and applicable dry utility providers and would be subject to compliance with the relevant laws, ordinances, and regulations in place. Thus, cumulative impacts concerning the construction of dry utilities would be less than significant. As discussed, project implementation would not result in increased demands that require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded dry utilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. The Specific Plan includes several development standards and guidelines related to sustainability and energy conservation that would further reduce the project’s demands on existing SCE and SoCalGas supplies and infrastructure. Thus, project impacts to dry utilities would not be cumulatively considerable. Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. 5.15.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation Upon implementation of regulatory requirements, the following impacts would be less than significant: Impacts 5.15-1 through 5.15-10. 5.15.7 Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required. 5.15.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation Impacts would be less than significant. ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I February 2020April 2021 Chapter 6.0 Significant and Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I February 2020April 2021 This page intentionally left blank. April 2021February 2020 Page 6-1 6. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Table 1-1, Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation, summarizes the project impacts, mitigation measures, and levels of significance before and after mitigation. Mitigation measures would reduce the level of impact, but the following impacts would remain significant and unavoidable after mitigation measures are applied: Air Quality Impact 5.2-1: Construction activities associated with the proposed project would generate short-term emissions in exceedance of the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD) threshold criteria and would cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations in the South Coast Air Basin (Basin). Mitigation Measure AIR-1 would require the construction contractor to utilize newer, Tier 3, construction equipment fitted with Level 2 diesel particulate filters (DPF), which would reduce nitrous oxide (NOX) and particulate matter (PM) emissions. Mitigation Measure AIR-2 requires the use of low volatile organic compound (VOC) paints, which would reduce VOC emissions. As shown in Table 5.2-15, Short Term Regional Peak Day Construction Emissions with Mitigation, of Section 5.2, Air Quality, NOX emissions would be reduced below the SCAQMD thresholds with implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-1. However, even with implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-2, VOC emissions would still exceed the applicable SCAQMD threshold. No other feasible mitigation exists to reduce VOC impacts from architectural coating. Thus, VOC emissions associated with project construction would result in a significant and unavoidable impact. Impact 5.2-7: Cumulative construction activities associated with the proposed project would generate short-term emissions in exceedance of SCAQMD’s threshold criteria and would cumulatively contribute to the Basins’ nonattainment designations. As stated, Table 5.2-15 illustrates that the project’s NOX emissions would be reduced to below SCAQMD thresholds with implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-1. However, even with implementation of Mitigation Measures AIR-2, the project’s VOC emissions would exceed the established SCAQMD thresholds. Thus, the proposed project would result in a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact for VOC emissions. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact 5.6-1: Implementation of the proposed project would generate a net increase in GHG emissions that would have a significant impact on the environment. Mitigation Measures GHG-1 and GHG-2 would ensure the applicant designs the proposed parking areas to provide preferential parking for low-emitting, fuel-efficient, and carpool/van vehicles. At a minimum, the number of electric vehicle charging stations is required to be equal to Tier 2 Nonresidential Voluntary Measures of the California Green Building Standards Code Section A5.106.5.1.2. As shown in Table 5.6-65, Phased Regional GHG Emissions for ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 6. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Page 6-2 April 2021February 2020 Overlapping Construction and Long-term Operational Greenhouse Gas Emission With Mitigation, of Section 5.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, implementation of Mitigation Measures GHG-1 and GHG-2 would reduce GHG emissions; however, project emissions would continue to exceed the SCAQMD significance threshold of 3,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year. Therefore, project-level GHG emissions impacts would be significant and unavoidable. Impact 5.6-3: Project implementation would generate a net increase in GHG emissions that would result in a cumulatively significant impact. As analyzed above, operational GHG emissions associated with the proposed project would continue to exceed the SCAQMD significance threshold with implementation of Mitigation Measures GHG-1 and GHG-2. Therefore, the project’s cumulative contribution of GHG emissions would be significant and unavoidable. Transportation Impact 5.13-1: Development of the proposed project would result in a potentially significant impacts at the following study intersections under existing plus project, future short-term cumulative (2027) plus project, and/or General Plan buildout (2040) plus project scenarios: o Study Intersection No. 18 (Susan Street/South Coast Drive). As shown in Table 5.13-15, a significant impact would occur at the Susan Street/South Coast Drive intersection under General Plan Buildout (2040) Plus Project scenario. The project would be responsible for contributing towards its fair share for implementation of the proposed improvements (Mitigation Measure T- 1). Mitigation Measure T-1 would require the project applicant to contribute its fair share contribution to the City of Costa Mesa Transportation Division for the implementation of adding a southbound right‐turn lane by restriping Susan Street at the intersection Susan Street/South Coast Drive (Study Intersection No. 18). As shown in Table 5.13-16, Study Intersection No. 18 Level of Service with Recommended Improvements, with incorporation of Mitigation Measure T-1, traffic impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels for the General Plan Buildout (2040) Plus Project scenario. However, although fair share funds to this improvement would be made, there is no guarantee that the full improvement funds would be secured nor that these improvements would be constructed. Thus, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable for the General Plan Buildout (2040) Plus Project scenario at Susan Street/South Coast Drive (Study Intersection No. 18). o Study Intersection No. 28 (Talbert Avenue/Mt. Washington Street). As shown in Table 5.13-15, a significant impact would occur at the Talbert Avenue/Mt. Washington Street intersection under all scenarios. The Talbert Avenue/Mt. Washington Street intersection is located in the City of Fountain Valley. The project would be responsible for contributing towards its fair share for implementation of the proposed improvements (Mitigation Measure T-2). Mitigation Measure T- 2 would require the project applicant to contribute its fair share contribution to the City of Fountain Valley Transportation Division for improvements to the intersection of Talbert Avenue/Mt. Washington Street (Study Intersection No. 28), including adding a traffic signal, restriping the northbound approach to a shared left through lane and a dedicated right turn lane, ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 6. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts April 2021February 2020 Page 6-3 converting the southbound right turn lane to a dedicated channelized free right turn lane, and adding overlap phasing for a northbound right turn movement. As shown in Table 5.13-17, Study Intersection No. 28 Level of Service with Recommended Improvements, with incorporation of Mitigation Measure T-2, traffic impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. While improvements are identified for this intersection, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable, since the intersection is not located within the City of Costa Mesa and there is no guarantee that the improvements identified would be implemented. As such, although impacts to this intersection could be reduced to less than significant with recommended improvements, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Development of the proposed project would also result in a potentially significant impacts at the following freeway segments and ramps under existing plus project, future short-term cumulative (2027) plus project, and/or General Plan buildout (2040) plus project scenarios: Northbound I-405 1. South of Fairview Road On-Ramp; 2. Fairview Road On-Ramp; 3. Fairview Road On-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard On-Ramp; 4. Harbor Boulevard On-Ramp; 5. Harbor Boulevard On-Ramp and Hyland Avenue On-Ramp; and 6. Hyland Avenue On-Ramp. Southbound I-405 7. Harbor Boulevard Off-Ramp; 8. Harbor Boulevard Off-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Loop On-Ramp; 9. Harbor Boulevard Loop On-Ramp; 10. Harbor Boulevard Loop On-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Slip-On Ramp; 11. Harbor Boulevard Slip-On Ramp; and 12. Harbor Boulevard Slip-On Ramp and Fairview Road Off-Ramp. The proposed project would contribute to the identified segments and ramps’ deficient status. Therefore, there are project-level and cumulative impacts to the freeway system near the project site. To mitigate the impacts at the identified locations, freeway main-line and/or freeway ramp widening would be required. However, this type of infrastructure is extremely costly and is typically infeasible for one development project to undertake. The City cannot assure the construction of improvements to freeway facilities that may be needed to improve traffic flow. Improvements to State highway facilities are planned, funded, and constructed by the State of California through a legislative and political process involving the State legislature; the California Transportation Commission (CTC); the California Business, Transportation, and Housing Agency; California Department of Transportation (Caltrans); and the Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA). Although ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 6. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Page 6-4 April 2021February 2020 potential impacts to the freeway mainline segments and ramps have been evaluated, implementation of the transportation improvements to Caltrans facilities listed above is the primary responsibility of Caltrans. Caltrans has recognized that private development has a role to play in funding fair share improvements to impacts on these facilities, but neither Caltrans nor the State has adopted a program that can ensure that locally contributed impact fees would be tied to improvements to freeway mainlines. Only Caltrans has jurisdiction over mainline improvements. State and Federal fuel taxes generate most of the funds used to pay for improvements. Funds expected to be available for transportation improvements are identified through a fund estimate prepared by Caltrans and adopted by the CTC. These funds, along with other fund sources, are deposited in the State highway account to be programmed and allocated to specific project improvements by the CTC. Since there is no guarantee that these programs would be implemented by the agencies with the responsibility to do so, the project’s identified impacts to the freeway system are considered significant and unavoidable. Last, VMT per employee for the office portion of the project would be three percent higher than the regional estimate. Thus, although the City has not formally adopted VMT thresholds of significance, the office component of the project would result in significant VMT impacts. It should be noted, that the project is a mixed-use development that would add housing to an area within walking and biking distance to existing employment, retail, restaurant, and entertainment opportunities that could potentially further reduce VMT for the entire project. In fact, the mixed-use nature of the project along with the pedestrian and bikeway improvements are all intended to reduce the project’s overall VMT. In addition, the proposed Specific Plan and proposed project features encourage/implement VMT reduction strategies. These strategies include pedestrian network improvements, traffic calming measures (to encourage biking/walking), car-sharing programs, encouraging telecommuting and alternative work schedule, as well as encourage the use of ride-share programs. However, it is not reasonable or feasible to require these measures and/or quantify the number of reduced VMT. Thus, although these VMT reduction strategies reduce VMT impacts from the proposed creative office use, the project impacts would remain significant and unavoidable with respect to the office component and, thereby, the project as a whole. Impact 5.13-4: Implementation of the proposed project and related projects could cumulatively result in potentially significant impacts at study intersections and freeway segments and ramps under existing plus project, future short-term cumulative (2027) plus project, and/or General Plan buildout (2040) plus project scenarios. Refer to the discussion above regarding Impact 5.13-1. Despite implementation of Mitigation Measures T-1 and T-2, project impacts to the identified intersections and freeway ramps would be significant and unavoidable under the future short-term cumulative (2027) plus project and General Plan buildout (2040) plus project conditions. Cumulative impacts in this regard would be significant and unavoidable. ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I February 2020April 2021 Chapter 7.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Project ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I February 2020April 2021 This page intentionally left blank. April 2021February 2020 Page 7-1 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project 7.1 INTRODUCTION 7.1.1 Purpose and Scope CEQA requires that an environmental impact report (EIR) include a discussion of reasonable project alternatives that would “feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[a]). As required by CEQA, this chapter identifies and evaluates potential alternatives to the proposed project. Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines explains the foundation and legal requirements for the alternatives analysis in an EIR. Key provisions are: “[T]he discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly.” (15126.6[b]) “The specific alternative of ‘no project’ shall also be evaluated along with its impact.” (15126.6[e][1]) “The no project analysis shall discuss the existing conditions at the time the notice of preparation is published, or if no notice of preparation is published, at the time environmental analysis is commenced, as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services. If the environmentally superior alternative is the ‘no project’ alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives.” (15126.6[e][2]) “The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a ‘rule of reason’ that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The alternatives shall be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project.” (15126.6[f]) “Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries…, and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site (or the site is already owned by the proponent)” (15126.6[f][1]). “Only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project need be considered for inclusion in the EIR.” (15126.6[f][2][A]) “An EIR need not consider an alternative whose effect cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose implementation is remote and speculative.” (15126.6[f][3]) ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project Page 7-2 April 2021February 2020 For each development alternative, the analysis herein: Describes the alternative; Analyzes the impact of the alternative as compared to the proposed project; Identifies the impacts of the project that would be avoided or lessened by the alternative; Assesses whether the alternative would meet most of the basic project objectives; and Evaluates the comparative merits of the alternative and the project. According to Section 15126.6(d) of the CEQA Guidelines, “[i]f an alternative would cause…significant effects in addition those that would be caused by the project as proposed, the significant effects of the alternative shall be discussed, but in less detail than the significant effects of the project as proposed.” 7.1.2 Project Objectives As described in Section 3.3, Statement of Project Objectives, the following objectives have been established for the proposed project and aid decision makers in their review of the project, the project alternatives, and associated environmental impacts. 1. Redevelop the project site with a mix of residential units and office and retail uses in a master planned setting and in a manner that is fiscally neutral or positive for the City. 2. Increase the City’s housing stock including affordable housing opportunities by providing multi-family residential housing in areas with adequate public utilities and services and in close proximity to major employment centers. 3. Provide enhanced recreation and open space opportunities and opportunities for specialty retail and entertainment uses to serve future residents and commercial office tenants. 4. Encourage alternative modes of travel through enhancing pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure and by bringing residents in closer proximity to existing and proposed resident-serving retail and adjacent employment centers. 5. Improve jobs-housing ratio and reduce vehicle miles traveled by placing housing in proximity to a major employment center in support of Statewide housing and transportation regulations (Senate Bill 375 and Senate Bill 743). 6. Incorporate sustainable development practices that address energy efficiency, support active transportation, and comply with green building code standards. 7. Enhance the visual attributes of the project site and surrounding area through implementation of a high quality design, creative facades, consistent development standards, and design guidelines for streetscape, landscape, site design, and signage. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project April 2021February 2020 Page 7-3 7.2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED DURING THE SCOPING/PROJECT PLANNING PROCESS The following is a discussion of the land use alternatives considered during the scoping and planning process and the reasons why they were not selected for detailed analysis in this EIR. 7.2.1 Alternative Project Site Alternative CEQA requires a discussion of alternatives to the project or its location that are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project. The key question and first step in the analysis is evaluating whether any of the significant effects of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened by developing the project in another location. Only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project need be considered for inclusion in the EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126[5][B][1]). In general, any development or redevelopment of the size and type proposed by the project would have similar significant and unavoidable impacts on air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and transportation. Further, project impacts related to energy, population and housing, and public services would be similar regardless of where it is developed within Costa Mesa. Without a site-specific analysis, impacts on aesthetics, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology/water quality, land use and planning, and noise cannot be evaluated. The project site is already developed; redevelopment on the project site would result in fewer impacts than development on an alternate undeveloped vacant property. Furthermore, the site contains adequate infrastructure for future development to connect. Furthermore, the project applicant does not own or control other comparably sized and located property in the City of Costa Mesa. While the project requires approval of several land use entitlements, including a General Plan Amendment, objectives for the project include providing housing and mixed uses in proximity to major employment centers. The current zoning in the project area does not allow for residential units and there are no similarly sized infill parcels designated for residential or mixed use near the area that meet this requirement. Due to the lack of viable and comparable sites in the general area that would allow for development of the project in a manner that would avoid or substantially lessen the project’s potentially significant impacts, development of the project on an alternative site has been eliminated from consideration. 7.2.2 No Project/Existing Zoning Alternative The project site is zoned Industrial Park (MP), which is intended for large, concentrated industrial areas where the aim of development is to create a spacious environment in a park-like setting. The zoning allows for industrial, offices, churches, mortuaries, racquetball and tennis facilities, food and beverage, health clubs, schools, and academies. The City’s Industrial Development Standards allow for a maximum three-story (45- foot) building within this zone; refer to Municipal Code Table 13-53. The site is currently developed and occupied with an approximate 345,000-square foot one-story industrial building, associated parking lot, and ornamental landscaping. The industrial building is occupied by Sakura Paper Factory, Robinson Pharma, South Coast Baking, and Dekra-Lite Industries, Inc. Landscaping is provided along the site boundary and within the surface parking lot. The industrial building is currently in operation and represents the baseline scenario for purposes of this EIR. As required under CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e), the EIR must analyze a “no ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project Page 7-4 April 2021February 2020 project” alternative. An analysis of a No Project/No Development Alternative is provided below, which assumes that the existing land uses would continue to operate and the proposed project would not be developed. Under a No Project/Existing Zoning Alternative, the analysis would assume the continuation of the existing MP zoning which could include redevelopment of the site for another industrial or office use up to three stories in height. However, an analysis of a No Project/Existing Zoning Alternative would not be substantially different from the No Project/No Development Alternative. The existing industrial building has a floor area ratio of 0.50, which exceeds the maximum development potential for the MP zoned property. Therefore, a No Project/Existing Zoning Alternative would not provide useful information for the public or decision-makers and only the No Project/No Development Alternative is analyzed in further detail below. 7.3 ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS Based on the criteria listed above, the following two alternatives have been determined to represent a reasonable range of alternatives which have the potential to feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project, but which may avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant and unavoidable effects of the project. These alternatives are analyzed in detail in the following sections: No Project/No Development Alternative Reduced Development Intensity Alternative An EIR must identify an “environmentally superior” alternative and where the No Project Alternative is identified as environmentally superior, the EIR is then required to identify as environmentally superior alternative from among the others evaluated. Each alternative’s environmental impacts are compared to the proposed project and determined to be environmentally superior, neutral, or inferior. Section 7.6, Environmentally Superior Alternative, identifies the Environmentally Superior Alternative. 7.4 NO PROJECT/NO DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE The No Project/No Development Alternative is required to discuss the existing conditions at the time the Notice of Preparation is published (May 2019) (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[e]). Therefore, the No Project/No Development Alternative assumes the proposed Specific Plan would not be approved and no new development would occur on-site. The existing one-story 345,000-square foot industrial building would continue to operate similar to existing conditions. 7.4.1 Aesthetics Under the No Project/No Development Alternative, the mixed-use residential and creative office buildings, open space, and associated amenities (e.g., landscaping; public art; Sunflower Avenue improvements; and pedestrian, bicycle, and trail improvements) would not be developed. The project’s building massing and associated shading impacts would not occur. The existing industrial building, surface parking lot, and landscaping would remain, and the site’s existing visual character and lighting would not change. No construction activities would occur on-site. Compared to the proposed mixed-use development, this alternative would not strengthen the image of the City from sidewalks and roadways (General Plan Goal CD-1) or ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project April 2021February 2020 Page 7-5 contribute to the City’s beautification by enhancing vehicular and pedestrian paths and corridors (General Plan Objective CD-1A) as the Sunflower Avenue improvements and pedestrian, bicycle, and trail connections would not be implemented. This alternative also would not underground electrical facilities per General Plan Policy CD-1.5 or reinforce a sense of arrival into the City by promoting architecturally significant development and significant landscape plantings at key nodes (General Plan Policy CD-3.2). Preserving the existing industrial building also would not enhance opportunities for new development and redevelopment to contribute to a positive visual image for the City (General Plan Policy CD-6) or encourage the inclusion of public art and attractive functional architecture (General Plan Policy CD-6.1). Thus, while this alternative would preserve the site’s existing visual character and eliminate the project’s less than significant building massing and shading impacts, it would not enhance the scenic quality of the project area like the proposed project. As such, this alternative would neither be environmentally superior nor inferior to the proposed project. 7.4.2 Air Quality Under the No Project/No Development Alternative, no construction or demolition activities would occur. Therefore, the project’s significant and unavoidable construction-related air quality impacts from volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions generated by architectural coating would be eliminated under this alternative and associated mitigation would not be required. Additionally, this alternative would not require mitigation to reduce the project’s impacts regarding nitrous oxide and particulate matter emissions to less than significant levels. LastAdditionally, the project’s less than significant impacts pertaining to operational emissions, criteria air pollutants to sensitive receptors, and objectionable odors would not occur. This alternative would be environmentally superior to the proposed project. 7.4.3 Cultural Resources Under the No Project/No Development Alternative, no construction activities would occur. Thus, this alternative would not have the potential to encounter historic or archaeological resources on-site and would not require mitigation. No impacts would occur in this regard and this alternative would be environmentally superior to the proposed project. 7.4.4 Energy As detailed in Table 5.4-3, Project Electricity Consumption, and Table 5.4-4, Project Natural Gas Consumption, the proposed project would result in a net increase of approximately 2,737,863 kilowatt-hours per year of electricity demand and 4,685,740 kilo British thermal units per year of natural gas demand compared to existing conditions. Under this alternative, demolition of the existing industrial building and construction and operations of new buildings would not occur. Therefore, energy demands for electricity, natural gas, and fuel consumption would remain as is. Thus, the project’s less than significant impacts on energy would be further reduced under this alternative. This alternative would be environmentally superior to the proposed project. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project Page 7-6 April 2021February 2020 7.4.5 Geology and Soils No construction activities, including demolition or grading, would occur under the No Project/No Development Alternative. Therefore, there would be no increase in the potential for new workers, buildings, or structures to experience seismic ground shaking or other geologic hazard. Although seismic risks to the older existing industrial building would not meet the latest 2019 California Building Code requirements related to seismic hazards, it also would not involve any major grading or excavation that could exacerbate existing subsurface geologic conditions or erosion impacts. Additionally, no impacts to potentially undiscovered paleontological resources on-site would occur and thus, no mitigation is required. Therefore, this alternative would be environmentally superior to the proposed project. 7.4.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions The No Project/No Development Alternative assumes that no new on- or off-site improvements would occur. As detailed in Table 5.6-2, Existing Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the existing industrial building generates approximately 2,705 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year (MTCO2e/yr). In comparison, the proposed project would generate 11,87611,903 MTCO2e/yr, a net increase of approximately 9,1719,043 MTCO2e/yr. Therefore, this alternative would generate fewer emissions than the proposed project and would be below the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) significance threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e/yr, and would eliminate the proposed project’s significant and unavoidable impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard. As this alternative avoids the project’s significant and unavoidable greenhouse gas emissions impacts, this alternative would be environmentally superior. 7.4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Under this alternative, no new development would occur and the existing industrial building would remain operational. Therefore, existing warehousing/manufacturing operations would continue. The existing on-site building would not be demolished and the potential for release of asbestos-containing materials and lead-based paint from the building would not occur. Further, no excavation involving the disturbance of potential contaminated soils would result. Furthermore, as no construction activities would occur on Sunflower Avenue, no impacts to emergency access or evacuation routes would occur and no mitigation would be required in this regard. However, without project implementation, the existing on-site hazards (e.g., asbestos-containing building materials, lead based paint, polychlorinated biphenyls, and potential contaminated soils, if present) would not be removed and disposed of properly. Therefore, this alternative would be neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the proposed project. 7.4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality Existing water quality conditions, groundwater supplies, drainage patterns, and runoff amounts would remain as is under this alternative, since no new development would occur. This alternative would not introduce new sources of water pollutants to the project area from either construction or operational activities. However, this alternative would not include the proposed project’s low impact development, source control, site design, and ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project April 2021February 2020 Page 7-7 treatment control best management practices (BMPs) to minimize runoff and water pollution. These BMPs are required under the proposed project and have a beneficial impact on stormwater quality by treating stormwater pollutants prior to release into the storm drain system. Additionally, as detailed in Table 5.8-3, Existing and Proposed Drainage Conditions, peak drainage under the 25- and 10-year storms would be greater under existing conditions than post-development conditions. Therefore, hydrology and water quality impacts would be slightly greater under this alternative. This alternative is environmentally inferior to the proposed project. 7.4.9 Land Use and Planning Given that the proposed project would not be developed, this alternative would not require a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Specific Plan, Master Plan, Development Agreement, Tentative Tract Map, Tree Removal Permit, and Public Art Plan. The existing land use designation and zoning for the project site would remain Industrial Park and Industrial Park (MP), respectively. However, this alternative would not allow new development to redevelop and enhance the site, establish a sense of place, provide community amenities, or place housing within close proximity to a major employment center. New development standards and design guidelines to enhance the character, mobility, and connectivity of the project site also would not be implemented. The proposed project also meets several General Plan policies more so than the existing industrial development. For example, the project provides for the development of a mix and balance of housing opportunities, commercial services, and employment opportunities (General Plan Policy LU-1.1); develops compatible residential, commercial, and public uses within a single project (General Plan Policy LU-3.5); encourages a broad range of business uses that provide employment at all income levels (General Plan Policy LU-6.10); and develops residential, office, and retail uses that would serve local residents and also benefit from the high visibility along I-405 Freeway (General Plan Policy LU-6.19). Overall, the No Project/No Development Alternative would be environmentally inferior to the project regarding land use and planning. 7.4.10 Noise Existing on-site noise associated with trucks, loading docks, and back up beepers would continue under this alternative. As no new construction or operational activities would occur, no new construction or operational noise would be generated on-site, compared to existing conditions. The potential to impact nearby sensitive receptors from construction noise and vibration and operational noise (both mobile and stationary sources) would be reduced compared to the proposed project. Therefore, no impacts would occur under this alternative and this alternative would be environmentally superior to the proposed project. 7.4.11 Population and Housing Population and employment growth would not occur under the No Project/No Development Alternative, since no new residential units, businesses, or other infrastructure would be constructed. Existing tenants and associated employees would remain, resulting in no impacts to population and housing. The proposed project’s anticipated population and housing growth would result in unplanned population growth. However, the project would also introduce substantial housing near employment opportunities in Costa Mesa, including a minimum of 105 units as affordable housing to assist the City in meeting its Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) requirements. As this alternative would not provide affordable housing, improve jobs/housing ratio, ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project Page 7-8 April 2021February 2020 or assist the City in meeting its State mandated housing goals, it would be neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the proposed project. 7.4.12 Public Services and Recreation The proposed multi-family units, creative office space, specialty retail use, and open space would not be developed under this alternative. Therefore, potential increases in demand for public services, such as fire and police services would not occur. The project’s potentially significant impact to fire services and required Mitigation Measures PS-1 and PS-2 would not be required. Additionally, as no residents currently live on-site, there would be no demand for school, library, or recreational services. It is acknowledged that this alternative would not implement the proposed Sunflower Avenue improvements, trail enhancements and connections, or the 1.5-acre open space. Nevertheless, as no substantial increase in demand for public services or recreation would occur, this alternative would be environmentally superior to the proposed project. 7.4.13 Transportation Under the No Project/No Development Alternative, no new buildings, residents, or employees would be introduced to the project site. Existing average daily trips (ADT) would remain similar to current conditions (429 ADT with 37 a.m. peak hour trips and 8 p.m. peak hour trips) and study area roadway segments and intersections would maintain existing levels of service (LOS). This alternative would not generate construction- related vehicular trips or the approximately 6,800 net ADT associated with project operations. It should be noted that the following intersections are currently operating at an unsatisfactory LOS: I-405 Freeway Southbound Ramps/Ellis Avenue Street (p.m. peak hour only); and Talbert Avenue/Mt. Washington Street (both a.m. and p.m. peak hours based on the City of Fountain Valley LOS standards). It should be noted that the intersection of I-405 Freeway Southbound Ramps/Ellis Avenue - Euclid Street would be reconfigured as part of the I-405 Freeway Improvement Project. Therefore, this intersection would operate at an acceptable LOS under all future scenarios with implementation of the reconfigured geometry. Additionally, the following peak hour ramp merge/diverge and freeway segment levels of service are currently operating at a deficient LOS: Northbound I-405 Freeway Hyland Avenue On-Ramp (p.m. peak hour only). Southbound I-405 Freeway Harbor Boulevard Off-Ramp (a.m. peak hour only); Harbor Boulevard Off-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Loop On-Ramp (a.m. peak hour only); Harbor Boulevard Loop On-Ramp (a.m. peak hour only); Harbor Boulevard Loop On-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Slip-On Ramp (a.m. peak hour only); ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project April 2021February 2020 Page 7-9 Harbor Boulevard Slip-On Ramp (a.m. peak hour only); and Harbor Boulevard Slip-On Ramp and Fairview Road Off-Ramp (a.m. peak hour only). Therefore, while the proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to several study area intersections and freeway segments, the same intersections and freeway segments already operate at a deficient LOS under existing conditions. Additionally, this alternative would not result in the implementation of Mitigation Measures T-1 or T-2, which require the project applicant to contribute its fair share for the cost to improve the intersection of Susan Street/South Coast Drive (new southbound right-turn lane) and intersection of Talbert Avenue/Mt. Washington Street (a traffic signal, restriping the northbound approach to a shared left through lane and a dedicated right turn lane, converting the southbound right turn lane to a dedicated channelized free right turn lane, and adding overlap phasing for a northbound right turn movement). No vehicle miles traveled (VMT) would be added to the transportation system, avoiding the projects significant and unavoidable VMT impact. This alternative also would not implement the active transportation hub, bicycle and pedestrian improvements along Sunflower Avenue, trail connection improvements to the Santa Ana River Trail, or open space. Therefore, as this alternative would not result in new vehicular trips or VMT and would not require any temporary lane closures for construction activities, this alternative would be environmentally superior to the proposed project. However, it is acknowledged that the above intersections would continue to operate at deficient LOS and would continue to do so in the future. 7.4.14 Tribal Cultural Resources Under this alternative, no ground disturbances would occur. Therefore, the potential to adversely impact previously undiscovered tribal cultural resources on-site would not occur. No impacts would result in this regard and this alternative would be environmentally superior to the proposed project. 7.4.15 Utilities and Service Systems The project site is currently served by existing utilities and service systems, which would continue to operate similar to existing conditions. Due to the project’s anticipated increase in wastewater generation, water demand, stormwater infrastructure demand, solid waste generation, and electricity and natural gas demand, the project proposes several utility improvements and upgrades, including upgrading and extending water, wastewater and storm drain pipelines and fixtures to tie into off-site connections. The project also proposes to underground existing electrical powerlines along the project frontage and implement stormwater BMPs. As no new development would occur under this alternative, the project’s increase in wastewater generation, water demand, stormwater infrastructure demand, solid waste generation and electricity and natural gas demand would be avoided. This alternative would be environmentally superior to the proposed project in this regard. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project Page 7-10 April 2021February 2020 7.4.16 Conclusion Ability to Reduce Environmental Impacts The No Project/No Development Alternative would eliminate the proposed project’s significant and unavoidable impacts related to air quality (construction), greenhouse gas emissions, and transportation. This alternative would also lessen environmental impacts in the areas of air quality, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, noise, public services and recreation, tribal cultural resources, and utilities and services systems. Weighing the tradeoffs between the proposed project and the No Project/No Development Alternative in regard to aesthetics, hazards and hazardous materials, and population and housing, this alternative would result in similar impacts. Impacts related to hydrology and water quality and land use and planning would be greater. Ability to Achieve Project Objectives No development would occur on-site under the No Project/No Development Alternative. The existing industrial uses would continue to operate on-site and none of the project objectives would be achieved under this alternative. Specifically, this alternative would not redevelop the site with a mix of residential, office, and retail uses (Objective No. 1); increase the City’s housing stock, including affordable housing (Objective No. 2); provide enhanced recreation and open space opportunities (Objective No. 3); enhance pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure in the project vicinity (Objective No. 4); improve jobs-housing ratio and reduce vehicle miles traveled (Objective No. 5); implement sustainable development practices (Objective No. 6); or enhance the visual attributes of the project site and surrounding area (Objective No. 7). 7.5 REDUCED DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY ALTERNATIVE The Reduced Development Intensity Alternative was selected to avoid or substantially lessen the proposed project’s significant unavoidable impacts related to air quality (construction), greenhouse gas emissions, and transportation. This alternative assumes a 20 percent reduction in residential units and elimination of the 25,000-square foot creative office building and 1.5-acre open space. Similar to the proposed project, and as shown on Figure 7-1, Reduced Development Intensity Alternative, the 845 residential units would be constructed in three multi-story buildings, however, Building B would be slightly relocated to the west where the 1.5-acre open space was previously proposed and one level of Building A would be eliminated, reducing its height to five stories. Similar to the proposed project, construction would occur in three phases with occupancy occurring after each building is completed. Additionally, Tthis alternative would still provide affordable units, but the number of units would be proportionally lower than the proposed project. Given the reduction in residential units, parking on-site would also be reduced by a proportional amount while still meeting the Specific Plan parking requirements. ONE METRO WEST ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Figure 7-1 Reduced Development Intensity Alternative 02/21 JN 172326 Source: Rose Equities, 2020. NOT TO SCALE 6'-4 " 29 ' - 5 " OCTADedication Up 5% Ramp5% RampUp 7% Sp e e d R a m p Dn Security Room 25'-0" MPOERm. Open to Sky Typ. GarageEntry E.RE.R Mail Room Long TermBike Parking Typ. Ty p . Ty p . Ty p . Ty p . Ty p . SecurityGate Trash(10 Bins) Typ. Gate Res. Lobby E.R 5'-0" Ty p . Exhaust Turn Around Gate Gate Gate 24'-0" 19 ' - 0 " 9'-0" 24'-0" 24 ' - 0 " 19 ' - 0 " 19 ' - 0 " 24 ' - 0 " 19 ' - 0 " 24'-0" 34'-9" 21 ' - 1 " 6'-0 " 5'-0" Gate 13 ' - 1 " Roll-UpDoors 13 ' - 1 " GarageEntry 12'-0"12'-0" 2A 2A 2A 2B 2B 2B 2B 2B 1J2B2C1H1D3B 2C 1H 1H 1H 2C1H2B 1D 2B2B2A2A2A2A2A1H1H1H1E 1D 1D 1H A1 2A 2A 2A 2A 2A 2A 2A 2A 1B 1B 1B 1B 1B 1B 1B 1B 1H 1J 1H Drop-off Lobby/Amenity Entry Gate Dn 5% 25 ' - 0 " 18'-0"25'-0" 8'- 6 " TY P 18'-0"25'-0"18'-0" 5% 5% Dn Up 18'-0" Lobby 2A 2A 2A 1C1C 2A 1A1A S1 1A 2B 1A 2A 1A 2C S1S1 1A R TRASH R T T Trash R T R T 17 % BikeRoom T RElect. 42 Spaces MailRoom R T Mech St o r a g e 2B S1 1A 1A 2C 3B 8. 5 % 8. 5 % USPSDrop Off Retail 11 ' 70' 46' 43 8 ' 43' 17 ' 201' 37 0 ' T R T R T R T R RR T S1 1A Fire L a n e SUNFLOWER AVENUE SAN D I E G O F R E E W A Y ( I - 4 0 5 ) 6'-4 " SOCO Loading Lo a d i n g Fire L a n e Lo a d i n g Bike P a t h 38' 17' 15' 20' 15' Fire L a n e Main Entry Lo a d i n g Loading 279 ' 836' 36' 2A 2A 2A 3A 1C 1C 1C 1C 1C 1C 1C 1C 1C 1C 1C 1C1C 1C 1C 1C 1C 2A 2A 2A 2A 2A 2A S1 S1 Trash Trash S1 S1 S1 Elect. UP UP 1-Sto r y P o r t a l 1-Sto r y P o r t a l 8% 10% Lobby 18 HC79 Standard97 Total 2B 2B TYPE IA TYPE IA MECH MECH 1C Move-In Lobby Leasing Amenity 2A S1 S1 1A 1A Fire T u n n e l Fire T u n n e l Fire T u n n e l Move-In S1 1A 2A 2A 1C 1A 2B 2A 1C 1C 2C 2C S1 S11A 1A 2A 2C 2A 2A 1A S1 2A 1A 1AFire T u n n e l 1A 1A S1 S1 Pool 64'x136' Courtyard (Ground Level) 98'x106' Courtyard(Ground Level) 90'x106' Courtyard(Ground Level) 60'x170'Courtyard(Ground Level) Drop-off 16 Office Spaces 118 x 6 typ levels = 708ground level spaces = 97TOTAL SPACES = 805 required spaces = 786extra spaces = +19 C Phase 3(6-Story) B Phase 2(5-Story) A Phase 1(5-Story) A1 B2B2 B1 B1 A1 C1 C1 C2 C2 Building A (5 Level Wrap): Total:366 Units Building B (5 Level Wrap): Typical Level = 59 units x 4 levels Ground Level = 50 units Total:286 Units Building C (6 Level Wrap): Typical Level = 36 units x 5 levels Ground Level = 13 units Total:193 Units Grand Total: 845 Units ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project Page 7-12 April 2021February 2020 Under this alternative, the project would not be able to finance all proposed amenities and thus, would eliminate the 1,500-square foot community room, bicycle lockers, bicycle storage, bicycle repair facilities, active transportation hub, Sunflower Avenue pedestrian and bicycle facility improvements, and trail improvements along the western portion of the site towards the Santa Ana River Trail. Overall, the reduction in residential and non-residential development (212 fewer residential units, 25,000 fewer square feet of creative office space, and elimination of the 1.5-acre open space) would reduce associated vehicle trips and impacts related to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and transportation. Refer to Table 7-1, Reduced Development Intensity Alternative Trip Generation. Table 7-1 Reduced Development Intensity Alternative Trip Generation Land Use Units AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily In Out Total In Out Total Existing Uses General Light Industrial 345.41 TSF Existing Trip Generation [1] -- 34 3 37 1 7 8 429 Proposed Uses Apartment 845 DU Trip Generation [2] -- 85 346 431 338 186 524 5,678 Internal Capture [4] (1) (2) (3) (7) (3) (10) (64) Net Trip Generation (Residential) 84 344 428 331 183 514 5,614 Supermarket 6.00 TSF Trips / Unit [3] -- 2.29 1.53 3.82 4.71 4.53 9.24 106.78 Trip Generation -- 14 9 23 28 27 55 641 Internal Capture [4] (2) (1) (3) (3) (7) (10) (64) Net Trip Generation (Non-Residential) 12 8 20 25 20 45 577 Net Total Trip Generation 62 349 411 355 196 551 5,762 Source: LSA 2019. Notes: TSF = Thousand Square Feet; DU = Dwelling Units [1] Trip generation is based on driveway counts (peak hours and daily) collected on September 11, 2019. [2] Trip generation obtained from the Westside Lofts IS/MND. [3] Rates based on Land Use 850 - "Supermarket" from the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition, Setting/Location - "General Urban/Suburban." [4] Internal trip captures estimated with NCHRP 684 Internal Trip Capture Estimation Tool. Discretionary actions required under this alternative would be similar to the proposed project, and would include a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Specific Plan, Master Plan, Development Agreement, Tentative Tract Map, Tree Removal Permit, and Public Art Plan. Similarly, upon City Council approval, this alternative would be subject to Measure Y. 7.5.1 Aesthetics The Reduced Development Intensity Alternative would eliminate the creative office building and one level of Building A, which are both proposed along the southern project boundary adjacent to the I-405 Freeway under the proposed project. Thus, this alternative would slightly reduce visual impacts to drivers along the I-405 Freeway and the closest residences to the site, approximately 300 feet south of the I-405 Freeway. Shading impacts would also be reduced under this alternative as the creative office building would not be constructed ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project April 2021February 2020 Page 7-13 and Building A would be lower in height. The Specific Plan and Master Plan would still be adopted under this alternative; therefore, setbacks, building forms, and other development standards and design guidelines, including lighting standards, would still apply. Similar to the proposed project, this alternative would also meet several relevant General Plan policies pertaining to scenic quality. For example, this alternative would strengthen the image of the City as experienced from sidewalks and roadways by redeveloping the industrial site into a mixed-used community (General Plan Goal CD-1) and reinforce a sense of arrival into the City by developing an architecturally significant mixed-use development with significant landscape (General Plan Policy CD-3.2). However, this alternative would not contribute to City beautification by enhancing the visual environment of Costa Mesa’s vehicular and pedestrian paths and corridors (General Plan Objective CD-1A) or promote a consistent landscape character along City streets (General Plan Policy CD-1.4) given the elimination of the Sunflower Avenue bicycle and pedestrian facility improvements and trail improvements towards the Santa Ana River Trail. This alternative would still underground existing electrical powerlines along the project frontage (General Plan Policy CD-1.5). Thus, impacts in this regard would be neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the proposed project. 7.5.2 Air Quality This alternative would reduce regional air quality impacts by eliminating 25,000 square feet of creative office space, 212 residential units, and 1.5 acres of open space. The proposed reduction in development intensity would proportionally reduce regional construction emissions by approximately 15 to 20 percent. With a 20 percent reduction in construction emissions, NOX VOC emissions would still exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 75 100 pounds per day during Phase 1 construction (primarily generated by site preparation and grading activities), with mitigation incorporatedand thus, would still require mitigation. As such, similar to the proposed project, construction-related emissions under this alternative would also require mitigation to reduce impacts to remain significant and unavoidableless than significant levels. This alternative would generate approximately 5,762 ADT compared to 6,800 ADT under the proposed project; refer to Table 7-1. The reduction in vehicle trips would proportionally reduce the maximum daily operational regional emissions. Therefore, the project’s less than significant operational air quality impacts would be further reduced under this alternative. While the project’s significant and unavoidable construction-related VOC emissions would remain despite mitigation, this alternative would still reduce construction and operational air emissions compared to the proposed project. ThusOverall, this alternative would be environmentally superior to the proposed project. 7.5.3 Cultural Resources Similar to the proposed project, implementation of the Reduced Development Intensity Alternative would cover the same development area and could uncover cultural resources during grading activities or result in impacts to historical resources. This alternative would result in an increased depth of grading in the western portion of the project site due to the slight relocation of Building B in the area where the 1.5-acre open space was previously proposed. Nevertheless, similar to the proposed project, the potential to encounter cultural resources on-site would be reduced to less than significant upon implementation of mitigation. As such, this alternative would neither be environmentally superior nor inferior to the proposed project. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project Page 7-14 April 2021February 2020 7.5.4 Energy Under this alternative, proposed development intensity would be reduced and thus, associated electricity and natural gas demand would also proportionally be reduced. Additionally, the approximately 1,038 fewer ADT associated with this alternative would reduce transportation fuel consumption. Overall, construction and operational activities associated with this alternative would have reduced energy demands and impacts would remain less than significant. This alternative would be environmentally superior. 7.5.5 Geology and Soils As this alternative proposes less residential and non-residential development, it would not expose as many residents and workers to potential adverse effects associated with the site’s seismic-, geologic-, and soils-related hazards. However, additional excavation would occur in the western portion of the project site due to the slight relocation of Building B in the area where the open space was previously proposed. Thus, there may be greater potential to uncover previously undiscovered paleontological resources at increased depths in this area. Nevertheless, geology and soils impacts associated with this alternative would be similar to the proposed project and be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. This alternative would be neither environmentally inferior nor superior to the proposed project. 7.5.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions The Reduced Development Intensity Alternative would result in a reduction of residential units and non- residential square footage and would decrease vehicle trips compared to the proposed project by approximately 15 percent (1,038 fewer ADT). Therefore, this alternative would result in a proportional reduction in construction and operational GHG emissions. As with the proposed project, Mitigation Measures GHG-1 and GHG-2 would reduce GHG emissions. However, at least a 40 percent reduction in development intensity and ADT compared to the proposed project would be required to reduce GHG emissions to levels below the SCAQMD significance threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e/yr. Therefore, impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions would be reduced, but remain significant and unavoidable. This alternative would be environmentally superior to the proposed project. 7.5.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Similar to the proposed project, buildout of the Reduced Development Intensity Alternative would involve the use of hazardous materials during construction and could expose construction workers to hazardous materials during demolition from asbestos-containing materials, lead-based paint, or possible contaminated soils. Similar to the project, any remediation and/or demolition would be required to comply with the appropriate State regulations and responsible agencies and be required to implement Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2. Operations of the residential and specialty retail uses under this alternative would involve the use of small amounts of hazardous materials, such as cleansers, paints, fertilizers, and pesticides for cleaning and maintenance purposes. However, the proposed land uses are not associated with uses that utilize, generate, store, or transport large quantities of hazardous materials, and these hazardous materials would be governed ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project April 2021February 2020 Page 7-15 by existing local, State, and Federal regulations. Overall, construction and operational impacts would be similar to the proposed project and be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. This alternative would be neither environmentally inferior nor superior to the proposed project. 7.5.8 Hydrology and Water Quality Under this alternative, the 1.5-acre open space would not be developed, and Building B would be relocated slightly to the west to occupy the previously proposed open space area. As such, it can be assumed, to some extent, that this alternative would slightly increase impervious surfaces. However, similar to the proposed project, this alternative is anticipated to reduce peak flow rates compared to existing conditions by implementing low impact development features and installing modular wetland systems that treat and reduce runoff volumes conveyed to the City’s storm drain system. Therefore, both this alternative and the proposed project would have a beneficial impact on the hydrology and water quality of the project area. Similar to the proposed project, implementation of this alternative would result in compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Construction General Permit requirements and implementation of various BMPs associated with a project-specific Water Quality Management Plan and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan to reduce water quality impacts. Therefore, hydrology and water quality impacts of this alternative would be similar to the proposed project and be less than significant. This alternative would be neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the proposed project. 7.5.9 Land Use and Planning The Reduced Development Intensity Alternative would allow development of residential and specialty retail uses with less development intensity than the proposed project. This alternative would require similar discretionary approvals as the proposed project: a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Specific Plan, Master Plan, Development Agreement, Tentative Tract Map, Tree Removal Permit, and Public Art Plan. Given the reduction in residential development and elimination of the creative office use and recreational amenities, this alternative would not provide a mix of housing and commercial uses and employment opportunities (General Plan Policy LU-1.1) or provide a broad range of business uses that generate employment to various income levels (General Plan Policy LU-6.10) to the same extent as the proposed project. Additionally, this alternative would not maximize public space per General Plan Policy OSR-1.5 which requires plazas and public gathering spaces in private developments to serve recreation and social needs. This alternative also would not implement road diets to enhance bicycle and pedestrian facilities (General Plan Policy C-1.5), improve access to natural areas in the City (General Plan Policy CON-1.A.7), enhance bicycling and walking infrastructure (General Plan Policy CON-4.A.6), or promote a consistent landscape character along City streets (General Plan Policy CD-1.4) given the elimination of the pedestrian and bicycle facility improvements along Sunflower Avenue and the trail improvements on the western portion of the site. Regarding consistency with the Southern California Association of Governments’ 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategies (2016 RTP/SCS), this alternative would not encourage active transportation (2016 RTP/SCS Goal 6) or encourage land use and growth patterns that facilitate transit and active transportation (2016 RTP/SCS Goal 8) to the same extent as the proposed project given the elimination of the bicycle amenities and open space. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project Page 7-16 April 2021February 2020 Additionally, while this alternative would still provide affordable units, the number would be proportionally lower than the proposed project and therefore, slightly fewer affordable housing units would be provided under this alternative. This could lead to the City meeting the housing goals to a slightly lesser extent than the project. Overall, this alternative would be environmentally inferior to the proposed project. 7.5.10 Noise This alternative’s reduction in development intensity would slightly reduce the length of project-related construction noise, however, peak construction noise volumes would occur similar to the proposed project. Due to similar peak construction noise volumes and a nominal reduction in construction duration, this alternative would result in similar less than significant construction noise impacts. As stated, this alternative would generate 1,038 fewer ADT than the proposed project; refer to Table 7-1. Thus, the reduction in vehicle trips would proportionally reduce operational mobile noise impacts. Operational noise impacts would be reduced compared to the proposed project and remain less than significant. Overall, this alternative would be environmentally superior to the proposed project. 7.5.11 Population and Housing Under the Reduced Development Intensity Alternative, buildout would result in 212 fewer residential units and 25,000 fewer square feet of creative office space. The community room also would not be constructed under this alternative. Thus, utilizing the City’s average household size of 2.73, this alternative would result in 578 fewer residents and 93 fewer employees. The reduced population, housing, and employment associated with this alternative would be consistent with the City’s growth projections identified in the 2016 RTP/SCS. However, the Reduced Development Intensity Alternative would provide fewer residential opportunities, including affordable housing, near major employment centers, thereby, improving the City’s jobs-housing ratio and contributing towards the City’s State-mandated RHNA housing goals to a lesser extent than the proposed project. Overall, weighing the benefits of less unplanned population growth in the project area with the drawbacks of meeting the City’s RHNA requirements and improving the City’s jobs-housing ratio to a lesser extent, this alternative would be neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the proposed project. 7.5.12 Public Services and Recreation This alternative would develop 212 fewer residential units and eliminate the 25,000-square foot creative office building, 1.5-acre open space, 1,500-square foot community room, and several pedestrian and bicycle amenities. The reduced development intensity would similarly reduce demand for fire and police services. This alternative would also result in 578 fewer residents due to the reduction in residential units, thereby reducing demands for school, library, and parks and recreation services. The alternative would still be subject to development impact fees for fire and police services. Overall, impacts in this regard would be reduced compared to the proposed project and be environmentally superior. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project April 2021February 2020 Page 7-17 7.5.13 Transportation This alternative’s reduction in development intensity would nominally reduce construction duration and associated construction traffic. Thus, short-term construction traffic impacts are anticipated to be similarly less than significant. During operations, this alternative would generate approximately 5,762 ADT compared to 6,800 ADT under the proposed project; refer to Table 7-1. The approximately 15 percent reduction in ADT would reduce the project’s impacts at several intersections and freeway ramps/mainlines; however, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Further, as this alternative would not construct the project’s proposed creative office use, the project’s significant and unavoidable impacts pertaining to VMT would be avoided with this alternative. Thus, this alternative would be environmentally superior to the proposed project given the reduction in ADT. 7.5.14 Tribal Cultural Resources Similar to the proposed project, this alternative would require grading and excavation to redevelop the existing industrial development with a new residential mixed-use community. This alternative would result in an increased depth of grading at the western portion of the project site due to the slight relocation of Building B in the area where open space was previously proposed. Therefore, there may be a greater potential to encounter tribal cultural resources at increased depths under this alternative. Nevertheless, the potential to disturb previously undiscovered tribal cultural resources would be reduced to less than significant levels with mitigation incorporated. This alternative would be neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the proposed project. 7.5.15 Utilities and Service Systems Under this alternative, building square footage would be reduced by approximately 15 to 20 percent, resulting in approximately 578 fewer residents and 93 fewer employees under this alternative compared to the proposed project. Therefore, this alternative would generate proportionally less wastewater, water demand, solid waste, and electricity and gas demands. This alternative would similarly install stormwater BMPs. As such, the project’s less than significant impacts under this alternative would be reduced under this alternative. This alternative is environmentally superior to the proposed project. 7.5.16 Conclusion Ability to Reduce Environmental Impacts Under the Reduced Development Intensity Alternative, impacts to air quality (construction), greenhouse gas emissions, and transportation would be reduced compared to the proposed project, but would remain significant and unavoidable. This alternative would also lessen the project’s less than significant impacts pertaining to air quality, energy, noise, public services and recreation, and utilities and service systems. This alternative would result in similar impacts in the areas of aesthetics, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, population and housing, and tribal cultural resources. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project Page 7-18 April 2021February 2020 Potential impacts related to land use and planning would be slightly greater due to reduction of on-site and off- site amenities. Ability to Achieve Project Objectives Under the Reduced Development Intensity Alternative, some of the proposed project’s objectives would be achieved, including the incorporation of sustainable development practice related to energy efficiency and green building standards (Objective No. 6) and enhancement of the visual attributes of the project site with high quality design, creative facades, and consistent development standards and design guidelines (Objective No. 7). This alternative would also achieve several project objectives to a lesser extent compared to the proposed project. For example, this alternative would redevelop the project site with a mix of residential and retail uses in a master planned setting that is fiscally neutral or positive for the City (Objective No. 1), increase the City’s housing stock in areas with adequate public utilities and services and in close proximity to major employment centers (Objective No. 2), and improve jobs-housing ratio and reduce vehicle miles traveled (Objective No. 5), although not to the same extent as the proposed project due to the reduction of residential units and elimination of the creative office building, community room, open space, and bicycle amenities. Additionally, this alternative would not provide enhanced recreation and open space opportunities to serve future residents and commercial office tenants (Objective No. 3) or encourage alternative modes of travel through enhancing pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure (Objective No. 4) because it would eliminate the open space, bicycle amenities, pedestrian and bicycle facility improvements along Sunflower Avenue, and trail improvements along the western portion of the site towards the Santa Ana River Trail. 7.6 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE CEQA requires a lead agency to identify the “environmentally superior alternative” and, in cases where the “No Project” Alternative is environmentally superior to the proposed project, the environmentally superior development alternative must be identified. Table 7-2, Comparison of Alternatives, summarizes the comparative analysis presented above. As shown, the No Project/No Development Alternative results in the most “environmentally superior” or “neither environmentally superior nor inferior” topical areas and also eliminates the project’s significant and unavoidable impacts related to construction air quality and greenhouse gas emissions and transportation; thus, it is the environmentally superior alternative. Since the “No Project” Alternative is environmentally superior to the proposed project, the environmentally superior development alternative is the Reduced Development Intensity Alternative. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project April 2021February 2020 Page 7-19 Table 7-2 Comparison of Alternatives Sections Proposed Project No Project/No Development Alternative Reduced Development Intensity Alternative Aesthetics LTS/M = = Air Quality LTS/MS/U * Cultural Resources LTS/M = Energy LTS Geology and Soils LTS/M = Greenhouse Gas Emissions S/U * Hazards and Hazardous Materials LTS/M = = Hydrology and Water Quality LTS = Land Use and Planning LTS Noise LTS Population and Housing LTS = = Public Services and Recreation LTS/M Transportation S/U * * Tribal Cultural Resources LTS/M = Utilities and Service Systems LTS Notes: LTS = Less Than Significant; LTS/M = Less Than Significant With Mitigation; S/U = Significant and Unavoidable Indicates an impact that is greater than the project (environmentally inferior). Indicates an impact that is less than the project (environmentally superior). = Indicates an impact that is equal to the project (neither environmentally superior nor inferior). * Indicates an impact that would eliminate one or more significant and unavoidable impacts associated with the project. As summarized in Section 7.5.16, the Reduced Development Intensity Alternative meets some of the proposed project’s objectives, although not to the extent of the proposed project. This alternative would incorporate sustainable development practice related to energy efficiency and green building standards (Objective No. 6) and enhance the visual attributes of the project site with high quality design, creative facades, and consistent development standards and design guidelines (Objective No. 7). This alternative would also achieve several project objectives to a lesser extent compared to the proposed project. For example, this alternative would redevelop the project site with a mix of residential and retail uses in a master planned setting that is fiscally neutral or positive for the City (Objective No. 1), increase the City’s housing stock in areas with adequate public utilities and services and in close proximity to major employment centers (Objective No. 2), and improve jobs- housing ratio and reduce vehicle miles traveled (Objective No. 5), although not to the same extent as the proposed project due to the reduction of residential units and elimination of the creative office building, community room, open space, and bicycle amenities. Additionally, this alternative would not provide enhanced recreation and open space opportunities to serve future residents and commercial office tenants (Objective No. 3) or encourage alternative modes of travel through enhancing pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure (Objective No. 4) because it would eliminate the open space, bicycle amenities, pedestrian and bicycle facility improvements along Sunflower Avenue, and trail improvements along the western portion of the site towards the Santa Ana River Trail. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project Page 7-20 April 2021February 2020 This page intentionally left blank. ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I February 2020April 2021 Chapter 8.0 Impacts Found Not to be Significant ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I February 2020April 2021 This page intentionally left blank. April 2021February 2020 Page 8-1 8. Impacts Found Not to Be Significant CEQA provides that an EIR shall focus on the significant effects on the environment and discuss potential environmental effects with emphasis in proportion to their severity and probability of occurrence. During preparation of this EIR, the City conducted an analysis of the project’s effect on specific environmental topic areas, included as part of the Environmental Checklist form presented in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. Through the course of this evaluation, certain impacts were identified as “less than significant” or “no impact” due to the inability of a project of this scope and nature to yield such impacts or the absence of project characteristics producing effects of this type. These effects are not required to be included in the EIR’s primary environmental analysis sections (Sections 5.1 through 5.15). In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15128, the following discussion includes a brief description of impacts found to be less than significant. The lettered analyses under each topical area directly correspond to their order in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. AESTHETICS AE-1 Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No Impact. The City’s physical setting allows for views of scenic resources including the Pacific Ocean, Santa Ana River, Upper Newport Bay, and Santa Ana Mountains. Views of these resources are afforded at specific public locations within the City that provide uninterrupted, large expanse views of undeveloped land and these resources. According to the General Plan EIR, such locations include Fairview Park, Talbert Regional Park and its adjacent wildlife refuge, and the golf courses, parks, and ballfields in the City. These specific locations are not located within views of the project site. The project site is located over 4.5 miles inland of the Pacific Ocean and over ten miles southwest of the Santa Ana Mountains. Views of the Pacific Ocean and Santa Ana Mountains are not afforded from the project site under existing conditions due to intervening topography, existing structures, and vegetation. Although the project site is located approximately 700 feet east of the Santa Ana River and a bicycle path extends from the project site’s western boundary to the Santa Ana River Trail, there are no visual resources at this segment under existing conditions. No impact would occur in this regard. AE-2 Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? No impact. The proposed project is not adjacent to or near a State designated scenic highway (Caltrans 2017b). The closest officially designated State scenic highway is a portion of State Route 91 (SR-91), located over ten miles northeast of the site. Views of the project site are not afforded from SR-91 due to intervening topography, structures, and vegetation. No impact would occur in this regard. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 8. Impacts Found Not to Be Significant Page 8-2 April 2021February 2020 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES AG-1 Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No Impact. The project site is not designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (DOC 2019). No Farmland exists within the site vicinity. No impact would occur in this regard. AG-2 Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. The project site is zoned Industrial Park (MP), and is not covered under an existing Williamson Act contract (DOC 2004). Thus, project implementation would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract. No impact would occur in this regard. AG-3 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))? No Impact. The project site is zoned MP and is not occupied or used by forest land or timberland. Further, project implementation would not result in the rezoning of forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. No impact would occur in this regard. AG-4 Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. Refer to Impact AG-3. No impacts would occur. AG-5 Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. Refer to Impacts AG-1 through AG-4. No impacts would occur. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES B-1 Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. Sensitive biological resources are habitats or species that have been recognized by Federal, State, and/or local agencies as being endangered, threatened, rare, or in decline throughout all or part of their historical distribution. A literature review, records search, and biological survey, was conducted for the project site as part of the Biological Resources Technical Memorandum for One Metro West (Biological Resources Technical ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 8. Impacts Found Not to Be Significant April 2021February 2020 Page 8-3 Memorandum), prepared by LSA Associates, dated May 30, 2019; refer to Appendix O, Biological Resources Technical Memorandum and Tree Removal Plan. On-site vegetation primarily consists of non-native ornamental landscaping, non-native ornamental trees, and typical non-native ruderal species. As documented, the project site does not contain native habitat that would support special-status plant or animal species, and there were no known candidate, sensitive, or special-status plant or animal species observed on the project site. The project site is developed with an existing industrial building and is surrounded on all sides by existing urban development. Therefore, the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status. No impacts would occur in this regard. B-2 Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. According to the Biological Resources Technical Memorandum, the project site does not contain any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community; refer to Appendix O. Although the Santa Ana River is located approximately 750 feet to the northwest of the project site, project implementation would have no impacts on the river. Therefore, the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community. No impacts would occur in this regard. B-3 Have a substantial adverse effect on State or Federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No Impact. The project site is developed and does not contain any natural hydrologic or drainage features, or State or Federally protected wetlands; refer to Appendix O. Therefore, project implementation would not have a substantial adverse effect on State or Federally protected wetlands. No impacts would occur in this regard. B-4 Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is developed in an urbanized area surrounded by Sunflower Avenue to the north, the South Coast Collection (SOCO) retail center to the east, Interstate 405 Freeway (I- 405; San Diego Freeway) to the south, and industrial and logistics uses to the west. Due to the developed and urbanized nature of the project site and surrounding area, project implementation would not interfere with the movement of any native resident, migratory fish or wildlife species. Existing ornamental vegetation on-site has the potential to provide suitable nesting habitat for birds. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) governs the taking, killing, possession, transportation, and importation of migratory birds, their eggs, parts, or nests. Mandatory compliance with the MBTA (PPP BIO-1 and SCA BIO-1) would reduce the project’s potential construction-related impacts to migratory birds to a less than significant level. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 8. Impacts Found Not to Be Significant Page 8-4 April 2021February 2020 PPP BIO-1 The proposed project is required to comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which governs the taking, killing, possession, transportation, and importation of migratory birds, their eggs, parts, or nests. SCA BIO-1 Any vegetation removal should take place outside of the active nesting bird season (i.e., February 15–August 15), when feasible, to avoid impacts to nesting birds that are protected under the California Fish and Game Code. Should vegetation removal take place during this period, a qualified biologist should conduct a nesting bird survey prior to construction activities to ensure that birds are not engaged in active nesting within 100 feet of the project site. If nesting birds are discovered during preconstruction surveys, the biologist should identify an appropriate buffer (i.e., up to 500 feet depending on the circumstances and specific bird species) where no construction activities or other disturbances are allowed to occur until after the birds have fledged from the nest and the nest is no longer active (as determined by the qualified biologist). B-5 Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Less Than Significant Impact. Under Municipal Code Title 15, Chapter 5, Parkway Trees , the City has adopted several ordinances that pertain to trees on both public and private property. For any projects that include construction work in the public right-of-way, plans that accurately depict the public right-of-way require approval from the Planning Division and Public Services Department prior to any permits being issued by the Building and Safety Division. A tree removal and protection plan is required to identify all City parkway trees adjacent to the project site. The actual location and canopy diameter of City trees must be shown clearly on the plans. Approval from the Parks, Arts, and Community Services Commission (PACS) is required to remove and replace trees within City right-of-way. In compliance with City requirements, a tree removal and protection plan has been prepared for the proposed project; refer to Appendix O. According to the project’s tree removal and protection plan, the project would remove six trees during construction, which would be replaced following infrastructure improvements. The City Arborist determined that the existing six trees are healthy and classified as Discretionary Removals, which require approval from the PACS (PPP BIO-2). Thus, upon approval from PACS, the project applicant would be required to replace the six existing trees at a 3:1 ratio. As such, impacts in this regard would be less than significant. PPP BIO-2 The proposed project is required to obtain a tree removal permit from the Parks, Arts & Community Services Commission (PACS) for any removal of trees within the City’s public right-of-way (Municipal Code Chapter V, Parkway Trees ). All permit terms for tree replacement would be implemented (at a ratio of 3:1). Before said trees are removed, the PACS shall provide recommendations and findings to the Director of Public Services. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 8. Impacts Found Not to Be Significant April 2021February 2020 Page 8-5 B-6 Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan? No Impact. According to the General Plan EIR, although the City is located within the boundaries of the County of Orange Central and Coastal Subregion Natural Community Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP), the City is not a participant in the plan. The City’s Talbert Nature Preserve, however, is included as an area that could support future NCCP/HCP reserves. The project site is located over three miles to the northeast of Talbert Regional Park. No other approved local, regional, or State habitat conversation plans apply to the site. Therefore, the proposed project does not conflict with the NCCP/HCP, or any other approved local, regional, or State HCP. No impacts would occur in this regard. GEOLOGY AND SOILS G-5 Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? No Impact. The project would not involve the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems, and no impacts would occur in this regard. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS HAZ-3 Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Less Than Significant Impact. The nearest school to the project site is the California Elementary School and Tewinkle Middle School, located approximately 0.20-mile southeast of the project site at 3232 and 3224 California Street, respectively. As noted in Section 5.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, project implementation is not anticipated to result in substantial hazards to the public or the environment arising from the routine use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials during construction or long-term operation of the proposed project. All construction activities would be subject to compliance with existing laws and regulations (see PPP HAZ-1 and PPP HAZ-4) related to hazardous materials. Therefore, impacts in this regard would be less than significant. HAZ-4 Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? No Impact. Government Code Section 65962.5 requires the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to compile and update the regulatory sites listing (per the Code Section’s criteria). Additionally, the State Department of Health Services is also required to compile and update, as appropriate, a list of all public drinking water wells that contain detectable levels of organic contaminants and are subject to water analysis pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 116395. Government Code Section 65962.5 requires the local enforcement agency, as designated pursuant to California ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 8. Impacts Found Not to Be Significant Page 8-6 April 2021February 2020 Code of Regulations Tile 14 Section 18051 to compile, as appropriate, a list of all solid waste disposal facilities from which there is a known migration of hazardous waste. Based on the California Environmental Protection Agency’s (CalEPA) Cortese List Data Resources, the project site is not reported on a list maintained pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (CalEPA 2019). No impacts would occur in this regard. HAZ-7 Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? No Impact. The project site and surrounding land are built-out with urbanized uses; no wildland vegetation that could fuel wildfires is present. The project site does not lie within, and is not adjacent to, Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones as mapped by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE 2007). Thus, no impact would occur. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY HYD-4 In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? Less Than Significant Impact. 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 seiches at the project site. Furthermore, the project site is located over 4.5 miles inland of the Pacific Ocean and is not located within a tsunami hazard zone according to the California Department of Conservation (DOC 2015). As discussed in Section 5.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, the site is also not susceptible to flood hazards. Therefore, the proposed project would not release pollutants due to project inundation in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones and impacts would be less than significant. LAND USE AND PLANNING LU-1 Physically divide an established community? No Impact. Factors that could physically divide a community include, but are not limited to: Construction of major highways or roadways; Construction of storm channels; Closing bridges or roadways; and Construction of utility transmission lines. The key factor with respect to this threshold is the potential to create physical barriers that change the connectivity between areas of a community to the extent that persons are separated from other areas of the community. The site is currently developed with an existing one-story industrial building, and industrial, commercial, transportation, and logistics uses surround the site on all sides. The proposed land uses are intended to complement the nearby SOCO retail center. The project would also enhance connectivity to the Santa Ana River Trail by implementing protected bicycle lanes along Sunflower Avenue and creating an Active Transportation Hub near the proposed open space area that may include bicycle lockers, bicycle storage, and ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 8. Impacts Found Not to Be Significant April 2021February 2020 Page 8-7 repair facilities. As a result, the proposed project would not divide an established community, and no impact would occur. MINERAL RESOURCES MIN-1 Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the State? No Impact. The project site is mapped Mineral Resource Zone 3 (MRZ-3) by the California Department of Conservation, indicating that it is in an area containing mineral deposits of indeterminable significance (DOC 1981). According to the General Plan EIR, there are no active mining operations within the City. The project site is located within a built-out urban area that is largely developed with industrial, commercial, transportation, and logistics uses and would be incompatible with mining use. No impacts would occur in this regard. MIN-2 Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No Impact. Refer to Impact MIN-1. POPULATION AND HOUSING PH-2 Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. The project site currently consists of a one-story industrial building, which would be replaced with a mixed-use development consisting of 1,057 multi-family residential units, 25,000 square feet of creative office space, 6,000 square feet of specialty retail use, and 1.5 acres of open space. As such, development of the proposed project would not displace existing people or housing. No impacts would occur in this regard. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES TCR-1(i) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)? No Impact. As analyzed in Impact 5.3-1, there are no known potential historical resources in the project area. As such, development of the proposed project would not adversely impact any resources listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources or in a local register of historical resources per Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k). No impacts to historic tribal cultural resources would occur in this regard. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 8. Impacts Found Not to Be Significant Page 8-8 April 2021February 2020 WILDFIRE If located in or near State responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project. W-1 Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact. According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection’s Orange County Fire Hazard Severity Zones in SRA Map, the City of Costa Mesa is not located in or near a State responsibility area nor is the City designated as a high fire hazard severity zone (CALFIRE 2007). No impacts would occur in this regard. W-2 Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? No Impact. Refer to Impact W-1. W-3 Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? No Impact. Refer to Impact W-1. W-4 Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? No Impact. Refer to Impact W-1. ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I February 2020April 2021 Chapter 9.0 Significant Irreversible Changes Due to the Proposed Project ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I February 2020April 2021 This page intentionally left blank. April 2021February 2020 Page 9-1 9. Significant Irreversible Changes Due to the Proposed Project Section 15126.2(c) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR describe any significant irreversible environmental changes that would be caused by the proposed project should it be implemented. Specifically, the CEQA Guidelines states: Uses of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the project may be irreversible since a large commitment of such resources makes removal or nonuse thereafter unlikely. Primary impacts and, particularly, secondary impacts (such as highways improvement which provides access to a previously inaccessible area) generally commit future generations to similar uses. Also, irreversible damage can result from environmental accidents associated with the project. Irretrievable commitments of resources should be evaluated to assure that such current consumption is justified. In the case of the proposed One Metro West project, its implementation would involve redevelopment of the project site to support up to 1,057 multi-family residential units, 25,000 square feet of creative office space, 6,000 square feet of specialty retail use, and 1.5 acres of open space within Costa Mesa. The project would consume limited, slowly renewable, and nonrenewable resources. This consumption would occur during the construction phase of the project and would continue throughout its operational lifetime. Project development would require a commitment of resources that would include: (1) building materials, (2) fuel and operational materials/resources, and (3) the transportation of goods and people to and from the project site. Project construction would require the consumption of resources that are not renewable, or which may renew so slowly as to be considered non-renewable. These resources would include construction supplies, such as aggregate materials used in concrete and asphalt, metals, and water. Fossil fuels such as gasoline and oil would also be consumed in the use of construction vehicles and equipment. The resources that would be committed during project operation would be similar to those currently consumed to operate the existing industrial building. Resources would include energy resources such as electricity and natural gas, petroleum-based fuels required for vehicle trips, fossil fuels, and water. Fossil fuels would represent the primary energy source associated with both construction and ongoing operation of the project and the existing, finite supplies of these natural resources would be incrementally reduced. Project operation would occur in accordance with California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 6, which sets forth conservation practices that would limit the amount of energy consumed by the project. However, the energy requirements associated with the project would, nonetheless, represent a long-term commitment of essentially non-renewable resources. In summary, project construction and operation would result in the irretrievable commitment of limited, slowly renewable, and nonrenewable resources, which would limit the availability of these particular resource quantities ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 9. Significant Irreversible Changes Due to the Proposed Project Page 9-2 April 2021February 2020 for future generations or for other uses during the life of the project. The project would involve the use of building materials and energy, some of which are non-renewable resources. Consumption of these resources would occur with any development in the region and are not unique to the project. Additionally, increasingly efficient building fixtures and vehicular engines are expected to offset this demand to some degree. As such, although irreversible environmental changes would result from the project, such changes would not be considered significant. ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I February 2020April 2021 Chapter 10.0 Growth-Inducing Impacts of the Proposed Project ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I February 2020April 2021 This page intentionally left blank. April 2021February 2020 Page 10-1 10. Growth-Inducing Impacts of the Proposed Project Section 15126 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR discuss the project’s potential to foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. The CEQA Guidelines also indicate that it must not be assumed that growth in any area is necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment. This section analyzes such potential growth-inducing impacts, based on criteria suggested in the CEQA Guidelines. In general terms, a project may foster spatial, economic, or population growth in a geographic area if it meets any one of the following criteria: Removal of an impediment to growth (e.g., construction or extension of major infrastructure or changes in existing land use regulations); Fostering economic expansion or growth (e.g., changes in revenue base and employment expansion); Fostering of population growth (e.g., construction of additional housing), either directly or indirectly; Establishment of a precedent-setting action (e.g., an innovation, a change in zoning, and general plan amendment approval); or Development of or encroachment on an isolated or adjacent area of open space (being distinct from an in-fill project). Should a project meet any one of the above-listed criteria, it may be considered growth inducing. Generally, growth-inducing projects are either located in isolated, undeveloped, or underdeveloped areas, necessitating the extension of major infrastructure such as sewer and water facilities or roadways, or encourage premature or unplanned growth. Note that the CEQA Guidelines require an EIR to “discuss the ways” a project could be growth inducing and to “discuss the characteristics of some projects that may encourage…activities that could significantly affect the environment.” However, the CEQA Guidelines do not require that an EIR predict (or speculate) specifically where such growth would occur, in what form it would occur, or when it would occur. The answers to such questions require speculation, which CEQA discourages (refer to CEQA Guidelines Section 15145). In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines and based on the above-listed criteria, the project’s potential growth- inducing impacts are evaluated below. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 10. Growth-Inducing Impacts of the Proposed Project Page 10-2 April 2021February 2020 Removal of an Impediment to Growth Construction or Extension of Major Infrastructure Facilities The project site is surrounded by urban development on all sides and the existing industrial building currently receives utility services (e.g., water, wastewater, storm drain, solid waste, natural gas, and electricity services) that the proposed project would similarly utilize. The project area is also well-served by adjacent roadways. As detailed in Chapter 3.0, Project Description, several infrastructure connections and improvements, including water, sewer, storm drain, electrical, and gas lines, are proposed to accommodate the project. However, these proposed infrastructure improvements would not remove obstacles to growth since the site is already served by existing utility providers and would mostly serve as connection lines to existing connections in adjacent roadways. Changes in Existing Land Use Regulations As detailed in Section 3.4, Intended Uses of the EIR, the project requires several discretionary approvals related to land use regulations, including a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Specific Plan, Master Plan, Development Agreement, Tentative Tract Map, Tree Removal Permit, and Public Art Plan. Based on the site’s existing Industrial Park land use designation and zoning district, the site is currently intended be developed as an industrial use. Approval of the proposed discretionary actions would change the site’s existing land use regulations and would remove obstacles to growth at the site (i.e., allow the project site to be developed as a mixed-use community in a master planned setting with on-site amenities, open space, and connection to existing bicycle trails pursuant to the One Metro West Specific Plan [Specific Plan] and Master Plan). Foster Economic Expansion or Growth During project construction, a number of design, engineering, and construction jobs would be created. This would last until project construction is completed. Construction employees would likely be absorbed from the regional labor force, and the project, itself, would not attract new workers to the region. Project operations would introduce up to 2,886 residents and generate approximately 59 net jobs; refer to Section 5.11, Population and Housing. The project is a mixed-use infill development in an urban area of Costa Mesa with the intent to bring people closer to existing jobs, entertainment, and employment centers. Residents and employees of the proposed project would seek shopping, entertainment, employment, home improvement, and other economic opportunities in the City and surrounding area. This would create an increased demand for such economic goods and services and would, therefore, encourage the creation of new businesses and/or the expansion of existing businesses that address these needs. More importantly, existing shopping, entertainment, and employment centers in the immediate project area would serve future residents. Economic growth could occur within the project area due to project implementation; however, given the built out nature of the site vicinity, future economic effects are not expected to significantly affect the environment. Foster Population Growth A project could induce population growth in an area either directly or indirectly. More specifically, the development of new residences or businesses could induce population growth directly, whereas the extension of roads or other infrastructure could induce population growth indirectly. The site is located in a developed ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 10. Growth-Inducing Impacts of the Proposed Project April 2021February 2020 Page 10-3 area of the City and does not involve the extension of roads or other infrastructure into undeveloped areas. Thus, the project would not indirectly induce population growth; refer to the “Removal of an Impediment to Growth” Section above. As analyzed in Section 5.11, Population and Housing, the proposed 1,057 units have the potential to support up to 2,886 residents. Additionally, the proposed creative office, specialty retail, community room, and leasing office would generate employment opportunities that could directly increase the City’s population (e.g. future employees relocating to the City). Approximately 129 jobs would be created. The existing industrial building currently employs up to 70 workers; therefore, the project would result in a net increase of 59 jobs. Many factors influence personal housing location decisions (i.e., family income levels and the cost and availability of suitable housing in the local area). Further, many future project employees could already live in Costa Mesa. Thus, it would be highly speculative to estimate the number of future employees who would relocate to the City. Conservatively assuming that all employees relocate to the City, project implementation could result in a population increase of 2,945 people. As shown in Table 5.11-2, SCAG projects the City’s population to increase from 111,200 to 116,400 people by 2040, an increase of approximately 5,200 people. Thus, the residents and employees of the proposed project would account for approximately 57 percent of the population growth forecasted by SCAG in Costa Mesa between 2012 and 2040. Although the project involves unplanned population growth outside of the scope of the General Plan and SCAG projections, the environmental impacts of such unplanned population growth are evaluated, planned for, and mitigated as part of the project throughout this EIR. Additionally, the project would not result in land use changes that substantially increase employment opportunities, nor implement any new policies that could induce substantial unplanned population growth. The project’s population and employment growth would also be offset by the more substantial increase in housing units, a portion of which would include affordable housing to help meet the City’s 6th cycle RHNA allocations. Further, the project is in an urban area with existing infrastructure that can support the proposed infill development. All proposed infrastructure improvements (i.e., sewer, water, and storm drains) are located on-site to support anticipated growth generated by the project and the potential physical environmental impacts of such improvements are analyzed in Section 5.15, Utilities and Service Systems. No additional infrastructure improvements (e.g., roadways and utilities) would be implemented that could indirectly induce population growth elsewhere in the City. Thus, growth inducing impacts related to population growth would be less than significant in this regard. Establishment of A Precedent-Setting Action As stated above, the proposed project would require a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Specific Plan, Master Plan, Development Agreement, Tentative Tract Map, Tree Removal Permit, and Public Art Plan. The approval of these discretionary actions would not set a precedent that would make it more likely for other projects in the City to gain approval of similar applications. For example, a future project requesting to redesignate or rezone a site would need to undergo the same environmental review as the proposed project and mitigate potentially significant environmental impacts on a project-level. The proposed approvals would only regulate future land development within the Specific Plan area by limiting permitted uses and requiring future ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 10. Growth-Inducing Impacts of the Proposed Project Page 10-4 April 2021February 2020 development on-site to comply with development standards and design guidelines in the Specific Plan and Master Plan. While the project would result in the development of a mixed-use residential community in a predominantly industrial area, the site is also adjacent to existing retail and commercial uses (e.g., SOCO and The Mix) that would be compatible with the project’s residential, creative office, specialty retail, and open space uses. Further, future projects with similar required discretionary actions would also be subject to applicable environmental review on a project-by-project basis. Implementation of the proposed project would not establish a procedure that would make future re-designations and/or rezones easier and would be speculative to determine any such effect. As such, the proposed project would not involve a precedent-setting action that could significantly affect the environment. Development or Encroachment of Open Space The project is an infill development and would redevelop the existing industrial building on-site into a mixed- use development. The site is also located in an urbanized area of Costa Mesa. Although open space uses are present nearby (i.e., Santa Ana River and Santa Ana River Trail), these uses are designated as such and the project would not result in the development or encroachment into any areas of existing open space. Therefore, the proposed project would not be growth-inducing with respect to development or encroachment into an isolated or adjacent area of an existing open space. ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I February 2020April 2021 Chapter 11.0 Organizations and Persons Consulted ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I February 2020April 2021 This page intentionally left blank. April 2021February 2020 Page 11-1 11. Organizations and Persons Consulted Lead Agency City of Costa Mesa City Attorney (Jones & Mayer) Kimberly Hall Barlow, Partner Tarquin Preziosi, Senior Associate Development Services Department Barry Curtis, Economic & Development Services Director Jennifer Le, Assistant Director of Development Services Minoo Ashabi, Principal Planner Nancy Huynh, Associate Planner Public Services Department Raja Sethuraman, Public Services Director Jennifer Rosales, Transportation Service Manager Bart Mejia, City Engineer Nader Noorani, Engineering Technician III Mochine Chirar, Assistant Engineer Fire Department Dan Stefano, Fire Chief Jon Neal, Assistant Fire Marshal Police Department Bryan Glass, Acting Chief ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 11. Organizations and Persons Consulted Page 11-2 April 2021February 2020 City Environmental Consultant Michael Baker International 5 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 500 Santa Ana, California 92707 949.472.3505 Eddie Torres, Principal-in-Charge Kristen Bogue, Project Manager Frances Yau, AICP, Environmental Specialist Alicia Gonzalez, Environmental Specialist Pierre Glaize, Environmental Specialist Danielle Regimbal, Environmental Specialist Dan Rosie, Biologist Faye Stroud, Graphic Artist Hilary Ellis, Document Preparation City Technical Consultants Citygate Associates, LLC (Fire Services) Stewart Gary, MPA, Public Safety Principal Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers (Traffic) Keil D. Maberry, PE, Principal Shane Green, PE, Transportation Engineer III Rincon Consultants (Cultural Resources) Breana Campbell, MA, RPA, Archaeologist Christopher Duran, MA, RPA, Principal/Archaeologist Roux Associates, Inc. (Hazards and Hazardous Materials) Mauricio H. Escobar, PG, Principal Geologist ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 11. Organizations and Persons Consulted April 2021February 2020 Page 11-3 Public Agencies Airport Land Use Commission Lea Choum, Executive Officer City of Santa Ana Selena Kelaher, AICP, Associate Planner Zdenek Kekula, Senior Civil Engineer Ruben Casteneda, Engineer, Interwest Consulting Group City of Fountain Valley Temo Galvez, Deputy Director of Public Works/City Engineer Kyle Hilton, Associate Engineer Steven Ayers, Planner Mesa Water District Lauryn Dickinson, Department Assistant John Robinson (consultant to Mesa Water District) Alex Maher (Michael Baker International consultant to Mesa Water District) Newport Mesa Unified School District Tim Holcomb, Assistant Superintendent Southern California Edison Ryann Higashi, Project Manager ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 11. Organizations and Persons Consulted Page 11-4 April 2021February 2020 Project Applicant and Consultants Rose Equities (Project Applicant) Leonard Glickman, Principal Brent M. Stoll, Partner Rockwell Group Studio K (Architecture) Richard Chandler, Associate Principal Anthony Cestra, Architect Templeton Planning Group Peter Templeton, Principal Albert Armijo, Environmental Director C.J. Martinez, Planning Manager T&B Planning, Inc. Nicole Morse, Principal Togawa Smith Martin, Inc. (Architecture) Tom Greer, Principal Alex Taylor, Senior Designer/Associate PlaceWorks (Applicant Environmental Consultant) William Halligan, Managing Principal, Environmental Services Nicole Vermilion, Associate Principal John Vang, Senior Associate Tracy Chu, Planner Denise Clendening, Associate Principal Dina El Chammas, Associate Isabel Garcia, Project Planner – Noise and Vibration Alex Kessel, Project Planner Kristie Nguyen, Project Planner Yliana Ortega, Project Planner Mariana Zimmerman, Associate Urban Arena (Landscape Architecture) Michael Schrock, Principal Jackie Case, Creative Director Michael Knight, Senior Project Manager ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 11. Organizations and Persons Consulted April 2021February 2020 Page 11-5 Geocon Incorporated (Geotechnical Resources and Hazards and Hazardous Materials) John Hoobs, CEG, Vice President Jelisa Thomas Adams, PE, GE, Regional Manager Jamie K Fink, PG, CEG, Senior Project Geologist Dylan J. Ehrsam, Senior Staff Scientist John Juhrend, PE, CEG, Senior Engineer LSA Associates, Inc. (Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Greenhouse Gases, Health Risk, Noise, and Transportation) Tony Petros, Principal Ambarish Mukherjee, Associate/Transportation Engineer Karen Varela, Transportation Engineer Amy Fischer, Principal Ryan Bensley, Associate/Environmental Planner JT Stephens, Associate/Noise Specialist Heather Monteleone, Assistant Biologist Bo Gould, Senior Biologist Kerrie Collison, RPA, Senior Cultural Resources Manager Kelly Vreeland, Paleontologist Sarah Rieboldt, Associate/Senior Paleontological Resources Manager NV5 (Dry Utilities) Gregg Butsko, Director Allison McEachen, Project Manager Urban Resource Corporation (Wet Utilities and Water Quality) Jay Ruby, President Terry Au, PE, Principal ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 11. Organizations and Persons Consulted Page 11-6 April 2021February 2020 This page intentionally left blank. ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I February 2020April 2021 Chapter 12.0 Bibliography ONE METRO WEST DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I February 2020April 2021 This page intentionally left blank. April 2021February 2020 Page 12-1 12. Bibliography California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2017, January 11. Clean Car Standards - Pavley, Assembly Bill 1493. https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/ccms/ccms.htm. California Building Standards Commission (CBSC). 2019. 2019 California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 11. https://www.ladbs.org/docs/default-source/publications/code-amendments/2013-california- green-building-standards-code.pdf?sfvrsn=5. California Department of Conservation (DOC). 2019, December 4. California Important Farmland Finder. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/. ———. 2015. CGS Information Warehouse: Tsunami. http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/index.html?map=regulatorymaps ———. 2004. Agricultural Preserves, Williamson Act Parcels, Orange County California. ———. 1981. Special Report 143, Mineral Land Classification Map Aggregate Resources Only, Plate 3.24, Newport Beach Quadrangle. California Department of Education (CDE). 2019. District Profile: Newport-Mesa Unified. https://www.cde.ca.gov/sdprofile/details.aspx?cds=30665970000000. Accessed October 29, 2019. California Department of Finance Demographic Research Unit (DOF). 2019, May 1. Report E-5: Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, January 1, 2011–2018, with 2010 Census Benchmark. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CALFIRE). 2011, October. Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA. https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/6739/fhszl_map30.pdf. ———. 2007. Orange County Fire Hazard Severity Zones in SRA Map. California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2019a, June 3. Mandatory Commercial Organics Recycling (MORe): Frequently Asked Questions. http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/recycle/commercial/organics/FAQ.htm. Accessed November 20, 2019. ———. 2019b. Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteCharacterization/General/Rates. Accessed November 20, 2019. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 12. Bibliography Page 12-2 April 2021February 2020 ———. 2019c. SWIS Facility Detail: Frank R. Bowerman Sanitary LF (30-AB-0360). https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/swfacilities/Directory/30-AB-0360/. Accessed November 20, 2019. ———. 2019d. SWIS Facility Detail: Prima Deshecha Landfill (30-AB-0019). https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/swfacilities/Directory/30-AB-0019/. Accessed November 20, 2019. ———. 2018. Jurisdiction Per Capita Disposal Trends, Jurisdiction: Costa Mesa. ———. 2017a. Jurisdiction Disposal by Facility with Reported Alternative Daily Cover (ADC) and Alternative Intermediate Cover (AIC), Disposal During 2017 for Costa Mesa. ———. 2017b. Landfill Tonnage Reports. California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2019. SGMA Basin Prioritization Dashboard. https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/bp-dashboard/p2/. Accessed September 25, 2019. California Energy Commission (CEC). 2019. Electricity Consumption by Planning Area. http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbyplan.aspx. Accessed July 16, 2019. ———. 2018a, May 9. News Release: Energy Commission Adopts Standards Requiring Solar Systems for New Homes, First in Nation. https://www.energy.ca.gov/news/2018-05/energy-commission-adopts-standards-requiring-solar- systems-new-homes-first. ———. 2018b. 2019 Building Energy and Efficiency Standards Frequently Asked Questions. http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2019standards/documents/2018_Title_24_2019_Building_Standa rds_FAQ.pdf. ———. 2017a, January. California Energy Commission Renewables Portfolio Standard Eligibility Commission Guidebook, Ninth Edition (revised). https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/getdocument.aspx?tn=217317. ———. 2017b, January. 2016 Appliance Efficiency Regulations. https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/2017publications/CEC-400-2017-002/CEC-400-2017-002.pdf. ———. 2016, December 5. California Energy Demand Updated Forecast, 2017-2027. ———. 2015a, February 24. California Energy Utility Service Areas. http://www.energy.ca.gov/maps/serviceareas/Electric_Service_Areas_Detail.pdf. ———. 2015b, February 24. California Natural Gas Utility Service Areas. https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/maps/serviceareas/natural_gas_service_areas.pdf. ———. 2007, December. State Alternative Fuels Plan. https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/2007publications/CEC- 600-2007-011/CEC-600-2007-011-CMF.PDF. California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA). Cortese List Data Resources. http://www.calepa.ca.gov/ sitecleanup/corteselist/. Accessed October 7, 2019. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 12. Bibliography April 2021February 2020 Page 12-3 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2017a. California Scenic Highways. Website: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-community-livability/lap-liv-i- scenic-highways ———. 2017b. List of Eligible and Officially Designated State Scenic Highways. ———. 2013, September. Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. California Gas and Electric Utilities (CGEU). 2018, July. 2018 California Gas Report. https://www.socalgas.com/regulatory/documents/cgr/2018_California_Gas_Report.pdf. California Geological Survey (CGS). 2018. CGS Information Warehouse, Regulatory Map Portal, http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/index.html?map=regulatorymaps. California Legislative Information (CLI). 2016, September 24. Senate Bill No. 1262: Chapter 594. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB1262. Accessed November 20, 2019. California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). 2018, June. SB 525 Disadvantaged Communities Map. https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/sb535. Accessed October 16, 2019. California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA). 2012. Construction BMP Handbook. City of Costa Mesa (Costa Mesa). 2019a. Costa Mesa Municipal Code, current through Ordinance 9-12 and the July 2019 code supplement, updated July 2019. ———. 2019b. 2015-2035 General Plan, Safety Element. http://ftp.costamesaca.gov/costamesaca/generalplan2015- 2035/adopted/08_FinalDraft_SafetyElement.pdf. Accessed July 25, 2019. ———. 2019c. Fire Prevention and Community Risk Reduction. https://www.costamesaca.gov/city- hall/city-departments/fire-rescue/fire-prevention-community-risk-reduction. Accessed July 9, 2019. ———. 2019d. 2015-2035 General Plan, Safety Element. http://ftp.costamesaca.gov/costamesaca/generalplan2015- 2035/adopted/08_FinalDraft_SafetyElement.pdf. Accessed July 9, 2019. ———. 2019e. Street and Storm Drain Maintenance. https://www.costamesaca.gov/city-hall/city- departments/public-services/maintenance-services/street-and-storm-drain-maintenance. Accessed May 15, 2019 and November 20, 2019. ———. 2019f. Costa Mesa Police Department Website. https://www.costamesaca.gov/city-hall/city- departments/police. Accessed October 29, 2019. ———. 2019g. Moon Park. https://www.costamesaca.gov/city-hall/city-departments/parks-and- community-services/map-of-city-parks/moon-park. Accessed October 29, 2019. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 12. Bibliography Page 12-4 April 2021February 2020 ———. 2019h. Suburbia Park. https://www.costamesaca.gov/city-hall/city-departments/parks-and- community-services/map-of-city-parks/suburbia-park. Accessed October 29, 2019. ———. 2019i. Smallwood Park. https://www.costamesaca.gov/city-hall/city-departments/parks-and- community-services/map-of-city-parks/smallwood-park. Accessed October 29, 2019. ———. 2019j. Fairview Park. https://www.costamesaca.gov/city-hall/city-departments/parks-and- community-services/map-of-city-parks/fairview-park. Accessed October 29, 2019. ———. 2018, February 7. City of Costa Mesa Adopted Operating and Capital Improvement Budget, Fiscal Year 2018-2019. ———. 2016a. 2015–2035 General Plan, 2016. ———. 2016b. Final Environmental Impact Report for the 2015–2035 General Plan, State Clearinghouse No. 2015111053, prepared by MIG, Inc., June 26, 2016. https://www.costamesaca.gov/city-hall/city- departments/development-services/planning/general-plan/2015-2035-general-plan-eir. ———. 2013, July. City of Costa Mesa Emergency Operations Plan. ———. Department of Public Services. n.d.. Transportation Services. https://www.costamesaca.gov/city- hall/city-departments/public-ser vices/transportation-services. ———. 2020, February 3. Jon Neal, Costa Mesa Fire & Rescue Department’s analysis of the impacts and mitigation measures as a result of the One Metro West development at 1683 Sunflower Avenue. ———. 2020, February 3. Bryan Glass, One Metro West Project Impacts to Police Services. Citygate Associates, LLC (Citygate). 2019, November 26. Fire Services Deployment Analysis to the Metro West Development. City of Fountain Valley. 2008. General Plan, Circulation Element. City of Santa Ana. 1998. General Plan, Circulation Element. Costa Mesa Fire & Rescue Department (CMFD). 2019a. Station Locations. https://www.costamesaca.gov/city-hall/city-departments/fire-rescue/station-locations. Accessed October 29, 2019. ———. 2019b. About. https://www.costamesaca.gov/city-hall/city-departments/fire-rescue/about. Accessed October 29, 2019. ———. 2019c. Costa Mesa Fire & Rescue 2018 Incident Statistics. https://www.costamesaca.gov/home/showdocument?id=35971. Accessed October 29, 2019. Costa Mesa Police Department (CMPD). 2019. Costa Mesa Police Department Crime Statistics – 2018. https://www.costamesaca.gov/home/showdocument?id=29712. Accessed October 29, 2019. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 12. Bibliography April 2021February 2020 Page 12-5 Costa Mesa Sanitary District (CMSD). 2019a. Solid Waste Services. https://www.cmsdca.gov/index.php/solid-waste. Accessed November 20, 2019. ———. 2019b. Sewer Will-Serve Letter. May 30, 2019. Cowell, Andrea. Financial Budget Analyst. 2014. Orange County Public Libraries. Written Communication. David Taussig & Associates (DTA). 2018, December 12. Fiscal Impacts Resulting from the Proposed One Metro West Community at 1683 Sunflower Avenue (Former Robinson Pharma). Davis Companies, The (Davis). 2010, June. Orange County Public Libraries Facilities and Financing Study Final Report. https://www.ocfa.org/_uploads/pdf/sr_ewg121017-03.pdf. Accessed October 29, 2019. Federal Emergency Management Authority (FEMA). 2019. FEMA Flood Map Service Center: Search By Address. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search#searchresultsanchor. Accessed September 25, 2019. ———. 2009, December 3. National Flood Hazards Layer FIRMette. https://p4.msc.fema.gov/arcgis/rest/directories/arcgisjobs/nfhl_print/nfhlprinttool2_gpserver/jc4 67ab378082475ea60b132e51b5631a/scratch/FIRMETTE_d9ecdd80-7732-11e9-bb68- 001b21b31e35.pdf. Federal Highway Administration. 2006, August. Construction Noise Handbook. Federal Transit Administration. 2018, September. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. U.S. Department of Transportation. Geocon Incorporated. (Geocon) 2019, March 12. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report, 1683 Sunflower Avenue, Costa Mesa, California. Geocon West, Inc. (Geocon West). 2019, July 24. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Multi- Family Residential Development, 1683 Sunflower Avenue, Costa Mesa, California. Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). 2018. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. State of California. http://opr.ca.gov/docs/20190122- 743_Technical_Advisory.pdf ———. 2010. Update to the General Plan Guidelines: Complete Streets and the Circulation Element. State of California. http://opr.ca.gov/docs/Update_GP_Guidelines_Complete_Streets.pdf Harris, Cyril M. 1998. Handbook of Acoustical Measurements and Noise Control. 3rd Edition. Woodbury, NY: Acoustical Society of America. Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD). 2019. Dam Safety Program. https://www.irwd.com/construction/dam- safety-program. Accessed May 15, 2019. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 12. Bibliography Page 12-6 April 2021February 2020 LSA Associates (LSA). 2021, February 2. One Metro West Phased Project Construction Analysis. ———. 2020a, January. Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis, One Metro West Project, Costa Mesa, Orange County, California. ———. 2020b, January. Traffic Impact Analysis, One Metro West, Costa Mesa, Orange County, California. ———. 2020c, January. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis, One Metro West Project, Costa Mesa, California. ———. 2019a, May. Cultural Resources Survey Report, One Metro West, Costa Mesa, Orange County, California. ———. 2019b, June. Paleontological Resources Assessment, One Metro West Project, Costa Mesa, Orange County, California. ———. 2019c, November 15. Parking Study for One Metro West, Costa Mesa, California. Mesa Water District (MWD). 2016, June. 2016 Urban Water Management Plan. https://www.mesawater.org/save-water/urban-water-management-plan Michael Baker International. 2019, October. California Senate Bill 610 Water Supply Assessment for Mesa Water District One Metro West Project. Neal, Jon. Fire Marshal. 2020, January 15. Costa Mesa Fire & Rescue Department. Written Communication. Newport Mesa Unified School District (NMUSD). 2019. N-MUSD Developer Fees. http://web.nmusd.us/developerfees. Accessed October 29, 2019. ———. 2018a. California Elementary School 2017-18 School Accountability Report Card. ———. 2018b. TeWinkle Intermediate School 2017-18 School Accountability Report Card. ———. 2018c. Estancia High School (EHS) 2017-18 School Accountability Report Card. OC Parks. 2019a. Talbert Regional Park. http://www.ocparks.com/parks/talbert. Accessed October 29, 2019. ———. 2019b. Mile Square Regional Park. http://www.ocparks.com/parks/mile. Accessed October 29, 2019. Orange, County of (Orange). 2005. Orange County General Plan Chapter V Public Services and Facilities Element. Orange County Airport Land Use Commission (OCALUC). 2008, April 17. Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airportvh. https://www.ocair.com/commissions/aluc/docs/JWA_AELUP-April-17-2008.pdf. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 12. Bibliography April 2021February 2020 Page 12-7 Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA). 2019. Find Closest Fire Stations in Orange County. https://www.ocfa.org/aboutus/StationLocator/stationlocator-map.html. Accessed October 29, 2019. Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD). 2000, January 12. Base Map of Drainage Facilities in Orange County. Sheet No. 37. http://www.ocgov.com/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=23119. Orange County Public Works (OCPW). 2019. Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP). https://cms.ocgov.com/gov/pw/watersheds/documents/damp/default.asp. Accessed November 20, 2019. ———. 2018, March. Integrated Regional Water Management for the North and Central Orange County Watershed Management Areas. http://www.ocwatersheds.com/programs/ourws/wmaareas/wmanorthoc. ———. 2011, February. North Orange County Integrated Regional Watershed Management Plan. http://www.ocwatersheds.com/programs/ourws/wmaareas/wmanorthoc. Accessed November 21, 2019. Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD). 2016, October 21. Project No. SP-173 Effluent Reuse Study, GWRS Final Expansion Final Implementation Plan, Volume 1 of 3. https://www.ocwd.com/media/5119/sp-173-vol1.pdf. Accessed November 21, 2019. ———. 2015, April 12. Design and Construction Requirements for Sanitary Sewers. https://www.ocsd.com/Home/ShowDocument?id=28159. Accessed November 20, 2019. Orange County Sheriff’s Department (OCSD). 2019. Mutual Aid Bureau. http://www.ocsd.org/divisions/fieldops/security/mutual. Accessed October 29, 2019. Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). 2019a. Congestion Management. http://www.octa.net/Projects-and-Programs/Plans-and-Studies/Congestion-Management- Program/Overview/ ———. 2019b. Routes and Schedules. https://www.octa.net/Bus/Routes-and-Schedules/Overview/ ———. 2019c. Route 794. https://www.octa.net/ebusbook/RoutePDF/route794.pdf Orange County Water District (OCWD). 2019, September. Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion. https://www.ocwd.com/media/8210/gwrs-fe-leg-handout_v18.pdf. Accessed November 20, 2019. Panacea, Inc. 2013, September 9. Asbestos Survey for One Building Located at 1683 Sunflower Avenue, Costa Mesa, California. Ramirez, Robert. Facilities Planner. 2019, March 7. Irvine Unified School District. Written Communication. ONE METRO WEST FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME I 12. Bibliography Page 12-8 April 2021February 2020 Regional Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region (RWQCB). 2012, June 15. Waste Discharge Requirements and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit for Orange County Sanitation District Reclamation Plant No. 1 and Treatment Plant No. 2. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/santaana/board_decisions/adopted_orders/orders/2012/12_035_ WDR_OCSD.pdf. Accessed November 20, 2019. ———. 2009, May 22. Waste Discharge Requirements for the County of Orange, Orange County Flood Control District and the Incorporated Cities of Orange County within the Santa Ana Region Areawide Urban Storm Water Runoff Orange County. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/santaana/board_decisions/adopted_orders/orders/2009/09_030_ OC_MS4_as_amended_by_10_062.pdf. Accessed November 20, 2019. San Bernardino, County of (San Bernardino). 2019. Santa Ana River Trail. http://cms.sbcounty.gov/parks/parks/santaanarivertrailandparkway.aspx. Accessed October 29, 2019. Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2016, April. 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. http://scagrtpscs.net/Documents/2016/final/f2016RTPSCS.pdf. ———. 2001, October 31. Employment Density Study Summary Report. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2019, April 2. Final 2012 California Integrated Report (Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List / 305(b) Report). https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/integrated2012.shtml. United States Census Bureau (USCB). 2017. 2013–2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates: Selected Economic Characteristics. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2019, May 6 (updated). Summary of the Energy Independence and Security Act Public Law 110-140 (2007). https://www.epa.gov/laws- regulations/summary-energy-independence-and-security-act. ———. 2016, December 14. Urban Runoff: Low Impact Development. https://www.epa.gov/nps/urban- runoff-low-impact-development. ———. 2012, September 26. Water Permitting 101. http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/101pape.pdf. Urban Resource Corporation (URC). 2019a, August 14. Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan, One Metro West, 1683 Sunflower Avenue. Costa Mesa, CA 92626. Weitz, Jerry. 2003, November 30. Jobs-Housing Balance. Planning Advisory Service Report Number 516. American Planning Association. This document is designed for double-sided printing to conserve natural resources. FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT VOLUME II One Metro West State Clearinghouse No. 2019050014 LEAD AGENCY: City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, California 92628 Contact: Minoo Ashabi 714.754.5245 April 2021 JN 172326 This document is designed for double-sided printing to conserve natural resources. ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II Table of Contents April 2021 Page i VOLUME II Chapter Page 1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 1-1 2. MODIFICATIONS TO THE PROJECT ......................................................................................... 2-1 3. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ...................................................................................................... 3-1 4. ERRATA ........................................................................................................................................ 4-1 5. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ...................................................... 5-1 ATTACHMENTS F-1 Construction Phasing Memo F-2 Preliminary Hydraulic Study F-3 Revised Traffic Impact Analysis F-4 Existing Driveway Counts ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II Table of Contents Page ii April 2021 This page intentionally left blank. ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II April 2021 Chapter 1 Introduction ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II April 2021 This page intentionally left blank. April 2021 Page 1-1 1. Introduction 1.1 PURPOSE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 1.1.1 California Environmental Quality Act Compliance In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (CEQA Guidelines) Section 15088, the City of Costa Mesa, as the Lead Agency, has evaluated the comments received on the One Metro West Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR), dated February 2020. The Draft EIR for the proposed One Metro West (herein referenced as the project) was distributed to potential responsible and trustee agencies, interested groups, and organizations. The Draft EIR was made available for public review and comment for a period of 52 days. The public review period for the Draft EIR established by the CEQA Guidelines commenced on February 7, 2020, ended on March 23, 2020, and was extended until March 30, 2020 (an additional seven days due to the COVID-19 pandemic). The Final EIR (Volume II) consists of the following components: Chapter 1 – Introduction; Chapter 2 – Modifications to the Project; Chapter 3 – Response to Comments; Chapter 4 – Errata; and Chapter 5 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. It is acknowledged that the Final EIR Volume I consists of incorporation of the modifications of the project (Chapter 2) and errata (Chapter 4) incorporated into the Draft EIR in double underline for added text and strikethrough for deleted text. None of the corrections or clarifications to the Draft EIR identified in Final EIR Volume II constitutes “significant new information” pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. As a result, a recirculation of the Draft EIR is not required. ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 1. Introduction Page 1-2 April 2021 This page intentionally left blank. ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II April 2021 Chapter 2 Modifications to the Project ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II April 2021 This page intentionally left blank. April 2021 Page 2-1 2. Modifications to the Project 2.1 INTRODUCTION On May 11, 2020, the City of Costa Mesa Planning Commission adopted a resolution recommending that the Costa Mesa City Council certify the One Metro West Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2019050014) for the proposed One Metro West (project). Since then, the project applicant has submitted modifications to the proposed project. Potential impacts resulting from modifications to the proposed project are discussed herein. As presented within this section, these revisions represent modifications to the previously analyzed project description in the One Metro West Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR), dated February 2020. Based on the analysis presented below, these revisions to the project do not change the conclusions presented in the Draft EIR and the revised project would not create any new significant impacts or create the need for additional mitigation. 2.2 REVISED PROJECT The Draft EIR analyzed construction of the project to occur in one phase, over a period of five years, from January 2022 to January 2027. Construction of the on-site buildings would likely occur in the following order: Building A and open space, Building B, Building C, then the creative office building. First occupancy is anticipated in 2025, with final construction completed by 2027. The revised project proposes to update the project’s phased construction schedule. The revised construction schedule assumes that project construction would start in 2022 and conclude in 2027, with each building built in a sequential phase, lasting approximately 5.5 years. The applicant would obtain certificates of occupancy for each building as each phase is completed (i.e., occupancy would begin as each building is completed). Overall, the revised phased construction schedule would involve the following: Phase 1 would involve Building A construction, which is anticipated to begin in July 2022 and take approximately 30 months to build. The proposed open space area would be constructed following construction of Building A. Phase 2 would include construction of Building B, which is expected to begin in July 2024 and take approximately 26 months. Phase 3 would involve construction of Building C and the creative office building, which is anticipated to begin in January 2026 and last approximately 22 months. In comparison to the project previously analyzed in the Draft EIR, the revised project would require approximately six additional months to complete construction. Additionally, the revised project would obtain certificates of occupancy for each building as each phase is completed, which would allow residents to begin ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 2. Modifications to the Project Page 2-2 April 2021 living on-site prior to final construction completion. As such, project-related construction and operational activities and associated impacts would slightly overlap between each phase (e.g., Phase 1 operational activities would overlap with Phase 2 construction, and Phases 1 and 2 operational activities would overlap with Phase 3 construction). All other project development assumptions would remain consistent with those considered in the Draft EIR. 2.2.1 Impacts Resulting from Modifications to the Project Potential environmental impacts resulting from the proposed modifications to the previously analyzed project are presented below for each environmental topic or consideration presented in the Draft EIR. The proposed modifications result in little or no discernible environmental effects not previously considered in the Draft EIR, and do not substantially or fundamentally alter the conclusions or findings of the Draft EIR relative to the project’s potential environmental effects or proposed mitigation measures. AESTHETICS The Draft EIR determined that the previously analyzed project would not conflict with applicable zoning or other regulations governing scenic quality, result in significant shade/shadow impacts to off-site uses, or cause adverse lighting impacts upon implementation of standard conditions of approvals and mitigation measures. The revised project anticipates issuance of certificates of occupancy after each building is constructed, which would result in new residents living on-site while construction on the remainder of the site occurs. However, the proposed building’s siting, architectural design, massing, building materials, and floor plan details would remain the same. Building occupancy timing would not affect the project’s impacts related to aesthetics and light/glare during construction or operational activities. Thus, the proposed modifications to the project’s construction phasing would not create any new substantial impacts related to aesthetics and light/glare that were not previously considered and addressed in the Draft EIR. AIR QUALITY The One Metro West Phased Project Construction Analysis (Construction Phasing Memo), prepared by LSA Associates and dated February 2, 2021, analyzes the change in air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and transportation impacts associated with the proposed modifications to the project’s construction phasing schedule; refer to Attachment F-1, Construction Phasing Memo. The Construction Phasing Memo concluded that short-term construction emissions associated with the revised project would not exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) thresholds for volatile organic compounds (VOC), carbon monoxide, sulfur oxides, and particulate matters but would exceed the regional threshold for nitrogen oxides (NOX); refer to Construction Phasing Memo Table E, Phased Short-Term Regional Peak Day Construction Emissions. Nevertheless, implementation of plans, policies, and programs (PPPs), standard conditions of approval (SCAs), and mitigation identified in the Draft EIR would reduce such impacts related to NOX emissions to less than significant levels; refer to Construction Phasing Memo Table F, Phased Short-Term Regional Peak Day Construction Emissions With Mitigation. In comparison, the Draft EIR determined the previously analyzed project would exceed the regional threshold for NOX and VOC emissions and even with implementation of PPPs, SCAs, and mitigation measures, would result in significant and unavoidable impacts regarding VOC emissions. Impacts related to VOC emissions, which are primarily generated by architectural coating (i.e., painting) activities, would ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 2. Modifications to the Project April 2021 Page 2-3 be less than significant under the revised project because the phased approach of completing each building sequentially spreads out the architectural coating activities rather than being combined together for all proposed structures. As such, the revised project would eliminate the significant and unavoidable impact regarding construction-related VOC emissions identified in the Draft EIR. The Construction Phasing Memo also analyzed operational impacts associated with the revised project. Given that there would be periods of time when construction of one phase would occur simultaneously with the operations of previous completed phase(s), combined peak daily emissions during each construction phase was analyzed. The Construction Phasing Memo concluded that the combined effect of overlapping construction and operational emissions would not exceed SCAQMD regional thresholds and impacts would be less than significant; refer to Construction Phasing Memo Table H, Phased Regional Emissions for Overlapping Construction and Operational Emissions. Similarly, the Draft EIR concluded the previously analyzed project would also result in less than significant impacts related to operational emissions. Overall, the proposed modifications to the project’s construction phasing would not result in any new substantial impacts related to air quality that were not previously considered and addressed in the Draft EIR. CULTURAL RESOURCES The Draft EIR determined that the previously analyzed project would have no impact and less than significant impacts to historical resources and human remains, respectively. Potential impacts to archaeological resources during construction activities would be reduced to less than significant levels after implementation of mitigation. The proposed modifications to the project’s construction phasing and occupancy timing would not result in any new impacts related to cultural resources. No change to grading depths are proposed and the development footprint would remain the same. As such, the revised project would not result in any new substantial cultural resources impacts that were not previously analyzed and addressed in the Draft EIR. ENERGY The previously analyzed project would increase electricity and natural gas demands on-site compared to existing conditions. However, as analyzed in the Draft EIR, the project would be required to comply with PPPs related to the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards and California Green Building Standards Code. The proposed One Metro West Specific Plan would also include a number of development standards related to energy conservation and energy efficiency. The proposed modification to the project’s construction phasing schedule would have no impact on construction or operation-related energy usage. All energy conservation and efficiency requirements and project design features would also be implemented under the revised project. Thus, the revised project would not result in any new substantial impacts related to energy that were not previously addressed in the Draft EIR. GEOLOGY AND SOILS The Draft EIR determined that the previously analyzed project would result in less than significant impacts related to geologic hazards with implementation of PPPs while impacts to unknown paleontological resources would be reduced to less than significant levels with implementation of mitigation. The proposed modifications ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 2. Modifications to the Project Page 2-4 April 2021 to the project are related to the construction phasing schedule and building occupancy timing. No changes to grading quantities or depths or the project’s development footprint are proposed. Therefore, the revised project would not result in any new potentially adverse geology and soils impacts not previously considered and addressed in the Draft EIR. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS The Draft EIR determined that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions generated by the previously analyzed project would result in 8,965 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) per year and exceed SCAQMD’s Tier 3 threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year. With implementation of mitigation, GHG emissions would reduce to 6,712 MTCO2e but would continue to exceed the SCAQMD threshold and thus, be considered significant and unavoidable. However, the previously analyzed project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. Potential GHG impacts associated with the proposed phased construction schedule of the revised project were analyzed in the Construction Phasing Memo. As shown in Table M, Phased Regional GHG Emissions for Overlapping Construction and Operational Emissions, of the Construction Phasing Memo, the net increase in GHG emissions from overlapping construction and operational emissions under the revised project would result in 9,046 MTCO2e and exceed the SCAQMD Tier 3 threshold. Similarly, with implementation of energy-saving and sustainable project design features and operational programs and mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR, GHG emissions would reduce to 6,696 MTCO2e but remain above the Tier 3 threshold and thus, be considered significant and unavoidable; refer to Construction Phasing Memo Table N, Phased Regional GHG Emissions for Overlapping Construction and Operational Emissions with Mitigation. Nevertheless, similar to the previously analyzed project, the revised project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. Overall, the proposed modifications result in little or no discernible environmental effects not previously considered and addressed in the Draft EIR. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS The previously analyzed project would involve the use of hazardous materials during construction and could expose construction workers to hazardous materials during demolition from asbestos-containing materials, lead-based paint, or possible contaminated soils. Project operations may also involve the use of small amounts of hazardous materials, such as cleansers, paints, fertilizers, and pesticides for cleaning and maintenance purposes. The Draft EIR determined that impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would be less than significant with implementation of PPPs, SCAs, and mitigation measures. The proposed modifications to the project’s construction phasing schedule and occupancy timing would not change the project’s use of hazardous materials. Similar to the previously analyzed project, compliance with project-specific PPPs, SCAs, and mitigation would ensure construction and operational activities under the revised project do not result in substantial adverse impacts in regard to hazards and hazardous materials. Overall, the revised project would not result in any new potentially adverse hazards and hazardous materials impacts not previously considered and analyzed in the Draft EIR. ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 2. Modifications to the Project April 2021 Page 2-5 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY The Draft EIR concluded that the previously analyzed project would result in less than significant impacts related to hydrology and water quality upon implementation of PPPs and SCAs. The proposed modifications to the construction phasing schedule would not result in any new potentially adverse impacts regarding water quality and waste discharge requirements, groundwater supplies and recharge, drainage pattern alterations, or flooding. Similar to the previously analyzed project, the revised project would also be required to prepare and implement a SWPPP and associated construction and operational best management practices to minimize impacts related to water quality and hydrology. Therefore, the revised project would not result in any new substantial impacts in this regard not previously addressed in the Draft EIR. LAND USE AND PLANNING Based on the Draft EIR analysis, implementation of the previously analyzed project would not conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, including the City of Costa Mesa General Plan, Costa Mesa Zoning Ordinance, and the Southern California Association of Governments’ 2016 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. The modified construction phasing schedule would not result in any new or different land use changes or discretionary approvals. The revised project would involve obtaining certificates of occupancy after completion of each building to allow residents to begin living on-site while construction continues on the remainder of the project; however, the City’s ministerial action of approving certificates of occupancy would have no new adverse impact related to land use. Overall, the revised project would not result in any new potentially adverse land use impacts not previously considered and analyzed in the Draft EIR. NOISE The Draft EIR concluded that while construction-related short-term noise levels have the potential to be higher than existing ambient noise levels in the project area under existing conditions, the noise impacts would no longer occur once project construction is completed. Construction noise would also be regulated by the City’s noise ordinance. Additionally, short-term construction vibration impacts were determined to be less than significant in the Draft EIR. In regard to the revised project’s overlapping construction and operational phases, the Construction Phasing Memo concluded that short-term construction noise impacts would similarly be less than significant since such impacts are based on a conservative scenario of a maximum hourly noise impact when construction occurs at the project’s property line. Therefore, for project phases located further from the project’s property line, construction noise levels would be reduced. Similarly, vibration impacts are also conservatively assessed for the scenario in which construction activities occur at the project’s property line and are closest to surrounding structures. The overlapping construction and operational phases of the revised project would not change the anticipated vibration impacts analyzed in the Draft EIR and impacts would similarly be less than significant. Operational noise impacts associated with the previously analyzed project, including mobile and stationary sources, were determined to be less than significant in the Draft EIR. The proposed modifications to the project’s construction phasing schedule would have no new substantially adverse effect on the project’s overall operational noise impacts. ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 2. Modifications to the Project Page 2-6 April 2021 Overall, the proposed modifications result in little or no discernible environmental effects not previously considered and addressed in the Draft EIR. POPULATION AND HOUSING Development of the previously analyzed project would introduce unplanned population growth. However, the environmental impacts of such unplanned population growth are evaluated, planned for, and mitigated as part of the project throughout the Draft EIR. Additionally, the previously analyzed project would not result in land use changes that substantially increase employment opportunities, nor implement any new policies that could induce substantial unplanned population growth. The revised project would involve obtaining certificates of occupancy after each building is completed (rather than after final construction is completed). Therefore, the revised project would result in housing gradually becoming available and residents living on-site prior to 2027. Nevertheless, the project’s anticipated total dwelling units and nonresidential square footage would remain the same. As such, the revised project would not result in any new potentially adverse population and housing impacts not previously considered and analyzed in the Draft EIR. PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION The Draft EIR determined that impacts of the previously analyzed project regarding police protection, school, library, and park services in the project area would be less than significant with implementation of PPPs and SCAs, and impacts to fire protection services would be less than significant with implementation of PPPs, SCAs, and mitigation. The revised project anticipates obtaining certificates of occupancy after each building is completed, which would result in new residents gradually moving into the residential units prior to project completion in 2027, and thus, the gradual increase in demand for public services. Nevertheless, the project’s total proposed dwelling units, recreational amenities, and open space area would remain the same. As such, the revised project would not result in any new potentially adverse impacts not previously considered and analyzed in the Draft EIR in this regard. TRANSPORTATION As summarized in the Draft EIR, short-term construction-related vehicle trips associated with the previously analyzed project (up to 61 average daily trips) were determined to be less than one percent of the project’s operational trips (6,800 average daily trips) and a small fraction of the vehicle trips in the overall study area. Additionally, any lane and sidewalk closures would be temporary and complete roadway closures are not anticipated. Thus, construction traffic impacts on existing transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities were determined to be less than significant. While the revised project involves modifications to the project’s construction phasing schedule, the anticipated number of construction-related vehicle trips would be the same and no complete roadway closures are anticipated. As such, the revised project would not result in any new potentially adverse impacts not previously considered and addressed in the Draft EIR in this regard. As summarized in the Construction Phasing Memo, the Draft EIR assumed the project opening year to be 2027 (i.e., full buildout) and examined level of service (LOS) and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) impacts under existing conditions, future short-term cumulative (2027) conditions, and General Plan buildout (2040) conditions. With regards to the LOS analysis, the Draft EIR examined the impacts of the full project under ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 2. Modifications to the Project April 2021 Page 2-7 future short-term cumulative (2027) conditions. Therefore, the LOS analysis disclosed the previously analyzed project’s impacts under the worst-case scenario and disclosed the corresponding circulation improvements required to be implemented by the project under buildout conditions. As such, the proposed modifications to the construction phasing schedule would not affect the results presented in the Draft EIR. Additionally, the Draft EIR included a full disclosure of long-term improvements related to circulation improvements required under the General Plan buildout (2040) conditions. As such, the revised project would not result in any new potentially adverse impacts not previously considered and analyzed in the Draft EIR in this regard. With regards to the VMT analysis, the proposed project is a mixed-use project and each land use component was separately evaluated as per the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (Technical Advisory). Per the Technical Advisory, the VMT analysis was prepared by comparing the project VMT with the baseline VMT. This is because, pursuant to the Technical Advisory, the project’s VMT impacts should be evaluated under baseline conditions and not compared to the project’s opening year conditions. Therefore, as summarized in the Construction Phasing Memo, the proposed modifications to the construction phasing schedule would not affect the conclusions of the project’s VMT analysis in the Draft EIR. Additionally, the project includes several transportation demand management measures intended to reduce the project’s overall VMT, which would similarly be implemented under the revised project. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES The Draft EIR concluded that development of the previously analyzed project would not adversely impact unknown tribal cultural resources in the project area upon implementation of PPPs and mitigation. The proposed modifications to the project would not alter the development footprint or project location and thus, impacts to unknown tribal cultural resources on-site would remain the same. Overall, the revised project would not result in any new potentially adverse tribal cultural resources impacts not previously considered and analyzed in the Draft EIR. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS The Draft EIR determined that development of the previously analyzed project would create increased demand on utilities and service systems serving the project area, however, impacts would be less than significant with implementation of PPPs and SCAs. The proposed modifications to the project related to construction phasing would not result in any change in demand for water supply, electricity, or natural gas, or in the generation of wastewater or solid waste. While the revised project would result in new residents and workers gradually occupying the proposed buildings as they are completed, the total number of units and nonresidential development on-site would not change from what was analyzed in the Draft EIR. Thus, the revised project would not result in any new potentially adverse utilities and service system impacts not previously considered and addressed in the Draft EIR. OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS Potential effects of the proposed project description modifications related to other mandatory CEQA considerations are presented below, paralleling the discussion of these concerns presented in the Draft EIR. ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 2. Modifications to the Project Page 2-8 April 2021 Alternatives to the Proposed Project CEQA requires that a range of alternatives be considered that would reduce a project’s potentially significant environmental effects. As supported by the preceding discussions, the proposed modifications to the previously analyzed project description would result in no discernible environmental effects not previously considered in the Draft EIR, and would not result in any new potentially significant environmental effects. As such, the alternatives analysis presented in the Draft EIR is considered to encompass and include the environmental effects of the revised project, as modified. Significant Irreversible Changes Due to the Proposed Project The previously analyzed project would consume limited, slowly renewable, and nonrenewable resources during the construction phase of the project and would continue throughout its operational lifetime. Project development would require a commitment of resources that would include: (1) building materials, (2) fuel and operational materials/resources, and (3) the transportation of goods and people to and from the project site. The proposed modifications to the project’s construction phasing schedule would not result in any change to the required building materials, construction supplies, or energy usage. Thus, the revised project would not result in any discernible new impacts or significant irreversible environmental changes. The proposed modifications would not affect the analysis presented in the Draft EIR. Growth-Inducing Impacts of the Proposed Project The Draft EIR determined that the previously analyzed project would remove obstacles to growth (by changing the site’s existing land use regulations) and foster economic and population growth but would not establish a precedent-setting action or develop into existing open space. Growth-inducing impacts of the revised project would be the same as those analyzed in the Draft EIR. Overall, the proposed modifications regarding the updated construction phasing schedule would have no discernible growth-inducing impact. ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II April 2021 Chapter 3 Response to Comments ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II April 2021 This page intentionally left blank. April 2021 Page 3-1 3. Response to Comments In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (CEQA Guidelines) Section 15088, the City of Costa Mesa, as the Lead Agency, evaluated the written comments received on the One Metro West Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR), dated February 2020 (State Clearinghouse No. 2019050014), and has prepared the following responses to the comments received. This Response to Comments chapter is part of the Final EIR in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15132. A list of public agencies, tribes, organizations, and persons of interest that provided comments on the Draft EIR is presented below. Each comment letter is assigned a letter number. Individual comments within each communication have been numbered so comments can be cross-referenced with specific responses. Following this list, the text of the communication is reprinted and followed by the corresponding response. Table 2-1 Comment Letters Received COMMENTER DATE LETTER NUMBER AGENCIES Governor’s Office of Planning and Research – State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit March 24, 2020 A1 City of Irvine March 9, 2020 A2 Mesa Water District March 6, 2020 A3 California Department of Transportation March 16, 2020 A4 South Coast Air Quality Management District March 19, 2020 A5 Orange County Transportation Authority March 23, 2020 A6 Orange County Public Works March 23, 2020 A7 TRIBES Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians February 18, 2020 T1 Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians February 20, 2020 T2 Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation February 21, 2020 T3 ORGANIZATIONS Attorneys for the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters March 23, 2020 O1 Mesa Verde Community Inc. March 20, 2020 O2 Costa Mesa First March 23, 2020 O3 INTERESTED PERSONS Margaret Partnoff February 18, 2020 P1 ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 3. Response to Comments Page 3-2 April 2021 Table 2-1 Comment Letters Received (continued) COMMENTER DATE LETTER NUMBER Dennis Ashendorf February 26, 2020 P2 Arturo Manas February 24, 2020 P3 Naveed Anwar, The Cheese Shop February 28, 2020 P4 Michael Gregg February 28, 2020 P5 Seth Hiromura, Steelwave February 28, 2020 P6 Mike Mullen March 5, 2020 P7 Daniel Tyner March 9, 2020 P8 Mase Kazerani, Kaz Design Group March 9, 2020 P9 Flo Martin March 11, 2020 P10 Mark R. Scheurer February 25, 2020 P11 Stéphane Duval, BoConcept March 12, 2020 P12 Nicole Brunner, Nest Bedding March 12, 2020 P13 Misa Sullivan March 12, 2020 P14 Meredith Oliver March 12, 2020 P15 Alexa Dordoni March 12, 2020 P16 Chris Robertson March 13, 2020 P17 Ian Stevenson, Trellis March 17, 2020 P18 Kellan Liem March 18, 2020 P19 Debra Marsteller, Project Independence March 18, 2020 P20 Carter Jones March 19, 2020 P21 Aaron Ludwig March 20, 2020 P22 Donald Morrow March 20, 2020 P23 Leigh White March 20, 2020 P24 Michael Gonzaguirre March 20, 2020 P25 Neal Burns March 20, 2020 P26 Linda Rowlands March 21, 2020 P27 Russell Rowlands March 21, 2020 P28 Lance Huante March 21, 2020 P29 Frederik Solter March 22, 2020 P30 Michelle Figueredo-Wilson March 22, 2020 P31 ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 3. Response to Comments Page 3-3 April 2021 Table 2-1 Comment Letters Received (continued) COMMENTER DATE LETTER NUMBER Russell Toler March 22, 2020 P32 Peter Olah, Paradigm Engineering Group March 23, 2020 P33 John Merrill March 23, 2020 P34 Robin Leffler March 23, 2020 March 23, 2020 P35 Shawn McBride March 23, 2020 P36 Tracey Valencia March 23, 2020 P37 Jose De La Jara March 23, 2020 P38 Todd Eckert March 23, 2020 March 23, 2020 P39 Andrew Smith March 23, 2020 P40 Jan Harmon March 24, 2020 P41 Anne Marie Kane March 23, 2020 P42 Devin Green March 23, 2020 P43 Siamak Jafroudi, Petra Geosciences March 23, 2020 P44 Russell Yarwood March 20, 2020 P45 PUBLIC REVIEW EXTENSION THROUGH MARCH 30,2020 Laurel Golden March 26, 2020 March 29, 2020 P46 Elizabeth Grant March 26, 2020 P47 Rita Popp March 27, 2020 P48 Bill Partnoff March 27, 2020 P49 Duane Smith March 28, 2020 P50 Tamara Berardi March 28, 2020 P51 Jason Thesing March 27, 2020 March 29, 2020 P52 Bob Keyes March 27, 2020 P53 Erik Schuman March 27, 2020 P54 Kenneth Rhea March 28, 2020 P55 John Brown March 29, 2020 P56 Lisa Lacey March 29, 2020 P57 Karla Stagman March 29, 2020 P58 Raymond Polverini March 29, 2020 P59 Marsha Shafer March 29, 2020 P60 ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 3. Response to Comments Page 3-4 April 2021 Johnal Leifsson March 27, 2020 P61 Bob Hagerty March 29, 2020 P62 Peggy Partnoff March 30, 2020 P63 Alyssa Thesing March 30, 2020 P64 Athena Balistreri March 30, 2020 P65 Michael Chun March 30, 2020 P66 Bob Bernal March 30, 2020 P67 Ryan Maloney March 29, 2020 P68 Sandra Genis March 30, 2020 P69 C MT March 30, 2020 P70 Lehua Coley, Trellis March 31, 2020 P71 Christine Palme March 30, 2020 P72 George Atalla March 19, 2020 P73 Jon Rowe March 30, 2020 P74 Jan Giffard March 30, 2020 P75 Mary Spadoni March 23, 2020 P76 Sylvana Graham March 30, 2020 P77 William Schallmo March 30, 2020 P78 S T A T E OF C A L I F O R N I A Governor’s Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit 1400 TENTH STREET P.O. BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95812-3044 TEL 1-916-445-0613 state.clearinghouse@opr.ca.gov www.opr.ca.gov Gavin Newsom Governor Kate Gordon Director RRRRRRMarch 24, 2020 Minoo Ashabi Costa Mesa, City of 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Subject: One Metro West SCH#: 2019050014 Dear Minoo Ashabi: The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named EIR to selected state agencies for review. The review period closed on 3/23/2020, and the comments from the responding agency (ies) is (are) available on the CEQA database for your retrieval and use. If this comment package is not in order, please notify the State Clearinghouse immediately. Please refer to the project’s ten-digit State Clearinghouse number in future correspondence so that we may respond promptly. Please note that Section 21104(c) of the California Public Resources Code states that: “A responsible or other public agency shall only make substantive comments regarding those activities involved in a project which are within an area of expertise of the agency or which are required to be carried out or approved by the agency. Those comments shall be supported by specific documentation.” Check the CEQA database for submitted comments for use in preparing your final environmental document: https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2019050014/3 . Should you need more information or clarification of the comments, we recommend that you contact the commenting agency directly. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please contact the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. Sincerely, Scott Morgan Director, State Clearinghouse cc: Resources Agency ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 3. Response to Comments Page 3-6 April 2021 A1. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM GOVERNOR’S OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH – STATE CLEARINGHOUSE AND PLANNING UNIT, MARCH 24, 2020. A1-1 This comment indicates that the State Clearinghouse submitted the Draft EIR to selected State agencies for review and that the comment period for the Draft EIR concluded on March 23, 2020. The comment indicates that the Lead Agency complied with the public review requirements for draft environmental documents pursuant to CEQA. As such, the comment does not provide specific comments regarding information presented in the Draft EIR, and no further response is necessary as part of the CEQA process/CEQA response to comments. The comment also indicates that comments from responsible or other public agencies are available on the CEQA database. A comment letter from the California Department of Transportation was included in the CEQA database and is included as Comment Letter A4 in this Final EIR. ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 3. Response to Comments Page 3-8 April 2021 A2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM CITY OF IRVINE, MARCH 9, 2020. A2-1 The commenter provides a brief summary of the proposed project and states that City of Irvine staff have no comments on the Draft EIR. This comment is acknowledged and no further response is required as part of the CEQA process/CEQA response to comments. ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 3. Response to Comments Page 3-10 April 2021 A3. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM MESA WATER DISTRICT, MARCH 6, 2020. A3-1 The commenter correctly states that the Mesa Water District (MWD) is the public agency responsible for the treatment and conveyance of potable water in the City, including the project site. All water improvements plans for the project are required to be submitted for plan check review and approval in order to receive a permit from MWD. This comment is acknowledged and supported in the Draft EIR Section 5.15, Utilities and Service Systems. As stated in the Draft EIR, any proposed public water systems within the project site would be located within an easement dedicated to MWD and would be subject to MWD’s Standard Specification and Standard Drawings for the Construction of Water Facilities per Plans, Policies, Programs (PPP) USS-4. Compliance with Standard Condition of Approval (SCA) FIRE-24 would also ensure water mains and hydrants are installed to the standards of MWD and located within a dedicated MWD repair easement. A3-2 The commenter states that a hydraulic model will be required to assess whether the existing potable water infrastructure in the project area is adequate to serve the proposed project without additional infrastructure improvements. A Preliminary Hydraulic Study was conducted and is included as Attachment F-2, Preliminary Hydraulic Study, in this Final EIR. The project’s water demands for the proposed land uses and fire flow requirements are detailed in Table 2, Project Water Demands, and Table 3, Required Fire Flow Summary, of Attachment F-2. The Preliminary Hydraulic Study analyzed three scenarios: static pressure, maximum day demand, and maximum day demand plus fire flow. Under all three scenarios, the proposed water infrastructure improvements would adequately accommodate the project’s water demand and fire flow demand by providing adequate system pressure to not drop below the minimum pounds-per-square-inch pressure thresholds for each scenario. As such, the Preliminary Hydraulic Study concluded that the estimated water demands of the project would not adversely impact MWD’s existing distribution system, and no additional off-site improvements are necessary to serve the proposed development. Refer to Attachment F-2 for the full analysis. It is acknowledged that the MWD would require a design-level hydraulic model to confirm the preliminary findings identified above as part of the permit process. A3-3 A public scoping meeting for the proposed project was held on June 5, 2019 to solicit comments regarding the scope of the EIR. Further, Mesa Water District was notified on May 23, 2019 of the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the EIR. Since this time, the City of Costa Mesa has been in contact with Mesa Water District regarding the EIR, including the Water Supply Assessment, which is documented in the Draft EIR. No additional scoping meetings will be held by the City as the Draft EIR has already been published for public review. Nevertheless, the City welcomes all responsible agencies and interested parties to attend public hearings regarding the proposed project. ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 3. Response to Comments Page 3-14 April 2021 A4. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, MARCH 16, 2020. A4-1 This introductory comment provides a description of the California Department of Transportation’s (Caltrans’) responsibilities and a brief project description. No further response is required. A4-2 The commenter states that the City should coordinate with the OC 405 Partners on the I-405 Improvement Project to obtain the latest final design geometrics and update the Traffic Impact Analysis to ensure consistency. The Traffic Impact Analysis has been updated and included as Attachment F-3, Revised Traffic Impact Analysis, in this Final EIR. All figures, tables, and analysis related to the latest I-405 Improvement Project design have been revised. None of the changes affect the results and findings of the original analysis. This response to this comment does not identify any significant new information and new impacts requiring recirculation. As such, recirculation of the EIR is not required. A4-3 The commenter requests that a lower peak hour capacity of 2,300 vehicles per hour per lane be utilized for the freeway segments in the Traffic Impact Analysis. The Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for the Draft EIR utilized the Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition. Peak hour capacities have been revised to 2,300 vehicles per hour per lane for the freeway segments. Impacts were identified at the same locations as disclosed in the Draft EIR. However, the timing of the impacts were modified as follows. Refer to Attachment F-3 of this Final EIR for the full Revised Traffic Impact Analysis. Existing Plus Project • Southbound – Harbor Boulevard Loop On-Ramp (Merge) are forecast to operate at a deficient LOS in both a.m. and p.m. peak hours (previously a.m. peak hour); Future Short-Term Cumulative (2027) Baseline and Plus Project • Northbound – Fairview Road On-Ramp (Merge) changes from satisfactory LOS to a deficient LOS (consistent with the impacts disclosed in the Draft EIR for the General Plan Buildout Baseline Plus Project scenario); • Southbound – Harbor Boulevard Off-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard On-Ramp (Mainline Segment) changes from a deficient LOS to a satisfactory LOS in the p.m. peak hour; General Plan Buildout (2040) Baseline • Northbound – Harbor Boulevard On-Ramp (Merge) changes from a deficient LOS only in the p.m. peak hour to both a.m. and p.m. peak hours; ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 3. Response to Comments Page 3-15 April 2021 General Plan Build Out (2040) Baseline Plus Project • Northbound – Harbor Boulevard On-Ramp (Merge) changes from a deficient LOS only in the p.m. peak hour to both a.m. and p.m. peak hours; and • Southbound – Harbor Boulevard Loop On-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Slip-On Ramp (Mainline Segment) changes from a deficient LOS in both a.m. and p.m. peak hours to a deficient LOS only in the a.m. peak hour. This information shows that these clarifications do not affect the overall conclusions of the environmental document. These clarifications do not result in any new or substantially greater significant impacts as compared to those identified in the Draft EIR. A4-4 The commenter requests the City coordinate with the I-405 Improvement Project team for any conflicts in construction schedules and identifies several components of work under the I-405 Improvement Project that would impact the proposed project. The comment is noted and the applicant would coordinate with Caltrans and the I-405 Improvement Project team prior to the start of construction activities to ensure there are no schedule conflicts with the I-405 Improvement Project activities. A4-5 The commenter notes that some improvements proposed by the I-405 Improvement Project would still be underway under the Future Short-Term Cumulative (2027) (e.g., changes to ramp closures) that should be considered for the proposed project. This comment is acknowledged. However, while some I-405 Freeway improvements may still be underway at project completion (2027), all of the improvements would be completed by 2040, such that the General Plan Buildout (2040) scenario analyzes completion of the I-405 Improvement Project and adequately addresses all project-related impacts. In addition, the possible changes to ramp closures would be temporary conditions that are addressed and mitigated through the project’s Construction Management Plan and through consultation with Caltrans, the I-405 Improvement Project team, and City’s Transportation Division. A4-6 The commenter states that in the event any work occurs within Caltrans right-of-way, it would require an Encroachment Permit. The commenter also provides a link to Caltrans’ Encroachment Permits Manual for more details. At this time, no work is anticipated to occur in Caltrans right-of-way and no encroachment permit is anticipated. This comment is acknowledged and no further response is necessary as part of the CEQA process/CEQA response to comments. A4-7 This concluding statement requests continued coordination with Caltrans for future developments that could impact State transportation facilities and provides contact information for questions. The City will continue to coordinate with Caltrans on future development projects. SENT VIA E-MAIL: March 19, 2020 OMWPublicComments@costamesaca.gov Minoo Ashabi, Principal Planner City of Costa Mesa, Development Services Department 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 91716-0002 Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) for the Proposed One Metro West Project (SCH No.: 2019050014) South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) staff appreciates the opportunity to comment on the above-mentioned document. The following comments are meant as guidance for the Lead Agency and should be incorporated into the Final EIR. South Coast AQMD Staff’s Summary of Project Description The Lead Agency proposes to demolish an existing 345,000-square-foot industrial building and construct 1,057 residential units, 25,000 square feet of commercial uses, 6,000 square feet of retail uses, and 1.5 acres of open space on 15.23 acres (Proposed Project). The Proposed Project is located at 1683 Sunflower Avenue on the southeast corner of Sunflower Avenue and Cadilac Avenue within the City of Costa Mesa. Construction of the Proposed Project is anticipated to take place over a five-year period, from January 2022 to January 20271. The Proposed Project will become operational as early as in year 2025, while construction activities continue2, and will become fully operational in year 20273. South Coast AQMD Staff’s Summary of the Air Quality Analysis In the Draft EIR, the Lead Agency quantified the Proposed Project’s construction emissions and compared those emissions to South Coast AQMD’s recommended regional and localized air quality CEQA significance thresholds. The Lead Agency found that the Proposed Project’s unmitigated regional construction air quality impacts would be significant for nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions at 112 pounds per day (lbs/day) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) emissions at 110 lbs/day4. The Lead Agency is committed to implementing construction Mitigation Measures (MMs) AIR-1 and AIR-2. MM AIR-1 requires all construction equipment 50 horsepower or more meet U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Tier 3 off-road emissions standards with Level 2 Diesel Particulate Filters (DPFs). MM AIR-2 requires that all interior architectural coatings meet a low VOC concentration of 30 grams per liter5. With implementation of MMs AIR-1 and AIR-2, the maximum regional construction NOx emissions would be reduced to less than significant at 92 lbs/day, while the maximum regional construction VOCs emissions would remain significant and unavoidable at 109 lbs/day6. The Lead Agency also quantified the Proposed Project’s operational emissions in year 2027 when the Proposed Project is fully operational7. Based on the analyses, the Lead Agency found that the Proposed Project’s operational air quality impacts would be less than significant8. As such, no mitigation measures for operational air quality impacts were required9. T he 1 Draft EIR. Chapter 3. Project Description. Page 3-26. 2 Ibid. 3 Draft EIR. CalEEMod - One Metro West Summer Run. PDF page 163. 4 Draft EIR. Chapter 5.2. Air Quality. Page 5.2-21. 5 Ibid. Page 5.2-32. 6 Ibid. Page 5.2-33. 7 Draft EIR. CalEEMod - One Metro West Summer Run. PDF page 163. 8 Draft EIR. Chapter 5.2. Air Quality. Pages 5.2-23 through 5.2-24. 9 Ibid. Minoo Ashabi March 19, 2020 2 Proposed Project is located in close proximity with Interstate 405 . As such, the Lead Agency requires the installation of enhanced filtration system with two-inch Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) 13 filters as a project design feature10. Lastly, the Lead Agency included in the Draft EIR discussions on applicable South Coast AQMD rules 11, including Rule 403 – Fugitive Dust12, Rule 1108 – Cutback Asphalt 13, Rule 1113 – Architectural Coatings 14, and Rule 1143 – Asbestos Emissions form Demolition15. Summary of South Coast AQMD Staff’s Comments Based on a review of the Draft EIR and supporting technical documents, South C oast AQMD staff has two main comments on the air quality analysis and mitigation measures. The Lead Agency likely underestimated the Proposed Project’s air quality impacts because the Draft EIR did not analyze an overlapping construction and operation air quality impact scenario. The Lead Agency should strengthen the existing construction mitigation measure (MM AIR-1) and incorporate additional mitigation measures in the Final EIR to further reduce the Proposed Project’s regional construction NOx emissions, particularly during periods of overlapping construction and operational activities. Please see the attachment for more information. Conclusion Pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 21092.5(a) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(b), South Coa st AQMD staff requests that the L ead Agency provide South Coast AQMD staff with written responses to all comments contained herein prior to the certification of the Final EIR. In addition, issues raised in the comments should be addressed in detail giving reasons why specific comments and suggestions are not accepted. There should be good faith, reasoned analysis in response. Conclusory statements unsupported by factual information will not suffice (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(c)). Conclusory statements do not facilitate the purpose and goal of CEQA on public disclosure and are not meaningful, informative, or useful to decision makers and to the public who are interested in the Proposed Project. Further, if the Lead Agency makes the findings that the recommended revisions to MM AIR-1 and new mitigation measures are not feasible, the Lead Agency should describe the specific reasons supported by substantial evidence for rejecting them in the Final EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091). South Coast AQMD staff is available to work with the Lead Agency to address any air quality questions that may arise from this comment letter. Please contact Alina Mullins, Assistant Air Quality Specialist, at amullins@aqmd.gov or (909) 396-2402 if you have questions or wish to discuss the comments. Sincerely, Lijin Sun Lijin Sun, J.D. Program Supervisor, CEQA IGR Planning, Rule Development & Area Sources Attachment LS:AM ORC200207-01 Control Number 10 Draft EIR. Chapter 5.9. Land Use and Planning. Page 5.9-13. 11 Ibid. Pages 5.2-6 through 5.2-11. 12 South Coast AQMD. Rule 403 – Fugitive Dust. Accessed at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/rule-iv/rule- 403.pdf. 13 South Coast AQMD. Rule 1108 – Cutback Asphalt. Accessed at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/reg- xi/rule-1108-cutback-asphalt.pdf. 14 South Coast AQMD. Rule 1143 – Architectural Coatings. Accessed at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule- book/reg-xi/rule-1143.pdf 15 South Coast AQMD. Rule 1403 – Asbestos Emissions form Demolition. Accessed at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/rule-book/reg-xiv/rule-1403.pdf Minoo Ashabi March 19, 2020 3 ATTACHMENT 1. Air Quality Analysis – Overlapping Construction and Operational Activities Based on a review of the Air Quality Analysis in the Draft EIR, South Coast AQMD staff found that the Lead Agency did not analyze a scenario where construction activities overlap with operational activities (e.g., some components of the Proposed Project may be operational in year 2025 while some other components are under construction until year 2027). Since construction of the Proposed Project is expected to occur over five years from 2022 to 2027, and the Proposed Project will be operational as early as 202516, it is reasonably foreseeable that construction and operation may overlap. If an overlapping construction and operation scenario is reasonably foreseeable at the time the Draft EIR was prepared, to conservatively analyze a worst-case impact scenario, South Coast AQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency use its best efforts to identify the overlapping construction and operational years and development components, combine construction emissions (including emissions from demolition) with operational emissions, and compare the combined emissions to South Coast AQMD’s air quality CEQA operational thresholds of significance to determine the level of significance in the Final EIR. If the air quality analysis from overlapping construction and operational activities is not included in the Final EIR, the Lead Agency should provide reasons for not including the analysis supported by substantial evidence in the record. 2. Air Quality Mitigation Measures 2.1 Recommended Revisions to Existing Air Quality Mitigation Measure (MM) AIR-1 CEQA requires that all feasible mitigation measures that go beyond what is required by law be utilized to minimize or eliminate any significant adverse air quality impacts. With the implementation of MM AIR-1, which requires all construction equipment 50 horsepower or more during grading meet EPA’s Tier 3 off-road emissions standards with Level 2 DPFs, the maximum regional construction NOx emissions at 92 lbs/day would be slightly below South Coast AQMD’s regional air quality CEQA significance threshold for NOx at 100 lbs/day during construction. To further reduce NOx emissions, particularly during the periods when construction and operational activities overlap, the Lead Agency should strengthen MM AIR-1 by making the following revisions in strikethrough and underline in the Final EIR. AIR-1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the grading all construction plans shall stipulate that the contractor shall use construction equipment that meets or exceeds the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Tier 3 4 Final level of emission controls fitted with Level 2 3 Diesel Particulate Filters (DPF) for all construction equipment 50 horsepower or more during construction activities. Level 3 DPFs are capable of achieving at least 85 percent reduction in particulate matter emissions 17. A list of CARB verified DPFs are available on the CARB website18. To ensure that Tier 4 Final construction equipment or better would be used during the Proposed Project’s construction, South Coast AQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency include this requirement in applicable bid documents, purchase orders, and contracts. Successful contractor(s) must demonstrate the ability to supply the compliant construction equipment for use prior to any 16 Draft EIR. Chapter 3. Project Description. Page 3-26. 17 CARB. November 16-17, 2004. Diesel Off-Road Equipment Measure – Workshop. Page 17. Accessed at: https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/ordiesel/presentations/nov16-04_workshop.pdf. 18 Ibid. Page 18. Minoo Ashabi March 19, 2020 4 ground disturbing and construction activities. A copy of each unit’s certified tier specification or model year specification and CARB or South Coast AQMD operating permit (if applicable) shall be available upon request at the time of mobilization of each applicable unit of equipment. Additionally, the Lead Agency should require periodic reporting and provision of written construction documents by construction contractor(s) to ensure compliance, and conduct regular inspections to the maximum extent feasible to ensure compliance. In the event that construction equipment cannot meet the Tier 4 Final engine certification, the Project representative or contractor must demonstrate through future study with written findings supported by substantial evidence that is approved by the Lead Agency before using other technologies/strategies. Alternative applicable strategies may include, but would not be limited to, construction equipment with Tier 4 Interim emission standards and/or reduction in the number and/or horsepower rating of construction equipment. 2.2 Additional Recommended Air Quality Mitigation Measures In the event that, upon revisions to the Air Quality Analysis based on Comment No. 1, the Lead Agency finds that the Proposed Project will have significant air quality impacts from overlapping construction and operational activities, mitigation will be required (CEQA Guidelines 15126.4). South Coast AQMD staff has compiled a list of additional mitigation measures as suggested r esources and guidance to the Lead Agency and recommends that the Lead Agency incorporate them in the Final EIR. For more information on potential mitigation measures as guidance to the Lead Agency, please visit South Coast AQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook website19. Construction-related Air Quality Mitigation Measures a) Require construction equipment such as concrete/industrial saws, pumps, aerial lifts, material hoist, air compressors, forklifts, excavator, wheel loader, and soil compactors be electric or alternative-fueled (i.e., non-diesel). Information on companies and electric powered equipment that can and should be used during construction is available at: https://www.forconstructionpros.com/construction-technology/article/21107531/electrified- construction-equipment-gaining-momentum. b) Require the use of zero-emissions (ZE) or near-zero emissions (NZE) on-road haul trucks (e.g., material delivery trucks and soil import/export) such as heavy-duty trucks with natural gas engines that meet CARB’s adopted optional NOx emission standard at 0.02 grams per brake horsepower-hour (g/bhp-hr), or at a minimum, 2010 model year20 or newer and cleaner engines that meet California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) 2010 engine emission standards of 0.01 g/bhp-hr for particulate matter (PM) and the CARB’s adopted optional NOx emission standard of 0.20 g/bhp-hr for NOx emissions during construction. When requiring electric ZE heavy-duty trucks, the Lead Agency should include analyses to evaluate and identify sufficient power and supportive infrastructure available in the Energy and Utilities and Service Systems Chapters of the Final EIR, where appropriate. 19 South Coast Air Quality Management District. Accessed at: http://www.aqmd.gov/home/regulations/ceqa/air-quality-analysis- handbook. 20 CARB adopted the statewide On-Road Truck and Bus Regulation in 2010. The Regulation requires diesel trucks and buses that operate in California to be upgraded to reduce emissions. Newer heavier trucks and buses must meet particulate matter filter requirements beginning January 1, 2012. Lighter and older heavier trucks must be replaced starting January 1, 2015. By January 1, 2023, nearly all trucks and buses will need to have 2010 model year engines or equivalent. More information on the CARB’s Truck and Bus Regulations is available here: https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onrdiesel/onrdiesel.htm. Minoo Ashabi March 19, 2020 5 NZE heavy-duty truck engines are commercially available. Examples of commercially available NZE heavy-duty truck engines that meet CARB optional low NOx standards include, but are not limited to, Cummins Westport 8.9- and 6.7-liter natural gas engines and Roush Cleantech 6.8- liter compressed natural gas and liquefied petroleum gas engines 21. Therefore, NZE heavy-duty trucks should be required for use during construction. If the specific details regarding ZE heavy-duty trucks are impractical or infeasible to include in the Final EIR, the Lead Agency should develop and include performance standards to achieve the use of ZE heavy-duty trucks (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(a)). The Lead Agency can and should develop the following perfor mance standards or any other comparable standards. • Develop a minimum amount of ZE heavy-duty trucks that the Proposed Project must use each year during construction to ensure adequate progress. Include this requirement in the Proposed Project’s Construction Management Plan. • Establish a contractor(s) selection policy that prefers contractor(s) who can supply ZE heavy- duty trucks during construction. Include this policy in the Request for Proposal for selecting contractor(s). To monitor and ensure ZE, NZE, or 2010 model year trucks are used at the Proposed Project, the Lead Agency should require that operators maintain records of all trucks associated with the Proposed Project’s construction and make these records available to the Lead Agency upon request. The records will serve as evidence to prove that each truck called to the Proposed Project during construction meets the minimum 2010 model year engine emission standards. Alternatively, the Lead Agency should require periodic reporting and provision of written records by contractors and conduct regular inspections of the records to the maximum extent feasible and practicable. c) Maintain equipment maintenance records for the construction portion of the Proposed Project. All construction equipment must be tuned and maintained in compliance with the manufacturer’s recommended maintenance schedule and specifications. All maintenance records for each equipment and their construction contractor(s) should be made available for inspection and remain on-site for a period of at least two years from completion of construction. d) Encourage construction contractors to apply for South Coast AQMD “SOON” funds. The “SOON” program provides funds to applicable fleets for the purchase of commercially-available low-emission heavy-duty engines to achieve near-term reduction of NOx emissions from in-use off-road diesel vehicles. More information on this program can be found at South Coast AQMD’s website: http://www.aqmd.gov/home/programs/business/business-detail?title=off-road-diesel- engines. e) Utilize water-based or low VOCs architectural coatings that go beyond the requirements of South Coast AQMD Rule 1113. Utilize pre-coated building materials during building construction, as feasible. 21 CARB. “Optional Reduced NOx Emissions Standards for On-Road Heavy-duty Engines”. Accessed at: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onroad/optionnox/optionnox.htm Minoo Ashabi March 19, 2020 6 Operation-related Air Quality Mitigation Measures f) Require the use of zero-emissions (ZE) or near-zero emissions (NZE) on-road haul trucks (e.g., vendors and material delivery trucks) such as heavy-duty trucks with natural gas engines that meet CARB’s adopted optional NOx emission standard at 0.02 grams per brake horsepower -hour (g/bhp-hr), or at a minimum, 2010 model year22 or newer and cleaner engines that meet California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) 2010 engine emission standards of 0.01 g/bhp-hr for particulate matter (PM) and the CARB’s adopted optional NOx emission standard of 0.20 g/bhp -hr for NOx emissions during construction. Since NZE heavy-duty trucks are already commercially available, the Lead Agency should require the use of ZE heavy-duty trucks during operation in the Final EIR. g) Establish a policy to select and use vendors that use ZE heavy-duty trucks. Include this policy in the vendor contracts and business agreements. h) Establish a purchasing policy to purchase and receive materials from vendors that use ZE heavy- duty trucks to deliver materials. Include this policy in the purchase orders with vendors. i) Develop a target-focused and performance-based process and timeline to implement the use of ZE heavy-duty trucks during operation. j) Develop a project-specific process and criteria for periodically assessing progress in implementing the use of ZE heavy-duty trucks during operation. 22 CARB adopted the statewide On-Road Truck and Bus Regulation in 2010. The Regulation requires diesel trucks and buses that operate in California to be upgraded to reduce emissions. Newer heavier trucks and buses must meet par ticulate matter filter requirements beginning January 1, 2012. Lighter and older heavier trucks must be replaced starting January 1, 2015. By January 1, 2023, nearly all trucks and buses will need to have 2010 model year engines or equivalent. More informa tion on the CARB’s Truck and Bus Regulations is available here: https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onrdiesel/onrdiesel.htm. ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 3. Response to Comments Page 3-22 April 2021 A5. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, MARCH 19, 2020. A5-1 This comment is the cover letter to South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD) comments on the Draft EIR. The comment provides a summary of the project description, air quality analysis, and recommended mitigation measures included in the Draft EIR. The comment also references an attachment of staff comments on the air quality analysis and mitigation measures. The cover letter requests the City provide written responses to all comments contained in the comment letter. This comment is acknowledged; responses to specific comments within this letter are provided below. A5-2 The commenter states that the air quality analysis in the Draft EIR does not analyze a scenario in which construction activities overlap with operational activities. If an overlapping construction and operation scenario is reasonably foreseeable, the SCAQMD requests additional air quality analysis from overlapping activities to be included. Chapter 2, Proposed Modifications to the Project, of this Final EIR describes a proposed modification to the project involving an updated construction phasing schedule. The proposed modification would result in overlapping construction and operational project phases. As analyzed in Chapter 2, the proposed modifications would not result in any new substantially adverse environmental effects not previously considered and addressed in the Draft EIR. Specifically, the proposed modifications would reduce the project’s construction-related emissions impacts. Regarding volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions, the revised project’s VOC emissions would not exceed SCAQMD’s regional threshold and no mitigation would be required. In comparison, the previously analyzed project identified significant and unavoidable impacts regarding VOC emissions even with implementation of mitigation. Regarding nitrogen oxide (NOX) emissions, the revised project, similar to the previously analyzed project, would also exceed the regional threshold and require mitigation to reduce impacts to less than significant levels. Furthermore, the Construction Phasing Memo analyzed potential construction-related impacts from toxic air contaminant (TACs) emissions to on- and off-site residents with the proposed phased construction schedule. Primary TAC emissions would result from diesel particulate matter from off- road heavy-duty diesel equipment exhaust. Based on the analysis, it was determined that construction of the revised project would not result in any substantial, long-term (i.e., 30-year) health risk levels to the project residents of Phase 1, and later Phase 2, while construction of Phases 2 and 3 occur, or to existing residents off-site, as shown in Construction Phasing Memo Table I, Phased Construction Health Risk Levels for Residential Receptors. In addition, there would be no residual emissions or corresponding individual cancer risk after construction. Similarly, the Draft EIR concluded the previously analyzed project would also result in less than significant impacts related to TAC emissions. Refer to Chapter 2 for a full analysis of potential air quality impacts associated with the revised project. A5-3 The commenter states that implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-1 would reduce project- generated construction nitrous oxide (NOX) emissions to 92 pounds per day, slightly below the SCAQMD’s 100-pounds per day threshold, and suggests revisions to Mitigation Measure AIR-1 to ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 3. Response to Comments Page 3-23 April 2021 further reduce NOX emissions. As shown in Draft EIR Table 5.2-15, Short-Term Regional Peak Day Construction Emissions with Mitigation, implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-1 would reduce the short-term regional NOX emissions to a less than significant level. Therefore, additional mitigation measures or revisions to Mitigation Measure AIR-1 that would provide more stringent requirements as suggested by the commenter are not required. The commenter also suggests utilizing water-based or low VOC architectural coatings that go beyond the requirements of SCAQMD Rule 1113 and utilizing pre-coated building materials during building construction, as feasible. As stated above in response to comment A5-2 and analyzed in Chapter 2 of this Final EIR, proposed modifications to the project’s construction phasing schedule would reduce VOC emissions to below SCAQMD’s regional threshold and thus, no mitigation (i.e., Mitigation Measure AIR-2) would be required. Further, the use of “Zero VOC” paints (i.e., coatings with less than 5 grams of VOC per liter) is not feasible because these paints are limited to brush-type application rather than spray and it would not be feasible to paint all of the project’s proposed buildings and structures by brush. A5-4 The commenter provides a list of additional mitigation measures as suggested resources and guidance to incorporate into the Draft EIR should the air quality analysis of overlapping construction and operational activities (requested in comment A5-2) result in potentially significant impacts. Refer to response to comment A5-2 and Chapter 2 of this EIR. As concluded, the proposed modification to the project’s construction phasing schedule would result in little or no discernible environmental effects not previously considered, and do not substantially or fundamentally alter the conclusions or findings of the EIR relative to the project’s potential environmental effects or proposed mitigation measures. Therefore, additional mitigation measures as suggested in this comment are not required. ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 3. Response to Comments Page 3-25 April 2021 A6. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, MARCH 23, 2020. A6-1 The commenter notes that the City of Santa Ana is planning to update its General Plan, including the Circulation Element, to support safety and Complete Streets projects and that the City of Costa Mesa should coordinate with the City of Santa Ana, as appropriate. This comment is acknowledged; no further response is necessary as part of the CEQA process/CEQA response to comments. A6-2 The commenter identifies a typographical error in the Draft EIR regarding the Congestion Management Program (CMP) and suggests revising this language where applicable. This typographical error is corrected in Chapter 4, Errata, of this Final EIR. The commenter also encourages communication with the Orange County Transportation Authority throughout the development of the proposed project. This comment is acknowledged and the City will continue sending future CEQA notices regarding the proposed project to the Orange County Transportation Authority; no further response is necessary as part of the CEQA process/CEQA response to comments. ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 3. Response to Comments Page 3-27 April 2021 A7. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM ORANGE COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS, MARCH 23, 2020. A7-1 The commenter acknowledges that Orange County Public Works staff have no comments on the Draft EIR, but requests to continue receiving notices regarding the proposed development. This comment is acknowledged and the City will continue sending future CEQA notices regarding the proposed project to the Orange County Public Works. 1 Bogue, Kristen From:HUYNH, NANCY <NANCY.HUYNH@costamesaca.gov> Sent:Tuesday, February 18, 2020 3:58 PM To:Bogue, Kristen Cc:ASHABI, MINOO Subject:EXTERNAL: FW: One Metro West Project State Clearinghouse No. 2019050014 Kristen – FYI. NANCY HUYNH Associate Planner Development Services | City of Costa Mesa (714) 754‐5609 From: Gonzalez Romero, Arysa (TRBL) [mailto:aromero@aguacaliente.net] Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2020 3:54 PM To: OMW Public Comments <OMWPublicComments@costamesaca.gov> Subject: One Metro West Project State Clearinghouse No. 2019050014 Greetings, A records check of the Tribal Historic preservation office’s cultural registry revealed that this project is not located within the Tribe’s Traditional Use Area. Therefore, we defer to the other tribes in the area. This letter shall conclude our consultation efforts. Thank you, Arysa Gonzalez Romero Historic Preservation Technician Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians 5401 Dinah Shore Drive Palm Springs, CA 92264 D: 760‐883‐1327 | C: 760‐831‐2484 ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 3. Response to Comments Page 3-29 April 2021 T1. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS, FEBRUARY 18, 2020. T1-1 The commenter states that the project site is not located within the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians’ Traditional Use Area and thus, concludes the tribe’s consultation efforts and defers to other tribes in the area. This comment is acknowledged and no further response is required as part of the CEQA process/CEQA response to comments. Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians One Government Center Lane | Valley Center | CA 92082 (760) 749-1051 | Fax: (760) 749-8901 | rincon-nsn.gov Bo Mazzetti Chairman Tishmall Turner Vice Chair Laurie E. Gonzalez Council Member Alfonso Kolb, Sr. Council Member John Constantino Council Member February 20, 2020 Minoo Ashabi City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Re: One Metro West Dear Minoo Ashabi: This letter is written on behalf of the Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians. Thank you for inviting us to submit comments on the above mention project. Rincon is submitting these comments concerning your projects potential impact on Luiseño cultural resources. The Rincon Band has concerns for the impacts to historic and cultural resources and the finding of items of significant cultural value that could be disturbed or destroyed and are considered culturally significant to the Luiseño people. This is to inform you; your identified location is not within the Luiseño Aboriginal Territory. We recommend that you locate a tribe within the project area to receive direction on how to handle any inadvertent findings according to their customs and traditions. If you would like information on tribes within your project area, please contact the Native American Heritage Commission and they will assist with a referral. Thank you for the opportunity to protect and preserve our cultural assets. Sincerely, Deneen Pelton, Administrative Assistant for Cheryl Madrigal, M.A. Cultural Resources Manager Cultural Resources Department Office: 760-297-2635 ext. 318|Cell: 760-648-3000 Email: cmadrigal@rincon-nsn.gov ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 3. Response to Comments Page 3-31 April 2021 T2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM RINCON BAND OF LUISEÑO INDIANS, FEBRUARY 20, 2020. T2-1 The commenter states that the project site is not located within the Luiseño Aboriginal Territory and recommends the City contact a tribe with traditional use areas encompassing the project site to properly evaluate potential project impacts on cultural and tribal cultural resources. As detailed in Section 5.14, Tribal Cultural Resources, of the Draft EIR, in compliance with Senate Bill 18 (SB 18) and Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52), the City has notified Native American contacts provided by the Native American Heritage Commission and formally invited tribes to consult with the City on the proposed project. Andrew Salas, Chairman Nadine Salas, Vice-Chairman Dr. Christina Swindall Martinez, secretary Albert Perez, treasurer I Martha Gonzalez Lemos, treasurer II Richard Gradias, Chairman of the council of Elders PO Box 393 Covina, CA 91723 admin@gabrielenoindians.org GABRIELENO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS - KIZH NATION Historically known as The San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians recognized by the State of California as the aboriginal tribe of the Los Angeles basin Project Name: One Metro West Project located at 1683 Sunflower Avenue in the City of Costa Mesa, Orange County Dear Minoo Ashabi, Thank you for your letter dated February 7, 2020 regarding AB52 consultation. The above proposed project location is within our Ancestral Tribal Territory; therefore, our Tribal Government requests to schedule a consultation with you as the lead agency, to discuss the project and the surrounding location in further detail. Please contact us at your earliest convenience. Please Note:AB 52, “consultation” shall have the same meaning as provided in SB 18 (Govt. Code Section 65352.4). Thank you for your time, Andrew Salas, Chairman Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation 1(844)390-0787 ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 3. Response to Comments Page 3-34 April 2021 T3. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM GABRIELENO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS – KIZH NATION, FEBRUARY 21, 2020. T3-1 The commenter incorrectly identifies the Notice of Availability, dated February 7, 2020, as an AB 52 notification letter, and requests to schedule a consultation with the City. As detailed in Section 5.14, Tribal Cultural Resources, of the Draft EIR, the City sent SB 18/AB 52 notification letters to applicable tribes, including the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation, formally inviting tribes to consult with the City on the proposed project. The Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation (Andrew Salas, Chairperson) responded to the City’s request for consultation. The City conducted a formal consultation via conference call with Andrew Salas on August 20, 2019. Mr. Salas indicated there was a high potential to encounter unknown buried tribal cultural resources due to the project’s proximity to a sacred village (Lupukunga), a historical water course (Santa Ana River), and a major traditional trade route (the Southern Pacific Railroad). Thus, Mitigation Measure TCR-1 was included in the Draft EIR to ensure a qualified Native American Monitor is present during excavation activities involving native soils. If evidence of potential subsurface tribal cultural materials is found during site disturbance/excavation activities and the qualified archaeologist/Native American Monitor determines that the find is prehistoric or includes Native American materials, Mitigation Measure TCR-1 would ensure affiliated Native American groups are invited to contribute to the assessment and recovery of the found resource. With implementation of Mitigation Measure TCR-1, impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels. Consultation concluded with the City and the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation. P: (626) 381-9248 F: (626) 389-5414 E: mitch@mitchtsailaw.com Mitchell M. Tsai Attorney At Law 155 South El Molino Avenue Suite 104 Pasadena, California 91101 VIA U.S. MAIL & E-MAIL March 23, 2020 Via E-Mail & U.S. Mail Attn: One Metro West Draft EIR Minoo Ashabi, Principal Planner City of Costa Mesa Development Services Department 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Em: OMWPublicComments@costamesaca.gov RE: One Metro West Project, State Clearinghouse No. 2019050014 Dear Ms. Ashabi, On behalf of the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters ("Commenters" or "Carpenters"), my Office is submitting these comments on the City of Costa Mesa ("City" or "Lead Agency") Draft Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR") (SCH No. 2019050014) for the One Metro West Project, a proposed "mixed-use development that consists of residential, specialty, retail, creative office, and open space uses." "The project is proposed to include up to 1,057 residential dwelling units (anticipated rental units), 25,000 square feet of commercial creative office, 6,000 square feet of specialty retail, and 1.5 acres of open space." ("Project"). The Southwest Carpenters is a labor union representing 50,000 union carpenters in six states, including in southern California, and has a keen interest in well-ordered land use planning and addressing the environmental impacts of development projects. Commenter expressly reserves the right to supplement these comments at or before hearings on the Project, and at any later hearings and proceedings related to this Project. Cal. Gov. Code § 65009(b); Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21177(a); Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal. App. 4th 1184, 1199-1203; see Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Water Dist. (1997) 60 Cal. App. 4th 1109, 1121. City of Costa Mesa – One Metro West Project and Draft EIR March 23, 2020 Page 2 of 10 Commenter incorporates by reference all comments raising issues regarding the EIR submitted before certification of the EIR for the Project. Citizens for Clean Energy v City of Woodland (2014) 225 CA4th 173, 191 (finding that any party who has objected to the Project's environmental documentation may assert any issue timely raised by other parties). Moreover, Commenter requests that the Lead Agency provide notice for all notices referring or related to the Project issued under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), Cal Public Resources Code ("PRC") § 21000 et seq, and the California Planning and Zoning Law ("Planning and Zoning Law"), Cal. Gov't Code §§ 65000–65010. California Public Resources Code Sections 21092.2, and 21167(f) and Government Code Section 65092 require agencies to mail such notices to any person who has filed a written request for them with the clerk of the agency's governing body. I. THE PROJECT WOULD BE APPROVED IN VIOLATION OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT A. Background Concerning the California Environmental Quality Act CEQA has two basic purposes. First, CEQA is designed to inform decision-makers and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of a project. 14 California Code of Regulations ("CCR" or "CEQA Guidelines") § 15002(a)(1). "Its purpose is to inform the public and its responsible officials of the environmental consequences of their decisions before they are made. Thus, the EIR 'protects not only the environment but also informed self-government.' [Citation.]" Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal. 3d 553, 564. The EIR has been described as "an environmental 'alarm bell' whose purpose it is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached ecological points of no return." Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay v. Bd. of Port Comm'rs. (2001) 91 Cal. App. 4th 1344, 1354 ("Berkeley Jets"); County of Inyo v. Yorty (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 795, 810. Second, CEQA directs public agencies to avoid or reduce environmental damage when possible by requiring alternatives or mitigation measures. CEQA Guidelines § 15002(a)(2) and (3). See also, Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal. App. 4th 1344, 1354; Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553; Laurel Heights Improvement Ass'n v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 400. The EIR serves to provide public agencies and the public in general with information about the effect that a City of Costa Mesa – One Metro West Project and Draft EIR March 23, 2020 Page 3 of 10 proposed project is likely to have on the environment and to "identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced." CEQA Guidelines § 15002(a)(2). If the Project has a significant effect on the environment, the agency may approve the Project only upon finding that it has "eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment where feasible," and that any significant unavoidable effects on the environment are "acceptable due to overriding concerns" specified in CEQA section 21081. CEQA Guidelines § 15092(b)(2)(A–B). While the courts review an EIR using an "abuse of discretion" standard, "the reviewing court is not to 'uncritically rely on every study or analysis presented by a project proponent in support of its position.' A 'clearly inadequate or unsupported study is entitled to no judicial deference.'" Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1355 (emphasis added) (quoting Laurel Heights, 47 Cal.3d at 391, 409 fn. 12). Drawing this line and determining whether the EIR complies with CEQA's information disclosure requirements presents a question of law subject to independent review by the courts. (Sierra Club v. Cnty. of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal. 5th 502, 515; Madera Oversight Coalition, Inc. v. County of Madera (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 48, 102, 131.)As the court stated in Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal. App. 4th at 1355: A prejudicial abuse of discretion occurs "if the failure to include relevant information precludes informed decision-making and informed public participation, thereby thwarting the statutory goals of the EIR process. The preparation and circulation of an EIR are more than a set of technical hurdles for agencies and developers to overcome. The EIR's function is to ensure that government officials who decide to build or approve a project do so with a full understanding of the environmental consequences and, equally important, that the public is assured those consequences have been considered. For the EIR to serve these goals, it must present information so that the foreseeable impacts of pursuing the Project can be understood and weighed, and the public must be given an adequate opportunity to comment on that presentation before the decision to go forward is made. Communities for a Better Environment v. Richmond (2010) 184 Cal. App. 4th 70, 80 (quoting Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 449–450). City of Costa Mesa – One Metro West Project and Draft EIR March 23, 2020 Page 4 of 10 B. The DEIR Does Not Adequately Describe the Project An EIR must be "prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision- makers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences." Dry Creek Citizens Coalition v. County of Tulare (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 20, 26. An EIR's description of the Project should identify the Project's main features and other information needed for an assessment of the Project's environmental impacts. Citizens for a Sustainable Treasure Island v City & County of San Francisco (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1036, 1053. The DEIR fails to describe the specific land use entitlements that the Project will be seeking. The DEIR lists required entitlements from various state and local agencies, but indicates that the list is non-exhaustive and that the entitlements listed are "in addition to" non-descript "ministerial actions such as demolition permit, grading permit, building permits, certificates of occupancy, etc." DEIR, p. 3-27. Among the listed entitlements required are amendments to the General Plan, Specific Plan, and Master Plan, as well as a change in zoning. However, the Project fails to describe these listed changes. Without further detail as to what these amendments entail, as well as the extent of the ministerial actions, the Project fails to provide a sufficient description upon which to evaluate the Project's potential land use impacts. C. The DEIR Must Describe All Feasible Mitigation Measures That Can Minimize the Project's Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Impacts A fundamental purpose of an EIR is to identify ways in which a proposed project's significant environmental impacts can be mitigated or avoided. Pub. Res. Code §§ 21002.1(a), 21061. To implement this statutory purpose, an EIR must describe any feasible mitigation measures that can minimize the Project's significant environmental effects. PRC §§ 21002.1(a), 21100(b)(3); CEQA Guidelines §§ 15121(a), 15126.4(a). If the Project has a significant effect on the environment, the agency may approve the Project only upon finding that it has "eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment where feasible"1 and find that 'specific overriding economic, legal, social, technology or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects on the environment." "A gloomy forecast of environmental 1 PRC §§ 21002; 21002.1, 21081; CEQA Guidelines §§ 15091, 15092(b)(2)(A). City of Costa Mesa – One Metro West Project and Draft EIR March 23, 2020 Page 5 of 10 degradation is of little or no value without pragmatic, concrete means to minimize the impacts and restore ecological equilibrium." Environmental Council of Sacramento v. City of Sacramento (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1018, 1039. 1. The DEIR Does Not Mitigate The Project's Significant and Unavoidable Greenhouse Gas Emissions The DEIR concludes that the Project will have significant Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions impacts since the estimated total emissions from the Project's construction and operation and mobile sources will exceed the SCAQMD threshold. DEIR, 4.5-12. But the DEIR explains that there are no additional feasible mitigation measures beyond those that the DEIR current proposal that would reduce GHG emissions to levels that are less than significant, DEIR 5.6-16. This explanation is untrue. The only two proposed mitigation measures, GHG-1 and GHG-2, suggest merely to ensure that the Project is designed so that the parking areas provide the minimum number of electric vehicle charging stations required by the State's Green Building Standards Code Sections A5.106.5.1.2 and A5.106.5.3.2, which require only 12% of total designated parking spaces be used for low-emitting, fuel-efficient, and carpool/vanpool vehicles. Since the DEIR premises its GHG mitigation upon providing a minimum of EV parking spaces, and potentially more, the DEIR implicitly concedes that additional mitigation is possible. These are not the only feasible means of mitigating GHG emissions. In particular, the CEQA Guidelines require mitigation measures that go far beyond the Project providing a minimum number of electric vehicle charging stations, requiring that an EIR consider: (1) Steps in an existing plan or mitigation program for the reduction of emissions that are required as part of the lead agency's decision; (2) Reductions in emissions resulting from a project through implementation of project features, project design, or other measures, such as those described in Appendix F; (3) Off-site measures, including offsets that are not otherwise required, to mitigate a project's emissions; (4) Measures that sequester greenhouse gases; City of Costa Mesa – One Metro West Project and Draft EIR March 23, 2020 Page 6 of 10 (5) In the case of the adoption of a plan, such as a general plan, long- range development plan, or plans for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, mitigation may include the identification of specific measures that may be implemented on a project-by-project basis. Mitigation may also include the incorporation of specific measures or policies found in an adopted ordinance or regulation that reduces the cumulative effect of emissions. CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(c). Also, organizations and public agencies have published lists of feasible and quantifiable greenhouse gas mitigation that should have been at least discussed in the Project DEIR, including the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association August 2010 report "Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures: A Resource for Local Government to Assess Emission Reductions from Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures" ("CAPCOA Report")2 which the South Coast Air Quality Management District has recognized as a "comprehensive guidance document for quantifying the effectiveness of GHG mitigation measures."3 The DEIR must analyze the effectiveness and feasibility of several greenhouse gas mitigation measures proposed by the CAPCOA Report, including greenhouse gas mitigation measures for building energy use, lighting, alternative energy generation, land use, landscaping, waste, vegetation, construction and different measures including carbon sequestration or other off-site mitigation measures. 2. The DEIR Fails to Adequately Analyze and Mitigate the Project's Significant Air Quality Impacts The DEIR determines that air quality impacts resulting from construction activities after mitigation are "significant and unavoidable." DEIR at ES-6. However, the DEIR 2 California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (August 2010) “Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures: A Resource for Local Government to Assess Emission Reductions from Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures,” accessed March 22, 2020, available at https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/mitigation-measures-and-control- efficiencies/quantifying-greenhouse-gas-mitigation-measures.pdf?sfvrsn=0 (attached as Exhibit A) 3 South Coast Air Quality Management District (2019) “Greenhouse Gases, accessed on March 22, 2019, available at https://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/air-quality-analysis- handbook/mitigation-measures-and-control-efficiencies/greenhouse-gases (attached as Exhibit B) City of Costa Mesa – One Metro West Project and Draft EIR March 23, 2020 Page 7 of 10 again fails to discuss all feasible mitigation measures that could substantially lessen the Project's significant and unavoidable air quality impacts. Mitigation measure AIR-1 provides that "prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the grading plans shall stipulate that the contractor shall use construction equipment that meets the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Tier 3 level of emission controls fitted with Level 2 Diesel Particular Filters (DPF) for all construction equipment 50 horsepower or more during construction activities." (DEIR, p. 1-20.) The DEIR fails to discuss or explain why the latest technology, namely EPA Tier 4 construction equipment4 with current Level 3 Diesel Particular Filters5 would be infeasible. Tier 4 engines are required for all construction equipment constructed since 2014. 40 CFR § 1039.101 ("The exhaust emission standards for this section apply after the 2014 model year."). Mitigation measure AIR-2 provides that "the project contractor shall only use interior paints with low VOC content with a maximum concentration of 30 grams per liter (g/L) for residential building architectural coating to reduce VOC emissions." Here too, the DEIR fails to explain why the Project does not utilize widely available Zero VOC paints with a maximum concentration of fewer than 5 grams per liter of VOCs 6. 4 United States Environmental Protection Agency Regulations for Emissions from Heavy Equipment with Compression-Ignition (Diesel) Engines, accessed March 22, 2020, available at https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engines/regulations-emissions-heavy- equipment-compression (attached as Exhibit C) 5 California Air Resources Board “Verification Procedure” accessed March 22, 2020, available at https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/diesel/verdev/vt/cvt.htm (attached as Exhibit D) 6 See e.g. California Department of Public Health (2018) “The Sherwin-Williams Company Commercial Painting Schedule Guide,” accessed March 22, 2020, available at https://images.sherwin-williams.com/content_images/sw-099123_chps_2011.pdf (attached as Exhibit E); Sherwin-Williams “Green Programs Specifications” accessed March 22, 2020, available at https://www.sherwin-williams.com/home-builders/specifications/progs-and-voc-regs/leed-and- other-green-specifications (attached as Exhibit F); Greenguard “Your Guide to Low- and Zero- VOC Paints from Better Homes and Gardens magazine” accessed March 22, 2020, available at http://greenguard.org/files/LivingGreenPaintGuide.pdf (attached as Exhibit G). City of Costa Mesa – One Metro West Project and Draft EIR March 23, 2020 Page 8 of 10 D. The DEIR Omits Relevant Information Regarding the Existing Environment and Fails to Disclose Potential Contamination On the Project Site Adequately The DEIR fails to disclose that the Project site is located in an area of prior agricultural use before 1975. The City conducted a Phase I Site Assessment (Appendix G) to identify evidence of "recognized environmental conditions," (REC) which includes "the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at a property: (1) due to release to the environment; (2) under conditions indicative of a release to the environment; or (3) under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment." "De minimis conditions are not recognized environmental conditions." DEIR, Appx. G. P. 1. Documents reviewed in the Site Assessment revealed that the Site had been used for agricultural purposes before 1975 and was occupied by Nissan Motor Corporation from approximately 1975 to 2011. Id. p. 12. A prior, unrelated Site Assessment reported potential environmental concerns related to "the historical agricultural use and potential presences of residual chemicals, historical industrial lighting operations during Nissan's occupancy, a former oil interceptor which was removed from the Site on November 17, 2010, and the potential for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) to be present in onsite electrical transformers." Id. The Phase I Site Assessment states, "the past agricultural use of the Site (dry farming) suggests that pesticides may have been used on the Site. If so, pesticides and associated metals may be present in soil on the Site." Id. p. 14-15. Despite this finding and well- known persistence of highly toxic pesticides employed in agricultural usage before 1975 in soil, the Site Assessment concludes, on insufficient evidence, that the historical agricultural usage is not considered a REC. Only one soil sample was collected beneath the oil-interceptor upon its removal in 2010. Id. p. 12. No further soil assessment has been conducted to assess soil contamination due to the prior agricultural or industrial uses. According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would have a significant effect on the environment if the Project would (1) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials; or (2) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. The DEIR fails to adequately assess these City of Costa Mesa – One Metro West Project and Draft EIR March 23, 2020 Page 9 of 10 potential impacts by failing to disclose and analyze possible soil contamination due to prior industrial and agricultural uses and the potential release of hazardous materials as a result of soil removal on the Site. II. CONCLUSION Commenters request that the City revise and recirculate the Project's environmental impact report to address the concerns mentioned above. If the City has any questions or concerns, feel free to contact my Office. Sincerely, ______________________ Mitchell M. Tsai Attorneys for Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters Attached: California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (August 2010) "Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures: A Resource for Local Government to Assess Emission Reductions from Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures," accessed March 22, 2020, available at https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/ceqa/handbook/mitigation-measures-and-control-efficiencies/quantifying- greenhouse-gas-mitigation-measures.pdf?sfvrsn=0 (attached as Exhibit A); South Coast Air Quality Management District (2019) "Greenhouse Gases, accessed on March 22, 2019, available at https://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules- compliance/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook/mitigation-measures-and-control- efficiencies/greenhouse-gases (attached as Exhibit B); United States Environmental Protection Agency Regulations for Emissions from Heavy Equipment with Compression-Ignition (Diesel) Engines, accessed March 22, 2020, available at https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and- engines/regulations-emissions-heavy-equipment-compression (attached as Exhibit C); California Air Resources Board "Verification Procedure" accessed March 22, 2020, available at https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/diesel/verdev/vt/cvt.htm (attached as Exhibit D); California Department of Public Health (2018) "The Sherwin-Williams Company Commercial Painting Schedule Guide," accessed March 22, 2020, available at City of Costa Mesa – One Metro West Project and Draft EIR March 23, 2020 Page 10 of 10 https://images.sherwin-williams.com/content_images/sw-099123_chps_2011.pdf (attached as Exhibit E); Sherwin-Williams "Green Programs Specifications" accessed March 22, 2020, available at https://www.sherwin-williams.com/home-builders/specifications/progs-and-voc- regs/leed-and-other-green-specifications (attached as Exhibit F); and Greenguard "Your Guide to Low- and Zero- VOC Paints from Better Homes and Gardens magazine" accessed March 22, 2020, available at http://greenguard.org/files/LivingGreenPaintGuide.pdf (attached as Exhibit G). EXHIBIT A Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures A Resource for Local Government to Assess Emission Reductions from Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures August, 2010 dE=dQ-dW dS=dQ/T S=klog[(E)] CO2 = VMT x EFrunning [T242001 x (1 - R2001-2005) x (1 - R2005-2008)] + NT24 Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures A Resource for Local Government to Assess Emission Reductions from Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures August, 2010 California Air Pollution Control Officers Association with Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management National Association of Clean Air Agencies Environ Fehr & Peers Acknowledgements This Report benefited from the hard work and creative insights of many people. CAPCOA appreciates the efforts of all who contributed their time and energy to the project. In particular, the Association thanks the following individuals: Principal Author Barbara Lee, NSCAPCD Project Coordination Jill Whynot, SCAQMD Project Oversight Panel Larry Allen, SLOAPCD Ian Peterson, BAAQMD Aeron Arlin-Genet, SLOAPCD Tim Taylor, SMAQMD Dan Barber, SJVAPCD Tom Thompson, PCAQMD Jeane Berry, SMAQMD David Vintze, BAAQMD Elaine Chang, SCAQMD Barry Wallerstein, SCAQMD Yusho Chang, PCAQMD David Warner, SJVAPCD Joseph Hurley, SMAQMD Jill Whynot, SCAQMD (Vice Chair) Aaron Katzenstein SCAQMD Abby Young, BAAQMD Barbara Lee, NSCAPCD (Chair) Mel Zeldin, CAPCOA Paul Miller, NESCAUM Yifang Zhu, SCAQMD External Reviewers Martha Brook, CEC Pete Parkinson, County of Sonoma Bill Loudon, DKS Associates Editing, Proofing & Layout Fernando Berton, CAPCOA Arlene Farol, SCAQMD Jessica DePrimo, NSCAPCD Technical Analysis & Discussion of Methods Shari Libicki, Environ Jerry Walters, Fehr & Peers David Kim, Environ Meghan Mitman, Fehr & Peers Jennifer Schulte, Environ Disclaimer The California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) has prepared this report on quantifying greenhouse gas emissions from select mitigation strategies to provide a common platform of information and tools to support local governments. This paper is intended as a resource, not a guidance document. It is not intended, and should not be interpreted, to dictate the manner in which a city or county chooses to address greenhouse gas emissions in the context of projects it reviews, or in the preparation of its General Plan. This paper has been prepared at a time when California law and regulation, as well as accepted practice regarding how climate change should be addressed in government programs, is undergoing change. There is pending litigation that may have bearing on these decisions, as well as active legislation at the federal level. In the face of this uncertainty, local governments are working to understand the new expectations, and how best to meet them. This paper is provided as a resource to local policy and decision makers to enable them to make the best decisions they can during this period of uncertainty. Finally, in order to provide context for the quantification methodologies it describes, this report reviews requirements, discusses policy options, and highlights methods, tools, and resources available; these reviews and discussions are not intended to provide legal advice and should not be construed as such. Questions of legal interpretation, or requests for legal advice, should be directed to the jurisdiction’s counsel. Table of Contents Executive Summary ...................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 1: Introduction ............................................................................................... 3 Background .......................................................................................................... 3 Intent and Audience ............................................................................................. 4 Using the Document ............................................................................................. 4 Chapter 2: The Purpose of Quantifying Mitigation Measures .................................. 7 Quantification Framework .................................................................................... 7 Quantifying Measures for Different Purposes....................................................... 8 Voluntary Reductions ........................................................................................... 8 Reductions to Mitigate Current or Future Impacts ................................................ 9 Reductions for Regulatory Compliance ................................................................ 17 Reductions for Credit ........................................................................................... 20 Chapter 3: Quantification Concepts ........................................................................... 25 Baseline ............................................................................................................... 25 Business-as-Usual Scenario ................................................................................ 26 Mitigation Measure Types .................................................................................... 27 Mitigation Measure or Project Scope ................................................................... 29 Lifecycle Analysis ................................................................................................. 29 Accuracy and Reliability ....................................................................................... 31 Additionality .......................................................................................................... 32 Verification ........................................................................................................... 32 Chapter 4: Quantification Approaches & Methods ................................................... 33 General Emission Quantification Approach .......................................................... 33 Quantification of Baseline Emissions ................................................................... 35 Quantification of Emission Reductions for Mitigation Measures ........................... 35 Quantification Methods ....................................................................................... 37 Limitations to Quantification of Emission Reductions for Mitigation Measures ..... 38 Chapter 5: Discussion of Select Quantified Measures ............................................. 43 Building Energy Use ............................................................................................. 43 Outdoor Water Use .............................................................................................. 44 Indoor Water Use ................................................................................................. 45 Municipal Solid Waste .......................................................................................... 45 Public Area and Traffic Signal Lighting ................................................................ 46 Vegetation (including Trees) ................................................................................ 46 Construction Equipment ....................................................................................... 47 Transportation ...................................................................................................... 47 On-site Energy Generation................................................................................... 48 Miscellaneous ...................................................................................................... 48 Chapter 6: Understanding and Using the Fact Sheets ............................................. 51 Mitigation Strategies and Fact Sheets .................................................................. 51 Grouping of Strategies ......................................................................................... 56 Rules for Combining Strategies or Measures ....................................................... 56 Range of Effectiveness of Mitigation Measures ................................................... 63 Applicability of Quantification Fact Sheets Outside of California .......................... 75 How to Use a Fact Sheet to Quantify a Project .................................................... 76 Chapter 7: Quantification Fact Sheets for Individual Measures .............................. 81 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 81 Index of Fact Sheets and Cross References (Table 7-1) ..................................... 82 Measures Energy ................................................................................................................... 85 Transportation ........................................................................................................ 155 Water ..................................................................................................................... 332 Landscaping Equipment......................................................................................... 384 Solid Waste ............................................................................................................ 392 Vegetation.............................................................................................................. 402 Construction ........................................................................................................... 410 Miscellaneous ........................................................................................................ 433 General Plans ........................................................................................................ 444 Appendices A. Glossary of Terms B. Calculation Methods for Unmitigated Emissions C. Transportation Methods D. Building Quantification Methods E. Select Data Tables Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures Executive Summary Executive Summary 1 This report on Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures: A Resource for Local Government to Assess Emission Reductions from Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures was prepared by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association with the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management and the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, and with technical support from Environ and Fehr & Peers. It is primarily focused on the quantification of project-level mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions associated with land use, transportation, energy use, and other related project areas. The mitigation measures quantified in the Report generally correspond to measures previously discussed in CAPCOA’s earlier reports: CEQA and Climate Change; and Model Policies for Greenhouse Gases in General Plans. The Report does not provide policy guidance or advocate any policy position related to greenhouse gas emission reduction. The Report provides a discussion of background information on programs and other circumstances in which quantification of greenhouse gas emissions is important. This includes voluntary emission reduction efforts, project-level emission reduction efforts, reductions for regulatory compliance, and reductions for some form of credit. The information provided covers basic terms and concepts and again, does not endorse or provide guidance on any policy position. Certain key concepts for quantification are covered in greater depth. These include baseline, business-as-usual, types of emission reductions, project scope, lifecycle analysis, accuracy and reliability, additionality, and verification. In order to provide transparency and to enhance the understanding of underlying strengths and weaknesses, the Report includes a detailed explanation of the approaches and methods used in developing the quantification of the mitigation measures. There is a summary of baseline methods (which are discussed in greater detail in Appendix B) as well as a discussion of methods for the measures. This includes the selection process for the measures, the development of the quantification approaches, and limitations in the data used to derive the quantification. The mitigation measures were broken into categories, and an overview is provided for each category. The overview discusses specific considerations in quantifying emissions for measures in the category, as well as project-specific data the user will need to provide. Where appropriate and where data are readily available, the user is directed to relevant data sources. In addition, some tables and other information are included in the appendices. The mitigation measures are presented in Fact Sheets. An overview of the Fact Sheets is provided which outlines their organization and describes the layout of information. The Report also includes a step-by-step guide to using a Fact Sheet to quantify a project, and discusses the use of Fact Sheets outside of California. The Report also discusses the grouping of the measures, and outlines procedures and limitations for 2 Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures quantifying projects where measures are combined either within or across categories. These limitations are critical to ensure that emission reductions are appropriately quantified and are not double counted. As a general guide, approximate ranges of effectiveness are provided for each of the measures, and this is presented in tables at the end of Chapter 6. These ranges are for reference only and should not be used in lieu of the actual Fact Sheets; they do not provide accurate quantification on a project- specific basis. The Fact Sheets themselves are presented in Chapter 7, which includes an index of the Fact Sheets and cross references each measure to measures described in CAPCOA’s earlier reports: CEQA and Climate Change; and Model Policies for Greenhouse Gases in General Plans. Each Fact Sheet includes a description of the measure, assumptions and limitations in the quantification, a baseline methodology, and the quantification of the measure itself. There is also a sample project calculation, and a discussion of the data and studies used in the development of the quantification. In the Appendices, there is a glossary of terms. The baseline methodology is fully explained, and there is additional supporting information for the transportation methods and the non-transportation methods. Finally, the Report includes select reference tables that the user may consult for select project-specific factors that are called for in some of the Fact Sheets. Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures Chapter 1 Chapter 1: Introduction 3 Background The California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) prepared the report, Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures: A Resource for Local Government to Assess Emission Reductions from Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures (Quantification Report, or Report), in collaboration with the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) and the National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA), and with contract support from Environ, and Fehr & Peers, who performed the technical analysis. The Report provides methods for quantifying emission reductions from a specified list of mitigation measures, primarily focused on project-level mitigation. The emissions calculations include greenhouse gases (GHGs), particulate matter (PM), carbon monoxide (CO), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and reactive organic gases (ROG), as well as toxic air pollutants, where information is available. The measures included in this Report were selected because they are frequently considered as mitigation for GHG impacts, and standardized methods for quantifying emissions from these projects were not previously available. Measures were screened on the basis of the feasibility of quantifying the emissions, the availability of robust and meaningful data upon which to base the quantification, and whether the measures (alone or in combination with other measures) would result in appreciable reductions in GHG emissions. CAPCOA does not mean to suggest that other measures should not be considered, or that they might not be effective or quantifiable; on the contrary, there are many options and approaches to mitigate emissions of GHGs. CAPCOA sought to provide a high quality quantification tool to local governments with the broadest applicability possible, given the resource limitations for the project. CAPCOA encourages local governments to be bold and creative as they approach the challenge of climate change, and does not intend this Report to limit the scope of measures considered for mitigation. The majority of the measures in the Report have been discussed in CAPCOA’s previous resource documents: CEQA and Climate Change, and Model Policies for Greenhouse Gases in General Plans. The measures in this Report are cross-referenced to those prior reports. The quantification methods provided here are largely project-level in nature; they can certainly inform planning decisions, however a complete planning-level analysis of mitigation strategies will entail additional quantification. In developing the quantification methods, CAPCOA and its contractors conducted an extensive literature review. The goal of the Report was to provide accurate and reliable quantification methods that can be used throughout California and adapted for use outside of the state as well. 4 Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures Intent and Audience This document is intended to further support the efforts of local governments to address the impacts of GHG emissions in their environmental review of projects and in their planning efforts. Project proponents and others interested in quantifying mitigation measures will also find the document useful. The guidance provided in this Report specifically addresses appropriate procedures for applying quantification methods to achieve accurate and reliable results. The Report includes background information on programs and concepts associated with the quantification of GHG emissions. The Report does not provide policy guidance on any of these issues, nor does it dictate how any jurisdiction should address questions of policy. Policy considerations are left to individual agencies and their governing boards. Rather, this Report is intended to support the creation of a standardized approach to quantifying mitigation measures, to allow emission reductions and measure effectiveness to be considered and compared on a common basis. Because the quantification methods in this Report were developed to meet the highest standards for accuracy and reliability, CAPCOA believes they will be generally accepted for most quantification purposes. The decision to accept any quantification method rests with the reviewing agency, however. Further, while the Report discusses the quantification of GHG emissions for a variety of purposes, including the quantification of reductions for credit, using these methods does not guarantee that credit will be awarded. Using the Document Chapters 2 and 3 of this Report discuss programs and concepts associated with GHG quantification. They are intended to provide background information for those interested in the context in which reductions are being made. Chapter 4 discusses the underpinnings of the quantification methods and specifically addresses limitations in the data used as well as limitations in applying the methods; it is important for anyone using this Report to review Chapter 4. Chapter 5 provides an overview of the mitigation measure categories, including key considerations in the quantification of emission reductions in those categories. Chapter 6 explains how to use the fact sheets for each measure’s quantification method, and also discusses the effectiveness of the measures and how combining measures changes the effectiveness. Once the user understands the quantification context, and the limitations of the methods, the fact sheets can be used like recipes in a cookbook . In using the fact sheets, however, CAPCOA strongly advises the reader to pay careful attention to the assumptions and limitations set forth for each individual measure, and to make sure that these are respected and appropriately considered. Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures Chapter 1 5 The fact sheets with the actual quantification methods for each individual measure are contained in Chapter 7. The baseline methods are explained in Appendix B. It is the responsibility of the user to ensure that all data inputs are provided as called for in the methods, and that the data are of appropriate quality. CAPCOA will not be able to provide case-by-case review or adjustments for specific projects outside of the provision for project-specific data inputs that is part of each fact sheet. Questions about individual projects may be referred to your local air district. As a final note, the methods contained in this document include generalized information about the measures themselves. This information includes emission factors, usage rates, and other data from various sources, most commonly published data from public agencies. The data were carefully reviewed to ensure they represent the best information available for this purpose. The use of generalized information allows the quantification methods to be used across a range of circumstances, including variations in geographical location, climate, and population density, among others. Where good quality, project-specific data is available that provides a superior characterization of a particular project, it should be used instead of the more generalized data presented here. The methods provided for baseline and mitigated emissions scenarios allow for such substitution. The local agency reviewing the project should review the project-specific data, however, to ensure that it meets standards for data quality and will not result in an inappropriate under- or overestimation of project emissions or mitigation. 6 Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures (page intentionally left blank) Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures Chapter 2 7 Chapter 2: The Purpose of Quantifying Mitigation Measures Quantification Framework The Quantification Report has been prepared to support a range of quantification needs. It is based on the premise that quantification of GHG emissions and reductions should rest on a foundation of clear assumptions, limits, and calculations. When these elements and the methods of applying them are transparent, a common “language” is created that allows us to talk about, compare, and evaluate GHGs with confidence that we are looking at “apples to apples.” For the purpose of this report, GHGs are the six gases identified in the Kyoto Protocol: carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), methane (CH4), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). GHGs are expressed in metric tons (MT) of CO2e (carbon dioxide equivalents). Individual GHGs are converted to CO2e by multiplying values by their global warming potential (GWP). Global warming potentials represent a ratio of a gas’ heat trapping characteristics compared to CO2, which has a global warming potential of 1. As a general rule, the quantification methods in this report are only accurate to the degree that the project adheres to the assumptions, limitations, and other criteria specified for a given measure. Where specific data inputs are indicated for either the baseline or the project scenario calculations, those data must be provided for the calculations to be valid. Further, the quality of the data used will substantially impact the quality of the results achieved. For example, if a calculation method calls for a traffic count, the calculations can’t be made without supplying a traffic count number. However, the number used could be a rough estimate, could be based on a small, one- time sample, or could be derived through a full traffic study over a representative period of time or times. Clearly, using a rough estimate for any of the data inputs will yield results that are less accurate than they would be if higher quality data inputs were provided. This does not mean that rough estimates cannot be used. There will be times when the quantification does not need to be precise. In order to speak the common language, however, it is important to identify how precise your data inputs are. It is also important to give careful consideration to the intended use of the quantification, to make sure that the results you achieve will be sufficiently rigorous to support the conclusions you draw from them. The quantification methods in this report rely on very specific assumptions and limitations for each mitigation measure. Unlike the discussion of data inputs, the measure assumptions and limits affect more than the precision of the calculations: they determine whether the calculation is valid at all. For example, there is a method for calculating GHG reductions for each percentage in improvement in building energy use beyond the performance standards in California’s Title 24; that method states that the measure is specifically for electricity and natural gas use in residential and commercial 8 Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures buildings subject to Title 24. If the building is located outside of California, where Title 24 is not applicable, the method will not yield accurate results unless the baseline assumptions are adjusted to reflect the standards that actually apply. Further, the measure effectiveness is based on assumptions that certain other energy efficiency measures are also applied (such as third-party HVAC-commissioning); if those additional measures are not applied, the calculated reductions will not be accurate and will overestimate the reductions compared to what will actually be achieved. There may be situations where you choose to apply a method even if the assumptions do not match the specific conditions of the project; while CAPCOA does not recommend this, if you do it, it is imperative that any deviations are clearly identified. While you may still be able to calculate a reduction for your measure, in many cases the error in your result will be so large that any conclusions you would draw from the analysis could be completely wrong. Quantifying Measures for Different Purposes There are several reasons that a person might implement measures to reduce GHG emissions. Some measures are implemented simply because it’s a good thing to do. Knowing how many metric tons of GHG emissions were reduced might not be important in that case. There are other reasons for undertaking a project to reduce GHGs, however, and for some of these purposes quantification (and verification) become increasingly important, and sensitive. This chapter discusses the role of quantification, and to a lesser extent verification, in reductions undertaken for a range of reasons. These include: voluntary reductions, reductions undertaken specifically to mitigate current or future impacts, reductions for regulatory compliance, and reductions where some form of credit is being sought, including credits that may be traded on a credit exchange. The purpose for which reductions are quantified will determine the level of detail involved in the quantification, as well as the degree of verification needed to support the quantification. As stated previously, this discussion is provided for information purposes only; it should not be construed to advocate or endorse any particular policy position. Voluntary Reductions Voluntary reductions of GHG emissions are reductions that are not required for any reason, including a regulation, law, or other form of standard. Even when reductions are not mandatory, however, there may be reasons to quantify them. The project proponent may simply want to know how effective the project is. Examples of this would be when a project is undertaken in an educational setting, or to demonstrate the general feasibility of a concept, or promote an image of environmental responsibility. In such a case, the focus may be on implementing the project more than documenting exactly how many tons of CO2e have been reduced, Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures Chapter 2 9 and a reasonable estimate might be sufficient. The project proponent may wish to track reductions to fulfill an organizational policy or commitment, or to establish a track record in GHG reductions. For these purposes, the quantification does not need to be precise, but it should still be based on sound principles and accepted methods. When reductions are purely voluntary, they may be estimated using the methods contained in this document, even if all of the variables are not known, or if some of the assumptions are not fully supported by the specifics of the project. If the quantification is performed without the level of detail outlined in the method for a given measure (or specified for the baseline calculations), the results will be less accurate. The same is true if a method is used in a situation where the assumptions are not fully supported, or if the method is used outside the noted limitations. As one would expect, the greater the degree of variation from the conditions put forth in the fact sheets, the less accurate the quantification will be. Significant deviation can result in very large errors. If there is any possibility that the project proponent may at some point wish to use the reductions to fulfill a future regulatory or mitigation requirement, or seek some form of credit for the reductions, the proponent should not deviate from the methods and should ensure that all necessary data are included, and all assumptions and limitations are appropriately addressed. Acceptance of the quantification methods in this Report to fulfill any requirement is solely at the discretion of the approving agency. Use of these methods does not guarantee that credit of any kind will be awarded for reductions made. Reductions to Mitigate Current or Future Impacts One of the most common reasons for quantifying emissions of GHG is to analyze and mitigate current or future impacts of specific actions or activities. This can include project-level impacts, such as those evaluated under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), or plan-level impacts, such those resulting from the implementation of a General Plan or Climate Action Plan. Quantification of projects and mitigation under CEQA was the main focus in preparing this guidance document. Most of the measures quantified in the Report are project-level in nature. Many of these are also good examples of the kinds of policies and actions that would be included in a General Plan or a Climate Action Plan. The quantification methods provided here can be used to support conclusions about the effectiveness of different measures in a planning context; however, a full analysis of plan-level impacts will require consideration of additional factors, depending on the nature of the measure. Some of the measures have been specifically identified as General Plan measures, and a discussion is included about appropriate analysis of these measures, where study data exist to support such analysis. 10 Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures Project-Level Mitigation: Existing environmental law and policy requires that environmental impacts of projects be evaluated and disclosed to the public, and where those impacts are potentially significant, that they be mitigated. At the federal level, the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) governs this evaluation. Many states have their own programs as well; in California, the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA, sets forth the requirements and the framework for the review. The responsibility to evaluate impacts, to determine significance, and to define appropriate mitigation rests with the Lead Agency. This is typically a city or county with land-use decision-making authority, although other agencies can be Lead Agencies, depending on the nature of the project and the jurisdiction of the agency. Guidance on CEQA and Climate Change: There are currently two resources for Lead Agencies on incorporating considerations of climate change into their CEQA processes. The first was prepared by CAPCOA, and the most recent is an amendment to the official CEQA Guidelines prepared by the California Natural Resources Agency (Resources Agency). CAPCOA Guidance- In January of 2008, CAPCOA released a resource document, “CEQA and Climate Change: Evaluating and Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act,” that discussed different approaches to determining whether GHG emissions from projects are significant under CEQA. It reviewed the models and other tools available at that time for conducting GHG analyses, and the document also contained a list of mitigation measures. A copy of the report is available at http://www.capcoa.org. Resources Agency Guidance- Since the release of that report, the California Natural Resources Agency (Resources Agency) finalized its guidance on GHG emissions and CEQA in December of 2009. Under Senate Bill 97 (Chapter 148, Statutes of 2007), the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) was required to prepare amendments to the state’s CEQA Guidelines addressing analysis and mitigation of the potential effects of GHG emissions in CEQA documents. The legislation required the Resources Agency to adopt the amended Guidelines by 2010. The CEQA Guidelines Amendments adopted by the Resources Agency made material changes to 14 sections of the Guidelines. The changes include dealing with the determination of significance (principally in Public Resource Code Section 15064) and cumulative impacts, as well as areas such as the consultation process for the draft EIR, the statement of overriding considerations, the environmental setting, mitigation measures, and tiering and streamlining. Overall, the discussion of determining significance in Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures Chapter 2 11 these amendments is consistent with the earlier report released by CAPCOA. In the Final Statement of Reasons (SOR) for the adoption of the amendments to the CEQA Guidelines, the Resources Agency makes two points that are important with regard to quantification of GHG emissions from projects. First, it states that the Guidelines “appropriately focus on a project’s potential incremental contribution of GHGs” and that the amendments “expressly incorporate the fair argument standard.” 1 This sets the parameters for the analysis to be performed. The Resources Agency further states that the analysis for GHGs must be consistent with existing CEQA principles, which includes standards for the substantial evidence needed to support findings. Second, the Final SOR specifically states that the amendments “interpret and make specific statutory CEQA provisions and case law … determining the significance of GHG emissions that may result from proposed projects.”2 In this context, they cite specific case law as well as CEQA Guidelines Section 15144 that require a lead agency to “meaningfully attempt to quantify the Project’s potential impacts on GHG emissions and determine their significance.”3 Complete copies of the 2009 CEQA Guidelines Amendments and the Final Statement of Reasons may be downloaded at: http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/docs/. Quantification of Projects: Project level quantification, especially as it pertains to CEQA, was CAPCOA’s main focus in developing this Report. The baseline conditions and quantification methods were selected to be consistent with the implementation of AB 32, as well as the Scoping Plan developed by ARB. The list of mitigation measures selected for the Report reflects the types of strategies that local governments and project proponents have shown interest in, and sought direction on quantifying. For the most part, they entail clearly delineated boundary conditions, and have been designed to be applicable across a range of circumstances. This Quantification Report does not provide any policy guidance on what amount of GHG emissions would be significant. The determination of significance, including any thresholds, is the exclusive purview of the Lead Agency and its policy board. CAPCOA’s Quantification Report provides methods to quantify emissions from specific types of mitigation projects or measures. It is based on a careful review of existing studies and determinations to develop rigorous quantification methods that meet the substantial evidence requirements of CEQA. A project proponent or reviewer who wishes to use these methods to quantify emissions for the purpose of complying with CEQA must adhere to the assumptions and limitations 1 California Natural Resources Agency: “Final Statement of Reasons for Regulatory Action: Amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines Addressing and Analysis and Mitigation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Pursuant to SB 97,” December, 2009; p 12. 2 Ibid: p. 18. 3 Ibid: p. 18. 12 Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures specified in the methods for each project type. If these assumptions and limitations are not followed, the quantification will not be valid. Ultimately, the Lead Agency will have the responsibility to review and decide whether to allow any requests for deviations from the method, and to determine whether those deviations have a substantive impact o n the results. Lead Agencies may contact their local air district for assistance in making such a review, but CAPCOA will not be in a position to provide any case-by-case review of changes to the quantification methods in this report. As stated previously, where good quality, project-specific data are available, they should be substituted for the more generalized data used in the baseline and mitigation emissions calculations. The quality of the data inputs can significantly affect the accuracy and reliability of the results. When quantification is performed for CEQA compliance, CAPCOA recommends that project-specific data be as robust as possible. We discourage the use of approximations or unsubstantiated numbers. In any case, CAPCOA strongly recommends that the source(s) and/or basis of all project-specific data supplied by the project proponent be clearly identified in the analysis, and the limitations of the data be discussed. Plan-Level Mitigation: Cities and counties, as well as other entities, develop environmental planning documents. The most common are General Plans, which specify the blueprint for land-use, transportation, housing, growth, and resource management for cities, counties, and regions. These plans are periodically updated, and in recent updates, the California Attorney General has put jurisdictions on notice that their plans must consider climate change. A stand-alone plan that considers climate change is a Climate Action Plan. Climate Action Plans can be developed for a school or company, for a city, county, region, or larger jurisdiction. A Climate Action Plan will typically identify a reduction target or commitment, and then set forth the complement of goals, policies, measures, and ordinances that will achieve the target. These policies and other strategies will typically include measures in transportation, land use, energy conservation, water conservation, and other elements. Guidance on Planning and Climate Change: CAPCOA prepared a guidance document on GHGs and General Plans for local governments. There are also several important processes under way that will have a significant impact on the planning process in the coming years. These include the early implementation of Senate Bill 375 (Steinberg, Statutes of 2008); the development of new General Plan Guidelines; and statewide planning for adaptation to the impacts of climate change. They are described below. CAPCOA Guidance for General Plans- In June of 2009, CAPCOA released “Model Policies for Greenhouse Gases in General Plans: A Resource for Local Government to Incorporate General Plan Policies to Reduce Emissions of Greenhouse Gases.” This document embodied a menu of GHG mitigation measures that could Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures Chapter 2 13 be included in a General Plan or a Climate Action Plan. It was structured around the elements of a General Plan, provided model language that could be taken and dropped into a plan, and also provided a worksheet for evaluating which measures to use. The CAPCOA Model Policies document focused on strategies to reduce GHG emissions; it did not address climate change adaptation, which is an important, but separate consideration. Senate Bill 375- Senate Bill 375 is considered a landmark piece of legislation that aligns regional land use, transportation, housing, and greenhouse gas reduction planning efforts. The bill requires the ARB to set greenhouse gas emission reduction targets for light trucks and passenger vehicles for 2020 and 2035. The 18 Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) are responsible for preparing Sustainable Communities Strategies and, if needed, Alternative Planning Strategies (APS), that will include a region’s respective strategy for meeting the established targets. An APS is an alternative strategy that must show how the region would, if implemented, meet the target if the SCS does not. To develop the targets, SB 375 called for a Regional Targets Advisory Committee (RTAC), which included representatives from the MPOs, cities and counties, air districts, elected officials, the business community, nongovernmental organizations, and experts in land use and transportation. The RTAC provided recommendations on the targets to ARB in a formal report in September, 2009. The report covers a range of important considerations in target setting and implementation. Target setting topics include: the use of empirical data and modeling; key underlying assumptions; best management practices; the base year, the metric, targets for 2020 and 2035; and both statewide and regional factors affecting transportation patterns. For implementation, the report considers housing and social equity issues; local government challenges in meeting the targets; funding and other support at the state and federal level; and a variety of other important considerations. A complete copy of the report may be downloaded at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/rtac/report/092909/finalreport.pdf. ARB staff released draft regional targets for 2020 for the four largest MPOs in June, 2010, along with placeholder targets for 2035. Placeholder targets were also issued for both 2020 and 2035 for MPOs in the San Joaquin Valley. An alternative approach to target setting was proposed for the remaining MPOs. As required by SB 375, ARB expects to formally adopt the final targets before the end of September, 2010. Additional information about the target setting process can be found at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/sb375.htm. For the four largest MPOs, the draft 2020 targets are expressed as a percent reduction in emissions based on the potential reductions from land use and transportation planning scenarios provided by the MPOs, with a proposed range for the targets 14 Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures between 5% and 10%4. This reduction excludes the expected emission reductions from Pavley GHG vehicle standards and low carbon fuel standard measures. Each of the four regions has its own placeholder targets for 2035, shown in Table 2-1, below. Table 2-1: Draft Regional Targets for 2035 Regional MPO Draft GHG Reduction Target Metropolitan Planning Commission (MTC) 3-12% Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) 13-17% San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) 5-19% Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 3-12% Source: ARB: “Draft Regional Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Targets For Automobiles and Light Trucks Pursuant to Senate Bill 375” page 4. The placeholder targets for the MPOs in the San Joaquin Valley range from 1-7% for both 2020 and 2035. Placeholder targets were provided in lieu of draft targets to allow the MPOs to provide additional information for ARB to consider before finalizing the targets. For the remaining six MPOs, ARB proposes to use the most current per-capita GHG emissions data, adjusted for the impacts of the recession, as the basis for setting individual regional targets in those areas. In addition to serving on the RTAC, local districts will support the MPOs as they develop their strategies to meet their regional targets, and local cities and counties as they incorporate sustainable strategies into their own planning efforts. Two of the contractors who developed the quantification methods in this Quantification Report also served on the RTAC, and every effort has been made to ensure that work here will ultimately be compatible with, and useful in, the implementation of SB 375. General Plan Guidelines- The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) provides technical assistance on land use planning and CEQA matters to local governments. In this effort, OPR is required to adopt and periodically revise advisory guidelines to assist local governments in the preparation of local general plans. Commonly referred to as the General Plan Guidelines, the most current edition was released in 2003. In the 2003 edition, OPR included an overview of the General Plan statutory requirements, a review of CEQA’s role in the general plan process, implementation techniques, and the General Plan’s relationship to other statutory planning requirements. The 2003 Guidelines do not specifically address GHG emissions or climate change. 4 ARB: “Draft Regional Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Targets For Automobiles and Light Trucks Pursuant to Senate Bill 375,” June, 2010; page 4. Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures Chapter 2 15 It is important to note that the General Plan Guidelines are advisory, not mandatory. Nevertheless, it is the state’s only official document explaining California’s legal requirements for general plans. The General Plan Guidelines are continually shaped to reflect current trends, changes in applicable laws, and incorporate additional statutory requirements. This includes anticipated effects from AB 32 and SB 375. An update to the 2003 General Plan Guidelines has been in development and includes a Climate Change Supplement. This update is expected to be finalized by the end of 2010. Adaptation- Adaptation has not received the same attention that has been given to steps that might prevent or mitigate the extent of climate change, however it is a topic that should not be ignored in General Plans. The overwhelming body of scientific studies point to a certain amount of change in our climate that is inevitable, even if we are aggressive and diligent in our efforts to prevent it. Many regions of the state (indeed, the nation) are projected to see substantial impacts on agriculture, climate dependant business (such as recreation and tourism), infrastructure, and habitat. Coastal areas will see a rise in sea level, currently projected to be between one and three meters by 2100. Wild fires are expected to increase in number, size, and severity. Stresses on the environment, combined with extreme weather events, are projected to increase the incidence and severity of a number of infectious diseases and other medical conditions. These and myriad other changes pose tremendous risks to people and our way of life. For that reason, in December, 2009, a team of California state agencies released a report: “The 2009 Climate Adaptation Strategy.” In it, the team states that 2.5 trillion dollars’ worth of infrastructure in California is at risk from the various projected climate- related changes in our environment. The estimated cost of addressing the impacts on that infrastructure is about $3.9 billion, annually.5 The report identifies a number of steps to be taken in the near term to appropriately plan for and address this threat. Highlights of the actions include: the formation of a Climate Adaptation Advisory Panel; new approaches to water management; revised land-use planning to avoid construction in highly vulnerable areas; evaluation of all state infrastructure projects to avoid exacerbating threats to infrastructure; and, more specific planning by emergency response agencies, public health agencies, and others to fortify existing communities and resources, and prepare for future stressors. For more information, the full report may be downloaded at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/2009publications/CNRA-1000-2009- 027/CNRA-1000-2009-027-F.PDF. Quantification for Planning Purposes: Quantification of the impacts of measures for planning purposes is a different exercise than quantification for a specific project. By its 5 California Natural Resources Agency: “2009 Climate Adaptation Strategy” Dec. 2009; p. 5. 16 Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures very nature, planning involves a future set of conditions about which less is known, and indeed knowable. The art and science of planning depend upon the interpretation of present conditions and trends, and the application of that interpretation to create a picture of future conditions. This document does not address detailed planning analysis in a comprehensive manner. The majority of the measures described and quantified here are project-level measures; only a few are plan-level measures by design. That said, many of the project level measures are good examples of the implementation of planning-level policies that were described in the CAPCOA Model Policies report. The quantification of these measures will provide important and useful information for the planner to use in the context of quantifying anticipated effects in broader planning efforts. In a planning context, it is especially important to be mindful of the interactions of different measures. A more detailed explanation is provided in Chapter 6, but the main concern is that certain measures do interact with each other, and their effects are not independent. This means that some measures will have little effect on their own, but in combination with other measures may have significant effect. The classic example of this is the bus shelter. A clean, well-lit, and comfortable bus shelter can enhance ridership on the buses stopping at that shelter and therefore reduce vehicle trips; but without the underlying bus service, the shelter itself does not reduce vehicle trips. There are also instances where a measure is less effective in combination with other measures than it might be by itself. There are several reasons why this can occur. In some cases this happens because of a diminishing return for consecutive efforts. For example, there may be six good methods to increase ridership on a public transit line, any one of which might increase transit ridership by 20%. But implementing all of them will not necessarily increase ridership by 120%. In fact, for each successive method applied, it is likely that a lesser effect will be observed. Another example is where the measures are in some sense competing, as in a campaign to increase ridership on a commuter rail line at the same time that a new public transit bus line is established with overlapping service areas. Although the ridership campaign might be expected to cause 5% of drivers to switch to rail, some of those potential new riders might use the new bus service instead, making the ridership campaign less effective. At the same time, the new bus line might also be expected to reduce vehicle trips by 5%, but the actual reduction may be lower in reality if some of the ridership comes from those who would have been rail passengers and not from driving. Together, the ridership campaign for the rail line and the new bus line may only reduce vehicle trips by 7%, not the 10% predicted from the estimates of their independent effectiveness.6 These effects become more pronounced when considered in a city-wide, county-wide, or regional context. The interplay of land use decisions and transportation infrastructure development will be better assessed with more integrated computer modeling efforts. The quantification of some of the strategies at the individual, project level will provide 6 Please note that the effectiveness estimates provided here are only for the purposes of illustration and should not be taken as actual quantification of such measures. Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures Chapter 2 17 insight into how useful and appropriate the strategies will be in the planning effort, however. More detailed discussion of how to quantify combinations of measures is provided in Chapter 6. Reductions for Regulatory Compliance There are three basic types of regulations for which emissions quantification is likely to be required: command-and-control regulations, permitting, and participation in a cap- and-trade program. A discussion of each is provided for information purposes, as is a discussion of quantification for mandatory emissions reporting regulations. The quantification methods in this document are intended primarily for use in project-level mitigation. Regulatory programs are likely to have specific requirements for monitoring, reporting, and quantification, which may or may not allow the use of the methods in this Report. Command and Control Regulations: Some local air districts have command-and- control regulations for GHGs already on the books. These include limitations on the use of certain chemicals that are active in the atmosphere, performance requirements for landfill gas collection, and for systems that use GHGs with high Global Warming Potential, as well as efficiency standards for specific equipment or processes. Under the umbrella of the Scoping Plan, the ARB is also developing command-and-control regulations for a number of source categories. Regulations already adopted include standards for various GHGs that have a high global warming potential, such as sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) used in the electricity sector, semiconductors, and other operations; perfluorocarbons in semiconductor manufacturing; certain refrigerants; and materials used in consumer products. There are also GHG emission limits on light-duty vehicles, rules for port drayage trucks and other heavy-duty vehicles, as well as landfill methane control requirements, and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard. Additional rulemaking is currently underway. For these types of regulations, compliance may not rest upon quantification of emissions or emissions reductions. In many cases, installation of a specific technology, substitution of materials, or implementation of inspection and maintenance programs meets the requirements of the rule, and is presumed to have a certain effectiveness in reducing emissions from a baseline level. When a focused regulation does require quantification of emissions, it will generally specify a method for testing emissions, where appropriate, or for calculating emissions from other measured parameters. A related, but more flexible type of regulation for emission reductions is an overall emissions cap for facilities or operations. Under this approach, sometimes referred to as a “bubble,” the regulation calls for an overall reduction in emissions from a specified baseline, but the operator has the discretion to decide how to achieve those reductions. This is different from a cap-and-trade program (see below), in that there is no trading 18 Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures between facilities, or purchasing of credits to offset obligations. Because energy efficiency and other conservation projects are a likely strategy to meet a facility-wide GHG emission reduction requirement, the quantification of measures in this Report may be useful for compliance with such a cap. Of course, the caveats about assumptions and data inputs are also important here. Further, demonstration of compliance with this kind of limit will also involve verification of the emissions reductions, and is likely to include ongoing compliance tracking. The regional targets of SB 375 are a type of emissions cap. It is important to note that the quantification presented in this Report may ultimately be useful in demonstrating reductions towards those targets. Although much of the work of implementing SB 375 will involve extensive land use and transportation modeling, the project level quantification in this Report may allow cities and counties to track their contribution towards their region’s goal. Permitting Programs: In addition to land-use permitting (discussed under “Project- level Mitigation” above), there may be requirements for operations to have permits to emit GHGs because GHGs are air pollutants. Federal air permitting requirements for stationary sources will become effective on January 1, 2011 (and will apply to applications that have not been acted upon prior to that date), under several federal permit programs, including Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Title V. These programs are implemented by the local air districts. Applicability of these programs is based on annual potential to emit GHGs, with thresholds initially set between 75,000 and 100,000 tons per year, depending on the program, and decreasing over time, with final thresholds for smaller sources of GHG to be determined by a future federal rulemaking. Because these permit programs are threshold-driven, quantification of emissions is an important element of compliance. At present, there is no specific federal guidance on quantifying GHG emissions pursuant to these programs, other than general guidelines for quantifying emissions of other regulated pollutants. This Quantification Report does not specifically address stationary source emissions, however some of the methods may be useful for certain elements of these programs, such as energy efficiency, water efficiency, and other associated measures of carbon use by a facility. The local air district with jurisdiction will be able to provide guidance on calculating emissions for a specific project, both for applicability and for compliance. In addition, most permits require some form of verification, and ongoing demonstration on compliance. These obligations will be established as part of the permit. Cap-and-Trade: A cap-and-trade program is a specific type of emissions trading program. Emissions trading in general is discussed in the next section. A brief explanation of cap-and-trade programs is provided below as background information for interested readers. It is not necessary to understand cap and trade programs, or emissions trading in general, in order to use the quantification methods in this report. Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures Chapter 2 19 Further, these quantification methods were not developed specifically for the purposes of complying with cap and trade requirements, or for emissions trading more generally. A cap-and-trade regulation establishes “allowances” for carbon emissions, expressed as CO2 equivalents, usually in tons, or metric tons. An emitter of carbon must hold enough allowances to cover the amount of carbon it actually emits. Allowances are obtained on a carbon exchange, or market. In some cases they may be allocated by the government to emitters. There is a “cap” placed on the amount of allowances available in the market, and the cap declines over time. Carbon emitters must either reduce their emissions or purchase allowances from someone else; this is the “trade” part of the program. In this way, the program should cause carbon to be reduced wherever the reduction costs are lowest. The ARB is developing a cap-and-trade program which they currently expect will be considered for Board approval before the end of 2010. Information about the developing ARB program can be obtained from the conceptual drafts released by staff. Legislation is also pending at the federal level that would establish cap-and-trade on a national scale, but the ultimate scope and content of the program is still unknown. The most recent ARB draft proposal may be downloaded at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/capandtrade/capandtrade.htm. Although compliance with a cap-and-trade program is not likely to be a reason for quantifying GHG reductions today, it is likely to be one in the future. When that time comes, there will be several important considerations in deciding whether to use this Quantification Report in meeting those obligations. Mandatory Reporting: The ARB currently has a Mandatory Reporting Rule for specified stationary sources with GHG emissions greater than 25,000 metric tons of CO2e per year. This rule was established pursuant to the requirements of AB 32, and was intended to provide information to support the development of the Scoping Plan and its implementing regulations. At the time the Mandatory Reporting Rule was approved by the ARB Board, staff indicated that the Rule was not intended, nor did it include the level of detail necessary, to implement the cap-and-trade program (which, at that time, was not yet proposed). Applicable quantification protocols will be developed and approved by the ARB Board as part of its cap-and-trade regulation, as will a revised Mandatory Reporting Rule. More information about the ARB’s Mandatory Reporting Rule may be obtained at http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/reporting/ghg-rep/ghg-rep.htm. From ARB materials for AB 32 Program Design Technical Stakeholder Working Group Meeting, April 25, 2008, Figure 1, page 3 20 Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures The U.S. EPA also has a Mandatory Reporting Rule. Under this rule, suppliers of fossil fuels or greenhouse gases that are used in industrial operations, manufacturers of vehicles and engines, and facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons or more per year of GHG emissions are required to submit annual reports to EPA. The EPA rule does not currently specify quantification methods, and CAPCOA anticipates that any methods in this Report that would be applicable to affected reporters (e.g., building energy use) would be also be acceptable for use under the rule. Details on this rule can be found in 40 CFR Part 98, which was published in the Federal Register (www.regulations.gov) on October 30, 2009 under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-2278. Reductions for Credit There are several different ways to formally award credit for emission reductions. Emission reduction credits are used when the opportunity, desire, obligation, and the resources to implement reductions are not aligned. Sometimes an entity has the desire and opportunity to reduce emissions, but not the resources. Sometimes an entity is required to make reductions but has no viable project opportunities. Or funds may be available to implement project, but willing participants are needed. Systems are used to match up projects, proponents, funding, and, in some cases, compliance obligations , and the basis of the systems is emission reduction credits. Concurrent Offsite Mitigation Projects: The simplest form of credit for emission reductions occurs when someone needs to reduce emissions to mitigate impacts (for example, under CEQA), but does not have a good opportunity within his or her own operation or project; but if a good opportunity is available at another operation the person who needs the reductions can fund that project in exchange for being able to take credit for the reduction. A variant of this can occur when a list of emission reduction projects that could be used for mitigation is maintained, and those projects are matched with people who need to implement mitigation. The key in this arrangement is that the project is directly funded by the person who needs mitigation, at whatever the cost the mitigation project ultimately has. The emission reductions occur, but are not traded as an independent commodity. The person who needs the mitigation remains obligated to ensure that the project is implemented and the emission reductions occur. Mitigation Funds: Instead of matching the person needing mitigation with a project that is then directly funded by that person, it is also possible to collect the funding and then create the projects. In this case, funds are paid into a mitigation fund at a pre- established rate, and the operator of the fund is then obligated to find and implement emission reduction projects. The rate is typically set at a level (for example in dollars per ton needed) that is sufficient to implement an actual project to produce the emission reductions, based on data about actual project costs. As with concurrent offsite mitigation projects, the emission reductions here are not traded as an independent commodity, however a default rate is established. Under a mitigation fund, then, the person needing mitigation is considered to have provided it (that is, given “credit” for the reductions) at the point of paying into the mitigation fund. The obligation to ensure the emission reductions occur is transferred to the fund operator. Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures Chapter 2 21 Emissions Trading: Emissions trading is a transaction that occurs between entities that make emission reductions which they don’t need, and entities that desire emissions reductions but, for whatever reason, do not choose to make them. The emissions (or, more accurately, “credits” for the emission reductions) are treated as a commodity with independent value. The transaction occurs in some form of market, much as transactions occur between the grower of produce and the consumer in a local farmers market. The transaction, or trade, happens when a consumer believes that the product is worth the price being asked for it. The obligation to ensure the emission reductions occur generally rests with the person selling the credits, and (to the extent an independent review has occurred) with whomever grants certification to the reduction project. As explained above, a cap-and-trade program is a type of GHG trading market, but there are other types of emissions trading markets. An open GHG credit-based trading market does not have a cap, and participation is on a voluntary basis. In a credit-based market, credits are awarded for emission reductions, and may be purchased and sold as a commodity on an exchange. The credits are sometimes referred to as offsets, and they are generally tracked as tons, or metric tons, of pollutant reduced; in the case of GHGs, this is typically in the form of CO2e. The important distinction between an open market and a cap-and-trade system is that the creation, buying, and selling of offsets is not restricted in an open market. The following key terms and concepts are discussed to help the interested reader understand how credits are used in a trading market, It is not necessary to understand trading markets in order to use the quantification methods in this report, and the reader may proceed directly to Chapter 3. Regulators and Exchanges: Some emissions trading markets are run by the government, while others are operated by independent, non-governmental entities. In government-run markets, such as the Regional Clean Air Incentives Market (RECLAIM) developed and administered by the South Coast Air Quality Management District, and U.S. EPA’s Acid Rain program, a government agency establishes and implements the trading market. These markets are typically regulatory in nature, rather than voluntary, although some voluntary participation may be allowed. The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) implemented by ten Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states, and the 22 Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures European Union Emission Trading Scheme (EU ETS) are other examples of regulatory markets. Independent exchanges, such as the California Climate Action Registry (CCAR) and the Climate Registry (TCR), were established as independent, non-governmental operations. They offer a forum for entities to have emission reductions certified for credit, and for those credits to be bought and sold. These bodies develop their own structure and rules for participation. The nature of those rules determines the quality of the credits available on the exchange. Participation in the exchange is voluntary. Standards for Credits: In order to be acceptable for credit under the AB 32 program, GHG emission reductions must be real, permanent, quantifiable, verifiable, enforceable, and additional. Historically, the federal Clean Air Act (CAA, or Act) has required emission reduction credits to be: real, permanent, quantifiable, enforceable, and surplus7. In this context, surplus means the reductions are not required by any law, regulation, permit condition, or other enforceable mechanism under the Act. California continued this concept in AB 32, requiring that any regulation adopted pursuant to AB 32 ensure that GHG reductions are “real, permanent, quantifiable, verifiable, and enforceable.”8 The term “additional” comes from the Clean Development Mechanism in the Kyoto Protocol; it is essentially the same as “surplus” except that it is not restricted to any particular statute, and means that you cannot receive credit for any reductions that you were otherwise obligated to make. AB 32 requires its implementing regulations that include market-based compliance mechanisms to ensure that reductions are “in addition to any greenhouse gas emission reduction otherwise required by law or regulation, and any other greenhouse gas emission reduction that might otherwise occur.”9 Protocols: Transactions to purchase emission reductions depend on the confidence the purchaser has in the value of reductions being purchased. Price is part of the concept of value that we can easily understand. The other, less tangible part of the concept of value is the quality of the emission reductions themselves. This is harder to understand because, unlike the produce at the farmer’s market, we can’t examine the product to determine its value. Not only are emission reductions invisible, they actually didn’t happen. So to have confidence in their value, we need a reliable and accurate picture of what would have happened, as well as what actually happened. Protocols are the formalized procedures for accounting for credits that ensure the credits are an accurate and reliable representation of emission reductions that actually occurred. Some protocols focus only on quantification of the reductions, while others also address documentation and verification. They can be developed and adopted by regulatory bodies, by the operators of exchanges, or by subject area experts. Some markets will require participants to use a specific protocol or set of protocols. Others 7 40 CFR Sections 51.493 and 51.852 8 California HS&C: Section 35862(d)(1) 9 Ibid, Section 35862(d)(2) Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures Chapter 2 23 will allow participants to propose a protocol for developing and quantifying reductions. Failure to follow required protocols may prevent the project from receiving credit. Holding and Using Credits: When credits are awarded for emission reduction projects, the owner of the credits is generally given a certificate of value. In this case, “value” means the corresponding emission reductions, not the price, which is determined by the market. The credits are registered with a bank where they are kept until the owner of the credits uses or sells them. Credit Banks: Emission credit banks are similar to savings banks where money is deposited. The bank tracks credits, credit value, credit price, and transactions. It compiles data and issues reports. Banks are subject to accounting standards and requirements for transparency. It is important to note that not all credits can be banked. Credits or allowances that have a finite life do not retain their value beyond their life term. Credit Life: Credits may have a specified life (for example, one year), or they may be permanent. The life of the credit may be dictated either by the nature of the reductions that generated it, or by the program in which it is being used. As discussed above, in California, AB 32 requires reductions for regulatory compliance to be permanent. In other markets, such as Kyoto’s Clean Development Mechanism, there are both long term and short term credits. Discounting Credit Value: Some regulatory structures require that credits be discounted, that is, the emission reduction value of the credit (not the price) is reduced to account for certain factors, or to enhance the liquidity of the market. In some cases, a portion of the credit value is surrendered or retired in the interest of environmental policy goals. Offset Ratios: Offset ratios are a way to ensure an adequate margin of safety when credits are provided to offset impacts. A program may require that the amount of credits provided is greater than the anticipated emissions increases. If the program requires 10% extra credits, then the offset ratio is said to be “1.1 to 1.” The above discussion of emission reduction credits and trading is provided for information only, and should not be construed as endorsement of, or recommendation for, the use of credits or trading for the purposes of meeting GHG reduction obligations. CAPCOA does not make policy recommendations regarding credits or trading in this Report. Decisions about whether to allow the use of credits rests solely with the agency with jurisdiction over a project or program. 24 Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures (page intentionally left blank) Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures Chapter 3 25 Chapter 3: Quantification Concepts This chapter provides an overview of some key concepts that arise in considering quantification of GHG emission reduction projects. This discussion is provided so the reader understands the context in which these terms are used throughout this document. Here again, this discussion is not intended to endorse any policy position, nor does it provide any recommendations on thresholds of significance for GHG emissions. Policy decisions are left to individual agencies and their governing boards. Baseline An emissions baseline is the foundation of any estimate of the impacts of a project or of a mitigation measure. In its simplest form, it reflects the current level of emissions if those emissions do not vary. Usually, however, emissions do vary, typically because the activities or operations that cause the emissions change. Traffic patterns change with the time of day, ski areas are busiest in the winter, air conditioners run more in the summer, people drive less when fuel prices rise, and production of goods changes with the economy. To set a baseline, it is important to understand what factors affect the activity or operation in a way that will alter its emissions; then, the most appropriate scenario is selected and the emissions are adjusted to account for that scenario. Figure 3-1: Baseline illustrates the concept of baselines in project analysis. Regulatory programs that require calculation of emissions baselines generally specify the basis for the calculation. For example, a baseline scenario could be a three year average of actual emissions, or the worst case, or, as in CEQA, the program may call for an analysis to identify a representative set of conditions based on historical data. In its proposed draft regulation for cap-and-trade, ARB defines baseline to mean “the scenario that reflects a conservative estimate of the business-as-usual performance or activities for the relevant type of activity or practice such that the baseline provides an adequate margin of safety to reasonably calculate the amount of GHG reductions in reference to such baseline.”1 For this Quantification Report, CAPCOA selected a baseline period to correspond to the average GHG emissions from 2002 to 2004, inclusive. This is the emissions baseline period used by ARB in its Scoping Plan2. The baseline conditions used to quantify the 1 ARB: “Preliminary Draft Regulation for a California Cap-and-Trade Program,” Section 95802 (a)(2), Dec., 2009; page 5. 2 ARB: “Climate Change Scoping Plan: a framework for change,” Dec., 2008; page 11. 0 200 400 600 800 Pre-project Emissions Unmitigated Post-Project Emissions Mitigated Post-project Emissions Figure 3-1: Baseline Project Baseline Mitigation Baseline 26 Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures effectiveness of mitigation measures for this Quantification Report reflect the conditions that formed the basis for ARB’s 2007 inventory of economic activity and GHG emissions. Those conditions and the associated quantification methods are explained in Appendix B to this Report. A copy of ARB’s Scoping Plan may be downloaded at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/scopingplandocument.htm. There may be circumstances in which a different set of baseline conditions is more appropriate. If a user wishes to adjust the baseline, CAPCOA recommends using the methods provided in the measure Fact Sheet, and in Appendix B, but substituting data inputs that better reflect the baseline conditions for the project under consideration. This ensures consistent methods are used so the comparison of baseline to project is an “apples-to-apples” comparison. So, for example, a user outside of California would substitute an emission factor for electricity generation that better represents the generation mix that is provided in the user’s region. This alternative factor would be used in the baseline methods where electricity generation is part of the calculation, and would also be used in the quantification of emissions associated with the project. It may also be appropriate to adjust the baseline conditions on a temporal basis if needed to account for changes over time. The ARB revises its emissions inventory information on a periodic basis. The most current inventory information was published in May of 2010, and covers the time period from 2000 to 2008. The information is available by category, with trends analysis, and with full documentation of data sources and methods. The updated emissions inventory information is available at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm. Business-as-Usual Scenario Not all baseline conditions occur in the present. In some cases, the baseline is a forecast of the conditions that are expected to exist at some time in the future, in the absence of interventions to change those future conditions. The forecasted baseline conditions are referred to as “business-as- usual” and are intended to reflect normal operation. For example, a town might currently have 20,000 residents, and be on a course to to add another 5,000 residents in low-density, planned development at the perimeter of its existing footprint over the next 10 years. The town could add an urban growth boundary that would change that anticipated development. In order to quantify the effect of adding the urban growth boundary, the business-as-usual growth scenario must first be calculated; that will form 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Figure 3-2: Business-as-Usual Project Emissions Growth Pre-project Emissions Business-as-Usual MitigationMitigation Baseline Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures Chapter 3 27 the baseline to compare to the growth scenario with the adopted boundary. Figure 3-2 illustrates the application of the “business-as-usual” concept to a project. ARB defines business-as-usual to mean, “the normal course of business or activities for an entity or a project before the imposition of greenhouse gas emission reduction requirements or incentives.”3 Mitigation Types There are four general ways to create emission reductions for mitigation projects: (1) the operation or activity can be avoided so that emissions are not created in the first place; (2) the operation or activity can be changed so that it creates fewer emissions; (3) emission control technology can be added to the activity or operation that prevents the release of emissions that are created; and (4) emissions that have been released can be sequestered in the environment. Each of these is discussed below. Avoided Emissions: When someone chooses to walk to the grocery store in lieu of driving, or turn off the lights, energy isn’t needed to power the car or lights, and the emissions associated with that energy don’t occur. In the case of walking instead of driving, the avoided emissions include the CO2 and other pollutants that would have come from the tailpipe of the car. These are “direct” emissions that are being avoided, and they can be readily quantified to show the benefit associated with walking. When electricity isn’t needed, it isn’t generated; the avoided emissions are the CO2 and other pollutants that are not emitted by the power plant. Because the emissions are not directly emitted where the light is being used, this type of emissions are referred to as “indirect” emissions; even though they are indirect, they can still be quantified to show the benefit of turning off the lights. There can be other benefits associated with avoided emissions as well. When you consider the walking scenario in a lifecycle sense, the avoided emissions can also include the energy that would have been used to extract, refine, transport, and dispense the fuel. The same is true when you use a reusable cloth bag instead of a disposable plastic bag to carry your purchases; energy is needed to extract and refine the petroleum that goes into the bag, to make and transport the bag, and then to dispose of the bag after it is used. These kinds of avoided emissions are much more difficult to fully quantify, however, and will not be included in the quantification approaches in this document. Even if we aren’t quantifying the benefits, however, it is important to understand that avoided emissions can have positive effects both upstream and downstream, creating a ripple effect of further avoided emissions. 3 ARB: “Preliminary Draft Regulation for a California Cap-and-Trade Program,” Section 95802 (a)(18), Dec., 2009; page 7. 28 Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures Fewer Created Emissions: If the activity or operation can’t be avoided, sometimes it can be accomplished in a way that creates fewer emissions. This is usually associated with increased efficiency. So, for example, if walking to the store isn’t an option, someone could choose to drive there in a more efficient vehicle, like a gas-electric hybrid powered car. The engine in the hybrid is able to drive more miles with less fuel consumed. Less fuel consumed equates to fewer emissions at the tailpipe. In the lighting example, using a more efficient light bulb is one way to reduce the indirect emissions, but a more efficient power plant would also do this. Controlled Emissions: Once emissions are created, they are either released to the environment, or they are controlled with technology that captures and stores or destroys them. In the car example, the addition of a catalytic converter allows the tailpipe emissions to be collected after they are created, and destroyed before they are released. Note that the efficiency of the engine (discussed above), and the control of emissions after they leave it, are two distinct ways to reduce emissions. There are also emissions control technologies for power plants. Sequestration of Emissions: Carbon emissions are “sequestered” by embedding the carbon in structure that will hold the emissions and keep them out of the atmosphere. Sequestration happens through biological, chemical, or physical processes. Biological Sequestration: Trees and other vegetation biologically absorb carbon from the atmosphere and incorporate it into their biomass; the carbon becomes the solid form of the growing tree or plant. Many sequestration projects involve the planting of trees or vegetation to improve the uptake of carbon from the atmosphere. Enhanced farming practices may also achieve some sequestration through the use of CO2 absorbing cover crops, improved grazing practices, and restoration of depleted land. Increased peat production in peat bogs is also method to biologically sequester carbon. Chemical Sequestration: Oceans absorb CO2, and it causes the oceans to become more acidic (which is detrimental to coral reefs and other sea life). Other chemical processes include reacting CO2 through a process called mineral carbonation to form stable carbonate minerals that are normally found in the earth’s crust. Physical Sequestration: CO2 can also be physically contained in a way that prevents its release to the atmosphere. This can involve injecting it deep into the ground, for example into depleted oil and gas reservoirs. It can also be injected into oil wells to push up the oil. Another approach is to embed it in cement through a newly developed process that causes cement to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere while it is curing. Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures Chapter 3 29 Measure or Project Scope Just as good quantification requires careful and transparent consideration of the baseline or business-as-usual scenario, it also requires a complete and detailed characterization of the measure or project being undertaken. This is important because considerations of what is included in, and what is excluded from, the analysis can have a significant impact on results of the quantification. Determining the appropriate scope for the analysis of a project or measure is not always as simple as it might appear. Take for example the installation of solar panels in a remote desert region that receives a lot of sun. The panels generate electricity without releasing GHG emissions, which offset more traditional generation of electricity that does emit GHGs. But the desert region may be prone to dust or sand storms, which would quickly obscure the glass panels and decrease their effectiveness. This decrease could be minimized if the panels were cleaned regularly. But the cleaning will require vehicles to come to the site, which takes energy and releases GHGs, and the cleaning activity itself may do so as well. If the site is truly remote, the emissions from those vehicle trips could be large. But what if there is another installation nearby: can the trip-related emissions be considered only in addition to those for the other site? Do you have to know if the cleaning for both sites can be accomplished in one trip? And what about the energy and materials needed to make the solar panels? The methods in this Report generally include those reductions over which a project proponent can exercise direct control, as well as indirect emissions associated with electrical generation and the use of natural gas. CAPCOA does not include analysis of full lifecycle emissions in this Report, because of the complexity of the analysis involved and the lack of general standards for incorporating such considerations. Lifecycle Analysis Energy and materials are involved in the creation, processing, transport, and disposal of all of the products we use, from the tomatoes on our salads, to the computers we work with, the vehicles we drive (even if they are zero-emission vehicles), and the roadways we travel over. A lifecycle analysis attempts to identify and quantify the GHG emissions associated the energy and materials used at all stages of the product’s life, from the gathering of raw materials, through the growing or fabrication, distribution, use, and the ultimate disposal at the end of the product’s useful life. This is a difficult and complicated undertaking; it is challenging to identify all of the inputs that are both necessary and meaningful for this sort of analysis. Even if the inputs can be identified, good data are not readily available to quantify emissions in most cases. Further, there is not yet agreement on methodological approaches to lifecycle analysis for most sectors (Figure 3-3: Lifecycle Analysis shows a basic schematic of some of these considerations.). For these reasons, as stated under the discussion of scope, above, CAPCOA does not include lifecycle analysis in this Report. 30 Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures Unfortunately, there are important mitigation projects or measures that cannot be quantified without a lifecycle analysis, and some of them are measures that are highly desirable or commonly encouraged. One example is the recycling and reuse of construction materials; it is intuitively obvious that recycling and reuse avoids both the embedded energy costs in the new material, as well as the energy and emissions associated with disposal. Another example is the push for reusable cloth grocery bags instead of disposable plastic ones, or reusable water bottles filled with tap water instead of disposable bottled water. For some of these measures, it is possible to do a limited lifecycle analysis, if the project scope is well defined and if the data are available. The Report provides a discussion of how to pursue an analysis in such cases, but otherwise identifies these kinds of measures as Best Management Practices. It is important to note that Appendix F to the CEQA Guidelines Amendments approved in December of 2009 specifically state that a lead agency is not required to perform a project-level energy life-cycle analysis4. Because direct GHG emissions from electrical generation, and GHG emissions from electricity associated with water use (as well as other direct emissions associated with water treatment) are well defined and can be 4 California Natural Resources Agency: Adopted Text of the CEQA Guidelines Amendments (Adopted December 30, 2009, Effective March 18, 2010), Appendix F. Figure 3-3: Lifecycle Analysis Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures Chapter 3 31 accurately quantified, they are not considered to “lifecycle emissions” for the purposes of this Report, and they are included in these quantification methods. Accuracy and Reliability In an effort to standardize the creation of GHG inventories, and improve the quality of the information, the IPCC defines “good practice” for GHG emissions quantifications as those that “contain neither over- nor under-estimates so far as can be judged, and in which uncertainties are reduced as far as practicable.”5 Part of the challenge in developing methods that meet this standard of good practice is assuring the accuracy of the methods. CAPCOA uses accuracy to mean the closeness of the agreement between the result of a measurement or calculation, and the true value, or a generally accepted reference value. When a method is accurate, it will, for a particular case, produce a quantification of emissions that is as close to the actual emissions as can practicably be done with information that is reasonably available. To meet the good practice standard, the quantification methods must also be reliable, which is different from being accurate. A reliable method will yield accurate results across a range of different cases, not only in one particular case. To some extent, the accuracy of the quantification is sacrificed to achieve reliability. This is because a method that can be applied across a range of scenarios must be generalized to some extent. So, for example, the transportation analyses do not, for the most part, differentiate between peak and off-peak vehicle trips, even though off-peak trips will have a lower emission impact because of the effects of congestion on travel time and engine performance. In order to fully address all of the factors that impact the emissions associated with vehicle trips in a specific project, a far more detailed and costly analysis would be needed, and it would not be readily applied to other situations. The methods contained in this Report have been developed to provide the best balance between accuracy and reliability, bearing in mind that ease of use is also important. In order to ensure both the accuracy and the reliability of the quantification methods in this Report, each method is accompanied by a discussion of the assumptions and limitations of the method. Where either the assumptions are not met, or the limitations are exceeded, the method will not be accurate, and the error can be very large. Further, if the conditions of the project differ from the assumptions and limitations of the method, the quantification may no longer be applicable. It is possible to look at the underlying assumptions and calculation and make adjustments to the method so that it better reflects the conditions of a specific project. Doing this may preserve the accuracy to some extent, but the user is responsible for determining how best to accomplish this, and the reviewing agency will decide whether the results are still acceptable. 5 IPCC 2006, “2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories,” Prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme, Eggleston H.S., Buendia L., Miwa K., Ngara T. and Tanabe K. (eds).Published: IGES, Japan. Page 1.6. 32 Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures Additionality In order for a project or measure that reduces emissions to count as mitigation of impacts, the reductions have to be “additional.” Greenhouse gas emission reductions that are otherwise required by law or regulation would appropriately be considered part of the existing baseline. Thus, any resulting emission reduction cannot be construed as appropriate (or additional) for purposes of mitigation under CEQA. For example, in the draft regulation for cap-and-trade, ARB specifies that in order to be eligible for offset credit, “emission reductions must be in addition to any greenhouse gas reduction, avoidance or sequestration otherwise required by law or regulation, or any greenhouse gas reduction, avoidance or sequestration that would otherwise occur.”6 What this means in practice is that if there is a rule that requires, for example, increased energy efficiency in a new building, the project proponent cannot count that increased efficiency as a mitigation or credit unless the project goes beyond what the rule requires; and in that case, only the efficiency that is in excess of what is required can be counted. It also means that if there is a rule that requires a boiler to be replaced with one that releases fewer smog-forming pollutants, and the new boiler is more efficient and also releases less CO2, the reduced CO2 can’t be counted as mitigation or credit, because the reductions were going to happen anyway. But if the boiler were replaced with a solar-powered water heater, the difference in emissions between a typical new boiler and the solar water heater could be counted. From a practical standpoint, any reductions that are not additional have to be either included in the baseline or subtracted from the project, whichever is more appropriate. In preparing this Report, CAPCOA made determinations about requirements to include in or exclude from the baseline. A more complete discussion of those determinations is included in Appendix B. Verification Verification is the process by which we demonstrate that the emission reductions we have quantified for a project actually occurred. While not important for purely voluntary projects, verification in some form is a necessary step in most other circumstances. Verification is an important component in establishing the value of reductions that are made. It allows others to have confidence in the quality of the reductions. If the reductions are being made to satisfy an obligation to mitigate impacts, the agency with jurisdiction should be consulted to determine what standard of verification is needed. In some cases, independent, third-party verification is required. Not all regulatory programs specify third-party verification, however. For example, the U.S. EPA’s Mandatory Reporting Rule relies instead on routine compliance verification through a permit system. 6 ARB: “Preliminary Draft Regulation for a California Cap-and-Trade Program,” Section 95802 (a)(4), Dec., 2009; page 6. Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures Chapter 4 33 Chapter 4: Quantification Approaches & Methods This chapter of the Report provides an explanation of how the quantification methods were developed, and the limitations of the sources used. There is also an overview of the presentation of the quantification methods in the Report. Finally this section discusses the limitations of the methods themselves, and how these limitations should be considered when applying the methods to actual mitigation projects. General Emission Quantification Approach The emission quantification methods in this Report are designed to provide GHG estimates using readily available, user-specified information for a source or activity. In general, GHG emissions associated with a given source or activity are estimated using data for a physical quantity or metric, on the underlying assumption that CO 2 emissions are directly proportional to that metric. For example, emissions related to vehicles are estimated using vehicle trips and mileage data. For sources of indirect emissions such as buildings, swimming pools, municipal lighting and water distribution, the metric is energy use as electricity or natural gas1. When site-specific energy use data are not available, energy use can be estimated using a physical metric such as the volume of water supplied, the size of building, and the number of lamps. For each source metric there are emission factors that quantify the amount of emissions released as a result of the source or activity. These emission factors have been developed by various governmental agencies, public utilities and other entities though data analysis and numerical models. The factors are based on certain assumptions that define the typical or “baseline” emissions scenario. For example, emission factors for vehicles assume a particular type of fuel and driving speed, and emission factors for electricity use assume a certain mix of electricity generating methods. . Individual GHGs are converted to carbon dioxide equivalent units by multiplying values by their global warming potential (GWP). The GWP values used in this report are based on the IPCC Second Assessment Report (SAR, 1996), even though more recent (and slightly different) GWP values were developed in the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report (TAR, 2001) and Fourth Assessment Report (FAR, 2007). The values in the SAR were used in this Report because they are still used by international convention. The general equation for emissions quantification is shown below for each GHG: GHG Emissions = [source metric] x [emission factor] x [GWP] Then, all GHGs are summed from an individual source. i GHG Emissionstotal = ∑ [GHG Emissions]n n=1 1 Note that emissions from natural gas use are not always indirect in nature. For more discussion of direct and indirect emissions and types of mitigation, please see Chapter 3. 34 Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures Where “source metric” and “emission factor” are defined as follows: Source Metric: The “source metric” is the unit of measure of the source of the emissions. For example, for transportation sources, the metric is vehicle miles traveled; for building energy use, it is “energy intensity”, that is, the energy demand per square foot of building space. Mitigation measures that involve source reduction are measures that reduce the source metric. This can include for example, reducing the miles traveled by a vehicle because the reduction in miles traveled will reduce the emissions generated from vehicle travel. Similarly, a reduction in dwelling unit electricity use by installing energy efficient appliances and lighting will reduce the emissions associated with total electricity assigned to dwelling units. Emissions associated with source reduction measures are generally avoided emissions. As discussed in Chapter 3, there are often additional benefits to these kinds of reductions. Source reduction promotes efficient use and management of resources and utilities, in addition to avoiding emissions. Thus, source reduction can also result in a decreased need for downstream emissions control. From a quantification standpoint, for this type of measure, it is the “source metric” in the basic emissions equation (above) that changes. Emission Factor: The “emission factor” is the rate at which emissions are generated per unit of source metric (see above). Reductions in the emission factor happen when fewer emissions are generated per unit of source metric, for example, a decrease in the amount emissions that are released per kilowatt hour, per gallon of water, etc. Such a decrease may apply if a carbon-neutral electricity source (e.g. from photovoltaics) is used in place of grid electricity, which has higher associated emissions; or if electricity is used instead of combustion fuel, such as with electric cars. Reductions can also occur if a fuel with lower GHG emissions is used in the place of one with higher GHG emissions. From a quantification standpoint, for this type of measure, it is the “emission factor” in the equation that changes. For both kinds of measures, mitigated emissions are calculated using the same general equation, but the emissions will change based on whether the values change for the source metric or the emission factor. Several mitigation measures may apply to the same source, changing both the source metric and the emission factor, and the estimation of the overall impact of simultaneous measures must be carefully evaluated. In some cases the reductions are additive, but in others they must be evaluated sequentially. Other sets of mitigation measures may require additional analysis to avoid double-counting. Furthermore, not all types of mitigation measures will be feasible in all situations. Chapter 6 provides a detailed discussion of considerations in quantifying the combination of mitigation measures, as well as a set of rules to guard against over- estimation of reductions. Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures Chapter 4 35 Quantification of Baseline Emissions In order to ensure that similar assumptions and methodologies are being used to quantify both the baseline and project emissions, a consistent set of methodologies for determining the GHG emission baseline emissions was defined. This was the first step in establishing quantitative methods for assessing GHG mitigation reductions. The results of this effort are contained in Appendix B and should be utilized or considered when establishing baseline emission levels. This same set of methodologies was used to develop the quantification methods for each mitigation measure. Quantification of Emission Reductions for Mitigation Measures There is a wide array of mitigation measures that could reduce direct or indirect GHG emissions for a project; however, not all of them can be readily quantified with the information and tools currently available. Other measures may be individually quantifiable, but the quantification cannot be reliably extrapolated to other similar projects. The goal in developing this Quantification Report was to provide accurate and reliable methods that can be easily applied across a range of projects and settings. This section explains how the list of measures included in this guidance was developed, and how the measures are presented. Screening of Mitigation Measures: An initial list of candidate measures was developed with about 75 types of greenhouse gas mitigation measures related to site design, land use, building components, parking measures, energy, solid waste management, etc. These were identified because they were commonly seen in land use permit applications or were measures that air districts have been frequently asked for guidance on. A literature review was done to identify potential additional measures. Measures from this compiled list were screened based on the following criteria: Relevance to project-level CEQA analysis; Availability of empirical evidence or reliable research to credibly establish baselines and level of effectiveness; and Non-negligible level of effectiveness determined by credible research. Measures or grouped measures that did not meet all three of these criteria were evaluated for the possibility of grouping measures with synergistic effects or describing as a Best Management Practice (BMP). Where measures were determined to be BMPs, the Report describes the relevant literature and, where applicable, provides methods that could be used if substantial evidence is available to support the reduction effectiveness. In addition some measures had substantial evidence of reductions when implemented at a general Plan (GP) level rather than a project level. These measures were retained as applicable for General Plans, only. Local Agencies may decide to provide incentives or allocate the General Plan level reductions to specific projects by 36 Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures weighting the overall effect by the number of projects to which the General Plan reduction would apply. Information Sources and Their Limitations: The quantified effect that different mitigation measures have on source quantities or emission intensities must be based on substantial evidence and should be enforceable (to ensure that the commitments are adhered to) and verifiable (to confirm that the mitigation measures were implemented). Examples of credible sources for supporting evidence include government agency- sponsored studies, peer-reviewed scientific literature, case studies, government- approved modeling software and widely adopted protocols. In order for the supporting evidence or data for a given mitigation measure to be deemed applicable, it must be based on similar or scalable assumptions and conditions in terms of period of study, physical scale, site-specific parameters, operating conditions, technology, population type, etc. There are uncertainties associated with any type of estimation method. Some of these methods attempt to predict future behavior with respect to water and energy use using historical data and trends, which may not accurately reflect changes in behavior due to increasing awareness of resource conservation. Despite these uncertainties, the methods presented in Chapter 7 provide the best available estimations of GHG emissions and are therefore suitable for the project-level inventories. Enforceable Reductions: As discussed in Chapter 2, emission reductions (whether as mitigation under CEQA, for regulatory purposes, or for trading) have to be enforceable. For that reason, in this Report the quantity of reductions or applicability of mitigation measures is limited to elements which the project proponent can control. Additional reductions in GHG emissions may be feasible in the broader sense and may occur; however, because the project proponent does not have control over these elements, those other reductions are not considered in the quantification methods here. For instance, in the context of a building project, source reductions that rely on individual occupant behavior are generally not enforceable by the builder. A residential dwelling, when occupied, will contain a variety of electrical appliances. An individual occupant may decide to purchase energy efficient appliances and would therefore reduce energy use. This reduction in energy use is not enforceable, however, because the project proponent can’t dictate individual occupants’ purchases; these types of reductions are not counted in the methods in this Report. There may be some instances, however, where the project proponent is the occupant and would have the ability to enforce behavior. In these instances additional emission reductions not quantified in this document may be feasible and enforceable. Some reductions in emissions are not enforceable when voluntary, but become enforceable when implemented as part of a regulatory scheme. Once regulations that result in emissions reductions are enacted, the project should be reviewed to determine Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures Chapter 4 37 how the requirements affect the baseline, and the reductions that can be quantified for mitigation credit. When the emission reductions from a project are not enforceable, and therefore not quantified under these protocols, they may still have value for mitigation purposes and a qualitative analysis should be considered. Decisions about whether such reductions will be considered, and what sort of qualitative analysis is appropriate, are the responsibility of the agency reviewing the project. Creation of Mitigation Measure Fact Sheets: Once the list of mitigation measures was determined, detailed Fact Sheets were developed for each mitigation measure. Each fact sheet presents a summary of the measure’s applicability; the required calculation inputs from the actual project; the baseline emissions method; the mitigation calculation method and associated assumptions; a discussion of the calculation and an example calculation; and finally a summary of the preferred and alternative literature sources for measure efficacy. The fact sheets begin with a measure description. This description includes two critical components: (1) specific language regarding the measure implementation (which should be consistent with the implementation method for the actual project), and (2) a discussion of key support strategies that are assumed to also be in place for the reported range of effectiveness. Chapter 6 provides a discussion of the Fact Sheets and a brief description of their intended use. The Fact Sheets themselves are included in Chapter 7. Quantification Methods In this Report, emissions reductions are presented in terms of percentage reductions. For mitigation measures where the source metric is reduced, reductions were generally assessed based on a ratio comparison of a common “denominator” source metric for each source category in order to assist in the quantification of strategy impacts: Building Energy Use will utilize natural gas and electricity use. Water will utilize outdoor and indoor water use. Solid waste will utilize waste disposed. Mobile sources will utilize changes in vehicle miles travelled (VMT). For mitigation measures involving emission factor reductions, a ratio comparing the mitigated and baseline emissions factor is utilized to quantify the emission reductions. Because a ratio comparison is utilized, in most cases the reductions quantified for GHGs will also be the same reduction assessed for criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants provided the reduction in emission factors also occurs for the other types of pollutants. This is not always the case and in some cases a reduction for one pollutant may result in an increase for another pollutant. There is one exception to the quantitative approach described above, for off-road and on-road vehicles that affects the quantification of the emissions of ROGs. The 38 Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures underlying data and methods available to quantify these emissions were limited to running emissions (that is, emissions from the tailpipe while the engine is running). There are also evaporative emissions, however, which occur when pollutants evaporate from the fuel in the fuel tank and escape to the atmosphere. The evaporative emissions of most pollutants are very small when compared to the running emissions, but evaporative emissions of ROGs are not small compared to the running emissions. Because the underlying data and methods available did not address evaporative emissions, they are not part of the emission factor ratio and must be accounted for separately. Accordingly, an estimate of the ratio of running to evaporative emissions for ROGs was determined and used to adjust the reductions for ROGs from vehicles. Limitations to Quantification of Emission Reductions for Mitigation Measures In order to properly apply the quantification methods in this Report, it is important to understand the limitations of the methods. The following discusses the limitations of the underlying data and methods used to develop the quantification in this Report. A discussion of the limits on applying the methods in the Report is contained in Chapter 6. Further, the Fact Sheet for each individual measure identifies specific limitations and considerations that affect the application of that particular measure. Prediction of Future Behavior: In order to assess the emissions associated with a project that does not yet exist, it is necessary to make assumptions regarding anticipated amounts of energy use, VMT, water use, etc, that will characterize the project once it occurs. These values may be based on estimates of source metrics from surveys of current values for those metrics, or from recent historical values. When such data are used, they are typically assumed to remain constant when applied to the project unless a there is a specific action (such as the application of a mitigation measure) that would alter the value(s). Although this is a commonly accepted practice, in reality, current behavior is not likely to remain constant over time in the way it is assumed. For instance, the occupant of a building determines the set point of thermostats, the duration of showers, and the usage of air conditioning, among other things. The project proponent will have little, if any, influence over these choices made by the future occupants. Understanding the limits of these predictions, they are still the best basis for estimating future behavior. For this Report, quantification was based on current median behavior attributes. The limitations of the predictions can be minimized, however. Information about what influences behavior in specific circumstances is often available. Where data are available to show the relationship between external factors and the source metrics used to quantify a particular measure (such as fuel prices and VMT, for example), and more specific information is available about those external factors to predict future trends, that information could be used to further refine the quantification presented here. Again, the quality of the data used will substantially affect the accuracy and reliability of the results. It is also important to be aware of, and to minimize if possible, the error that can result from combining data from different sources (see below). Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures Chapter 4 39 Combination of Data Sources: The quantification of some of the measures in this Report required the use of multiple sources of data. Any time data are derived from different sources there may be slight discrepancies the underlying in methodologies and data set characteristics; when the information between two data sets is combined, the discrepancies may affect the ultimate quantification of emissions, either over- or underestimating them. For example, some energy efficient appliances were not directly called out in the study of primary energy use based on end use. To obtain information on specific end uses, a secondary source was consulted that quantified energy use by end uses, and the values from this study were used to provide the detail where the end use data were lacking in the first study. It is not possible to determine the precise magnitude of the error that combining these two data sets induced in the final quantification, however every effort was made to minimize potential errors through thorough review of available data and exclusion of incompatible data sets. There may be data sets available when considering a specific project that address the particulars of the project but are not generally applicable. Such case-specific data could be substituted for the more general data used to develop the quantifications in this Report. If such a substitution is considered, it is important to understand that it can result in an error in the quantification of the mitigation measure reductions because the methods used to derive the case-specific data may contain different assumptions that are not considered in, or are not consistent with the mitigation measure as characterized in the Fact Sheet. Anyone proposing the use of alternative underlying data for source metrics or emission factors must have a good understanding of the assumptions used in estimating the metrics/factors used in the baseline methodology and measure quantification for this Report. The discussion of sources and methods in the measure Fact Sheets as well as the baseline methodology in Appendix B should provide sufficient information to make this assessment. Understanding these caveats, use of source-specific data is generally an improvement over that of generalized data, and where good quality source-specific data are available, they should be used. CAPCOA will not be able to review case-specific changes to the methods in this Report; however, the local air district may be able to provide assistance or recommendations. The decision to allow alterations to methods, including substitution of underlying data sets, rests with the agency reviewing the project. Projects That Involve More Than One Mitigation Measure: Each mitigation measure was quantified using a specific set of underlying data and assumptions, and will provide the most accurate and reliable results when the project precisely matches the description of the measure, with all of its assumptions and limitations. In reality, projects may differ from the described measures, or may involve the application of more than one measure. In order to ensure that the resulting quantification is appropriate and accurate, specific procedures are provided in Chapter 6 for combining mitigation measures. 40 Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures Lack of Detailed Information: The quantification methods provided in this report have been developed to allow them to be applied to a range of project conditions and still yield accurate and reliable results. In order to do this, the methods require data inputs that reflect the specific conditions of the project. Because the project has not yet been completed, however, certain information about the project will not be known and must be either estimated or assumed based on standard procedures. For example, at the time of the CEQA process a project proponent might know the number of residential dwelling units that will be in the project, but not know the actual square footage individual units will have. Similarly, while the project proponent may know a general type of non-residential land uses planned, these are often generalized categories such as retail and do not reflect the true diversity and range of source category parameters that would occur between the specific types of retail that the project eventually has. Nor can a project proponent predict specific appliances that will be in buildings or frequency of use. Further, most projects rely on generalized trip rate and trip lengths information that are not specific to the project; these estimates may over or underestimate the actual trip rates and trip lengths generated by the project. In each of these cases, estimates of future conditions are made based on accepted procedures and available data. This Report does not provide, or in any way alter, guidance on the level of detail required for the review or approval of any project. For the purposes of CEQA documents, the current CEQA guidelines address the information that is needed.2 The lack of precise and accurate data inputs limits the quality of the quantified project baseline and mitigated emissions, however. This limitation can be minimized to the extent the project proponent is able to provide better predictive data, or establish incentives, agreements, covenants, deeds, or other means of defining and restricting future uses to allow more precise estimates of the emissions associated with them. Some of these means of refining the data may also be creditable as mitigation of the project. The approval of any such enhancements of the data, or credit as mitigation, is at the discretion of the agency reviewing the project. Use of Case Studies: One method of enhancing the data available for a project is the use of case studies. Case studies generally have detailed information regarding a particular effect. However, there are limitations of using this information to quantify emissions in other situations since adequate controls may not have been studied to separate out combined effects. There may be features or characteristics in the case- study that do not translate to the project and therefore may over or underestimate the GHG emission reductions. For the most part, case studies were not used as the primary source in the development of the quantification methods in this report. Where case studies were used to enhance underlying data, the studies were carefully reviewed to ensure that appropriate controls were used and the data meet the quality requirements of this Report. 2 See: California Natural Resources Agency: 2007 CEQA Guidelines – Title 14 California Code of Regulations, Sections 15125, 15126.2, 15144, and 15146. Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures Chapter 4 41 Extent Reductions Are Demonstrated in Practice: Some of the GHG mitigation measures in this Report are open-ended with regards to the amount of reductions that are theoretically possible. There are, however, practical limitations to the amount of reductions that can actually be achieved. These limitations can include the cost to implement the measure, physical constraints (e.g., roof space for photovoltaic panels), mainstream availability of technology, regulatory constraints, and other practical considerations. In applying the quantification methods for these types of measures, it is important to evaluate the reasonableness and practicability of the assumptions regarding these parameters. Over time, some of these limitations may change. Implementation costs decrease as advanced technology is reaches mass production scale, for example, technological innovation can address physical constraints, and regulations change. The determination of feasibility for project assumptions should therefore be reconsidered for future applications based on the best available information at the time. Biogenic CO2 Emissions: This document did not address biogenic CO2 emissions. Biogenic CO2 emissions result from materials that are derived from living cells, as opposed to CO2 emissions derived from fossil fuels, limestone, and other materials that have been transformed by geological processes. Biogenic CO2 contains carbon that is present in organic materials that include, but are not limited to, wood, paper, vegetable oils, animal fat, and waste from food, animals, and vegetation (such as yard or forest waste). Biogenic CO2 emissions are excluded from these GHG emissions quantification methods because they are the result of materials in the biological/physical carbon cycle, rather than the geological carbon cycle. 42 Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures (page intentionally left blank) Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures Chapter 5 43 Chapter 5: Discussion of Select Quantified Measures Introduction The mitigation measures quantified for this Report fall into general categories within which the quantification methods follow a common approach. The following sections summarize the select categories and subcategories of measures and discuss the quantification methods used for each one. In general, emission reductions are quantified (1) as a percentage of the baseline emissions; or (2) by calculating mitigated emissions and determining the change in emissions relative to the baseline case. More detailed explanation of the parameters and equations used to calculate the emission reductions for each individual measure are provided in the F act Sheets in Chapter 7. Building Energy Use The emissions associated with building energy use come from power generation that provides the energy used to operate the building. Power is typically generated by a remote, central electricity generating plant, or onsite generation by fuel combustion. These emissions can be reduced by lowering the amount of electricity and natural gas required for building operations. This can be achieved by designing a more energy- efficient building structure and/or installing energy-efficient appliances. Replacing high-emitting energy generation with clean energy will also reduce emissions, and that type of mitigation is discussed in “On-site Energy Generation” below. As discussed in Chapter 3, this Report does not include a lifecycle analysis for GHG emissions. However, if a project proposes mitigation in the form of improved building energy use, a limited analysis of indirect emissions will be needed to quantify the associated reductions in GHG emissions. Emissions associated with energy use to light and heat buildings are, as stated previously, well-defined and not considered to be “lifecycle emissions” for the purposes of this Report. The quantification methods in this Report that deal with building energy use provide a specific method for conducting that analysis. Emission reductions in this category are quantified as percentage reductions in specific baseline energy end uses, such as Title 24-regulated energy or household appliance energy use. The baseline values are determined using California-specific energy end use databases such as California Commercial End-Use Survey (CEUS) and Residential Appliance Saturation Study (RASS). The percentage reduction in Title-24 regulated energy is a project-specific input, whereas the percentage reductions in energy use for NREL.gov 44 Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures energy-efficient models of various household appliances can be obtained from literature sources (for example, through the Energy Star program). Outdoor Water Use Energy use associated with pumping, treating and conveying water generates indirect GHG emissions. The amount of energy required depends on both the volume of water and energy intensity associated with the water source. For example, it generally takes less energy to pump and convey water from a local source than to transport water across long distances. As a result, the GHG emission factor associated with locally-sourced water will also be lower. Indirect GHG emissions associated with water use can be decreased by reducing the water demand and/or by using a less energy-intensive water source. As discussed in Chapter 3, these emissions are well-defined and are not considered to be “lifecycle emissions” for the purposes of this report. Outdoor water use at mixed-use developments is associated with irrigation for landscaping. The volume of water required for landscaping will depend on the areal extent of landscaping; the specific watering needs for the type of vegetation; and the water efficiency of the irrigation system. A reduction in outdoor water demand can be achieved by designing water-efficient landscapes that include plants with relatively low watering needs; minimizing areas of water-intensive turf; and installing smart irrigation systems to avoid excessive water use. Emission reductions associated with water-efficient design are quantified as the difference between mitigated and baseline values, which in turn are estimated using established models from government agencies or scientific literature. Emission reductions associated with smart irrigation systems and turf minimization are quantified as percentage reductions from the baseline. The implementation of gray water systems, where allowed, and the use of recycled water can also reduce emissions; however, it is important to consider the energy used to operate the gray water or water recycling system. These percentages are either taken from literature or estimated using site-specific data. The quantification methods in this Report include estimates of electricity use for recycled water systems, but not for gray water systems, because those emissions are generally more site specific. As described previously, the energy use intensity for water supply will depend on the water source and its associated treatment and conveyance requirements. The typical or baseline scenario water source for Southern California is the State Water Project; however, other less-energy intensive supplies such as locally-treated recycled wastewater may instead be used to satisfy some of the project’s non-potable water demand. Energy intensity values for different water sources can be obtained from California Energy Commission reports on water-related energy use, and are provided in Appendix E (Table E-2). Emissions associated with water use are estimated by Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures Chapter 5 45 multiplying the volume of water by the energy intensity value for the water source. The associated emission reduction is quantified by calculating emissions associated with water supplied by the lower impact water source (which can include the gray water or recycled water systems mentioned above), and subtracting it from the emissions associated with the same volume of water using the typical or baseline scenario water source. Indoor Water Use Similar to outdoor water use, indirect GHG emissions from indoor water use can be reduced by decreasing water demand or using a less energy-intensive water source. A project can reduce its indoor water demand relative to the baseline scenario by installing low-flow and high-efficiency water fixtures and appliances such as toilets, showerheads, faucets, clothes washers, and dishwashers. Emission reductions associated with reduced water demand will be directly proportional to the decrease in demand. The total percentage reduction can be estimated by summing the reductions associated with each type of water-saving feature, which can be obtained from such sources as the California Green Building Standards Code or Energy Star standards. This total percentage would then be multiplied by the project’s baseline demand, which should be available from the project’s water assessment report. If the water assessment also has an estimate of mitigated water demand, which incorporates the reductions associated with water- saving features, then the reduction can be directly calculated as the difference between baseline and mitigated values. Emission reductions associated with lower-impact water sources can be quantified as described above for outdoor water use. Municipal Solid Waste Solid waste generated at a site can directly produce GHG emissions via decomposition or incineration; it also generates vehicle-based emissions from trucks required to transport waste from its source to the waste handling facility. A reduction in the mass of municipal solid waste sent to landfills would lower emissions associated with its transport and treatment. This can be achieved by reducing the rate at which waste is generated, or by diverting material away from the landfill via on-site composting, reuse, 46 Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures or recycling operations (although direct and transport-related emissions associated with the alternate fates must be accounted for too). Most methods to quantify municipal solid waste involve life-cycle assessments. The fact sheets describe the inventory emissions and the available tools that should be used if the Local Agency or project Applicant would like to quantify the benefits of a solid waste measure with respect to a reduction in life-cycle emissions. Public Area and Traffic Signal Lighting Energy use for lighting generates indirect GHG emissions. The amount of energy required for lighting depends in part on the number and energy needs of the lamps. Indirect emissions from lighting energy use can be reduced by installing energy-efficient lamps that maintain the same efficacy beyond what is required to meet any government standards. The replacement of existing, incandescent traffic signal lamps with light- emitting diode (LED) versions will reduce traffic light energy use relative to the baseline. New public lighting fixtures outfitted with energy-efficiency lamps will also use less electricity than the existing baseline energy use. However, because regulations require all new traffic lights to be LED-based, the methods in this Report do not quantify a reduction associated with LED traffic lights for new traffic intersections. Emissions reductions for lighting-based mitigation measures are quantified as percentages of the baseline emissions. The percentage reductions for energy-efficiency lighting are based on a survey of literature data. Vegetation (including Trees) As discussed in Chapter 3, vegetation incorporates carbon into its structure during its growth phase, and thereby can remove a finite amount of carbon from the atmosphere. The sequestration capacity of on-site vegetation is determined by the area available for vegetation, and the types of vegetation installed. A project can increase the area available for vegetation by converting previously developed land into vegetated open space. Conversions from one type of vegetated land to another may increase or decrease carbon sequestration, depending on the relative sequestration capacities of Source: Sonoma County Integrated Waste Agency Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures Chapter 5 47 the land types. A third way to increase sequestration is by planting new trees on either developed or undeveloped land. The increase in carbon sequestration capacity is determined by calculating the total sequestration capacity of converted land, new vegetated land and trees; and then subtracting the combined capacity of vegetated land or trees that are removed. Carbon sequestration capacities for different land types (e.g. cropland, forest land) and for different tree species classes are available from IPCC guidelines, and summarized in Table E-2, in Appendix E. Construction Equipment Construction equipment typically uses diesel fuel and releases emissions based on the amount of fuel combusted and emission factor of the equipment. Emissions can be reduced by using equipment that emits fewer pollutants for the same amount of work. This is typically equipment powered through grid electricity or hybrid technology. The exclusive use of grid electricity eliminates the diesel emissions at the site but would increase indirect electricity emissions. However, grid-based emissions are typically small compared to the emissions from the diesel-fueled equipment (depending on the source of grid power). Hybrid-powered equipment would decrease but not completely eliminate fuel use. The electricity for hybrid equipment is self-generated unless the equipment has plug-in capability, so it would not increase grid-based electrical generation and the associated emissions there. The emissions reductions in this category are determined by finding the difference between the estimated mitigation emissions and the baseline emissions for construction equipment. Emissions for the mitigated scenario may consist of direct emissions from combustion fuel use, and/or indirect emissions from grid electricity. These would be calculated using resources described previously, such as the OFFROAD database and literature-based methodologies and values. Transportation Transportation emissions can be reduced by improving the emissions profile of the vehicle fleet that travels the roads, or by reducing the vehicle miles traveled by the fleet. The majority of the measures quantified for this report focus on the reduction of VMT. This can be accomplished by optimizing the location and types of land uses in the project and its immediate vicinity, and by site enhancements to roads, and to bike and pedestrian networks to encourage the use of alternative modes of transportation. Mode shifts are also encouraged by implementing parking policies, transit system improvements, and trip reduction coordination or incentive programs. 48 Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures The emission reductions in this category are determined by evaluating the elasticity of a measure relative to the amount of vehicle miles traveled that may be reduced as a result of the mitigation measure. A few transportation measures in this Report are aimed at improving the emissions profile of the vehicle fleet. These measures promote alternative fuel, hybrid or electrical vehicles. The emission reductions in these measures are based on the improved emission factors and on changes to the assumed vehicle fleet mix. On-Site Energy Generation Different modes of energy generation have different GHG emission intensities. Fossil fuel-based generation emits GHG gases from combustion of the fuel, with the amount of emissions depending on the quantity and type of fuel used. Renewable energy generation, on the other hand, typically has significantly fewer emissions, and some types do not have any associated GHG emissions, such as photovoltaic systems and solar hot water heaters (excluding lifecycle emissions, as previously described in Chapter 3). The emission reductions associated with using renewable non- emitting energy generated on-site are quantified as the emissions avoided because an equivalent amount of grid energy is not used. To calculate this, the energy generated by the on-site system(s) must be quantified, and then multiplied by the utility-specific emission factor for the type of energy (e.g. electricity, natural gas) being replaced. Energy generated on site is usually used for building operations; hence, it is generally considered a mitigation measure for building energy use. Miscellaneous The following miscellaneous mitigation measures are also discussed: Loading Docks: A project applicant may elect to limit idling of engines beyond what is required by regulation at loading docks, or provide electrified loading docks. Electrified loading docks reduce the need for diesel auxiliary engines to run in order to keep refrigerated transportation units temperature controlled. The emission reduction is a comparison of the GHG emissions associated with the electricity compared to the diesel fuel combustion. Off-site Mitigation: At the discretion of the reviewing agency, emission reductions may be created with offsite mitigation projects, as described in Chapter 2. If an off-site Solar Array at Coronado Naval Base Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures Chapter 5 49 mitigation project is approved, the amount of emission reductions generated depends on the type of project implemented. The numerical emission reductions would be quantified using the methods described for the different project categories above, with baseline values derived for the off-site location (instead of the project’s baseline scenario). Once the numerical reductions have been estimated, they can be compared to the project’s baseline emissions in order to determine the relative percentage reductions. Certain types of off- site projects may result in one-time emissions and others may result in a continuing stream of emissions reductions. Carbon Sequestration: Emission reductions may be generated by implementing a carbon sequestration project. Carbon sequestration may be biological, chemical, or physical in nature, as described in Chapter 3. This Report does not address chemical or physical sequestration projects. For biological sequestration, emission reductions are calculated as for vegetation projects (see above). The amount of the sequestration equals the amount of carbon removed by the vegetation. 50 Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures (page intentionally left blank) Chapter 6 51 Chapter 6: Understanding and Using the Fact Sheets Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures This chapter of the Report explains how the quantification of individual strategies is presented in Fact Sheets, how those fact sheets are designed and organized, and how to use them. This chapter also explains how and why mitigation measures have been grouped, and provides detailed discussion of how to apply the quantification methods when more than one strategy is being applied to the same project. A summary of the range of effectiveness for different measures is also provided for general information purposes, in table form, however it is very important that those generalized ranges NOT be used in place of the more specific quantification methods for the measure as detailed in the measure Fact Sheet. Finally, at the end of the Chapter there are step-by-step instructions on using the Fact Sheets, including an example. Mitigation Strategies and Fact Sheets: Accurate and reliable quantification depends on properly identifying the important variables that affect the emissions from an activity or source, and from changes to that activity or source. In order to provide a clear summary of those variables and usable instructions on how to find and apply the data needed, we have designed a Fact Sheet format to present each strategy or measure. Types of Mitigation Strategies: There are three different types of mitigation strategies described in Chapter 7: Quantified measures, Best Management Practices, and General Plan strategies. Quantified Measures: Quantified measures are fully quantified, project-level mitigation strategies. They are presented in categories where the nature of the underlying emissions sources are the same; the categories are discussed under “Organization of Fact Sheets” below. In addition, the measures may either stand alone, or be considered in connection with one or more other measures (that is, “grouped”). Groups of measures are always within a category; more detailed explanation is provided in “Grouping of Strategies” below. The majority of the strategies in this Report are fully Quantified Measures, and a strategy may be assumed to be of this type unless the Fact Sheet notes otherwise. Best Management Practices: Several strategies are denoted as Best Management Practice (BMP). These measures are of two types. The first type of BMPs are quantifiable and describe methods that can be used to quantify the GHG mitigation reductions provided the project Applicant can provide substantial evidence supporting the values needed to quantify the reduction. These are listed as BMPs since there is not adequate literature at this time to generalize the mitigation measure reductions. However, the project Applicant may be able to provide the site specific information necessary to quantify a reduction. The second type of BMPs do not have methods for quantifying GHG mitigation reductions. These measures have preliminary evidence suggesting they will reduce GHG emissions if implemented, however, at this time adequate literature and methodologies are not available to quantify these reductions or 52 Understanding and Using the Fact Sheets they involve life-cycle GHG emission benefits. The measures are encouraged to be implemented nonetheless. Local Agencies may decide to provide incentives to encourage implementation of these measures. General Plan Strategies: The measures listed under the General Plan category are measures that will have the most benefit when implemented at a General Plan level, but are not quantifiable or applicable at the project specific level. While on a project basis some of these measures may not be quantifiable, at the General Plan level they may be quantified under the assumption that this will be implemented on a widespread basis. Local Agencies may decide to provide incentives or allocate the General Plan level reductions to specific projects by weighting the overall effect by the number of projects the General Plan reduction would apply to. Introduction to the Fact Sheets: This Report presents the quantification of each mitigation measure in a Fact Sheet format. Each Fact Sheet includes: a detailed summary of each measure’s applicability; the calculation inputs for the specific project; the baseline emissions method; the mitigation calculation method and associated assumptions; a discussion of the calculation and an example calculation; and finally a summary of the preferred and alternative literature sources for measure efficacy. The Fact Sheets are found in Chapter 7. Layout of the Fact Sheets: Each Fact Sheet describes one mitigation measure. The mitigation measure has a unique number and is provided at the bottom of each page in that measure’s Fact Sheet. This will assist the end user in determining where a mitigation measure fact sheet begins and ends while still preserving consecutive page numbers in the overall Report. At the top of each Fact Sheet, the name of the measure category appears on the left, and the subcategory on the right. Cross-references to prior CAPCOA documents appear at the top left, below the category name. Specifically, measures labeled CEQA #: are from the CAPCOA 2008 CEQA & Climate Change1 and measures labeled MP#: are from the CAPCOA 2009 Model Policies for Greenhouse Gases in General Plans2. This cross-referencing is also included in the list of measures at the beginning of Chapter 7, and is intended to allow the user to move easily between the documents. The measure number is at the bottom of the page, on the right-hand side. The fact sheets begin with a measure description. This description includes two critical components: (1) Specific language regarding the measure implementation – which should be consistent with the implementation method suggested by the project Applicant; and 1 Available online at http://www.capcoa.org/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2010/05/CAPCOA-White-Paper.pdf 2 Available online at http://www.capcoa.org/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2010/05/CAPCOA-ModelPolicies-6-12-09- 915am.pdf Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures Chapter 6 53 (2) A discussion of key support strategies that are required for the reported range of effectiveness. Appendices with additional calculations and assumptions for some of the fact sheets are provided at the end of this document. Default assumptions should be carefully reviewed for project applicability. Appendix B details the methodologies that should be used to calculate baseline GHG emissions for a project. Organization of the Fact Sheets – Categories and Subcategories: The Fact Sheets are organized by general emission category types as follows: Energy Transportation Water Landscape Equipment Solid Waste Vegetation Construction Miscellaneous Categories General Plans Several of these main categories are split into subcategories, for ease of understanding how to properly address the effects of combining the measures. Strategies are organized into categories and subcategories where they affect similar types of emissions sources. As an example, the category of “Energy” includes measures that reduce emissions associated with energy generation and use. Within that category, there are subcategories of measures that address “Building Energy Use,” “Alternative Energy,” and “Lighting,” each with one or more measures in it. The measures in the subcategory are closely related to each other. Categories and subcategories for the measures are illustrated in Charts 6-1 and 6-2, below. Chart 6-1 shows all of the measure categories EXCEPT the Transportation category, including their subcategories; note that not all categories have subcategories. Measures in the Transportation category are shown in Chart 6-2. There are a number of subcategories associated with the Transportation category. As shown in Chart 6-2, the primary measures in each subcategory are indicated in bold type, and the measures shown in normal type are either support measures, or they are explicitly “grouped” measures. It is important to note that subcategories are NOT the same as “grouped” measures / strategies. The grouping of strategies connotes a specific relationship, and is explained in the next section, below. 54 Understanding and Using the Fact Sheets Energy Water Area Landscaping BE AE LE WSW WUW A Building Energy Alternative Energy Lighting Water Supply Water Use Landscaping Equipment Exceed Title 24 Onsite Renewable Energy Install High Efficacy Lighting Adopt a Water Conservation Strategy Prohibit gas Powered Landscape Equipment OR Install Energy Efficient Appliances Utilize Combined Heat & Power Limit Outdoor Lighting Use Reclaimed Water Install Low-Flow Fixtures Implement Lawnmower Exchange Program Reduction: Grouped Install Programmable Thermostats Reduction: Grouped Establish Methane Recovery Replace Traffic Lights with LED Reduction: Additional Use Graywater Design Water- Efficient Landscapes Electric Yard Equipment Compatibility Reduction Grouped Obtain 3rd Party Commissioning Reduction: Grouped Use Locally Sourced Water Use Water- Efficient Irrigation Reduce Turf Plant Native or Drought- Resistant Vegetation Note: Strategies in bold text are primary strategies with reported VMT reductions; non-bolded strategies are support or grouped strategies. Solid Waste Vegetation Construction Miscellaneous General Plans SW V C Misc GP Solid Waste Vegetation Construction Miscellaneous General Plans Institute or Extend Recycling & Composting Services Plant Urban Trees Use Alternative Fuels for Construction Equipment Establish Carbon Sequestration Fund Incentives for Energy Efficiency Recycle Demolished Construction Material New Vegetated Open Space Use Electric or Hybrid Construction Equipment Establish Off-site Mitigation Establish a Local Farmer's Market Limit Construction Equipment Idling Implement an Innovative Strategy Establish Community Gardens Institute a Heavy-Duty Off-Road Vehicle Plan Use Local and Sustainable Building Materials Plant Urban Shade Trees Implement a Construction Vehicle Inventory Tracking System Require BMP in Agriculture and Animal Operations Implement Strategies to Reduce Urban Heat-Island Effect Require Environmentally Responsible Purchasing Chart 6-1: Non-Transportation Strategies Organization Chapter 6 55 Transportation Measures (Five Subcategories) Global Maximum Reduction (all VMT): urban = 75%; compact infill = 40%; suburban center or suburban with NEV = 20%; suburban = 15% Global Cap for Road Pricing needs further study Transportation Measures (Four Categories) Cross-Category Max Reduction (all VMT): urban = 70%; compact infill = 35%; suburban center or suburban with NEV = 15%; suburban = 10% Max Reduction = 15% overall; work VMT = 25%; school VMT = 65%; Max Reduction = 25% (all VMT) Land Use / Location Neighborhood / Site Enhancement Parking Policy / Pricing Transit System Improvements Commute Trip Reduction (assumes mixed use) Road Pricing Management Vehicles Max Reduction: urban = 65%; compact infill = 30%; suburban center = 10%; suburban = 5% Max Reduction: without NEV = 5%; with NEV = 15% Max Reduction = 20% Max Reduction = 10% Max Reduction = 25% Max Reduction = 25% (work VMT) Density (30%) Pedestrian Network (2%) Parking Supply Limits (12.5%) Network Expansion (8.2%) CTR Program Required = 21% work VMT Voluntary = 6.2% work VMT Cordon Pricing (22%) Electrify Loading Docks Design (21.3%) Traffic Calming (1%) Unbundled Parking Costs (13%) Service Frequency / Speed (2.5%) Transit Fare Subsidy (20% work VMT) Traffic Flow Improvements (45% CO2) Utilize Alternative Fueled Vehicles Location Efficiency (65%) NEV Network (14.4) <NEV Parking> On-Street Market Pricing (5.5%) Bus Rapid Transit (3.2%) Employee Parking Cash-out (7.7% work VMT) Required Contributions by Project Utilize Electric or Hybrid Vehicles Diversity (30%) Car Share Program (0.7%) Residential Area Parking Permits Access Improvements Workplace Parking Pricing (19.7% work VMT) Destination Accessibility (20%) Bicycle Network <Lanes> <Parking> <Land Dedication for Trails> Station Bike Parking Alternative Work Schedules & Telecommute (5.5% work VMT) Transit Accessibility (25%) Urban Non-Motorized Zones Local Shuttles CTR Marketing (5.5% work VMT) BMR Housing (1.2%) Park & Ride Lots* Employer-Sponsored Vanpool/Shuttle (13.4% work VMT) Orientation Toward Non- Auto Corridor Ride Share Program (15% work VMT) Proximity to Bike Path Bike Share Program End of Trip Facilities Note: Strategies in bold text are primary strategies with reported VMT reductions; non-bolded strategies are support or grouped strategies. Preferential Parking Permit School Pool (15.8% school VMT) School Bus (6.3% school VMT) Chart 6-2: Transportation Strategies Organization 56 Understanding and Using the Fact Sheets Grouping of Strategies Strategies noted as “grouped” are separately documented in individual Fact Sheets but must be paired with other strategies within the category. When these “grouped” strategies are implemented together, the combination will result in either an enhancement to the primary strategy by improving its effectiveness or a non-negligible reduction in effectiveness that would not occur without the combination. Rules for Combining Strategies or Measures Mitigation measures or strategies are frequently implemented together with other measures. Often, combining measures can lead to better emission reductions than implementing a single measure by itself. Unfortunately, the effects of combining the measures are not always as straightforward as they might at first appear. When more and more measures are implemented to mitigate a particular source of emissions, the benefit of each additional measure diminishes. If it didn’t, some odd results would occur. For example, if there were a series of measures that each, independently, was predicted to reduce emissions from a source by 10%, and if the effect of each measure was independent of the others, then implementing ten measures would reduce all of the emissions; and what would happen with the eleventh measure? Would the combination reduce 110% of the emissions? No. In fact, each successive measure is slightly less effective than predicted when implemented on its own. On the other hand, some measures enhance the performance of a primary measure when they are combined. This Report includes a set of rules that govern different ways of combining measures. The rules depend on whether the measures are in the same category, or different categories. Remember, the categories include: Energy, Transportation, Water, Landscape Equipment, Solid Waste, Vegetation, Construction, Miscellaneous Categories, and General Plans. Combinations Between Categories: The following procedures must be followed when combining mitigation measures that fall in separate categories. In order to determine the overall reduction in GHG emissions compared to the baseline emissions, the relative magnitude of emissions between the source categories needs to be considered. To do this, the user should determine the percent contribution made by each individual category to the overall baseline GHG emissions. This percent contribution by a category should be multiplied by the reduction percentages from mitigation measures in that category to determine the scaled GHG emission reductions from the measures in that category. This is done for each category to be combined. The scaled GHG emissions for each category can then be added together to give a total GHG reduction for the combined measures in all of the categories. For example, consider a project whose total GHG emissions come from the following categories: transportation (50%), building energy use (40%), water (6%), and other (4%). This project implements a transportation mitigation measure that results in a 10% reduction in VMT. The project also implements mitigation measures that result in a 30% reduction in water usage. The overall reduction in GHG emissions is as follows: Chapter 6 Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures Chapter 6 57 Reduction from Transportation: 0.50 x 0.10 = 0.5 or 5% Reduction from Water: 0.06 x 0.30 = 0.018 or 1.8% Total Reduction: 5% + 1.8% = 6.8% This example illustrates the importance of the magnitude of a source category and its influence on the overall GHG emission reductions. The percent contributions from source categories will vary from project to project. In a commercial-only project it may not be unusual for transportation emissions to represent greater than 75% of all GHG emissions whereas for a residential or mixed use project, transportation emissions would be below 50%. Combinations Within Categories: The following procedures must be followed when combining mitigation measures that fall within the same category. Non-Transportation Combinations: When combining non-transportation subcategories, the total amount of reductions for that category should not exceed 100% except for categories that would result in additional excess capacity that can be used by others, but which the project wants to take credit for (subject to approval of the reviewing agency). This may include alternative energy generation systems tied into the grid, vegetation measures, and excess graywater or recycled water generated by the project and used by others. These excess emission reductions may be used to offset other categories of emissions, with approval of the agency reviewing the project. In these cases of excess capacity, the quantified amounts of excess emissions must be carefully verified to ensure that any credit allowed for these additional reductions is truly surplus. Category Maximum- Each category has a maximum allowable reduction for the combination of measures in that category. It is intended to ensure that emissions are not double counted when measures within the category are combined. Effectiveness levels for multiple strategies within a subcategory (as denoted by a column in the appropriate chart, above) may be multiplied to determine a combined effectiveness level up to a maximum level. This should be done first to mitigation measures that are a source reduction followed by those that are a reduction to emission factors. Since the combination of mitigation measures and independence of mitigation measures are both complicated, this Report recommends that mitigation measure reductions within a category be multiplied unless a project applicant can provide substantial evidence indicating that emission reductions are independent of one another. This will take the following form: GHG emission reduction for category = 1-[(1-A) x (1-B) x (1-C)] Where: A, B and C = Individual mitigation measure reduction percentages for the strategies to be combined in a given category. 58 Understanding and Using the Fact Sheets Global Maximum- A separate maximum, referred to as a global maximum level, is also provided for a combination across subcategories. Effectiveness levels for multiple strategies across categories may also be multiplied to determine a combined effectiveness level up to global maximum level. For example, consider a project that is combining 3 mitigation strategies from the water category. This project will install low-flow fixtures (measure WUW-1), use water-efficient irrigation (measure WUW-4, and reduce turf (measure WUW-5). Reductions from these measures will be: low-flow fixtures 20% or 0.20 (A) water efficient irrigation 10% or 0.10 (B) turf reductions 20% or 0.20 (C) To combine measures within a category, the reductions would be = 1-[(1-A) x (1-B) x (1-C)] = 1-[(1-.20) x (1-.10) x (1-.20)] = 1-[(0.8) x (0.9) x (.8)] = 1-0.576 = 0.424 = 42.4% Transportation Combinations: The interactions between the various categories of transportation-related mitigation measures is complex and sometimes counter-intuitive. Combining these measures can have a substantive impact on the quantification of the associated emission reductions. In order to safeguard the accuracy and reliability of the methods, while maintaining their ease of use, the following rules have been developed and should be followed when combining transportation-related mitigation measures. The rules are presented by sub-category, and reference Chart 6-2 Transportation Strategies Organization. The maximum reduction values also reflect the highest reduction levels justified by the literature. The chart indicates maximum reductions for individual mitigation measures just below the measure name. Cross-Category Maximum- A cross-category maximum is provided for any combination of land use, neighborhood enhancements, parking, and transit strategies (columns A-D in Chart 6-1, with the maximum shown in the top row). The total project VMT reduction across these categories should be capped at these levels based on empirical evidence.3 Caps are provided for the location/development type of the project. VMT reductions may be multiplied across the four categories up to this maximum. These include: Urban: 70% VMT Compact Infill: 35% Suburban Center (or Suburban with NEV): 15% Suburban: 10% (note that projects with this level of reduction must include a diverse land use mix, workforce housing, and project-specific transit; limited empirical evidence is available) (See blue box, pp. 58-59.) 3 As reported by Holtzclaw, et al for the State of California. Chapter 6 Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures Chapter 6 59 As used in this Report, location settings are defined as follows: Urban: A project located within the central city and may be characterized by multi-family housing, located near office and retail. Downtown Oakland and the Nob Hill neighborhood in San Francisco are examples of the typical urban area represented in this category. The urban maximum reduction is derived from the average of the percentage difference in per capita VMT versus the California statewide average (assumed analogous to an ITE baseline) for the following locations: Location Percent Reduction from Statewide VMT/Capita Central Berkeley -48% San Francisco -49% Pacific Heights (SF) -79% North Beach (SF) -82% Mission District (SF) -75% Nob Hill (SF) -63% Downtown Oakland -61% The average reflects a range of 48% less VMT/capita (Central Berkeley) to 82% less VMT/capita (North Beach, San Francisco) compared to the statewide average. The urban locations listed above have the following characteristics: o Location relative to the regional core: these locations are within the CBD or less than five miles from the CBD (downtown Oakland and downtown San Francisco). o Ratio or relationship between jobs and housing: jobs-rich (jobs/housing ratio greater than 1.5) o Density character typical building heights in stories: six stories or (much) higher typical street pattern: grid typical setbacks: minimal parking supply: constrained on and off street parking prices: high to the highest in the region o Transit availability: high quality rail service and/or comprehensive bus service at 10 minute headways or less in peak hours Compact infill: A project located on an existing site within the central city or inner-ring suburb with high-frequency transit service. Examples may be community redevelopment areas, reusing abandoned sites, intensification of land use at established transit stations, or converting underutilized or older industrial buildings. Albany and the Fairfax area of Los Angeles are examples of typical compact infill area as used here. The compact infill maximum reduction is derived from the average of the percentage difference in per capita VMT versus the California statewide average for the following locations: Location Percent Reduction from Statewide VMT/Capita Franklin Park, Hollywood -22% Albany -25% Fairfax Area, Los Angeles -29% Hayward -42% The average reflects a range of 22% less VMT/capita (Franklin Park, Hollywood) to 42% less VMT/capita (Hayward) compared to the statewide average. The compact infill locations listed above have the following characteristics: o Location relative to the regional core: these locations are typically 5 to 15 miles outside a regional CBD o Ratio or relationship between jobs and housing: balanced (jobs/housing ratio ranging from 0.9 to 1.2) o Density character typical building heights in stories: two to four stories typical street pattern: grid typical setbacks: 0 to 20 feet parking supply: constrained parking prices: low to moderate o Transit availability: rail service within two miles, or bus service at 15 minute peak headways or less 60 Understanding and Using the Fact Sheets Global Maximum- A global maximum is provided for any combination of land use, neighborhood enhancements, parking, transit, and commute trip reduction strategies (the first five columns in the organization chart). This excludes reductions from road-pricing measurements which are discussed separately below. The total project VMT reduction across these categories, which can be combined through multiplication, should be capped As used in this Report, additional location settings are defined as follows: Suburban Center: A project typically involving a cluster of multi-use development within dispersed, low-density, automobile dependent land use patterns (a suburb). The center may be an historic downtown of a smaller community that has become surrounded by its region’s suburban growth pattern in the latter half of the 20th Century. The suburban center serves the population of the suburb with office, retail and housing which is denser than the surrounding suburb. The suburban center maximum reduction is derived from the average of the percentage difference in per capita VMT versus the California statewide average for the following locations: Location Percent Reduction from Statewide VMT/Capita Sebastopol 0% San Rafael (Downtown) -10% San Mateo -17% The average reflects a range of 0% less VMT/capita (Sebastopol) to 17% less VMT/capita (San Mateo) compared to the statewide average. The suburban center locations listed above have the following characteristics: o Location relative to the regional core: these locations are typically 20 miles or more from a regional CBD o Ratio or relationship between jobs and housing: balanced o Density character typical building heights in stories: two stories typical street pattern: grid typical setbacks: 0 to 20 feet parking supply: somewhat constrained on street; typically ample off-street parking prices: low (if priced at all) o Transit availability: bus service at 20-30 minute headways and/or a commuter rail station While all three locations in this category reflect a suburban “downtown,” San Mateo is served by regional rail (Caltrain) and the other locations are served by bus transit only. Sebastopol is located more than 50 miles from downtown San Francisco , the nearest urban center. San Rafael and San Mateo are located 20 miles from downtown San Francisco. Suburban: A project characterized by dispersed, low-density, single-use, automobile dependent land use patterns, usually outside of the central city (a suburb). Suburbs typically have the following characteristics: o Location relative to the regional core: these locations are typically 20 miles or more from a regional CBD o Ratio or relationship between jobs and housing: jobs poor o Density character typical building heights in stories: one to two stories typical street pattern: curvilinear (cul-de-sac based) typical setbacks: parking is generally placed between the street and office or retail buildings; large-lot residential is common parking supply: ample, largely surface lot-based parking prices: none o Transit availability: limited bus service, with peak headways 30 minutes or more The maximum reduction provided for this category assumes that regardless of the measures implemented, the project’s distance from transit, density, design, and lack of mixed use destinations will keep the effect of any strategies to a minimum. Chapter 6 Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures Chapter 6 61 at these levels based on empirical evidence.4 Maximums are provided for the location/development type of the project. The Global Maximum values can be found in the top row of Chart 6-2. These include: Urban: 75% VMT Compact Infill: 40% VMT Suburban Center (or Suburban with NEV): 20% Suburban: 15% (limited empirical evidence available) Specific Rules for Subcategories within Transportation- Because of the unique interactions of measures within the Transportation Category, each subcategory has additional rules or criteria for combining measures. Land Use/Location Strategies – Maximum Reduction Factors: Land use measures apply to a project area with a radius of ½ mile. If the project area under review is greater than this, the study area should be divided into subareas of radii of ½ mile, with subarea boundaries determined by natural “clusters” of integrated land uses within a common walkshed. If the project study area is smaller than ½ mile in radius, other land uses within a ½ mile radius of the key destination point in the study area (i.e. train station or employment center) should be included in design, density, and diversity calculations. Land use measures are capped based on empirical evidence for location setting types as follows:5 Urban: 65% VMT Compact Infill: 30% VMT Suburban Center: 10% VMT Suburban: 5% VMT Neighborhood/Site Enhancements Strategies – Maximum Reduction Factors: The neighborhood/site enhancements category is capped at 12.7% VMT reduction (with Neighborhood Electric Vehicles (NEVs)) and 5% without NEVs based on empirical evidence (for NEVs) and the multiplied combination of the non-NEV measures. Parking Strategies – Maximum Reduction Factors: Parking strategies should be implemented in one of two combinations: Limited (reduced) off-street supply ratios plus residential permit parking and priced on-street parking (to limit spillover), or Unbundled parking plus residential permit parking and priced on-street parking (to limit spillover). 4 As reported by Holtzclaw, et al for the State of California. Note that CTR strategies must be converted to overall VMT reductions (from work-trip VMT reductions) before being combined with strategies in other categories. 5 As reported for California locations in Holtzclaw, et al. “Location Efficiency: Neighborhood and Socioeconomic Characteristics Determine Auto Ownership and Use – Studies in Chicago, Los Angeles, and San Francisco.” Transportation Planning and Technology, 2002, Vol. 25, pp. 1–27. 62 Understanding and Using the Fact Sheets Note: The reduction maximum of 20% VMT reflects the combined (multiplied) effect of unbundled parking and priced on-street parking. Transit System Strategies – Maximum Reduction Factors: The 10% VMT reduction maximum for transit system improvements reflects the combined (multiplied) effect of network expansion and service frequency/speed enhancements. A comprehensive transit improvement would receive this type of reduction, as shown in the center overlap in the Venn diagram, below. Commuter Trip Reductions (CTR) Strategies – Maximum Reduction Factors: The most effective commute trip reduction measures combine incentives, disincentives, and mandatory monitoring, often through a transportation demand management (TDM) ordinance. Incentives encourage a particular action, for example parking cash-out, where the employee receives a monetary incentive for not driving to work, but is not punished for maintaining status quo. Disincentives establish a penalty for a status quo action. An example is workplace parking pricing, where the employee is now monetarily penalized for driving to work. The 25% maximum for work-related VMT applies to comprehensive CTR programs. TDM strategies that include only incentives, only disincentives, and/or no mandatory monitoring, should have a lower total VMT reduction than those with a comprehensive approach. Support strategies to strengthen CTR programs include guaranteed-ride-home, taxi vouchers, and message boards/marketing materials. A 25% reduction in work-related VMT is assumed equivalent to a 15% reduction in overall project VMT for the purpose of the global maximum; this can be adjusted for project-specific land use mixes. Two school-related VMT reduction measures are also provided in this category. The maximum reduction for these measures should be 65% of school-related VMT based on the literature. Chapter 6 Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures Chapter 6 63 Road Pricing/Management Strategies – Maximum Reduction Factors: Cordon pricing is the only strategy in this category with an expected VMT reduction potential. Other forms of road pricing would be applied at a corridor or region-wide level rather than as mitigation applied to an individual development project. No domestic case studies are available for cordon pricing, but international studies suggest a VMT reduction maximum of 25%. A separate, detailed, and project-specific study should be conducted for any project where road pricing is proposed as a VMT reduction measure. Additional Rules for Transportation Measures- There are also restrictions on the application of measures in rural applications, and application to baseline, as follows: Rural Application: Few empirical studies are available to suggest appropriate VMT reduction caps for strategies implemented in rural areas. Strategies likely to have the largest VMT reduction in rural areas include vanpools, telecommute or alternative work schedules, and master planned communities (with design and land use diversity to encourage intra-community travel). NEV networks may also be appropriate for larger scale developments. Because of the limited empirical data in the rural context, project-specific VMT reduction estimates should be calculated. Baseline Application: As discussed in previous sections of this report, VMT reductions should be applied to a baseline VMT expected for the project, based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ 8th Edition Trip Generation Manual and associated typical trip distance for each land use type. Where trip generation rates and project VMT provided by the project Applicant are derived from another source, the VMT reductions must be adjusted to reflect any “discounts” already applied. Range of Effectiveness of Mitigation Measures The following charts provide the range of effectiveness for the quantified mitigation measures. Each chart shows one category of measures, with subcategories identified. The charts also show the basis for the quantification, and indicate applicable groupings. IMPORTANT: these ranges are approximate and should NOT be used in lieu of the specific quantification method provided in the fact sheet for each measure. Restrictions on combining measures must be observed. 64 Understanding Fact Sheets Energy Category Measure Number Strategy BMP Grouped With # Range of Effectiveness Percent Reduction in GHG Emissions Basis Bu i l d i n g E n e r g y U s e BE-1 Buildings exceed Title 24 Building Envelope Energy Efficiency Standards by X% (X is equal to the percentage improvement selected for the project For a 10% improvement over 2008 Title 24: Non-Residential electricity use: 0.2-5.5%; natural gas use: 0.7-10% Residential electricity use: 0.3-2.6%; natural gas use: 7.5-9.1% BE-2 Install Programmable Thermostat Timers x BMP BE-3 Obtain Third-party HVAC Commissioning and Verification of Energy Savings x BE-1 BMP BE-4 Install Energy Efficient Appliances Residential building: 2-4% Grocery Stores: 17-22% Appliance Electricity Use BE-5 Install Energy Efficient Boilers 1.2-18.4% Fuel Use Al t e r n a t i v e E n e r g y Ge n e r a t i o n AE-1 Establish Onsite Renewable Energy Systems-Generic 0-100% AE-2 Establish Onsite Renewable Energy Systems-Solar Power 0-100% AE-3 Establish Onsite Renewable Energy Systems-Wind Power 0-100% AE-4 Utilize a Combined Heat and Power System 0-46% AE-5 Establish Methane Recovery in Landfills 73-77% AE-6 Establish Methane Recovery in Wastewater Treatment Plants 95-97% Li g h t i n g LE-1 Install Higher Efficacy Public Street and Area Lighting 16-40% Outdoor Lighting Electricity Use LE-2 Limit Outdoor Lighting Requirements x BMP LE-3 Replace Traffic Lights with LED Traffic Lights 90% Traffic Light Electricity Use Table 6-1: Energy Category Chapter 6 65 Understanding Fact Sheets Chapter 6 Transportation Category Measure Number Strategy BMP Grouped With # Range of Effectiveness Percent Reduction in GHG Emissions Basis La n d U s e / L o c a t i o n LUT-1 Increase Density 1.5-30.0% VMT LUT-2 Increase Location Efficiency 10-65% VMT LUT-3 Increase Diversity of Urban and Suburban Developments (Mixed Use) 9-30% VMT LUT-4 Incr. Destination Accessibility 6.7-20% VMT LUT-5 Increase Transit Accessibility 0.5-24.6% VMT LUT-6 Integrate Affordable and Below Market Rate Housing 0.04-1.20% VMT LUT-7 Orient Project Toward Non-Auto Corridor NA LUT-8 Locate Project near Bike Path/Bike Lane NA LUT-9 Improve Design of Development 3.0-21.3% VMT Ne i g h b o r h o o d / S i t e D e s i g n SDT-1 Provide Pedestrian Network Improvements 0-2% VMT SDT-2 Traffic Calming Measures 0.25-1.00% VMT SDT-3 Implement a Neighborhood Electric Vehicle (NEV) Network 0.5-12.7% VMT SDT-4 Urban Non-Motorized Zones SDT-1 NA SDT-5 Incorporate Bike Lane Street Design (on-site) LUT-9 NA SDT-6 Provide Bike Parking in Non- Residential Projects LUT-9 NA SDT-7 Provide Bike Parking in Multi- Unit Residential Projects LUT-9 NA SDT-8 Provide EV Parking SDT-3 NA SDT-9 Dedicate Land for Bike Trails LUT-9 NA Pa r k i n g Po l i c y / P r i c i n g PDT-1 Limit Parking Supply 5-12.5% PDT-2 Unbundle Parking Costs from Property Cost 2.6-13% PDT-3 Implement Market Price Public Parking (On-Street) 2.8-5.5% PDT-4 Require Residential Area Parking Permits PDT-1, 2 & 3 NA Table 6-2: Transportation Category 66 Understanding Fact Sheets Transportation - continued Category Measure Number Strategy BMP Grouped With # Range of Effectiveness Percent Reduction in GHG Emissions Basis Tr i p R e d u c t i o n P r o g r a m s TRT-1 Implement Voluntary CTR Programs 1.0-6.2% Commute VMT TRT-2 Implement Mandatory CTR Programs – Required Implementation/Monitoring 4.2-21.0% Commute VMT TRT-3 Provide Ride-Sharing Programs 1-15% Commute VMT TRT-4 Implement Subsidized or Discounted Transit Prog. 0.3-20.0% Commute VMT TRT-5 Provide End of Trip Facilities TRT-1, 2 & 3 NA TRT-6 Telecommuting and Alternative Work Schedules 0.07-5.50% Commute VMT TRT-7 Implement Commute Trip Reduction Marketing 0.8-4.0% Commute VMT TRT-8 Implement Preferential Parking Permit Program TRT-1, 2 & 3 NA TRT-9 Implement Car-Sharing Program 0.4-0.7% VMT TRT-10 Implement School Pool Program 7.2-15.8% School VMT TRT-11 Provide Employer-Sponsored Vanpool/Shuttle 0.3-13.4% Commute VMT TRT-12 Implement Bike-Sharing Program SDT-5, LUT-9 NA TRT-13 Implement School Bus Program 38-63% School VMT TRT-14 Price Workplace Parking 0.1-19.7% Commute VMT TRT-15 Implement Employee Parking “Cash-Out” 0.6-7.7% Commute VMT Chapter 6 67 Understanding Fact Sheets Chapter 6 Transportation - continued Category Measure Number Strategy BMP Grouped With # Range of Effectiveness Percent Reduction in GHG Emissions Basis Tr a n s i t S y s t e m I m p r o v e m e n t s TST-1 Provide a Bus Rapid Transit System 0.02-3.2% VMT TST-2 Implement Transit Access Improvements TST-3, TST-4 NA TST-3 Expand Transit Network 0.1-8.2% VMT TST-4 Increase Transit Service Frequency/Speed 0.02-2.5% VMT TST-5 Provide Bike Parking Near Transit TST-3, TST-4 NA TST-6 Provide Local Shuttles TST-3, TST-4 NA Ro a d P r i c i n g / Ma n a g e m e n t RPT-1 Implement Area or Cordon Pricing 7.9-22.0% VMT RPT-2 Improve Traffic Flow 0-45% VMT RPT-3 Require Project Contributions to Transportation Infrastructure Improvement Projects RPT-2, TST-1 to 6 NA RPT-4 Install Park-and-Ride Lots RPT-1, TRT-11, TRT-3, TST-1 to 6 NA Ve h i c l e s VT-1 Electrify Loading Docks and/or Require Idling-Reduction Systems 26-71% Truck Idling Time VT-2 Utilize Alternative Fueled Vehicles Varies VT-3 Utilize Electric or Hybrid Vehicles 0.4-20.3% Fuel Use 68 Understanding Fact Sheets Water Category Measure Number Strategy BMP Grouped With # Range of Effectiveness Percent Reduction in GHG Emissions Basis Wa t e r S u p p l y WSW-1 Use Reclaimed Water up to 40% for Northern Californiaup to 81% for Southern California Outdoor Water Use WSW-2 Use Gray W ater 0-100% Outdoor Water Use WSW-3 Use Locally-Sourced Water Supply 0-60% for Northern and Central California; 11-75% for Southern California Indoor and Outdoor Water Use Wa t e r U s e WUW -1 Install Low-Flow Water Fixtures. Residential: 20% Non-Residential: 17- 31% Indoor Water Use WUW -2 Adopt a Water Conservation Strategy. varies WUW -3 Design Water-Efficient Landscapes 0-70% Outdoor Water Use WUW -4 Use Water-Efficient Landscape Irrigation Systems 6.1% Outdoor Water Use WUW -5 Reduce Turf in Landscapes and Lawns varies WUW -6 Plant Native or Drought- Resistant Trees and Vegetation BMP Table 6-3: Water Category Chapter 6 69 Understanding Fact Sheets Chapter 6 Table 6-4: Area Landscaping Area Landscaping Category Measure Number Strategy BMP Grouped With # Range of Effectiveness Percent Reduction in GHG Emissions Basis Ar e a L a n d s c a p i n g A-1 Prohibit Gas Powered Landscape Equipment. LADWP: 2.5-46.5% PG&E: 64.1-80.3% SCE: 49.5-72.0% SDGE: 38.5-66.3% SMUD: 56.3-76.0% Fuel Use A-2 Implement Lawnmower Exchange Program x BMP A-3 Electric Yard Equipment Compatibility x A-1 or A-2 BMP 70 Understanding Fact Sheets Solid Waste Category Measure Number Strategy BMP Grouped With # Range of Effectiveness Percent Reduction in GHG Emissions Basis So l i d Wa s t e SW -1 Institute or Extend Recycling and Composting Services x BMP SW -2 Recycle Demolished Construction Material x BMP Table 6-5: Solid Waste Category Chapter 6 71 Understanding Fact Sheets Chapter 6 Vegetation Category Measure Number Strategy BMP Grouped With # Range of Effectiveness Percent Reduction in GHG Emissions Basis Ve g e t a t i o n V-1 Urban Tree Planting GP-4 varies V-2 Create new vegetated open space. varies Table 6-6: Vegetation Category 72 Understanding Fact Sheets Construction Category Measure Number Strategy BMP Grouped With # Range of Effectiveness Percent Reduction in GHG Emissions Basis Co n s t r u c t i o n C-1 Use Alternative Fuels for Construction Equipment 0-22% Fuel Use C-2 Use Electric and Hybrid Construction Equipment 2.5-80% Fuel Use C-3 Limit Construction Equipment Idling beyond Regulation Requirements varies C-4 Institute a Heavy-Duty Off- Road Vehicle Plan x Any C BMP C-5 Implement a Vehicle Inventory Tracking System x Any C BMP Table 6-7: Construction Category Chapter 6 73 Understanding Fact Sheets Chapter 6 Miscellaneous Category Measure Number Strategy BMP Grouped With # Range of Effectiveness Percent Reduction in GHG Emissions Basis Mi s c e l l a n e o u s Misc-1 Establish a Carbon Sequestration Project varies Misc-2 Establish Off-Site Mitigation varies Misc-3 Use Local and Sustainable Building Materials x BMP Misc-4 Require Best Management Practices in Agriculture and Animal Operations x BMP Misc-5 Require Environmentally Responsible Purchasing x BMP Misc-6 Implement an Innovative Strategy for GHG Mitigation x BMP Table 6-8: Miscellaneous Category 74 Understanding Fact Sheets General Plan Strategies Category Measure Number Strategy BMP Grouped With # Range of Effectiveness Percent Reduction in GHG Emissions Basis Ge n e r a l P l a n s GP-1 Fund Incentives for Energy Efficiency x BMP GP-2 Establish a Local Farmer’s Market x BMP GP-3 Establish Community Gardens x BMP GP-4 Plant Urban Shade Trees x V-1 BMP GP-5 Implement Strategies to Reduce Urban Heat-Island Effect x BMP Table 6-9: General Plans Chapter 6 75 Understanding Fact Sheets Chapter 6 Applicability of Quantification Fact Sheets Outside of California In order to apply the quantification methods in this Report to projects located outside of California, the assumptions and methods in the baseline methodology and in the Fact Sheets should be reviewed prior to applying them. First, evaluate the basis for use metrics and emission factors for applicability outside of California. The Report references various sources for use metrics and emission factors; if these are California-specific, the method should be evaluated to determine if these same use metrics and emission factors are applicable to the project area. If they are not applicable, factors appropriate for the project area should be substituted in the baseline and project methods. Key factors to consider are climate zone6, precipitation, building standards, end-user behavior, and transportation environment (land use and transportation characteristics). Use metrics likely to vary outside of California include: Building Energy Use Water Use Vehicle Trip Lengths and Vehicle Miles Traveled Building Standards Waste Disposal Rates Landscape Equipment Annual Usage Emission factors relate the use metric to carbon intensity to estimate GHG emissions. Depending on the type of emission factor, these values may or may not change based on location. For instance, the emission factor for combustion of a specific amount of fuel does not typically change; however the engine mix may change by location, and fuel use by those engines may be different. Other emission factors are regionally dependent and alternative sources should be investigated. Emission factors likely to vary outside of California include: Electricity associated with water and wastewater supply and treatment Carbon intensity of electricity supplied Fleet and model year distribution of vehicles which influences emission factors The user should be able to adjust the methodologies to: (1) calculate the baseline for a given mitigation measure; and then (2) incorporate the appropriate data and assumptions into the calculations for the emission mitigation associated with the measure. There is at least one mitigation measure that will not be applicable outside of California unless adjustments are made by substituting location-specific factors in the baseline methodology: the improvement beyond Title 24 (BE-1) is not applicable outside of California since buildings outside California would be subject to different building codes. The project Applicant may be able to estimate a baseline energy use for building envelope systems under other building standards and estimate the change in energy use for improvements to building envelope systems using building energy software or literature surveys. 6 Climate zones are specific geographic areas of similar climatic characteristics, including temperature, weather, and other factors which affect building energy use. The California Energy Commission identified 16 Forecasting Climate Zones (FCZs) within California. 76 Understanding Fact Sheets How to Use a Fact Sheet to Quantify a Project This section provides step-by-step instructions and an example regarding how a fact sheet can be used. After choosing the appropriate fact sheet(s), follow these general steps. Steps may need to be adjusted for different types of fact sheets. Step 1: Does this fact sheet apply? Carefully read the measure’s description and applicability to ensure that you are using the correct fact sheet. Step 2: Is the measure “grouped”? Check Tables 6-1 to 6-9 to see if the measure is “grouped” with other measures. If it is, then all measures in the group must be implemented together. Step 3: Review defaults Review the default assumptions in the fact sheet. Step 4: Data inputs Determine the type of data and data sources necessary. Refer to Appendix B and other suggested documents. Step 5: Calculate baseline emissions Calculate baseline emissions using formulas provided in the fact sheet. Step 6: Percent reductions If applicable, calculate the percent reduction for the specific action in the measure. Step 7: Quantify reductions Quantify emission reductions for a particular mitigation measure using the provided formula. Step 8: Grouped measures If you are using a mitigation measure that is grouped with another measure, refer to Tables 6-1 to 6-9 and complete the calculations for all measures that are grouped together for a particular mitigation strategy. Step 9: Multiple measures See Chapter 6 for how to combine reductions from multiple measures. IMPORTANT: Clearly document information such as data sources, data used, and calculations. Example: The following is an example calculation for a building project that will use Fact Sheet 2.1.1 - Exceed Title 24 Building Envelope Energy Efficiency Standards by X%. In this example, a large office building is being built, and it will be designed to do 10% more than Title 24 standards for both electricity and natural gas. Step 1 – Does this fact sheet apply? The project and fact sheet have been reviewed, and YES, this fact sheet is appropriate to use to estimate reductions from the project. Chapter 6 77 Understanding Fact Sheets Chapter 6 Step 2 - Is the measure “grouped”? NO, this is a measure that does not have to be done with other measures. Step 3 – Review defaults Default assumptions and emission factors have been reviewed and used, as appropriate. Steps 4 – Data inputs The table below shows the data needed for the example, the sample data input, and the source of the sample data. Make sure the data use the units specified in the equation. * Step 5 – Calculate baseline emissions Once all necessary information has been obtained, use the equation provided to determine the baseline emissions. Round results to the nearest MT. GHG Emissions BaselineElecticity = Electricity IntensityBaseline x Size x Emission FactorElectricity = 8.32 kWh/SF/yr x 100,000 SF x (2.08E-4 MT CO2e/kWh) = 173 MT CO2e/yr [Baseline GHG Emissions for Electricity] GHG Emissions BaselineNatural Gas = Natural Gas IntensityBaseline x Size x Emission FactorNaturalGas = 18.16 kBTU/SF/yr x 100,000 SF x (5.32E-5 MT CO2e/kBTU) = 97 MT CO2e/yr [Baseline GHG Emissions for Natural Gas] GHG EmissionsBaseline = GHG Emissions BaselineElectricity + GHG Emissions BaselineNatural Gas = 173 MT CO2e/yr + 97 MT CO2e/yr = 270 MT CO2e/yr Step 6 – Percent reductions Data for Fact Sheet 2.1.1 Example Data Needed Input Source of Data Project type Commercial land use = Large Office User Input Size 100,000 sq. ft User Input Climate Zone 1 From Figure BE 1.1 Electricity Intensitybaseline 8.32 kWh/SF/yr From Fact Sheet 2.1.1 Utility Provider PG&E User Input Emission FactorElectricity 2.08E-4 MT CO2e/kWh Fact Sheet 2.1.1 Natural Gas Intensitybaseline 18.16 kBTU/SF/yr From Fact Sheet 2.1.1 Emission FactorNaturalGas 5.32E-5 MT CO2e/therm From Fact Sheet 2.1.1 % Reduction Commitment 10% over 2008 Title 24 Standards User Input 78 Understanding Fact Sheets Now calculate the percent GHG emission reduction based on the stated improvement goal. In this example the goal is a 10% reduction over Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards. See Table BE-1.1 for data used for this step. ReductionElectricity from 1% over 2008 Title 24 Standards = 0.20% ReductionNaturalGas from 1% over 2008 Title 24 Standards = 1.00% Multiply the Percent Factor from Table BE-1.1 by the Percent Reduction Commitment (10% for this example) Reduction in GHG emissions from electricity generation: = 0.20% x 10 = 2% Reduction in GHG emissions from natural gas combustion: = 1% x 10 = 10% Step 7 – Quantify reductions Using the percent reductions, the emission reductions can be calculated, as shown below. Total Building GHG emissions = GHG Emissions BaselineElectricity. x (ReductionElectricity) + GHG Emissions BaselineNaturalGasx (ReductionNaturalGas) = 173 MT CO2e/yr x ( ) + 97 MT CO2e/yr x ( ) = 257 MT CO2e/yr Net reductions are the difference between the baseline emissions and the emissions calculated above for what will occur with this strategy implemented. Net reductions = Baseline – Total Building GHG Emissions = 270 MT CO2e/yr - 257 MT CO2e/yr = 13 MT CO2e/yr This shows that a 10% improvement in energy consumption over 2008 Title 24 Standards from electricity and natural gas will result in a GHG reduction of 13 MT CO2e/yr. From Table BE-1.1 Reduction Percentage X 10% goal Reduction Percentage X 10% goal Chapter 6 79 Understanding Fact Sheets Chapter 6 Step 8 – Grouped measures In this example, the measure is not grouped. For grouped measures, refer to Tables 6-1 to 6-9 in Chapter 6 for how to combine reductions. Step 9 – Multiple measures See “Rules for Combining Strategies or Measures” section in Chapter 6 for how to add reductions from multiple measures 80 Understanding Fact Sheets (page intentionally left blank) Chapter 7 81 Chapter 7: Fact Sheets 1.0 Introduction Chapter 7 is made up of a series of Fact Sheets. Each sheet summarizes the quantification methodology for a specific mitigation measure. As described in Chapter 6, the measures are grouped into Categories, and, in some cases, into subcategories. For information about the development of the Fact Sheets, please see Chapter 4. For a discussion of specific quantification issues in select measure categories or subcategories, please refer to Chapter 5. Chapter 6 provides a detailed explanation of the organization and layout of the Fact Sheets, including rules that govern the quantification of measures that have been, or will be, implemented in combination. In order to facilitate navigation through, and the use of, the Fact Sheets, they have been color coded to reflect the Category the measure is in, and if applicable, the subcategory. The color scheme is shown in Charts 6-1 and 6-2, and also in Table 7-1 (below). The colored bar at the top of each Fact Sheet corresponds to the Category color as shown in Charts 6-1 and 6-2, and in Table 7-1; the Category name is shown in the colored bar at the left hand margin. The second colored bar, immediately below the first one, shows the name of the subcategory, if any, and corresponds to subcategory color in those charts and tables. The subcategory name appears at the right hand margin. At the left hand margin, below the Category name, is a cross-reference to the corresponding measure in the previous two CAPCOA reports (CEQA and GHG; and Model Polices for GHG in General Plans). The term “MP#” refers to a measure in the Model Policies document. The term CEQA# refers to a measure in the CEQA and GHG report. At the bottom of the page is a colored bar that corresponds to the Category, and, where applicable, there is a colored box at the right hand margin, contiguous with the colored bar. This color of the box corresponds to the subcategory, where applicable. The box contains the measure number. The layout of information in each Fact Sheet is covered in detail in Chapter 6. Table 7-1, below, provides an index and cross-reference for the measure Fact Sheets. It is color- coded, as explained above, and may be used as a key to more quickly and easily navigate through the Fact Sheets Fact Sheets 82 Table 7-1: Measure Index & Cross Reference Section Category Page # Measure # BMP MP # CEQA # 2.0 Energy 85 2.1 Building Energy Use 85 2.1.1 Buildings Exceed Title 24 Building Envelope Energy Efficiency Standards By X% 85 BE-1 EE-2 MM-E6 2.1.2 Install Programmable Thermostat Timers 99 BE-2 x EE-2 - 2.1.3 Obtain Third-party HVAC Commissioning and Verification of Energy Savings 101 BE-3 x EE-2 - 2.1.4 Install Energy Efficient Appliances 103 BE-4 EE-2.1.6 MM E-19 2.1.5 Install Energy Efficient Boilers 111 BE-5 - - 2.2 Lighting 115 2.2.1 Install Higher Efficacy Public Street and Area Lighting 115 LE-1 EE-2.1.5 - 2.2.2 Limit Outdoor Lighting Requirements 119 LE-2 x EE-2.3 2.2.3 Replace Traffic Lights with LED Traffic Lights 122 LE-3 EE-2.1.5 - 2.3 Alternative Energy Generation 125 2.3.1 Establish Onsite Renewable Energy Systems-Generic 125 AE-1 AE-2.1 MM E-5 2.3.2 Establish Onsite Renewable Energy Systems-Solar Power 128 AE-2 AE-2.1 MM E-5 2.3.3 Establish Onsite Renewable Energy Systems-Wind Power 132 AE-3 AE-2.1 MM E-5 2.3.4 Utilize a Combined Heat and Power System 135 AE-4 AE-2 - 2.3.5 Establish Methane Recovery in Landfills 143 AE-5 WRD-1 - 2.3.6 Establish Methane Recovery in Wastewater Treatment Plants 149 AE-6 3.0 Transportation 155 3.1 Land Use/Location 155 3.1.1 Increase Density 155 LUT-1 LU-1.5 & LU-2.1.8 MM D-1 & D-4 3.1.2 Increase Location Efficiency 159 LUT-2 LU-3.3 - 3.1.3 Increase Diversity of Urban and Suburban Developments (Mixed Use) 162 LUT-3 LU-2 MM D-9 & D-4 3.1.4 Increase Destination Accessibility 167 LUT-4 LU-2.1.4 MM D-3 3.1.5 Increase Transit Accessibility 171 LUT-5 LU-1,LU-4 MM D-2 3.1.6 Integrate Affordable and Below Market Rate Housing 176 LUT-6 LU-2.1.8 MM D-7 3.1.7 Orient Project Toward Non-Auto Corridor 179 LUT-7 LU-4.2 LUT-3 3.1.8 Locate Project near Bike Path/Bike Lane 181 LUT-8 - LUT-4 3.1.9 Improve Design of Development 182 LUT-9 - - 3.2 Neighborhood/Site Enhancements 186 3.2.1 Provide Pedestrian Network Improvements 186 SDT-1 LU-4 MM-T-6 3.2.2 Provide Traffic Calming Measures 190 SDT-2 LU-1.6 MM-T-8 3.2.3 Implement a Neighborhood Electric Vehicle (NEV) Network 194 SDT-3 TR-6 MM-D-6 3.2.4 Create Urban Non-Motorized Zones 198 SDT-4 LU-3.2.1 & 4.1.4 SDT-1 3.2.5 Incorporate Bike Lane Street Design (on-site) 200 SDT-5 TR-4.1 LUT-9 3.2.6 Provide Bike Parking in Non-Residential Projects 202 SDT-6 TR-4.1 MM T-1 3.2.7 Provide Bike Parking with Multi-Unit Residential Projects 204 SDT-7 TR-4.1.2 MM T-3 3.2.8 Provide Electric Vehicle Parking 205 SDT-8 TR-5.4 MM T-17 & E-11 3.2.9 Dedicate Land for Bike Trails 206 SDT-9 TR-4.1 LUT-9 3.3 Parking Policy/Pricing 207 3.3.1 Limit Parking Supply 207 PDT-1 LU-1.7 & LU-2.1.1.4 - 3.3.2 Unbundle Parking Costs from Property Cost 210 PDT-2 LU-1.7 - 3.3.3 Implement Market Price Public Parking (On-Street) 213 PDT-3 - - 3.3.4 Require Residential Area Parking Permits 217 PDT-4 - PDT-1, PDT-2, PDT-3 Fact Sheets 83 Section Category Page # Measure # BMP MP # CEQA # 3.4 Commute Trip Reduction Programs 218 3.4.1 Implement Commute Trip Reduction Program - Voluntary 218 TRT-1 - - 3.4.2 Implement Commute Trip Reduction Program – Required Implementation/Monitoring 223 TRT-2 MO-3.1 T-19 3.4.3 Provide Ride-Sharing Programs 227 TRT-3 MO-3.1 - 3.4.4 Implement Subsidized or Discounted Transit Program 230 TRT-4 MO-3.1 - 3.4.5 Provide End of Trip Facilities 234 TRT-5 MO-3.2 TRT-1, TRT-2, TRT-3 3.4.6 Encourage Telecommuting and Alternative Work Schedules 236 TRT-6 TR-3.5 - 3.4.7 Implement Commute Trip Reduction Marketing 240 TRT-7 - - 3.4.8 Implement Preferential Parking Permit Program 244 TRT-8 TR-3.1 TRT-1, TRT-2, TRT-3 3.4.9 Implement Car-Sharing Program 245 TRT-9 - - 3.4.10 Implement a School Pool Program 250 TRT-10 - - 3.4.11 Provide Employer-Sponsored Vanpool/Shuttle 253 TRT-11 MO-3.1 - 3.4.12 Implement Bike-Sharing Programs 256 TRT-12 - SDT-5, LUT-9 3.4.13 Implement School Bus Program 258 TRT-13 TR-3.4 - 3.4.14 Price Workplace Parking 261 TRT-14 - - 3.4.15 Implement Employee Parking “Cash-Out” 266 TRT-15 TR-5.3 MM T-9 3.5 Transit System Improvements 270 3.5.1 Provide a Bus Rapid Transit System 270 TST-1 - MS-G3 3.5.2 Implement Transit Access Improvements 275 TST-2 LU-3.4.3 TST-3, TST-4 3.5.3 Expand Transit Network 276 TST-3 - MS-G3 3.5.4 Increase Transit Service Frequency/Speed 280 TST-4 - MS-G3 3.5.5 Provide Bike Parking Near Transit 285 TST-5 TR-4.1.4 TST-3, TST-4 3.5.6 Provide Local Shuttles 286 TST-6 TST-3, TST-4 3.6 Road Pricing/Management 287 3.6.1 Implement Area or Cordon Pricing 287 RPT-1 TR-3.6 - 3.6.2 Improve Traffic Flow 291 RPT-2 TR-2.1, TR-2.2 - 3.6.3 Required Project Contributions to Transportation Infrastructure Improvement Projects 297 RPT-3 - RPT-2, TST-1 to 6 3.6.4 Install Park-and-Ride Lots 298 RPT-4 TR-1 RPT-1, TRT-11, TRT-3, TST-1 to 6 3.7 Vehicles 300 3.7.1 Electrify Loading Docks and/or Require Idling-Reduction Systems 300 VT-1 TR-6 - 3.7.2 Utilize Alternative Fueled Vehicles 304 VT-2 - MM T-21 3.7.3 Utilize Electric or Hybrid Vehicles 309 VT-3 - MM T-20 4.0 Water 332 4.1 Water Supply 332 4.1.1 Use Reclaimed Water 332 WSW-1 COS-1.3 MS-G-8 4.1.2 Use Gray Water 336 WSW-2 COS-2.3 - 4.1.3 Use Locally Sourced Water Supply 341 WSW-3 - - 4.2 Water Use 347 4.2.1 Install Low-Flow Water Fixtures 347 WUW-1 EE-2.1.6; COS 2.2 MM-E23 4.2.2 Adopt a Water Conservation Strategy 362 WUW-2 COS-1. MS-G-8 4.2.3 Design Water-Efficient Landscapes 365 WUW-3 COS-2.1 - 4.2.4 Use Water-Efficient Landscape Irrigation Systems 372 WUW-4 COS-3.1 MS-G-8 4.2.5 Reduce Turf in Landscapes and Lawns 376 WUW-5 - - 4.2.6 Plant Native or Drought-Resistant Trees and Vegetation 381 WUW-6 x COS-3.1 MM D-16 Fact Sheets 83 Section Category Page # Measure # BMP MP # CEQA # 5.0 Area Landscaping 384 5.1 Landscaping Equipment 384 5.1.1 Prohibit Gas Powered Landscape Equipment. 384 A-1 - - 5.1.2 Implement Lawnmower Exchange Program 389 A-2 x EE-4.2 MM D-13 5.1.3 Electric Yard Equipment Compatibility 391 A-3 x MO-2.4 A-1 or A-2; MM D-14 6.0 Solid Waste 392 6.1 Solid Waste 392 6.1.1 Institute or Extend Recycling and Composting Services 401 SW-1 x WRD-2 MM D-14 6.1.2 Recycle Demolished Construction Material 402 SW-2 x WRD-2.3 MM C-4 7.0 Vegetation 402 7.1 Vegetation 402 7.1.1 Urban Tree Planting 402 V-1 COS-3.3, COS 3.2 GP-4, MM T-14 7.1.2 Create New Vegetated Open Space 406 V-2 COS-4.1 - 8.0 Construction 410 8.1 Construction 410 8.1.1 Use Alternative Fuels for Construction Equipment 410 C-1 TR-6, EE-1 MM C-2 8.1.2 Use Electric and Hybrid Construction Equipment 420 C-2 TR-6, EE-1 - 8.1.3 Limit Construction Equipment Idling beyond Regulation Requirements 428 C-3 TR-6.2 - 8.1.4 Institute a Heavy-Duty Off-Road Vehicle Plan 431 C-4 x TR-6.2, EE-1 Any C 8.1.5 Implement a Construction Vehicle Inventory Tracking System 432 C-5 x - - 9.0 Miscellaneous 433 9.1 Miscellaneous 433 9.1.1 Establish a Carbon Sequestration Project 433 Misc-1 LU-5 - 9.1.2 Establish Off-Site Mitigation 435 Misc-2 - - 9.1.3 Use Local and Sustainable Building Materials 437 Misc-3 x EE-1 MM C-3, E-17 9.1.4 Require Best Management Practices in Agriculture and Animal Operations 439 Misc-4 x - - 9.1.5 Require Environmentally Responsible Purchasing 440 Misc-5 x MO-6.1 - 9.1.6 Implement an Innovative Strategy for GHG Mitigation 442 Misc-6 x - - 10.0 General Plans 444 10.1 General Plans 444 10.1.1 Fund Incentives for Energy Efficiency 444 GP-1 x - - 10.1.2 Establish a Local Farmer's Market 446 GP-2 x LU-2.1.4 MM D-18 10.1.3 Establish Community Gardens 448 GP-3 x LU-2.1.4 MM D-19 10.1.4 Plant Urban Shade Trees 450 GP-4 x COS-3.2 V-1, MM T-14 10.1.5 Implement Strategies to Reduce Urban Heat-Island Effect 455 GP-5 x LU-6.1 MM E-8, E-12 8 4 84 Section Category Page # Measure # 2.0 Energy 85 2.1 Building Energy Use 85 2.1.1 Buildings Exceed Title 24 Building Envelope Energy Efficiency Standards By X% 85 BE-1 2.1.2 Install Programmable Thermostat Timers 99 BE-2 2.1.3 Obtain Third-party HVAC Commissioning and Verification of Energy Savings 101 BE-3 2.1.4 Install Energy Efficient Appliances 103 BE-4 2.1.5 Install Energy Efficient Boilers 111 BE-5 2.2 Lighting 115 2.2.1 Install Higher Efficacy Public Street and Area Lighting 115 LE-1 2.2.2 Limit Outdoor Lighting Requirements 119 LE-2 2.2.3 Replace Traffic Lights with LED Traffic Lights 122 LE-3 2.3 Alternative Energy Generation 125 2.3.1 Establish Onsite Renewable or Carbon-Neutral Energy Systems-Generic 125 AE-1 2.3.2 Establish Onsite Renewable Energy Systems-Solar Power 128 AE-2 2.3.3 Establish Onsite Renewable Energy Systems-Wind Power 132 AE-3 2.3.4 Utilize a Combined Heat and Power System 135 AE-4 2.3.5 Establish Methane Recovery in Landfills 143 AE-5 2.3.6 Establish Methane Recovery in Wastewater Treatment Plants 149 AE-6 Energy CEQA# MM-E6 MP# EE-2 BE-1 Building Energy 85 BE-1 2.0 Energy 2.1 Building Energy Use To determine overall reductions, the ratio of building energy associated GHG emissions to the other project categories needs to be determined. This percent contribution to the total is multiplied by the percentage reduction. 2.1.1 Buildings Exceed Title 24 Building Envelope Energy Efficiency Standards By X%1 (X is equal to the percentage improvement selected by Applicant such as 5%, 10%, or 20%) Range of Effectiveness: For a 10% improvement beyond Title 24 the range of effectiveness is: Electricity Natural Gas Non-residential 0.2 – 5.5% 0.7 – 10% Residential 0.3 – 2.6% 7.5 – 9.1% This is dependent on building type and climate zones. Measure Description: Greenhouse gases (GHGs) are emitted as a result of activities in residential and commercial buildings when electricity and natural gas are used as energy sources. New California buildings must be designed to meet the building energy efficiency standards of Title 24, also known as the California Building Standards Code. Title 24 Part 6 regulates energy uses including space heating and cooling, hot water heating, and ventilation2. By committing to a percent improvement over Title 24, a development reduces its energy use and resulting GHG emissions. 1 Compliance with Title 24 is determined from the total daily valuation (TDV) of energy use in the built- environment (on a per square foot per year basis). TDV energy use is a parameter that reflects the burden that a building imposes on an electricity supply system. In general, there is a larger electricity demand and, hence, stress on the supply system during the day (peak times) than at night (off peak). Since a TDV analysis requires significant knowledge about the actual building which is not typically available during the CEQA process, the estimate of the energy and GHG savings from an improvement over Title 24 energy use from a TDV basis is proportional to the actual energy use. 2 Hardwired lighting is part of Title 24 part 6. However, it is not part of the building envelope energy use and therefore not considered as part of this mitigation measure. Energy CEQA# MM-E6 MP# EE-2 BE-1 Building Energy 86 BE-1 The energy use of a building is dependent on the building type, size and climate zone it is located in. The California Commercial Energy Use Survey (CEUS) and Residential Appliance Saturation Survey (RASS) datasets can be used for these calculations since the data is scalable size and available for several land use categories in different climate zones in California. The Title 24 standards have been updated twice (in 2005 and 2008) since some of these data were compiled. The California Energy Commission (CEC) has published reports estimating the percentage deductions in energy use resulting from these new standards. Based on CEC’s discussion on average savings for Title 24 improvements, these CEC savings percentages by end user can be used to account for reductions in electricity and natural gas use due to updates to Title 24. Since energy use for each different system type (i.e., heating, cooling, water heating, and ventilation) as well as appliances is defined, this method will also easily allow for application of mitigation measures aimed at reducing the energy use of these devices in a prescriptive manner. Measure Applicability: Electricity and natural gas use in residential and commercial buildings subject to California’s Title 24 building requirements. This measure is part of a grouped measure. To ensure the measure effectiveness, this measure also requires third-party HVAC commissioning and verification of energy savings such as including the results from an alternative compliance model indicating the energy savings. Inputs: The following information needs to be provided by the Project Applicant: Square footage of non-residential buildings Number of dwelling units Building/Housing Type Climate Zone3 Total electricity demand (KWh) per dwelling unit or per square feet % reduction commitment (over 2008 Title 24 standards) Baseline Method: The baseline GHG emissions from electricity and natural gas usage (reflecting 2008 Title 24 standards with no energy-efficient appliances) are calculated as follows: 3 See Figure BE-1.1. Energy CEQA# MM-E6 MP# EE-2 BE-1 Building Energy 87 BE-1 GHG Emissions BaselineElectricity = Electricity Intensitybaseline x Size x Emission FactorElectricity GHG Emissions BaselineNaturalGas = Natural Gas Intensitybaseline x Size x Emission FactorNaturalGas Where: Electricity Intensitybaseline = Total electricity demand (kWh) per dwelling unit or per square foot; provided by applicant and adjusted for 2008 Title 24 standards (calculated based on CEUS and RASS)4 Natural Gas Intensitybaseline = Total natural gas demand (kBTU or therms) per dwelling unit or per square foot; provided by applicant and adjusted for 2008 Title 24 standards (calculated based on CEUS and RASS)5 Emission FactorElectricity = Carbon intensity of local utility (CO2e/kWh)6 Emission FactorNaturalGas = Carbon intensity of natural gas use (CO2e/kBTU or CO2e/therm)7 Size = Number of dwelling units or square footage of commercial land uses Mitigation Method: GHG reduction % Mitigated_Electricity = ReductionElectricity x Reduction Commitment GHG reduction % Mitigated_NaturalGas = ReductionNaturalGas x Reduction Commitment Where: Reduction = Applicable reduction based on climate zone, building type, and energy type from Tables BE-1.1 and BE-1.2 Reduction Commitment = Project’s reduction commitment beyond 2008 Title 24 standards (expressed as a whole number) This should be done for each individual building type. If the project involves multiple building types or only a percentage of buildings will have reductions the total for all buildings needs to be determined. This percentage should be applied as follows and summed over all buildings types: 4 See Appendix B for baseline inventory calculation methodologies to assist in determining these values. 5 See Appendix B for baseline inventory calculation methodologies to assist in determining these values. 6 Ibid. 7 Ibid. Energy CEQA# MM-E6 MP# EE-2 BE-1 Building Energy 88 BE-1 ype%BuildingTTotalGHG GbuildingGHCommitmentReduction i i i buildingGHGi = GHG emissions for specific building type for either electricity or natural gas TotalGHGi = Total GHG emissions for all buildings for either electricity or natural gas i = electricity or natural gas %BuildingType = portion of building(s) of this type Tables BE-1.1 and BE-1.2 tabulate the percent reductions from building energy use for each land use type in the various climate zones in California. There is one table for residential land uses and another for non-residential land uses. There is a column for electricity reductions and another for natural gas reductions. Assumptions: See Figure BE-1.1 below for a map showing the 16 Climate Zones. Data for some Climate Zones is not presented in the CEUS and RASS studies. However, data from similar Climate Zones is representative and can be used as follows: For non-residential building types: Climate Zone 9 should be used for Climate Zone 11. Climate Zone 9 should be used for Climate Zone 12. Climate Zone 1 should be used for Climate Zone 14. Climate Zone 10 should be used for Climate Zone 15. For residential building types: Climate Zone 2 should be used for Climate Zone 6. Climate Zone 1 should be used for Climate Zone 14. Climate Zone 10 should be used for Climate Zone 15. Data based upon the following references: CEC. 2009. Residential Compliance Manual for California's 2008 Energy Efficiency Standards. Available online at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2008standards/residential_manual.html CEC. 2009. Nonresidential Compliance Manual for California's 2008 Energy Efficiency Standards. Available online at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2008standards/nonresidential_manual.html CEC. 2004. Residential Appliance Saturation Survey. Available online at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/appliances/rass/ Energy CEQA# MM-E6 MP# EE-2 BE-1 Building Energy 89 BE-1 CEC. 2006. Commercial End-Use Survey. Available online at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/ceus/ Emission Reduction Ranges and Variables: [Refer to Attached Tables BE-1.1 and BE-1.2 for climate zone and land use specific percentages] This information uses 2008 Title 24 information. To adjust to 2005 Title 24, see Table BE-1.3. Pollutant Category Emissions Reductions CO2e See Tables BE-1.1 and BE-1.2 for percentage reductions for every 1% improvement over 2008 Title 24. PM See Tables BE-1.1 and BE-1.2 for percentage reduction from natural gas. There is no reduction for electricity. CO See Tables BE-1.1 and BE-1.2 for percentage reduction from natural gas. There is no reduction for electricity. SO2 See Tables BE-1.1 and BE-1.2 for percentage reduction from natural gas. There is no reduction for electricity. NOx See Tables BE-1.1 and BE-1.2 for percentage reduction from natural gas. There is no reduction for electricity. Discussion: If the applicant selects to commit beyond requirements for 2008 Title 24 standards, the applicant would reduce the amount of GHG emissions associated with electricity generation and natural gas combustion. Example: Commercial land use = Large Office Square footage = 100,000 sq. ft. Climate Zone = 1 Utility Provider = PG&E % Reduction Commitment = 10% over 2008 Title 24 Standards Electricity Intensitybaseline = 8.32 kWh/SF/yr (adjusted to reflect 2008 Title 24 standards) Emission FactorElectricity = 2.08E-4 MT CO2e/kWh Energy CEQA# MM-E6 MP# EE-2 BE-1 Building Energy 90 BE-1 Electricity Emissionsbaseline = 8.32 kWh/SF/yr x 100,000 SF x (2.08E-4 MT CO2e/kWh) = 173 MT CO2e/yr Natural Gas Intensitybaseline = 18.16 kBTU/SF/yr (adjusted to reflect 2008 Title 24 standards) Emission FactorNaturalGas = 5.32E-5 MT CO2e/therm Natural Gas Emissionsbaseline= 18.16 kBTU/SF/yr x 100,000 SF x (5.32E-5 MT CO2e/kBTU) = 97 MT CO2e/yr GHG emissionsbaseline = 173 MT CO2e/yr + 97 MT CO2e/yr = 270 MT CO2e/yr From Table BE-1.1: ReductionElectricity from 1% over 2008 Title 24 Standards = 0.20% ReductionNaturalGas from 1% over 2008 Title 24 Standards = 1.00% Reduction in GHG emissions from electricity generation: 0.20% x 10 = 2% Reduction in GHG emissions from natural gas combustion: 1% x 10 = 10% Mitigated Building GHG emissions = 173 MT CO2e/yr x (100% - 2%) + 97 MT CO2e/yr x (100% - 10%) = 257 CO2e/yr Preferred Literature: GHG reductions from a percent improvement over Title 24 can be quantified by calculating baseline energy usage using methodologies based on the California Energy Commission (CEC)’s Residential Appliance Saturation Survey (RASS) and Commercial End-Use Survey (CEUS), or an applicable Alternative Calculation Method (ACM). RASS and CEUS data are based on CEC Forecasting Climate Zones (FCZs); therefore, differences in project energy usage due to different climates are accounted for. The percent improvement is applied to Title 24 built environment energy uses, and overall GHG emissions are calculated using local utility emission factors. This methodology allows the Project Applicant flexibility in choosing which specific measures it will pursue to achieve the percent reductions (for example, installing higher quality building insulation, or installing a more efficient water heating system), while still making the mitigation commitment at the time of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) analysis. Alternative Literature: Energy CEQA# MM-E6 MP# EE-2 BE-1 Building Energy 91 BE-1 Alternatively, a Project Applicant could use the “prescriptive package” approach to demonstrate compliance with Title 24. Using this approach, the Project Applicant would commit to specific design elements above Title 24 prescriptive package requirements at the time of CEQA analysis, such as using solar water heating or improved insulation. Rather than calculating an overall percent reduction in GHG emissions based on an overall baseline value as presented above, the prescriptive approach requires the Project Applicant to break down building energy use by end-use. The Project Applicant would need to provide substantial evidence supporting the GHG reductions attributable to mitigation measures for each end-use. There are several references for quantifying GHG reductions from prescriptive measures. One example of a prescriptive measure is installing tankless or on-demand water heaters. These systems use a gas burner or electric element to heat water as needed and therefore do not use energy to store heated water. According to the U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE), typical tankless water heaters can be 24-34% more energy efficient than conventional storage tank water heaters [1]. Another example of a prescriptive measure is installing geothermal (ground-source or water-source) heat pumps. This measure takes advantage of the fact that the temperature beneath the ground surface is relatively constant. Fluid circulating through underground pipe loops is either heated or cooled and the heat is either upgraded or reduced in the heat pump depending on whether the building requires heating or cooling [2]. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) reports that ENERGY STAR - qualified geothermal heat pump systems are 30-45% more efficient than conventional heat pumps [3]. Alternative Literature References: [1] USDOE. Energy Savers: Demand (Tankless or Instantaneous) Water Heaters. Accessed February 2010. Available online at: http://www.energysavers.gov/your_home/water_heating/index.cfm/mytopic=12820 [2] CEC. Consumer Energy Center: Geothermal or Ground Source Heat Pumps. Accessed February 2010. Available online at: http://www.consumerenergycenter.org/home/heating_cooling/geothermal.html [3] USEPA. ENERGY STAR: Heat Pumps, Geothermal. Accessed February 2010. Available online at: http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=find_a_product.showProductGroup&pg w_code=HP Other Literature Reviewed: None Energy CEQA# MM-E6 MP# EE-2 BE-1 Building Energy 92 BE-1 Figure BE-1.1 CEC Forecast Climate Zones8,9 8 Adapted from Figure 2 of CEC. 2004. Residential Appliance Saturation Survey. Available online at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/appliances/rass/ 9 White spaces represent national parks and forests. Energy CEQA# MM-E6 MP# EE-2 BE-1 Building Energy 93 BE-1 Table BE-1.1 Non-Residential Reduction for 1% Improvement over 2008 Title 24 Climate Zone Building Types Reduction Electricity Natural Gas 1 All Commercial 0.22% 0.76% All Office 0.36% 1.00% All Warehouses 0.02% 0.00% College 0.28% 1.00% Grocery 0.08% 0.96% Health 0.33% 1.00% Large Office 0.20% 1.00% Lodging 0.30% 1.00% Miscellaneous 0.16% 0.91% Refrigerated Warehouse 0.02% 0.00% Restaurant 0.19% 0.25% Retail 0.40% 1.00% School 0.26% 0.94% Small Office 0.37% 1.00% Unrefrigerated Warehouse 0.00% 0.00% 2 All Commercial 0.24% 0.86% All Office 0.35% 0.97% All Warehouses 0.07% 1.00% College 0.45% 1.00% Grocery 0.17% 1.00% Health 0.35% 0.72% Large Office 0.31% 1.00% Lodging 0.30% 0.99% Miscellaneous 0.22% 1.00% Refrigerated Warehouse 0.02% 1.00% Restaurant 0.22% 0.38% Retail 0.36% 0.97% School 0.36% 0.96% Small Office 0.38% 0.96% Unrefrigerated Warehouse 0.12% 1.00% 3 All Commercial 0.26% 0.66% All Office 0.32% 0.98% All Warehouses 0.03% 0.95% College 0.28% 0.94% Grocery 0.14% 0.53% Health 0.43% 0.82% Large Office 0.34% 0.97% Lodging 0.55% 0.73% Energy CEQA# MM-E6 MP# EE-2 BE-1 Building Energy 94 BE-1 Climate Zone Building Types Reduction Electricity Natural Gas Miscellaneous 0.25% 0.82% Refrigerated Warehouse 0.02% 1.00% Restaurant 0.26% 0.18% Retail 0.29% 0.81% School 0.33% 0.93% Small Office 0.30% 1.00% Unrefrigerated Warehouse 0.13% 0.94% 4 All Commercial 0.27% 0.71% All Office 0.38% 1.00% All Warehouses 0.06% 0.77% College 0.37% 0.87% Grocery 0.12% 0.75% Health 0.45% 0.85% Large Office 0.41% 1.00% Lodging 0.30% 0.90% Miscellaneous 0.20% 0.76% Refrigerated Warehouse 0.02% 0.20% Restaurant 0.18% 0.30% Retail 0.29% 1.00% School 0.32% 0.95% Small Office 0.30% 1.00% Unrefrigerated Warehouse 0.10% 0.98% 5 All Commercial 0.26% 0.72% All Office 0.36% 0.95% All Warehouses 0.06% 0.46% College 0.44% 0.98% Grocery 0.09% 0.67% Health 0.40% 0.84% Large Office 0.37% 0.94% Lodging 0.29% 0.81% Miscellaneous 0.18% 0.73% Refrigerated Warehouse 0.04% 0.29% Restaurant 0.11% 0.25% Retail 0.24% 0.85% School 0.16% 0.91% Small Office 0.29% 1.00% Unrefrigerated Warehouse 0.07% 0.85% 6 All Commercial 0.31% 0.73% All Office 0.38% 0.95% All Warehouses 0.07% 0.86% College 0.43% 0.99% Energy CEQA# MM-E6 MP# EE-2 BE-1 Building Energy 95 BE-1 Climate Zone Building Types Reduction Electricity Natural Gas Grocery 0.16% 0.64% Health 0.46% 0.86% Large Office 0.39% 0.94% Lodging 0.40% 0.86% Miscellaneous 0.25% 0.66% Refrigerated Warehouse 0.03% 0.58% Restaurant 0.24% 0.35% Retail 0.31% 0.83% School 0.31% 0.96% Small Office 0.34% 1.00% Unrefrigerated Warehouse 0.09% 1.00% 7 All Commercial 0.25% 0.88% All Office 0.32% 0.94% All Warehouses 0.02% 0.64% College 0.25% 0.99% Grocery 0.12% 0.90% Health 0.32% 0.93% Large Office 0.34% 1.00% Lodging 0.41% 0.94% Miscellaneous 0.18% 0.99% Refrigerated Warehouse 0.02% 0.64% Restaurant 0.27% 0.19% Retail 0.34% 0.99% School 0.29% 0.96% Small Office 0.31% 0.91% Unrefrigerated Warehouse 0.00% 0.00% 8 All Commercial 0.30% 0.62% All Office 0.37% 0.94% All Warehouses 0.12% 0.99% College 0.43% 0.67% Grocery 0.14% 0.50% Health 0.45% 0.85% Large Office 0.38% 0.94% Lodging 0.34% 0.86% Miscellaneous 0.22% 0.68% Refrigerated Warehouse 0.02% 0.93% Restaurant 0.27% 0.31% Retail 0.28% 0.49% School 0.33% 0.92% Small Office 0.33% 0.96% Unrefrigerated Warehouse 0.16% 0.99% Energy CEQA# MM-E6 MP# EE-2 BE-1 Building Energy 96 BE-1 Climate Zone Building Types Reduction Electricity Natural Gas 9 All Commercial 0.28% 0.60% All Office 0.39% 0.96% All Warehouses 0.13% 0.95% College 0.33% 0.98% Grocery 0.14% 0.46% Health 0.44% 0.85% Large Office 0.43% 0.98% Lodging 0.37% 0.84% Miscellaneous 0.23% 0.76% Refrigerated Warehouse 0.03% 0.91% Restaurant 0.21% 0.19% Retail 0.32% 0.71% School 0.32% 0.90% Small Office 0.31% 0.94% Unrefrigerated Warehouse 0.18% 0.96% 10 All Commercial 0.30% 0.61% All Office 0.35% 1.00% All Warehouses 0.11% 0.58% College 0.27% 1.00% Grocery 0.19% 0.67% Health 0.46% 0.92% Large Office 0.34% 1.00% Lodging 0.39% 0.92% Miscellaneous 0.24% 0.49% Refrigerated Warehouse 0.03% 0.07% Restaurant 0.29% 0.29% Retail 0.36% 0.87% School 0.37% 0.80% Small Office 0.36% 1.00% Unrefrigerated Warehouse 0.15% 0.98% 13 All Commercial 0.29% 0.66% All Office 0.38% 0.80% All Warehouses 0.19% 0.95% College 0.33% 0.86% Grocery 0.11% 0.40% Health 0.39% 0.88% Large Office 0.41% 0.80% Lodging 0.40% 0.82% Miscellaneous 0.17% 0.39% Energy CEQA# MM-E6 MP# EE-2 BE-1 Building Energy 97 BE-1 Climate Zone Building Types Reduction Electricity Natural Gas Refrigerated Warehouse 0.07% 1.00% Restaurant 0.24% 0.21% Retail 0.28% 0.53% School 0.31% 0.92% Small Office 0.32% 0.76% Unrefrigerated Warehouse 0.26% 0.93% Table BE-1.2 Residential Reduction for 1% Improvement over 2008 Title 24 Climate Zone Housing Reduction Electricity Natural Gas 1 Multi 0.24% 0.86% Single 0.17% 0.87% Townhome 0.22% 0.87% 2 Multi 0.15% 0.89% Single 0.14% 0.91% Townhome 0.11% 0.89% 3 Multi 0.23% 0.90% Single 0.18% 0.91% Townhome 0.16% 0.90% 4 Multi 0.12% 0.88% Single 0.09% 0.91% Townhome 0.09% 0.90% 5 Multi 0.09% 0.88% Single 0.04% 0.91% Townhome 0.05% 0.90% 7 Multi 0.25% 0.87% Single 0.16% 0.88% Townhome 0.18% 0.85% 8 Multi 0.09% 0.77% Single 0.07% 0.82% Townhome 0.07% 0.80% 9 Multi 0.08% 0.77% Single 0.11% 0.82% Townhome 0.09% 0.80% 10 Multi 0.26% 0.80% Single 0.18% 0.83% Townhome 0.22% 0.81% Energy CEQA# MM-E6 MP# EE-2 BE-1 Building Energy 98 BE-1 11 Multi 0.05% 0.77% Single 0.05% 0.83% Townhome 0.03% 0.81% 12 Multi 0.15% 0.75% Single 0.15% 0.83% Townhome 0.13% 0.80% 13 Multi 0.09% 0.79% Single 0.06% 0.83% Townhome 0.05% 0.81% Energy MP# EE-2 BE-2 Building Energy 99 BE-2 2.1.2 Install Programmable Thermostat Timers Range of Effectiveness: Best Management Practice influences building energy use for heating and cooling. Measure Description: Programmable thermostat timers allow users to easily control when the HVAC system will heat or cool a certain space, thereby saving energy. Because most commercial buildings already have timed HVAC systems, this mitigation measure focuses on residential programmable thermostats. The DOE reports [1] that residents can save around 10% on heating and cooling bills per year by lowering the thermostat by 10-15 degrees for eight hours10. This can be accomplished using an automatic timer or programmable thermostat, such that the heat is reduced while the residents are at work or otherwise out of the house. The energy savings from a programmable thermostat, however, depend on the user. Some users preset the thermostat to heat the house before they come home, thereby increasing energy usage, while others use it to avoid heating the house when they are not home or asleep. Because of the large variability in individual occupant behavior and because it is unclear whether programmable thermostats systematically reduce energy use, this measure cannot be reasonably quantified. This mitigation measure should be incorporated as a Best Management Practice to allow for educated occupants to have the most efficient means at controlling their heating and cooling energy use. In order to take quantitative credit for this mitigation measure, the Project Applicant would need to provide detailed and substantial evidence supporting a reduction in energy use and associated GHG emissions. Measure Applicability: Electricity use in residential dwellings. Best Management Practice only. Assumptions: Data based upon the following references: [1] USDOE. Energy Savers: Thermostats and Control Systems. Available online at: http://www.energysavers.gov/your_home/space_heating_cooling/index.cfm/mytopic=1272 0 10 Such a large drop in thermostat temperatures may not be applicable in parts of California; more applicable may be the raising of the thermostat for airconditioned spaces. Energy MP# EE-2 BE-2 Building Energy 100 BE-2 Emission Reduction Ranges and Variables: This is a best management practice and therefore at this time there is no quantifiable reduction. Check with local agencies for guidance on any allowed reductions associated with implementation of best management practices. If substantial evidence was provided, the GHG reductions would equal the percent savings in total electricity or natural gas. The total reduction would be: GHG reduction = (% thermostat reduce heat/cool energy use) x (% end use heat/cool of total energy use) Preferred Literature: The DOE reports [1] that residents can save approximately 10% on heating and cooling bills per year by lowering the thermostat by 10-15 degrees for eight hours. This can be accomplished using an automatic timer or programmable thermostat, such that the heat is reduced while the residents are at work or otherwise out of the house. The energy savings from a programmable thermostat, however, depend on the user. Some users preset the thermostat to heat the house before they come home, thereby increasing energy usage, while others use it to avoid heating the house when they are not home or asleep. Alternative Literature: None Other Literature Reviewed: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. 2007. GridWise Demonstration Project Fast Facts. Available online at: http://gridwise.pnl.gov/docs/pnnl_gridwiseoverview.pdf. Energy MP# EE-2 BE-3 Building Energy 101 BE-3 2.1.3 Obtain Third-party HVAC Commissioning and Verification of Energy Savings Range of Effectiveness: Not applicable on its own. This measure enhances effectiveness of BE-1. Measure Description: Ensuring the proper installation and construction of energy reduction features is essential to achieving high thermal efficiency in a house. In practice, HVAC systems commonly do not operate at the designed efficiency due to errors in installation or adjustments. A Project Applicant can obtain HVAC commissioning and third-party verification of energy savings in thermal efficiency components including HVAC systems, insulation, windows, and water heating. This measure is required to be grouped with measure “Exceed Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards by X% (BE-1). Measure Applicability: This measure is part of a grouped measure. This measure also requires third- party HVAC commissioning and verification of energy savings. Buildings subject to California’s Title 24 building requirements. Preferred Literature: While Title 24 requires that a home’s ducts be tested for leaks whenever the central air conditioner or furnace is installed or replaced, a third-party verifier such as the California Home Energy Efficiency Rating Service (CHEERS) and ENERGY STAR Home Energy Rating Service (HERS) can ensure that ducts were properly sealed [1-3]. These certified raters can also verify other energy efficiency measures, such as HVAC controls, insulation performance, and the air-tightness of the building envelope. Furthermore, these raters can analyze a home and make climate-specific recommendations for further improving the home’s energy efficiency. Since this mitigation measure ensures that the building envelope systems are properly installed and sealed, there is no quantifiable reduction for this measure. It is recommended as a Best Management Practice grouped with the Title 24 improvement mitigation measure. Alternative Literature: None Literature References: [1] California Home Energy Efficiency Rating Services. What is CHEERS? Available online at: http://www.cheers.org/Home/Overview/tabid/124/Default.aspx. Accessed March 2010. Energy MP# EE-2 BE-3 Building Energy 102 BE-3 [2] USEPA. ENERGY STAR: Features of ENERGY STAR Qualified New Homes. Available online at: http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=new_homes.nh_features. Accessed March 2010. [3] USEPA. ENERGY STAR: Independent Inspection and Testing. Available online at: http://www.energystar.gov/ia/new_homes/features/HERSrater_062906.pdf. Accessed March 2010. Energy CEQA# MM E-19 MP# EE-2.1.6 BE-4 Building Energy 103 BE-4 2.1.4 Install Energy Efficient Appliances Range of Effectiveness: Residential 2-4% GHG emissions from electricity use. Grocery Stores: 17-22% of GHG emissions from electricity use. Measure Description: Using energy-efficient appliances reduces a building’s energy consumption as well as the associated GHG emissions from natural gas combustion and electricity production. To take credit for this mitigation measure, the Project Applicant (or contracted builder) would need to ensure that energy efficient appliances are installed. For residential dwellings, typical builder-supplied appliances include refrigerators and dishwashers. Clothes washers and ceiling fans would be applicable if the builder supplied them. For commercial land uses, energy-efficient refrigerators have been evaluated for grocery stores. See Mitigation Method section on how project applicant may quantify additional building types and appliances. The energy use of a building is dependent on the building type, size and climate zone it is located in. The California Commercial Energy Use Survey (CEUS) and Residential Appliance Saturation Survey (RASS) datasets for this calculation since the data is scalable by size and available for several land use categories in different climate zones in California. Typical reductions for energy-efficient appliances can be found in the Energy Star and Other Climate Protection Partnerships 2008 Annual Report or subsequent Annual Reports. ENERGY STAR refrigerators, clothes washers, dishwashers, and ceiling fans use 15%, 25%, 40%, and 50% less electricity than standard appliances, respectively. RASS does not specify a ceiling fan end-use; rather, electricity use from ceiling fans is accounted for in the Miscellaneous category which includes interior lighting, attic fans, and other miscellaneous plug-in loads. Since the electricity usage of ceiling fans alone is not specified, a value from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) Building American Research Benchmark Definition (BARBD) is used. BARBD reports that the average energy use per ceiling fan is 84.1 kWh per year. In this mitigation measure, it is assumed that each multi-family, single-family, and townhome residence has one ceiling fan. The electricity savings shown here is based on installing an ENERGY STAR ceiling fan and does not account for an occupant’s decreased use of cooling devices such as air conditioners. For ceiling fans, the 50% reduction was applied to 84.1 kWh of the electricity attributed to the Miscellaneous RASS category. Measure Applicability: Electricity use in residential dwellings and commercial grocery stores. This mitigation measure applies only when appliance installation can be specified as part of the Project. Energy CEQA# MM E-19 MP# EE-2.1.6 BE-4 Building Energy 104 BE-4 Inputs: The following information needs to be provided by the Project Applicant: Number of dwelling units and/or size of grocery store Climate Zone Housing Type (if residential) Utility provider Total natural gas demand (kBTU or therms) per dwelling unit or per square foot Types of energy efficient appliances to be installed (refrigerator, dishwasher, or clothes washer for residential land uses and refrigerators for grocery stores) Baseline Method: GHG emissions = Electricity Intensitybaseline x Size x Emission FactorElectricity + Natural Gas Intensitybaseline x Size x Emission FactorNaturalGas Where: GHG emissions = MT CO2e (reflecting 2008 Title 24 standards with no energy-efficient appliances) Electricity Intensitybaseline = Total electricity demand (kWh) per dwelling unit or per square foot; provided by applicant and adjusted for 2008 Title 24 standards11 Natural Gas Intensitybaseline = Total natural gas demand (kBTU or therms) per dwelling unit or per square foot; provided by applicant and adjusted for 2008 Title 24 standards12 Emission FactorElectricity = Carbon intensity of local utility (CO2e/kWh)13 Emission FactorNaturalGas = Carbon intensity of natural gas use (CO2e/kBTU or CO2e/therm)14 Size = Number of dwelling units or square footage of commercial land uses Mitigation Method: GHG emissionsmitigated = Electricity Emissionsbaseline x (1-(Sum of Reductions)) + 11 See Appendix B for baseline inventory calculation methodologies to assist in determining these values. 12 Ibid 13 Ibid. 14 Ibid. Energy CEQA# MM E-19 MP# EE-2.1.6 BE-4 Building Energy 105 BE-4 Natural Gas Emissionsbaseline Where: Electricity Emissionsbaseline = Emissions due to electricity generation, adjusted for 2008 Title 24 Standards (calculated based on CEUS and RASS) Sum of Reductions = Applicable reduction based on energy efficient appliances installed (expressed as a decimal) Natural Gas Emissionsbaseline = Emissions due to natural gas combustion, adjusted for 2008 Title 24 Standards (calculated based on CEUS and RASS) Building GHG reduction Percentage = [GHG emissions mitigated/GHG emissions baseline] Tables BE-4.1 and BE-4.2 tabulate the percent reductions from installing specific ENERGY STAR appliances for each land use type in the various climate zones in California. There is one table for residential land uses and another for non-residential land uses. This will only result in reductions associated with electricity use and does not apply to natural gas since there are no major Energy Star appliances that use natural gas. The energy efficient heating, cooling, and water heating systems that may use natural gas are included in improvements over Title 24 (see measure BE-1). For other building types and energy efficient appliances, the reductions similar to those in the tables can be quantified as follows: Reduction = (Appliance End Use %) x (1 – efficiency) Where: Appliance End Use % = portion of energy for this appliance compared to total electricity use Efficiency = percent reduction in energy use for efficient appliance compared to standard. Assumptions: Data for some Climate Zones is not presented in the CEUS and RASS studies. However, data from similar Climate Zones is representative and can be used as follows: For non-residential building types: Climate Zone 9 should be used for Climate Zone 11. Climate Zone 9 should be used for Climate Zone 12. Energy CEQA# MM E-19 MP# EE-2.1.6 BE-4 Building Energy 106 BE-4 Climate Zone 1 should be used for Climate Zone 14. Climate Zone 10 should be used for Climate Zone 15. For residential building types: Climate Zone 2 should be used for Climate Zone 6. Climate Zone 1 should be used for Climate Zone 14. Climate Zone 10 should be used for Climate Zone 15. Data based upon the following references: [1] USEPA. 2008. ENERGY STAR 2008 Annual Report. Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/cpd/annualreports/annualreports.htm [2] CEC. 2004. Residential Appliance Saturation Survey. Available online at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/appliances/rass/ [3] CEC. 2006. Commercial End-Use Survey. Available online at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/ceus/ [4] NREL. 2010. Building America Research Benchmark Definition. Available online at: http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/47246.pdf Emission Reduction Ranges and Variables: [Refer to Attached Tables BE-4.1 and BE-4.2 for climate zone and land use specific percentages] If more than one type of appliance is considered the percentage for each appliance should be added together. Pollutant Category Emissions Reductions CO2e See Tables BE-4.1 and BE-4.2 for percentage reductions. PM Not Quantified15 CO Not Quantified SO2 Not Quantified NOx Not Quantified Discussion: If the applicant commits to installing energy efficient appliances, the applicant would reduce the amount of GHG emissions associated with electricity generation because 15 Criteria air pollutant emissions may also be reduced due to the reduction in energy use; however, the reduction may not be in the same air basin as the project. Energy CEQA# MM E-19 MP# EE-2.1.6 BE-4 Building Energy 107 BE-4 more energy efficient appliances will require less electricity to run. This reduces GHG emissions from power plants. Example: Housing Type = Single Family Home Number of Dwelling Units = 100 Climate Zone = 1 Utility Provider = PG&E Energy efficient appliances to be installed = refrigerator and dishwasher Electricity Intensitybaseline = 7,196 kWh/DU/yr (adjusted to reflect 2008 Title 24 standards) Emission FactorElectricity = 2.08E-4 MT /kWh Electricity Emissionsbaseline = 7,196 kWh/DU/yr x 100 DU x (2.08E-4 MT CO2e/kWh) = 150 MT CO2e/yr Natural Gas Intensitybaseline = 365 therms/DU/yr (adjusted to reflect 2008 Title 24 standards) Emission FactorNaturalGas = 5.32E-3 MT CO2e/kBTU Natural Gas Emissionsbaseline = 365 therm/DU/yr x 100 DU x (5.32E-3 MT CO2e/therm) = 194 MT CO2e/yr GHG emissionsbaseline = 150 MT CO2e/yr + 194 MT CO2e/yr = 344 MT CO2e/yr Sum of Reductions associated with electricity generation from Table BE-4.2 = 2.05% Reductions associated with natural gas combustion = 0% GHG emissionsmitigated = 150*(1-.0205) + 194 = 341 Building GHG reduction = 1 - 341 / 344 = 0.9% Energy CEQA# MM E-19 MP# EE-2.1.6 BE-4 Building Energy 108 BE-4 Preferred Literature: The USEPA ENERGY STAR Program has identified energy efficient residential and consumer appliances including air conditioners, refrigerators, freezers, clothes washers, dishwashers, fryers, steamers, and vending machines. The ENERGY STAR Annual Report presents the average percent energy savings from using an ENERGY STAR- qualified appliance instead of a standard appliance. GHG emissions reductions are calculated based on local utility emission factors and the baseline appliance energy use derived from the CEC RASS and CEUS methodologies. RASS and CEUS data are climate-specific; therefore, differences in project energy usage due to different climates are accounted for. Alternative Literature: None Other Literature Reviewed: None Table BE-4.1 Non-Residential Reduction for ENERGY STAR Refrigerators in Grocery Stores Climate Zone Electricity Reduction 1 20% 2 17% 3 18% 4 21% 5 22% 6 19% 7 18% 8 19% 9 20% 10 18% 13 21% Energy CEQA# MM E-19 MP# EE-2.1.6 BE-4 Building Energy 109 BE-4 Table BE-4.2 Residential Reduction for ENERGY STAR Appliances Climate Zone Housing Refrigerator1,3 Clothes Washer1,3 Dishwasher1,3 Ceiling Fan2,3 Total Electricity Reduction 1 Multi 2.59% 0.03% 0.10% 1.01% Single 1.72% 0.50% 0.12% 0.58% Townhome 2.28% 0.28% 0.11% 0.83% 2 Multi 2.86% 0.03% 0.11% 1.12% Single 1.79% 0.53% 0.13% 0.61% Townhome 2.61% 0.32% 0.13% 0.96% 3 Multi 2.62% 0.03% 0.10% 1.02% Single 1.69% 0.50% 0.12% 0.58% Townhome 2.44% 0.30% 0.12% 0.89% 4 Multi 2.97% 0.03% 0.12% 1.16% Single 1.90% 0.56% 0.14% 0.65% Townhome 2.64% 0.33% 0.13% 0.97% 5 Multi 3.07% 0.03% 0.12% 1.20% Single 1.99% 0.58% 0.14% 0.68% Townhome 2.78% 0.35% 0.14% 1.02% 7 Multi 2.54% 0.03% 0.10% 0.99% Single 1.74% 0.51% 0.12% 0.59% Townhome 2.39% 0.30% 0.12% 0.88% 8 Multi 3.08% 0.03% 0.12% 1.20% Single 1.94% 0.57% 0.14% 0.66% Townhome 2.71% 0.34% 0.14% 0.99% 9 Multi 3.13% 0.03% 0.12% 1.22% Single 1.85% 0.54% 0.13% 0.63% Townhome 2.65% 0.33% 0.13% 0.97% 10 Multi 2.52% 0.03% 0.10% 0.98% Single 1.71% 0.50% 0.12% 0.58% Townhome 2.27% 0.28% 0.11% 0.83% 11 Multi 3.21% 0.03% 0.13% 1.25% Single 1.97% 0.58% 0.14% 0.67% Townhome 2.83% 0.35% 0.14% 1.04% 12 Multi 2.89% 0.03% 0.11% 1.13% Single 1.76% 0.51% 0.13% 0.60% Townhome 2.53% 0.32% 0.13% 0.93% 13 Multi 3.09% 0.03% 0.12% 1.21% Single 1.95% 0.57% 0.14% 0.66% Townhome 2.76% 0.34% 0.14% 1.01% Notes: Energy CEQA# MM E-19 MP# EE-2.1.6 BE-4 Building Energy 110 BE-4 1. Percent reductions are based on the saturation values presented in RASS. The Project Applicant may use project-specific saturation values (i.e. if 100% of homes have clothes washers, then saturation = 1). Notes: 2. CEC's RASS does not specify a ceiling fan end-use; rather, electricity use from ceiling fans is accounted for in the Miscellaneous category, which includes interior lighting, attic fans, and other miscellaneous plug -in loads. Since the electricity usage of ceiling fans alone is not specified, a value from NREL's BARBD was used. BARBD reports that the average energy use per ceiling fan is 84.1 kWh per year. In this table, it is assumed that each multi-family, single-family, and townhome residence has one ceiling fan. The electricity savings shown here is based on installing an ENERGY STAR ceiling fan and does not account for an occupant's decreased use of cooling devices such as air conditioners. 3. Total electricity reduction is based on installing ENERGY STAR appliances instead of standard appliances. ENERGY STAR refrigerators, clothes washers, dishwashers, and ceiling fans use 15%, 25%, 40%, and 50% less electricity than standard appliances, respectively. For ceiling fans, the 50% reduction was applied to 84.1 kWh of the electricity attributed to the Miscellaneous RASS categor y. Abbreviations: BARBD - Building America Research Benchmark Definition CEC - California Energy Commission NREL - National Renewable Energy Laboratory RASS - Residential Appliance Saturation Survey USEPA - United States Environmental Protection Agency Sources: CEC. 2004. Residential Appliance Saturation Survey. Available online at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/appliances/rass/ NREL. 2010. Building America Research Benchmark Definition. Available online at: http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/47246.pdf USEPA. 2008. ENERGY STAR 2008 Annual Report. Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/cpd/annualreports/annualreports.htm Energy BE-5 Building Energy 111 BE-5 2.1.5 Install Energy Efficient Boilers Range of Effectiveness: 1.2-18.4% of boiler GHG emissions Measure Description: Boilers are used in many non-residential and multi-family housing buildings to provide space heating or steam or facility operations. Boilers combust natural gas to produce steam which can be used directly or as a method to heat a building space. Boilers represent 12% of installed building heating equipment for commercial and other buildings. Boiler efficiencies are regulated and commonly presented as annualized fuel utilization efficiency (AFUE), a ratio of the total useful heat delivered to the heat value from the annual amount of fuel consumed. Improving boiler efficiency decreases natural gas consumption for the same amount of energy output, thus reducing GHG emissions. Only natural gas boilers are considered under this mitigation measure. The Project Applicant would only need to provide the annual natural gas consumptions to calculate the baseline emissions using heat content and carbon intensity factors from CCAR [3]. To determine the emission reduction, boiler efficiency is also needed, and should be obtainable from manufacturer specifications. The Consortium for Energy Efficiency (CEE) reports that the rate of high efficiency boilers (≥ 85%) has gone from 5-15% of sales in 2002 to 50%-60% of sales in 2007 [2]. The CEE study also noted that technical improvements can be made to existing boiler types to improve efficiency to 88%. Efficiency can be further enhanced to up to 98% using the condensing boiler. A range of efficiencies from the CEE study has been presented for reference, but to take credit for this mitigation measure, the Project Applicant would also need to provide evidence from manufacturers supporting the higher efficiency from a retrofit or new boiler. Measure Applicability: Natural Gas Boilers Inputs: The following information needs to be provided by the Project Applicant: Natural gas consumption of boiler Original or baseline efficiency of boiler Improved efficiency of boiler Baseline Method: Emission = CEFHCnConsumptio Where: Energy BE-5 Building Energy 112 BE-5 Emission = MT CO2e Consumption = Natural gas consumption (ft3) HC = Natural gas heat content = 1,029 BTU/ft3 (CCAR 2009) EF = Natural gas carbon intensity factor = 0.1173 lbs CO2e/kBTU (CCAR 2009) C = Unit conversion factor In this case, C = 4.54x10-7 kBTU x MT/BTU/lbs Mitigation Method: The GHG emission from a boiler with improved efficiency is: Mitigated GHG Emission = CEFHCE EnConsumptio I O Where: Emission = MT CO2e Consumption = Natural gas consumption (ft3) EO = Original efficiency of boiler EI = Improved efficiency of boiler HC = Natural gas heat content = 1,029 BTU/ft3 (CCAR 2009) EF = Natural gas carbon intensity factor = 0.1173 lbs CO2e/kBTU (CCAR 2009) C = Unit conversion factor Emission Reduction Ranges and Variables: Percentage of emissions reduction using a boiler with improved efficiency for all pollutants are the same and is calculated as follows: Reduction = I O E E1 Where: EO = Original efficiency of boiler EI = Improved efficiency of boiler Technology Range of Efficiencies Range of Emission Reduction Atmospheric 80 – 84% - Fan assisted, non-condensing 85 – 88% 1.2% – 9.1% Fan assisted, condensing 88 – 98% 4.5% – 18.4% Energy BE-5 Building Energy 113 BE-5 Discussion: Boiler efficiency is included in product specification from manufacturer. ENERGY STAR boilers require minimum efficiency of 85%. The Consortium for Energy Efficiency (CEE) reports natural efficiency breakpoints of 85-88% for fan assisted, non-condensing commercial boilers, and 88-98% for fan assisted, condensing boilers. Assumptions: Data based upon the following references: California Climate Action Registry 2009. General Reporting Protocol, Version 3.1. Available at: http://www.climateregistry.org/resources/docs/protocols/grp/GRP_3.1_January20 09.pdf Energy Star. Boilers key Product Criteria. Available at: http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=boilers.pr_crit_boilers Science Applications International Corporation 2009. Prepared for California Climate Action Registry. Development of Issue Papers for GHG Reduction Project Types: Boiler Efficiency Projects. Available at: http://www.climateactionreserve.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/future-protocol- development_boiler-efficiency.pdf Preferred Literature: Boilers represent 12% of installed building heating equipment. Boiler efficiencies are regulated and commonly presented as annualized fuel utilization efficiency (AFUE), a ratio of the total useful heat delivered to the heat value from the annual amount of fuel consumed. The Climate Action Registry (CAR) Boiler Efficiency Projects estimated potential annual CO2e emission reductions of 22,673,929 and 6,584,231 MT for commercial and residential boilers, respectively, from boiler efficiency improvement from 77% to 83% [1]. The Consortium for Energy Efficiency (CEE) reports that the rate of high efficiency boilers (≥ 85%) has gone from 5-15% of sales in 2002 to 50%-60% of sales in 2007 [2]. The CEE study also noted that technical improvements can be made to existing boiler types to improve efficiency to 88%. Efficiency can be further enhanced to up to 98% using the condensing boiler. Only natural gas boilers are considered under this mitigation measure. The Project Applicant would only need to provide the annual natural gas consumptions to calculate the baseline emissions using heat content and carbon intensity factors from CCAR [3]. To determine the emission reduction, boiler efficiency is also needed, and should be obtainable from manufacturer specifications. A range of efficiencies from the CEE study has been presented for reference, but to take credit for this mitigation measure, the Project Applicant would also need to provide evidence from manufacturers supporting the higher efficiency from a retrofit or new boiler. Energy BE-5 Building Energy 114 BE-5 Alternative Literature: None Notes: [1] Science Applications International Corporation 2009. Prepared for Climate Action Registry (CAR). Development of Issue Papers for GHG Reduction Project Types: Boiler Efficiency Projects. Available at: http://www.climateactionreserve.org/wp- content/uploads/2009/03/future-protocol-development_boiler-efficiency.pdf [2] Consortium of Energy Efficiency (CEE) Winter Program Meeting 2008. Market Characterization of Commercial Gas Boilers. [3] CCAR 2009. General Reporting Protocol, Version 3.1. Available at: http://www.climateregistry.org/resources/docs/protocols/grp/GRP_3.1_January2009.pdf Other Literature Reviewed: None Energy MP# EE-2.1.5 LE-1 Lighting 115 LE-1 2.2 Lighting 2.2.1 Install Higher Efficacy Public Street and Area Lighting Range of Effectiveness: 16-40% of outdoor lighting Measure Description: Lighting sources contribute to GHG emissions indirectly, via the production of the electricity that powers these lights. Public street and area lighting includes streetlights, pedestrian pathway lights, area lighting for parks and parking lots, and outdoor lighting around public buildings. Lighting design should consider the amount of light required for the area intended to be lit. Lumens are the measure of the amount of light perceived by the human eye. Different light fixtures have different efficacies or the amount of lumens produced per watt of power supplied. This is different than efficiency, and it is important that lighting improvements are based on maintaining the appropriate lumens per area when applying this measure. Installing more efficacious lamps will use less electricity while producing the same amount of light, and therefore reduces the associated indirect GHG emissions. Measure Applicability: Public street and area lighting Inputs: The following information needs to be provided by the Project Applicant: Number of lighting heads (for baseline only) Power rating of public street and area lights Carbon intensity of local utility (for baseline only) Baseline Method: GHG emissions = Heads x Hours x Days x Powerbaseline x Utility Where: GHG emissions = MT CO2e/yr Heads = Number of public street and area lighting heads. Provided by Applicant. Hours = Hours of operation per day (12). Days = Days of operation per year (365). Powerbaseline = Power rating of public street and area lights (kW). Utility = Carbon intensity of Local Utility (CO2e/kWh) Energy MP# EE-2.1.5 LE-1 Lighting 116 LE-1 Mitigation Method: The minimum reduction in annual energy cost associated with higher efficacy street lighting systems is 16%. Note that a 16% reduction in power rating and GHG emissions is the estimated minimum percent reduction associated with installing higher efficacy public street and area lighting. NYSERDA reports that a 16% reduction is expected for installing metal halide post top lights as opposed to typical mercury cobrahead lights. The percent reduction is expected to increase to 35% for installing metal halide cobrahead or metal halide cutoff lights, and 40% for installing high pressure sodium cutoff lights. For lights operating with a single local utility district, the 16% energy cost reduction is equivalent to a 16% reduction in power rating because the energy cost comparison assumes an equal number of lighting heads and equal operation times. As all other variables remain equal between the baseline and mitigated scenarios, the reduction in GHG emissions is in turn 16%. Therefore, the reduction in GHG emissions associated with installing higher efficacy public street and area lighting is: GHG emission reduction = baseline mitigatedbaseline Power Power-Power = 16% Where: GHG emission reduction = Percentage reduction in GHG emissions for public street and area lighting. Powerbaseline = Power rating of public street and area lights (kW). Powermitigated = Power rating of public street and area lights (kW). If different types of lampheads result in less heads needing to be installed, the reduction will be as follows: PowerbaselineHeadbaseline PowermitigatedHeadmitigatedPowerbaselineHeadbaseline Where: Headbaseline = the number of heads in the baseline scenario Powerbaseline = the number of heads in the mitigated scenario As it can be seen by this equation, the carbon intensity of the local utility does not play a role in determining the percentage reduction in GHG emissions. Note that a 16% reduction in power rating and GHG emissions is the estimated minimum percent reduction associated with installing higher efficacy public street and Energy MP# EE-2.1.5 LE-1 Lighting 117 LE-1 area lighting. NYSERDA reports that a 16% reduction is expected for installing metal halide post top lights as opposed to typical mercury cobrahead lights. The percent reduction is expected to increase to 35% for installing metal halide cobrahead or metal halide cutoff lights, and 40% for installing high pressure sodium cutoff lights. Emission Reduction Ranges and Variables: Pollutant Category Emissions Reductions CO2e 16% for installing metal halide post top lights; 35% for installing metal halide cobrahead or cutoff lights; 40% for installing high pressure sodium cutoff lights All other pollutants Not Quantified16 Discussion: If the applicant uses public street and area lighting, they would calculate baseline emissions as described in the baseline methodologies section. If the applicant then selects to mitigate public street and area lighting by committing to higher efficacy options, the applicant would reduce the amount of GHG emissions associated with public street and area lighting by 16%. GHG Emissions Reduced = 16% Assumptions: Data based upon the following reference: [1] New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA). 2002. NYSERDA How-to Guide to Effective Energy-Efficient Street Lighting for Municipal Elected/Appointed Officials. Preferred Literature: The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA)'s 2002 How-to Guide to Effective Energy-Efficient Street Lighting reports a minimum reduction in electricity demand of 16% due to the installation of energy-efficient street lights such as metal halide and high-pressure sodium models (see page 4). Alternative Literature: None Other Literature Reviewed: 16 Criteria air pollutant emissions may also be reduced due to the reduction in energy use; however, the reduction may not be in the same air basin as the project. Energy MP# EE-2.1.5 LE-1 Lighting 118 LE-1 [2] The University of Rochester. Light-Emitting Diode (LED), Organic Light-Emitting Diode (OLED), and laser research for lighting applications. Homepage available online at: http://www.rochester.edu/research/sciences.html. Accessed February 2010. [3] Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission. 1996. Outdoor Lighting Manual for Vermont Municipalities. Energy MP# EE-2.3 LE-2 Lighting 119 LE-2 2.2.2 Limit Outdoor Lighting Requirements Range of Effectiveness: Best Management Practice, but may be quantified. Measure Description: Lighting sources contribute to GHG emissions indirectly, via the production of the electricity that powers these lights. When the operational hours of a light are reduced, GHG emissions are reduced. Strategies for reducing the operational hours of lights include programming lights in public facilities (parks, swimming pools, or recreational centers) to turn off after-hours, or installing motion sensors on pedestrian pathways. Since literature guidance for quantifying these reductions does not exist, this mitigation measure would be employed as a Best Management Practice. In order to take credit for this mitigation measure, the Project Applicant would need to provide detailed and substantial documentation of the reduction in operational hours of lights. Measure Applicability: Outdoor lighting Best Management Practice unless Project Applicant supplies substantial evidence. Inputs: The following information needs to be provided by the Project Applicant: Number of outdoor lights Power rating of outdoor lights Carbon intensity of local utility (for baseline only) Limited hours of operation of outdoor lights Baseline Method: GHG emissions = Heads x Hours x Powerbaseline x Utility Where: GHG emissions = MT CO2e/yr Heads = Number of outdoor lighting heads. Provided by Applicant. Hours = Annual hours of operation (4,280)17. Powerbaseline = Power rating of outdoor lights (kW). Utility = Carbon intensity of Local Utility (CO2e/kWh) 17 Estimated based on the annual number of dark hours (hours between sunset and sunrise) for Los Angeles, California. Energy MP# EE-2.3 LE-2 Lighting 120 LE-2 Mitigation Method: Limiting the hours of operation of outdoor lights in turn limits the indirect GHG emissions associated with their electricity usage. Therefore, the reduction in GHG emissions associated with limiting outdoor lighting is: GHG emission reduction = baseline limitedbaseline Hours Hours-Hours Where: GHG emission reduction = Percentage reduction in GHG emissions for outdoor lighting. Hoursbaseline = Annual hours of operation (4,280). Hourslimited = Limited hours of operation per day. Provided by Applicant. As it can be seen by this equation, the carbon intensity of the local utility does not play a role in determining the percentage reduction in GHG emissions. Emission Reduction Ranges and Variables: This is a best management practice measure unless the Project Applicant supplies substantial evidence justifying a reduction in hours of operation. Check with local agencies for guidance on any allowed reductions associated with implementation of best management practices. Pollutant Category Emissions Reductions CO2e 0 to 100% All other pollutants Not Quantified18 Discussion: If the applicant uses outdoor lighting, they would calculate baseline emissions as described in the baseline methodologies document. If the applicant then selects to mitigate outdoor lighting by limiting operation to 10 hours per day, the applicant would reduce the amount of GHG emissions associated with outdoor lighting by 20%. GHG Emissions Reduced = 0.2010 1012 or 20% Assumptions: 18 Criteria air pollutant emissions may also be reduced due to the reduction in energy use; however, the reduction may not be in the same air basin as the project. Energy MP# EE-2.3 LE-2 Lighting 121 LE-2 None Preferred Literature: None Other Literature Reviewed: None Energy MP# EE-2.1.5 LE-3 Lighting 122 LE-3 2.2.3 Replace Traffic Lights with LED Traffic Lights Range of Effectiveness: 90% of emissions associated with existing traffic lights. Measure Description: Lighting sources contribute to GHG emissions indirectly, via the production of the electricity that powers these lights. Installing higher efficiency traffic lights reduces energy demand and associated GHG emissions. As high efficiency light-emitting diodes (LEDs), which consume about 90% less energy than traditional incandescent traffic lights while still providing adequate light or lumens when viewed, are currently required to meet minimum federal efficiency standards for new traffic lights. Project Applicants may take credit only if they are retrofitting existing incandescent traffic lights. Measure Applicability: Traffic lighting – retrofitting incandescent traffic lights Inputs: The following information needs to be provided by the Project Applicant: Number of incandescent traffic lights being retrofitted Power rating of incandescent traffic lights being retrofitted Carbon intensity of local utility (for baseline only) Baseline Method: GHG emissions = Lights x Hours x Days x Powerbaseline x Utility Where: GHG emissions = MT CO2e/yr Lights = Number of incandescent traffic lights being retrofitted. Provided by Applicant. Hours = Hours of operation per day (24). Days = Days of operation per year (365). Powerbaseline = Power rating of incandescent traffic lights being retrofitted (kW). Utility = Carbon intensity of Local Utility (CO2e/kWh) Mitigation Method: Traffic lights using LEDs consume about 90% less power than traditional incandescent traffic lights. Therefore, the reduction in GHG emissions associated with replacing incandescent traffic lights with LED-based traffic lights is: Energy MP# EE-2.1.5 LE-3 Lighting 123 LE-3 GHG emission reduction = baseline mitigatedbaseline Power Power-Power = 90% Where: GHG emission reduction = Percentage reduction in GHG emissions for traffic lighting. Powerbaseline = Power rating of incandescent traffic lights (kW). Powermitigated = Power rating of LED traffic lights (kW). As it can be seen by this equation, the carbon intensity of the local utility does not play a role in determining the percentage reduction in GHG emissions. Emission Reduction Ranges and Variables: Pollutant Category Emissions Reductions CO2e 90% All other pollutants Not Quantified19 Discussion: If the applicant uses traffic lights, they would calculate baseline emissions as described in the baseline methodologies document. If the applicant then selects to mitigate traffic lights by committing to replacing all existing incandescent traffic lights with LED traffic lights, the applicant would reduce the amount of GHG emissions associated with traffic lights in an existing area by 90%. GHG Emissions Reduced = 90% Assumptions: Data based upon the following references: [1] USDOE. 2004. NREL. State Energy Program Case Studies: California Says “Go” to Energy-Saving Traffic Lights. Available online at: http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35551.pdf [2] USEPA. ENERGY STAR: Traffic Signals. Available online at: http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=traffic.pr_traffic_signals. Accessed February 2010. 19 Criteria air pollutant emissions may also be reduced due to the reduction in energy use; however, the reduction may not be in the same air basin as the project. Energy MP# EE-2.1.5 LE-3 Lighting 124 LE-3 Preferred Literature: NREL reports that traffic lights based on light-emitting diodes (LEDs) consume about 90% less power than traditional incandescent traffic lights. All traffic lights manufactured on or after January 1, 2006 must meet minimum federal efficiency standards, which are consistent with ENERGY STAR specifications for LED traffic lights. Alternative Literature: None Other Literature Reviewed: [3] The University of Rochester. LED, OLED, and laser research for lighting applications. Homepage available online at: http://www.rochester.edu/research/sciences.html. Accessed February 2010. Energy CEQA # MM E-5 MP# AE-2.1 AE-1 Alternative Energy 125 AE-1 2.3 Alternative Energy Generation 2.3.1 Establish Onsite Renewable or Carbon-Neutral Energy Systems-Generic Range of Effectiveness: 0-100% of emissions associated with electricity use. Note some systems could increase energy use. Measure Description: Using electricity generated from renewable or carbon-neutral power systems displaces electricity demand which would ordinarily be supplied by the local utility. Different sources of electricity generation that local utilities use have varying carbon intensities. Renewable energy systems such as fuel cells may have GHG emissions associated with them. Carbon-neutral power systems, such as photovoltaic panels, do not emit GHGs and will be less carbon intense than the local utility. This mitigation measure describes a method to calculate GHG emission reductions from displacing utility electricity with electricity generated from an on-site power system, which may incorporate technology which has not yet been established at the time this document was written. Measure Applicability: Electricity use Inputs: The following information needs to be provided by the Project Applicant: Total annual electricity demand (kWh) Annual amount of electricity to be provided by the on-site power system (kWh) or percent of total electricity demand to be provided by the on-site power system (%) Carbon intensity of local utility and on-site power system if not carbon neutral Baseline Method: GHG emissions = Electricitybaseline x Utility Where: GHG emissions = MT CO2e Electricitybaseline = Total electricity demand (kWh) Provided by Applicant Utility = Carbon intensity of Local Utility (CO2e/kWh) Energy CEQA # MM E-5 MP# AE-2.1 AE-1 Alternative Energy 126 AE-1 Mitigation Method: If the total amount of electricity to be provided by the carbon-neutral power system is known, then the GHG emission reduction is equivalent to the ratio of electricity from the carbon-neutral power system to the total electricity demand: GHG emission reduction = baseline neutral-carbon yElectricit yElectricit Where: GHG emission reduction = Percentage reduction in GHG emissions for electricity use Electricitycarbon-neutral = Electricity to be provided by the carbon-neutral power system (kWh) Electricitybaseline = Total electricity demand (kWh) If the percent of total electricity demand to be provided by the carbon-neutral power system is known, then the GHG emission reduction is equivalent to that percentage. As shown in these equations, the carbon intensity of the local utility does not play a role in determining the percentage reduction in GHG emissions for carbon neutral systems. If the total amount of electricity to be provided by a renewable energy system that is not carbon neutral, then the GHG emission reduction is equivalent to the following equation: GHG emission reduction = baseline renewable yElectricit yElectricit x Utility Renewable-Utility Where Electricityrenewable = Electricity provided by renewable power system (kWh) Renewable = Carbon intensity of renewable system (CO2e/kWh) Emission Reduction Ranges and Variables: Pollutant Category Emissions Reductions CO2e Up to 100%, assuming all electricity demand is provided by a carbon-neutral power system All other pollutants Not Quantified20,21 Discussion: 20 Criteria air pollutant emissions may also be reduced due to the reduction in energy use; however, the reduction may not be in the same air basin as the project. 21 Assumes that the onsite carbon-neutral system displaces electricity use only. Energy CEQA # MM E-5 MP# AE-2.1 AE-1 Alternative Energy 127 AE-1 If a project’s total electricity demand is 10,000 kWh, and 1,000 kWh of that is provided by the carbon-neutral system, then the GHG emission reduction is 10% GHG Emission Reduced = 00.110,000 1,000 or 10% If a project instead uses a renewable system with carbon intensity of 500 CO2e/kWh and the local utility is 100 CO2e/kWh, then the GHG emission reduction is 5%. GHG Emission Reduced = 0.051,000 500)(1,000 10,000 1,000 or 5% Energy CEQA # MM E-5 MP# AE-2.1 AE-2 Alternative Energy 128 AE-2 2.3.2 Establish Onsite Renewable Energy Systems-Solar Power Range of Effectiveness: 0-100% of GHG emissions associated with electricity use. Measure Description: Using electricity generated from photovoltaic (PV) systems displaces electricity demand which would ordinarily be supplied by the local utility. Since zero GHG emissions are associated with electricity generation from PV systems22, the GHG emissions reductions from this mitigation measure are equivalent to the emissions that would have been produced had electricity been supplied by the local utility. Measure Applicability: Electricity use Inputs: The following information needs to be provided by the Project Applicant: Total electricity demand (kWh) Amount of electricity to be provided by the PV system (kWh) or percent of total electricity demand to be provided by the PV system (%) Baseline Method: GHG emissions = Electricitybaseline x Utility Where: GHG emissions = MT CO2e Electricitybaseline = Total electricity demand (kWh) Provided by Applicant Utility = Carbon intensity of Local Utility (CO2e/kWh) Mitigation Method: If the total amount of electricity to be provided by the PV system is known, then the GHG emission reduction is equivalent to the ratio of electricity from the PV system to the total electricity demand: GHG emission reduction = baseline PV yElectricit yElectricit 22 This mitigation measure does not account for GHG emissions associated with the embodied energy of PV systems. Energy CEQA # MM E-5 MP# AE-2.1 AE-2 Alternative Energy 129 AE-2 Where: GHG emission reduction = Percentage reduction in GHG emissions for electricity use ElectricityPV = Electricity to be provided by PV system (kWh) Electricitybaseline = Total electricity demand (kWh) If the percent of total electricity demand to be provided by the PV system is known, then the GHG emission reduction is equivalent to that percentage. As shown in these equations, the carbon intensity of the local utility does not play a role in determining the percentage reduction in GHG emissions. The amount of electricity generated by a PV system depends on the size and type of the PV system and the location of the project. The Project Applicant can use a publically-available solar calculator, such as California’s Public Utilities and Energy Commissions Go Solar Clean Power Estimator23, to estimate the size of the PV system needed to generate the desired amount of electricity. The only input required for this calculator is the location (zip code). Estimates of the amount of electricity that can be generated from 1.5, 3, 5, and 10 kW PV systems in cities around California are shown in Table AE-2.1 below. Since there is a range of PV system efficiencies, the local agency may consider checking the type of PV efficiency assumed to ensure the system that is installed meets this capacity. Emission Reduction Ranges and Variables: Pollutant Category Emissions Reductions CO2e Up to 100%, assuming all electricity demand is provided by a PV system. Percent reduction would scale down linearly as the percent of electricity provided by a PV system decreases. All other pollutants Not Quantified24 Discussion: If a project’s total electricity demand is 10,000 kWh, and 1,000 kWh of that is provided by a PV system, then the GHG emission reduction is 10% 23 Available online at http://gosolarcalifornia.cleanpowerestimator.com/gosolarcalifornia.htm. 24 Criteria air pollutant emissions may also be reduced due to the reduction in energy use; however, the reduction may not be in the same air basin as the project. Energy CEQA # MM E-5 MP# AE-2.1 AE-2 Alternative Energy 130 AE-2 GHG Emission Reduced = 0.1010,000 1,000 or 10% Assumptions: The data in Table AE-2.1 was generated from California’s Public Utilities and Energy Commissions Go Solar Clean Power Estimator, a publically-available solar calculator which the Project Applicant can use to estimate the PV system size needed to generate the desired amount of electricity. It is available online at: http://gosolarcalifornia.cleanpowerestimator.com/gosolarcalifornia.htm. Other publically-available solar calculators include: USDOE. NREL: PVWatts Calculator. Available online at: http://www.nrel.gov/rredc/pvwatts/. SolarEstimate.Org. Solar & Wind Estimator. Available online at: http://www.solar- estimate.org/index.php?page=solar-calculator. SharpUSA. Solar Calculator. Available online at: http://sharpusa.cleanpowerestimator.com/sharpusa.htm. Preferred Literature: None Other Literature Reviewed: None Energy CEQA # MM E-5 MP# AE-2.1 AE-2 Alternative Energy 131 AE-2 Table AE-2.1 Estimated Electricity Generation from Typical PV Systems Location Annual kWh Generated Air District Major City Zip Code 3 kW PV System 5 kW PV System 10 kW PV System Amador County Ione 95640 4,857 8,094 16,189 Antelope Valley Lancaster 93534 5,034 8,390 16,781 Bay Area San Francisco 94101 4,926 8,218 16,436 Butte County Chico 95926 4,857 8,094 16,189 Calaveras County Rancho Calaveras 95252 4,857 8,094 16,189 Colusa County Colusa 95932 4,857 8,094 16,189 El Dorado County South Lake Tahoe 96150 5,275 8,792 17,584 Feather River Yuba City 95991 4,857 8,094 16,189 Glenn County Orland 95963 4,857 8,094 16,189 Great Basin Unified Bishop 93514 5,507 9,179 18,358 Imperial County El Centro 92243 5,117 8,528 17,056 Kern County Bakersfield 93301 5,082 8,470 16,939 Lake County Lakeport 95453 4,857 8,094 16,189 Lassen County Susanville 96130 5,275 8,792 17,584 Mariposa County Mariposa 95338 5,065 8,441 16,882 Mendocino County Ukiah 95482 4,926 8,218 16,436 Modoc County Alturas 96101 5,275 8,792 17,584 Mojave Desert Victorville 92392 5,885 9,808 19,617 Monterey Bay Unified Monterey 93940 4,926 8,218 16,436 North Coast Unified Eureka 95501 4,081 6,801 13,602 Northern Sierra Grass Valley 95949 4,857 8,094 16,189 Northern Sonoma County Healdsburg 95448 4,931 8,218 16,436 Placer County Roseville 95678 4,857 8,094 16,189 Sacramento Metro Sacramento 95864 4,857 8,094 16,189 San Diego County San Diego 92182 5,102 8,528 17,056 San Joaquin Valley Unified Fresno 93650 5,065 8,441 16,882 San Luis Obispo County San Luis Obispo 93405 5,320 8,932 17,865 Santa Barbara County Santa Barbara 93101 5,320 8,932 17,865 Shasta County Redding 96001 4,081 6,801 13,602 Siskiyou County Yreka 96097 4,363 7,271 14,543 South Coast Los Angeles 90071 5,034 8,390 16,781 Tehama County Red Bluff 96080 4,857 8,094 16,189 Tuolumne County Sonora 95370 4,857 8,094 16,189 Ventura County Oxnard 93030 5,034 8,390 16,781 Yolo-Solano Davis 95616 4,857 8,094 16,189 Energy CEQA # MM E-5 MP# AE-2.1 AE-3 Alternative Energy 132 AE-3 2.3.3 Establish Onsite Renewable Energy Systems-Wind Power Range of Effectiveness: 0-100% of GHG emissions associated with electricity use. Measure Description: Using electricity generated from wind power systems displaces electricity demand which would ordinarily be supplied by the local utility. Since zero GHG emissions are associated with electricity generation from wind turbines25, the GHG emissions reductions from this mitigation measure are equivalent to the emissions that would have been produced had electricity been supplied by the local utility. Measure Applicability: Electricity use Inputs: The following information needs to be provided by the Project Applicant: Total electricity demand (kWh) Amount of electricity to be provided by the wind power system (kWh) or percent of total electricity demand to be provided by the wind power system (%) Baseline Method: GHG emissions = Electricitybaseline x Utility Where: GHG emissions = MT CO2e Electricitybaseline = Total electricity demand (kWh) Provided by Applicant Utility = Carbon intensity of Local Utility (CO2e/kWh) Mitigation Method: The GHG emission reduction is equivalent to the ratio of electricity from the wind power system to the total electricity demand: GHG emission reduction = baseline wind yElectricit yElectricit 25 This mitigation measure does not account for GHG emissions associated with the embodied energy of wind turbines. Energy CEQA # MM E-5 MP# AE-2.1 AE-3 Alternative Energy 133 AE-3 Where: GHG emission reduction = Percentage reduction in GHG emissions for electricity use Electricitywind = Electricity to be provided by wind power system (kWh) Electricitybaseline = Total electricity demand (kWh) If the percent of total electricity demand to be provided by the wind power system is known, then the GHG emission reduction is equivalent to that percentage. As shown in these equations, the carbon intensity of the local utility does not play a role in determining the percentage reduction in GHG emissions. Emission Reduction Ranges and Variables: Pollutant Category Emissions Reductions CO2e Up to 100%, assuming all electricity demand is provided by a wind power system. Percent reduction would scale down linearly as the percent of electricity provided by a wind power system decreases. All other pollutants None26 Discussion: If a project’s total electricity demand is 10,000 kWh, and 1,000 kWh of that is provided by a wind system, then the GHG emission reduction is 10% GHG Emission Reduced = 0.1010,000 1,000 or 10% Assumptions: None Preferred Literature: None 26 Criteria air pollutant emissions may also be reduced due to the reduction in energy use; however, the reduction may not be in the same air basin as the project. Energy CEQA # MM E-5 MP# AE-2.1 AE-3 Alternative Energy 134 AE-3 Other Literature Reviewed: None Energy MP# AE-2 AE-4 Alternative Energy 135 AE-4 2.3.4 Utilize a Combined Heat and Power System Range of Effectiveness: 0-46% of GHG emissions associated with electricity use. Measure Description: For the same level of power output, combined heat and power (CHP) systems utilize less input energy than traditional separate heat and power (SHP) generation, resulting in fewer CO2 emissions. In traditional SHP systems, heat created as a by-product is wasted by being released into the environment. In contrast, CHP systems harvest the thermal energy and use it to heat onsite or nearby processes, thus reducing the amount of natural gas or other fuel that would otherwise need to be combusted to heat those processes. In addition CHP systems lower the demand for grid electricity, thereby displacing the CO2 emissions associated with the production of grid electricity. This mitigation measure describes how to estimate CO 2 emissions savings (in MT per year) from utilizing a CHP system to supply energy demands which would otherwise be provided by separate heat and power systems (e.g. grid electricity for electricity demand and boilers for thermal demand). CO2 emissions savings are quantified using the USEPA CHP Emission Calculator which allows users to estimate the CO2 emissions savings associated with displaced electricity and thermal production from five CHP technologies: microturbine, fuel cell, reciprocating engine, combustion turbine, and backpressure steam turbine. The first three technologies have electricity generation capacities on a scale appropriate for residential neighborhoods, planned communities, and mixed-use and commercial developments. Combustion turbines and backpressure steam turbines are more appropriate for industrial processes or very large commercial developments. The user has the option to input project-specific data such as specific fuels, duct burner operation, cooling demand, and boiler efficiencies. Table AE-4.1 provides examples of expected CO2 savings for microturbines, fuel cells, and reciprocating engines of a range of electricity generating capacities for the five major California utilities (Southern California Edison (SCE), Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP), San Diego Gas and Electric (SDGE), Pacific Gas and Electric (PGE), and the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD). Default values provided by the USEPA CHP Calculator were used wherever possible (see the Assumptions section below). The magnitude of CO2 reductions depends on the baseline power sources. For thermal demand, the baseline is assumed to be a new boiler with 80% efficiency. For electricity demand, the baseline is the carbon intensity of the local utility, which varies by utility. For reference, Table AE-4.2 provides the 2006 carbon intensity of delivered electricity for the five utilities. As shown in Table AE-4.1, certain CHP systems may not be appropriate for certain locations, especially in Northern California where PGE and SMUD have relatively low carbon intensities. Measure Applicability: Energy MP# AE-2 AE-4 Alternative Energy 136 AE-4 Grid electricity use Natural gas combustion Inputs: The following information needs to be provided by the Project Applicant: Expected CHP technology (microturbine, fuel cell, or reciprocating engine) Expected electricity demand Baseline Method: GHG emissions = CO2 emissions displaced Where: GHG emissions = MT CO2e CO2 emissions displaced = MT CO2 from separate heat and power system Provided in Table AE-4.1 or calculated using USEPA CHP Calculator Here it is assumed that all GHG emissions produced from fuel combustion and electricity generation are CO2 emissions. Mitigation Method: GHG emission reduction = Percent Reduction in CO2 emissions Provided in Table A E-4.1 or calculated using USEPA CHP Calculator Emission Reduction Ranges and Variables: Pollutant Category Emissions Reductions CO2e Up to 100%, assuming all electricity demand is provided by a CHP system. Percent reduction would scale down linearly as the percent of electricity provided by a CHP system decreases. All other pollutants 0-70%27 Depends on CHP technology, electricity generating capacity, sulfur content of fuel, and displaced thermal generation technology. Reductions in CO2 may produce increases in SO2 and/or NOx, or vice versa. 27 Criteria air pollutant emissions may also be reduced due to the reduction in energy use; however, the reduction may not be in the same air basin as the project. Energy MP# AE-2 AE-4 Alternative Energy 137 AE-4 Discussion: Assume a project is located in SCE’s service area and has an expected electricity demand of 100 kW. Using Table AE-4: A 100 kW microturbine will generate more CO2 emissions than a separate heat and power system of equivalent power capacity. A 100 kW fuel cell will generate about the same CO2 emissions than a separate heat and power system of equivalent power capacity. A 100 kW reciprocating engine will generate 14% less CO2 emissions as a separate heat and power system of equivalent power capacity. Therefore, the Project Applicant should choose the reciprocating engine. This system would generate 568 MT CO2 compared to 657 MT CO2 from the separate heat and power system. Assumptions: Table AE-4.1 was prepared using the 2009 USEPA CHP Calculator, a publically- available tool found online at: http://www.epa.gov/chp/basic/calculator.html. The following defaults and assumptions were made to generate the data in Table AE-4.1: The range of electricity generating capacity shown in Table AE-4.1 is based on the normal range for the technology (as per Calculator default) Operates 8,760 hours per year Provides heat only (no cooling) Combusts natural gas fuel (116.7 CO2/MMBtu emission rate and 1,020 Btu/scf HHV as per Calculator defaults) No supplementary duct burner Assumes 8% transmission loss for displaced electricity Table AE-4.2 was prepared using data from the California Climate Action Registry (CCAR) Power/Utility Protocol (PUP) public reports for reporting year 2006. These PUP reports are available online at: https://www.climateregistry.org/CARROT/public/reports.aspx. Preferred Literature: The USEPA CHP Emissions Calculator compares the anticipated emissions from a CHP system to the emissions from SHP systems. The Calculator was developed by the U.S. Department of Energy's Distributed Energy Program, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's CHP Partnership. Users can choose from five different CHP technologies (microturbine, fuel cell, reciprocating engine, combustion turbine, and backpressure steam turbine) and compare their performance to a number of different SHP systems (e.g. local electricity utility and Energy MP# AE-2 AE-4 Alternative Energy 138 AE-4 existing or new gas boiler, fuel oil boiler, or heat bump). Additionally, users have the option to refine the analysis with project-specific inputs such as the cooling demand and additional duct burning. Details such as the cooling efficiency of the displaced cooling system must be known to perform more detailed analysis. The calculator can be used to estimate expected reductions in CO2, SO2, and NOx emissions as well as fuel usage. Alternative Literature: The USEPA Combined Heat and Power Partnership Catalog of CHP Technologies presents performance details of six CHP technologies: gas turbine, microturbine, spark and compression ignition reciprocating engines, steam turbine, and fuel cell. Table I of the Introduction presents the equations necessary to calculate the percent fuel savings from using a CHP system instead of traditional separate heat and power generation. Subsequent chapters describe performance details of each of the CHP technologies, including estimated CO2 emissions. The GHG emissions reductions associated with this mitigation measure are the change in emissions from using a CHP system rather than a SHP system in a building. The USEPA CHP Calculator methodologies are based in part on this Catalog of CHP Technologies document. Other Literature Reviewed: None Energy MP# AE-2 AE-4 Alternative Energy 139 AE-4 Table AE-4.1 Estimated CO2 Emissions Savings from CHP Systems in California1,2 Utility CHP Technology Electricity Generating Capacity Electric Efficiency Power to Heat Ratio CO2 Emissions from CHP CO2 Emissions Displaced Percent Reduction in CO2 Emissions3 (kW) (% HHV) -- (MT/year) (MT/year) (%) SCE Microturbine 30 24% 0.51 200 200 0% 50 24% 0.51 334 333 0% 100 26% 0.7 607 559 -9% 250 26% 0.92 1517 1229 -23% Fuel Cell 5 30% 0.79 26 26 0% 100 30% 0.79 527 527 0% 1000 43% 1.95 3679 3783 3% 2000 46% 1.92 6884 7597 9% Reciprocating Engine (Rich Burn) 55 30% 0.63 290 325 11% 100 28% 0.52 568 657 14% 1000 29% 0.64 5514 5859 6% 1200 28% 0.63 6759 7052 4% LADWP Microturbine 30 24% 0.51 200 277 28% 50 24% 0.51 334 462 28% 100 26% 0.7 607 817 26% 250 26% 0.92 1517 1875 19% Fuel Cell 5 30% 0.79 26 39 33% 100 30% 0.79 527 786 33% 1000 43% 1.95 3679 6366 42% 2000 46% 1.92 6884 12762 46% Reciprocating Engine (Rich Burn) 55 30% 0.63 290 466 38% 100 28% 0.52 568 915 38% 1000 29% 0.64 5514 8441 35% 1200 28% 0.63 6759 10188 34% SDGE Microturbine 30 24% 0.51 200 218 8% 50 24% 0.51 334 363 8% 100 26% 0.7 607 620 2% 250 26% 0.92 1517 1381 -10% Fuel Cell 5 30% 0.79 26 30 12% 100 30% 0.79 527 588 10% 1000 43% 1.95 3679 4387 16% 2000 46% 1.92 6884 8806 22% Energy MP# AE-2 AE-4 Alternative Energy 140 AE-4 Utility CHP Technology Electricity Generating Capacity Electric Efficiency Power to Heat Ratio CO2 Emissions from CHP CO2 Emissions Displaced Percent Reduction in CO2 Emissions3 (kW) (% HHV) -- (MT/year) (MT/year) (%) Reciprocating Engine (Rich Burn) 55 30% 0.63 290 358 19% 100 28% 0.52 568 717 21% 1000 29% 0.64 5514 6463 15% 1200 28% 0.63 6759 7814 14% PGE Microturbine 30 24% 0.51 200 175 -15% 50 24% 0.51 334 293 -14% 100 26% 0.7 607 479 -27% 250 26% 0.92 1517 1030 -47% Fuel Cell 5 30% 0.79 26 23 -16% 100 30% 0.79 527 447 -18% 1000 43% 1.95 3679 2984 -23% 2000 46% 1.92 6884 5999 -15% Reciprocating Engine (Rich Burn) 55 30% 0.63 290 280 -4% 100 28% 0.52 568 577 2% 1000 29% 0.64 5514 5059 -9% 1200 28% 0.63 6759 6130 -10% SMUD Microturbine 30 24% 0.51 200 188 -7% 50 24% 0.51 334 314 -6% 100 26% 0.7 607 522 -16% 250 26% 0.92 1517 1137 -33% Fuel Cell 5 30% 0.79 26 24 -7% 100 30% 0.79 527 490 -8% 1000 43% 1.95 3679 3411 -8% 2000 46% 1.92 6884 6855 0% Reciprocating Engine (Rich Burn) 55 30% 0.63 290 304 4% 100 28% 0.52 568 620 8% 1000 29% 0.64 5514 5487 0% 1200 28% 0.63 6759 6643 -2% Abbreviations: CHP - combined heat and power CO2 - carbon dioxide HHV - higher heating value kW - kilowatt LADWP - Los Angeles Department of Water and Power Energy MP# AE-2 AE-4 Alternative Energy 141 AE-4 PGE - Pacific Gas and Electric SCE - Southern California Edison SDGE - San Diego Gas and Electric SMUD - Sacramento Municipal Utility District USEPA - United State Environmental Protection Agency Notes: 1. All data in this table generated using the USEPA CHP Calculator using utility-specific CO2 intensity factors (see Table B). The following defaults and assumptions for the CHP system were used: - electricity generating capacity based on normal range for the technology (as per Calculator default) - operate 8,760 hours per year - heating only (no cooling) - natural gas fuel (116.7 CO2/MMBtu emission rate and 1,020 Btu/scf HHV as per Calculator defaults) - no duct burner - assumed 8% transmission loss for displaced electricity 2. All CHP systems were compared to a baseline separate heat and power system consisting of a "new gas boiler" (assumed 80% efficiency as per Calculator default) and the local utility CO2 intensity factor as provided in Table B. 3. A negative value indicates that the proposed CHP system is expected to generate more CO2 emissions than the baseline separate heat and power system. Source: USEPA. 2009. CHP Emissions Calculator. Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/chp/basic/calculator.html. Accessed April 2010. Energy MP# AE-2 AE-4 Alternative Energy 142 AE-4 Table AE-4.2 Carbon Intensity of California Utilities Utility Total From All Generation Sources1 Electricity CO2 Emissions CO2 intensity factor (MWh) (MT) (lb/MWh) SCE 82,776,309 24,077,133 641 LADWP 29,029,883 16,308,526 1,239 SDGE 19,108,166 6,767,326 781 PGE 79,211,982 16,377,172 456 SMUD 15,133,569 3,811,571 555 eGRID National Average (default in USEPA CHP Calculator)2,3 540 eGRID National Fossil Fuel Average (default in USEPA CHP Calculator)2,4 1,076 Abbreviations: CHP - combined heat and power CO2 - carbon dioxide eGRID - Emissions and Generation Resource Integrated Database LADWP - Los Angeles Department of Water and Power lb - pound MWh - megawatt-hour PGE - Pacific Gas and Electric SCE - Southern California Edison SDGE - San Diego Gas and Electric SMUD - Sacramento Municipal Utility District USEPA - United State Environmental Protection Agency Notes: 1. Total electricity and CO2 emissions reported by the utility in the California Climate Action Registry Power/Utility Protocol (PUP) Reports for reporting year 2006. PUP Reports available online at: https://www.climateregistry.org/CARROT/public/reports.aspx. 2. eGRID is a comprehensive inventory of environmental attributes of electricity generation (such as the carbon intensity of power generation), compiled from data from three federal agencies: EPA, the Energy Information Administration (EIA), and the Federal Energy Regulatory Co mmission (FERC). The USEPA CHP Calculator provides default 2005 eGRID carbon intensities for the U.S. and California. For more information, see: http://www.epa.gov/rdee/energy-resources/egrid/index.html. 3. eGRID National Average represents the national average carbon intensity for electricity generation from all power sources (hydropower, nuclear, renewables, and fossil fuels including oil, natural gas, and coal). 4. eGRID National Fossil Fuel Average represents the national average carbon intensity for electricity generation from fossil fuel sources only (oil, natural gas, and coal). Energy MP# WRD-1 AE -5 Alternative Energy 143 AE-5 2.3.5 Establish Methane Recovery in Landfills Range of Effectiveness: 73-77% reduction in GHG emissions from landfills without methane recovery Measure Description: One of the U.S.’s largest sources of methane emissions is from the decomposition of waste in landfills. Methane (CH4) is a potent GHG and has a global warming potential (GWP) over 20 times that of CO2. Capturing methane in landfills and combusting it to generate electricity for on-site energy needs reduces GHG emissions in two ways: it reduces direct methane emissions, and it displaces electricity demand and the associated indirect GHG emissions from electricity production. Measure Applicability: Electricity from utility Note: this mitigation measure does not include energy generation from burning municipal solid waste. Inputs: The following information needs to be provided by the Project Applicant: Amount of mixed solid waste (short tons) Baseline Method: In landfills without landfill gas recovery systems, greenhouse gases are emitted directly to the atmosphere. CO2ebaseline = MSW x LFM x (44/12) Where CO2ebaseline = Amount of CO2e generated from landfilling mixed solid waste (MT) MSW = Amount of mixed solid waste (short tons) Provided by Applicant LFM = Landfill methane generated from mixed solid waste 0.580 MTCE / short ton MSW (44/12) = Conversion from MTCE to MT CO2e Energy MP# WRD-1 AE -5 Alternative Energy 144 AE-5 Mitigation Method: Mitigation Option 1 – Methane is captured and flared USEPA assumes that 10% of the landfill CH4 generated is either converted by bacteria or chemically oxidized to CO2. The remaining 90% remains as CH4 and is either captured and flared28 or released directly to the atmosphere as fugitive CH4 emissions. Assume a 99% combustion conversion efficiency. CO2eMit1 = MSW x LFM x 1/(12/44 x 21) x [(CO2oxidation + CO2flare) x 1 + (CH4fugitive + CH4unflare) x 21] Where CO2eMit1 = Amount of CO2e from flaring landfill methane (MT) MSW = Amount of mixed solid waste (short tons) Provided by Applicant LFM = MTCE29 methane generated per short ton MSW 0.580 MTCE / short ton MSW 1/(12/44 x 21) = Conversion from MTCE to MT CH4 CO2oxidation = Contribution from CO2 generated from chemical or biological oxidation. 0.10 CO2flare = Contribution from CO2 generated from the flaring of methane. (1-0.10) x 0.75 x 0.99 = 0.66825 1 = Global warming potential of CO2, used to convert from CO2 to CO2e CH4fugitive = Contribution from CH4 which remains unoxidized to CO2 and is not captured for flaring, and therefore is released directly to the atmosphere. (1-0.10) x (1-0.75) = 0.225 28 Seek local agency guidance on whether to include CO2flare emissions. USEPA and IPCC consider these emissions to be biogenic; therefore, the emissions are not included in USEPA and IPCC greenhouse gas emissions inventories. 29 MTCE = metric MTMTMTMT carbon equivalent. The MTCE equivalent of 1 MT of a greenhouse gas is (12/44) multiplied by the greenhouse gas global warming potential. Energy MP# WRD-1 AE -5 Alternative Energy 145 AE-5 CH4unflare = Contribution from CH4 which remains unoxidized and is captured for flaring, but remains unconverted due to incomplete combustion. (1-0.10) x 0.75 x (1-0.99) = 0.00675 21 = Global warming potential of CH4, used to convert from CH4 to CO2e Therefore: CO2eMit1 = MSW x 0.580 x 1/(12/44 x 21) x [(0.76825 x 1) + (0.23175 x 21)] CO2eMit1 = MSW x 0.571 And then the percent reduction in GHG emissions from Mitigation Option 1 is: GHG reductionMit1 = baseline2 Mit12 baseline2 eCO eCOeCO GHG reductionMit1 = 73% As shown from this equation, the percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions does not depend on the amount of mixed solid waste in the landfill. Mitigation Option 2 – Methane is captured and combusted for cogeneration If a cogeneration system is used to generate electricity from the combusted methane, the following equation is used to calculate the amount of electricity generated: Electricity = MSW x LFM x 1/(12/44 x 21) x Combust x Density x 106 x HHV x ECF x EFF x Where Electricity = Amount of electricity generated from combustion of methane (kWh) LFM = MTCE methane generated per short ton MSW 0.580 MTCE / short ton MSW 1/(12/44 x 21) = Conversion from MTCE to MT CH4 Combust = Fraction of CH4 captured and combusted for cogeneration Energy MP# WRD-1 AE -5 Alternative Energy 146 AE-5 (1-0.10) x 0.75 = 0.675; assumes 10% of methane is oxidized prior to capture and 75% capture efficiency Density = Density of CH4 0.05 ft3 CH4 / gram CH4 106 = Conversion from grams to MT HHV = Heating value of CH4 1,012 BTU / ft3 CH4 ECF = Energy conversion factor 0.00009 kWh/BTU EFF = Efficiency Factor 0.85; USEPA assumes a 15% system efficiency loss to account for system down-time Therefore: Electricity = MSW x 265 Since this amount of electricity is generated on-site and no longer needs to be supplied by the local electricity utility, the indirect CO2e emissions associated with that utility electricity generation are also avoided: CO2edisplaced = Electricity x Utility Where Utility = Carbon intensity of Local Utility (MT CO2e/kWh) from table below Power Utility Carbon-Intensity (lbs CO2e/MWh) LADW&P 1,238 PG&E 456 SCE 641 SDGE 781 SMUD 555 Therefore: CO2eMit2 = CO2eMit1 - CO2edisplaced Energy MP# WRD-1 AE -5 Alternative Energy 147 AE-5 And then the percent reduction in GHG emissions from Mitigation 2 is: GHG reductionMit2 = baseline2 displaced2Mit12 baseline2 eCO eCO eCOeCO GHG reductionMit2 = 2.127 Utility2651.556 As shown from these equations, the percent reduction in GHG emissions does not depend on the amount of mixed solid waste in the landfill. Note that further reductions could be achieved if the heat generated from combustion and cogeneration were recovered and used to displace thermal energy that otherwise would have been generated from a separate heat system, such as a boiler. The magnitude of reductions depends on the system being displaced, including the boiler efficiency and the heating value of the fuel as compared to the heating value of methane. To take credit for this additional reduction, the Project Applicant would need to quantify displaced GHG emissions using the baseline document and the Mitigation Measure BE-5, Install Energy Efficient Boilers. Emission Reduction Ranges and Variables: Pollutant Category Emissions Reductions CO2e 73-77% All other pollutants Not Quantified30 Discussion: In Southern California Edison’s service area, a landfill which captures and flares methane achieves a 73% reduction in GHG emissions compared to a landfill without a methane recovery system. A landfill which captures and combusts methane for cogeneration achieves a 77% reduction in GHG emissions compared to a landfill without a methane recovery system: GHG reduction Mit2 = 2.127 102.9092651.556 4 = 77% Assumptions: 30 Criteria air pollutant emissions may also be reduced due to the reduction in energy use; however, the reduction may not be in the same air basin as the project. Energy MP# WRD-1 AE -5 Alternative Energy 148 AE-5 Data based upon the following reference: USEPA. 2006. Solid Waste Management and Greenhouse Gases: A Life-Cycle Assessment of Emissions and Sinks, 3rd Ed. Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/waste/downloads/fullreport.pdf Preferred Literature: Section 6 of USEPA’s Solid Waste Management and Greenhouse Gases report presents methodology for calculating greenhouse gas emissions associated with three different landfill management systems: landfills which do not capture landfill gas, landfills which recover methane and flare it, and landfills which recover methane and combust it for cogeneration. Column (b) of Exhibit 6-6 shows methane generation factors for various types of landfill waste in MTCE per short ton of waste. For this analysis, the value for mixed solid waste is used. Section 6.2 provides USEPA defaults for percent of methane chemically or biologically oxidized to CO2 (10%) and the efficiency of methane capture systems (75%). Exhibit 6-7 provides USEPA defaults used for calculating the amount of electricity generated from methane combustion and cogeneration. Alternative Literature: None Other Literature Reviewed: CAR. 2009. Landfill Project Protocol: Collecting and Destroying Methane from Landfills. Version 3.0. Available online at: http://www.climateactionreserve.org/how/protocols/adopted/landfill/current-landfill-project- protocol/ CalRecycle (CIWMB). Climate Change and Solid Waste Management: Draft Final Report and Draft GHG Calculator Tool. Available online at: http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/Climate/Organics/LifeCycle/default.htm. Accessed February 2010. CARB. 2008. Local Government Operations Protocol. Version 1.0. Available online at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/protocols/localgov/pubs/final_lgo_protocol_2008-09-25.pdf American Carbon Registry. Standards. Available online at: http://www.americancarbonregistry.org/carbon-accounting/standards/?searchterm=landfill. Accessed February 2010. Energy MP# WRD-1 AE -6 Alternative Energy 149 AE-6 2.3.6 Establish Methane Recovery in Wastewater Treatment Plants Range of Effectiveness: 95-97% reduction in GHG emissions from wastewater treatment plants without recovery. Measure Description: Methane (CH4) is a potent GHG and has a global warming potential (GWP) over 20 times that of CO2. Capturing methane from wastewater treatment (WWT) plants and combusting it to generate electricity for on-site energy needs reduces GHG emissions in two ways: it reduces direct methane emissions, and it displaces electricity demand and the associated indirect GHG emissions from electricity production. Measure Applicability: Electricity from utility Inputs: The following information needs to be provided by the Project Applicant: Liters of wastewater Baseline Method: Centralized wastewater treatment facilities may use anaerobic or facultative lagoons or anaerobic digesters to treat wastewater. The methane emissions expected from anaerobic or facultative lagoons is calculated using the following equation from the California Air Resources Board (CARB)’s Local Government Reporting Protocol: CO2ebaseline = Wastewater x BOD5 load x 10-6 x Bo x MCFanaerobic x 10-3 x 21 Where CO2ebaseline = Amount of CO2e generated from wastewater treatment (MT) Wastewater = Volume of wastewater (liters) Provided by Applicant BOD5 load = Concentration of BOD5 in wastewater 200 mg / liter wastewater 10-6 = Conversion from mg to kg Bo = Maximum CH4-producing capacity for domestic wastewater 0.6 kg CH4 / kg BOD5 removed MCFanaerobic = CH4 correction factor for anaerobic systems 0.8 10-3 = Conversion from kg to MT Energy MP# WRD-1 AE -6 Alternative Energy 150 AE-6 21 = Global warming potential of CH4, used to convert from CH4 to CO2e Therefore: CO2ebaseline = Wastewater x 2.02 x 10-6 Mitigation Method: Mitigation Option 1 – Methane is captured and flared Anaerobic digesters produce methane-rich biogas which can be combusted and converted to CO2.31 Inherent inefficiencies in the system results in incomplete combustion of the biogas, which results in remaining methane emissions: CO2eMit1 = Wastewater x 0.2642 x Digester Gas x FCH4 x (CH4unflare + CO2flare) Where CO2eMit1 = Amount of CO2e generated from flaring methane from wastewater treatment plant (MT) Wastewater = Volume of wastewater (liters) Provided by Applicant 0.2642 = Conversion from liters to gallons Digester Gas = Volume of biogas generated per volume of wastewater treated ft3 biogas / gallon wastewater 0.01 FCH4 = Fraction of CH4 in biogas 0.65 CH4unflare = Contribution from CH4 which is captured for flaring, but remains unconverted due to incomplete combustion CH4unflare = ρCH4 x (1-DE) x 0.0283 x 10-6 x 21 = 3.93 x 10-6 ρCH4 = Density of CH4 at standard conditions 662 g/m3 DE = CH4 destruction efficiency 0.99 0.0283 = Conversion factor from ft3 to m3 10-6 = Conversion factor from g to MT 21 = Global warming potential of CH4, used to convert from CH4 to CO2e CO2flare = Contribution from CO2 generated from the flaring of methane CO2flare = EF / 2204.623 x 1= 5.44 x 10-5 EF = Emission factor for methane combustion 31 Seek local agency guidance on whether to include CO2 combustion emissions. USEPA and IPCC consider these emissions to be biogenic; therefore, the emissions are not included in USEPA and IPCC greenhouse gas emissions inventories. Energy MP# WRD-1 AE -6 Alternative Energy 151 AE-6 0.120 lb CO2/ft3 CH4 2204.623 = Conversion factor from lb to MT 1 = Global warming potential of CO2, used to convert from CO2 to CO2e Therefore: CO2eMit1 = Wastewater x 1.00 x 10-7 And then the percent reduction in GHG emissions from Mitigation Option 1 is: GHG reductionMit1 = baseline2 Mit12 baseline2 eCO eCOeCO GHG reductionMit1 = 95% As shown from this equation, the percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions does not depend on the amount of wastewater being treated. Mitigation Option 2 – Methane is captured and combusted for cogeneration If a cogeneration system is used to generate electricity from the combusted biogas, the following equation is used to calculate the amount of electricity generated: Electricity = Wastewater x 0.2642 x Digester Gas x FCH4 x HHVCH4 x ECF x EFF Where: Electricity = Amount of electricity generated from combustion of methane (kWh) Wastewater = Volume of wastewater (liters) Provided by Applicant 0.2642 = Conversion from liters to gallons Digester Gas = Volume of biogas generated per volume of wastewater treated 0.01 ft3 biogas / gallon wastewater FCH4 = Fraction of CH4 in biogas 0.65 HHV = Heating value of methane 1,012 BTU / ft3 CH4 ECF = Energy conversion factor 0.00009 kWh/BTU EFF = Efficiency Factor 0.85; USEPA assumes a 15% system efficiency loss to account for system down-time Therefore: Energy MP# WRD-1 AE -6 Alternative Energy 152 AE-6 Electricity = Wastewater x 1.33 x 10-4 Since this amount of electricity is generated on-site and no longer needs to be supplied by the local electricity utility, the indirect CO2e emissions associated with that utility electricity generation are also avoided: CO2edisplaced = Electricity x Utility Where Utility = Carbon intensity of Local Utility (MT CO2e/kWh) from table below Power Utility Carbon-Intensity (lbs CO2e/MWh) LADW&P 1,238 PG&E 456 SCE 641 SDGE 781 SMUD 555 Therefore: CO2eMit2 = CO2eMit1 - CO2edisplaced And then the percent reduction in GHG emissions from Mitigation 2 is: GHG reductionMit2 = baseline displacedMit1 baseline CO2e CO2e CO2eCO2e GHG reductionMit2 = 6- -4-6 10 2.02 Utility10 1.3310 1.92 As shown from these equations, the percent reduction in GHG emissions does not depend on the amount of wastewater being treated. Note that further reductions could be achieved if the heat generated from combustion and cogeneration were recovered and used to displace thermal energy that otherwise would have been generated from a separate heat system, such as a boiler. The magnitude of reductions depends on the system being displaced, including the boiler efficiency and the heating value of the fuel as compared to the heating value of methane. To take credit for this additional reduction, the Project Applicant would need to quantify displaced GHG emissions using the baseline document and the Mitigation Measure BE-5, Install Energy Efficient Boilers. Energy MP# WRD-1 AE -6 Alternative Energy 153 AE-6 Emission Reduction Ranges and Variables: Pollutant Category Emissions Reductions CO2e 95-97% All other pollutants Not Quantified32 Discussion: In Southern California Edison’s service area, a WWT plant which captures and flares methane achieves a 95% reduction in GHG emissions compared to a WWT plant without a methane recovery system. A WWT plant which captures and combusts methane for cogeneration achieves a 97% reduction in GHG emissions compared to a landfill without a methane recovery system: GHG reduction Mit2 = 6- -4-6 10 2.02 210 1.3310 1.92 410909. = 97% Assumptions: Data based upon the following references: CARB. 2008. Local Government Operations Protocol. Chapter 10: Wastewater Treatment Facilities. Available online at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/protocols/localgov/pubs/final_lgo_protocol_2008-09- 25.pdf USEPA. 2008. Inventory of US Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990- 2006. Chapter 8: Waste. Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads/08_CR.pdf USEPA. 2006. Solid Waste Management and Greenhouse Gases: A Life-Cycle Assessment of Emissions and Sinks, 3rd Ed. Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/waste/downloads/fullreport.pdf Preferred Literature: Chapter 10 of CARB’s Local Government Operations Protocol (LGOP) provides the methodology for calculating methane emissions from wastewater treatment. Centralized wastewater treatment facilities may use anaerobic or facultative lagoons or anaerobic digesters to treat wastewater. Equation 10.3 of the LGOP calculates methane emissions from anaerobic or facultative lagoons. Equation 10.1 of the LGOP calculates the methane emissions remaining due to incomplete combustion of anaerobic digester gas. Default values for the amount of digester gas produced per volume of wastewater and the fraction of methane in digester gas are taken from the 2008 USEPA Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks. Exhibit 6-7 of 32 Criteria air pollutant emissions may also be reduced due to the reduction in energy use; however, the reduction may not be in the same air basin as the project. Energy MP# WRD-1 AE -6 Alternative Energy 154 AE-6 USEPA’s Solid Waste Management and Greenhouse Gases report provides the methodology for calculating the amount of electricity generated from methane combustion and cogeneration. Alternative Literature: None Other Literature Reviewed: None Section Category Page # Measure # 3.0 Transportation 155 3.1 Land Use/Location 155 3.1.1 Increase Density 155 LUT-1 3.1.2 Increase Location Efficiency 159 LUT-2 3.1.3 Increase Diversity of Urban and Suburban Developments (Mixed Use) 162 LUT-3 3.1.4 Increase Destination Accessibility 167 LUT-4 3.1.5 Increase Transit Accessibility 171 LUT-5 3.1.6 Integrate Affordable and Below Market Rate Housing 176 LUT-6 3.1.7 Orient Project Toward Non-Auto Corridor 179 LUT-7 3.1.8 Locate Project near Bike Path/Bike Lane 181 LUT-8 3.1.9 Improve Design of Development 182 LUT-9 3.2 Neighborhood/Site Enhancements 186 3.2.1 Provide Pedestrian Network Improvements 186 SDT-1 3.2.2 Provide Traffic Calming Measures 190 SDT-2 3.2.3 Implement a Neighborhood Electric Vehicle (NEV) Network 194 SDT-3 3.2.4 Create Urban Non-Motorized Zones 198 SDT-4 3.2.5 Incorporate Bike Lane Street Design (on-site) 200 SDT-5 3.2.6 Provide Bike Parking in Non-Residential Projects 202 SDT-6 3.2.7 Provide Bike Parking with Multi-Unit Residential Projects 204 SDT-7 3.2.8 Provide Electric Vehicle Parking 205 SDT-8 3.2.9 Dedicate Land for Bike Trails 206 SDT-9 3.3 Parking Policy/Pricing 207 3.3.1 Limit Parking Supply 207 PDT-1 3.3.2 Unbundle Parking Costs from Property Cost 210 PDT-2 3.3.3 Implement Market Price Public Parking (On-Street) 213 PDT-3 3.3.4 Require Residential Area Parking Permits 217 PDT-4 3.4 Commute Trip Reduction Programs 218 3.4.1 Implement Commute Trip Reduction Program - Voluntary 218 TRT-1 3.4.2 Implement Commute Trip Reduction Program – Required Implementation/Monitoring 223 TRT-2 3.4.3 Provide Ride-Sharing Programs 227 TRT-3 3.4.4 Implement Subsidized or Discounted Transit Program 230 TRT-4 3.4.5 Provide End of Trip Facilities 234 TRT-5 3.4.6 Encourage Telecommuting and Alternative Work Schedules 236 TRT-6 3.4.7 Implement Commute Trip Reduction Marketing 240 TRT-7 3.4.8 Implement Preferential Parking Permit Program 244 TRT-8 3.4.9 Implement Car-Sharing Program 245 TRT-9 3.4.10 Implement a School Pool Program 250 TRT-10 3.4.11 Provide Employer-Sponsored Vanpool/Shuttle 253 TRT-11 3.4.12 Implement Bike-Sharing Programs 256 TRT-12 3.4.13 Implement School Bus Program 258 TRT-13 3.4.14 Price Workplace Parking 261 TRT-14 3.4.15 Implement Employee Parking “Cash-Out” 266 TRT-15 Section Category Page # Measure # 3.5 Transit System Improvements 270 3.5.1 Provide a Bus Rapid Transit System 270 TST-1 3.5.2 Implement Transit Access Improvements 275 TST-2 3.5.3 Expand Transit Network 276 TST-3 3.5.4 Increase Transit Service Frequency/Speed 280 TST-4 3.5.5 Provide Bike Parking Near Transit 285 TST-5 3.5.6 Provide Local Shuttles 286 TST-6 3.6 Road Pricing/Management 287 3.6.1 Implement Area or Cordon Pricing 287 RPT-1 3.6.2 Improve Traffic Flow 291 RPT-2 3.6.3 Required Project Contributions to Transportation Infrastructure Improvement Projects 297 RPT-3 3.6.4 Install Park-and-Ride Lots 298 RPT-4 3.7 Vehicles 300 3.7.1 Electrify Loading Docks and/or Require Idling-Reduction Systems 300 VT-1 3.7.2 Utilize Alternative Fueled Vehicles 304 VT-2 3.7.3 Utilize Electric or Hybrid Vehicles 309 VT-3 Transportation CEQA# MM D-1 & D-4 MP# LU-1.5 & LU-2.1.8 LUT-1 Land Use / Location 155 LUT-1 3.0 Transportation 3.1 Land Use/Location 3.1.1 Increase Density Range of Effectiveness: 0.8 – 30.0% vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction and therefore a 0.8 – 30.0% reduction in GHG emissions. Measure Description: Designing the Project with increased densities, where allowed by the General Plan and/or Zoning Ordinance reduces GHG emissions associated with traffic in several ways. Density is usually measured in terms of persons, jobs, or dwellings per unit area. Increased densities affect the distance people travel and provide greater options for the mode of travel they choose. This strategy also provides a foundation for implementation of many other strategies which would benefit from increased densities. For example, transit ridership increases with density, which justifies enhanced transit service. The reductions in GHG emissions are quantified based on reductions to VMT. The relationship between density and VMT is described by its elasticity. According to a recent study published by Brownstone, et al. in 2009, the elasticity between density and VMT is 0.12. Default densities are based on the typical suburban densities in North America which reflects the characteristics of the ITE Trip Generation Manual data used in the baseline estimates. Measure Applicability: Urban and suburban context o Negligible impact in a rural context Appropriate for residential, retail, office, industrial, and mixed-use projects Baseline Method: See introduction to transportation section for a discussion of how to estimate trip rates and VMT. The CO2 emissions are calculated from VMT as follows: CO2 = VMT x EFrunning Where: VMT = vehicle miles traveled EFrunning = emission factor for running emissions Transportation CEQA# MM D-1 & D-4 MP# LU-1.5 & LU-2.1.8 LUT-1 Land Use / Location 156 LUT-1 Inputs: The following information needs to be provided by the Project Applicant: Number of housing units per acre or jobs per job acre Mitigation Method: % VMT Reduction = A * B [not to exceed 30%] Where: A = Percentage increase in housing units per acre or jobs per job acre33 = (number of housing units per acre or jobs per job acre – number of housing units per acre or jobs per job acre for typical ITE development) / (number of housing units per acre or jobs per job acre for typical ITE development) For small and medium sites (less than ½ mile in radius) the calculation of housing and jobs per acre should be performed for the development site as a whole, so that the analysis does not erroneously attribute trip reduction benefits to measures that simply shift jobs and housing within the site with no overall increase in site density. For larger sites, the analysis should address the development as several ½-mile-radius sites, so that shifts from one area to another would increase the density of the receiving area but reduce the density of the donating area, resulting in trip generation rate decreases and increases, respectively, which cancel one another. B = Elasticity of VMT with respect to density (from literature) Detail: A: [not to exceed 500% increase] o If housing: (Number of housing units per acre – 7.6) / 7.6 (See Appendix C for detail) o If jobs: (Number of jobs per acre – 20) / 20 (See Appendix C for detail) B: 0.07 (Boarnet and Handy 2010) Assumptions: Data based upon the following references: Boarnet, Marlon and Handy, Susan. 2010. “DRAFT Policy Brief on the Impacts of Residential Density Based on a Review of the Empirical Literature.” http://arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/policies/policies.htm; Table 1. 33 This value should be checked first to see if it exceeds 500% in which case A = 500%. Transportation CEQA# MM D-1 & D-4 MP# LU-1.5 & LU-2.1.8 LUT-1 Land Use / Location 157 LUT-1 Emission Reduction Ranges and Variables: Pollutant Category Emissions Reductions 34 CO2e 1.5-30% of running PM 1.5-30% of running CO 1.5-30% of running NOx 1.5-30% of running SO2 1.5-30% of running ROG 0.9-18% of total Discussion: The VMT reductions for this strategy are based on changes in density versus the typical suburban residential and employment densities in North America (referred to as “ITE densities”). These densities are used as a baseline to mirror those densities reflected in the ITE Trip Generation Manual, which is the baseline method for determining VMT. There are two separate maxima noted in the fact sheet: a cap of 500% on the allowable percentage increase of housing units or jobs per acre (variable A) and a cap of 30% on % VMT reduction. The rationale for the 500% cap is that there are diminishing returns to any change in environment. For example, it is reasonably doubtful that increasing residential density by a factor of six instead of five would produce any additional change in travel behavior. The purpose for the 30% cap is to limit the influence of any single environmental factor (such as density). This emphasizes that community designs that implement multiple land use strategies (such as density, design, diversity, etc.) will show more of a reduction than relying on improvements from a single land use factor. Example: Sample calculations are provided below for housing: Low Range % VMT Reduction (8.5 housing units per acre) = (8.5 – 7.6) / 7.6 *0.07 = 0.8% High Range % VMT Reduction (60 housing units per acre) 9.66.7 6.760 or 690% Since greater than 500%, set to 500% = 500% x 0.07 = 0.35 or 35% Since greater than 30%, set to 30% 34 The percentage reduction reflects emission reductions from running emissions. The actual value will be less than this when starting and evaporative emissions are factored into the analysis. ROG emissions have been adjusted to reflect a ratio of 40% evaporative and 60% exhaust emissions based on a statewide EMFAC run of all vehicles. Transportation CEQA# MM D-1 & D-4 MP# LU-1.5 & LU-2.1.8 LUT-1 Land Use / Location 158 LUT-1 Sample calculations are provided below for jobs: Low Range % VMT Reduction (25 jobs per acre) = (25 – 20) / 20 *0.12 = 3% High Range % VMT Reduction (100 jobs per acre) 420 20100 or 400% =400% x 0.12 = 0.48 or 48% Since greater than 30%, set to 30% Preferred Literature: -0.07 = elasticity of VMT with respect to density Boarnet and Handy’s detailed review of existing literature highlighted three individual studies that used the best available methods for analyzing data for individual households. These studies provided the following elasticities: -0.12 - Brownstone (2009), -0.07 – Bento (2005), and -0.08 – Fang (2008). To maintain a conservative estimate of the impacts of this strategy, the lower elasticity of -0.07 is used in the calculations. Alternative Literature: -0.05 to -0.25 = elasticity of VMT with respect to density The TRB Special Report 298 literature suggests that doubling neighborhood density across a metropolitan area might lower household VMT by about 5 to 12 percent, and perhaps by as much as 25 percent, if coupled with higher employment concentrations, significant public transit improvements, mixed uses, and other supportive demand management measures. Alternative Literature References: TRB, 2009. Driving and the Built Environment, Transportation Research Board Special Report 298. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/sr/sr298.pdf . Accessed March 2010. (p. 4) Other Literature Reviewed: None Transportation MP# LU-3.3 LUT-2 Land Use / Location 159 LUT-2 3.1.2 Increase Location Efficiency Range of Effectiveness: 10-65% vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction and therefore 10-65% reduction in GHG emissions Measure Description: This measure is not intended as a separate strategy but rather a documentation of empirical data to justify the “cap” for all land use/location strategies. The location of the Project relative to the type of urban landscape such as being located in an urban area, infill, or suburban center influences the amount of VMT compared to the statewide average. This is referred to as the location of efficiency since there are synergistic benefits to these urban landscapes. To receive the maximum reduction for this location efficiency, the project will be located in an urban area/ downtown central business district. Projects located on brownfield sites/infill areas receive a lower, but still significant VMT reduction. Finally, projects in suburban centers also receive a reduction for their efficient location. Reductions are based on the typical VMT of a specific geographic area relative to the average VMT statewide. Measure Applicability: Urban and suburban context Negligible impact in a rural context Appropriate for residential, retail, office, industrial and mixed-use projects Baseline Method: See introduction to transportation section for a discussion of how to estimate trip rates and VMT. The CO2 emissions are calculated from VMT as follows: CO2 = VMT x EFrunning Where: VMT = vehicle miles traveled EFrunning = emission factor for running emissions Inputs: No inputs are needed. VMT reduction ranges are based on the geographic location of the project within the region. Mitigation Method: % VMT reduction = Transportation MP# LU-3.3 LUT-2 Land Use / Location 160 LUT-2 Urban: 65% (representing VMT reductions for the average urban area in California versus the statewide average VMT) Compact Infill: 30% (representing VMT reductions for the average compact infill area in California versus the statewide average VMT) Suburban Center: 10% (representing VMT reductions for the average suburban center in California versus the statewide average VMT) Assumptions: Data based upon the following references: Holtzclaw, et al. 2002. “Location Efficiency: Neighborhood and Socioeconomic Characteristics Determine Auto Ownership and Use – Studies in Chicago, Los Angeles, and Chicago.” Transportation Planning and Technology, Vol. 25, pp. 1– 27. Emission Reduction Ranges and Variables: Pollutant Category Emissions Reductions 35 CO2e 10-65% of running PM 10-65% of running CO 10-65% of running NOx 10-65% of running SO2 10-65% of running ROG 6-39% of total Discussion: Example: N/A – no calculations needed Alternative Literature: 13-72% reduction in VMT for infill projects Preferred Literature: Holtzclaw, et al., [1] studied relationships between auto ownership and mileage per car and neighborhood urban design and socio-economic characteristics in the Chicago, Los 35 The percentage reduction reflects emission reductions from running emissions. The actual value will be less than this when starting and evaporative emissions are factored into the analysis. ROG emissions have been adjusted to reflect a ratio of 40% evaporative and 60% exhaust emissions based on a statewide EMFAC run of all vehicles. Transportation MP# LU-3.3 LUT-2 Land Use / Location 161 LUT-2 Angeles, and San Francisco metro areas. In all three regions, average annual vehicle miles traveled is a function of density, income, household size, and public transit, as well as pedestrian and bicycle orientation (to a lesser extent). The annual VMT for each neighborhood was reviewed to determine empirical VMT reduction “caps” for this report. These location-based caps represent the average and maximum reductions that would likely be expected in urban, infill, suburban center, and suburban locations. Growing Cooler looked at 10 studies which have considered the effects of regional location on travel and emissions generated by individual developments. The studies differ in methodology and context but they tend to yield the same conclusion: infill locations generate substantially lower VMT per capita than do greenfield locations, ranging from 13 - 72% lower VMT. Literature References: [1] Holtzclaw, et al. 2002. “Location Efficiency: Neighborhood and Socioeconomic Characteristics Determine Auto Ownership and Use – Studies in Chicago, Los Angeles, and Chicago.” Transportation Planning and Technology, Vol. 25, pp. 1–27. [2] Ewing, et al, 2008. Growing Cooler – The Evidence on Urban Development and Climate Change. Urban Land Institute. (p.88, Figure 4-30) Other Literature Reviewed: None Transportation CEQA# MM D-9 & D-4 MP# LU-2 LUT-3 Land Use / Location 162 LUT-3 3.1.3 Increase Diversity of Urban and Suburban Developments (Mixed Use) Range of Effectiveness: 9-30% vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction and therefore 9-30% reduction in GHG emissions. Measure Description: Having different types of land uses near one another can decrease VMT since trips between land use types are shorter and may be accommodated by non-auto modes of transport. For example when residential areas are in the same neighborhood as retail and office buildings, a resident does not need to travel outside of the neighborhood to meet his/her trip needs. A description of diverse uses for urban and suburban areas is provided below. Urban: The urban project will be predominantly characterized by properties on which various uses, such as office, commercial, institutional, and residential, are combined in a single building or on a single site in an integrated development project with functional interrelationships and a coherent physical design. The mixed-use development should encourage walking and other non-auto modes of transport from residential to office/commercial/institutional locations (and vice versa). The residential units should be within ¼-mile of parks, schools, or other civic uses. The project should minimize the need for external trips by including services/facilities for day care, banking/ATM, restaurants, vehicle refueling, and shopping. Suburban: The suburban project will have at least three of the following on site and/or offsite within ¼-mile: Residential Development, Retail Development, Park, Open Space, or Office. The mixed-use development should encourage walking and other non-auto modes of transport from residential to office/commercial locations (and vice versa). The project should minimize the need for external trips by including services/facilities for day care, banking/ATM, restaurants, vehicle refueling, and shopping. Measure Applicability: Urban and suburban context Negligible impact in a rural context (unless the project is a master-planned community) Appropriate for mixed-use projects Baseline Method: See introduction to transportation section for a discussion of how to estimate trip rates and VMT. The CO2 emissions are calculated from VMT as follows: Transportation CEQA# MM D-9 & D-4 MP# LU-2 LUT-3 Land Use / Location 163 LUT-3 CO2 = VMT x EFrunning Where: VMT = vehicle miles traveled EFrunning = emission factor for running emissions Inputs: The following information needs to be provided by the Project Applicant: Percentage of each land use type in the project (to calculate land use index) Mitigation Method: % VMT Reduction = Land Use * B [not to exceed 30%] Where Land Use = Percentage increase in land use index versus single use development = (land use index – 0.15)/0.15 (see Appendix C for detail) Land use index = -a / ln(6) (from [2]) a = i i i aaln6 1 ai = building floor area of land use i / total square feet of area considered o a1 = single family residential o a2 = multifamily residential o a3 = commercial o a4 = industrial o a5 = institutional o a6 = park if land use is not present and ai is equal to 0, set ai equal to 0.01 B = elasticity of VMT with respect to land use index (0.09 from [1]) not to exceed 500% increase Transportation CEQA# MM D-9 & D-4 MP# LU-2 LUT-3 Land Use / Location 164 LUT-3 Assumptions: Data based upon the following references: [1] Ewing, R., and Cervero, R., "Travel and the Built Environment - A Meta- Analysis." Journal of the American Planning Association, <to be published> (2010). Table 4. [2] Song, Y., and Knaap, G., “Measuring the effects of mixed land uses on housing values.” Regional Science and Urban Economics 34 (2004) 663-680. (p. 669) http://urban.csuohio.edu/~sugie/papers/RSUE/RSUE2005_Measuring%20the %20effects%20of%20mixed%20land%20use.pdf Emission Reduction Ranges and Variables: Pollutant Category Emissions Reductions 36 CO2e 9-30% of running PM 9-30% of running CO 9-30% of running NOx 9-30% of running SO2 9-30% of running ROG 5.4-18% of total Discussion: In the above calculation, a land use index of 0.15 is used as a baseline representing a development with a single land use (see Appendix C for calculations). There are two separate maxima noted in the fact sheet: a cap of 500% on the allowable percentage increase of land use index (variable A) and a cap of 30% on % VMT reduction. The rationale for the 500% cap is that there are diminishing returns to any change in environment. For example, it is reasonably doubtful that increasing the land use index by a factor of six instead of five would produce any additional change in travel behavior. The purpose for the 30% cap is to limit the influence of any single environmental factor (such as diversity). This emphasizes that community designs that implement multiple land use strategies (such as density, design, diversity, etc.) will show more of a reduction than relying on improvements from a single land use factor. 36 The percentage reduction reflects emission reductions from running emissions. The actual value will be less than this when starting and evaporative emissions are factored into the analysis. ROG emissions have been adjusted to reflect a ratio of 40% evaporative and 60% exhaust emissions based on a statewide EMFAC run of all vehicles. Transportation CEQA# MM D-9 & D-4 MP# LU-2 LUT-3 Land Use / Location 165 LUT-3 Example: Sample calculations are provided below: 90% single family homes, 10% commercial o Land use index = -[0.9*ln(0.9)+ 0.1*ln(0.1)+ 4*0.01*ln(0.01)] / ln(6) = 0.3 o Low Range % VMT Reduction = (0.3 – 0.15)/0.15 *0.09 = 9% 1/6 single family, 1/6 multi-family, 1/6 commercial, 1/6 industrial, 1/6 institutional, 1/6 parks o Land use index = -[6*0.17*ln(0.17)] / ln(6) = 1 o High Range % VMT Reduction (land use index = 1) o Land use = (1-0.15)/0.15 = 5.6 or 566%. Since this is greater than 500%, set to 500%. o % VMT Reduction = (5 x 0.09) = 0.45 or 45%. Since this is greater than 30%, set to 30%. Preferred Literature: -0.09 = elasticity of VMT with respect to land use index The land use (or entropy) index measurement looks at the mix of land uses of a development. An index of 0 indicates a single land use while 1 indicates a full mix of uses. Ewing’s [1] synthesis looked at a total of 10 studies, where none controlled for self-selection37. The weighted average elasticity of VMT with respect to the land use mix index is -0.09. The methodology for calculating the land use index is described in Song and Knaap [2]. Alternative Literature: Vehicle trip reduction = [1 - (ABS(1.5*h-e) / (1.5*h+e)) - 0.25] / 0.25*0.03 Where : h = study area housing units, and e = study area employment. Nelson\Nygaard’s report [3] describes a calculation adapted from Criterion and Fehr & Peers [4]. The formula assumes an “ideal” housing balance of 1.5 jobs per household and a baseline diversity of 0.25. The maximum trip reduction with this method is 9%. 37 Self selection occurs when residents or employers that favor travel by non-auto modes choose locations where this type of travel is possible. They are therefore more inclined to take advantage of the available options than a typical resident or employee might otherwise be. Transportation CEQA# MM D-9 & D-4 MP# LU-2 LUT-3 Land Use / Location 166 LUT-3 Alternative Literature References: [3] Nelson\Nygaard, 2005. Crediting Low-Traffic Developments (p.12). http://www.montgomeryplanning.org/transportation/documents/TripGenerationAnalysisU singURBEMIS.pdf [4] Criteron Planner/Engineers and Fehr & Peers Associates (2001). Index 4D Method. A Quick-Response Method of Estimating Travel Impacts from Land-Use Changes. Technical Memorandum prepared for US EPA, October 2001. Other Literature Reviewed: None Transportation CEQA# MM D-3 MP# LU-2.1.4 LUT-4 Land Use / Location 167 LUT-4 3.1.4 Increase Destination Accessibility Range of Effectiveness: 6.7 – 20% vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction and therefore 6.7-20% reduction in GHG emissions. Measure Description: The project will be located in an area with high accessibility to destinations. Destination accessibility is measured in terms of the number of jobs or other attractions reachable within a given travel time, which tends to be highest at central locations and lowest at peripheral ones. The location of the project also increases the potential for pedestrians to walk and bike to these destinations and therefore reduces the VMT. Measure Applicability: Urban and suburban context Negligible impact in a rural context Appropriate for residential, retail, office, industrial and mixed-use projects Baseline Method: See introduction to transportation section for a discussion of how to estimate trip rates and VMT. The CO2 emissions are calculated from VMT as follows: CO2 = VMT x EFrunning Where: VMT = vehicle miles traveled EFrunning = emission factor for running emissions Inputs: The following information needs to be provided by the Project Applicant: Distance to downtown or major job center Mitigation Method: % VMT Reduction = Center Distance * B [not to exceed 30%] Where Transportation CEQA# MM D-3 MP# LU-2.1.4 LUT-4 Land Use / Location 168 LUT-4 Center Distance = Percentage decrease in distance to downtown or major job center versus typical ITE suburban development = (distance to downtown/job center for typical ITE development – distance to downtown/job center for project) / (distance to downtown/job center for typical ITE development) Center Distance = 12 - Distance to downtown/job center for project) / 12 See Appendix C for detail B = Elasticity of VMT with respect to distance to downtown or major job center (0.20 from [1]) Assumptions: Data based upon the following references: [1] Ewing, R., and Cervero, R., "Travel and the Built Environment - A Meta-Analysis." Journal of the American Planning Association, <to be published> (2010). Table 4. Emission Reduction Ranges and Variables: Pollutant Category Emissions Reductions 38 CO2e 6.7 – 20% of running PM 6.7 – 20% of running CO 6.7 – 20% of running NOx 6.7 – 20% of running SO2 6.7 – 20% of running ROG 4 – 12% of total Discussion: The VMT reductions for this strategy are based on changes in distance to key destinations versus the standard suburban distance in North America. This distance is used as a baseline to mirror the distance to destinations reflected in the land uses for the ITE Trip Generation Manual, which is the baseline method for determining VMT. The purpose for the 30% cap on % VMT reduction is to limit the influence of any single environmental factor (such as destination accessibility). This emphasizes that community designs that implement multiple land use strategies (such as density, 38 The percentage reduction reflects emission reductions from running emissions. The actual value will be less than this when starting and evaporative emissions are factored into the analysis. ROG emissions have been adjusted to reflect a ratio of 40% evaporative and 60% exhaust emissions based on a statewide EMFAC run of all vehicles. Transportation CEQA# MM D-3 MP# LU-2.1.4 LUT-4 Land Use / Location 169 LUT-4 design, diversity, destination, etc.) will show more of a reduction than relying on improvements from a single land use factor. Example: Sample calculations are provided below: Low Range % VMT Reduction (8 miles to downtown/job center) = 6.7%0.2012 812 High Range % VMT Reduction (0.1 miles to downtown/job center) = 20.0%0.2012 0.112 Preferred Literature: -0.20 = elasticity of VMT with respect to job accessibility by auto -0.20 = elasticity of VMT with respect to distance to downtown The Ewing and Cervero report [1] finds that VMT is strongly related to measures of accessibility to destinations. The weighted average elasticity of VMT with respect to job accessibility by auto is -0.20 (looking at five total studies). The weighted average elasticity of VMT with respect to distance to downtown is -0.22 (looking at four total studies, of which one controls for self selection39). Alternative Literature: 10-30% reduction in vehicle trips The VTPI literature [2] suggests a 10-30% reduction in vehicle trips for “smart growth” development practices that result in more compact, accessible, multi-modal communities where travel distances are shorter, people have more travel options, and it is possible to walk and bicycle more. Alternative Literature References: [2] Litman, T., 2009. “Win-Win Emission Reduction Strategies.” Victoria Transport Policy Institute (VTPI). Website: http://www.vtpi.org/wwclimate.pdf. Accessed March 2010. (p. 7, Table 3) 39 Self selection occurs when residents or employers that favor travel by non-auto modes choose locations where this type of travel is possible. They are therefore more inclined to take advantage of the available options than a typical resident or employee might otherwise be. Transportation CEQA# MM D-3 MP# LU-2.1.4 LUT-4 Land Use / Location 170 LUT-4 Other Literature Reviewed: None Transportation CEQA# MM D-2 MP# LU-1,LU-4 LUT-5 Land Use / Location 171 LUT-5 3.1.5 Increase Transit Accessibility Range of Effectiveness: 0.5 – 24.6% VMT reduction and therefore 0.5-24.6% reduction in GHG emissions.40 Measure Description: Locating a project with high density near transit will facilitate the use of transit by people traveling to or from the Project site. The use of transit results in a mode shift and therefore reduced VMT. A project with a residential/commercial center designed around a rail or bus station, is called a transit-oriented development (TOD). The project description should include, at a minimum, the following design features: A transit station/stop with high-quality, high-frequency bus service located within a 5-10 minute walk (or roughly ¼ mile from stop to edge of development), and/or o A rail station located within a 20 minute walk (or roughly ½ mile from station to edge of development) Fast, frequent, and reliable transit service connecting to a high percentage of regional destinations Neighborhood designed for walking and cycling In addition to the features listed above, the following strategies may also be implemented to provide an added benefit beyond what is documented in the literature: Mixed use development [LUT-3] Traffic calmed streets with good connectivity [SDT-2] Parking management strategies such as unbundled parking, maximum parking requirements, market pricing implemented to reduce amount of land dedicated to vehicle parking [see PPT-1 through PPT-7] Measure Applicability: Urban and suburban context Appropriate in a rural context if development site is adjacent to a commuter rail station with convenient rail service to a major employment center Appropriate for residential, retail, office, industrial, and mixed-use projects Baseline Method: 40 Transit vehicles may also result in increases in emissions that are associated with electricity production or fuel use. The Project Applicant should consider these potential additional emissions when estimating mitigation for these measures. Transportation CEQA# MM D-2 MP# LU-1,LU-4 LUT-5 Land Use / Location 172 LUT-5 See introduction to transportation section for a discussion of how to estimate trip rates and VMT. The CO2 emissions are calculated from VMT as follows: CO2 = VMT x EFrunning Where: VMT = vehicle miles traveled EFrunning = emission factor for running emissions Inputs: The following information needs to be provided by the Project Applicant: Distance to transit station in project Mitigation Method: % VMT = Transit * B [not to exceed 30%] Where Transit = Increase in transit mode share = % transit mode share for project - % transit mode share for typical ITE development (1.3% as described in Appendix C) % transit mode share for project (see Table) Distance to transit Transit mode share calculation equation (where x = distance of project to transit) 0 – 0.5 miles -50*x + 38 0.5 to 3 miles -4.4*x + 15.2 > 3 miles no impact Source: Lund et al, 2004; Fehr & Peers 2010 (see Appendix C for calculation detail) B = adjustments from transit ridership increase to VMT (0.67, see Appendix C for detail) Assumptions: Data based upon the following references: [1] Lund, H. and R. Cervero, and R. Willson (2004). Travel Characteristics of Transit-Oriented Development in California. (p. 79, Table 5-25) Transportation CEQA# MM D-2 MP# LU-1,LU-4 LUT-5 Land Use / Location 173 LUT-5 Emission Reduction Ranges and Variables: Pollutant Category Emissions Reductions 41 CO2e 0.5 – 24.6% of running PM 0.5 – 24.6% of running CO 0.5 – 24.6% of running NOx 0.5 – 24.6% of running SO2 0.5 – 24.6% of running ROG 0.3 – 14.8% of total Discussion: The purpose for the 30% cap on % VMT reduction is to limit the influence of any single environmental factor (such as transit accessibility). This emphasizes that community designs that implement multiple land use strategies (such as density, design, diversity, transit accessibility, etc.) will show more of a reduction than relying on improvements from a single land use factor. Example: Sample calculations are provided below for a rail station: Low Range % VMT Reduction (3 miles from station) = [(-4.4*3+15.2) – 1.3%] * 0.67 = 0.5% High Range % VMT Reduction (0 miles from station) = [(-50*0+38) – 1.3%] * 0.67 = 24.6% Preferred Literature: 13 to 38% transit mode share (residents in TODs with ½ mile of rail station) 5 to 13% transit mode share (residents in TODs from ½ mile to 3 miles of rail station) The Travel Characteristics report [1] surveyed TODs and surrounding areas in San Diego, Los Angeles, San Jose, Sacramento, and Bay Area regions. Survey sites are all located in non-central business district locations, are within walking distance of a transit station with rail service headways of 15 minutes or less, and were intentionally developed as TODs. 41 The percentage reduction reflects emission reductions from running emissions. The actual value will be less than this when starting and evaporative emissions are factored into the analysis. ROG emissions have been adjusted to reflect a ratio of 40% evaporative and 60% exhaust emissions based on a statewide EMFAC run of all vehicles. Transportation CEQA# MM D-2 MP# LU-1,LU-4 LUT-5 Land Use / Location 174 LUT-5 Alternative Literature: Alternate: -0.05 = elasticity of VMT with respect to distance to nearest transit stop Ewing and Cervero’s meta-analysis [2] provides this weighted average elasticity based on six total studies, of which one controls for self-selection. The report does not provide the range of distances where this elasticity is valid. Alternate: 5.9 – 13.3% reduction in VMT The Bailey, et al. 2008 report [3] predicted a reduction of household daily VMT of 5.8 miles for a location next to a rail station and 2.6 miles for a location next to a bus station. Using the report’s estimate of 43.75 daily average miles driven, the estimated reduction in VMT for rail accessibility is 13.3% (5.8/43.75) and for bus accessibility is 5.9% (2.6/43.75). Alternate: 15% reduction in vehicle trips 2 to 5 times higher transit mode share TCRP Report 128 [4] concludes that transit-oriented developments, compared to typical developments represented by the ITE Trip Generation Manual, have 47% lower vehicle trip rates and have 2 to 5 times higher transit mode share. TCRP Report 128 notes that the ITE Trip Generation Manual shows 6.67 daily trips per unit while detailed counts of 17 residential TODs resulted in 3.55 trips per unit (a 47% reduction in vehicle trips). This study looks at mid-rise and high-rise apartments at the residential TOD sites. A more conservative comparison would be to look at the ITE Trip Generation Manual rates for high-rise apartments, 4.2 trips per unit. This results in a 15% reduction in vehicle trips. Alternative Literature References: [2] Ewing, R., and Cervero, R., "Travel and the Built Environment - A Meta-Analysis." Journal of the American Planning Association, <to be published> (2010). Table 4. [3] Bailey, L., Mokhtarian, P.L., & Little, A. (2008). “The Broader Connection between Public Transportation, Energy Conservation and Greenhouse Gas Reduction.” ICF International. (Table 4 and 5) [4] TCRP, 2008. TCRP Report 128 - Effects of TOD on Housing, Parking, and Travel. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_128.pdf (p. 11, 69). Transportation CEQA# MM D-2 MP# LU-1,LU-4 LUT-5 Land Use / Location 175 LUT-5 Other Literature Reviewed: None Transportation CEQA# MM D-7 MP# LU-2.1.8 LUT-6 Land Use / Location 176 LUT-6 3.1.6 Integrate Affordable and Below Market Rate Housing Range of Effectiveness: 0.04 – 1.20% vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction and therefore 0.04-1.20% reduction in GHG emissions. Measure Description: Income has a statistically significant effect on the probability that a commuter will take transit or walk to work [4]. BMR housing provides greater opportunity for lower income families to live closer to jobs centers and achieve jobs/housing match near transit. It also addresses to some degree the risk that new transit oriented development would displace lower income families. This strategy potentially encourages building a greater percentage of smaller units that allow a greater number of families to be accommodated on infill and transit-oriented development sites within a given building footprint and height limit. Lower income families tend to have lower levels of auto ownership, allowing buildings to be designed with less parking which, in some cases, represents the difference between a project being economically viable or not. Residential development projects of five or more dwelling units will provide a deed- restricted low-income housing component on-site. Measure Applicability: Urban and suburban context Negligible impact in a rural context unless transit availability and proximity to jobs/services are existing characteristics Appropriate for residential and mixed-use projects Baseline Method: See introduction to transportation section for a discussion of how to estimate trip rates and VMT. The CO2 emissions are calculated from VMT as follows: CO2 = VMT x EFrunning Where: VMT = vehicle miles traveled EFrunning = emission factor for running emissions Inputs: The following information needs to be provided by the Project Applicant: Percentage of units in project that are deed-restricted BMR housing Transportation CEQA# MM D-7 MP# LU-2.1.8 LUT-6 Land Use / Location 177 LUT-6 Mitigation Method: % VMT Reduction = 4% * Percentage of units in project that are deed-restricted BMR housing [1] Assumptions: Data based upon the following references: [1] Nelson\Nygaard, 2005. Crediting Low-Traffic Developments (p.15). http://www.montgomeryplanning.org/transportation/documents/TripGenerationAn alysisUsingURBEMIS.pdf Criteron Planner/Engineers and Fehr & Peers Associates (2001). Index 4D Method. A Quick-Response Method of Estimating Travel Impacts from Land- Use Changes. Technical Memorandum prepared for US EPA, October 2001. Holtzclaw, John; Clear, Robert; Dittmar, Hank; Goldstein, David; and Haas, Peter (2002), “Location Efficiency: Neighborhood and Socio-Economic Characteristics Determine Auto Ownership and Use – Studies in Chicago, Los Angeles and San Francisco”, Transportation Planning and Technology, 25 (1): 1-27. All trips affected are assumed average trip lengths to convert from percentage vehicle trip reduction to VMT reduction (%VT = %VMT) Emission Reduction Ranges and Variables: Pollutant Category Emissions Reductions 42 CO2e 0.04 – 1.20% of running PM 0.04 – 1.20% of running CO 0.04 – 1.20% of running NOx 0.04 – 1.20% of running SO2 0.04 – 1.20% of running ROG 0.024 – 0.72% of total Discussion: At a low range, 1% BMR housing is assumed. At a medium range, 15% is assumed (based on the requirements of the San Francisco BMR Program[5]). At a high range, the San Francisco program is doubled to reach 30% BMR. Higher percentages of BMR are possible, though not discussed in the literature or calculated. 42 The percentage reduction reflects emission reductions from running emissions. The actual value will be less than this when starting and evaporative emissions are factored into the analysis. ROG emissions have been adjusted to reflect a ratio of 40% evaporative and 60% exhaust emissions based on a statewide EMFAC run of all vehicles. Transportation CEQA# MM D-7 MP# LU-2.1.8 LUT-6 Land Use / Location 178 LUT-6 Example: Sample calculations are provided below: Low Range % VMT Reduction = 4% * 1% = 0.04% High Range % VMT Reduction = 4% * 30% = 1.20% Preferred Literature: Nelson\Nygaard [1] provides a 4% reduction in vehicle trips for each deed-restricted BMR unit. This is calculated from Holtzclaw [3], with the following assumptions: 12,000 average annual VMT per vehicle, $33,000 median per capita income (2002 figures per CA State Department of Finance), and average income in BMR units 25% below median. With a coefficient of -0.0565 (estimate for VMT/vehicle as a function of $/capita) from [3], the VMT reduction is 0.0565*33,000*0.25/12,000 = 4%. Alternative Literature: 50% greater transit school trips than higher income households Fehr & Peers [6] developed Direct Ridership Models to predict the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) ridership activity. One of the objectives of this assessment was to understand the land use and system access factors that influence commute period versus off-peak travel on BART. The analysis focused on the Metropolitan Transportation Commission 2000 Bay Area Travel Survey [7], using the data on household travel behavior to extrapolate relationships between household characteristics and BART mode choice. The study found that regardless of distance from BART, lower income households generate at least 50% higher BART use for school trips than higher income households. More research would be needed to provide more applicable information regarding other types of transit throughout the state. Other Literature Reviewed: [4] Bento, Antonio M., Maureen L. Cropper, Ahmed Mushfiq Mobarak, and Katja Vinha. 2005. “The Effects of Urban Spatial Structure on Travel Demand in the United States.” The Review of Economics and Statistics 87,3: 466-478. (cited in Measure Description section) [5] San Francisco BMR Program: http://www.ci.sf.ca.us/site/moh_page.asp?id=48083 (p.1) (cited in Discussion section). [6] Fehr & Peers. Access BART. 2006. [7] BATS. 2000. 2000 Bay Area Travel Survey. Transportation MP# LU-4.2 LUT-7 Land Use / Location 179 LUT-7 3.1.7 Orient Project Toward Non-Auto Corridor Range of Effectiveness: Grouped strategy. [See LUT-3] Measure Description: A project that is designed around an existing or planned transit, bicycle, or pedestrian corridor encourages alternative mode use. For this measure, the project is oriented towards a planned or existing transit, bicycle, or pedestrian corridor. Setback distance is minimized. The benefits of Orientation toward Non-Auto Corridor have not been sufficiently quantified in the existing literature. This measure is most effective when applied in combination of multiple design elements that encourage this use. There is not sufficient evidence that this measure results in non-negligible trip reduction unless combined with measures described elsewhere in this report, including neighborhood design, density and diversity of development, transit accessibility and pedestrian and bicycle network improvements. Therefore, the trip reduction percentages presented below should be used only as reasonableness checks. They may be used to assess whether, whe n applied to projects oriented toward non-auto corridors, analysis of all of those other development design factors presented in this report produce trip reductions at least as great as the percentages listed below. Measure Applicability: Urban or suburban context; may be applicable in a master-planned rural community Appropriate for residential, retail, office, industrial, and mixed-use projects Alternative Literature: Alternate: 0.25 – 0.5% reduction in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) The Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) Recommended Guidance for Land Use Emission Reductions attributes 0.5% reduction for a project oriented towards an existing corridor. A 0.25% reduction is attributed for a project oriented towards a planned corridor. The planned transit, bicycle, or pedestrian corridor must be in a General Plan, Community Plan, or similar plan. Alternate: 0.5% reduction in VMT per 1% improvement in transit frequency 0.5% reduction in VMT per 10% increase in transit ridership Transportation MP# LU-4.2 LUT-7 Land Use / Location 180 LUT-7 The Center for Clean Air Policy (CCAP) Guidebook [2] attributes a 0.5 % reduction per 1% improvement in transit frequency. Based on a case study presented in the CCAP report, a 10% increase in transit ridership would result in a 0.5% reduction. (This information is based on a TIAX review for SMAQMD). The sources cited above reflect existing guidance rather than empirical studies. Alternative Literature References: [1] Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD). “Recommended Guidance for Land Use Emission Reductions.” http://www.airquality.org/ceqa/GuidanceLUEmissionReductions.pdf [2] Center for Clean Air Policy (CCAP). Transportation Emission Guidebook. http://www.ccap.org/safe/guidebook/guide_complete.html TIAX Results of 2005 Literature Search Conducted by TIAX on behalf of SMAQMD Other Literature Reviewed: None Transportation LUT-8 Land Use / Location 181 LUT-8 3.1.8 Locate Project near Bike Path/Bike Lane Range of Effectiveness: Grouped strategy. [See LUT-4] Measure Description: A Project that is designed around an existing or planned bicycle facility encourages alternative mode use. The project will be located within 1/2 mile of an existing Class I path or Class II bike lane. The project design should include a comparable network that connects the project uses to the existing offsite facilities. This measure is most effective when applied in combination of multiple design elements that encourage this use. Refer to Increase Destination Accessibility (LUT-4) strategy. The benefits of Proximity to Bike Path/Bike Lane are small as a standalone strategy. The strategy should be grouped with the Increase Destination Accessibility strategy to increase the opportunities for multi-modal travel. Measure Applicability: Urban or suburban context; may be applicable in a rural master planned community Appropriate for residential, retail, office, industrial, and mixed-use projects Alternative Literature: Alternate: 0.625% reduction in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) As a rule of thumb, the Center for Clean Air Policy (CCAP) Guidebook [1] attributes a 1% to 5% reduction associated with comprehensive bicycle programs. Based on the CCAP guidebook, the TIAX report allots 2.5% reduction for all bicycle-related measures and a 1/4 of that for this measure alone. (This information is based on a TIAX review for SMAQMD). Alternative Literature References: [1] Center for Clean Air Policy (CCAP). Transportation Emission Guidebook. http://www.ccap.org/safe/guidebook/guide_complete.html; TIAX Results of 2005 Literature Search Conducted by TIAX on behalf of SMAQMD. Other Literature Reviewed: None Transportation LUT-8 Land Use / Location 182 LUT-9 3.1.9 Improve Design of Development Range of Effectiveness: 3.0 – 21.3% vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction and therefore 3.0-21.3% reduction in GHG emissions. Measure Description: The project will include improved design elements to enhance walkability and connectivity. Improved street network characteristics within a neighborhood include street accessibility, usually measured in terms of average block size, proportion of four- way intersections, or number of intersections per square mile. Design is also measured in terms of sidewalk coverage, building setbacks, street widths, pedestrian crossings, presence of street trees, and a host of other physical variables that differentiate pedestrian-oriented environments from auto-oriented environments. Measure Applicability: Urban and suburban context Negligible impact in a rural context Appropriate for residential, retail, office, industrial and mixed-use projects Baseline Method: See introduction to transportation section for a discussion of how to estimate trip rates and VMT. The CO2 emissions are calculated from VMT as follows: CO2 = VMT x EFrunning Where: VMT = vehicle miles traveled EFrunning = emission factor for running emissions Inputs: The following information needs to be provided by the Project Applicant: Number of intersections per square mile Mitigation Method: % VMT Reduction = Intersections * B Where Transportation LUT-8 Land Use / Location 183 LUT-9 Intersections = Percentage increase in intersections versus a typical ITE suburban development tdevelopmen suburban ITE typical of mile square per onsIntersecti tdevelopmen suburban ITE typical of mile square per onsIntersecti - project of mile square per onsIntersecti = 36 3project of mile square per onsIntersecti 6 See Appendix C for detail [not to exceed 500% increase] B = Elasticity of VMT with respect to percentage of intersections (0.12 from [1]) Assumptions: Data based upon the following references: [1] Ewing, R., and Cervero, R., "Travel and the Built Environment - A Meta-Analysis." Journal of the American Planning Association, <to be published> (2010). Table 4. Emission Reduction Ranges and Variables: Pollutant Category Emissions Reductions 43 CO2e 3.0 – 21.3% of running PM 3.0 – 21.3% of running CO 3.0 – 21.3% of running NOx 3.0 – 21.3% of running SO2 3.0 – 21.3% of running ROG 1.8 – 12.8% of total Discussion: The VMT reductions for this strategy are based on changes in intersection density versus the standard suburban intersection density in North America. This standard density is used as a baseline to mirror the density reflected in the ITE Trip Generation Manual, which is the baseline method for determining VMT. The calculations in the Example section look at a low and high range of intersection densities. The low range is simply a slightly higher density than the typical ITE 43 The percentage reduction reflects emission reductions from running emissions. The actual value will be less than this when starting and evaporative emissions are factored into the analysis. ROG emissions have been adjusted to reflect a ratio of 40% evaporative and 60% exhaust emissions based on a statewide EMFAC run of all vehicles. Transportation LUT-8 Land Use / Location 184 LUT-9 development. The high range uses an average intersection density of mixed use/transit-oriented development sites (TOD Site surveys in the Bay Area for Candlestick-Hunters Point Phase II TIA, Fehr & Peers, 2009). There are two separate maxima noted in the fact sheet: a cap of 500% on the allowable percentage increase of intersections per square mile (variable A) and a cap of 30% on % VMT reduction. The rationale for the 500% cap is that there are diminishing returns to any change in environment. For example, it is reasonably doubtful that increasing intersection density by a factor of six instead of five would produce any additional change in travel behavior. The purpose for the 30% cap is to limit the influence of any single environmental factor (such as design). This emphasizes that community designs that implement multiple land use strategies (such as density, design, diversity, etc.) will show more of a reduction than relying on improvements from a single land use factor. Example: Sample calculations are provided below: Low Range % VMT Reduction (45 intersections per square mile) = (45 – 36) / 36 * 0.12 = 3.0% High Range % VMT Reduction (100 intersections per square mile) = (100 – 36) / 36 * 0.12 = 21.3% Preferred Literature: -0.12 = elasticity of VMT with respect to design (intersection/street density) -0.12 = elasticity of VMT with respect to design (% of 4-way intersections) Ewing and Cervero’s [1] synthesis showed a strong relationship of VMT to design elements, second only to destination accessibility. The weighted average elasticity of VMT to intersection/street density was -0.12 (looking at six studies). The weighted average elasticity of VMT to percentage of 4-way intersections was -0.12 (looking at four studies, of which one controlled for self-selection44). Alternative Literature: Alternate: 2-19% reduction in VMT 44 Self selection occurs when residents or employers that favor travel by non-auto modes choose locations where this type of travel is possible. They are therefore more inclined to take advantage of the available options than a typical resident or employee might otherwise be. Transportation LUT-8 Land Use / Location 185 LUT-9 Growing Cooler [2] looked at various reports which studied the effect of site design on VMT, showing a range of 2-19% reduction in VMT. In each case, alternative development plans for the same site were compared to a baseline or trend plan. Results suggest that VMT and CO2 per capita decline as site density increases as well as the mix of jobs, housing, and retail uses become more balanced. Growing Cooler notes that the limited number of studies, differences in assumptions and methodologies, and variability of results make it difficult to generalize. Alternate: 3 – 17% shift in mode share from auto to non-auto The Marshall and Garrick paper [3] analyzes the differences in mode shares for grid and non-grid (“tree”) neighborhoods. For a city with a tributary tree street network, a neighborhood with a tree network had auto mode share of 92% while a neighborhood with a grid network had auto mode share of 89% (3% difference). For a city with a tributary radial street network, a tree neighborhood had auto mode share of 97% while a grid neighborhood had auto mode share of 84% (13% difference). For a city with a grid network, a tree neighborhood had auto mode share of 95% while a grid neighborhood had auto mode share of 78% (17% difference). The research is based on 24 California cities with populations between 30,000 and 100,000. Alternative Literature References: [2] Ewing, et al, 2008. Growing Cooler – The Evidence on Urban Development and Climate Change. Urban Land Institute. [3] Marshall and Garrick, 2009. “The Effect of Street Network Design on Walking and Biking.” Submitted to the 89th Annual Meeting of Transportation Research Board, January 2010. (Table 3) Other Literature Reviewed: None Transportation CEQA# MM-T-6 MP# LU-4 SDT-1 Neighborhood / Site Enhancement 186 SDT-1 3.2 Neighborhood/Site Enhancements 3.2.1 Provide Pedestrian Network Improvements Range of Effectiveness: 0 - 2% vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction and therefore 0 - 2% reduction in GHG emissions. Measure Description: Providing a pedestrian access network to link areas of the Project site encourages people to walk instead of drive. This mode shift results in people driving less and thus a reduction in VMT. The project will provide a pedestrian access network that internally links all uses and connects to all existing or planned external streets and pedestrian facilities contiguous with the project site. The project will minimize barriers to pedestrian access and interconnectivity. Physical barriers such as walls, landscaping, and slopes that impede pedestrian circulation will be eliminated. Measure Applicability: Urban, suburban, and rural context Appropriate for residential, retail, office, industrial and mixed-use projects Reduction benefit only occurs if the project has both pedestrian network improvements on site and connections to the larger off-site network. Baseline Method: See introduction to transportation section for a discussion of how to estimate trip rates and VMT. The CO2 emissions are calculated from VMT as follows: CO2 = VMT x EFrunning Where: VMT = vehicle miles traveled EFrunning = emission factor for running emissions Inputs: The project applicant must provide information regarding pedestrian access and connectivity within the project and to/from off-site destinations. Transportation CEQA# MM-T-6 MP# LU-4 SDT-1 Neighborhood / Site Enhancement 187 SDT-1 Mitigation Method: Estimated VMT Reduction Extent of Pedestrian Accommodations Context 2% Within Project Site and Connecting Off-Site Urban/Suburban 1% Within Project Site Urban/Suburban < 1% Within Project Site and Connecting Off-Site Rural Assumptions: Data based upon the following references: Center for Clean Air Policy (CCAP) Transportation Emission Guidebook. http://www.ccap.org/safe/guidebook/guide_complete.html (accessed March 2010) 1000 Friends of Oregon (1997) “Making the Connections: A Summary of the LUTRAQ Project” (p. 16): http://www.onethousandfriendsoforegon.org/resources/lut_vol7.html Emission Reduction Ranges and Variables: Pollutant Category Emissions Reductions 45 CO2e 0 - 2% of running PM 0 - 2% of running CO 0 - 2% of running NOx 0 - 2% of running SO2 0 - 2% of running ROG 0 – 1.2% of total Discussion: As detailed in the preferred literature section below, the lower range of 1 – 2% VMT reduction was pulled from the literature to provide a conservative estimate of reduction potential. The literature does not speak directly to a rural context, but an assumption was made that the benefits will likely be lower than a suburban/urban context. Example: N/A – calculations are not needed. Preferred Literature: 45 The percentage reduction reflects emission reductions from running emissions. The actual value will be less than this when starting and evaporative emissions are factored into the analysis. ROG emissions have been adjusted to reflect a ratio of 40% evaporative and 60% exhaust emissions based on a statewide EMFAC run of all vehicles. Transportation CEQA# MM-T-6 MP# LU-4 SDT-1 Neighborhood / Site Enhancement 188 SDT-1 1 - 2% reduction in VMT The Center for Clean Air Policy (CCAP) attributes a 1% reduction in VMT from pedestrian-oriented design assuming this creates a 5% decrease in automobile mode share (e.g. auto split shifts from 95% to 90%). This mode split is based on the Portland Regional Land Use Transportation and Air Quality (LUTRAQ) project. The LUTRAQ analysis also provides the high end of 10% reduction in VMT. This 10% assumes the following features: Compact, mixed-use communities Interconnected street network Narrower roadways and shorter block lengths Sidewalks Accessibility to transit and transit shelters Traffic calming measures and street trees Parks and public spaces Other strategies (development density, diversity, design, transit accessibility, traffic calming) are intended to account for the effects of many of the measures in the above list. Therefore, the assumed effectiveness of the Pedestrian Network measure should utilize the lower end of the 1 - 10% reduction range. If the pedestrian improvements are being combined with a significant number of the companion strategies, trip reductions for those strategies should be applied as well, based on the values given specifically for those strategies in other sections of this report. Based upon these findings, and drawing upon recommendations presented in the alternate literature below, the recommended VMT reduction attributable to pedestrian network improvements, above and beyond the benefits of other measures in the above bullet list, should be 1% for comprehensive pedestrian accommodations within the development plan or project itself, or 2% for comprehensive internal accommodations and external accommodations connecting to off-site destinations. Alternative Literature: Alternate: Walking is three times more common with enhanced pedestrian infrastructure 58% increase in non-auto mode share for work trips Transportation CEQA# MM-T-6 MP# LU-4 SDT-1 Neighborhood / Site Enhancement 189 SDT-1 The Nelson\Nygaard [1] report for the City of Santa Monica Land Use and Circulation Element EIR summarized studies looking at pedestrian environments. These studies have found a direct connection between non-auto forms of travel and a high quality pedestrian environment. Walking is three times more common with communities that have pedestrian friendly streets compared to less pedestrian friendly communities. Non-auto mode share for work trips is 49% in a pedestrian friendly community, compared to 31% in an auto-oriented community. Non-auto mode share for non-work trips is 15%, compared to 4% in an auto-oriented community. However, these effects also depend upon other aspects of the pedestrian friendliness being present, which are accounted for separately in this report through land use strategy mitigation measures such as density and urban design. Alternate: 0.5% - 2.0% reduction in VMT The Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) Recommended Guidance for Land Use Emission Reductions [2] attributes 1% reduction for a project connecting to existing external streets and pedestrian facilities. A 0.5% reduction is attributed to connecting to planned external streets and pedestrian facilities (which must be included in a pedestrian master plan or equivalent). Minimizing pedestrian barriers attribute an additional 1% reduction in VMT. These recommendations are generally in line with the recommended discounts derived from the preferred literature above. Preferred and Alternative Literature Notes: [1] Nelson\Nygaard, 2010. City of Santa Monica Land Use and Circulation Element EIR Report, Appendix – Santa Monica Luce Trip Reduction Impacts Analysis (p.401). http://www.shapethefuture2025.net/ Nelson\Nygaard looked at the following studies: Anne Vernez Moudon, Paul Hess, Mary Catherine Snyder and Kiril Stanilov (2003), Effects of Site Design on Pedestrian Travel in Mixed Use, Medium-Density Environments, http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/research/reports/fullreports/432.1.pdf; Robert Cervero and Carolyn Radisch (1995), Travel Choices in Pedestrian Versus Automobile Oriented Neighborhoods, http://www.uctc.net/papers/281.pdf; [2] Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) Recommended Guidance for Land Use Emission Reductions. (p. 11) http://www.airquality.org/ceqa/GuidanceLUEmissionReductions.pdf Other Literature Reviewed: None Transportation CEQA# MM-T-8 MP# LU-1.6 SDT-2 Neighborhood / Site Enhancement 190 SDT-2 3.2.2 Provide Traffic Calming Measures Range of Effectiveness: 0.25 – 1.00% vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction and therefore 0.25 – 1.00% reduction in GHG emissions. Measure Description: Providing traffic calming measures encourages people to walk or bike instead of using a vehicle. This mode shift will result in a decrease in VMT. Project design will include pedestrian/bicycle safety and traffic calming measures in excess of jurisdiction requirements. Roadways will be designed to reduce motor vehicle speeds and encourage pedestrian and bicycle trips with traffic calming features. Traffic calming features may include: marked crosswalks, count-down signal timers, curb extensions, speed tables, raised crosswalks, raised intersections, median islands, tight corner radii, roundabouts or mini-circles, on-street parking, planter strips with street trees, chicanes/chokers, and others. Measure Applicability: Urban, suburban, and rural context Appropriate for residential, retail, office, industrial and mixed-use projects Baseline Method: See introduction to transportation section for a discussion of how to estimate trip rates and VMT. The CO2 emissions are calculated from VMT as follows: CO2 = VMT x EFrunning Where: VMT = vehicle miles traveled EFrunning = emission factor for running emissions Inputs: The following information needs to be provided by the Project Applicant: Percentage of streets within project with traffic calming improvements Percentage of intersections within project with traffic calming improvements Transportation CEQA# MM-T-8 MP# LU-1.6 SDT-2 Neighborhood / Site Enhancement 191 SDT-2 Mitigation Method: % of streets with improvements 25% 50% 75% 100% % VMT Reduction % of intersections with improvements 25% 50% 75% 100% 0.25% 0.25% 0.5% 0.5% 0.25% 0.5% 0.5% 0.75% 0.5% 0.5% 0.75% 0.75% 0.5% 0.75% 0.75% 1% Assumptions: Data based upon the following references: [1] Cambridge Systematics. Moving Cooler: An Analysis of Transportation Strategies for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions.(p. B-25) http://www.movingcooler.info/Library/Documents/Moving%20Cooler_Appendices _Complete_102209.pdf [2] Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) Recommended Guidance for Land Use Emission Reductions. (p.13) http://www.airquality.org/ceqa/GuidanceLUEmissionReductions.pdf Emission Reduction Ranges and Variables: Pollutant Category Emissions Reductions 46 CO2e 0.25 – 1.00% of running PM 0.25 – 1.00% of running CO 0.25 – 1.00% of running NOx 0.25 – 1.00% of running SO2 0.25 – 1.00% of running ROG 0.15 – 0.6% of total Discussion: The table above allows the Project Applicant to choose a range of street and intersection improvements to determine an appropriate VMT reduction estimate. The Applicant will look at the rows on the left and choose the percent of intersections within 46 The percentage reduction reflects emission reductions from running emissions. The actual value will be less than this when starting and evaporative emissions are factored into the analysis. ROG emissions have been adjusted to reflect a ratio of 40% evaporative and 60% exhaust emissions based on a statewide EMFAC run of all vehicles. Transportation CEQA# MM-T-8 MP# LU-1.6 SDT-2 Neighborhood / Site Enhancement 192 SDT-2 the project which will have traffic calming improvements. Then, the Applicant will look at the columns along the top and choose the percent of streets within the project which will have traffic calming improvements. The intersection cell of the row and column selected in the matrix is the VMT reduction estimate. Though the literature provides some difference between a suburban and urban context, the difference is small and thus a conservative estimate was used to be applied to all contexts. Rural context is not specifically discussed in the literature but is assumed to have similar impacts. For a low range, a project is assumed to have 25% of its streets with traffic calming improvements and 25% of its intersections with traffic calming improvements. For a high range, 100% of streets and intersections are assumed to have traffic calming improvements Example: N/A - No calculations needed. Preferred Literature: -0.03 = elasticity of VMT with respect to a pedestrian environment factor (PEF) 1.5% - 2.0% reduction in suburban VMT 0.5% - 0.6% reduction in urban VMT Moving Cooler [1] looked at Ewing’s synthesis elasticity from the Smart Growth INDEX model (-0.03) to estimate VMT reduction for a suburban and urban location. The estimated reduction in VMT came from looking at the difference between the VMT results for Moving Cooler’s strategy of pedestrian accessibility only compared to an aggressive strategy of pedestrian accessibility and traffic calming. The Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) Recommended Guidance for Land Use Emission Reductions [2] attributes 0.25 – 1% of VMT reductions to traffic calming measures. The table above illustrates the range of VMT reductions based on the percent of streets and intersections with traffic calming measures implemented. This range of reductions is recommended because it is generally consistent with the effectiveness ranges presented in the other preferred literature for situations in which the effects of traffic calming are distinguished from the other measures often found to co-exist with calming, and because it provides graduated effectiveness estimates depending on the degree to which calming is implemented. Alternative Literature: None Transportation CEQA# MM-T-8 MP# LU-1.6 SDT-2 Neighborhood / Site Enhancement 193 SDT-2 Alternative Literature References: None Other Literature Reviewed: None Transportation CEQA# MM-D-6 MP# TR-6 SDT-3 Neighborhood / Site Enhancement 194 SDT-3 3.2.3 Implement a Neighborhood Electric Vehicle (NEV) Network Range of Effectiveness: 0.5-12.7% vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction since Neighborhood Electric Vehicles (NEVs) would result in a mode shift and therefore reduce the traditional vehicle VMT and GHG emissions47. Range depends on the available NEV network and support facilities, NEV ownership levels, and the degree of shift from traditional Measure Description: The project will create local "light" vehicle networks, such as NEV networks. NEVs are classified in the California Vehicle Code as a “low speed vehicle”. They are electric powered and must conform to applicable federal automobile safety standards. NEVs offer an alternative to traditional vehicle trips and can legally be used on roadways with speed limits of 35 MPH or less (unless specifically restricted). They are ideal for short trips up to 30 miles in length. To create an NEV network, the project will implement the necessary infrastructure, including NEV parking, charging facilities, striping, signage, and educational tools. NEV routes will be implemented throughout the project and will double as bicycle routes. Measure Applicability: Urban, suburban, and rural context Small citywide or large multi-use developments Appropriate for mixed-use projects Baseline Method: See introduction to transportation section for a discussion of how to estimate trip rates and VMT. The CO2 emissions are calculated from VMT as follows: CO2 = VMT x EFrunning Where: VMT = vehicle miles traveled EFrunning = emission factor for running emissions 47 Transit vehicles may also result in increases in emissions that are associated with electricity production or fuel use. The Project Applicant should consider these potential additional emissions when estimating mitigation for these measures. Transportation CEQA# MM-D-6 MP# TR-6 SDT-3 Neighborhood / Site Enhancement 195 SDT-3 Inputs: The following information needs to be provided by the Project Applicant: low vs. high penetration Mitigation Method: % VMT reduction = Pop * Number * NEV Where Penetration = Number of NEVs per household (0.04 to 1.0 from [1]) NEV = VMT reduction rate per household (12.7% from [2]) Assumptions: Data based upon the following reference: [1] City of Lincoln, MHM Engineers & Surveyors, Neighborhood Electric Vehicle Transportation Program Final Report, Issued 04/05/05 [2] City of Lincoln, A Report to the California Legislature as required by Assembly Bill 2353, Neighborhood Electric Vehicle Transportation Plan Evaluation, January 1, 2008. Emission Reduction Ranges and Variables: Pollutant Category Emissions Reductions 48 CO2e 0.5 – 12.7% of running PM 0.5 – 12.7% of running CO 0.5 – 12.7%of running NOx 0.5 – 12.7% of running SO2 0.5 – 12.7% of running ROG 0.3 – 7.6% of total Discussion: The estimated number of NEVs per household may vary based on what the project estimates as a penetration rate for implementing an NEV network. Adjust according to project characteristics. The estimated reduction in VMT is for non-NEV miles traveled. The calculations below assume that NEV miles traveled replace regular vehicle travel. 48 The percentage reduction reflects emission reductions from running emissions. The actual value will be less than this when starting and evaporative emissions are factored into the analysis. ROG emissions have been adjusted to reflect a ratio of 40% evaporative and 60% exhaust emissions based on a statewide EMFAC run of all vehicles. Transportation CEQA# MM-D-6 MP# TR-6 SDT-3 Neighborhood / Site Enhancement 196 SDT-3 This may not be the case and the project should consider applying an appropriate discount rate on what percentage of VMT is actually replaced by NEV travel.. Example: Sample calculations are provided below: Low Range % VMT Reduction (low penetration) = 0.04 * 12.7% = 0.5% High Range % VMT Reduction (high penetration) = 1.0 * 12.7% = 12.7% Preferred Literature: 12.7% reduction in VMT per household Penetration rates: 0.04 to 1 NEV / household The NEV Transportation Program plans to implement the following strategies: charging facilities, striping, signage, parking, education on NEV safety, and NEV/bicycle lines throughout the community. . One estimate of current NEV ownership reported roughly 600 NEVs in the city of Lincoln in 200849. With current estimated households of ~13,50050, a low estimate of NEV penetration would be 0.04 NEV per household. A high NEV penetration can be estimated at 1 NEV per household. The 2007 survey of NEV users in Lincoln revealed an average use of about 3,500 miles per year [2]. With an estimated annual 27,500 VMT/household51, this results in a 12.7% reduction in VMT per household. Alternative Literature: 0.5% VMT reduction for neighborhoods with internal NEV connections 1% VMT reduction for internal and external connections to surrounding neighborhoods 1.5% VMT reduction for internal NEV connections and connections to other existing NEV networks serving all other types of uses. The Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) Recommended Guidance for Land Use Emission Reductions notes that current studies show NEVs do not replace gas-fueled vehicles as the primary vehicle. For the purpose 49 Lincoln, California: A NEV-Friendly Community, Bennett Engineering, the City of Lincoln, and LincolnNEV, August 28, 2008 - http://electrickmotorsports.com/news.php 50 SACOG Housing Estimates Statistics (http://www.sacog.org/about/advocacy/pdf/fact- sheets/HousingStats.pdf). Linearly interpolated 2008 household numbers between 2005 and 2035 projections. 51 SACOG SACSim forecasts for VMT per household at 75.4 daily VMT per household * 365 days = 27521 annual VMT per household Transportation CEQA# MM-D-6 MP# TR-6 SDT-3 Neighborhood / Site Enhancement 197 SDT-3 of providing incentives for developers to promote NEV use, a project will receive the above listed VMT reductions for implementation. Alternative Literature Reference: [1] Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) Recommended Guidance for Land Use Emission Reductions. (p. 21) http://www.airquality.org/ceqa/GuidanceLUEmissionReductions.pdf Other Literature Reviewed: None Transportation MP# LU-3.2.1 & 4.1.4 SDT-4 Neighborhood / Site Enhancement 198 SDT-4 3.2.4 Create Urban Non-Motorized Zones Range of Effectiveness: Grouped strategy. [See SDT-1] Measure Description: The project, if located in a central business district (CBD) or major activity center, will convert a percentage of its roadway miles to transit malls, linear parks, or other non- motorized zones. These features encourage non-motorized travel and thus a reduction in VMT. This measure is most effective when applied with multiple design elements that encourage this use. Refer to Pedestrian Network Improvements (SDT-1) strategy for ranges of effectiveness in this category. The benefits of Urban Non-Motorized Zones alone have not been shown to be significant. Measure Applicability: Urban context Appropriate for residential, retail, office, industrial, and mixed-use projects Alternative Literature: Alternate: 0.01 – 0.2% annual Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) reduction Moving Cooler [1] assumes 2 – 6% of U.S. CBDs/activity centers will convert to non- motorized zones for the purpose of calculating the potential impact. At full implementation, this would result in a range of CBD/activity center annual VMT reduction of 0.07-0.2% and metro VMT reduction of 0.01-0.03%. Alternate: Pucher, Dill, and Handy (2010) [2] note several international case studies of urban non- motorized zones. In Bologna, Italy, vehicle traffic declined by 50%, and 8% of those arriving in the CBD came by bicycle after the conversion. In Lubeck, Germany, of those who used to drive, 12% switched to transit, walking, or bicycling with the conversion. In Aachen, Germany, car travel declined from 44% to 36%, but bicycling stayed constant at 3% Notes: No literature was identified that quantifies the benefits of this strategy at a smaller scale. Transportation MP# LU-3.2.1 & 4.1.4 SDT-4 Neighborhood / Site Enhancement 199 SDT-4 Alternative Literature References: [1] Cambridge Systematics. Moving Cooler: An Analysis of Transportation Strategies for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Technical Appendices. Prepared for the Urban Land Institute. http://www.movingcooler.info/Library/Documents/Moving%20Cooler_Appendix% 20B_Effectiveness_102209.pdf [2] Pucher J., Dill, J., and Handy, S. Infrastructure, Programs and Policies to Increase Bicycling: An International Review. February 2010. Preventive Medicine 50 (2010) S106–S125. http://policy.rutgers.edu/faculty/pucher/Pucher_Dill_Handy10.pdf Other Literature Reviewed: None Transportation MP# TR-4.1 SDT-5 Neighborhood / Site Enhancement 200 SDT-5 3.2.5 Incorporate Bike Lane Street Design (on-site) Range of Effectiveness: Grouped strategy. [See LUT-9] Measure Description: The project will incorporate bicycle lanes, routes, and shared-use paths into street systems, new subdivisions, and large developments. These on-street bike accommodations will be created to provide a continuous network of routes, facilitated with markings and signage. These improvements can help reduce peak-hour vehicle trips by making commuting by bike easier and more convenient for more people. In addition, improved bicycle facilities can increase access to and from transit hubs, thereby expanding the “catchment area” of the transit stop or station and increasing ridership. Bicycle access can also reduce parking pressure on heavily-used and/or heavily-subsidized feeder bus lines and auto-oriented park-and-ride facilities. Refer to Improve Design of Development (LUT-9) strategy for overall effectiveness levels. The benefits of Bike Lane Street Design are small and should be grouped with the Improve Design of Development strategy to strengthen street network characteristics and enhance multi-modal environments. Measure Applicability: Urban and suburban context Appropriate for residential, retail, office, industrial, and mixed-use projects Alternative Literature: Alternate: 1% increase in share of workers commuting by bicycle (for each additional mile of bike lanes per square mile) Dill and Carr (2003) [1] showed that each additional mile of Type 2 bike lanes per square mile is associated with a 1% increase in the share of workers commuting by bicycle. Note that increasing by 1 mile is significant compared to the current average of 0.34 miles per square mile. Also, an increase in 1% in share of bicycle commuters would double the number of bicycle commuters in many areas with low existing bicycle mode share. Alternate: 0.05 – 0.14% annual greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction 258 – 830% increase in bicycle community Moving Cooler [2], based off of a national baseline, estimates 0.05% annual reduction in GHG emissions and 258% increase in bicycle commuting assuming 2 miles of bicycle Transportation MP# TR-4.1 SDT-5 Neighborhood / Site Enhancement 201 SDT-5 lanes per square mile in areas with density > 2,000 persons per square mile. For 4 miles of bicycle lanes, estimates 0.09% GHG reductions and 449% increase in bicycle commuting. For 8 miles of bicycle lanes, estimates 0.14% GHG reductions and 830% increase in bicycle commuting. Companion strategies assumed include bicycle parking at commercial destinations, busses fitted with bicycle carriers, bike accessible rapid transit lines, education, bicycle stations, end-trip facilities, and signage. Alternate: 0.075% increase in bicycle commuting with each mile of bikeway per 100,000 residents A before-and-after study by Nelson and Allen (1997) [3] of bicycle facility implementation found that each mile of bikeway per 100,000 residents increases bicycle commuting 0.075%, all else being equal. Alternative Literature References: [1] Dill, Jennifer and Theresa Carr (2003). “Bicycle Commuting and Facilities in Major U.S. Cities: If You Build Tem, Commuters Will Use Them – Another Look.” TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM. [2] Cambridge Systematics. Moving Cooler: An Analysis of Transportation Strategies for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Technical Appendices. Prepared for the Urban Land Institute. http://www.movingcooler.info/Library/Documents/Moving%20Cooler_Appendix% 20B_Effectiveness_102209.pdf [3] Nelson, Arthur and David Allen (1997). “If You Build Them, Commuters Will Use Them; Cross-Sectional Analysis of Commuters and Bicycle Facilities.” Transportation Research Record 1578. Other Literature Reviewed: None Transportation CEQA# MM T-1 MP# TR-4.1 SDT-6 Neighborhood / Site Enhancement 202 SDT-6 3.2.6 Provide Bike Parking in Non-Residential Projects Range of Effectiveness: Grouped strategy. [See LUT-9] Measure Description: A non-residential project will provide short-term and long-term bicycle parking facilities to meet peak season maximum demand. Refer to Improve Design of Development (LUT-9) strategy for overall effectiveness ranges. Bike Parking in Non-Residential Projects has minimal impacts as a standalone strategy and should be grouped with the Improve Design of Development strategy to encourage bicycling by providing strengthened street network characteristics and bicycle facilities. Measure Applicability: Urban, suburban, and rural contexts Appropriate for retail, office, industrial, and mixed-use projects Alternative Literature: Alternate: 0.625% reduction in Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) As a rule of thumb, the Center for Clean Air Policy (CCAP) guidebook [1] attributes a 1% to 5% reduction in VMT to the use of bicycles, which reflects the assumption that their use is typically for shorter trips. Based on the CCAP Guidebook, the TIAX report allots 2.5% reduction for all bicycle-related measures and a quarter of that for this bicycle parking alone. (This information is based on a TIAX review for Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD).) Alternate: 0.05 – 0.14% annual greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction 258 – 830% increase in bicycle community Moving Cooler [2], based off of a national baseline, estimates 0.05% annual reduction in GHG emissions and 258% increase in bicycle commuting assuming 2 miles of bicycle lanes per square mile in areas with density > 2,000 persons per square mile. For 4 miles of bicycle lanes, Moving Cooler estimates 0.09% GHG reductions and 449% increase in bicycle commuting. For 8 miles of bicycle lanes, Moving Cooler estimates 0.14% GHG reductions and 830% increase in bicycle commuting. Companion strategies assumed include bicycle parking at commercial destinations, busses fitted with bicycle carriers, bike accessible rapid transit lines, education, bicycle stations, end- trip facilities, and signage. Transportation CEQA# MM T-1 MP# TR-4.1 SDT-6 Neighborhood / Site Enhancement 203 SDT-6 Alternative Literature References: [1]Center For Clean Air Policy (CCAP) Transportation Emission Guidebook. http://www.ccap.org/safe/guidebook/guide_complete.html; Based on results of 2005 literature search conducted by TIAX on behalf of SMAQMD. [2] Cambridge Systematics. Moving Cooler: An Analysis of Transportation Strategies for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Technical Appendices. Prepared for the Urban Land Institute. http://www.movingcooler.info/Library/Documents/Moving%20Cooler_Appendix% 20B_Effectiveness_102209.pdf Other Literature Reviewed: None Transportation CEQA# MM T-3 MP# TR-4.1.2 SDT-7 Neighborhood / Site Enhancement 204 SDT-7 3.2.7 Provide Bike Parking with Multi-Unit Residential Projects Range of Effectiveness: Grouped strategy. [See LUT-9] Measure Description: Long-term bicycle parking will be provided at apartment complexes or condominiums without garages. Refer to Improve Design of Development (LUT-9) strategy for effectiveness ranges in this category. The benefits of Bike Parking with Multi-Unit Residential Projects have no quantified impacts and should be grouped with the Improve Design of Development strategy to encourage bicycling by providing strengthened street network characteristics and bicycle facilities. Measure Applicability: Urban, suburban, or rural contexts Appropriate for residential projects Alternative Literature: No literature was identified that specifically looks at the quantitative impact of including bicycle parking at multi-unit residential sites. Alternative Literature References: None Other Literature Reviewed: None Transportation CEQA# MM T-17 & E-11 MP# TR-5.4 SDT-8 Neighborhood / Site Enhancement 205 SDT-8 3.2.8 Provide Electric Vehicle Parking Range of Effectiveness: Grouped strategy. [See SDT-3] Measure Description: This project will implement accessible electric vehicle parking. The project will provide conductive/inductive electric vehicle charging stations and signage prohibiting parking for non-electric vehicles. Refer to Neighborhood Electric Vehicle Network (SDT-3) strategy for effectiveness ranges in this category. The benefits of Electric Vehicle Parking may be quantified when grouped with the use of electric vehicles and or Neighborhood Electric Vehicle Network. Measure Applicability: Urban or suburban contexts Appropriate for residential, retail, office, mixed use, and industrial projects Alternative Literature: No literature was identified that specifically looks at the quantitative impact of implementing electric vehicle parking. Alternative Literature References: None Other Literature Reviewed: None Transportation MP# TR-4.1 SDT-9 Neighborhood / Site Enhancement 206 SDT-9 3.2.9 Dedicate Land for Bike Trails Range of Effectiveness: Grouped strategy. [See LUT-9] Measure Description: Larger projects may be required to provide for, contribute to, or dedicate land for the provision of off-site bicycle trails linking the project to designated bicycle commuting routes in accordance with an adopted citywide or countywide bikeway plan. Refer to Improve Design of Development (LUT-9) strategy for ranges of effectiveness in this category. The benefits of Land Dedication for Bike Trails have not been quantified and should be grouped with the Improve Design of Development strategy to strengthen street network characteristics and improve connectivity to off-site bicycle networks. Measure Applicability: Urban, suburban, or rural contexts Appropriate for large residential, retail, office, mixed use, and industrial projects Alternative Literature: No literature was identified that specifically looks at the quantitative impact of implementing land dedication for bike trails. Alternative Literature References: None Other Literature Reviewed: None Transportation MP# LU-1.7 & LU-2.1.1.4 PDT-1 Parking Policy / Pricing 207 PDT-1 3.3 Parking Policy/Pricing 3.3.1 Limit Parking Supply Range of Effectiveness: 5 – 12.5% vehicle miles travelled (VMT) reduction and therefore 5 – 12.5% reduction in GHG emissions. Measure Description: The project will change parking requirements and types of supply within the project site to encourage “smart growth” development and alternative transportation choices by project residents and employees. This will be accomplished in a multi-faceted strategy: Elimination (or reduction) of minimum parking requirements52 Creation of maximum parking requirements Provision of shared parking Measure Applicability: Urban and suburban context Negligible in a rural context Appropriate for residential, retail, office, industrial and mixed-use projects Reduction can be counted only if spillover parking is controlled (via residential permits and on-street market rate parking) [See PPT-5 and PPT-7] Baseline Method: See introduction to transportation section for a discussion of how to estimate trip rates and VMT. The CO2 emissions are calculated from VMT as follows: CO2 = VMT x EFrunning Where: VMT = vehicle miles traveled EFrunning = emission factor for running emissions Inputs: The following information needs to be provided by the Project Applicant: ITE parking generation rate for project site Actual parking provision rate for project site 52 This may require changes to local ordinances and regulations. Transportation MP# LU-1.7 & LU-2.1.1.4 PDT-1 Parking Policy / Pricing 208 PDT-1 Mitigation Method: % VMT Reduction = 5.0 rate generation parking ITE rate generation parking ITE provision parking Actual Assumptions: Data based upon the following references: [1] Nelson\Nygaard, 2005. Crediting Low-Traffic Developments (p. 16) http://www.montgomeryplanning.org/transportation/documents/TripGenerationAn alysisUsingURBEMIS.pdf All trips affected are assumed average trip lengths to convert from percentage vehicle trip reduction to VMT reduction (% vehicle trips = %VMT). Emission Reduction Ranges and Variables: Pollutant Category Emissions Reductions 53 CO2e 5 – 12.5% of running PM 5 – 12.5% of running CO 5 – 12.5% of running NOx 5 – 12.5% of running SO2 5 – 12.5% of running ROG 3 – 7.5% of total Discussion: The literature suggests that a 50% reduction in conventional parking provision rates (per ITE rates) should serve as a typical ceiling for the reduction calculation. The upper range of VMT reduction will vary based on the size of the development (total number of spaces provided). ITE rates are used as baseline conditions to measure the effectiveness of this strategy. Though not specifically documented in the literature, the degree of effectiveness of this measure will vary based on the level of urbanization of the project and surrounding areas, level of existing transit service, level of existing pedestrian and bicycle networks and other factors which would complement the shift away from single-occupant vehicle travel. 53 The percentage reduction reflects emission reductions from running emissions. The actual value will be less than this when starting and evaporative emissions are factored into the analysis. Transportation MP# LU-1.7 & LU-2.1.1.4 PDT-1 Parking Policy / Pricing 209 PDT-1 Example: If the ITE parking generation rate for the project is 100 spaces, for a low range a 5% reduction in spaces is assumed. For a high range a 25% reduction in spaces is assumed. Low range % VMT Reduction = [(100 - 95)/100] * 0.5 = 2.5% High range % VMT Reduction = [(100 - 75)/100] * 0.5 = 12.5% Preferred Literature: To develop this model, Nelson\Nygaard [1] used the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ Parking Generation handbook as the baseline figure for parking supply. This is assumed to be unconstrained demand. Trip reduction should only be credited if measures are implemented to control for spillover parking in and around the project, such as residential parking permits, metered parking, or time-limited parking. Alternative Literature: 100% increase in transit ridership 100% increase in transit mode share According to TCRP Report 95, Chapter 18 [2], the central business district of Portland, Oregon implemented a maximum parking ratio of 1 space per 1,000 square feet of new buildings and implemented surface lot restrictions which limited conditions where buildings could be razed for parking. A “before and after” study was not conducted specifically for the maximum parking requirements and data comes from various surveys and published reports. Based on rough estimates the approximate parking ratio of 3.4 per 1,000 square feet in 1973 (for entire downtown) had been reduce to 1.5 by 1990. Transit mode share increased from 20% to 40%. The increases in transit ridership and mode share are not solely from maximum parking requirements. Other companion strategies, such as market parking pricing and high fuel costs, were in place. Alternative Literature Sources: [1] TCRP Report 95, Chapter 18: Parking Management and Supply: Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes. (p. 18-6) http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_95c18.pdf Other Literature Reviewed: None Transportation MP# LU-1.7 PDT-2 Parking Policy / Pricing 210 PDT-2 3.3.2 Unbundle Parking Costs from Property Cost Range of Effectiveness: 2.6 – 13% vehicles miles traveled (VMT) reduction and therefore 2.6 – 13% reduction in GHG emissions. Measure Description: This project will unbundle parking costs from property costs. Unbundling separates parking from property costs, requiring those who wish to purchase parking spaces to do so at an additional cost from the property cost. This removes the burden from those who do not wish to utilize a parking space. Parking will be priced separately from home rents/purchase prices or office leases. An assumption is made that the parking costs are passed through to the vehicle owners/drivers utilizing the parking spaces. Measure Applicability: Urban and suburban context Negligible impact in a rural context Appropriate for residential, retail, office, industrial and mixed-use projects Complementary strategy includes Workplace Parking Pricing. Though not required, implementing workplace parking pricing ensures the market signal from unbundling parking is transferred to the employee. Baseline Method: See introduction to transportation section for a discussion of how to estimate trip rates and VMT. The CO2 emissions are calculated from VMT as follows: CO2 = VMT x EFrunning Where: VMT = vehicle miles traveled EFrunning = emission factor for running emissions Inputs: The following information needs to be provided by the Project Applicant: Monthly parking cost for project site Mitigation Method: % Reduction in VMT = Change in vehicle cost * elasticity * A Transportation MP# LU-1.7 PDT-2 Parking Policy / Pricing 211 PDT-2 Where: -0.4 = elasticity of vehicle ownership with respect to total vehicle costs (lower end per VTPI) Change in vehicle cost = monthly parking cost * (12 / $4,000), with $4,000 representing the annual vehicle cost per VTPI [1] A: 85% = adjustment from vehicle ownership to VMT (see Appendix C for detail) Assumptions: Data based upon the following references: [1] Victoria Transport Policy Institute, Parking Requirement Impacts on Housing Affordability; http://www.vtpi.org/park-hou.pdf; January 2009; accessed March 2010. (Annual/monthly parking fees estimated by VTPI in 2009) (p. 8, Table 3) o For the elasticity of vehicle ownership, VTPI cites Phil Goodwin, Joyce Dargay and Mark Hanly (2003), Elasticities Of Road Traffic And Fuel Consumption With Respect To Price And Income: A Review, ESRC Transport Studies Unit, University College London (www.transport.ucl.ac.uk), commissioned by the UK Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (now UK Department for Transport); J.O. Jansson (1989), “Car Demand Modeling and Forecasting,” Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, May 1989, pp. 125-129; Stephen Glaister and Dan Graham (2000), The Effect of Fuel Prices on Motorists, AA Motoring Policy Unit (www.theaa.com) and the UK Petroleum Industry Association (http://195.167.162.28/policyviews/pdf/effect_fuel_prices.pdf ); and Thomas F. Golob (1989), “The Casual Influences of Income and Car Ownership on Trip Generation by Mode”, Journal of Transportation Economics and Policy, May 1989, pp. 141-162 Emission Reduction Ranges and Variables: Pollutant Category Emissions Reductions 54 CO2e 2.6 – 13% of running PM 2.6 – 13% of running CO 2.6 – 13% of running 54 The percentage reduction reflects emission reductions from running emissions. The actual value will be less than this when starting and evaporative emissions are factored into the analysis. ROG emissions have been adjusted to reflect a ratio of 40% evaporative and 60% exhaust emissions based on a statewide EMFAC run of all vehicles. Transportation MP# LU-1.7 PDT-2 Parking Policy / Pricing 212 PDT-2 NOx 2.6 – 13% of running SO2 2.6 – 13% of running ROG 1.6 – 7.8% of total Discussion: As discussed in the preferred literature section, monthly parking costs typically range from $25 to $125. The lower end of the elasticity range provided by VTPI is used here to be conservative. Example: Sample calculations are provided below: Low Range % VMT Reduction = $25* 12 / $4000 * 0.4 * 85% = 2.6% High Range % VMT Reduction = $125* 12 / $4000 * 0.4 * 85%= 12.8% Preferred Literature: -0.4 to -1.0 = elasticity of vehicle ownership with respect to total vehicle costs The above elasticity comes from a synthesis of literature. As noted in the VTPI report [1], a 10% increase in total vehicle costs (operating costs, maintenance, fuel, parking, etc.) reduces vehicle ownership between 4% and 10%. The report, estimating $4,000 in annual costs per vehicle, calculated vehicle ownership reductions from residential parking pricing. Vehicle Ownership Reductions from Residential Parking Pricing Annual (Monthly) Parking Fee -0.4 Elasticity -0.7 Elasticity -1.0 Elasticity $300 ($25) 4% 6% 8% $600 ($50) 8% 11% 15% $900 ($75) 11% 17% 23% $1,200 ($100) 15% 23% 30% $1,500 ($125) 19% 28% 38% Alternative Literature: None Alternative Literature Notes: None Other Literature Reviewed: None Transportation PDT-3 Parking Policy / Pricing 213 PDT-3 3.3.3 Implement Market Price Public Parking (On-Street) Range of Effectiveness: 2.8 – 5.5% vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction and therefore 2.8 – 5.5% reduction in GHG emissions. Measure Description: This project and city in which it is located will implement a pricing strategy for parking by pricing all central business district/employment center/retail center on-street parking. It will be priced to encourage “park once” behavior. The benefit of this measure above that of paid parking at the project only is that it deters parking spillover from project- supplied parking to other public parking nearby, which undermine the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) benefits of project pricing. It may also generate sufficient area-wide mode shifts to justify increased transit service to the area. Measure Applicability: Urban and suburban context Negligible impact in a rural context Appropriate for retail, office, and mixed-use projects Applicable in a specific or general plan context only Reduction can be counted only if spillover parking is controlled (via residential permits) Study conducted in a downtown area, and thus should be applied carefully if project is not in a central business/activity center Baseline Method: See introduction to transportation section for a discussion of how to estimate trip rates and VMT. The CO2 emissions are calculated from VMT as follows: CO2 = VMT x EFrunning Where: VMT = vehicle miles traveled EFrunning = emission factor for running emissions Inputs: The following information needs to be provided by the Project Applicant: Location of project site: low density suburb, suburban center, or urban location Transportation PDT-3 Parking Policy / Pricing 214 PDT-3 Percent increase in on-street parking prices (minimum 25% needed) Mitigation Method: % VMT Reduction = Park$ * B Where: Park$ = Percent increase in on- street parking prices (minimum of 25% increase [1]) B = Elasticity of VMT with respect to parking price (0.11, from [2]) Assumptions: Data based upon the following references: [1] Cambridge Systematics. Moving Cooler: An Analysis of Transportation Strategies for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Technical Appendices. Prepared for the Urban Land Institute. (p. B-10) Moving Cooler’s parking pricing analysis cited Victoria Transport Policy Institute, How Prices and Other Factors Affect Travel Behavior (http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm11.htm#_Toc161022578). The VTPI paper summarized the elasticities found in the Hensher and King paper. David A. Hensher and Jenny King (2001), “Parking Demand and Responsiveness to Supply, Price and Location in Sydney Central Business District,” Transportation Research A, Vol. 35, No. 3 (www.elsevier.com/locate/tra), March 2001, pp. 177-196. [2] J. Peter Clinch and J. Andrew Kelly (2003), Temporal Variance Of Revealed Preference On-Street Parking Price Elasticity, Department of Environmental Studies, University College Dublin (www.environmentaleconomics.net). (p. 2) http://www.ucd.ie/gpep/research/workingpapers/2004/04-02.pdf As referenced in VTPI: http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm11.htm#_Toc161022578 Emission Reduction Ranges and Variables: Pollutant Category Emissions Reductions55 CO2e 2.8 – 5.5% of running 55 The percentage reduction reflects emission reductions from running emissions. The actual value will be less than this when starting and evaporative emissions are factored into the analysis. ROG emissions have been adjusted to reflect a ratio of 40% evaporative and 60% exhaust emissions based on a statewide EMFAC run of all vehicles. Transportation PDT-3 Parking Policy / Pricing 215 PDT-3 PM 2.8 – 5.5% of running CO 2.8 – 5.5% of running NOx 2.8 – 5.5% of running SO2 2.8 – 5.5% of running ROG 1.7 – 3.3% of total Discussion: The range of parking price increases should be a minimum of 25% and a maximum of 50%. The minimum is based on Moving Cooler [1] discussions which state that a less than 25% increase would not be a sufficient amount to reduce VMT. The case study [2] looked at a 50% price increase, and thus no conclusions can be made on the elasticities above a 50% increase. This strategy may certainly be implemented at a higher price increase, but VMT reductions should be capped at results from a 50% increase to be conservative. Example: Assuming a baseline on-street parking price of $1, sample calculations are provided below: Low Range % VMT Reduction (25% increase) = ($1.25 - $1)/$1 * 0.11 = 2.8% High Range % VMT Reduction (50% increase) = ($1.50 - $1)/$1 * 0.11 = 5.5% Preferred Literature: -0.11 parking demand elasticity with respect to parking prices The Clinch & Kelly study [2] of parking meters looked at the impacts of a 50% price increase in the cost of on-street parking. The case study location was a central on- street parking area with a 3-hour time limit and a mix of business and non-business uses. The study concluded the parking increases resulted in an estimated average price elasticity of demand of -0.11, while factoring in parking duration results in an elasticity of -0.2 (cost increases also affect the amount of time cars are parked). Though this study is international (Dublin, Ireland), it represents a solid study of parking meter price increases and provides a conservative estimate of elasticity compared to the alternate literature. Alternative Literature: Alternate: -0.19 shopper parking elasticity with respect to parking price -0.48 commuter parking elasticity with respect to parking price Transportation PDT-3 Parking Policy / Pricing 216 PDT-3 The TCRP 95 Chapter 13 [3] report looked at a case study of the city of San Francisco implementing a parking tax on all public and private off-street parking (in 1970). Based on the number of cars parked, the report estimated parking price elasticities of -0.19 to - 0.48, an average over a three year period. Alternate: -0.15 VMT elasticity with respect to parking prices (for low density regions) -0.47 VMT elasticity with respect to parking prices (for high density regions) The Moving Cooler analysis assumes a 25 percent increase in on-street parking fees is a starting point sufficient to reduce VMT. Using the elasticities stated above, Moving Cooler estimates an annual percent VMT reduction from 0.42% - 1.14% for a range of regions from a large low density region to a small high density region. The calculations assume that pricing occurs at the urban central business district/employment cent/retail center, one-fourth of all person trips are commute based trips, and approximately 15% of commute trips are to the CBD or regional activity centers. Alternative Literature References: [3] TCRP Report 95. Chapter 13: Parking Pricing and Fees - Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_95c13.pdf. (p.13-42) Other Literature Reviewed: None Transportation PDT-4 Parking Policy / Pricing 217 PDT-4 3.3.4 Require Residential Area Parking Permits Range of Effectiveness: Grouped strategy. (See PPT-1, PPT-2, and PPT-3) Measure Description: This project will require the purchase of residential parking permits (RPPs) for long-term use of on-street parking in residential areas. Permits reduce the impact of spillover parking in residential areas adjacent to commercial areas, transit stations, or other locations where parking may be limited and/or priced. Refer to Parking Supply Limitations (PPT-1), Unbundle Parking Costs from Property Cost (PPT-2), or Market Rate Parking Pricing (PPT-3) strategies for the ranges of effectiveness in these categories. The benefits of Residential Area Parking Permits strategy should be combined with any or all of the above mentioned strategies, as providing RPPs are a key complementary strategy to other parking strategies. Measure Applicability: Urban context Appropriate for residential, retail, office, mixed use, and industrial projects Alternative Literature: -0.45 = elasticity of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) with respect to price 0.08% greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction 0.09-0.36% VMT reduction Moving Cooler [1] suggested residential parking permits of $100-$200 annually. This mitigation would impact home-based trips, which are reported to represent approximately 60% of all urban trips. The range of VMT reductions can be attributed to the type of urban area. VMT reductions for $100 annual permits are 0.09% for large, high-density; 0.12% for large, low-density; 0.12% for medium, high-density; 0.18% for medium, low-density; 0.18% for small, high-density; and 0.12% for small, low-density. VMT reductions for $200 annual permits are 0.18% for large, high-density; 0.24% for large, low-density; 0.24% for medium, high-density; 0.36% for medium, low-density; 0.36% for small, high-density; and 0.24% for small, low-density. Alternative Literature References: [1] Cambridge Systematics. Moving Cooler: An Analysis of Transportation Strategies for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Technical Appendices. Prepared for the Urban Land Institute. http://www.movingcooler.info/Library/Documents/Moving%20Cooler_Appendix%20B_Eff ectiveness_102209.pdf Transportation TRT-1 Commute Trip Reduction 218 TRT-1 3.4 Commute Trip Reduction Programs 3.4.1 Implement Commute Trip Reduction Program - Voluntary Commute Trip Reduction Program – Voluntary, is a multi-strategy program that encompasses a combination of individual measures described in sections 3.4.3 through 3.4.9. It is presented as a means of preventing double-counting of reductions for individual measures that are included in this strategy. It does so by setting a maximum level of reductions that should be permitted for a combined set of strategies within a voluntary program. Range of Effectiveness: 1.0 – 6.2% commute vehicle miles traveled (VMT) Reduction and therefore 1.0 – 6.2% reduction in commute trip GHG emissions. Measure Description: The project will implement a voluntary Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) program with employers to discourage single-occupancy vehicle trips and encourage alternative modes of transportation such as carpooling, taking transit, walking, and biking. The main difference between a voluntary and a required program is: Monitoring and reporting is not required No established performance standards (i.e. no trip reduction requirements) The CTR program will provide employees with assistance in using alternative modes of travel, and provide both “carrots” and “sticks” to encourage employees. The CTR program should include all of the following to apply the effectiveness reported by the literature: Carpooling encouragement Ride-matching assistance Preferential carpool parking Flexible work schedules for carpools Half time transportation coordinator Vanpool assistance Bicycle end-trip facilities (parking, showers and lockers) Other strategies may also be included as part of a voluntary CTR program, though they are not included in the reductions estimation and thus are not incorporated in the estimated VMT reductions. These include: new employee orientation of trip reduction and alternative mode options, event promotions and publications, flexible work schedule for all employees, transit subsidies, parking cash-out or priced parking, shuttles, emergency ride home, and improved on-site amenities. Transportation TRT-1 Commute Trip Reduction 219 TRT-1 Measure Applicability: Urban and suburban context Negligible in a rural context, unless large employers exist, and suite of strategies implemented are relevant in rural settings Appropriate for retail, office, industrial and mixed-use projects Baseline Method: See introduction to transportation section for a discussion of how to estimate trip rates and VMT. The CO2 emissions are calculated from VMT as follows: CO2 = VMT x EFrunning Where: VMT = vehicle miles traveled EFrunning = emission factor for running emissions Inputs: The following information needs to be provided by the Project Applicant: Percentage of employees eligible Location of project site: low density suburb, suburban center, or urban location Mitigation Method: % VMT Reduction = A * B Where A = % reduction in commute VMT (from [1]) B = % employees eligible Detail: A: 5.2% (low density suburb), 5.4% (suburban center), 6.2% (urban) annual reduction in commute VMT (from [1]) Assumptions: Data based upon the following references: Transportation TRT-1 Commute Trip Reduction 220 TRT-1 Cambridge Systematics. Moving Cooler: An Analysis of Transportation Strategies for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Technical Appendices. Prepared for the Urban Land Institute. (Table 5.13) http://www.movingcooler.info/Library/Documents/Moving%20Cooler_Appendix% 20B_Effectiveness_102209.pdf Emission Reduction Ranges and Variables: Pollutant Category Emissions Reductions 56 CO2e 1.0 – 6.2% of running PM 1.0 – 6.2% of running CO 1.0 – 6.2% of running NOx 1.0 – 6.2% of running SO2 1.0 – 6.2% of running ROG 0.6 –3.7% of total Discussion: This set of strategies typically serves as a complement to the more effective workplace CTR strategies such as pricing and parking cash out. Example: Sample calculations are provided below: Low Range % VMT Reduction (low density suburb and 20% eligible) = 5.2% * 0.2 = 1.0% High Range % VMT Reduction (urban and 100% eligible) = 6.2% * 1 = 6.2% Preferred Literature: 5.2 - 6.2% commute VMT reduction Moving Cooler assumes the employer support program will include: carpooling, ride- matching, preferential carpool parking, flexible work schedules for carpools, a half-time transportation coordinator, vanpool assistance, bicycle parking, showers, and locker facilities. The report assigns 5.2% reduction to large metropolitan areas, 5.4% to medium metropolitan areas, and 6.2% to small metropolitan areas. 56 The percentage reduction reflects emission reductions from running emissions. The actual value will be less than this when starting and evaporative emissions are factored into the analysis. ROG emissions have been adjusted to reflect a ratio of 40% evaporative and 60% exhaust emissions based on a statewide EMFAC run of all vehicles. Transportation TRT-1 Commute Trip Reduction 221 TRT-1 Alternative Literature: Alternate: 15-19% reduction in commute vehicle trips TCRP 95 Draft Chapter 19 [2] looked at a sample of 82 Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs. Low support TDM programs had a 15% reduction, medium support programs 15.9%, and high support 19%. Low support programs had little employer effort. These programs may include rideshare matching, distribution of transit flyers, but have little employer involvement. With medium support programs, employers were involved with providing information regarding commute options and programs, a transportation coordinator (even if part-time), and assistance for ridesharing and transit pass purchases. With high support programs, the employer was providing most of the possible strategies. The sample of programs should not be construed as a random sample and probably represent above average results. Alternate: 4.16 – 4.76% reduction in commute VMT The Herzog study [3] compared a group of employees, who were eligible for comprehensive commuter benefits (with financial incentives, services such as guaranteed ride home and carpool matching, and informational campaigns) and general marketing information, to a reference group of employees not eligible for commuter benefits. The study showed a 4.79% reduction in VMT, assuming 75% of the carpoolers were traveling to the same worksite. There was a 4.16% reduction in VMT, assuming only 50% of carpoolers were traveling to the same worksite. Alternate: 8.5% reduction in vehicle commute trips Employer survey results [4] showed that employees at the surveyed companies made 8.5% fewer vehicle trips to work than had been found in the baseline surveys conducted by large employers under the area’s trip reduction regulation (i.e. comparing voluntary program with a mandatory regulation). This implied that the 8.5% reduction is a conservative estimate as it is compared to another trip reduction strategy, rather than comparing to a baseline with no reduction strategies implemented. Another survey also showed that 68% of commuters drove alone to work when their employer did not encourage trip reduction. It revealed that with employer encouragement, the drive-alone rate fell 5 percentage points to 63%. This strategy assumes a companion strategy of employer encouragement. The literature did not specify what commute options each employer provided as part of the program. Options provided may have ranged from simply providing public transit Transportation TRT-1 Commute Trip Reduction 222 TRT-1 information to implementing a full TDM program with parking cash out, flex hours, emergency ride home, etc. This San Francisco Bay Area survey worked to determine the extent and impact of the emissions saved through voluntary trip reduction efforts (www.cleanairpartnership.com). It identified 454 employment sites with voluntary trip reduction programs and conducted a selected random survey of the more than 400,000 employees at those sites. The study concluded that employer encouragement makes a significant difference in employees’ commute choices. Alternative Literature References: [2] Pratt, Dick. Personal Communication Regarding the Draft of TCRP 95 Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes – Chapter 19 Employer and Institutional TDM Strategies. [3] Herzog, Erik, Stacey Bricka, Lucie Audette, and Jeffra Rockwell. 2006. “Do Employee Commuter Benefits Reduce Vehicle Emissions and Fuel Consumption? Results of Fall 2004 Survey of Best Workplaces for Commuters.” Transportation Research Record 1956, 34-41. (Table 8) [4] Transportation Demand Management Institute of the Association for Commuter Transportation. TDM Case Studies and Commuter Testimonials. Prepared for the US EPA. 1997. (p. 25-28) http://www.epa.gov/OMS/stateresources/rellinks/docs/tdmcases.pdf Other Literature Reviewed: None Transportation CEQA# T-19 MP# MO-3.1 TRT-2 Commute Trip Reduction 223 TRT-2 3.4.2 Implement Commute Trip Reduction Program – Required Implementation/Monitoring Commute Trip Reduction Program – Required, is a multi-strategy program that encompasses a combination of individual measures described in sections 3.4.3 through 3.4.9. It is presented as a means of preventing double-counting of reductions for individual measures that are included in this strategy. It does so by setting a maximum level of reduction that should be permitted for a combined set of strategies within a program that is contractually required of the development sponsors and managers and accompanied by a regular performance monitoring and reporting program. Range of Effectiveness: 4.2 – 21.0% commute vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction and therefore 4.2 – 21.0% reduction in commute trip GHG emissions. Measure Description: The jurisdiction will implement a Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) ordinance. The intent of the ordinance will be to reduce drive-alone travel mode share and encourage alternative modes of travel. The critical components of this strategy are: Established performance standards (e.g. trip reduction requirements) Required implementation Regular monitoring and reporting Regular monitoring and reporting will be required to assess the project’s status in meeting the ordinance goals. The project should use existing ordinances, such as those in the cities of Tucson, Arizona and South San Francisco, California, as examples of successful CTR ordinance implementations. The City of Tucson requires employers with 100+ employees to participate in the program. An Alternative Mode Usage (AMU) goal and VMT reduction goal is established and each year the goal is increased. Employers persuade employees to commute via an alternative mode of transportation at least one day a week (including carpooling, vanpooling, transit, walking, bicycling, telecommuting, compressed work week, or alternatively fueled vehicle). The Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Ordinance in South San Francisco requires all non-residential developments that produce 100 average daily vehicle trips or more to meet a 35% non-drive-alone peak hour requirement with fees assessed for non-compliance. Employers have established significant CTR programs as a result. Measure Applicability: Urban and suburban context Negligible in a rural context, unless large employers exist, and suite of strategies implemented are relevant in rural settings Jurisdiction level only Strategies in this case study calculations included: Transportation CEQA# T-19 MP# MO-3.1 TRT-2 Commute Trip Reduction 224 TRT-2 o Parking cash out o Employer sponsored shuttles to transit station o Employer sponsored bus servicing the Bay Area o Transit subsidies Baseline Method: See introduction to transportation section for a discussion of how to estimate trip rates and VMT. The CO2 emissions are calculated from VMT as follows: CO2 = VMT x EFrunning Where: VMT = vehicle miles traveled EFrunning = emission factor for running emissions Inputs: The following information needs to be provided by the Project Applicant: Percentage of employees eligible Mitigation Method: % VMT Reduction = A * B Where A = % shift in vehicle mode share of commute trips (from [1]) B = % employees eligible C = Adjustment from vehicle mode share to commute VMT Detail: A: 21% reduction in vehicle mode share (from [1]) C: 1.0 (see Appendix C for detail) Transportation CEQA# T-19 MP# MO-3.1 TRT-2 Commute Trip Reduction 225 TRT-2 Assumptions: Data based upon the following references: [1] Nelson/Nygaard (2008). South San Francisco Mode Share and Parking Report for Genentech, Inc.(p. 8) Emission Reduction Ranges and Variables: Pollutant Category Emissions Reductions 57 CO2e 4.2 – 21.0% of running PM 4.2 – 21.0% of running CO 4.2 – 21.0% of running NOx 4.2 – 21.0% of running SO2 4.2 – 21.0% of running ROG 2.5 – 12.6% of total Discussion: Example: Sample calculations are provided below: Low Range % VMT Reduction (20% eligibility) = 21% * 20% = 4.2% High Range % VMT Reduction (100% eligibility) = 21% * 100% = 21% Preferred Literature: 21% reduction in vehicle mode share Genentech, in South San Francisco [1], achieved a 34% non-single-occupancy vehicle (non-SOV) mode share (66% SOV) in 2008. Since 2006 when SOV mode share was 74% (26% non-SOV), there has been a reduction of over 10% in drive alone share. Carpool share was 12% in 2008, compared to 11.57% in 2006. Genentech has a significant TDM program including parking cash out ($4/day), express GenenBus service around the Bay Area, free shuttles to Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) and Caltrain, and transit subsidies. The Genentech campus surveyed for this study is a large, single-tenant campus. Taking an average transit mode share in a suburban development of 1.3% (NHTS, 57 The percentage reduction reflects emission reductions from running emissions. The actual value will be less than this when starting and evaporative emissions are factored into the analysis. ROG emissions have been adjusted to reflect a ratio of 40% evaporative and 60% exhaust emissions based on a statewide EMFAC run of all vehicles. Transportation CEQA# T-19 MP# MO-3.1 TRT-2 Commute Trip Reduction 226 TRT-2 http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tsip/tab/documents/travelsurveys/Final2001_Stw Travel Survey WkdayRpt.pdf (SCAG, SANDAG, Fresno County)), this is an estimated decrease from 98.7% to 78% vehicle mode share (66% SOV + 12% carpool), a 21% reduction in vehicle mode share. Alternative Literature: Alternate: 10.7% average annual increase in use of non-SOV commute modes For the City of Tucson [2], use of alternative commute modes increased 64.3% between 1989 and 1995. Employers integrated several key activities into their TDM plans: disseminating information, developing company policies to support TDM, investing in facility enhancements, conducting promotional campaigns, and offering subsidies o r incentives to encourage AMU. Alternative Literature References: [2] Transportation Demand Management Institute of the Association for Commuter Transportation. TDM Case Studies and Commuter Testimonials. Prepared for the US EPA. 1997. (p. 17-19) http://www.epa.gov/OMS/stateresources/rellinks/docs/tdmcases.pdf Other Literature Reviewed: None Transportation MP# MO-3.1 TRT-3 Commute Trip Reduction 227 TRT-3 3.4.3 Provide Ride-Sharing Programs Range of Effectiveness: 1 – 15% commute vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction and therefore 1 - 15% reduction in commute trip GHG emissions. Measure Description: Increasing the vehicle occupancy by ride sharing will result in fewer cars driving the same trip, and thus a decrease in VMT. The project will include a ride-sharing program as well as a permanent transportation management association membership and funding requirement. Funding may be provided by Community Facilities, District, or County Service Area, or other non-revocable funding mechanism. The project will promote ride-sharing programs through a multi-faceted approach such as: Designating a certain percentage of parking spaces for ride sharing vehicles Designating adequate passenger loading and unloading and waiting areas for ride-sharing vehicles Providing a web site or message board for coordinating rides Measure Applicability: Urban and suburban context Negligible impact in many rural contexts, but can be effective when a large employer in a rural area draws from a workforce in an urban or suburban area, such as when a major employer moves from an urban location to a rural location. Appropriate for residential, retail, office, industrial, and mixed-use projects Baseline Method: See introduction to transportation section for a discussion of how to estimate trip rates and VMT. The CO2 emissions are calculated from VMT as follows: CO2 = VMT x EFrunning Where: VMT = vehicle miles traveled EFrunning = emission factor for running emissions Inputs: The following information needs to be provided by the Project Applicant: Percentage of employees eligible Transportation MP# MO-3.1 TRT-3 Commute Trip Reduction 228 TRT-3 Location of project site: low density suburb, suburban center, or urban location Mitigation Method: % VMT Reduction = Commute * Employee Where Commute = % reduction in commute VMT (from [1]) Employee = % employees eligible Detail: Commute: 5% (low density suburb), 10% (suburban center), 15% (urban) annual reduction in commute VMT (from [1]) Assumptions: Data based upon the following references: [1] VTPI. TDM Encyclopedia. http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm34.htm; Accessed 3/5/2010. Emission Reduction Ranges and Variables: Pollutant Category Emissions Reductions 58 CO2e 1 – 15% of running PM 1 – 15% of running CO 1 – 15% of running NOx 1 – 15% of running SO2 1 – 15% of running ROG 0.6 – 9% of total Discussion: This strategy is often part of Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Program, another strategy documented separately (see TRT-1 and TRT-2). The Project Applicant should take care not to double count the impacts. Example: Sample calculations are provided below: 58 The percentage reduction reflects emission reductions from running emissions. The actual value will be less than this when starting and evaporative emissions are factored into the analysis. ROG emissions have been adjusted to reflect a ratio of 40% evaporative and 60% exhaust emissions based on a statewide EMFAC run of all vehicles. Transportation MP# MO-3.1 TRT-3 Commute Trip Reduction 229 TRT-3 Low Range % VMT Reduction (low density suburb and 20% eligible) = 5% * 20% = 1% High Range % VMT Reduction (urban and 100% eligible) = 15% * 1 = 15% Preferred Literature: 5 – 15% reduction of commute VMT The Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Encyclopedia notes that because rideshare passengers tend to have relatively long commutes, mileage reductions can be relatively large with rideshare. If ridesharing reduces 5% of commute trips it may reduce 10% of vehicle miles because the trips that are reduced are twice as long as average. Rideshare programs can reduce up to 8.3% of commute VMT, up to 3.6% of total regional VMT, and up to 1.8% of regional vehicle trips (Apogee, 1994; TDM Resource Center, 1996). Another study notes that ridesharing programs typically attract 5-15% of commute trips if they offer only information and encouragement, and 10-30% if they also offer financial incentives such as parking cash out or vanpool subsidies (York and Fabricatore, 2001). Alternative Literature: Up to 1% reduction in VMT (if combined with two other strategies) Per the Nelson\Nygaard report [2], ride-sharing would fall under the category of a minor TDM program strategy. The report allows a 1% reduction in VMT for projects with at least three minor strategies. Alternative Literature References: [2] Nelson\Nygaard, 2005. Crediting Low-Traffic Developments (p.12). http://www.montgomeryplanning.org/transportation/documents/TripGenerationAn alysisUsingURBEMIS.pdf Criteron Planner/Engineers and Fehr & Peers Associates (2001). Index 4D Method. A Quick-Response Method of Estimating Travel Impacts from Land-Use Changes. Technical Memorandum prepared for US EPA, October 2001. Other Literature Reviewed: None Transportation MP# MO-3.1 TRT-4 Commute Trip Reduction 230 TRT-4 3.4.4 Implement Subsidized or Discounted Transit Program Range of Effectiveness: 0.3 – 20.0% commute vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction and therefore a 0.3 – 20.0% reduction in commute trip GHG emissions. Measure Description: This project will provide subsidized/discounted daily or monthly public transit passes. The project may also provide free transfers between all shuttles and transit to participants. These passes can be partially or wholly subsidized by the employer, school, or development. Many entities use revenue from parking to offset the cost of such a project. Measure Applicability: Urban and suburban context Negligible in a rural context Appropriate for residential, retail, office, industrial, and mixed-use projects Baseline Method: See introduction to transportation section for a discussion of how to estimate trip rates and VMT. The CO2 emissions are calculated from VMT as follows: CO2 = VMT x EFrunning Where: VMT = vehicle miles traveled EFrunning = emission factor for running emissions Inputs: The following information needs to be provided by the Project Applicant: Percentage of project employees eligible Transit subsidy amount Location of project site: low density suburb, suburban center, or urban location Mitigation Method: % VMT Reduction = A * B * C Where A = % reduction in commute vehicle trips (VT) (from [1]) Transportation MP# MO-3.1 TRT-4 Commute Trip Reduction 231 TRT-4 B = % employees eligible C = Adjustment from commute VT to commute VMT Detail: A: Daily Transit Subsidy $0.75 $1.49 $2.98 $5.96 Worksite Setting % Reduction in Commute VT Low density suburb 1.5% 3.3% 7.9% 20.0%* Suburban center 3.4% 7.3% 16.4% 20.0%* Urban location 6.2% 12.9% 20.0%* 20.0%* * Discounts greater than 20% will be capped, as they exceed levels recommended by TCRP 95 Draft Chapter 19 and other literature. C: 1.0 (see Appendix C for detail) Assumptions: Data based upon the following references: [1] Nelson\Nygaard, 2010. City of Santa Monica Land Use and Circulation Element EIR Report, Appendix – Santa Monica Luce Trip Reduction Impacts Analysis (p.401). [2] Nelson\Nygaard used the following literature sources: VTPI, Todd Litman, Transportation Elasticities, http://www.vtpi.org/elasticities.pdf. Comsis Corporation (1993), Implementing Effective Travel Demand Management Measures: Inventory of Measures and Synthesis of Experience, USDOT and Institute of Transportation Engineers (www.ite.org); www.bts.gov/ntl/DOCS/474.html. Emission Reduction Ranges and Variables: Pollutant Category Emissions Reductions 59 CO2e 0.3 - 20% of running PM 0.3 - 20% of running CO 0.3 - 20% of running NOx 0.3 - 20% of running SO2 0.3 - 20% of running ROG 0. 18 - 12% of total 59 The percentage reduction reflects emission reductions from running emissions. The actual value will be less than this when starting and evaporative emissions are factored into the analysis. ROG emissions have been adjusted to reflect a ratio of 40% evaporative and 60% exhaust emissions based on a statewide EMFAC run of all vehicles. Transportation MP# MO-3.1 TRT-4 Commute Trip Reduction 232 TRT-4 Discussion: This strategy is often part of a Commute Trip Reduction (CTR), another strategy documented separately (see TRT-1 and TRT-2). The Project Applicant should take care not to double count the impacts. The literature evaluates this strategy in relation to the employer, but keep in mind that this strategy can also be implemented by a school or the development as a whole. Example: Sample calculations are provided below: Low Range % VMT Reduction ($0.75, low density suburb, 20% eligible) = 1.5% * 20% = 0.3% High Range % VMT Reduction ($5.96, urban, 100% eligible) = 20% * 100% = 20% Preferred Literature: Commute Vehicle Trip Reduction Daily Transit Subsidy Worksite Setting $0.75 $1.49 $2.98 $5.96 Low density suburb, rideshare oriented 0.1% 0.2% 0.6% 1.9% Low density suburb, mode neutral 1.5% 3.3% 7.9% 21.7%* Low density suburb, transit oriented 2.0% 4.2% 9.9% 23.2%* Activity center, rideshare oriented 1.1% 2.4% 5.8% 16.5% Activity center, mode neutral 3.4% 7.3% 16.4% 38.7%* Activity center, transit oriented 5.2% 10.9% 23.5%* 49.7%* Regional CBD/Corridor, rideshare oriented 2.2% 4.7% 10.9% 28.3%* Regional CBD/Corridor, mode neutral 6.2% 12.9% 26.9%* 54.3%* Regional CBD/Corridor, transit oriented 9.1% 18.1% 35.5%* 64.0%* * Discounts greater than 20% will be capped, as they exceed levels recommended by TCRP 95 Draft Chapter 19 and other literature. Nelson\Nygaard (2010) updated a commute trip reduction table from VTPI Transportation Elasticities to account for inflation since the data was compiled. Data regarding commute vehicle trip reductions was originally from a study conducted by Comsis Corporation and the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). Alternative Literature: Alternate: 2.4-30.4% commute vehicle trip reduction (VTR) Transportation MP# MO-3.1 TRT-4 Commute Trip Reduction 233 TRT-4 TCRP 95 Draft Chapter 19 [2] indicates transit subsidies in areas with good transit and restricted parking have a commute VTR of 30.4%; good transit but free parking, a commute VTR of 7.6%; free parking and limited transit 2.4%. Programs with transit subsidies have an average commute VTR of 20.6% compared with an average commute VTR of 13.1% for sites with non-transit fare subsidies. Alternate: 0.03-0.12% annual greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction Moving Cooler [3] assumed price elasticities of -0.15, -0.2, and -0.3 for lower fares 25%, 33%, and 50%, respectively. Moving Cooler assumes average vehicle occupancy of 1.43 and a VMT/trip of 5.12. Alternative Literature References: [2] Pratt, Dick. Personal Communication Regarding the Draft of TCRP 95 Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes – Chapter 19 Employer and Institutional TDM Strategies. [3] Cambridge Systematics. Moving Cooler: An Analysis of Transportation Strategies for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Technical Appendices. Prepared for the Urban Land Institute. (Table D.3) http://www.movingcooler.info/Library/Documents/Moving%20Cooler_Appendix% 20B_Effectiveness_102209.pdf Other Literature Reviewed: None Transportation CEQA# MM T-2 MP# MO-3.2 TRT-5 Commute Trip Reduction 234 TRT-5 3.4.5 Provide End of Trip Facilities Range of Effectiveness: Grouped strategy (see TRT-1 through TRT-3) Measure Description: Non-residential projects will provide "end-of-trip" facilities for bicycle riders including showers, secure bicycle lockers, and changing spaces. End-of-trip facilities encourage the use of bicycling as a viable form of travel to destinations, especially to work. End-of- trip facilities provide the added convenience and security needed to encourage bicycle commuting. End-of-trip facilities have minimal impacts when implemented alone. This strategy’s effectiveness in reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT) depends heavily on the suite of other transit, pedestrian/bicycle, and demand management measures offered. End-of- trip facilities should be grouped with Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Programs (TRT-1 through TRT-2). Measure Applicability: Urban, suburban, and rural context Appropriate for residential, retail, office, industrial, and mixed-use projects Alternative Literature: Alternate: 22% increase in bicycle mode share The bicycle study documents a multivariate analysis of UK National Travel Survey (Wardman et al. 2007) which found significant impacts on bicycling to work. Compared to base bicycle mode share of 5.8% for work trips, outdoor parking would raise the share to 6.3%, indoor secure parking to 6.6%, and indoor parking plus showers to 7.1%. This results in an estimate 22% increase in bicycle mode share ((7.1%-5.8%)/5.8% = 22%). This suggests that such end of trip facilities have an important impact on the decision to bicycle to work. However, these effects represent reductions in VMT no greater than 0.02% (see Appendix C for calculation detail). Alternate: 2 - 5% reduction in commute vehicle trips The Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Encyclopedia, citing Ewing (1993), documents Sacramento’s TDM ordinance. The City allows developers to claim trip reduction credits for worksite showers and lockers of 5% in central business districts, 2% within 660 feet of a transit station, and 2% elsewhere. Transportation CEQA# MM T-2 MP# MO-3.2 TRT-5 Commute Trip Reduction 235 TRT-5 Alternate: 0.625% reduction in VMT The Center for Clean Air Policy (CCAP) Guidebook attributes a 1% to 5% reduction associated with the use of bicycles, which reflects the assumption that their use is typically for shorter trips. Based on the CCAP Guidebook, a 2.5% reduction is allocated for all bicycle-related measures and a 1/4 of that for this measure alone. (This information is based on a TIAX review for SMAQMD). Alternative Literature References: [1] Pucher J., Dill, J., and Handy, S. Infrastructure, Programs and Policies to Increase Bicycling: An International Review. February 2010. (Table 2, pg. S111) http://policy.rutgers.edu/faculty/pucher/Pucher_Dill_Handy10.pdf [2] Victoria Transportation Policy Institute (VTPI). TDM Encyclopedia, http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm9.htm; accessed 3/4/2010; last update 1/25/2010). VTPI citing: Reid Ewing (1993), “TDM, Growth Management, and the Other Four Out of Five Trips,” Transportation Quarterly, Vol. 47, No. 3, Summer 1993, pp. 343-366. [3] Center for Clean Air Policy (CCAP), CCAP Transportation Emission Guidebook. http://www.ccap.org/safe/guidebook/guide_complete.html; TIAX Results of 2005 Literature Search Conducted by TIAX on behalf of SMAQMD Other Literature Reviewed: None Transportation MP# TR-3.5 TRT-6 Commute Trip Reduction 236 TRT-6 3.4.6 Encourage Telecommuting and Alternative Work Schedules Range of Effectiveness: 0.07 – 5.50% commute vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction and therefore 0.07 – 5.50% reduction in commute trip GHG emissions. Measure Description: Encouraging telecommuting and alternative work schedules reduces the number of commute trips and therefore VMT traveled by employees. Alternative work schedules could take the form of staggered starting times, flexible schedules, or compressed work weeks. Measure Applicability: Urban, suburban, and rural context Appropriate for retail, office, industrial, and mixed-use projects Baseline Method: See introduction to transportation section for a discussion of how to estimate trip rates and VMT. The CO2 emissions are calculated from VMT as follows: CO2 = VMT x EFrunning Where: VMT = vehicle miles traveled EFrunning = emission factor for running emissions Inputs: The following information needs to be provided by the Project Applicant: Percentage of employees participating (1 – 25%) Strategy implemented: 9-day/80-hour work week, 4-day/40-hour work week, or 1.5 days of telecommuting Mitigation Method: % Commute VMT Reduction = Commute Where Commute = % reduction in commute VMT (See table below) Transportation MP# TR-3.5 TRT-6 Commute Trip Reduction 237 TRT-6 Employee Participation 1% 3% 5% 10% 25% % Reduction in Commute VMT 9-day/80-hour work week 0.07% 0.21% 0.35% 0.70% 1.75% 4-day/40-hour work week 0.15% 0.45% 0.75% 1.50% 3.75% telecommuting 1.5 days 0.22% 0.66% 1.10% 2.20% 5.5% Source: Moving Cooler Technical Appendices, Fehr & Peers Notes: The percentages from Moving Cooler incorporate a discount of 25% for rebound effects. The percentages beyond 1% employee participation are linearly extrapolated. Assumptions: Data based upon the following references: [1] Cambridge Systematics. Moving Cooler: An Analysis of Transportation Strategies for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Technical Appendices. Prepared for the Urban Land Institute. (p. B-54) http://www.movingcooler.info/Library/Documents/Moving%20Cooler_Appendix%20B_Ef fectiveness_102209.pdf Emission Reduction Ranges and Variables: Pollutant Category Emissions Reductions 60 CO2e 0.07 – 5.50% of running PM 0.07 – 5.50% of running CO 0.07 – 5.50% of running NOx 0.07 – 5.50% of running SO2 0.07 – 5.50% of running ROG 0.04 – 3.3% of total Discussion: This strategy is often part of a Commute Trip Reduction Program, another strategy documented separately (see TRT-1 and TRT-2). The Project Applicant should take care not to double count the impacts. The employee participation rate should be capped at a maximum of 25%. Moving Cooler [1] notes that roughly 50% of a typical workforce could participate in alternative 60 The percentage reduction reflects emission reductions from running emissions. The actual value will be less than this when starting and evaporative emissions are factored into the analysis. ROG emissions have been adjusted to reflect a ratio of 40% evaporative and 60% exhaust emissions based on a statewide EMFAC run of all vehicles. Transportation MP# TR-3.5 TRT-6 Commute Trip Reduction 238 TRT-6 work schedules (based on job requirements) and roughly 50% of those would choose to participate. The 25% discount for rebound effects is maintained to provide a conservative estimate and support the literature results. The project may consider removing this discount from their calculations if deemed appropriate. Example: N/A – no calculations are needed. Preferred Literature: 0.07% - 0.22% reduction in commuting VMT Moving Cooler [1] estimates that if 1% of employees were to participate in a 9 day/80 hour compressed work week, commuting VMT would be reduced by 0.07%. If 1% of employees were to participate in a 4 day/40 hour compressed work week, commuting VMT would reduce by 0.15%; and 1% of employees participating in telecommuting 1.5 days per week would reduce commuting VMT by 0.22%. These percentages incorporate a discounting of 25% to account for rebound effects (i.e., travel for other purposes during the day while not at the work site). The percentages beyond 1% employee participation are linearly extrapolated (see table above). Alternative Literature: Alternate: 9-10% reduction in VMT for participating employees As documented in TCRP 95 Draft Chapter 19 [2], a Denver federal employer’s implementation of compressed work week resulted in a 14-15% reduction in VMT for participating employees. This is equivalent to the 0.15% reduction for each 1% participation cited in the preferred literature above. In the Denver example, there was a 65% participation rate out of a total of 9,000 employees. TCRP 95 states that the compressed work week experiment has no adverse effect on ride-sharing or transit use. Flexible hours have been shown to work best in the presence of medium or low transit availability. Alternate: 0.5 vehicle trips reduced per employee per week 13 – 20 VMT reduced per employee per week Transportation MP# TR-3.5 TRT-6 Commute Trip Reduction 239 TRT-6 As documented in TCRP 95 Draft Chapter 19 [2], a study of compressed work week for 2,600 Southern California employees resulted in an average reduction of 0.5 trips per week (per participating employee). Participating employees also reduced their VMT by 13-20 miles per week. This translates to a reduction of between 5% and 10% in commute VMT, and so is lower than the 15% reduction cited for Denver government employees. Alternative Literature References: [2] Pratt, Dick. Personal Communication Regarding the Draft of TCRP 95 Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes – Chapter 19 Employer and Institutional TDM Strategies. Other Literature Reviewed: None Transportation TRT-7 Commute Trip Reduction 240 TRT-7 3.4.7 Implement Commute Trip Reduction Marketing Range of Effectiveness: 0.8 – 4.0% commute vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction and therefore 0.8 – 4.0% reduction in commute trip GHG emissions. Measure Description: The project will implement marketing strategies to reduce commute trips. Information sharing and marketing are important components to successful commute trip reduction strategies. Implementing commute trip reduction strategies without a complementary marketing strategy will result in lower VMT reductions. Marketing strategies may include: New employee orientation of trip reduction and alternative mode options Event promotions Publications CTR marketing is often part of a CTR program, voluntary or mandatory. CTR marketing is discussed separately here to emphasis the importance of not only providing employees with the options and monetary incentives to use alternative forms of transportation, but to clearly and deliberately promote and educate employees of the various options. This will greatly improve the impact of the implemented trip reduction strategies. Measure Applicability: Urban and suburban context Negligible in a rural context Appropriate for residential, retail, office, industrial and mixed-use projects Baseline Method: See introduction to transportation section for a discussion of how to estimate trip rates and VMT. The CO2 emissions are calculated from VMT as follows: CO2 = VMT x EFrunning Where: VMT = vehicle miles traveled EFrunning = emission factor for running emissions Transportation TRT-7 Commute Trip Reduction 241 TRT-7 Inputs: The following information needs to be provided by the Project Applicant: Percentage of project employees eligible (i.e. percentage of employers choosing to participate) Mitigation Method: % Commute VMT Reduction = A * B * C Where A = % reduction in commute vehicle trips (from [1]) B = % employees eligible C = Adjustment from commute VT to commute VMT Detail: A: 4% (per [1]) C: 1.0 (see Appendix C for detail) Assumptions: Data based upon the following references: [1] Pratt, Dick. Personal communication regarding the Draft of TCRP 95 Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes – Chapter 19 Employer and Institutional TDM Strategies. Transit Cooperative Research Program. Emission Reduction Ranges and Variables: Pollutant Category Emissions Reductions 61 CO2e 0.8 – 4.0% of running PM 0.8 – 4.0% of running CO 0.8 – 4.0% of running NOx 0.8 – 4.0% of running SO2 0.8 – 4.0% of running ROG 0.5 – 2.4% of total 61 The percentage reduction reflects emission reductions from running emissions. The actual value will be less than this when starting and evaporative emissions are factored into the analysis. ROG emissions have been adjusted to reflect a ratio of 40% evaporative and 60% exhaust emissions based on a statewide EMFAC run of all vehicles. Transportation TRT-7 Commute Trip Reduction 242 TRT-7 Discussion: The effectiveness of commute trip reduction marketing in reducing VMT depends on which commute reduction strategies are being promoted. The effectiveness levels provided below should only be applied if other programs are offered concurrently, and represent the total effectiveness of the full suite of measures. This strategy is often part of a CTR Program, another strategy documented separately (see strategy T# E1). Take care not to double count the impacts. Example: Sample calculations are provided below: Low Range % VMT Reduction (20% eligible) = 4% * 20% = 0.8% High Range % VMT Reduction (100% eligible) = 4% * 100% = 4.0% Preferred Literature: 4-5% commute vehicle trips reduced with full-scale employer support TCRP 95 Draft Chapter 19 notes the average empirically-based estimate of reductions in vehicle trips for full-scale, site-specific employer support programs alone is 4-5%. This effectiveness assumes there are alternative commute modes available which have on-going employer support. For a program to receive credit for such outreach and marketing efforts, it should contain guarantees that the program will be maintained permanently, with promotional events delivered regularly and with routine performance monitoring. Alternative Literature: 5-15% reduction in commute vehicle trips 3% increase in effectiveness of marketed transportation demand management (TDM) strategies VTPI [2] notes that providing information on alternative travel modes by employers was one of the most important factors contributing to mode shifting. One study (Shadoff,1993) estimates that marketing increases the effectiveness of other TDM strategies by up to 3%. Given adequate resources, marketing programs may reduce vehicle trips by 5-15%. The 5 – 15% range comes from a variety of case studies across the world. U.S. specific case studies include: 9% reduction in vehicle trips with TravelSmart in Portland (12% reduction in VMT), 4-8% reduction in vehicle trips from four cities with individualized marketing pilot projects from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). Averaged across the four pilot projects, there was a 6.75% reduction in VMT. Transportation TRT-7 Commute Trip Reduction 243 TRT-7 Alternative Literature References: [2] VTPI, TDM Encyclopedia – TDM Marketing; http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm23.htm; accessed 3/5/2010. Table 7 (citing FTA, 2006) Other Literature Reviewed: None Transportation MP# TR-3.1 TRT-8 Commute Trip Reduction 244 TRT-8 3.4.8 Implement Preferential Parking Permit Program Range of Effectiveness: Grouped strategy (see TRT-1 through TRT-3) Measure Description: The project will provide preferential parking in convenient locations (such as near public transportation or building front doors) in terms of free or reduced parking fees, priority parking, or reserved parking for commuters who carpool, vanpool, ride-share or use alternatively fueled vehicles. The project will provide wide parking spaces to accommodate vanpool vehicles. The impact of preferential parking permit programs has not been quantified by the literature and is likely to have negligible impacts when implemented alone. This strategy should be grouped with Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Programs (TRT-1 and TRT-2) as a complementary strategy for encouraging non-single occupant vehicle travel. Measure Applicability: Urban, suburban context Appropriate for residential, retail, office, mixed use, and industrial projects Alternative Literature: No quantitative results are available. The case study in the literature implemented a preferential parking permit program as a companion strategy to a comprehensive TDM program. Employees who carpooled at least three times a week qualified to use the spaces. Alternative Literature References: [1] Transportation Demand Management Institute of the Association for Commuter Transportation. TDM Case Studies and Commuter Testimonials. Prepared for the US EPA. 1997. http://www.epa.gov/OMS/stateresources/rellinks/docs/tdmcases.pdf Other Literature Reviewed: None Transportation TRT-9 Commute Trip Reduction 245 TRT-9 3.4.9 Implement Car-Sharing Program Range of Effectiveness: 0.4 – 0.7% vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction and therefore 0.4 – 0.7% reduction in GHG emissions. Measure Description: This project will implement a car-sharing project to allow people to have on-demand access to a shared fleet of vehicles on an as-needed basis. User costs are typically determined through mileage or hourly rates, with deposits and/or annual membership fees. The car-sharing program could be created through a local partnership or through one of many existing car-share companies. Car-sharing programs may be grouped into three general categories: residential- or citywide-based, employer-based, and transit station-based. Transit station-based programs focus on providing the “last-mile” solution and link transit with commuters’ final destinations. Residential-based programs work to substitute entire household based trips. Employer-based programs provide a means for business/day trips for alternative mode commuters and provide a guaranteed ride home option. Measure Applicability: Urban and suburban context Negligible in a rural context Appropriate for residential, retail, office, industrial, and mixed-use projects Baseline Method: See introduction to transportation section for a discussion of how to estimate trip rates and VMT. The CO2 emissions are calculated from VMT as follows: CO2 = VMT x EFrunning Where: VMT = vehicle miles traveled EFrunning = emission factor for running emissions Inputs: The following information needs to be provided by the Project Applicant: Urban or suburban context Transportation TRT-9 Commute Trip Reduction 246 TRT-9 Mitigation Method: % VMT Reduction = A * B / C Where A = % reduction in car-share member annual VMT (from the literature) B = number of car share members per shared car (from the literature) C = deployment level based on urban or suburban context Detail: A: 37% (per [1]) B: 20 (per [2]) C: Project setting 1 shared car per X population Urban 1,000 Suburban 2,000 Source: Moving Cooler Assumptions: Data based upon the following references: [1] Millard-Ball, Adam. “Car-Sharing: Where and How it Succeeds,” (2005) Transit Cooperative Research Program (108). P. 4-22 [2] Cambridge Systematics. Moving Cooler: An Analysis of Transportation Strategies for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Technical Appendices. Prepared for the Urban Land Institute. (p. B-52, Table D.3) http://www.movingcooler.info/Library/Documents/Moving%20Cooler_Appendices_C omplete_102209.pdf Emission Reduction Ranges and Variables: Pollutant Category Emissions Reductions 62 CO2e 0.4 – 0.7% of running PM 0.4 – 0.7% of running CO 0.4 – 0.7% of running NOx 0.4 – 0.7% of running SO2 0.4 – 0.7% of running ROG 0.24 – 0.42% of total 62 The percentage reduction reflects emission reductions from running emissions. The actual value will be less than this when starting and evaporative emissions are factored into the analysis. ROG emissions have been adjusted to reflect a ratio of 40% evaporative and 60% exhaust emissions based on a statewide EMFAC run of all vehicles. Transportation TRT-9 Commute Trip Reduction 247 TRT-9 Discussion: Variable C in the mitigation method section represents suggested levels of deployment based on the literature. Levels of deployment may vary based on the characteristics of the project site and the needs of the project residents and employees. This variable should be adjusted accordingly. The methodology for calculation of VMT reduction utilizes Moving Cooler’s rule of thumb63 for the estimated number of car share members per vehicle. An estimate of 50% reduction in car-share member annual VMT (from Moving Cooler) was high compared to other literature sources, and TCRP 108’s 37% reduction was used in the calculations instead. Example: Sample calculations are provided below: Low Range % VMT Reduction (suburban) = 37% * 20 / 2000 = 0.4% High Range % VMT Reduction (urban) = 37% * 20 / 1000 = 0.7% Preferred Literature: 37% reduction in car-share member VMT The TCRP 108 [1] report conducted a survey of car-share members in the United States and Canada in 2004. The results of the survey showed that respondents, on average, drove only 63% of the average mileage they previously drove when not car-share members. Alternative Literature: Alternate – Residential or Citywide Based: 0.05-0.27% reduction in GHG 0.33% reduction in VMT in urban areas Moving Cooler [2] assumed an aggressive deployment of one car per 2,000 inhabitants of medium-density census tracks and of one car per 1,000 inhabitants of high-density census tracks. This strategy assumes providing a subsidy to a public, private, or nonprofit car-sharing organization and providing free or subsidized lease for usage of public street parking. Moving Cooler assumed 20 members per shared car and 50% reduction in VMT per equivalent car. The percent reduction calculated assumes a percentage of urban areas are low, medium, and high density, thus resulting in a lower 63 See discussion in Alternative Literature section for “rule of thumb” detail. Transportation TRT-9 Commute Trip Reduction 248 TRT-9 than expected reduction in VMT assuming an aggressive deployment in medium and high density areas. Alternate – Transit Station and Employer Based: 23-44% reduction in drive-alone mode share Average daily VMT reduction of 18 – 23 miles TCRP 95 Draft Chapter 19 [3] looked at two demonstrations, CarLink I and CarLink II, in the San Francisco Bay Area. CarLink I ran from January to November 1999. It involved 54 individuals and 12 rental cars stationed at the Dublin-Pleasanton BART station. CarLink II ran from July 2001 to June 2002 and involved 107 individuals and 19 rental cars. CarLink II was based in Palo Alto in conjunction with Caltrain commuter rail service and several employers in the Stanford Research Park. Both CarLink demonstrations were primarily targeted for commuters. CarLink I had a 23% increase in rail mode share, a reduction in drive-alone mode share of 44%, and a decrease in Average Daily VMT of 18 miles. CarLink II had a VMT for round-trip commuters decrease of 23 miles per day and a mode share for drive alone decrease of 22.9%. Alternate: 50% reduction in driving for car-share members A UC Berkeley study of San Francisco’s City CarShare [4] found that members drive nearly 50% less after joining. The study also found that when people joined the car- sharing organization, nearly 30% reduced their household vehicle ownership and two- thirds avoided purchasing another car. The UC Berkeley study found that almost 75% of vehicle trips made by car-sharing members were for social trips such as running errands and visiting friends. Only 25% of trips were for commuting to work or for recreation. Most trips were also made outside of peak periods. Therefore, car-sharing may generate limited impact on peak period traffic. Alternative Literature References: [3] Cambridge Systematics. Moving Cooler: An Analysis of Transportation Strategies for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Technical Appendices. Prepared for the Urban Land Institute. (p. B-52, Table D.3) http://www.movingcooler.info/Library/Documents/Moving%20Cooler_Appendices _Complete_102209.pdf [4] Pratt, Dick. Personal Communication Regarding the Draft of TCRP 95 Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes – Chapter 19 Employer and Institutional TDM Strategies. Transit Cooperative Research Program. Transportation TRT-9 Commute Trip Reduction 249 TRT-9 Cervero, Robert and Yu-Hsin Tsai. San Francisco City CarShare: Travel-Demand Trends and Second-Year Impacts, 2005. (Figure 7, p. 35, Table 7, Table 12) http://escholarship.org/uc/item/4f39b7b4 Other Literature Reviewed: None Transportation TRT-10 Commute Trip Reduction 250 TRT-10 3.4.10 Implement a School Pool Program Range of Effectiveness: 7.2 – 15.8% school vehicle miles traveled (VMT) Reduction and therefore 7.2 – 15.8% reduction in school trip GHG emissions. Measure Description: This project will create a ridesharing program for school children. Most school districts provide bussing services to public schools only. SchoolPool helps match parents to transport students to private schools, or to schools where students cannot walk or bike but do not meet the requirements for bussing. Measure Applicability: Urban, suburban, and rural context Appropriate for residential and mixed-use projects Baseline Method: See introduction to transportation section for a discussion of how to estimate trip rates and VMT. The CO2 emissions are calculated from VMT as follows: CO2 = VMT x EFrunning Where: VMT = vehicle miles traveled EFrunning = emission factor for running emissions Inputs: The following information needs to be provided by the Project Applicant: Degree of implementation of SchoolPool Program(moderate to aggressive) Mitigation Method: % VMT Reduction = Families * B Where Families = % families that participate (from [1] and [2]) B = adjustments to convert from participation to daily VMT to annual school VMT Transportation TRT-10 Commute Trip Reduction 251 TRT-10 Detail: Families: 16% (moderate implementation), 35% (aggressive implementation), (from [1] and [2]) B: 45% (see Appendix C for detail) Assumptions: Data based upon the following references: [1] Transportation Demand Management Institute of the Association for Commuter Transportation. TDM Case Studies and Commuter Testimonials. Prepared for the US EPA. 1997. (p. 10, 36-38) http://www.epa.gov/OMS/stateresources/rellinks/docs/tdmcases.pdf [2] Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG). Survey of Schoolpool Participants, April 2008. http://www.drcog.org/index.cfm?page=SchoolPool. Obtained from Schoolpool Coordinator, Mia Bemelen. Emission Reduction Ranges and Variables: Pollutant Category Emissions Reductions 64 CO2e 7.2 – 15.8% of running PM 7.2 – 15.8% of running CO 7.2 – 15.8% of running NOx 7.2 – 15.8% of running SO2 7.2 – 15.8% of running ROG 4.3 – 9.5% of total Discussion: This strategy reflects the findings from only one case study. Example: Sample calculations are provided below: Low Range % School VMT Reduction (moderate implementation) = 16% * 45% = 7.2% High Range % School VMT Reduction (aggressive implementation) = 35% * 45% = 15.8% 64 The percentage reduction reflects emission reductions from running emissions. The actual value will be less than this when starting and evaporative emissions are factored into the analysis. ROG emissions have been adjusted to reflect a ratio of 40% evaporative and 60% exhaust emissions based on a statewide EMFAC run of all vehicles. Transportation TRT-10 Commute Trip Reduction 252 TRT-10 Preferred Literature: 7,711 – 18,659 daily VMT reduction As presented in the TDM Case Studies [1] compilation, the SchoolPool program in Denver saved 18,659 VMT per day in 1995, compared with 7,711 daily in 1994 – a 142% increase. The Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) [2] enrolled approximately 7,000 families and 32 private schools in the program. The DRCOG staff surveyed a school or interested families to collect home location and schedules of the students. The survey also identified prospective drivers. DRCOG then used carpool- matching software and GIS to match families. These match lists were sent to the parents for them to form their own school pools. 16% of families in the database formed carpools. The average carpool carried 3.1 students. The SchoolPool program is still in effect and surveys are conducted every few years to monitor the effectiveness of the program. The latest survey report received was in 2008. The report showed that the participant database had increased to over 10,000 families, an 18% increase from 2005. 29% of participants used the list to form a school carpool. This percentage was lower than 35% in 2005 but higher than prior to 2005, at 24%. The average number of families in each carpool ranged from 2.1 prior to 2005 to 2.8 in 2008. The average number of carpool days per week was roughly 4.7. The number of school weeks per year was 39. Per discussions with the Schoolpool Coordinator, a main factor of success was establishing a large database. This was achieved by having parents opt-out of the database versus opting-in. Alternative Literature: None Alternative Literature References: None Other Literature Reviewed: None Transportation MP# MO-3.1 TRT-11 Commute Trip Reduction 253 TRT-11 3.4.11 Provide Employer-Sponsored Vanpool/Shuttle Range of Effectiveness: 0.3 – 13.4% commute vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction and therefore 0.3 – 13.4% reduction in commute trip GHG emissions. Measure Description: This project will implement an employer-sponsored vanpool or shuttle. A vanpool will usually service employees’ commute to work while a shuttle will service nearby transit stations and surrounding commercial centers. Employer-sponsored vanpool programs entail an employer purchasing or leasing vans for employee use, and often subsidizing the cost of at least program administration, if not more. The driver usually receives personal use of the van, often for a mileage fee. Scheduling is within the employer’s purview, and rider charges are normally set on the basis of vehicle and operating cost. Measure Applicability: Urban, suburban, and rural context Appropriate for office, industrial, and mixed-use projects Baseline Method: See introduction to transportation section for a discussion of how to estimate trip rates and VMT. The CO2 emissions are calculated from VMT as follows: CO2 = VMT x EFrunning Where: VMT = vehicle miles traveled EFrunning = emission factor for running emissions Inputs: The following information needs to be provided by the Project Applicant: Percentage of employees eligible Mitigation Method: % VMT Reduction = A * B * C Where A = % shift in vanpool mode share of commute trips (from [1]) B = % employees eligible C = adjustments from vanpool mode share to commute VMT Transportation MP# MO-3.1 TRT-11 Commute Trip Reduction 254 TRT-11 Detail: A: 2-20% annual reduction in vehicle mode share (from [1]) o Low range: low degree of implementation, smaller employers o High range: high degree of implementation, larger employers C: 0.67 (See Appendix C for detail) Assumptions: Data based upon the following references: [1] TCRP Report 95. Chapter 5: Vanpools and Buspools - Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_95c5.pdf . (p.5-8) Emission Reduction Ranges and Variables: Pollutant Category Emissions Reductions 65 CO2e 0.3 – 13.4% of running PM 0.3 – 13.4% of running CO 0.3 – 13.4% of running NOx 0.3 – 13.4% of running SO2 0.3 – 13.4% of running ROG 0.18 – 8.0% of total Discussion: Vanpools are generally more successful with the largest of employers, as large employee counts create the best opportunities for employees to find a suitable number of travel companions to form a vanpool. In the San Francisco Bay Area several large companies (such as Google, Apple, and Genentech) provide regional bus transportation for their employees. No specific studies of these large buspools were identified in the literature. However, the GenenBus serves as a key element of the overall commute trip reduction (CTR) program for Genentech, as discussed in the CTR Program – Required strategy. This strategy is often part of a CTR Program, another strategy documented separately (see strategy T# E1). Take care not to double count the impacts. Example: Sample calculations are provided below: 65 The percentage reduction reflects emission reductions from running emissions. The actual value will be less than this when starting and evaporative emissions are factored into the analysis. ROG emissions have been adjusted to reflect a ratio of 40% evaporative and 60% exhaust emissions based on a statewide EMFAC run of all vehicles. Transportation MP# MO-3.1 TRT-11 Commute Trip Reduction 255 TRT-11 Low Range % VMT Reduction (low implementation/small employer, 20% eligible) = 2% * 20% * 0.67 = 0.3% High Range % VMT Reduction (high implementation/large employer, 100% eligible) = 20% * 100% * 0.67 = 13.4% Preferred Literature: 2-20% vanpool mode share TCRP Report 95 [1] notes that vanpools can capture 2 to 20% mode share. This range can be attributed to differences in programs, access to high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes, and geographic range. The TCRP Report highlights a case study of the 3M Corporation, which with the implementation of a vanpooling program saw drive alone mode share decrease by 10 percentage points and vanpooling mode share increase to 7.8 percent. The TCRP Report notes most vanpools programs do best where one-way trip lengths exceed 20 miles, where work schedules are fixed and regular, where employer size is sufficient to allow matching of 5 to 12 people from the same residential area, where public transit is inadequate, and were some congestion or parking problems exist. Alternative Literature: In TDM Case Studies [2], a case study of Kaiser Permanente Hospital has shown their employer-sponsored shuttle service eliminated 380,100 miles per month, or nearly 4 million miles of travel per year, and four tons of smog precursors annually. Alternative Literature References: [2] Transportation Demand Management Institute of the Association for Commuter Transportation. TDM Case Studies and Commuter Testimonials. Prepared for the US EPA. 1997. http://www.epa.gov/OMS/stateresources/rellinks/docs/tdmcases.pdf Other Literature Reviewed: None Transportation TRT-12 Commute Trip Reduction 256 TRT-12 3.4.12 Implement Bike-Sharing Programs Range of Effectiveness: Grouped strategy (see SDT-5 and LUT-9) Measure Description: This project will establish a bike sharing program. Stations should be at regular intervals throughout the project site. The number of bike-share kiosks throughout the project area should vary depending on the density of the project and surrounding area. Paris’ bike- share program places a station every few blocks throughout the city (approximately 28 bike stations/square mile). Bike-station density should increase around commercial and transit hubs. Bike sharing programs have minimal impacts when implemented alone. This strategy’s effectiveness is heavily dependent on the location and context. Bike-sharing programs have worked well in densely populated areas (examples in Barcelona, London, Lyon, and Paris) with existing infrastructure for bicycling. Bike sharing programs should be combined with Bike Lane Street Design (SDT-5) and Improve Design of Development (LUT-9). Taking evidence from the literature, a 135-300% increase in bicycling (of which roughly 7% are shifting from vehicle travel) results in a negligible impact (around 0.03% vehicle miles traveled (VMT ) reduction (see Appendix C for calculations)). Measure Applicability: Urban and suburban-center context only Negligible in a rural context Appropriate for residential, retail, office, industrial, and mixed-use projects Alternative Literature: Alternate: The International Review [1] found bike mode share increases: from 0.75% in 2005 to 1.76% in 2007 in Barcelona (Romero, 2008) (135% increase) From 1% in 2001 to 2.5% in 2007 in Paris (Nadal, 2007; City of Paris, 2007) (150% increase) From 0.5% in 1995 to 2% in 2006 in Lyon (Bonnette, 2007; Velo'V, 2009) (300% increase) London [2] is the only study that reports the breakdown of the prior mode In London: 6% of users reported shifting from driving, 34% from transit, 23% said they would not have Transportation TRT-12 Commute Trip Reduction 257 TRT-12 travelled (Noland and Ishaque, 2006). Additionally, 68% of the bike trips were for leisure or recreation. Companion strategies included concurrent improvements in bicycle facilities. The London program was implemented west of Central London in a densely populated area, mainly residential, with several employment centers. A relatively well developed bike network existed, including over 1,000 bike racks. The program implemented 25 locker stations with 70 bikes total. Alternate: 1/3 vehicle trip reduced per day per bicycle (1,000 vehicle trips reduced per day in Lyon) The Bike Share Opportunities [3] report looks at two case studies of bike-sharing implementation in France. In Lyon, the 3,000 bike-share system shifts 1,000 car trips to bicycle each day. Surveys indicate that 7% of the bike share trips would have otherwise been made by car. Lyon saw a 44% increase in bicycle riding within the first year of their program while Paris saw a 70% increase in bicycle riding and a 5% reduction in car use and congestion within the first year and a half of their program. The Bike Share Opportunities report found that population density is an important part of a successful program. Paris’ bike share subscription rates range between 6% and 9% of the total population. This equates to an average of 75,000 rentals per day. The effectiveness of bike share programs at sub-city scales are not addressed in the literature. Alternative Literature References: [1] Pucher J., Dill, J., and Handy, S. Infrastructure, Programs and Policies to Increase Bicycling: An International Review. February 2010. (Table 4) [2] Noland, R.B., Ishaque, M.M., 2006. “Smart Bicycles in an urban area: Evaluation of a pilot scheme in London.” Journal of Public Transportation. 9(5), 71-95. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.117.8173&rep=rep1&type =pdf#page=76 [3] NYC Department of City Planning, Bike-Share Opportunities in New York City, 2009. (p. 11, 14, 24, 68) http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/transportation/td_bike_share.shtml Other Literature Reviewed: None Transportation MP# TR-3.4 TRT-13 Commute Trip Reduction 258 TRT-13 3.4.13 Implement School Bus Program Measure Effectiveness Range: 38 – 63% School VMT Reduction and therefore 38 – 63% reduction in school trip GHG emissions66 Measure Description: The project will work with the school district to restore or expand school bus services in the project area and local community. Measure Applicability: Urban, suburban, and rural context Appropriate for residential and mixed-use projects Baseline Method: See introduction to transportation section for a discussion of how to estimate trip rates and VMT. The CO2 emissions are calculated from VMT as follows: CO2 = VMT x EFrunning Where: VMT = vehicle miles traveled EFrunning = emission factor for running emissions Inputs: The following information needs to be provided by the Project Applicant: Percentage of families expected to use/using school bus program Mitigation Method: % VMT Reduction = A * B Where A = % families expected to use/using school bus program B = adjustments to convert from participation to school day VMT to annual school VMT 66 Transit vehicles may also result in increases in emissions that are associated with electricity production or fuel use. The Project Applicant should consider these potential additional emissions when estimating mitigation for these measures. Transportation MP# TR-3.4 TRT-13 Commute Trip Reduction 259 TRT-13 Detail: A: a typical range of 50 – 84% (see discussion section) B: 75% (see Appendix C for detail) Assumptions: Data based upon the following references: [1] JD Franz Research, Inc.; Lamorinda School Bus Program, 2003 Parent Survey, Final Report; January 2004; obtained from Juliet Hansen, Program Manager. (p. 5) Emission Reduction Ranges and Variables: Pollutant Category Emissions Reductions 67 CO2e 38 – 63% of running PM 38 – 63% of running CO 38 – 63% of running NOx 38 – 63% of running SO2 38 – 63% of running ROG 23 – 38% of total Discussion: The literature presents a high range of effectiveness showing 84% participation by families. 50% is an estimated low range assuming the project has a minimum utilization goal. Note that the literature presents results from a single case study. Example: Sample calculations are provided below: Low Range % VMT Reduction (50% participation) = 50% * 75% = 38% High Range % VMT Reduction (85% participation) = 84% * 75% = 63% Preferred Literature: 84% penetration rate 2,451 – 2,677 daily vehicle trips reduced 441,180 – 481,860 annual vehicle trips reduced 67 The percentage reduction reflects emission reductions from running emissions. The actual value will be less than this when starting and evaporative emissions are factored into the analysis. ROG emissions have been adjusted to reflect a ratio of 40% evaporative and 60% exhaust emissions based on a statewide EMFAC run of all vehicles. Transportation MP# TR-3.4 TRT-13 Commute Trip Reduction 260 TRT-13 The Lamorinda School Bus Program was implemented to reduce traffic congestion in the communities of Lafayette, Orinda, and Moraga, California. In 2003, a parent survey was conducted to determine the extent to which the program diverted or eliminated vehicle trips. This survey covered a representative sample of all parents (not just those signed up for the school bus program). The range of morning trips prevented is 1,266 to 1,382; the range of afternoon trips prevented is 1,185 to 1,295. Annualized, the estimated total trip prevention is between 441,180 to 481,860. 83% of parents surveyed reported that their child usually rides the bus to school in the morning. 84% usually rode the bus back home in the afternoons. The data came from surveys and the results are unique to the location and extent of the program. The report did not indicate the number of school buses in operation during the time of the survey. Alternative Literature: None Alternative Literature References: None Other Literature Reviewed: None Transportation TRT-14 Commute Trip Reduction 261 TRT-14 3.4.14 Price Workplace Parking Range of Effectiveness: 0.1 – 19.7% commute vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction and therefore 0.1 -19.7% reduction in commute trip GHG emissions. Measure Description: The project will implement workplace parking pricing at its employment centers. This may include: explicitly charging for parking for its employees, implementing above market rate pricing, validating parking only for invited guests, not providing employee parking and transportation allowances, and educating employees about available alternatives. Though similar to the Employee Parking “Cash-Out” strategy, this strategy focuses on implementing market rate and above market rate pricing to provide a price signal for employees to consider alternative modes for their work commute. Measure Applicability: Urban and suburban context Negligible impact in a rural context Appropriate for retail, office, industrial, and mixed-use projects Reductions applied only if complementary strategies are in place: o Residential parking permits and market rate public on-street parking - to prevent spill-over parking o Unbundled parking - is not required but provides a market signal to employers to transfer over the, now explicit, cost of parking to the employees. In addition, unbundling parking provides a price with which employers can utilize as a means of establishing workplace parking prices. Baseline Method: See introduction to transportation section for a discussion of how to estimate trip rates and VMT. The CO2 emissions are calculated from VMT as follows: CO2 = VMT x EFrunning Where: VMT = vehicle miles traveled EFrunning = emission factor for running emissions Transportation TRT-14 Commute Trip Reduction 262 TRT-14 Inputs: The following information needs to be provided by the Project Applicant: Location of project site: low density suburb, suburban center, or urban location Daily parking charge ($1 - $6) Percentage of employees subject to priced parking Mitigation Method: % VMT Reduction = A * B Where A = Percentage reduction in commute VMT (from [1] and [2]) B = Percent of employees subject to priced parking Detail: A: Project Location Daily Parking Charge $1 $2 $3 $6 Low density suburb 0.5% 1.2% 1.9% 2.8% Suburban center 1.8% 3.7% 5.4% 6.8% Urban Location 6.9% 12.5% 16.8% 19.7% Moving Cooler, VTPI, Fehr & Peers. Note: 2009 dollars. Assumptions: Data based upon the following references: [1] Cambridge Systematics. Moving Cooler: An Analysis of Transportation Strategies for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Technical Appendices. Prepared for the Urban Land Institute. (Table 5.13, Table D.3) http://www.movingcooler.info/Library/Documents/Moving%20Cooler_Appendices_C omplete_102209.pdf [2] VTPI, Todd Litman, Transportation Elasticities,(Table 15) http://www.vtpi.org/elasticities.pdf. Comsis Corporation (1993), Implementing Effective Travel Demand Management Measures: Inventory of Measures and Synthesis of Experience, USDOT and Institute of Transportation Engineers (www.ite.org); www.bts.gov/ntl/DOCS/474.html. Transportation TRT-14 Commute Trip Reduction 263 TRT-14 Emission Reduction Ranges and Variables: Pollutant Category Emissions Reductions 68 CO2e 0.1 – 19.7% of running PM 0.1 – 19.7% of running CO 0.1 – 19.7% of running NOx 0.1 – 19.7% of running SO2 0.1 – 19.7% of running ROG 0.06 – 11.8% of total Discussion: Priced parking can result in parking spillover concerns. The highest VMT reductions should be given only with complementary strategies such as parking time limits or neighborhood parking permits are in place in surrounding areas. Example: Sample calculations are provided below: Low Range % Commute VMT Reduction (low density suburb, $1/day, 20% priced) = 0.5% * 20% = 0.1% High Range % Commute VMT Reduction (urban, $6/day, 100% priced) = 19.7% * 100% = 19.7% Preferred Literature: The table above (variable A) was calculated using the percent commute VMT reduction from Moving Cooler (0.5% - 6.9% reduction for $1/day parking charge). The percentage reductions for $2 - $6 / day parking charges were extrapolated by multiplying the Moving Cooler percentages with the ratios from the VTPI table below (percentage increases). For example, to obtain a percent VMT reduction for a $6/day parking charge for a low density suburb, 0.5% * ((36.1%-6.5%) /6.5%) = 2.3%. The methodology was utilized to capture the non-linear effect of parking charges on trip reduction (VTPI) while maintaining a conservative estimate of percent reductions (Moving Cooler). Preferred: 0.5-6.9% reduction in commuting VMT 0.44-2.07% reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 68 The percentage reduction reflects emission reductions from running emissions. The actual value will be less than this when starting and evaporative emissions are factored into the analysis. ROG emissions have been adjusted to reflect a ratio of 40% evaporative and 60% exhaust emissions based on a statewide EMFAC run of all vehicles. Transportation TRT-14 Commute Trip Reduction 264 TRT-14 Moving Cooler Technical Appendices indicate that increasing employee parking costs $1 per day ($0.50 per vehicle for carpool and free for vanpools) can reduce GHG between 0.44% and 2.07% and reduce commuting VMT between 0.5% and 6.9%. The reduction in GHG varies based on how extensive the implementation of the program is. The reduction in commuting VMT differs for type of urban area as shown in the table below. Please note that these numbers are independent of results for employee parking cash-out strategy (discussed in its own fact sheet). Percent Change in Commuting VMT Strategy Description Large Metropolitan (higher transit use) Large Metropolitan (lower transit use) Medium Metro (higher) Medium Metro (lower) Small Metro (higher) Small Metro (lower) Parking Charges Parking charge of $1/day 6.9% 0.9% 1.8% 0.5% 1.3% 0.5% Source: Moving Cooler Preferred: Commute Vehicle trip reduction Daily Parking Charges Worksite Setting $0.75 $1.49 $2.98 $5.96 Suburb 6.5% 15.1% 25.3%* 36.1%* Suburban Center 12.3% 25.1%* 37.0%* 46.8%* Central Business District 17.5% 31.8%* 42.6%* 50.0%* Source: VTPI [2] * Discounts greater than 20% should be capped, as they exceed levels recommended by TCRP 95 and other literature. The reduction in commute trips varies by parking fee and worksite setting [2]. For daily parking fees between $1.49 and $5.96, worksites set in low-density suburbs could decrease vehicle trips by 6.5-36.1%, worksites set in activity centers could decrease vehicle trips by 12.3-46.8%, and worksites set in regional central business districts could decrease vehicles by 17.5-50%. (Note that adjusted parking fees (from 1993 dollars to 2009 dollars) were used. Adjustments were taken from the Santa Monica General Plan EIR Report, Appendix, Nelson\Nygaard). Alternative Literature: Alternate: 1 percentage point reduction in auto mode share 12.3% reduction in commute vehicle trips TCRP 95 Draft Chapter 19 [4] found that an increase of $8 per month in employee parking charges was necessary to decrease employee SOV mode split rates by one Transportation TRT-14 Commute Trip Reduction 265 TRT-14 percentage point. TCRP 95 compared 82 sites with TDM programs and found that programs with parking fees have an average commute vehicle trip reduction of 24.6%, compared with 12.3% for sites with free parking. Alternate: 1% reduction in VMT ($1 per day charge) 2.6% reduction in VMT ($3 per day charge) The Deakin, et al. report [5] for the California Air Resources Board (CARB) analyzed transportation pricing measures for the Los Angeles, Bay Area, San Diego, and Sacramento metropolitan areas. Alternative Literature References: [4] Pratt, Dick. Personal Communication Regarding the Draft of TCRP 95 Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes – Chapter 19 Employer and Institutional TDM Strategies. (Table 19-9) [5] Deakin, E., Harvey, G., Pozdena, R., and Yarema, G., 1996. Transportation Pricing Strategies for California: An Assessment of Congestion, Emissions, Energy and Equity Impacts. Final Report. Prepared for California Air Resources Board (CARB), Sacramento, CA (Table 7.2) Other Literature Reviewed: None Transportation CEQA# MM T-9 MP# TR-5.3 TRT-15 Commute Trip Reduction 266 TRT-15 3.4.15 Implement Employee Parking “Cash-Out” Range of Effectiveness: 0.6 – 7.7% commute vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction and therefore 0.6 – 7.7% reduction in commute trip GHG emissions Measure Description: The project will require employers to offer employee parking “cash-out.” The term “cash- out” is used to describe the employer providing employees with a choice of forgoing their current subsidized/free parking for a cash payment equivalent to the cost of the parking space to the employer. Measure Applicability: Urban and suburban context Not applicable in a rural context Appropriate for retail, office, industrial, and mixed-use projects Reductions applied only if complementary strategies are in place: o Residential parking permits and market rate public on-street parking -to prevent spill-over parking o Unbundled parking - is not required but provides a market signal to employers to forgo paying for parking spaces and “cash-out” the employee instead. In addition, unbundling parking provides a price with which employers can utilize as a means of establishing “cash-out” prices. Baseline Method: See introduction section. Inputs: The following information needs to be provided by the Project Applicant: Percentage of employees eligible Location of project site: low density suburb, suburban center, or urban location Mitigation Method: % VMT Reduction = A * B Where A = % reduction in commute VMT (from the literature) B = % of employees eligible Transportation CEQA# MM T-9 MP# TR-5.3 TRT-15 Commute Trip Reduction 267 TRT-15 Detail: A: Change in Commute VMT: 3.0% (low density suburb), 4.5% (suburban center), 7.7% (urban) change in commute VMT (source: Moving Cooler) Assumptions: Data based upon the following references: Cambridge Systematics. Moving Cooler: An Analysis of Transportation Strategies for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Technical Appendices. Prepared for the Urban Land Institute. (Table 5.13, Table D.3) http://www.movingcooler.info/Library/Documents/Moving%20Cooler_Appendix% 20B_Effectiveness_102209.pdf Emission Reduction Ranges and Variables: Pollutant Category Emissions Reductions 69 CO2e 0.6 – 7.7% of running PM 0.6 – 7.7% of running CO 0.6 – 7.7% of running NOx 0.6 – 7.7% of running SO2 0.6 – 7.7% of running ROG 0.36 – 4.62% of running Discussion: Please note that these estimates are independent of results for workplace parking pricing strategy (see strategy number T# E5 for more information). If work site parking is not unbundled, employers cannot utilize this unbundled price as a means of establishing “cash-out” prices. The table below shows typical costs for parking facilities in large urban and suburban areas in the US. This can be utilized as a reference point for establishing reasonable “cash-out” prices. Note that the table does not include external costs to parking such as added congestion, lost opportunity cost of land devoted to parking, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Structured (urban) Surface (suburban) Land (Annualized) $1,089 $215 Construction (Annualized) $2,171 $326 69 The percentage reduction reflects emission reductions from running emissions. The actual value will be less than this when starting and evaporative emissions are factored into the analysis. ROG emissions have been adjusted to reflect a ratio of 40% evaporative and 60% exhaust emissions based on a statewide EMFAC run of all vehicles. Transportation CEQA# MM T-9 MP# TR-5.3 TRT-15 Commute Trip Reduction 268 TRT-15 O & M Costs $575 $345 Annual Total $3,835 $885 Monthly Costs $320 $74 Source: VTPI, Transportation Costs and Benefit Analysis II – Parking Costs, April 2010 (p.5.4-10) Example: Sample calculations are provided below: Low Range % VMT Reduction (low density suburb and 20% eligible) = 3% * 0.2 = 0.6% High Range % VMT Reduction (urban and 100% eligible) = 7.7% * 1 = 7.7% Preferred Literature: 0.44% - 2.07% reduction in GHG emissions 3.0% - 7.7% reduction in commute VMT Moving Cooler Technical Appendices indicate that reimbursing “cash-out” participants $1/day can reduce GHG between 0.44% and 2.07% and reduce commuting VMT between 3.0% and 7.7%. The reduction in GHG varies based on how extensive the implementation of the program is. The reduction in commuting VMT differs for type of urban area is shown in the table below. Percent Change in Commuting VMT Strategy Description Large Metropolitan (higher transit use) Large Metropolitan (lower transit use) Medium Metro (higher) Medium Metro (lower) Small Metro (higher) Small Metro (lower) Parking Cash-Out Subsidy of $1/day 7.7% 3.7% 4.5% 3.0% 4.0% 3.0% Alternative Literature: Alternate: 2-6% reduction in vehicle trips VTPI used synthesis data to determine parking cash out could reduce commute vehicle trips by 10-30%. VTPI estimates that the portion of vehicle travel affected by parking cash-out would be about 20% and therefore there would be only about a 2-6% total reduction in vehicle trips attributed to parking cash-out. Alternate: Transportation CEQA# MM T-9 MP# TR-5.3 TRT-15 Commute Trip Reduction 269 TRT-15 12% reduction in VMT per year per employee 64% increase in carpooling 50% increase in transit mode share 39% increase in pedestrian/bike share Shoup looked at eight California firms that complied with California’s 1992 parking cash- out law, applicable to employers of 50 or more persons in regions that do not meet the state’s clean air standards. To comply, a firm must offer commuters the option to choose a cash payment equal to any parking subsidy offered. Six of companies went beyond compliance and subsidized one or more alternatives to parking (more than the parking subsidy price). The eight companies ranged in size between 120 and 300 employees, and were located in downtown Los Angeles, Century City, Santa Monica, and West Hollywood. Shoup states that an average of 12% fewer VMT per year per employee is equivalent to removing one of every eight cars driven to work off the road. Alternative Literature Notes: Litman, T., 2009. “Win-Win Emission Reduction Strategies.” Victoria Transport Policy Institute. Website: http://www.vtpi.org/wwclimate.pdf. Accessed March 2010. (p. 5) Donald Shoup, "Evaluating the Effects of Cashing Out Employer-Paid Parking: Eight Case Studies." Transport Policy, Vol. 4, No. 4, October 1997, pp. 201-216. (Table 1, p. 204) Other Literature Reviewed: None Transportation CEQA# MS-G3 TST-1 Transit System Improvements 270 TST-1 3.5 Transit System Improvements 3.5.1 Provide a Bus Rapid Transit System Range of Effectiveness: 0.02 – 3.2% vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction and therefore 0.02 – 3% reduction in GHG emissions. Measure Description: The project will provide a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system with design features for high quality and cost-effective transit service. These include: Grade-separated right-of-way, including bus only lanes (for buses, emergency vehicles, and sometimes taxis), and other Transit Priority measures. Some systems use guideways which automatically steer the bus on portions of the route. Frequent, high-capacity service High-quality vehicles that are easy to board, quiet, clean, and comfortable to ride. Pre-paid fare collection to minimize boarding delays. Integrated fare systems, allowing free or discounted transfers between routes and modes. Convenient user information and marketing programs. High quality bus stations with Transit Oriented Development in nearby areas. Modal integration, with BRT service coordinated with walking and cycling facilities, taxi services, intercity bus, rail transit, and other transportation services. BRT systems vary significantly in the level of travel efficiency offered above and beyond “identity” features and BRT branding. The following effectiveness ranges represent general guidelines. Each proposed BRT should be evaluated specifically based on its characteristics in terms of time savings, cost, efficiency, and way-finding advantages. These types of features encourage people to use public transit and therefore reduce VMT. Measure Applicability: Urban and suburban context Negligible in a rural context. Other measures are more appropriate to rural areas, such as express bus service to urban activity centers with park-and-ride lots at system-efficient rural access points. Appropriate for specific or general plans Baseline Method: See introduction to transportation section for a discussion of how to estimate trip rates and VMT. The CO2 emissions are calculated from VMT as follows: Transportation CEQA# MS-G3 TST-1 Transit System Improvements 271 TST-1 CO2 = VMT x EFrunning Where: VMT = vehicle miles traveled EFrunning = emission factor for running emissions Inputs: The following information needs to be provided by the Project Applicant: Existing transit mode share Percentage of lines serving Project converting to BRT The following are optional inputs. Average (default) values are included in the calculations but can be updated to project specificity if desired. Please see Appendix C for calculation detail: Average vehicle occupancy Mitigation Method: % VMT Reduction = Riders * Mode * Lines * D Where Riders = % increase in transit ridership on BRT line (28% from [1]) Mode = Existing transit mode share (see table below) Lines = Percentage of lines serving project converting to BRT D = Adjustments from transit ridership increase to VMT (0.67, see Appendix C) Project setting Transit mode share Suburban 1.3% Urban 4% Urban Center 17% Source: NHTS, 2001 http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tsip/tab/ documents/travelsurveys/Final2001_StwTravelSurveyWkdayRpt.pdf (Urban – MTC, SACOG. Suburban – SCAG, SANDAG, Fresno County.) Urban Center from San Francisco County Transportation Authority Countywide Transportation Plan, 2000. Transportation CEQA# MS-G3 TST-1 Transit System Improvements 272 TST-1 D: 0.67 (see Appendix C for detail) Assumptions: Data based upon the following references: [1] FTA, August 2005. “Las Vegas Metropolitan Area Express BRT Demonstration Project”, NTD, http://www.ntdprogram.gov/ntdprogram/cs?action=showRegion Agencies®ion=9 Emission Reduction Ranges and Variables: Pollutant Category Emissions Reductions 70 CO2e 0.02 – 3.2% of running PM 0.02 – 3.2% of running CO 0.02 – 3.2% of running NOx 0.02 – 3.2% of running SO2 0.02 – 3.2% of running ROG 0.012 – 1.9% of total Discussion: Increases in transit ridership due to shifts from other lines do not need to be addressed since it is already incorporated in the literature. In general, transit operational strategies alone are not enough for a large modal shift [2], as evidenced by the low range in VMT reductions. Through case study analysis, the TCRP report [2] observed that strategies that focused solely on improving level of service or quality of transit were unsuccessful at achieving a significant shift. Strategies that reduce the attractiveness of vehicle travel should be implemented in combination to attract a larger shift in transit ridership. The three following factors directly impact the attractiveness of vehicle travel: urban expressway capacity, urban core density, and downtown parking availability. Example: Sample calculations are provided below: Low Range % VMT Reduction (suburban,10% of lines) = 28% * 1.3% * 10% * 0.67 = 0.02% 70 The percentage reduction reflects emission reductions from running emissions. The actual value will be less than this when starting and evaporative emissions are factored into the analysis. ROG emissions have been adjusted to reflect a ratio of 40% evaporative and 60% exhaust emissions based on a statewide EMFAC run of all vehicles. Transportation CEQA# MS-G3 TST-1 Transit System Improvements 273 TST-1 High Range % VMT Reduction (urban, 100% of lines) = 28% * 17% * 100% * 0.67 = 3.2% Preferred Literature: 28% increase in transit ridership in the existing corridor The FTA study [1] looks at the implementation of the Las Vegas BRT system. The BRT supplemented an existing route along a 7.5 mile corridor. The existing route was scaled back. Total ridership on the corridor (both routes combined) increased 61,704 monthly riders, 28% increase on the existing corridor and 1.4% increase in system ridership. The route represented an increase in 2.1% of system service miles provided. Alternative Literature: Alternate: 27-84% increase in total transit ridership Various bus rapid transit systems obtained the following total transit ridership growth: Vancouver 96B (30%), Las Vegas Max (35-40%), Boston Silver Line (84%), Los Angeles (27-42%), and Oakland (66%). VTPI [3] obtained the BRT data from BC Transit’s unpublished research. The effectiveness of a BRT strategy depends largely on the land uses the BRT serves and their design and density. Alternate: 50% increase in weekly transit ridership 60 – 80% shorter travel time compared to vehicle trip The Martin Luther King, Jr. East Busway in Pennsylvania opened in 1983 as a separate roadway exclusively for public buses. The busway was 6.8 miles long with six stations. Ridership has grown from 20,000 to 30,000 weekday riders over 10 years. The busway saves commuters significant time compared with driving: 12 minutes versus 30-45 minutes in the AM or an hour in the PM [4]. Alternative Literature References: [2] Transit Cooperative Research Program. TCRP 27 – Building Transit Ridership: An Exploration of Transit's Market Share and the Public Policies That Influence It (p.47-48). 1997. [cited in discussion section above] [3] TDM Encyclopedia; Victoria Transport Policy Institute (2010). Bus Rapid Transit; (http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm120.htm); updated 1/25/2010; accessed 3/3/2010. Transportation CEQA# MS-G3 TST-1 Transit System Improvements 274 TST-1 [4] Transportation Demand Management Institute of the Association for Commuter Transportation. TDM Case Studies and Commuter Testimonials. Prepared for the US EPA. 1997. (p.55-56) http://www.epa.gov/OMS/stateresources/rellinks/docs/tdmcases.pdf Transportation MP# LU-3.4.3 TST-2 Transit System Improvements 275 TST-2 3.5.2 Implement Transit Access Improvements Range of Effectiveness: Grouped strategy. [See TST-3 and TST-4] Measure Description: This project will improve access to transit facilities through sidewalk/ crosswalk safety enhancements and bus shelter improvements. The benefits of Transit Access Improvements alone have not been quantified and should be grouped with Transit Network Expansion (TST-3) and Transit Service Frequency and Speed (TST-4). Measure Applicability: Urban, suburban context Appropriate for residential, retail, office, mixed use, and industrial projects Alternative Literature: No literature was identified that specifically looks at the quantitative impact of improving transit facilities as a standalone strategy. Alternative Literature References: None Other Literature Reviewed: None Transportation CEQA# MS-G3 TST-3 Transit System Improvements 276 TST-3 3.5.3 Expand Transit Network Range of Effectiveness: 0.1 – 8.2% vehicle miles travelled (VMT) reduction and therefore 0.1 – 8.2% reduction in GHG emissions71 Measure Description: The project will expand the local transit network by adding or modifying existing transit service to enhance the service near the project site. This will encourage the use of transit and therefore reduce VMT. Measure Applicability: Urban and suburban context May be applicable in a rural context but no literature documentation available (effectiveness will be case specific and should be based on specific assessment of levels of services and origins/destinations served) Appropriate for specific or general plans Baseline Method: See introduction to transportation section for a discussion of how to estimate trip rates and VMT. The CO2 emissions are calculated from VMT as follows: CO2 = VMT x EFrunning Where: VMT = vehicle miles traveled EFrunning = emission factor for running emissions Inputs: The following information needs to be provided by the Project Applicant: Percentage increase transit network coverage Existing transit mode share Project location: urban center, urban, or suburban 71 Transit vehicles may also result in increases in emissions that are associated with electricity production or fuel use. The Project Applicant should consider these potential additional emissions when estimating mitigation for these measures. Transportation CEQA# MS-G3 TST-3 Transit System Improvements 277 TST-3 The following are optional inputs. Average (default) values are included in the calculations but can be updated to project specificity if desired. Please see Appendix C for calculation detail: Average vehicle occupancy Mitigation Method: % VMT Reduction = Coverage * B * Mode * D Where Coverage = % increase in transit network coverage B = elasticity of transit ridership with respect to service coverage (see Table below) Mode = existing transit mode share D = adjustments from transit ridership increase to VMT (0.67, from Appendix C) B: Project setting Elasticity Suburban 1.01 Urban 0.72 Urban Center 0.65 Source: TCRP 95, Chapter 10 Mode: Provide existing transit mode share for project or utilize the following averages Project setting Transit mode share Suburban 1.3% Urban 4% Urban Center 17% Source: NHTS, 2001http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tsip/tab/ documents/travelsurveys/Final2001_StwTravelSurveyWkdayRpt.pdf (Urban – MTC, SACOG. Suburban – SCAG, SANDAG, Fresno County.) Urban Center from San Francisco County Transportation Authority Countywide Transportation Plan, 2000. Assumptions: Data based upon the following references: Transportation CEQA# MS-G3 TST-3 Transit System Improvements 278 TST-3 [1] Transit Cooperative Research Program. TCRP Report 95 Traveler Response to System Changes – Chapter 10: Bus Routing and Coverage. 2004. (p. 10-8 to 10-10) Emission Reduction Ranges and Variables: Pollut0ant Category Emissions Reductions 72 CO2e 0.1 – 8.2% of running PM 0.1 – 8.2% of running CO 0.1 – 8.2% of running NOx 0.1 – 8.2% of running SO2 0.1 – 8.2% of running ROG 0.06 – 4.9% of total Discussion: In general, transit operational strategies alone are not enough for a large modal shift [2], as evidenced by the low range in VMT reductions. Through case study analysis, the TCRP report [2] observed that strategies that focused solely on improving level of service or quality of transit were unsuccessful at achieving a significant shift. Strategies that reduce the attractiveness of vehicle travel should be implemented in combination to attract a larger shift in transit ridership. The three following factors directly impact the attractiveness of vehicle travel: urban expressway capacity, urban core density, and downtown parking availability. Example: Sample calculations are provided below: Low Range % VMT Reduction (10% expansion, suburban) = 10% * 1.01 * 1.3% * .67 = 0.1% High Range % VMT Reduction (100% expansion, urban) = 100% * 0.72 * 17% * .67 = 8.2% The low and high ranges are estimates and may vary based on the characteristics of the project. 72 The percentage reduction reflects emission reductions from running emissions. The actual value will be less than this when starting and evaporative emissions are factored into the analysis. ROG emissions have been adjusted to reflect a ratio of 40% evaporative and 60% exhaust emissions based on a statewide EMFAC run of all vehicles. Transportation CEQA# MS-G3 TST-3 Transit System Improvements 279 TST-3 Preferred Literature: 0.65 = elasticity of transit ridership with respect to service coverage/expansion (in radial routes to central business districts) 0.72 = elasticity of transit ridership with respect to service coverage/expansion (in central city routes) 1.01 = elasticity of transit ridership with respect to service coverage/expansion (in suburban routes) TCRP 95 Chapter 10 [1] documents the results of system-wide service expansions in San Diego. The least sensitivity to service expansion came from central business districts while the largest impacts came from suburban routes. Suburban locations, with traditionally low transit service, tend to have greater ridership increases compared to urban locations which already have established transit systems. In general, there is greater opportunity in suburban locations. Alternative Literature: -0.06 = elasticity of VMT with respect to transit revenue miles Growing Cooler [3] modeled the impact of various urban variables (including transit revenue miles and transit passenger miles) on VMT, using data from 84 urban areas around the U.S. Alternative Literature References: [2] Transit Cooperative Research Program. TCRP 27 – Building Transit Ridership: An Exploration of Transit's Market Share and the Public Policies That Influence It (p.47-48). 1997. [cited in discussion section above] [3] Ewing, et al, 2008. Growing Cooler – The Evidence on Urban Development and Climate Change. Urban Land Institute. Transportation CEQA# MS-G3 TST-4 Transit System Improvements 280 TST-4 3.5.4 Increase Transit Service Frequency/Speed Range of Effectiveness: 0.02 – 2.5% vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction and therefore 0.02 – 2.5% reduction in GHG emissions73 Measure Description: This project will reduce transit-passenger travel time through more reduced headways and increased speed and reliability. This makes transit service more attractive and may result in a mode shift from auto to transit which reduces VMT. Measure Applicability: Urban and suburban context May be applicable in a rural context but no literature documentation available (effectiveness will be case specific and should be based on specific assessment of levels of services and origins/destinations served) Appropriate for specific or general plans Baseline Method: See introduction to transportation section for a discussion of how to estimate trip rates and VMT. The CO2 emissions are calculated from VMT as follows: CO2 = VMT x EFrunning Where: VMT = vehicle miles traveled EFrunning = emission factor for running emissions Inputs: The following information needs to be provided by the Project Applicant: Percentage reduction in headways (increase in frequency) Level of implementation Project setting: urban center, urban, suburban Existing transit mode share 73 Transit vehicles may also result in increases in emissions that are associated with electricity production or fuel use. The Project Applicant should consider these potential additional emissions when estimating mitigation for these measures. Transportation CEQA# MS-G3 TST-4 Transit System Improvements 281 TST-4 The following are optional inputs. Average (default) values are included in the calculations but can be updated to project-specific values if desired. Please see Appendix C for calculation detail: Average vehicle occupancy Mitigation Method: % VMT Reduction = Headway * B * C * Mode * E Where Headway = % reduction in headways B = elasticity of transit ridership with respect to increased frequency of service (from [1]) C = adjustment for level of implementation Mode = existing transit mode share E = adjustments from transit ridership increase to VMT Detail: Headway: reasonable ranges from 15 – 80% B: Setting Elasticity Urban 0.32 Suburban 0.36 Source: TCRP Report 95 Chapter 9 C: Level of implementation = number of lines improved / total number of lines serving project Adjustment <50% 50% >=50% 85% Fehr & Peers, 2010. Mode: Provide existing transit mode share for project or utilize the following averages Project setting Transit mode share Suburban 1.3% Urban 4% Urban Center 17% Source: NHTS, 2001http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tsip/tab/ documents/travelsurveys/Final2001_StwTravelSurveyWkdayRpt.pdf (Urban – MTC, SACOG. Suburban – SCAG, SANDAG, Fresno County.) Transportation CEQA# MS-G3 TST-4 Transit System Improvements 282 TST-4 Urban Center from San Francisco County Transportation Authority Countywide Transportation Plan, 2000. E: 0.67 (see Appendix C for detail) Assumptions: Data based upon the following references: [1] Transit Cooperative Research Program. TCRP Report 95 Traveler Response to System Changes – Chapter 9: Transit Scheduling and Frequency (p. 9-14) Emission Reduction Ranges and Variables: Pollutant Category Emissions Reductions 74 CO2e 0.02 – 2.5% % of running PM 0.02 – 2.5% % of running CO 0.02 – 2.5% % of running NOx 0.02 – 2.5% % of running SO2 0.02 – 2.5% % of running ROG 0.01 – 1.5% % of total Discussion: Reasonable ranges for reductions were calculated assuming existing 30-minute headways reduced to 25 minutes and 5 minutes to establish the estimated low and high reductions, respectively. The level of implementation adjustment is used to take into account increases in transit ridership due to shifts from other lines. If increases in frequency are only applied to a percentage of the lines serving the project, then we conservatively estimate that 50% of the transit ridership increase is a shift from the existing lines. If frequency increases are applied to a majority of the lines serving the project, we conservatively assume at least some of the transit ridership (15%) comes from existing riders. In general, transit operational strategies alone are not enough for a large modal shift [2], as evidenced by the low range in VMT reductions. Through case study analysis, the TCRP report [2] observed that strategies that focused solely on improving level of service or quality of transit were unsuccessful at achieving a significant shift. Strategies that reduce the attractiveness of vehicle travel should be implemented in combination to attract a larger shift in transit ridership. The three following factors directly impact the 74 The percentage reduction reflects emission reductions from running emissions. The actual value will be less than this when starting and evaporative emissions are factored into the analysis. ROG emissions have been adjusted to reflect a ratio of 40% evaporative and 60% exhaust emissions based on a statewide EMFAC run of all vehicles. Transportation CEQA# MS-G3 TST-4 Transit System Improvements 283 TST-4 attractiveness of vehicle travel: urban expressway capacity, urban core density, and downtown parking availability. Example: Sample calculations are provided below: Low Range % VMT Reduction (15% reduction in headways, suburban, <50% implementation) = 15% * 0.36 * 50% * 1.3% *0.67 = 0.02% High Range % VMT Reduction (80% reduction in headways, urban, >50% implementation) = 80% * 0.32 * 85% * 17% * 0.67 = 2.5% Preferred Literature: 0.32 = elasticity of transit ridership with respect to transit service (urban) 0.36 – 0.38 = elasticity of transit ridership with respect to transit service (suburban) TCRP 95 Chapter 9 [1] documents the results of frequency changes in Dallas. Increases in frequency are more sensitive in a suburban environment. Suburban locations, with traditionally low transit service, tend to have greater ridership increases compared to urban locations which already have established transit systems. In general, there is greater opportunity in suburban locations Alternative Literature: 0.5 = elasticity of transit ridership with respect to increased frequency of service 1.5 to 2.3% increase in annual transit trips due to increased frequency of service 0.4-0.5 = elasticity of ridership with respect to increased operational speed 4% - 15% increase in annual transit trips due to increased operational speed 0.03-0.09% annual GHG reduction (for bus service expansion, increased frequency, and increased operational speed) For increased frequency of service strategy, Moving Cooler [3] looked at three levels of service increases, 3%, 3.5% and 4.67% increases in service, resulting in a 1.5 – 2.3% increase in annual transit trips. For increased speed and reliability, Moving Cooler looked at three levels of speed/reliability increases. Improving travel speed by 10% assumed implementing signal prioritization, limited stop service, etc. over 5 years. Improving travel speed by 15% assumed all above strategies plus signal synchronization and intersection reconfiguration over 5 years. Improving travel speed by 30% assumed all above strategies and an improved reliability by 40%, integrated fare system, and implementation of BRT where appropriate. Moving Cooler calculates estimated 0.04-0.14% annual GHG reductions in combination with bus service expansion strategy. Transportation CEQA# MS-G3 TST-4 Transit System Improvements 284 TST-4 Alternative Literature References: [2] Transit Cooperative Research Program. TCRP 27 – Building Transit Ridership: An Exploration of Transit's Market Share and the Public Policies That Influence It (p.47-48). 1997. [cited in discussion section] [3] Cambridge Systematics. Moving Cooler: An Analysis of Transportation Strategies for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Technical Appendices. Prepared for the Urban Land Institute. (p B-32, B-33, Table D.3) http://www.movingcooler.info/Library/Documents/Moving%20Cooler_Appendices_Compl ete_102209.pdf Transportation MP# TR-4.1.4 TST-5 Transit System Improvements 285 TST-5 3.5.5 Provide Bike Parking Near Transit Range of Effectiveness: Grouped strategy. [See TST-3 and TST-4] Measure Description: Provide short-term and long-term bicycle parking near rail stations, transit stops, and freeway access points. The benefits of Station Bike Parking have no quantified impacts as a standalone strategy and should be grouped with Transit Network Expansion (TST- 3) and Increase Transit Service Frequency and Speed (TST-4) to encourage multi- modal use in the area and provide ease of access to nearby transit for bicyclists. Measure Applicability: Urban, suburban context Appropriate for residential, retail, office, mixed use, and industrial projects Alternative Literature: No literature was identified that specifically looks at the quantitative impact of including transit station bike parking. Alternative Literature References: None Other Literature Reviewed: None Transportation TST-6 Transit System Improvements 286 TST-6 3.5.6 Provide Local Shuttles Range of Effectiveness: Grouped strategy. [See TST-4 and TST-5] Measure Description: The project will provide local shuttle service through coordination with the local transit operator or private contractor. The local shuttles will provide service to transit hubs, commercial centers, and residential areas. The benefits of Local Shuttles alone have not been quantified and should be grouped with Transit Network Expansion (TST-4) and Transit Service Frequency and Speed (TST-5) to solve the “first mile/last mile” problem. In addition, many of the CommuteTrip Reduction Programs (Section 2.4, TRP 1-13) also included local shuttles. Measure Applicability: Urban, suburban context Appropriate for large residential, retail, office, mixed use, and industrial projects Alternative Literature: No literature was identified to support the effectiveness of this strategy alone. Alternative Literature References: None Other Literature Reviewed: None Transportation MP# TR-3.6 RPT-1 Road Pricing Management 287 RPT-1 3.6 Road Pricing/Management 3.6.1 Implement Area or Cordon Pricing Range of Effectiveness: 7.9 – 22.0% vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction and therefore 7.9 – 22.0% reduction in GHG emissions. Measure Description: This project will implement a cordon pricing scheme. The pricing scheme will set a cordon (boundary) around a specified area to charge a toll to enter the area by vehicle. The cordon location is usually the boundary of a central business district (CBD) or urban center, but could also apply to substantial development projects with limited points of access, such as the proposed Treasure Island development in San Francisco. The cordon toll may be static/constant, applied only during peak periods, or be variable, with higher prices during congested peak periods. The toll price can be based on a fixed schedule or be dynamic, responding to real-time congestion levels. It is critical to have an existing, high quality transit infrastructure for the implementation of this strategy to reach a significant level of effectiveness. The pricing signals will only cause mode shifts if alternative modes of travel are available and reliable. Measure Applicability: Central business district or urban center only Baseline Method: See introduction to transportation section for a discussion of how to estimate trip rates and VMT. The CO2 emissions are calculated from VMT as follows: CO2 = VMT x EFrunning Where: VMT = vehicle miles traveled EFrunning = emission factor for running emissions Inputs: The following information needs to be provided by the Project Applicant: Percentage increase in pricing for passenger vehicles to cross cordon Peak period variable price or static all-day pricing (London scheme) Transportation MP# TR-3.6 RPT-1 Road Pricing Management 288 RPT-1 The following are optional inputs. Average (default) values are included in the calculations but can be updated to project-specific values if desired. Please see Appendix C for calculation detail: % (due to pricing) route shift, time-of-day shift, HOV shift, trip reduction, shift to transit/walk/bike Mitigation Method: % VMT Reduction = Cordon$ * B * C Where Cordon$ = % increase in pricing for passenger vehicles to cross cordon B = Elasticity of VMT with respect to price (from [1]) C = Adjustment for % of VMT impacted by congestion pricing and mode shifts Detail: Cordon$: reasonable range of 100 – 500% (See Appendix C for detail)) B: 0.45 [1] C: Cordon pricing scheme Adjustment Peak-period variable pricing 8.8% Static all-day pricing 21% Source: See Appendix C for detail Assumptions: Data based upon the following references: [1] Cambridge Systematics. Moving Cooler: An Analysis of Transportation Strategies for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Technical Appendices. Prepared for the Urban Land Institute. (p. B-13, B-14) http://www.movingcooler.info/Library/Documents/Moving%20Cooler_Appendix% 20B_Effectiveness_102209.pdf o Referencing: VTPI, Transportation Elasticities: How Prices and Other Factors Affect Travel Behavior. July 2008. www.vtpi.org Transportation MP# TR-3.6 RPT-1 Road Pricing Management 289 RPT-1 Emission Reduction Ranges and Variables: Pollutant Category Emissions Reductions 75 CO2e 7.9 - 22.0% of running PM 7.9 - 22.0% of running CO 7.9 - 22.0% of running NOx 7.9 - 22.0% of running SO2 7.9 - 22.0% of running ROG 4.7 – 13.2% of total Discussion: The amount of pricing will vary on a case-by-case basis. The 100 – 500% increase is an estimated range of increases and should be adjusted to reflect the specificities of the pricing scheme implemented. Take care in calculating the percentage increase in price if baseline is $0.00. An upper limit of 500% may be a good check point. If baseline is zero, the Project Applicant may want to conduct calculations with a low baseline such as $1.00. These calculations assume that the project is within the area cordon, essentially assuming that 100% of project trips will be affected. See Appendix C to make appropriate adjustments. Example: Sample calculations are provided below: Low Range % VMT Reduction (100% increase in price, peak period pricing) = 100% * 0.45 * 8.8% = 4.0% High Range % VMT Reduction (500% increase in price, all-day pricing) = 500% * 0.45 * 21% = 47.3% = 22% (established maximum based on literature) Preferred Literature: -0.45 VMT elasticity with regard to pricing 0.04-0.08% greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction Moving Cooler [1] assumes an average of 3% of regional VMT would cross the CBD cordon. A VMT reduction of 20% was estimated to require an average of 65 cents/mile applied to all congested VMT in the CBD, major employment, and retail centers. The 75 The percentage reduction reflects emission reductions from running emissions. The actual value will be less than this when starting and evaporative emissions are factored into the analysis. ROG emissions have been adjusted to reflect a ratio of 40% evaporative and 60% exhaust emissions based on a statewide EMFAC run of all vehicles. Transportation MP# TR-3.6 RPT-1 Road Pricing Management 290 RPT-1 range in GHG reductions is attributed to the range of implementation and start date. Moving Cooler reports an elasticity range from -0.15 to -0.47 from VTPI. Moving Cooler utilizes a stronger elasticity (0.45) to represent greater impact cordon pricing will have on users compared to other pricing strategies. Alternative Literature: 6.5-14.0% reduction in carbon emissions 16-22% reduction in vehicles 6-9% increase in transit use The Center for Clean Air Policy (CCAP) [2] cites two case studies in Europe, one in London and one in Stockholm, which show vehicle reductions of 16% and 22%, respectively. London’s fee reduced CO2 by 6.5%. Stockholm’s program reduced injuries by 10%, increased transit use by 6-9%, and reduced carbon emissions by 14% in the central city within months of implementation. Alternative Literature References: [2] Center for Clean Air Policy (CCAP), Short-term Efficiency Measures. (p. 1) http://www.ccap.org/docs/resources/715/Short- Term%20Travel%20Efficiency%20 Measures%20cut%20GHGs%209%2009%20final.pdf CCAP cites Transport for London. Central London Congestion Charging: Impacts Monitoring, Sixth Annual Report. July 2008 http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/ downloads/sixth-annual-impacts-monitoring-report-2008-07.pdf (p. 6) and Leslie Abboud and Jenny Clevstrom, “Stockholm's Syndrome,” August 29, 2006, Wall Street Journal.http://transportation.northwestern.edu/mahmassani/Media /WSJ_8.06.pdf (p. 2) Other Literature Reviewed: None Transportation MP# TR-2.1 & TR-2.2 RPT-2 Road Pricing Management 291 RPT-2 3.6.2 Improve Traffic Flow Range of Effectiveness: 0 - 45% reduction in GHG emissions Measure Description: The project will implement improvements to smooth traffic flow, reduce idling, eliminate bottlenecks, and management speed. Strategies may include signalization improvements to reduce delay, incident management to increase response time to breakdowns and collisions, Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) to provide real-time information regarding road conditions and directions, and speed management to reduce high free-flow speeds. This measure does not take credit for any reduction in GHG emissions associated with changes to non-project traffic VMT. If Project Applicant wants to take credit for this benefit, the non-project traffic VMT would also need to be covered in the baseline conditions. Measure Applicability: Urban, suburban, and rural context Baseline Method: See introduction to transportation section for a discussion of how to estimate trip rates and VMT. The CO2 emissions are calculated from VMT as follows: CO2 = VMT x EFrunning Where: VMT = vehicle miles traveled EFrunning = emission factor for running emissions Inputs: The following information needs to be provided by the Project Applicant: Average base-year travel speed (miles per hour (mph)) on implemented roads (congested76 condition) 76 A roadway is considered “congested” if operating at Level of Service (LOS) E or F Transportation MP# TR-2.1 & TR-2.2 RPT-2 Road Pricing Management 292 RPT-2 Future travel speed (mph) on implemented roads for both a) congested and b) free-flow77 condition Total vehicle miles traveled (VMT) on implemented roadways Total project-generated VMT Mitigation Method: % CO2 Emissions Reduction = baseline strategy post emission GHG Project Emission GHG Project 1 Where Project GHG emissionpost strategy = EFrunning after strategy implementation * project VMT Project GHG emissionbaseline = EFrunning before strategy implementation * project VMT EFrunning = emission factor for running emissions [from table presented under “Detail” below] Detail: mph Grams of CO2 / mile congested Free-flow 5 1,110 823 10 715 512 15 524 368 20 424 297 25 371 262 30 343 247 35 330 244 40 324 249 45 323 259 50 325 273 55 328 289 60 332 306 65 339 325 70 353 347 75 377 375 80 420 416 85 497 478 Source: Barth, 2008, Fehr & Peers [1] 77 A roadway is considered “free flow” if operating at LOS D or better Transportation MP# TR-2.1 & TR-2.2 RPT-2 Road Pricing Management 293 RPT-2 By only including the project VMT portion, the reduction is typically on scale with the percentage of cost for traffic improvements and full reduction calculated for project VMT should be used. However, if the project cost is a greater share than their contribution to the VMT on the road, than the project and non-project VMT should be calculated and the percent reduction should be multiplied by the percent cost allocation. The GHG emission reductions associated with non-project VMT (if applicable) would be calculated as follows: Metric Tonnes GHG reduced due to improving non-Project traffic flow = % Cost Allocation * Non-Project VMT * (EFcongested –EFfreeflow) / (1,000,000 gram/MT) Where: Non-Project VMT = portion of non-project VMT that the Project’s cost share impacts EFcongested = emissions for congested road in g/VMT EFfreeflow = emissions for freeflow road in g/VMT Assumptions: Data based upon the following references: [1] Barth and Boriboonsomsin, “Real World CO2 Impacts of Traffic Congestion”, Transportation Research Record, Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2058, Transportation Research Board, National Academy of Science, 2008. Emission Reduction Ranges and Variables: Pollutant Category Emissions Reductions 78 CO2e 0 - 45% of running PM 0 - 45% of running CO 0 - 45% of running 78 The percentage reduction reflects emission reductions from running emissions. The actual value will be less than this when starting and evaporative emissions are factored into the analysis. ROG emissions have been adjusted to reflect a ratio of 40% evaporative and 60% exhaust emissions based on a statewide EMFAC run of all vehicles. Transportation MP# TR-2.1 & TR-2.2 RPT-2 Road Pricing Management 294 RPT-2 NOx 0 - 45% of running SO2 0 - 45% of running ROG 0 - 27% of total Discussion: Care must be taken when estimating effectiveness since significantly improving traffic flow essentially lowers the cost and delay involved in travel, which under certain circumstances may induce additional VMT. [See Appendix C for a discussion on induced travel.] The range of effectiveness presented above is a very rough estimate as emissions reductions will be highly dependent on the level of implementation and degree of congestion on the existing roadways. In addition, the low range of effectiveness was stated at 0% to highlight the potential of induced travel negating benefits achieved from this strategy. Example: Sample calculations are provided below: Signal timing coordination implementation: o Existing congested speeds of 25 mph o Conditions post-implementation: would improve to 25 mph free flow speed o Proposed project daily traffic generation is 200,000 VMT o Project CO2 Emissionsbaseline = (371 g CO2/mile) * (200,000 VMT daily) * (1 MT / 1 x 106 g) = 74 MT of CO2 daily o Project CO2 Emissionspost strategy = (262 g CO2/mile) * (200,000 VMT daily) * (1 MT / 1 x 106 g) = 52.4 MT of CO2 daily o Percent CO2emissions reduction = 1- (52.4 MT/ 74 MT) = 29% Speed management technique: o Existing free-flow speeds of 75 mph o Conditions post-implementation: reduce to 55 mph free flow speed o Proposed project daily traffic generation is 200,000 VMT o Project CO2 Emissionsbaseline = (375 g CO2/mile) * (200,000 VMT daily) * (1 MT / 1 x 106 g) = 75 MT of CO2 daily o Project CO2 Emissionspost strategy = (289 g CO2/mile) * (200,000 VMT daily) * (1 MT / 1 x 106 g) = 58 MT of CO2 daily o Percent CO2emissions reduction= 1 – (58 tons/ 75 tons) = 23% Preferred Literature: 7 – 12% reduction in CO2 emissions Transportation MP# TR-2.1 & TR-2.2 RPT-2 Road Pricing Management 295 RPT-2 This study [1] examined traffic conditions in Southern California using energy and emissions modeling and calculated the impacts of 1) congestion mitigation strategies to smooth traffic flow, 2) speed management techniques to reduce high free-flow speeds, and 3) suppression techniques to eliminate acceleration/deceleration associated with stop-and-go traffic. Using typical conditions on Southern California freeways, the strategies could reduce emissions by 7 to 12 percent. The table (in the mitigation method section) was calculated using the CO2 emissions equation from the report: ln (y) = b0 + b1* x + b2 * x2 + b3 * x3 + b4 * x4 where y = CO2 emission in grams / mile x = average trip speed in miles per hour (mph) The coefficients for bi were based off of Table 1 of the report, which then provides an equation for both congested conditions (real-world) and free-flow (steady-state) conditions. Alternative Literature: 4 - 13% reduction in fuel consumption The FHWA study [2] looks at various case studies of traffic flow improvements. In Los Angeles, a new traffic control signal system was estimated to reduce signal delays by 44%, vehicle stops by 41%, and fuel consumption by 13%. In Virginia, a study of retiming signal systems estimated reductions of stops by 25%, travel time by 10%, and fuel consumption by 4%. In California, optimization of 3,172 traffic signals through 1988 (through California’s Fuel Efficient Traffic Signal Management program) documented an average reduction in vehicle stops of 16% and in fuel use of 8.6%. The 4-13% reduction in fuel consumption applies only to that vehicular travel directly benefited by the traffic flow improvements, specifically the VMT within the corridor in which the ITS is implemented and only during the times of day that would otherwise be congested without ITS. For example, signal coordination along an arterial normally congested in peak commute hours would produce a 4-13% reduction in fuel consumption only for the VMT occurring along that arterial during weekday commute hours. Alternate: Up to 0.02% increase in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions Moving Cooler [3] estimates that bottleneck relief will result in an increase in GHG emissions during the 40-year period, 2010 to 2050. In the short term, however, Transportation MP# TR-2.1 & TR-2.2 RPT-2 Road Pricing Management 296 RPT-2 improved roadway conditions may improve congestion and delay, and thus reduce fuel consumption. VMT and GHG emissions are projected to increase after 2030 as induced demand begins to consume the roadway capacity. The study estimates a maximum increase of 0.02% in GHG emissions. Alternative Literature References: [2] FHWA, Strategies to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Transportation Sources. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/glob_c5.pdf . [3] Cambridge Systematics. Moving Cooler: An Analysis of Transportation Strategies for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Technical Appendices. Prepared for the Urban Land Institute. http://www.movingcooler.info/Library/Documents/Moving%20Cooler_Appendix% 20B_Effectiveness_102209.pdf Other Literature Reviewed: None Transportation RPT-3 Road Pricing Management 297 RPT-3 3.6.3 Required Project Contributions to Transportation Infrastructure Improvement Projects Range of Effectiveness: Grouped strategy. [See RPT-2 and TST-1 through 7] Measure Description: The project should contribute to traffic-flow improvements or other multi-modal infrastructure projects that reduce emissions and are not considered as substantially growth inducing. The local transportation agency should be consulted for specific needs. Larger projects may be required to contribute a proportionate share to the development and/or continuation of a regional transit system. Contributions may consist of dedicated right-of-way, capital improvements, easements, etc. The local transportation agency should be consulted for specific needs. Refer to Traffic Flow Improvements (RPT-2) or the Transit System Improvements (TST- 1 through 7) strategies for a range of effectiveness in these categories. The benefits of Required Contributions may only be quantified when grouped with related improvements. Measure Applicability: Urban, suburban, and rural context Appropriate for residential, retail, office, mixed use, and industrial projects Alternative Literature: Although no literature discusses project contributions as a standalone measure, this strategy is a supporting strategy for most operations and infrastructure projects listed in this report. Other Literature Reviewed: None Transportation MP# TR-1 RPT-4 Road Pricing Management 298 RPT-4 3.6.4 Install Park-and-Ride Lots Range of Effectiveness: Grouped strategy. [See RPT-1, TRT-11, TRT-3, and TST-1 through 6] Measure Description: This project will install park-and-ride lots near transit stops and High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes. Park-and-ride lots also facilitate car- and vanpooling. Refer to Implement Area or Cordon Pricing (RPT-1), Employer-Sponsored Vanpool/Shuttle (TRT-11), Ride Share Program (TRT-3), or the Transit System Improvement strategies (TST-1 through 6) for ranges of effectiveness within these categories. The benefits of Park-and-Ride Lots are minimal as a stand-alone strategy and should be grouped with any or all of the above listed strategies to encourage carpooling, vanpooling, ride-sharing, and transit usage. Measure Applicability: Suburban and rural context Appropriate for residential, retail, office, mixed use, and industrial projects Alternative Literature: Alternate: 0.1 – 0.5% vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction A 2005 FHWA [1] study found that regional VMT in metropolitan areas may be reduced between 0.1 to 0.5% (citing Apogee Research, Inc., 1994). The reduction potential of this strategy may be limited because it reduces the trip length but not vehicle trips. Alternate: 0.50% VMT reduction per day Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) [2] notes the above number applies to countywide interstates and arterials. Alternative Literature References: [1] FHWA. Transportation and Global Climate Change: A Review and Analysis of the Literature – Chapter 5: Strategies to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Transportation Sources. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/glob_c5.pdf Transportation MP# TR-1 RPT-4 Road Pricing Management 299 RPT-4 [2] Washington State Department of Transportation. Cost Effectiveness of Park-and- Ride Lots in the Puget Sound Area. http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/research/reports/fullreports/094.1.pdf Other Literature Reviewed: None Transportation MP# TR-6 VT-1 Vehicles 300 VT-1 3.7 Vehicles 3.7.1 Electrify Loading Docks and/or Require Idling-Reduction Systems Range of Effectiveness: 26-71% reduction in TRU idling GHG emissions Measure Description: Heavy-duty trucks transporting produce or other refrigerated goods will idle at truck loading docks and during layovers or rest periods so that the truck engine can continue to power the cab cooling elements. Idling requires fuel use and results in GHG emissions. The Project Applicant should implement an enforcement and education program that will ensure compliance with this measure. This includes posting signs regarding idling restrictions as well as recording engine meter times upon entering and exiting the facility. Measure Applicability: Truck refrigeration units (TRU) Inputs: The following information needs to be provided by the Project Applicant: Electricity provider for the Project Horsepower of TRU Hours of operation Baseline Method: GHG emission = LFCHrHpLFAvgHPActivity Exhaust CO2 Where: GHG emission = MT CO2e CO2 Exhaust = Statewide daily CO2 emission from TRU for the relevant horsepower tier (tons/day). Obtained from OFFROAD2007. Activity = Statewide daily average TRU operating hours for the relevant horsepower tier (hours/day). Obtained from OFFROAD2007. AvgHP = Average TRU horsepower for the relevant horsepower tier (HP). Obtained from OFFROAD2007. Hp = Horsepower of TRU. Hr = Hours of operation. C = Unit conversion factor Transportation MP# TR-6 VT-1 Vehicles 301 VT-1 LF = Load factor of TRU for the relevant horsepower tier (dimensionless). Obtained from OFFROAD 2007. Note that this method assumes the load factor of the TRU is same as the default in OFFROAD2007. Mitigation Method: Electrify loading docks TRUs will be plugged into electric loading dock instead of left idling. The indirect GHG emission from electricity generation is: GHG emission = CHrLFHpUtility Where: GHG emissions = MT CO2e Utility = Carbon intensity of Local Utility (CO2e/kWh) Hp = Horsepower of TRU. LF = Load factor of TRU for the relevant horsepower tier (dimensionless). Obtained from OFFROAD2007. Hr = Hours of operation. C = Unit conversion factor GHG Reduction %79 = 610EF CUtility1 Idling Reduction Emissions from reduced TRU idling periods are calculated using the same methodology for the baseline scenario, but with the shorter hours of operation. GHG Reduction % = baseline mitigated time time1 Electrify loading docks Power Utility TRU Horsepower (HP) Idling Emission Reductions80 LADW&P < 15 26.3% < 25 26.3% < 50 35.8% 79 This assumes energy from engine losses are the same. 80 This reduction percentage applies to all GHG and criteria pollutant idling emissions. Transportation MP# TR-6 VT-1 Vehicles 302 VT-1 PG&E < 15 72.9% < 25 72.9% < 50 76.3% SCE < 15 61.8% < 25 61.8% < 50 66.7% SDGE < 15 53.5% < 25 53.5% < 50 59.5% SMUD < 15 67.0% < 25 67.0% < 50 71.2% Idling Reduction Emission reduction from shorter idling period is same as the percentage reduction in idling time. Discussion: The output from OFFROAD2007 shows the same emissions within each horsepower tier regardless of the year modeled. Therefore, the emission reduction is dependent on the location of the Project and horsepower of the TRU only. Assumptions: Data based upon the following references: California Air Resources Board. Off-road Emissions Inventory. OFFROAD2007. Available online at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/offroad/offroad.htm California Climate Action Registry Reporting Online Tool. 2006 PUP Reports. Available online at: https://www.climateregistry.org/CARROT/public/reports.aspx Preferred Literature: The electrification of truck loading docks can allow properly equipped trucks to take advantage of external power and completely eliminate the need for idling. Trucks would need to be equipped with internal wiring, inverter, system, and a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system. Under this mitigation measure, the direct emissions from fuel combustion are completely displaced by indirect emissions from the CO2 generated during electricity production. The amount of electricity required depends on the type of truck and refrigeration elements; this data could be determined from manufacturer specifications. The total kilowatt-hours required should be multiplied by the carbon-intensity factor of the local utility provider in order to calculate the amount of indirect CO2 emissions. To take credit for this mitigation measure, the Project Applicant Transportation MP# TR-6 VT-1 Vehicles 303 VT-1 would need to provide detailed evidence supporting a calculation of the emissions reductions. Alternative Literature: None Other Literature Reviewed: 1. USEPA. 2002. Green Transport Partnership, A Glance at Clean Freight Strategies: Idle Reduction. Available online at: http://nepis.epa.gov/Adobe/PDF/P1000S9K.PDF 2. ATRI. 2009. Research Results: Demonstration of Integrated Mobile Idle Reduction Solutions. Available online at: http://www.atri- online.org/research/results/ATRI1pagesummaryMIRTDemo.pdf None Transportation CEQA# MM T-21 VT-2 Vehicles 304 VT-2 3.7.2 Utilize Alternative Fueled Vehicles Range of Effectiveness: Reduction in GHG emissions varies depending on vehicle type, year, and associated fuel economy. Measure Description: When construction equipment is powered by alternative fuels such as biodiesel (B20), liquefied natural gas (LNG), or compressed natural gas (CNG) rather than conventional petroleum diesel or gasoline, GHG emissions from fuel combustion may be reduced. Measure Applicability: Vehicles Inputs: The following information needs to be provided by the Project Applicant: Vehicle category Traveling speed (mph) Number of trips and trip length, or Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Fuel economy (mpg) or Fuel consumption Baseline Method: Baseline CO2 Emission = CVMTFE 1EF Where: Baseline CO2 Emission = MT of CO2 EF = CO2 emission factor, from CCAR General Reporting Protocol (g/gallon) VMT = Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) = T x L FE = Fuel economy (mpg) C = Unit conversion factor Baseline N2O /CH4 Emission = CVMTEF Where: Baseline N2O/CH4 Emission = MT of N2O or CH4 EF = N2O or CH4 emission factor, from CCAR General Reporting Protocol (g/mile) VMT = Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) = T x L T = Number of one-way trips L = One-way trip length FC = Fuel consumption (gallon) = VMT/FE Transportation CEQA# MM T-21 VT-2 Vehicles 305 VT-2 FE = Fuel economy (mpg) C = Unit conversion factor The total baseline GHG emission is the sum of the emissions of CO2, N2O and CH4, adjusted by their global warming potentials (GWP): Baseline GHG Emission = Baseline CO2 Emission + Baseline N2O Emission 310 +Baseline CH4 Emission 21 Where: Baseline GHG Emission = MT of CO2e 310 = GWP of N2O 21 = GWP of CH4 Mitigation Method: Mitigated emissions from using alternative fuel is calculated using the same methodology before, but using emission factors for the alternative fuel, and fuel consumption calculated as follows: CH4N20CO2EF VMTEF VMTEFVMTERFE 1emissionsGHG Where: ER = Energy ratio from US Department of Energy (see table below) EF = Emission Factor for pollutant VMT = Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) FE = Fuel economy (mpg) Fuel Energy Ratio: Amount of fuel needed to provide same energy as 1 gallon of Gasoline 1 gallon of Diesel Gasoline 1 gal 1.13 gal #2 Diesel 0.88 gal 1 gal B20 0.92 gal 1.01 gal CNG 126. 67 ft3 143.14 ft3 LNG 1.56 gal 1.77 gal LPC 1.37 gal 1.55 gal Transportation CEQA# MM T-21 VT-2 Vehicles 306 VT-2 Emission reductions can be calculated as: Reduction = Emission Running Emission Mitigated1 Emission Reduction Ranges and Variables: Pollutant Category Emissions Reductions CO2e Range Not Quantified81 PM Range Not Quantified CO Range Not Quantified NOx Range Not Quantified SO2 Range Not Quantified ROG Range Not Quantified Discussion: Using the methodology described above, only the running emission is considered. A hypothetical scenario for a gasoline fueled light duty automobile in 2015 is illustrated below. The CO2 emission factor from motor gasoline in CCAR 2009 is 8.81 kg/gallon. Assuming the automobile makes two trips of 60 mile each per day, and using the current passenger car fuel economy of 27.5 mpg under the CAFE standards, then the annual baseline CO2 emission from the automobile is: 14.01027.5 3656028.81 3 MT/year Where 10-3 is the conversion factor from kilograms to MT. Using the most recent N2O emission factor of 0.0079 g/mile in CCAR 2009 for gasoline passenger cars, the annual baseline N2O emission from the automobile is: 0.000346106036520.0079 6 MT/year 81 The emissions reductions varies and depends on vehicle type, year, and the associated fuel economy. The methodology above describes how to calculate the expected GHG emissions reduction assuming the required input parameters are known. Transportation CEQA# MM T-21 VT-2 Vehicles 307 VT-2 Similarly, using the same formula with the most recent CH4 emission factor of 0.0147 g/mile in CCAR 2009 for gasoline passenger cars, the annual baseline CH 4 emission from the automobile is calculated to be 0.000644 MT/year. Thus, the total baseline GHG emission for the automobile is: 14.1210.0006443100.00034614.0 MT/year If compressed natural gas (CNG) is used as alternative fuel, the CNG consumption for the same VMT is: 201,751126.6727.5 365602 ft3 Using the same formula as for the baseline scenario but with emission factors of CNG and the CNG consumption, the mitigated GHG emission can be calculated as shown in the table below Pollutant Emission (MT/yr) CO2 11.0 N2O 0.0022 CH4 0.0323 CO2e 12.4 Therefore, the emission reduction is: 11.4%14.0 12.41 Notice that in the baseline scenario, N2O and CH4 only make up <1% of the total GHG emissions, but actually increase for the mitigated scenario and contribute to >10% of total GHG emissions. Assumptions: Data based upon the following references: California Climate Action Registry (CCAR). 2009. General Reporting Protocol. Version 3.1. Available online at: http://www.climateregistry.org/tools/protocols/general-reporting-protocol.html Transportation CEQA# MM T-21 VT-2 Vehicles 308 VT-2 US Department of Energy. 2010. Alternative and Advanced Fuels – Fuel Properties. Available online at: http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/fuels/properties.html Preferred Literature: The amount of emissions avoided from using alternative fuel vehicles can be calculated using emission factors from the California Climate Action Registry (CCAR) General Reporting Protocol [1]. Multiplying this factor by the fuel consumption or vehicle miles traveled (VMT) gives the direct emissions of CO2 and N2O /CH4, respectively. Fuel consumption and VMT can be calculated interchangeably with the fuel economy (mpg). The total GHG emission is the sum of the emissions from the three chemicals multiplied by their respective global warming potential (GWP). Assuming the same VMT, the amount of alternative fuel required to run the same vehicle fleet can be calculated by multiplying gasoline/diesel fuel consumption by the equivalent-energy ratio obtained from the US Department of Energy [2]. Using the alternative fuel consumption and the emission factors for the alternative fuel from CCAR, the mitigated GHG emissions can be calculated. The GHG emissions reduction associated with this mitigation measure is therefore the difference in emissions from these two scenarios. Alternative Literature: None Notes: [1] California Climate Action Registry (CCAR). 2009. General Reporting Protocol. Version 3.1. Available online at: http://www.climateregistry.org/tools/protocols/general-reporting-protocol.html [2] US Department of Energy. 2010. Alternative and Advanced Fuels – Fuel Properties. Available online at: http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/fuels/properties.html Other Literature Reviewed: None Transportation CEQA# MM T-20 VT-3 Vehicles 309 VT-3 3.7.3 Utilize Electric or Hybrid Vehicles Range of Effectiveness: 0.4 - 20.3% reduction in GHG emissions Measure Description: When vehicles are powered by grid electricity rather than fossil fuel, direct GHG emissions from fuel combustion are replaced with indirect GHG emissions associated with the electricity used to power the vehicles. When vehicles are powered by hybrid- electric drives, GHG emissions from fuel combustion are reduced. Measure Applicability: Vehicles Inputs: The following information needs to be provided by the Project Applicant: Vehicle category Traveling speed (mph) Number of trips and trip length, or Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Fuel economy (mpg) Baseline Method: Baseline Emission = CVMTR-1EF Where: Baseline Emission = MT of Pollutant EF = Running emission factor for pollutant at traveling speed, from EMFAC. VMT = Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) R = Additional reduction in EF due to regulation (see Table 1) C = Unit conversion factor Mitigation Method: Fully Electric Vehicle Vehicle will run solely on electricity. The indirect GHG emission from electricity generation is: Mitigated Emission = CERVMTFE 1Utility Transportation CEQA# MM T-20 VT-3 Vehicles 310 VT-3 Where: Mitigated Emission = MT of CO2e Utility = Carbon intensity of Local Utility (CO2e/kWh) VMT = Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) ER = Energy Ratio = 33.4 kWh/gallon-gasoline or 37.7 kWh/gallon-diesel FE = Fuel Economy (mpg) C = Unit conversion factor Criteria pollutant emissions will be 100% reduced for equipment running solely on electricity. Hybrid-Electric Vehicle The Project Applicant has to determine the fuel consumption reduced from using the hybrid-electric vehicle. The emission reductions for all pollutants are the same as the fuel reduction. Emission reductions can be calculated as: GHG Reduction% = Emission Running Emission Mitigated1 Emission Reduction Ranges and Variables: See Table VT-3.1 below. Discussion: Using the methodology described above, only the running emission is considered. A hypothetical scenario for a gasoline fueled light duty automobile with catalytic converter in 2015 is illustrated below. The running CO2 emission factor at 30 mph from an EMFAC run of the Sacramento county with temperature of 60F and relative humidity of 45% is 336.1 g/mile. From Table VT-3.1, there will be an additional reduction of 9.1% for the emission factor in 2015 due to Pavley standard. Assuming the automobile makes two trips of 60 mile each per day, then annual baseline emission from the automobile is: Power Utility Carbon-Intensity (lbs CO2e/MWh) LADW&P 1,238 PG&E 456 SCE 641 SDGE 781 SMUD 555 Transportation CEQA# MM T-20 VT-3 Vehicles 311 VT-3 4.13010636529.1%-100%336.1 6 MT/year Where 10-6 is the conversion factor from grams to MT. Assuming the current passenger car fuel economy of 27.5 mpg under the CAFE standards, and using the carbon- intensity factor for PG&E, the electric provider for the Sacramento region, the mitigated emission from replacing the automobile described above with electric vehicle would be: 0.11102,204 14.3327.5 063652564 3 MT/year Therefore, the emission reduction is: %9.1713.4 11.01 Assumptions: Data based upon the following references: California Air Resources Board. EMFAC2007. Available online at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/onroad/latest_version.htm California Climate Action Registry (CCAR). 2009. General Reporting Protocol. Version 3.1. Available online at: http://www.climateregistry.org/tools/protocols/general-reporting-protocol.html California Climate Action Registry Reporting Online Tool. 2006 PUP Reports. Available online at: https://www.climateregistry.org/CARROT/public/reports.aspx US Department of Energy. 2010. Alternative and Advanced Fuels – Fuel Properties. Available online at: http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/fuels/properties.html Preferred Literature: The amount of emissions avoided from using electric and hybrid vehicles can be calculated using CARB's EMFAC model, which provides state-wide and regional running emission factors for a variety of on-road vehicles in units of grams per mile [1]. Multiplying this factor by the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) gives the direct emissions. For criteria pollutant, emissions can be assumed to be 100% reduced from running on electricity. For GHG, assuming the same VMT, the electricity required to run the same vehicle fleet can be calculated by dividing by the fuel economy (mph) and multiplying the gasoline-electric energy ratio obtained from the US Department of Energy [2]. Multiplying this value by the carbon-intensity factor of the local utility gives the amount of indirect GHG emissions associated with electric vehicles. The GHG emissions Transportation CEQA# MM T-20 VT-3 Vehicles 312 VT-3 reduction associated with this mitigation measure is therefore the difference in emissions from these two scenarios. Alternative Literature: None Notes: [1] California Air Resources Board. EMFAC2007. Available online at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/onroad/latest_version.htm [2] US Department of Energy. 2010. Alternative and Advanced Fuels – Fuel Properties. Available online at: http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/fuels/properties.html Other Literature Reviewed: None Transportation CEQA# MM T-20 VT-3 Vehicles 313 VT-3 Table VT-3.1 Reduction in EMFAC Running Emission Factor from New Regulations Year Vehicle Class Reduction Pollutant Regulation 2010 LDA/LDT/MDV 0.4% CO2 Pavley Standard 2011 LDA/LDT/MDV 1.6% CO2 Pavley Standard 2012 LDA/LDT/MDV 3.5% CO2 Pavley Standard 2013 LDA/LDT/MDV 5.3% CO2 Pavley Standard 2014 LDA/LDT/MDV 7.1% CO2 Pavley Standard 2015 LDA/LDT/MDV 9.1% CO2 Pavley Standard 2016 LDA/LDT/MDV 11.0% CO2 Pavley Standard 2017 LDA/LDT/MDV 13.1% CO2 Pavley Standard 2018 LDA/LDT/MDV 15.5% CO2 Pavley Standard 2019 LDA/LDT/MDV 17.9% CO2 Pavley Standard 2020 LDA/LDT/MDV 20.3% CO2 Pavley Standard 2011 Other Buses 21.8% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2011 School Bus 19.8% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2011 MHDDT Agriculture 17.2% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2011 MHDDT CA International Registration Plan 4.6% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2011 MHDDT Instate 6.1% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2011 MHDDT Out-of-state 4.6% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2011 HHDDT Agriculture 23.3% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2011 HHDDT CA International Registration Plan 1.7% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2011 HHDDT Non-neighboring Out-of-state 0.5% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2011 HHDDT Neighboring Out-of-state 2.6% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2011 HHDDT Singleunit 10.3% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2011 HHDDT Tractor 9.7% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2012 Other Buses 25.1% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2012 Power Take Off 28.4% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2012 School Bus 45.7% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2012 MHDDT Agriculture 20.9% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2012 MHDDT CA International Registration Plan 12.6% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2012 MHDDT Instate 11.6% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Transportation CEQA# MM T-20 VT-3 Vehicles 314 VT-3 Year Vehicle Class Reduction Pollutant Regulation Regulation 2012 MHDDT Out-of-state 12.6% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2012 HHDDT Agriculture 29.2% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2012 HHDDT CA International Registration Plan 8.6% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2012 HHDDT Non-neighboring Out-of-state 15.9% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2012 HHDDT Neighboring Out-of-state 15.3% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2012 HHDDT Drayage at Other Facilities 9.8% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2012 HHDDT Drayage in Bay Area 9.9% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2012 HHDDT Drayage near South Coast 7.7% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2012 HHDDT Singleunit 14.7% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2012 HHDDT Tractor 13.8% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2013 Other Buses 45.7% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2013 Power Take Off 57.8% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2013 School Bus 68.6% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2013 MHDDT Agriculture 31.1% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2013 MHDDT CA International Registration Plan 55.2% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2013 MHDDT Instate 64.5% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2013 MHDDT Out-of-state 55.2% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2013 HHDDT Agriculture 48.2% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2013 HHDDT CA International Registration Plan 60.3% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2013 HHDDT Non-neighboring Out-of-state 50.6% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2013 HHDDT Neighboring Out-of-state 63.2% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2013 HHDDT Drayage at Other Facilities 67.3% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2013 HHDDT Drayage in Bay Area 65.7% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2013 HHDDT Drayage near South Coast 51.1% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation Transportation CEQA# MM T-20 VT-3 Vehicles 315 VT-3 Year Vehicle Class Reduction Pollutant Regulation 2013 HHDDT Singleunit 66.3% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2013 HHDDT Tractor 69.6% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2014 Other Buses 53.9% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2014 Power Take Off 63.9% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2014 School Bus 71.4% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2014 MHDDT Agriculture 33.4% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2014 MHDDT CA International Registration Plan 65.7% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2014 MHDDT Instate 77.1% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2014 MHDDT Out-of-state 65.7% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2014 MHDDT Utility 0.8% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2014 HHDDT Agriculture 52.6% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2014 HHDDT CA International Registration Plan 63.8% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2014 HHDDT Non-neighboring Out-of-state 46.8% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2014 HHDDT Neighboring Out-of-state 64.1% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2014 HHDDT Singleunit 79.1% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2014 HHDDT Tractor 79.4% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2014 HHDDT Utility 4.7% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2015 Other Buses 49.5% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2015 Power Take Off 61.7% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2015 School Bus 71.1% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2015 MHDDT Agriculture 34.5% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2015 MHDDT CA International Registration Plan 60.8% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2015 MHDDT Instate 74.9% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2015 MHDDT Out-of-state 60.8% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2015 MHDDT Utility 0.8% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation Transportation CEQA# MM T-20 VT-3 Vehicles 316 VT-3 Year Vehicle Class Reduction Pollutant Regulation 2015 HHDDT Agriculture 53.5% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2015 HHDDT CA International Registration Plan 55.0% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2015 HHDDT Non-neighboring Out-of-state 37.3% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2015 HHDDT Neighboring Out-of-state 55.2% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2015 HHDDT Singleunit 77.1% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2015 HHDDT Tractor 76.6% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2015 HHDDT Utility 4.4% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2016 Other Buses 43.3% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2016 Power Take Off 75.2% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2016 School Bus 70.1% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2016 MHDDT Agriculture 32.9% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2016 MHDDT CA International Registration Plan 56.7% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2016 MHDDT Instate 73.0% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2016 MHDDT Out-of-state 56.7% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2016 MHDDT Utility 0.8% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2016 HHDDT Agriculture 51.3% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2016 HHDDT CA International Registration Plan 45.9% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2016 HHDDT Non-neighboring Out-of-state 27.8% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2016 HHDDT Neighboring Out-of-state 46.1% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2016 HHDDT Singleunit 75.7% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2016 HHDDT Tractor 73.8% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2016 HHDDT Utility 4.1% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2017 Other Buses 36.0% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2017 Power Take Off 71.6% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2017 School Bus 67.8% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation Transportation CEQA# MM T-20 VT-3 Vehicles 317 VT-3 Year Vehicle Class Reduction Pollutant Regulation 2017 MHDDT Agriculture 55.9% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2017 MHDDT CA International Registration Plan 52.6% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2017 MHDDT Instate 70.6% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2017 MHDDT Out-of-state 52.6% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2017 MHDDT Utility 0.8% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2017 HHDDT Agriculture 58.8% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2017 HHDDT CA International Registration Plan 37.0% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2017 HHDDT Non-neighboring Out-of-state 18.3% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2017 HHDDT Neighboring Out-of-state 37.2% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2017 HHDDT Singleunit 73.9% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2017 HHDDT Tractor 70.1% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2017 HHDDT Utility 3.8% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2018 Other Buses 31.4% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2018 Power Take Off 67.3% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2018 School Bus 74.9% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2018 MHDDT Agriculture 53.8% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2018 MHDDT CA International Registration Plan 47.7% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2018 MHDDT Instate 68.5% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2018 MHDDT Out-of-state 47.7% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2018 MHDDT Utility 0.8% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2018 HHDDT Agriculture 55.7% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2018 HHDDT CA International Registration Plan 30.3% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2018 HHDDT Non-neighboring Out-of-state 11.0% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2018 HHDDT Neighboring Out-of-state 30.6% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2018 HHDDT Singleunit 72.3% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation Transportation CEQA# MM T-20 VT-3 Vehicles 318 VT-3 Year Vehicle Class Reduction Pollutant Regulation 2018 HHDDT Tractor 67.3% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2018 HHDDT Utility 3.5% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2019 Other Buses 27.3% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2019 Power Take Off 76.6% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2019 School Bus 73.2% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2019 MHDDT Agriculture 53.0% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2019 MHDDT CA International Registration Plan 42.3% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2019 MHDDT Instate 65.0% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2019 MHDDT Out-of-state 42.3% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2019 MHDDT Utility 0.8% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2019 HHDDT Agriculture 54.2% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2019 HHDDT CA International Registration Plan 24.5% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2019 HHDDT Non-neighboring Out-of-state 5.1% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2019 HHDDT Neighboring Out-of-state 24.9% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2019 HHDDT Singleunit 69.9% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2019 HHDDT Tractor 64.2% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2019 HHDDT Utility 3.1% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2020 Other Buses 23.5% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2020 Power Take Off 74.3% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2020 School Bus 71.3% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2020 MHDDT Agriculture 52.1% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2020 MHDDT CA International Registration Plan 37.2% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2020 MHDDT Instate 60.9% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2020 MHDDT Out-of-state 37.2% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2020 MHDDT Utility 0.8% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation Transportation CEQA# MM T-20 VT-3 Vehicles 319 VT-3 Year Vehicle Class Reduction Pollutant Regulation 2020 HHDDT Agriculture 52.4% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2020 HHDDT CA International Registration Plan 19.8% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2020 HHDDT Non-neighboring Out-of-state 3.7% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2020 HHDDT Neighboring Out-of-state 20.1% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2020 HHDDT Singleunit 66.9% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2020 HHDDT Tractor 61.2% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2020 HHDDT Utility 2.7% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2021 Other Buses 21.8% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2021 Power Take Off 79.0% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2021 School Bus 68.2% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2021 MHDDT Agriculture 51.2% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2021 MHDDT CA International Registration Plan 33.0% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2021 MHDDT Instate 57.7% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2021 MHDDT Out-of-state 33.0% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2021 MHDDT Utility 5.8% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2021 HHDDT Agriculture 50.7% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2021 HHDDT CA International Registration Plan 16.7% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2021 HHDDT Non-neighboring Out-of-state 3.0% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2021 HHDDT Neighboring Out-of-state 16.9% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2021 HHDDT Drayage at Other Facilities 10.8% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2021 HHDDT Drayage in Bay Area 9.4% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2021 HHDDT Drayage near South Coast 9.6% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2021 HHDDT Singleunit 64.6% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2021 HHDDT Tractor 59.3% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2021 HHDDT Utility 5.8% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation Transportation CEQA# MM T-20 VT-3 Vehicles 320 VT-3 Year Vehicle Class Reduction Pollutant Regulation 2022 Other Buses 20.1% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2022 Power Take Off 79.0% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2022 School Bus 66.0% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2022 MHDDT Agriculture 50.6% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2022 MHDDT CA International Registration Plan 28.7% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2022 MHDDT Instate 53.5% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2022 MHDDT Out-of-state 28.7% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2022 MHDDT Utility 6.4% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2022 HHDDT Agriculture 49.4% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2022 HHDDT CA International Registration Plan 13.9% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2022 HHDDT Non-neighboring Out-of-state 1.5% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2022 HHDDT Neighboring Out-of-state 14.2% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2022 HHDDT Drayage at Other Facilities 10.8% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2022 HHDDT Drayage in Bay Area 8.7% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2022 HHDDT Drayage near South Coast 8.8% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2022 HHDDT Singleunit 61.0% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2022 HHDDT Tractor 55.5% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2022 HHDDT Utility 5.0% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2023 Other Buses 18.5% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2023 Power Take Off 74.6% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2023 School Bus 64.1% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2023 MHDDT Agriculture 79.2% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2023 MHDDT CA International Registration Plan 23.7% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2023 MHDDT Instate 48.4% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2023 MHDDT Out-of-state 23.7% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation Transportation CEQA# MM T-20 VT-3 Vehicles 321 VT-3 Year Vehicle Class Reduction Pollutant Regulation 2023 MHDDT Utility 7.0% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2023 HHDDT Agriculture 68.7% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2023 HHDDT CA International Registration Plan 11.6% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2023 HHDDT Non-neighboring Out-of-state 1.0% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2023 HHDDT Neighboring Out-of-state 11.9% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2023 HHDDT Drayage at Other Facilities 9.6% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2023 HHDDT Drayage in Bay Area 8.2% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2023 HHDDT Drayage near South Coast 8.3% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2023 HHDDT Singleunit 56.2% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2023 HHDDT Tractor 51.1% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2023 HHDDT Utility 4.1% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2024 Other Buses 15.7% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2024 Power Take Off 68.7% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2024 School Bus 61.4% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2024 MHDDT Agriculture 77.4% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2024 MHDDT CA International Registration Plan 20.2% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2024 MHDDT Instate 43.0% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2024 MHDDT Out-of-state 20.2% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2024 MHDDT Utility 5.3% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2024 HHDDT Agriculture 65.6% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2024 HHDDT CA International Registration Plan 9.1% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2024 HHDDT Non-neighboring Out-of-state 0.7% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2024 HHDDT Neighboring Out-of-state 9.3% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2024 HHDDT Drayage at Other Facilities 9.7% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2024 HHDDT Drayage in Bay Area 7.7% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation Transportation CEQA# MM T-20 VT-3 Vehicles 322 VT-3 Year Vehicle Class Reduction Pollutant Regulation 2024 HHDDT Drayage near South Coast 7.9% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2024 HHDDT Singleunit 50.6% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2024 HHDDT Tractor 46.7% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2024 HHDDT Utility 3.4% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2025 Other Buses 13.3% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2025 Power Take Off 62.0% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2025 School Bus 58.2% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2025 MHDDT Agriculture 75.4% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2025 MHDDT CA International Registration Plan 15.3% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2025 MHDDT Instate 37.8% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2025 MHDDT Out-of-state 15.3% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2025 MHDDT Utility 3.4% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2025 HHDDT Agriculture 62.7% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2025 HHDDT CA International Registration Plan 6.8% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2025 HHDDT Non-neighboring Out-of-state 0.6% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2025 HHDDT Neighboring Out-of-state 7.0% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2025 HHDDT Drayage at Other Facilities 8.6% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2025 HHDDT Drayage in Bay Area 7.5% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2025 HHDDT Drayage near South Coast 7.6% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2025 HHDDT Singleunit 44.9% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2025 HHDDT Tractor 42.9% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2025 HHDDT Utility 2.4% PM2.5 On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2011 MHDDT CA International Registration Plan 1.9% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2011 MHDDT Instate 2.5% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2011 MHDDT Out-of-state 1.9% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation Transportation CEQA# MM T-20 VT-3 Vehicles 323 VT-3 Year Vehicle Class Reduction Pollutant Regulation 2011 HHDDT CA International Registration Plan 0.8% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2011 HHDDT Non-neighboring Out-of-state 0.1% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2011 HHDDT Neighboring Out-of-state 1.2% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2011 HHDDT Singleunit 4.5% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2011 HHDDT Tractor 3.7% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2012 Power Take Off 13.7% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2012 School Bus 2.2% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2012 MHDDT CA International Registration Plan 1.5% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2012 MHDDT Instate 2.2% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2012 MHDDT Out-of-state 1.5% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2012 HHDDT CA International Registration Plan 0.5% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2012 HHDDT Non-neighboring Out-of-state 0.1% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2012 HHDDT Neighboring Out-of-state 0.9% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2012 HHDDT Singleunit 3.7% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2012 HHDDT Tractor 3.2% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2013 Other Buses 18.9% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2013 Power Take Off 34.0% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2013 School Bus 4.4% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2013 MHDDT Agriculture 5.9% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2013 MHDDT CA International Registration Plan 12.1% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2013 MHDDT Instate 25.6% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2013 MHDDT Out-of-state 12.1% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2013 HHDDT Agriculture 10.6% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2013 HHDDT CA International Registration Plan 8.8% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2013 HHDDT Non-neighboring Out-of-state 1.3% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation Transportation CEQA# MM T-20 VT-3 Vehicles 324 VT-3 Year Vehicle Class Reduction Pollutant Regulation 2013 HHDDT Neighboring Out-of-state 8.1% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2013 HHDDT Singleunit 33.9% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2013 HHDDT Tractor 28.8% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2014 Other Buses 40.5% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2014 Power Take Off 37.5% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2014 School Bus 6.4% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2014 MHDDT Agriculture 9.3% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2014 MHDDT CA International Registration Plan 22.2% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2014 MHDDT Instate 34.2% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2014 MHDDT Out-of-state 22.2% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2014 MHDDT Utility 0.8% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2014 HHDDT Agriculture 17.6% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2014 HHDDT CA International Registration Plan 13.3% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2014 HHDDT Non-neighboring Out-of-state 4.7% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2014 HHDDT Neighboring Out-of-state 14.7% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2014 HHDDT Singleunit 45.4% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2014 HHDDT Tractor 36.9% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2014 HHDDT Utility 1.6% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2015 Other Buses 52.8% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2015 Power Take Off 33.0% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2015 School Bus 6.2% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2015 MHDDT Agriculture 18.4% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2015 MHDDT CA International Registration Plan 20.1% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2015 MHDDT Instate 31.5% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2015 MHDDT Out-of-state 20.1% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation Transportation CEQA# MM T-20 VT-3 Vehicles 325 VT-3 Year Vehicle Class Reduction Pollutant Regulation 2015 MHDDT Utility 0.8% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2015 HHDDT Agriculture 27.8% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2015 HHDDT CA International Registration Plan 11.1% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2015 HHDDT Non-neighboring Out-of-state 2.3% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2015 HHDDT Neighboring Out-of-state 12.1% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2015 HHDDT Singleunit 42.8% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2015 HHDDT Tractor 34.9% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2015 HHDDT Utility 1.5% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2016 Other Buses 54.4% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2016 Power Take Off 43.8% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2016 School Bus 4.5% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2016 MHDDT Agriculture 19.3% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2016 MHDDT CA International Registration Plan 22.2% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2016 MHDDT Instate 32.2% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2016 MHDDT Out-of-state 22.2% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2016 MHDDT Utility 0.9% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2016 HHDDT Agriculture 29.9% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2016 HHDDT CA International Registration Plan 11.6% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2016 HHDDT Non-neighboring Out-of-state 3.4% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2016 HHDDT Neighboring Out-of-state 13.0% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2016 HHDDT Singleunit 43.2% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2016 HHDDT Tractor 35.5% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2016 HHDDT Utility 1.5% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2017 Other Buses 59.5% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2017 Power Take Off 38.5% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation Transportation CEQA# MM T-20 VT-3 Vehicles 326 VT-3 Year Vehicle Class Reduction Pollutant Regulation 2017 MHDDT Agriculture 43.6% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2017 MHDDT CA International Registration Plan 27.3% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2017 MHDDT Instate 35.3% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2017 MHDDT Out-of-state 27.3% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2017 MHDDT Utility 1.0% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2017 HHDDT Agriculture 45.0% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2017 HHDDT CA International Registration Plan 14.4% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2017 HHDDT Non-neighboring Out-of-state 7.3% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2017 HHDDT Neighboring Out-of-state 17.3% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2017 HHDDT Singleunit 46.2% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2017 HHDDT Tractor 38.0% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2017 HHDDT Utility 1.5% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2018 Other Buses 56.1% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2018 Power Take Off 32.7% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2018 School Bus 7.7% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2018 MHDDT Agriculture 41.2% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2018 MHDDT CA International Registration Plan 26.2% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2018 MHDDT Instate 41.7% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2018 MHDDT Out-of-state 26.2% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2018 MHDDT Utility 1.1% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2018 HHDDT Agriculture 42.1% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2018 HHDDT CA International Registration Plan 15.7% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2018 HHDDT Non-neighboring Out-of-state 4.6% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2018 HHDDT Neighboring Out-of-state 16.3% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2018 HHDDT Singleunit 51.8% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation Transportation CEQA# MM T-20 VT-3 Vehicles 327 VT-3 Year Vehicle Class Reduction Pollutant Regulation 2018 HHDDT Tractor 43.9% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2018 HHDDT Utility 1.5% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2019 Other Buses 52.6% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2019 Power Take Off 38.1% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2019 School Bus 6.7% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2019 MHDDT Agriculture 40.0% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2019 MHDDT CA International Registration Plan 22.3% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2019 MHDDT Instate 38.2% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2019 MHDDT Out-of-state 22.3% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2019 MHDDT Utility 1.3% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2019 HHDDT Agriculture 40.2% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2019 HHDDT CA International Registration Plan 12.5% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2019 HHDDT Non-neighboring Out-of-state 2.1% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2019 HHDDT Neighboring Out-of-state 13.0% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2019 HHDDT Singleunit 48.6% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2019 HHDDT Tractor 41.3% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2019 HHDDT Utility 1.4% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2020 Other Buses 49.1% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2020 Power Take Off 41.8% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2020 School Bus 5.9% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2020 MHDDT Agriculture 38.7% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2020 MHDDT CA International Registration Plan 19.3% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2020 MHDDT Instate 34.5% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2020 MHDDT Out-of-state 19.3% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2020 MHDDT Utility 1.4% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation Transportation CEQA# MM T-20 VT-3 Vehicles 328 VT-3 Year Vehicle Class Reduction Pollutant Regulation 2020 HHDDT Agriculture 38.2% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2020 HHDDT CA International Registration Plan 9.9% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2020 HHDDT Non-neighboring Out-of-state 1.6% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2020 HHDDT Neighboring Out-of-state 10.2% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2020 HHDDT Singleunit 45.2% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2020 HHDDT Tractor 39.0% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2020 HHDDT Utility 1.3% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2021 Other Buses 48.7% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2021 Power Take Off 51.3% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2021 School Bus 4.4% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2021 MHDDT Agriculture 38.7% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2021 MHDDT CA International Registration Plan 21.2% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2021 MHDDT Instate 41.5% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2021 MHDDT Out-of-state 21.2% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2021 MHDDT Utility 33.5% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2021 HHDDT Agriculture 37.8% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2021 HHDDT CA International Registration Plan 9.7% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2021 HHDDT Non-neighboring Out-of-state 1.6% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2021 HHDDT Neighboring Out-of-state 9.8% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2021 HHDDT Drayage at Other Facilities 40.6% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2021 HHDDT Drayage in Bay Area 41.2% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2021 HHDDT Drayage near South Coast 39.7% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2021 HHDDT Singleunit 54.2% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2021 HHDDT Tractor 45.6% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2021 HHDDT Utility 21.8% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation Transportation CEQA# MM T-20 VT-3 Vehicles 329 VT-3 Year Vehicle Class Reduction Pollutant Regulation 2022 Other Buses 48.3% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2022 Power Take Off 60.0% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2022 School Bus 3.5% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2022 MHDDT Agriculture 40.5% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2022 MHDDT CA International Registration Plan 20.7% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2022 MHDDT Instate 41.2% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2022 MHDDT Out-of-state 20.7% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2022 MHDDT Utility 28.9% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2022 HHDDT Agriculture 40.7% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2022 HHDDT CA International Registration Plan 8.8% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2022 HHDDT Non-neighboring Out-of-state 1.4% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2022 HHDDT Neighboring Out-of-state 9.0% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2022 HHDDT Drayage at Other Facilities 39.6% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2022 HHDDT Drayage in Bay Area 40.5% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2022 HHDDT Drayage near South Coast 39.0% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2022 HHDDT Singleunit 54.4% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2022 HHDDT Tractor 45.2% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2022 HHDDT Utility 18.9% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2023 Other Buses 47.8% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2023 Power Take Off 54.7% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2023 School Bus 2.8% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2023 MHDDT Agriculture 65.9% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2023 MHDDT CA International Registration Plan 18.4% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2023 MHDDT Instate 39.1% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2023 MHDDT Out-of-state 18.4% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation Transportation CEQA# MM T-20 VT-3 Vehicles 330 VT-3 Year Vehicle Class Reduction Pollutant Regulation 2023 MHDDT Utility 25.1% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2023 HHDDT Agriculture 59.5% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2023 HHDDT CA International Registration Plan 7.8% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2023 HHDDT Non-neighboring Out-of-state 1.1% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2023 HHDDT Neighboring Out-of-state 8.1% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2023 HHDDT Drayage at Other Facilities 38.7% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2023 HHDDT Drayage in Bay Area 39.9% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2023 HHDDT Drayage near South Coast 38.4% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2023 HHDDT Singleunit 52.6% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2023 HHDDT Tractor 44.0% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2023 HHDDT Utility 16.2% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2024 Other Buses 43.4% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2024 Power Take Off 47.6% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2024 School Bus 1.8% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2024 MHDDT Agriculture 63.5% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2024 MHDDT CA International Registration Plan 15.1% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2024 MHDDT Instate 33.8% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2024 MHDDT Out-of-state 15.1% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2024 MHDDT Utility 19.2% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2024 HHDDT Agriculture 56.7% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2024 HHDDT CA International Registration Plan 6.1% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2024 HHDDT Non-neighboring Out-of-state 0.8% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2024 HHDDT Neighboring Out-of-state 6.3% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2024 HHDDT Drayage at Other Facilities 38.1% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2024 HHDDT Drayage in Bay Area 39.4% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation Transportation CEQA# MM T-20 VT-3 Vehicles 331 VT-3 Year Vehicle Class Reduction Pollutant Regulation 2024 HHDDT Drayage near South Coast 37.9% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2024 HHDDT Singleunit 47.2% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2024 HHDDT Tractor 39.9% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2024 HHDDT Utility 13.1% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2025 Other Buses 39.0% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2025 Power Take Off 39.9% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2025 School Bus 1.8% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2025 MHDDT Agriculture 61.1% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2025 MHDDT CA International Registration Plan 11.6% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2025 MHDDT Instate 28.9% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2025 MHDDT Out-of-state 11.6% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2025 MHDDT Utility 13.9% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2025 HHDDT Agriculture 53.8% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2025 HHDDT CA International Registration Plan 4.6% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2025 HHDDT Non-neighboring Out-of-state 0.5% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2025 HHDDT Neighboring Out-of-state 4.8% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2025 HHDDT Drayage at Other Facilities 37.3% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2025 HHDDT Drayage in Bay Area 38.9% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2025 HHDDT Drayage near South Coast 37.5% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2025 HHDDT Singleunit 41.5% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2025 HHDDT Tractor 35.7% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation 2025 HHDDT Utility 10.3% NOx On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation Section Category Page # Measure # 4.0 Water 332 4.1 Water Supply 332 4.1.1 Use Reclaimed Water 332 WSW-1 4.1.2 Use Gray Water 336 WSW-2 4.1.3 Use Locally Sourced Water Supply 341 WSW-3 4.2 Water Use 347 4.2.1 Install Low-Flow Water Fixtures 347 WUW-1 4.2.2 Adopt a Water Conservation Strategy 362 WUW-2 4.2.3 Design Water-Efficient Landscapes 365 WUW-3 4.2.4 Use Water-Efficient Landscape Irrigation Systems 372 WUW-4 4.2.5 Reduce Turf in Landscapes and Lawns 376 WUW-5 4.2.6 Plant Native or Drought-Resistant Trees and Vegetation 381 WUW-6 Water CEQA# MS-G-8 MP# COS-1.3 WSW-1 Water Supply 332 WSW-1 4.0 Water 4.1 Water Supply 4.1.1 Use Reclaimed Water Range of Effectiveness: Up to 40% in Northern California and up to 81% in Southern California Measure Description: California water supplies come from ground water, surface water, and from reservoirs, typically fed from snow melt. Some sources of water are transported over long distances, and sometimes over terrain to reach the point of consumption. Transporting water can require a significant amount of electricity. In addition, treating water to potable standards can also require substantial amounts of energy. Reclaimed water is water reused after wastewater treatment for non-potable uses instead of returning the water to the environment. This is different than gray water, which has not been through wastewater treatment. Reclaimed non-potable water requires significantly less energy to collect, treat, and redistribute water to the point of local areas of non-potable water consumption. Since less energy is required to provide reclaimed water, fewer GHGs will be associated with reclaimed water use compared to the average California water supply use. This measure describes how to calculate GHG savings from using reclaimed water instead of new potable water supplies for outdoor water uses or other non-potable water uses. The baseline scenario document outlines average Northern and Southern California electricity-use water factors, and assumes that all water is treated to potable standards. Measure Applicability: Non-potable water use Inputs: The following information needs to be provided by the Project Applicant: Reclaimed water use (million gallons) Total non-potable water use (million gallons) Baseline Method: GHG emissions = Waternon-potable total x Electricitybaseline x Utility Where: Water CEQA# MS-G-8 MP# COS-1.3 WSW-1 Water Supply 333 WSW-1 GHG emissions = MT CO2e Waternon-potable total = Total volume of non-potable water used (million gallons) Provided by Applicant Electricitybaseline = Electricity required to supply, treat, and distribute water (kWh/million gallons) Northern California Average: 3,500 kWh/million gallons Southern California Average: 11,111 kWh/million gallons Utility = Carbon intensity of Local Utility (CO2e/kWh) Mitigation Method: A million gallons of reclaimed water would use an average of 2,100 kWh electricity per million gallons of water (range of 1,200 to 3,000 kWh). Therefore the percent reduction in GHG emissions associated with implementing reclaimed water usage is: GHG emission reduction = baseline reclaimed baseline total potable-non reclaimed yElectricit yElectricityElectricit Water Water Where: GHG emission reduction = Percentage reduction in GHG emissions for non-potable water use. Waterreclaimed = Total volume of reclaimed water used (million gallons) Provided by Applicant Waternon-potable total = Total volume of non-potable water used (million gallons) Provided by Applicant Electricityreclaimed = Electricity required to treat and distribute reclaimed water (2,100 kWh/million gallons) Electricitybaseline = Electricity required to supply and distribute water Northern California Average: 3,500 kWh/million gallons Southern California Average: 11,111 kWh/million gallons Therefore, for projects in Northern California, the reduction in GHG emissions is: GHG emission reduction = 3,500 2,100)(3,500 Water Water total potable-non reclaimed = 0.40Water Water total potable-non reclaimed And for projects in Southern California, the reduction in GHG emissions is: GHG emission reduction = 11,111 2,100)(11,111 Water Water total potable-non reclaimed = 0.81Water Water total potable-non reclaimed Water CEQA# MS-G-8 MP# COS-1.3 WSW-1 Water Supply 334 WSW-1 As shown in these equations, the carbon intensity of the local utility does not play a role in determining the percentage reduction in GHG emissions. Emission Reduction Ranges and Variables: Pollutant Category Emissions Reductions CO2e N. California: Up to 40% if assuming 100% reclaimed water S. California: Up to 81% if assuming 100% reclaimed water Percent reduction would scale down linearly as the percent reclaimed water decreases. All other pollutants Not quantified82 Discussion: If the Project Applicant uses 100 million gallons of non-potable water for a project in Northern California, they would calculate baseline emissions as described in the baseline methodologies document. If the applicant then selects to mitigate water by committing to using 40 million gallons of reclaimed water in place of the usual water source, the applicant would reduce the amount of GHG emissions associated with outdoor water use by 16% GHG Emission Reduced = 0.160.40100 40 or 16% Assumptions: Data based upon the following reference: [1] CEC. 2006. Refining Estimates of Water-Related Energy Use in California. PIER Final Project Report. Prepared by Navigant Consulting, Inc. CEC-500- 2006-118. Available online at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/2006publications/CEC-500- 2006-118/CEC-500-2006-118.PDF Preferred Literature: GHG emissions from the mitigated scenario should be calculated based on the 2006 CEC report, which presents regional baseline electricity-use water factors and a factor of 1,200-3,000 kWh per million gallons for reclaimed water. GHG emissions are calculated by multiplying the amount of water (million gallons) by the electricity-use water factor (kWh per million gallons) by the carbon-intensity of the local utility (CO2e per kWh). The GHG emissions reductions associated with this mitigation measure are 82 Criteria air pollutant emissions may also be reduced due to the reduction in energy use; however, the reduction may not be in the same air basin as the project. Water CEQA# MS-G-8 MP# COS-1.3 WSW-1 Water Supply 335 WSW-1 associated with the difference between the baseline potable water electricity-use water factor and the mitigated scenario. Alternative Literature: None Other Literature Reviewed: None Water MP# COS-2.3 WSW-2 Water Supply 336 WSW-2 4.1.2 Use Gray Water Range of Effectiveness: Up to 100% of outdoor water GHG emissions if outdoor water use is replaced completely with graywater Measure Description: California water supplies come from ground water, surface water, and from reservoirs, typically fed from snow melt. Some sources of water are transported over long distances, and sometimes over terrain to reach the point of consumption. Transporting water can require a significant amount of electricity. In addition, treating water to potable standards can also require substantial amounts of energy. Untreated wastewater generated from bathtubs, showers, bathroom wash basins, and clothes washing machines is known as graywater and is collected and distributed onsite for irrigation of landscape and mulch. Since graywater does not require treatment or energy to redistribute it onsite, there are negligible GHG emissions associated with the use of graywater. This measure describes how to calculate GHG savings from using graywater instead of new potable water supplies for landscape irrigation and other outdoor uses. The baseline scenario document outlines average Northern and Southern California electricity-use water factors, and assumes that all water is non-potable. Measure Applicability: Outdoor water use Inputs: The following information needs to be provided by the Project Applicant: Graywater use83 (million gallons), or: o Type of graywater system, which must be compliant with the California Plumbing Code, and o Number of residents in homes with compliant graywater systems Total outdoor water use (million gallons) Baseline Method: GHG emissions = Wateroutdoor total x Electricitybaseline x Utility 83 Note that this is the amount of graywater used, which may be less than the amount of graywater generated. A project may generate and collect more graywater than is needed for landscape irrigation. The Project Applicant should only take credit for the amount of potable water which is displaced by graywater. The amount of landscape irrigation water demand (graywater demand) is calculated according to the methodology described in WUW-3 and the baseline methodologies document. Water MP# COS-2.3 WSW-2 Water Supply 337 WSW-2 Where: GHG emissions = MT CO2e Wateroutdoor total = Total volume of outdoor water used (million gallons) Provided by Applicant Electricitybaseline = Electricity required to supply, treat, and distribute water (kWh/million gallons) Northern California Average: 3,500 kWh/million gallons Southern California Average: 11,111 kWh/million gallons Utility = Carbon intensity of Local Utility (CO2e/kWh) Mitigation Method: If the Project Applicant cannot provide the total amount of graywater used, the graywater use can be calculated based on the following equation: Watergraywater = gallons 10 gallons million 1 year days 365 day gallonsResidents15Residents25 6laundry-graywatersbw-graywater Where: Watergraywater = Total volume of graywater used (million gallons). Residentsgraywater-sbw = Total number of residents in homes with graywater systems based on graywater generated from showers, bathtubs, and wash basins 25 = gallons per day per residential occupant from showers, bathtubs, and washbasins [1] Residentsgraywater-laundry = Total number of residents in homes with graywater systems based on graywater generated from laundry machines 15 = gallons per day per residential occupant from laundry machines [1] The percent reduction in GHG emissions associated with implementing graywater usage is therefore: GHG emission reduction = baseline graywater baseline total oudoor graywater yElectricit yElectricityElectricit Water Water Where: GHG emission reduction = Percentage reduction in GHG emissions for outdoor water use. Watergraywater = Total volume of graywater used (million gallons) Provided by Applicant or calculated using equation above Wateroutdoor total = Total volume of outdoor water used (million gallons) Provided by Applicant Water MP# COS-2.3 WSW-2 Water Supply 338 WSW-2 Electricitygraywater = Electricity required to distribute graywater (0 kWh/million gallons)84 Electricitybaseline = Electricity required to supply, treat, and distribute water Northern California Average: 3,500 kWh/million gallons [2] Southern California Average: 11,111 kWh/million gallons [2] Therefore, for projects in Northern California, the reduction in GHG emissions is: GHG emission reduction = 3,500 0)(3,500 Water Water total outdoor graywater = total outdoor graywater Water Water And for projects in Southern California, the reduction in GHG emissions is: GHG emission reduction = 11,111 0)(11,111 Water Water total outdoor graywater = total outdoor graywater Water Water As shown in these equations, the carbon intensity of the local utility does not play a role in determining the percentage reduction in GHG emissions. Emission Reduction Ranges and Variables: Pollutant Category Emissions Reductions CO2e N. California: Up to 100% if assuming 100% graywater S. California: Up to 100% if assuming 100% graywater Percent reduction would scale down linearly as the percent reclaimed water decreases. All other pollutants Not Quantified85 Discussion: If the Project Applicant uses 100 million gallons of water for outdoor uses in a project in Northern California, they would calculate baseline emissions as described above and in the baseline methodologies document. If the Project Applicant then selects to mitigate water by committing to establishing graywater systems based on graywater recovery from laundry machines in 500 homes with an average of 3 people in each home, the amount of graywater used is then: 84 In some cases the distribution of graywater will require some amount of electricity; for example, graywater generated at residences and pumped to a nearby park. In those cases, Electricitygraywater will be non-zero. 85 Criteria air pollutant emissions may also be reduced due to the reduction in energy use; however, the reduction may not be in the same air basin as the project. Water MP# COS-2.3 WSW-2 Water Supply 339 WSW-2 Watergraywater = gallons 10 gallons million 1 year days 365 day gallons350015025 6 = 8.2 million gallons Then the Project Applicant would reduce the amount of GHG emissions associated with outdoor water use by 8.2% GHG Emission Reduced = 0.082100 8.2 or 8.2% Assumptions: Data based upon the following references: [1] 2007 CPC, Title 24, Part 5, Chapter 16A, Part I – Nonpotable Water Reuse Systems. Available online at: http://www.hcd.ca.gov/codes/shl/2007CPC_Graywater_Complete_2-2-10.pdf [2] CEC. 2006. Refining Estimates of Water-Related Energy Use in California. PIER Final Project Report. Prepared by Navigant Consulting, Inc. CEC-500- 2006-118. December. Available online at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/2006publications/CEC-500-2006-118/CEC-500-2006-118.PDF Preferred Literature: Assuming a compliant graywater system is installed, Part 1606A.0 of the California Plumbing Code (CPC) estimates 25 gallons per day per residential occupant of graywater generation from showers, bathtubs, and wash basins, and 15 gallons per day per residential occupant of graywater discharge from laundry machines. Electricity and CO2 savings from using graywater are determined by comparing to the emissions that would have been associated with the water use if the graywater demand had instead been supplied by potable water. The baseline emissions should be calculated based on the 2006 CEC methodology. A development may generate and collect more graywater than is needed for landscape irrigation. A Project Applicant should only take credit for emissions reductions associated with the amount of potable water which is displaced by graywater. The amount of landscape irrigation water demand (graywater demand) is calculated according to the methodology described in the baseline methodologies document and WUW-3. Alternative Literature: None Water MP# COS-2.3 WSW-2 Water Supply 340 WSW-2 Other Literature Reviewed: [3] Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. 2009. Using Gray Water at Home Brochure. Available online at: http://www.azdeq.gov/environ/water/permits/download/graybro.pdf [4] Arizona Department of Water Resources. Technologies – Irrigation, Rainwater Harvesting, Gray Water Reuse and Artificial Turf. Available online at: http://www.azwater.gov/AzDWR/StatewidePlanning/Conservation2/Technologies/Tech% 20pages%20templates/LandscapeIrrigation.htm. Accessed February 2010. [5] AAC, Title 18, Chapter 9, Article 7. Direct Reuse of Reclaimed Water. Available online at: http://www.azsos.gov/public_services/title_18/18-09.pdf [6] Oasis Design. Graywater Information Central. Available online at: http://www.graywater.net/. Accessed February 2010. Water WSW-3 Water Supply 341 WSW-3 4.1.3 Use Locally Sourced Water Supply Range of Effectiveness: 0 – 60% for Northern and Central California, 11 – 75% for Southern California Measure Description: California water supplies come from ground water, surface water, and from reservoirs, typically fed from snow melt. Some sources of water are transported over long distances, and sometimes over terrain to reach the point of consumption. Transporting water can require a significant amount of electricity. Using locally-sourced water or water from less energy-intensive sources reduces the electricity and indirect CO2 emissions associated with water supply and transport. This measure describes how to calculate GHG savings from using local or less energy- intensive water sources instead of water from the typical mix of Northern and Southern California sources. According to the 2006 CEC report [1], water in Northern California (which also includes the Central Coast and San Joaquin Valley for this study) is primarily supplied by deliveries from the State Water Project and groundwater, and to a lesser extent is supplied by the gravity-dominated systems of Hetch Hetchy and the Mokelumne Aqueduct. In contrast, water imported from the State Water Project is Southern California’s dominant water source. The baseline scenario uses average Northern and Southern California electricity intensity factors as reported in 2006 CEC and detailed in the Baseline Method below. Measure Applicability: Indoor (potable) and outdoor (non-potable) water use Inputs: Total potable and non-potable water use (million gallons) Baseline Method: GHG emissions = Waterbaseline x Electricitybaseline x Utility Where: GHG emissions = MT CO2e Waterbaseline = Total volume of water used (million gallons) Provided by Applicant Electricitybaseline = Electricity required to supply, treat, and distribute water (and for indoor uses, the electricity required to treat the resulting wastewater) (kWh/million gallons) Indoor Uses: Northern California Average: 5,411 kWh/million gallons [1] Southern California Average: 13,022 kWh/million gallons [1] Water WSW-3 Water Supply 342 WSW-3 Outdoor Uses: Northern California Average: 3,500 kWh/million gallons [1] Southern California Average: 11,111 kWh/million gallons [1] Utility = Carbon intensity of Local Utility (CO2e/kWh) Mitigation Method: Table WSW-3.1 shows that water from local or nearby groundwater basins, nearby surface water, and gravity-dominated systems have smaller energy-intensity factors than the average Northern and Southern California energy-intensity factors. The Project Applicant should use Table WSW-3.1 to identify the outdoor and indoor electricity intensity factors associated with the Project’s water source(s). The GHG emission reduction is then calculated as follows: GHG emission reduction = baseline mitigated baseline baseline mitigated yElectricit yElectricityElectricit Water Water Where: GHG emission reduction = Percentage reduction in GHG emissions for water use Watermitigated = Volume of water to be supplied from the mitigated (local or less energy- intensive) source Provided by Applicant Waterbaseline = Total volume of water used (million gallons) Provided by Applicant Electricitymitigated = Electricity required to distribute water for Project from mitigated (local or less-energy intensive) source Electricitybaseline = Baseline electricity required to supply, treat, and distribute water (and for indoor uses, the electricity required to treat the resulting wastewater) (kWh/million gallons) Indoor Uses: Northern California Average: 5,411 kWh/million gallons [1] Southern California Average: 13,022 kWh/million gallons [1] Outdoor Uses: Northern California Average: 3,500 kWh/million gallons [1] Southern California Average: 11,111 kWh/million gallons [1] As shown in these equations, the carbon intensity of the local utility does not play a role in determining the percentage reduction in GHG emissions. Water WSW-3 Water Supply 343 WSW-3 Emission Reduction Ranges and Variables: Pollutant Category Emissions Reductions CO2e Assuming 100% of water is sourced locally: Indoor Uses: 0-40% reduction for Northern and Central California 11-64% reduction for Southern California Outdoor Uses: 0-60% reduction for Northern and Central California 12-75% reduction for Southern California All other pollutants Not Quantified86 Discussion: Assume a Project is located in Southern California within the Chino Basin and has a total indoor water demand of 100 million gallons. Assume 70 million gallons will be sourced from a water district which obtains its water from the typical Southern California water sources. Therefore, for these 70 million gallons the baseline outdoor water electricity-intensity factor for Southern California is used. Assume that the Project Applicant chooses to mitigate the Project by sourcing the remaining 30 million gallons from the Chino Basin. The expected GHG emission reduction is then: GHG Emission Reduced = 0.1811,111 4,29811,111 100 30 or 18% Assumptions: Data based upon the following reference: [1] CEC. 2006. Refining Estimates of Water-Related Energy Use in California. PIER Final Project Report. Prepared by Navigant Consulting, Inc. CEC-500- 2006-118. December. Available online at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/2006publications/CEC-500-2006-118/CEC-500-2006-118.PDF 86 Criteria air pollutant emissions may also be reduced due to the reduction in energy use; however, the reduction may not be in the same air basin as the project. Water WSW-3 Water Supply 344 WSW-3 [2]CEC. 2005. California's Water-Energy Relationship. Final Staff Report. CEC 700- 2005-011-SF. Available online at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/2005publications/CEC- 700-2005-011/CEC-700-2005-011-SF.PDF [3]NRDC. 2004. Energy Down the Drain: The Hidden Costs of California's Water Supply. Prepared by NRDC and the Pacific Institute. Available online at: http://www.nrdc.org/water/conservation/edrain/edrain.pdf Preferred Literature: Electricity and CO2 savings from using locally-sourced water or water from sources which require below-average electricity intensities for supply and conveyance (such as gravity-dominated systems or local groundwater basins that are not very deep) are determined by comparing to the emissions that would have occurred if the water had instead been conveyed from typical water sources for the region. According to the 2005 and 2006 CEC reports [1,2], the typical mix of water sources in Northern and Central California is the State Water Project, groundwater, and gravity-dominated systems such as Hetch Hetchy and the Mokelumne Aqueduct. The majority of water in Southern California is supplied by imports from the State Water Project and the Colorado River Aqueduct. Examples of mitigated electricity-intensity factors are shown in Table WSW- 3.1 and are based on data provided in 2006 CEC [1], 2005 CEC [2], and 2004 NRDC [3]. GHG emissions are calculated by multiplying the amount of water (million gallons) by the electricity-use water factor (kWh per million gallons) by the carbon-intensity of the local utility (CO2e per kWh). The GHG emissions reductions associated with this mitigation measure are associated with the difference between the baseline water electricity-intensity factor and the mitigated electricity-intensity factor. Alternative Literature: None Other Literature Reviewed: None Water WSW-3 Water Supply 345 WSW-3 Table WSW-3.1 Energy Intensity of Water Use (kWh/MG) by Region REGION WATER USE SEGMENT Supply & Conveyance1 Treatment1 Distribution1 OUTDOOR TOTAL (NON-POTABLE)2 Wastewater Treatment1 INDOOR TOTAL (POTABLE)3 Northern California SWP to Bay Area surface water 3,150 111 1,272 4,533 1,911 6,444 Hetch Hetchy to Bay Area gravity dominated 0 111 1,272 1,383 1,911 3,294 Mokelumne Aqueduct to Bay Area gravity dominated 160 111 1,272 1,543 1,911 3,454 Central California SWP to Central Coast surface water 3,150 111 1,272 4,533 1,911 6,444 SWP to San Joaquin Valley surface water 1,510 111 1,272 2,893 1,911 4,804 San Joaquin River Basin & Central Coast4 groundwater 896 111 1,272 2,279 1,911 4,190 Tulare Lake Basin4 groundwater 537 111 1,272 1,920 1,911 3,831 Fresno and Kings Counties (Westlands WD)4 groundwater 2,271 111 1,272 3,654 1,911 5,565 Southern California SWP to L.A. Basin surface water 8,325 111 1,272 9,708 1,911 11,619 Colorado River Aqueduct to L.A. Basin surface water 6,140 111 1,272 7,523 1,911 9,434 Chino Basin5 groundwater 2,915 111 1,272 4,298 1,911 6,209 Los Angeles4 groundwater 1,780 111 1,272 3,163 1,911 5,074 San Diego County (Sweetwater WD)4 groundwater 1,433 111 1,272 2,816 1,911 4,727 San Diego County (Yuima WD)4 2,029 111 1,272 3,412 1,911 5,323 Water WSW-3 Water Supply 346 WSW-3 REGION WATER USE SEGMENT Supply & Conveyance1 Treatment1 Distribution1 OUTDOOR TOTAL (NON-POTABLE)2 Wastewater Treatment1 INDOOR TOTAL (POTABLE)3 groundwater State- wide Local / Intrabasin 120 111 1,272 1,503 1,911 3,414 Groundwater 4.45 kWh / MG / foot of well depth 111 1,272 TBC 1,911 TBC Ocean Desalination 13,800 111 1,272 15,183 1,911 17,094 Brackish Water Desalination 3,230 111 1,272 4,613 1,911 6,524 Abbreviations: CEC - California Energy Commission kWh - kilowatt hour MG - million gallons NRDC - Natural Resources Defense Council SWP - State Water Project TBC - to be calculated based on well depth WD - Water District Notes: 1. Treatment, Distribution, and Wastewater Treatment electricity-intensity factors from 2006 CEC. Supply & Conveyance electricity-intensity factors from 2006 CEC unless otherwise noted. 2. Outdoor (Non-Potable) electricity-intensity factor is the sum of the Supply & Conveyance, Treatment, and Distribution electricity -intensity factors. 3. Indoor (Potable) electricity-intensity factor is the sum of the Supply & Conveyance, Treatment, Distribution, and Wastewater Treatment electricity-intensity factors. 4. Supply & Conveyance electricity-intensity factor from 2004 NRDC. 5. Supply & Conveyance electricity-intensity factor from 2005 CEC. Sources: CEC. 2006. Refining Estimates of Water-Related Energy Use in California. PIER Final Project Report. Prepared by Navigant Consulting, Inc. CEC -500-2006-118. December. Available at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/2006publications/CEC-500-2006-118/CEC-500-2006-118.PDF CEC. 2005. California's Water-Energy Relationship. Final Staff Report. CEC 700-2005-011-SF. Available online at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/2005publications/CEC- 700-2005-011/CEC-700-2005-011-SF.PDF NRDC. 2004. Energy Down the Drain: The Hidden Costs of California's Water Supply. Prepared by NRDC and the Pacific Institute. Available online at: http://www.nrdc.org/water/conservation/edrain/edrain.pdf Water CEQA# MM-E23 MP# EE-2.1.6; COS 2.2 WUW-1 Water Use 347 WUW-1 4.2 Water Use 4.2.1 Install Low-Flow Water Fixtures Range of Effectiveness: 20% of GHG emissions associated with indoor Residential water use; 17-31% of GHG emissions associated with Non-Residential indoor water use. Measure Description: Water use contributes to GHG emissions indirectly, via the production of the electricity that is used to pump, treat, and distribute the water. Installing low-flow or high- efficiency water fixtures in buildings reduces water demand, energy demand, and associated indirect GHG emissions. This measure describes how to calculate GHG savings from installing low-flow water toilets, urinals, showerheads, or faucets, or high-efficiency clothes washers and dishwashers in residential and commercial buildings. To take credit for this mitigation measure, the Project Applicant must know the total expected indoor water demand before and after installation of low-flow or high-efficiency water fixtures. If expected water demand after implementation of the mitigation measure is not known, it can be calculated based on the information provided below. Water flow rates presented here in Tables WUW-1.1 and WUW-1.3 are based on technical specifications in the California Code of Regulations Title 20 (Appliance Efficiency Regulations) [2], Title 24 (California Green Building Standards Code) [1] and ENERGY STAR [5-8]. Indoor water end-uses for residential and commercial buildings presented here in Tables WUW-1.1 and WUW- 1.2 are based on data provided in a 2003 report by the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security [3]. This report incorporates data from the most comprehensive end-use survey available to date, the 1999 Residential End Uses of Water survey published by the American Water Works Association [4], as well as California-specific population, water, and appliance data. California-specific data includes local utility water use and market penetration rates of low-flow and high- efficiency water fixtures. The baseline scenario document describes the method to calculate baseline GHG emissions. It provides average Northern and Southern California electricity-use water factors and assumes that all water is treated to potable standards. The percent reduction in GHG emissions is calculated based on the baseline scenario water use and the percent reduction in indoor water use achieved from a Project Applicant’s commitment to installing low-flow and high-efficiency water fixtures. Table WUW-1.4 lists the estimated percent reductions in GHG emissions by water fixture and land use. The sum of all percent reductions applicable to the Project gives the overall percent reduction in GHG emissions expected from this mitigation measure. The details of these calculations are described below. Water CEQA# MM-E23 MP# EE-2.1.6; COS 2.2 WUW-1 Water Use 348 WUW-1 Measure Applicability: Indoor water use To meet CEQA enforcement requirements, the Project Applicant should only take credit for this mitigation measure if the clothes washers and dishwashers are supplied by the Project Applicant/builder. Inputs: The following information needs to be provided by the Project Applicant: Total expected indoor water demand, without installation of low-flow or high- efficiency fixtures (million gallons), AND Total expected indoor water demand, after installation of low-flow or high- efficiency fixtures (million gallons), OR Commitment to low-flow or high-efficiency water fixtures (toilets, showerheads, sink faucets, dishwashers, clothes washers, or all of the above) Baseline Method: GHG emissions = Waterbaseline x Electricity x Utility Where: GHG emissions = MT CO2e Waterbaseline = Total expected indoor water demand, without installation of low-flow and high-efficiency fixtures (million gallons) Provided by Applicant Electricity = Electricity required to supply, treat, and distribute water and the resulting wastewater (kWh/million gallons) Northern California Average: 5,411 kWh/million gallons Southern California Average: 13,022 kWh/million gallons Utility = Carbon intensity of Local Utility (CO2e/kWh) Mitigation Method: Since this mitigation method does not change the electricity intensity factor (kWh/million gallons) associated with the supply, treatment, and distribution of the water, the percent reduction in GHG emissions is dependent only on the change in water consumption. The Project Applicant can choose to compute the percent reduction in GHG emissions in one of three ways: Method A The Project Applicant can use Table WUW-1.4 to calculate the overall percent reduction in GHG emissions from committing to installing certain low-flow or high-efficiency water fixtures. The Project Applicant may commit to installing fixtures based on three Water CEQA# MM-E23 MP# EE-2.1.6; COS 2.2 WUW-1 Water Use 349 WUW-1 standards: the California Green Building Standards Code (CGBSC) mandatory requirements, the CGBSC voluntary standards, or the ENERGY STAR standards. Table WUW-1.4 presents the percent reductions in GHG emissions for each of these three standards based on water fixture type (toilet, showerhead, clothes washer, etc) and land use type (residential, office, restaurant, etc). Note that in Table WUW-1.4, it is assumed that a Project Applicant commits to installing low-flow or high-efficiency fixtures for 100% of an end-use category (i.e. either 0% or 100% of toilets will be low- flow, either 0% or 100% of clothes washers will be high-efficiency, etc). The total percent reduction in GHG emissions expected from this mitigation measure is then simply the sum of all of the individual percent reductions: GHG emission reduction = FixtureReductionPercent Where: GHG emission reduction = Percentage reduction in GHG emissions for indoor water use. PercentReductionFixture = Percent reduction in GHG emissions from each individual water fixture (i.e. toilet, bathroom faucet, dishwasher, etc.) Provided in Table WUW-1.4 Method B If the Project Applicant can provide detailed and substantial evidence to support a calculation of Watermitigated, then that value can be used to calculate the percent GHG emission reduction using the following equation: GHG emission reduction = baseline mitigatedbaseline Water WaterWater Where: GHG emission reduction = Percentage reduction in GHG emissions for indoor water use. Waterbaseline = Total expected indoor water demand, without installation of low-flow and high-efficiency fixtures (million gallons) Provided by Applicant Watermitigated = Total calculated indoor water demand, after installation of low-flow and high-efficiency fixtures (million gallons) Provided by Applicant or calculated using equations below As shown in this equation, the carbon intensity of the local utility does not play a role in determining the percentage reduction in GHG emissions. Method C The Project Applicant may choose to install fixtures which exceed the requirements of the California Green Building Standards Code but have different flow rates than those Water CEQA# MM-E23 MP# EE-2.1.6; COS 2.2 WUW-1 Water Use 350 WUW-1 specified in the Tables WUW-1.1 and WUW-1.3. To take credit for this mitigation measure, the Project Applicant would need to calculate the percent reduction in GHG emissions using the equations below. In these equations, it is assumed that a Project Applicant commits to installing low-flow or high-efficiency fixtures for 100% of an end- use category (i.e. either 0% or 100% of toilets will be low-flow, either 0% or 100% of clothes washers will be high-efficiency, etc). More complicated equations are necessary to account for less than 100% commitment in one or more end-use categories. Watermitigated = mitigatedrEndUseWate End-Uses are toilets, urinals, showerheads, bathroom faucets, kitchen faucets, dishwashers, clothes washers, and leaks and other. Where, EndUseWatermitigated = EndUsePercentIndoor x Waterbaseline x dunmitigate mitigated RateEndUseFlow RateEndUseFlow EndUsePercentIndoor = % of Indoor Water Use for that end-use Provided in Table WUW-1.1 for Residential Buildings Provided in Table WUW-1.1 for Non-Residential Buildings Waterbaseline = Total expected indoor water demand, without installation of low-flow and high-efficiency fixtures (million gallons) Provided by Applicant EndUseFlowRatebaseline = Baseline current California standard water flow rate for that end-use Provided in Table WUW-1.1 for Residential Buildings Provided in Table WUW-1.3 for Non-Residential Buildings EndUseFlowRatemitigated = Mitigated water flow rate for that end use Provided by Applicant, supported by manufacturer specification or technical sheets For the Leak, Other end use and all end-uses where the Project Applicant makes no commitment to installing low-flow or high-efficiency water fixtures, EndUseFlowRatemitigated = EndUseFlowRateunmitigated, so then EndUseWatermitigated = EndUsePercentIndoor x Waterbaseline. Then the percent reduction in GHG emissions is calculated as follows: GHG emission reduction = baseline mitigatedbaseline Water WaterWater Where: GHG emission reduction = Percentage reduction in GHG emissions for indoor water use. Water CEQA# MM-E23 MP# EE-2.1.6; COS 2.2 WUW-1 Water Use 351 WUW-1 Waterbaseline = Total expected indoor water demand, without installation of low-flow and high-efficiency fixtures (million gallons) Provided by Applicant Watermitigated = Total calculated indoor water demand, after installation of low-flow and high-efficiency fixtures (million gallons) Calculated by Applicant using equation above Emission Reduction Ranges and Variables: Pollutant Category Emissions Reductions CO2e Estimated 20% reduction for residential buildings, assuming the Project Applicant commits to installing 100% of fixtures with the lowest flow rates presented in Table WUW -1.1. Estimated 17-31% reduction for non-residential buildings, assuming the Project Applicant commits to installing 100% of fixtures with the lowest flow rates presented in Table WUW -1.3. All other pollutants Not Quantified87 Discussion: In this example, assume that a Project Applicant commits to installing the following: For residences: 2010 CGBSC Mandatory Requirements for toilet, showerhead, bathroom faucet, and kitchen faucet ENERGY STAR residential standard dishwasher For hotel: 2010 CGBSC Voluntary Standards for toilet, urinal, showerhead, bathroom faucet, and kitchen faucet ENERGY STAR top-loading clothes washer ENERGY STAR commercial dishwasher (high temp, under counter) Using Method A, the following equation is employed: GHG emission reduction = FixtureuctionPercentRed 87 Criteria air pollutant emissions may also be reduced due to the reduction in energy use; however, the reduction may not be in the same air basin as the project. Water CEQA# MM-E23 MP# EE-2.1.6; COS 2.2 WUW-1 Water Use 352 WUW-1 From Table WUW-1.4, the percent reduction in GHG emissions associated with indoor water use is then: For residences: 6.6% + 4.4% + 5.7% + 3.3% + 0.2% = 20.2% For hotel: 13.8% + 5.4% + 1.2% + 0.8% + 1.9% + 6.4% + 1.5% = 31.0% Assumptions: Data based upon the following references: [1] CCR Title 24, Part 11. 2010. Draft California Green Building Standards Code. Available online at: http://www.documents.dgs.ca.gov/bsc/documents/2010/Draft- 2010-CALGreenCode.pdf [2] CCR Title 20, Division 2, Chapter 4, Article 4, Section 1605. Appliance Efficiency Regulations. [3] Gleick, P.H.; Haasz, D.; Henges-Jeck, C.; Srinivasan, V.; Cushing, K.K.; Mann, A. 2003. Waste Not, Want Not: The Potential for Urban Water Conservation in California. Published by the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security. Full report available online at: http://www.pacinst.org/reports/urban_usage/waste_not_want_not_full_report.pdf . Appendices available online at: http://www.pacinst.org/reports/urban_usage/appendices.htm [4] Mayer, P.W.; DeOreo, W.B.; Opitz, E.M.; Kiefer, J.C.; Davis, W.Y.; Dziegielewski, B.; Nelson, J.O. 1999. Residential End Uses of Water. Published by the American Water Works Association Research Foundation. [5] USEPA. ENERGY STAR: Clothes Washers Key Product Criteria. Available online at: http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=clotheswash.pr_crit_clothes_washers [6] USEPA. ENERGY STAR: Commercial Clothes Washers for Consumers. Available online at: http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=find_a_product.show ProductGroup&pgw_code=CCW [7] USEPA. ENERGY STAR: Dishwashers Key Product Criteria. Available online at: http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=dishwash.pr_crit_dishwashers [8] USEPA. ENERGY STAR Commercial Dishwashers Savings Calculator. Available online at: http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=find_a_product.showProductGr oup&pgw_code=COH Preferred Literature: Water CEQA# MM-E23 MP# EE-2.1.6; COS 2.2 WUW-1 Water Use 353 WUW-1 For the baseline scenario, the California Green Building Standards Code [1] specifies baseline water flow rates for toilets, showerheads, urinals, bathroom faucets, and kitchen faucets. The California Appliance Efficiency Regulation (Title 20) [2] specifies baseline water flow rates for residential and commercial dishwashers and clothes washers. For the mitigated scenario, the 2010 CGBSC also specifies water flow rates for toilets, showerheads, urinals, bathroom faucets, and kitchen faucets which become mandatory in 2011, additional voluntary flow rates for these same fixtures, and voluntary flow rates for commercial dishwashers and clothes washers. In addition, ENERGY STAR-certified residential and commercial dishwashers and clothes washers have mitigated water flow rates [5-8]. Alternative Literature: None Other Literature Reviewed: [9] USEPA. Water Sense: Product Factsheets and Final Specifications. Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/watersense/products/index.html. Accessed February 2010. USEPA WaterSense labeled products include toilets, bathroom sink faucets, and flushing urinals, and are certified to meet USEPA's standards for improved water efficiency. While WaterSense models do perform with greater water efficiency than federal standard models, they are not more efficient than the models required in California starting in 2011 due to the 2010 CGBSC. Furthermore, WaterSense models are compared to federal standard models and calculations would need to be adjusted to account for differences in California standards. USEPA reports that toilets, bathroom faucets, and showers account for 30%, 15%, and 17% of indoor household water use, respectively. USEPA reports that WaterSense toilets use 20% less water than the federal standard model, while WaterSense bathroom faucets use 30% less water. Federal standard showerheads use 2.5 gallons of water per minute while the WaterSense models use 2.0 gallons of water per minute, which is equivalent to the 2010 CGBSC Mandatory Requirement. Further, federal standard flushing urinal models use 1.0 gallons per flush, while WaterSense models uses 0.5 gallons per flush, which is equivalent to the 2010 CGBSC Mandatory Requirement. Water 2 CEQA# MM-E23 MP# EE-2.1.6; COS 2. WUW-1 Water Use 354 WUW-1 Table WUW-1.1 Reduction in Water use from Low -flow or High-efficiency Residential Water Fixtures Fixture % of Indoor Water Use1 Water Flow Rate Baseline Current California Standard2 Mitigated 2010 California Green Building Standards Code (Mandatory in 2011)3 Mitigated 2010 California Green Building Standards Code (Voluntary)4 Mitigated ENERGY STAR5 Unit Toilet 33% 1.6 1.28 -- -- gallons/flush Showerhead 22% 2.5 2.0 -- -- gallons/minute @ 60 psi Bathroom Faucet 18% 2.2 1.5 -- -- gallons/minute @ 60 psi Kitchen Faucet 2.2 1.8 -- -- gallons/minute @ 60 psi Standard Dishwasher 1% 6.5 -- 5.8 5.0 gallons/cycle Compact Dishwasher 4.5 -- -- 3.5 gallons/cycle Top-loading Clothes Washer 14% 6.0 -- -- 6.0 gallons/cycle/ cubic foot Front-loading Clothes Washer 6.0 -- -- 6.0 gallons/cycle/ cubic foot Leaks, Other 12% -- -- -- -- -- Notes: 1. Indoor household end use of water 2000 estimates from Figure 2-4c of the Pacific Institute report. 2. Baseline water flow rates for toilets, showerheads, bathroom faucets, and kitchen faucets are from the 2010 California Gre en Building Standards Code. Baseline water flow rates for dishwashers and clothes washers are from CCR Title 20, Division 2, Chapter 4, Article 4, Section 1605.2 (Appliance Efficiency Regulations for appliances sold in California). 3. Mitigated water flow rates for toilets, showerheads, bathroom faucets, and kitchen faucets are voluntary in 2010 and mandatory starting January 1, 2011. 4. Mitigated water flow rates for dishwashers and clothes washers are voluntary. 5. In some cases, the 2011 ENERGY STAR dishwasher and clothes washer models have lower flow rates than the 2010 California Green Building Standards Code. Using these ENERGY STAR models results in an additional mitigation beyond what is recommended by the 2010 California Gr een Building Standards Code. Water 2 CEQA# MM-E23 MP# EE-2.1.6; COS 2. WUW-1 Water Use 355 WUW-1 Table WUW-1.2 Percent Indoor Water Use by End-Use in Non-Residential Buildings End-Use OFFICE HOTEL RESTAURANT GROCERY STORE NON-GROCERY RETAIL STORES K-12 SCHOOL OTHER SCHOOL Total1 Indoor2 Total1 Indoor2 Total1 Indoor2 Total1 Indoor2 Total1 Indoor2 Total1 Indoor2 Total1 Indoor2 Restroom 26% -- 51% -- 34% -- 17% -- 26% -- 20% -- 20% -- Toilets (72% of Restroom) -- 48% -- 46% -- 27% -- 26% -- 46% -- 51% -- 37% Urinals (17% of Restroom) -- 11% -- 11% -- 6% -- 6% -- 11% -- 12% -- 9% Faucets (4% of Restroom) -- 3% -- 3% -- 1% -- 1% -- 3% -- 3% -- 2% Showers (7% of Restroom) -- 5% -- 4% -- 3% -- 2% -- 4% -- 5% -- 4% Kitchen 3% -- 10% -- 46% -- 9% -- 4% -- 2% -- 1% -- Faucets (57% of Kitchen) -- 4% -- 7% -- 29% -- 11% -- 6% -- 4% -- 1% Dishwashers (24% of Kitchen) -- 2% -- 3% -- 12% -- 5% -- 2% -- 2% -- 1% Ice Making (19% of Kitchen) -- 1% -- 2% -- 10% -- 4% -- 2% -- 1% -- 0% Laundry 0% 0% 14% 18% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 3% Other 10% 26% 5% 6% 12% 13% 22% 46% 11% 27% 6% 21% 17% 44% Landscaping 38% -- 10% -- 6% -- 3% -- 38% -- 72% -- 61% -- Cooling 23% -- 10% -- 2% -- 49% -- 21% -- unknown -- unknown -- TOTAL 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Notes: 1. Water end-use data from Figures E-1, E-2, E-5, E-6, E-7, E-8, and E-9 of Appendix E of the Pacific Institute report. 2. Indoor end-use data calculated based on the total water use data for the relevant building category and Figure 4 -3 and Figure 4-4 of the Pacific Institute report. Figure 4-3 shows the breakdown of restroom water use by end-use in the commercial & industry sector. Figure 4-4 shows the breakdown of kitchen water use by end-use in the commercial & industry sector; it was assumed that all end-uses except dishwashing and ice making are associated with faucet water use. Water 2 CEQA# MM-E23 MP# EE-2.1.6; COS 2. WUW-1 Water Use 356 WUW-1 Table WUW-1.3 Reduction in Water use from Low -flow or High-efficiency Non-Residential Water Fixtures Fixture Water Flow Rate Baseline Current California Standard1 Mitigated 2010 California Green Building Standards Code (Mandatory in 2011)2 Mitigated 2010 California Green Building Standards Code (Voluntary)3 Mitigated ENERGY STAR4 Unit Toilet 1.6 1.28 1.12 -- gallons/flush Urinal 1.0 0.5 0.5 -- gallons/flush Showerhead 2.5 2.0 1.8 -- gallons/minute @ 60 psi Bathroom Faucet 0.5 0.4 0.35 -- gallons/minute @ 60 psi Kitchen Faucet 2.2 1.8 1.6 -- gallons/minute @ 60 psi Dishwasher: High Temp, Under Counter 1.98 -- 0.90 1.00 gallons/rack Dishwasher: High Temp, Door 1.44 -- 0.95 0.95 gallons/rack Dishwasher: High Temp, Single Tank Conveyor 1.13 -- 0.70 0.70 gallons/rack Dishwasher: High Temp, Multi Tank Conveyor 1.10 -- 0.70 0.54 gallons/rack Dishwasher: Low Temp, Under Counter 1.95 -- 0.98 1.70 gallons/rack Dishwasher: Low Temp, Door 1.85 -- 1.16 1.18 gallons/rack Dishwasher: Low Temp, Single Tank Conveyor 1.23 -- 0.62 0.79 gallons/rack Dishwasher: Low Temp, Multi Tank Conveyor 0.99 -- 0.62 0.54 gallons/rack Top-loading Clothes Washer 9.5 -- 8.6 6.0 gallons/cycle/ cubic foot Front-loading Clothes Washer 9.5 -- 8.6 6.0 gallons/cycle/ cubic foot Water 2 CEQA# MM-E23 MP# EE-2.1.6; COS 2. WUW-1 Water Use 357 WUW-1 Notes: 1. Baseline water flow rates for toilets, showerheads, bathroom faucets, and kitchen faucets are from the 2010 California Gre en Building Standards Code. Baseline water flow rates for dishwashers are from the ENERGY STAR Commercial Dishwasher Calculator. Baseline water flow rate s for clothes washers are from CCR Title 20, Division 2, Chapter 4, Article 4, Section 1605.2 (Appliance Efficiency Regulations for appliances sold in California). 2. These mitigated water flow rates for toilets, showerheads, bathroom faucets, and kitchen faucets are voluntary in 2010 and mandatory starting January 1, 2011. 3. These mitigated water flow rates for toilets, showerheads, bathroom faucets, and kitchen faucets are voluntary and represent the maximum recommended flow rate in order to achieve an overall 30% reduction in water use. Mitigated water flow rates for dishwashers and clothes w ashers are also voluntary. The range of values shown here represents different types of commercial dishwashers (high -temperature or chemical; conveyor, door, or undercounter models). See Appendix A5 of the 2010 California Green Building Standards Code for details. 4. In some cases, the ENERGY STAR dishwasher and clothes washer models have lower flow rates than the 2010 California Green B uilding Standards Code. Using these ENERGY STAR models results in an additional mitigation beyond what is recommended by the 2010 California Green Building Standards Code. See the following ENERGY STAR website for details: http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=comm_dishwashers.pr_crit_comm_dishwa shers Water 2 CEQA# MM-E23 MP# EE-2.1.6; COS 2. WUW-1 Water Use 358 WUW-1 Table WUW-1.4 Percent Reductions in GHG emissions from Installing Low-Flow or High-Efficiency Water Fixtures FIXTURE LAND USE RESIDENTIAL OFFICE HOTEL RESTAURANT GROCERY STORE NON-GROCERY RETAIL STORE K-12 SCHOOL OTHER SCHOOL 2010 California Green Building Standards Code (Mandatory Requirements starting in 2011): Toilet 6.6% 9.6% 9.2% 5.3% 5.1% 9.1% 10.3% 7.4% Urinal N/A 5.7% 5.4% 3.1% 3.0% 5.4% 6.1% 4.4% Showerhead 4.4% 0.9% 0.9% 0.5% 0.5% 0.9% 1.0% 0.7% Bathroom Faucet 5.7% 0.5% 0.5% 0.3% 0.3% 0.5% 0.6% 0.4% Kitchen Faucet 3.3% 0.8% 1.3% 5.2% 1.9% 1.0% 0.7% 0.3% 2010 California Green Building Standards Code (Voluntary Standards): Toilet N/A 14.4% 13.8% 8.0% 7.7% 13.7% 15.4% 11.1% Urinal N/A 5.7% 5.4% 3.1% 3.0% 5.4% 6.1% 4.4% Showerhead N/A 1.3% 1.2% 0.7% 0.7% 1.2% 1.4% 1.0% Bathroom Faucet N/A 0.8% 0.8% 0.4% 0.4% 0.8% 0.9% 0.6% Kitchen Faucet N/A 1.2% 1.9% 7.8% 2.9% 1.5% 1.1% 0.4% Top-Loading Clothes Washer N/A N/A 1.8% N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.3% Water 2 CEQA# MM-E23 MP# EE-2.1.6; COS 2. WUW-1 Water Use 359 WUW-1 FIXTURE LAND USE RESIDENTIAL OFFICE HOTEL RESTAURANT GROCERY STORE NON-GROCERY RETAIL STORE K-12 SCHOOL OTHER SCHOOL Front-Loading Clothes Washer N/A N/A 1.8% N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.3% Residential Standard Dishwasher 0.1% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Residential Compact Dishwasher N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Commercial Dishwasher: High Temp, Under Counter N/A 1.0% 1.6% 6.5% 2.5% 1.3% 0.9% 0.3% Commercial Dishwasher: High Temp, Door N/A 0.6% 1.0% 4.1% 1.5% 0.8% 0.6% 0.2% Commercial Dishwasher: High Temp, Single Tank Conveyor N/A 0.7% 1.1% 4.6% 1.7% 0.9% 0.7% 0.2% Commercial Dishwasher: High Temp, Multi Tank Conveyor N/A 0.7% 1.1% 4.4% 1.6% 0.9% 0.6% 0.2% Commercial Dishwasher: Low Temp, Under Counter N/A 0.9% 1.5% 6.0% 2.2% 1.2% 0.9% 0.3% Commercial Dishwasher: Low Temp, Door N/A 0.7% 1.1% 4.5% 1.7% 0.9% 0.6% 0.2% Commercial Dishwasher: Low Temp, Single Tank Conveyor N/A 0.9% 1.5% 6.0% 2.2% 1.2% 0.9% 0.3% Water 2 CEQA# MM-E23 MP# EE-2.1.6; COS 2. WUW-1 Water Use 360 WUW-1 FIXTURE LAND USE RESIDENTIAL OFFICE HOTEL RESTAURANT GROCERY STORE NON-GROCERY RETAIL STORE K-12 SCHOOL OTHER SCHOOL Commercial Dishwasher: Low Temp, Multi Tank Conveyor N/A 0.7% 1.1% 4.5% 1.7% 0.9% 0.6% 0.2% ENERGY STAR Standards: Top-Loading Clothes Washer N/A N/A 6.4% N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.9% Front-Loading Clothes Washer N/A N/A 6.4% N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.9% Residential Standard Dishwasher 0.2% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Residential Compact Dishwasher 0.2% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Commercial Dishwasher: High Temp, Under Counter N/A 0.9% 1.5% 5.9% 2.2% 1.2% 0.8% 0.3% Commercial Dishwasher: High Temp, Door N/A 0.6% 1.0% 4.1% 1.5% 0.8% 0.6% 0.2% Commercial Dishwasher: High Temp, Single Tank Conveyor N/A 0.7% 1.1% 4.6% 1.7% 0.9% 0.7% 0.2% Commercial Dishwasher: High Temp, Multi Tank Conveyor N/A 0.9% 1.5% 6.1% 2.3% 1.2% 0.9% 0.3% Commercial Dishwasher: Low Temp, Under Counter N/A 0.2% 0.4% 1.5% 0.6% 0.3% 0.2% 0.1% Water 2 CEQA# MM-E23 MP# EE-2.1.6; COS 2. WUW-1 Water Use 361 WUW-1 FIXTURE LAND USE RESIDENTIAL OFFICE HOTEL RESTAURANT GROCERY STORE NON-GROCERY RETAIL STORE K-12 SCHOOL OTHER SCHOOL Commercial Dishwasher: Low Temp, Door N/A 0.7% 1.1% 4.3% 1.6% 0.8% 0.6% 0.2% Commercial Dishwasher: Low Temp, Single Tank Conveyor N/A 0.7% 1.1% 4.3% 1.6% 0.8% 0.6% 0.2% Commercial Dishwasher: Low Temp, Multi Tank Conveyor N/A 0.8% 1.4% 5.5% 2.0% 1.1% 0.8% 0.3% Notes: N/A indicates that either (a) an improved standard does not exist, or (b) the percent of indoor water use for that fixture an d land use is typically zero. For example, (a) the ENERGY STAR standard for residential clothes washers is the same as the baseline current California standard, and (b) no water is expected to be used for laundry (clothes washers) in the Office land use. Water CEQA# MS-G-8 MP# COS-1. WUW-2 Water Use 362 WUW-2 4.2.2 Adopt a Water Conservation Strategy Range of Effectiveness: Varies depending on Project Applicant and strategies selected. It is equal to the Percent Reduction in water commitment. Measure Description: Water use contributes to GHG emissions indirectly, via the production of the electricity that is used to pump, treat, and distribute the water. Reducing water use reduces energy demand and associated indirect GHG emissions. This mitigation measure describes how to calculate GHG emissions reductions from a Water Conservation Strategy which achieves X% reduction in water use (where X% is the specific percentage reduction in water use committed to by the Project Applicant). The steps taken to achieve this X% reduction in water use can vary in nature and may incorporate technologies which have not yet been established at the time this document was written. In order to take credit for this mitigation measure, the Project Applicant would need to provide detailed and substantial evidence supporting the percent reduction in water use. The expected percent reduction is applied to the baseline water use, calculated according to the baseline methodology document. The energy-intensity factor associated with water conveyance, treatment, and distribution is provided in the 2006 CEC report [1]. This measure may incorporate other mitigation measures (WUW-1 through 6) of this document. As such, if this measure is used, the other measures cannot be used. These measures can be consulted to assist in determining methods of quantification and typical ranges of effectiveness. Measure Applicability: Indoor and/or Outdoor water use Inputs: The following information needs to be provided by the Project Applicant: Total expected water demand, without implementation of Water Conservation Strategy (million gallons) Percent reduction in water use after implementation of Water Conservation Strategy (%) Baseline Method: GHG emissions = Waterbaseline x Electricity x Utility Water CEQA# MS-G-8 MP# COS-1. WUW-2 Water Use 363 WUW-2 Where: GHG emissions = MT CO2e Waterbaseline = Total expected water demand, without implementation of Water Conservation Strategy (million gallons) Provided by Applicant Electricity = Electricity required to supply, treat, and distribute water (and for indoor uses, the electricity required to treat the wastewater) (kWh/million gallons) Northern California Avg (outdoor uses): 3,500 kWh/million gallons [1] Northern California Avg (indoor uses): 5,411 kWh/million gallons [1] Southern California Avg (outdoor uses): 11,111 kWh/million gallons [1] Southern California Avg (indoor uses): 13,022 kWh/million gallons [1] Utility = Carbon intensity of Local Utility (CO2e/kWh) If there are percent reductions associated with both indoor and outdoor water use, the GHG emissions from indoor and outdoor water use should be calculated separately and then summed. Thus, Total GHG emissions = GHG emissionsindoor + GHG emissionsoutdoor Mitigation Method: Since this mitigation method does not change the electricity intensity factor (kWh/million gallons) associated with the supply and distribution of the water, the percent reduction in GHG emissions is dependent only on the change in water consumption: GHG emission reduction = PercentReduction Where: GHG emission reduction = Percentage reduction in GHG emissions for water use. PercentReduction = Expected percent reduction in water use after implementation of Water Conservation Strategy (%) Provided by Applicant As shown in these equations, the carbon intensity of the local utility does not play a role in determining the percentage reduction in GHG emissions. Emission Reduction Ranges and Variables: Pollutant Category Emissions Reductions CO2e To be determined by Applicant Water CEQA# MS-G-8 MP# COS-1. WUW-2 Water Use 364 WUW-2 All other pollutants Not Quantified88 Discussion: The percent reduction in GHG emissions is equivalent to the percent reduction in indoor and outdoor water usage. Therefore, if a Project Applicant implements a Water Conservation Strategy which achieves a 10% reduction in water use, the GHG emissions associated with water use are reduced by 10%. Assumptions: Data based upon the following reference: [1] CEC. 2006. Refining Estimates of Water-Related Energy Use in California. PIER Final Project Report. Prepared by Navigant Consulting, Inc. CEC-500- 2006-118. Available online at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/2006publications/CEC-500- 2006-118/CEC-500-2006-118.PDF Preferred Literature: 2006 CEC report Alternative Literature: None Other Literature Reviewed: None 88 Criteria air pollutant emissions may also be reduced due to the reduction in energy use; however, the reduction may not be in the same air basin as the project. Water MP# COS-2.1 WUW-3 Water Use 365 WUW-3 4.2.3 Design Water-Efficient Landscapes Range of Effectiveness: 0 – 70% reduction in GHG emissions from outdoor water use Measure Description: Water use contributes to GHG emissions indirectly, via the production of the electricity that is used to pump, treat, and distribute the water. Designing water-efficient landscapes for a project site reduces water consumption and the associated indirect GHG emissions. Examples of measures which a Project Applicant should consider when designing landscapes are reducing lawn sizes, planting vegetation with minimal water needs such as California native species, choosing vegetation appropriate for the climate of the project site, and choosing complimentary plants with similar water needs or which can provide each other with shade and/or water. This measure describes how to calculate GHG savings from residential and commercial landscape plantings which have decreased watering demands compared to standard California landscape plantings. The methodology for calculating water demand presented here is based on the California Department of Water Resources (CDWR) 2009 Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance [1] and the CDWR 2000 report: “A Guide to Estimating Irrigation Water Needs of Landscape Plantings in California: The Landscape Coefficient Method and WUCOLS III” (“WUCOLS”) [2]. By January 1, 2010, all local water agencies were required to adopt the CDWR Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance or develop their own local ordinance which is at least as effective at conserving water as the Model Ordinance. Some local agencies have published or are in the process of developing local ordinances.89 A Project Applicant may choose to use the methodology presented in a local ordinance to demonstrate a percent reduction in water use and GHG emissions; however, the calculations will be similar to the methodology presented in the CDWR Model Ordinance and re-described here. Measure Applicability: Outdoor water use Inputs: The following information needs to be provided by the Project Applicant: 89 List of local water agencies and a description of their plans to either adopt the CDWR Model Ordinance or develop their own ordinance: ftp://ftp.water.ca.gov/Model-Water-Efficient-Landscape-Ordinance/Local- Ordinances/ Water MP# COS-2.1 WUW-3 Water Use 366 WUW-3 Waterbaseline, to be calculated by the Project Applicant using the methodology described below Watermitigated, to be calculated by the Project Applicant using the methodology described below Baseline Method: The Project’s baseline water use is the Maximum Applied Water Allowance (MAWA) described in the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance: MAWA = ET0 x 0.62 x [(0.7 x LA) + (0.3 x SLA)] Where: MAWA = Maximum Applied Water Allowance (gallons per year) ET0 = Annual Reference Evapotranspiration90 from Appendix A of the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (inches per year) 0.7 = ET Adjustment Factor (ETAF) LA = Landscape Area91 includes Special Landscape Area92 (square feet) 0.62 = Conversion factor (to gallons per square foot) SLA = Portion of the landscape area identified as Special Landscape Area (square feet) 0.3 = the additional ET Adjustment Factor for Special Landscape Area Then the baseline GHG emissions are calculated as follows: GHG emissions = MAWA x Electricity x Utility Where: GHG emissions = MT CO2e Electricity = Electricity required to supply, treat, and distribute water (kWh/million gallons) Northern California Average (outdoor uses): 3,500 kWh/million gallons Southern California Average (outdoor uses): 11,111 kWh/million gallons 90 Evapotranspiration is water lost to the atmosphere due to evaporation from soil and transpiration from plant leaves. For a more detailed definition, see this California Irrigation Management Information System (CIMIS) website: http://wwwcimis.water.ca.gov/cimis/infoEtoOverview.jsp;jsessionid=91682943559928B8A9A243D2A2665E19 91 § 491 Definitions in Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance: “Landscape Area (LA) means all the planting areas, turf areas, and water features in a landscape design plan subject to the Maximum Applied Water Allowance calculation. The landscape area does not include footprints of buildings or structures, sidewalks, driveways, parking lots, decks, patios, gravel or stone walks, other pervious or non-pervious hardscapes, and other non-irrigated areas designed for non-development (e.g., open spaces and existing native vegetation).” 92 § 491 Definitions in Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance: “Special Landscape Area (SLA) means an area of the landscape dedicated solely to edible plants, areas irrigated with recycled water, water features using recycled water and areas dedicated to active play such as parks, sports fields, golf courses, and where turf provides a playing surface.” Water MP# COS-2.1 WUW-3 Water Use 367 WUW-3 Utility = Carbon intensity of Local Utility (CO2e/kWh) Mitigation Method: Since this mitigation method does not change the electricity intensity factor (kWh/million gallons) associated with the supply, treatment, and distribution of the water, the percent reduction in GHG emissions is dependent only on the change in water consumption. The Project’s mitigated water use is the Estimated Total Water Use (ETWU) described in the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance: ETWU = ET0 x 0.62 x SLAIE HA x PF Where: ETWU = Estimated total water use (gallons per year) ET0 = Annual Reference Evapotranspiration from Appendix A of the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (inches per year) PF = Plant Factor from WUCOLS93 see Table WUW-3.1 for examples and WUCOLS for a complete list of values HA = Hydrozone Area94 (square feet) SLA = Special Landscape Area (square feet) 0.62 = Conversion factor (to gallons per square foot) IE = Irrigation Efficiency95 (minimum 0.71) Then the percent reduction in GHG emissions is calculated as follows: GHG emission reduction = MAWA ETWU -MAWA 93 § 491 Definitions in Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance: “Plant Factor (PF)” is a factor, when multiplied by ET0, estimates the amount of water needed by plants.” The Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance indicates that PF is 0-0.3 for low water use plants, 0.4-0.6 for moderate water use plants, and 0.7-1.0 for high water use plants. PF is equivalent to the “species factor” (k s) in WUCOLS. See Table A above for examples of low, moderate, and high water use plants from WUCOLS. For a complete list of PF (ks) values, see the species evaluation list in WUCOLS. 94 § 491 Definitions in Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance: “Hydrozone means a portion of the landscaped area having plants with similar water needs. A hydrozone may be irrigated or non-irrigated.” 95 § 491 Definitions in Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance: “Irrigation Efficiency (IE) means the measurement of the amount of water beneficially used divided by the amount of water applied. Irrigation efficiency is derived from measurements and estimates of irrigation system characteristics and management practices. The minimum average irrigation efficiency for purposes of the ordinance is 0.71. Greater irrigation efficiency can be expected from well designed and maintained systems.” Water MP# COS-2.1 WUW-3 Water Use 368 WUW-3 As shown in this equation, the regional electricity intensity factor and utility carbon intensity factor do not play a role in determining the percentage reduction in GHG emissions. Furthermore, since ET0 is a multiplier in both MAWA and ETWU, it cancels out and therefore ET0 does not play a role in determining the percentage reduction in GHG emissions either. Water MP# COS-2.1 WUW-3 Water Use 369 WUW-3 Table WUW-3.1: Example Plant Factor (PF) Values from WUCOLS Water Needs PF Range Plant Type Species Examples Low 0 - 0.3 tree Quercus agrifolia (coast live oak) Yucca Pinus halepensis (Aleppo pine) shrub Quercus berberidifolia (California scrub oak) Lonicera subspicata (chaparral honeysuckle) Salvia apiana (white sage) vine Macfadyena unguis-cati (cat's claw) groundcover Arctostaphylos spp. (manzanita) perennial Monardella villosa (coyote mint) Moderate 0.4 - 0.6 tree Acer negundo (California box elder) Acer paxii (evergreen maple) shrub Buxus microphylla japonica (Japanese boxwood) vine Wisteria Aristolochia durior (Dutchman's pipe) groundcover Ceratostigma plumbaginoides (dwarf plumbago) perennial Monarda didyma (bee balm) 0.6 turf grasses (warm season) Bermudagrass kikuyugrass seashore paspalum St. Augustinegrass zoysiagrass High 0.7 - 1.0 tree Betula pendula (European white birch) Betula nigra (river/red birch) shrub Cyathea cooperii (Australian tree fern) Cornus stolonifera (red osier dogwood) groundcover Soleirolia soleirolii (baby's tears) perennial Mimulus spp., herbaceous (monkey flower) Woodwardia radicans (European chain fern) Acorus gramineus (sweet flag) 0.8 turf grasses (cool season) annual bluegrass annual ryegrass colonial bentgrass creeping bentgrass hard fescue highland bentgrass Kentucky bluegrass meadow fescue perennial ryegrass red fescue rough-stalked bluegrass tall fescue Water MP# COS-2.1 WUW-3 Water Use 370 WUW-3 Emission Reduction Ranges and Variables: Pollutant Category Emissions Reductions CO2e Assuming an irrigation efficiency of 71% as specified in the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and no Special Landscape Area: 0% reduction if 100% of vegetation is Moderate PF 13% reduction if 40% of vegetation is Low PF, 40% is Moderate PF, and 20% is High PF 35% reduction if 50% of vegetation is Low PF and 50% is Moderate PF 70% reduction if 100% of vegetation is Low PF All other pollutants Not Quantified96 Discussion: Example calculations of MAWA and ETWU are provided in the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. In this example, assume that the Project Applicant has used the equations to calculate MAWA = 100 million gallons and ETWU = 80 million gallons. Then the GHG emissions reduction is 20%: GHG Emission Reduced = 0.2100 80100 or 20% Assumptions: Data based upon the following references: [1] California Department of Water Resources. 2009. Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. Available online at: http://www.water.ca.gov/wateruseefficiency/docs/MWELO09-10-09.pdf [2] (“WUCOLS”): California Department of Water Resources. 2000. A Guide to Estimating Irrigation Water Needs of Landscape Plantings in California: The Landscape Coefficient Method and WUCOLS III. Available online at: http://www.water.ca.gov/pubs/conservation/a_guide_to_estimating_irrigation_water_nee ds_of_landscape_plantings_in_california__wucols/wucols00.pdf [3] CEC. 2006. Refining Estimates of Water-Related Energy Use in California. PIER Final Project Report. Prepared by Navigant Consulting, Inc. CEC-500- 2006-118. December. Available online at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/2006publications/CEC-500-2006-118/CEC-500-2006-118.PDF Preferred Literature: The California Department of Water Resources Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance requires that the Estimated Total Water Use (ETWU) of certain landscape 96 Criteria air pollutant emissions may also be reduced due to the reduction in energy use; however, the reduction may not be in the same air basin as the project. Water MP# COS-2.1 WUW-3 Water Use 371 WUW-3 projects shall not exceed the Maximum Applied Water Allowance (MAWA) for that landscape area. The MAWA is calculated based on average irrigation efficiencies and plant factors, two major influences on the water demand of a landscape. The ETWU is calculated based on project-specific plant factors and irrigation efficiency. Alternative Literature: [4] (“WUCOLS”): California Department of Water Resources. 2000. A Guide to Estimating Irrigation Water Needs of Landscape Plantings in California: The Landscape Coefficient Method and WUCOLS III. Available online at: http://www.water.ca.gov/pubs/conservation/a_guide_to_estimating_irrigation_wat er_needs_of_landscape_plantings_in_california__wucols/wucols00.pdf [5] The Las Pilitas Nursery website has a user-friendly and searchable database of native California plants: http://www.laspilitas.com/shop/plant-products. As shown in WUCOLS, many California native plants have minimal or very low water needs. The equation on page 9 of WUCOLS [4] shows that water demand for irrigation landscape plantings (ETL, landscape evapotranspiration) is calculated by multiplying two parameters: the landscape coefficient (KL) and the reference evapotranspiration (ETo). KL values are based on a species factor, density factor, and microclimate factor. The guidance provides detailed instructions on how to assign project-specific values for these three factors. KL can then be divided by the irrigation efficiency to obtain the Total Water Applied, as shown on page 31 of the guidance [4]. Total Water Applied is analogous to ETWU in the methodology shown above. Thus, the detailed WUCOLS methodology could be used to perform a more rigorous calculation of ETWU which incorporates microclimate effects (e.g. windy areas, areas shaded by buildings, etc) and vegetation density effects. Other Literature Reviewed: None Water CEQA# MS-G-8 MP# COS-3.1 WUW-4 Water Use 372 WUW-4 4.2.4 Use Water-Efficient Landscape Irrigation Systems Range of Effectiveness: 6.1% reduction in GHG emissions from outdoor water Measure Description: Water use contributes to GHG emissions indirectly, via the production of the electricity that is used to pump, treat, and distribute the water. Using water-efficient landscape irrigation techniques such as “smart” irrigation technology reduces outdoor water demand, energy demand, and the associated GHG emissions.97 “Smart” irrigation control systems use weather, climate, and/or soil moisture data to automatically adjust watering schedules in response to environmental and climate changes, such as changes in temperature or precipitation levels. Thus, the appropriate amount of moisture for a certain vegetation type is maintained, and excessive watering is avoided. Many companies which design and install smart irrigation systems, such as Calsense, ET Water, and EPA-certified WaterSense Irrigation Partners, may be able to provide a site-specific estimate of the percent reduction in outdoor water use that can be expected from installing a smart irrigation system. Expected reductions are in the range of 1 – 30%, with the high end of the range associated with historically high water users. To take credit for the high end of the GHG emissions reductions based on these company quotes, the Project Applicant would need to provide detailed and substantial evidence supporting the proposed percent reduction in water use. Alternatively, the Project Applicant could apply the average percent reduction reported in a 2009 study conducted by Aquacraft, Inc. in cooperation with the California Department of Water Resources, the California Urban Water Conservation Council, and a consortium of California water utilities. This comprehensive study showed that smart irrigation systems of various brands achieve an average of 6.1% reduction in outdoor water use in California. This percent reduction is based on a two year study (one year pre and post installation of smart controllers) of over two thousand sites in seventeen different water utilities throughout northern and southern California. While the study also presents utility-specific percent reductions, variations in implementation and sample size between utilities renders these percent reductions insufficient for characterization in a mitigation measure at this time. The study also notes that for a sample of smart controllers where data was collected for three years after installation, the percent reduction in water use increased with time, with the greatest percent reduction achieved in year three. 97 The installation of smart irrigation controllers will be required starting in 2011 as indicated in the 2010 Draft California Green Building Standards Code. As technology advances and newer generation smart irrigation controllers become available, the Project Applicant may choose to use this mitigation measure to quantify water use and associated GHG reductions beyond what would be achieved with the standards required by the California Green Building Standards Code. Water CEQA# MS-G-8 MP# COS-3.1 WUW-4 Water Use 373 WUW-4 The expected percent reduction is applied to the baseline water use, calculated according to the baseline methodology document. The energy-intensity factor associated with water conveyance and distribution is provided in the 2006 CEC report [2]. Measure Applicability: Outdoor water use Inputs: The following information needs to be provided by the Project Applicant: Total expected outdoor water demand, without installation of smart landscape irrigation controller (million gallons). (Optional) Project-specific percent reduction in outdoor water demand, after installation of smart landscape irrigation controller. Percent reduction must be verifiable. Otherwise, use the default value of 6.1%. Baseline Method: GHG emissions = Waterbaseline x Electricity x Utility Where: GHG emissions = MT CO2e Waterbaseline = Total expected outdoor water demand, without installation of smart landscape irrigation controllers (million gallons) Provided by Applicant Electricity = Electricity required to supply, treat, and distribute water (kWh/million gallons) Northern California Average: 3,500 kWh/million gallons Southern California Average: 11,111 kWh/million gallons Utility = Carbon intensity of Local Utility (CO2e/kWh) Mitigation Method: Since this mitigation method does not change the electricity intensity factor (kWh/million gallons) associated with the supply and distribution of the water, the percent reduction in GHG emissions is dependent only on the change in water consumption: GHG emission reduction = PercentReduction x Waterbaseline Where: GHG emission reduction = Percentage reduction in GHG emissions for outdoor water use. Waterbaseline = Total expected outdoor water demand, without installation of smart landscape irrigation controllers (million gallons) Water CEQA# MS-G-8 MP# COS-3.1 WUW-4 Water Use 374 WUW-4 Provided by Applicant PercentReduction = Expected percent reduction in water use after installation of smart landscape irrigation controllers (%) Provided by Applicant or use default 6.1% As shown in these equations, the carbon intensity of the local utility does not play a role in determining the percentage reduction in GHG emissions. Emission Reduction Ranges and Variables: Pollutant Category Emissions Reductions CO2e 6.1% unless project-specific data is provided All other pollutants Not Quantified98 Discussion: The percent reduction in GHG emissions is equivalent to the percent reduction in outdoor water usage. Therefore, if a Project Applicant uses the default percent reduction in water usage associated with installing smart landscape irrigation control systems (6.1%), the resulting reduction in GHG emissions is also 6.1%. Assumptions: Data based upon the following references: [1] “Evaluation of California Weather-Based “Smart” Irrigation Controller Programs.” July 2009. Presented to the California Department of Water Resources by The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and The East Bay Municipal Utility District. Facilitated by the California Urban Water Conservation Council. Prepared by Aquacraft Inc., National Research Center Inc., and Dr. Peter J. Bickel. Available online at: http://www.aquacraft.com/Download_Reports/Evaluation_of_California_Smart_Controlle r_Programs_-_Final_Report.pdf [2] CEC. 2006. Refining Estimates of Water-Related Energy Use in California. PIER Final Project Report. Prepared by Navigant Consulting, Inc. CEC-500- 2006-118. Available online at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/2006publications/CEC-500- 2006-118/CEC-500-2006-118.PDF Preferred Literature: As described above, the 2009 study [1] conducted by Aquacraft, Inc. in cooperation with the California Department of Water Resources, the California Urban Water Conservation Council, and a consortium of California water utilities showed that smart 98 Criteria air pollutant emissions may also be reduced due to the reduction in energy use; however, the reduction may not be in the same air basin as the project. Water CEQA# MS-G-8 MP# COS-3.1 WUW-4 Water Use 375 WUW-4 irrigation systems of various brands achieve an average of 6.1% reduction in outdoor water use in California. Alternative Literature: When common watering systems such as in-ground sprinklers are used, much of the water applied to lawns and landscapes is not absorbed by the vegetation. Instead, it is lost through runoff or evaporation. The USEPA reports that a study by the American Water Works Association found that households with in-ground sprinkler systems used 35% more water outdoors than households without these systems, while households with drip irrigation systems used 16% more water [3]. The USEPA reports that hand- held hoses or sprinklers are often more water efficient than automatic irrigation systems. However, “smart” automatic landscape irrigation systems do exist. Examples include systems which automatically adjust watering schedules in response to environmental and climate changes, such as changes in temperature or precipitation levels. A few references have quantified reductions from this type of irrigation strategy. The Southern Nevada Water Authority reports that smart irrigation systems can reduce outdoor water use by an average of 15 to 30 percent, depending on the system, landscape type, and location [4]. One study conducted in 40 households with historically high water use in Irvine, California showed an average reduction in outdoor water use of 16% [5,6]. Another study conducted in Santa Barbara, California households with historically high water use showed an average water savings of 26% [5,7]. A Project Applicant could also hire an EPA-certified WaterSense Irrigation Partner to design and install a new irrigation system or audit an existing system in an effort to minimize the amount of water consumed [6]. [3] USEPA. 2002. Water-Efficient Landscaping: Preventing Pollution & Using Resources Wisely. Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/waterefficiency.pdf [4] Southern Nevada Water Authority. Smart Irrigation Controllers. Available online at: http://www.snwa.com/html/land_irrig_smartclocks.html. Accessed March 2010 . [5] Irrigation Association. Smart Controller Efficiency Testing. Available online at: http://www.irrigation.org/SWAT/Industry/case-studies.asp. Accessed March 2010. [6] Irvine Ranch Water District, et al. 2001. Residential Weather-Based Irrigation Scheduling: Evidence from the Irvine “ET Controller” Study. Available online at: http://www.irrigation.org/swat/images/irvine.pdf [7] Santa Barbara County Water Agency, et al. 2003. Santa Barbara County ET Controller Distribution and Installation Program Final Report. Available online at: http://www.irrigation.org/swat/images/santa_barbara.pdf [8] USEPA. WaterSense: Landscape Irrigation. Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/WaterSense/services/landscape_irrigation.html Water WUW-5 Water Use 376 WUW-5 4.2.5 Reduce Turf in Landscapes and Lawns Range of Effectiveness: Varies and is equal to the percent commitment to turf reduction, assuming no other outdoor water uses Measure Description: Water use contributes to GHG emissions indirectly, via the production of the electricity that is used to pump, treat, and distribute the water. Turf grass (i.e. lawn grass) has relatively high water needs compared to most other types of vegetation. For example, trees planted in turf generally do not need additional watering besides what is required for the turf. Water agencies in Southern California have instituted turf removal programs which provide rebates for resident who reduce the turf area in their lawns. Reducing the turf size of landscapes and lawns reduces water consumption and the associated indirect GHG emissions.99 This measure describes how to calculate GHG savings from reducing the turf area of an existing lawn by X square feet, or designing a lawn to have X square feet less than the turf area of a standard lawn at the project location.100 Additional GHG emissions reductions may occur due to a reduction in fertilizer usage. Since this will vary based on individual occupant behavior, this reduction in GHG emissions from decreased fertilizer usage is not quantified. Measure Applicability: Outdoor water use Inputs: The following information needs to be provided by the Project Applicant: Turf area of existing lawn or standard lawn at the project location (square feet) Turf area reduction commitment (square feet reduced or percent of baseline reduced) Baseline Method: 99 See the SoCal WaterSmart Residential Turf Program description at http://socalwatersmart.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=77&Itemid=10 . Accessed March 2010. 100 The Project Applicant would need to provide a value for and evidence supporting this “standard-sized lawn.” This value is likely to vary greatly depending on the type of building (single-family, condo, apartment complex, commercial space) as well as location (region in California, urban or suburban). Water WUW-5 Water Use 377 WUW-5 The methodology for calculating water demand presented here is based on the California Department of Water Resources (CDWR) 2009 Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance [1] and the CDWR 2000 report: “A Guide to Estimating Irrigation Water Needs of Landscape Plantings in California: The Landscape Coefficient Method and WUCOLS III” [2]. The Project Applicant should first calculate the amount of water required to support the existing turf or standard-sized turf (Waterbaseline).101 In the equations below, “crop” also represents “turf grass,” or lawn grasses. ETC = Kc x ET0 Where: ETC = Crop Evapotranspiration, the total amount of water the baseline turf loses during a specific time period due to evapotranspiration102 (inches water/day) KC = Crop Coefficient, factor determined from field research, which compares the amount of water lost by the crop (e.g. turf) to the amount of water lost by a reference crop (unitless) Species-specific; provided in Table WUW-5.1 below ET0 = Reference Evapotransporation, the amount of water lost by a reference crop (inches water/day) Region-specific; provided in Appendix A of the CDWR Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance [1] 101 Page 10 of the CDWR report explains that the objective of landscape management is to maintain the “health, appearance, and reasonable growth” of plants, and not necessarily to replenish all of the water lost at maximum evapotranspiration rates. Thus, the CDWR methodology presented here calculates only the amount of water required to sustain the health, appearance, and growth of the plants. 102 Evapotranspiration is water lost to the atmosphere due to evaporation from soil and transpiration from plant leaves. For a more detailed definition, see this California Irrigation Management Information System (CIMIS) website: http://wwwcimis.water.ca.gov/cimis/infoEtoOverview.jsp;jsessionid=91682943559928B8A9A243D2A2665 E19 Water WUW-5 Water Use 378 WUW-5 Table WUW-5.1: Crop Coefficient for Turf Grasses Category Kc Species cool season grasses 0.8 annual bluegrass annual ryegrass colonial bentgrass creeping bentgrass hard fescue highland bentgrass Kentucky bluegrass meadow fescue perennial ryegrass red fescue rough-stalked bluegrass tall fescue warm season grasses 0.6 Bermudagrass kikuyugrass seashore paspalum St. Augustinegrass zoysiagrass Reference: p. 6 and p. 137 of CDWS report Then: Waterbaseline = ETC x Areabaseline X 0.62 x 365 Where: Waterbaseline = Volume of water required to support the baseline turf (gallons/year) Areabaseline = Area of existing or standard turf (square feet) Provided by the Applicant 0.62 = conversion factor (gallons/squarefoot.inches water) 365 = conversion factor (days/year) ETC = Crop evapotranspiration Calculated using the equation on page 280 Then the baseline GHG emissions are calculated as follows: GHG emissions = Waterbaseline x Electricity x Utility Where: GHG emissions = MT CO2e Electricity = Electricity required to supply, treat, and distribute water (kWh/million gallons) Water WUW-5 Water Use 379 WUW-5 Northern California Average (outdoor uses): 3,500 kWh/million gallons Southern California Average (outdoor uses): 11,111 kWh/million gallons Utility = Carbon intensity of Local Utility (CO2e/kWh) Mitigation Method: The equations above show that the GHG emissions are directly proportional to the water demand, which is in turn directly proportional to the area of the turf. Therefore, only the area of the existing or standard turf and the commitment to turf area reduction (square feet reduced or percent of baseline reduced) are needed to calculate the percent reduction in GHG emissions: GHG emission reduction = baseline reduction Area Area = AreaPercentReduction Where: Areareduction = Area of turf to be reduced (square feet) Provided by the Applicant Areabaseline = Area of existing or standard turf (square feet) Provided by the Applicant AreaPercentReduction = Percent reduction in turf area (%) Provided by the Applicant As shown in this equation, the regional electricity intensity factor for water and the utility carbon intensity factor do not play a role in determining the percentage reduction in GHG emissions. Emission Reduction Ranges and Variables: Pollutant Category Emissions Reductions CO2e Up to 100%, assuming 100% reduction in turf grass area. This would be the case for rock-lawns, for example. All other pollutants Not Quantified103 Discussion: In this example, assume that the Project Applicant has provided detailed evidence to show that the turf area of a standard lawn at the project location is 8,000 square feet. If the Project Applicant then commits to reducing the turf area of lawns by 3,000 square feet, then the GHG emissions reduction is 37.5%. 103 Criteria air pollutant emissions may also be reduced due to the reduction in energy use; however, the reduction may not be in the same air basin as the project. Water WUW-5 Water Use 380 WUW-5 GHG Emission Reduced = 0.3758,000 3,000 or 37.5% Assumptions: Data based upon the following references: [1] California Department of Water Resources. 2009. Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. Available online at: http://www.water.ca.gov/wateruseefficiency/docs/MWELO09-10-09.pdf [2] California Department of Water Resources. 2000. A Guide to Estimating Irrigation Water Needs of Landscape Plantings in California: The Landscape Coefficient Method and WUCOLS III. Available online at: http://www.water.ca.gov/pubs/conservation/a_guide_to_estimating_irrigation_water_nee ds_of_landscape_plantings_in_california__wucols/wucols00.pdf [3] CEC. 2006. Refining Estimates of Water-Related Energy Use in California. PIER Final Project Report. Prepared by Navigant Consulting, Inc. CEC-500- 2006-118. December. Available online at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/2006publications/CEC-500-2006-118/CEC-500-2006-118.PDF Preferred Literature: See above Alternative Literature: None Other Literature Reviewed: None Water CEQA# MM D-16 MP# COS-3.1 WUW-6 Water Use 381 WUW-6 4.2.6 Plant Native or Drought-Resistant Trees and Vegetation Range of Effectiveness: Best Management Practice; may be quantified if substantial evidence is available. Measure Description: California native plants within their natural climate zone and ecotype need minimal watering beyond normal rainfall, so less water is needed for irrigating native plants than non-native species. Drought-resistant vegetation needs even less watering. Water use contributes to GHG emissions indirectly, via the production of the electricity that is used to pump, treat, and distribute the water. Thus, planting native and drought-resistant vegetation reduces water use and the associated GHGs. Designing landscapes with native plants can provide many other benefits, including reducing the need for fertilization and pesticide use, and providing a more natural habitat for native wildlife. Although there is much anecdotal evidence for the benefits of planting native vegetation, few scientific studies have quantified the actual water savings. Therefore, this mitigation measure would most likely be employed as a Best Management Practice. Future studies may quantify the water-saving benefits of planting native or drought- resistant vegetation. In order to take quantitative credit for this mitigation measure, the Project Applicant would need to provide detailed and substantial evidence supporting a percent reduction in water use. The percent reduction would be applied to the baseline water use, calculated according to the baseline methodology described in WUW-3 (Design water efficient landscapes) and the baseline methodology document. Measure Applicability: Outdoor water use Inputs: The following information needs to be provided by the Project Applicant: Percent reduction in water use, calculated using detailed and substantial evidence Waterbaseline, to be calculated by the Project Applicant using the baseline methodology described in WUW-3 (Design water efficient landscapes) and the baseline methodology document Baseline Method See WUW-3 (Design water efficient landscapes) Water CEQA# MM D-16 MP# COS-3.1 WUW-6 Water Use 382 WUW-6 Mitigation Method Since this mitigation method does not change the electricity intensity factor (kWh/million gallons) associated with the supply, treatment, and distribution of the water, the percent reduction in GHG emissions is dependent only on the change in water consumption: GHG emission reduction = PercentReduction x Waterbaseline Where: GHG emission reduction = Percentage reduction in GHG emissions for outdoor water use. Waterbaseline = Baseline water demand, without planting native or drought-resistant vegetation Provided by Applicant, calculated using baseline methodology of Mitigation Measure WUW-3 PercentReduction = Expected percent reduction in water use resulting from planting native or drought-resistant vegetation Provided by Applicant As shown in these equations, the carbon intensity of the local utility does not play a role in determining the percentage reduction in GHG emissions. Emission Reduction Ranges and Variables: Pollutant Category Emissions Reductions CO2e To be determined by Applicant All other pollutants Not Quantified104 Discussion: Currently there is not sufficient substantial evidence supporting a generalized reduction in emissions due to planting native or drought tolerant species. However, if the project applicant is able to provide sufficient substantial evidence supporting a reduction in water usage associated with native or drought tolerant species, the percent reduction in GHG emissions is equivalent to the percent reduction in outdoor water usage. Therefore, if a Project Applicant can support a 10% reduction in water use by native and drought tolerant species, the GHG emissions associated with water use are reduced by 10%. Assumptions: None 104 Criteria air pollutant emissions may also be reduced due to the reduction in energy use; however, the reduction may not be in the same air basin as the project. Water CEQA# MM D-16 MP# COS-3.1 WUW-6 Water Use 383 WUW-6 Alternative Literature: The EPA reports that while there is anecdotal evidence for the water-saving benefits of planting native and drought-resistant vegetation, there are very few scientific studies available which quantify the benefits. There are several good resources available which describe the qualitative benefits. The California Native Plant Society provides many resources for designing a native plant garden, including how to identify native plants and where to buy them. The Las Pilitas Nursery provides similar resources and also lists species of drought-resistant plants that are best for specific California regions. The EPA also provides tips for designing landscapes with native plants. USEPA. “Exploring the Environmental, Social and Economic Benefits Conference,” December 6-7, 2004. USEPA. Greenacres: Landscaping with Native Plants Research Needs. Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/greenacres/conf12_04/conf_A.html. Accessed March 2010. California Native Plant Society. Homepage. Available online at: http://www.cnps.org/. Accessed March 2010. Las Pilitas Nursery. Drought Tolerant or Resistant Native Plants. Available online at: http://www.laspilitas.com/garden/Drought_resistant_plants_for_a_California_garden.html. Accessed March 2010. USEPA. Greenacres: Native Plants Brochure. Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/greenacres/navland.html#Introduction. Accessed March 2010. Alternative Literature: None. Other Literature Reviewed: None Section Category Page # Measure # 5.0 Area Landscaping 384 5.1 Landscaping Equipment 384 5.1.1 Prohibit Gas Powered Landscape Equipment 384 A-1 5.1.2 Implement Lawnmower Exchange Program 389 A-2 5.1.3 Electric Yard Equipment Compatibility 391 A-3 Area Landscaping A-1 Landscaping Equipment 384 A-1 5.0 Landscaping Equipment 5.1 Landscaping Equipment 5.1.1 Prohibit Gas Powered Landscape Equipment. Measure Description: Electric lawn equipment including lawn mowers, leaf blowers and vacuums, shredders, trimmers, and chain saws are available. When electric landscape equipment is used in place of a conventional gas-powered equipment, direct GHG emissions from natural gas combustion are replaced with indirect GHG emissions associated with the electricity used to power the equipment. Measure Applicability: [1] Landscaping equipment Inputs: The following information needs to be provided by the Project Applicant: Electricity provider for the Project Horsepower of landscaping equipment Hours of operation Baseline Method: Look up landscape equipment emission factor based on type of fuel used: Landscaping Equipment Horsepower CO2 Emission Factor from Gasoline (g/hp-hr) < 25 429.44 25 – 50 783.30 50 – 120 774.50 120 –175 753.25 > 175 732.00 GHG emission = 601HrLFHpEF Where: GHG emission = MT CO2e per year EF = CO2 emission factor for the relevant horsepower tier show in table above (g/hp-hr). Obtained from OFFROAD2007. Area Landscaping A-1 Landscaping Equipment 385 A-1 Hp = Horsepower of landscaping equipment LF = Load factor of equipment for the relevant horsepower tier (dimensionless). Obtained from OFFROAD2007. Hr = Hours of operation per year 10-6 = Unit conversion from grams to MT Mitigation Method: Landscaping equipment will run on electricity instead of gasoline. The indirect GHG emission from electricity generation is: GHG emission = CHrLFHpUtility Where: GHG emissions = MT CO2e Utility = Carbon intensity of Local Utility (CO2e/kWh). See table below. Hp = Horsepower of landscaping equipment. LF = Load factor of equipment for the relevant horsepower tier (dimensionless). Obtained from OFFROAD2007. Hr = Hours of operation. C = Unit conversion factor Power Utility Carbon-Intensity (lb CO2e/kWh) LADWP 1,238 PG&E 456 SCE 641 SDGE 781 SMUD 555 GHG Reduction %105 = 610EF CUtility1 EF = Emission Factor for the relevant fuel horsepower tier (g/hp-hr) Obtained from OFFROAD2007. See accompanying tables. Emission Reduction Ranges and Variables: Power Utility Equipment Horsepower Project GHG Emission Reductions LADWP < 25 2.5% 25 – 50 46.5% 105 This assumes energy from engine losses are the same. Area Landscaping A-1 Landscaping Equipment 386 A-1 Power Utility Equipment Horsepower Project GHG Emission Reductions 50 – 120 45.9% 120 –175 44.4% > 175 42.8% PG&E < 25 64.1% 25 – 50 80.3% 50 – 120 80.1% 120 –175 79.5% > 175 78.9% SCE < 25 49.5% 25 – 50 72.3% 50 – 120 72.0% 120 –175 71.2% > 175 70.4% SDGE < 25 38.5% 25 – 50 66.3% 50 – 120 65.9% 120 –175 64.9% > 175 63.9% SMUD < 25 56.3% 25 – 50 76.0% 50 – 120 75.8% 120 –175 75.1% > 175 74.3% Criteria pollutants will be reduced by reduction in combustion. They will also increase through the increase in energy use. However, the increase may not be in the same air basin. Discussion: The output from OFFROAD2007 shows the same emissions within each horsepower tier regardless of the year modeled. Therefore, the emission reduction is dependent on the location of the Project and horsepower of the landscaping equipment only. Assumptions: Data based upon the following references: California Air Resources Board. Off-road Emissions Inventory. OFFROAD2007. Available online at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/offroad/offroad.htm Area Landscaping A-1 Landscaping Equipment 387 A-1 California Climate Action Registry Reporting Online Tool. 2006 PUP Reports. Available online at: https://www.climateregistry.org/CARROT/public/reports.aspx Preferred Literature: The amount of direct GHG emissions avoided can be calculated using CARB's OFFROAD model, which provides state-wide and regional emission factors for different types of landscaping equipment that can be converted to grams per horsepower-hour [1]. Multiplying this factor by the typical horsepower and load factor of the equipment and number of hours of operation gives the direct GHG emissions. Assuming the same number of operating hours and power output as the gas-powered equipment, the same amount of energy consumption multiplied by the carbon-intensity factor of the local utility gives the amount of indirect GHG emissions associated with using the electric landscape equipment. The GHG emissions reduction associated with this mitigation measure is therefore the difference in emissions from these two scenarios. Companion Strategy: In order to take credit for Mitigation Measure 80, a Project Applicant must also commit to providing electrical outlets on the exterior of all buildings (Mitigation Measure 60) so that electrical lawn equipment is compatible with built facilities. Alternative Literature: None Notes: 1. CARB. OFFROAD 2007 Model. Available online at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/offroad/offroad.htm. Accessed February 2010. Other Literature Reviewed: A. USEPA. Lawn Mower Exchange Program Calculator. Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/air/community/mowerexchange_calculator.html . Accessed February 2010. B. USEPA. Improving Air Quality in Your Community: Outdoor Air – Transportation: Lawn Equipment. Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/air/community/details/yardequip.html. Accessed February 2010. C. CARB. AB118 Lawn and Garden Equipment Replacement Project. Available online at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/aqip/lger.htm. Accessed February 2010. D. SCAQMD. Mow Down Air Pollution Electric Lawn Mower Exchange. Available online at: http://www.aqmd.gov/tao/lawnmower2009.html. Accessed February 2010. E. VCAPD. Lawn Mower Trade-In Program for Ventura County Residents. Available online at: http://www.vcapcd.org/LawnMower_EN.htm . Accessed February 2010. Area Landscaping A-1 Landscaping Equipment 388 A-1 F. SMAQMD. Mow Down Air Pollution. Available online at: http://www.airquality.org/mobile/mowdown/index.shtml. Accessed February 2010. Area CEQA# MM D-13 MP# EE-4.2 A-2 Landscaping Equipment 389 A-2 5.1.2 Implement Lawnmower Exchange Program Range of Effectiveness: Best Management Practice, influences Area GHG emissions from landscape equipment Measure Description: When electric and rechargeable battery-powered lawnmowers are used in place of conventional gas-powered lawnmowers, direct GHG emissions from fuel combustion are displaced by indirect GHG emissions associated with the electricity used to power the equipment. The indirect GHG emissions from electricity generation are expected to be significantly less than the direct GHG emissions from gasoline or diesel fuel combustion. Since the magnitude of the GHG emissions reduction depends on the equipment model (including electric power efficiency and battery recharge time), hours of operation, fuel displaced, and number of lawnmowers replaced, the exact GHG emissions reduction is not quantifiable at this time. Therefore, this mitigation measure should be incorporated as a Best Management Practice to allow for educated residents and commercial tenants to reduce their contribution to GHG emissions from landscaping. Many California Air Districts, including eight air districts supported by the CARB Lawn and Garden Equipment Replacement (LGER) Project, already have lawnmower exchange programs in place. This Best Management Practice could involve participating in these established lawnmower exchange programs, supplementing the established programs, or implementing a new program for the Project. The Project Applicant should check with the local air district regarding participating in established programs. The Project Applicant could take quantitative credit for this mitigation measure if detailed and substantial evidence were provided. Measure Applicability: GHG emissions from landscaping Assumptions: Data based upon the following references: CARB. AB118 Lawn and Garden Equipment Replacement Project. Available online at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/aqip/lger.htm. Accessed February 2010. SCAQMD. Mow Down Air Pollution Electric Lawn Mower Exchange. Available online at: http://www.aqmd.gov/tao/lawnmower2009.html. Accessed February 2010. VCAPD. Lawn Mower Trade-In Program for Ventura County Residents. Available online at: http://www.vcapcd.org/LawnMower_EN.htm . Accessed February 2010. SMAQMD. Mow Down Air Pollution. Available online at: http://www.airquality.org/mobile/mowdown/index.shtml. Accessed February 2010. Area CEQA# MM D-13 MP# EE-4.2 A-2 Landscaping Equipment 390 A-2 Emission Reduction Ranges and Variables: This is a Best Management Practice and therefore there is no quantifiable reduction at this time. Check with local agencies for guidance on any allowed reductions associated with implementation of best management practices. Preferred Literature: CARB’s Lawn and Garden Equipment Replacement (LGER) Project was established to encourage the use of cordless zero-emission lawn and garden equipment and to help bring more electric equipment to the market. The LGER Project provides vouchers for electric cordless residential lawn mowers valued up to $250 for each gas-powered lawnmower turned in. The LGER Project provides grants to eight air districts with existing lawnmower exchange programs, including AVAQMD, MDAQMD, SCAQMD, SDAPCD, SJVAPCD, SMAQMD, VCAPCD, and YSAQMD. Individual air districts may offer vouchers of different values. Alternative Literature: None Other Literature Reviewed: USEPA. Lawn Mower Exchange Program Calculator. Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/air/community/mowerexchange_calculator.html . Accessed February 2010. USEPA. Improving Air Quality in Your Community: Outdoor Air – Transportation: Lawn Equipment. Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/air/community/details/yardequip.html. Accessed February 2010. Area CEQA# MM D-14 MP# MO-2.4 A-3 Landscaping Equipment 391 A-3 5.1.3 Electric Yard Equipment Compatibility Range of Effectiveness: Best Management Practice, influences Area GHG emissions from landscape equipment. Not applicable on its own. This measure enhances effectiveness of A-1 and A-2. Measure Description: This measure is required to be grouped with measures A-1 “Prohibit Gas Powered Landscape Equipment” and A-2 “Implement a Lawnmower Exchange Program.” In order for measures A-1 and A-2 to be feasible, electrical outlets on the exterior of buildings must be accessible so that the electric landscaping equipment can be charged. In this mitigation measure, the Project Applicant commits to providing electrical outlets on the exterior of Project buildings as necessary for sufficient powering of electric lawnmowers and other landscaping equipment. Measure Applicability: This measure is part of a grouped measure This measure contributes to reductions in GHG emissions from landscaping Emission Reduction Ranges and Variables: This measure is a Best Management Practice grouped with other measures and therefore there is no quantifiable reduction at this time. Check with local agencies for guidance on any allowed reductions associated with implementation of Best Management Practices. Preferred Literature: None Section Category Page # Measure # 6.0 Solid Waste 392 6.1 Solid Waste 392 6.1.1 Institute or Extend Recycling and Composting Services 401 SW-1 6.1.2 Recycle Demolished Construction Material 402 SW-2 Solid Waste CEQA# MM D-14 MP# WRD-2 SW-1 Solid Waste 392 SW-1 6.0 Solid Waste 6.1 Sold Waste 6.1.1 Institute or Extend Recycling and Composting Services Range of Effectiveness: Varies depending on Project Applicant and strategies selected. Best Management Practice. Measure Description: The transport and decomposition of landfill waste and the flaring of landfill gas all produce GHG emissions. Decomposition of waste produces methane, a GHG which has a global warming potential over 20 times that of CO2. The transport of waste from the site of generation to the landfill produces GHG emissions from the combustion of the fuel used to power the vehicle. Choosing waste management practices which reduce the amount of waste sent to landfills will reduce GHG emissions. Strategies to reduce landfill waste include increasing recycling, reuse, and composting, and encouraging lifestyle choices and office practices which reduce waste generation. Current protocols for quantifying emissions reductions from diverted landfill waste developed by the USEPA and the California Center for Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) are based on life-cycle approaches, which reflect emissions and reductions in both the upstream and downstream processes around waste management. The Project Applicant should seek local agency guidance on comparing and/or combining operational emissions inventories and life cycle emissions inventories. Furthermore, while tools are available to quantify the avoided landfill GHG emissions from a specified amount of diverted or recycled waste, taking credit for this mitigation measure also requires the determination of the effects of instituting or extending recycling and composting services. Since both government and privately-sponsored recycling and composting programs vary dramatically in scope, waste materials accepted, and outreach efforts, no literature references exist which provide default values for percent of waste diverted. To take credit for this measure, the Project Applicant would need to provide detailed and substantial evidence supporting the amount of waste reduced or diverted to recycling and composting due to the institution of extended recycling and composting services. Measure Applicability: [2] Solid waste disposed to landfill Solid Waste CEQA# MM D-14 MP# WRD-2 SW-1 Solid Waste 393 SW-1 Inputs: The following information needs to be provided by the Project Applicant: For residential buildings: number of residents For shopping malls and office buildings: building square footage For public venues: annual number of visitors For all other commercial buildings: number of employees Waste disposal method Amount of waste reduced or diverted to recycling and composting due to the institution of extended recycling and composting services. Baseline Method: The Project Applicant must first calculate the total amount of waste generated at the project. For residential buildings and all commercial buildings except shopping malls and offices: Wastebaseline total = People x DisposalRate For shopping malls and office buildings: Wastebaseline total = SF x DisposalRate Where: People = Number of residents, employees, or visitors (for public venues) Provided by Applicant SF = Square feet of building Provided by Applicant DisposalRate = Annual disposal rate of waste (tons/resident/year, tons/employee/year, or tons/visitor/year) From Tables SW -1.1 and SW -1.2 The total waste stream is then portioned into material-specific streams (paper, glass, metal, plastic, etc.) using the percentages listed in Table SW -1.3. USEPA’s Waste Reduction Model (WARM) is used to quantify baseline emissions and emissions reductions from diverting landfill waste to composting or recycling. This web- based tool is available online at http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/waste/calculators/Warm_Form.html. The required inputs are the tons of waste associated with one of three waste management practices: landfill (baseline scenario), recycled (mitigated scenario), combusted (not applicable in California), and composted (mitigated scenario). The amount of each type of waste in tons is entered into the “Tons Landfilled” column in the Baseline Scenario of Solid Waste CEQA# MM D-14 MP# WRD-2 SW-1 Solid Waste 394 SW-1 WARM to calculate the baseline GHG emissions in metric MT carbon equivalent (MTCE). Other input variables include landfill type (presence of landfill gas control system or not) and distance of waste transport; however, default values can be used. Mitigation Method: In WARM, the project applicant specifies the amount of waste associated with each of the three alternative scenarios: waste reduced (e.g. reduced waste generation), waste recycled, and waste composted. WARM then calculates the GHG savings associated with the alternative scenarios as compared with the baseline scenario. Assumptions: Data based upon the following reference: USEPA. 2009. Waste Reduction Model. Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/waste/calculators/Warm_home.html CIWMB. 1999. Statewide Waste Characterization Study: Final Results and Report. Available online at: http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/publications/LocalAsst/34000009.pdf CIWMB. 2006. Targeted Statewide Waste Characterization Study: Waste Disposal and Diversion Findings for Selected Industry Groups. Available online at: http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/WasteChar/WasteStudies.htm#2006Industry Preferred Literature: USEPA's WARM was developed to track GHG emission reductions from various waste management options. This tool calculates the GHG emissions associated with a baseline waste management strategy, as well as those associated with an alternative strategy that may include source reduction, recycling, composting, combusting, or landfilling. WARM then calculates the GHG savings associated with the alternative strategy as compared with the baseline strategy. WARM requires input of the estimated tons of waste per material type per disposal strategy. There are 34 different material types (e.g., aluminum cans, mixed paper, yard trimmings, carpet). Other input variables include landfill type (presence of landfill gas control system or not) and distance of waste transport; however, default values can be used. Note that WARM was developed based on a life-cycle approach, which reflects emissions and reductions in both the upstream and downstream processes around waste management. USEPA notes that emission factors developed based on this life cycle approach are not appropriate for use in GHG inventories. Alternative Literature: None Solid Waste CEQA# MM D-14 MP# WRD-2 SW-1 Solid Waste 395 SW-1 Other Literature Reviewed: HF&H Consultants. 2008. 5-Year Audit Program Assessment and Final Report. Prepared for StopWaste.Org. Available online at: http://www.stopwaste.org/docs/revised_assessment_report-final_1-08.pdf StopWaste.Org. 2008. Multifamily Dwelling Recycling Evaluation Report. Available online at: http://www.stopwaste.org/docs/mfd_evaluation_rpt.pdf Solid Waste CEQA# MM D-14 MP# WRD-2 SW-1 Solid Waste 396 SW-1 Table SW-1.1 Residential Waste Disposal Rates Multi-family Homes All Counties All Regions Annual Disposal Rate (tons/resident/year) 0.46 Single-family Homes County Region Annual Disposal Rate (tons/resident/year) Alameda Bay Area 0.42 Alpine Mountain 0.25 Amador Mountain 0.25 Butte Central Valley 0.36 Calaveras Mountain 0.25 Colusa Central Valley 0.36 Contra Costa Bay Area 0.42 Del Norte Coastal 0.44 El Dorado Mountain 0.25 Fresno Central Valley 0.36 Glenn Central Valley 0.36 Humbolt Coastal 0.44 Imperial Southern 0.41 Inyo Mountain 0.25 Kern Southern 0.41 Kings Central Valley 0.36 Lake Central Valley 0.36 Lassen Mountain 0.25 Los Angeles Southern 0.41 Madera Central Valley 0.36 Marin Bay Area 0.42 Mariposa Mountain 0.25 Mendocino Coastal 0.44 Merced Central Valley 0.36 Modoc Mountain 0.25 Mono Mountain 0.25 Solid Waste CEQA# MM D-14 MP# WRD-2 SW-1 Solid Waste 397 SW-1 Single-family Homes County Region Annual Disposal Rate (tons/resident/year) Monterey Coastal 0.44 Napa Bay Area 0.42 Nevada Mountain 0.25 Orange Southern 0.41 Placer Central Valley 0.36 Plumas Mountain 0.25 Riverside Southern 0.41 Sacramento Central Valley 0.36 San Benito Coastal 0.44 San Bernardino Southern 0.41 San Diego Southern 0.41 San Francisco Bay Area 0.42 San Joaquin Central Valley 0.36 San Luis Obispo Southern 0.41 San Mateo Bay Area 0.42 Santa Barbara Southern 0.41 Santa Clara Bay Area 0.42 Santa Cruz Coastal 0.44 Shasta Mountain 0.25 Sierra Mountain 0.25 Siskiyou Mountain 0.25 Solano Bay Area 0.42 Sonoma Coastal 0.44 Stanislaus Central Valley 0.36 Sutter Central Valley 0.36 Tehama Central Valley 0.36 Trinity Mountain 0.25 Tulare Central Valley 0.36 Tuolumne Mountain 0.25 Ventura Southern 0.41 Yolo Central Valley 0.36 Yuba Central Valley 0.36 Source: Solid Waste CEQA# MM D-14 MP# WRD-2 SW-1 Solid Waste 398 SW-1 Single-family Homes County Region Annual Disposal Rate (tons/resident/year) CalRecycle. Solid Waste Characterization Database: Residential Waste Disposal Rates. Available online at: http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/wastechar/Resdisp.htm CIWMB. 1999. Statewide Waste Characterization Study: Final Results and Report. Available online at: http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/publications/LocalAsst/34000009.pdf. Solid Waste CEQA# MM D-14 MP# WRD-2 SW-1 Solid Waste 399 SW-1 Table SW-1.2 Commercial Waste Disposal Rates Commercial Industry Annual Disposal Rate Fast-Food Restaurants 2.1 tons/employee/year Full-Service Restaurants 2.2 tons/employee/year Food Stores 2.4 tons/employee/year Durable Wholesale Distributors 1.2 tons/employee/year Non-Durable Wholesale Distributors 1.4 tons/employee/year Large Hotels 2.0 tons/employee/year Building Material & Gardening, Big-Box Stores 3.2 tons/employee/year Building Material & Gardening, Other Stores 1.7 tons/employee/year Retail, Big-Box Stores 1.4 tons/employee/year Retail, Other Stores 0.9 tons/employee/year Shopping Malls, Anchor Stores 1.1 tons/1,000 sqft/year Shopping Malls, Other 1.0 tons/1,000 sqft/year Public Venues and Events 0.1 tons/100 visitors/year Large Office Buildings 0.9 tons/1,000 sqft/year Abbreviations: lb - pound sqft - square feet Source: CIWMB. 2006. Targeted Statewide Waste Characterization Study: Waste Disposal and Diversion Findings for Selected Industry Groups. Table 2. Available online at: http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/WasteChar/WasteStudies.htm#2006Industry Solid Waste CEQA# MM D-14 MP# WRD-2 SW-1 Solid Waste 400 SW-1 Table SW-1.3 Waste Streams and Percent of Disposed Waste Building Category Disposed Waste Streams Paper [Mixed Paper, Broad Definition] Glass [Glass] Metal [Mixed Metals] Plastic [Mixed Plastics] Electronics [Personal Computers] Organics [Mixed Organics] Construction & Demolition [Clay Bricks, Concrete] Household Hazardous, Special, and Mixed Residue [Mixed MSW] Residential 27.4% 4.0% 4.6% 8.8% n/a 45.0% 4.5% 5.5% Fast-Food Restaurants 33.0% 0.6% 1.6% 11.6% 0.0% 52.5% 0.6% 0.0% Full-Service Restaurants 17.3% 2.7% 2.8% 7.3% 0.1% 66.5% 1.8% 1.5% Food Stores 18.5% 0.5% 1.4% 9.5% 0.0% 65.0% 5.0% 0.0% Durable Wholesale Distributors 26.3% 0.7% 11.4% 9.9% 0.5% 5.4% 43.5% 2.4% Non-Durable Wholesale Distributors 26.5% 0.5% 3.3% 16.0% 2.6% 32.7% 18.4% 0.1% Large Hotels 32.3% 4.7% 3.8% 9.7% 0.4% 44.2% 4.8% 0.1% Building Material & Gardening, Big-Box Stores 12.2% 1.9% 8.3% 7.1% 1.2% 8.0% 60.1% 1.2% Building Material & Gardening, Other Stores 13.4% 5.3% 3.9% 7.1% 1.9% 18.6% 47.4% 2.3% Retail, Big-Box Stores 21.7% 1.1% 5.3% 16.0% 0.8% 23.6% 27.1% 4.4% Retail, Other Stores 31.8% 6.2% 8.7% 14.4% 0.7% 17.5% 15.0% 5.7% Shopping Malls, Anchor Stores 37.9% 5.0% 3.0% 28.8% 0.1% 15.5% 9.1% 0.5% Shopping Malls, Other 32.7% 1.8% 2.3% 19.6% 0.2% 35.9% 5.3% 2.0% Public Venues and Events 42.0% 5.5% 1.8% 14.8% 0.0% 34.0% 0.7% 1.2% Large Office Buildings 50.3% 1.8% 1.6% 12.5% 0.1% 24.4% 8.3% 1.1% Abbreviations: MSW - municipal solid waste Notes: The USEPA report identifies waste streams with slightly different names than the CIWMB report. The CIWMB and USEPA waste stream categories were paired; USEPA categories are shown in brackets [ ] above. Sources: CIWMB. 1999. Statewide Waste Characterization Study: Final Results and Report. Available online at: http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/publications/LocalAsst/34000009.pdf CIWMB. 2006. Targeted Statewide Waste Characterization Study: Waste Disposal and Diversion Findings for Selected Industry Gr oups. Available online at: http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/WasteChar/WasteStudies.htm#2006Industry USEPA. 2006. Solid Waste Management and Greenhouse Gases: A Life -Cycle Assessment of Emissions and Sinks. Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/waste/SWMGHGreport.html Solid Waste CEQA# MM C-4 MP# WRD-2.3 SW-2 Solid Waste 401 SW-2 6.1.2 Recycle Demolished Construction Material Range of Effectiveness: Varies depending on Project Applicant and strategies selected. Best Management Practice. Measure Description: Recycling demolished construction material can contribute to GHG reductions in multiple ways. First, it displaces new construction materials, thereby reducing the need for new raw material acquisition and manufacturing of those new construction materials. Harvesting of raw materials and manufacturing new materials requires energy in the form of fuel combustion and electricity, both of which are associated with GHG emissions. If the process of recycling construction materials is less carbon-intensive than the processes required to harvest and produce new construction materials, recycling these construction materials results in a net reduction in GHG emissions. Second, using local recycled construction material reduces the emissions associated with the transportation of new construction materials, which are typically manufactured farther away from a project site. Third, recycling construction material avoids sending this material to landfills. Wood-based materials decompose in landfills and contribute to methane emissions. Unlike measures which reduce GHG emissions during the operational lifetime of a project, such as reducing building electricity and water usage, this mitigation effort is realized prior to the actual operational lifetime of a project. Therefore, these GHG emissions reductions are best quantified in terms of a life-cycle analysis. Life cycle analyses examine all stages of the life of a product, including raw material acquisition, manufacture, transportation, installation, use, and disposal or recycling. The Project Applicant should seek local agency guidance on comparing and/or combining operational emissions inventories and life cycle emissions inventories. Measure Applicability: Life cycle emissions from construction materials Preferred Literature: The California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) cites decreases in greenhouse gas emissions as a benefit of construction waste management and recycling in its document “Construction Waste Management” which is used as part of California Sustainable Design Training. The document is available online at: www.calrecycle.ca.gov/greenbuilding/training/statemanual/waste.doc Alternative Literature: None Other Literature Reviewed: None Section Category Page # Measure # 7.0 Vegetation 402 7.1 Vegetation 402 7.1.1 Urban Tree Planting 402 V-1 7.1.2 Create New Vegetated Open Space 406 V-2 Vegetation CEQA# MM T-14 MP# COS-3.3, COS 3.2 V-1 Vegetation 402 V-1 7.0 Vegetation 7.1 Vegetation 7.1.1 Urban Tree Planting Range of Effectiveness: CO2 reduction varies by the number of trees. VOC emissions may increase. Measure Description: Planting trees sequesters CO2 while the trees are actively growing. The amount of CO2 sequestered depends on the type of tree. IPCC indicates that in most cases, the active growing period of a tree is 20 years and after this time the amount of carbon in biomass slows and will be completely offset by losses from clipping, pruning, and occasional death [1]. Therefore, the emissions only occur for a 20 year period and are summed over all years to give a net one-time GHG benefit. If large areas of trees will be planted, the lead agency may want to ensure enforceability by requiring submission of annual inventory consistent with the Urban Forest Protocol [2]. This is a comprehensive protocol that requires maintenance and replacement of trees. If the Project Applicant desires to use this approach, calculation methodologies and assumptions presented in the protocol should be used. The information required to implement this protocol is often not available at the time of the CEQA process. The type of tree species planted will result in varying degrees of carbon sequestration. In addition, trees emit volatile organic compounds (VOCs), which are criteria pollutant precursors. Therefore the Project Applicant may want to consider these issues when selecting the type of tree to plant. See [3] for details on low-VOC trees. Measure Applicability: New trees Inputs: The following information needs to be provided by the Project Applicant: Species classes of trees planted, if known Number of net new trees in each species class, if known Total number of net new trees Baseline Method: In the baseline case, there are no net new trees planted. Vegetation CEQA# MM T-14 MP# COS-3.3, COS 3.2 V-1 Vegetation 403 V-1 Mitigation Method: Look up default annual CO2 sequestration rates on a per tree basis: Broad species class Default annual CO2 accumulation per tree1 (MT CO2/ year) Aspen 0.0352 Soft maple 0.0433 Mixed hardwood 0.0367 Hardwood maple 0.0521 Juniper 0.0121 Cedar/larch 0.0264 Douglas fir 0.0447 True fir/Hemlock 0.0381 Pine 0.0319 Spruce 0.0337 Miscellaneous2 0.0354 1. IPCC’s carbon (C) values converted to carbon dioxide (CO2) using ratio of molecular weights (44/12). 2. Average of all other broad species classes. To be assumed if tree type is not known. Therefore, the reduction in GHG emissions associated with planting new trees is: GHG emission reduction = (Growing Period x n i 1 [Sequestration i x Trees i ] ) ÷ Total GHG emissions Where: GHG emission reduction = Percentage reduction in GHG emissions as compared to total GHG emissions. Growing Period = Growing period for all trees, expressed in years (20). n = Number of broad species classes. Provided by Applicant. Sequestration i = Default annual CO2 accumulation per tree for broad species class i. Lookup in table above. Trees i = Number of net new trees of broad species class i. Total GHG emissions = Total GHG emissions. Provided by Applicant. Emission Reduction Ranges and Variables: Pollutant Category Emissions Reductions CO2e Varies based on number of trees VOC May increase All other pollutants Not Quantified Vegetation CEQA# MM T-14 MP# COS-3.3, COS 3.2 V-1 Vegetation 404 V-1 Discussion: If the applicant has baseline total project emissions of 5,000 MT CO2e per year, and if the applicant elects to mitigate GHG emissions by committing to planting 500 net new “miscellaneous” trees, the applicant would reduce the amount of GHG emissions associated with the project by 7%. GHG Emission Reduced = 0.075,000 5000.035420 or 7% Assumptions: Data based upon the following reference: [1] IPCC. 2006. 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Volume 4, Table 8.2. Available online at: http://www.ipcc- nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/4_Volume4/V4_08_Ch8_Settlements.pdf Preferred Literature: The IPCC Guidelines [1] provide a method for estimating the amount of carbon sequestered by trees. IPCC default annual CO2 sequestration rates on a per tree basis are used. Table 8.2 of the IPCC Guidelines provides species class-specific sequestration values. For species that do not appear or if the species is unknown, the average value from Table 8.2 (0.035 MT CO2 per year per tree) can be assumed to be representative of trees planted. Urban trees are only net carbon sinks when they are actively growing. The IPCC assumes an active growing period of 20 years (see p. 8.9). Thereafter, the accumulation of carbon in biomass slows with age, and will be completely offset by losses from clipping, pruning, and occasional death. Actual active growing periods are subject to, among other things, species, climate regime, and planting density. Additional credit may be taken for planting native trees. See WUW-3 for details on the design of water-efficient landscaping. Alternative Literature: The Center for Urban Forest Research Tree Carbon Calculator is based on a small set of data and extrapolates annual tree girth increases for various tree species [1]. Furthermore, it extrapolates the amount of carbon associated with a given girth for each tree species. This method is based on extrapolation of a limited dataset. In addition it requires considerably more input requirements that may not be available for CEQA projects. These inputs include knowledge of specific tree species that will be planted and assumptions regarding anticipated growth rates. Considering the order of magnitude of mitigation from this option, the additional complexity of this method would not generally be warranted for most CEQA projects. The CAR Urban Forest Sector Protocol [2] provides guidelines for estimating the amount of CO2 sequestered by common California tree species. This methodology Vegetation CEQA# MM T-14 MP# COS-3.3, COS 3.2 V-1 Vegetation 405 V-1 would require Project Applicants to know the tree species to be planted at the time the CEQA analysis is prepared. Furthermore, this methodology would require Project Applicants to estimate the expected diameter of trees, which is dependent on climate and tree sub-species, among other things. Alternative Literature References: [2] CAR. 2010. Urban Forest Project Protocol Version 1.1. Available online at: http://www.climateactionreserve.org/how/protocols/adopted/urban-forest/current-urban- forest-project-protocol/ [3] The Center for Urban Forest Research Tree Carbon Calculator. Available online at: http://www.fs.fed.us/ccrc/topics/urban-forests/ Other Literature Reviewed: None Vegetation MP# COS-4.1 V-2 Vegetation 406 V-2 7.1.2 Create New Vegetated Open Space Range of Effectiveness: varies based on amount and type of land vegetated Measure Description: A development which re-vegetates or creates vegetated land from previously settled land sequesters CO2 from the atmosphere which would not have been captured had there been no land-type change. There is no reduction in GHG emissions associated with preservation of a land. Measure Applicability: Open space Inputs: The following information needs to be provided by the Project Applicant: Types of land uses created Acres of each land use created Baseline Method: In the baseline case, there is no preserved or created open space. Mitigation Method: Lookup carbon dioxide sequestered per acre for each land use that will be preserved or created: Land Use Sub-Category Default annual CO2 accumulation per acre1 (MT CO2/ acre) Forest Land Scrub 14.3 Trees 111 Cropland -- 6.9 Grassland -- 4.31 Wetlands -- 0 1. Calculated by multiplying total biomass (MT dry matter/acre) from IPCC data by the carbon fraction in plant material (0.47), then using the ratio of molecular weights (44/12) to convert from MT of carbon (C) to MT of carbon dioxide (CO2). Land uses are defined by IPCC as follows: (i) Forest Land Vegetation MP# COS-4.1 V-2 Vegetation 407 V-2 This category includes all land with woody vegetation consistent with thresholds used to define Forest Land in the national greenhouse gas inventory. It also includes systems with a vegetation structure that currently fall below, but in situ could potentially reach the threshold values used by a country to define the Forest Land category. (ii) Cropland This category includes cropped land, including rice fields, and agro-forestry systems where the vegetation structure falls below the thresholds used for the Forest Land category. (iii) Grassland This category includes rangelands and pasture land that are not considered Cropland. It also includes systems with woody vegetation and other non-grass vegetation such as herbs and brushes that fall below the threshold values used in the Forest Land category. The category also includes all grassland from wild lands to recreational areas as well as agricultural and silvi- pastural systems, consistent with national definitions. (iv) Wetlands This category includes areas of peat extraction and land that is covered or saturated by water for all or part of the year (e.g., peatlands) and that does not fall into the Forest Land, Cropland, Grassland or Settlements categories. It includes reservoirs as a managed sub-division and natural rivers and lakes as unmanaged sub-divisions. GHG emission reduction = ( n i 1 [Sequestration i x Acres i ] ) ÷ Total GHG emissions Where: GHG emission reduction = Percentage reduction in GHG emissions as compared to total GHG emissions. n = Number of land uses. Provided by Applicant. Sequestration i = Default annual CO2 accumulation per acre for land use i. Look up in table above. Acres i = Number of acres of land use i. Total GHG emissions = Total one-time GHG emissions. Provided by Applicant. Emission Reduction Ranges and Variables: Pollutant Category Emissions Reductions CO2e Varies All other pollutants Not Quantified Discussion: If the applicant has baseline one-time emissions of 5,000 MT CO2e per year, and if the applicant elects to mitigate GHG emissions by committing to creating 50 acres of forest Vegetation MP# COS-4.1 V-2 Vegetation 408 V-2 land (scrub) and 20 acres of grassland, the applicant would reduce the amount of one- time GHG emissions by 16%. GHG Emission Reduced = 0.165,000 204.315014.3 or 16% Assumptions: Data based upon the following references: [1] IPCC. 2006. 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Volume 4. Available online at: http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/vol4.html Preferred Literature: The IPCC Guidelines provide a method for calculating changes in CO2 sequestration due to land-type conversions. While other methods exist, notably the CCAR Forest Protocol [2], the IPCC Guidelines [1] have more general default values available that will be applicable to all areas of California without requiring detailed site-specific information. A general knowledge of the proposed change in land type is sufficient to quantify reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. IPCC designates four general vegetation types: forest land, cropland, grassland, and wetland. The amount of sequestered CO2 is calculated based on the amount of carbon stock in each type of biomass (MT carbon / hectare vegetation). IPCC defaults for the carbon stock in each vegetation type are summarized in Table 8.4. (Note that this table represents the amount of carbon removed due to land conversion to settlements; it can also be used to calculate the amount of carbon sequestered due to conversion from settlement to vegetated land. Note also that a conversion to wetlands is not relevant for California). In addition to general default values, the IPCC Guidelines have climate and species- specific data available which can be used if details of the proposed development are known. To calculate the final mass of CO2, the mass of carbon is then multiplied by 3.67, which is the ratio of molecular mass of CO2 to the molecular mass of carbon. This method assumes that all of the carbon is converted into CO2, which is appropriate for most CEQA projects. Alternative Literature: The CAR Forest Sector Protocol provides guidelines for estimating the amount of CO2 sequestered by vegetated land [1]. The Protocol is specific to forest land only, and is not appropriate for estimating land-type conversions to or from cropland or grassland. Additionally, the methodology is limited to conversions from vegetated land to settlement or settlement to vegetated land, but is not appropriate for changes from one vegetated land type to another vegetated land type. The Protocol recommends accounting for changes in the organic carbon content of soil, which requires soil sampling and testing. While testing of existing soil is feasible, the protocol does not Vegetation MP# COS-4.1 V-2 Vegetation 409 V-2 provide adequate methods for predicting the future soil organic carbon content after a land-type conversion has taken places. Furthermore, soil testing may be a burdensome task for a Project Applicant. Methodologies which provide default values, such as the IPCC Guidelines, are preferable. Alternative Literature References: [2] CAR. 2010. Urban Forest Project Protocol Version 1.1. Available online at: http://www.climateactionreserve.org/how/protocols/adopted/urban-forest/current- urban-forest-project-protocol/ Other Literature Reviewed: None Section Category Page # Measure # 8.0 Construction 410 8.1 Construction 410 8.1.1 Use Alternative Fuels for Construction Equipment 410 C-1 8.1.2 Use Electric and Hybrid Construction Equipment 420 C-2 8.1.3 Limit Construction Equipment Idling beyond Regulation Requirements 428 C-3 8.1.4 Institute a Heavy-Duty Off-Road Vehicle Plan 431 C-4 8.1.5 Implement a Construction Vehicle Inventory Tracking System 432 C-5 Construction CEQA# MM C-2 MP# TR-6, EE-1 C-1 Construction Equipment 410 C-1 8.0 Construction 8.1 Construction 8.1.1 Use Alternative Fuels for Construction Equipment Range of Effectiveness: 0 – 22% reduction in GHG emissions Measure Description: When construction equipment is powered by alternative fuels such as compressed natural gas rather than conventional petroleum diesel or gasoline, GHG emissions from fuel combustion may be reduced. Measure Applicability: [3] Construction vehicles Inputs: The following information needs to be provided by the Project Applicant: Fuel type and Horsepower of Construction Equipment Hours of operation Baseline Method: For all pollutants besides ROG emissions from gasoline-fueled equipment, total emission is equivalent to exhaust emission and is calculated as follows: Exhaust Emission = CHrHpAvgHPActivity Exhaust Where: Exhaust Emission= MT or tons of pollutant per year Exhaust = Statewide daily emission from equipment for the relevant horsepower tier of diesel or gasoline fuel (tons/day). Obtained from OFFROAD2007. Activity = Statewide daily average operating hours for the relevant horsepower tier (hours/day). Obtained from OFFROAD2007. AvgHP = Average horsepower for the relevant horsepower tier (HP). Obtained from OFFROAD2007. Hp = Horsepower of equipment. Hr = Hours of operation. C = Unit conversion factor Construction CEQA# MM C-2 MP# TR-6, EE-1 C-1 Construction Equipment 411 C-1 Note that this method assumes the load factor of the equipment is same as the default in OFFROAD2007. Total GHG emission is calculated as follows: GHG Emission = CO2 Emission + CH4 Emission 21 + N2O Emission 310 Where: GHG Emission = MT CO2e CO2 Emission = CO2 emission calculated as described above with data from OFFROAD2007. CH4 Emission = CH4 emission calculated as described above with data from OFFROAD2007. N2O Emission = N2O emission calculated as described above with data from OFFROAD2007. 21 = Global warming potential of CH4 following CCAR GPR 2009. 310 = Global warming potential of N2O following CCAR GPR 2009. Total ROG emission from gasoline-fueled equipment is calculated as follows: Total ROG Emission = Exhaust ROG Emission + CHrHpAvgHPActivity eEvaporativSoak HotDiurnalResting Where: Total ROG Emission = Tons of ROG emission per year Exhaust ROG Emission = ROG emission from exhaust calculated as described above (tons/year) Resting = Statewide daily resting losses from equipment for the relevant horsepower tier (tons/day). Obtained from OFFROAD2007. Diurnal = Statewide daily diurnal losses from equipment for the relevant horsepower tier (tons/day). Obtained from OFFROAD2007. Hot Soak = Statewide daily hot soak losses from equipment for the relevant horsepower tier (tons/day). Obtained from OFFROAD2007. Evaporative = Statewide daily evaporative losses from equipment for the relevant horsepower tier (tons/day). Obtained from OFFROAD2007. Activity = Statewide daily average operating hours for the relevant horsepower tier (hours/day). Obtained from OFFROAD2007. AvgHP = Average horsepower for the relevant horsepower tier (HP). Obtained from OFFROAD2007. Hp = Horsepower of TRU. Hr = Hours of operation. C = Unit conversion factor Construction CEQA# MM C-2 MP# TR-6, EE-1 C-1 Construction Equipment 412 C-1 Mitigation Method: Mitigated emissions for this measure are calculated using the same method as baseline method, but with emission factors from compressed natural gas in OFFROAD2007. Emission Reduction Ranges and Variables: GHG and criteria pollutant emission reductions from switching diesel or gasoline fuel to compressed natural gas fuel for different years are listed in accompanying tables. Only equipment with emission data for compressed natural gas and either diesel or gasoline fuel in OFFROAD2007 are included. Discussion: The emission changes vary over a large range for different pollutants and equipment and between diesel and gasoline. In fact, GHG emissions for several types of equipment running on gasoline and all equipment running on diesel would increase from switching to compressed natural gas, as reflected by the negative reductions in the tables. On the other hand, SO2 emissions are 100% reduced as there is no SO2 emissions from equipment running on compressed natural gas according to OFFROAD2007. Other trends include no significant change in PM emissions for most gasoline equipment, considerable decrease in CO emissions from gasoline equipment but significant increase in CO emissions from diesel equipment. Therefore, the Project Applicant has to weigh the costs and benefits from switching to compressed natural gas on a case-by-case basis. Assumptions: Data based upon the following references: California Air Resources Board. Off-road Emissions Inventory. OFFROAD2007. Available online at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/offroad/offroad.htm California Climate Action Registry (CCAR). 2009. General Reporting Protocol. Version 3.1. Available online at: http://www.climateregistry.org/tools/protocols/general- reporting-protocol.html California Climate Action Registry Reporting Online Tool. 2006 PUP Reports. Available online at: https://www.climateregistry.org/CARROT/public/reports.aspx Preferred Literature: GHG emissions from the combustion of conventional petroleum diesel and gasoline fuel can be calculated using CARB's OFFROAD model emission factors [1]. The model provides state-wide and regional emission factors that can be converted to grams per horsepower-hour. Multiplying this factor by the typical horsepower of the equipment and the estimated number of hours of operation gives the total GHG emissions. In this mitigation measure, compressed natural gas was chosen as the alternative fuel. Emission factors for compressed natural gas can also be obtained from OFFROAD The Construction CEQA# MM C-2 MP# TR-6, EE-1 C-1 Construction Equipment 413 C-1 GHG emissions reduction associated with this mitigation measure is therefore the difference in emissions from using petroleum diesel or gasoline versus using compressed natural gas. Other types of alternative fuels besides compressed natural gas exist. In order to take credit for this mitigation measure, the Project Applicant would need to provide detailed and substantial documentation showing expected reductions in GHG emissions as a result of running construction equipment on these alternative fuels rather than petroleum diesel or gasoline. One potential issue with quantifying this mitigation measure is the difference in fuel economy between petroleum diesel and alternative fuels. Alternative Literature: Many USDOE, NREL, and USEPA reports exist which present data on exhaust emissions from engines operating with alternative fuels. The majority of these reports focuses on oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and particulate matter (PM) emissions and have limited CO2 emissions and fuel economy data. One NREL report shows CO2 emissions and fuel economy for three ethanol/diesel blends (7.7%, 10%, and 15%) in three off- road engines (6.8, 8.1, and 12.5 L) and compares the results to engine performance using conventional diesel fuel [5]. However, this report presented engine-specific data from a small study size. Issues with other reports include the study's focus on on-road engines rather than off-road engines which would be used in construction equipment. It would be difficult to generalize the data contained in these reports for a Project Applicant's ease of use. Notes: [1] CARB. OFFROAD 2007 Model. Available online at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/offroad/offroad.htm . Accessed February 2010. Other Literature Reviewed: [2] USEPA. 2002. A Comprehensive Analysis of Biodiesel Impacts on Exhaust Emissions. Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/analysis/biodsl/p02001.pdf [3] USDOE. NREL: ReFUEL Laboratory: Data and Resources. Available online at: http://www.nrel.gov/vehiclesandfuels/refuellab/data_resources.html . Accessed March 2010. [4] USDOE. 2006. NREL: Effects of Biodiesel Blends on Vehicle Emissions. Available online at: http://www.nrel.gov/vehiclesandfuels/npbf/pdfs/40554.pdf [5] USDOE. 2003. NREL: The Effect of Biodiesel Composition on Engine Emissions from a DDC Series 60 Diesel Engine. Available online at: http://www.nrel.gov/vehiclesandfuels/npbf/pdfs/31461.pdf Construction CEQA# MM C-2 MP# TR-6, EE-1 C-1 Construction Equipment 414 C-1 Table C-1.1 Emission Reduction Due to Fuel Switch from Gasoline to Compressed Natural Gas Equipment Horsepower 2004 CO CO2e NOx PM ROG SO2 Aerial Lifts <15 59% -27% 36% 91% 98% 100% 15 - 25 61% -40% 7% 90% 97% 100% Air Conditioner < 175 24% 14% 19% 0% 97% 100% Baggage Tug < 120 46% 15% -4% 0% 93% 100% Belt Loader < 120 52% 18% 3% 0% 95% 100% Bobtail < 120 55% 17% 19% 0% 95% 100% Cargo Loader < 120 41% 16% 2% 0% 93% 100% Catering Truck < 250 31% 12% 25% 0% 94% 100% Forklifts < 25 53% -46% 23% -85% 92% 100% 25 - 50 94% 22% -33% 0% 97% 100% 50 - 120 58% 19% 18% 0% 96% 100% 120 - 175 24% 17% 24% 0% 94% 100% Fuel Truck <175 3% 18% 17% 0% 99% 100% Generator Sets <120 52% 18% 14% 0% 96% 100% 120 - 175 22% 14% 21% 0% 95% 100% Lav Truck <175 32% 18% 17% 0% 94% 100% Lift <120 53% 17% 14% 0% 96% 100% Passenger Stand <175 27% 15% 22% 0% 96% 100% Service Truck <250 13% 16% 26% 0% 95% 100% Equipment Horsepower 2010 CO CO2e NOx PM ROG SO2 Aerial Lifts <15 58% -27% 39% 91% 96% 100% 15 - 25 58% -37% 32% 90% 95% 100% Air Conditioner < 175 29% 14% 19% 0% 98% 100% Baggage Tug < 120 13% 13% -114% 0% 84% 100% Belt Loader < 120 27% 15% -82% 0% 91% 100% Bobtail < 120 29% 16% 11% 0% 96% 100% Cargo Loader < 120 15% 14% -70% 0% 89% 100% Catering Truck < 250 35% 12% 29% 0% 95% 100% Forklifts < 25 53% -51% 3% -85% 85% 100% 25 - 50 95% 22% 18% 0% 98% 100% 50 - 120 52% 18% 5% 0% 95% 100% 120 - 175 27% 14% 23% 0% 94% 100% Fuel Truck <175 9% 16% 15% 0% 100% 100% Generator Sets <120 40% 17% 16% 0% 97% 100% 120 - 175 26% 14% 23% 0% 95% 100% Lav Truck <175 36% 15% -18% 0% 94% 100% Lift <120 44% 17% 16% 0% 96% 100% Construction CEQA# MM C-2 MP# TR-6, EE-1 C-1 Construction Equipment 415 C-1 Passenger Stand <175 32% 15% 25% 0% 97% 100% Service Truck <250 19% 14% 40% 0% 95% 100% Equipment Horsepower 2015 CO CO2e NOx PM ROG SO2 Aerial Lifts <15 58% -27% 39% 91% 96% 100% 15 - 25 58% -37% 32% 90% 94% 100% Air Conditioner < 175 31% 13% 23% 0% 99% 100% Baggage Tug < 120 8% 14% -93% 0% 85% 100% Belt Loader < 120 22% 16% -69% 0% 92% 100% Bobtail < 120 25% 16% 13% 0% 96% 100% Cargo Loader < 120 5% 14% -91% 0% 88% 100% Catering Truck < 250 38% 11% 33% 0% 95% 100% Forklifts < 25 53% -51% 3% -85% 84% 100% 25 - 50 95% 22% 34% 0% 98% 100% 50 - 120 52% 18% 6% 0% 95% 100% 120 - 175 27% 14% 25% 0% 95% 100% Fuel Truck <175 12% 15% 13% 0% 100% 100% Generator Sets <120 21% 16% 17% 0% 97% 100% 120 - 175 29% 13% 24% 0% 96% 100% Lav Truck <175 36% 15% -24% 0% 95% 100% Lift <120 37% 16% 16% 0% 96% 100% Passenger Stand <175 34% 14% 28% 0% 98% 100% Service Truck <250 22% 13% 46% 0% 96% 100% Equipment Horsepower 2020 CO CO2e NOx PM ROG SO2 Aerial Lifts <15 58% -27% 39% 91% 96% 100% 15 - 25 58% -37% 32% 90% 94% 100% Air Conditioner < 175 32% 13% 24% 0% 99% 100% Baggage Tug < 120 7% 15% -49% 0% 89% 100% Belt Loader < 120 21% 16% -27% 0% 94% 100% Bobtail < 120 26% 16% 13% 0% 96% 100% Cargo Loader < 120 3% 15% -62% 0% 91% 100% Catering Truck < 250 39% 11% 36% 0% 96% 100% Forklifts < 25 53% -51% 3% -85% 84% 100% 25 - 50 95% 22% 36% 0% 98% 100% 50 - 120 52% 18% 8% 0% 95% 100% 120 - 175 27% 14% 26% 0% 95% 100% Fuel Truck <175 12% 14% 9% 0% 100% 100% Generator Sets <120 -5% 16% 17% 0% 98% 100% 120 - 175 30% 13% 25% 0% 97% 100% Lav Truck <175 36% 15% 3% 0% 96% 100% Construction CEQA# MM C-2 MP# TR-6, EE-1 C-1 Construction Equipment 416 C-1 Lift <120 30% 16% 15% 0% 97% 100% Passenger Stand <175 35% 14% 30% 0% 98% 100% Service Truck <250 23% 13% 42% 0% 96% 100% Equipment Horsepower 2025 CO CO2e NOx PM ROG SO2 Aerial Lifts <15 58% -27% 39% 91% 96% 100% 15 - 25 58% -37% 32% 90% 94% 100% Air Conditioner < 175 32% 13% 27% 0% 99% 100% Baggage Tug < 120 8% 15% -27% 0% 92% 100% Belt Loader < 120 21% 17% -7% 0% 96% 100% Bobtail < 120 25% 16% 13% 0% 96% 100% Cargo Loader < 120 3% 16% -40% 0% 93% 100% Catering Truck < 250 39% 11% 36% 0% 96% 100% Forklifts < 25 53% -51% 3% -85% 84% 100% 25 - 50 95% 21% 36% 0% 98% 100% 50 - 120 52% 18% 8% 0% 95% 100% 120 - 175 27% 14% 26% 0% 95% 100% Fuel Truck <175 13% 14% 13% 0% 100% 100% Generator Sets <120 -15% 16% 18% 0% 98% 100% 120 - 175 30% 13% 26% 0% 98% 100% Lav Truck <175 36% 15% 22% 0% 97% 100% Lift <120 27% 16% 15% 0% 97% 100% Passenger Stand <175 35% 13% 30% 0% 99% 100% Service Truck <250 24% 12% 34% 0% 96% 100% Construction CEQA# MM C-2 MP# TR-6, EE-1 C-1 Construction Equipment 417 C-1 Table C-1.2 Emission Reduction Due to Fuel Switch from Diesel to Compressed Natural Gas Equipment Horsepower 2004 CO CO2e NOx PM ROG SO2 Aerial Lifts <15 -2749% -27% 55% 36% 73% 100% 15 - 25 -2912% -31% 46% 26% 74% 100% Air Conditioner <175 -451% -21% -30% 84% 87% 100% Baggage Tug <120 -507% -24% 10% 94% 88% 100% Belt Loader <120 -469% -23% 6% 93% 89% 100% Bobtail <120 -441% -22% 23% 93% 91% 100% Cargo Loader <120 -625% -25% -4% 93% 84% 100% Catering Truck <250 -1152% -22% -44% 70% 78% 100% Forklifts <50 -21% -23% -51% 93% 95% 100% 50 - 120 -594% -25% 5% 93% 87% 100% 120 - 175 -581% -22% -2% 88% 89% 100% Generator Sets <120 -397% -12% -2% 92% 91% 100% <175 -415% -12% -11% 85% 89% 100% Lav Truck <175 -457% -22% -11% 88% 89% 100% Lift <120 -465% -23% -5% 92% 89% 100% Equipment Horsepower 2010 CO CO2e NOx PM ROG SO2 Aerial Lifts <15 -3037% -27% 31% -29% 59% 100% 15 - 25 -3755% -32% 40% -3% 60% 100% Air Conditioner <175 -450% -20% -36% 73% 85% 100% Baggage Tug <120 -556% -22% 22% 92% 88% 100% Belt Loader <120 -513% -22% 21% 92% 90% 100% Bobtail <120 -480% -19% 64% 91% 96% 100% Cargo Loader <120 -678% -24% 6% 91% 84% 100% Catering Truck <250 -1732% -21% -38% 53% 73% 100% Forklifts <50 -54% -21% 26% 90% 96% 100% 50 - 120 -647% -22% 32% 90% 90% 100% 120 - 175 -598% -21% 38% 82% 90% 100% Generator Sets <120 -430% -11% 11% 89% 91% 100% <175 -436% -11% 0% 81% 89% 100% Lav Truck <175 -477% -21% 1% 84% 90% 100% Lift <120 -503% -22% 9% 90% 89% 100% Construction CEQA# MM C-2 MP# TR-6, EE-1 C-1 Construction Equipment 418 C-1 Equipment Horsepower 2015 CO CO2e NOx PM ROG SO2 Aerial Lifts <15 -3040% -27% 28% -86% 57% 100% 15 - 25 -4465% -32% 32% -48% 46% 100% Air Conditioner <175 -450% -19% -41% 47% 85% 100% Baggage Tug <120 -590% -21% 30% 91% 89% 100% Belt Loader <120 -541% -21% 31% 90% 91% 100% Bobtail <120 -505% -19% 65% 89% 96% 100% Cargo Loader <120 -720% -22% 4% 88% 83% 100% Catering Truck <250 -1899% -20% -54% 16% 72% 100% Forklifts <50 -85% -20% 41% 83% 94% 100% 50 - 120 -682% -21% 23% 81% 89% 100% 120 - 175 -596% -20% 36% 68% 91% 100% Generator Sets <120 -456% -11% 22% 84% 91% 100% <175 -444% -10% 12% 71% 90% 100% Lav Truck <175 -483% -20% 10% 76% 91% 100% Lift <120 -531% -21% 17% 85% 89% 100% Equipment Horsepower 2020 CO CO2e NOx PM ROG SO2 Aerial Lifts <15 -3040% -27% 28% -91% 57% 100% 15 - 25 -4722% -32% 29% -91% 39% 100% Air Conditioner <175 -449% -19% -104% -81% 88% 100% Baggage Tug <120 -621% -20% 31% 87% 90% 100% Belt Loader <120 -569% -20% 31% 85% 91% 100% Bobtail <120 -526% -19% 53% 84% 95% 100% Cargo Loader <120 -757% -21% -9% 78% 81% 100% Catering Truck <250 -1946% -20% -120% -75% 73% 100% Forklifts <50 -100% -20% 32% 60% 91% 100% 50 - 120 -696% -21% -17% 55% 84% 100% 120 - 175 -596% -20% -12% 31% 89% 100% Generator Sets <120 -476% -10% 25% 69% 91% 100% <175 -446% -10% 5% 48% 90% 100% Lav Truck <175 -485% -19% -3% 56% 91% 100% Lift <120 -553% -20% 13% 72% 89% 100% Construction CEQA# MM C-2 MP# TR-6, EE-1 C-1 Construction Equipment 419 C-1 Equipment Horsepower 2025 CO CO2e NOx PM ROG SO2 Aerial Lifts <15 -3040% -27% 28% -91% 57% 100% 15 - 25 -4803% -32% 27% -109% 37% 100% Air Conditioner <175 -450% -19% -346% -331% 88% 100% Baggage Tug <120 -640% -19% 17% 79% 89% 100% Belt Loader <120 -587% -20% 16% 72% 90% 100% Bobtail <120 -548% -19% 32% 72% 93% 100% Cargo Loader <120 -763% -20% -40% 56% 78% 100% Catering Truck <250 -1936% -20% -330% -294% 72% 100% Forklifts <50 -106% -20% 19% -26% 89% 100% 50 - 120 -703% -21% -69% -48% 79% 100% 120 - 175 -597% -20% -172% -110% 83% 100% Generator Sets <120 -483% -10% 13% 37% 90% 100% <175 -446% -10% -37% -3% 90% 100% Lav Truck <175 -486% -19% -57% 5% 90% 100% Lift <120 -560% -20% -8% 37% 87% 100% Construction MP# TR-6, EE-1 C-2 Construction Equipment 420 C-2 8.1.2 Use Electric and Hybrid Construction Equipment Range of Effectiveness: 2.5 – 80% of GHG emissions from equipment that is electric or hybrid if used 100% of the time Measure Description: When construction equipment is powered by grid electricity rather than fossil fuel, direct GHG emissions from fuel combustion are replaced with indirect GHG emissions associated with the electricity used to power the equipment. When construction equipment is powered by hybrid-electric drives, GHG emissions from fuel combustion are reduced. Measure Applicability: Construction vehicles Inputs: The following information needs to be provided by the Project Applicant: Electricity provider for the Project Fuel type and Horsepower of Construction Equipment Hours of operation Baseline Method: Baseline Emission = CHrLFHpEF Where: Emission = MT CO2e or MT Criteria Pollutant EF = Emission factor for the relevant fuel horsepower tier (g/hp-hr). Obtained from OFFROAD2007. See accompanying tables Hp = Horsepower of equipment. LF = Load factor of equipment for the relevant horsepower tier (dimensionless). Obtained from OFFROAD2007. Hr = Hours of operation. C = Unit conversion factor Mitigation Method: Fully Electric Vehicle Construction vehicles will run solely on electricity. The indirect GHG emission from electricity generation is: Mitigated GHG Emission = CHrLFHpUtility Where: Construction MP# TR-6, EE-1 C-2 Construction Equipment 421 C-2 GHG emissions = MT CO2e Utility = Carbon intensity of Local Utility (CO2e/kWh) Hp = Horsepower of equipment. LF = Load factor of equipment for the relevant horsepower tier (dimensionless). Obtained from OFFROAD2007. Hr = Hours of operation. C = Unit conversion factor Criteria pollutant emissions will be 100% reduced for equipment running solely on electricity. GHG Reduction %106 = 610EF CUtility1 Hybrid-Electric Vehicle GHG Reduction % = Percent Reduction in Fuel Consumption Emission Reduction Ranges and Variables: Fully Electric Vehicle GHG Utility Diesel Compressed Natural Gas 4-strokes Gasoline 2-strokes Gasoline 4-strokes <25 HP 25-50 HP 50-120 HP 120-175 HP 175-500 HP LADW&P 26.3% 37.9% 2.5% 2.5% 46.5% 45.9% 44.4% 42.8% PG&E 72.9% 77.1% 64.1% 64.1% 80.3% 80.1% 79.5% 78.9% SCE 61.8% 67.9% 49.5% 49.5% 72.3% 72.0% 71.2% 70.4% SDGE 53.5% 60.9% 38.5% 38.5% 66.3% 65.9% 64.9% 63.9% SMUD 67.0% 72.2% 56.3% 56.3% 76.0% 75.8% 75.1% 74.3% Criteria pollutant Emissions will be 100% reduced for equipment running on electricity. Hybrid-Electric Vehicle GHG The Project Applicant has to determine the fuel consumption reduced from using the hybrid-electric vehicle. The emission reductions for all pollutants are the same as the fuel reduction. 106 This assumes energy from engine losses are the same. Construction MP# TR-6, EE-1 C-2 Construction Equipment 422 C-2 Discussion: The CO2 emission factor show in the accompanying tables obtained from OFFROAD2007 [1] shows the same emissions within each horsepower tier regardless of the scenario year or equipment model year. The contributions of CH4 and N2O to overall GHG emissions is likely small (< 1% of total CO2e) from diesel construction equipment [2] and were therefore not included. Therefore, the CO2e emission reduction is dependent on the electricity provider for the Project, horsepower and fuel of the construction equipment only. On the other hand, the criteria pollutant emission factors from OFFROAD2007 vary for different scenario and equipment model years. The criteria pollutant emission factors presented in the accompanying tables correspond to those of new equipment in the respective scenario years, i.e., model year is the same as scenario year. Since older equipment have higher emission factors due to deterioration and less regulation, the emission reduction calculated from this methodology is likely to be an underestimate. Assumptions: Data based upon the following references: [1] California Air Resources Board. Off-road Emissions Inventory. OFFROAD2007. Available online at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/offroad/offroad.htm [2] California Climate Action Registry (CCAR). 2009. General Reporting Protocol. Version 3.1. Available online at: http://www.climateregistry.org/tools/protocols/general-reporting-protocol.html [3] California Climate Action Registry Reporting Online Tool. 2006 PUP Reports. Available online at: https://www.climateregistry.org/CARROT/public/reports.aspx Preferred Literature: Electric construction equipment is available commercially from companies such as Peterson Pacific Corporation and Komptech USA, which specialize in the mechanical processing equipment like grinders and shredders [4,5]. The amount of direct GHG emissions avoided can be calculated using CARB's OFFROAD2007 model, which provides state-wide and regional emission factors for a variety of construction equipment that can be converted to grams per horsepower-hour [6]. Multiplying this factor by the number of hours of operation gives the direct GHG emissions. Assuming the same number of operating hours as the diesel-powered equipment, the electricity required to run a piece of electric construction equipment can be calculated by multiplying the operating hours by the amperage required to run the equipment and the voltage rating (obtained from manufacturer technical specifications) to obtain total kWh required. Multiplying this value by the carbon-intensity factor of the local utility gives the amount of indirect GHG emissions associated with using the electric equipment. The Construction MP# TR-6, EE-1 C-2 Construction Equipment 423 C-2 GHG emissions reduction associated with this mitigation measure is therefore the difference in emissions from these two scenarios. Construction equipment powered by hybrid-electric drives is also commercially available from companies such as Caterpillar [7]. For example, Caterpillar reports that during an 8-hour shift, its D7E hybrid dozer burns 19.5% fewer gallons of fuel than a conventional dozer while achieving a 10.3% increase in productivity. The D7E model burns 6.2 gallons per hour compared to a conventional dozer which burns 7.7 gallons per hour. The percent reduction in fuel use is directly proportional to the percent reduction in GHG emissions. Assuming complete combustion to CO 2 and a carbon content of 87%, the CO2 emissions reductions can be calculated. Fuel usage and savings are dependent on the make and model of the construction equipment used. The Project Applicant should calculate project-specific savings and provide manufacturer specifications indicating fuel burned per hour. Alternative Literature: None Notes: [4] Peterson Pacific Corp. Product Brochure Downloads. Available online at: http://www.petersonpacific.com/content/MediaGallery_56_v. Accessed March 2010 . [5] Komptech USA. Products. Available online at: http://www.komptech.com/usa/products.htm. Accessed March 2010. [6] CARB. OFFROAD 2007 Model. Available online at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/offroad/offroad.htm. Accessed February 2010. [7] Caterpillar. D7E Efficiency. Accessed February 2010. Available online at: http://www.cat.com/D7E Other Literature Reviewed: None Construction MP# TR-6, EE-1 C-2 Construction Equipment 424 C-2 Table C-2.1 Emissions Factors from Different Fuels Fuel HP CO2 Emission Factor (g/hp-hr) All Years Compressed Natural Gas 4-stroke All 674.66 Diesel All 568.30 Gasoline 2-stroke All 429.44 Gasoline 4-stroke <25 429.44 25-50 783.30 50-120 774.50 120-175 753.25 175-500 732.00 Fuel HP ROG Emission Factor (g/hp-hr) 2004 2010 2015+ Compressed Natural Gas 4-strokes <15 0.14 0.14 0.14 15-25 0.14 0.14 0.14 25-50 0.06 0.01 0.01 50-120 0.07 0.01 0.01 120-175 0.06 0.01 0.01 175-250 0.06 0.01 0.01 250-500 0.06 0.01 0.01 Diesel <15 0.57 0.41 0.41 15-25 0.54 0.48 0.48 25-50 0.54 0.20 0.08 50-120 0.38 0.16 0.08 120-175 0.18 0.13 0.08 175-250 0.12 0.08 0.06 250-500 0.10 0.08 0.06 500-750 0.12 0.08 0.06 750-1000 0.57 0.08 0.06 >1000 0.57 0.08 0.08 Gasoline 2-stroke <2 6.70 5.52 5.52 2-15 4.19 3.59 3.59 15-25 4.07 3.79 3.79 Gasoline 4-stroke <5 6.70 5.52 5.52 5-15 4.19 3.59 3.59 15-25 4.07 3.79 3.79 Construction MP# TR-6, EE-1 C-2 Construction Equipment 425 C-2 Fuel HP ROG Emission Factor (g/hp-hr) 2004 2010 2015+ 25-50 1.49 0.65 0.65 50-120 0.91 0.24 0.24 120-175 0.72 0.15 0.15 175-250 0.72 0.15 0.15 250-500 0.72 0.15 0.15 Fuel HP CO Emission Factor (g/hp-hr) 2004 2010 2015+ Compressed Natural Gas 4-strokes <15 300 300 300 15-25 300 300 300 25-50 7.02 7.02 7.02 50-120 20 20 20 120-175 16 16 16 175-250 16 16 16 250-500 16 16 16 Diesel <15 3.47 3.47 3.47 15-25 2.34 2.34 2.34 25-50 3.27 2.86 2.72 50-120 3.23 3.09 3.05 120-175 2.70 2.70 2.70 175-250 0.92 0.92 0.92 250-500 0.92 0.92 0.92 500-750 0.92 0.92 0.92 750-1000 2.70 0.92 0.92 >1000 2.70 0.92 0.92 Gasoline 2-stroke <2 318 236 236 2-15 274 225 225 15-25 284 238 238 Gasoline 4-stroke <5 318 236 236 5-15 274 225 225 15-25 284 238 238 25-50 71 38 38 50-120 38 8.76 8.76 120-175 21 21 21 175-250 21 21 21 250-500 21 21 21 Construction MP# TR-6, EE-1 C-2 Construction Equipment 426 C-2 Fuel HP NOx Emission Factor (g/hp-hr) 2004 2010 2015+ Compressed Natural Gas 4-strokes <15 8.44 8.44 8.44 15-25 8.44 8.44 8.44 25-50 5.19 1.95 1.95 50-120 4.57 1.58 1.58 120-175 4.56 1.58 1.58 175-250 4.56 1.58 1.58 250-500 4.56 1.58 1.58 Diesel <15 6.08 4.37 4.37 15-25 5.79 4.57 4.57 25-50 5.10 4.88 4.80 50-120 5.64 5.01 2.53 120-175 4.72 4.44 2.27 175-250 4.58 2.45 1.36 250-500 4.29 2.45 1.36 500-750 4.51 2.45 1.36 750-1000 8.17 4.08 2.36 >1000 8.17 4.08 2.36 Gasoline 2-stroke <2 2.32 2.70 2.70 2-15 2.84 2.90 2.90 15-25 2.32 2.68 2.68 Gasoline 4-stroke <5 2.32 2.70 2.70 5-15 2.84 2.90 2.90 15-25 2.32 2.68 2.68 25-50 4.52 1.33 1.33 50-120 5.06 1.78 1.78 120-175 4.98 1.94 1.94 175-250 4.98 1.94 1.94 250-500 4.98 1.94 1.94 Construction MP# TR-6, EE-1 C-2 Construction Equipment 427 C-2 Fuel HP PM Emission Factor (g/hp-hr) 2004 2010 2015+ Compressed Natural Gas 4-strokes <15 0.90 0.90 0.90 15-25 0.90 0.90 0.90 25-50 0.06 0.06 0.06 50-120 0.06 0.06 0.06 120-175 0.06 0.06 0.06 175-250 0.06 0.06 0.06 250-500 0.06 0.06 0.06 Diesel <15 0.47 0.38 0.38 15-25 0.38 0.38 0.38 25-50 0.43 0.35 0.16 50-120 0.39 0.24 0.01 120-175 0.19 0.16 0.01 175-250 0.11 0.11 0.01 250-500 0.11 0.11 0.01 500-750 0.11 0.11 0.01 750-1000 0.38 0.11 0.06 >1000 0.38 0.11 0.06 Gasoline 2-stroke <2 0.74 0.74 0.74 2-15 0.14 0.14 0.14 15-25 0.14 0.14 0.14 Gasoline 4-stroke <5 0.74 0.74 0.74 5-15 0.14 0.14 0.14 15-25 0.14 0.14 0.14 25-50 0.06 0.06 0.06 50-120 0.06 0.06 0.06 120-175 0.06 0.06 0.06 175-250 0.06 0.06 0.06 250-500 0.06 0.06 0.06 Construction MP# TR-6.2 C-3 Construction Equipment 428 C-3 8.1.3 Limit Construction Equipment Idling beyond Regulation Requirements Range of Effectiveness: Varies with the amount of Project Idling occurring and the amount reduced. Measure Description: Heavy duty vehicles will idle during loading/unloading and during layovers or rest periods with the engine still on. Idling requires fuel use and results in emissions. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) Heavy-Duty Vehicle Idling Emission Reduction Program limits diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles idling time to 5 minutes. There are some exceptions to the regulation such as positioning or providing a power source for equipment or operations such as lift, crane, pump, drill, hoist or other auxiliary equipment. Reduction in idling time beyond required under the regulation would further reduce fuel consumption and thus emissions. The project applicant should develop an enforceable mechanism that monitors the idling time to ensure compliance with this mitigation measure. Measure Applicability: Heavy Duty Commercial Vehicles Inputs: The following information needs to be provided by the Project Applicant: Idling time of vehicle Baseline Method: For all pollutants, the idling emission from each idling period is calculated as follows: Emission = CtEF Where: Emission = grams of pollutant per idling period EF = Idling emission factor for diesel-fueled heavy duty vehicles obtained from EMFAC (g/idling-hour). t = Baseline idling period (minute). This is 5 minutes for all vehicles which do not have auxiliary equipment powered by the primary engine exempted from the regulation. For exempted vehicles, the Project applicant shall determine the baseline idling period. C = Time conversion factor = 1/60 Construction MP# TR-6.2 C-3 Construction Equipment 429 C-3 Mitigation Method: Mitigated emissions for this measure are calculated using the same method as baseline method, but with mitigated idling period. Emission Reduction Ranges and Variables: Emission reduction is calculated as follows: Reduction = B M t t-1 Where: tM = mitigated idling period tB = baseline idling period Discussion: If a heavy duty truck is regulated under the CARB Idling Emission Reduction Program, and the Project Applicant has committed to enforce a reduced idling period to 3 minutes, then the emissions for all pollutants from idling emissions would be reduced by: 40%0.45 3-1 If the Project Applicant determines that the average idling period for a heavy duty vehicle with a hoist powered by the primary engine is 20 minutes, and has committed to enforce a reduced idling time to 15 minutes, then the emissions for all pollutants would be reduced by: 25%0.2520 15-1 Assumptions: Data based upon the following references: California Air Resources Board (CARB) 2009. Heavy-Duty Vehicle Idling Emission Reduction Program. Available at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/truck- idling/truck-idling.htm CARB 2010. EMFAC2007 Model. Available at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/onroad/latest_version.htm Preferred Literature: Idling of heavy duty commercial vehicles requires fuel use and results in emissions. Project Applicant can obtain the average idling emission factor for diesel-fueled heavy Construction MP# TR-6.2 C-3 Construction Equipment 430 C-3 duty trucks in the county where the Project would be located from EMFAC. The total idling emissions can be determined by multiplying this emission factor by the total idling period. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) Heavy-Duty Vehicle Idling Emission Reduction Program limits diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles idling time to 5 minutes, with exceptions for some vehicles with auxiliary equipment powered by the primary engine [1]. The Project Applicant has to determine the appropriate baseline idling periods for such exempted vehicles. A plan should also be developed to ensure enforcement of the reduced idling period that the Project Applicant has committed to. Alternative Literature: None Notes: [1] California Air Resources Board (CARB) 2009. Heavy-Duty Vehicle Idling Emission Reduction Program. Available at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/truck- idling/truck-idling.htm Other Literature Reviewed: None Construction MP# TR-6.2, EE-1 C-4 Construction Equipment 431 C-4 8.1.4 Institute a Heavy-Duty Off-Road Vehicle Plan Range of Effectiveness: Not applicable on its own. This measure ensures compliances with other mitigation measures. Measure Description: The Project Applicant should provide a detailed plan that discusses a construction vehicle inventory tracking system to ensure compliances with construction mitigation measures. The system should include strategies such as requiring hour meters on equipment, documenting the serial number, horsepower, manufacture age, fuel, etc. of all onsite equipment and daily logging of the operating hours of the equipment. Measure Applicability: This measure ensures compliances with other mitigation measures. Construction vehicles. Preferred Literature: None Alternative Literature: None Literature References: None Construction C-5 Construction Equipment 432 C-5 8.1.5 Implement a Construction Vehicle Inventory Tracking System Range of Effectiveness: Not applicable on its own. This measure ensures compliances with other mitigation measures. Measure Description: The Project Applicant should provide a detailed plan that discusses a construction vehicle inventory tracking system to ensure compliances with construction mitigation measures. The system should include strategies such as requiring engine run time meters on equipment, documenting the serial number, horsepower, manufacture age, fuel, etc. of all onsite equipment and daily logging of the operating hours of the equipment. Measure Applicability: This measure ensures compliance with other mitigation measures. Construction vehicles. Preferred Literature: None Alternative Literature: None Literature References: None Section Category Page # Measure # 9.0 Miscellaneous 433 9.1 Miscellaneous 433 9.1.1 Establish a Carbon Sequestration Project 433 Misc-1 9.1.2 Establish Off-Site Mitigation 435 Misc-2 9.1.3 Use Local and Sustainable Building Materials 437 Misc-3 9.1.4 Require Best Management Practices in Agriculture and Animal Operations 439 Misc-4 9.1.5 Require Environmentally Responsible Purchasing 440 Misc-5 9.1.6 Implement an Innovative Strategy for GHG Mitigation 442 Misc-6 Miscellaneous MP# LU-5 Misc-1 Carbon Sequestration 433 Misc-1 9.0 Miscellaneous 9.1 Miscellaneous 9.1.1 Establish a Carbon Sequestration Project Range of Effectiveness: Varies depending on Project Applicant and projects selected. The GHG emissions reduction is subtracted from the overall baseline project emissions inventory. Measure Description: The Project Applicant would establish a carbon sequestration project. This might include (a) geologic sequestration or carbon capture and storage techniques in which CO2 from point sources such as power plants and fuel processing plants is captured and injected underground, (b) terrestrial sequestration in which ecosystems such as wetlands and forestlands are established or preserved to serve as CO2 sinks, (c) novel techniques involving advanced chemical or biological pathways, or (d) technologies yet to be discovered. The Project Applicant would commit to a desired amount of carbon sequestration in MT per year. This amount would be subtracted from the overall baseline project emissions inventory. In order to take credit for this measure, the Project Applicant should be required to establish a reporting and verification mechanism to quantify the amount of carbon sequestered. Furthermore, the Project Applicant should be required to prove additionality.107 Measure Applicability: Overall baseline project GHG emissions inventory Inputs: Amount of CO2e sequestered (MT/year) Baseline Method: The Project Applicant should calculate the baseline project emissions inventory (CO2ebaseline, the total baseline CO2e emissions in MT per year) using the methods described in the baseline methodology document. Mitigation Method: The amount of CO2e sequestered is subtracted from the overall project emissions inventory. Therefore, the percent GHG reduction is 107 Additionality is the reduction in emissions by sources or enhancement of removals by sinks that is additional to any that would occur in the absence of the Project. In other words, the Project should not subsidize or take credit for emissions reductions which would have occurred regardless of the Project. Miscellaneous MP# LU-5 Misc-1 Carbon Sequestration 434 Misc-1 GHG emission reduction = baseline2 dsequestere2 eCO eCO Where: GHG emission reduction = Percentage reduction in overall GHG emissions from carbon sequestration project CO2esequestered = Amount of CO2e sequestered (MT/year) Provided by Applicant CO2ebaseline = Total baseline CO2e emissions (MT/year) Assumptions: Data based upon the following references: USDOE. Fossil Energy: Carbon Sequestration. Available online at: http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/sequestration/ Emission Reduction Ranges and Variables: Pollutant Category Emissions Reductions CO2e To be determined by Applicant All other pollutants None Preferred Literature: The DOE Fossil Energy – Carbon Sequestration website describes the four core carbon sequestration technologies: geologic, carbon capture and storage, terrestrial, and novel biological and chemical pathways. The DOE website discusses current challenges and research projects associated with each of the carbon sequestration technologies, as well as the trade-offs between local environmental impacts and global environmental benefits. Alternative Literature: None Other Literature Reviewed: None Miscellaneous Misc-2 Off-site Mitigation 435 Misc-2 9.1.2 Establish Off-Site Mitigation Range of Effectiveness: Varies depending on Project Applicant and projects selected. The GHG emissions reduction is subtracted from the overall baseline project emissions inventory. Measure Description: The Project Applicant may decide to establish GHG reduction measures similar to any of the measures discussed in this report. These reductions would take place outside of the Project Site. In order to take credit for this measure, the Project Applicant should be required to establish a method for registering and verifying the GHG emissions reduction. Furthermore, the Project Applicant should be required to prove additionality.108 Measure Applicability: Overall baseline project GHG emissions inventory Inputs: Amount of CO2e reduced off-site (MT/year) Baseline Method: The Project Applicant should calculate the baseline project emissions inventory (CO2ebaseline, the total baseline CO2e emissions in MT per year) using the methods described in the baseline methodology document. Mitigation Method: The amount of CO2e reduced off-site is subtracted from the overall project emissions inventory. Therefore, the percent GHG reduction is: GHG emission reduction = baseline2 site-off reduced2 eCO eCO Where: GHG emission reduction = Percentage reduction in overall GHG emissions from off-site mitigation CO2ereduced off-site = Amount of CO2e reduced off-site (MT/year) Provided by Applicant CO2ebaseline = Total baseline CO2e emissions (MT/year) 108 Additionality is the reduction in emissions by sources or enhancement of removals by sinks that is additional to any that would occur in the absence of the Project. In other words, the Project should not subsidize or take credit for emissions reductions which would have occurred regardless of the Project. Miscellaneous Misc-2 Off-site Mitigation 436 Misc-2 Emission Reduction Ranges and Variables: Pollutant Category Emissions Reductions CO2e To be determined by Applicant All other pollutants To be determined by Applicant. Reductions in criteria pollutant emissions may be achieved if the off -site mitigation involves removing or retrofitting combustion sources or reducing electricity use.109 Preferred Literature: None 109 Note that the reduction in criteria pollutant emissions may not occur in the same air basin as the project. Miscellaneous CEQA# MM C-3 & E-17 MP# EE-1 Misc-3 Local & Sustainable Materials 437 Misc-3 9.1.3 Use Local and Sustainable Building Materials Range of Effectiveness: Varies depending on Project Applicant and strategies selected. Best Management Practice. Measure Description: Using building materials which are sourced and processed locally (i.e. close to the project site, as opposed to in another state or country) reduces transportation distances and therefore reduces GHG emissions from fuel combustion. Using sustainable building materials, such as recycled concrete or sustainably harvested wood, also contributes to GHG emissions reductions due to the less carbon-intensive nature of the production and harvesting of these materials. Unlike measures which reduce GHG emissions during the operational lifetime of a project, such as reducing building electricity and water usage, these mitigation efforts are realized prior to the actual operational lifetime of a project. Therefore, these GHG emissions are best quantified in terms of a life-cycle analysis. Life cycle analyses examine all stages of the life of a product, including raw material acquisition, manufacture, transportation, installation, use, and disposal or recycling. The Project Applicant should seek local agency guidance on comparing and/or combining operational emissions inventories and life cycle emissions inventories. Measure Applicability: Life cycle emissions from building materials Inputs: The following information needs to be provided by the Project Applicant: Project location Material transport distance Material type Building assembly type and square footage Preferred Literature: Several software packages and web-based tools are available which can be used to quantify the life cycle emissions from building materials. The Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability (BEES) software developed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) can calculate global warming potential (in terms of CO2 emissions in grams per product) for a variety of building products, including a multitude of cement varieties, fabrics, tiles, glass, wood, and shelving materials. Required inputs are the type of building material (e.g. generic 100% Portland cement, generic 20% limestone cement), and transportation distance. The user can compare between different types of materials and associated transportation distances. Miscellaneous CEQA# MM C-3 & E-17 MP# EE-1 Misc-3 Local & Sustainable Materials 438 Misc-3 The BEES software and user manual is available for public download here: http://www.bfrl.nist.gov/oae/software/bees/bees.html The Athena EcoCalculator for Assemblies software developed by the Athena Institute analyzes the environmental impacts of whole buildings in terms of global warming potential (in terms of CO2e) from raw material extraction, final material manufacturing, transportation, on-site construction, maintenance, and demolition and disposal. Required inputs include the project location, assembly type (columns and beams, floor, exterior wall, interior wall, window, or roof), type of material, and square footage of material. The Athena EcoCalculator compares CO2e emissions from the project-specific assembly to default assemblies of similar material and size. The Athena EcoCalculator is based on the more rigorous Athena Impact Estimator software, which requires detailed information about the building design including the number of columns and beams, supported span, wall height, and type of material used for all aspects. In contrast, the Athena EcoCalculator assumes default values for many of the architectural details. A free public version of the Athena EcoCalculator is available for download here: http://www.athenasmi.org/tools/ecoCalculator/index.html Alternative Literature: None Other Literature Reviewed: None Miscellaneous Misc-4 BMP Agriculture & Animal Operations 439 Misc-4 9.1.4 Require Best Management Practices in Agriculture and Animal Operations Miscellaneous MP# MO-6.1 Misc-5 Environmentally Responsible Purchasing 440 Misc-5 9.1.5 Require Environmentally Responsible Purchasing Range of Effectiveness: Varies depending on Project Applicant and strategies selected. Best Management Practice. Measure Description: Requiring environmentally responsible purchasing has the potential to have a net effect of reducing GHG emissions by reducing the life cycle emissions, operating emissions, and/or transportation emissions associated with a product. Examples of environmentally responsible purchases which reduce life cycle emissions include but are not limited to: purchasing products with sustainable packaging; purchasing post-consumer recycled copier paper, paper towels, and stationary; purchasing and stocking communal kitchens with reusable dishes and utensils; choosing sustainable cleaning supplies; and leasing equipment from manufacturers who will recycle the components at their “end of life.” Examples of environmentally responsible purchases which reduce a Project’s operating emissions include choosing ENERGY STAR appliances and Water Sense-certified water fixtures; choosing electronic appliances with built in sleep-mode timers; and purchasing “green power” (e.g. electricity generated from renewables or hydropower) from the utility. Choosing locally-made and distributed products reduces the transportation distances required to move the product from the distribution or manufacturing center to the Project, and therefore reduce GHG emissions associated with the transportation vehicles. Since the magnitude of the energy and GHG reduction depends on the purchasing strategies implemented, the expected GHG reduction is not quantifiable at this time. Therefore, this mitigation measure should be incorporated as a Best Management Practice to encourage homeowners, commercial space tenants, and builders to make sustainable purchases and therefore reduce their contribution to GHG emissions. The Project Applicant could take quantitative credit for this mitigation measure if detailed and substantial evidence were provided. Measure Applicability: Purchase of consumer and business goods and appliances Assumptions: Data based upon the following references: City of Chicago and ICLEI. Chicago Green Office Challenge: Waste. Available online at: http://www.chicagogreenofficechallenge.org/pages/waste/50.php Cool California.org. Small Business Money Saving Actions: Recycle and Cut Waste. Available online at: http://www.coolcalifornia.org/article/recycle-and-cut- waste Miscellaneous MP# MO-6.1 Misc-5 Environmentally Responsible Purchasing 441 Misc-5 Flex Your Power.org. Commercial Overview Energy Saving Tips: Office Equipment Tips. Available online at: http://www.fypower.org/com/tools/energy_tips_results.html?tips=office ENERGY STAR. 2007. Putting Energy into Profits: ENERGY STAR Guide for Small Businesses. Available online at: http://www.energystar.gov/ia/business/small_business/sb_guidebook/smallbizgui de.pdf Emission Reduction Ranges and Variables: This is a Best Management Practice and therefore at this time there is no quantifiable reduction. Check with local agencies for guidance on any allowed reductions associated with implementation of best management practices. Preferred Literature: The Chicago Green Office Challenge, Cool California.org, and Flex Your Power.org website resources provide many examples of office and small business purchasing strategies which reduce waste and energy use. The ENERGY STAR Guide provides more details about energy-efficient appliance choices and the option to purchase renewable or clean energy from the utility for a higher cost. Alternative Literature: None Other Literature Reviewed: None Miscellaneous Misc-6 Innovative Strategy 442 Misc-6 9.1.6 Implement an Innovative Strategy for GHG Mitigation Range of Effectiveness: Varies depending on Project Applicant and strategies selected. The GHG emissions reduction may be quantifiable. If not quantifiable, this mitigation measure should be implemented as a Best Management Practice. Measure Description: The Project Applicant may develop a novel strategy to reduce GHG emissions at the project site or off-site. This strategy may incorporate technologies which have yet to be developed at the time of the publication of this report. In order to take quantifiable credit for this measure, the Project Applicant must provide detailed and substantial evidence showing the quantification and verification of the GHG emissions reduction. If the GHG emissions reduction is not quantifiable, it should be implemented as a Best Management Practice. Measure Applicability: To be determined by Project Applicant Inputs: Amount of CO2e reduced due to Innovative Strategy Baseline CO2e for applicable inventory sector Baseline Method: The Project Applicant should calculate the baseline CO2e emissions associated with the applicable GHG emissions inventory sector (CO2ebaseline-sector, the baseline CO2e emissions in MT per year for the applicable sector) using the methods described in the baseline methodology document. For example, if the Innovative Strategy achieves GHG reductions by reducing building energy use, CO2ebaseline-sector is the total CO2e emissions associated with baseline building energy use. Mitigation Method: The amount of CO2e reduced due to the Innovative Strategy is subtracted from applicable emissions inventory sector. Therefore, the percent GHG reduction is: GHG emission reduction = sector-baseline2 sector-reduced2 eCO eCO Where: GHG emission reduction = Percentage reduction in sector GHG emissions due to Innovative Strategy CO2ereduced-sector = Amount of CO2e reduced due to Innovative Strategy (MT/year) Provided by Applicant CO2ebaseline-sector = Baseline sector CO2e emissions (MT/year) Miscellaneous Misc-6 Innovative Strategy 443 Misc-6 If the GHG emissions reduction cannot be quantified and/or verified, check with local agencies for guidance on any allowed reductions associated with implementation of Best Management Practices. Emission Reduction Ranges and Variables: Pollutant Category Emissions Reductions CO2e To be determined by Applicant All other pollutants None Preferred Literature: None Section Category Page # Measure # 10.0 General Plans 444 10.1 General Plans 444 10.1.1 Fund Incentives for Energy Efficiency 444 GP-1 10.1.2 Establish a Local Farmer's Market 446 GP-2 10.1.3 Establish Community Gardens 448 GP-3 10.1.4 Plant Urban Shade Trees 450 GP-4 10.1.5 Implement Strategies to Reduce Urban Heat-Island Effect 455 GP-5 General Plans GP-1 444 GP-1 10.0 General Plans In addition to fact sheets and BMPs, this document includes measures that are more applicable for General Plans. The following measures have substantial evidence of reductions when implemented at a General Plan level rather than a project level. 10.1 General Plans 10.1.1 Fund Incentives for Energy Efficiency Range of Effectiveness: Varies depending on Project Applicant and strategies selected. Best Management Practice. Measure Description: By funding incentives for energy-efficient choices in equipment, fixtures in buildings, or energy sources, a Project Applicant can promote reductions in GHG emissions associated with fuel combustion and electricity use. The Project Applicant may choose to contribute to an existing municipal energy fund or establish a new energy fund for the Project. The Project Applicant should check with the local air district regarding participating in established programs. These energy funds may provide financial incentives or grants for any number of energy efficiency measures including but not limited to: retrofitting or designing new buildings, parking lots, streets, and public areas with energy-efficient lighting; retrofitting or designing new buildings with low-flow water fixtures and high-efficiency appliances; retrofitting or purchasing new low-emissions equipment; purchasing electric or hybrid vehicles; and investing in renewable energy systems such as photovoltaics or wind turbines. Recipients of energy fund grants could include neighborhood developers, home and commercial space builders, homeowners, and utilities. Energy funds allow recipients flexibility in choosing efficiency strategies while still achieving the desired effects of reduced energy use and associated GHG emissions. Since the magnitude of the energy and GHG reduction depends on the strategies selected by the energy fund recipients, the expected GHG reduction is not quantifiable at this time. Therefore, this mitigation measure should be incorporated as a Best Management Practice to encourage utilities, builders, residents, and commercial tenants to reduce their energy use and/or choose cleaner energy, and therefore reduce their contribution to GHG emissions. The Project Applicant could take quantitative credit for this mitigation measure if detailed and substantial evidence were provided. Measure Applicability: GHG emissions from energy use (fuel combustion and electricity use) Assumptions: Data based upon the following references: General Plans GP-1 445 GP-1 City of Ann Arbor. Energy Office: Energy Fund. Available online at: http://www.a2gov.org/government/publicservices/systems_planning/energy/Page s/EnergyFund.aspx Go Solar California. California Solar Initiative. Available online at: http://www.gosolarcalifornia.org/csi/index.html USDOE. Database of State Initiatives for Renewables and Efficiency: California. Available online at: http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/index.cfm?re=1&ee=1&spv=0&st=0&srp=1&st ate=CA California Clean Energy Fund. About Us. Available online at: http://www.calcef.org/about.htm Emission Reduction Ranges and Variables: This is a Best Management Practice and therefore there is no quantifiable reduction at this time. Check with local agencies for guidance on any allowed reductions associated with implementation of best management practices. Preferred Literature: The City of Ann Arbor’s Energy Fund provides a good example of a municipal general energy fund which provides grants for a wide variety of energy efficiency and renewable energy investments. The California Solar Initiative and the Energy Efficient Appliance Rebate Program (found on the DOE Database of State Initiatives for Renewables and Efficiency) are examples of California state energy funds which incentivize specific types of purchases. The DOE database provides a listing of many more California municipal and local programs. Alternative Literature: None Other Literature Reviewed: The Energy Foundation. Programs: Power. Available online at: http://www.ef.org/programs.cfm General Plans CEQA# MM D-18 MP# LU-2.1.4 GP-2 446 GP-2 10.1.2 Establish a Local Farmer's Market Range of Effectiveness: Varies depending on Project Applicant and strategies selected. Best Management Practice. Measure Description: Establishing a local farmer’s market has the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by providing project residents with a more local source of food, potentially resulting in a reduction in the number of trips and vehicle miles traveled by both the food and the consumers to grocery stores and supermarkets. If the food sold at the local farmer’s market is produced organically, it can also contribute to greenhouse gas reductions by displacing carbon-intensive food production practices. As discussed in more detail below, these emissions reductions cannot be reasonably quantified at this time because they are based on several undefined parameters: the relative locations of the farmer’s market, supermarket, and supermarket produce suppliers; the carbon intensity of food production practices; and the role of the farmer’s market in a development, such as whether it supplements trips to the grocery store or completely displaces them. Measure Applicability: Number of trips to supermarket and vehicle miles traveled Life cycle emissions of food production Discussion: Potential greenhouse gas emissions from establishing a local farmer’s market can be divided into two types: emissions reductions from transportation and emissions reductions from food production practices. The transportation of food from a field to a store and the transportation of consumers from their homes to a store both contribute to greenhouse gas emissions. In many cases, especially in urban areas, a local farmer’s market will reduce emissions associated with the distribution of food from the field to the consumer, since the farms represented at the local farmer’s market are theoretically closer to the consumer than the farms which produce most of the food found at supermarkets and grocery stores. However, California has a large number of farms and orchards and in some cases the farms represented at a local farmer’s market may not be different than those represented at the neighborhood grocery store. If a consumer obtains produce from a local farmer’s market when they would otherwise drive a farther distance to purchase produce from a grocery store, the trip to the grocery stores is displaced, VMT is reduced, and GHG emissions reductions are achieved. However, if a consumer drives to the farmer’s market and then to the grocery store (for example, to purchase food which the farmer’s market cannot provide), the trip to the farmer’s market is made in addition to the trip to the grocery store. Thus, an additional trip is made, VMT General Plans CEQA# MM D-18 MP# LU-2.1.4 GP-2 447 GP-2 is added, and greenhouse gas emissions are actually increased. It is unclear how local farmer’s markets affect the food purchasing behavior of consumers, and therefore the effect of a farmer’s market on transportation greenhouse gas emissions is not quantifiable at this time. The carbon intensity of food production practices also contributes to greenhouse gas emissions; however, these emissions are accounted for in the life cycle analysis of the food and cannot be directly compared to a development’s operational greenhouse gas emissions inventory (such as the transportation emissions detailed above). If food at a local farmer’s market is produced organically, it is likely that less carbon-intensive practices were used than at the large-scale farms and orchards which produce most food found at grocery stores and supermarkets. Examples o f carbon-intensive gardening practices include heated greenhouses and the heavy use of fertilizers and pesticides derived from fossil fuels. Local farms which do not practice organic or sustainable farming may employ these more carbon-intensive practices. Thus, the magnitude of the life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions is difficult to quantify and compare to operational inventories. Preferred Literature: None General Plans CEQA# MM D-19 MP# LU-2.1.4 GP-3 448 GP-3 10.1.3 Establish Community Gardens Range of Effectiveness: Varies depending on Project Applicant and strategies selected. Best Management Practice. Measure Description: Establishing a community garden has the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by providing project residents with a local source of food, potentially resulting in a reduction in the number of trips and vehicle miles traveled by both the food and the consumers to grocery stores and supermarkets. Community gardens can also contribute to greenhouse gas reductions by displacing carbon-intensive food production practices. As discussed in more detail below, these emissions reductions cannot be reasonably quantified at this time because they are based on several undefined parameters: the relative locations of the community garden, supermarket, and supermarket produce suppliers; the carbon intensity of gardening and farming practices; and the role of a community garden in a development, such as whether it supplements trips to the grocery store or completely displaces them. Measure Applicability: Number of trips to supermarket and vehicle miles traveled Life cycle emissions of food production Discussion: Potential greenhouse gas emissions from establishing a community garden can be divided into two types: emissions reductions from transportation and emissions reductions from food production practices. The transportation of food from a field to a store and the transportation of consumers from their homes to a store both contribute to greenhouse gas emissions. In most cases a community garden will reduce emissions associated with the distribution of food from the field to the consumer, since with community gardens the food goes directly from the field to the consumer, while in grocery stores and supermarkets the path is more likely field to regional distribution center to store to consumer. If a consumer obtains produce from a community garden when they would otherwise drive a farther distance to purchase produce from a grocery store, the trip to the grocery stores is displaced, VMT is reduced, and GHG emissions reductions are achieved. However, if a consumer drives to the community garden and then to the grocery store (for example, to purchase food which the community garden cannot provide), the trip to the community garden is made in addition to the trip to the grocery store. Thus, an additional trip is made, VMT is added, and greenhouse gas emissions are actually increased. Furthermore, if community gardens displace backyard gardens, they increase transportation emissions. It is unclear how community gardens affect the food purchasing behavior of consumers, and therefore the effect of a community garden on transportation greenhouse gas emissions is not quantifiable at General Plans CEQA# MM D-19 MP# LU-2.1.4 GP-3 449 GP-3 this time. The carbon intensity of food production practices also contributes to greenhouse gas emissions; however, these emissions are accounted for in the life cycle analysis of the food and cannot be directly compared to a development’s operational greenhouse gas emissions inventory (such as the transportation emissions detailed above). Community gardens are likely to produce food using less carbon-intensive practices than the large-scale farms and orchards which produce most food found at grocery stores and supermarkets. Examples of carbon-intensive gardening practices include heated greenhouses and the heavy use of fertilizers and pesticides derived from fossil fuels; these practices are not likely to be used at community gardens. Although these qualitative conclusions can be drawn, the magnitude of the life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions is difficult to quantify and compare to operational inventories. Preferred Literature: None General Plans CEQA# MM T-14 MP# COS-3.2 GP-4 450 GP-4 10.1.4 Plant Urban Shade Trees Range of Effectiveness: The reduction in GHG emissions is not quantifiable at this time, therefore this mitigation measure should be implemented as a Best Management Practice. If the study data were updated to account for Title 24 standards, the GHG emissions reductions could be quantified but would vary based on location, building type, and building size. Measure Description: Planting shade trees around buildings has been shown to effectively lower the electricity cooling demand of buildings by blocking incident sunlight and reducing heat gain through windows, walls, and roofs. Deciduous trees with large canopies are a desirable choice of shade tree because they provide shade in the warm months and shed their leaves in the winter months to allow sunlight to pass through and warm the building. By reducing cooling demand, shade trees help reduce electricity demand from the local utility and therefore reduce GHG emissions which would otherwise be emitted during the production of that electricity. A study entitled “Calculating energy-saving potentials of heat-island reduction strategies” conducted by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) Heat Island Group provides a method to quantify reductions in electricity use from planting shade trees around residences, offices, and retail stores. The electricity reductions are based on the LBNL model which assumes 4 shade trees are planted around residences, 8 trees are planted around offices, and 10 trees are planted around retail stores. The LBNL model is also based on electricity use data for two building stocks: Pre-1980 buildings (buildings constructed prior to 1980) and 1980+ buildings (buildings constructed on or after 1980). Other assumptions, including the geometry of the modeled trees and sunlight transmittance, are detailed in Section 2.5 of the study. This mitigation measure describes how to estimate greenhouse gas emissions reductions from planting shade trees based on the LBNL data. Since the model is based on electricity data for Pre-1980 and 1980+ buildings110 it does not incorporate electricity use improvements due to the California 2001, 2005, or 2008 Title 24 measures. Given that buildings constructed in 2001 or later incorporate Title 24 electricity efficiency improvements, the electricity savings reported in the LBNL study are overestimates of the savings that would actually be achieved for these newer buildings.111 110 This data for these buildings is based on U.S. Department of Energy and California Energy Commission studies conducted in 1987 through 2001. 111 The CEC 2003 Impact Analysis Report estimates a state-average 14.9%-26% savings in electricity use for cooling in residential buildings and 6.7% savings in electricity use for cooling in non-residential General Plans CEQA# MM T-14 MP# COS-3.2 GP-4 451 GP-4 While the electricity savings in the study overestimates savings for newer buildings, the data does show that electricity savings (and associated greenhouse gas emissions savings) from planting shade trees are real. A follow-up study which uses similar methodologies with models updated with the Title 24 standards would provide data which could be used to more accurately quantify electricity savings for new buildings. Measure Applicability: Electricity use Limitation: It takes several years for trees to grow to the height necessary to provide shade to a building. Furthermore, without deed restrictions, the presence of shade trees around a building may not be permanent, as a new owner may decide to remove the trees or not replace them if they die. Inputs: The following information needs to be provided by the Project Applicant: Type of building (residential, office, or retail store) Square footage of roof Heating Degree Days (HDD) or Cooling Degree Days (CDD) of Project location Baseline Method: The CEC Residential Appliance Saturation Survey (RASS) and California Commercial Energy Use Survey (CEUS) datasets can be used to calculate the baseline electricity for building cooling. The data is available for different climate zones in California and electricity use from cooling alone can be extracted. The methodology for using RASS and CEUS to calculate GHGbaseline is described in the baseline document. Mitigation Method: The electricity savings from reduced cooling demand are based on the location of the building. Table 4 of the LBNL study provides a list of cities and their HDD and CDD values. If a project’s location is not listed, the Project Applicant should choose a representative city with climate similar to that of the project. Alternatively, the Project Applicant could determine the HDD and CDD of the project location from local meteorological data. buildings due to the 2005 update to the 2001 Title 24 standards. The CEC 2007 Impact Analysis Report estimates a state-average 19.7%-22.7% savings in overall electricity use for residential buildings and a 8.3% savings in electricity use for cooling in non-residential buildings due to the 2008 update to the 2005 Title 24 standards. General Plans CEQA# MM T-14 MP# COS-3.2 GP-4 452 GP-4 Tables 6 through 16 of the LBNL study show the expected electricity savings (in kWh per 1000 sqft of roof) based on the following parameters: Building type (residential, office, or retail store) Climate method (HDD or CDD – either can be used) Heating method (Gas heated-buildings or electric-heated buildings) The Project Applicant should select data based on the appropriate parameters above. The entry corresponding to the “Shade tree savings” row and “1980+” column will provide the electricity savings in kWh per 1000 sqft of roof for the specified building type, climate method, and heating method. Note that value is an overestimate of savings for buildings which were manufactured under Title 24 standards. Then the reduction in GHG emissions is calculated as follows: GHGreduction = SF x ElecSavings x Utility Where GHGreduction = Reduction in GHG emissions from planting shade trees (MT) SF = Sqft of roof Provided by Applicant ElecSavings = Electricity savings (kWh / sqft roof) From Tables 6 through 16 of LBNL study Utility = Carbon intensity of local utility (MT CO2e / kWh) From Table below Power Utility Carbon-Intensity (lbs CO2e/MWh) LADW&P 1,238 PG&E 456 SCE 641 SDGE 781 SMUD 555 Therefore: Percent reduction in GHG emissions = GHGreduction / GHGbaseline Since the Utility term is a factor of both GHGreduction and GHGbaseline, the percent reduction in GHG emissions does not depend on the value of Utility. General Plans CEQA# MM T-14 MP# COS-3.2 GP-4 453 GP-4 General Plans CEQA# MM T-14 MP# COS-3.2 GP-4 454 GP-4 Emission Reduction Ranges and Variables: Pollutant Category Emissions Reductions CO2e The following emissions reductions reflect the implementation of three heat island reduction strategies (installing reflective roofs, planting shade trees, and using high-albedo pavements) for the 1980+ stock buildings. The reduction from planting shade trees around new buildings is expected to be smaller than the estimate below. Additionally, savings are expected to be smaller for new buildings due to the Title 24 standards. 20% for residential buildings 5-12% for office buildings 10-17% for retail buildings All other pollutants Same as above112 Assumptions: Data based upon the following reference: H. Akbari, S. Konopacki. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. 2005. Calculating Energy-Saving-Potentials of Heat-Island Reduction Strategies. Journal of Energy Policy. Volume 33, p. 721-756. Preferred Literature: The LBNL study conducted by Akbari and Konopacki of the Heat Island Group modeled energy savings from shade trees for residential, office, and retail building types. The model accounted for differences in climate by modeling in a range of heating-degree- days and cooling-degree days, and compared a basecase (building with no external shading) to a mitigated case (building with 4, 8, and 10 shade trees, depending on the building type). However, the study is based on pre-2001 data and does not account for updates to California’s Title 24 standards. Furthermore, the model assumes a specific number of shade trees planted at specific orientations. Alternative Literature: CCAR. 2010. Urban Forest Project Protocol Version 1.1. Available online at: http://www.climateactionreserve.org/how/protocols/adopted/urban-forest/current- urban-forest-project-protocol/ Section D.3 of the protocol describes a method to quantify the reductions in cooling and heating demand due to the planting of shade trees. Computer simulations incorporating 112 Criteria air pollutant emissions may also be reduced due to the reduction in energy use; however, the reduction may not be in the same air basin as the project. General Plans CEQA# MM T-14 MP# COS-3.2 GP-4 455 GP-4 building, climate, and shading effects were used to calculate the change in unit energy consumption (UEC) on a per tree basis. Total change in energy use is calculated by multiplying the change in UEC per try by the total number of trees. Buildings were modeled in three stocks with similar building characteristics: buildings constructed prior to 1950, buildings constructed between 1950 and 1980, and buildings constructed after 1980. As with the primary reference above, the data does not account for electricity efficiency improvements due to California’s Title 24 standards. Other Literature Reviewed: E. G. McPherson, J. R. Simpson. USDA Forest Service. 2003. Potential Energy Savings in Buildings by an Urban Tree Planting Programme in California. Journal of Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. Volume 2, p. 73-86. H. Akbari. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. 2002. Shade Trees Reduce Building Energy Use and CO2 Emissions from Power Plants. Journal of Environmental Pollution. Volume 116, p. 119-126. J. R. Simpson. Department of Environmental Horticulture at the University of California. 2002. Improved Estimates of Tree-Shade Effects on Residential Energy Use. Journal of Energy and Buildings. Volume 34, p. 1067-1076. General Plans CEQA# MM E-8 & E-12 MP# LU-6.1 GP-5 456 GP-5 10.1.5 Implement Strategies to Reduce Urban Heat-Island Effect Range of Effectiveness: The reduction in GHG emissions is not quantifiable at this time, therefore this mitigation measure should be implemented as a Best Management Practice. If the study data were updated to account for Title 24 standards, the GHG emissions reductions could be quantified but would vary based on location, building type, and building size. Measure Description: The urban heat island effect is the phenomenon in which a metropolitan area is warmer than its surrounding rural areas due to increased land surface which retains heat, such as concrete, asphalt, metal, and other materials found in buildings and pavements. This warming effect causes warmer locations, such as many cities in California, to require more energy for air conditioning and refrigeration than the surrounding rural areas. Higher energy requirements in turn result in higher CO2 emissions from the generation of this energy. Three strategies have been shown to have a positive impact on reducing localized temperatures and reducing the electricity demand for building cooling. These strategies are planting urban shade trees, installing reflective roofs, and using light-colored or high-albedo113 pavements and surfaces. Planting shade trees around buildings and installing reflective roofs have both been found to result in direct electricity savings for buildings. The per building direct electricity savings from planting shade trees is discussed in a separate mitigation measure. Reflective roofs are covered under Title 24 Part 6 and the electricity savings is therefore incorporated in savings due to Title 24. The combination of the three strategies, however, has been shown to have a city-wide effect: a reduction in ambient air temperature. This reduction in air temperature results in buildings requiring less electricity for cooling, and is quantified as indirect savings in electricity use. The savings can be quantified on a per-building basis or on a city-wide basis. A study entitled “Calculating energy-saving potentials of heat-island reduction strategies” conducted by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) Heat Island Group provides a method to quantify per-building reductions in electricity use from implementing these three strategies on a city-wide scale. In addition, the study reports modeled city-wide electricity savings. The electricity reductions are based on a LBNL model with certain assumptions about the number and orientation of shade trees 113 The albedo ratio of a surface represents how strongly the surface reflects sunlight. Pavements with higher albedo ratios reflect more sunlight and therefore retain less heat. General Plans CEQA# MM E-8 & E-12 MP# LU-6.1 GP-5 457 GP-5 and the albedo values of roofs and pavements. Per-building electricity savings are also based on for two building stocks: Pre-1980 buildings (buildings constructed prior to 1980) and 1980+ buildings (buildings constructed on or after 1980). This mitigation measure describes how to estimate greenhouse gas emissions reductions from implementing heat-island effect reduction strategies as reported in the LBNL study. Since the LBNL model is based on electricity data for Pre-1980 and 1980+ buildings114 it does not incorporate electricity use improvements due to the California 2001, 2005, or 2008 Title 24 measures. Given that buildings constructed in 2001 or later incorporate Title 24 electricity efficiency improvements, the electricity savings reported in the LBNL study are overestimates of the savings that would actually be achieved for these newer buildings.115 While the electricity savings in the study overestimates savings for newer buildings, the data does show that electricity savings (and associated greenhouse gas emissions savings) from planting shade trees are real. A follow-up study which uses similar methodologies with models updated with the Title 24 standards would provide data which could be used to more accurately quantify electricity savings for new buildings. Measure Applicability: Electricity use Limitation: It takes several years for trees to grow to the height necessary to provide shade to a building. Furthermore, without deed restrictions, the presence of shade trees around a building may not be permanent, as a new owner may decide to remove the trees or not replace them if they die. Limitation: it is assumed that the heat-island effect reduction strategies are implemented on a city-wide scale. Inputs: The following information needs to be provided by the Project Applicant: Type of building (residential, office, or retail store) Square footage of roof 114 This data for these buildings is based on U.S. Department of Energy and California Energy Commission studies conducted in 1987 through 2001. 115 The CEC 2003 Impact Analysis Report estimates a state-average 14.9%-26% savings in electricity use for cooling in residential buildings and 6.7% savings in electricity use for cooling in non-residential buildings due to the 2005 update to the 2001 Title 24 standards. The CEC 2007 Impact Analysis Report estimates a state-average 19.7%-22.7% savings in overall electricity use for residential buildings and a 8.3% savings in electricity use for cooling in non-residential buildings due to the 2008 update to the 2005 Title 24 standards. General Plans CEQA# MM E-8 & E-12 MP# LU-6.1 GP-5 458 GP-5 Heating Degree Days (HDD) or Cooling Degree Days (CDD) of Project location Baseline Method: The CEC Residential Appliance Saturation Survey (RASS) and California Commercial Energy Use Survey (CEUS) datasets can be used to calculate the baseline electricity for building cooling. The data is available for different climate zones in California and electricity use from cooling alone can be extracted. The methodology for using RASS and CEUS to calculate GHGbaseline is described in the baseline document. Mitigation Method: The electricity savings from reduced cooling demand are based on the location of the building. Table 4 of the LBNL study provides a list of cities and their HDD and CDD values. If a project’s location is not listed, the Project Applicant should choose a representative city with climate similar to that of the project. Alternatively, the Project Applicant could determine the HDD and CDD of the project location from local meteorological data. Tables 6 through 16 of the LBNL study show the expected electricity savings (in kWh per 1000 sqft of roof) based on the following parameters: Building type (residential, office, or retail store) Climate method (HDD or CDD – either can be used) Heating method (Gas heated-buildings or electric-heated buildings) The Project Applicant should select data based on the appropriate parameters above. The entry corresponding to the “Indirect Savings” row and “1980+” column will provide the electricity savings in kWh per 1000 sqft of roof for the specified building type, climate method, and heating method. Note that value is an overestimate of savings for buildings which were manufactured under Title 24 standards. Then the reduction in GHG emissions is calculated as follows: GHGreduction = SF x ElecSavings x Utility Where GHGreduction = Reduction in GHG emissions from implementing heat island effect reduction strategies on a city-wide scale (MT) SF = Sqft of roof Provided by Applicant ElecSavings = Electricity savings (kWh / sqft roof) From Tables 6 through 16 of LBNL study Utility = Carbon intensity of local utility (MT CO2e / kWh) General Plans CEQA# MM E-8 & E-12 MP# LU-6.1 GP-5 459 GP-5 From Table below General Plans CEQA# MM E-8 & E-12 MP# LU-6.1 GP-5 460 GP-5 Power Utility Carbon-Intensity (lbs CO2e/MWh) LADW&P 1,238 PG&E 456 SCE 641 SDGE 781 SMUD 555 Therefore: Percent reduction in GHG emissions = GHGreduction / GHGbaseline Since the Utility term is a factor of both GHGreduction and GHGbaseline, the percent reduction in GHG emissions does not depend on the value of Utility. City-Wide GHG reductions The LBNL study estimates that city-wide reductions in electricity use (and associated GHG emissions) range from about 10-20%. This range is based on the percent indirect savings modeled for five pilot cities: Houston, Baton Rouge, Chicago, Sacramento, and Salt Lake City, as reported in Figure 2 of the LBNL study. Emission Reduction Ranges and Variables: Pollutant Category Emissions Reductions CO2e The following per-building emissions reductions reflect the implementation of three heat island reduction strategies (installing reflective roofs, planting shade trees, and using high- albedo pavements) for the 1980+ stock buildings. Actual savings are expected to be lower for new buildings due to the Title 24 standards. 20% for residential buildings 5-12% for office buildings 10-17% for retail buildings All other pollutants Same as above116 116 Criteria air pollutant emissions may also be reduced due to the reduction in energy use; however, the reduction may not be in the same air basin as the project. General Plans CEQA# MM E-8 & E-12 MP# LU-6.1 GP-5 461 GP-5 Assumptions: Data based upon the following reference: H. Akbari, S. Konopacki. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. 2005. Calculating Energy-Saving-Potentials of Heat-Island Reduction Strategies. Journal of Energy Policy. Volume 33, p. 721-756. S. Konopacki, H. Akbari. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. 2000. Energy Savings Calculations for Heat Island Reduction Strategies in Baton Rouge, Sacramento, and Salt Lake City. LBNL 42890. Preferred Literature: The LBNL study conducted by Akbari and Konopacki of the Heat Island Group modeled energy savings from shade trees for residential, office, and retail building types. The model accounted for differences in climate by modeling in a range of heating-degree- days and cooling-degree days, and compared a basecase (building with no external shading) to a mitigated case (building with 4, 8, and 10 shade trees, depending on the building type). However, the study is based on pre-2001 data and does not account for updates to California’s Title 24 standards. Furthermore, the model assumes a specific number of shade trees planted at specific orientations. Alternative Literature: None Other Literature Reviewed: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Heat Island Group: Benefits of Cooler Pavements. Available online at: http://eetd.lbl.gov/HeatIsland/Pavements/Overview/Pavements99-01.html. Accessed March 2010. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Heat Island Group: The Cost of Hot Pavements. Available online at: http://heatisland.lbl.gov/Pavements/Cost.html. Accessed March 2010. USEPA. Draft. Reducing Urban Heat Islands: Compendium of Strategies, Cool Pavements. Available online at: http://epa.gov/heatisland/resources/pdf/CoolPavesCompendium.pdf Appendix A List of Acronyms and Glossary of Terms Appendix A A-1 Appendix A List of Acronyms ACM alternative calculation method AF acre feet B20 biodiesel (20%) BOD biochemical oxygen demand BMP best management practice C carbon CAFE corporate average fuel economy CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association CAR Climate Action Registry CARB California Air Resources Board CCAR California Climate Action Registry CDWR California Department of Water Resources CEC California Energy Commission CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CEUS California Commercial End-Use Survey CGBSC California Green Building Standards Code CH4 methane CHP combined heat and power CIWMB California Integrated Waste Management Board CNG compressed natural gas CO2 carbon dioxide CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent DE destruction efficiency DEIR Draft Environmental Impact Report DU dwelling unit EF emission factor EIA United States Energy Information Administration EIR Environmental Impact Report EMFAC on-road vehicle emission factors model ET0 reference evapotranspiration ETWU estimated total water use FCZ forecasting climate zone GHG greenhouse gas GP General Plan GRP General Reporting Protocol GWP global warming potential HA hydrozone area HHV higher heating value hp horsepower HVAC heating, ventilating, and air conditioning IE irrigation efficiency IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers ITS intelligent transportation systems kBTU thousand British thermal units kW kilowatt kWh kilowatt-hour kWh/yr kilowatt-hours/year lbs pounds Appendix A A-2 Appendix A LA landscape area LADWP Los Angeles Department of Water and Power LCA life cycle assessment LDA light-duty auto LDT light-duty truck LED light-emitting diode LFM landfill methane LNG liquefied natural gas LPG liquefied petroleum gas MAWA maximum applied water allowance MMBTU million British thermal units MSW mixed solid waste MTCE metric tonnes carbon equivalent N2O nitrous oxide NOx nitrogen oxides NRDC Natural Resources Defense Council NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory OLED organic light-emitting diode OFFROAD off-road vehicle emission factors model PF plant factor PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric PM particulate matter PUP Power/Utility Protocol RASS Residential Appliance Saturation Survey SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District SCE Southern California Edison SDGE San Diego Gas and Electric SLA special landscape area SMAQMD Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District SMUD Sacramento Municipal Utility District scf standard cubic feet SHP separate heat and power SO2 sulfur dioxide sqft square feet TDM transportation demand management TDV time dependent valuation TOD transit-oriented development tonnes metric tonnes; 1,000 kilograms TRU truck refrigeration unit URBEMIS Urban Emissions Model US United States USDOE United States Department of Energy USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency VCAPCD Ventura County Air Pollution Control District VTPI Victoria Transport Policy Institute VMT vehicle miles traveled VTR vehicle trip reduction WARM Waste Reduction Model WMO World Meteorological Organization yr year Appendix A A-3 Appendix A Glossary of Terms Alternative Calculation Method Software used to demonstrate compliance with the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24). The software must comply with the requirements listed in the Alternative Calculation Method Approval Manual. Additionalitya The reduction in emissions by sources or enhancement of removals by sinks that is additional to any that would occur in the absence of the project. The project should not subsidize or take credit for emissions reductions which would have occurred regardless of the project. Albedoa The fraction of solar radiation reflected by a surface or object, often expressed as a ratio or fraction. Snow covered surfaces have a high albedo; the albedo of soils ranges from high to low; vegetation covered surfaces and oceans have a low albedo. The Earth‟s albedo varies mainly through varying cloudiness, snow, ice, leaf area, and land cover changes. Paved surfaces with high albedos reflect solar radiation and can help reduce the urban heat island effect. Below Market Rate Housing Housing rented at rates lower than the market rate. Below market rate housing is designed to assist lower-income families. When below market rate housing is provided near job centers or transit, it provides lower income families with desirable job/housing match or greater opportunities for commuting to work through public transit. Biochemical Oxygen Demand Represents the amount of oxygen that would be required to completely consume the organic matter contained in wastewater through aerobic decomposition processes. Under the same conditions, wastewater with higher biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) concentrations will generally yield more methane than wastewater with lower BOD concentrations. BOD5 is a measure of BOD after five days of decomposition. Biogenic Emissionsb Carbon dioxide emissions produced from combusting a variety of biofuels, such as biodiesel, ethanol, wood, wood waste and landfill gas. Carbon Dioxide Equivalent A measure for comparing carbon dioxide with other greenhouse gases. Tonnes carbon dioxide equivalent is calculated by multiplying the tonnes of a greenhouse gas by its associated global warming potential. California Environmental Quality Act A statute passed in 1970 that requires state and local agencies to identify the significant environmental impacts of their actions and to avoid or mitigate those impacts, if feasible. Carbon Neutral Power A power generation system which has net zero carbon emissions. Examples of existing carbon neutral power systems are photovoltaics, wind turbines, and hydropower systems. Appendix A A-4 Appendix A Carbon Sink Any process or mechanism that removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. A forest is an example of a carbon sink, because it sequesters carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. “Carrot” The purpose of a carrot is to provide an incentive which encourages a particular action. Parking cash-out would be considered a “carrot” since the employee receives a monetary incentive for not driving to work, but is not punished for maintaining status quo. Combined Heat and Power Also known as cogeneration. Combined heat and power is the generation of both heat and electricity from the same process, such as combustion of fuel, with the purpose of utilizing or selling both simultaneously. In combined heat and power systems, the thermal energy byproducts of a process are captured and used, where they would be wasted in a separate heat and power system. Examples of combined heat and power systems include gas turbines, reciprocating engines, and fuel cells. Compact Infill A Project which is located within or contiguous with the central city. Examples may include redevelopment areas, abandoned sites, or underutilized older buildings/sites. Climate Zone Geographic area of similar climatic characteristics, including temperature, weather, and other factors which affect building energy use. The California Energy Commission identified 16 Forecasting Climate Zones (FCZs) for use in the CEUS and RASS analyses. The designation of these FCZs was based in part on the utility service area. Cordon Pricing Tolls charged for entering a particular area (a “cordon”), such as a downtown. Density The amount of persons, jobs, or dwellings per unit of land area. This is an important metric for determining traffic-related parameters. Destination Accessibility A measure of the number of jobs or other attractions reachable within a given travel time. Destination accessibility tends to be highest at central locations and lowest at peripheral ones. Efficacy The capacity to produce a desired effect. ENERGY STAR A joint program of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Energy which sets national standards for energy efficient consumer products. ENERGY STAR certified products are guaranteed to meet the efficiency standards specified by the program. Elasticity The percentage change of one variable in response to a percentage change in another variable. Elasticity = percent change in variable A / percent change in variable B (where the Appendix A A-5 Appendix A change in B leads to the change in A). For example, if the elasticity of VMT with respect to density is -0.12, this means a 100% increase in density leads to a 12% decrease in VMT. Evapotranspirationc The loss of water from the soil both by evaporation and by transpiration from the plants growing in the soil. General Plan A set of long-term goals and policies that guide local land use decisions. The 2003 General Plan Guidelines developed by the California Office of Planning and Research provides advice on how to write a general plan that expresses a community's long-term vision, fulfills statutory requirements, and contributes to creating a great community. Global Warming Potentialb The ratio of radiative forcing that would result from the emission of one kilogram of a greenhouse gas to that from the emission of one kilogram of carbon dioxide over a fixed period of time. Graywater Non-drinkable water that can be collected and reused onsite for irrigation, flushing toilets, and other purposes. This water has not been processed through a waste water treatment plant. Greenhouse Gas For the purposes of this report, greenhouse gases are the six gases identified in the Kyoto Protocol: carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), methane (CH4), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). Headway The amount of time (in minutes) that elapses between two public transit vehicles servicing a given route and given line. Headways for buses and rail are generally shorter during peak periods and longer during off-peak periods. Headway is the inverse of frequency (headway = 1/frequency), where frequency is the number of arrivals over a given time period (i.e. buses per hour). Intelligent Transportation System A broad range of communications-based information and electronics technologies integrated into transportation system infrastructure and vehicles to relieve congestion and improve travel safety. Job Center An area with a high degree and density of employment. Kilowatt Hour A unit of energy. In the U.S., the kilowatt hour is the unit of measure used by utilities to bill consumers for energy use. Land Use Index Measures the degree of land use mix of a development. An index of 0 indicates a single land use while 1 indicates a full mix of uses. Appendix A A-6 Appendix A Lumen A unit of luminous flux. A measure of the brilliance of a source of visible light, or the power of light perceived by the human eye. Master Planned Community Large communities developed specifically incorporating housing, office parks, recreational area, and commercial centers within the community. Master planned communities tend to encompass a large land area with the intent of being self-sustaining. Many master planned communities may have lakes, golf courses, and large parks. Mixed Use A development that incorporates more than one type of land use. For example, a small mixed use development may have buildings with ground-floor retail and housing on the floors above. A larger mixed use development will locate a variety of land uses within a short proximity of each other. This may include integrating office space, shopping, parks, and schools with residential development. The mixed-use development should encourage walking and other non-auto modes of transport from residential to office/commercial/institutional locations (and vice versa). Ordinance A local law usually found in municipal code. Parking Spillover A term used to describe the effects of implementing a parking management strategy in a sub- area that has unintended consequences of impacting the surrounding areas. For example, assume parking meters are installed on all streets in a commercial/retail block with no other parking strategies implemented. Customers will no longer park in the metered spots and will instead “spillover” to the surrounding residential neighborhoods where parking is still unrestricted. Photovoltaicc A system that converts sunlight directly into electricity using cells made of silicon or other conductive materials (solar cells). When sunlight hits the cells, a chemical reaction occurs, resulting in the release of electricity. Recycled Water Non-drinkable water that can be reused for irrigation, flushing toilets, and other purposes. It has been processed through a wastewater treatment plant and often needs to be redistributed. Ride Sharing Any form of carpooling or vanpooling where additional passengers are carried on the trip. Ride- sharing can be casual and formed independently or be part of an employer program where assistance is provided to employees to match up commuters who live in close proximity of one another. Appendix A A-7 Appendix A Renewable Energya Energy sources that are, within a short time frame relative to the Earth‟s natural cycles, sustainable, and include non-carbon technologies such as solar energy, hydropower, and wind, as well as carbon-neutral technologies such as biomass. Self Selection When an individual selects himself into a group. Separate Heat and Power The typical system for acquiring heat and power. Thermal energy and electricity are generated and used separately. For example, heat is generated from a boiler while electricity is acquired from the local utility. Separate heat and power systems are used as the baseline of comparison for combined heat and power systems. Sequestrationa The process of increasing the carbon content of a carbon reservoir other than the atmosphere. Biological approaches to sequestration include direct removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through afforestation, reforestation, and practices that enhance soil carbon in agriculture. Physical approaches include separation and disposal of carbon dioxide from flue gases or from processing fossil fuels to produce hydrogen- and carbon dioxide-rich fractions and longterm storage in underground in depleted oil and gas reservoirs, coal seams, and saline aquifers. “Stick” The purpose of a stick is to establish a penalty for a status quo action. Workplace parking pricing would be considered a “stick” since the employee is now monetarily penalized for driving to work. Suburban An area characterized by dispersed, low-density, single-use, automobile dependent land use patterns, usually outside of the central city (a suburb). Suburban Center The suburban center serves the population of the suburb with office, retail and housing which is denser than the surrounding suburb. Title 24 Title 24 Part 6 is also known as the California Building Energy Efficiency Standard, which regulates building energy efficiency standards. Regulated energy uses include space heating and cooling, ventilation, domestic hot water heating, and some hard-wired lighting. Title 24 determines compliance by comparing the modeled energy use of a „proposed home‟ to that of a minimally Title 24 compliant „standard home‟ of equal dimensions. Title 24 focuses on building energy efficiency per square foot; it places no limits upon the size of the house or the actual energy used per dwelling unit. The current Title 24 standards were published in 2008. Transit-Oriented Development A development located near and specifically designed around a rail or bus station. Proximity alone does not characterize a development as transit-oriented. The development and surrounding neighborhood should be designed for walking and bicycling and parking management strategies should be implemented. The development should be located within a short walking distance to a high-quality, high frequency, and reliable bus or rail service. Appendix A A-8 Appendix A Transportation Demand Management Any transportation strategy which has an intent to increase the transportation system efficiency and reduce demand on the system by discouraging single-occupancy vehicle travel and encouraging more efficient travel patterns, alternative modes of transportation such as walking, bicycling, public transit, and ridesharing. TDM measures should also shift travel patterns from peak to off-peak hours and shift travel from further to closer destinations. Transit Ridership The number of passengers who ride in a public transportation system, such as buses and subways. Tree and Grid Network Describes the layout of streets within and surrounding a project. Streets that are characterized as a tree network actually look like a tree and its branches. Streets are not laid out in any uniform pattern, intersection density is low, and the streets are less connected. In a grid network, streets are laid out in a perpendicular and parallel grid pattern. Streets tend to intersect more frequently, intersection density is higher, and the streets are more connected. Urban An area which is located within the central city with higher density of land uses than you would find in the suburbs. It may be characterized by multi-family housing and located near office and retail. Urban Heat Island Effect The phenomenon in which a metropolitan area is warmer than its surrounding rural areas due to increased land surface which retains heat, such as concrete, asphalt, metal, and other materials found in buildings and pavements. Vehicle Miles Traveled The number of miles driven by vehicles. This is an important traffic parameter and the basis for most traffic-related greenhouse gas emissions calculations. Vehicle Occupancy The number of persons in a vehicle during a trip, including the driver and passengers. Notes: a Definition adapted from: IPCC. 2001. Third Assessment Report: Climate Change 2001 (TAR). Annex B: Glossary of Terms. Available online at: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/glossary/tar-ipcc-terms-en.pdf b Definition adapted from: CCAR. 2009. General Reporting Protocol, Version 3.1. Available online at: http://www.climateregistry.org/resources/docs/protocols/grp/GRP_3.1_January2009.pdf c Definition adapted from: USEPA. 2010. Greening EPA Glossary. Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/oaintrnt/glossary.htm Appendix B Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures Task 0: Standard Approach to Calculate Unmitigated Emissions Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures Task 0: Standard Approach to Calculate Unmitigated Emissions Prepared for: California Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) Prepared by: ENVIRON International Corporation San Francisco, California And Fehr & Peers San Francisco & Walnut Creek, California Date: August 2010 B-i Contents Page 1 Introduction B-1 2 GHG Equivalent Emissions B-1 3 Units of measurement: MT of CO2 and CO2e B-2 4 Indirect GHG Emissions from Electricity Use B-2 5 Short-Term Emissions B-3 5.1 Construction Activities B-3 5.1.1 Estimating GHG Emissions from Off-Road Construction Equipment B-3 5.1.2 Estimating GHG emissions from Electric Off-Road Construction Equipment B-4 5.1.3 GHG Emissions from On-Road Vehicles Associated with Construction B-4 5.2 Vegetation Change B-6 5.2.1 Quantifying the One-Time Release by Changes in Carbon Sequestration Capacity B-6 5.2.2 Calculating CO2 Sequestration by Trees B-8 5.3 Built Environment B-8 5.3.1 Natural Gas Boilers B-10 5.4 Area Sources B-11 5.4.1 Natural Gas Fireplaces/Stoves B-11 5.4.2 Landscape Maintenance B-11 5.5 Water B-11 5.5.1 Indoor B-12 5.5.2 Outdoor B-12 5.5.2.1 Landscape Watering – Turf Grass B-13 5.5.2.2 Landscape Watering – General B-14 5.5.3 Recycled Water B-15 5.5.4 Process B-15 5.6 Wastewater B-15 5.6.1 Direct Emissions B-15 5.6.2 Indirect Emissions B-16 5.7 Public Lighting B-16 5.8 Municipal Vehicles B-16 5.9 On-Road Mobile Sources B-17 5.9.1 Estimating GHG Emissions from Mobile Sources B-19 5.10 GHG Emissions from Specialized Land Uses B-20 5.10.1 Golf Courses B-20 5.10.2 Calculating CO2 Emissions from Irrigation of the Golf Course B-20 5.10.3 Calculating CO2 Emissions from Maintenance of the Golf Course B-21 5.10.4 Calculating CO2 Emissions from Building Energy Use at the Golf Course B-22 5.11 Pools B-22 5.11.1 Recreation Center Characterization B-23 5.11.2 Electricity Use of Pools B-23 5.11.3 Natural Gas Use of Pools B-23 5.11.4 Conversion of Electricity and Natural Gas Use to Greenhouse Gas Emissions B-24 B-1 1 Introduction ENVIRON International Corporation (ENVIRON) and Fehr & Peers worked with the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) to quantify reductions associated with greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation measures that can be applied to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Environmental Impact Report (EIR) analyses. The first part of this overall task defines a standard approach to calculate the baseline emissions before mitigation. This report contains the recommendations for methodologies and approaches to assess the baseline GHG emissions. This report and its methodologies form the basis for the subsequent tasks associated with quantification of GHG mitigation measures. To the extent possible, default values are included with this report and in the mitigation measure Fact Sheets. This report presents methods to be used to calculate short-term and one-time emissions sources as well as emissions that will occur annually after construction (operational emissions). The one-time emission sources include changes in carbon sequestration due to vegetation changes and emissions associated with construction. The annual operational emissions include the emissions associated with building energy use including natural gas and electricity, emissions associated with mobile sources, emissions associated with water use and wastewater treatment, emissions associated with area sources such as natural gas fired hearths , landscape maintenance equipment, swimming pools, and golf courses. 2 GHG Equivalent Emissions The term “GHGs” includes gases that contribute to the greenhouse effect, such as carbon dioxide (CO2,) methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O), as well as gases that are only man- made and that are emitted through the use of modern industrial products, such as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), chlorinated fluorocarbons (CFCs), and sulfurhexafluoride (SF6). These last three families of gases, while not naturally present in the atmosphere, have properties that also cause them to trap infrared radiation when they are present in the atmosphere, thus making them GHGs. These six gases comprise the major GHGs that are recognized by the Kyoto Accords (water is not included).1 There are other GHGs that are not recognized by the Kyoto Accords, due either to the smaller role that they play in climate change or the uncertainties surrounding their effects. Atmospheric water vapor is not recognized by the Kyoto Accords because there is not an obvious correlation between water concentrations and specific human activities. Water appears to act in a positive feedback manner; higher temperatures lead to higher water vapor concentrations in the atmosphere, which in turn can cause more global warming.2 California has recently recognized nitrogen trifluoride as another regulated greenhouse gas. 1 This Kyoto Protocol sets legally binding targets and timetables for cutting the greenhouse gas emissions of industrialized countries. The US has not approved the Kyoto treaty. 2 From the IPCC Third Assessment Report: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/143.htm and http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/268.htm B-2 Residents and the employees and patrons of commercial and municipal buildings and services use electricity, heating, water, and are transported by motor vehicles. These activities directly or indirectly emit GHGs. The most significant GHG emissions resulting from such residential and commercial developments are emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O). GHG emissions are typically measured in terms of MT of CO2 equivalents (CO2e), calculated as the product of the mass emitted of a given GHG and its specific global warming potential (GWP). The effect that each of these gases can have on global warming is a combination of the mass of their emissions and their global warming potential (GWP). GWP indicates, on a MT for MT basis, how much a gas is predicted to contribute to global warming relative to how much warming would be predicted to be caused by the same mass of CO2. CH4 and N2O are substantially more potent GHGs than CO2, with GWPs of 21 and 310, respectively according to the IPCC’s Second Assessment Report (SAR).3 In emissions inventories, GHG emissions are typically reported in terms of pounds (lbs) or MT4 of CO2 equivalents (CO2e). CO2e are calculated as the product of the mass emitted of a given GHG and its specific GWP. While CH4 and N2O have much higher GWPs than CO2, CO2 is emitted in such vastly higher quantities that it accounts for the majority of GHG emissions in CO2e, both from developments and human activity in general. Since most regulatory agencies and protocols use the SAR GWP values as a basis, this assessment will also use SAR GWP values even though more recent values exist. However, SAR did not consider nitrogen trifluoride, however there are no sources of nitrogen trifluoride that would typically need to be quantified. 3 Units of measurement: MT of CO2 and CO2e In many sections of this report, including the final summary sections, emissions are presented in units of CO2e either because the GWPs of CH4 and N2O were accounted for explicitly, or the CH4 and N2O are assumed to contribute a negligible amount of GWP when compared to the CO2 emissions from that particular emissions category. Emissions and reductions are calculated in terms of metric tons. As such, "MT" will be used to refer to metric tons (1,000 kilograms). "Tons" will be used to refer to short tons (2,000 pounds [lbs]). 4 Indirect GHG Emissions from Electricity Use As noted above, indirect GHG emissions are created as a result of electricity use. When electricity is used in a building, the electricity generation typically takes place offsite at the power plant; electricity use in a building generally causes emissions in an indirect manner. The project should use information specific for each local utility provider for different parts of 3 GWP values from IPCC’s Second Assessment Report (SAR, 1996) are still used by international convention and are used in this protocol, even though more recent (and slightly different) GWP values were developed in the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (FAR, 2007) 4 In this report, “MT” will be used to refer to metric MT (1,000 kilograms). “Tons” will be used to refer to short tons (2,000 pounds). B-3 California. Accordingly, indirect GHG emissions from electricity usage are calculated using the utility specific carbon-intensity factor based Power/Utility Protocol (PUP) report from California Climate Action Registry (CCAR)5 for the 2006 baseline year. ENVIRON does not recommend using the 2004 PUP reports since this year was one of the first year’s utilities reported emissions, as such, the data is likely less accurate than subsequent years since utilities had a chance to refine data collection methods for the later years. Furthermore, a large coal burning power plant in Mojave was going offline in 2005 which was factored into the Scoping Plan analysis. Therefore, ENVIRON suggests using the 2006 PUP reports since it likely represents a more accurate dataset year. This emission factor takes into account the baseline year’s mix of energy sources used to generate electricity for a specific utility and the relative carbon intensities of these sources. The emission factor will be determined as a CO2e incorporating the CO2, CH4, and N2O emissions. Power Utility Carbon-Intensity (lbs CO2e/MWh) LADW&P 1,238 PG&E 456 SCE 641 SDGE 781 SMUD 555 5 Short-Term Emissions Short-term or one-time emissions from the development of a Project are associated with vegetation removal and re-vegetation on the Project site and construction-related activities. 5.1 Construction Activities Construction activities occur during the early stage of a project. Construction activities include any demolition, site grading, building construction, and paving. These construction activities have several main sources of GHG emissions. Off-road construction equipment such as dozers, pavers, and backhoes are used on-site during construction. These pieces of equipment typically are diesel fueled although other fuels are occasionally used. Besides the off-road construction, there are on-road vehicles. These vehicles are used for worker commuting, delivering of material to the site, and hauling material away from the site. The methodology to calculate these sources of emissions is described in the next sections. 5.1.1 Estimating GHG Emissions from Off-Road Construction Equipment This section describes how emissions from off-road equipment used during demolition, site grading, building construction and paving are calculated. This section can be used for any fuel 5 California Climate Action Registry (CCAR) Database. PUP Report. B-4 burning equipment such as diesel, gasoline, or compressed natural gas (CNG). For electric equipment please see the method in the next section. First, the number and type of equipment that will be used in the construction, as well as the duration of the entire construction project, is needed. Absent other data, ENVIRON recommends that each piece of equipment will operate for 8 hours a day, five days a week throughout the construction duration. An equipment hour is defined as one hour of a piece of equipment being used. Specifications for each type of construction equipment (horsepower, load factor, and GHG emission factor) are provided by OFFROAD20076. CO2 and CH4 emissions for each type of construction equipment are calculated as follows: Equipment Emissions [grams] = Total equipment hours x emission factor [grams per brake horsepower-hour] x equipment horsepower x load factor7 The grams of CO2 and CH4 are multiplied by their respective GWP and then the two emissions are summed to derive the final CO2e emissions from the piece of off-road equipment. Since OFFROAD2007 does not provide an emission factor for N2O which is a minor subset of nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions and the contribution to the overall GHG emissions is likely small, it is therefore not included in calculations that used OFFROAD2007. These were accounted for with alternative fuels since they have a larger proportion of N2O and CH4. 5.1.2 Estimating GHG emissions from Electric Off-Road Construction Equipment In order to estimate the indirect GHG emissions associated with electricity consumption of electrical powered equipment, the following inputs are required. First, the total operating hours of the electrical piece of equipment is needed. Secondly, the amount of kilowatts the equipment uses per time is needed. These two pieces are used along with the carbon intensity factor for the local utility provider as follows: Equipment Emissions = Total equipment hours x average power draw (kW/hr) x Utility EF (g CO2e per kWhr) 5.1.3 GHG Emissions from On-Road Vehicles Associated with Construction Emissions from on-road vehicles associated with construction include workers commuting to the site, vendors delivering materials, and hauling away of materials. GHGs are emitted from these vehicles in two ways: running emissions, produced by driving the vehicle, and startup emissions, produced by turning the vehicle on. Idling emissions will not be considered since 6 OFFROAD2007 is a model developed by the Air Resources Board which contains emission factors for off-road equipment. It is available at : http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/offroad/offroad.htm 7 Load factor is the percentage of the maximum horsepower rating at which the equipment normally operates. B-5 regulations exist which limit idling8 and they would represent a small contribution to the GHG emissions. The majority of these on-road vehicle emissions are running emissions. Running emissions are calculated using the same method for all trip types. The total Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) for the trip type category is estimated, and then multiplied by the representative GHG emission factors for the vehicles expected to be driven. The total VMT for a given trip type is calculated as follows: VMT = Number of round trips x average round trip length (miles) The number of trips should be based on project specific information. Default values associated with each land use type can be obtained construction cost estimators or default values in emission estimator programs. Average round trip length should be based on project specific information or county specific default values. After total VMT is calculated, GHG emissions for on-road vehicles associated with construction can be calculated from the following equation: CO2 emissions = VMT x EFrunning Where: VMT = vehicle miles traveled EFrunning = running emission factor for vehicle fleet for trip type The CO2 calculation involves the following assumptions: a. Vehicle Fleet Defaults: a. Workers commute half with light duty trucks (LDTs) and half commute in light duty autos (LDAs). Half of the LDTs are type 1 and the other half type 2. b. Vendors are all heavy-heavy duty vehicles. c. Hauling is all heavy-heavy duty vehicles. b. The emission factor depends upon the speed of the vehicle. A default value of 35 miles per hour will be used. c. EMFAC emission factors from the construction year will be used for EFrunning. 8 The Air Resources Board adopted in 2004 and modified in 2005 an Air Toxic Control Measure that limits idling in diesel vehicles to 5-minutes. http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/truck-idling/truck-idling.htm B-6 The emissions associated with CH4 and N2O are calculated in a similar manner or assumed to represent 5% of the total CO2e emissions. They are then converted to CO2e by multiplying by their respective global warming potential. Startup emissions are CO2 emitted from starting a vehicle. For the various trips during all phases, the startup emissions are calculated using the following assumptions: a. The same vehicle fleet assumptions as used in running emissions. b. Two engine startups per day with a 12 hour wait before each startup.9 The USEPA recommends assuming that CH4, N2O, and HFCs account for 5% of GHG emissions from on-road vehicles, taking into account their GWPs.10 To incorporate these additional GHGs into the calculations, the total GHG footprint is calculated by dividing the CO2 emissions by 0.95. 5.2 Vegetation Change ENVIRON suggests following the IPCC protocol for vegetation since it has default values that work well with the information typically available for development projects. This method is similar to the CCAR Forest Protocol11 and the Center for Urban Forest Research Tree Carbon Calculator12, but it has more general default values available that will generally applicable to all areas of California without requiring detailed site-specific information13. 5.2.1 Quantifying the One-Time Release by Changes in Carbon Sequestration Capacity The one-time release of GHGs due to permanent changes in carbon sequestration capacity is calculated using the following four steps:14 1. Identify and quantify the change in area of various land types due to the development (i.e. alluvial scrub, non-native grassland, agricultural, etc.). These area changes include not only the area of land that will be converted to buildings, but also areas disrupted by the construction of utility corridors, water tank sites, and associated borrow and grading areas. 9 The emission factor grows with the length of time the engine is off before each ignition. 10 USEPA. 2005. Emission Facts: Greenhouse Gas Emissions from a Typical Passenger Vehicle. Office of Transportation and Air Quality. February. 11 CCAR. 2007. Forest Sector Protocol Version 2.1. September. Available at: http://www.climateregistry.org/resources/docs/protocols/industry/forest/forest_sector_protocol_version_2.1_sept20 07.pdf 12 Available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/ccrc/topics/urban-forests/ctcc/ 13 The CCAR Forest Protocol and Urban Forest Research Tree Carbon Calculator are not used since their main focus is annual emissions for carbon offset considerations. As such they are designed to work with very specific details of the vegetation that is not available at a CEQA level of analysis. 14 This section follows the IPCC guidelines, but has been adapted for ease of use for these types of Projects. B-7 Areas temporarily disturbed that will eventually recover to become vegetated will not be counted as vegetation removed as there is no net change in vegetation or land use.15 2. Estimate the biomass associated with each land type. For the purposes of this report, ENVIRON suggests using the available general vegetation types found in the IPCC publication Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (IPCC Guidelines).16 California vegetation is heavily dominated by scrub and chaparral vegetation which may not be accurately characterized by default forest land properties. Consequently, ecological zones and biomass based subdivisions identified in the IPCC Guidelines were used to sub-categorize the vegetation as scrub dominated. These subcategories should be used to determine the CO2 emissions resulting from land use impacts. 3. Calculate CO2 emissions from the net change of vegetation. When vegetation is removed, it may undergo biodegradation,17 or it may be combusted. Either pathway results in the carbon (C) present in the plants being combined with oxygen (O2) to form CO2. To estimate the mass of carbon present in the biomass, biomass weight is multiplied by the mass carbon fraction, 0.5. 18 The mass of carbon is multiplied by 3.6719 to calculate the final mass of CO2, assuming all of this carbon is converted into CO2. 4. Calculate the overall change in sequestered CO2. – For all types of land that change from one type of land to another,20 initial and final values of sequestered CO2 are calculated using the equation below. Overall Change in Sequestered CO2 [MT CO2] j j ji i i areaSeqCOareaSeqCO22 Where: SeqCO2 = mass of sequestered CO2 per unit area [MT CO2/acre] area = area of land for specific land use type [acre] i = index for final land use type j = index for initial land use type 15 This assumption facilitates the calculation as a yearly growth rate and CO2 removal rate does not have to be calculated. As long as the disturbed land will indeed return to its original state, this assumption is valid for time periods over 20 years. 16 Available online at http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/vol4.htm 17 Cleared vegetation may also be deposited in a landfill or compost area, where some anaerobic degradation which will generate CH4 may take place. However, for the purposes of this section, we are assuming that only aerobic biodegradation will take place which will result in CO2 emissions only. 18 The fraction of the biomass weight that is carbon. Here, a carbon fraction of 0.5 is used for all vegetation types from CCAR Forest Sector Protocol. 19 The ratio of the molecular mass of CO2 to the molecular mass of carbon is 44/12 or 3.67. 20 For example from forestland to grassland, or from cropland to permanently developed. B-8 5.2.2 Calculating CO2 Sequestration by Trees Planting individual trees will sequester CO2. Changing vegetation as described above results in a one-time carbon-stock change. Planting trees is also considered to result in a one-time carbon-stock change. Default annual CO2 sequestration rates on a per tree basis, based on values provided by the IPCC are used21. An average of 0.035 MT CO2 per year per tree can be used for trees planted, if the tree type is not known. Urban trees are only net carbon sinks when they are actively growing. The IPCC assumes an active growing period of 20 years. Thereafter, the accumulation of carbon in biomass slows with age, and will be completely offset by losses from clipping, pruning, and occasional death. Actual active growing periods are subject to, among other things, species, climate regime, and planting density. In this report, the IPCC default value of 20 years is recommended. For large tree sequestration projects, the Project may consider using the Forest or Urban tree planting protocols developed by Climate Action Registry (CAR). These protocols have slightly different assumptions regarding steady state, tree growth, and replacement of trees.. 5.3 Built Environment The amount of energy used, and the associated GHG emissions emitted per square foot of available space vary with the type of building. For example, food stores are far more energy intensive than warehouses, which have little climate-conditioned space. Therefore, this analysis is specific to the type of building. GHGs are emitted as a result of activities in buildings for which electricity and natural gas are used as energy sources. Combustion of any type of fuel emits CO2 and other GHGs directly into the atmosphere; when this occurs within a building (such as by natural gas consumption) this is a direct emission source22 associated with that building. GHGs are also emitted during the generation of electricity from fossil fuels. When electricity is used in a building, the electricity generation typically takes place offsite at the power plant; electricity use in a building generally causes emissions in an indirect manner. Energy use in buildings is divided into energy consumed by the built environment and energy consumed by uses that are independent of the construction of the building such as plug-in appliances. In California, Title 24 part 6 governs energy consumed by the built environment, mechanical systems, and some fixed lighting. This includes the space heating, space cooling, water heating, and ventilation systems. Non-building energy use, or “plug-in” energy use can be further subdivided by specific end-use (refrigeration, cooking, office equipment, etc.). The following two steps are performed to quantify the energy use due to buildings: 21 The Center for Urban Forest Research Tree Carbon Calculator is not suggested since it requires knowledge on specific tree species to estimate carbon sequestered. This information is typically not available during the preparation of CEQA documents. 22 California Climate Action Registry (CCAR) General Reporting Protocol (GRP), Version 3.1 (January). Available at: http://www.climateregistry.org/resources/docs/protocols/grp/GRP_3.1_January2009.pdf, Chapter 8 B-9 1. Calculate energy use from systems covered by Title 2423 (HVAC system, water heating system, and the lighting system). 2. Calculate energy use from office equipment, plug-in lighting, and other sources not covered by Title 24. The resulting energy use quantities are then converted to GHG emissions by multiplying by the appropriate emission factors obtained by incorporating information on local electricity providers for electricity, and by natural gas emission factors for natural gas combustion. ENVIRON recommends using default values for Title 24 and non-Title 24 energy use for various building types. These will take into account the building size and climate zone. There are several sources of information that can be used to obtain building energy intensity. Each is described briefly below. The California Commercial Energy Use Survey (CEUS) data is provided by the California Energy Commission (CEC). It is based on a survey conducted in 2002 for existing commercial buildings in various climate zones. Electricity and natural gas use per square foot for each end use in each building type and climate zone is extracted from the CEUS data. Since the data is provided by end use, it is straightforward to calculate the Title 24 and non-Title 24 regulated energy intensity for each building type. Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) is a survey of non- residential buildings that was conducted in 2003 by the Energy Information Administration (EIA). Electricity and natural gas use per square foot can be extracted from this data. The energy use estimates are assumed to represent 2001 Title 24 compliant buildings. Using CBECS, the percent of electricity and natural gas used for each end use can be calculated. It is then straightforward to calculate the Title 24 and non-Title 24 electricity and natural gas intensity for each building type. Similar surveys exist for manufacturing and residential energy use. The Residential Appliance Saturation Survey (RASS) refers to the California Energy Commission Consultant Report entitled “California Statewide Residential Appliance Saturday Study”. Data from RASS is used to calculate the total electricity and natural gas use for residential buildings on a per dwelling unit. The RASS study estimates the unit energy consumption (UEC) values for individual households surveyed and also provides the saturation number for each type of end use. The saturation number indicates the proportion of households that have a demand for each type of end-use category. As the data is provided by end use, it is straightforward to calculate the Title 24 and non-Title 24 electricity and natural gas intensity for each building type. Alternative Calculation Method (ACM) software is available that makes estimates of the energy consumption by a model Title 24 compliant building. These programs provide 23 Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations: California's Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings. http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/ B-10 annual energy use for the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system in each building; therefore, estimates from ACM software represent Title 24-regulated energy use. These do not calculate the non-Title 24 energy use for the buildings. The Department of Energy produced the Building America Research Benchmark Definition (BARBD) technical manual, which presents empirical equations for electricity and natural gas usage. As the data is provided by end use, it is straightforward to calculate the Title 24 and non-Title 24 electricity and natural gas intensity for each building type. Literature surveys may also be used for building and land use types not well represented by the above sources. ENVIRON suggests using the CEUS and RASS datasets for these calculations since the data is available for several land use categories in different climate zones in California. The Title 24 standards have been updated twice (in 2005 and 2008) since some of these data were compiled. CEC has published reports estimating the percentage deductions in energy use resulting from these new standards. Based on CEC’s discussion on average savings for Title 24 improvements, these CEC savings percentages by end use can be used to account for reductions in electricity use due to updates to Title 24. Since energy use for each different system type (ie, heating, cooling, water heating, and ventilation) as well as appliances is defined, this method will easily allow for application of mitigation measures aimed at reducing the energy use of these devices in a prescriptive manner. Based on the electricity intensity, CO2e intensity values (CO2e emissions per square foot or dwelling unit, as applicable, per year) for each building type can be calculated. Electricity intensity data is multiplied by an electricity emission factor to generate CO2e intensity values. The total CO2e emissions from each building type are calculated by multiplying the CO2e intensity values by the appropriate metric (building square footage for non-residential buildings or number of dwelling units for residential buildings). Summing the CO2e emissions from all building types gives the total CO2e emissions from electricity use in Title 24 and non-Title 24 sources in buildings. Based on the natural gas intensity, CO2e intensity values (CO2e emissions per square foot or dwelling unit, as applicable, per year) for each building type can be calculated. Natural gas intensity data is multiplied by a natural gas emission factor to generate CO2e intensity values. The total CO2e emissions from each building type are calculated by multiplying the CO2 intensity values by the appropriate metric (building square footage for non-residential buildings or number of dwelling units for residential buildings). Summing the CO2e emissions from all building types gives the total CO2e emissions from natural gas use in Title 24 and non-Title 24 sources in buildings. 5.3.1 Natural Gas Boilers GHG emissions from the combustion of natural gas are calculated as the product of natural gas consumption, natural gas heat content, and carbon-intensity factor. The Project Applicant has B-11 to determine the natural gas consumption, while the heat content and carbon-intensity factor can obtained from the CCAR General Reporting Protocol. 5.4 Area Sources Area sources are local combustion of fuel. The area sources covered in this section include natural gas fireplaces/stoves and landscape maintenance equipment. Natural gas usage from the primary building heating is not included in this category since it is already included with building energy use. Each of these area sources is discussed further. 5.4.1 Natural Gas Fireplaces/Stoves GHG emissions associated with natural gas fired fireplaces are calculated using emission factors from CCAR. The average BTU per hour for fireplaces in homes needs to be specified. Default values for annual fireplace usage varies for each County. Natural gas is assumed to have 1,020 BTU per standard cubic foot24. 5.4.2 Landscape Maintenance Landscape maintenance includes fuel combustion emissions from equipment such as lawn mowers, roto tillers, shredders/grinders, blowers, trimmers, chain saws, and hedge trimmers, as well as air compressors, generators, and pumps. Similar to construction off-road equipment, emission factors are based on the OFFROAD2007 model. These are combined with the hours of operation for each equipment piece as well as the horsepower and load factors. The GHG emissions will be calculated based on the emission factors for the equipment and fuel reported from OFFROAD2007 and the appropriate GWP. Default usages (hours of operation) should be determined for the landscape equipment based on the Project needs. 5.5 Water Delivering and treating water for use at the project site requires energy. This embodied energy associated with the distribution of water to the end user is associated with the electricity to pump and treat the water. GHG emissions due to water use are related to the energy used to convey, treat and distribute water. Thus, these emissions are indirect emissions from the production of electricity to power these systems. The amount of electricity required to treat and supply water depends on the volume of water involved. Three processes are necessary to supply water to users: (1) supply and conveyance of the water from the source; (2) treatment of the water to potable standards; and (3) distribution of the water to individual users. 24 USEPA. 1998. AP-42 Emission Factors. Chapter 1.4 Natural Gas Combustion. B-12 Therefore, to quantify the GHG emissions associated with the distribution of water to an end user, the carbon intensity of electricity is used along with the amount of electricity used in pumping and treating the water. Since consumption of water varies greatly for each land use type, default values need to be determined with several listed in the mitigation measure fact sheets. Since buildings may have different percentages of water associated with indoor and outdoor water usage, the water usage is quantified separately. In addition since mitigation measures associated with water use may be directed separately toward indoor and outdoor water usage, this will be beneficial for this task. 5.5.1 Indoor Indirect emissions resulting from electricity use are determined by multiplying electricity use by the CO2e emission factor provided by the local electricity supplier. Energy use per unit of water for different aspects of water treatment (e.g. source water pumping and conveyance, water treatment, distribution to users) is determined using the stated volumes of water and energy intensities values (i.e., energy use per unit volume of water) provided by reports from the California Energy Commission (CEC) on energy use for California’s water systems.25 The CEC report estimates the electricity required to extract and convey one million gallons of water. Using this energy intensity factor, the expected indoor water demand, and the utility-specific carbon-intensity factor, GHG emissions from indoor water supply and conveyance may be calculated. The amount of electricity required to treat and distribute one million gallon of potable water is estimated in the CEC report. Based on the estimated indoor water demand, these energy intensity factors, and the utility-specific carbon intensity factor, GHG emissions from indoor water treatment and distribution may be calculated. The sum of emissions due to supplying, conveying, treating, and distributing indoor water gives the total emissions due to indoor water use. 5.5.2 Outdoor Indirect emissions resulting from electricity use are determined by multiplying electricity use by the CO2 emission factor provided by the local electricity supplier. Energy use per unit of water for different aspects of water treatment (e.g. source water pumping and conveyance, water treatment, distribution to users) is determined using the stated volumes of water and energy intensities values (i.e., energy use per unit volume of water) provided by reports from the California Energy Commission (CEC) on energy use for California’s water systems.26 The 25 CEC 2005. California’s Water-Energy Relationship. Final Staff Report. CEC-700-2005-011-SF, CEC 2006. Refining Estimates of Water-Related Energy Use in California. PIER Final Project Report. Prepared by Navigant Consulting, Inc. CEC-500-2006-118. December. 26 CEC 2005. California’s Water-Energy Relationship. Final Staff Report. CEC-700-2005-011-SF, CEC 2006. Refining Estimates of Water-Related Energy Use in California. PIER Final Project Report. Prepared by Navigant Consulting, Inc. CEC-500-2006-118. December. B-13 energy needed to supply and convey the water will be used to pump this water from the sources and distribute it throughout the development. The CEC report estimates the electricity required to extract and convey one million gallons of water. Using this energy intensity factor, the expected outdoor water demand, and the utility-specific carbon-intensity factor, GHG emissions from outdoor water supply and conveyance may be calculated. The amount of electricity required to treat and distribute one million gallon of potable water (see recycled water for non-potable water) is estimated in the CEC report. Based on the estimated outdoor water demand, these energy intensity factors, and the utility-specific carbon intensity factor, GHG emissions from outdoor water treatment and distribution may be calculated. The sum of emissions due to supplying, conveying, treating, and distributing outdoor water gives the total emissions due to outdoor water use. 5.5.2.1 Landscape Watering – Turf Grass The amount of outdoor water used in the landscape watering of turf grass is calculated based on the California Department of Water Resources (CDWR) 2009 Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance27 and the CDWR 2000 report “A Guide to Estimating Irrigation Water Needs of Landscape Plantings in California: The Landscape Coefficient Method and WUCOLS III.”28 Using this methodology, the amount of water required to support the baseline turf water demand (Waterbaseline) is calculated as follows: ETC = Kc x ET0 Where: ETC = Crop Evapotranspiration, the total amount of water the baseline turf loses during a specific time period due to evapotranspiration29 (inches water/day) KC = Crop Coefficient, factor determined from field research, which compares the amount of water lost by the crop (e.g. turf) to the amount of water lost by a reference crop (unitless). Species-specific; provided in CDWR 2000 ET0 = Reference Evapotransporation, the amount of water lost by a reference crop (inches water/day) Region-specific; provided in Appendix A of CDWR 2009 27 California Department of Water Resources. 2009. Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. Available online at: http://www.water.ca.gov/wateruseefficiency/docs/MWELO09-10-09.pdf 28 California Department of Water Resources. 2000. A Guide to Estimating Irrigation Water Needs of Landscape Plantings in California: The Landscape Coefficient Method and WUCOLS III. Available online at: http://www.water.ca.gov/pubs/conservation/a_guide_to_estimating_irrigation_water_needs_of_landscape_planting s_in_california__wucols/wucols00.pdf 29 Evapotranspiration is water lost to the atmosphere due to evaporation from soil and transpiration from plant leaves. For a more detailed definition, see this California Irrigation Management Information System (CIMIS) website: http://wwwcimis.water.ca.gov/cimis/infoEtoOverview.jsp;jsessionid=91682943559928B8A9A243D2A2665E19 B-14 Then: Waterbaseline = ETC x Areabaseline X 0.62 x 365 Where: Waterbaseline = Volume of water required to support the baseline turf (gallons/year) Areabaseline = Area of existing or standard turf (square feet) 0.62 = conversion factor (gallons/squarefoot.inches water) 365 = conversion factor (days/year) Based on the estimated outdoor water demand for watering turf grass, the outdoor water energy intensity factors described above, and the utility-specific carbon intensity factor, GHG emissions from watering turf grass in lawns may be calculated. 5.5.2.2 Landscape Watering – General The amount of outdoor water used in the landscape watering of landscapes and lawns is calculated based on the California Department of Water Resources (CDWR) 2009 Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance.30 Using this methodology, the amount of water required to support the baseline lawn water demand (Waterbaseline) is defined as the Maximum Applied Water Allowance (MAWA) and is calculated as follows: Waterbaseline = MAWA = ET0 x 0.62 x [(0.7 x LA) + (0.3 x SLA)] Where: Waterbaseline = Volume of water required to support the baseline lawn (gallons/year) MAWA = Maximum Applied Water Allowance (gallons/year) ET0 = Annual Reference Evapotranspiration31 from Appendix A of CDWR 2009 (inches per year) 0.7 = ET Adjustment Factor (ETAF) LA = Landscape Area32 includes Special Landscape Area33 (square feet) 30 California Department of Water Resources. 2009. Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. Available online at: http://www.water.ca.gov/wateruseefficiency/docs/MWELO09-10-09.pdf 31 Evapotranspiration is water lost to the atmosphere due to evaporation from soil and transpiration from plant leaves. For a more detailed definition, see this California Irrigation Management Information System (CIMIS) website: http://wwwcimis.water.ca.gov/cimis/infoEtoOverview.jsp;jsessionid= 91682943559928B8A9A243D2A2665E19 32 § 491 Definitions in CDWR 2009: “Landscape Area (LA) means all the planting areas, turf areas, and water features in a landscape design plan subject to the Maximum Applied Water Allowance calculation. The landscape area does not include footprints of buildings or structures, sidewalks, driveways, parking lots, decks, patios, gravel or stone walks, other pervious or non-pervious hardscapes, and other non-irrigated areas designed fro non- development (e.g., open spaces and existing native vegetation).” 33 § 491 Definitions in CDWR 2009: “Special Landscape Area (SLA) means an area of the landscape dedicated B-15 0.62 = Conversion factor (to gallons per square foot) SLA = Portion of the landscape area identified as Special Landscape Area (square feet) 0.3 = the additional ETAF for Special Landscape Area Based on the estimated outdoor water demand for watering lawns, the outdoor water energy intensity factors described above, and the utility-specific carbon intensity factor, GHG emissions from watering lawns may be calculated. 5.5.3 Recycled Water After use, wastewater is treated and reused as reclaimed water. Any reclaimed water produced is generally redistributed to users via pumping. An estimate of the non-potable water demand to be met through the distribution of recycled water is needed. Estimates of the amount of energy needed to redistribute and, if necessary, treat reclaimed water is 400 kW-hr per acre foot.34 Based on the estimated demand for reclaimed water, the estimated electricity demand and the utility-specific carbon-intensity factor, non-potable reclaimed water redistribution emissions are calculated. 5.5.4 Process Industrial land uses can use a large amount of water for their processes. The water used for this will not be quantified since there is not sufficient water use data for this type of land use for the development of a default value. Water use is highly dependent on the specific industry.. 5.6 Wastewater Emissions associated with wastewater treatment include indirect emissions necessary to power the treatment process and direct emissions from degradation of organic material in the wastewater. 5.6.1 Direct Emissions Direct emissions from wastewater treatment include emissions of CH4 and biogenic CO2. The method described by the Local Government Operations Protocol developed by the California Air Resources Board is suggested with default values assigned since detailed plant specific data will typically not be available.35 The assumed daily 5-day carbonaceous biological oxygen solely to edible plants, areas irrigated with recycled water, water features using recycled water and areas dedicated to active play such as parks, sports fields, golf courses, and where turf provides a playing surface.” 34 CEC 2005. California’s Water-Energy Relationship. Final Staff Report. CEC-700-2005-011-SF. 35 California Air Resources Board. 2008. Local Government Operations Protocol - for the quantification and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions inventories . Version 1.0. September 2008. Developed in partnership by California Air Resources Board, California Climate Action Registry, ICLEI - Local Governments for Sustainability, The Climate Registry B-16 demand (BOD5) of 200 mg/L-wastewater is multiplied by the protocol defaults for maximum CH4-producing capacity (0.6 kg-CH4/kg-BOD5) and other default values to obtain the direct CH4 emission. The amount of digester gas produced per volume of wastewater, and amount of N2O per volume of wastewater needs to be determined. These values are then multiplied by the Global Warming Potential factor36 of 21 for CH4 or 310 for the GWP of N2O that would be generated otherwise to obtain the annual CO2 equivalent emissions. 5.6.2 Indirect Emissions Indirect GHG emissions result from the electricity necessary to power the wastewater treatment process. The electricity required to operate a wastewater treatment plant is estimated to be 1,911 kW-hr per million gallons.37 Based on the expected amount of wastewater requiring treatment, which will be assumed to be equal to the indoor potable water demand absent other data, the energy intensity factor and the utility-specific carbon-intensity factor, indirect emissions due to wastewater treatment are calculated. 5.7 Public Lighting Lighting sources contribute to GHG emissions indirectly, via the production of the electricity that powers these lights. Lighting sources considered in this source category include streetlights, traffic lights, and parking lot lights. The annual electricity use may be estimated using the number of heads, the power requirements of each head, and the assumption that they operate for 12 hours a day on average for 365 days per year or 24 hours for traffic lights. The emission factor for public lighting is the utility-specific carbon-intensity factor. Multiplying the electricity usage by the emission factor gives an estimate of annual CO2e emissions from public lighting. 5.8 Municipal Vehicles GHG emissions from municipal vehicles are due to direct emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. Municipal vehicles considered in this source category include vehicles such as police cars, fire trucks, and garbage trucks. Data from reports by Medford, MA; Duluth, MN; Northampton, MA; and Santa Rosa, California38 show that the CO2 emissions from municipal 36 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC Second Assessment - Climate Change 1995. 37 CEC 2006. Refining Estimates of Water-Related Energy Use in California. PIER Final Project Report. Prepared by Navigant Consulting, Inc. CEC-500-2006-118. December. 38 City of Medford. 2001. Climate Action Plan. October. http://www.massclimateaction.org/pdf/MedfordPlan2001.pdf City of Northampton. 2006. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory. Cities for Climate Protection Campaign. June. http://www.northamptonma.gov/uploads/listWidget/3208/NorthamptonInventoryClimateProtection.pdf City of Santa Rosa. Cities for Climate Protection: Santa Rosa. http://ci.santa- rosa.ca.us/City_Hall/City_Manager/CCPFinalReport.pdf Skoog., C. 2001. Greenhouse Gas Inventory and Forecast Report. City of Duluth Facilities Management and The International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives. October.http://www.ci.duluth.mn.us/city/information/ccp/GHGEmissions.pdf B-17 vehicles would be approximately39 0.05 MT per capita per year. Using these studies and the expected population, emissions from municipal vehicles may be calculated. 5.9 On-Road Mobile Sources This section estimates GHG emissions from on-road mobile sources. The on-road mobile source emissions considered a project will be from the typical daily operation of motor vehicles by project residents and non-residents. The GHG emissions based upon all vehicle miles traveled associated with residential and non-residential trips regardless of internal or external destinations or purpose of trip are estimated. Traffic patterns, trip rates, and trip lengths are based upon the methods discussed below. The CCAR GRP40 recommends estimating GHG emissions from mobile sources at an individual vehicle level, assuming knowledge of the fuel consumption rate for each vehicle as well as the miles traveled per car. Since these parameters are not known for a future development, the CCAR guidance can not be used as recommended. Estimating Trip Rates The majority of transportation impact analysis conducted for CEQA documents in California apply trip generation rates provided by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) in their regularly updated report Trip Generation. The report is based on traffic counts data collected over four decades at built developments throughout the United States. This data is typically based on single-use developments, in suburban locations with ample free parking and with minimal transit service and demand management strategies in place. As a result, the ITE trip generation rates represent upper bound trip generation rates for an individual land use type. This represents a good basis against which to measure the trip-reducing effects of any one or more of the mitigation strategies that will be quantified in subsequent tasks. Therefore, we recommend ITE trip rates as the baseline condition against which the effectiveness of CAPCOA’s mitigation measures is applied. There are some CEQA traffic studies that use data other than ITE trip generation rates. Below we briefly discuss the possible use of these alternative datasets. These traffic studies typically use trip generation data from one of the following sources: SANDAG Traffic Generators. In the San Diego region, most studies use data from the SANDAG Traffic Generators report. This report is similar to the ITE Trip Generation in that it uses primarily suburban, single use developments, except that this dataset is based on traffic counts conducted in the San Diego region rather than throughout the United States. In studies where the SANDAG data is used, CAPCOA reviewers should apply the trip reduction estimates presented in subsequent tasks directly to the SANDAG trip generation rates. 39 In an effort to be conservative, the largest per capita number from these four reports was used. 40 California Climate Action Registry (CCAR). 2009. General Reporting Protocol. Version 3.1. January. B-18 Travel Forecast Models. For some large development projects or general plans, the local or regional travel model is used to estimate the number of trips generated as well as trip lengths and vehicle speeds at which the individual trips occur. These models account for whether the trip segment occurs on a freeway or local streets as well as the degree of congestion. The values for trip generation rates and trip lengths using ITE and average trip lengths can be to assess the model estimates of vehicle trip generation and VMT. These comparisons should recognize that the travel models explicitly account for various factors that reduce trip-making and VMT, including the demographic characteristics of the site occupants, location and accessibility of the development site relative to other destinations in the region, the mix of land uses within the site and its surrounding area, and possibly the availability of effective transit service. When performing a comparison using the ITE trip rates and average trip lengths, the reviewer should take into consideration that these factors have already been accounted for in the modeling. Therefore, we recommend applying ITE trip rates and lengths along with the adjustments recommended elsewhere in this document (accounting for site location, design and demographics) as a means of reality-checking transportation model results. Traffic counts at comparable developments. Some traffic assessments elect to conduct traffic counts at existing developments that are similar to the proposed development. When reviewing impact assessments produced using such information, the reviewer should take into account the extent to which the surveyed development(s) already contain trip generation and trip length reducing measures. Care needs to be used to avoid double-counting reductions. Estimating VMT from Mobile Sources Data on average trip lengths are used to translate trip generation rates into vehicle miles of travel (VMT). These trip lengths should be obtained from published sources of average trip lengths for different types of trip types (i.e., commute trips, shopping trips, and others) for each region within the state. Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) are calculated by multiplying ITE trip rates by the typical trip lengths. Some mechanisms that reduce trip generation rates and trip lengths below these standard ITE- trip rates and current average trip lengths might be considered to be intrinsic parts of the development proposal rather than mitigation measures, such as project location (e.g., infill or transit oriented development [TOD]), density, mix of uses, and urban design. These are not considered part of the baseline condition, but are recognized and quantified as project design features (PDFs). This approach has the following advantages: 1) it creates a consistent basis of analysis for all development projects regardless of location and self-mitigating features already included in the project proposal, and 2) it highlights all elements of a project that reduce trip generation rates and vehicle miles traveled. Other Factors Influencing Mobile Source GHG Emissions Beyond trip generation, trip length and VMT, other factors that affect GHG emissions include traffic flow, vehicle fuel consumption rates, and fuel type. Traffic speed and efficiency profiles are largely influenced by: a) the project location and degree of prevailing congestion in its vicinity, b) the degree to which the project implements traffic level- B-19 of-service mitigation measures often triggered by CEQA review, and c) actions taken by local, regional governments and Caltrans to reduce corridor or area-wide congestion. The simplified mitigation assessment methods developed for this study use several categories of emissions factors per VMT that account for a) the generalized project location (core infill, inner ring suburbs, outer suburbs, rural), and b) and region-specific fleet and emissions rate if available. While it is beyond the scope of this document to provide CAPCOA the ability to perform traffic speed and efficiency analysis, the study report advises CAPCOA on the type of analysis to expect to see in CEQA documents on development projects. CEQA impact and mitigation assessment methods should continue to perform air quality analysis using tools such as EMFAC that reference prevailing traffic speed profiles, especially for infill development and congested corridors, while applying appropriate credit for congestion reducing measures included in the project mitigation requirements, funded capital improvements plans, and fiscally constrained Regional Transportation Plans (RTPs.) 5.9.1 Estimating GHG Emissions from Mobile Sources The CO2 emissions from mobile sources were calculated with the trip rates, trip lengths and emission factors for running and starting emissions from EMFAC2007 as follows: CO2 emissions = VMT x EFrunning Where: VMT = vehicle miles traveled EFrunning = emission factor for running emissions The CO2e calculation involves the following assumptions: The emission factor depends upon the speed of the vehicle. EMFAC emission factors from the baseline year will be used for EFrunning based on County specific fleet mix for different trip types and adjusted to account for applicable regulations that are not currently incorporated yet into EMFAC. Startup emissions are CO2 emitted from starting a vehicle. Startup emissions are calculated using the following assumptions: The number of starts is equal to the number of trips made annually. The breakdown in vehicles is EMFAC fleet mix for County specific fleet mix. The emission factor for startup is calculated based on a weighted average of time between starts for each trip type (commute trips versus all other types). Fleet distribution types will be based on EMFAC2007 or the most recent EMFAC version available. For mobile sources, the USEPA recommends assuming that CH4, N2O, and HFCs B-20 account for 5% of GHG emissions from on-road vehicles, taking into account their GWPs.41 To incorporate these additional GHGs into the calculations, the total GHG footprint is calculated by dividing the CO2 emissions by 0.95. Emission factors for alternative fuel can be obtained from the CCAR General Reporting Protocol. For comparison with alternative fuel, N2O and CH4 emissions should be calculated separately as their emissions from alternative fuel are generally higher than from gasoline or diesel. Low-emission-vehicle programs, such as neighborhood electric vehicles (NEV) or car sharing programs, will only be considered in accounting for GHG reductions if included in project- specific design or mitigation measures. 5.10 GHG Emissions from Specialized Land Uses Below are methods to quantify GHG emissions from some additional land use categories that may be commonly found in development projects. These include golf courses and swimming pools. The methods proposed to determine GHG emissions associated with these sources is discussed in the following sections. The GHG emissions will typically fall into other categories such as landscape maintenance, water usage, and buildings, but since the data sources are different, they are explicitly described. 5.10.1 Golf Courses Emission flux resulting from the construction of the golf course is not discussed, nor is the sequestration of CO2 into the turf, trees, or lakes of the golf course. Operational CO2 emissions were calculated for three areas: irrigation, maintenance (mowing), and on-site buildings’ energy use. All three components are discussed in this section. 5.10.2 Calculating CO2 Emissions from Irrigation of the Golf Course The release of GHGs due to irrigation practices was calculated in two steps: 1. Identify the quantity of water needed. 2. Calculate the emissions associated with pumping the water. 1. Identify the quantity of water needed. Standard water use for an 18-hole golf course ranges from 250 to 450 acre-ft yearly. A survey of golf course superintendents conducted in the summer of 2003 by the Northern and Southern California Golf Associations revealed an annual average California usage of 345 acre-ft.42 Numerous factors will affect the actual water usage 41 USEPA. 2005. Emission Facts: Greenhouse Gas Emissions from a Typical Passenger Vehicle. Office of Transportation and Air Quality. February. 42 Northern California Golf Association. Improving California Golf Course Water Efficiency, pg 14. http://www.owue.water.ca.gov/docs/2004Apps/2004-079.pdf B-21 of a specific golf course, and it is likely to vary by year. ENVIRON recommends using the average usage of 345 acre-ft per year annually. 2. Calculate the associated emissions. Using the information identified above, ENVIRON calculates total emissions from irrigation of an 18-hole golf course as follows: Estimate total dynamic head: This is the combination of lift (300 feet) and desired pressure. Standard athletic field sprinklers require a base pressure of approximately 65 psi.43 60 psi x 2.31 ft/psi 44 = 139 ft + lift = 300 ft Total dynamic head = 439 ft Identify fuel unit and multiply by head: Possible pumping fuels include electricity, natural gas, diesel, and propane. In these calculations, ENVIRON assumes that all pumps will use electricity. Based on the literature, ENVIRON recommends using a pumping energy use of 1.551 kW -hr/acre-ft/ft.45 1.551 kW-hr/acre-ft/ft x 439 ft = 681 kW-hr/acre-foot Multiply energy demand by emission factor and convert to MT: The energy demand per acre-ft calculated above is multiplied by the emission factor for the electricity generation source and converted to MT . 681kW-hr/acre-ft x 0.666 lbs CO2/kW-hr = 0.21 MT CO2/acre-ft 2204.62 lbs/ton The anticipated annual water demand will be multiplied by these values and then combined this with the calculated emission factor yields total annual emissions from irrigation of the golf course. Other outdoor land uses that require irrigation can follow a similar procedure. 5.10.3 Calculating CO2 Emissions from Maintenance of the Golf Course Maintenance emissions include the emissions resulting from the mowing of turf grass. The release of GHGs due to mowing was calculated in three steps: 1. Identify the area of turf and frequency of mowing. 2. Identify the efficiency of a typical mower. 43 Full Coverage Irrigation. Partial List of Customers Using FCI Nozzles. http://www.fcinozzles.com/clients.asp. 44 Conversion factor: 1 psi = 2.31 feet of head. Kele & Associates Technical Reference: Liquid Level Measurement. http://www.kele.com/tech/monitor/Pressure/LiqLevMs.pdf 45 Kansas State University Irrigation Management Series. Comparing Irrigation Energy Costs. Table 4. http://www.oznet.ksu.edu/library/ageng2/mf2360.pdf B-22 3. Calculate the emissions associated with mowing. 1. Identify the area of turf and frequency of mowing: An Arizona State economic analysis of golf courses reports that on average 2/3 of the land within a golf course is maintained.46 ENVIRON suggests assuming that the course will be mowed twice weekly, although high maintenance areas such as greens will be mowed more frequently.47 ENVIRON recommends a growing season of 52 weeks/year.48 2. Identify the efficiency of a typical mower. Typical mower calculations are based on the specifications for a lightweight fairway mower (model 3235C) reported by John Deere’s Golf & Turf division.49 A typical mower will use one tank (18 gallons) of diesel per day (assumed to be 8 hours). Given the size specifications of the mower and assuming an average speed of 5.5 mph, such a mower can cover 44 acres on 18 gallons of diesel. 3. Calculate the emissions associated with mowing. Using the information collected above and a CO2 emission factor for diesel combustion50 , ENVIRON calculates the emission factor for mowing the golf course: 2 mowings/ week x 52 weeks/ year x 18 gallons diesel/ x 22.4 lbs CO2/ gallon diesel = 0.43 MT CO2/ acre-year 44 acre-mowing 2204 lbs/ton 5.10.4 Calculating CO2 Emissions from Building Energy Use at the Golf Course Any of the non-residential building energy use data sources described in the Buildings section may be used to estimate energy intensity at the golf course. 5.11 Pools Recreation centers may include various pools, spas, and restroom buildings; ENVIRON assumes that pools are the main consumers of energy in recreation centers. This section describes the methods used to estimate the GHGs associated with pools in recreation centers. The energy used to heat and maintain a swimming pool depends on several factors, including (but not limited to): whether the pool is indoors or outdoors, size of the pool (surface area and depth), water temperature, and energy efficiency of pool pump and water heater, and whether 46 Total acreage divided by total acreage maintained. Arizona State University, Dr. Troy Schmitz. Economic Impacts and Environmental Aspects of the Arizona Golf Course Industry. http://agb.poly.asu.edu/workingpapers/0501.pdf. 47 Based on Best Practices video. http://buckeyeturf.osu.edu/podcast/?p=51 48 Based on 95% of Southern California Survey respondents report an irrigation season greater than 9-10 months. http://www.owue.water.ca.gov/docs/2004Apps/2004-079.pdf 49 John Deere Product Specifications. 3235C Lightweight Fairway Mower. http://www.deere.com/en_US/ProductCatalog/GT/series/gt_lwfm_c_series.html 50 EIA. Fuel and Energy Source Codes and Emission Coefficients. http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/factors.html B-23 solar heating is used. By making assumptions for these parameters and using known or predicted values for energy use, ENVIRON estimates the electricity and natural gas use of an outdoor pool. 5.11.1 Recreation Center Characterization In the calculations described below, ENVIRON assumes that the proposed pools will be outdoor pools with dimensions 50 meters by 22.9 meters (a typical, competition-size pool). ENVIRON bases electricity calculations on a pool that ran its standard water filter for 24 hours per day, 365 days per year. As there is little data publicly available on the energy use of commercial swimming pools, ENVIRON extrapolates energy consumption from information obtained from two sources: 1) Data on electricity used by pool pumps from Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E),51 and 2) Data on the annual cost to heat a commercial pool located in Carlsbad, CA.52 5.11.2 Electricity Use of Pools A PG&E study on energy efficiency of a pool pump at the Lyons Pool in Oakland, CA, found an annual electricity use of 110,400 kilowatt hours per year (kWh per yr).53 The study pool is smaller than the assumed size of the proposed pool (actual size of the Lyons Pool is 35 yards by 16 yards). Accordingly, ENVIRON scales the electricity use to reflect the larger size of the proposed pool. 5.11.3 Natural Gas Use of Pools The estimated annual cost of heating a standard competition-size pool is $184,400 (or 72% of the total cost of pool operations).54 ENVIRON used the average PG&E commercial rate for natural gas of $0.95 per therm to convert this cost into annual natural gas use (hundred cubic feet per year [ccf/year]).55 The commercial rate averages the variable cost due to energy usage and time of year. This corresponds to approximately 184,400 ccf per year.56 This value is comparable to that obtained from the pool industry.57 The estimated cost of heating a residential pool using a natural gas heater is about one dollar per square foot of water 51 PG&E. 2006. Energy Efficient Commercial Pool Program, Preliminary Facility Report. Lyons Pool, "City of Oakland/Oakland Unified School District." October. 52 Mendioroz, R. 2006. Fueling Change: A Number of Design Schemes and Alternative-Energy Strategies Can Help Operators Beat the Price of Natural Gas. Athletic Business. March. 53 PG&E. 2006. Energy Efficient Commercial Pool Program, Preliminary Facility Report. Lyons Pool, "City of Oakland/Oakland Unified School District." October. 54 Mendioroz, R. 2006. Fueling Change: A Number of Design Schemes and Alternative-Energy Strategies Can Help Operators Beat the Price of Natural Gas. Athletic Business. March. 55 Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E). 2007. Gas Rate Finder. Vol 36-G, No. 9. September. http://www.pge.com/tariffs/GRF0907.pdf 56 At the commercial rate given 1 ccf costs $1. 57 SolarCraft Services Inc. 2007. Phone conversation with Chris Bumas on September 18, 2007. Novato, CA http://www.solarcraft.com/ B-24 surface area per month ($/sqft-month) in residential therms.58 Applying this value to a competition-size pool yields an annual natural gas use of 147,600 ccf/year. 5.11.4 Conversion of Electricity and Natural Gas Use to Greenhouse Gas Emissions ENVIRON used utility-specific electricity and natural gas emission factors to calculate the total CO2 emissions for each pool. A summary of the calculations is shown below: sqft yrTonnesCOyElectricitfromEmissions000,1 /2 sqftPoolofAreaSurface lbstonneFactorConversionccfeCOlbsFactorEmissionyrccfUseEnergy 000,1 2205///2 sqft yrTonnesCOGasNaturalfromEmissions000,1 /2 sqftPoolofAreaSurface lbstonneFactorConversionccfeCOlbsFactorEmissionyrccfUseEnergy 000,1 2205///2 58 The residential price for one therm of natural gas. Appendix C Transportation Appendices Appendix C Appendix C.1 Transportation Calculations Appendix C.1 C-1 Appendix C Appendix C.1 – Transportation Calculations Table C-1 provides further detail into the calculations of percent reduction in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for each of the fact sheets (that have references to the appendix). Many of the strategies in the table below do not provide the full equations for percent reduction in vehicle miles traveled. Only the equations or variables which require further detail are outlined here. The table also provides detail on any assumptions which are made to perform the calculations and the basis of such assumptions. An additional section below Table C-1 provides a detailed discussion of the calculations made for the transit accessibility strategy. Table C-1 Transportation Calculations Strategy T# Equation Variable Value Source/Notes Increase Density (Land Use/Location) A2 A = Percentage increase in housing units per acre = (number of housing units per acre – number of housing units per acre for typical ITE development) / (number of housing units per acre for typical ITE development) number of housing units per acre for typical ITE development 7.6 = blended average density of residential development in the US in 2003 A.C. Nelson. “Leadership in a New Era.” Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 72, Issue 4, 2006, pp. 393-407 – as cited in Growing Cooler A = Percentage increase in jobs per job acre = (number of jobs per job acre – number of jobs per job acre for typical ITE development) / (number of jobs per job acre for typical ITE development) number of jobs per job acre for typical ITE development 20 = average jobs per job acre Year 2005 Land Use, Sacramento County Travel Demand Model, 2008 Improve Design of Development (Land Use/Location) A3 A = Percentage increase in intersections versus a typical ITE suburban development = (intersections per square mile of project – intersections per square mile of typical ITE suburban development) / (intersections per square mile of typical ITE suburban development) intersections per square mile of typical ITE suburban development 36 = ITE site average intersection density Based on Fehr & Peers methodology for analysis in the report: Proposed Trip Generation, Distribution, and Transit Mode Split Forecasts for the Bayview Waterfront Project Transportation Study, Fehr & Peers, 2009 Appendix C Table C-1 Transportation Calculations Strategy T# Equation Variable Value Source/Notes Increase Diversity (Mixed Use) (Land Use/Location) A5 A = Percentage increase in land use index versus single use development = (project land use index – single land use index) / single land use index single land use index 0.15 = - [1*(ln 1) + 0.01*(ln 0.01)+…+0.01*(ln 0.01)]/ ln(6) -- Increase Destination Accessibility (Land Use/Location) A6 A = Percentage decrease in distance to downtown or major job center = (distance to downtown/job center for typical ITE development – distance to downtown/job center for project) / (distance to downtown/job center for typical ITE development) distance to downtown/job center for typical ITE development 12 miles (average work trip length from NHTS) 2000-2001 California Statewide Travel Survey, 2001 NHTS Summary of Travel Trends, p.15 (Table 5) Increase Transit Accessibility (Land Use/Location) A7 A = Increase in transit mode share = % transit mode share for project - % transit mode share for typical ITE development % transit mode share for typical ITE development 1.3% NHTS, 2001 http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tsip/ tab/documents/travelsurveys/ Final2001_StwTravelSurvey WkdayRpt.pdf, p.150 (Suburban – SCAG, SANDAG, Fresno County.) B = Adjustment from transit mode share to VMT = 1 / average vehicle occupancy * conversion from VT to VMT = 0.67 Divide by average vehicle occupancy to translate to VT 1 / average vehicle occupancy = 1 / 1.5 = 0.67 NHTS, http://www.dot.ca.gov /hq/tsip/tab/documents /travelsurveys/2000 _Household_Survey.pdf, p.iii conversion from VT to VMT 1 Assume all trip lengths are equal (vehicle trips to VMT) 1 1 To convert to vehicle miles traveled, we assume that all vehicle trips will average out to typical trip length (“assume all trip lengths are equal”). Thus, we can assume that a percentage reduction in vehicle trips will equal the same percentage reduction in vehicle miles traveled. Appendix C.1 C-3 Appendix C Table C-1 Transportation Calculations Strategy T# Equation Variable Value Source/Notes Unbundle Parking Cost from Property Cost (Parking Pricing/Policy) C3 A = Adjustment from Vehicle Ownership to VMT = average trips per 2 vehicles * 1 vehicle per average trips =(9.8 trips/ 2 vehicles) * (1 vehicle / 5.7 trips) = 0.85 Average trips per X vehicles Households with 2 vehicles take 9.8 trips while households with 1 vehicle take 5.7 trips per day i.e. A reduction of 1 vehicle leads to an 0.85 reduction in vehicle trips http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq /tsip/tab/documents/travel surveys/2000_Household _Survey.pdf, table 8.7 Expand Transit Network (Transit System Improvements) D2 D = Adjustment for Transit Ridership Increase to VMT -- 0.67 see Increase Transit Accessibility Enhance Transit Service Frequency/Speed (Transit System Improvements) D3 E = Adjustment for Transit Ridership Increase to VMT -- 0.67 see Increase Transit Accessibility Implement Bus Rapid Transit (Transit System Improvements) D4 D = Adjustment for Transit Ridership Increase to VMT -- 0.67 see Increase Transit Accessibility Implement Required Trip Reduction Programs (Trip Reduction Programs) E2 C = Adjustment from vehicle mode share to commute VMT -- 1 Assume all trip lengths are equal (vehicle mode share to vehicle trips to VMT) i Provide a Transit Fare Subsidy (Trip Reduction Programs) E3 C = Adjustment from commute VT to commute VMT -- 1 Assume all trip lengths are equal (vehicle trips to VMT) i Implement Commute Trip Reduction Marketing (Trip Reduction Programs) E7 C = Adjustment from commute VT to commute VMT -- 1 Assume all trip lengths are equal (vehicle trips to VMT) i Appendix C Table C-1 Transportation Calculations Strategy T# Equation Variable Value Source/Notes Provide Employer- Sponsored Vanpool/Shuttle (Trip Reduction Programs) E8 C = Adjustment from vanpool mode share to commute VMT -- 0.67 see Increase Transit Accessibility Implement Bike- Sharing Programs (Trip Reduction Programs) E10 % VMT Reduction = A * B * C = 2% * 7% * 20% = 0.03% -- -- -- A = 2% = Net new bicycle mode share = (existing mode share * % increase in bicycle mode share) – existing mode share Existing mode share Estimate at 1% Pucher et al., 2010 % increase in bicycle mode share 135 – 300% Pucher et al., 2010, Table 4 (see fact sheet for calculations) B = % of new bicycle trips shifting from vehicles (from literature) -- 6-7% Pucher et al., 2010 and Bike-Share in NYC, 2009, Table 4, p.45 C = adjustments to convert from vehicle mode share to VMT * adjustment for shorter than average trip lengths = 1*20% adjustments to convert from vehicle mode share to VMT 1 Assume all trip lengths are equal (vehicle mode share to vehicle trips to VMT) i adjustment for shorter than average trip lengths 1.94/9.9 = 20% Adjustment to reflect ratio of bike trip length to average trip length (this strategy will only replace the shorter vehicle trips that can be reasonably replaced by a bicycle). [1.94 miles (average bike trip length from Moving Cooler Appendices B-28 referencing NHTS) / 9.9 miles (average household trip length from NHTS Transferability, 2001 NHTS, http://nhts- gis.ornl.gov/transferability/Default.aspx )] Appendix C.1 C-5 Appendix C Table C-1 Transportation Calculations Strategy T# Equation Variable Value Source/Notes Provide End of Trip Facilities (Trip Reduction Programs) E11 *utilizing the same equation in bike sharing program section, set A = 1.3% = (7.1% - 5.8%) % VMT Reduction = A * B * C = 1.3% * 7% * 20% = 0.02% -- -- -- Establish Schoolpool (Trip Reduction Programs) E13 B = Adjustments to convert from participation to daily VMT to annual school VMT = [(avg # of families per carpool - 1) / avg # of families per carpool] *% of school days avg # of families per carpool 2.5 TDM Case Studies, DRCOG, p.13 % of school days 75% = 39 school weeks/ 52 weeks TDM Case Studies, DRCOG, p.13 Provide School Buses (Trip Reduction Programs) E14 B = Adjustments to convert from participation to daily VMT to annual school VMT = % of school days % of school days 75% = 39 school weeks/ 52 weeks TDM Case Studies, DRCOG, p.13 Cordon Pricing (Road Pricing Management) F2 A = % increase in pricing for passenger vehicles to cross cordon -- 100 – 500% Moving Cooler uses peak hour price per mile instead of crossing price. The percentage change can still be calculated to provide a general estimate for a high range % change. Assuming a baseline of $0.10, calculated percentage increase to $0.49 - $0.65 (Moving Cooler) and adjusted with rounding C = % of VMT Impacted by Cordon Pricing and Mode Shift Adjustments = %VMT impacted by congestion pricing * Mode shift adjustment = 8.8% (peak period) and 21% (all day) -- -- -- Appendix C Table C-1 Transportation Calculations Strategy T# Equation Variable Value Source/Notes Peak period = 25% * 35% = 8% %VMT impacted by congestion pricing 25% 20% of trips are work trips (NHTS Transferability, 2001 NHTS, http://nhts- gis.ornl.gov/transferability/Default.aspx) and round up assuming other trips travel during peak periods Mode shift adjustment 35% = 20% + 30%/2 Of the estimated trips affected to the increase in price, assume 50% is either a time of day shift/route shift/no change, 30% convert to HOV trips (with average 2 ppl per HOV), and 20% are trip reductions/shift to transit, walk or bike Static all day price (London) = 60% * 35% = 21% % VMT impacted by congestion pricing 60% Conservatively assume 60% of trips fall in the peak periods and mid-day Mode shift adjustment 35%= 20% + 30%/2 Of the estimated reduced trips due to the increase in price, assume 50% is either a time of day shift/route shift/no change, 30% convert to HOV trips (with average 2 people per HOV), and 20% are trip reductions/shift to transit, walk or bike Increase Transit Accessibility (Land Use/Location) Distance to transit Transit mode share calculation equation (where x = distance of project to transit) 0 – 0.5 miles -50*x + 38 Appendix C.1 C-7 Appendix C 0.5 to 3 miles -4.4*x + 15.2 > 3 miles no impact Source: Lund et al, 2004; Fehr & Peers 2010 Data was taken from Table 5-25 of Lund et al, 2004. The table provided transit commute mode shares for those living with ½ mile of a rail station for 5 sites surveyed within California. Removing the extreme low and high percentages, this provided a range of transit commute mode share of 13% to 38%. A simple linear extrapolation was conducted to provide a relationship for distance to transit (between 0 and ½ mile) to transit mode share, via the equation: transit mode share = -50 * distance to transit + 38. The table also provided transit mode shares for those living from ½ to 3 miles from a station, a range from 2% to 13%. Using the same methodology, a relationship for distance to transit (between ½ mile and 3 miles) to transit mode share is provided via the equation: transit mode share = -4.4x + 15.2. Appendix C Appendix C.2 Trip Adjustment Factors Appendix C Appendix C.2 – Trip Adjustment Factors The trip adjustment factors are not explicitly used for calculations of reduction in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) but serve as an added resource point for users of this document. For example, we report all commute trip reduction (CTR) program strategies as a percentage reduction in commute VMT. If the user would like to translate this to project level VMT (assuming the project is NOT an office park), and the user does not have statistics about the project area readily available, then the trip adjustment factors table can be utilized. Example: Assume the user is providing a 15% reduction in commute VMT for a implementation of a ride share program. To calculate an estimated reduction in project level VMT, the user can multiple 15% by 20% (NHTS average % of work trips) and again multiply by 12.0 / 9.9 (average work trip length/average trip length) to adjust for both the portion of trips which are work related and that work trips tend to be longer than average trips. TABLE C-2. TRIP ADJUSTMENT FACTORS NHTS1 Sacramento Region2 San Diego Region 3 Rural (Kings County, CA) 4 Average Work Trip Length (vehicle) 12.0 10.4 8.4 - Average Trip Length (vehicle) 9.9 6.8 6.9 8.7 Average % of Work Trips 20% 20% - 12% Average % of School Trips 9.8% - - - Average Length of School Trips (Vehicle) 6.0 - 4.2 - Average Vehicle Occupancy (All Trips) 1.5 1.4 1.5 - Source: 1. 2000-2001 California Statewide Travel Survey, 2001 NHTS Summary of Travel Trends 2. SACMET model, Fehr & Peers, 2010. 3. SANDAG Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region (April 2002) 4. NHTS Transferability, 2001 NHTS, http://nhts-gis.ornl.gov/transferability/Default.aspx Appendix C Appendix C.3 Induced Travel Memo 332 Pine Street, 4th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) 348-0300 Fax (415) 773-1790 www.fehrandpeers.com C-9 MEMORANDUM Date: February 3, 2010 To: CAPCOA Team From: Tien-Tien Chan, Jerry Walters, and Meghan Mitman Subject: Induced Travel Material SF10-0475 Induced travel is a term used to describe how travel demand responds to roadway capacity expansion and roadway improvements. Consistent with the theory of supply and demand, the general topic of research concerning induced travel is that reducing the cost of travel (i.e., reduced travel time due to a new road improvement) will increase the amount of travel. In other words, road improvements alone can prompt traffic increases. To what degree and under what circumstances these increases occur is a matter of debate and the key subject of most induced travel research. We have attached the following documents which represent research on induced travel effects: Comparative Evaluations on the Elasticity of Travel Demand – study conducted for the Utah DOT which included national literature review of induced travel studies Are Induced-Travel Studies Inducing Bad Investments? – article by Cervero in Access Magazine: Transportation Research at the University of California Road Expansion, Urban Growth, Growth, and Induced Travel: A Path Analysis – APA Journal paper by Cervero, also discusses the impacts of induced growth and induced investments The reader should be aware that conditions may vary considerably and the extent of induced travel depends on a variety of factors, including: the degree of prior congestion in the corridor, its duration over hours of the day, its extent over lane miles of the corridor, the degree to which un- served traffic diverts to local streets and the degree of congestion on those routes, the availability of alternate modes within the corridor, whether corridor is radial and oriented toward downtown with high parking cost and limited availability or circumferential, planned level of growth in the corridor, whether the corridor is interstate or interregional, whether it is a truck route, and other factors. GHG reduction strategies such as transportation system management (e.g. signal coordination, adaptive signal control) may also have the potential for inducing travel. For such strategies, if the estimated improvement exceeds 10% benefit in travel time reduction, we recommend conducting project specific analysis on induced travel prior to establishing GHG reduction benefits. Appendix D Building Mitigation Measure Quantification Methods D-1 Appendix D This Appendix summarizes the steps and assumptions used in two of the mitigation strategies – exceed Title 24 energy efficiency standards (BE-1) and installing energy efficient appliances (BE-4). Background GHGs are emitted as a result of activities in residential and commercial buildings when electricity and natural gas are used as energy sources. New California buildings must be designed to meet the building energy efficiency standards of Title 24, also known as the California Building Standards Code. Title 24 Part 6 regulates energy uses including space heating and cooling, hot water heating, ventilation, and hard-wired lighting. By committing to a percent improvement over Title 24, a development reduces its energy use and resulting GHG emissions. The Title 24 standards have been updated twice (in 2005 and 2008)1 since some of these data used to estimate energy use were compiled. California Energy Commission (CEC) has published reports estimating the percentage deductions in energy use resulting from these new standards. Based on CEC’s discussion on average savings for Title 24 improvements, these CEC savings percentages by end use can be used to account for reductions in electricity and natural gas use due to the two most recent updates to Title 24. Since energy use for each different system type (ie, heating, cooling, water heating, and ventilation) as well as appliances is defined in this survey, the use of survey data with updates for Title 24 will easily allow for application of mitigation measures aimed at reducing the energy use of these devices in a prescriptive manner. Another mitigation measure to reduce a building’s energy consumption as well as the associated GHG emissions from natural gas combustion and electricity production is to use energy-efficient appliances. For residential dwellings, typical builder-supplied appliances include refrigerators and dishwashers. Clothes washers and ceiling fans would be applicable if the builder supplied them. For commercial land uses, only energy-efficient refrigerators have been evaluated for grocery stores. 1 California Energy Commission. 2003. Impact Analysis: 2005 Update to the California Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings. Available at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2005standards/archive/rulemaking/documents/2003-07-11_400-03-014.PDF California Energy Commission. 2006. California Commercial End-Use Survey. Prepared by Itron Inc. Available at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/ceus/ Appendix D Methodology Datasets The Residential Appliance Saturation Survey (RASS)2 and California Commercial Energy Use Survey (CEUS)3 datasets were used to estimate the energy intensities of residential and non- residential buildings, respectively, since the data is available for several land use categories in different climate zones in California. The RASS dataset further differentiates the energy use intensities between single-family, multi-family and townhome residences. The Energy Star and Other Climate Protection Partnerships 2008 Annual Report4 and subsequent Annual Reports were reviewed for typical reductions for energy-efficient appliances. ENERGY STAR residential refrigerators, clothes washers, dishwashers, and ceiling fans use 15%, 25%, 40%, and 50% less electricity than standard appliances, respectively. ENERGY STAR commercial refrigerators use 35% less electricity than standard appliances. Calculations Exceeding Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards (BE-1) RASS and CEUS datasets were used to obtain the energy intensities of different end use categories for different building types in different climate zones. Energy intensities from CEUS are given per square foot per year and used as presented. RASS presents Unit Energy Consumption (UEC) per dwelling unit per year and saturation values; the energy intensities used in this analysis are products of the UEC and saturation values. Data for some climate zones is not presented in the CEUS and RASS studies. However, data from adjacent climate zones is assumed to be representative and substituted as follows: For non-residential building types: Climate Zone 11 used Climate Zone 9 data. Climate Zone 12 used Climate Zone 9 data. Climate Zone 14 used Climate Zone 1 data. Climate Zone 15 used Climate Zone 10 data. For residential building types: Climate Zone 6 used Climate Zone 2 data. Climate Zone 14 used Climate Zone 1 data. Climate Zone 15 used Climate Zone 10 data. RASS and CEUS data are based on 2002 consumption data. Because older buildings tend to be less energy efficient, and the majority of the buildings in the survey were likely constructed 2 California Statewide Residential Appliance Saturation Study Reporting Center. Available at: http://websafe.kemainc.com/RASSWEB/DesktopDefault.aspx 3 California Energy Commission. 2006. California Commercial End-Use Survey. Prepared by Itron Inc. Available at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/ceus/ 4 United States Environmental Protection Agency 2009. ENERGY STAR and Other Climate Protection Partnerships: 2008 Annual Report. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/cpd/pdf/2008AnnualReportFinal.pdf D-3 Appendix D before 2001, the RASS and CEUS data likely overestimate energy use for a 2001 Title 24- compliant building. To account for updates since the 2001 Title 24 standards, percentage reductions for each end use category taken directly from the CEC's "Impact Analysis for 2005 Energy Efficiency Standards" and "Impact Analysis 2008 Update to the California Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings" reports were applied to the CEUS and RASS datasets for improvements from 2001 to 2005, and 2005 to 2008, respectively (see Tables D-1 and D-2). For the CEUS data, exterior lighting was assumed to be covered by Title 24 lighting and therefore has the full percentage reductions taken. Interior lighting was assumed to be 50% Title 24 and 50% non-Title 24 uses. Therefore only half of the reduction for lighting was applied. The resulting 2008 numbers were then used as baseline energy intensities for this mitigation strategy. The total baseline energy intensities are calculated as follows: Baseline = NT24R1R1T242008-20052005-20012001 Where: Baseline = Total baseline energy intensities of building category T242001 = Energy intensities of Title 24 regulated end use from RASS or CEUS R2001-2005 = Reduction from 2001 to 2005 R2005-2008 = Reduction from 2005 to 2008 NT24 = Non-Title 24 regulated end use energy intensities Appendix D Table D-1 Reduction in Title 24 Regulated End Use for Non-Residential Buildings Energy Source End Use Reduction from 2001 to 2005 Reduction from 2005 to 2008 El e c t r i c i t y Heating 4.9% 37.2% Ventilation 5.0% 1.5% Refrigeration 0.0% 0.0% Process 0.0% 0.0% Office Equipment 0.0% 0.0% Motors 0.0% 0.0% Miscellaneous 0.0% 0.0% Interior Lighting 4.9% 5.9% Water Heating 0.0% 0.0% Cooking 0.0% 0.0% Air Compressors 0.0% 0.0% Cooling 6.7% 8.3% Exterior Lighting 9.8% 11.7% Na t u r a l G a s Cooking 0.0% 0.0% Cooling 10.4% 9.3% Heating 3.1% 15.9% Water Heating 0.0% 0.0% Process 0.0% 0.0% Miscellaneous 0.0% 0.0% D-5 Appendix D Table D-2 Reduction in Title 24 Regulated End Use for Residential Buildings Energy Source End Use (As presented in RASS Dataset) Reduction from 2001 to 2005 Reduction from 2005 to 2008 Multi- family Single family Town home Multi- family Single family Town home El e c t r i c i t y Conv. Electric heat 24.3% 19.8% 24.3% 19.7% 22.7% 19.7% HP Eheat 24.3% 19.8% 24.3% 19.7% 22.7% 19.7% Aux Eheat 24.3% 19.8% 24.3% 19.7% 22.7% 19.7% Furnace Fan 24.3% 19.8% 24.3% 19.7% 22.7% 19.7% Central A/C 24.3% 19.8% 24.3% 19.7% 22.7% 19.7% Room A/C 24.3% 19.8% 24.3% 19.7% 22.7% 19.7% Evap Cooling 24.3% 19.8% 24.3% 19.7% 22.7% 19.7% Water Heat 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Solar Water Heater 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Dryer 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Clothes Washer 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Dish Washer 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% First Refrigerator 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Second Refrigerator 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Freezer 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Pool Pump 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Spa 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Outdoor Lighting 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Range/Oven 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% TV 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Spa Electric Heat 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Microwave 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Home Office 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% PC 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Water Bed 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Well Pump 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Miscellaneous 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Na t u r a l G a s Primary Heat 15.7% 6.7% 15.7% 7.0% 10.0% 7.0% Auxiliary Heat 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Conv. Gas Water Heat 15.7% 6.7% 15.7% 7.0% 10.0% 7.0% Solar Water Heat w/Gas Backup 15.7% 6.7% 15.7% 7.0% 10.0% 7.0% Dryer 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Range/Oven 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Pool Heat 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Spa Heat 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Miscellaneous 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Appendix D The same approach was used to quantify GHGs emission reduction from exceeding Title 24 energy efficiency standards by 1%. The 1% reduction was applied to only energy use intensities for Title 24 regulated end use categories. For the CEUS data, the reduction was not applied to any portion of interior lighting. The reduced energy use intensities were added to the unadjusted energy use intensities for non-Title 24 regulated end use categories to obtain the total energy use intensities for exceeding Title 24 energy efficiency standards by 1% for each building category. These were then compared to the baseline line energy intensities for the overall percentage reduction as follows: Percentage Reduction = Baseline NT24%99R1R1T2412008-20052005-20012001 Where: Baseline = Total baseline energy intensities of building category T242001 = Energy intensities of Title 24 regulated end use from RASS or CEUS R2001-2005 = Reduction from 2001 to 2005 R2005-2008 = Reduction from 2005 to 2008 NT24 = Non-Title 24 regulated end use energy intensities Installing Energy Efficient Appliances The same baseline line energy use intensities from the Exceeding Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards mitigation were used for this mitigation strategy. For all appliances except ceiling fan, the reductions as presented in the ENERGY STAR 2008 annual report were applied to the energy use intensities of the corresponding energy end use categories. All other end use categories were kept unadjusted. The percentage reductions were calculated as follows: Percentage Reduction = Baseline UseEndOther ESR1Intensity Appliance1 Where: Baseline = Total baseline energy intensities of building category Appliance Intensity = 2008 baseline energy intensity of appliance in consideration ESR = Reduction from ENERGY STAR appliance Other End Use = 2008 baseline energy intensity of all other end uses RASS does not specify a ceiling fan end-use; rather, electricity use from ceiling fans is accounted for in the “Miscellaneous” category which includes interior lighting, attic fans, and other miscellaneous plug-in loads. Since the electricity usage of ceiling fans alone is not D-7 Appendix D specified, a value from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) Building American Research Benchmark Definition (BARBD)5 was used. BARBD reported that the average energy use per ceiling fan is 84.1 kWh per year. In this mitigation measure, it was assumed that each multi-family, single-family, and townhome residence has one ceiling fan. Therefore, the 50% reduction from ENERGY STAR for ceiling fan was applied to 84.1 kWh of the electricity attributed to the Miscellaneous RASS category. In other words, 42.05 kWh was subtracted from the electricity end use intensities of the “Miscellaneous RASS” category in evaluating the GHGs emission reduction from installing energy efficient ceiling fans. The total energy use intensities with reduction from each appliance in consideration were then compared to the baseline line energy intensities for the overall percentage reduction as follows: Percentage Reduction = Baseline UseEndOther 05.24 Misc1 Where: Baseline = Total baseline energy intensities of building category Misc = 2008 energy intensity in Miscellaneous category for electricity Other End Use = 2008 baseline energy intensity of all other end uses 5 NREL. 2010. Building America Research Benchmark Definition. Available online at: http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/47246.pdf Appendix E Carbon, Water and CO2 Sequestration Intensity Factors E-1 Appendix E Table E-1: Carbon Intensity Utility CO2 intensity (lb/MWh)1 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Suggested Value2 Anaheim Public Utilities 1,399.80 1,416.74 1,543.28 1,416.74 Austin Energy 1,127.37 1,077.97 1,117.37 1,077.97 City and County of San Francisco 76.28 76.28 City of Palo Alto Public Utilities 320.94 39.02 426.82 39.02 Glendale Water & Power 1,065.00 1,065.00 Los Angeles Department of Water & Power 1,407.44 1,403.39 1,348.48 1,360.07 1,360.60 1,303.58 1,238.52 1,227.89 1,238.52 Pacific Gas & Electric Company 566.2 489.16 455.81 635.67 455.81 PacifiCorp 1,811.00 1,812.22 1,747.30 1,775.28 1,747.30 Pasadena Water & Power 1,409.65 1664.14 1,664.14 Platte River Power Authority 1,970.93 1,955.66 1,847.88 1,955.66 Riverside Public Utilities 1,333.45 1,346.15 1,325.65 1,346.15 Roseville Electric 565.52 793.8 565.52 Sacramento Municipal Utility District 769 616.07 555.26 714.31 555.26 Salt River Project 1,546.28 1,469.90 1,546.28 San Diego Gas & Electric 613.75 546.46 780.79 806.27 780.79 Seattle City Light 17.77 17.77 Sierra Pacific Resources 1,442.78 1,442.78 Southern California Edison 678.88 665.72 641.26 630.89 641.26 Turlock Irrigation District 682.48 807 682.48 Notes: 1. Based on Table G6 of Local Government Operation Protocol version 1.1 2. The suggested values are based on 2006. If no 2006 value was available, 2005 was used followed by 2007. Appendix E Table E-2: Water Intensity Note: Based on Table ES-1 from CEC. 2006. Refining Estimates of Water-Related Energy Use in California, CEC-500-2006-118. Table E-3: Default CO2 Sequestration Accumulation Note: Based on Tables 4.3, 4.7 and 6.4 from IPCC. 2006. Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (IPCC Guidelines). Available online at http://www.ipcc- nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/vol4.htm Indoor Water Uses Outdoor Water Uses Northern California Southern California Northern California Southern California kWh/MG Water Supply and Conveyance 2,117 9,727 2,117 9,727 Water Treatment 111 111 111 111 Water Distribution 1,272 1,272 1,272 1,272 Wastewater Treatment 1,911 1,911 0 0 Regional Total 5,411 13,022 3,500 11,111 Land Use Sub-Category Default annual CO2 accumulation per acre1 (tonnes CO2/year) Forest Land Scrub 14.3 Trees Cropland 111 Grassland -- 6.2 Wetlands -- 4.31 EXHIBIT B 3/22/2020 Greenhouse Gases https://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook/mitigation-measures-and-control-efficiencies/greenhouse-gases 1/3 Home (../../../../../home)/ Rules & Compliance (../../../../rules-compliance)/ CEQA (../../../ceqa)/ Air Quality Analysis Handbook (../../air-quality-analysis-handbook)/ Mitigation Measures and Control E ciencies (../mitigation-measures-and-control-e ciencies)/ Greenhouse Gases Greenhouse Gases Share: On March 18, 2010, amendments to the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14) became e ective that incorporated requirements to analyze greenhouse gas (GHG) emission impacts and, if signi cant, identify feasible measures to mitigate signi cant adverse GHG impacts. In response to these changes, the California Air Pollution Control O cers Association (CAPCOA) developed a comprehensive guidance document for quantifying the e ectiveness of GHG mitigation measures. CAPCOA’s report, Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures, was developed with the support and cooperation of the South Coast Air Quality Management District. CAPCOA’s report speci cally addresses appropriate procedures for applying quanti cation methods to achieve accurate and reliable results. e Report includes background information on programs and concepts associated with the quanti cation of GHG emissions. e Report does not provide policy guidance on any of these issues, nor does it dictate how any jurisdiction should address questions of policy. Policy considerations are le to individual agencies and their governing boards. Rather, this Report is intended to support the creation of a standardized approach to quantifying mitigation measures, to allow emission reductions and measure e ectiveness to be considered and compared on a common basis. CAPCOA’s report can be accessed at the link below Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures (/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/mitigation-measures-and-control- e ciencies/quantifying-greenhouse-gas-mitigation-measures.pdf?sfvrsn=0) YOU MAY ALSO LIKE ... 3/22/2020 Greenhouse Gases https://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook/mitigation-measures-and-control-efficiencies/greenhouse-gases 2/3 About (/nav/about) e South Coast AQMD believes all residents have a right to live and work in an environment of clean air and is committed to undertaking all necessary steps to prote... Contact (/nav/contact) Contact information. Careers (/careers) Current employment opportunities at South Coast AQMD Jurisdiction (/nav/about/jurisdiction) Cities in South Coast AQMD's jurisdiction Related Topics CEQA Home (/home/rules-compliance/ceqa) CEQA Documents (/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/lead-agency-documents) CEQA Notices (/nav/about/public-notices/ceqa-notices) CEQA Permit Forms (/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/ceqa-permit-forms) Air Quality Modeling (/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/air-quality-modeling) Newsletter Sign Up Periodic newsletter updates via Email on a variety of air quality-related topics Email SUBMIT Enter your email address here 3/22/2020 Greenhouse Gases https://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook/mitigation-measures-and-control-efficiencies/greenhouse-gases 3/3 South Coast Air Quality Management District 21865 Copley Dr, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 909-396-2000 Careers (/careers) Accessibility (/accessibility) Sitemap (/sitemap) Privacy Policy (/privacy) © 2019 South Coast Air Quality Management District Questions/Need Info? (mailto:webinquiry@aqmd.gov) Report Website Problem (mailto:webeditor@aqmd.gov) EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT D 3/22/2020 Verification Procedure - Currently Verified https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/diesel/verdev/vt/cvt.htm 1/6 Verification Procedure - Currently Verified This page last reviewed June 12, 2019 The following information is provided as a summary of verified diesel emission control strategies. Additional requirements specific to engine compatibility are provided in the Executive Order. The factors outlined in the Executive Order are legal requirements of each verification; therefore, these conditions must be met before determining if a particular device is applicable to the end-users type of engine. The Air Resources Board recommends that you contact the manufacturer, or their authorized distributor, prior to making any purchasing decision. Please click on the manufacturer link for additional information. Cleaire products have not been available for sale or lease since it ceased operations on January 18, 2013. ESW CleanTech Incorporated (ESW CleanTech) acquired the Cleaire product line on April 18, 2013, and will provide new sales of product under its ownership as well as support for existing Cleaire customers. Vehicles that have the Cleaire devices already installed in a verified configuration will continue to meet applicable in-use fleet rule requirements. Please refer to the following website for additional information: Cleaire Information Page PM Level Product Name Technology Type PM Reduction NOx Reduction Applicability L E V E L 3 Baumot DOC+DPF 85% N/A Baumot AG, Diesel Particulate Filter System BAB-US for 375 to 500 horsepower, on-road vehicles not equipped with exhaust gas recirculation Carrier ClearSky DPF (formerly IMPCO) DOC+DPF 85% N/A Carrier and ComfortPro auxiliary power units powered by select Kubota Z482 diesel engines with model years between 2009 and 2017. Carrier EES DOC+DPF 85% N/A Carrier Transicold X4-Series and Vector 8500 /8600MT TRUs and UG/RG TRU gensets with Tier 4f engines rated at <25 hp Carrier Legacy EES DOC+DPF 85% N/A Carrier Transicold TRU models X2- Series, XT-Series, XTC-series, Genesis TM900, Genesis TM1000, Ultra XL (with and without standby), Vector 6500, and 6600MT equipped About Our Work Resources Business Assistance Rulemaking News 3/22/2020 Verification Procedure - Currently Verified https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/diesel/verdev/vt/cvt.htm 2/6 with model years 2004 through 2012 Kubota engines. Catalytic Exhaust Products Ltd. Dieselytic SXS-SC DPF DPF 85% N/A Stationary prime and emergency standby generators and pumps with Tier 1, Tier 2, or Tier 3 certified off- road engines meeting 0.2 g/bhp-hr or less diesel PM CDTi Purifilter EGR DPF 85% N/A 2002-2010 model year; on-road; CARB diesel; biodiesel.* CDTi Purifilter H (High Load)DPF 85% N/A 1993-2006 CA certified engines; Specific 1994-2006 Federally certified engines; on-road; CARB diesel; biodiesel.* CDTi Purifilter Plus DPF 85% N/A 1993 and 2010 on-road; CARB diesel; biodiesel.* CDTi Purifilter Plus M DPF 85% N/A 1993 - 2010 on-road; CARB diesel; biodiesel.* Clariant Corporation EnviCat�- DPF DPF 85% N/A Stationary prime and emergency standby generators and pumps; CARB diesel; biodiesel.* Cummins Pacific eMission DPF DPF 85% Stationary emergency standby generators with a PM emission rate of 0.15 g/bhp-hr or less and between 23 to 78 liter displacements. DCL International Inc.DPF 85% N/A 1996-2011 model year, off-road; CARB diesel; biodiesel.* DCL International Inc. TITAN (formerly Roadwarrior) DPF 85% N/A 1994-2004 model year, on-road; CARB diesel; biodiesel.* DCL International Inc.DPF 85% N/A Stationary prime and emergency standby generators, pumps, and compressors; Tier 1, 2, or 3 off-road engines certified to < 0.15 g/bhp-hr PM; CARB diesel; biodiesel.* Diesel Emission Technologies UltraTrap DPF 85% N/A 1994-2006 on-road;CARB diesel; biodiesel.* Donaldson LNF DPF 85% N/A 1993-2006 model year on-road; CARB diesel; biodiesel. CARB diesel; biodiesel.* Donaldson LXF DPF 85% N/A 2002-2006 model year on-road; CARB diesel; biodiesel.* Donaldson SEF DPF 85% N/A 1991-2006 model year on-road; CARB diesel; biodiesel.* Engine Control DPF 85% N/A 1994-2004 on-road;CARB diesel; 3/22/2020 Verification Procedure - Currently Verified https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/diesel/verdev/vt/cvt.htm 3/6 System Purifilter L (Low Load) biodiesel.* Engine Control System Combifilter DPF 85% N/A 2007 or older off-road; CARB diesel; biodiesel.* ESW CleanTech Horizon DPF 85% N/A Most four-stroke on-road engines through 2006; CARB diesel; biodiesel.* ESW CleanTech LongMile-S DPF 85% N/A 1993 - 2010 model year on-road applications; CARB diesel; biodiesel.* ESW CleanTech Longview Lean NOx Catalyst and DPF 85% 25% 1993-2006 model year on-road; CARB diesel; biodiesel.* ESW CleanTech Phoenix DPF 85% N/A Most 1996 - 2014 off-road; CARB diesel; biodiesel.* ESW CleanTech Skyline DPF 85% N/A Most off-road; CARB diesel; biodiesel.* ESW CleanTech Vista DPF 85% N/A 1993-2010 model year on-road; CARB diesel; biodiesel.* ESW Technologies ThermaCat DPF 85% N/A 1996-2010; off-road; 1993-2006 on- road; CARB diesel; biodiesel.* ESW Technologies ThermaCat™ e DPF 85% N/A 1994-2009; on-road; with EGR; CARB diesel; biodiesel.* Global Emissions Systems, Inc. (GESi) 6000DPF DPF 85% N/A Stationary prime and emergency standby generators and pumps with Tier 1, Tier 2, or Tier 3 certified off- road engines meeting 0.2 g/bhp-hr or less diesel PM GT Exhaust's GTE Purity DPF DPF 85% N/A Stationary prime and emergency standby generators and pumps with Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3, Tier 4i with a rated horse power between 50 and 75 or over 750, or Tier 4 Alt 20% NOx and PM nonroad or stationary engines meeting 0.2 g/bhp-hr or less diesel PM HUG Engineering, Inc Mobiclean R DPF 85% N/A Most 1991 - 2006 on-road; CARB diesel; biodiesel. * HUG Engineering USA combiKat DPF 85% N/A Stationary emergency and prime generators with a PM emission rate of 0.2 g/bhp-hr or less. 3/22/2020 Verification Procedure - Currently Verified https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/diesel/verdev/vt/cvt.htm 4/6 HUSS FS-MK Off-Road DPF 85% N/A Most off-road through 2011 MY; CARB diesel; biodiesel. * HUSS FS-MK On-Road DPF 85% N/A Most on-road diesel engines through 2006 MY and most off-road through 2010 MY; CARB diesel; biodiesel. * HUSS MK 35 and MK 50 for TRU DPF 85% N/A Verified for 1998 and newer TRU's. CARB diesel; biodiesel. * Johnson Matthey AdvCCRT DPF 85% N/A Specifc 2002-2006; on-road; CARB diesel; biodiesel.* Johnson Matthey CRTreformulated DPF 85% N/A 1993 - 2006; on-road; CARB diesel; biodiesel.* Johnson Matthey CRT DPF 85% N/A. Stationary emergency/standby generators; conditionally verified for stationary prime generators. CARB diesel; biodiesel.* Johnson Matthey EGRT EGR/DPF 85% 40% 2000 International DT-466, 2000 Cummins ISM 2001 Cummins ISB, 1998-2002 Cummins ISC, 2001 Cummins ISL, 2001 MY DDC - 50, and 2001 DDC - 60. on-road; CARB diesel. MIRATECH Corporation combiKat DPF 85% N/A Stationary emergency and prime generators with a PM emission rate of 0.2 g/bhp-hr or less. MIRATECH� LTR™ DOC/DPF System DPF 85% N/A Stationary emergency standby generators with a PM emission rate of 0.22 g/bhp-hr or less. Nett Technologies. NETT GreenTRAPTM DPF DPF 85% N/A Stationary prime and emergency standby generators and pumps with Tier 1, Tier 2, or Tier 3 certified off- road engines meeting 0.2 g/bhp-hr or less diesel PM Nett BlueMAXTM NOVA 300e System DPF SCR 85% 85% Stationary prime generators with a PM emission rate of 0.2 g/bhp-hr or less. New World Engineering, LLC EADPF DPF 85% N/A Thermo King single temp TRUs, 2005 to present Yanmar diesel engines <25 hp Proventia EHDPF DPF 85% N/A Thermo King Tripac APU, powered by select model year 2007 to 2016 Yanmar TK270M or TK270VFM diesel engines with a diesel particulate matter certification of 0.2 grams per kilowatt hour or less. 3/22/2020 Verification Procedure - Currently Verified https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/diesel/verdev/vt/cvt.htm 5/6 RYPOS, Inc. ActiveDPF/C3+™ DPF 85% N/A Verified for both diesel-electric and diesel-hydraulic rubber tired gantry (RTG) cranes; CARB diesel; biodiesel.* RYPOS DPF/ULETRU DPF 85% N/A 2003 and newer Carrier and ThermoKing TRU's and Pin-on TRU Gensets. RYPOS DPF/ULETRU DPF 85% N/A 2003 and newer Thermo King Multi- Temp TRU's. Rypos, Inc. HDPF/C™Hybrid DPF 85% N/A 1996-2007 stationary emergency standby generators and pumps with a PM emission rate of 0.2 g/bhp-hr or less and certified to Tier 1, Tier 2, or Tier 3 off-road diesel engine standards; CARB diesel; biodiesel.* Safety Power Inc., FOx� System DPF 85% N/A Stationary prime and emergency standby generators and pumps; CARB diesel; biodiesel.* Thermo King eDPF DPF 85% N/A 2006-2016 Thermo King auxilary power units; CARB diesel. Universal Emissions Technologies GreenShield� DPF DPF 85% N/A Stationary prime and emergency standby power generators and pumps with Tier 1, Tier 2, or Tier 3 certified off-road engines. L E V E L 2 Engine Control System AZ Purimuffler/Purifier DOC + Alt Fuel 50% 20%1996-2002 off-road; PuriNOx Lubrizol PuriNOx Emulsified Fuel 50% 15%1988-2003 on-road. Proventia FTF TM FTF 50% N/A Most Thermo King trailer TRUs using 1985 through 2003 model year engines; CARB diesel; biodiesel.* Proventia Bobtail FTF ™ FTF 50% N/A Select Thermo King truck TRUs using 1987 to 2004 model year engines or Carrier Transicold truck TRUs using 1994 to 2004 model year engines. CARB diesel; biodiesel* Rypos ADPF DPF 50% N/A 1996-2008 stationary engines (certified to Tier 1, 2, or 3 off-road PM emission level); CARB diesel; biodiesel*; no EGR, DOC or pre- existing DPF. Rypos, Inc. DPF/LETRU™ DPF 50% N/A Applicability: Most trailer TRUs using 2003 and older model year engines; ULSD CARB diesel (less than 15 ppm sulfur). 3/22/2020 Verification Procedure - Currently Verified https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/diesel/verdev/vt/cvt.htm 6/6 CONTACT US (800) 242-4450 | helpline@arb.ca.gov 1001 I Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 P.O. Box 2815, Sacramento, CA 95812 California Governor Gavin Newsom Visit Governor's Website Secretary for Environmental Protection Jared Blumenfeld Visit his Website Chair, California Air Resources Board Mary D. Nichols Visit her Website The California Air Resources Board is one of six boards, departments, and o ices under the California Environmental Protection Agency. Copyright © 2019 State of California Rypos, Inc. ADPF DPF 50% N/A Marine Harbor Craft Rypos ActiveDPF/C™DPF 50% N/A Both diesel-electric and diesel- hydraulic rubber tired gantry (RTG) cranes; CARB diesel; biodiesel.* L E V E L 1 Viscon California, LLC Fuel Additive 25% N/A 1985-1995 off-road; CARB diesel. Vycon REGEN System Energy Storage System 25% 30% Pre-1996 model year or Tier 1, 2, or 3 certified off-road diesel engines on rubber-tired gantry cranes; biodiesel. * * These systems have been verified for use with biodiesel blends subject to certain requirements. ACCESSIBILITY PRIVACY POLICY CONDITIONS OF USE LOCAL AIR DISTRICTS REGISTER TO VOTE CalEPA CalRecycle DPR DTSC OEHHA SWRCB EXHIBIT E CDPH v1.1-2010 & V1.2-2017 Product names, logos, brands and other trademarks are the property of their respective trademark holders. 1 Copyright 2018, The Sherwin-Williams Company ISSUED February 2018 09 91 23 - INTERIOR California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Method v1.1-2010 & V1.2-2017 Specification (CA section 01350) THE SHERWIN-WILLIAMS COMPANY COMMERCIAL PAINTING SCHEDULE GUIDE This Emissions criteria/CDPH V1.1-2010 & V1.2-2017 Painting Schedule is furnished only as a guide to select interior paint systems, and is not all-inclusive of available Sherwin-Williams products. Although it is written in the CSI format and can be included in its entirety in a master specification, one should review the contents and edit to suit the particular needs of the project and its respective location. As of the date January 31, 2018 the products listed in this guide have been independently certified by UL Environment in accordance with “UL 2818 –GREENGUARD Certification Program for Chemical Emissions for Building Materials, Finishes and Furnishings, ” and/or comply with California Department of Public Health “Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions from Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers, Version 1.1” (CA Section 01350) & V1.2-2017. For more information, see https://spot.ulprospector.com. Building products and Interior finishes are determined compliant in accordance with California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Standard Method V1.1-2010 &V1.2-2017using the applicable exposure scenario(s). Local and National V.O.C. (Volatile Organic Compound) regulations have been taken into consideration, but because these regulations vary greatly around the country and are subject to change, we suggest verifying that product selections meet the requirements of the area in which they are to be used. If the project is located within the OTC, CARB, SCAQMD or other VOC regulated regions, one must comply with the regulations regarding VOCs. It is always recommended that you consult with a LEED® AP or a Sherwin-Williams Company Representative before finalizing the selection. If you need more specific information on a particular product, refer to the current Sherwin-Williams Painting Systems Catalog, sherwin-williams.com websites or call our Architectural Services Department toll free. UL/GREENGUARD Certified products are certified to UL/GREENGUARD standards for low chemical emissions into indoor air during product usage. For more information, visit ul.com. Certificates can be found on: https://spot.ulprospector.com The Sherwin-Williams Company Architectural Services Department 1-800-321-8194 (Telephone) 216-566-1660 (Fax) CDPH v1.1-2010 & V1.2-2017 Product names, logos, brands and other trademarks are the property of their respective trademark holders. 2 SECTION 09 91 23 INTERIOR PAINTS AND COATINGS Part 1 GENERAL 1.1 SECTION INCLUDES A Interior paint and coatings systems 1.2 RELATED SECTIONS A Section 05 05 13 - Shop Applied Coatings for Metal B Section 06 01 40 - Architectural Woodwork Refinishing C Section 06 05 83 - Shop Applied Wood Coatings D Section 07 19 00 - Water Repellents E Section 09 67 00 - Fluid Applied Flooring for Concrete F Section 09 93 00 - Stains and Transparent Finishes G Section 09 96 00 - High-Performance Coatings 1.3 REFERENCES A SSPC-SP 1 - Solvent Cleaning B SSPC-SP 2 - Hand Tool Cleaning C SSPC-SP 3 - Power Tool Cleaning D SSPC-SP 13 / Nace No. 6 Surface Preparation for Concrete F UL 2818 –GREENGUARD Certification Program for Chemical Emissions for Building Materials G California Department of Public Health- CDPH v1.1-2010 & V1.2-2017 CDPH v1.1-2010 & V1.2-2017 Product names, logos, brands and other trademarks are the property of their respective trademark holders. 3 1.4 SUBMITTALS A Submit under provisions of Section 01 33 00, Submittal Procedures. B Product Data: Manufacturer's data sheets on each paint and coating product should include: 1 Product characteristics 2 Surface preparation instructions and recommendations 3 Primer requirements and finish specification 4 Storage and handling requirements and recommendations 5 Application methods 6 Clean-up Information 7. VOCs C Selection Samples: Submit a complete set of color chips that represent the full range of manufacturer’s color samples available. D Coating Maintenance Manual: upon conclusion of the project, the Contractor or paint manufacturer/supplier shall furnish a coating maintenance manual, such as Sherwin-Williams “Custodian Paint Maintenance Manual” report or equal. Manual shall include an Area Summary with finish schedule, Area Detail designating where each product/color/finish was used, product data pages, Safety Data Sheets, care and cleaning instructions, touch-up procedures, and color samples of each color and finish used. 1.5 MOCK-UP Include a mock-up if the project size and/or quality warrant taking such a precaution. The following is one example of how a mock-up on a large project might be specified. When deciding on the extent of the mock-up, consider all the major different types of painting on the project. A Finish surfaces for verification of products, colors, & sheens B Finish area designated by Architect C Provide samples that designate prime & finish coats D Do not proceed with remaining work until the Architect approves the mock-up samples 1.6 DELIVERY, STORAGE, AND HANDLING A Delivery: Deliver manufacturer's unopened containers to the work site. Packaging shall bear the manufacturer’s name, label, and the following list of information: Product name and type (description) Application & use instructions Surface preparation VOC content Environmental handling Batch date Color number B Storage: Store and dispose of solvent-based materials, and materials used with solvent-based materials, in accordance with requirements of local authorities having jurisdiction. Store materials in an area that is within the acceptable temperature range, per manufacturer’s instructions. Protect from freezing. C Handling: Maintain a clean, dry storage area, to prevent contamination or damage to the coatings. CDPH v1.1-2010 & V1.2-2017 Product names, logos, brands and other trademarks are the property of their respective trademark holders. 4 1.7 PROJECT CONDITIONS A Maintain environmental conditions (temperature, humidity, and ventilation) within limits recommended by manufacturer for optimum results. Do not apply coatings under environmental conditions outside manufacturer's absolute limits. This specification does not take into consideration wet areas or areas needing high performance coatings. Part 2 PRODUCTS 2.1 MANUFACTURERS A Acceptable Manufacturer: The Sherwin-Williams Company 101 Prospect Avenue NW Cleveland, OH 44115 Tel: (800) 321-8194 Fax: (216) 566-1660 sherwin-williams.com / swgreenspecs.com B Substitutions: Requests for substitutions will be considered in accordance with provisions of Section 01 60 00 Product Requirements. When submitting request for substitution, provide complete product data specified above under Submittals, for each substitute product. C Complies with California Department of Health Services' “Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions from Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers” Version 1.1-2010 (CA section 01350) & V1.2-2017 2.2 APPLICATIONS/SCOPE A Use this article to define the scope of painting if not fully defined in a Finish Schedule or on the drawings. This article must be carefully edited to reflect the surfaces actually found on the project. In some cases, it may be enough to use the first paragraph that says, in effect, "paint everything" along with a list of items not to paint, without exhaustively defining all the different surfaces and items that must be painted. B If the project involves repainting some but not all existing painted surfaces, be sure to indicate the extent of the repainting. C The descriptions of each system can also be used to further refine the definition of what is to be painted, stained, or clear finished. D Surfaces to Be Coated: Concrete - Poured, Precast, Tilt-Up, Cast-In-Place, Cement Board including Plaster Masonry - (CMU - Concrete, Split Face, Scored, Smooth, etc.) Metal – Aluminum/ Galvanized Metal Ferrous-(Structural Steel, Joists, Trusses, Beams, Misc. & Ornamental Iron) Wood - Walls, Ceilings, Doors, Trim Drywall: Drywall board, Gypsum board CDPH v1.1-2010 & V1.2-2017 Product names, logos, brands and other trademarks are the property of their respective trademark holders. 5 2.3 SCHEDULE INDEX A. CONCRETE......................................................................................................... Pages 6 - 8 (Walls & Ceilings, Poured Concrete, Precast Concrete, Unglazed Brick, Cement Board, Tilt-Up, Cast-In-Place) including (Walls, Ceilings) 1. Latex Systems 2. Epoxy System 3. Dryfall Waterborne B. MASONRY .............................................................................................................. Pages 9 - 11 (CMU - Concrete, Split Face, Scored, Smooth, High/Low Density, Fluted) (non-wet area) 1. Latex Systems 2. Epoxy System C. METAL - Aluminum/ Galvanized .......................................................................Pages 12 - 13 1. Latex Systems 2. Epoxy System- Higher Performaning Finish (Including Handrails & touch points) 3. Dryfall Waterborne D. METAL-Ferrous (Structural, Joists, Beams, Misc & Ornamental Iron) ............Pages 14-15 1. Latex Systems 2. Epoxy System- Higher Performaning Finish (Including Handrails & touch points) 3. Dryfall Waterborne E. WOOD- (Walls, Ceilings, Doors, Trim,) ....................................................................... Page 16 1. Latex Systems F. DRYWALL ...............................................................................................................Pages 17-19 (Walls, Ceilings, Gypsum Board, Wood Pulp Board, Plaster Board, etc) 1. Latex Systems 2. Epoxy System Index of Data pages DATAPAGES AND EDS/SDS SHEETS: (To open any of the Data page Files, please click here) UL/GREENGUARD Certifications may be found at www.greenguard.org / https://spot.ulprospector.com Refer to the current EDS for specific VOCs. VOCs may vary by base and sheen. **NOTES TO SPECIFIER** Specify the Harmony line, when a Formaldehyde Reducing* and/or Odor Eliminating* coating option is needed. Formaldehyde Reducing Technology helps improve indoor air quality by reducing VOCs from possible sources like insulation, carpet, cabinets and fabrics. Odor Eliminating Technology helps reduce common indoor odors so rooms stay fresher, longer. *The length of time Harmony actively reduces odors and formaldehyde depends on the concentration, the frequency of exposure and the amount of painted surface area. †Paint Shield® Microbicidal Paint is the first EPA-registered paint that kills greater than 99.9% Staphylococcus aureus (Staph), Enterobacter aerogenes, Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), Vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecalis (VRE), and Escherichia coli (E.coli) within 2 hours of exposure on a painted surface. Rusty galvanizing requires a minimum of Hand Tool Cleaning per SSPC-SP2, prime the area the same day as cleaned with Pro Industrial Pro-Cryl Universal Primer, B66-1300 Series For higher performance on ferrous and non-ferrous handrails and touch objects specify at minimum an epoxy finish for interior use. Primers may be optional if the Ceilings - Structural Steel, Joists, Trusses, Beams are already primed. Check for adhesion and compatibility prior to painting. Spot prime any bare areas with Pro Industrial Pro-Cryl Universal Primer, B66-1300 Series Specify the Pro Industrial line when higher performance is needed. CDPH v1.1-2010 & V1.2-2017 Product names, logos, brands and other trademarks are the property of their respective trademark holders. 6 EDIT THIS SCHEDULE TO SELECT PRODUCT AND FINISH DESIRED AND VOC NEEDS 2.3 SCHEDULE A. CONCRETE - (Walls & Ceilings, Poured Concrete, Precast Concrete, Unglazed Brick, Cement Board, Tilt-Up, Cast-In-Place, Plaster) including (Walls, Ceilings) 1. Latex Systems a. Gloss Finish 1st Coat: S-W Loxon Concrete and Masonry Primer (200-300 sq ft/gal) 2nd Coat: S-W ProMar 200 Zero VOC Latex Gloss, B21-12600 Series 3rd Coat: S-W ProMar 200 Zero VOC Latex Gloss, B21-12600 Series (4 mils wet, 1.4 mils dry per coat) Alternate: 1st Coat: S-W Loxon Concrete and Masonry Primer (200-300 sq ft/gal) 2nd Coat: S-W Pro Industrial™ Acrylic Gloss, B66-600 Series 3rd Coat: S-W Pro Industrial™ Acrylic Gloss, B66-600 Series (2-4 mils dry per coat) b. Semi-Gloss Finish 1st Coat: S-W Loxon Concrete and Masonry Primer (200-300 sq ft/gal) 2nd Coat: S-W ProMar® 200 Zero VOC Latex Semi-Gloss, B31-2600 Series 3rd Coat: S-W ProMar® 200 Zero VOC Latex Semi-Gloss, B31-2600 Series (4 mils wet, 1.5 mils dry per coat) Alternate: 1st Coat: S-W Loxon Concrete and Masonry Primer (200-300 sq ft/gal) 2nd Coat: S-W Harmony® Interior Latex Semi-Gloss, B10 Series 3rd Coat: S-W Harmony® Interior Latex Semi-Gloss, B10 Series (4 mils wet, 1.7 mils dry per coat) Alternate: 1st Coat: S-W Loxon Concrete and Masonry Primer (200-300 sq ft/gal) 2nd Coat: S-W Pro Industrial™ Acrylic Semi-Gloss, B66-650 Series 3rd Coat: S-W Pro Industrial™ Acrylic Semi-Gloss, B66-650 Series (2-4 mils dry per coat) CDPH v1.1-2010 & V1.2-2017 Product names, logos, brands and other trademarks are the property of their respective trademark holders. 7 A. CONCRETE - (Walls & Ceilings, Poured Concrete, Precast Concrete, Unglazed Brick, Cement Board, Tilt-Up, Cast-In-Place, Plaster) including (Walls, Ceilings) (Cont.) 1. Latex Systems c. Eg-Shel Finish 1st Coat: S-W Loxon Concrete and Masonry Primer (200-300 sq ft/gal) 2nd Coat: S-W ProMar 200 Zero VOC Latex Eg-Shel, B20-12600 Series 3rd Coat: S-W ProMar 200 Zero VOC Latex Eg-Shel, B20-12600 Series (4 mils wet, 1.7 mils dry per coat) Alternate: 1st Coat: S-W Loxon Concrete and Masonry Primer (200-300 sq ft/gal) 2nd Coat: S-W ProMar 200 HP Zero VOC Latex Eg-Shel, B20-1900 Series 3rd Coat: S-W ProMar 200 HP Zero VOC Latex Eg-Shel, B20-1900 Series (4 mils wet, 1.7 mils dry per coat) Alternate: 1st Coat: S-W Loxon Concrete and Masonry Primer (200-300 sq ft/gal) 2nd Coat: S-W Harmony Interior Latex Eg-Shel, B9 Series 3rd Coat: S-W Harmony Interior Latex Eg-Shel, B9 Series (4 mils wet, 1.7 mils dry per coat) Alternate: 1st Coat: S-W Loxon Concrete and Masonry Primer (200-300 sq ft/gal) 2nd Coat: S-W Pro Industrial™ Acrylic Eg-Shel, B66-660 Series 3rd Coat: S-W Pro Industrial™ Acrylic Eg-Shel, B66-660 Series (2-4 mils dry per coat) Microbicidal† Finish 1st Coat: S-W Loxon Concrete and Masonry Primer (200-300 sq ft/gal) 2nd Coat: S-W Paint Shield® Interior Latex Eg-Shel, D12W00051 3rd Coat: S-W Paint Shield® Interior Latex Eg-Shel, D12W00051 (4 mils wet, 1.8 mils dry per coat) ** NOTE TO SPECIFIER** †Paint Shield® Microbicidal Paint is the first EPA-registered paint that kills greater than 99.9% Staphylococcus aureus (Staph), Enterobacter aerogenes, Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), Vancomycin- resistant Enterococcus faecalis (VRE), and Escherichia coli (E.coli) within 2 hours of exposure on a painted surface. d. Low Sheen/Low Gloss Finish 1st Coat: S-W Loxon Concrete and Masonry Primer (200-300 sq ft/gal) 2nd Coat: S-W ProMar 200 Zero VOC Latex Low Gloss Eg-Shel, B41-2600 Series 3rd Coat: S-W ProMar 200 Zero VOC Latex Low Gloss Eg-Shel, B41-2600 Series (4 mils wet, 1.6 mils dry per coat) Alternate: 1st Coat: S-W Loxon Concrete and Masonry Primer (200-300 sq ft/gal) 2nd Coat: S-W ProMar 200 HP Zero VOC Latex Low Gloss Eg-Shel, B41-1900 Series 3rd Coat: S-W ProMar 200 HP Zero VOC Latex Low Gloss Eg-Shel, B41-1900 Series (4 mils wet, 1.7 mils dry per coat) CDPH v1.1-2010 & V1.2-2017 Product names, logos, brands and other trademarks are the property of their respective trademark holders. 8 A. CONCRETE - (Walls & Ceilings, Poured Concrete, Precast Concrete, Unglazed Brick, Cement Board, Tilt-Up, Cast-In-Place, Plaster) including (Walls, Ceilings) (Cont.) 1. Latex Systems e. Flat Finish 1st Coat: S-W Loxon Concrete and Masonry Primer (200-300 sq ft/gal) 2nd Coat: S-W ProMar 200 Zero VOC Latex Flat, B30-12600 Series 3rd Coat: S-W ProMar 200 Zero VOC Latex Flat, B30-12600 Series (4 mils wet, 1.4 mils dry per coat) Alternate: 1st Coat: S-W Loxon Concrete and Masonry Primer (200-300 sq ft/gal) 2nd Coat: S-W Harmony Interior Latex Flat, B5 Series 3rd Coat: S-W Harmony Interior Latex Flat, B5 Series (4 mils wet, 1.7 mils dry per coat) 2. Epoxy System a. Gloss Finish 1st Coat: S-W Pro Industrial Water Based Catalyzed Epoxy Gloss, B73-300 Series 2nd Coat: S-W Pro Industrial Water Based Catalyzed Epoxy Gloss, B73-300 Series (2 - 5 mils dry per coat) b. Eg-Shel Finish 1st Coat: S-W Pro Industrial Water Based Catalyzed Epoxy Eg-Shel, B73-360 Series 2nd Coat: S-W Pro Industrial Water Based Catalyzed Epoxy Eg-Shel, B73-360 Series (2 - 5 mils dry per coat) 3. Dryfall Waterborne Topcoat a. Semi-Gloss Finish 1st Coat: S-W Pro Industrial Waterborne Acrylic Dryfall Semi-Gloss, B42-83 2nd Coat: S-W Pro Industrial Waterborne Acrylic Dryfall Semi-Gloss, B42-83 (6 mils wet, 2.3 mils dry) b. Eg-Shel Finish 1st Coat: S-W Pro Industrial Waterborne Acrylic Dryfall Eg-Shel, B42-82 2nd Coat: S-W Pro Industrial Waterborne Acrylic Dryfall Eg-Shel, B42-82 (6 mils wet, 2 mils dry) c. Flat Finish 1st Coat: S-W Pro Industrial Waterborne Acrylic Dryfall Flat, B42-81/181 Series 2nd Coat: S-W Pro Industrial Waterborne Acrylic Dryfall Flat, B42-81/181 Series (6 mils wet, 1.5 mils dry) CDPH v1.1-2010 & V1.2-2017 Product names, logos, brands and other trademarks are the property of their respective trademark holders. 9 B. MASONRY - (CMU - Concrete, Split Face, Scored, Smooth, High /Low Density, Fluted) (non-wet area) 1. Latex Systems a. Gloss Finish 1st Coat: S-W Pro Industrial Heavy Duty Block Filler, B42-150 (75-100 sq ft/gal) 2nd Coat: S-W ProMar 200 Zero VOC Latex Gloss, B21-12600 Series 3rd Coat: S-W ProMar 200 Zero VOC Latex Gloss, B21-12600 Series (4 mils wet, 1.4 mils dry per coat) Alternate: 1st Coat: S-W Pro Industrial Heavy Duty Block Filler, B42-150 (75-100 sq ft/gal) 2nd Coat: S-W Pro Industrial™ Acrylic Gloss, B66-600 Series 3rd Coat: S-W Pro Industrial™ Acrylic Gloss, B66-600 Series (2-4 mils dry per coat) b. Semi-Gloss Finish 1st Coat: S-W Pro Industrial Heavy Duty Block Filler, B42-150 (75-100 sq ft/gal) 2nd Coat: S-W ProMar 200 Zero VOC Latex Semi-Gloss, B31-2600 Series 3rd Coat: S-W ProMar 200 Zero VOC Latex Semi-Gloss, B31-2600 Series (4 mils wet, 1.5 mils dry per coat) Alternate: 1st Coat: S-W Pro Industrial Heavy Duty Block Filler, B42-150 (75-100 sq ft/gal) 2nd Coat: S-W Harmony Interior Latex Semi-Gloss, B10 Series 3rd Coat: S-W Harmony Interior Latex Semi-Gloss, B10 Series (4 mils wet, 1.7 mils dry per coat) Alternate: 1st Coat: S-W Pro Industrial Heavy Duty Block Filler, B42-150 (75-100 sq ft/gal) 2nd Coat: S-W Pro Industrial™ Acrylic Semi-Gloss, B66-650 Series 3rd Coat: S-W Pro Industrial™ Acrylic Semi-Gloss, B66-650 Series (2-4 mils dry per coat) CDPH v1.1-2010 & V1.2-2017 Product names, logos, brands and other trademarks are the property of their respective trademark holders. 10 B. MASONRY - (CMU - Concrete, Split Face, Scored, Smooth, High /Low Density, Fluted) (non-wet area) c. Eg-Shel Finish 1st Coat: S-W Pro Industrial Heavy Duty Block Filler, B42-150 (75-100 sq ft/gal) 2nd Coat: S-W ProMar 200 Zero VOC Latex Eg-Shel, B20-12600 Series 3rd Coat: S-W ProMar 200 Zero VOC Latex Eg-Shel, B20-12600 Series (4 mils wet, 1.7 mils dry per coat) Alternate: 1st Coat: S-W Pro Industrial Heavy Duty Block Filler, B42-150 (75-100 sq ft/gal) 2nd Coat: S-W ProMar 200 HP Zero VOC Latex Eg-Shel, B20-1900 Series 3rd Coat: S-W ProMar 200 HP Zero VOC Latex Eg-Shel, B20-1900 Series (4 mils wet, 1.7 mils dry per coat) Alternate: 1st Coat: S-W Pro Industrial Heavy Duty Block Filler, B42-150 (75-100 sq ft/gal) 2nd Coat: S-W Harmony Interior Latex Eg-Shel, B9 Series 3rd Coat: S-W Harmony Interior Latex Eg-Shel, B9 Series (4 mils wet, 1.7 mils dry per coat) Alternate: 1st Coat: S-W Pro Industrial Heavy Duty Block Filler, B42-150 (75-100 sq ft/gal) 2nd Coat: S-W Pro Industrial™ Acrylic Eg-Shel, B66-660 Series 3rd Coat: S-W Pro Industrial™ Acrylic Eg-Shel, B66-660 Series (2-4 mils dry per coat) Microbicidal† Finish 1st Coat: S-W Pro Industrial Heavy Duty Block Filler, B42-150 (75-100 sq ft/gal) 2nd Coat: S-W Paint Shield® Interior Latex Eg-Shel, D12W00051 3rd Coat: S-W Paint Shield® Interior Latex Eg-Shel, D12W00051 (4 mils wet, 1.8 mils dry per coat) ** NOTE TO SPECIFIER** †Paint Shield® Microbicidal Paint is the first EPA-registered paint that kills greater than 99.9% Staphylococcus aureus (Staph), Enterobacter aerogenes, Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), Vancomycin- resistant Enterococcus faecalis (VRE), and Escherichia coli (E.coli) within 2 hours of exposure on a painted surface. d. Low Sheen/Low Gloss Finish 1st Coat: S-W Pro Industrial Heavy Duty Block Filler, B42-150 (75-100 sq ft/gal) 2nd Coat: S-W ProMar 200 Zero VOC Latex Low Gloss Eg-Shel, B41-2600 Series 3rd Coat: S-W ProMar 200 Zero VOC Latex Low Gloss Eg-Shel, B41-2600 Series (4 mils wet, 1.6 mils dry per coat) Alternate: 1st Coat: S-W Pro Industrial Heavy Duty Block Filler, B42-150 (75-100 sq ft/gal) 2nd Coat: S-W ProMar 200 HP Zero VOC Latex Low Gloss Eg-Shel, B41-1900 Series 3rd Coat: S-W ProMar 200 HP Zero VOC Latex Low Gloss Eg-Shel, B41-1900 Series (4 mils wet, 1.7 mils dry per coat) CDPH v1.1-2010 & V1.2-2017 Product names, logos, brands and other trademarks are the property of their respective trademark holders. 11 B. MASONRY - (CMU - Concrete, Split Face, Scored, Smooth, High /Low Density, Fluted) (non-wet area) e. Flat Finish 1st Coat: S-W Pro Industrial Heavy Duty Block Filler, B42-150 (75-100 sq ft/gal) 2nd Coat: S-W ProMar 200 Zero VOC Latex Flat, B30-12600 Series 3rd Coat: S-W ProMar 200 Zero VOC Latex Flat, B30-12600 Series (4 mils wet, 1.4 mils dry per coat) Alternate: 1st Coat: S-W Pro Industrial Heavy Duty Block Filler, B42-150 (75-100 sq ft/gal) 2nd Coat: S-W Harmony Interior Latex Flat, B5 Series 3rd Coat: S-W Harmony Interior Latex Flat, B5 Series (4 mils wet, 1.7 mils dry per coat) 2. Epoxy System (Water Base) a. Gloss Finish 1st Coat: S-W Pro Industrial Heavy Duty Block Filler, B42-150 (75-100 sq ft/gal) 2nd Coat: S-W Pro Industrial Water Based Catalyzed Epoxy Gloss, B73-300 Series 3rd Coat: S-W Pro Industrial Water Based Catalyzed Epoxy Gloss, B73-300 Series (2 - 5 mils dry per coat) b. Eg-Shel Finish 1st Coat: S-W Pro Industrial Heavy Duty Block Filler, B42-150 (75-100 sq ft/gal) 2nd Coat: S-W Pro Industrial Water Based Catalyzed Epoxy Eg-Shel, B73-360 Series 3rd Coat: S-W Pro Industrial Water Based Catalyzed Epoxy Eg-Shel, B73-360 Series (2 - 5 mils dry per coat) CDPH v1.1-2010 & V1.2-2017 Product names, logos, brands and other trademarks are the property of their respective trademark holders. 12 C. METAL - Aluminum/ Galvanized 1. Latex Systems a. Gloss Finish 1st Coat: S-W Pro Industrial™ Acrylic Gloss, B66-600 Series 2nd Coat: S-W Pro Industrial™ Acrylic Gloss, B66-600 Series (2-4 mils dry per coat) Alternate: 1st Coat: S-W Pro Industrial™ Pro-Cryl® Universal Primer Off White, B66-1300 Series (5-10 mils wet, 1.9-3.8 mils dry) 2nd Coat: S-W ProMar 200 Zero VOC Latex Gloss, B21-12600 Series 3rd Coat: S-W ProMar 200 Zero VOC Latex Gloss, B21-12600 Series (4 mils wet, 1.4 mils dry per coat) b. Semi-Gloss Finish 1st Coat: S-W Pro Industrial™ Acrylic Semi-Gloss, B66-650 Series 2nd Coat: S-W Pro Industrial™ Acrylic Semi-Gloss, B66-650 Series (2-4 mils dry per coat) Alternate: 1st Coat: S-W Pro Industrial™ Pro-Cryl® Universal Primer Off White, B66-1300 Series (5-10 mils wet, 1.9-3.8 mils dry) 2nd Coat: S-W Harmony Interior Latex Semi-Gloss, B10 Series 3rd Coat: S-W Harmony Interior Latex Semi-Gloss, B10 Series (4 mils wet, 1.7 mils dry per coat) Alternate: 1st Coat: S-W Pro Industrial™ Pro-Cryl® Universal Primer Off White, B66-1300 Series (5-10 mils wet, 1.9-3.8 mils dry) 2nd Coat: S-W ProMar 200 Zero VOC Latex Semi-Gloss, B31-2600 Series 3rd Coat: S-W ProMar 200 Zero VOC Latex Semi-Gloss, B31-2600 Series (4 mils wet, 1.5 mils dry per coat) c. Eg-Shel Finish 1st Coat: S-W Pro Industrial™ Acrylic Eg-Shel, B66-660 Series 2nd Coat: S-W Pro Industrial™ Acrylic Eg-Shel, B66-660 Series (2-4 mils dry per coat) d. Flat Finish 1st Coat: S-W Pro Industrial™ DTM Acrylic Primer/Finish, B66-11 2nd Coat: S-W Pro Industrial™ DTM Acrylic Primer/Finish, B66-11 (5-10 mils wet, 1.9-3.9 mils dry) Alternate: 1st Coat: S-W Pro Industrial™ Pro-Cryl® Universal Primer Off White, B66-1300 Series (5-10 mils wet, 1.9-3.8 mils dry) 2nd Coat: S-W Harmony Interior Latex Flat, B5 Series 3rd Coat: S-W Harmony Interior Latex Flat, B5 Series (4 mils wet, 1.7 mils dry per coat) CDPH v1.1-2010 & V1.2-2017 Product names, logos, brands and other trademarks are the property of their respective trademark holders. 13 C. METAL - Aluminum/ Galvanized (Cont.) 2. Epoxy System — Higher Performaning Finish (Including Handrails) a. Gloss Finish 1st Coat: S-W Pro Industrial™ Pro-Cryl® Universal Primer Off White, B66-1300 Series (5-10 mils wet, 1.9-3.8 mils dry) 2nd Coat: S-W Pro Industrial Water Based Catalyzed Epoxy Gloss, B73-300 Series 3rd Coat: S-W Pro Industrial Water Based Catalyzed Epoxy Gloss, B73-300 Series (2 - 5 mils dry per coat) b. Eg-Shel Finish 1st Coat: S-W Pro Industrial™ Pro-Cryl® Universal Primer Off White, B66-1300 Series (5-10 mils wet, 1.9-3.8 mils dry) 2nd Coat: S-W Pro Industrial Water Based Catalyzed Epoxy Eg-Shel, B73-360 Series 3rd Coat: S-W Pro Industrial Water based Catalyzed Epoxy Eg-Shel, B73-360 Series (2 - 5 mils dry per coat) 3. Dryfall Waterborne Topcoat- (Galvanized; Ceilings, Duct work) a. Semi-Gloss Finish 1st Coat: S-W Pro Industrial Waterborne Acrylic Dryfall Semi-Gloss, B42-83 2nd Coat: S-W Pro Industrial Waterborne Acrylic Dryfall Semi-Gloss, B42-83 (6 mils wet, 2.3 mils dry) b. Eg-Shel Finish 1st Coat: S-W Pro Industrial Waterborne Acrylic Dryfall Eg-Shel, B42-82 2nd Coat: S-W Pro Industrial Waterborne Acrylic Dryfall Eg-Shel, B42-82 (6 mils wet, 2 mils dry) c. Flat Finish 1st Coat: S-W Pro Industrial Waterborne Acrylic Dryfall Flat, B42-81/181 Series 2nd Coat: S-W Pro Industrial Waterborne Acrylic Dryfall Flat, B42-81/181 Series (6 mils wet, 1.5 mils dry) CDPH v1.1-2010 & V1.2-2017 Product names, logos, brands and other trademarks are the property of their respective trademark holders. 14 D. METAL Ferrous- (Structural Steel Columns, Joists, Trusses, Beams, Miscellaneous & Ornamental Iron, Structural Iron) 1. Latex Systems a. Gloss Finish 1st Coat: S-W Pro Industrial™ Pro-Cryl® Universal Primer Off White, B66-1300 Series (5-10 mils wet, 1.9-3.8 mils dry) 2nd Coat: S-W Pro Industrial™ Acrylic Gloss, B66-600 Series 3rd Coat: S-W Pro Industrial™ Acrylic Gloss, B66-600 Series (2-4 mils dry per coat) b. Semi-Gloss Finish 1st Coat: S-W Pro Industrial™ Pro-Cryl® Universal Primer Off White, B66-1300 Series (5-10 mils wet, 1.9-3.8 mils dry) 2nd Coat: S-W Pro Industrial™ Acrylic Semi-Gloss, B66-650 Series 3rd Coat: S-W Pro Industrial™ Acrylic Semi-Gloss, B66-650 Series (2 - 4 mils dry per coat) c. Eg-Shel Finish 1st Coat: S-W Pro Industrial™ Pro-Cryl® Universal Primer Off White, B66-1300 Series (5-10 mils wet, 1.9-3.8 mils dry) 2nd Coat: S-W Pro Industrial™ Acrylic Eg-Shel, B66-660 Series 3rd Coat: S-W Pro Industrial™ Acrylic Eg-Shel, B66-660 Series (2 - 4 mils dry per coat) d. Flat Finish 1st Coat: S-W Pro Industrial™ DTM Acrylic Primer/Finish, B66-11 2nd Coat: S-W Pro Industrial™ DTM Acrylic Primer/Finish, B66-11 (5-10 mils wet, 1.9-3.9 mils dry) CDPH v1.1-2010 & V1.2-2017 Product names, logos, brands and other trademarks are the property of their respective trademark holders. 15 D. METAL Ferrous- (Structural Steel Columns, Joists, Trusses, Beams, Miscellaneous & Ornamental Iron, Structural Iron) (Cont.) 2. Epoxy System— Higher Performaning Finish (Including Handrails) a. Gloss Finish 1st Coat: S-W Pro Industrial™ Pro-Cryl® Universal Primer Off White, B66-1300 Series (5-10 mils wet, 1.9-3.8 mils dry) 2nd Coat: S-W Pro Industrial Water Based Catalyzed Epoxy Gloss, B73-300 Series 3rd Coat: S-W Pro Industrial Water Based Catalyzed Epoxy Gloss, B73-300 Series (2 - 5 mils dry per coat) b. Eg-Shel Finish 1st Coat: S-W Pro Industrial™ Pro-Cryl® Universal Primer Off White, B66-1300 Series (5-10 mils wet, 1.9-3.8 mils dry) 2nd Coat: S-W Pro Industrial Water Based Catalyzed Epoxy Eg-Shel, B73-360 Series 3rd Coat: S-W Pro Industrial Water Based Catalyzed Epoxy Eg-Shel, B73-360 Series (2 - 5 mils dry per coat) 3. Dryfall Waterborne Topcoats a. Semi-Gloss Finish 1st Coat: S-W Pro Industrial™ Pro-Cryl® Universal Primer Off White, B66-1300 Series (5-10 mils wet, 1.9-3.8 mils dry) 2nd Coat: S-W Pro Industrial Waterborne Acrylic Dryfall Semi-Gloss, B42-83 3rd Coat: Optional (6 mils wet, 2.3 mils dry) b. Eg-Shel Finish 1st Coat: S-W Pro Industrial™ Pro-Cryl® Universal Primer Off White, B66-1300 Series (5-10 mils wet, 1.9-3.8 mils dry) 2nd Coat: S-W Pro Industrial Waterborne Acrylic Dryfall Eg-Shel, B42-82 3rd Coat: Optional (6.0 mils wet, 2 mils dry) c. Flat Finish 1st Coat: S-W Pro Industrial™ Pro-Cryl® Universal Primer Off White, B66-1300 Series (5-10 mils wet, 1.9-3.8 mils dry) 2nd Coat: S-W Pro Industrial Waterborne Acrylic Dryfall Flat, B42-81/181 Series 3rd Coat: Optional (6.0 mils wet, 1.5 mils dry) CDPH v1.1-2010 & V1.2-2017 Product names, logos, brands and other trademarks are the property of their respective trademark holders. 16 E. WOOD - (Walls, Ceilings, Doors, Trim) 1. Latex Systems a. Gloss Finish 1st Coat: S-W Multi-Purpose Latex Primer/Sealer, B51 Series (4 mils wet, 1.4 mils dry) 2nd Coat: S-W Pro Industrial™ Acrylic Gloss, B66-600 Series 3rd Coat: S-W Pro Industrial™ Acrylic Gloss, B66-600 Series (2-4 mils dry per coat) Alternate: 1st Coat: S-W Multi-Purpose Latex Primer/Sealer, B51 Series (4 mils wet, 1.4 mils dry) 2nd Coat: S-W ProMar 200 Zero VOC Latex Gloss, B21-12600 Series 3rd Coat: S-W ProMar 200 Zero VOC Latex Gloss, B21-12600 Series (4 mils wet, 1.4 mils dry per coat) b. Semi-Gloss Finish 1st Coat: S-W Multi-Purpose Latex Primer/Sealer, B51 Series (4 mils wet, 1.4 mils dry) 2nd Coat: S-W Pro Industrial™ Acrylic Semi-Gloss, B66-650 Series 3rd Coat: S-W Pro Industrial™ Acrylic Semi-Gloss, B66-650 Series (2-4 mils dry per coat) Alternate: 1st Coat: S-W Multi-Purpose Latex Primer/Sealer, B51 Series (4 mils wet, 1.4 mils dry) 2nd Coat: S-W ProMar 200 Zero VOC Latex Semi-Gloss, B31-2600 Series 3rd Coat: S-W ProMar 200 Zero VOC Latex Semi-Gloss, B31-2600 Series (4 mils wet, 1.5 mils dry per coat) c. Eg-Shel Finish 1st Coat: S-W Multi-Purpose Latex Primer/Sealer, B51 Series (4 mils wet, 1.4 mils dry) 2nd Coat: S-W Pro Industrial Acrylic Eg-Shel, B66-660 Series 3rd Coat: S-W Pro Industrial Acrylic Eg-Shel, B66-660 Series (2-4 mils dry per coat) Alternate: 1st Coat: S-W Pro Industrial Heavy Duty Block Filler, B42-150 (75-100 sq ft/gal) 2nd Coat: S-W ProMar 200 Zero VOC Latex Eg-Shel, B20-12600 Series 3rd Coat: S-W ProMar 200 Zero VOC Latex Eg-Shel, B20-12600 Series (4 mils wet, 1.7 mils dry per coat) Microbicidal† Finish 1st Coat: S-W Multi-Purpose Latex Primer/Sealer, B51 Series (4 mils wet, 1.4 mils dry) 2nd Coat: S-W Paint Shield® Interior Latex Eg-Shel, D12W00051 3rd Coat: S-W Paint Shield® Interior Latex Eg-Shel, D12W00051 (4 mils wet, 1.8 mils dry per coat) ** NOTE TO SPECIFIER** †Paint Shield® Microbicidal Paint is the first EPA-registered paint that kills greater than 99.9% Staphylococcus aureus (Staph), Enterobacter aerogenes, Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), Vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecalis (VRE), and Escherichia coli (E.coli) within 2 hours of exposure on a painted surface. CDPH v1.1-2010 & V1.2-2017 Product names, logos, brands and other trademarks are the property of their respective trademark holders. 17 F. DRYWALL - (Walls, Ceilings, Gypsum Board, etc.) 1. Latex Systems a. Gloss Finish 1st Coat: S-W ProMar 200 Zero VOC Interior Latex Primer, B28-2600 (4 mils wet, 1.0 mils dry) 2nd Coat: S-W ProMar 200 Zero VOC Latex Gloss, B21-12600 Series 3rd Coat: S-W ProMar 200 Zero VOC Latex Gloss, B21-12600 Series (4 mils wet, 1.4 mils dry per coat) Alternate: 1st Coat: S-W ProMar 200 Zero VOC Interior Latex Primer, B28-2600 (4 mils wet, 1.0 mils dry) 2nd Coat: S-W Pro Industrial™ Acrylic Gloss, B66-600 Series 3rd Coat: S-W Pro Industrial™ Acrylic Gloss, B66-600 Series (2-4 mils dry per coat) b. Semi-Gloss Finish 1st Coat: S-W ProMar 200 Zero VOC Interior Latex Primer, B28-2600 (4 mils wet, 1.0 mils dry) 2nd Coat: S-W ProMar 200 Zero VOC Latex Semi-Gloss, B31-2600 Series 3rd Coat: S-W ProMar 200 Zero VOC Latex Semi-Gloss, B31-2600 Series (4 mils wet, 1.5 mils dry per coat) Alternate: 1st Coat: S-W Harmony Interior Latex Primer, B11 (4 mils wet, 1.3 mils dry) 2nd Coat: S-W Harmony Interior Latex Semi-Gloss, B10 Series 3rd Coat: S-W Harmony Interior Latex Semi-Gloss, B10 Series (4 mils wet, 1.7 mils dry per coat) Alternate: 1st Coat: S-W ProMar 200 Zero VOC Interior Latex Primer, B28-2600 (4 mils wet, 1.0 mils dry) 2nd Coat: S-W Pro Industrial Acrylic Semi-Gloss, B66-650 Series 3rd Coat: S-W Pro Industrial Acrylic Semi-Gloss, B66-650 Series (2-4 mils dry per coat) CDPH v1.1-2010 & V1.2-2017 Product names, logos, brands and other trademarks are the property of their respective trademark holders. 18 F. DRYWALL - (Walls, Ceilings, Gypsum Board, etc.) 1. Latex Systems c. Eg-Shel Finish 1st Coat: S-W ProMar 200 Zero VOC Interior Latex Primer, B28-2600 (4 mils wet, 1.0 mils dry) 2nd Coat: S-W ProMar 200 Zero VOC Latex Eg-Shel, B20-12600 Series 3rd Coat: S-W ProMar 200 Zero VOC Latex Eg-Shel, B20-12600 Series (4 mils wet, 1.7 mils dry per coat) Alternate: 1st Coat: S-W ProMar 200 Zero VOC Interior Latex Primer, B28-2600 (4 mils wet, 1.0 mils dry) 2nd Coat: S-W ProMar 200 HP Zero VOC Latex Eg-Shel, B20-1900 Series 3rd Coat: S-W ProMar 200 HP Zero VOC Latex Eg-Shel, B20-1900 Series (4 mils wet, 1.7 mils dry per coat) 1st Coat: S-W Harmony Interior Latex Primer, B11 (4 mils wet, 1.3 mils dry) 2nd Coat: S-W Harmony Interior Latex Eg-Shel, B9 Series 3rd Coat: S-W Harmony Interior Latex Eg-Shel, B9 Series (4 mils wet, 1.7 mils dry per coat) Alternate: 1st Coat: S-W ProMar 200 Zero VOC Interior Latex Primer, B28-2600 (4 mils wet, 1.0 mils dry) 2nd Coat: S-W Pro Industrial Acrylic Eg-Shel, B66-660 Series 3rd Coat: S-W Pro Industrial Acrylic Eg-Shel, B66-660 Series (2-4 mils dry per coat) Microbicidal† Finish 1st Coat: S-W Harmony Interior Latex Primer, B11 (4 mils wet, 1.3 mils dry) 2nd Coat: S-W Paint Shield® Interior Latex Eg-Shel, D12W00051 3rd Coat: S-W Paint Shield® Interior Latex Eg-Shel, D12W00051 (4 mils wet, 1.8 mils dry per coat) ** NOTE TO SPECIFIER** †Paint Shield® Microbicidal Paint is the first EPA-registered paint that kills greater than 99.9% Staphylococcus aureus (Staph), Enterobacter aerogenes, Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), Vancomycin- resistant Enterococcus faecalis (VRE), and Escherichia coli (E.coli) within 2 hours of exposure on a painted surface. d. Low Sheen/Low Gloss Finish 1st Coat: S-W ProMar 200 Zero VOC Interior Latex Primer, B28-2600 (4 mils wet, 1.0 mils dry) 2nd Coat: S-W ProMar 200 Zero VOC Latex Low Gloss, B41-2600 Series 3rd Coat: S-W ProMar 200 Zero VOC Latex Low Gloss, B41-2600 Series (4 mils wet, 1.6 mils dry per coat) Alternate: 1st Coat: S-W ProMar 200 Zero VOC Interior Latex Primer, B28-2600 (4 mils wet, 1.0 mils dry) 2nd Coat: S-W ProMar 200 HP Zero VOC Latex Low Gloss Eg-Shel, B41-1900 Series 3rd Coat: S-W ProMar 200 HP Zero VOC Latex Low Gloss Eg-Shel, B41-1900 Series (4 mils wet, 1.7 mils dry per coat) CDPH v1.1-2010 & V1.2-2017 Product names, logos, brands and other trademarks are the property of their respective trademark holders. 19 F. DRYWALL - (Walls, Ceilings, Gypsum Board, etc.) (Cont.) 1. Latex Systems e. Flat Finish 1st Coat: S-W ProMar 200 Zero VOC Interior Latex Primer, B28-2600 (4 mils wet, 1.0 mils dry) 2nd Coat: S-W ProMar 200 Zero VOC Latex Flat, B30-12600 Series 3rd Coat: S-W ProMar 200 Zero VOC Latex Flat, B30-12600 Series (4 mils wet, 1.4 mils dry per coat) Alternate: 1st Coat: S-W Harmony Interior Latex Primer, B11 (4 mils wet, 1.3 mils dry) 2nd Coat: S-W Harmony Interior Latex Flat, B5 Series 3rd Coat: S-W Harmony Interior Latex Flat, B5 Series (4 mils wet, 1.7 mils dry per coat) Alternate: 1st Coat: S-W ProMar 200 Zero VOC Interior Latex Primer, B28-2600 (4 mils wet, 1.0 mils dry) 2nd Coat: S-W Pro Industrial™ DTM Acrylic Primer/Finish, B66-11 3rd Coat: S-W Pro Industrial™ DTM Acrylic Primer/Finish, B66-11 (5-10 mils wet, 1.9-3.9 mils dry) 2. Epoxy System a. Gloss Finish 1st Coat: S-W ProMar 200 Zero VOC Interior Latex Primer, B28-2600 (4 mils wet, 1.0 mils dry) 2nd Coat: S-W Pro Industrial Water Based Catalyzed Epoxy Gloss, B73-300 Series 3rd Coat: S-W Pro Industrial Water Based Catalyzed Epoxy Gloss, B73-300 Series (2 - 5 mils dry per coat) b. Eg-Shel Finish 1st Coat: S-W ProMar 200 Zero VOC Interior Latex Primer, B28-2600 (4 mils wet, 1.0 mils dry) 2nd Coat: S-W Pro Industrial Water Based Catalyzed Epoxy Eg-Shel, B73-360 Series 3rd Coat: S-W Pro Industrial Water Based Catalyzed Epoxy Eg-Shel, B73-360 Series (2 - 5 mils dry per coat) CDPH v1.1-2010 & V1.2-2017 Product names, logos, brands and other trademarks are the property of their respective trademark holders. 20 2.4 MATERIALS - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS A Paints and Coatings - General: 1 Unless otherwise indicated, provide factory-mixed coatings. When required, mix coatings to correct consistency in accordance with manufacturer's instructions before application. Do not reduce, thin, or dilute coatings or add materials to coatings unless such a procedure is specifically described in manufacturer's product instructions. VOC numbers used in this document need to be confirmed by using the products EDS sheets. 2 Requirements: Complies with California Department of Health Services' “Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions from Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers” Version 1.1-2010 & V1.2-2017 B Primers: 1 Where the manufacturer offers options on primers for a particular substrate, use primer categorized as "best" by the manufacturer. 2.5 ACCESSORIES A Coating Application Accessories: 1 Provide all primers, sealers, cleaning agents, cleaning cloths, sanding materials, and clean- up materials required, per manufacturer’s specifications. PART 3 EXECUTION 3.1 EXAMINATION A Do not begin application of coatings until substrates have been properly prepared. Notify Architect of unsatisfactory conditions before proceeding. B If substrate preparation is the responsibility of another installer, notify Architect of unsatisfactory preparation before proceeding. C Proceed with work only after conditions have been corrected and approved by all parties, otherwise application of coatings will be considered as an acceptance of surface conditions. D Previously Painted Surfaces: Verify that existing painted surfaces do not contain lead based paints, notify Architect immediately if lead based paints are encountered. (Specifier Note: Verify the existence of lead based paints on the project. Buildings constructed after 1978 are less likely to contain lead based paints. If lead based paints are suspected on the project, all removal must be done in accordance with the EPA Renovation, Repair and Painting rule and all applicable state and local regulations. State and local regulations may be more strict than those set under the federal regulations Verify that Owner has completed a Hazardous Material Assessment Report for the project prior to issuing of Drawings. Concluding that no lead based paints were found on project site, delete paragraph regarding lead based paints.) CDPH v1.1-2010 & V1.2-2017 Product names, logos, brands and other trademarks are the property of their respective trademark holders. 21 3.2 SURFACE PREPARATION WARNING! Removal of old paint by sanding, scraping or other means may generate dust or fumes that contain lead. Exposure to lead dust or fumes may cause brain damage or other adverse health effects, especially in children or pregnant women. Controlling exposure to lead or other hazardous substances requires the use of proper protective equipment, such as a properly fitted respirator (NIOSH approved) and proper containment and cleanup. For more information, call the National Lead Information Center at 1-800-424-LEAD (in US) or contact your local health authority. Removal must be done in accordance with EPA Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule and all related state and local regulations. Care should be taken to follow all state and local regulations which may be more strict than those set under the federal RRP Rule. A Proper product selection, surface preparation, and application affect coating performance. Coating integrity and service life will be reduced because of improperly prepared surfaces. Selection and implementation of proper surface preparation ensures coating adhesion to the substrate and prolongs the service life of the coating system. B Selection of the proper method of surface preparation depends on the substrate, the environment, and the expected service life of the coating system. Economics, surface contamination, and the effect on the substrate will also influence the selection of surface preparation methods. C The surface must be dry and in sound condition. Remove oil, dust, dirt, loose rust, peeling paint or other contamination to ensure good adhesion. Recognize that any surface preparation short of total removal of the old coating may compromise the service length of the system. D Prior to attempting to remove mildew, it is always recommended to test any cleaner on a small, inconspicuous area prior to use. Bleach and bleaching type cleaners may damage or discolor existing paint films. Bleach alternative cleaning solutions may be advised. Mildew may be removed before painting by washing with a solution of 1 part liquid bleach and 3 parts water. Apply the solution and scrub the mildewed area. Allow the solution to remain on the surface for 10 minutes. Rinse thoroughly with water and allow the surface to dry before painting. Wear protective eyewear, waterproof gloves, and protective clothing. Quickly wash off any of the mixture that comes in contact with your skin. Do not add detergents or ammonia to the bleach/water solution. E No painting should take place when the interior temperature is below 50°F unless the specified product is designed for these conditions. F Methods 1 Aluminum Remove all oil, grease, dirt, oxide and other foreign material by cleaning per SSPC-SP1, Solvent Cleaning. 2 Block (Cinder and Concrete) Remove all loose mortar and foreign material. Surface must be free of laitance, concrete dust, dirt, form release agents, moisture curing membranes, loose cement, and hardeners. Concrete and mortar must be cured at least 30 days at 75°F unless the manufactures products are designed for application prior to the 30-day period. The pH of the surface should be between 6 and 9, and moisture content must be 15% or lower. On tilt-up and poured-in- place concrete, commercial detergents and abrasive blasting may be necessary to prepare the surface. Fill bug holes, air pockets, and other voids with a cement patching compound. Masonry surfaces must be dry before priming. CDPH v1.1-2010 & V1.2-2017 Product names, logos, brands and other trademarks are the property of their respective trademark holders. 22 3 Concrete, SSPC-SP13 or NACE 6 This standard gives requirements for surface preparation of concrete by mechanical, chemical, or thermal methods prior to the application of bonded protective coating or lining systems. The requirements of this standard are applicable to all types of cementitious surfaces including cast-in-place concrete floors and walls, precast slabs, masonry walls, and shotcrete surfaces. An acceptable prepared concrete surface should be free of contaminants, laitance, loosely adhering concrete, and dust, and should provide a sound, uniform substrate suitable for the application of protective coating or lining systems. 4 Cement Composition Siding/Panels Remove all surface contamination by washing with an appropriate cleaner, rinse thoroughly and allow to dry. Existing peeled or checked paint should be scraped and sanded to a sound surface. Pressure clean, if needed, with a minimum of 2100 psi pressure to remove all dirt, dust, grease, oil, loose particles, laitance, foreign material, and peeling or defective coatings. Allow the surface to dry thoroughly. The pH of the surface should be between 6 and 9, unless the products are designed to be used in high pH environments. 5 Drywall—Interior Must be clean and dry. All nail heads must be set and spackled. Joints must be taped and covered with a joint compound. Spackled nail heads and tape joints must be sanded smooth and all dust removed prior to painting. 6 Galvanized Metal Clean per SSPC-SP1 using detergent and water or a degreasing cleaner to remove greases and oils. Apply a test area, priming as required. Allow the coating to dry at least one week before testing. If adhesion is poor, Brush Blast per SSPC-SP16 is necessary to remove these treatments. 7 Plaster Must be allowed to dry thoroughly for at least 30 days before painting, unless the manufactures products are designed for application prior to the 30-day period. Room must be ventilated while drying; in cold, damp weather, rooms must be heated. Damaged areas must be repaired with an appropriate patching material. Bare plaster must be cured and hard. Textured, soft, porous, or powdery plaster should be treated with a solution of 1-pint household vinegar to 1 gallon of water. Repeat until the surface is hard, rinse with clear water and allow to dry. 8 Steel: Structural, Plate, etc. Should be cleaned by one or more of the surface preparations described below. These methods are used throughout the world for describing methods for cleaning structural steel. Visual standards are available through the Society of Protective Coatings. A brief description of these standards together with numbers by which they can be specified follow. 9 Solvent Cleaning, SSPC-SP1 Solvent cleaning is a method for removing all visible oil, grease, soil, drawing and cutting compounds, and other soluble contaminants. Solvent cleaning does not remove rust or mill scale. Change rags and cleaning solution frequently so that deposits of oil and grease are not spread over additional areas in the cleaning process. Be sure to allow adequate ventilation. 10 Hand Tool Cleaning, SSPC-SP2 Hand Tool Cleaning removes all loose mill scale, loose rust, and other detrimental foreign matter. It is not intended that adherent mill scale, rust, and paint be removed by this process. Before hand tool cleaning, remove visible oil, grease, soluble welding residues, and salts by the methods outlined in SSPC-SP1 or other agreed upon methods CDPH v1.1-2010 & V1.2-2017 Product names, logos, brands and other trademarks are the property of their respective trademark holders. 23 11 Power Tool Cleaning, SSPC-SP3 Power Tool Cleaning removes all loose mill scale, loose rust, and other detrimental foreign matter. It is not intended that adherent mill scale, rust, and paint be removed by this process. Before power tool cleaning, remove visible oil, grease, soluble welding residues, and salts by the methods outlined in SSPC-SP1 or other agreed upon methods. 12 Commercial Blast Cleaning, SSPC-SP6 or NACE 3 A Commercial Blast Cleaned surface, when viewed without magnification, shall be free of all visible oil, grease, dirt, dust, mill scale, rust, paint, oxides, corrosion products, and other foreign matter, except for staining. Staining shall be limited to no more than 33 percent (33%) of each square inch of surface area and may consist of light shadows, slight streaks, or minor discoloration caused by stains of rust, stains of mill scale, or stains of previously applied paint. Before blast cleaning, visible deposits of oil or grease shall be removed by any of the methods specified in SSPC-SP1 or other agreed upon methods. 13 Power Tool Cleaning to Bare Metal, SSPC-SP11 Metallic surfaces that are prepared according to this specification, when viewed without magnification, shall be free of all visible oil, grease, dirt, dust, mill scale, rust, paint, oxide corrosion products, and other foreign matter. Slight residues of rust and paint may be left in the lower portions of pits if the original surface is pitted. Prior to power tool surface preparation, remove visible deposits of oil or grease by any of the methods specified in SSPC-SP1, Solvent Cleaning, or other agreed upon methods. 14 Water Blasting, NACE Standard RP-01-72 Removal of oil grease dirt, loose rust, loose mill scale, and loose paint by water at pressures of 2,000 to 2,500 psi at a flow of 4 to 14 gallons per minute. 15 Wood Must be clean and dry. Knots and pitch streaks must be scraped, sanded, and spot primed before a full priming coat is applied. Patch all nail holes and imperfections with a wood filler or putty and sand smooth. 3.3 INSTALLATION A Apply all coatings and materials with the manufacturer’s specifications in mind. Mix and thin coatings according to manufacturer’s recommendation. B Do not apply to wet or damp surfaces. 1 Wait at least 30 days before applying to new concrete or masonry. Or follow manufacturer’s procedures to apply appropriate coatings prior to 30 days. 2 Test new concrete for moisture content. 3 Wait until wood is fully dry C Apply coatings using methods recommended by manufacturer. D Uniformly apply coatings without runs, drips, or sags, without brush marks, and with consistent sheen. E Apply coatings at spreading rate required to achieve the manufacturer’s recommended dry film thickness. F Regardless of number of coats specified, apply as many coats as necessary for complete hide. G Inspection: The coated surface must be inspected and approved by the Architect or Engineer just prior to the application of each coat. CDPH v1.1-2010 & V1.2-2017 Product names, logos, brands and other trademarks are the property of their respective trademark holders. 24 3.4 PROTECTION A Protect finished coatings from damage until completion of project. B Touch-up damaged coatings after substantial completion, following manufacture's recommendation for touch up or repair of damaged coatings. Repair any defects that will hinder the performance of the coatings. 3.5 SCHEDULES Specifier Note: Cut and paste the coatings system schedule here (specified in section 2.3 INTERIOR PAINT SCHEDULE), otherwise delete this section. END OF SECTION011312018 Product names, logos, brands and other trademarks are the property of their respective trademark holders. CDPH v1.1-2010 & V1.2-2017 Product names, logos, brands and other trademarks are the property of their respective trademark holders. 25 The products listed on this page have been independently certified by UL Environment in accordance with “UL 2818 – GREENGUARD Certification Program for Chemical Emissions for Building Materials, Finishes and Furnishings, ” and/or comply with California Department of Public Health “Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions from Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers, Version 1.1” (CA Section 01350) &V1.2-2017. For more information, see https://spot.ulprospector.com. PRODUCTS GREENGUARD Gold CDPH (CA01350) Method V1.1-2010 ArmorSeal 8100 B70-8100/8160 Series Certified YES ColorCast Ecotoners™ Certified YES Drywall Primer, B28W08150 Certified YES EcoSelect Interior Flat, Eg-Shel, Semi-Gloss, A21, A22 & A20 Series Certified YES Emerald® Interior Flat & Matte, K35 & K36 Series Certified YES Emerald® Interior Satin & Semi-Gloss K37 & K38 Series Certified YES Eminence™ Ceiling Paint, A27 Certified YES Extreme Bond™ Bonding Primer, B51W150 Certified YES Harmony® Interior Latex Flat, Eg-Shel & Semi-Gloss B5, B9 & B10 Series Certified YES Harmony® Interior Latex Primer, B11 Certified YES Loxon® Conditioner A24-1100 Series Certified YES Loxon® Concrete & Masonry Primer Certified YES Multi-Purpose Latex Primer, B51-450 series Certified YES Multi-Purpose Waterbased Acrylic-Alkyd Primer, B79W450 Certified YES Paint Shield® Microbicidal Paint, D12W51 Certified YES PrepRite® ProBlock® Latex Primer, B51-620 Series Certified YES ProMar® 200 HP Zero VOC Interior Acrylic Eg-Shel, B20-1950 Series Certified YES ProMar® 200 HP Zero VOC Interior Acrylic Low Gloss Eg-Shel, B41-1950 Series Certified YES ProMar® 200 Zero VOC Interior Latex Eg-Shel, B20-2600 &12600 Series Certified YES ProMar® 200 Zero VOC Interior Latex Flat, B30-2600/12600 Series Certified YES ProMar® 200 Zero VOC Interior Latex Low Gloss Eg-Shel, B41-2600 Series Certified YES ProMar® 200 Zero VOC Interior Latex Low Sheen, B24-2600 Series Certified YES ProMar® 200 Zero VOC Interior Latex Semi-Gloss, B31-2600 Series Certified YES ProMar® 200 Zero VOC Interior Latex Gloss, B21-12600 Series Certified YES ProMar® 200 Zero VOC Primer, B28W2600 Certified YES ProMar® 400 Zero VOC Interior Latex Eg-Shel, B20-4600 Series Certified YES ProMar® 400 Zero VOC Interior Latex Flat, B30-4600 Series Certified YES ProMar® 400 Zero VOC Interior Latex Low Sheen, B24-4600 Series Certified YES ProMar® 400 Zero VOC Interior Latex Semi-Gloss, B31-4600 Series Certified YES ProMar® 400 Zero VOC Interior Latex Gloss, B21-4650 Series Certified YES ProMar® 400 Zero VOC Primer, B28W4600 Certified YES ProMar Ceiling Paint, A27W5050 Certified YES Pro Industrial™ Acrylic, Gloss, Semi-Gloss & Eg-Shel, B66-600 Series Certified YES Pro Industrial™ DTM Primer/Finish, B66-11 Certified YES Pro Industrial™ Heavy Duty Block Filler, B42W00150 Certified YES Pro Industrial™ Pro-Cryl® Universal Primer Off White, Medium Grey & Red Oxide B66-1300/1320 Series Certified YES Pro Industrial™ Water Based Catalyzed Epoxy, B73-300 Series Certified YES Quick Dry Stain Blocking Primer, B51W8670 Certified YES Solo® Interior/Exterior Flat, Eg-Shel, Satin, Semi-Gloss & Gloss, A74, A75, A73, A76 & A77-51 Series Certified YES Tuff Surface™ Knock Down Flat & Eg-Shel Texture, A44W50 Certified YES Water Blocking Primer/Finish, B72W8010 Certified YES Waterborne Acrylic DryFall -Eg-Shel White, B42W82 NO YES Waterborne Acrylic DryFall -Flat White, B42W181 NO YES Waterborne Acrylic DryFall -Semi-Gloss White, B42W83 NO YES PrepRite ProMar Block Filler B25W25 NO YES EXHIBIT F 3/22/2020 LEED & Other Green Specifications - Sherwin-Williams https://www.sherwin-williams.com/home-builders/specifications/progs-and-voc-regs/leed-and-other-green-specifications 1/1 Green Programs Specifications Below are Finishing Schedules furnished as a guide for specifying paint and coating systems for green programs. These specifications are written in CSI format and can be included in their entirety, or selectively, in a master specification. As with any standard specifications, they should be reviewed by the Specifier and edited to suit the particular needs of a given project and its respective location. Specifications Documents: (Save the .zip or .sit to your computer, then extract the Word document to view or edit.) On a mobile device? You'll need to download a file extractor to unzip and view specifications documents. Examples include Zip File Viewer for iPhone. Astro File Manager for Andriod and FileScoutLight for Blackberry. Green Programs Specifications These specification guides include Sherwin-Williams products that contributes toward satisfying the criteria under the credit category designated below. 09 91 23 LEED v4 & v4.1 BD&C Building Design and Construction Contributes toward satisfying Indoor Environmental Quality EQ Credit: Low-Emitting Material PDF - 134KB | DOC - 232KB 09 91 23 Green Globes for New Construction (NC) v1.45 Contributes toward satisfying 3.7.2.1.3 Volatile Organic Compounds PDF - 121KB | DOC - 224KB 09 91 23 CDPH v1.1-2010 & v1.2-2017 California Department of Health Services "Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions from Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers, Version 1.1" (CA Section 01350) & V1.2-2017 PDF - 113KB | DOC - 227KB 09 91 23 NGBS National Green Building Standard™ ICC/ASHRAE 700-2015 Contributes toward satisfying 901.9 Interior Architectural Coatings PDF - 114KB | DOC - 223KB This site uses cookies and other tracking technologies to improve your browsing experience, analyze site traffic, and improve our marketing efforts. See our Privacy Policy for more information on these technologies. OK Privacy Settings EXHIBIT G your guide to Low- and Zero-VoC Paints From Better Homes and Gardens® magazine ComPany Paint CoLLeCtion(s)VoC Content (grams per liter) aPProximate PriCe (per gallon) for more information afm - american formulating and manufacturing Safecoat 0 $32–$42 800/239-0321; afmsafecoat.com akzonobel decora- tive Paints Us The Freshaire Choice 0 $35–$38, only at Home Depot 866/880-0304; thefreshairechoice.com anna sova Luxury organics Anna Sova Healthy Paint 0 $69 214/742-7682; annasova.com BeHr Process Corp. BEHR Premium Plus Interior <50 $28 877/237-6158; behr.com Benjamin moore & Co. Aura <50 $55 888/262-6567; myaurapaint.com Bioshield Paints Solvent Free Wall Paint; Casein Milk Paint; Clay Paint; Kinder Paint 0 (in each collection) $35–42; $35 for 1.5 gallons; $42; $42 800/621-2591; bioshieldpaint.com devine Color Devine Color; devinegreen <50; 1.4 $38–$40, $40 503/387-5840; devinecolor.com dunn-edwards EcoShield (flat, low sheen, semigloss); Walltone latex (flat); Decovel latex (flat); Suprema latex (low sheen) From <8 to 50, depending on collection & sheen $34–48, $28; $35; $41 dunnedwards.com duron Paints & wallcoverings Genesis Odor-Free 10–44, depending on sheen $37–$41 800/723-8766; duron.com dutch Boy Clarity Interior Latex; Kid’s Room 0; 5–32 $25–$29; from $21 800/828-5669; dutchboy.com eco-trend Corp.Eco-Trend Collagen 0 $32–$35 888/889-5925; ecotrendlife.com farrow & Ball Estate Emulsion (flat); Modern Emulsion (slight sheen); Water-Based Eggshell 0 (in each collection) $70; $78; $88 888/511-1121; farrow-ball.com Glidden Evermore <50 $17–$23 800/454-3336; glidden.com Emitted from paint as potentially harmful gases, volatile organic compounds, or VOCs, are a hot—and rather complicated— topic when it comes to indoor air quality. Manufacturers have developed paints with reduced VOCs to meet consumer demand and industry regulations, which vary across the country. Not surprisingly, paint comes in many shades of green. To compare, start with the VOC content found on paint can labels. The lower the number, the better. The number generally accepted for a low-VOC paint is less than 50 grams per liter; a zero-VOC paint has fewer than 5 grams per liter. In general, lower VOC amounts are found in paint that is latex (rather than alkyd), with a flat (rather than glossy) sheen, and is a light color, but individual formula variations can make it difficult to com- pare. In all cases, though, VOC amounts on labels don’t currently include VOCs in colorants added at the store. For independent certifications and standards, see greenseal.org and greenguard .org (which measures VOC emissions). Use this chart to help you compare your options. Only companies with verified information on paint that has a VOC content of 50 grams per liter or less are included. Information is subject to change; be sure to check each manufacturer’s Web site for the most current information. ComPany Paint CoLLeCtion(s)VoC Content (grams per liter) aPProximate PriCe (per gallon) for more information Green Planet Paints Clay Paint 0 $42–$46 greenplanetpaints.com Hirshfield’s Preserve Paint <50 $24–25 hirshfields.com Homestead House Paint Co. VOC Free Interior Edition Latex 0 $60 877/886-5098; homesteadhouse.ca mcCormick Paints Natural Odor Free; Match Point Interior Latex (flat); Tempo Interior (flat) <5; <50; <50 $34–$39; $23–$25; $30–$33 877/724-6855; mccormickpaints.com miller Paint Co.Acro Pure 0 $27–$30 800/852-3254; millerpaint.com mythic Paint Mythic Paint 0 $45–$55 888/714-9422; mythicpaint.com the old fashioned milk Paint Co. Old Fashioned Milk Paint; SafePaint 0 (in both collections) $46; $46 866/350-6455; milkpaint.com olympic Paint & stain Olympic Premium Interior 0 from $17, only at Lowe’s 800/441-9695; olympic.com Parker Paint mfg. Co. Klean Air (flat, satin, semigloss)5 $41–$44 253/473-1122; parkerpaint.com PPG/Pittsburgh Paints Pure Performance; Manor Hall Timeless Interior 0; <50 $25–$30; $35–$45 pittsburghpaints.com Pratt & Lambert Red Seal Porcelain 35.8–48.5 $29–$34 800/289-7728; prattandlambert.com the real milk Paint Co. Real Milk Paint 0 $46 800/339-9748; realmilkpaint.com rodda Paint Co.Horizon 0 $28–$37 800/452-2315; roddapaint.com sherwin-williams Harmony Interior Latex; Duration Home Interior Latex (satin) 0; 17 from $36; from $43 800/474-3794; sherwin-williams.com sico, inc.Sico Design 0 $49 800/463-7426; sico.ca Vista Paint Earth Coat latex (flat, eggshell, semigloss); Carefree acrylic (flat and semigloss) 2–7; 44–49 $24–$28; $28–$37 714/680-3800; vistapaint.com yoLo Colorhouse YOLO Colorhouse Inside 0 $40 877/493-8275; yolocolorhouse.com ©Copyright Meredith Corporation 2008. ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 3. Response to Comments Page 3-640 April 2021 O1. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM THE ATTORNEYS FOR THE SOUTHWEST REGIONAL COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS, MARCH 23, 2020. O1-1 This introductory comment provides a brief summary of the proposed project and introduces the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters (Southwest Carpenters). The commenter states that the Southwest Carpenters reserves the right to supplement these comments at or before hearings on the project, incorporates by reference all comments raising issues regarding the Draft EIR, and requests notification of all future notices issued under CEQA regarding the project. This comment is acknowledged and the City will send all future CEQA notices regarding the proposed project to the Southwest Carpenters. O1-2 The commenter provides a general background on CEQA and the purpose of EIRs. No further response is required as part of the CEQA process/CEQA response to comments. O1-3 The commenter states that the Draft EIR does not describe the project’s requested entitlements. In addition to the listing of discretionary actions detailed in Section 3.5, Intended Uses of the EIR, of the Draft EIR, all requested City discretionary actions are specifically described as follows: General Plan Amendment (Draft EIR page 3-7), Zone Change (Draft EIR page 3-7), Specific Plan (Draft EIR pages 3-7 through 3-21), Master Plan (Draft EIR pages 3-22 through 3-26), Development Agreement (Draft EIR page 3-26), Tentative Tract Map (Draft EIR page 3-26), Tree Removal Permit (Draft EIR page 3- 26), and Public Art Plan (Draft EIR page 3-13). Additional discretionary approvals from responsible agencies are also listed under Draft EIR Section 3.5, Intended Uses of the EIR. These approvals are discussed in the appropriate sections of the Draft EIR. For example, the issuance of a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit is discussed in Draft EIR Section 5.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, and approval of proposed sewer improvements by the Orange County Sanitation District and Costa Mesa Sanitary District are discussed in Draft EIR Section 5.15, Utilities and Service Systems. The commenter also states that the list is non-exhaustive and are in addition to “non-descript” ministerial actions. CEQA Guidelines Section 15124(d)(1) states that the project description is required to include a brief statement describing the intended uses of the EIR, to the extent that the information is known to the Lead Agency. The listed agencies, permits, and approvals in the Draft EIR are those known to the City of Costa Mesa at this time and thus, meet the requirement under CEQA Guidelines Section 15124(d)(1). O1-4 The commenter states that an EIR must describe all feasible mitigation measures to reduce a project’s potentially significant impacts and that a statement of overriding considerations is required should a project result in significant and unavoidable impacts. This comment is noted; no further response is required as part of the CEQA process/CEQA response to comments. O1-5 The commenter states that the Draft EIR does not mitigate the project’s significant and unavoidable GHG emissions, and the Draft EIR must analyze the effectiveness and feasibility of several GHG mitigation measures proposed by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association’s Quantifying ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 3. Response to Comments Page 3-641 April 2021 Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures: A Resource for Local Government to Assess Emission Reductions from Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures (CAPCOA Report), dated August 2010. The proposed project includes project design features that would reduce GHG emissions by reducing energy and water use, increasing electric vehicle use, and reducing vehicle miles traveled by encouraging alternative transportation modes and ridesharing. These project design features are included in the CAPCOA Report and are consistent with the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen), the latest 2019 Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, and the California Climate Change Scoping Plan. In addition, because of the project’s urban infill location, its access to public transportation within a quarter mile of the project site, and its proximity to other destinations including off-site residential, restaurants, and retail, the project-generated vehicle miles traveled and associated GHG emissions would be reduced. Mitigation Measures GHG-1 and GHG-2 would further incentivize the use of electric vehicles and reduce GHG emissions. With the implementation of the project design features and mitigation measures, the proposed project has included all the feasible on- site measures. The commenter also suggests further reducing GHG emissions by undertaking off-site mitigation measures or obtaining GHG emission credits. Off-site mitigation measures and GHG emissions credits are not feasible. The majority of the project’s GHG emissions would be generated from tail pipe emissions (i.e., mobile sources). However, all California-based refineries are subject to the State’s Cap-and-Trade Program and the project would “double count” if offset mitigation credits were utilized. Additionally, the primary market for GHG offset mitigation in California is the State’s Cap- and-Trade Program; thus, the majority of offsets in California are specifically designed for the “compliance offsets” market and are not available for project-level CEQA mitigation. To meet the additional requirements under CEQA, GHG offsets must come from the Voluntary Offset Program. Currently, there is insufficient voluntary offsets in the State to satisfy CEQA demand and is cost prohibitive. Lastly, Forward Mitigation Units (FMUs) are available, but FMUs go towards future programs that implement GHG reductions and are not tied to offsetting emissions associated with a specific project (i.e., the proposed project). Therefore, that additional off-site mitigation is infeasible. O1-6 The commenter states that the Draft EIR failed to discuss all feasible air quality mitigation measures. Specifically, the commenter suggests that the Draft EIR should discuss the infeasibility of using Tier 4 construction equipment. As stated on Draft EIR page 5.2-32, “Mitigation Measure AIR-1 would require the construction contractor to utilize newer, Tier 3, construction equipment fitted with Level 2 diesel particulate filters (DPF), which would reduce NOX and PM emissions.” Further, as shown on Draft EIR page 5.2-33, the project’s construction-related nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate matter (i.e., PM10 and PM2.5) emissions would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-1. Therefore, additional mitigation measures that would provide more stringent requirements as suggested by the commenter are not required. The commenter also suggests that the Draft EIR should discuss the infeasibility of using “Zero VOC” paints (i.e., coatings with less than 5 grams of VOC per liter). As stated above in response to comment A5-2, proposed modifications to the project’s construction phasing schedule would reduce VOC ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 3. Response to Comments Page 3-642 April 2021 emissions to below SCAQMD’s regional threshold and thus, no mitigation would be required. Further, the use of “Zero VOC” paints (i.e., coatings with less than 5 grams of VOC per liter) is not feasible because these paints are limited to brush-type application rather than spray and it would not be feasible to paint all of the project’s proposed buildings and structures by brush. O1-7 According to the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), dry-land farming is the practice of growing a crop without irrigation.1 Many dry-land farming fields are not treated with pesticides or infrequently treated, since the lack of water does not provide a desirable habitat for most agricultural pests. Properties that clearly qualify as dry-land farming do not need further investigation for pesticides or metals. Thus, within the scope of the ASTM International (ASTM) E 1527-13 Standard Practice, it is reasonable for the Environmental Professional to determine that past on-site dry farming practices would not result in Recognized Environmental Condition (REC). Regarding the past use by Nissan Motor Corporation, the Phase I ESA was performed in general accordance with ASTM E 1527-13, which included agency record requests, reviewing owner and client questionnaires/interviews, Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) database records search, and performing a site reconnaissance. Based on data to date and the opinion of the Environmental Professional (defined by ASTM E 1527-13), there is no evidentiary basis pertaining to the Nissan Motor Corporation being considered a REC at the project site. According to the Phase I ESA (Appendix G, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report, of the Draft EIR), an oil-interceptor was removed from the project site in November 2010. No evidence of a release was noted in the report. At the time of removal, one soil sample was collected beneath the oil- interceptor, which indicated that total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were less than the reporting limits (non-detect). Additionally, metal concentrations in the sample were less than concentrations typical for Southern California soils. Reportedly, the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) oversaw the backfilling and capping of the interceptor and associated floor drains. Based on the size of the oil-interceptor, laboratory test results, and lack of inclusion on any release-related environmental databases reviewed, conditions related to the removal of this oil-interceptor do not suggest conditions that would be likely to have caused an adverse environmental impact at the project site. Based on this information, it is the opinion of the Environmental Professional (defined by ASTM E 1527-13) that site conditions related to the removal of the oil-interceptor do not cause a REC at the project site. The City’s experts disagree with the commentator. Notwithstanding, while no RECs were identified, Section 5.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the Draft EIR acknowledged that the historical uses of the project site could have resulted in limited soil contamination of hazardous substance and/or petroleum products. Therefore, excavation and grading activities could encounter releases of hazardous substances and/or petroleum products. Implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2 would ensure the safe handling of any 1 Department of Toxic Substances Control, Interim Guidance for Sampling Agricultural properties (Third Revision), August 7, 2008. ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 3. Response to Comments Page 3-643 April 2021 suspicious soil or unknown features (including potential contaminated soils from historic agricultural uses) that may be encountered during grading activities. If encountered, these areas of concern would be assessed by a qualified environmental professional and handled per the requirements of the Soil Management Plan and its performance criteria as outlined in Mitigation Measure HAZ-1. Overall, the project’s use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials or reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment would be required to conform to existing laws and regulations and project-specific mitigation measures (refer to PPP HAZ-1 and PPP HAZ-2 and Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2). Compliance with applicable laws and regulations governing the use, storage, transportation, and disposal of hazardous materials would ensure all potentially hazardous materials are used and handled in an appropriate manner and would minimize the potential for safety impacts. O1-8 The commenter requests that the City revise and recirculate the Draft EIR to address the issues raised in the comment letter. CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 requires a Lead Agency to “recirculate an EIR when significant new information is added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the Draft EIR for public review under Section 15087 but before certification. New information added to an EIR is not ‘significant’ unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the project’s proponents have declined to implement.” This comment letter and responses to the comments in this letter do not identify any significant new information requiring recirculation. As such, recirculation of the Draft EIR is not required. ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 3. Response to Comments Page 3-647 April 2021 O2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM MESA VERDE COMMUNITY INC., MARCH 20, 2020. O2-1 This introductory comment from the Mesa Verde Community Inc. generally opposes development of the project, and prefers the No Project/No Development Alternative considered in the Draft EIR, based on the significant and unavoidable impacts related to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and transportation, and the need for multiple amendments to the City of Costa Mesa General Plan (General Plan). Reponses to specific comments within this letter are provided below. It should be noted that proposed modifications to the project detailed in Chapter 2 of this Final EIR would eliminate the project’s significant and unavoidable impacts related to air quality. O2-2 The commenter is concerned the proposed buildings would dominate views looking north towards the project site from the Mesa Verde neighborhood located south of the I-405 Freeway. Building A (nearest the Mesa Verde neighborhood, greater than 200 feet away) would have a maximum building height of six stories; Buildings B and C would have maximum building heights of seven stories; and the Creative Office Building would have a maximum building height of three stories. Private views, as seen from the Mesa Verde neighborhood are not public scenic vistas. Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, in urbanized areas, consideration of the project’s potential to conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality were considered, including building heights. As detailed in Draft EIR Section 5.1, Aesthetics, Impact 5.1-1, Operations, the proposed Specific Plan’s design and development standards would regulate the project’s building height. Specific development standards and design guidelines are proposed for site design, building architecture (including articulation), and landscaping that would soften the structural appearance of the proposed buildings and provide a unified appearance for the overall development. As detailed in Draft EIR Table 5.1-1, Project Consistency with the Costa Mesa General Plan, the proposed project would be consistent with relevant General Plan goals, objectives, and policies pertaining to scenic quality (including consideration of proposed building heights as applicable). Impacts regarding the potential to conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality were determined to be less than significant. O2-3 The commenter does not believe the Reduced Development Intensity Alternative is a viable project alternative given that the alternative would eliminate many of the project’s open space and recreational amenities. Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a), “an EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives.” The Reduced Development Intensity Alternative was selected to avoid or substantially lessen the proposed project’s significant unavoidable impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions and transportation. By reducing the number of residential units by 20 percent while still maintaining a proportional number as affordable units, many of the public amenities would need to be reduced or eliminated to make the alternative feasible to construct. As such, this alternative is a reasonable and feasible alternative to analyze in Chapter 7, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR. ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 3. Response to Comments Page 3-648 April 2021 O2-4 The commenter states that the project’s proposed Zone Change and General Plan Amendment would not be beneficial to the residents of Costa Mesa. The environmental impacts of the proposed discretionary actions are analyzed in Draft EIR Section 5.9, Land Use and Planning. This comment is a general opposition to the requested entitlements and thus, is not related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis. No additional response is required as part of the CEQA process/CEQA response to comments. The comment has been provided to the City decisionmakers for consideration. O2-5 The commenter suggests that any roadway intersections currently operating at level of service (LOS) F during peak periods that would be further impacted by the proposed project would be a significant impact. As defined in Section 5.13, Transportation, of the Draft EIR, a project would have a significant impact at a signalized intersection if the project causes the LOS at an intersection to deteriorate from D to E or F, or if an intersection already operates at LOS E or F and the project contributes to a volume-to-capacity ratio greater than 0.01. As for unsignalized intersections, a project is considered to have a significant impact if the project causes the LOS at an intersection to deteriorate from D to E or F, or if an intersection already operates at LOS E or F and the project contributes to the existing deficiency. The Traffic Impact Analysis analyzes the project’s incremental impact on each study area intersection based on each intersection’s LOS under existing conditions. Therefore, while an intersection may operate at a LOS F under future short-term (2027) cumulative plus project or General Plan buildout (2040) plus project conditions, the project would not result in a potentially significant impact if the aforementioned thresholds for signalized and unsignalized intersections are not met. It should be noted that the commenter is correct in stating that the Draft EIR concluded significant and unavoidable impacts regarding transportation. The significant and unavoidable impacts are related to Study Intersection No. 18 (Susan Street/South Coast Drive), Study Intersection No. 28 (Talbert Avenue/Mt. Washington Street), twelve freeway segments and ramps, and increased office-related vehicle miles traveled (VMT); refer to Draft EIR Chapter 6, Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts. The City of Costa Mesa would be required to make a Statement of Overriding Considerations pertaining to the project’s significant and unavoidable transportation impacts in order to approve the project. O2-6 The commenter states that the project would be consistent with all applicable General Plan goals and policies with the exception of Policies LU-1.3, C-3.1, C-3.8, and GM-2.5; refer to Draft EIR Table 5.9- 1, Project Consistency with General Plan. Policy LU-1.3 encourages residential development and owner- occupied housing to improve the balance between rental and ownership housing opportunities within the City. This policy is not related to the environmental effects of the proposed project. In other words, project consistency or inconsistency with Policy LU-1.3 would not result in any difference in terms of the project’s physical environmental impacts under CEQA. Policies C-3.1, C-3.8, and GM-2.5 are related to the project’s consistency with established LOS standards and potential to provide economic growth without adversely impacting the City’s circulation system. The project’s exceedance of established LOS standards and impacts on the City’s existing circulation system are fully analyzed in Draft EIR Section 5.13, Transportation. ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 3. Response to Comments Page 3-649 April 2021 It should also be noted that the General Plan includes hundreds of goals and policies, including some goals and policies which are competing policy interests. An EIR need not find that a project is consistent with each and every goal and policy in the General Plan. Rather, the City finds that although the project would be inconsistent with four General Plan policies, the project is consistent with the vast majority of applicable General Plan goals and policies and thus, finds that the project is consistent with the General Plan overall. As such, impacts would be less than significant as stated in the Draft EIR. O2-7 The commenter states that the proposed 1.5-acre open space is less than required by the General Plan and is eliminated from the Reduced Development Intensity Alternative. As detailed in Section 5.12, Public Services and Recreation, of the Draft EIR, the City has a goal to maintain a parkland standard of 4.26 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. The project would need to provide 12.29 acres of parkland to meet this goal. This goal is implemented through the Municipal Code requirements for compliance with the Quimby Act and payment of park impact fees. The City requires the payment of a park impact fee to meet the parkland requirement (see PPP PS-1). The project would pay the entire park impact fee, as documented through the Development Agreement, thereby satisfying the City’s parkland requirement. Payment of park impact fees is adequate mitigation for purposes of CEQA compliance. Beyond satisfying the City’s park impact requirements, the project proposes to provide a 1.5-acre open space area and bicycle trail amenities, which would be permanently accessible to the public, as well as private, on-site amenities for project residents. The commenter is correct in stating that the Reduced Development Intensity Alternative would eliminate the 1.5-acre open space and several pedestrian and bicycle amenities. The impacts of the reduced parkland and recreational amenities are fully addressed in Draft EIR Chapter 7, Alternatives. Dedication of parkland and/or payment of parkland fees would also apply to the Reduced Development Intensity Alternative. O2-8 The commenter questions why Sakura Paper Factory is not discussed in the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) and Section 5.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the Draft EIR. As described in the Phase I ESA (Appendix G, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report, of the Draft EIR), the existing on-site building (Assessor’s Parcel Number 139-031-62; 1683 Sunflower Avenue) consists of a one-story concrete tilt-up commercial building currently used as a commercial warehouse for three tenants). It is acknowledged that portions of the building are vacated, including the former Sakura Paper Factory, which has moved offices to the City of Cypress and no longer operates in the existing industrial building on-site. Based on the Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) database records search, no listings pertaining to Sakura Paper Factory were found. No reported releases of hazardous materials were reported and, other than Nissan North America, no reported listings for the storage of hazardous materials were reported on-site. Based on files requested from the Costa Mesa Fire Department, South Coast Air Quality Management District, and Orange County Health Care Agency, as well as online searches of databases maintained by the Department of Toxic Substances Control and the State Water Resources Control Board, no records pertaining to the former Sakura Paper Factory were noted. At the time of site reconnaissance, Sakura Paper Factory had vacated the premises. Regarding interviews, conducted as part of the Phase I ESA, per the ASTM International (ASTM) E ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 3. Response to Comments Page 3-650 April 2021 1527-13 Standard Practice, interviews with the “User” of the Phase I ESA (the applicant representative for Rose Equities), as well as the current property owner, Mr. Kurt Bruggeman with Lee & Associates were conducted. Although Mr. Bruggeman has only owned the property since December 2013, he has past knowledge of the project site, including past improvements as far back as 1975. No pertinent information regarding Sakura Paper Factory was reported as part of interviews with Mr. Bruggeman. According to the Environmental Professional, the Phase I ESA identified no evidence of RECs in connection with Sakura Paper Factory, pursuant to ASTM E 1527-13 Standard Practice, and no additional environmental assessment is warranted at this time. Notwithstanding, Section 5.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the Draft EIR acknowledged that the historical uses of the project site could have resulted in limited soil contamination of hazardous substance and/or petroleum products. Therefore, excavation and grading activities could encounter releases of hazardous substances and/or petroleum products. Implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2 would ensure the safe handling of any suspicious soil or unknown features (including potential contaminated soils from historic agricultural uses) that may be encountered during grading activities. If encountered, these areas of concern would be assessed by a qualified environmental professional and handled per the requirements of the Soil Management Plan and its performance criteria as outlined in Mitigation Measure HAZ-1. Overall, the project’s use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials or reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment would be required to conform to existing laws and regulations and project-specific mitigation measures (refer to PPP HAZ-1 and PPP HAZ-2 and Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2). Compliance with applicable laws and regulations governing the use, storage, transportation, and disposal of hazardous materials would ensure all potentially hazardous materials are used and handled in an appropriate manner and would minimize the potential for safety impacts. It is acknowledged that the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) provided a letter, dated June 13, 2019 as part of the public review period for the Notice of Preparation (provided in Appendix B, NOP Comments, of the Draft EIR). At this time, the DTSC stated: “In addition to the current use of the site by Sakura paper Inc., the EIR should identify and determine whether historic uses at the project site may have resulted in any release of hazardous wastes/substances.” As requested by the DTSC, a Phase I ESA was included as part of the Draft EIR to determine whether historic uses at the project site may have resulted in any release of hazardous wastes/substances pursuant to ASTM E 1527-13 Standard Practice, as discussed above. It is further acknowledged that the DTSC received the Draft EIR and did not provide a comment letter disagreeing with the Draft EIR. O2-9 The commenter states that the Phase I ESA should be rejected due to a conflict of interest, as information regarding past and current uses of the property were provided by Rose Equities (the applicant). As discussed in response to comment O2-8, per the ASTM E 1527-13 Standard Practice, interviews should be conducted with the “User” of the Phase I ESA (in this case the applicant Rose Equities), and the current and past property owner(s) as available. In addition to the applicant representative for Rose Equities, Mr. Kurt Bruggeman with Lee & Associates (the current property ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 3. Response to Comments Page 3-651 April 2021 owner) was also interviewed. Although Mr. Bruggeman has only owned the property since December 2013, he has past knowledge of the project site, including past improvements as far back as 1975. It is further acknowledged that the applicant-provided Phase I ESA was also reviewed by a third-party (Roux Associates), a subconsultant to Michael Baker international, contracted by the City of Costa Mesa, which concurred with the results of the Phase I ESA. VIA EMAIL ONLY City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 COSTA MESA womtV\.fj for~ Liv~bLe Gttlj March 23, 2020 Re: Comments to Draft Environmental Impact Report prepared in connection with the One Metro West Project Ladies and Gentlemen: The following are our comments with respect to the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the One Metro West Project ("OMW"), which we request be made part of the public record: Housing The unavailability of suitable affordable housing for employees has proven to be a problem in the past for businesses because it makes it difficult to retain skilled employees. While most of OMW is market-rate housing, the proposed minimum of 105 units of affordable housing will provide some of the much-needed workforce housing in Costa Mesa. If Rose Equities (the "Developer") could include more affordable units in OMW, the business community and their employees would benefit, particularly in light of the effects of the novel coronavirus on the economy. In addition, it is important that the City be able to use those affordable units to satisfy a portion of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation. However, it is also important that the City adopt an inclusionary housing ordinance for all future projects, and we look forward to seeing a draft ordinance soon. Traffic Mitigation and Recommended Improvements Since the project is mixed-use, the office, retail and recreational amenities, along with the facilities at the SoCo center next door, will alleviate some of the need for OMW's residents to travel for products and services. The mitigation of the impacts of motor vehicle traffic is important because nearby projects, specifically The Press and the 405 freeway widening project, Costa Mesa First (FPPC 1332564), P.O. Box 2282, Costa Mesa, CA 92628 costamesa 1 st@gmail.com cos ta mesa 1st. com (714) 549-5884 City of Costa Mesa March 23, 2020 Page2 are not alleviating traffic impacts in the area, although the developer of The Press has reluctantly agreed to install an off-street multiuser trail replacing or adjacent to the existing spur track on its property. In contrast, the Developer will enhance nearby bicycle and pedestrian facilities by installing upgraded paths and sidewalks and will contribute its fair share to implement recommended traffic signal improvements. It is noted that the 405 freeway project will cause the level of service at nearby freeway offramps to deteriorate, but that is not an impact caused by OMW, but rather OCTA and Caltrans' failure to recognize that widening does nothing to decrease the number of freeway users and only increases motor vehicle traffic on local streets. Parkland The one and one-half acres of open space that would be built and maintained by the Developer, and open to the general public, would be a unique opportunity for the City to start satisfying its goal of providing 4.26 acres of parkland per 1,000 persons. The City's General Plan assumes that at build-out the City would have a population of 131,690 residents; therefore, 561 acres would need to be acquired to achieve the .City's goal. Because there is a paucity of vacant land within the City, it could be reasonably assumed that the acquisition of 561 acres of parkland would not be feasible. However, this project's new parkland should not be considered insignificant. 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 and new parkland is a necessary change. We hope the City will identify and purchase additional land as it becomes available and convert those parcels to parks. Noise, Light and Air Pollution While we are concerned the residential component is near the 405 freeway, the buffer of the parking structure will help to lessen the impacts of noise and air pollution on the residents of OMW. It is noted that the Developer has agreed to "exclude the use of moving, flashing, or otherwise visually distracting elements or materials that are highly reflective or generate noise." There is a large concrete divider (the 405 freeway) between OMW and the homes in Mesa Verde, therefore it is unlikely there will be noise, light or other impacts from OMW on that neighborhood. Overall Cohesive Plan for the City The City still needs to develop a vision of an overall cohesive plan for the City for the next 20 years. While OMW creates gathering spots within its project, the City needs to develop specific criteria and direction for that in all new projects. Downtown needs to be developed as a central gathering/entertainment area with true mixed-use housing that encourages people to visit businesses on foot or by bike. Walking needs to be safe and enjoyable everywhere and we need to continue improving bike lanes so that we can avoid automobile trips. The City needs a transit City of Costa Mesa March 23, 2020 Page 3 center or hub in Downtown and/or South Coast Metro. New housing should be true mixed-use that would encourage people to get out of their cars and visit businesses on foot or by bike. Summary While we would like to see more affordable housing and open space in OMW and we are concerned about the cumulative impacts of additional traffic in this area (but believe mitigation efforts and implementation of the recommended improvements by the Developer will decrease OMW's portion of those cumulative impacts), OMW is a project that can be used as a model for other developments because it gives Costa Mesa what it is lacking: affordable housing, parkland and more active transportation facilities. We support Rose Equities' project, including the mitigation efforts contained in the Draft Environmental Impact Report, as it is currently proposed. Thank you for your attention. Very truly yours, ~#1~ ;;::/4~ Cynthia McDonald ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 3. Response to Comments Page 3-655 April 2021 O3. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM COSTA MESA FIRST, MARCH 23, 2020. O3-1 The commenter discusses several topics in regard to the proposed project, including affordable housing; traffic impacts and required improvements; parkland; and noise, light, and air pollution. The commenter encourages the applicant to provide additional affordable housing units beyond what is currently proposed to help meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation and also encourages the City to adopt an inclusionary housing ordinance. Additionally, the commenter supports the proposed bicycle and pedestrian facilities, 1.5-acre open space area, and the required transportation improvements under Mitigation Measures T-1 and T-2. The commenter also acknowledges that noise, light, and air pollution from existing vehicular traffic along the I-405 Freeway on the proposed residences would be buffered by the proposed parking structure. Lastly, the commenter acknowledges that potential lighting impacts from the parking structure façade along the I-405 Freeway would be less than significant upon compliance with Specific Plan development standards, design guidelines, and Caltrans requirements. These comments are not related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis and thus, no further response is required as part of the CEQA process/CEQA response to comments. The comment has been provided to the City decisionmakers for consideration. O3-2 The commenter encourages the City to develop a cohesive plan for Costa Mesa for the next 20 years, including standards requiring public gathering places for new developments and revitalization of the City’s downtown area as a mixed-use entertainment center. The commenter also supports more housing and mixed-use developments and multimodal improvements throughout the City. This comment is not related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis and no further response is required as part of the CEQA process/CEQA response to comments. The comment has been provided to the City decisionmakers for consideration. O3-3 Refer to response to comments O3-1 and O3-2. The commenter generally supports the proposed project; no further response is required as part of the CEQA process/CEQA response to comments. The comment has been provided to the City decisionmakers for consideration. 1 Bogue, Kristen From:ASHABI, MINOO <MINOO.ASHABI@costamesaca.gov> Sent:Tuesday, February 18, 2020 10:07 AM To:HUYNH, NANCY; Bogue, Kristen; LE, JENNIFER Subject:EXTERNAL: FW: One Metro West Housing Project Should I forward them as they come in…or save in a separate folder for Nancy to keep track of? From: Peggy Partnoff <peggypartnoff@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2020 9:08 AM To: OMW Public Comments <OMWPublicComments@costamesaca.gov> Subject: One Metro West Housing Project As a home owner in Mesa Verde and resident of Costa Mesa I want to voice my opposition to the proposed One Metro West Apartment Project submitted by developer Rose Equities of Beverly Hills. The project is much too large in scope for the location and it's significant, unavoidable and problematic effects to the neighborhood, multiple communities and transportation infrastructure is absolutely unacceptable. The Draft EIR determined there will be significant and unavoidable environmental impacts including transportation, noise, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and hydrology and water quality. Not to mention light pollution and it's intrusion into the single family homes in the State streets from it's 24 hour security and parking structure lighting illuminating from 7 stories. Rose Equities has developed several similar high rise apartment developments in neighboring Irvine. The well documented complaints from neighbors, former tenants and current residents of these Rose Equities apartment developments highlight it's reputation for shoddy workmanship of the apartments, poor quality of the materials used, unfulfilled promises of project amenities, unsatisfactory property management and racial profiling in management practices, poor parking design, noise problems, and the lists go on. Nearby neighbors of the projects have been unduly saddled with parking problems, noise, tenant nuisances and poor management of the property tenants. Meanwhile, Rose Equities is long gone.. profits made and neighborhoods changed forever. Explotive profits & politician's ambitions gratified.. all at the expense of the citizens of Costa Mesa. If the City of Irvine could not guarantee their citizens a quality controlled project with Rose Equities why would Costa Mesa believe they would have a different outcome? This is not the right project for the property identified. Rose Equities Development has been given a "pass" to our precious community assets, in exchange for some financial donations to the Bridge Shelter. And who knows what else? I oppose the One Metro West Project as proposed and request the Costa Mesa City Council members to demand a scaled down version that might mitigate the hardships to our communities current and future citizens. Respectfully, Margaret Partnoff 3321 Alabama Circle Costa Mesa ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 3. Response to Comments Page 3-657 April 2021 P1. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM MARGARET PARTNOFF, FEBRUARY 18, 2020. P1-1 The commenter generally opposes the project and states that the project is too large in scope and would result in unacceptable environmental impacts to the neighborhood, multiple communities, and transportation infrastructure facilities. This comment broadly states the project would result in unacceptable environmental impacts however does not identify a specific concern with the adequacy of the Draft EIR or raise an issue or comment specifically related to the Draft EIR’s environmental analysis. Therefore, no further response is required as part of the CEQA process/CEQA response to comments. The comment has been provided to the City decisionmakers for consideration. P1-2 The commenter lists the significant and unavoidable impacts related to the proposed project, including transportation, air quality, and greenhouse gas emissions. However, the commenter incorrectly identifies significant and unavoidable impacts related to hydrology and water quality and noise. As detailed in Section 5.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Section 5.10, Noise, of the Draft EIR, impacts related to hydrology and water quality and noise would be less than significant upon implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval and would not require any mitigation measures. Additionally, it should be noted that proposed modifications to the project detailed in Chapter 2 of this Final EIR would eliminate the project’s significant and unavoidable impacts related to air quality. The commenter also raises concerns regarding the project’s potential light pollution into single-family residences in the “State streets,” located greater than 200 feet to the south of the project site across the Interstate 405 (I-405) Freeway, particularly from the project’s proposed 24-hour security and parking structure lighting. As analyzed in Draft EIR Section 5.1, Aesthetics, the most visible source of lighting of the project site from the residences south of the I-405 Freeway would emanate from exterior lighting on Building A and interior parking structure lighting along the southern edge of the site. Parking structure lighting would be designed to minimize light spillover and installed to concentrate light on pedestrian and vehicle aisles and ramps with spillover lighting adequate to illuminate parking stalls (refer to PPP AES-2). Further, in order to reduce impacts related to light and glare from the parking façade, the One Metro West Specific Plan (Specific Plan) includes development standards which specify project lighting requirements to ensure exterior lighting is shielded and directed downward, or otherwise directed away from off-site properties. The development standards also stipulate that project lighting adjacent to the I-405 Freeway would be required to meet applicable Caltrans standards. An Exterior Lighting Plan would be required, prior to issuance of the first building permit, that identifies and depicts locations, design, types, scale, and illumination power of lighting fixtures, including on all building exteriors and within the open space/trail connection areas. SCA AE- 5 would require preparation of a Lighting Plan and Photometric Study for review and approval by the City’s Development Services Director. The Lighting Plan and Photometric Study would include performance standards to minimize the project’s potential lighting impacts. Mitigation Measure AE-1 would ensure the Lighting Plan and Photometric Study demonstrate compliance with several additional lighting performance measures in order to demonstrate that the project’s lighting meets minimum ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 3. Response to Comments Page 3-658 April 2021 security lighting requirements and minimizes lighting impacts to surrounding uses. With implementation of applicable PPPs, SCAs, and mitigation measures, operational lighting impacts associated with the project would result in less than significant impacts. It should also be noted that the project area includes substantial existing sources of artificial lighting that are typical for an urbanized area, including interior lighting, landscaping lighting, parking lot lighting, security lighting, signage, vehicular lighting, and street lighting, especially along the I-405 Freeway. Additionally, the proposed 24-hour security on-site is related to security cameras and security patrols per SCA PD-58. As detailed, cameras are proposed to be installed in all common areas and hallways, and would be monitored 24 hours per day, seven days a week, at a centralized location by the applicant’s property management team. Further, in the afternoon and through the night, a third-party courtesy patrol would patrol and walk the property. Thus, the proposed 24-hour security would not result in lighting impacts. P1-3 The commenter raises general opposition to the proposed project and the applicant, Rose Equities. The commenter also states that other Rose Equities developments in Orange County, particularly high- rise apartment buildings, were constructed with shoddy workmanship/quality and have noise problems, poor parking designs, and unsatisfactory property management, among other alleged problems. This comment does not identify a specific concern with the adequacy of the Draft EIR or raise an issue or comment specifically related to the Draft EIR analysis. Therefore, no further response is warranted as part of the CEQA process/CEQA response to comments. The comment has been provided to the City decisionmakers for consideration. 1 Bogue, Kristen From:ASHABI, MINOO <MINOO.ASHABI@costamesaca.gov> Sent:Thursday, February 27, 2020 8:38 AM To:HUYNH, NANCY; Bogue, Kristen; Nicole Morse; Brent Stoll (brent@roseequities.com) Subject:EXTERNAL: FW: Letter in Support for the Proposed Metro One West Housing Project - Dennis Ashendorf From: Dennis Ashendorf <outlook_514457AC4BFC670E@outlook.com> On Behalf Of Dennis Ashendorf Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2020 10:58 PM To: ASHABI, MINOO <MINOO.ASHABI@costamesaca.gov> Subject: Letter in Support for the Proposed Metro One West Housing Project ‐ Dennis Ashendorf Ms. Minoo Ashabi Principal Planner City of Costa Mesa Dear Ms. Ashabi, Attractive, modern homes with exceptional integrated landscaping and transportation benefit not only the City of Costa Mesa but also provide young families stakes in our city’s future. A city with a broad base of ages, occupations, and backgrounds stabilizes dynamically. One Metro West will help all of us for many decades. The developments and businesses north of the 405 such as SoCo, The Press, Vans, and the Hive secure a future base for Costa Mesa. They create high paying jobs that support our businesses, schools, and public life; especially if the creative people working here, live here. The first counter-intuitive irony of development is that the more people that live and work in our city, the less traffic we will face. Consider new development not just in Costa Mesa, but around us. If we don’t allow more housing, people will be driving back and forth, end-to-end, through our city, but if people live and work here, the resulting NEW traffic will be more localized. Of course, most new residents may not work in Costa Mesa, but NEW traffic would still be less than NEW traffic without any local new homes. Many people argue against all new development. As someone who has lived in a declining area of great beauty, wealth, and sophistication before, I know far better than most that home prices can decline greatly. Most homes in Costa Mesa are small single stories with prices near one million dollars. These prices will drop if new creative businesses DON’T locate here. The second counter-intuitive irony of homes not sitting on a beach is that if more homes are NOT built, current homes will at first increase in value, then crash. High prices, need high incomes to purchase, but companies cannot locate here if there aren’t homes for new workers. Catch-22 isn’t just a title of a book, but a set of real concerns that cannot be wisely ignored. We need One Metro West; which also strives to be self-contained to minimize its impact on areas south of the 405. We will all be richer as a result, or poorer otherwise. Sincerely yours, Dennis Ashendorf 2 3210 Montana Avenue Costa Mesa, CA 92626 ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 3. Response to Comments Page 3-661 April 2021 P2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM DENNIS ASHENDORF, FEBRUARY 26, 2020. P2-1 The commenter generally supports the proposed project, bringing new homes closer to employment opportunities, and new development in Costa Mesa that can bolster the local economy. The comment is acknowledged and no further response is required as part of the CEQA process/CEQA response to comments. The comment has been provided to the City decisionmakers for consideration. ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 3. Response to Comments Page 3-663 April 2021 P3. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM ARTURO MANAS, FEBRUARY 24, 2020. P3-1 The commenter generally supports the proposed project and new development that can bolster the local economy and introduce more housing in Costa Mesa. The comment is acknowledged and no further response is required as part of the CEQA process/CEQA response to comments. The comment has been provided to the City decisionmakers for consideration. Minoa Ashabi Principal Planner City of Costa Mesa RE: Support for One Metro West Dear Mrs. Ashabi February 28, 2020 As the owners of the Cheese Shop at OC Mix at South Coast Collection (SOCO), we support the One Metro West community proposed next door to SOCO. SOCO is home to more than 70 curated restaurants, showrooms and stores, and has become one of the culinary and cultural jewels of Costa Mesa and Orange County. Many of Southern California's top chefs call SOCO and The OC Mix home. SOCO is a gathering place, drawing foodies and design fans from throughout Costa Mesa and Southern California to our creative enclave north of the 405. With thousands of new jobs coming to our neighborhood, we believe One Metro West will provide a much-needed addition of housing for the creatives and professionals who are some of our most important customers. Our businesses will benefit greatly from having new residents next door to SOCO, an easy walk away. The neighborhood will benefit from the proposed new park at One Metro West, easier access to the Santa Ana River Trail, and improved bikeways and sidewalks making walking and cycling more attractive. Costa Mesa has grown as a city and a community, and we are proud to be a part of that shared success story. We look forward to One Metro West being a part of that story as well. Sia<� Naveed The Cheese Shop South Coast Collection ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 3. Response to Comments Page 3-665 April 2021 P4. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM NAVEED ANWAR, FEBRUARY 28, 2020. P4-1 The commenter generally supports the proposed project and new development in the vicinity of the South Coast Collection (SOCO) that introduces more housing, open space, and multimodal improvements to the area. The comment is acknowledged and no further response is required as part of the CEQA process/CEQA response to comments. The comment has been provided to the City decisionmakers for consideration. 1 HUYNH, NANCY From:ASHABI, MINOO Sent:Friday, February 28, 2020 11:44 AM To:HUYNH, NANCY Subject:FW: OMW Letter of Support Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged From: Michael Gregg <MGregg@shopoff.com> Sent: Friday, February 28, 2020 11:36 AM To: ASHABI, MINOO <MINOO.ASHABI@costamesaca.gov> Subject: OMW Letter of Support Dear Mrs. Ashabi, As a resident of Costa Mesa since 2010, I am writing you in support the proposed One Metro West community. The area of Costa Mesa north of the 405 has long served as the economic engine of the City. However, with its relative lack o f housing, the traffic coming and leaving the area has put a strain on many of our traditional neighborhoods during the peak hours of the day. It was great to see the city’s Environmental Impact Report confirmed that the One Metro West community will serve as an ideal complement to the new and existing jobs north of the 405, drawing impactful traffic away from our nearby neighborhoods. A strong housing policy should be a part of our civic north star. This includes all kind of housing, for-sale and for-rent (both market and affordable). Housing is at the core of so many of society’s issues (transit, global warming, inequity, segregation, economic growth, generational wealth gaps, etc). Having a healthy housing market which reacts appropriately to all this issues is fundamental to the solutions for same. As Costa Mesa looks to the future, ideas like One Metro West are roundly supported by economists and environmentalist alike. For these reasons, I am supportive this plan and community. Sincerely, Michael Gregg 297 23rd Street Costa Mesa, Ca 92627 ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 3. Response to Comments Page 3-667 April 2021 P5. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM MICHAEL GREGG, FEBRUARY 28, 2020. P5-1 The commenter generally supports the proposed project and new development that can bolster the local economy and introduce more housing in Costa Mesa. The comment is acknowledged and no further response is required as part of the CEQA process/CEQA response to comments. The comment has been provided to the City decisionmakers for consideration. ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 3. Response to Comments Page 3-670 April 2021 P6. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM SETH HIROMURA, FEBRUARY 28, 2020. P6-1 The commenter generally supports the proposed project and new live-work developments that can bolster the local economy and introduce more housing in Costa Mesa. The comment is acknowledged. As the comment is not related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis, no further response is required as part of the CEQA process/CEQA response to comments. The comment has been provided to the City decisionmakers for consideration. 1 HUYNH, NANCY From:ASHABI, MINOO Sent:Thursday, March 5, 2020 4:03 PM To:HUYNH, NANCY Subject:FW: One Metro West Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged From: Mike Mullen <mmullen@surterreproperties.com> Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2020 2:33 PM To: ASHABI, MINOO <MINOO.ASHABI@costamesaca.gov> Subject: One Metro West Dear Minoo, I would like to offer my support for the One Metro West project that is under consideration for Costa Mesa. I feel that the project is well thought out and would be a great asset to the community especially in light of the new Press project. The proposed development is in an area that probably would otherwise be underutilized. The other great advantage is this project will help greatly with the incredibly overzealous state housing requirements that have recently come down from Sacramento. All in all this is a good addition to our city and I hope it is well received by the planning commission. Regards Mike Mullen 1120 Dana Dr. Costa Mesa Mike Mullen 2 949.285.6906 www.SurterreProperties.com DRE#01311226 The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. 1400 Newport Center Drive • Suite 100 • Newport Beach, CA 92660•DRE#01778230 The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 3. Response to Comments Page 3-673 April 2021 P7. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM MIKE MULLEN, MARCH 5, 2020. P7-1 The commenter generally supports the proposed project, including new trail connections and pedestrian improvements, revitalization of the currently underutilized site, and introduction of more housing in Costa Mesa. The comment is acknowledged and no further response is required as part of the CEQA process/CEQA response to comments. The comment has been provided to the City decisionmakers for consideration. March 9, 2020 Minoo Ashabi Principal Planner City of Costa Mesa RE: Support for the One Metro West Dear Minoo: As a Millennial resident of Costa Mesa, I wanted to discuss my support for the proposed One Metro West community. There is an incredible demand for my generation for places to live near jobs and amenities. More importantly, places to live near upwardly mobile jobs which are so important to all of our futures. These are the types of jobs are prevalent in Costa Mesa’s economic engine, north of the 405. One Metro West is the ideal complement to these jobs, not only because they are bringing much needed housing, but because they are paying so much attention to the pedestrian. The walkable connection from the Santa Ana River Trail to One Metro West, SOCO, VANS and beyond are the needed building blocks for an area of Costa Mesa which has so much promise for the city’s future. Costa Mesa has grown as a city and a community by being at the forefront of planning great neighborhoods, parks and retail. One Metro West is the continuation of this tradition and is a great piece of Costa Mesa’s future, which should be focused north of the 405. Sincerely, Daniel Tyner 155 Flower #A Costa Mesa, CA 92627 ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 3. Response to Comments Page 3-675 April 2021 P8. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM DANIEL TYNER, MARCH 9, 2020. P8-1 The commenter generally supports the proposed project and new development north of the I-405 Freeway that can bolster the local economy and introduce more housing in Costa Mesa. The comment is acknowledged. As the comment is not related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis, no further response is required as part of the CEQA process/CEQA response to comments. The comment has been provided to the City decisionmakers for consideration. March 9, 2020 Minoo Ashabi Planner City of Costa Mesa RE: Support for One Metro West Dear Mrs. Ashabi: I am the Design Director at Kaz Design Group. We operate the Linge Roset and Scavolini store in South Coast Collection (SOCO) and I wanted to express our support the One Metro West community proposed next door to SOCO. One of the Kaz Design Group’s several brands is Linge Roset, Scavolini and SOCO has been a wonderful home for us. SOCO is a gathering place, drawing foodies and design fans from throughout Costa Mesa and Southern California to our creative enclave north of the 405. There is an intimacy of design which our customers are drawn to and what we love about the One Metro West project are the similar feelings it will bring to our greater neighborhood. SOCO and all our neighbors will benefit greatly from having new residents next door, an easy walk away. Meanwhile, the new park at One Metro West, the easier access to the Santa Ana River Trail, and the improved bikeways and sidewalks will provide a much needed sense of connectivity to the area. Costa Mesa has grown as a city and a community, and we are proud to be a part of that shared success story. We look forward to One Metro West being a part of that story as well. Sincerely, Mase Kazerani Showroom Director Kaz Design Group Linge Roset & Scavolini ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 3. Response to Comments Page 3-677 April 2021 P9. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM MASE KAZERANI, MARCH 9, 2020. P9-1 The commenter generally supports the proposed project, particularly the introduction of new residences, open space, and multimodal improvements in the vicinity of SOCO. The comment is acknowledged and no further response is required as part of the CEQA process/CEQA response to comments. The comment has been provided to the City decisionmakers for consideration. 1 Bogue, Kristen From:HUYNH, NANCY <NANCY.HUYNH@costamesaca.gov> Sent:Wednesday, March 11, 2020 9:11 AM To:Bogue, Kristen Subject:EXTERNAL: FW: EIR One Metro West NANCY HUYNH Associate Planner Development Services | City of Costa Mesa (714) 754‐5609 From: ASHABI, MINOO Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2020 8:39 AM To: HUYNH, NANCY <NANCY.HUYNH@costamesaca.gov> Subject: FW: EIR One Metro West From: Flo Martin <flomama@aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2020 10:59 AM To: ASHABI, MINOO <MINOO.ASHABI@costamesaca.gov> Subject: EIR One Metro West Chapter 5, EIR for One Metro West, speaks volumes in support of the project. 5.2-26: The project is consistent with Costa Mesa General Plan and Policies. 5.1.7: Mitigation Measures are significant. 5.3.8: No archaeological resources were identified in the records search. Impact would be reduced to less than significant levels. 5.4.6: Energy: the project would utilize electricity provided by SCE. No mitigation measures are required. 5.5.8: Geology and Soil: Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. 5.6-3: Green House Gas Emissions: level of significance, even after mitigation is “significant and unavoidable.” 5.7-2: the project would be constructed and operated with strict adherence to all emergency response requirements. 2 5.8-6: Hydrology and water quality: No mitigation measures required. Impacts would be less than significant. 5.9-2: The project would be consistent with the …General Plan policies and …with the General Plan Land Use Map and zoning Maps. 5.10-7, 8: Noise…no mitigation measures required. Impacts would be less than significant. 5.11-2: The project’s population and employment growth would be offset by the …increase in housing units, a portion of which would include affordable housing to help meet the City’s 6th cycle RHNA allocations. 5.12-5: detailed description of positive impact for Park Facilities and Recreation Services. 5.13: The detailed charts of transportation level of service boggles the mind! The City definitely needs to focus on increasing ACT infrastructure. OCTA definitely needs to focus on providing more efficient public transportation. (cf. Impact 5.13-4) The project is consistent with the City’s goals of promoting active transportation systems. 5.14.7: Mitigation Measures for Impact 5.14-1assure that Native American monitors will oversee project grading activities involving native soils. 5.15-10: Project implementation would not result in increased demands that require or result in increased demands to dry utilities. The significant and unavoidable adverse impacts are few: 1. Air quality during construction only 2. Greenhouse gas emissions 3. Traffic at South Coast/Susan will experience a negative impact. Hopefully, the City will update this intersection in the near future. Since folks working at the PRESS will have to live somewhere, projects like One Metro West will offer them an alternative that can’t be beat. From what I understand, the actual residential vehicle miles traveled for this project shows an 18% reduction. This reduction amounts to some serious (!!) miles off the road annually. As a 53-year Costa Mesa resident who supports climate change measures, I support the One Metro West project for our city. 3 Flo Martin 2442 Andover Place Costa Mesa, CA 92626 949.933.3699 Flo "It is when we are alone that we are the least alone." St. Augustine ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 3. Response to Comments Page 3-681 April 2021 P10. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM FLO MARTIN, MARCH 10, 2020. P10-1 The commenter generally supports the proposed project and cites portions of the Draft EIR that support her sentiment. This comment does not identify a specific concern with the adequacy of the Draft EIR or raise an issue or comment specifically related to the Draft EIR analysis. Therefore, no further response is warranted as part of the CEQA process/CEQA response to comments. The comment has been provided to the City decisionmakers for consideration. ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 3. Response to Comments Page 3-683 April 2021 P11. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM MARK SCHEURER, FEBRUARY 25, 2020. P11-1 The commenter generally supports the proposed project, particularly the introduction of more housing, jobs, and multimodal improvements within Costa Mesa. The comment is acknowledged. As the comment is not related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis, no further response is required as part of the CEQA process/CEQA response to comments. The comment has been provided to the City decisionmakers for consideration. March 12, 2020 Minoo Ashabi Planner City of Costa Mesa RE: Support for One Metro West Dear Mrs. Ashabi: I am the Owner at BoConcept in South Coast Collection (SOCO) and we wanted to express our support the One Metro West community proposed next door to SOCO. SOCO is a gathering place, drawing foodies and design fans from throughout Costa Mesa and Southern California to our creative enclave north of the 405. It’s been a wonderful home for us. There is an intimacy of design which our customers are drawn to and what we love about the One Metro West project are the similar feelings it will bring to our greater neighborhood. SOCO and all our neighbors will benefit greatly from having new residents next door, an easy walk away. Meanwhile, the new park at One Metro West, the easier access to the Santa Ana River Trail, and the improved bikeways and sidewalks will provide a much needed sense of connectivity to the area. Costa Mesa has grown as a city and a community, and we are proud to be a part of that shared success story. We look forward to One Metro West being a part of that story as well. Sincerely, Stéphane DUVAL BoConcept Owner ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 3. Response to Comments Page 3-685 April 2021 P12. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM STÉPHANE DUVAL, MARCH 12, 2020. P12-1 The commenter generally supports the proposed project and new development in the vicinity of SOCO that introduces more housing, open space, and multimodal improvements. The comment is acknowledged. As the comment is not related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis, no further response is required as part of the CEQA process/CEQA response to comments. The comment has been provided to the City decisionmakers for consideration. 1 Bogue, Kristen From:HUYNH, NANCY <NANCY.HUYNH@costamesaca.gov> Sent:Monday, March 16, 2020 10:06 AM To:Bogue, Kristen Subject:EXTERNAL: FW: One Metro West NANCY HUYNH Associate Planner Development Services | City of Costa Mesa (714) 754‐5609 From: ASHABI, MINOO Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2020 1:31 PM To: HUYNH, NANCY <NANCY.HUYNH@costamesaca.gov> Subject: FW: One Metro West From: Nicole Brunner <nicole@nestbedding.com> Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2020 1:25 PM To: ASHABI, MINOO <MINOO.ASHABI@costamesaca.gov> Subject: One Metro West Minoo Ashabi Planner City of Costa Mesa RE: Support for One Metro West Dear Mrs. Ashabi: I am the Manager at Nest Bedding in South Coast Collection (SOCO) and we wanted to express our support the One Metro West community proposed next door to SOCO. SOCO is a gathering place, drawing foodies and design fans from throughout Costa Mesa and Southern California to our creative enclave north of the 405. It’s been a wonderful home for us. There is an intimacy of design which our customers are drawn to and what we love about the One Metro West project are the similar feelings it will bring to our greater neighborhood. SOCO and all our neighbors will benefit greatly from having new residents next door, an easy walk away. Meanwhile, the new park at One Metro West, the easier access to the Santa Ana River Trail, and the improved bikeways and sidewalks will provide a much needed sense of connectivity to the area. Costa Mesa has grown as a city and a community, and we are proud to be a part of that shared success story. We look forward to One Metro West being a part of that story as well. Sincerely, Nicole Brunner Nest Bedding 2 -- Respectfully, Nicole Brunner Showroom Manager Nest Bedding at The SOCO Design Center Suites 3323 Hyland Ave. Suite D Costa Mesa, CA 92626 www.nestbedding.com (714) 740-7314 www.NestBedding.com www.NestBedding.com ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 3. Response to Comments Page 3-688 April 2021 P13. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM NICOLE BRUNNER, MARCH 12, 2020. P13-1 The commenter generally supports the proposed project and new development in the vicinity of SOCO that introduces more housing, open space, and multimodal improvements. The comment is acknowledged. As the comment is not related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis, no further response is required as part of the CEQA process/CEQA response to comments. The comment has been provided to the City decisionmakers for consideration. 1 Bogue, Kristen From:K. Misa Sullivan <kmisa18@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, March 12, 2020 3:42 PM To:ASHABI, MINOO Subject:Support for One Metro West Dear Mrs. Ashabi: As a resident of Costa Mesa since 2018, I gladly support the proposed One Metro West community which will continue to build Costa Mesa's global reputation as an innovative and vibrant city. The area of Costa Mesa north of the 405 has long served as the economic engine of the City. However, with its relative lack of housing, the traffic coming and leaving the area has put a strain on many of our traditional neighborhoods during the peak hours of the day. It was great to see the city’s Environmental Impact Report confirmed that the One Metro West community will serve as an ideal complement to the new and existing jobs north of the 405, drawing impactful traffic away from our nearby neighborhoods. There is no doubt One Metro West will create citywide economic benefits for Costa Mesa residents and new opportunities for our local businesses. By rightsizing the community and enhancing the pedestrian network, residential can stay the neighborhood for dining, shopping, and work. Meanwhile, unnecessary traffic and disruption in our neighborhoods will be avoided. All the while, funds paid by the community will be used to improve parks and amenities in traditional neighborhoods like the one I call home. It's an ideal mixture of uses, with the 405 serving as a natural barrier to the rest of Costa Mesa. Our city has grown as a community by being at the forefront of planning great neighborhoods, parks, retail, and I look forward to One Metro West being a part of that story as well. Sincerely, Misa Sullivan 955 W. 19th Street Unit E228 Costa Mesa, CA 92627 ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 3. Response to Comments Page 3-690 April 2021 P14. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM MISA SULLIVAN, MARCH 12, 2020. P14-1 The commenter generally supports the proposed project, particularly the introduction of more housing, jobs, open space, and multimodal improvements north of the I-405 Freeway. The comment is acknowledged and no further response is required as part of the CEQA process/CEQA response to comments. The comment has been provided to the City decisionmakers for consideration. 1 Bogue, Kristen From:Meredith Oliver <meredith@cwsdefense.com> Sent:Thursday, March 12, 2020 4:29 PM To:ASHABI, MINOO Subject:Support for One Metro West Dear Mrs. Ashabi: As a resident of Costa Mesa since 2014, I gladly support the proposed One Metro West community which will continue to build Costa Mesa's global reputation as an innovative and vibrant city. The area of Costa Mesa north of the 405 has long served as the economic engine of the City. However, with its relative lack of housing, the traffic coming and leaving the area has put a strain on many of our traditional neighborhoods during the peak hours of the day. It was great to see the city’s Environmental Impact Report confirmed that the One Metro West community will serve as an ideal complement to the new and existing jobs north of the 405, drawing impactful traffic away from our nearby neighborhoods. There is no doubt One Metro West will create citywide economic benefits for Costa Mesa residents and new opportunities for our local businesses. By rightsizing the community and enhancing the pedestrian network, residential can stay the neighborhood for dining, shopping, and work. Meanwhile, unnecessary traffic and disruption in our neighborhoods will be avoided. All the while, funds paid by the community will be used to improve parks and amenities in traditional neighborhoods like the one I call home. It's an ideal mixture of uses, with the 405 serving as a natural barrier to the rest of Costa Mesa. Our city has grown as a community by being at the forefront of planning great neighborhoods, parks, retail, and I look forward to One Metro West being a part of that story as well. Sincerely, Meredith Oliver 2048 Garden Lane, Unit B Costa Mesa, CA 92627 ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 3. Response to Comments Page 3-692 April 2021 P15. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM MEREDITH OLIVER, MARCH 12, 2020. P15-1 The commenter generally supports the proposed project, particularly the introduction of more housing, jobs, open space, and multimodal improvements north of the I-405 Freeway. The comment is acknowledged. As the comment is not related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis, no further response is required as part of the CEQA process/CEQA response to comments. The comment has been provided to the City decisionmakers for consideration. 1 Bogue, Kristen From:Alexa Dordoni <alexadordoni@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, March 12, 2020 4:31 PM To:ASHABI, MINOO Subject:Support for One Metro West Dear Mrs. Ashabi: As a resident of Costa Mesa since 2000, I gladly support the proposed One Metro West community which will continue to build Costa Mesa's global reputation as an innovative and vibrant city. The area of Costa Mesa north of the 405 has long served as the economic engine of the City. However, with its relative lack of housing, the traffic coming and leaving the area has put a strain on many of our traditional neighborhoods during the peak hours of the day. It was great to see the city’s Environmental Impact Report confirmed that the One Metro West community will serve as an ideal complement to the new and existing jobs north of the 405, drawing impactful traffic away from our nearby neighborhoods. There is no doubt One Metro West will create citywide economic benefits for Costa Mesa residents and new opportunities for our local businesses. By rightsizing the community and enhancing the pedestrian network, residential can stay the neighborhood for dining, shopping, and work. Meanwhile, unnecessary traffic and disruption in our neighborhoods will be avoided. All the while, funds paid by the community will be used to improve parks and amenities in traditional neighborhoods like the one I call home. It's an ideal mixture of uses, with the 405 serving as a natural barrier to the rest of Costa Mesa. Our city has grown as a community by being at the forefront of planning great neighborhoods, parks, retail, and I look forward to One Metro West being a part of that story as well. Sincerely, Alexa Dordoni 1018 American Place, Costa Mesa, California 92627 ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 3. Response to Comments Page 3-694 April 2021 P16. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM ALEXA DORDONI, MARCH 12, 2020. P16-1 The commenter generally supports the proposed project, particularly the introduction of more housing, jobs, open space, and multimodal improvements north of the I-405 Freeway. The comment is acknowledged. As the comment is not related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis, no further response is required as part of the CEQA process/CEQA response to comments. The comment has been provided to the City decisionmakers for consideration. 1 Bogue, Kristen From:HUYNH, NANCY <NANCY.HUYNH@costamesaca.gov> Sent:Monday, March 16, 2020 10:06 AM To:Bogue, Kristen Subject:EXTERNAL: FW: One Metro West NANCY HUYNH Associate Planner Development Services | City of Costa Mesa (714) 754‐5609 From: HUYNH, NANCY Sent: Monday, March 16, 2020 10:04 AM To: HUYNH, NANCY <NANCY.HUYNH@costamesaca.gov> Subject: FW: One Metro West From: Robertson, Chris <Chris.Robertson@lfg.com> Sent: Friday, March 13, 2020 2:25 PM To: ASHABI, MINOO <MINOO.ASHABI@costamesaca.gov> Subject: One Metro West Dear Mrs. Ashabi: As a resident of Costa Mesa since 2018, I gladly support the proposed One Metro West community which will continue to build Costa Mesa's global reputation as an innovative and vibrant city. The area of Costa Mesa north of the 405 has long served as the economic engine of the City. However, with its relative lack of housing, the traffic coming and leaving the area has put a strain on many of our traditional neighborhoods during the peak hours of the day. It was great to see the city’s Environmental Impact Report confirmed that the One Metro West community will serve as an ideal complement to the new and existing jobs north of the 405, drawing impactful traffic away from our nearby neighborhoods. There is no doubt One Metro West will create citywide economic benefits for Costa Mesa residents and new opportunities for our local businesses. By rightsizing the community and enhancing the pedestrian network, residential can stay the neighborhood for dining, shopping, and work. Meanwhile, unnecessary traffic and disruption in our neighborhoods will be avoided. All the while, funds paid by the community will be used to improve parks and amenities in traditional neighborhoods like the one I call home. It's an ideal mixture of uses, with the 405 serving as a natural barrier to the rest of Costa Mesa. Our city has grown as a community by being at the forefront of planning great neighborhoods, parks, retail, and I look forward to One Metro West being a part of that story as well. 2 Sincerely, Chris Robertson 133 Cecil Place, Costa Mesa CA Comprehensive Wealth Planner, CA License #4011278 Associated with Peter Robertson, ChFC Member of the Resource Group CA License #0727157 Sagemark Consulting | Lincoln Financial Advisors Corp. 18400 Von Karman Ave., Suite 400, Irvine, CA 92612 p (949) 474‐6838 | f (949) 757‐2624 | e Chris.Robertson@lfg.com Chris Robertson and Peter Robertson are registered representatives of Lincoln Financial Advisors Corp. Securities offered through Lincoln Financial Advisors Corp., a broker‐dealer (member SIPC). Investment advisory services offered through Sagemark Consulting, a division of Lincoln Financial Advisors Corp., a registered investment advisor. Insurance offered through Lincoln Marketing and Insurance Agency, LLC and Lincoln Associates Insurance Agency, Inc. and other fine companies. CRN‐2939862‐020520 Please do not send any trading or transaction instructions through this email. They will not be executed. Please call the Lincoln Financial Advisors trade desk at 1.800.237.3813 Option 9, 1092. If you do not wish to receive future e‐mails from me, please call me at 949‐474‐6841, or e‐mail me at Chris.robertson@lfg.com. We will comply with your request within 30 days. Lincoln Financial Advisors Corp. and its representatives do not provide legal or tax advice. You may want to consult a legal or tax advisor regarding any legal or tax information as it relates to your personal circumstances. * Peter Robertson is a member of The Resource Group (TRG), an invitation‐only, nationwide network of the top 200 planners within Lincoln Financial Advisors. Notice of Confidentiality: **This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Lincoln National Corporation proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to the Lincoln National Corporation family of companies. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited 3 and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout. Thank You.** ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 3. Response to Comments Page 3-698 April 2021 P17. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM CHRIS ROBERTSON, MARCH 13, 2020. P17-1 The commenter generally supports the proposed project, including the introduction of more housing, jobs, open space, and multimodal improvements north of the I-405 Freeway. The comment is acknowledged and no further response is required as part of the CEQA process/CEQA response to comments. The comment has been provided to the City decisionmakers for consideration. March 17, 2020 Dear Minoo Ashabi ‐ For several years now, I have watched the One Metro West community proposal develop. I have been impressed by their level of involvement and commitment to the community and that their approach will add much needed housing for all types of Costa Mesa residents and those that work here while not changing the traditional neighborhoods many of our residents call home south of the 405 or near South Coast Metro. In addition, by adding a new 1.5 acre open space on what is now a decades old industrial site, every member of the public can start to see how our community is better together which is one of the goals at Trellis that Rose Equities and the One Metro West community have worked to help make a reality. Costa Mesa has an established, recognized need for housing and the approved and under development projects north of the 405 show that the need for housing will continue to grow. By approving One Metro West, Costa Mesa will be providing a realistic and positive solution for many residents, employers, and new employees looking for housing that does not require long work commutes or drives for shopping, restaurants, and entertainment. We look forward to continuing to support One Metro West in the future and appreciate your consideration of our thoughts. Sincerely, Ian Stevenson Executive Director TRELLIS / (949) 422‐5331 wearetrellis.com ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 3. Response to Comments Page 3-700 April 2021 P18. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM IAN STEVENSON, MARCH 17, 2020. P18-1 The commenter generally supports the proposed project, particularly the revitalization of the underutilized industrial site and introduction of more housing, jobs, and open space within Costa Mesa, while not impacting residences south of the I-405 Freeway or near South Coast Metro. The comment is acknowledged and no further response is required as part of the CEQA process/CEQA response to comments. The comment has been provided to the City decisionmakers for consideration. March 18, 2020 Minoo Ashabi Principal Planner City of Costa Mesa RE: Support for the One Metro West Dear Minoo: As a Millennial resident of Costa Mesa, I wanted to discuss my support for the proposed One Metro West community. There is an incredible demand for my generation for places to live near jobs and amenities. More importantly, places to live near upwardly mobile jobs which are so important to all of our futures. These are the types of jobs are prevalent in Costa Mesa’s economic engine, north of the 405. One Metro West is the ideal complement to these jobs, not only because they are bringing much needed housing, but because they are paying so much attention to the pedestrian. The walkable connection from the Santa Ana River Trail to One Metro West, SOCO, VANS and beyond are the needed building blocks for an area of Costa Mesa which has so much promise for the city’s future. Costa Mesa has grown as a city and a community by being at the forefront of planning great neighborhoods, parks and retail. One Metro West is the continuation of this tradition and is a great piece of Costa Mesa’s future, which should be focused north of the 405. Sincerely, Kellan Liem 1035 Sea Breeze Dr Costa Mesa, CA 92626 ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 3. Response to Comments Page 3-702 April 2021 P19. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM KELLAN LIEM, MARCH 18, 2020. P19-1 The commenter generally supports the proposed project, particularly the introduction of more housing, jobs, open space, and multimodal improvements north of the I-405 Freeway. The comment is acknowledged and no further response is required as part of the CEQA process/CEQA response to comments. The comment has been provided to the City decisionmakers for consideration. ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 3. Response to Comments Page 3-704 April 2021 P20. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM DEBRA MARSTELLER, MARCH 18, 2020. P20-1 The commenter generally supports the proposed project, particularly the revitalization of the underutilized industrial site and introduction of more housing, jobs, and open space within Costa Mesa while not impacting residences south of the I-405 Freeway or near South Coast Metro. The comment is acknowledged and no further response is required as part of the CEQA process/CEQA response to comments. The comment has been provided to the City decisionmakers for consideration. 1 Bogue, Kristen From:HUYNH, NANCY <NANCY.HUYNH@costamesaca.gov> Sent:Thursday, March 19, 2020 9:40 AM To:Bogue, Kristen Subject:EXTERNAL: Fw: Support for the One Metro West From: ASHABI, MINOO Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2020 9:04 AM To: HUYNH, NANCY Subject: Fw: Support for the One Metro West From: webmaster@costamesaca.gov <webmaster@costamesaca.gov> on behalf of City of Costa Mesa <webmaster@costamesaca.gov> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2020 8:55 AM To: ASHABI, MINOO Subject: Support for the One Metro West Message submitted from the <City of Costa Mesa> website. Site Visitor Name: Carter Jones Site Visitor Email: carter.jones5@yahoo.com March 19, 2020 Minoo Ashabi Principal Planner City of Costa Mesa RE: Support for the One Metro West Dear Minoo: As a Millennial resident of Costa Mesa, I wanted to discuss my support for the proposed One Metro West community. There is an incredible demand for my generation for places to live near jobs and amenities. More importantly, places to live near upwardly mobile jobs which are so important to all of our futures. These are the types of 2 jobs are prevalent in Costa Mesa’s economic engine, north of the 405. One Metro West is the ideal complement to these jobs, not only because they are bringing much needed housing, but because they are paying so much attention to the pedestrian. The walkable connection from the Santa Ana River Trail to One Metro West, SOCO, VANS and beyond are the needed building blocks for an area of Costa Mesa which has so much promise for the city’s future. Costa Mesa has grown as a city and a community by being at the forefront of planning great neighborhoods, parks and retail. One Metro West is the continuation of this tradition and is a great piece of Costa Mesa’s future, which should be focused north of the 405. Sincerely, Carter Jones 2775 Mesa Verde Drive East APT M213 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 3. Response to Comments Page 3-707 April 2021 P21. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM CARTER JONES, MARCH 19, 2020. P21-1 The commenter generally supports the proposed project, particularly the introduction of more housing, jobs, open space, and multimodal improvements north of the I-405 Freeway. The comment is acknowledged. As the comment is not related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis, no further response is required as part of the CEQA process/CEQA response to comments. The comment has been provided to the City decisionmakers for consideration. To: Ms. Minoo Ashabi, Principal Planner City of Costa Mesa Planning Division 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 From: Aaron Ludwig – 983 Hartford Way, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Date: March 20, 2020 Subject: One Metro West EIR, Specific Plan, and Master Plan Dear Ms. Ashabi, We have had an opportunity to review the One Metro West EIR, Specific Plan, and Master Plan and feel strongly that this is the right project in the right location at the right time for our city. We need more housing in Costa Mesa for th e present and future employers of the regional, national, and international companies moving into the city. The new multi-model opportunities of today and the future in close proximity to employment and residential centers will reduce long commutes on freeways and therefore improve traffic. This project represents a giant leap forward in making the City of Costa Mesa more livable. Sincerely, Aaron Ludwig 983 Hartford Way Costa Mesa, CA 92626 949-777-6699 aludwig@gmail.com ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 3. Response to Comments Page 3-709 April 2021 P22. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM AARON LUDWIG, MARCH 20, 2020. P22-1 The commenter generally supports the proposed project, particularly the introduction of more housing, jobs, and multimodal improvements in close proximity to existing employment and residential developments. The comment is acknowledged and no further response is required as part of the CEQA process/CEQA response to comments. The comment has been provided to the City decisionmakers for consideration. ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 3. Response to Comments Page 3-711 April 2021 P23. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM DONALD MORROW, MARCH 20, 2020. P23-1 The commenter generally supports the proposed project, particularly the introduction of more housing, jobs, and multimodal improvements in close proximity to existing employment and residential developments. The comment is acknowledged and no further response is required as part of the CEQA process/CEQA response to comments. The comment has been provided to the City decisionmakers for consideration. To: Ms. Minoo Ashabi, Principal Planner City of Costa Mesa Planning Division 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 From: Leigh White, Costa Mesa resident 575 West 19th St., Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Date: 03-20-2020 Subject: One Metro West EIR, Specific Plan, and Master Plan Dear Ms. Ashabi, We have had an opportunity to review the One Metro West EIR, Specific Plan, and Master Plan and feel strongly that this is the right project in the right location at the right time for our city. We need more housing in Costa Mesa for the present and future employers of the regional, national, and international companies moving into the city. The new multi-model opportunities of today and the future in close proximity to employment and residential centers will reduce long commutes on freeways and therefore improve traffic. This project represents a giant leap forward in making the City of Costa Mesa more livable. Sincerely, Leigh White 575 West 19th St., Costa Mesa, CA 92627 ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 3. Response to Comments Page 3-713 April 2021 P24. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM LEIGH WHITE, MARCH 20, 2020. P24-1 The commenter generally supports the proposed project, particularly the introduction of more housing, jobs, and multimodal improvements in close proximity to existing employment and residential developments. The comment is acknowledged and no further response is required as part of the CEQA process/CEQA response to comments. The comment has been provided to the City decisionmakers for consideration. To: Ms. Minoo Ashabi, Principal Planner City of Costa Mesa Planning Division 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 From: Michael Gonzaguirre 2775 Mesa Verde Dr E, Apt Y208 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Date: 20 March 2020 Subject: One Metro West EIR, Specific Plan, and Master Plan Dear Ms. Ashabi, We have had an opportunity to review the One Metro West EIR, Specific Plan, and Master Plan and feel strongly that this is the right project in the right location at the right time for our city. We need more housing in Costa Mesa for the present and future employers of the regional, national, and international companies moving into the city. The new multi-model opportunities of today and the future in close proximity to employment and residential centers will reduce long commutes on freeways and therefore improve traffic. This project represents a giant leap forward in making the City of Costa Mesa more livable. Sincerely, Michael Gonzaguirre 714-754-4500 mgonzaguirre@urbanarena.com 2775 Mesa Verde Dr E, Apt Y208 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 3. Response to Comments Page 3-715 April 2021 P25. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM MICHAEL GONZAGUIRRE, MARCH 20, 2020. P25-1 The commenter generally supports the proposed project, particularly the introduction of more housing, jobs, and multimodal improvements in close proximity to existing employment and residential developments. The comment is acknowledged and no further response is required as part of the CEQA process/CEQA response to comments. The comment has been provided to the City decisionmakers for consideration. To: Ms. Minoo Ashabi, Principal Planner City of Costa Mesa Planning Division 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 From: Neal Burns Date: Friday, March 20, 2020 Subject: One Metro West EIR, Specific Plan, and Master Plan Dear Ms. Ashabi, We have had an opportunity to review the One Metro West EIR, Specific Plan, and Master Plan and feel strongly that this is the right project in the right location at the right time for our city. We need more housing in Costa Mesa for the present and future employers of the regional, national, and international companies moving into the city. The new multi-model opportunities of today and the future in close proximity to employment and residential centers will reduce long commutes on freeways and therefore improve traffic. This project represents a giant leap forward in making the City of Costa Mesa more livable. Sincerely, Neal Burns 313 Wake Forest Rd. Costa Mesa, Ca 92626 (949) 351-5750 nealwburns@yahoo.com ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 3. Response to Comments Page 3-717 April 2021 P26. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM NEAL BURNS, MARCH 20, 2020. P26-1 The commenter generally supports the proposed project, particularly the introduction of more housing, jobs, and multimodal improvements in close proximity to existing employment and residential developments. The comment is acknowledged and no further response is required as part of the CEQA process/CEQA response to comments. The comment has been provided to the City decisionmakers for consideration. 1 Bogue, Kristen From:HUYNH, NANCY <NANCY.HUYNH@costamesaca.gov> Sent:Monday, March 23, 2020 8:37 AM To:Bogue, Kristen Subject:EXTERNAL: FW: One Metro West NANCY HUYNH Associate Planner Development Services | City of Costa Mesa (714) 754‐5609 From: ASHABI, MINOO Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2020 8:16 AM To: HUYNH, NANCY <NANCY.HUYNH@costamesaca.gov> Subject: Fw: One Metro West From: russell rowlands <mvpolo@hotmail.com> Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2020 8:07 PM To: ASHABI, MINOO Subject: One Metro West Dear Mrs. Ashabi: As a resident of Costa Mesa since 2015, I gladly support the proposed One Metro West community which will continue to build Costa Mesa's global reputation as an innovative and vibrant city. The area of Costa Mesa north of the 405 has long served as the economic engine of the City. However, with its relative lack of housing, the traffic coming and leaving the area has put a strain on many of our traditional neighborhoods during the peak hours of the day. It was great to see the city’s Environmental Impact Report confirmed that the One Metro West community will serve as an ideal complement to the new and existing jobs north of the 405, drawing impactful traffic away from our nearby neighborhoods. There is no doubt One Metro West will create citywide economic benefits for Costa Mesa residents and new opportunities for our local businesses. By rightsizing the community and enhancing the pedestrian network, residential can stay the neighborhood for dining, shopping, and work. Meanwhile, unnecessary traffic and disruption in our neighborhoods will be avoided. All the while, funds paid by the community will be used to improve parks and amenities in traditional neighborhoods like the one I call home. It's an ideal mixture of uses, with the 405 serving as a natural barrier to the rest of Costa Mesa. Our city has grown as a community by being at the forefront of planning great neighborhoods, parks, retail, and I look forward to One Metro West being a part of that story as well. 2 Sincerely, Linda Rowlands 221 Del Mar Ave. #C Costa Mesa, Ca. 92627 ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 3. Response to Comments Page 3-720 April 2021 P27. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM LINDA ROWLANDS, MARCH 21, 2020. P27-1 The commenter generally supports the proposed project, including the introduction of housing north of the I-405 Freeway and development of residential, employment, and retail within one neighborhood. The comment is acknowledged. As the comment is not related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis, no further response is required as part of the CEQA process/CEQA response to comments. The comment has been provided to the City decisionmakers for consideration. 1 Bogue, Kristen From:HUYNH, NANCY <NANCY.HUYNH@costamesaca.gov> Sent:Monday, March 23, 2020 8:36 AM To:Bogue, Kristen Subject:EXTERNAL: FW: One Metro West NANCY HUYNH Associate Planner Development Services | City of Costa Mesa (714) 754‐5609 From: ASHABI, MINOO Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2020 8:16 AM To: HUYNH, NANCY <NANCY.HUYNH@costamesaca.gov> Subject: Fw: One Metro West From: Russell Rowlands <russellrowlands4@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2020 8:01 PM To: ASHABI, MINOO Subject: One Metro West Dear Mrs. Ashabi: As a resident of Costa Mesa since 2012, I gladly support the proposed One Metro West community which will continue to build Costa Mesa's global reputation as an innovative and vibrant city. The area of Costa Mesa north of the 405 has long served as the economic engine of the City. However, with its relative lack of housing, the traffic coming and leaving the area has put a strain on many of our traditional neighborhoods during the peak hours of the day. It was great to see the city’s Environmental Impact Report confirmed that the One Metro West community will serve as an ideal complement to the new and existing jobs north of the 405, drawing impactful traffic away from our nearby neighborhoods. There is no doubt One Metro West will create citywide economic benefits for Costa Mesa residents and new opportunities for our local businesses. By rightsizing the community and enhancing the pedestrian network, residential can stay the neighborhood for dining, shopping, and work. Meanwhile, unnecessary traffic and disruption in our neighborhoods will be avoided. All the while, funds paid by the community will be used to improve parks and amenities in traditional neighborhoods like the one I call home. It's an ideal mixture of uses, with the 405 serving as a natural barrier to the rest of Costa Mesa. Our city has grown as a community by being at the forefront of planning great neighborhoods, parks, retail, and I look forward to One Metro West being a part of that story as well. 2 Sincerely, Russell Rowlands 2476 Elden Ave #B Costa Mesa, Ca. 92627 ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 3. Response to Comments Page 3-723 April 2021 P28. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM RUSSELL ROWLANDS, MARCH 21, 2020. P28-1 The commenter generally supports the proposed project, including the introduction of housing north of the I-405 Freeway and development of residential, employment, and retail within one neighborhood. The comment is acknowledged. As the comment is not related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis, no further response is required as part of the CEQA process/CEQA response to comments. The comment has been provided to the City decisionmakers for consideration. To: Ms. Minoo Ashabi, Principal Planner City of Costa Mesa Planning Division 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 From: Lance Huante 1187 Gleneagles Terrace, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Date: 3-21-2020 Subject: One Metro West EIR, Specific Plan, and Master Plan Dear Ms. Ashabi, We have had an opportunity to review the One Metro West EIR, Specific Plan, and Master Plan and feel strongly that this is the right project in the right location at the right time for our city. We need more housing in Costa Mesa fo r the present and future employers of the regional, national, and international companies moving into the city. The new multi-model opportunities of today and the future in close proximity to employment and residential centers will reduce long commutes on freeways and therefore improve traffic. This project represents a giant leap forward in making the City of Costa Mesa more livable. Sincerely, Lance Huante 1187 Gleneagles Terrace, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 714-321-3777 lancehuante@gmail.com ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 3. Response to Comments Page 3-725 April 2021 P29. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM LANCE HUANTE, MARCH 21, 2020. P29-1 The commenter generally supports the proposed project, particularly the introduction of more housing, jobs, and multimodal improvements in close proximity to employment and residential developments. The comment is acknowledged. As the comment is not related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis, no further response is required as part of the CEQA process/CEQA response to comments. The comment has been provided to the City decisionmakers for consideration. May 22, 2020 RE: Support for the One Metro West Project To Whom It May Concern: As I understand the challenging times for Costa Mesa, please let me outline briefly 2 drivers in support of Metro West. 1) We are experiencing revenue shortfalls threw brick & mortar retail outlets because of Internet impacts. This pressure curve can be reasonably seen as increasing over time. 2) We also have pressures from state leadership to expand housing demands. These 2 pressures alone will require movement forward, either by leadership locally or leadership from external forces. I prefer to see our council act collaboratively now, rather than under additional state’s pressure and threat of fines/penalties. Bad decisions tend to be made under threat of penalty just as we have seen with the council’s mismanagement of the homeless shelter 2-pronged approached. As a reminder the $6 million homeless shelter was not completed in the first quarter of 2020 as promised to the community and still sits vacant to date. One Metro West provides the city with the opportunity to drive the necessary slow growth, and address local housing needs, including affordable housing. I just ask that the city be transparent now, about the costs to taxpayers and actual traffic issues. The voters need TRANSPARENCY regarding the overall traffic mitigation and financial plan. Costa Mesa should be growing forward, not catching up. Sincerely, Frederik T. Solter 703 Center Street ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 3. Response to Comments Page 3-727 April 2021 P30. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM FREDERIK SOLTER, MARCH 22, 2020. P30-1 The commenter raises general concerns regarding the State-mandated expansion of housing in Costa Mesa and decrease in City revenue from the replacement of brick and mortar retail outlets with e- commerce. The commenter supports the project’s introduction of housing, including affordable housing, into the City to help meet the local housing needs. The commenter also requests the City to be transparent regarding the costs to taxpayers and traffic issues associated with the proposed project. Transportation and traffic impacts associated with the proposed project are fully analyzed in Section 5.13, Transportation, of the Draft EIR. These comments are not related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis; as such, no further response is required as part of the CEQA process/CEQA response to comments. The comment has been provided to the City decisionmakers for consideration. May 22, 2020 Attention: Costa Mesa City Council & City Hall Staff Regarding: One Metro West Proposal North of the 405 Fwy. Dear City Council & Staff, One Metro West (OMW) is being presented at a time where our city is facing uncertainty in the marketplace due to the COVID-19 outbreak, and the economic impacts from over regulation. The impacts of over regulation makes adding to the housing supply challenging and costly. While the city is under pressure to meet the Regional Housing Needs Assessment mandates and increase the private housing supply, I hope you do not rush this process. Rushed decision making can equate to financial consequences, like mass vacancies and additional municipal expenditures for which we cannot sustain. As a Realtor and property investor, I reached out to various neutral industry experts within my network. What I have learned is that this EIR and Traffic Appendix are vague in terms of how to meet the goal of reducing traffic. This isn’t just a theoretical exercise – we’re talking about a potentially profound impact to commuters. For those who do not know the term, Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT), is a measure of distance people must drive to/from work, and how many people are on our roadways at a given time. Put another way, it’s the two driving forces of traffic congestion. I think this is something that needs absolute clarity before moving forward. I would like to make clear, I am currently not opposed to this project; however, this is the point on the timeline where certain decisions will produce long lasting and permanent effects for our city. I appreciate that the EIR is critical to the project’s success as well as Costa Mesa’s. So, to ensure both parties are maintaining fairness and transparency, I would like all governing bodies to consider using a 3rd party reputable, unbiased, and unaffiliated (to the city or developer) reviewer to report on the validity of the traffic analysis. Preferably a 3rd party that does not service developers. Additionally, we do not need another Specific Plan designed to target just this project. We already have a North Costa Mesa Specific Plan that will require amendments to make this project viable. I hope that the city’s governing bodies refrain from tunnel vision when amending the North Costa Mesa General Plan solely to accommodate one special exception. In fact, the city should incorporate into its framework a holistic Urban Planning Strategy for the entire South Coast Plaza sector. Doing so would allow the OMW project to flourish; we would have future economic opportunities for development, along with a sustainable, more affordable community North of the 405 Fwy. At this juncture, myself and other community members would like to support this project provided the public is given direct answers and information for further review regarding the following points: 1. Like any development, the success of this project in contingent upon realistic VMT modeling, results, assumptions, and inputs. I strongly propose a requirement that EIR’s traffic analysis results (including VMT) as well as all assumptions and inputs are disclosed in a way that can be validated by a neutral 3rd party. 2. Regarding bike trails and walkable areas – There is already an existing trail to and from the OMW, what additional enhancement or infrastructure is being proposed? 3. The future residents of OMW will increase the demand for numerous public resources/services by parks & recreation, police, fire, network for homeless solutions, water, sanitary etc. The current EIR does not reflect details addressing this eventuality. What commitments or compromises can you and the builder make to mitigate the burden of additional costs, and what is plan to ensure we have a reasonable method of paying for the new costs? 4. How does this project provide a meaningful increase to open space available per capita to residents and/or the public? 5. We need an independent city fiscal analysis. The public should be able to comprehend this data, in easy to read language and format. Analysis should include the financial cost/debts and benefits taxpayers will likely incur. Note: just because we may incur a cost, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t work together with the builder. Tax- payers just need to know what this will cost our city, how it will be paid for, and the risk assessment level of the project. According to the Census Bureau there is a pent-up demand for housing developments in Urban communities that serve work-at-home professionals. As people continue seeking housing near the beach, Costa Mesa does not offer sufficient opportunities to meet the trending demands at this time. This means there is a potential for significant revenue loss. A benefit of OMW is that residents will spend a majority of their time and money in their home city. In 2018, with exception to Councilmembers Mansoor and Genis, this council on record opposed developers and any large housing projects in Costa Mesa. I hope that this position has changed considering the recent economic forecast for California. Housing is an important determinant for economic growth, upward mobility, health, and happiness. Quality housing attracts people, which in turn attracts businesses and jobs. These conditions are also impetus to educational and career improvements for families. OMW is a real opportunity to guide the city in the right direction, not just after we realize the effects of the COVID-19 crisis, but for years to come if the urban planning is done prudently, but we only get one shot. Thank you kindly and stay well, Michelle Figueredo-Wilson 797 Center Street 949-945-8159 ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 3. Response to Comments Page 3-731 April 2021 P31. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM MICHELLE FIGUEREDO-WILSON, MARCH 22, 2020. P31-1 The commenter provides general concerns regarding uncertainty in the economy and pressures to meet State-mandated housing requirements. These comments are not related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis and no response is required. P31-2 The commenter raises concerns regarding the project’s traffic analysis and requests an unbiased, reputable, and unaffiliated (to the City or applicant) third party review the validity of the Traffic Impact Analysis. The Traffic Impact Analysis was prepared by LSA Associates, Inc., and in coordination with the City’s Transportation Division in terms of intersection study areas and methodology for trip generation; LSA is under contract to the applicant. The Traffic Impact Analysis was peer reviewed by Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers (LLG), under contract to the City’s environmental consultant, Michael Baker International. The City’s Transportation Division reviewed LLG’s peer review comments in addition to the Transportation Division’s independent review of the Traffic Impact Analysis. The peer review included multiple rounds of review and revisions before the Traffic Impact Analysis was approved by LLG and the City for inclusion in the Draft EIR. P31-3 The commenter states that the City does not need another Specific Plan when the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan is already in place and can be amended to accommodate the proposed project. The North Costa Mesa Specific Plan does not include the project site and thus, is not applicable. A specific plan is intended to provide flexibility in the development of a particular area with specific development standards and regulations. The comment is a general opposition to the introduction of a new Specific Plan in the City and is not related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR’s analysis. Thus, no further response is required as part of the CEQA process/CEQA response to comments. The comment has been provided to the City decisionmakers for consideration. P31-4 The commenter recommends that the City incorporate a holistic Urban Planning Strategy for the entire South Coast Plaza area. This comment is not related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR’s analysis; no further response is required as part of the CEQA process/CEQA response to comments. The comment has been provided to the City decisionmakers for consideration. P31-5 Refer to response to comment P31-2. P31-6 The commenter questions what types of bicycle and pedestrian improvements are proposed as part of the project. As detailed in Draft EIR Chapter 3, Project Description, Sunflower Avenue from Cadillac Avenue to Hyland Avenue would be improved with bicycle paths, new sidewalks, street parking, and landscape medians to enhance the neighborhood from an industrial setting to a mixed-use residential area. Specifically, the project would include the following improvements to Sunflower Avenue from Cadillac Avenue to Hyland Avenue; refer to Draft EIR Figure 3-6, Sunflower Avenue Improvements: • Narrow Sunflower Avenue from a four-lane roadway to a three-lane roadway with one travel lane in each direction with a center striped left turn lane; ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 3. Response to Comments Page 3-732 April 2021 • Add a six-foot sidewalk, eight-foot parkway, seven-foot bicycle lane, seven-foot landscaped median, and seven-foot parallel parking lane on the southern side of Sunflower Avenue adjacent to the project site; • Add a six-foot bicycle lane and two-foot striped buffer between the bicycle lane and the vehicle lane on the northern side of Sunflower Avenue; and • Underground existing Southern California Edison poles and utility lines (only along the project frontage; although it may extend as far as Hyland Avenue, subject to coordination with the adjacent property owner). The proposed improvements would also connect the new complete street section of Sunflower Avenue with a new landscaped bicycle trail proposed along the western side of the open space area. Improvements would then extend westward; these off-site improvement would include trail resurfacing and landscaping and would occur along the southwest portion of the project site westward to the utility easement before the Santa Ana River channel. An active transportation hub is also proposed within the open space area that may include bicycle lockers, bicycle storage, and repair facilities. P31-7 The commenter states that the Draft EIR does not include analysis regarding the project’s potential impacts on public services and utilities, including parks, police, fire, water, and solid waste. The project’s impacts on parks, police, and fire services are fully analyzed in Draft EIR Section 5.12, Public Services and Recreation, and impacts on water and solid waste services are fully analyzed in Draft EIR Section 5.15, Utilities and Service Systems. As analyzed, project impacts regarding parks, police, water, and solid waste would result in less than significant impacts upon implementation of existing regulations, PPPs, and SCAs. Only fire services would result in potentially significant impacts even after implementation of existing regulations, PPPs, and SCAs, however these impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels upon implementation of Mitigation Measures PS-1 and PS-2. Mitigation Measure PS- 1 would require the project to retrofit existing traffic signals along the response corridors from Costa Mesa Fire & Rescue Department (CMFD) Stations 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 to include Emergency Vehicle Preemption. Mitigation Measure PS-2 would require the project to provide additional fire protection features in excess of minimum code requirements to ensure Building A and the associated parking garage design meet CMFD’s fire apparatus access road and hose pull requirements. Overall, project impacts on parks, police, fire, water, and solid waste would be less than significant upon implementation of applicable existing regulations, PPPs, SCAs, and mitigation measures. The commenter also raises concerns regarding homeless solutions. Homelessness is not an environmental topic requiring analysis under CEQA. However, this concern is acknowledged by the City and the comment has been provided to the City decision makers for consideration. P31-8 Refer to response to comment O2-7 regarding open space impacts per capita to residents and/or the public. P31-9 The commenter requests a City fiscal analysis to evaluate the financial costs and benefits taxpayers would likely incur with project implementation. It is acknowledged that the City has required a fiscal ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 3. Response to Comments Page 3-733 April 2021 analysis be conducted. Approval of the Development Agreement by the City Council for the project is required as part of the entitlement process. This comment is not related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis; no further response is required as part of the CEQA process/CEQA response to comments. The comment has been provided to the City decisionmakers for consideration. P31-10 The commenter generally supports projects with a residential component given the Statewide housing crisis. The commenter also states that quality housing will attract high quality businesses and jobs. These comments are acknowledged, but not related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis and no further response is required as part of the CEQA process/CEQA response to comments. The comment has been provided to the City decisionmakers for consideration. 1 Bogue, Kristen From:HUYNH, NANCY <NANCY.HUYNH@costamesaca.gov> Sent:Monday, March 23, 2020 8:55 AM To:Bogue, Kristen Subject:EXTERNAL: FW: Support for the One Metro West NANCY HUYNH Associate Planner Development Services | City of Costa Mesa (714) 754‐5609 From: ASHABI, MINOO Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2020 6:52 PM To: HUYNH, NANCY <NANCY.HUYNH@costamesaca.gov> Subject: Fw: Support for the One Metro West Please save this version. From: Russell Toler <russelljaytoler@hotmail.com> Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2020 12:41 PM To: ASHABI, MINOO Subject: RE: Support for the One Metro West Minoo, below is a clean version of the letter I sent you last Friday (fixed some typos) for the record. Thanks! Russell From: Russell Toler Sent: Friday, March 20, 2020 9:44 AM To: MINOO.ASHABI@costamesaca.gov Cc: Marc Perkins (via Google Docs); Jenna Tourje; dianne.russell@costamesaca.gov; barry.curtis@costamesaca.gov; byron.dearakal@costamesaca.gov; jeffrey.harlan@costamesaca.gov; kedarious.colbert@costamesaca.gov Subject: Support for the One Metro West Minoo Ashabi Principal Planner City of Costa Mesa RE: Support for the One Metro West Dear Minoo: 2 I want to provide my support for the proposed One Metro West community. I was raised in this city, and am now raising my family in this city. We rent a two-bedroom apartment, and even though our rent is below market, we still struggle to stay here. Homeownership is virtually out of the question. Part of the reason that housing is so expensive in Costa Mesa is because of the artificial suppression of market supply through zoning. If a developer wants to build 1,000 units in our city, we should be thrilled. Our role should be to figure out how best to make this happen. From my observation it looks like the developers behind One Metro West have done a fantastic job at community outreach, designing a quality product, and considering the greater context into which they are building. I would like to see our city take advantage of this project and use it as catalyst for thinking about what our vision actually was for that section of town before One Metro West came along, and what it might be with One Metro West. Likewise, it might spur us to think about what our actual vision is for other parts of town as well. From what I can tell, One Metro West has provided something resembling a physical vision of what the north part of town might actually aspire to. We would be wise to pay attention. The fact that they are in the middle of our city’s employment hub, adjacent to the Santa Ana River Trail, providing real improvements to adjacent rights of way, and taking care to provide quality building frontages to frame our public space is, frankly, enough to earn my vote. This is not to mention that they are building over 1,000 units because they know that people will want to live there. Obviously Costa Mesa is an urbanized area. To provide more places for people to live within an urbanized area is the environmentally responsible thing to do. The City’s role should be to figure out how the north part of Costa Mesa might evolve into a place where these 1,000+ households can thrive without needing to drive everywhere. The developers can only do so much. The City needs to step it up too. Sincerely, Russell Toler 287 Costa Mesa St. ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 3. Response to Comments Page 3-736 April 2021 P32. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM RUSSELL TOLER, MARCH 22, 2020. P32-1 The commenter generally supports the proposed project and introduction of over 1,000 residential units in Costa Mesa to help meet the City’s local housing demands. The commenter is also supportive of the overall project design, multimodal improvements, and open space area proposed. The comment is acknowledged and no further response is required as part of the CEQA process/CEQA response to comments. The comment has been provided to the City decisionmakers for consideration. Paradigm Engineering Group 427 E. Seventeenth Street Suite #261 Costa Mesa, California 92627 909-898-1692 / Fax 498-7422 March 23, 2020 City of Costa Mesa Planning Division Attn: Ms. Minoo Ashabi, Principal Planner 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Re: One Metro West EIR, Specific Plan, and Master Plan Dear Ms. Ashabi, We have had an opportunity to review the One Metro West EIR, Specific Plan, and Master Plan and feel strongly that this is the right project in the right location at the right time for our city. We need more housing in Costa Mesa for the present and future employers of the regional, national, and international companies moving into the city. The new multi-model opportunities of today and the future in close proximity to employment and residential centers will reduce long commutes on freeways and therefore improve traffic. This project represents a giant leap forward in making the City of Costa Mesa more livable. Sincerely, Paradigm Engineering Group ____________________ Peter M Olah President petermolah@hotmail.com (909) 898-1692 3/23/20 ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 3. Response to Comments Page 3-738 April 2021 P33. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM PETER OLAH, MARCH 23, 2020. P33-1 The commenter generally supports the proposed project, particularly the introduction of more housing, jobs, and multimodal improvements in close proximity to existing employment and residential developments. The comment is acknowledged and no further response is required as part of the CEQA process/CEQA response to comments. The comment has been provided to the City decisionmakers for consideration. Page | 1 John C. Merrill 2893 El Rio Circle Costa Mesa, CA 92626 City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 To whom it may concern: I have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the One Metro West project and offer the following feedback and comments. My overarching concern on this project is how VMT has been calculated and whether the methodology presented in the TIA adequately captures the congestion and inducement impacts that would result. I would like to see more information disclosed to the public so that VMT analysis results can be interpreted by the public, as well as fellow traffic engineers and other planning professionals. EIR General: o Please provide detailed explanation how the project will reduce VMT, particularly for lower-wage service and retail jobs that are in proximity to the site, yet contains only a small amount of affordable housing. o Project is such a major change in land use, that it would appear to be remarkably incompatible with adjacent and nearby land uses. This is inconsistent with “smart growth” principles and is not incremental land use development. How does the project intend to integrate with the surrounding industrial land uses? o The EIR makes reference to a One Metro West Specific Plan, yet such a Plan does not currently exist on file with the City. How can this Plan be a mitigation if it does not already exist and has not been approved? Why can the project not be integrated into the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan, to coordinate land uses north of I-405? TIA General: o It should be noted that all freeway counts taken at ramps in 2019 are likely to not reflect true volumes due to general diversion to avoid construction on I-405. How has this been accounted for in the traffic analysis? Section 5.1: o “Trip credits were taken for the existing industrial use to be demolished for the development of the project. The credits were calculated by obtaining existing peak hour and daily counts at the existing project driveways.” In reviewing Table 5-A, the trip generation shown does not correspond to these counts. Please explain methodology or use a conservatively higher estimate of actual cordon counts for this underutilized industrial facility. o “Since the project is a mixed-use development, it is estimated that a certain percentage of trips between the land uses will be made on site and these internal trips do not utilize the major street system. The internal trips can be made either by walking within the project site or by vehicles using internal roadways without using external streets. An internal capture rate of 10 percent was used for both residential and non-residential uses based on City experience at other South Coast Metro locations. “ Page | 2 This is an unusually high internal capture rate. Please provide supporting documentation for this assumption provided the surrounding industrial uses. o “Vehicular trip reductions could be greater when considering the local context of attractions, destinations and networks linking them. “ Please provide an estimate with assumptions clearly stated to support potential active transportation mode shift given a typical pedestrian walkshed and bicycle rideshed. Section 5.2: o “The project trip distributions were developed using select zone model runs obtained from OCTAM. Three separate distributions were considered for the existing use, and the proposed residential and non- residential uses. “ This statement is not entirely accurate. Only 1 non-residential use (office) was run, and retail runs were not performed. As you are aware, the project is premised by its ability to not significantly increase VMT due to shorter home-based trips and home-based work trips. Please provide a table of trips per TAZ coded into the OCTAM model, for each major land use analyzed. Section 11.3, Residential use: o “As shown in Table 11-A, the VMT per capita for the project is 18% less than the regional VMT per capita under existing (2019) conditions. The differences (18%) is lower than threshold of 15% as suggested in the TA. Therefore, although the City is yet to adopt thresholds for VMT impacts, based on the TA, the residential component of the project will not have a significant transportation impact.” This reduction in VMT seems unlikely given the incompatible land uses proximate to the project. As you are aware, the project is premised by its ability to not significantly increase VMT due to shorter home-based trips. Please provide a table of trips per TAZ coded into the OCTAM model, for each major land use analyzed. Section 11.3, Non-residential use (office): o “As shown in Table 11-A, VMT per employee for the project is 3% higher than the regional average under existing conditions. The TA suggests that the VMT per employee for office uses are required to be 15% lower than the regional average. Therefore, although the City is yet to adopt thresholds for VMT impacts, based on the TA, the office component of the project may have a significant transportation impact.” Although the City does not currently have an impact threshold for VMT incorporated into the General Plan, an increase of 3% over the State recommendation is worth noting. Even though it may not be considered an “impact” due to a technicality, it will undoubtedly be significant to the traveling public with increased congestion. Note to City Council: you should enact a General Plan amendment for a policy change to create a VMT impact threshold in order to close this loophole. Section 11.3, Non-residential use (retail): o “The project retail component is a minor component of the project with only nine anticipated retail employees. As such, the retail (supermarket) will primarily be used by residents of the project and will be a local serving retail development that will help reduce home-based retail trips and thereby reduce VMT. Additionally, as stated in the TA, for mixed-use projects, only the “project’s dominant use” may be considered for VMT analysis. Since, the retail component of the proposed project is not a major component and will primarily serve residents of the project itself, a separate VMT assessment has not be considered.” This statement seems inconsistent with claims made in Table 5-A. Retail and other commercial uses seem to generate a reasonable amount of traffic, particularly in the PM peak hour (55 vehicles in and out), and a major selling point to reduce home-based work Page | 3 trips. In fact, this use has the highest overall peak hour trips. Please provide clarification and explanation for excluding such a large component. Section 11.4: o “The project still intends to provide several transportation demand management (TDM) measures intended to reduce further the overall VMT from the project.” For each of the TDM measures listed, please provide: Specific targets for VMT reduction by strategy Agency or organization responsible for implementation Method of continued monitoring for compliance (e.g., how this is included in a development agreement) o “It is also recognized that the project would add housing to an area within walking distance to employment, services, retail, restaurant and entertainment. As envisioned, the project would enhance the pedestrian user experience, improve the City’s jobs/housing ratio, diminish VMT per capita, and support implementation of new or alternative TDM measures.” This statement would seem to contradict findings in Section 11.2, Non-residential use (office). Please provide an approximate count of the number of restaurant and entertainment venues within a typical walkshed distance. o There does not seem to be any discussion about the very large increases in VMT in the 2040 Horizon Year baseline (see Appendix H). Please provide similar discussion and analysis as the 2019 baseline. This future congestion would present a significant challenge for residents in Costa Mesa if the General Plan were completely built out. When I first learned of the One Metro West project during my service on the Bikeway and Walkability Committee, it seemed like a unique opportunity to provide housing to employees, particularly those who typically work in retail or service industry jobs that are prevalent here in Costa Mesa. I am extremely supportive of “live-work” development in a contextually appropriate setting, but I don’t think this project is quite there yet. I do however still see potential. Respectfully submitted, John C. Merrill, PE, TE ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 3. Response to Comments Page 3-742 April 2021 P34. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM JOHN MERRILL, MARCH 23, 2020. P34-1 This introductory comment states the commenter’s overarching concern regarding how vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is calculated in the project’s Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) and whether the methodology presented in the TIA adequately captures the congestion and induced project impacts. Responses to specific comments within the comment letter are provided below. P34-2 The commenter requests an explanation as to how the project would reduce VMT, particularly for lower-wage service and retail jobs that are in proximity to the site, yet contains only a small amount of affordable housing. It is acknowledged that available jobs in the project area are not limited to lower- wage service and retail jobs, but also include light-industrial and office/corporate jobs as well. VMT is a measurement of vehicle miles traveled per capita within a specific area and timeframe. As analyzed in Section 5.13, Transportation, of the Draft EIR, the residential component of the project would place housing in the vicinity of multiple employment centers, including the neighboring industrial and commercial uses, thereby resulting in less VMT than the Orange County region. On the other hand, the office component of the project would place a job-generating use (i.e., the Creative Office Building) in an area of the City that is already jobs-rich, thereby resulting in slightly greater VMT than the Orange County region; refer to Draft EIR Table 5.13-13, Existing Regional and Project VMT Comparison. It should be noted the current methodology for VMT projections do not include a mixed-use scenario applicable to this site. As such, each use was analyzed separately for VMT projections. Additionally, per instructions from the State of California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), VMT is calculated per capita and per employee only. There is no mention of income classes or indication of affordable housing in the recommended methodology. Furthermore, income class and housing affordability are not data elements of typical traffic forecasting tools used for traffic volume forecasting or VMT estimation. P34-3 The commenter is concerned that the project is a substantially incompatible land use within the surrounding area. In addition to the nearby light industrial uses, the project site is also located adjacent to the South Coast Collection (SOCO) and The OC Mix, which are commercial centers with a farmers market, retail stores, boutiques, restaurants, and showrooms. Therefore, locating the proposed mixed- use development with housing, office, retail, and open space near these existing employment and entertainment areas would be compatible. It is acknowledged that a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change would still be required as part of the project. However, as analyzed in Draft EIR Table 5.9-1, Project Consistency with General Plan, the project would be generally consistent with applicable General Plan policies, including those related to land use, circulation, growth management, housing, conservation, noise, safety, community design, open space and recreation, and historical and cultural resources. P34-4 The commenter questions how the Specific Plan can be utilized as mitigation for the proposed development if it is not yet approved by the City Council. The Specific Plan is proposed as part of the project and, along with the Master Plan, would guide development of the project site with development standards and design guidelines related to setback, building height, parking, and amenity requirements ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 3. Response to Comments Page 3-743 April 2021 for the proposed residential and non-residential uses. The Specific Plan is not mitigation to reduce potentially significant impacts associated with the development but is rather part of the overall project development. The commenter sug gests integrating the project into the existing North Costa Mesa Specific Plan. The project site is not located within the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan area and thus, is not applicable to the project. This comment is not related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis. Thus, no additional response is required as part of the CEQA process/CEQA response to comments. The comment has been provided to the City decisionmakers for consideration. P34-5 The commenter notes that traffic counts conducted in 2019 as part of the TIA are likely not reflective of true traffic volumes given the general diversion of traffic to avoid construction activities on the I- 405 Freeway related to the I-405 Improvement Project. As stated in Draft EIR Section 5.13, Transportation, existing traffic volumes are based on a.m. and p.m. peak hour turning movement counts collected by Counts Unlimited in March 2019. However, due to ongoing construction activities related to the I‐405 Improvement Project, some of the I‐405 ramps on Fairview Road remained closed at the time the counts were collected. Also, some of the traffic on Fairview Street/Fairview Road was diverted because of the closure. Hence, for all the intersections on Fairview Street/Fairview Road, counts collected by Counts Unlimited in September 2018, before the beginning of construction activities, were used instead. A one percent growth was added to the September 2018 counts at the study intersections along Fairview Street/Fairview Road to develop year 2019 counts at these intersections. Detailed count sheets are provided in TIA Appendix A, Traffic Count Sheets. P34-6 The commenter states that the trip credits taken for the existing industrial use do not correctly correspond to the counts detailed in TIA Table 5-A, Project Trip Generation, and requests an explanation of the methodology. Table 5 -A, Project Trip Generation, of the TIA correctly details the existing peak hour trips generated by the industrial building (429 average daily trips with 37 a.m. peak hour trips and 8 p.m. peak hour trips) based on driveway counts collected on September 11, 2019; refer to TIA Appendix A, Traffic Count Sheets. At the bottom of TIA Table 5-A, Project Trip Generation, the ‘Project Trip Generation’ is a sum of the ‘Net Project Trip Generation (Residential)’ and ‘Net Project Trip Generation (Non-Residential)’ minus the existing industrial building peak hour trips (i.e., the trip credits). Existing trip generation associated with the industrial building was based on driveway counts (a.m. and p.m. peak hours and daily trips) collected on September 11, 2019; refer to Attachment F-4, Existing Driveway Counts. P34-7 The commenter states that an internal capture rate of 10 percent is unusually high and requests supporting documentation for this assumption. As stated, the 10 percent internal capture rate was utilized based on City experience with other mixed use projects in Costa Mesa, including the South Coast Metro area and higher capture rates for mixed use developments in the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ Trip Generation Manual. The Orange County Traffic Analysis Model indicated a greater internal capture percentage between the project’s land uses. Therefore, the 10 percent internal capture rate was used as a more conservative estimate. ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 3. Response to Comments Page 3-744 April 2021 P34-8 The commenter requests an estimate of additional vehicular trip reductions (in addition to the 10 percent internal capture rate and trip credits) based on the project’s proposed active transportation improvements (e.g., bicycle amenities, Santa Ana River Trail connections, and pedestrian improvements along Sunflower Avenue) and the proximity of other destinations and attractions within walking distance (e.g., SOCO and The OC Mix). The TIA analysis does not take into account additional vehicular trip reductions associated with the project’s active transportation improvements, only the 10 percent internal capture rate and trip credits for the existing industrial use were taken. The sentence cited from the TIA in this comment is generally stating that additional vehicular trip reductions could occur should these active transportation improvements be considered in the project’s overall net trip generation. As such, a quantified estimate of these vehicular trip reductions would be speculative and is not warranted. Further, the current analysis presents a conservative assumption for the project’s traffic impacts and the addition of the requested information in the Draft EIR and/or TIA would not result in new identified transportation impacts or new mitigation measures. P34-9 The commenter states that the project trip distributions did not consider residential, office, and retail uses and requests a table of trips per traffic analysis zone coded into the Orange County Traffic Analysis Model for each major land use analyzed. The trip distribution assignments are consistent with the underlying model traffic data. Non-residential runs account for both of the project’s office and retail land uses given that the retail component of the project is a small part of the overall development. Additionally, project trips are not coded into the traffic model. The model utilizes socio-economic data to forecast trips by traffic analysis zone and thus, was coded in the Orange County Traffic Analysis Model for each land use type and the project trips were obtained from the model outputs. P34-10 The commenter states that the project’s anticipated reduction in residential VMT compared to regional VMT seems unlikely given the incompatible land uses proximate to the site and requests a table of trips per traffic analysis zone coded into the Orange County Traffic Analysis Model for each major land use analyzed. The proposed project is primarily a residential project. The model was utilized per standards set by the Orange County Transportation Authority following the recommendations by OPR for calculating VMT. Project trips are not coded into the model, but are based on the model outputs. P34-11 The commenter states that even though the City does not have an established VMT threshold, the VMT generated by the project’s office component, which is higher than the Orange County region, is worth noting. The Draft EIR does conservatively conclude that impacts related to VMT are significant and unavoidable due to the creative office use’s three percent increase in VMT compared to the region. The commenter also states that the City Council should adopt a VMT threshold to close the “loophole.” OPR developed alternative metrics and thresholds based on VMT. Although the new CEQA Guidelines were certified by the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency in December 2018, lead agencies have until July 1, 2020 to adopt new VMT-based criteria for evaluating traffic impacts. OPR also published a Te chnical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA in December 2018 to provide technical recommendations regarding assessment of VMT, thresholds of significance, and mitigation measures. Separate from the proposed project, the City is currently in the process of establishing and adopting VMT thresholds. In the meantime, for the purposes of this EIR, OPR’s ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 3. Response to Comments Page 3-745 April 2021 Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA is being used for the purpose of analyzing the project’s VMT impacts. P34-12 The TIA states that the retail component of the project is minor with only nine anticipated retail employees, thus, a separate VMT assessment is not considered for the retail use. The commenter is concerned about this approach and states that although nominal compared to the residential and office components of the project, the retail component would generate a reasonable amount of traffic, particularly in the p.m. peak hour (approximately 55 vehicle trips). Approximately 55 p.m. peak hour trips is minimal and would not constitute a significant enough volume to warrant a traffic study per the City’s Traffic Impact Analysis guidelines. Additionally, based on OPR’s Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, lead agencies can evaluate each component of a mixed-use project independently and apply the significance threshold for each project type included (e.g., residential and retail). Alternatively, a lead agency may consider only the project’s dominant use. As such, the VMT analysis considers only the project’s dominant uses (i.e., residential and office) and analyzes each use separately. P34-13 For each transportation demand management (TDM) measure proposed by the project, the commenter requests quantified targets for VMT reduction, identification of the implementing party, and method for monitoring/compliance. The TDM measures detailed in TIA Section 11.4, VMT Reduction Strategies, would further reduce the overall VMT generated by the project; however, they are not quantified as part of the project’s residential and office VMT. The TDM measures include pedestrian and traffic calming measures (e.g., new sidewalks, bicycle lanes, and restriping along Sunflower Avenue), which are detailed in Chapter 3, Project Description, of the Draft EIR. These are proposed as part of the project and would be implemented during project construction. The car- sharing programs, encouraged telecommuting and alternative work schedule, and ride-sharing programs would be implemented by the future property manager(s) of the residential buildings and tenants of the creative office building. As these TDM measures cannot be easily monitored like the project’s mitigation measures, they are not quantified in this analysis to reduce potentially significant impacts. As quantifying these measures would be speculative, these VMT reductions are not specifically included in the calculations, but rather just acknowledged. P34-14 The commenter indicates a sentence in the TIA contradicts the findings associated with the project’s office-related VMT. Refer to responses to comments P34-10 and P34-11. P34-15 The commenter requests an analysis of the VMT impacts in the 2040 scenario as shown in TIA Appendix H, VMT Calculation Worksheet. As detailed, VMT impacts for the residential and office components of the project would result in similar impacts under existing 2019 and 2040 conditions (since this analysis is based on added vehicle miles traveled and not necessarily traffic congestion). However, per the direction of OPR, the VMT analysis is to be provided for existing conditions, not for future conditions. P34-16 The commenter generally supports live-work developments in a contextually appropriate setting but feels the project has some shortfalls. This comment is not related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 3. Response to Comments Page 3-746 April 2021 analysis and thus, no further response is required as part of the CEQA process/CEQA response to comments. The comment has been provided to the City decisionmakers for consideration. 1 Bogue, Kristen From:ASHABI, MINOO <MINOO.ASHABI@costamesaca.gov> Sent:Monday, March 23, 2020 5:00 PM To:HUYNH, NANCY; Bogue, Kristen; 'Brent Stoll'; 'Nicole Morse'; LE, JENNIFER Subject:EXTERNAL: Fw: Attn: One Metro West DEIR comments From: Robin Leffler <wre2lef@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Monday, March 23, 2020 4:48 PM To: ASHABI, MINOO Subject: Attn: One Metro West DEIR comments City of Costa Mesa Minoo Ashabi, Principal Planner, Planning Services Department City of Costa Mesa I have a few comments on the One Metro West EIR in the form of requests for analysis of certain impacts to the adjacent neighborhood of Mesa Verde, that are lacking from the document presented. The following traffic analysis are lacking from the EIR: As any one living in Mesa Verde knows, Mesa Verde Drive has heavy cut-through Traffic at peak hours. Country Club between Mesa Verde Drive and Gisler, and Baker also are heavily trafficked at rush hour. Please provide analysis of peak hour traffic increases due to the proposed One Metro West projected on these residential roadways already negatively impacted by cut-through traffic. I will echo my fellow Mesa Verde Community Board member Rus Pucell's statement that the massive project would block a great deal of the airspace visible to the north of the project, both in it's present inception or in a modified alternative offered, Furthermore, it would block air circulation., Another important area of concern is that it would increase light pollution at night in the Upper Mesa Verde area. I echo the conclusion of my acquaintances Rus Purcell and Terry Wall: the only acceptable alternative to the project is the NO PROJECT/NO DEVELOPMENT option. Robin Leffler Mesa Verde Resident 3000 Ceylon Road, Costa Mesa 92626 714 546 1452 1 Bogue, Kristen From:HUYNH, NANCY <NANCY.HUYNH@costamesaca.gov> Sent:Tuesday, March 24, 2020 10:22 AM To:Bogue, Kristen Subject:EXTERNAL: Fw: City of Costa Mesa: One Metro West Kristen ‐ please note the commenter below submitted two of the same public comment (one directly to Minoo and one via the City's general email). The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. NANCY HUYNH Associate Planner Development Services Department (714) 754-5609 From: ASHABI, MINOO Sent: Monday, March 23, 2020 5:05 PM To: HUYNH, NANCY Subject: Fw: City of Costa Mesa: One Metro West From: webmaster@costamesaca.gov <webmaster@costamesaca.gov> on behalf of City of Costa Mesa <webmaster@costamesaca.gov> Sent: Monday, March 23, 2020 4:52 PM To: ASHABI, MINOO Subject: City of Costa Mesa: One Metro West You have received this link from Robin Leffler < wre2lef@sbcglobal.net > for the following page: https://www.costamesaca.gov/city‐hall/city‐departments/development‐services/planning/one‐metro‐west The following are comments on the One Metro West EIR which I sent earlier by regular email City of Costa Mesa Minoo Ashabi, Principal Planner, Planning Services Department City of Costa Mesa I have a few comments on the One Metro West EIR in the form of requests for analysis of certain impacts to the adjacent neighborhood of Mesa Verde, that are lacking from the document presented. The following traffic analysis are lacking from the EIR: As any one living in Mesa Verde knows, Mesa Verde Drive has heavy cut‐through Traffic at peak hours. Country Club between Mesa Verde Drive and Gisler, and Baker also are heavily trafficked at rush hour. Please provide analysis of peak hour traffic increases due to the proposed One Metro West projected on these residential roadways already negatively impacted by cut‐through traffic. I will echo my fellow Mesa Verde Community Board member Rus Pucell's statement that the massive project would block a great deal of the airspace visible to the north of the project, both in it's present inception or in a modified 2 alternative offered, Furthermore, it would block air circulation., Another important area of concern is that it would increase light pollution at night in the Upper Mesa Verde area. I echo the conclusion of my acquaintances Rus Purcell and Terry Wall: the only acceptable alternative to the project is the NO PROJECT/NO DEVELOPMENT option. Robin Leffler Mesa Verde Resident 3000 Ceylon Road, Costa Mesa 92626 714 546 1452 ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 3. Response to Comments Page 3-750 April 2021 P35. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM ROBIN LEFFLER, MARCH 23, 2020. P35-1 The commenter identifies several residential roadways within the Mesa Verde community that would be adversely impacted by the project and requests peak hour traffic analysis along such roadways. As detailed in Draft EIR Section 5.13, Transportation, the study area intersections analyzed in the TIA were identified per the City’s Tr affic Impact Analysis guidelines, which is based on intersections where the project would add 50 or more peak hour trips. Given that the residential roadways identified by the commenter would not result in 50 additional trips upon project implementation, they were not included in the project’s traffic impact analysis. Generally, a traffic impact analysis is focused on roadways that would experience at least a certain number of added trips based on each jurisdiction’s local traffic analysis guidelines. The study intersections closest to the Mesa Verde neighborhood include Harbor Boulevard/Gisler Avenue (Study Intersection No. 14), Harbor Boulevard/Nutmeg Place (Study Intersection No. 15), and Harbor Boulevard/Baker Street (Study Intersection No. 16). As shown in Traffic Impact Analysis Figure 5-2, Project Trip Distribution – Residential, only one percent of outbound residential trips from the project site are anticipated to turn onto Gisler Avenue from Harbor Boulevard into the Mesa Verde neighborhood. No other inbound or outbound residential trips are anticipated to turn into the Mesa Verde neighborhood. Further, as shown on Figure 5-3, Project Trip Distribution – Non-Residential, only one percent of outbound non-residential trips from the project site are anticipated to turn onto Gisler Avenue and Nutmeg Place from Harbor Boulevard into the Mesa Verde neighborhood. No other inbound or outbound non-residential trips are anticipated to turn into the Mesa Verde neighborhood. Therefore, the neighborhood would not be converted into a thoroughfare to the proposed development as the roadways are all located south of the freeway and predominantly end in cul-de- sacs or loops within the neighborhood. P35-2 The commenter raises concerns regarding the proposed buildings impacts on visible airspace, air circulation, and light pollution. Building A would have a maximum building height of six stories; Buildings B and C would have maximum building heights of seven stories; and the Creative Office Building would have a maximum building height of three stories. Refer to response to comment O2- 2 regarding aesthetics impacts related to proposed building heights. As summarized, per Draft EIR Table 5.1-1, Project Consistency with the Costa Mesa General Plan, the proposed project would be consistent with relevant General Plan goals, objectives, and policies pertaining to scenic quality (including consideration of proposed building heights as applicable). Impacts regarding the potential to conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality were determined to be less than significant. The commenter states that the proposed buildings would block air circulation in the project area. CEQA environmental topic areas of concern do not include air circulation; no further response is required in this regard as part of the CEQA process/CEQA response to comments. The comment has been provided to the City decisionmakers for consideration. ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 3. Response to Comments Page 3-751 April 2021 Project impacts regarding light pollution are analyzed in Section 5.1, Aesthetics, of the Draft EIR. The proposed project is located within a developed area of the City and currently developed with an industrial building. As a result, various sources of light and glare are currently present in the project area. Project implementation would result in additional sources of lighting through the development of new residential structures, parking garages, an office building, and open space amenities. However, parking structure lighting would be designed to minimize light spillover and installed to concentrate light on pedestrian and vehicle aisles and ramps with spillover lighting adequate to illuminate parking stalls (refer to PPP AES-2). Further, in order to reduce impacts related to light and glare from the proposed parking façade, the Specific Plan includes development standards which specify project lighting requirements to ensure exterior lighting is shielded and directed downward, or otherwise directed away from off-site properties. The development standards also stipulate that project lighting adjacent to the I-405 Freeway would be required to meet applicable Caltrans standards. An Exterior Lighting Plan would be required, prior to issuance of the first building permit, that identifies and depicts locations, design, types, scale, and illumination power of lighting fixtures, including on all building exteriors and within the open space/trail connection areas. SCA AE-5 would require preparation of a Lighting Plan and Photometric Study for review and approval by the City’s Development Services Director. The Lighting Plan and Photometric Study would include performance standards to minimize the project’s potential to result in lighting impacts. Further, Mitigation Measure AE-1 would ensure the project’s Lighting Plan and Photometric Study required under SCA AES-5 include additional lighting performance measures to demonstrate the project lighting meets minimum security lighting requirements and minimizes lighting impacts to surrounding uses. Specifically, Mitigation Measure AE-1 would ensure the parking structure façade artistic treatment includes light shields or baffles to eliminate glare to travelers along the I-405 Freeway and limits illumination levels. With implementation of Mitigation Measure AE-1, impacts regarding light pollution would be reduced to less than significant levels. P35-3 Refer to responses to comments P35-1 and P35-2, pertaining to traffic and light pollution, respectively. 1 Bogue, Kristen From:HUYNH, NANCY <NANCY.HUYNH@costamesaca.gov> Sent:Tuesday, March 24, 2020 10:10 AM To:Bogue, Kristen Subject:EXTERNAL: Fw: One Metro West The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. NANCY HUYNH Associate Planner Development Services Department (714) 754-5609 From: ASHABI, MINOO Sent: Monday, March 23, 2020 9:29 AM To: HUYNH, NANCY Subject: Fw: One Metro West From: Shawn McBride <trinug@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, March 23, 2020 9:06 AM To: ASHABI, MINOO Subject: One Metro West Dear Mrs. Ashabi: As a resident of Costa Mesa since 2001, I gladly support the proposed One Metro West community which will continue to build Costa Mesa's global reputation as an innovative and vibrant city. The area of Costa Mesa north of the 405 has long served as the economic engine of the City. However, with its relative lack of housing, the traffic coming and leaving the area has put a strain on many of our traditional neighborhoods during the peak hours of the day. It was great to see the city’s Environmental Impact Report confirmed that the One Metro West community will serve as an ideal complement to the new and existing jobs north of the 405, drawing impactful traffic away from our nearby neighborhoods. There is no doubt One Metro West will create citywide economic benefits for Costa Mesa residents and new opportunities for our local businesses. By rightsizing the community and enhancing the pedestrian network, residential can stay the neighborhood for dining, shopping, and work. Meanwhile, unnecessary traffic and disruption in our neighborhoods will be avoided. All the while, funds paid by the community will be used to improve parks and amenities in traditional neighborhoods like the one I call home. It's an ideal mixture of uses, with the 405 serving as a natural barrier to the rest of Costa Mesa. 2 Our city has grown as a community by being at the forefront of planning great neighborhoods, parks, retail, and I look forward to One Metro West being a part of that story as well. Sincerely, Shawn McBride 1814 Fullerton Ave. Unit B Costa Mesa, CA 92627 ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 3. Response to Comments Page 3-754 April 2021 P36. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM SHAWN MCBRIDE, MARCH 23, 2020. P36-1 The commenter generally supports the proposed project, including the introduction of housing north of the I-405 Freeway and development of residential, employment, and retail within one neighborhood. The comment is acknowledged and no further response is required as part of the CEQA process/CEQA response to comments. The comment has been provided to the City decisionmakers for consideration. 1 Bogue, Kristen From:HUYNH, NANCY <NANCY.HUYNH@costamesaca.gov> Sent:Tuesday, March 24, 2020 10:10 AM To:Bogue, Kristen Subject:EXTERNAL: Fw: One Metro West The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. NANCY HUYNH Associate Planner Development Services Department (714) 754-5609 From: ASHABI, MINOO Sent: Monday, March 23, 2020 9:39 AM To: HUYNH, NANCY Subject: Fw: One Metro West From: Tracey Valencia <t.emmons76@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 23, 2020 9:37 AM To: ASHABI, MINOO Subject: One Metro West Minoo Ashabi Principal Planner City of Costa Mesa RE: Support for the One Metro West Dear Minoo: As a resident of Costa Mesa since 2006, I gladly support the proposed One Metro West community. The area of Costa Mesa north of the 405 has long served as the economic engine of the City. However, with its relative lack of housing, the traffic coming and leaving the area has put a strain on many of our traditional neighborhoods during the peak hours of the day. It was great to see the city’s Environmental Impact Report confirmed that the One Metro West community will serve as an ideal complement to the new and existing jobs north of the 405, drawing impactful traffic away from our nearby neighborhoods. 2 A strong housing policy should be a part of our civic north star. This includes all kind of housing, for-sale and for-rent (both market and affordable). Housing is at the core of so many of societal’ s issues (transit, global warming, inequity, segregation, economic growth, generational wealth gaps, etc). Having a healthy housing market which reacts appropriately to all this issues is fundamental to the solutions for same. As Costa Mesa looks to the future, ideas like One Metro West are roundly supported by economists and environmentalist alike. For these reasons, I am supportive this plan and community. Sincerely, Tracey Valencia 674 W 18th Street Costa Mesa, 92627 ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 3. Response to Comments Page 3-757 April 2021 P37. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM TRACEY VALENCIA, MARCH 23, 2020. P37-1 The commenter generally supports the proposed project, including the introduction of housing (both market and affordable) north of the I-405 Freeway. The comment is acknowledged; no further response is required as part of the CEQA process/CEQA response to comments. The comment has been provided to the City decisionmakers for consideration. 1 Bogue, Kristen From:HUYNH, NANCY <NANCY.HUYNH@costamesaca.gov> Sent:Tuesday, March 24, 2020 10:23 AM To:Bogue, Kristen Subject:EXTERNAL: Fw: One Metro West Project The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. NANCY HUYNH Associate Planner Development Services Department (714) 754-5609 From: ASHABI, MINOO Sent: Monday, March 23, 2020 10:59 PM To: HUYNH, NANCY Subject: Fw: One Metro West Project From: Jose De La Jara <jdelajara@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, March 23, 2020 6:31 PM To: ASHABI, MINOO Subject: One Metro West Project Dear Mr. Minoo Ashabi - As a life long resident of Costa Mesa and involved community member, I have watched the One Metro West community proposal develop in detail. What has me more impressed is their level of involvement and commitment to the community and that their approach will add much needed housing for all types of Costa Mesa residents and those that work here while not changing the traditional neighborhoods many of our residents call home south of the 405 or near South Coast Metro. In addition, by adding a new 1.5 acre open space on what is now a decades old industrial site, every member of the public can start to see how our community is better together which is one of the goals at Trellis that Rose Equities and the One Metro West community have worked to help make a reality. Costa Mesa has an established, recognized need for housing and the approved and under development projects north of the 405 show that the need for housing will continue to grow. By approving One Metro West, Costa Mesa will be providing a realistic and positive solution for many residents, employers, and new employees looking for housing that does not require long work commutes or drives for shopping, restaurants, and entertainment. I look forward to continuing to support One Metro West in the future and appreciate your consideration of our thoughts in this project moving forward. 2 Sincerely, Jose De La Jara Costa Mesa Resident ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 3. Response to Comments Page 3-760 April 2021 P38. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM JOSE DE LA JARA, MARCH 23, 2020. P38-1 The commenter generally supports the proposed project, particularly the introduction of housing north of the I-405 Freeway, which would minimize impacts to existing neighborhoods south of the I- 405 Freeway and near South Coast Metro. The commenter is also supportive of the revitalization of the underutilized industrial site with open space and trail improvements. The comment is acknowledged and no further response is required as part of the CEQA process/CEQA response to comments. The comment has been provided to the City decisionmakers for consideration. 1 Bogue, Kristen From:HUYNH, NANCY <NANCY.HUYNH@costamesaca.gov> Sent:Tuesday, March 24, 2020 10:26 AM To:Bogue, Kristen Subject:EXTERNAL: Fw: Support for One Metro West NANCY HUYNH Associate Planner Development Services Department City of Costa Mesa | (714) 754-5609 From: ASHABI, MINOO Sent: Monday, March 23, 2020 10:59 PM To: HUYNH, NANCY Subject: Fw: Support for One Metro West From: Todd Eckert <todd@proindependence.org> Sent: Monday, March 23, 2020 6:35 PM To: ASHABI, MINOO Cc: jgibson.ocg@gmail.com Subject: Support for One Metro West Dear Minoo Ashabi ‐ For over forty years Project Independence has made the Sunflower corridor our home. From this central point we have served hundreds of adults with developmental disabilities throughout Orange County. During our many years at our headquarters we have watched the neighborhood change from industrial warehouse to flex space for assembly and manufacturing, to its current mixed use of office and warehousing. For these past few years we have excitedly watched as One Metro West developed a new vision and wonderful addition to the region of residential, office, and open spacing. We could not be more excited. The combination of repurposing a land area currently used as manufacturing and shipping into much‐needed housing and local resources is brilliant. As a neighbor we will have access to retail sources not currently available near us, the life energy that comes with high‐end residential units and open park spaces which will allow us a location for our clients to walk and socialize without the need for transporting and the expenses associated. I, as well as our entire organization, wholeheartedly embrace this valuable addition to our neighborhood. The pros strongly outweigh the limited drawbacks and should be enthusiastically be supported by the City of Costa Mesa. Sincerely, 2 Todd Eckert Director of Development Project Independence Sent from Todd's iPad ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 3. Response to Comments Page 3-764 April 2021 P39. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM TODD ECKERT, MARCH 23, 2020. P39-1 The commenter generally supports the proposed project, particularly the revitalization of the underutilized industrial site with housing, retail, office, open space, and trail improvements. The comment is acknowledged; no further response is required as part of the CEQA process/CEQA response to comments. The comment has been provided to the City decisionmakers for consideration. P39-2 Refer to response to comment P39-1. ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 3. Response to Comments Page 3-766 April 2021 P40. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM ANDREW SMITH, MARCH 23, 2020. P40-1 The commenter generally supports the proposed project due to the need for more housing in Costa Mesa. However, the commenter caveats that he is in support of the proposed project so long as the project does not result in the need for a new fire station to be constructed. As analyzed in Draft EIR Section 5.12, Public Services and Recreation, the project would increase demand for fire services and would be required to implement Mitigation Measures PS-1 and PS-2 to reduce such impacts to less than significant levels. Mitigation Measure PS-1 would ensure existing traffic signals along the response corridors from CMFD Stations 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 to the project site are retrofitted to include Emergency Vehicle Preemption. CMFD states that implementation of Mitigation Measure PS-1 is acceptable mitigation to incrementally improve response capabilities to the site. Further, in addition to compliance with standard fire protection requirements of the California Fire Code and referenced standards as adopted by the CMFD, the project is required to provide additional fire protection features on-site in excess of minimum code requirements to ensure Building A and the associated parking garage design meet CMFD’s fire apparatus access road and hose pull requirements (Mitigation Measure PS-2). CMFD also indicated that, although there are no current plans to increase the number of personnel service in the project area, additional staffing, apparatus, and facilities need to be considered. CMFD is currently conducting a comprehensive Citywide Standards of Coverage Assessment and deployment analysis that is independent of the proposed project. The City is also concurrently conducting a Development Impact Fee Study to account for similar changes of use that result in net increases to call volumes. In the meantime, to mitigate the impacts of the project-generated increase in anticipated calls for service, CMFD has accepted PPP FS-3, which requires the negotiation of fees through the project’s Development Agreement with an understanding that the developer would be required to pay its pro-rata share of additional staffing and equipment. The project would be required to pay development impact fees established based on the Citywide Standards of Coverage Assessment and the Development Impact Fee Study and as required in the Development Agreement in accordance with PPP FS-3 and Municipal Code Section 13-270, Establishment of Development Impact Fee. The revenues raised by the development impact fee, the Development Agreement, and the proportionate revenues generated through the project’s ongoing payment of taxes (and other similar project-related revenues) would fund fire protection staffing, facilities, and equipment and would offset the project’s incremental impacts to fire services. To clarify, project implementation itself would not result in the need to construct a new fire station. However, similar to other development projects within the City, the proposed project would be required to pay development impact fees, which would fund future fire protection service needs. 1 Bogue, Kristen From:HUYNH, NANCY <NANCY.HUYNH@costamesaca.gov> Sent:Wednesday, March 25, 2020 8:31 AM To:Bogue, Kristen Subject:EXTERNAL: Fw: REGARDING PUBLIC REVIEW OF THE ONE METRO WEST DRAFT EIR NANCY HUYNH Associate Planner Development Services Department City of Costa Mesa | (714) 754-5609 From: ASHABI, MINOO Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2020 8:05 AM To: HUYNH, NANCY Subject: Fw: REGARDING PUBLIC REVIEW OF THE ONE METRO WEST DRAFT EIR From: Jan Harmon <janharmon2008@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2020 9:52 PM To: OMW Public Comments Subject: REGARDING PUBLIC REVIEW OF THE ONE METRO WEST DRAFT EIR To OMWPublicComments@costamesaca.gov REGARDING PUBLIC REVIEW OF THE ONE METRO WEST DRAFT EIR March 24, 2020 Dear Mini Ashabi, I have read the One Metro West Draft EIR ( located at https://www.costamesaca.gov/home/showdocument?id=41025) and I have serious concerns how this project could benefit Costa Mesa. In fact, it will be a detriment to our city. I have the following concerns: 1. The amount of traffic this project will create will put a burden on the already impacted traffic flow along Harbor Blvd and Fairview Blvd at the 405 freeway. The EIR contains a chart showing the current approved projects for the vicinity of One Metro West. I was shocked to see how many projects have already been approved that will be increasing traffic by 28,348 daily trips on our already impacted Costa Mesa Roads. According to the One Metro West EIR on page 5.13-26, the One Metro West project would add another 6,800 daily trips. 2. I do not like the idea of changing the zoning of the area of the proposed One Metro West to high density residential opening the area up to even more residential building projects and increased burden on Costa Mesa. 3. Further concerns I have are the project’s impact on local schools, the impact to our emergency services and evacuation plan, and the increased demand on city services such as police and fire. In conclusion, it is my feeling that the One Metro West project would be a burden on the City of Costa Mesa and should not be allowed to proceed. 2 Sincerely, Jan Harmon, Costa Mesa resident since 1973 1859 Illinois St Costa Mesa 714 546 4005 janharmon2008@gmail.com ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 3. Response to Comments Page 3-769 April 2021 P41. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM JAN HARMON, MARCH 24, 2020. P41-1 The commenter is concerned about the additional traffic that would be generated by the project, particularly along Harbor Boulevard and Fairview Boulevard near the I-405 Freeway, in addition to other cumulative projects identified in the Draft EIR. This comment is general concern regarding increased traffic in the City and not related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis. Nevertheless, to clarify, the list of cumulative projects detailed in Draft EIR Table 4-2, Related Projects, are not necessarily approved yet. According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b), the related projects are “past, present and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the agency.” As such, some of the listed related projects may be on hold, in the environmental review process, approved, in plan check review, or in construction. Section 5.13, Transportation, of the Draft EIR analyzes the project’s incremental impacts on study area intersections and freeway segments and ramps under existing plus project, future short-term cumulative (2027) plus project, and/or General Plan buildout (2040) plus project scenarios. The future short-term cumulative (2027) and General Plan buildout (2040) scenarios take into account the related projects listed in Draft EIR Table 4-2, Related Projects. P41-2 The commenter opposes the proposed Zone Change claiming that it would open the area to more residential building projects in the project area. The proposed Zone Change would only apply to the project site; all other surrounding uses adjacent to the project site would maintain their existing zoning of Industrial Park (MP) and Planned Development Industrial (PDI). Should a future residential project be proposed in the project area, it would be required to undergo a separate environmental review process under CEQA. As such, the proposed Zone Change would not establish a procedure that would make future re-designations and/or rezones easier and is not a precedent-setting action. P41-3 The commenter raises concerns regarding project impacts on local schools, emergency services and evacuation plans, and police and fire services. The project’s impacts on schools, emergency services, police, and fire services are fully analyzed in Section 5.12, Public Services and Recreation, and impacts on evacuation plans are evaluated in Section 5.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. As analyzed, the project would result in less than significant impacts to each of the identified topical areas with implementation of Mitigation Measures PS-1, PS-2, and HAZ-3. 3/24/2020 Fw: OMW - Letter of Support - HUYNH, NANCY https://exweb.costamesaca.gov/owa/#viewmodel=ReadMessageItem&ItemID=AAMkAGZiZTExNzI4LTczMWMtNDk4NS1iMjc0LTM0YjEwMmQ2N2Jm…1/1 Fw: OMW - Letter of Suppor t From: Anne Marie Kane <anmrekn@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 23, 2020 9:45 AM To: ASHABI, MINOO Subject: OMW - Le er of Support Dear Mrs. Ashabi: As a resident of Costa Mesa since 2011, I gladly support the proposed One Metro West community which will continue to build Costa Mesa's global reputation as an innovative and vibrant city. The area of Costa Mesa north of the 405 has long ser ved as the economic engine of the City. However, with its relative lack of housing, the traffic coming and leaving the area has put a strain on many of our traditional neighborhoods during the peak hours of the day. It was great to see the city’s Environmental Impact Report confirmed that the One Metro West community will ser ve as an ideal complement to the new and existing jobs north of the 405, drawing impactful traffic away from our nearby neighborhoods. There is no doubt One Metro West will create citywide economic benefits for Costa Mesa residents and new opportunities for our local businesses. By rightsizing the community and enhancing the pedestrian network, residential can stay the neighborhood for dining, shopping, and work. Meanwhile, unnecessary traffic and disr uption in our neighborhoods will be avoided. All the while, funds paid by the community will be used to improve parks and amenities in traditional neighborhoods like the one I call home. It's an ideal mixture of uses, with the 405 ser ving as a natural barrier to the rest of Costa Mesa. Our city has grown as a community by being at the forefront of planning great neighborhoods, parks, retail, and I look forward to One Metro West being a part of that story as well. Sincerely, Anne Marie Kane 785 Center Street Costa Mesa, CA 92627 ASHABI, MINOO Mon 3/23/2020 9:51 AM To:HUYNH, NANCY <NANCY.HUYNH@costamesaca.gov>; ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 3. Response to Comments Page 3-771 April 2021 P42. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM ANNE MARIE KANE, MARCH 23, 2020. P42-1 The commenter generally supports the proposed project, including the introduction of housing north of the I-405 Freeway and development of residential, employment, and retail within one neighborhood. The comment is acknowledged and no further response is required as part of the CEQA process/CEQA response to comments. The comment has been provided to the City decisionmakers for consideration. March 23, 2020 Minoo Ashabi Principal Planner City of Costa Mesa RE: Support for the One Metro West Dear Minoo: As a Millennial resident of Costa Mesa, I wanted to discuss my support for the proposed One Metro West community. There is an incredible demand for my generation for places to live near jobs and amenities. More importantly, places to live near upwardly mobile jobs which are so important to all of our futures. These are the types of jobs are prevalent in Costa Mesa’s economic engine, north of the 405. One Metro West is the ideal complement to these jobs, not only because they are bringing much needed housing, but because they are paying so much attention to the pedestrian. The walkable connection from the Santa Ana River Trail to One Metro West, SOCO, VANS and beyond are the needed building blocks for an area of Costa Mesa which has so much promise for the city’s future. Costa Mesa has grown as a city and a community by being at the forefront of planning great neighborhoods, parks and retail. One Metro West is the continuation of this tradition and is a great piece of Costa Mesa’s future, which should be focused north of the 405. Sincerely, Devin Green 2853 Boa Vista Dr. Costa Mesa, CA 92626 ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 3. Response to Comments Page 3-773 April 2021 P43. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM DEVIN GREEN, MARCH 23, 2020. P43-1 The commenter generally supports the proposed project, including the introduction of housing, jobs, and amenities all within one neighborhood. The commenter also supports the proposed pedestrian improvements that would connect the Santa Ana River Trail to the project site, SOCO, and beyond. The comment is acknowledged; no further response is required as part of the CEQA process/CEQA response to comments. The comment has been provided to the City decisionmakers for consideration. ENGINEERS + GEOLOGISTS + ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS Offices Strategically Positioned Throughout Southern California CORPORATE OFFICE 3186 Airway Avenue, Suite K, Costa Mesa, California 92626 T: 714.549.8921 F: 714.751.0108 For more information visit us online at www.petra-inc.com To: Ms. Minoo Ashabi, Principal Planner City of Costa Mesa Planning Division 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 From: Dr. Siamak Jafroudi, President Petra Geosciences, Inc. 3186 Airway Avenue, Suite K Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Date: March 23, 2020 Subject: One Metro West EIR, Specific Plan, and Master Plan Dear Ms. Ashabi, We have had an opportunity to review the One Metro West EIR, Specific Plan, and Master Plan and feel strongly that this is the right project in the right location at the right time for our city. We need more housing in Costa Mesa for the present and future employers of the regional, national, and international companies moving into the city. The new multi-model opportunities of today and the future in close proximity to employment and residential centers will reduce long commutes on freeways and therefore improve traffic. This project represents a giant leap forward in making the City of Costa Mesa more livable. Respectfully submitted, PETRA GEOSCIENCES, INC. Dr. Siamak Jafroudi President SJ/lv ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 3. Response to Comments Page 3-775 April 2021 P44. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM SIAMAK JAFROUDI, MARCH 23, 2020. P44-1 The commenter generally supports the proposed project, specifically the introduction of housing, jobs, and multimodal improvements in Costa Mesa. The commenter also supports locating residential and employment centers in close proximity to one another to reduce long commutes and vehicle miles traveled. The comment is acknowledged and no further response is required as part of the CEQA process/CEQA response to comments. The comment has been provided to the City decisionmakers for consideration. To: Ms. Minoo Ashabi, Principal Planner City of Costa Mesa Planning Division 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 From: Russell Yarwood Date: Friday, March 20, 2020 Subject: One Metro West EIR, Specific Plan, and Master Plan Dear Ms. Ashabi, We have had an opportunity to review the One Metro West EIR, Specific Plan, and Master Plan and feel strongly that this is the right project in the right location at the right time for our city. We need more housing in Costa Mesa for the present and future employers of the regional, national, and international companies moving into the city. The new multi-model opportunities of today and the future in close proximity to employment and residential centers will reduce long commutes on freeways and therefore improve traffic. This project represents a giant leap forward in making the City of Costa Mesa more livable. Sincerely, Russell Yarwood 2439 Orange Ave. (949) 326-3627 russell@yarwood.in ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 3. Response to Comments Page 3-777 April 2021 P45. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM RUSSELL YARWOOD, MARCH 20, 2020. P45-1 The commenter generally supports the proposed project, specifically the introduction of housing and jobs in Costa Mesa. The commenter also supports locating residential and employment centers in close proximity to one another to reduce long commutes and associated traffic congestion. The comment is acknowledged and no further response is required as part of the CEQA process/CEQA response to comments. The comment has been provided to the City decisionmakers for consideration. 1 Bogue, Kristen From:ASHABI, MINOO <MINOO.ASHABI@costamesaca.gov> Sent:Thursday, March 26, 2020 6:29 PM To:HUYNH, NANCY; Bogue, Kristen; 'Brent Stoll'; 'Nicole Morse' Subject:EXTERNAL: Fw: One Metro West From: Laurel Golden <laurelgolden@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2020 5:01 PM To: OMW Public Comments Subject: One Metro West Dear Sirs and Madams: I am strongly opposed to the One Metro West development and urge "no project". I feel it is out of character for this area of Costa Mesa and will negatively affect current residents. My reasons are as follows; • If approved, it will set a precedent for building more population-dense projects in Costa Mesa • It will be 98 feet tall and seven stories, more than 3 times the current building height of 31 feet • The tallest buildings in the city are currently clustered around Bristol and one on 17th Street • There will be 1057 rental units with an anticipated 2886 residents and employees • It will account for more than 50% of the coming population growth in Costa Mesa • They are expecting an additional 6800 daily car trips from the current 429 • The new trips will negatively impact the streets and freeways • Air quality will be negatively impacted during construction and with the increased car trips when residents move in • The plan to have light reflecting off the buildings at night • Mesa Verde neighborhoods will again bear the brunt of construction • There are no drawings in the EIR that show a view of the height of the buildings from Mesa Verde but it will probably obscure our view of the mountains After reading, I urge a “no project” response. Thank you, Laurel Golden 3262 Washington Ave. Costa Mesa, CA 92626 From:HUYNH, NANCY To:Bogue, Kristen Subject:EXTERNAL: FW: One Metro West Date:Monday, March 30, 2020 2:42:48 PM Attachments:image001.png (FYI, this person also submitted a comment twice so forwarding you the other comment received) NANCY HUYNH Associate Planner Development Services | City of Costa Mesa (714) 754-5609 From: ASHABI, MINOO Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2020 2:30 PM To: HUYNH, NANCY <NANCY.HUYNH@costamesaca.gov> Subject: Fw: One Metro West From: Laurel Golden <laurelgolden@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2020 11:00 AM To: OMW Public Comments Subject: One Metro West Dear Sirs and Madams: I am concerned that the proposed project will alter the character of Costa Mesa forever. The addition of so many people in one location will degrade this area of Costa Mesa. The lighted facade will distract drivers on the freeway and light up the skies at night, creating light pollution and ruining the darkness of the area. The streets in north Costa Mesa are barely passable at certain times of the day now, how will an additional 6000 car trips allow anyone to move? There do not seem to be any positives and only negative impacts that will not be able to be mitigated. I urge a "no project" conclusion from the information provided in the EIR. Thank you, Laurel Golden Costa Mesa ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 3. Response to Comments Page 3-780 April 2021 P46. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM LAUREL GOLDEN, MARCH 26, 2020 AND MARCH 29, 2020. P46-1 The commenter generally opposes the proposed project and lists several reasons, including the following: setting a precedent for more population-dense projects in Costa Mesa; developing buildings substantially taller than the existing 31-foot industrial building; introducing 1,057 rental units with up to 2,886 residents and employees; generating more than 50 percent of the City’s forecasted population growth; generating approximately 6,800 net average daily trips that would negatively impact nearby roadways and the I-405 Freeway; impacting air quality during project construction and operations; creating lighting impacts associated with the proposed parking garage façade; generating construction- related impacts on the Mesa Verde neighborhoods; and obstructing views towards the mountains from the Mesa Verde neighborhoods. The Draft EIR analyzes the project’s potential to impact all of the identified issue areas, including creating a precedent-setting action (refer to pages 10-3 through 10-4 of Chapter 10, Growth-Inducing Impacts of the Proposed Project); aesthetic impacts related to increased building heights, lighting, and obstruction of public views (refer to pages 5.1-10 through 5.1-28 of Section 5.1, Aesthetics); population, housing, and employment impacts (refer to pages 5.11-7 through 5.11-10 of Section 5.11, Population and Housing); transportation impacts (refer to pages 5.13-23 through 5.13-45 of Section 5.13, Transportation); and construction and operational air quality impacts (refer to pages 5.2-21 through 5.2- 31 of Section 5.2, Air Quality). Additionally, construction-related impacts associated with various environmental topical areas are discussed where applicable in the Draft EIR. This comment does not specifically relate to the adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis and thus, no further response is required as part of the CEQA process/CEQA response to comments. The comment has been provided to the City decisionmakers for consideration. P46-2 Refer to response to comment P46-1. 1 Bogue, Kristen From:ASHABI, MINOO <MINOO.ASHABI@costamesaca.gov> Sent:Friday, March 27, 2020 7:32 AM To:HUYNH, NANCY; Bogue, Kristen; 'Nicole Morse'; 'Brent Stoll' Subject:EXTERNAL: Fw: 1683 Sunflower From: EBG <elizgrant@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2020 7:52 PM To: OMW Public Comments Subject: Re: 1683 Sunflower To: OMWPublicComments@costamesa.gov The proposed building of three 7‐story apartment buildings at 1683 Sunflower will have a huge and NEGATIVE IMPACT on traffic, air quality, and overall density in North Costa Mesa, including the Harbor, Fairview, and Susan Street freeway exits. I do not think this is good for our current residents. Please do not approve this massive project. Elizabeth B. Grant 1360 Watson Ave. Costa Mesa, CA 92626 EBG ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 3. Response to Comments Page 3-782 April 2021 P47. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM ELIZABETH GRANT, MARCH 26, 2020. P47-1 The commenter generally opposes the project, stating that the proposed development would have a large, negative impact on traffic, air quality, and overall density in north Costa Mesa, including the Harbor Boulevard, Fairview Road, and Susan Street exits off the I-405 Freeway. The project’s potential impacts related to traffic, air quality, and density are analyzed and compared to CEQA thresholds of significance in Sections 5.13, Transportation, 5.2, Air Quality, and 5.9, Land Use, in the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR acknowledges significant and unavoidable impacts related to traffic along select roadways and freeway ramps/segments and construction-related air quality emissions. This comment does not specifically relate to the adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis and thus, no further response is required as part of the CEQA process/CEQA response to comments. The comment has been provided to the City decisionmakers for consideration. From:Bogue, Kristen To:Yau, Frances Subject:FW: EXTERNAL: Fw: NO project Date:Friday, March 27, 2020 11:13:45 AM From: ASHABI, MINOO <MINOO.ASHABI@costamesaca.gov> Sent: Friday, March 27, 2020 10:38 AM To: HUYNH, NANCY <NANCY.HUYNH@costamesaca.gov>; Bogue, Kristen <KBOGUE@mbakerintl.com>; 'Brent Stoll' <brent@roseequities.com>; 'Nicole Morse' <nicole@nicolemorse.com> Subject: EXTERNAL: Fw: NO project From: Rita Popp <wingsnbeak@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, March 27, 2020 10:19 AM To: OMW Public Comments Subject: NO project I am very against the One Metro West project. We already have too much congestion. NO PROJECT Rita Popp 2078 Goldeneye Pl, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 3. Response to Comments Page 3-784 April 2021 P48. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM RITA POPP, MARCH 27, 2020. P48-1 The commenter generally opposes the project stating that the City already has too much congestion. The comment does not specifically address the adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis; as such, no further response is required as part of the CEQA process/CEQA response to comments. The comment has been provided to the City decisionmakers for consideration. From:Bogue, Kristen To:Yau, Frances Subject:FW: EXTERNAL: FW: No on ONE METRO WEST Project Please Date:Monday, March 30, 2020 8:25:42 AM Attachments:OneMetroWest DEIR - Signed 032020-1.pdf From: ASHABI, MINOO <MINOO.ASHABI@costamesaca.gov> Sent: Friday, March 27, 2020 6:08 PM To: HUYNH, NANCY <NANCY.HUYNH@costamesaca.gov>; Brent Stoll (brent@roseequities.com) <brent@roseequities.com>; nicole@nicolemorse.com; Bogue, Kristen <KBOGUE@mbakerintl.com> Subject: EXTERNAL: FW: No on ONE METRO WEST Project Please From: Bill "SurfcityBilly" Partnoff [mailto:Billy@surfcitybilly.com] Sent: Friday, March 27, 2020 3:03 PM To: OMW Public Comments <OMWPublicComments@costamesaca.gov> Subject: No on ONE METRO WEST Project Please Please voted "NO" for ONE METRO WEST development! Look at what people are saying about their properties in Irvine. Is that what you want for Costa Mesa? Here is also Reviews for the Rose Equities Properties in Irvine that I posted on Next Door News Mesa Verde In case you might start to believe some of the glossy literature and PR spin Rose Equities is putting out there about their One Metro West... look at their latest similar apartment developments in Irvine.. "Elements" "Metropolis". These developments have a dismal 3 & 3- 1/2 Google star reviews from their renters based on the developers poor construction and materials, design, parking, noise and management problems...from the onset to a few weeks ago. If the City of Irvine could not secure a quality development that is an asset to their community why does Costa Mesa think we can!? What renter is going to remain and invest in the community when the project's developer, Rose Equities, performance history is so poor? Their "Walk ability" claim.. little/no traffic will be generated??? Unless the lease requires a clause to insure that the renters have limited vehicle mobility.... impossible to enforce or claim! Be sure that the "powers that be " are counting on your lack of participation and are promising the developer that One Metro West can be pushed thru, past the citizens of Costa Mesa. E-mail the City Council today to voice your concerns and opposition to One Metro West high rise, high density development. Share with a neighbor whom might not be aware! Also MVCI Board's opposition to this project is attached. -- Take Care, Bill "SurfcityBilly" Partnoff Broker BRE# 01202846 (714) 271-2647 www.surfcitybilly.com SurfcityBilly.com...Leading You into the Future of Real Estate ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 3. Response to Comments Page 3-787 April 2021 P49. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM BILL PARTNOFF, MARCH 27, 2020. P49-1 The commenter generally opposes the project and raises concerns regarding the quality, design, noise, and management issues of other Rose Equities developments in the City of Irvine. The commenter also states that the Draft EIR states little to no traffic would be generated by the proposed project. This is incorrect; as detailed in Section 5.13, Transportation, of the Draft EIR, the project would generate approximately 6,800 net average daily trips, including 498 net trips in the a.m. peak hour and 662 net trips in the p.m. peak hour. Based on the anticipated project trips, the Draft EIR acknowledges that the project would result in significant and unavoidable transportation impacts at two study area intersections and several freeway segments and ramps under existing plus project, future short-term cumulative (2027) plus project, and/or General Plan buildout (2040) plus project scenarios. The commenter also references the Mesa Verde Community Inc. comment letter included as Comment Letter O2 in this Final EIR. This comment does not identify a specific concern with the adequacy of the Draft EIR or raise an issue or comment specifically related to the Draft EIR analysis. Refer to responses to Comment Letter O2 above. No further response is required as part of the CEQA process/CEQA response to comments. The comment has been provided to the City decisionmakers for consideration. From:ASHABI, MINOO To:HUYNH, NANCY; "Nicole Morse"; "Brent Stoll"; Bogue, Kristen Subject:EXTERNAL: Fw: One Metro West Date:Saturday, March 28, 2020 8:36:05 AM From: Duane and Diane Smith <twodsmiths@socal.rr.com> Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2020 6:24 AM To: OMW Public Comments Subject: One Metro West NO! A concerned Costa Mesa resident. Sent from my iPad ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 3. Response to Comments Page 3-789 April 2021 P50. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM DUANE SMITH, MARCH 28, 2020. P50-1 The commenter generally opposes the project. This comment is not related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis; no further response is required as part of the CEQA process/CEQA response to comments. The comment has been provided to the City decisionmakers for consideration. From:ASHABI, MINOO To:HUYNH, NANCY; "Nicole Morse"; Bogue, Kristen; "Brent Stoll" Subject:EXTERNAL: Fw: One Metro West Date:Saturday, March 28, 2020 8:35:36 AM From: TAMARA BERARDI <tiggett@aol.com> Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2020 12:24 AM To: OMW Public Comments Subject: One Metro West I am strongly opposed to the project One Metro West for a multitude of reasons. The traffic impact will be both negative and https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url? a=https%3a%2f%2fmassive.it&c=E,1,RWAUZx5ce3xVSm0Y7jLH4XYDjA3btTfnI2BwoYbQ3JrW2dBclGeq8kKWAhrMj4ht8FrUjWlo62tkWx9B63WQe02TNQx7UVdLzGLAoWl8m8V1zlfXwAbIjx3B0GQ,&typo=1 is already very crowded during morning and evening rush hours on that stretch of Harbor Blvd. It is a gigantic project, one that will dwarf anything else in the area. That many people and cars will have a negative effect on the environment, the neighbors, the roadways and the emergency agencies. I urge you to reject this project! Sincerely, Tamara Berardi 714-964-9913 Sent from my iPad ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 3. Response to Comments Page 3-791 April 2021 P51. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM TAMARA BERARDI, MARCH 28, 2020. P51-1 The commenter generally opposes the project stating that traffic along Harbor Boulevard is already too congested during morning and evening rush hours and that project-generated residents and vehicle trips would adversely impact the environment, neighbors, roadways, and emergency agencies. The Draft EIR analyzes the project’s potential impacts related to each of these issues, including the natural environment (Chapter 8, Impacts Found Not to Be Significant), neighbors and land use compatibility (Section 5.11, Population and Housing), traffic and roadway congestion (Section 5.13, Transportation), and emergency services (Section 5.12, Public Services). These comments are not specifically related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis and no further response is required as part of the CEQA process/CEQA response to comments. The comment has been provided to the City decisionmakers for consideration. From:ASHABI, MINOO To:HUYNH, NANCY; "Brent Stoll"; Bogue, Kristen; "Nicole Morse" Subject:EXTERNAL: Fw: One metro west Date:Saturday, March 28, 2020 8:35:04 AM From: Jason Thesing <jasonthesing@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, March 27, 2020 9:58 PM To: ASHABI, MINOO Subject: One metro west No on this project This is a big NO!!! from me and my neighbors in the Mesa Verde neighborhood The EIR shows this thing would be a disaster for the traffic in Costa Mesa on harbor especially We will all suffer the pollution from more people, more cars, more trash, more congestion, overcrowding construction pollution and noise Also I want to see a visual and perspective head on of what the 108 ft towers will look like from different streets in Mesa verde like Iowa, California, Gisler, Country club, Mesa verde loop area. Adams ave. Harbor, etc... This thing is Way to big and utterly obnoxious and shouldn’t even be considered. -Jason Sent from my iPhone From:HUYNH, NANCY To:Bogue, Kristen Subject:EXTERNAL: FW: One Metro West project. Date:Monday, March 30, 2020 2:47:22 PM Attachments:image001.png NANCY HUYNH Associate Planner Development Services | City of Costa Mesa (714) 754-5609 From: HUYNH, NANCY Sent: Monday, March 30, 2020 2:46 PM To: HUYNH, NANCY <NANCY.HUYNH@costamesaca.gov> Subject: FW: One Metro West project. From: Jason Thesing <jasonthesing@yahoo.com> Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2020 10:10 PM To: citycouncil@costamesaca.gov Subject: One Metro West project. To whom it may concern, I understand that under the new rules concerning public attending public hearings regarding the disastrous potential project “ One metro west “ we the public will not be able to voice our opinion and strong opposition to this project and that the council will be meeting behind closed doors without public input from the project. This is not acceptable. I think that we can practice social distancing and abide by all the necessary rules proposed by the city. If we can not do this, the hearings need to be canceled and rescheduled for after this thing ends. We don’t care that the developer wants to push this thing through and rubber stamp this project. Doing this does the people of Costa Mesa a huge disservice and and is shady and completely wrong. We must if needed suspended all public hearings and anything else that pertains to this project till after we are out of the crisis Thank you, Jason Thesing Costa Mesa resident sense 1991 ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 3. Response to Comments Page 3-795 April 2021 P52. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM JASON THESING, MARCH 27, 2020 AND MARCH 29, 2020. P52-1 The commenter raises general concerns regarding the project’s impacts from the anticipated increase in population, vehicles and traffic congestion, solid waste, construction-related air pollution, and noise. The Draft EIR analyzes the project’s potential impacts related to each of these issues, including population (Section 5.11, Population and Housing), traffic congestion (Section 5.13, Transportation), solid waste (Section 5.15, Utilities and Service Systems), construction-related air quality emissions (Section 5.2, Air Quality), and noise (Section 5.10, Noise). P52-2 The commenter requests renderings of the project from different roadways in the Mesa Verde neighborhood. According to the Specific Plan and Master Plan, Building A would have a maximum building height of six stories; Buildings B and C would have maximum building heights of seven stories; and the Creative Office Building would have a maximum building height of three stories. As detailed in Draft EIR Section 5.1, Aesthetics, the City’s physical setting allows for views of scenic resources including the Pacific Ocean, Santa Ana River, Upper Newport Bay, and Santa Ana Mountains. Views of these resources are afforded at specific public locations within the City that provide uninterrupted, large expanse views of undeveloped land and these resources. According to the General Plan EIR, such locations include Fairview Park, Talbert Regional Park and its adjacent wildlife refuge, and the golf courses, parks, and ballfields in the City. These specific locations do not include views of the project site. Therefore, public scenic views looking north from neighborhoods south of the I-405 Freeway towards the Santa Ana Mountains would not be significantly impacted by the project. It should also be noted that private views from residences are not specifically protected under CEQA, but rather under the threshold pertaining to consistency with regulations governing scenic quality. As discussed in response to comment O2-2, per Draft EIR Table 5.1-1, Project Consistency with the Costa Mesa General Plan, the proposed project would be consistent with relevant General Plan goals, objectives, and policies pertaining to scenic quality (including consideration of proposed building heights as applicable). However, this comment regarding visual impacts from private views is acknowledged and has been provided to the City’s decisionmakers for consideration. P52-3 In light of COVID-19, the commenter is concerned that the City has converted public hearings into private meetings behind closed doors without public input and that the project would be approved without any public participation. The commenter requests all public hearings be suspended until COVID -19 is under control and the social distancing requirement is lifted. At this time, while City Hall is generally closed to the public, the Costa Mesa City Council and Planning Commission meetings are being conducted in compliance with the Brown Act as modified by the Governor’s COVID-19 emergency orders. The City Council and Planning Commission meetings are currently being conducted via conference call, streamed via YouTube, and on the City’s local television channel, and continue to allow for and encourage public participation. The specific methods of accessing meetings are posted on the Planning Commission and City Council agendas 72 hours in advance of each regular meeting. As part of the public hearing process, the City invites public hearing comments through various methods, including, but not limited to, the following: ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 3. Response to Comments Page 3-796 April 2021 • Emails to the City Clerk (for Planning Commission meetings via pcpubliccomments@costamesaca.gov and for City Council meetings via cityclerk@costamesaca.gov); • Emails are accepted continuously during meetings and will be read into the record by City Clerk staff during the comment portion applicable to the specific item; • Comments via voice message so a comment can be transcribed and included into the record if the commenter does not have email capability; and/or • Hardcopy comments may be submitted to the City Clerk at City Hall. In addition, further public engagement options, including video conference “Zoom” meetings are planned for future meetings. From:ASHABI, MINOO To:HUYNH, NANCY; "Brent Stoll"; "Nicole Morse"; Bogue, Kristen Subject:EXTERNAL: Fw: One metro west Date:Saturday, March 28, 2020 8:34:43 AM From: bobkeyes3 <bobkeyes3@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, March 27, 2020 9:14 PM To: OMW Public Comments Subject: One metro west Please, please do not approve this project. It is incompatible with the neighborhood opposite the freeway. The traffic is already a mess at the Harbor Blvd on/off ramps. Please read the reviews that residents of Rose Properties projects in Irvine - Elements & Metropolis - have received regarding the shoddy craftmanship of their apartments. We don't need this in our city, Sent from my Galaxy Tab A ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 3. Response to Comments Page 3-798 April 2021 P53. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM BOB KEYES, MARCH 27, 2020. P53-1 The commenter states that the project is incompatible with the Mesa Verde neighborhood south of the I-405 Freeway and would exacerbate existing traffic congestion at the I-405 Freeway Harbor Boulevard on- and off-ramps. The Draft EIR considered the project’s proximity to the Mesa Verde neighborhood for all topical areas, as appropriate. Additionally, the Draft EIR acknowledges that the project would result in significant and unavoidable transportation impacts at two study area intersections and several freeway segments and ramps under existing plus project, future short-term cumulative (2027) plus project, and/or General Plan buildout (2040) plus project scenarios; refer to Section 5.13, Transportation, of the Draft EIR. The commenter also raises concerns regarding negative reviews from existing residents of other Rose Equities developments in the City of Irvine. This comment is not related to the project’s environmental impacts or adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis. Thus, no further response is required as part of the CEQA process/CEQA response to comments. The comment has been provided to the City decisionmakers for consideration. From:HUYNH, NANCY To:Bogue, Kristen Subject:EXTERNAL: FW: One Metro West Project Date:Monday, March 30, 2020 2:40:50 PM Attachments:image001.png NANCY HUYNH Associate Planner Development Services | City of Costa Mesa (714) 754-5609 From: ASHABI, MINOO Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2020 8:33 AM To: HUYNH, NANCY <NANCY.HUYNH@costamesaca.gov> Subject: Fw: One Metro West Project From: Erik Schuman <erikschuman@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, March 27, 2020 7:39 PM To: OMW Public Comments Subject: One Metro West Project To the City of Costa Mesa, This email is about the aforementioned: One Metro West project. This is not a bad idea. IT IS A HORRIBLE IDEA! This high density project does nothing but make a bad traffic situation even worse. It will be a big time ugly eyesore to not only the City but to the surrounding area. The environmental impact of this project will not only destroy Costa Mesa but once again....surrounding areas. It will also do nothing to help low income housing. DON'T be Fountain Valley! The City Council there agreed to the "FV Crossings" project that will not be all that far away and will "compete" with this one (if approved - and let's be honest here - the CMCC already has your mind made up to approve this) for the biggest eyesore and worst idea in the area. YOU ARE BETTER THAN THIS! Hopefully. Do the right thing and DO NOT approve this project Erik Schuman 714-745-3745 ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 3. Response to Comments Page 3-800 April 2021 P54. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM ERIK SCHUMAN, MARCH 27, 2020. P54-1 The commenter opposes the project stating that it would increase traffic congestion and adversely impact the visual quality of the project area, similar to the FV Crossing project in the City of Fountain Valley. The commenter also states that the project would do nothing to help low income housing. These comments are not related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis. Notwithstanding, it is acknowledged that the Draft EIR considers the project’s impacts on traffic and aesthetics, as evaluated in Section 5.13, Transportation, and Section 5.1, Aesthetics, of the Draft EIR, respectively. The project would also provide, at a minimum, 105 of the 1,057 proposed units as affordable housing units, thereby contributing towards the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation and providing affordable housing within Costa Mesa. This comment is acknowledged and has been provided to City decision makers for consideration. From:HUYNH, NANCY To:Bogue, Kristen Subject:EXTERNAL: FW: NO NO NO Date:Monday, March 30, 2020 2:41:18 PM Attachments:image001.png NANCY HUYNH Associate Planner Development Services | City of Costa Mesa (714) 754-5609 From: ASHABI, MINOO Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2020 2:26 PM To: HUYNH, NANCY <NANCY.HUYNH@costamesaca.gov> Subject: Fw: NO NO NO From: Ken Rhea <kjrhea@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2020 11:45 AM To: OMW Public Comments Subject: NO NO NO To whom it may concern: I've lived in the State Streets for 25 years. Please don't put this development in front of me. Please do some personal investigation. When the physical distancing lifts get in your car and drive around the proposed site at peak traffic times. You won't need the EIR traffic report. A seven-story facade will be awful. There will be no way to pretty it up. I imagine it will be like looking at OCJ from the civic center. Do the plans show anything architecturally pleasing? What will the range of affordable housing be? It will not be low income. I do not remember the price range of the apartments but the cost of the development will necessitate rents commensurate with Huntington Beach, Newport Beach, and Irvine. Rents will not compare with Midway City, Stanton, and Buena Park. How many people will need to occupy a unit in order to make it affordable? Have the extra vehicles been programmed into the equation? WIll there be a vehicle limit per unit? The Rose Equities developments in Irvine have not garnered good reviews. I think our city has listened well to Rose. Now it's time to listen to our citizens. NO NO NO Best regards, Kenneth J. Rhea, MFT 14233 (714) 775-0777 Office: 16152 Beach Blvd Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Mailing: 2973 Harbor Blvd. Suite 292 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 This e-mail may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient or have received this e-mail by mistake please notify the sender immediately and delete it from your system. Any unauthorized copying/disclosure of the material in this e-mail is strictly forbidden. This message has been transmitted over a public network and confidentiality cannot be guaranteed. ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 3. Response to Comments Page 3-803 April 2021 P55. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM KENNETH RHEA, MARCH 28, 2020. P55-1 The commenter opposes the proposed project due to the project’s potential impacts on traffic congestion and aesthetics. The project’s impacts on traffic and aesthetics are evaluated in Section 5.13, Transportation, and Section 5.1, Aesthetics, of the Draft EIR, respectively. Specifically, the Draft EIR acknowledges that the project would result in significant and unavoidable transportation impacts in regard to non-residential VMT and at two study area intersections and several freeway segments and ramps under existing plus project, future short-term cumulative (2027) plus project, and/or General Plan buildout (2040) plus project scenarios. Further, it should be noted that private views, as seen from the Mesa Verde neighborhood are not public scenic vistas. Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, in urbanized areas, consideration of the project’s potential to conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality were considered, including the proposed parking garage façade. As detailed in Draft EIR Section 5.1, Aesthetics, Impact 5.1-1, Operations, the proposed Specific Plan’s design and development standards would regulate the design of the parking garage façade. As detailed in Draft EIR Table 5.1-1, Project Consistency with the Costa Mesa General Plan, the proposed project would be consistent with relevant General Plan goals, objectives, and policies pertaining to scenic quality (including consideration of the proposed parking garage façade). Overall, impacts regarding the potential to conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality were determined to be less than significant. The commenter also questions how much the affordable housing units would cost, whether a certain number of people need to occupy the unit to make it affordable, or if there will be a vehicle limit per unit. Although not a CEQA issue, a minimum of 105 affordable units would be provided at varying affordability levels based on qualifying income levels. The affordable housing terms and conditions would be included in the project’s Development Agreement. The cost of providing affordable housing units is not a CEQA issue. Additionally, the commenter raises concerns regarding negative reviews on other Rose Equities developments in the City of Irvine. These comments are not related to the project’s environmental impacts or adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis. Thus, no further response is required as part of the CEQA process/CEQA response to comments. The comment has been provided to the City decisionmakers for consideration. From:HUYNH, NANCY To:Bogue, Kristen Subject:EXTERNAL: FW: Metro One Date:Monday, March 30, 2020 2:41:21 PM Attachments:image001.png NANCY HUYNH Associate Planner Development Services | City of Costa Mesa (714) 754-5609 From: ASHABI, MINOO Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2020 2:27 PM To: HUYNH, NANCY <NANCY.HUYNH@costamesaca.gov> Subject: Fw: Metro One From: John Brown <john_brown@pacbell.net> Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2020 12:10 AM To: OMW Public Comments Subject: Metro One Please do not allow the metro one project to go forward. We already have a tremendous amount of traffic in the area. The major streets around there are highly congested, especially at rush hours. Please vote no on the project. John Brown 3334 Nevada Ave Costa Mesa, CA 92626 ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 3. Response to Comments Page 3-805 April 2021 P56. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM JOHN BROWN, MARCH 29, 2020. P56-1 The commenter opposes the project stating that there is already too much traffic in the project area. This comment is not related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis. The project’s traffic impacts are evaluated in Section 5.13, Transportation, of the Draft EIR, which concludes that the project would result in significant and unavoidable transportation impacts in regard to non-residential VMT and at two study area intersections and several freeway segments and ramps under existing plus project, future short-term cumulative (2027) plus project, and/or General Plan buildout (2040) plus project scenarios. From:HUYNH, NANCY To:Bogue, Kristen Subject:EXTERNAL: FW: Apartments Date:Monday, March 30, 2020 2:41:27 PM Attachments:image001.png NANCY HUYNH Associate Planner Development Services | City of Costa Mesa (714) 754-5609 From: ASHABI, MINOO Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2020 2:28 PM To: HUYNH, NANCY <NANCY.HUYNH@costamesaca.gov> Subject: Fw: Apartments From: Lisa Lacey <lisa.herl.lacey@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2020 9:42 AM To: OMW Public Comments Subject: Apartments Please!! Do not build this. I strongly feel that infrastructure should be in place BEFORE building. Widen streets FIRST. The impact on traffic and the lives of the citizens will be horrific!! Sent from my iPhone From:HUYNH, NANCY To:Bogue, Kristen Subject:EXTERNAL: FW: One Metro West Date:Monday, March 30, 2020 2:41:59 PM Attachments:image001.png (FYI, same person submitted a comment twice so forwarding you both of her comments) NANCY HUYNH Associate Planner Development Services | City of Costa Mesa (714) 754-5609 From: ASHABI, MINOO Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2020 2:28 PM To: HUYNH, NANCY <NANCY.HUYNH@costamesaca.gov> Subject: Fw: One Metro West From: Lisa Lacey <lisa.herl.lacey@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2020 9:49 AM To: OMW Public Comments Subject: One Metro West I say NO!! The impact on residents will be terrible. You are trying to turn our city into New York City!! Your beautiful buildings are just high end Projects (as in inner city). Look at the area by Trader Joe’s in Costa Mesa. Traffic is a NIGHTMARE!! NO!!! Sent from my iPhone ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 3. Response to Comments Page 3-808 April 2021 P57. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM LISA LACEY, MARCH 29, 2020. P57-1 The commenter opposes the project and states that required infrastructure improvements (e.g., widening of roadways) should be in place before a proposed development is constructed. As detailed in Section 5.13, Transportation, of the Draft EIR, Mitigation Measure T-1 would require the project applicant to contribute its fair share contribution to the City of Costa Mesa Transportation Division for the implementation of adding a southbound right‐turn lane by restriping Susan Street at the intersection Susan Street/South Coast Drive (Study Intersection No. 18), and Mitigation Measure T-2 requires the project applicant to contribute its fair share contribution to the City of Fountain Valley Transportation Division for improvements to the intersection of Talbert Avenue/Mt. Washington Street (Study Intersection No. 28), including adding a traffic signal, restriping the northbound approach to a shared left through lane and a dedicated right turn lane, converting the southbound right turn lane to a dedicated channelized free right turn lane, and adding overlap phasing for a northbound right turn movement. These mitigation measures are required to be implemented prior to the issuance of the first building permit. Thus, the required fair share contributions would occur prior to the start of construction activities. Fair share contributions are adequate mitigation for CEQA purposes; however, it should be noted that the fair share contributions required under Mitigation Measure T-1 and T-2 do not result in construction of the improvements at Study Intersection No. 18 and No. 28 until the improvements are fully funded and identified in each respective jurisdiction’s capital improvement plan. As such, despite recommended mitigation measures that would reduce these impacts to less than significant levels, these impacts remain significant and unavoidable; refer to Draft EIR Chapter 6, Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts. The City of Costa Mesa would be required to make a Statement of Overriding Considerations pertaining to the project’s significant and unavoidable transportation impacts in order to approve the proposed project. P57-2 The commenter opposes the project stating that the project would convert Costa Mesa into New York City. This comment is not related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis. Thus, no further response is required as part of the CEQA process/CEQA response to comments. The comment has been provided to the City decisionmakers for consideration. From:HUYNH, NANCY To:Bogue, Kristen Subject:EXTERNAL: FW: One Metro West- against Date:Monday, March 30, 2020 2:42:06 PM Attachments:image001.png NANCY HUYNH Associate Planner Development Services | City of Costa Mesa (714) 754-5609 From: ASHABI, MINOO Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2020 2:29 PM To: HUYNH, NANCY <NANCY.HUYNH@costamesaca.gov> Subject: Fw: One Metro West- against From: Karla P. Stagman <karlastagman@mac.com> Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2020 10:19 AM To: OMW Public Comments Subject: One Metro West- against I’m concerned about the scale and environmental impact. We already have too much traffic. Our roads are packed. I am against this proposal. Thank you, KARLA P. STAGMAN REALTOR Ι CAL DRE 01984094 949.294.5794 KarlaStagman@mac.com ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 3. Response to Comments Page 3-810 April 2021 P58. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM KARLA STAGMAN, MARCH 29, 2020. P58-1 The commenter opposes the project stating that there is already too much traffic in the project area. This comment is not related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis. However, the project’s traffic impacts are evaluated in Section 5.13, Transportation, of the Draft EIR, which concludes that the project would result in significant and unavoidable transportation impacts in regard to non-residential VMT and at two study area intersections and several freeway segments and ramps under existing plus project, future short-term cumulative (2027) plus project, and/or General Plan buildout (2040) plus project scenarios. From:HUYNH, NANCY To:Bogue, Kristen Subject:EXTERNAL: FW: One Metro West Date:Monday, March 30, 2020 2:42:10 PM Attachments:image001.png NANCY HUYNH Associate Planner Development Services | City of Costa Mesa (714) 754-5609 From: ASHABI, MINOO Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2020 2:29 PM To: HUYNH, NANCY <NANCY.HUYNH@costamesaca.gov> Subject: Fw: One Metro West From: Raymond Polverini <raymond.polverini@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2020 10:31 AM To: OMW Public Comments Subject: One Metro West I am in favor of the project. It's scope and scale are appropriate for the site. Raymond Polverini 2023 GOLDENEYE PLACE COSTA MESA, CA 92626 ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 3. Response to Comments Page 3-812 April 2021 P59. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM RAYMOND POLVERINI, MARCH 29, 2020. P59-1 The commenter generally supports the project stating that its scope and scale are appropriate for the site. The comment is acknowledged and no further response is required as part of the CEQA process/CEQA response to comments. The comment has been provided to the City decisionmakers for consideration. From:HUYNH, NANCY To:Bogue, Kristen Subject:EXTERNAL: FW: ONE METRO WEST Date:Monday, March 30, 2020 2:42:54 PM Attachments:image001.png NANCY HUYNH Associate Planner Development Services | City of Costa Mesa (714) 754-5609 From: ASHABI, MINOO Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2020 2:30 PM To: HUYNH, NANCY <NANCY.HUYNH@costamesaca.gov> Subject: Fw: ONE METRO WEST From: Marsha Shafer <peimarsha@yahoo.com> Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2020 11:56 AM To: OMW Public Comments; ASHABI, MINOO Subject: RE: ONE METRO WEST NO PROJECT! ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 3. Response to Comments Page 3-814 April 2021 P60. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM MARSHA SHAFER, MARCH 29, 2020. P60-1 The commenter opposes the project and does not provide any specific comments related to the project’s environmental impacts or adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis. As such, no further response is required as part of the CEQA process/CEQA response to comments. The comment has been provided to the City decisionmakers for consideration. From:HUYNH, NANCY To:Bogue, Kristen Subject:EXTERNAL: FW: Against proposed project Date:Monday, March 30, 2020 2:43:06 PM Attachments:image001.png NANCY HUYNH Associate Planner Development Services | City of Costa Mesa (714) 754-5609 From: ASHABI, MINOO Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2020 2:31 PM To: HUYNH, NANCY <NANCY.HUYNH@costamesaca.gov> Subject: Fw: Against proposed project From: Johnal Leifsson <johnal.leifsson@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, March 27, 2020 5:39 PM To: OMW Public Comments Subject: Against proposed project As a longtime resident of Costa Mesa, and this proposed project is not sound appealing in that the advantages do not outweigh the disadvantages brought forth by it. Johnal Leifsson 1250 Londonderry st Costa Mesa, CA 92626 ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 3. Response to Comments Page 3-816 April 2021 P61. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM JOHNAL LEIFSSON, MARCH 27, 2020. P61-1 The commenter states that the project’s pros do not outweigh its cons. This comment is not related to the project’s environmental impacts or adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis. Thus, no further response is required as part of the CEQA process/CEQA response to comments. The comment has been provided to the City decisionmakers for consideration. From:HUYNH, NANCY To:Bogue, Kristen Subject:EXTERNAL: FW: One Metro West - NO PROJECT / NO DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE Date:Monday, March 30, 2020 2:43:38 PM Attachments:image001.png NANCY HUYNH Associate Planner Development Services | City of Costa Mesa (714) 754-5609 From: ASHABI, MINOO Sent: Monday, March 30, 2020 7:44 AM To: HUYNH, NANCY <NANCY.HUYNH@costamesaca.gov> Subject: Fw: One Metro West - NO PROJECT / NO DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE From: Bob Hagerty <bobceci@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2020 10:42 PM To: OMW Public Comments Subject: Re: One Metro West - NO PROJECT / NO DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE C.M.C.C., After careful review and consideration, it is my position that the One Metro West project be rejected. To be clear I vote NO. After reviewing other projects from this group, it is apparent that they will not meet the needs or standards of the Mesa Verde area in Costa Mesa. These developments have dismal reviews from their renters, based on the developer's poor construction and materials, design, parking, noise and management problems There are several issues with this proposal including the impacts this project will have to our community and the Costa Mesa General Plan. AESTHETICS ZONING AIR QUALITY INCREASED TRAFFIC GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS OPEN SPACE Please opt for the NO PROJECT / NO DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE. Costa Mesa deserves better that this. Regards, Bob Hagerty Costa Mesa Resident ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 3. Response to Comments Page 3-819 April 2021 P62. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM BOB HAGERTY, MARCH 29, 2020. P62-1 The commenter opposes the project and lists several environmental topical areas that would be adversely impacted by the project. The commenter also raises concerns regarding negative reviews from existing residents of other Rose Equities developments. These comments do not raise specific issues with the adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis. Thus, no further response is required as part of the CEQA process/CEQA response to comments. The comment has been provided to the City decisionmakers for consideration. From:HUYNH, NANCY To:Bogue, Kristen Subject:EXTERNAL: FW: Public Access at Council Meetings Date:Monday, March 30, 2020 2:44:32 PM Attachments:image001.png (This person also submitted multiple comments. Below is the 2nd comment received.) NANCY HUYNH Associate Planner Development Services | City of Costa Mesa (714) 754-5609 From: ASHABI, MINOO Sent: Monday, March 30, 2020 9:25 AM To: LE, JENNIFER <JENNIFER.LE@costamesaca.gov>; CURTIS, BARRY C. <BARRY.CURTIS@costamesaca.gov>; HUYNH, NANCY <NANCY.HUYNH@costamesaca.gov> Subject: Fw: Public Access at Council Meetings From: Peggy Partnoff <peggypartnoff@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2020 9:21 AM To: CITY COUNCIL; FOLEY, KATRINA; STEPHENS, JOHN; GENIS, SANDRA; MANSOOR, ALLAN; MARR, ANDREA; REYNOLDS, ARLIS; ASHABI, MINOO; CHAVEZ, MANUEL Subject: Public Access at Council Meetings I am contacting all City Council members to strongly urge you to postpone any voting on the proposed One Metro West project until sessions can be assembled as legitimate public meetings. Due to the Covid-19 pandemic the citizens of Costa Mesa are certainly preoccupied with urgent health matters and cannot devote the necessary attention to this development proposition. It would be a travesty to proceed with a vote on such a major development in the City of Costa Mesa without proper public accessibility. Any council vote during these times would taint the voting outcome and cause considerable suspicions on the integrity of those City members participating in a unnecessarily rushed process. And the idea of adding 1,060 apartment units with an unknown number of occupants to a current health pandemic is unfathomable, when unnecessary. The developer, Rose Equities, surely understands the unprecedented circumstances our society is experiencing at this time and can forestall their profit expectations from the City of Costa Mesa. Respectfully, Peggy Partnoff 3321 Alabama Circle, CM 92626 714-330-9917 ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 3. Response to Comments Page 3-822 April 2021 P63. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM PEGGY PARTNOFF, MARCH 30, 2020. P63-1 Refer to response to comment P52-3 pertaining to public hearings during the COVID-19 pandemic. The commenter also states that the proposed 1,057 units with an unknown number of occupants would be introduced into the City during the COVID-19 health pandemic. Based on the City’s average household size of 2.73 residents per dwelling unit, the project would introduce up to 2,886 residents; refer to Draft EIR Section 5.11, Population and Housing. It should also be noted that project construction would take approximately five years to complete with first occupancy anticipated in 2027. From:HUYNH, NANCY To:Bogue, Kristen Subject:EXTERNAL: FW: one metro west Date:Monday, March 30, 2020 2:44:38 PM Attachments:image001.png NANCY HUYNH Associate Planner Development Services | City of Costa Mesa (714) 754-5609 From: ASHABI, MINOO Sent: Monday, March 30, 2020 10:02 AM To: HUYNH, NANCY <NANCY.HUYNH@costamesaca.gov> Subject: Fw: one metro west From: Alyssa Thesing <anclark37@hotmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2020 10:01 AM To: OMW Public Comments Subject: one metro west NO PROJECT! This project will not be good for the future of Costa Mesa. ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 3. Response to Comments Page 3-824 April 2021 P64. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM ALYSSA THESING, MARCH 30, 2020. P64-1 The commenter opposes the project and does not provide any specific comments related to the project’s environmental impacts or adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis. No further response is required as part of the CEQA process/CEQA response to comments. The comment has been provided to the City decisionmakers for consideration. From:HUYNH, NANCY To:Bogue, Kristen Subject:EXTERNAL: FW: One Metro Comment in support Date:Monday, March 30, 2020 2:46:31 PM Attachments:image001.png NANCY HUYNH Associate Planner Development Services | City of Costa Mesa (714) 754-5609 From: ASHABI, MINOO Sent: Monday, March 30, 2020 11:31 AM To: HUYNH, NANCY <NANCY.HUYNH@costamesaca.gov> Subject: Fw: One Metro Comment in support From: Athena Balistreri <leftyinca@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2020 11:29 AM To: OMW Public Comments Subject: One Metro Comment in support As a nearby resident to the One Metro site, I am actually in favor of this project. I live in the spice streets of north Mesa Verde and think this project would give greater flexibility and opportunity for people to work and live around the same place. With the Press nearby and an expansion of the Vans headquarters happening now, work and live spaces could easily go hand in hand. I do not believe the visual impact of this project will be as dire as some out there are trying to portray it to be. There are codes and regulations that will force this project to comply with lighting standards, parking standards, open space, height restrictions, and so many other things. The grade height of the site and the height in relationship to the freeway will actually visually hide a few levels of this project, even further reducing the conceived height of this building both from the freeways as well as any view corridors that may occur from the state street neighborhood. Having personally frequented Moon Park and other regions of the state streets by walking public sidewalks I never saw any visual connection with the north side of the 405 either because it was being blocked by foliage and trees or by the sound wall that runs along the 405 itself. What we need right now is housing, housing that will give an opportunity to saturate the housing/ rental market with the potential to create a more fairly valued market. The location of this project would not greatly impact the state streets as some have suggested because the state streets are largely a dead-end for transportation. If potential future residents of Metro One were looking for grocery and shopping options they could easily head down sunflower toward South Coast Plaza where there are ample shopping opportunities. Also easily reachable are the things toward Fountain Valley, and north Costa Mesa with Target and other restaurant opportunities there. These locations I personally already inhabit for my shopping and retail needs, and this would not be any different in my opinion. With this project also being adjacent to the river biking trail it would actually give ample opportunity for people to bike instead of drive to locations, which is even better. Overall I support this project and would like to see it continue through to approval and construction/ Thank You, Athena B. Coriander Drive Resident ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 3. Response to Comments Page 3-827 April 2021 P65. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM ATHENA BALISTRERI, MARCH 30, 2020. P65-1 The commenter supports the project, including the introduction of more live-work developments in Costa Mesa. The commenter states that concerns regarding aesthetic, building height, and traffic impacts on the Mesa Verde neighborhood are not as substantial as some are trying to portray given that the project would be required to comply with a number of proposed development standards and regulations regarding lighting, parking, open space, and building height, among others. Additionally, the existing site elevation in relation to the I-405 Freeway would partially obstruct a few levels of the proposed structures, further reducing the perceived height of the structures both from the I-405 Freeway as well as any view corridors to the south. Existing views looking towards the site from Moon Park and Mesa Verde neighborhood sidewalks are also partially obstructed by existing foliage, trees, and the sound wall along the I-405 Freeway. This comment is acknowledged and no further response is required as part of the CEQA process/CEQA response to comments. The comment has been provided to the City decisionmakers for consideration. From:HUYNH, NANCY To:Bogue, Kristen Subject:EXTERNAL: FW: Objection to ONE METRO WEST Development Date:Monday, March 30, 2020 2:46:41 PM Attachments:image001.png NANCY HUYNH Associate Planner Development Services | City of Costa Mesa (714) 754-5609 From: ASHABI, MINOO Sent: Monday, March 30, 2020 12:13 PM To: HUYNH, NANCY <NANCY.HUYNH@costamesaca.gov> Subject: Fw: Objection to ONE METRO WEST Development From: Mike Chun (Dorene Takenaka) <mchun@watg.com> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2020 11:35 AM To: OMW Public Comments Subject: Objection to ONE METRO WEST Development Costa Mesa City Council: As a retired architect and urban planner, as well as a 40 year resident of Costa Mesa (1803 Tanager Drive, Costa Mesa, Ca) I object to the ONE METRO WEST Development Application. It is my opinion the density and location of the proposed development is inconsistent with sound planning practices. If you would like further clarification on my objection or to discuss further please feel free to contact me by email or phone at 714.662.3397. Regards, Michael Chun Michael M.S. Chun, Chairman Emeritus WATG | designing destinations 8001 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 500 | Irvine, CA 92618 USA +1 949 574 8500 tel watg.com ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 3. Response to Comments Page 3-830 April 2021 P66. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM MICHAEL CHUN, MARCH 30, 2020. P66-1 The commenter states that the project’s density and location is inconsistent with sound planning practices. No specific comment related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis is provided. Thus, no further response is required as part of the CEQA process/CEQA response to comments. The comment has been provided to the City decisionmakers for consideration. From:HUYNH, NANCY To:Bogue, Kristen Subject:EXTERNAL: FW: One Metro West opposition Date:Monday, March 30, 2020 2:46:48 PM Attachments:image001.png NANCY HUYNH Associate Planner Development Services | City of Costa Mesa (714) 754-5609 From: ASHABI, MINOO Sent: Monday, March 30, 2020 1:54 PM To: HUYNH, NANCY <NANCY.HUYNH@costamesaca.gov> Subject: Fw: One Metro West opposition From: bobbriq@gmail.com <bobbriq@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2020 1:49 PM To: ASHABI, MINOO Subject: One Metro West opposition As a resident of Costa Mesa, my wife and I oppose the new One Metro West project being considered for our city. Our traffic is already compromised, and the additional residence and commercial traffic will only add to it. Sincerely, Robert & Jeannise Bernal Bob Bernal (714) 863-2140 briq07@att.net ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 3. Response to Comments Page 3-832 April 2021 P67. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM BOB BERNAL, MARCH 30, 2020. P67-1 The commenter opposes the project stating that there is already too much traffic in the project area. The commenter does not specifically question the adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis. Refer to Draft EIR Section 5.13, Transportation, for a full evaluation of the project’s traffic impacts. As such, no further response is required as part of the CEQA process/CEQA response to comments. From:HUYNH, NANCY To:Bogue, Kristen Subject:EXTERNAL: FW: Public Comment on One Metro West Date:Monday, March 30, 2020 2:48:02 PM Attachments:image001.png NANCY HUYNH Associate Planner Development Services | City of Costa Mesa (714) 754-5609 From: Ryan Maloney [mailto:ryan.maloney@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2020 8:37 PM To: OMW Public Comments <OMWPublicComments@costamesaca.gov>; ASHABI, MINOO <MINOO.ASHABI@costamesaca.gov> Subject: Public Comment on One Metro West To Whom It May Concern, I would like to voice my opposition to the proposed One Metro West project. While I believe that California needs to do more to provide housing, I feel overall impacts of this project would be detrimental to the local community. It's a massively over-sized project in an area with already severe traffic, parking and accessibility issues. Thank you. Sincerely, Ryan Maloney Fountain Valley, CA ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 3. Response to Comments Page 3-834 April 2021 P68. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM RYAN MALONEY, MARCH 29, 2020. P68-1 The commenter acknowledges the need for more housing in California but opposes the project due to its size and impacts on traffic, parking, and accessibility. These comments are not specifically related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis. The project’s impacts on traffic and accessibility are evaluated in Section 5.13, Transportation, of the Draft EIR. Parking is not an environmental issue under CEQA ; however, the project would provide surface parking lots and parking garages on-site as well as parallel parking along the southern side of Sunflower Avenue. As detailed in Draft EIR Chapter 3, Project Description, and in the Specific Plan, parking would be provided at a ratio of 1.3 spaces per dwelling unit and 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet for non-residential development. In total, the project would provide 1,914 spaces on-site with additional parallel parking available off-site along the southern side of Sunflower Avenue. In addition to designated single and tandem parking spaces for residents and their guests, the Building A parking garage would provide shared spaces for residential and office parking and the Building C parking garage would also provide spaces assigned to the retail uses on- site. No parking spaces would be assigned exclusively for the public use of the open space other than required accessible spaces; however, street parking would be available along Sunflower Avenue. Page 1 of 16 SANDRA GENIS 1586 MYRTLEWOOD COSTA MESA, CA. 92626 March 30, 2020 Minoo Ashabi Principal Planner City of Costa Mesa Development Services Department 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Attn: One Metro West Draft EIR, SCH 2019050014 Below are my comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for for the One Metro West project (SCH 2019050014) in the City of Costa Mesa in Orange County. The proposed mixed use project is located on a 15.2 acre site at 1683 Sunflower Avenue. The proposed development includes 1,057 dwellings, 25,000 sq. ft. of office space, and 6,000 sq. ft. of retail. Also included is 1.5 acres of open space and modification of an existing bike trail. Thank you for extending the comment period to March 30. I remain concerned, however, that the full and appropriate review of the DEIR may have been curtailed and may still be curtailed, by a number of factors: The Notice of Availability identifies three public locations where hard copies of the DEIR may be viewed in addition to on-line viewing. However, for the latter part of that period public buildings were closed to the general public due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This made it difficult for those with slow or no wi-fi connections to review the documents. The current health crisis may have rendered it difficult for other responsible and affected agencies to respond. The DEIR purports to address adoption of a Specific Plan and Master Plan, but these documents were only made available on-line after the original March 23 comment deadline, and the project description glossed over important project information in those documents, as discussed below. I am extremely concerned about public participation as project processing continues. As stated in Section 15002 (a) of the Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): The basic purposes of CEQA are to: (1) Inform governmental decision makers and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of proposed activities… Page 2 of 16 The courts have repeatedly emphasized CEQA’s function as a public disclosure and public participation process. As stated in Guidelines Section 15003 …the courts of this state have declared the following policies to be implicit in CEQA: (a) The EIR requirement is the heart of CEQA. (County of Inyo v.Yorty, 32 Cal. App. 3d 795.) (b) The EIR serves not only to protect the environment but also to demonstrate to the public that it is being protected. (County of Inyo v. Yorty, 32 Cal. App. 3d 795.) (c) The EIR is to inform other governmental agencies and the public generally of the environmental impact of a proposed project. (No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 13 Cal. 3d 68.) (d) The EIR is to demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the agency has, in fact, analyzed and considered the ecological implications of its action. (People ex rel. Department of Public Works v. Bosio, 47 Cal. App. 3d 495.) … Per County of Amador v. El Dorado County Water Agency 1999 (76 Cal. App. 4th 931) "The EIR...is a document of accountability...The EIR process protects not only the environment but also informed self-government." Thus, the CEQA process is, above all, a public participation process. Costa Mesa City Hall is closed to the public due to COVID-19. The Costa Mesa City Council Chambers are also closed to the general public, with all public hearings now being held telephonically. While members of the public may submit comments on agenda items in advance or via e-mail during the meeting, a somewhat unwieldy procedure, members of the public have no opportunity to comment in person or to call in comments. All communication by the public must be in writing, either hard copy or electronic. Often a member of the public has comments which are triggered by a staff presentation or by the comments of the previous speaker. Thus, the comment could not have been submitted in advance. Historically, problems have arisen with comments submitted electronically to the City of Costa Mesa ending up in a city spam folder. Further, members of the public have complained that comments have been limited to a given number of characters or bites. The One Metro West project must be subject to a public hearing with full participation by members of the public, excluding no one, not even the electronically challenged among us. The magnitude of this project is too significant to do otherwise. Uses of the EIR Costa Mesa is the lead agency for the project. As stated in Section 3.5 of the DEIR (p. 3-27) This Draft EIR is a project-level EIR that examines the environmental impacts of the proposed project. This Draft EIR also addresses various actions by the City and others to adopt and implement the proposed project. It is the intent of this Draft EIR to evaluate the environmental impacts of the proposed project, thereby enabling the City, responsible Page 3 of 16 agencies, and interested parties to make informed decisions with respect to the requested entitlements. As listed in Section 3.5, implementation of the proposed project would entail the following discretionary approvals from the City: General Plan Amendment Zone Change Specific Plan Master Plan Development Agreement Tentative Tract Map Tree Removal Permit Public Art Plan Thus, if the EIR is to fulfill its stated purpose per Section 3.5, it must provide decision makers and the public generally with complete, accurate, and adequate information as the scope and nature of the proposed project and anticipated environmental impacts associated with implementation of the project. Approvals needed from other agencies as part of the project include: California Public Utilities Commission - General Order 131D and Section 851 (Transfer or Encumbrance of Utility Property) approval Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD) - Encroachment Permit within OCFCD right-of-way Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board - National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Orange County Sanitation District – Approval of proposed sewer improvements Orange County Airport Land Use Commission - John Wayne Airport Environs Land Use Plan Consistency Determination City of Fountain Valley - Implementation of recommended Mitigation Measure T-2 regarding traffic improvements The EIR is intended to provide environmental information to the above responsible agencies, trustee agencies, and other public agencies which may be required to grant approvals and permits. It must thus offer sufficient information about the proposed project and potential impacts for those agencies to fully evaluate aspects of the project for which they are responsible agencies. Adequate review of project impacts is hampered by a number of factors. These include an incomplete project description and failure to provide analyses necessary to a full assessment of project impacts consistent with the Costa Mesa General Plan and maintenance of a quality environment for the residents of Costa Mesa. Page 4 of 16 Inadequate Project Description The DEIR includes only the vaguest description of the proposed development, no parking plan, no floor plans, few elevations and no project elevation from the most sensitive nearby land use, i.e. the residential area to the south, no tract map, no public art plan, and minimal information regarding the proposed specific plan and other aspects of project approvals. The project description provides the basis for all analyses contained within the EIR. It is the very foundation of the document and, thus, of the public’s and decision-maker’s review and subsequent decisions. A vague or incomplete project description will render all further analyses and determinations ineffectual. As stated in McQueen v. Board of Directors of the Mid- Peninsula Regional Open Space District (202 Cal.App.3d 1136, 1143; 249 Cal.Rptr. 439), “An accurate project description is necessary for an intelligent evaluation of potential environmental effects of a proposed activity”. In setting aside the approval of an EIR by the City of Los Angeles for water development facilities in Inyo County, the court stated: “An accurate, stable and finite project description is the is the Sine qua non of an information and legally sufficient EIR” (County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (71 Cal.App.3d 193) [139 Cal.Rptr. 401]). A complete and accurate project description is the most basic and important factor in preparing a lawful EIR. It is critical that the project description be as clear and complete as possible so that the issuing agency and other responsible agencies may make informed decisions regarding a proposed project. In fact, the project description contained in the DEIR for the One Metro West project is so wanting as to render meaningless numerous analyses, such as they are, within the document. Deficiencies are so severe they can only be remedied by preparation and circulation of a new DEIR which fully and accurately defines the proposed project and provides analyses based thereon. Important aspects of the proposed project could only be found in other documents only recently made available on-line. Decision makers and the public generally should not be required to ferret out information flipping back and forth amongst various documents. Decision makers and the public generally should not be required to obtain other documents for such basic issues as what the proposed project might look like from nearby residences. While some information regarding the proposed project is included in the DEIR, it is incomplete, vague and inconsistent. These flaws must be remedied and provided in a recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report. Specific Plan The DEIR provides little information regarding the Specific Plan and some of what is provided is not consistent with the draft Specific Plan posted on-line. The Specific Plan must be included as an appendix to a recirculated DEIR. The DEIR indicates that residential structures will be a maximum 98 feet in height (p. 3-11). By contrast the Specific Plan (pp. 2-14, 3-6; Table 2-5) indicates that maximum height for residential structures would be 103 feet, with a maximum deviation of an additional 5 %, for a Page 5 of 16 height just over 108 feet. Architectural projections would be permitted up to 113 feet per Page 2-14 of the Specific Plan, though Page 4-19 indicates that architectural projections would not count toward building height. Though the Master Plan does show the structures at 98 feet, as stated in the DEIR, changes in height could be approved at a staff level without a public hearing (SCA AE-2, p. 5.1-8). Thus, the project description in the EIR as well as analyses of shade and shadow and other aesthetic factors must be revised to reflect the maximum allowable height under the zoning/Specific Plan.. The DEIR indicates that parking would be provided at a ratio of 1.3 parking spaces per residential unit. The Specific Plan (p. 3-11; ex. 3-1) indicates that 1.75 spaces would be required for each dwelling unit. The DEIR includes a list of permitted uses and conditionally permitted uses (Table 3-3) which while fairly broad has some limitations and is not open ended. The Specific Plan (p. 3-2) states the following: Any use not specifically permitted, or permitted with a Minor Conditional Use Permit per Table 3-1, or prohibited per the list of prohibited uses for the base zoning district (in this case, PDR-HD, Planned Development Residential – High Density) contained in Table 13-30 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code, shall be reviewed by the Development Services Director to determine its similarity to another listed use. If no substantial similarity exists, the unlisted use shall require approval of a Conditional Use Permit prior to establishment of the use. Thus, uses other than those listed in the DEIR could potentially be approved pursuant to approval of a use permit. One of the ostensible purposes of the Specific Plan is “ to encourage adaptive reuse of existing industrial structures” (p. 1-8). However, as described in the DEIR, all existing structures will be removed form the subject property. These apparent conflicts must all be resolved. Master Plan The One Metro West Master Plan includes important information and graphics showing building design, lighting, parking, site elevations and architectural renderings. These graphics are essential to a full understanding of the proposed project and must be included in a recirculated DEIR, preferably in the main body of the DEIR but at a minimum in an appendix. Public Art Plan Project approvals include a public art plan, but options for the plan are described in only the vaguest terms. It is not clear if a mural is proposed for the south side of the building or if decorative treatments such as a weave or fin system will be employed. Is any other art proposed? The public art plan must be included as an appendix to a recirculated DEIR. General Plan Amendment In March 2019, when the Costa Mesa City Council voted to accept the proposed general plan amendment for processing, it was proposed the site be designated Urban Center Commercial. At Page 6 of 16 what point was the proposal changed to High Density Residential and why? Is there a public record of a formal decision? The Urban Center Commercial designation permits residential development at up to eight y dwelling units per acre. However, it does not apply density limits for each use to the entire site, but prorates allowable density based on the site area used as follows (General Plan Land Use Element p. LU-41): For mixed-use projects that include separate or distinct components, the nonresidential FAR standard and the residential density standard shall apply to each of the respective components, not the entire project site. If that approach were applied, how many residential units per acre are proposed just for the residential portion of the site? How does this density compare to residential development elsewhere in Costa Mesa? What would be the floor area ratio for the office portion of the site? How does this development intensity compare to development intensity elsewhere in Costa Mesa? Bike Trail The proposed project is stated to include a bike trail connection to the Santa Ana River Trail, but such a connection between the river trail and Sunflower Avenue already exists. The approximately eight foot wide cement trail is nicely landscaped and in good condition, though somewhat messy right now due to Caltrans freeway construction. Why would replacement be necessary? Does the applicant proposed to remove and replace the existing trail? Why? The existing trail connects onto a public street, whereas it appears that the trail proposed by the applicant would connect only onto private property on the project site and traverse the open space area. Is this intended to supplement the existing trail along the westerly edge of the project site or replace it? What is the reason? Would public access to the trail be maintained at all times? Even when the open space area is closed to the public? Will access be impeded during trail reconstruction? The existing bike trail is marked for public use and there is no “permission to pass” sign. Apparently, as stated in the Specific Plan (p.5-1) the City of Costa Mesa holds an easement for the trail. How was the easement acquired? What conditions attach to continued possession of the easement? If the trail no longer followed the easement would the easement be considered abandoned? In favor of whom would the easement be abandoned? Does the applicant intend to provide an irrevocable easement to the City for public use of the trail on the project site at all times without limitation? Some of the graphics in the Master Plan appear to indicate that project open space would extend up to the parking spaces on the adjacent property and onto where the trail currently exists. Was that area included in the stated site area of 15.23 acres? Was any other portion of the bike trail included in calculation of site acreage and thus of site density? Page 7 of 16 Tract Map While approval of a tentative tract map is listed among project approvals for which the DEIR will be utilized, the DEIR provides no tract map. Would the office building be on a separate lot? Would the open space area be on a separate lot? Could these be sold off separately from the residential portion of the project? Will any portion of the existing bicycle trail be included in the tract map? Will all city easements be preserved? Does the tract map include a bike trail easement in favor of the City? If the DEIR is indeed intended to address approval of a tentative tract map per DEIR Page 3-27, then the tract map must be shown in a recirculated DEIR. Transfer/Encumbrance of Utility Property What utility property will be transferred or encumbered? Staging/Phasing Where will storage of construction materials and construction staging take place? The open space area could not be used after Phase 1, as that is stated to be included in the first phase of development (p. 3-26). Would an off-site area be utilized? Where? What access routes would be utilized to and from the staging area? The EIR must address impacts on the staging area and access routes between the staging area on the project site, including but not limited to energy, air quality and traffic impacts. Inconsistencies Numerous inconsistencies between the on-line Specific Plan and the project as described in the DEIR have been noted above. The project description in the DEIR is also internally inconsistent. For example, the DEIR (p. 3-9) indicates that solar panels will be installed in all south facing roofs. However, site elevations (Fig. 3-11a,b,c) do not show any south facing roofs. The discussion of energy use indicates only that installation of solar ready rooftops, though not solar itself, would be encouraged (p. 5-4-9). All inconsistencies must be resolved. Defining Impacts Out of Existence It is not clear how thresholds of significance were selected. In some cases they follow widely accepted thresholds adopted by regional authorities or regulatory standards adopted by various levels of government. In other cases it is a mystery. In any case the DEIR’s benchmarks for significance appear to be boilerplate and insufficient to the task of reviewing a complex, multi-part development on a unique site adjacent to a freeway but also in close proximity to low density, single family homes. The criteria in many cases such as noise and energy use, simply defer to state or city codes. If compliance with the barest legal requirements were the only requirement for a finding of no significance, there would be no point to even preparing an EIR. It would simply be a matter of compliance with other regulations. No violation would equal no impact. Page 8 of 16 The significance threshold for vibration seems to be level at which damage occurs on engineered masonry structures, not the level affecting human beings. That is clearly not consistent with the intent of the California Legislature in adopting the California Environmental Quality Act. As stated in Public Resources Code Section 21000: 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…. It is clear the well-being of the people of the State of California was of paramount importance to the Legislature in adopting CEQA . One of the purposes of CEQA is to “enable the public to determine the environmental and economic values of their elected and appointed officials” (Guidelines 15003(e)). One would hope that decision makers for this project share the Legislature’s desire for a quality environment and desire to take action to protect people, not just buildings, from unnecessary noise and vibration. Use of Standard Conditions The DEIR identifies many Standard Conditions of Approval which would mitigate potential impacts. These standard conditions of approval as well as all other conditions msut be included in the mitigation monitoring program for any approved project. In addition to severe concerns about the systemic flaws which permeate the DEIR as a whole, I also have the following additional concerns: Aesthetics It is dismaying that the DEIR provides so little in the way of graphic illustration of the proposed project. Instead, one is referred to the graphics in the Master Plan (DEIR p. 5.1-16). The proposed structures will be several orders of magnitude taller than any other structures in the surrounding area. It will potentially result in abrupt changes in scale and extreme visual intrusion into the skyline. This issue must be addressed in a recirculated DEIR. A few photos of the existing site are provided, but it is astonishing that no renderings are provided for a project of this magnitude. Very small scale site elevations are provided in Section 3, but only views of the north and west, and neither the east and nor the south. It is distressing that the DEIR provides no analysis of the proposed project as seen from the residences to the south. The existing building at 1683 Sunflower is already visible from many locations in the state streets south of the freeway. The digital signs at SOCO are visible from many homes south of the freeway as far south as Gisler Avenue. At several times larger than the existing structure or the digital signs, the proposed development will loom over the homes south Page 9 of 16 of the freeway. It boggles the mind that no one thought to address this in the DEIR. Even more mind boggling, apparently someone thought it might be a fun idea to add colored lights which change according to a computer program--just in case the unadorned structure was not visually intrusive enough for the residents (p. 5.1-11). This must be addressed in a recirculated DEIR. Rendered photos of the project as seen from the Santa River levee/bicycle trail and from homes south of the 405 must be provided in a recirculated DEIR. Daytime and fully illuminated night time photo renderings are essential. Suggested locations include the public street/sidewalk at on the south side, views toward the site from the front of homes on north/south oriented streets in the area between Dakota and Minnesota, views from California at Minnesota or Dakota and views from Gisler. The proposed mitigation measure and standard conditions do little to mitigate the likely impacts. The requirement that any changes to lighting plans, building height or other visual aspects of the project be approved by various city bodies provides no assurance that impacts will be eliminated or even reduced to the extent feasible. There is no reason for confidence or comfort in light of the visual insult inflicted on homes in the state streets by the digital signs at SOCO which were presumably approved by some city official or body of officials. Rather than dimming the lights at 10 pm, they must be on dim all evening and turned off completely at 10 pm. Changing lights must not be permitted. The prohibition on signage above the first floor must be applied on the south side of the structure, not just the other facades as currently proposed (Specific Plan p. 4-15). Photovoltaics proposed for the southerly building façade could result in reflected glare both onto the freeway and into the residential area. This must be fully mitigated. The analysis of shade and shadow must be revised to reflect the maximum building height permitted under the Specific Plan. As noted above, building height could easily be modified at the staff level in the future. Absent the information requested above, it cannot be stated unequivocally that the proposed project will not result in adverse impacts to aesthetic factors. The information must be fully compiled and provided in a recirculated EIR in order that the public and decision makers may be fully informed as to all characteristics, impacts, and degree of mitigation of all impacts of the proposed project. Air Quality The Costa Mesa General Plan Conservation Element includes the following: Policy CON-4.A.3: Require that sensitive uses such as schools, childcare centers, parks and playgrounds, housing, and community gathering places are protected from adverse impacts of emissions. The DEIR also indicates that a significant impact would occur if sensitive receptors were exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations (p. 5.2-15). Sensitive receptors are normally Page 10 of 16 considered to include residences and parks. This must be addressed in light of air emissions associated with the adjacent 405 Freeway. It is disappointing that the EIR does not include the health risk assessment specifically requested by the South Coast Air Quality Management District in their June 11, 2019 letter submitted in response to the Notice of Preparation for this EIR. This is contrary to the Legislature’s statement that it is the policy of the state to take all action necessary to provide the people of this state with clean air (PRC 20001 (b)) and that it is necessary to provide an environment that is at all times healthful (PRC 20000(b)). The California Air Resources Board has cautioned against siting housing within 500 feet of a freeway, noting adverse health effects on sensitive land uses in their 2005 Air Quality and Land Use Handbook. CARB has since released a technical advisory (California Environmental Protection Agency. California Air Resources Board. Technical Advisory: Strategies to Reduce Air Pollution Exposure near High-Volume Roadways. April 2017) which includes strategies for reducing these adverse health effects on residents including measure to increase air flow and use of high efficiency air filters. The EIR must identify which measures in the technical advisory which will be incorporated onto the project. The DEIR does not address ventilation of the parking structures. What measures will be taken to ensure against propagation of car exhaust into the residential structures? The California Air Resources Board estimates that ride hailing services generate fifty percent more air emissions per passenger mile than traditional vehicles (California Air Resources Board, SB 1014 Clean Miles Standard 2018 Base-year Emissions Inventory Report, December 2019). What assumptions were made regarding use of ride hailing services by future project residents in calculation of mobile air emissions? Energy It is not clear what assumptions were made in calculating energy use. What was assumed regarding gas and electricity consumption per dwelling unit? Per square foot of commercial? Were assumed consumption rates typical for all similar uses, regardless of locations or did consumption rates take into consideration additional energy needed for air filtration due to the project’s proximity to the freeway? Geology and Soils How many cubic yards of artificial fill will be removed and re-engineered? Will any soil be removed from the site? How much? Was this degree of grading included in calculation of construction emissions and energy consumption? Greenhouse Gases What steps, other than compliance with state and local codes, is the applicant taking to provide a sustainable development? Will the project meet standards for LEED certification? At what level? Page 11 of 16 Hydrology It appears likely that groundwater will be encountered during site excavation. Has the water quality been tested? Is it known to contain any pollutants? What will be done to dispose of any groundwater pumped during construction of the project? The DEIR indicates that 19 modular wetlands systems will be used to remove sediments and other pollutants (p. 5.8-18) and refers the reviewer to Exhibit 3-9 in the DEIR. However, Exhibit 3-9 shows only one “infiltration system”. Where will the modular wetlands systems be located? Will they occupy a significant portion of the open space area? This must be mapped. Manmade wetlands and retention basins have proven to be breeding areas for mosquitoes on in many instances. What will be done to control mosquitoes in the modular wetlands systems, infiltration systems, or retention basins? Land Use The proposed project represents a substantial departure from the type of development currently existing in the area. The EIR must address potential conflicts with the industrial park uses currently existing in the area, including marijuana related businesses approved pursuant to Measure X. The EIR must address project open space, setbacks and overall development intensity as compared to other development in the Harbor Gateway area. The EIR must address the potential precedent setting nature of the proposed project should it be approved. Noise Incompatible Noise Environment The DEIR recognizes the high noise levels generated along the freeway (p. 5.10-8) and presents the land use compatibility standards included in the Noise Element of the Costa Mesa General Plan (DEIR p. 5.10-6). The DEIR even lists policies in the Noise Element designed to protect sensitive uses from noise and to require noise reduction measures in residential and other noise sensitive uses near freeways. The DEIR discusses the psychological and physiological effects of noise. Yet the DEIR utterly fails to address the potential impact of noise on the proposed residences and park area or identify the mitigation measures needed to achieve a noise environment consistent with general plan standards for the various uses, or even acknowledge a potential conflict with adopted general plan policy—or effects on human health. Part of the California Legislature’s stated intent in adopting CEQA was to “ Take all action necessary to provide the people of this state with … freedom from excessive noise” (PRC 21001 (b)). Examination of the noise environment and its effects on people is at the core of the California Environmental Quality Act. As stated in the proposed Specific Plan (p. 3-17-18): The noise standards outlined in Chapter 13 (Noise Control) of Title 13 (Planning, Zoning Page 12 of 16 and Development) shall apply with the following exceptions. The exterior noise standards shown in Section 13-280 subsection (a) shall only apply to the common outdoor recreational amenity areas located on the ground level. Recreational amenity areas located above the ground level are also exempt… These standards do not apply to the non-residential components of the Specific Plan including the publicly-accessible open space area. [Emphasis added] The DEIR must address the apparent conflict between this section of the proposed Specific Plan and the City’s Noise Element. The preparers are reminded that a specific plan is intended to implement a general plan (Government Code Section 65450) not replace it, and that a specific plan must be consistent with a general plan (GC 65454). Construction Noise The discussion of noise identifies the exemption from noise limits applied to construction activities during certain hours and then blissfully concludes that the noise is then, somehow not annoying, no matter how loud. The DEIR’s only concern is adherence to a legislative construct, not annoyance to those in the surrounding area nor even threats to human health or hearing loss. Under this reasoning, patrons of food purveyors at SOCO will be happy to enjoy a snack at an outdoor bench while the jackhammers pound away. Standing next to a compressor or generator running at 80 dB would be perfectly comfortable whereas a drum generating noise at 80 dB would be unbearably annoying. And magically, you could stand next to an impact pile driver operating at over 100 dB all day long without any hearing loss because it’s just construction equipment! This clearly makes no sense, though it does, of course, exempt the project developers from taking any responsibility to reduce construction noise for the sake of commercial neighbors. Communities have noise ordinances because excessive noise is annoying and can even have impacts on human health. It’s significant. Communities also typically exempt construction noise because it would be impossible to build anything without making noise. It’s unavoidable. At the same time, recognizing how unpleasant, how significantly unpleasant, construction noise can be, construction is limited to certain times and days. It’s the very definition of significant and unavoidable. The EIR must identify areas that will be exposed to significant unavoidable noise levels from any source associated with implementation of the proposed project and identify any potential measures that might reduce the noise impact. At a minimum construction equipment must be outfitted with mufflers to the extent feasible and the site must be posted with a 24-hour-a-day contact for noise complaints, especially so that noise outside normally approved hours can be controlled. Vibration The discussion of vibration also takes a strange turn. The DEIR recognizes that vibration at .10in/sec begins to annoy people (p. 5.10-4), and that at .20in/sec it is even annoying to people in buildings. According to the DEIR damage to non-engineered timber and masonry buildings would begin to occur at 0.2 in/sec with some susceptible buildings sustaining damage at 0.12in/sec (p. 5.10-12). However, annoying or damaging as it may be, vibration is not defined Page 13 of 16 in the EIR as exceeding an acceptable threshold until reaching .30in/sec. What is the basis for the chosen threshold? Are structures deemed to be more important than people? Even so, the potential for structural damage appears to exist. Who will be responsible for any damage to off-site structures? The EIR must map the area which will be subject to vibration at levels acknowledged by the EIR to be annoying, i.e., 0.1in/sec and levels at which off-site structures could begin to sustain damage. Mitigation measures must be identified and implemented to the extent feasible. Repair of all off-site damage must be the responsibility of the applicant. All of this must be addressed in a recirculated DEIR in order that the public and decision makers may be fully informed as to the full extent of noise and vibration impacts and degree of to which impacts can be mitigated. Population and Housing What portion of the housing will be affordable to low and very low income households? Conditions of approval must specify ongoing affordability and full integration of affordable units into the project. The Specific Plan (p.4-18) states that the project would “Provide amenities as part of each residential building that are appropriate to the different age groups of residents”. Do the applicants propose to segregate residents by age? Is this legal? Public Services/Recreation The City of Costa Mesa General Plan specifies a park standard of 4.24 acres of parkland per one thousand people. At that rate, the 1.5 acres of semi-public open space is far from adequate to meet the city standard. In 2015, the City of Costa Mesa adopted a park impact fee for multi-family development. The City adopted a fee of about half that which could have been justified by a study prepared by David Taussig & Associates, recognizing the burden a higher fee would place on home builders. Thus, even when adopted, the park fee was not expected to fully pay the cost of new recreation facilities needed by new residents. Since that time, costs for both land and improvements have increased, so the fee offsets a smaller portion that justified costs. In order for a fee to fully mitigate and impact, the fee must result in full cost recovery. The Costa Mesa fee doesn’t. The DEIR must identify the extent to which impacts on park facilities, including degradation of the ratio of parkland to population, are not mitigated. Will access to the existing bicycle trail connection from Sunflower to the Santa Ana River Trail be impeded during project construction? Will bike trail access from Sunflower to the river trail be available at all times upon completion of the project? Will visitors to the on-site quasi-public open space be permitted to park on-site? If not what impacts will be sustained south of the freeway, a short walk or bike ride through the tunnel under Page 14 of 16 the 405? Will visitors to commercial, residential, and open space uses within the project be induced to park south of the 405 thereby impeding public access to Moon Park and the bicycle staging area provided by the park? Transportation Existing Conditions The existing level of service data provided in the DEIR (p. 5.13-15) do not seem to comport with reality. In the afternoon to early evening, sometimes starting as early as 3 pm and extending as late as 7 pm, it is not unusual to have to sit through two or more light cycles at the 405 and Harbor, South Coast/Harbor and Sunflower/Harbor. Southbound on Harbor on a weekday afternoon around 5pm or 6 pm, I have many times been unable to move into intersections on the green light because traffic has not cleared from the next light south; This has commonly started as far north as Segerstrom in Santa Ana with the backups not clearing until the 405 or Gisler. Once it was backed up all the way to Warner. There was no sign of an accident when the traffic finally cleared at Gisler. There is either a problem with the trip counts or with our signal timing, but it is normal to sit through more than one cycle of the lights in the Gisler to Sunflower portion of Harbor in the afternoon in both directions due to failure of the preceding traffic to clear the intersection ahead. Construction Traffic What are the anticipated haul routes for construction traffic? To the extent feasible haul trips must occur outside peak traffic hours. How long will any “temporary” lane closures last? If more than just a few minutes on an occasional basis, what will be done to reduce the need for lane closures? Operational Traffic The DEIR must address how narrowing Sunflower in the project vicinity will affect traffic flow, both now and in the future. Does trip generation for the proposed project include double trip ends in the immediate vicinity due to use of ride hailing services? This must be addressed. Utilities The water supply assessment included in Appendix N (p.42) concludes as follows: The information included in this Water Supply Assessment identifies programs and activities that collectively represent reasonable opportunities to ensure an adequate supply of water for Mesa Water®, inclusive of the subject Project, now and into the future. Mesa Water® can provide an adequate supply of water and has opportunities to increase water resources by the following methods. First, Mesa Water® has the capability of utilizing additional groundwater capacity from the existing wells. Second, water Page 15 of 16 conservation efforts and regulations can provide additional water resources. [emphasis added] Does the above passage mean that existing water users will be expected to make do with less to accommodate new development? Growth Inducing Impact The project clearly has the potential to create a precedent-setting action. It is the first high density residential project is that section of Costa Mesa. If it is successful, it will not be the last. While the project has the potential to lower property values south of the freeway due to significant visual intrusion, it is likely that the project would create upward pressure on land prices (as the economy stabilizes after the current pandemic) , as happened in the southwesterly portion of the city after residential development took hold in traditional industrial areas. This would increase market pressure to replace existing lower intensity uses with high intensity housing or commercial uses. The proposed project provides a lower proportion of open space and smaller setbacks than nearly anywhere else in Costa Mesa. This has the potential to set a huge precedent for higher intensity development city wide. Unfortunately, while the City has a well thought out Specific Plan for the entire area north of the freeway and points east of Harbor, there is no such plan for the area west of Harbor. Absent such a cohesive plan, it is likely that the area west of Harbor will redevelop with a hodge podge of uses which will strain infrastructure and ultimately lead to a reduction in quality creative office and research businesses offering good jobs in the city. Conclusion In accordance with Section 15088.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, a lead agency must recirculate a Draft EIR: when significant new information is added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the draft EIR for public review under Section 15087 but before certification. As used in this section, the term “information” can include changes in the project or environmental setting as well as additional data or other information. New information added to an EIR is not “significant” unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the project’s proponents have declined to implement. “Significant new information” requiring recirculation include, for example, a disclosure showing that: (1) A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented. Page 16 of 16 (2) A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. (3) A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the environmental impacts of the project, but the project’s proponents decline to adopt it. (4) The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded. (Mountain Lion Coalition v. Fish and Game Com. (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1043) The information provided in the DEIR is not adequate for any reviewer, whether decision makers or the public generally, to determine whether all aspects of the proposed project have been fully evaluated and all impacts mitigated to the extent feasible. In fact, the information provided in the DEIR is not adequate for any reviewer to fully understand the nature of all components of the project. The EIR must be revised and recirculated to include details regarding the Specific Plan, which must also be included as an appendix to the recirculated EIR. Important analyses regarding air quality, visual impacts, and noise must be prepared and made available to the public. As currently presented, the DEIR fails utterly to fulfill the purposes of CEQA. The document must be revised and re-circulated in accordance with Guidelines Section 15088.5(a) (4) in order that the public and decision makers may be fully informed. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please keep me informed as this project progresses. Yours truly, Sandra L. Genis From:Bogue, Kristen To:Yau, Frances Subject:FW: EXTERNAL: FW: screen check numbers Date:Monday, March 30, 2020 4:29:18 PM From: ASHABI, MINOO <MINOO.ASHABI@costamesaca.gov> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2020 4:16 PM To: Bogue, Kristen <KBOGUE@mbakerintl.com>; HUYNH, NANCY <NANCY.HUYNH@costamesaca.gov> Subject: EXTERNAL: FW: screen check numbers From: GENIS, SANDRA Sent: Monday, March 30, 2020 4:13 PM To: ASHABI, MINOO <MINOO.ASHABI@costamesaca.gov> Subject: screen check numbers I did not put this in my EIR letter, but technically the EIR is supposed to have the State Clearinghouse Number on the title page. per Guidelines SEction 15082 e. Within a small to moderately sized community it doesn't make much difference, but having the clearinghouse number on the title page is helpful to state and regional agencies that may be tracking numerous documents as responsible agencies. The colored card stock dividers were really helpful in navigating the document. ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 3. Response to Comments Page 3-852 April 2021 P69. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM SANDRA GENIS, MARCH 30, 2020. P69-1 This introductory comment provides a brief summary of the proposed project. Responses to specific comments within the comment letter are provided below. P69-2 The commenter is concerned that the full and appropriate review of the Draft EIR may have been compromised due to COVID-19. For example, City buildings were closed to the general public thereby making it difficult for people with slow or no internet connection to review the Draft EIR on-line and agencies may have been preoccupied with the current health crisis to respond in time. The Draft EIR was made available for public review starting from February 7, 2020 through March 23, 2020, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15073 (a 45-day public review period). However, as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, the City of Costa Mesa had to close public access to City Hall, and the City’s libraries, starting March 16, 2020. Due to these closures, the City extended the public review period through March 30, 2020. An announcement of the seven day extension was posted on the City’s website and comments were accepted through the end of the extended review period. For those with questions, the City’s Development Services Department remained accessible via phone at (714) 754- 5245, and Minoo Ashabi, the primary project contact at the City remained available, including to make arrangements to view the documents in person if necessary. The commenter also indicates that the Specific Plan and Master Plan were only made available to the public after March 23, 2020. However, the Specific Plan and Master Plan have been available to the public at the City of Costa Mesa Development Services Department, 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, California 92626 from February 7, 2020 through March 16, 2020 and then posted to the City’s website on March 23, 2020. P69-3 Refer to response to comment P52-3 pertaining to public hearings during the COVID-19 pandemic. P69-4 This comment summarizes the project’s required discretionary approvals from the City and other responsible agencies as detailed in Chapter 3, Project Description, of the Draft EIR. The commenter indicates that the EIR is lacking in a complete project description and full assessment of the project’s impacts to provide sufficient information for the Lead Agency and responsible agencies to utilize when determining whether to approve the discretionary actions. Responses to specific comments regarding these comments are provided below. P69-5 The commenter states the project description provided in the Draft EIR is lacking in full descriptions of the Specific Plan, Tract Map, Public Art Plan, and other project approvals, and is not adequate to properly analyze the project’s environmental impacts. As detailed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15124, the description of the project is required to contain the following information: the precise location and boundaries of the proposed project on a map; a statement of project objectives; general description of the project’s technical, economic, and environmental characteristics; and a statement briefly describing the intended uses of the EIR. Additionally, Section 15124 states that the project description should not supply extensive detail beyond that needed for evaluation and review of the environmental impact. Thus, it is not required for the project description to include all project details requested by the ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 3. Response to Comments Page 3-853 April 2021 commenter, including a parking plan, floor plans, and project elevations from nearby residential areas, among others. Chapter 3, Project Description, of the Draft EIR summarizes the proposed development and various discretionary approvals, including the General Plan Amendment (Draft EIR page 3-7), Zone Change (Draft EIR page 3-7), Specific Plan (Draft EIR pages 3-7 through 3-21), Master Plan (Draft EIR pages 3-22 through 3-26), Development Agreement (Draft EIR page 3-26), Tentative Tract Map (Draft EIR page 3-26), Tree Removal Permit (Draft EIR page 3-26), and Public Art Plan (Draft EIR page 3-13). The information contained in Chapter 3, Project Description, and referenced within are utilized to fully evaluate the project’s environmental impacts. P69-6 The commenter states that the Draft EIR provides little information regarding the Specific Plan and requests the Specific Plan be included as an appendix to a recirculated Draft EIR. Refer to response to comment P69-5. The intent and framework of the proposed Specific Plan are detailed in the Draft EIR pages 3-7 through 3-21. Further, where applicable regulations from the Specific Plan would apply to various environmental topic areas, those proposed regulations are specifically discussed throughout Draft EIR Chapter 5.0, Environmental Analysis, as appropriate. The commenter also identifies an inconsistency between the maximum allowed building height for the residential buildings between the Specific Plan (103 feet) and Draft EIR (98 feet). The maximum building height allowed per the Specific Plan is 98 feet. Therefore, no changes to the Draft EIR is required. The Specific Plan has been modified accordingly to ensure consistency. Further, the commenter states that the shade and shadow analysis in Section 5.1, Aesthetics, of the Draft EIR needs to be revised to reflect the maximum allowable height of the proposed buildings, including the allowed five percent maximum deviation and any architectural projections (up to 108 feet in height). Based on the shade/shadow analysis, the only areas that would be substantially shaded are along the Sunflower Avenue right-of-way in the fall, winter, and spring months. However, this area is not shadow sensitive. Due to the orientation from the project site, no shading would result on the Mesa Verde residential community. Thus, additional height of the proposed project would not result in any significant shading of residential uses nor any other shadow-sensitive uses (uses where sunlight is important for function). Additional building height would not result in a new significant impact in this regard. Nonetheless, as stated above and as analyzed the Draft EIR, 98 feet is the maximum height permitted under the Specific Plan. P69-7 The commenter identifies an inconsistency between the residential parking requirements in the Specific Plan (1.75 spaces per unit) and the Draft EIR (1.3 parking spaces per unit). This inconsistency is also found within the Specific Plan itself (Draft No. 6, dated March 2020). The correct residential parking requirement is 1.3 parking spaces per unit as detailed in the Draft EIR. The Specific Plan has been revised to be consistent with the Draft EIR. The Master Plan shows that the project would provide 1.75 spaces per unit, which exceeds the requirement per the Specific Plan. P69-8 The commenter is concerned that other uses not detailed in Draft EIR Table 3-3, Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Uses, could be approved by the City’s Development Services Director as he/she sees fit. The table is not meant to be an exhaustive list of all uses that could potentially be proposed ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 3. Response to Comments Page 3-854 April 2021 on-site. As stated in the Specific Plan and cited in the comment, the City’s Development Services Director would review the proposed unlisted use to determine its similarity to another listed use. If no substantial similarity exists, consistent with the Zoning Code, the unlisted use shall require approval of a Conditional Use Permit prior to establishment of the use. A Conditional Use Permit is a discretionary application, would be required to undergo environmental review under CEQA, and approval would be at the discretion of the Planning Commission, which would include opportunities for public participation at public hearing(s). P69-9 The commenter correctly identifies a mistake in the Specific Plan stating that it would “encourage adaptive reuse of existing industrial structures.” As the project would involve demolishing the existing industrial building on-site, no adaptive reuse of existing structures would occur. The Specific Plan has been revised to delete this statement. P69-10 The commenter states that important information and graphics in the Master Plan should be included in the Draft EIR, at least as an appendix to a recirculated Draft EIR. Refer to response to comment P69-5. Additionally, including the Master Plan as an appendix would not change the analysis or conclusions in the Draft EIR. Applicable project detail from the Master Plan have been incorporated throughout Draft EIR Chapter 5.0, Environmental Analysis, as appropriate. P69-11 The commenter states that the Public Art Plan should be included in the Draft EIR, at least as an appendix to a recirculated Draft EIR. Refer to response to comment P69-5. Additionally, including the Public Art Plan as an appendix would not change the analysis or conclusions in the Draft EIR. To clarify, as stated in the Specific Plan, prior to submittals for building construction permits, the applicant will be required to submit a Public Art Plan for review and approval of the City’s Cultural Arts Committee. The Public Art Plan will be required to include reference to long-term and short- term installations and address the following: • Description of the artwork, including artist concept and drawings if available, • Location of the artwork (long term and short term), • Schedule for selection, • Installation of the artwork(s), • Plans for maintenance of the artwork(s), • Security plan and replacement plans should any art be stolen or vandalized, and • Public access to the artwork(s) during daylight hours. The Public Art Plan would describe artwork proposed throughout the project site. Further as detailed in Draft EIR Section 5.1, Aesthetics, prior to issuance of the first building permit for the proposed project, the owner/developer would be required to submit a Design Plan for the Building A parking ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 3. Response to Comments Page 3-855 April 2021 garage façade along the I-405 Freeway for review by the Planning Division and approval by the City’s Cultural Arts Committee. P69-12 The commenter states that as part of the General Plan Screening Application (in March 2019) the project proposed a General Plan Amendment to change the site to “Urban Center Commercial” rather than the current proposal for “High Density Residential” and questions why it was changed and how the project would be developed differently under the Urban Center Commercial designation. City Council Policy 500-2 establishes a procedure for processing privately initiated General Plan Amendments. This procedure involves a City Council screening of these requests prior to their acceptance for formal processing. It is acknowledged that acceptance of the screening process does not constitute approval of the proposed project, including the proposed General Plan Amendment, but allows the applicant to receive feedback from the City Council to further develop the proposal and respond to City Council comments prior to submitting a formal application for a General Plan Amendment. As part of the research phase, the City of Costa Mesa Planning Division staff determined that based on past project approvals for high density projects in the City of Costa Mesa, and considering the proposed land uses at the site, the most appropriate course of action was to change the site’s existing Industrial Park General Plan land use designation to High Density Residential with a site-specific base density of 80 dwelling units per acre and a site-specific maximum building height of seven stories. The Urban Center Commercial designation is intended for mixed use development; however, given that the project includes a substantial residential component, the High Density Residential land use designation (which is intended for residential development with complementary commercial uses per the General Plan Land Use Element) is a more compatible land use category and consistent with the proposed rezone to Planned Development Residential – High Density. Furthermore, the High Density Residential land use designation is consistent with previous approvals and entitlements for similar multi-family developments (e.g., Halcyon Apartments, Baker Block, and 580 Anton) in the City including those within the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan. P69-13 The commenter requests clarifications regarding the improved bicycle trail connection from Sunflower Avenue to the Santa Ana River Trail. As shown on Draft EIR, Figure 3-5, Conceptual Landscape Plan, the proposed improvements at the western portion of the project site include an Open Space area. The western-most improvements include replacing the existing trail with a new trail alignment that would integrate the trail connection with the proposed Open Space area. Ingress/egress from Sunflower would be maintained. The project also proposes to improve the existing trail, west of the site (toward the Santa Ana River) to include treatments (including a possible entrance monument near the project site, possible resurfacing, and landscaping) to enhance the trail experience. The proposed realignment of the trail along the western portion of the project site would occur within a trail easement that includes both the project site and the adjoining property to the west. During construction of the trail realignment, temporary closure of the trail would be required for approximately two to three months. Upon completion of the trail improvements, the public trail would be re-opened to the public. During construction activities the applicant would be required to provide ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 3. Response to Comments Page 3-856 April 2021 detours through or around construction zones that are designed for safety and convenience, and with adequate signage for cyclists and pedestrians (PPP T-1). Regarding the existing trail easement, the portion of the easement on the adjoining property would remain, the portion of the trail easement on the project site would be realigned consistent with the proposed Tentative Tract Map No. 19015 and continue to be publicly accessible. All existing public trail easement rights would be maintained through the proposed Tentative Tract Map No. 19015. Any portion of the realigned bicycle trail on private property would be required to dedicate a public access easement, as reflected on the project’s Tentative Tract Map. P69-14 For the purposes of the analysis presented in the Draft EIR, all on-site improvements were considered as part of the 15.23-acre project site 2. In addition to the project site, off-site improvement areas were also considered, including off-site trail improvements and improvements along Sunflower Avenue. Per the City of Costa Mesa’s Municipal Code, all residential density requirements are based on the acreage of the property being developed (15.23 acres) up to a maximum of 1,057 units as specified in the Specific Plan, Master Plan, and Development Agreement. P69-15 Draft EIR Chapter 3, Project Description, page 3-26, details that the Tentative Tract Map is proposed to divide the site into five parcels and would include establishing the right to a future airspace subdivision for condominium purposes. The five parcels encompass the following: • Lot 1 – Encompasses Building C; • Lot 2 – Encompasses Building A; • Lot 3 – Encompasses the Creative Office Building; • Lot 4 – Encompasses the proposed Open Space area; and • Lot 5 – Encompasses Building B. Although the proposed Tentative Tract Map would establish the right to a future airspace subdivision for condominium purposes, the applicant intends for the product to be rental units and may choose not to exercise a condominium plan in the future. Per the proposed Tentative Tract Map No. 19015 (sheet 7 of 10), Proposed easement/dedication D is for public pedestrian sidewalk/access purposes to the City of Costa Mesa, and easement/dedication E is for public bike trail purposes to the City of Costa Mesa. 2 It is acknowledged that the entire project site is 15.6 acres; however, approximately 0.37 acres along the southwest site boundary would be dedicated for the I-405 Freeway expansion. Therefore, the proposed development would occur on the remaining 15.23 acres. ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 3. Response to Comments Page 3-857 April 2021 P69-16 The commenter questions what utility property would be transferred or encumbered as part of the project. No transfer or encumbrance of utility property would occur with the proposed utility improvements as all transmission lines would be converted from overhead to underground. P69-17 The commenter questions where construction staging would occur and whether any off-site staging location would be utilized. Construction staging would occur on-site; no off-site staging areas or access routes between the staging area and project site are required or proposed. P69-18 The commenter requests inconsistencies within the Specific Plan and Draft EIR be resolved. As detailed in response to comments P69-6 and P69-7, the Specific Plan will be updated to match the Draft EIR. More specifically, the commenter states that the Draft EIR indicates that solar panels would be installed on all south-facing roofs but the site elevation figures in the Draft EIR do not show any south-facing roofs. Draft EIR Figures 3-11a, Building A Elevations, through 3-11c, Building C Elevations, are elevation figures that illustrate cross-sections of each building; the figures are not meant to show detailed rooftop plans. The commenter also states that the energy analysis in the Draft EIR only indicates that installation of solar-ready rooftops, though not solar panels themselves, are encouraged. Installation of solar-ready rooftops are required under the 2019 CALGreen standards and thus, are analyzed throughout the Draft EIR as part of the project. P69-19 The commenter requests clarifications as to how the CEQA thresholds of significance were selected to evaluate the project’s environmental impacts. The thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G, Environmental Checklist, of the CEQA Guidelines, which have been adopted by the City of Costa Mesa and are utilized widely by various lead agencies. These thresholds are applicable to all projects under CEQA; individual projects do not have customized thresholds of significance based on any unique project characteristics. Specifically, the commenter states that the noise and energy analyses defer to State or City codes. However, it is standard practice for the City of Costa Mesa to rely on the City’s Municipal Code requirements to determine if a project is exceeding noise levels in the area. For example, one of the Appendix G thresholds of significance for noise is whether the project would “generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.” As such, the City’s noise ordinance is utilized as the significance thresholds for construction and operational noise impacts. The project’s construction and operational noise levels are compared to the City’s thresholds to determine whether a potentially significant impact would occur. With regard to the energy analysis, one of the Appendix G thresholds of significance is whether the project would “result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation.” Thus, the analysis quantifies the project’s electricity and natural gas consumption and takes into consideration required compliance with existing energy conservation standards (e.g., 2019 California Building Energy and Efficiency [Title 24] Standards and 2019 CALGreen Standards) and proposed sustainable design features to determine whether a potentially significant impact would occur. There is no quantified threshold of significance for the “wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 3. Response to Comments Page 3-858 April 2021 resources” given that all projects have varying degrees of energy consumption based on the nature of the project (e.g., a high-rise office building versus a ten-unit condominium development). As such, similar to other thresholds of significance in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the energy threshold of significance is subjective. The commenter also questions why the significance threshold for vibration impacts is related to structural damage rather than adverse human effects. Refer to response to comment P69-38. P69-20 The commenter requests that the Standard Conditions of Approval (SCAs) be included in the mitigation monitoring program for the proposed project. SCAs are imposed on a project-by-project basis and are a regulatory requirement of a development project. With these regulatory actions, many work toward reducing environmental impacts. As such, it is standard practice for the City of Costa Mesa to acknowledge SCAs in their environmental documents. The SCAs are included in the project’s Development Agreement and enforced by the City’s Development Services Department. Should potentially significant impacts remain after consideration of all regulatory requirements, additional mitigation measures are then imposed on the project, as reasonable and feasible. P69-21 The commenter raises concerns regarding the proposed structures’ potential changes in scale and intrusion into the skyline and requests daytime and nighttime photosimulations of the proposed development from the Santa Ana River Trail and “State streets” neighborhood sidewalks. As discussed in response to comment O2-2, CEQA Thresholds of Significance consider impacts to scenic views and, for urban environments, the potential to conflict with a regulation governing scenic quality. Private views from Mesa Verde residents are not scenic views. Further, as discussed in response to comment O2-2, implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with a regulation governing scenic quality. As such, additional details, such as photosimulations, would not change the findings or conclusions presented in the Draft EIR. Pertaining to nighttime lighting impacts, as discussed in response to comment P1-2, the Draft EIR Section 5.1, Aesthetics, considered proposed lighting impacts, including those to the Mesa Verde community to the south. The most visible source of lighting of the project site from the residences south of the I-405 Freeway would emanate from exterior lighting on Building A and interior parking structure lighting along the southern edge of the site. Refer to response to comment P1-2. Regarding potential scenic views from the Santa Ana River Trail, as analyzed in Chapter 8, Impacts Found Not to Be Significant, the project would have no substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. The City’s physical setting allows for views of scenic resources including the Pacific Ocean, Santa Ana River, Upper Newport Bay, and Santa Ana Mountains. Views of these resources are afforded at specific public locations within the City that provide uninterrupted, large expanse views of undeveloped land and these resources. According to the General Plan EIR, such locations include Fairview Park, Talbert Regional Park and its adjacent wildlife refuge, and the golf courses, parks, and ballfields in the City. These specific locations are not located within views of the project site. The project site is located over 4.5 miles inland of the Pacific Ocean and over ten miles southwest of the Santa Ana Mountains. Views of the Pacific Ocean and Santa Ana Mountains are not afforded from the project site under existing conditions due to intervening topography, existing structures, and vegetation. Although the project site ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 3. Response to Comments Page 3-859 April 2021 is located approximately 700 feet east of the Santa Ana River and a bicycle path extends from the project’s western boundary to the Santa Ana River Trail, there are no visual resources (identified above) at this segment under existing conditions. Thus, photosimulations from the Santa Ana River Trail are not warranted. Similarly, existing skylines and views of the Santa Ana Mountains looking north from the Mesa Verde neighborhood are already partially obstructed under existing conditions due to intervening topography, existing structures, and vegetation. Thus, photosimulations of the proposed development from sidewalks within the “State streets” neighborhood are not warranted. As defined by the City’s General Plan EIR, views from the “State streets” neighborhood are not scenic views. Additionally, the commenter indicates that the proposed mitigation measures and SCAs related to aesthetics would do little to mitigate the likely impacts of the project. Based on the CEQA thresholds of significance, aesthetic impacts from the proposed project would be less than significant. Light and glare impacts were determined to be potentially significant, but with incorporation of recommended mitigation, would also be reduced to less than significant levels. It is acknowledged that the SCAs would be included in the Development Agreement and the mitigation measures are included in Chapter 5, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, of this Final EIR to ensure the City enforces such measures. P69-22 The commenter states that the project’s light fixtures should be dimmed all evening and completely turned off at 10:00 p.m., changing lights should be prohibited, and signage should not be allowed on the south side of the proposed buildings. The mitigation measures proposed as part of the Draft EIR are intended to ensure that the proposed lighting environment remain similar to those already experienced at the adjoining SOCO property. With incorporation of the proposed mitigation measures, the project would not result in new lighting levels that are substantially increased compared to the existing lighting levels for the area. P69-23 The commenter states that photovoltaics proposed on southerly building façades could result in glare impacts on vehicles driving along the I-405 Freeway and in the residential area to the south. Photovoltaics is the direct conversion of light into electricity at the atomic level. Some materials exhibit a property known as the photoelectric effect that causes them to absorb photons of light and release electrons. When these free electrons are captured, an electric current results that can be used as electricity. The less reflective a photovoltaic panel is, the more absorption can occur. Thus, the intent of photovoltaic technology is to be as non-reflective as possible to achieve the highest level of light absorption. As such, photovoltaic panels typically are less reflective than other building materials and would not be a substantial source of new glare in the project area. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant. P69-24 Refer to response to comment O2-2. P69-25 Refer to responses to comments P69-21 through P69-24. Based on the responses, no significant new information was identified requiring recirculation of the Draft EIR. P69-26 The commenter requests that the Draft EIR analyze impacts of air quality emissions associated with vehicular traffic along the I-405 Freeway on the project’s sensitive receptors (i.e., the proposed residences and open space area). ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 3. Response to Comments Page 3-860 April 2021 According to several court decisions, including Baird v. County of Contra Costa (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 1265, Ballona Wetlands Land Trust, et al. v. City of Los Angeles (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 455, and California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, CEQA analysis is not required to analyze impacts of the existing environment on a proposed project unless the project risks exacerbating existing environmental hazards. As detailed in Section 5.2, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR, project-level and cumulative operational air quality impacts associated with the project would be less than significant, and thus, would not exacerbate any existing environmental hazards, including the air quality impacts associated with vehicular traffic along the I-405 Freeway. In addition, even though the proposed project would generate additional trips on the I-405 Freeway, the number of additional trips is less than 0.5 percent of the existing and future traffic volumes on the I- 405 Freeway and therefore is negligible and not significant. The potential health risk impacts from roadways are associated with diesel particulate matters from heavy diesel trucks, and because the project is a mixed-use development with residential units, retails, and offices, project-generated vehicle trips would be mostly passenger vehicles rather than heavy trucks. As such, analyzing the existing environment’s air quality and health risk impacts on future residents of the project is not required under CEQA. P69-27 The commenter is disappointed that the Draft EIR does not include a health risk assessment as requested by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. As requested by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) in their June 11, 2019 letter submitted in response to the Notice of Preparation (NOP), a health risk assessment was conducted in addition to the air quality modeling. The findings from the health risk assessment are provided under Impact 5.2-1 and Impact 5.2-3 in Section 5.2, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR. Refer to response to comment P69-26 pertaining to consideration of the environment on the project (such as consideration of the impacts of air quality emissions from the I-405 Freeway on future residents at the project site). Notwithstanding, it is acknowledged that a health risk assessment, dated August 2019, evaluating exposure of future residents near the I-405 Freeway was prepared for planning purposes at the request of the City and was provided to City decisionmakers for consideration. Based on this analysis and the thresholds of significance by the SCAQMD, future residents of the proposed project would not be exposed to any significant health risk level. Further, it is acknowledged that the project proposes to install two-inch Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) 13 filters in all new multi-family residential buildings in accordance with CALGreen standards per the proposed Specific Plan. P69-28 The commenter is concerned that car exhaust emissions generated in the proposed parking structures would propagate into the residential structures. Similar to other parking structures, the proposed parking structures would be open to the outdoors and exhaust emissions would disperse with time and distance. Exhaust emissions would not be able to concentrate within the parking structure and spread into individual residences. Additionally, window openings on the dwelling units in Building A are proposed to face away from the parking structure, which would also minimize cross ventilation. P69-29 The commenter states that the California Air Resources Board estimates that ride sharing services generate fifty percent more air emissions per passenger mile than traditional vehicles and requests clarifications on the assumptions made in the Draft EIR regarding ride sharing services in the project’s ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 3. Response to Comments Page 3-861 April 2021 mobile air emissions. The trip generation estimates for the project were based on the application of industry recognized and standard trip rates for the various proposed land uses. The air quality emissions were calculated based on the project trip rates, trip lengths, and emission factors consistent with the latest California Air Resources Board and SCAQMD guidance for the preparation of air quality studies. Neither the Institute of Transportation Engineers nor SCAQMD provide recommendations or requirements for ridesharing assumptions in technical studies. The mode is vehicular and the person- trip purpose is attributed to specific modes including passenger-cars, regardless of whether they are owned or rented. Therefore, any additional assumptions of such services would be speculative at this time. P69-30 The commenter requests clarifications regarding the assumptions made in calculating energ y consumption. Energy use was estimated using the California Emissions Estimator Model. The energy usage rates are based on the 2016 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen; California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11). Modifications to the model were incorporated to reflect the project’s compliance with the latest 2019 California Green Building Standards Code and the project’s energy-saving and sustainable design features. The model calculates energy use associated with the end uses of the building envelope (i.e., the heating, ventilation, and air conditions [HVAC] system; water heating system; and lighting). The model also includes estimates for appliances, electronics, and miscellaneous “plug-in” uses. The project does not propose an upgraded air filtration system, however, energy use associated with the project’s HVAC system was considered. All model calculations are available in Appendix C, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis, of the Draft EIR. P69-31 The commenter questions how many cubic yards of import and export would be required for project construction and whether it was included in the calculation of construction emissions and energy consumption. As detailed on page 5.2-21 of Draft EIR Section 5.2, Air Quality, project construction would require approximately 91,000 cubic yards of fill and 194,000 cubic yards of soil removal, totaling 103,000 cubic yards of export off-site. This information was utilized to model construction-related emissions and energy consumption; refer to Draft EIR Section 5.2, Air Quality, and Section 5.4, Energy. P69-32 The commenter questions what additional sustainable development measures would be implemented by the proposed project aside from compliance with existing regulations. The project does not propose to meet LEED certification standards. However, as detailed on page 5.4-9 of Draft EIR Section 5.4, Energy, it would encourage sustainable design features to conserve energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including, but not limited to: • Limiting landscape irrigation when possible and incorporating drought-tolerant plant species and non-potable water sources; • Installing green roofs, using alternative paving materials, and providing tree canopy shading; • Installing solar ready rooftops; • Utilizing recycled and reclaimed materials for surface parking areas, sidewalks, unit paving, and curbs; ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 3. Response to Comments Page 3-862 April 2021 • Incorporating permeable paving, low-glare and low-heat intensive surfaces; and • Promoting stormwater retention through capture and harvest for re-use in landscaped areas. P69-33 The commenter questions whether potential groundwater encountered during site excavation would be tested or disposed of properly. As detailed on page 5.8-17 in Draft EIR Section 5.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, it is likely that perched groundwater would be encountered during excavation. If groundwater is present above the proposed excavated bottom, the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation indicates temporary dewatering would be required to maintain a safe working environment during excavation and construction activities. The Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation also recommends a qualified dewatering consultant be retained to design the dewatering system. Temporary dewatering may consist of perimeter wells with interior well points as well as gravel-filled trenches (French drains) placed adjacent to the shoring system and interior of the site. The French drains would direct the collected seepage to a sump where it would be pumped out and disposed. If dewatering discharge is piped to an infiltration basin during construction, the Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges to Land with a Low Threat to Water Quality (Order No. 2003- 0003-DWQ) would be required pursuant to PPP HYD-5. If dewatering discharge is piped to storm drains, the requirements of the De Minimis Waste Discharge Requirements for the Santa Ana Region (Order No. R8-2015-0004, NPDES No. CAG998001) would govern dewatering activities during construction pursuant to PPP HYD-5. The potential dewatering permit is added to Chapter 4, Errata, of this Final EIR. Compliance with Order No. 2003-0003-DWQ/Order No. R8-2015-0004, NPDES No. CAG998001 would ensure project construction dewatering would not cause State waste discharge and Federal NPDES permit requirements to be exceeded. The commenter also questions where the planned 19 modular wetlands would be located on-site. As shown on Draft EIR Figure 3-9, Infrastructure Improvements – Storm Drain, the modular wetlands are identified as green rectangular boxes and would not occupy significant portions of the open space area. The proposed modular wetlands and infiltration system would be installed underground and would not contain standing water on the surface. Thus, the proposed water quality treatment measures would not create breeding areas for mosquitoes. P69-34 The commenter is concerned about the project’s land use compatibility with adjacent industrial uses, including marijuana-related businesses allowed under Measure X. Section 5.9, Land Use and Planning, of the Draft EIR, analyzes the project’s land use consistency with the General Plan and Zoning Code. The project site does not directly abut any true industrial uses including Measure X uses as Sunflower Avenue is to the north, SOCO is to the east, the I-405 Freeway is to the south, and an office building and associated surface parking lot is to the west. P69-35 The commenter requests an analysis of the project’s open space, setbacks, and overall development intensity compared to other developments in the Harbor Gateway area. The proposed Specific Plan includes development standards that would apply specifically to the project site; refer to Table 3-4, General Development Standards, of the Draft EIR. These proposed development standards supersede the site’s existing zoning requirements or standards applicable to other developments in the Harbor ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 3. Response to Comments Page 3-863 April 2021 Gateway area. For the purposes of CEQA thresholds of significance, the project’s proposed regulations pertaining to open space, setbacks, and overall development intensity, as it relates to the surrounding area, are considered throughout Draft EIR Section 5.0, Environmental Analysis, as relevant. The project’s precedent-setting actions are evaluated on page 10-3 of Draft EIR Chapter 10, Growth- Inducing Impacts of the Proposed Project. P69-36 The commenter states that the Draft EIR does not analyze existing noise impacts associated with vehicular traffic along the I-405 Freeway on the proposed residences and open space area. Refer to response to comment P69-26 pertaining to consideration of the environment on the project. The commenter also raises concerns regarding the fact that the Specific Plan does not apply the City’s exterior noise standards to the project’s common outdoor recreational amenity areas located on the ground level, including the open space area, and states that the Draft EIR must address the conflict between the Specific Plan and General Plan. The General Plan Noise Element establishes noise policies for the City. The Specific Plan does not conflict with the General Plan. A specific plan is intended to provide flexibility in the development of a specific area while implementing and being consistent with a general plan; however, it is not required to have the same development standards and regulations as the general plan or the underlying zoning. In addition, other mixed-use land uses, such as the westside urban plans that provide for similar setting of proximity of residential use to commercial or industrial uses, allow exemption of balconies and roof decks from exterior noise standards. For the purposes of General Plan consistency analysis, General Plan Goal N-2 states: “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.” Further, Policy N-2.1 states: “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.” As analyzed in Draft EIR Section 5.10, Noise, project design is required to meet the noise standards included in the Specific Plan as well as 2019 Title 24 Standards, which would satisfy consistency with this policy. The proposed Specific Plan, Section 3, Development Standards, includes a consistency analysis with the General Plan Noise Element (Specific Plan page 3-18). As discussed, the proposed project is designed to mitigate noise from Interstate-405 to the maximum extent possible. Residential units within a determined sensitive distance from Interstate-405 will contain sound mitigation construction techniques and materials as required by the City of Costa Mesa. Residential units closest to Interstate- 405 are set back approximately 120 feet from the freeway right-of-way and are oriented facing away from the freeway and towards the project’s internal courtyards and open spaces. Parking and a wall will provide separation between the residential building on the southerly portion of the community site and the freeway. Further, Draft EIR page 5.10-13 documents the required Standard Condition of Approval (SCA) C/I 42: “Prior to issuance of the first building permits, a detailed acoustical study based on architectural plans shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant and submitted to Planning Division for review and approval. The study shall demonstrate compliance with noise standards as required by the Project Specific Plan and the City’s General Plan. The acoustical study ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 3. Response to Comments Page 3-864 April 2021 shall be prepared in compliance with the provisions of the California Administrative Code, Title 25, Chapter 1, Subchapter 1, Article 4. The applicant shall submit two copies of the study with the application for building permits. The acoustical analysis shall evaluate existing and projected noise levels, noise attenuation measures to be applied, and the noise insulation effectiveness of the proposed construction. The applicant shall demonstrate compliance with the recommendations of the acoustic analysis report prior to the issuance of building permits. The person preparing the report shall, under the direction of a person experienced in the field of acoustical engineering, perform an inspection of the project prior to or at the time of the framing inspection to certify that construction techniques comply with recommendations contained within the acoustical analysis. Upon completion of the subject structures, field tests may be required under the provisions of Title 25. P69-37 The commenter raises concerns regarding construction-related noise impacts on adjacent uses and states that compliance with construction hour limits in the Municipal Code is not adequate to reduce such impacts. As shown in Draft EIR Table 5.10-4, Existing Long-Term Noise Level Measurements, , existing noise in the project vicinity is as high as 79.6 dBA CNEL. Construction noise levels are expected to be highest during site preparation/grading and building construction stages. Table 5.10-10, Potential Construction Noise Impacts at Nearest Receptor, of the Draft EIR, identifies that composite noise levels during construction at the nearest residential land uses to the south would reach 72.9 dBA Leq and 80.4 dBA L eq during the paving and building construction with pile driving stages, respectively. It is expected that composite noise levels during construction at the nearest commercial land uses to the east would reach 87.4 dBA Leq and 90.1 dBA Leq during the paving and building construction with pile driving stages, respectively. These predicted noise levels would only occur when all construction equipment is operating simultaneously at the closest point of construction and therefore, are conservative in nature. Further, as stated by the commenter, proposed construction activities are regulated by the Municipal Code. Specifically, construction activities would be allowed only between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Mondays through Fridays, and between 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. No construction is permitted outside of these hours or on Sundays and specified Federal holidays, including New Year’s Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, and Christmas Day (PPP N-2 and SCA CONST HRS-2). As construction-related noise impacts would remain below the 90 dBA Leq and 100 dBA Leq 1-hour construction noise level criteria as established by the Federal Transit Authority for residential and commercial land uses, respectively, construction-related noise impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required, as described in the Draft EIR. Further, the intent of Draft EIR Table 5.10-9, Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels, is to provide a description of maximum instantaneous sound levels at 50 feet from the source; this does not equate to a compressor or generator running at 80 dB or an impact pile driver at over 100 dB all day long at the outdoor patio areas of SOCO. Construction is undertaken in discrete steps, each of which has its own mix of equipment, and, consequently, its own noise characteristics at different areas of the project site, depending on what activities are being undertaken. These various sequential stages would change the character of the noise generated on-site. Therefore, the noise levels vary as construction progresses. Additionally, typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve one to two minutes of full power operation followed by three to four minutes at lower power settings. Thus, ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 3. Response to Comments Page 3-865 April 2021 it is false to assume people standing in the vicinity of the site during project construction activities would experience the maximum noise levels of the utilized construction equipment for the entire duration of construction. P69-38 The commenter questions how the vibration threshold of 0.30 inches per second peak particle velocity (in/sec PPV) was selected to evaluate the project’s vibration impacts. As detailed in Draft EIR Table 5.10-8, Construction Vibration Damage Criteria, construction vibration damage criteria are based on the Federal Transit Authority’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, and the 0.30 in/sec PPV threshold is applicable to engineered concrete and masonry buildings. As the closest structures to the project site are constructed from engineered concrete and masonry, the 0.30 in/sec PPV threshold was utilized in evaluating the project’s construction vibration impacts. Pile driving is anticipated to generate the greatest vibration of typical construction equipment with an upper range of approximately 1.518 in/sec PPV when measured at 25 feet; refer to Draft EIR Table 5.10-12, Vibration Source Amplitudes for Construction Equipment. The closest structures to the project site are approximately 85 feet from the proposed pile driving activities. At this distance, pile driving operations is estimated to generate groundborne vibration levels of up to 0.242 in/sec PPV and would not exceed the 0.3 in/sec PPV threshold. Thus, construction-related vibration impacts would be less than significant. It is common practice to analyze a project’s vibration impacts on structures rather than humans as impacts are very subjective and neither jurisdictions nor agencies have established vibration thresholds for adverse human impacts. On the other hand, the Federal Transit Authority’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual is widely used to evaluate project-related vibration impacts on nearby structures under CEQA. P69-39 The commenter questions what portion of the housing would be affordable to low and very low income households and requests that conditions of approval specify ongoing affordability and full integration of the affordable units into the project as a whole. As detailed in Chapter 3, Project Description, of the Draft EIR (page 3-8), the applicant is proposing to provide, at a minimum, 105 of the 1,057 units as affordable housing units. Although not a CEQA issue, the affordability level of the units and provisions related to integration and the term of the affordable units is included in the Development Agreement. The affordable units would remain affordable for 40 years and would not be separated or different from the project’s market rate units. P69-40 The commenter misunderstands a statement in the Specific Plan stating that amenities would be provided in each of the residential buildings that are appropriate for all age groups. To clarify, the project is proposing to provide amenities for young and elderly residents, including swimming pools, high-tech gaming centers, bowling alley, fitness center, and spas and cabana areas. The project would not segregate residents by age. P69-41 The commenter states that the proposed 1.5-acre open space is less than required by the General Plan. As detailed in Section 5.12, Public Services and Recreation, of the Draft EIR, the City has a goal to maintain a parkland standard of 4.26 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. The project would need to provide ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 3. Response to Comments Page 3-866 April 2021 12.29 acres of parkland to meet this goal. This goal is implemented through the Municipal Code requirement for compliance with the Quimby Act and payment of park impact fees. The City requires the payment of a park impact fee to meet the parkland requirement (see PPP PS-1). The project would pay the entire park impact fee, as documented through the Development Agreement, thereby satisfying the City’s parkland requirements. Payment of park impact fees is adequate mitigation for purposes of CEQA compliance. Beyond satisfying the City’s park impact requirements, the project proposes to provide a 1.5-acre open space area and bicycle trail amenities, which would be permanently accessible to the public, as well as private, on-site amenities for project residents. It should also be noted that the project would also include a number of recreational amenities for project residents, including a fitness center and wellness room; a club house/community room with a bowling alley, high-tech gaming center, kitchen/dining facilities, resort-style saltwater swimming pools (one Junior Olympic-size) with spas and cabana areas, multiple courtyards and rooftop amenity terraces, and community/art exhibit spaces. Additionally, the 1.5-acre open space available to the public would include seating and resting areas, creative landscaping/art pieces, shade structures, a trail connection to the Santa Ana River Trail to the west, and an active transportation hub that could include bicycle lockers, bicycle storage, bicycle repair facilities, and space for community-wide bicycle-share programs and events. The project also proposes major multimodal improvements along Sunflower Avenue to enhance the pedestrian and bicyclist experience and to connect to the regional Santa Ana River Trail system. P69-42 The commenter questions whether the existing bicycle trail connection from Sunflower Avenue to the Santa Ana River Trail would be impeded during project construction and whether it would be fully accessible to the public at project completion. Refer to response to comment P69-13. The commenter also questions whether visitors would be able to park on-site to access the “quasi- public open space” and whether the project would result in overflow parking south of the I-405 Freeway near Moon Park. Refer to response to comment P68-1 pertaining to available public parking areas on-site and along Sunflower. P69-43 The commenter indicates that the existing LOS for study area intersections provided in the Draft EIR do not comport with reality, particularly along Harbor Boulevard and the I-405 on- and off-ramps, South Coast Drive, and Sunflower Avenue intersections during evening peak hours. As detailed in Table 5.13-4, Existing Level of Service Summary, of the Draft EIR, these intersections would operate at a LOS B or C during p.m. peak hours. P69-44 The commenter questions which haul routes within the City would be utilized for project construction and how impacts associated with anticipated lane closures would be reduced. Municipal Code Section 10-248, Truck Routes, states that trucks exceeding a maximum gross weight limit of 10,000 pounds are only permitted to drive on truck routes established and designated with appropriate signs. These include roadways designated as Major Arterials, including Newport Boulevard, Harbor Boulevard, Victoria Street, Baker Street, Adams Avenue, Fair Drive, West 19th Street, 17th Street, Placentia Avenue, Bear Street, Bristol Street, and Redhill Avenue. ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 3. Response to Comments Page 3-867 April 2021 As detailed in Draft EIR Section 5.13, Transportation, construction of the proposed project is not anticipated to require complete closures of any street. Construction activities would result in partial street closures on Sunflower Avenue on a temporary and intermittent basis to allow for construction activities such as roadway improvements and utility undergrounding/hook ups. Any lane closures require an encroachment permit and are subject to the review and approval of the City of Costa Mesa Transportation Division. The project would also be required to submit a Construction Management Plan that would include haul routes, staging areas, and site access that would minimize noise and traffic impacts to adjacent properties subject to review and approval by the City’s Transportation Division. Additionally, per the City’s Circulation Element, a detour would be required to be provided around the construction zone that would be designed to ensure the safety of cyclists and pedestrians (PPP T-1). P69-45 The commenter states that the Draft EIR must address how narrowing Sunflower Avenue in the project vicinity would affect traffic flow both now and in the future. Existing traffic conditions do not assume a narrowed Sunflower Avenue as the proposed narrowing would not apply under existing conditions. As such, existing conditions were based on the current configuration of Sunflower Avenue. However, the narrowing of Sunflower Avenue is included in the future short-term (2027) cumulative plus project and General Plan buildout (2040) plus project traffic scenarios in the Draft EIR. P69-46 The commenter asks whether the project’s trip generation includes double trip ends in the immediate vicinity due to the use of ride sharing services. The trip generation for the project is based on the application of industry recognized and standard trip rates for the proposed land uses. These rates reflect the dynamism of productions and attractions and origins and destinations linking two trip purposes. The mode is vehicular and the person-trip purpose is attributed to specific modes, including passenger-cars, regardless of whether they are owned or rented. P69-47 The commenter cites a paragraph from the Water Supply Assessment and questions whether the paragraph means existing water users would be expected to conserve water in order to meet the water demands of the proposed development. The concluding paragraph from the Water Supply Assessment (Draft EIR Appendix N, Water Supply Assessment, page 42) states that Mesa Water District would be able to accommodate existing and future water demands, including the proposed project. The subsequent sentence generally states that Mesa Water District has additional opportunities to increase water resources beyond existing supplies through extra groundwater capacity from existing wells and water conservation efforts and regulations. P69-48 The commenter states the project has the potential to create precedent-setting actions for future high density developments to occur in the City. As stated in Chapter 10, Growth-Inducing Impacts of the Proposed Project, the approval of the proposed discretionary actions would not set a precedent that would make it more likely for other projects in the City to gain approval of similar applications. For example, a future project requesting to re-designate or rezone a site would need to undergo the same City review process as the proposed project, and CEQA environmental review and mitigate potentially significant environmental impacts on a project-level. The proposed approvals would only regulate future land development within the Specific Plan area by limiting permitted uses and requiring future development on-site to comply with development standards and design guidelines in the Specific Plan and Master ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 3. Response to Comments Page 3-868 April 2021 Plan. While the project would result in the development of a mixed-use residential community in a predominantly industrial area, the site is also adjacent to existing retail and commercial uses (e.g., SOCO and The Mix) that would be compatible with the project’s residential, creative office, specialty retail, and open space uses. Further, future projects with similar required discretionary actions would also be subject to applicable environmental review on a project-by-project basis. Implementation of the proposed project would not establish a procedure that would make future re-designations and/or rezones easier and would be speculative to determine any such effect. As such, the proposed project would not involve a precedent-setting action that could significantly affect the environment. P69-49 The commenter requests that the City revise and recirculate the Draft EIR to address the issues raised in the comment letter. CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 requires a Lead Agency to “recirculate an EIR when significant new information is added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the Draft EIR for public review under Section 15087 but before certification. New information added to an EIR is not ‘significant’ unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the project’s proponents have declined to implement.” This comment letter and responses to the comments in this letter do not identify any significant new information requiring recirculation. As such, recirculation of the Draft EIR is not required. P69-50 The commenter states that the Draft EIR is supposed to have the State Clearinghouse number on the title page. The inside cover title page is updated in Chapter 4, Errata, of this Final EIR. From:Bogue, Kristen To:Yau, Frances Subject:FW: EXTERNAL: FW: One Metro West Project - NO Date:Monday, March 30, 2020 4:49:35 PM Attachments:image001.png From: HUYNH, NANCY <NANCY.HUYNH@costamesaca.gov> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2020 4:43 PM To: Bogue, Kristen <KBOGUE@mbakerintl.com> Subject: EXTERNAL: FW: One Metro West Project - NO NANCY HUYNH Associate Planner Development Services | City of Costa Mesa (714) 754-5609 From: C MT [mailto:cmtucholka@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 30, 2020 4:26 PM To: ASHABI, MINOO <MINOO.ASHABI@costamesaca.gov>; OMW Public Comments <OMWPublicComments@costamesaca.gov> Subject: One Metro West Project - NO No, thank you. We do not have the infrastructure nor the budget necessary to support this project - especially given the current state of affairs. This project is overambitious with unrealistic assumptions about traffic and parking. So - just NO. ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 3. Response to Comments Page 3-870 April 2021 P70. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM C MT, MARCH 30, 2020. P70-1 The commenter opposes the project stating the City does not have the infrastructure or budget to support the development and that the project is overambitious with unrealistic assumptions regarding traffic and parking. The project’s traffic impacts are evaluated in Section 5.13, Transportation, of the Draft EIR, which concludes that the project would result in significant and unavoidable transportation impacts in regard to non-residential VMT and at two study area intersections and several freeway segments and ramps under existing plus project, future short-term cumulative (2027) plus project, and/or General Plan buildout (2040) plus project scenarios. Given the significant and unavoidable impacts, a Statement of Overriding Considerations would be required to be made by the City per CEQA Guidelines Section 15093(b) in order to approve the project. From:Bogue, Kristen To:Yau, Frances Subject:FW: EXTERNAL: Fw: One Metro West Developement- Date:Wednesday, April 1, 2020 8:20:58 AM Attachments:image001.png From: Lehua Coley <lehua@wearetrellis.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2020 2:48 PM To: ASHABI, MINOO Subject: One Metro West Developement- Dear Minoo Ashabi - I am writing on behalf of One Metro West. I have been impressed by their level of involvement and commitment to the community and that their approach will add much needed housing for all types of Costa Mesa residents and those that work here while not changing the traditional neighborhoods many of our residents call home south of the 405 or near South Coast Metro. In addition, by adding a new 1.5 acre open space on what is now a decades old industrial site, every member of the public can start to see how our community is better together which is one of the goals at Trellis that Rose Equities and the One Metro West community have worked to help make a reality. Costa Mesa has an established, recognized need for housing and the approved and under development projects north of the 405 show that the need for housing will continue to grow. By approving One Metro West, Costa Mesa will be providing a realistic and positive solution for many residents, employers, and new employees looking for housing that does not require long work commutes or drives for shopping, restaurants, and entertainment. Also, in light of the current Covid-19 situation and the likely economic impact that will have, I am strongly in favor of community focused developers who will continue to bring business into our community. We look forward to continuing to support One Metro West in the future and appreciate your consideration of our thoughts. Alohas, Lehua Coley Director of Development TRELLIS l 949-422-0182 wearetrellis.com ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 3. Response to Comments Page 3-873 April 2021 P71. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM LEHUA COLEY, MARCH 31, 2020. P71-1 The commenter generally supports the proposed project, including the introduction of more housing and revitalization of an underutilized industrial site. The comment is acknowledged and no further response is required as part of the CEQA process/CEQA response to comments. The comment has been provided to the City decisionmakers for consideration. 1 HUYNH, NANCY From:ASHABI, MINOO Sent:Tuesday, March 31, 2020 6:41 AM To:HUYNH, NANCY Subject:Fw: One Metro West Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed From: Christine Palme <CPalme1@aol.com> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2020 7:52 PM To: ASHABI, MINOO Subject: One Metro West This email is to please beg of you not to go forward with the One Metro West project. Thank you, Christine Palme Long time Mesa Verde resident (inner loop) Sent from my iPhone ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 3. Response to Comments Page 3-875 April 2021 P72. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM CHRISTINE PALME, MARCH 30, 2020. P72-1 The commenter opposes the project but does not provide specific comments about the project’s potential impacts or the adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis. No further response is required as part of the CEQA process/CEQA response to comments. The comment has been provided to the City decisionmakers for consideration. March 19, 2020 Minoo Ashabi Principal Planner City of Costa Mesa RE: Support for One Metro West Dear Mrs. Ashabi, I have been a resident of Costa Mesa since 2013 and am currently employed in Costa Mesa just 2 miles southeast of the proposed One Metro West project. I have also held positions as a CEQA & Planning consultant and am currently a member of People for Housing - OC. My wife and I are both educated individuals with well-paying jobs and are among the hundreds of thousands of strained millennials confronted by the detrimental effects of the Housing Crisis. Outdated and subjective policies in Costa Mesa (i.e., Measure Y) have left this City starved for housing opportunities. Our policy- and NIMBY-driven Housing Crisis, the State’s RHNA pressures, and the mass exodus of millennials from Orange County have proven that projects such as One Metro West MUST be welcomed in our City. In addition, the economic center of our city, north of the 405, is nearly devoid of housing options. This means jobs are forced to be geographically separated from homes and local traffic and air quality impacts grow larger each day that housing is not built in Costa Mesa. As rightfully proven by the VMT analysis in the project’s EIR (pg. 5.13-39), the project would produce a residential VMT that is 18% less than Orange County’s Regional avg. Unfortunately, the VMT analysis also concludes that the project would produce an office-related VMT that is 3% more than Orange County’s Regional avg for office uses, and is therefore significant (pg 5.13- 48). I understand the EIR is required to conclude this as a significant impact, but this is still a ridiculous Catch-22. If there was more housing in Costa Mesa near the One Metro West property under existing conditions, avg. employee commute lengths would have been lower in the project’s traffic models, and the VMT “caused by” the proposed office would have likely come in lower than the regional avg. It’s as if the development is being punished for the shortcomings of the City for not attracting housing to begin with. We are in need of a healthy housing market with a plethora of market-rate, for-sale and for-rent opportunities; that is why I support the One Metro West project. Thank You, George Atalla 2250 Vanguard Way, Apt. G141 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 George.atalla@outlook.com ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 3. Response to Comments Page 3-877 April 2021 P73. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM GEORGE ATALLA, MARCH 19, 2020. P73-1 The commenter generally supports the proposed project, including the introduction of housing north of the I-405 Freeway. Although discussed, this comment does not specifically identify a concern with the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Therefore, no further response is required as part of the CEQA process/CEQA response to comments. The comment has been provided to the City decisionmakers for consideration. 1 HUYNH, NANCY From:Jon & Patricia Rowe <rowboat9@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, March 30, 2020 7:57 PM To:OMW Public Comments Subject:NO on One Metro West Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed "As residents of Mesa Verde since 1998, we join the Mesa Verde Homeowners' Association in strongly objecting to the ONE METRO WEST Development Application. The density and location of the proposed development is inconsistent with sound planning practices, and will result in continuous gridlock of the Sunflower/Harbor/I-405/Gisler intersection complex, which is already graded "F". Please know that we will be voting against this development when it comes-up for approval under Measure Y requirements, should the Costa Mesa Planning Commission and/or Costa Mesa City Council green-light this folly. I submitted responses to the SARX study when that dumb idea threatened the quality of life in my neighborhood, and I will fight One Metro West just as ardently. Cordially, Jon B. Rowe Patricia A. Rowe 1843 Gisler Ave., Costa Mesa, CA 92626 714-434-7785 rowboat9@yahoo.com ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 3. Response to Comments Page 3-879 April 2021 P74. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM JON ROWE, MARCH 30, 2020. P74-1 The commenter opposes the project stating that the project’s density and location is inconsistent with sound planning practices and would result in traffic congestion at the Sunflower Avenue, Harbor Boulevard, I-405 Freeway, and Gisler Avenue intersection complex, which already operates at a LOS F. As discussed in the Draft EIR, traffic impacts associated with the project are considered in Section 5.13, Transportation, of the Draft EIR. As detailed in Draft EIR Table 5.13-4, Existing Intersection Level of Service Summary, the Harbor Boulevard/Sunflower Avenue (Study Intersection No. 10), Harbor Boulevard/I-405 Northbound Off-Ramp and I-405 Southbound On-Ramp (Study Intersection No. 12), Harbor Boulevard/I-405 Southbound Off-Ramp and I-405 Northbound On-Ramp (Study Intersection No. 13), and Harbor Boulevard/Gisler Avenue (Study Intersection No. 14) currently operate at a LOS C or better during a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Study Intersections No. 10 and No. 14 would result in less than significant impacts under existing plus project, future short-term cumulative (2027) plus project, and General Plan buildout (2040) plus project scenarios. However, the Draft EIR acknowledges that the Harbor Boulevard/I-405 north and southbound on- and off-ramps would result in significant and unavoidable impacts under existing plus project, future short-term cumulative (2027) plus project, and/or General Plan buildout (2040) plus project scenarios. Given the significant and unavoidable impacts, a Statement of Overriding Considerations would be required to be made by the City per CEQA Guidelines Section 15093(b) in order to approve the project. 1 HUYNH, NANCY From:Jan Giffard <j2784g@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, March 30, 2020 8:46 PM To:OMW Public Comments Subject:One Metro west Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed This is a very bad idea for our area we already have a lot of traffic in this area. These big developer should not be allowed to overcrowd the area with huge buildings this is not New York City!!! ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 3. Response to Comments Page 3-881 April 2021 P75. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM JAN GIFFARD, MARCH 30, 2020. P75-1 The commenter opposes the project stating that it would overcrowd the project area with large buildings, similar to New York City. This comment is not related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis. Thus, no further response is required as part of the CEQA process/CEQA response to comments. The comment has been provided to the City decisionmakers for consideration. 1 HUYNH, NANCY From:COLGAN, JULIE Sent:Monday, March 23, 2020 9:18 AM To:HUYNH, NANCY; ASHABI, MINOO Subject:FW: One Metro West Agenda Item See below and respond. Thank you, Julie Colgan Administrative Secretary Development Services Department 77 Fair Drive | Costa Mesa | CA 92626 | (714) 754-5612 Until further notice, Costa Mesa City Hall is closed to the public in keeping with Governor Newsom’s direction regarding COVID-19. The City leadership team is committed to continuing to provide essential city services and will be providing services to the public online, via telephone and through our website in order to follow the Governor’s guidance and reduce the potential spread of COVID-19. In the interim, please call or email if you have any further questions. From: Mary Spadoni <maryatsis@aol.com> Sent: Monday, March 23, 2020 9:05 AM To: PLANNING INFO <planninginfo@costamesaca.gov> Subject: One Metro West Agenda Item This agenda item is outrageous, it is attempting to get comments on the EIR, without any concrete plans, designs, or format. Where are the designs! How can you comment on a bunch of fluff with zero data? Is this a “grease the skids“ program to hasten it’s placement on the November ballot? How do you evaluate an EIR with “zero” real plans? Commissioners, I expect independent thinking from you all, questioning the total lack of real information and plans. Don’t approve ghost plans that will affect our city in a major proportion. Ask the hard questions. Be Safe, Stay Home Sincerely, Mary Spadoni Sent from AOL Mobile Mail Get the new AOL app: mail.mobile.aol.com ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 3. Response to Comments Page 3-883 April 2021 P76. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM MARY SPADONI, MARCH 23, 2020. P76-1 The commenter states that the Draft EIR has zero data and that there are no project plans, designs, or format. The full project description and an analysis of the project’s potential environmental impacts are provided in the Draft EIR. 1 HUYNH, NANCY From:ASHABI, MINOO Sent:Tuesday, March 31, 2020 6:44 AM To:HUYNH, NANCY Subject:Fw: One metro west Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed From: Sylvana Graham <sylvanagraham@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2020 9:19 PM To: ASHABI, MINOO Subject: One metro west To whom it may concern- We do not want you to build 1057 units Near SOCO (condo and townhomes ) harbor blvd is already a disaster Please consider not doing his building. Thank you Sent from my iPhone ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 3. Response to Comments Page 3-885 April 2021 P77. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM SYLVANA GRAHAM, MARCH 30, 2020. P77-1 The commenter opposes the project stating that traffic along Harbor Boulevard is already too congested. This comment does not provide specific comments related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis. As such, no further response is required as part of the CEQA process/CEQA response to comments. The comment has been provided to the City decisionmakers for consideration. 1 HUYNH, NANCY From:ASHABI, MINOO Sent:Tuesday, March 31, 2020 6:40 AM To:HUYNH, NANCY Subject:Fw: One Metro West: NO,NO,NO,NO,NO,NO and NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed From: W Schallmo <billmyrealtor@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2020 6:52 PM To: ASHABI, MINOO Subject: One Metro West: NO,NO,NO,NO,NO,NO and NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I have lived in the Mesa Verde (Lower Islands) track 25-years and happen to be a local Realtor. When I originally purchased my home, I was extremely happy that there were no "pass-through" traffic running through the actual neighborhood. As I have marketed homes in the area, that has been a major selling feature that buyers have gravitated towards. This plan all but destroys that feature and turns a quite, peaceful and established neighborhood into another thoroughfare. Keep in mind that our current governor wants to take away our cars and promote less single-trip road usage. Therefore the expense of the project would be lost on the fact that it's original purpose to lower traffic would be accomplished ergo the reduction of autos in the system. Voting NO! Respectfully, William Schallmo 714.420.4425 Coldwell Banker Realty REALTOR (R) BRE: 0083956 billmyrealtor@yahoo.com ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 3. Response to Comments Page 3-887 April 2021 P78. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM WILLIAM SCHALLMO, MARCH 30, 2020. P78-1 The commenter states that the project would adversely impact the established Mesa Verde neighborhood. The project site is located north of the I-405 Freeway greater than 200 feet north of the closest residence within the Mesa Verde neighborhood. The study intersections closest to the Mesa Verde neighborhood include Harbor Boulevard/Gisler Avenue (Study Intersection No. 14), Harbor Boulevard/Nutmeg Place (Study Intersection No. 15), and Harbor Boulevard/Baker Street (Study Intersection No. 16). As shown in Traffic Impact Analysis Figure 5-2, Project Trip Distribution – Residential, only one percent of outbound residential trips from the project site are anticipated to turn onto Gisler Avenue from Harbor Boulevard into the Mesa Verde neighborhood. No other inbound or outbound residential trips are anticipated to turn into the Mesa Verde neighborhood. Further, as shown on Figure 5-3, Project Trip Distribution – Non-Residential, only one percent of outbound non-residential trips from the project site are anticipated to turn onto Gisler Avenue and Nutmeg Place from Harbor Boulevard into the Mesa Verde neighborhood. No other inbound or outbound non-residential trips are anticipated to turn into the Mesa Verde neighborhood. Therefore, the neighborhood would not be converted into a thoroughfare to the proposed development as the roadways are all located south of the freeway and predominantly end in cul-de-sacs or loops within the neighborhood. ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 3. Response to Comments Page 3-888 April 2021 This page intentionally left blank. ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II April 2021 Chapter 4 Errata ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II April 2021 This page intentionally left blank. April 2021 Page 4-1 4. Errata Changes to the One Metro West Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR), dated February 2020, are noted below. A double-underline indicates additions to the text; strikethrough indicates deletions to the text. Changes have been analyzed and responded to in Chapter 3, Response to Comments, of this Final EIR. The changes to the Draft EIR do not affect the overall conclusions of the environmental document. Changes are listed by page and, where appropriate, by paragraph. These errata address the technical comments as well as staff-initiated technical corrections on the One Metro West Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR), dated February 2020, which circulated from February 7, 2020 through March 23, 2020, and was extended to March 30, 2020 due to circumstances resulting from Governor Gavin Newsom’s direction regarding COVID-19. These clarifications and modifications do not result in any new or substantially greater significant impacts as compared to those identified in the Draft EIR. Any changes referenced to mitigation measures contained in the Draft EIR text also apply to the Table of Contents, Chapter 1, Executive Summary, and Chapter 5, Environmental Analysis, of the Draft EIR. All mitigation measure modifications have been reflected in Chapter 5, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, of the Final EIR Volume II. Since issuance of the Draft EIR, the project applicant has submitted modifications to the proposed project. Potential impacts resulting from these modifications to the proposed project are discussed in Chapter 2, Modifications to the Project. Such changes as they affect the Draft EIR are presented in Chapter 2 and Final EIR Volume I (in double underline strikethrough) and not Chapter 4, Errata. INSIDE COVER Draft EIR insider cover (before page i) One Metro West State Clearinghouse No. 2019050014 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS Draft EIR page ii CGS ....................................California Geological Survey ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 4. Errata Page 4-2 April 2021 CH4 .....................................Methane CHRIS ...............................California Historical Resources Information System CIPP ...................................Cured-in-place Pipe City .....................................City of Costa Mesa CMFD ................................Costa Mesa Fire & Rescue Department CMP ...................................Congestion Management PlanProgram CMPD ................................Costa Mesa Police Department CMSD ................................Costa Mesa Sanitary District CNEL ................................Community Noise Equivalent Level EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Draft EIR page 1-14 SCA FIRE-15 The applicant shall provide approved smoke detectors to be installed in accordance with the latest edition of the Uniform California Fire Code. SCA FIRE-16 The applicant shall provide an approved automatic extinguishing system for all commercial cooking surfaces, hoods, and ducts. CHAPTER 3, PROJECT DESCRIPTION Draft EIR page 3-11, Table 3-4, General Development Standards Table 3-4 General Development Standards Building Setbacks Perimeter Sunflower Avenue 10 feet I-405 Freeway (Residential Building) 10 feet I-405 Freeway (Creative Office Building) 5 feet East Property Line (adjacent to SOCO) 10 feet West Property Line 10 feet Internal Center Line of Fire Lanes (Residential) 10 feet Creative Office/Open Space 0 feet Maximum Building Heights Residential Buildings 7 stories (98 feet) Creative Office Building 3 stories (52 feet) Parking Residential 1.30 spaces per unit / 0.89 spaces per bedroom Non-Residential 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet Amenities Minimum Indoor Amenities (Entire Site) 54,500 square feet Minimum Outdoor Amenities (Entire Site) 32,800 square feet Source: Rose Equities 2019. Draft EIR page 3-9, Creative Office ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 4. Errata April 2021 Page 4-3 Creative Office The proposed creative office building would occupy a three-story, 25,000-square-foot building with accessible parking spaces at-grade and shared parking with Building Aat-grade parking. Permitted uses within the creative office space component include professional services, such as advertising, business management, engineering, landscaping architecture, and other service uses. Draft EIR page 3-9, Table 3-3, Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Uses Table 3-3 Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Uses Use Permitted Conditionally Permitted General Mixed-Use Developments X Home Occupations that do not involve more than one customer/client at a time X Public Events, including City-sponsored events, in conjunction with open space area X Temporary Real Estate and Construction Offices X Community Clubs (for residents only) X Civic Clubs (for residents and public use) X Off-Street Parking Areas and Structures X Bowling Alley (for residents only) X Physical Fitness Facility (for residents only) X Food Trucks MC Residential Multi-Family Residences X General Offices/Professional Offices Administrative X Advertising Agency X Attorney X Business Management/Consultant X Detective Agency X Economist X Employment Agency X Engineer and Surveyor X Insurance Broker X Landscape Architect X Psychologist X Public Accountant X Public Relations Consultant X Real Estate Broker X Service Offices (e.g., bookkeeping and data processing) X Commercial Antique Store X Art Shop/Gallery X Artist Studio X Bakery (Retail) X Barbershop X Beauty Shop X Bicycle Shop X Specialty Grocery Store and/or Neighborhood Bar MC Bookstore X Clothing/Apparel Store X Coffeehouse MC Commercial Art/Graphic Design X ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 4. Errata Page 4-4 April 2021 Use Permitted Conditionally Permitted Convenience Store X MC Dry Cleaner MC Florist Shop/Flower Stand X Ice Cream/Frozen Yogurt Shop (with more than 300 square feet of public area) MC Jewelry Store X Outdoor Dining (within Commercial area of project site only) MC Pet Shop MC Photographer Studio X Tailor Shop X Recreational Playground X Small Performance Area (in conjunction with open space area) X Source: Rose Equities 2019. MC = Minor Conditional Use Permit; uses listed under Conditionally Permitted subject to MCUP review process. Draft EIR page 3-15, Table 3-5, Proposed Parking Plan Table 3-5 Proposed Parking Plan Area Buildout Parking Ratio1 Parking Demand Parking Supply Building A Dwelling Units 449 1.3 per dwelling units 584 Bedrooms 648 0.89 per bedroom 577 Office21 25,000 SF 4.0 per 1,000 SF 100 Total Building A 684 825 Building B Dwelling Units 379 1.3 per dwelling units 493 Bedrooms 544 0.89 per bedroom 484 Total Building B 493 668 Building C Dwelling Units 229 1.3 per dwelling units 298 Bedrooms 347 0.89 per bedroom 309 Retail 6,000 SF 4.0 per 1,000 SF 24 Total Building C 333 322 421 Total Entire Site 1,510 1,499 1,914 Source: LSA 2019e. Notes: SF = square feet; Bold indicates the higher calculation and the parking demand to be accommodated. 1 Per the parking study completed by LSA, the proposed parking rate is 0.89 per bedroom or 1.3 spaces per dwelling unit, whichever is greater. 21 Building A parking structure would dedicate 35 parking spaces for the office building. The remaining required parking spaces for the office building will be shared with the residential in Building A parking structure at the ground level. Draft EIR page 3-26, Creative Office Building Creative Office Building The 25,000-square foot creative office building is proposed in the westernmost corner of the project site, adjacent to the I-405 Freeway and south of the proposed open space. The three-story creative office building would have a maximum building height of 52 feet and utilize shared parking spaces within Building A. According to the Master Plan, a six-foot block wall with vines would be constructed along the eastern project boundary adjacent to SOCO and an approximately 12-foot block sound wall would be constructed along the project edge facing the I-405 Freeway. The location, material, and design of the sound wall would be determined ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 4. Errata April 2021 Page 4-5 with construction documents and may be incorporated into the building structures as feasible. The conceptual open space plan, conceptual private open space plan, fence and wall plan, public and private open space art plan, and lighting plan are also included in the Master Plan. Draft EIR page 3-27, Intended Uses of the EIR Agency Action City of Costa Mesa Certification of the EIR Approval of the General Plan Amendment Approval of the Zone Change Adoption of the Specific Plan Adoption of the Master Plan Approval of the Development Agreement Approval of the Tentative Tract Map Approval of Tree Removal Permit Approval of Public Art Plan California Public Utilities Commission Approval of General Order 131D and Section 851 (Transfer or Encumbrance of Utility Property) Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD) Issuance of an Encroachment Permit within OCFCD right-of-way Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board Issuance of a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Issuance of a Dewatering Permit, if needed Orange County Sanitation District Approval of proposed sewer improvements Costa Mesa Sanitary District Approval of proposed sewer improvements Orange County Airport Land Use Commission Determination of Consistency with Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport City of Fountain Valley Implementation of recommended Mitigation Measure T-2 regarding traffic improvements California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Issuance of Encroachment Permit within Caltrans right-of-way, if needed Consultation regarding construction activities SECTION 5.1, AESTHETICS Draft EIR page 5.1-21, Shade/Shadow Analysis Shade/Shadow Analysis In order to identify the proposed project’s potential increase in shadow-related impacts, morning, noon, afternoon, and evening shade patterns were compared for the proposed project. Specifically, four dates were used for analysis purposes: the winter solstice (December 21), when the sun is at its lowest; the summer solstice (June 21), when the sun is at its highest; and the vernal and autumnal equinoxes (March 21 and September 21), when day and night are of approximately equal length. The longest shadows are cast during the winter months, and the shortest shadows are cast during the summer months. The following discussion describes the project’s potential to result in shadow-related impacts during the summer/winter solstices and vernal/autumnal equinoxes. Note that the analysis considers shadow effects associated with proposed building massing only; the shadow patterns associated with proposed landscaping are not addressed. The project’s shade/shadow patterns throughout the year are generally described in Figure 5.1-2 through Figure 5.1-5, Proposed Shade/Shadow Patterns. As illustrated, the only areas that would be substantially shaded include ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 4. Errata Page 4-6 April 2021 SOCO and Sunflower Avenue right-of-way in the fall, and winter, and spring months. However, these areas are not considered shadow sensitive. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in any significant shading of light-sensitive uses (uses where sunlight is important for function). Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Draft EIR page 5.1-30, Mitigation Measure AE-1 AE-1 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the City’s Development Services Department shall verify that the Applicant’s Lighting Plan and Photometric Study prepared as part of SCA AE-5 demonstrates compliance with the following: The mounting height of lights on light standards shall not exceed 18 feet in any location on the project site unless approved by the Development Services Director. Rooftop lighting shall include cutoff optics to ensure lighting is aimed downward and does not contribute to sky brightness or skyglow. Parking structure lighting shall use shielding techniques to focus light into the parking lot areas and screen light from spilling to off-site areas, eliminating light trespass. Illumination levels shall not exceed 100 candelas per meter squared. The parking structure facade artistic treatment shall include light shields or baffles to eliminate glare to travelers along to I-405 Freeway. Exterior building lighting shall not exceed the Caltrans maximum brightness of 350 candelas per meter squared as measured from the adjacent freeway shoulder. SECTION 5.5, GEOLOGY AND SOILS Draft EIR page 5.5-16, Mitigation Measure GEO-2 GEO-2 Excavation and grading activities in deposits with high paleontological sensitivity shall be monitored by a qualified paleontological monitor following a PRIMP. No paleontological monitoring is required for activities in artificial fill or the young alluvial fan deposits from the surface to a depth of ten feet below ground surface (bgs). If paleontological resources are encountered during the course of ground disturbance activities, the paleontological monitor shall have the authority to temporarily redirect construction away from the area of the find in order to assess its significance. In the event paleontological resources are encountered when a paleontological monitor is not present, work in the immediate area of the find shall be redirected, and a paleontologist shall be contacted to assess the find for significance. If determined to be significant, the fossil shall be collected from the field. SECTION 5.6, GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Draft EIR page 5.6-15, Mitigation Measure GHG-1 GHG-1 Prior to issuance of a building permit, the City’s Planning Division shall verify that the applicant has designed the proposed parking areas to provide preferential parking for low-emitting, fuel-efficient, and carpool/van vehicles. At a minimum, the number of electric vehicle (EV) charging stations shall ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 4. Errata April 2021 Page 4-7 be equal to Tier 2 Nonresidential Voluntary Measures of the California Green Building Standards Code Section A5.106.5.1.2. SECTION 5.7, HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Draft EIR page 5.7-7, California Fire Code California Fire Code The 2013 2019 California Fire Code (CCR Title 24 Part 9) sets requirements pertaining to fire safety and life safety, including for building materials and methods, fire protection systems in buildings, emergency access to buildings, and handling and storage of hazardous materials. Draft EIR page 5.7-8, City of Costa Mesa Fire Prevention Program City of Costa Mesa Fire & Rescue Community Risk Reduction Prevention Program The City of Costa Mesa Fire & Rescue Community Risk Reduction Prevention Program develops and enforces local fire, life safety, property, and environmental protection standards; enforces State-adopted fire and life safety codes; reviews building construction plans; conducts building construction and business inspections; investigates citizen complaints; manages the City's hazardous materials disclosure program; provides training to department personnel in regard to fire and life safety codes; and assists professional trades with technical fire code requirements and department public education efforts (Costa Mesa 2019c). Draft EIR page 5.7-20, Mitigation Measure HAZ-2 HAZ-2 Contractors shall be responsible for the health and safety of their own employees and are required to have their own Health and Safety Plan (HSP) and Injury and Illness Prevention Plans (IIPPs) to comply with OSHA. The HSP and IIPPs must be submitted to the Development Services Department prior to the issuance of a grading or demolition permit. The copy of the plan(s) must also beThe HSPs shall provide health and safety guidance such that field activities can be conducted in a safe manner. The plan must be kept on site during any soil disturbance and hauling activities, if required. SECTION 5.12, PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION Draft EIR page 5.12-11, Section 5.12.3, Plans, Programs, Policies and Standard Conditions of Approval PPP FS-1 The proposed project is required to comply with the latest edition of the 2019 edition of the California Fire Code. Draft EIR page 5.12-12, Section 5.12.3, Plans, Programs, Policies and Standard Conditions of Approval SCA FIRE-15 The applicant shall provide approved smoke detectors to be installed in accordance with the latest edition of the Uniform California Fire Code. ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 4. Errata Page 4-8 April 2021 SCA FIRE-16 The applicant shall provide an approved automatic extinguishing system for all commercial cooking surfaces, hoods, and ducts. Draft EIR page 5.12-14, Impact 5.12-1 The City’s demands on CMFD’s services would be offset through the collection of development impact fees established based on the Costa Mesa Fire Protection System Fee Study, the proportional increase in the City’s General Fund through taxes (or other similar revenues) generated by the project, and/or as required per the Development Agreement and Municipal Code Section 13-270, Establishment of Development Impact Fee (PPP FS- 3). The project would also be subject to SCA FIRE-7, -8, -14, -15, -17, and -25, requiring the installation of onsite fire hydrants, fire extinguishers, smoke detectors, and fire sprinkler systems in accordance with National Fire Protection Association and Uniform California Fire Code requirements. SCA FIRE-16 requires installation of an automatic extinguishing system for all commercial cooking surfaces, hoods, and ducts in residential kitchens, and SCA FIRE-9 and -10 require the project’s water improvement plans be reviewed and approved by CMFD, including required fire flow and pressure. Prior to the issuance of building permits, SCA FIRE-26 requires the applicant to participate in the upgrading of fire protection facilities as requested by the City. Additionally, SCA FIRE-13 requires fire access roads to be adequately sized to provide proper fire truck access to on-site fire hydrants. Overall, the final project plans would be reviewed and approved by the CMFD, which would ensure adequate emergency access, fire hydrant availability, and compliance with all applicable State and local codes and standards. SECTION 5.13, TRANSPORTATION Draft EIR page 5.13-2 Orange County Transportation Authority Congestion Management PlanProgram The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) is the subregional planning agency for Orange County. In June 1990, the Proposition 111 gas tax increase required California’s urbanized areas (areas with populations of 50,000 or more) to adopt a Congestion Management Program (CMP). The CMP is intended to link transportation, land use, and air quality decisions and to address the impact of local growth on the regional transportation system. Compliance with CMP requirements ensures a city’s eligibility to compete for State gas tax funds for local transportation projects. The Orange County CMP was established in 1991, and the most recent CMP was adopted in 2017. An updated CMP was considered by the OCTA Board of Directors on November 25, 2019 and is currently being considered by SCAG for a finding of regional consistency (OCTA 2019a). ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 4. Errata April 2021 Page 4-9 CHAPTER 11, ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED Draft EIR page 11-1, Fire Department Fire Department Dan Stefano, Fire Chief Jon Neal, Assistant Fire Marshal ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 4. Errata Page 4-10 April 2021 This page intentionally left blank. ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II April 2021 Chapter 5 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II April 2021 This page intentionally left blank. April 2021 Page 5-1 5. Mitigation Monitoring And Reporting Program The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that when a public agency completes an environmental document which includes measures to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects, the public agency must adopt a reporting or monitoring program. This requirement ensures that environmental impacts found to be significant will be mitigated. The reporting or monitoring program must be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6). In compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, Table 5-1, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Checklist, has been prepared for the One Metro West Project (project). This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Checklist is intended to provide verification that all applicable mitigation measures relative to significant environmental impacts are monitored and reported. Monitoring will include: 1) verification that each mitigation measure has been implemented; 2) recordation of the actions taken to implement each mitigation; and 3) retention of records in the City of Costa Mesa One Metro West Project file. This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) delineates responsibilities for monitoring the project, but also allows the City of Costa Mesa (City) flexibility and discretion in determining how best to monitor implementation. Monitoring procedures vary according to the type of mitigation measure. Adequate monitoring consists of demonstrating that monitoring procedures took place and that mitigation measures were implemented. This includes the review of all monitoring reports, enforcement actions, and document disposition, unless otherwise noted in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Checklist (Table 5-1). If an adopted mitigation measure is not being properly implemented, the designated monitoring personnel shall require corrective actions to ensure adequate implementation. Reporting consists of establishing a record that a mitigation measure is being implemented, and generally involves the following steps: • The City distributes reporting forms to the appropriate entities for verification of compliance. • Departments/agencies with reporting responsibilities will review the EIR, which provide general background information on the reasons for including specified mitigation measures. • Problems or exceptions to compliance will be addressed to the City as appropriate. • Periodic meetings may be held during project implementation to report on compliance of mitigation measures. • Responsible parties provide the City with verification that monitoring has been conducted and ensure, as applicable, that mitigation measures have been implemented. Monitoring compliance may be ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 5. Mitigation Monitoring And Reporting Program Page 5-2 April 2021 documented through existing review and approval programs such as field inspection reports and plan review. • The City prepares a reporting form periodically during the construction phase for all project mitigation monitoring efforts. • Appropriate mitigation measures will be included in construction documents and/or conditions of permits/approvals. Minor changes to the MMRP, if required, must be made in accordance with CEQA and would be permitted after further review and approval by the City. No change is permitted unless the MMRP continues to satisfy the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21081.6. ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 5. Mitigation Monitoring And Reporting Program April 2021 Page 5-3 Table 5-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Checklist Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Timing Monitoring Responsibility Timing VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Initials Date Remarks 5.1 AESTHETICS AE-1 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the City’s Development Services Department shall verify that the Applicant’s Lighting Plan and Photometric Study prepared as part of SCA AE-5 demonstrates compliance with the following: The mounting height of lights on light standards shall not exceed 18 feet in any location on the project site unless approved by the Development Services Director. Rooftop lighting shall include cutoff optics to ensure lighting is aimed downward and does not contribute to sky brightness or skyglow. Parking structure lighting shall use shielding techniques to focus light into the parking lot areas and screen light from spilling to off-site areas, eliminating light trespass. The parking structure facade artistic treatment shall include light shields or baffles to eliminate glare to travelers along to I-405 Freeway. Exterior building lighting shall not exceed the Caltrans maximum brightness of 350 candelas per meter squared as measured from the adjacent freeway shoulder. Project Applicant During Lighting Plan and Photometric Study Review; Prior to Issuance of First Building Permit City Development Services Department During Lighting Plan and Photometric Study Review; Prior to Issuance of First Building Permit ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 5. Mitigation Monitoring And Reporting Program Page 5-4 April 2021 Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Timing Monitoring Responsibility Timing VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Initials Date Remarks 5.2 AIR QUALITY AIR-1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the grading plans shall stipulate that the contractor shall use construction equipment that meets the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Tier 3 level of emission controls fitted with Level 2 Diesel Particulate Filters (DPF) for all construction equipment 50 horsepower or more during construction activities. Project Applicant; Construction Contractor Prior to Issuance of Grading Permit; During Construction Activities City Development Services Department Prior to Issuance of Grading Permit; During Construction Activities 5.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES CUL-1 Prior to issuance of any grading permits, the City of Costa Mesa shall ensure a qualified archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for professional archaeology has been retained for the project and shall be on- call during all demolition and grading/excavation. The qualified archaeologist shall ensure the following measures are followed for the project: Prior to any ground disturbance, the qualified archaeologist, or their designee, shall provide worker environmental awareness protection training to construction personnel regarding regulatory requirements for the protection of cultural (prehistoric and historic) resources. As part of this training, construction personnel shall be briefed on proper procedures to follow should unanticipated cultural resources be discovered during construction. Workers shall be provided contact information and protocols to follow in the event that inadvertent discoveries are made. The training can be in the form of a video or Project Applicant; Construction Contractor; Qualified Archaeologist Prior to Issuance of Grading Permit; Prior to and During Ground Disturbing Activities City Development Services Department Prior to Issuance of Grading Permit; Prior to and During Ground Disturbing Activities ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 5. Mitigation Monitoring And Reporting Program April 2021 Page 5-5 Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Timing Monitoring Responsibility Timing VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Initials Date Remarks PowerPoint presentation. Printed literature (handouts) can accompany the training and can also be given to new workers and contractors to avoid the necessity of continuous training over the course of the project. Prior to any ground disturbance, the applicant shall submit a written Project Monitoring Plan (PMP) to the City’s Development Services Director for review and approval. The monitoring plan shall include monitor contact information, specific procedures for field observation, diverting and grading to protect finds, and procedures to be followed in the event of significant finds. In the event unanticipated cultural material is encountered during any stage of project construction, all construction work within 50 feet (15 meters) of the find shall cease and the qualified archaeologist shall assess the find for importance. Construction activities may continue in other areas. If the discovery is determined to not be important by the qualified archaeologist, work shall be permitted to continue in the area. If warranted based on the qualified archaeologist’s evaluation of the find, the archaeologist shall collect the resource and prepare a test-level report describing the results of the investigation. The test-level report shall evaluate the site including discussing the significance (depth, nature, condition, and extent of the resource), identifying final mitigation measures the City’s Development Services Director shall ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 5. Mitigation Monitoring And Reporting Program Page 5-6 April 2021 Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Timing Monitoring Responsibility Timing VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Initials Date Remarks verify are incorporated into future construction plans, and providing cost estimates. If the qualified archaeologist determines that the find is prehistoric or includes Native American materials, affiliated Native American groups shall be invited to contribute to the assessment and recovery of the resource, as applicable. The qualified archaeologist and any applicable Native American contacts shall collect the resource and prepare a test-level report describing the results of the investigation. The test-level report shall evaluate the site including discussion of significance (depth, nature, condition, and extent of the resources), final mitigation recommendations, and cost estimates. Salvage operation requirements pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines shall be followed. Work within the area of discovery shall resume only after the resource has been appropriately inventoried, documented, and recovered, as applicable. ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 5. Mitigation Monitoring And Reporting Program April 2021 Page 5-7 Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Timing Monitoring Responsibility Timing VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Initials Date Remarks 5.5 GEOLOGY AND SOILS GEO-1 The project applicant shall retain a qualified paleontologist to develop a Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP) for this project. The PRIMP shall be consistent with the guidelines of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology and include the methods that shall be used to protect paleontological resources that may exist within the project area, as well as procedures for monitoring, fossil preparation and identification, curation into a repository, and preparation of a report at the conclusion of grading. A copy of the PRIMP shall be submitted to the Development Services Department prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Project Applicant; Qualified Paleontologist Prior to Issuance of Grading Permit City Development Services Department Prior to Issuance of Grading Permit GEO-2 Excavation and grading activities in deposits with high paleontological sensitivity shall be monitored by a qualified paleontological monitor following a PRIMP. No paleontological monitoring is required for activities in artificial fill or the young alluvial fan deposits from the surface to a depth of ten feet below ground surface (bgs). If paleontological resources are encountered during the course of ground disturbance activities, the paleontological monitor shall have the authority to temporarily redirect construction away from the area of the find in order to assess its significance. In the event paleontological resources are encountered when a paleontological monitor is not present, work in the immediate area of the find shall be redirected, and a paleontologist shall be contacted to assess the find for significance. If determined to be significant, the fossil shall be collected from the field. Qualified Paleontological Monitor; Construction Contractor During Ground Disturbing Activities City Development Services Department During Ground Disturbing Activities ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 5. Mitigation Monitoring And Reporting Program Page 5-8 April 2021 Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Timing Monitoring Responsibility Timing VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Initials Date Remarks GEO-3 If paleontological resources are determined to be significant by the qualified paleontologist, the collected paleontological resources shall be prepared to the point of identification, identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible, cataloged, and curated into the permanent collections of a museum repository. At the conclusion of the monitoring program, a report of findings shall be prepared by the qualified paleontologist to document the results of the monitoring program, and a copy of the report shall be provided to the Development Services Department. Qualified Paleontologist During Ground Disturbing Activities; After Conclusion of Monitoring Program City Development Services Department During Ground Disturbing Activities; After Conclusion of Monitoring Program 5.6 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS GHG-1 Prior to issuance of a building permit, the City’s Planning Division shall verify that the applicant has designed the proposed parking areas to provide preferential parking for low-emitting, fuel- efficient, and carpool/van vehicles. At a minimum, the number of electric vehicle (EV) charging stations shall be equal to Tier 2 Nonresidential Voluntary Measures of the California Green Building Standards Code Section A5.106.5.1.2. Project Applicant Prior to Issuance of Building Permit City Development Services Department Planning Division Prior to Issuance of Building Permit GHG-2 Prior to issuance of a building permit, the City’s Building Division shall verify that the applicant has designed the proposed parking areas to provide electric vehicle (EV) charging stations. At a minimum, the number of EV charging stations shall be equal to the Tier 2 Nonresidential Voluntary Measures of the California Green Building Standards Code Section A5.106.5.3.2. Project Applicant Prior to Issuance of Building Permit Building Safety Division Prior to Issuance of Building Permit 5.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS HAZ-1 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Soils Management Plan (SMP) (prepared by Geocon Project Applicant; Prior to Issuance of City Engineer Prior to Issuance of ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 5. Mitigation Monitoring And Reporting Program April 2021 Page 5-9 Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Timing Monitoring Responsibility Timing VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Initials Date Remarks Incorporated, dated July 24, 2019) shall be made available to the contractor and City Engineer for use prior to and during grading activities. The following Performance Criteria shall be incorporated into the SMP prior to issuance of a grading permit: Site-specific health and safety requirements, pre-field activities, site control, excavation of impacted soil, dust and erosion control, air monitoring, decontamination, field documentation and confirmation soil sampling shall be implemented under the oversight of a licensed professional geologist or engineer and the appropriate regulatory oversight agencies (including DTSC and Santa Ana RWQCB) shall be notified, as required by law; If contaminated soil is encountered, the appropriate regulatory oversight agencies (e.g., DTSC, RWQCB, OCHCA) shall be notified; Soil sampling shall follow the protocols outlined in the DTSC Preliminary Endangerment Assessment Guidance Manual dated October 2015; and Soil import/export verification sampling shall be conducted by a qualified environmental professional to confirm the presence or absence of hazardous materials prior to hauling off-site. Proof of verification sampling shall be provided to the City Engineer prior to import/export. In the event potential contamination is encountered, the contamination shall be evaluated by the qualified environmental professional using Construction Contractor Grading Permit; Prior to and During Grading Activities Grading Permit; Prior to and During Grading Activities ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 5. Mitigation Monitoring And Reporting Program Page 5-10 April 2021 Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Timing Monitoring Responsibility Timing VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Initials Date Remarks appropriate collection and sampling techniques as determined by the appropriate regulatory oversight agency (e.g., DTSC, RWQCB, OCHCA). The nature and extent of contamination shall be determined and the appropriate handling, disposal, and/or treatment shall be implemented in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements. HAZ-2 Contractors shall be responsible for the health and safety of their own employees and are required to have their own Health and Safety Plan (HSP) and Injury and Illness Prevention Plans (IIPPs) to comply with OSHA. The HSP and IIPPs must be submitted to the Development Services Department prior to the issuance of a grading or demolition permit. The copy of the plan(s) must also be kept on site during any soil disturbance and hauling activities, if required. Construction Contractor During Construction Activities; Prior to Issuance of Grading or Demolition Permit City Development Services Department During Construction Activities; Prior to Issuance of Grading or Demolition Permit HAZ-3 At least three business days prior to any lane closure, the construction contractor shall notify the Costa Mesa Police Department and Costa Mesa Fire Department, along with the City of Costa Mesa Public Services Director, of construction activities that would impede movement (such as road or lane closures), to allow for uninterrupted emergency access of evacuation routes. Construction Contractor At Least Three Business Days Prior to Any Lane Closure Costa Mesa Police Department; Costa Mesa Fire & Rescue Department; City Public Services Department At Least Three Business Days Prior to Any Lane Closure 5.12 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION PS-1 Prior to issuance of the first occupancy permit, the applicant shall provide written documentation to the City of Costa Mesa Development Services Department that the existing traffic signals along the response corridors from Costa Mesa Fire & Project Applicant Prior to Issuance of First Occupancy Permit City Development Services Department; Costa Mesa Fire Prior to Issuance of First Occupancy Permit ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 5. Mitigation Monitoring And Reporting Program April 2021 Page 5-11 Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Timing Monitoring Responsibility Timing VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Initials Date Remarks Rescue Department (CMFD) Stations 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 to the project site have been retrofitted with Emergency Vehicle Preemption (EVP) as required by CMFD. & Rescue Department; City Public Services Department PS-2 In addition to compliance with standard fire protection requirements of the California Fire Code and referenced standards as adopted by the Costa Mesa Fire & Rescue Department (CMFD), the project shall provide the following three fire protection features in excess of minimum code requirements to ensure the proposed Building A and associated parking garage design meet CMFD’s fire apparatus access road and hose pull requirements: Wet standpipes with one, 2.5-inch connection shall be provided at, or near, the end of each of the 300-foot hose pull reaches; An increase fire sprinkler density of 0.20 gallons per minute (GPM)/1500 without any corresponding reduction in design area due to the use of quick response sprinkler heads shall be included in the sprinkler system design; and A two-hour firefighter tunnel shall be provided to reduce the project’s deficient hose pull. All other apparatus access roads, buildings, and structures on-site shall comply with the fire protection requirements of the California Fire Code and referenced standards as adopted by the CMFD. Project Applicant Prior to Issuance of Building Permit City Development Services Department; Costa Mesa Fire & Rescue Department Prior to Issuance of Building Permit ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 5. Mitigation Monitoring And Reporting Program Page 5-12 April 2021 Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Timing Monitoring Responsibility Timing VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Initials Date Remarks 5.13 TRANSPORTATION T-1 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall contribute its fair share contribution to the City of Costa Mesa Transportation Division for the implementation of adding a southbound right‐turn lane by restriping Susan Street at the intersection Susan Street/South Coast Drive (Study Intersection No. 18). Upon project approval, the City shall update the Capital Improvement Projects list accordingly. Project Applicant Prior to Issuance of First Building Permit City Public Services Department Transportation Services Division Prior to Issuance of First Building Permit T-2 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall contribute its fair share contribution to the City of Fountain Valley Transportation Division for improvements to the intersection of Talbert Avenue/Mt. Washington Street (Study Intersection No. 28), including adding a traffic signal, restriping the northbound approach to a shared left through lane and a dedicated right turn lane, converting the southbound right turn lane to a dedicated channelized free right turn lane, and adding overlap phasing for a northbound right turn movement. Project Applicant Prior to Issuance of First Building Permit City Development Services Department Prior to Issuance of First Building Permit 5.14 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES TCR-1 Prior to issuance of any grading permits, the qualified archaeologist (required pursuant to Mitigation Measure CUL-1) shall identify a Native American Monitor determined by the City of Costa Mesa and in consultation with the Native American Heritage Commission for the project grading activities and/or any other activities involving native soils. In the event unanticipated tribal cultural material is encountered during any stage of site disturbance/construction, the Native Qualified Archaeologist; Native American Monitor Prior to Issuance of Grading Permit; During Ground Disturbing Activities City Development Services Department Prior to Issuance of Grading Permit; Prior to and During Ground Disturbing Activities ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 5. Mitigation Monitoring And Reporting Program April 2021 Page 5-13 Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Timing Monitoring Responsibility Timing VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Initials Date Remarks American Monitor shall be contacted and all construction work within 50 feet (15 meters) of the find shall cease until the find can be assessed. If, in consultation with the City, the discovery is determined to not be significant, work will be permitted to continue in the area. If the resources appear to be of significant tribal cultural value, they shall be professionally recovered pursuant to the requirements of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 and in consultation with the Native American Monitor identified. ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 5. Mitigation Monitoring And Reporting Program Page 5-14 April 2021 This page intentionally left blank. April 2021 Page 5-1 5. Mitigation Monitoring And Reporting Program The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that when a public agency completes an environmental document which includes measures to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects, the public agency must adopt a reporting or monitoring program. This requirement ensures that environmental impacts found to be significant will be mitigated. The reporting or monitoring program must be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6). In compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, Table 5-1, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Checklist, has been prepared for the One Metro West Project (project). This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Checklist is intended to provide verification that all applicable mitigation measures relative to significant environmental impacts are monitored and reported. Monitoring will include: 1) verification that each mitigation measure has been implemented; 2) recordation of the actions taken to implement each mitigation; and 3) retention of records in the City of Costa Mesa One Metro West Project file. This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) delineates responsibilities for monitoring the project, but also allows the City of Costa Mesa (City) flexibility and discretion in determining how best to monitor implementation. Monitoring procedures vary according to the type of mitigation measure. Adequate monitoring consists of demonstrating that monitoring procedures took place and that mitigation measures were implemented. This includes the review of all monitoring reports, enforcement actions, and document disposition, unless otherwise noted in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Checklist (Table 5-1). If an adopted mitigation measure is not being properly implemented, the designated monitoring personnel shall require corrective actions to ensure adequate implementation. Reporting consists of establishing a record that a mitigation measure is being implemented, and generally involves the following steps: • The City distributes reporting forms to the appropriate entities for verification of compliance. • Departments/agencies with reporting responsibilities will review the EIR, which provide general background information on the reasons for including specified mitigation measures. • Problems or exceptions to compliance will be addressed to the City as appropriate. • Periodic meetings may be held during project implementation to report on compliance of mitigation measures. • Responsible parties provide the City with verification that monitoring has been conducted and ensure, as applicable, that mitigation measures have been implemented. Monitoring compliance may be Attachment 1B ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 5. Mitigation Monitoring And Reporting Program Page 5-2 April 2021 documented through existing review and approval programs such as field inspection reports and plan review. • The City prepares a reporting form periodically during the construction phase for all project mitigation monitoring efforts. • Appropriate mitigation measures will be included in construction documents and/or conditions of permits/approvals. Minor changes to the MMRP, if required, must be made in accordance with CEQA and would be permitted after further review and approval by the City. No change is permitted unless the MMRP continues to satisfy the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21081.6. ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 5. Mitigation Monitoring And Reporting Program April 2021 Page 5-3 Table 5-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Checklist Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Timing Monitoring Responsibility Timing VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Initials Date Remarks 5.1 AESTHETICS AE-1 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the City’s Development Services Department shall verify that the Applicant’s Lighting Plan and Photometric Study prepared as part of SCA AE-5 demonstrates compliance with the following: The mounting height of lights on light standards shall not exceed 18 feet in any location on the project site unless approved by the Development Services Director. Rooftop lighting shall include cutoff optics to ensure lighting is aimed downward and does not contribute to sky brightness or skyglow. Parking structure lighting shall use shielding techniques to focus light into the parking lot areas and screen light from spilling to off-site areas, eliminating light trespass. The parking structure facade artistic treatment shall include light shields or baffles to eliminate glare to travelers along to I-405 Freeway. Exterior building lighting shall not exceed the Caltrans maximum brightness of 350 candelas per meter squared as measured from the adjacent freeway shoulder. Project Applicant During Lighting Plan and Photometric Study Review; Prior to Issuance of First Building Permit City Development Services Department During Lighting Plan and Photometric Study Review; Prior to Issuance of First Building Permit ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 5. Mitigation Monitoring And Reporting Program Page 5-4 April 2021 Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Timing Monitoring Responsibility Timing VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Initials Date Remarks 5.2 AIR QUALITY AIR-1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the grading plans shall stipulate that the contractor shall use construction equipment that meets the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Tier 3 level of emission controls fitted with Level 2 Diesel Particulate Filters (DPF) for all construction equipment 50 horsepower or more during construction activities. Project Applicant; Construction Contractor Prior to Issuance of Grading Permit; During Construction Activities City Development Services Department Prior to Issuance of Grading Permit; During Construction Activities 5.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES CUL-1 Prior to issuance of any grading permits, the City of Costa Mesa shall ensure a qualified archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for professional archaeology has been retained for the project and shall be on- call during all demolition and grading/excavation. The qualified archaeologist shall ensure the following measures are followed for the project: Prior to any ground disturbance, the qualified archaeologist, or their designee, shall provide worker environmental awareness protection training to construction personnel regarding regulatory requirements for the protection of cultural (prehistoric and historic) resources. As part of this training, construction personnel shall be briefed on proper procedures to follow should unanticipated cultural resources be discovered during construction. Workers shall be provided contact information and protocols to follow in the event that inadvertent discoveries are made. The training can be in the form of a video or Project Applicant; Construction Contractor; Qualified Archaeologist Prior to Issuance of Grading Permit; Prior to and During Ground Disturbing Activities City Development Services Department Prior to Issuance of Grading Permit; Prior to and During Ground Disturbing Activities ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 5. Mitigation Monitoring And Reporting Program April 2021 Page 5-5 Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Timing Monitoring Responsibility Timing VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Initials Date Remarks PowerPoint presentation. Printed literature (handouts) can accompany the training and can also be given to new workers and contractors to avoid the necessity of continuous training over the course of the project. Prior to any ground disturbance, the applicant shall submit a written Project Monitoring Plan (PMP) to the City’s Development Services Director for review and approval. The monitoring plan shall include monitor contact information, specific procedures for field observation, diverting and grading to protect finds, and procedures to be followed in the event of significant finds. In the event unanticipated cultural material is encountered during any stage of project construction, all construction work within 50 feet (15 meters) of the find shall cease and the qualified archaeologist shall assess the find for importance. Construction activities may continue in other areas. If the discovery is determined to not be important by the qualified archaeologist, work shall be permitted to continue in the area. If warranted based on the qualified archaeologist’s evaluation of the find, the archaeologist shall collect the resource and prepare a test-level report describing the results of the investigation. The test-level report shall evaluate the site including discussing the significance (depth, nature, condition, and extent of the resource), identifying final mitigation measures the City’s Development Services Director shall ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 5. Mitigation Monitoring And Reporting Program Page 5-6 April 2021 Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Timing Monitoring Responsibility Timing VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Initials Date Remarks verify are incorporated into future construction plans, and providing cost estimates. If the qualified archaeologist determines that the find is prehistoric or includes Native American materials, affiliated Native American groups shall be invited to contribute to the assessment and recovery of the resource, as applicable. The qualified archaeologist and any applicable Native American contacts shall collect the resource and prepare a test-level report describing the results of the investigation. The test-level report shall evaluate the site including discussion of significance (depth, nature, condition, and extent of the resources), final mitigation recommendations, and cost estimates. Salvage operation requirements pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines shall be followed. Work within the area of discovery shall resume only after the resource has been appropriately inventoried, documented, and recovered, as applicable. ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 5. Mitigation Monitoring And Reporting Program April 2021 Page 5-7 Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Timing Monitoring Responsibility Timing VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Initials Date Remarks 5.5 GEOLOGY AND SOILS GEO-1 The project applicant shall retain a qualified paleontologist to develop a Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP) for this project. The PRIMP shall be consistent with the guidelines of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology and include the methods that shall be used to protect paleontological resources that may exist within the project area, as well as procedures for monitoring, fossil preparation and identification, curation into a repository, and preparation of a report at the conclusion of grading. A copy of the PRIMP shall be submitted to the Development Services Department prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Project Applicant; Qualified Paleontologist Prior to Issuance of Grading Permit City Development Services Department Prior to Issuance of Grading Permit GEO-2 Excavation and grading activities in deposits with high paleontological sensitivity shall be monitored by a qualified paleontological monitor following a PRIMP. No paleontological monitoring is required for activities in artificial fill or the young alluvial fan deposits from the surface to a depth of ten feet below ground surface (bgs). If paleontological resources are encountered during the course of ground disturbance activities, the paleontological monitor shall have the authority to temporarily redirect construction away from the area of the find in order to assess its significance. In the event paleontological resources are encountered when a paleontological monitor is not present, work in the immediate area of the find shall be redirected, and a paleontologist shall be contacted to assess the find for significance. If determined to be significant, the fossil shall be collected from the field. Qualified Paleontological Monitor; Construction Contractor During Ground Disturbing Activities City Development Services Department During Ground Disturbing Activities ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 5. Mitigation Monitoring And Reporting Program Page 5-8 April 2021 Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Timing Monitoring Responsibility Timing VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Initials Date Remarks GEO-3 If paleontological resources are determined to be significant by the qualified paleontologist, the collected paleontological resources shall be prepared to the point of identification, identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible, cataloged, and curated into the permanent collections of a museum repository. At the conclusion of the monitoring program, a report of findings shall be prepared by the qualified paleontologist to document the results of the monitoring program, and a copy of the report shall be provided to the Development Services Department. Qualified Paleontologist During Ground Disturbing Activities; After Conclusion of Monitoring Program City Development Services Department During Ground Disturbing Activities; After Conclusion of Monitoring Program 5.6 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS GHG-1 Prior to issuance of a building permit, the City’s Planning Division shall verify that the applicant has designed the proposed parking areas to provide preferential parking for low-emitting, fuel- efficient, and carpool/van vehicles. At a minimum, the number of electric vehicle (EV) charging stations shall be equal to Tier 2 Nonresidential Voluntary Measures of the California Green Building Standards Code Section A5.106.5.1.2. Project Applicant Prior to Issuance of Building Permit City Development Services Department Planning Division Prior to Issuance of Building Permit GHG-2 Prior to issuance of a building permit, the City’s Building Division shall verify that the applicant has designed the proposed parking areas to provide electric vehicle (EV) charging stations. At a minimum, the number of EV charging stations shall be equal to the Tier 2 Nonresidential Voluntary Measures of the California Green Building Standards Code Section A5.106.5.3.2. Project Applicant Prior to Issuance of Building Permit Building Safety Division Prior to Issuance of Building Permit 5.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS HAZ-1 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Soils Management Plan (SMP) (prepared by Geocon Project Applicant; Prior to Issuance of City Engineer Prior to Issuance of ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 5. Mitigation Monitoring And Reporting Program April 2021 Page 5-9 Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Timing Monitoring Responsibility Timing VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Initials Date Remarks Incorporated, dated July 24, 2019) shall be made available to the contractor and City Engineer for use prior to and during grading activities. The following Performance Criteria shall be incorporated into the SMP prior to issuance of a grading permit: Site-specific health and safety requirements, pre-field activities, site control, excavation of impacted soil, dust and erosion control, air monitoring, decontamination, field documentation and confirmation soil sampling shall be implemented under the oversight of a licensed professional geologist or engineer and the appropriate regulatory oversight agencies (including DTSC and Santa Ana RWQCB) shall be notified, as required by law; If contaminated soil is encountered, the appropriate regulatory oversight agencies (e.g., DTSC, RWQCB, OCHCA) shall be notified; Soil sampling shall follow the protocols outlined in the DTSC Preliminary Endangerment Assessment Guidance Manual dated October 2015; and Soil import/export verification sampling shall be conducted by a qualified environmental professional to confirm the presence or absence of hazardous materials prior to hauling off-site. Proof of verification sampling shall be provided to the City Engineer prior to import/export. In the event potential contamination is encountered, the contamination shall be evaluated by the qualified environmental professional using Construction Contractor Grading Permit; Prior to and During Grading Activities Grading Permit; Prior to and During Grading Activities ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 5. Mitigation Monitoring And Reporting Program Page 5-10 April 2021 Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Timing Monitoring Responsibility Timing VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Initials Date Remarks appropriate collection and sampling techniques as determined by the appropriate regulatory oversight agency (e.g., DTSC, RWQCB, OCHCA). The nature and extent of contamination shall be determined and the appropriate handling, disposal, and/or treatment shall be implemented in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements. HAZ-2 Contractors shall be responsible for the health and safety of their own employees and are required to have their own Health and Safety Plan (HSP) and Injury and Illness Prevention Plans (IIPPs) to comply with OSHA. The HSP and IIPPs must be submitted to the Development Services Department prior to the issuance of a grading or demolition permit. The copy of the plan(s) must also be kept on site during any soil disturbance and hauling activities, if required. Construction Contractor During Construction Activities; Prior to Issuance of Grading or Demolition Permit City Development Services Department During Construction Activities; Prior to Issuance of Grading or Demolition Permit HAZ-3 At least three business days prior to any lane closure, the construction contractor shall notify the Costa Mesa Police Department and Costa Mesa Fire Department, along with the City of Costa Mesa Public Services Director, of construction activities that would impede movement (such as road or lane closures), to allow for uninterrupted emergency access of evacuation routes. Construction Contractor At Least Three Business Days Prior to Any Lane Closure Costa Mesa Police Department; Costa Mesa Fire & Rescue Department; City Public Services Department At Least Three Business Days Prior to Any Lane Closure 5.12 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION PS-1 Prior to issuance of the first occupancy permit, the applicant shall provide written documentation to the City of Costa Mesa Development Services Department that the existing traffic signals along the response corridors from Costa Mesa Fire & Project Applicant Prior to Issuance of First Occupancy Permit City Development Services Department; Costa Mesa Fire Prior to Issuance of First Occupancy Permit ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 5. Mitigation Monitoring And Reporting Program April 2021 Page 5-11 Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Timing Monitoring Responsibility Timing VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Initials Date Remarks Rescue Department (CMFD) Stations 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 to the project site have been retrofitted with Emergency Vehicle Preemption (EVP) as required by CMFD. & Rescue Department; City Public Services Department PS-2 In addition to compliance with standard fire protection requirements of the California Fire Code and referenced standards as adopted by the Costa Mesa Fire & Rescue Department (CMFD), the project shall provide the following three fire protection features in excess of minimum code requirements to ensure the proposed Building A and associated parking garage design meet CMFD’s fire apparatus access road and hose pull requirements: Wet standpipes with one, 2.5-inch connection shall be provided at, or near, the end of each of the 300-foot hose pull reaches; An increase fire sprinkler density of 0.20 gallons per minute (GPM)/1500 without any corresponding reduction in design area due to the use of quick response sprinkler heads shall be included in the sprinkler system design; and A two-hour firefighter tunnel shall be provided to reduce the project’s deficient hose pull. All other apparatus access roads, buildings, and structures on-site shall comply with the fire protection requirements of the California Fire Code and referenced standards as adopted by the CMFD. Project Applicant Prior to Issuance of Building Permit City Development Services Department; Costa Mesa Fire & Rescue Department Prior to Issuance of Building Permit ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 5. Mitigation Monitoring And Reporting Program Page 5-12 April 2021 Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Timing Monitoring Responsibility Timing VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Initials Date Remarks 5.13 TRANSPORTATION T-1 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall contribute its fair share contribution to the City of Costa Mesa Transportation Division for the implementation of adding a southbound right‐turn lane by restriping Susan Street at the intersection Susan Street/South Coast Drive (Study Intersection No. 18). Upon project approval, the City shall update the Capital Improvement Projects list accordingly. Project Applicant Prior to Issuance of First Building Permit City Public Services Department Transportation Services Division Prior to Issuance of First Building Permit T-2 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall contribute its fair share contribution to the City of Fountain Valley Transportation Division for improvements to the intersection of Talbert Avenue/Mt. Washington Street (Study Intersection No. 28), including adding a traffic signal, restriping the northbound approach to a shared left through lane and a dedicated right turn lane, converting the southbound right turn lane to a dedicated channelized free right turn lane, and adding overlap phasing for a northbound right turn movement. Project Applicant Prior to Issuance of First Building Permit City Development Services Department Prior to Issuance of First Building Permit 5.14 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES TCR-1 Prior to issuance of any grading permits, the qualified archaeologist (required pursuant to Mitigation Measure CUL-1) shall identify a Native American Monitor determined by the City of Costa Mesa and in consultation with the Native American Heritage Commission for the project grading activities and/or any other activities involving native soils. In the event unanticipated tribal cultural material is encountered during any stage of site disturbance/construction, the Native Qualified Archaeologist; Native American Monitor Prior to Issuance of Grading Permit; During Ground Disturbing Activities City Development Services Department Prior to Issuance of Grading Permit; Prior to and During Ground Disturbing Activities ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 5. Mitigation Monitoring And Reporting Program April 2021 Page 5-13 Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Timing Monitoring Responsibility Timing VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Initials Date Remarks American Monitor shall be contacted and all construction work within 50 feet (15 meters) of the find shall cease until the find can be assessed. If, in consultation with the City, the discovery is determined to not be significant, work will be permitted to continue in the area. If the resources appear to be of significant tribal cultural value, they shall be professionally recovered pursuant to the requirements of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 and in consultation with the Native American Monitor identified. ONE METRO WEST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – VOLUME II 5. Mitigation Monitoring And Reporting Program Page 5-14 April 2021 This page intentionally left blank. 1 CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR ONE METRO WEST State Clearinghouse No. 2019050014 Exhibit A I. BACKGROUND The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that a number of written findings be made by the lead agency in connection with certification of an environmental impact report (EIR) prior to approval of the project pursuant to Sections 15091 and 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines and Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code. This document provides the findings required by CEQA and the specific reasons for considering the project acceptable even though the project has significant impacts that are infeasible to mitigate. The lead agency is responsible for the adequacy and objectivity of the EIR. The City of Costa Mesa (City), as lead agency, has subjected the Draft EIR and Final EIR to the agency’s own review and analysis. A. PROJECT SUMMARY Project Location The 15.23-acre1 project site is located at 1683 Sunflower Avenue in the City of Costa Mesa, Orange County. Costa Mesa is surrounded by the cities of Huntington Beach, Fountain Valley, Santa Ana, Irvine, and Newport Beach, as well as unincorporated Orange County. The site is bound by Sunflower Avenue to the north, the South Coast Collection (SOCO) retail center to the east, the Interstate 405 Freeway (I-405 Freeway; San Diego Freeway) to the south, and industrial and logistics uses to the west. The project site is currently occupied by Sakura Paper Factory, Robinson Pharma, South Coast Baking, and Dekra-Lite Industries, Inc. within an approximately 345,000-square foot one-story industrial building. Regional access to the project site is provided by the Interstate 405 (I-405 Freeway), State Route 73 (SR-73; San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor), and State Route 55 (SR-55; Costa Mesa Freeway). Harbor Boulevard and Sunflower Avenue are the major roadways that provide local access to the site; Hyland Avenue and Cadillac Avenue extend perpendicularly from Sunflower Avenue to the east and west, respectively. Project Description The proposed project is a mixed-use development that consists of residential, specialty retail, creative office, and open space uses. The project would create a mixed-use community to provide housing near jobs in a master-planned setting with on-site amenities, a 1.5-acre open space area, and connection to bicycle trails. The proposed site plan accommodates up to 1,057 multi-family residential rental units, 25,000 square feet of commercial (creative office) space, and 6,000 square feet of specialty retail use. In addition to the Project EIR, the proposed project includes a request for approval of the following entitlements: • General Plan Amendment – The proposed General Plan Amendment would change the existing “Industrial Park” land use designation to “High Density Residential” with a site-specific base density of 80 dwelling units per acre with maximum number of 1,057 units and a site-specific maximum 1 The entire project site is 15.75 acres; however, approximately 0.52 acres along the southwest site boundary would be dedicated for the Interstate 405 Freeway expansion. Therefore, the proposed development would occur on the remaining 15.23 acres. Attachment 1C One Metro West CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 2 building height of seven stories, consistent with the maximum development potential proposed in the One Metro West Specific Plan (Specific Plan). • Zone Change – The proposed zone change would implement the Specific Plan and replace the current “Industrial Park” (MP) zoning district with “Planned Development Residential – High Density” (PDR- HD). According to Costa Mesa Municipal Code (Municipal Code) Section 13-20, Zoning Districts, PDR- HD districts are intended for multi-family residential developments containing any type or mixture of housing units, either attached or detached. Complementary non-residential uses could also be included in the planned development. As such, the proposed zoning district would allow a mix of residential and non-residential uses and site-specific development standards pursuant to the proposed Specific Plan. • Specific Plan – The Specific Plan is proposed to allow for site-specific development standards and would establish the necessary land use plan, development standards, regulations, design guidelines, infrastructure systems, and implementation strategies on which subsequent, project-related development activities would be founded. Upon adoption of the Specific Plan, subsequent project- specific architectural plans, landscape and hardscape plans, site lighting plan, detailed site plans, grading and building permits, and any other actions requiring either ministerial or discretionary approvals would be required to demonstrate consistency with the Specific Plan. • Master Plan – The One Metro West Master Plan (Master Plan) serves as a precise plan of development for the project site and includes schematic designs of the various project components. In addition, the Master Plan provides more details regarding the project’s design (e.g., structural setbacks and distances between buildings; required right-of-way dedications and easements; property lines and dimensions; pedestrian access and circulation; landscape and open space areas; floor plans; roof plans; conceptual landscape plan; and renderings/streetscape views, among others). • Development Agreement – The Development Agreement is an agreement between the project applicant and the City, pursuant to California Government Code Sections 65864 et seq., that identifies public benefits of the project and conveys rights to development. • Tentative Tract Map No. 19015 is proposed to subdivide the site including establishing the right to a future airspace subdivision for condominium purposes. The applicant intends for the residential product to be rental units and may choose not to exercise a condominium map. The office portion would either be subdivided to be contained on one parcel or maintained with the rest of the development for rental purposes. • Other additional City approvals include: Tree Removal Permit; and Public Art Plan. B. PROJECT OBJECTIVES The proposed objectives for One Metro West are to: 1. Redevelop the project site with a mix of residential units and office and retail uses in a master-planned setting and in a manner that is fiscally neutral or fiscally positive for the City. 2. Increase the City’s housing stock, including affordable housing opportunities, by providing multi-family residential housing in areas with adequate public utilities and services and in close proximity to major employment centers. One Metro West CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 3 3. Provide enhanced recreation and open space opportunities and opportunities for specialty retail and entertainment uses to serve future residents and commercial office tenants. 4. Encourage alternative modes of travel through enhancing pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure and by bringing residents in closer proximity to existing and proposed resident-serving retail and adjacent employment centers. 5. Improve jobs-housing ratio and reduce vehicle miles traveled by placing housing in proximity to a major employment center in support of Statewide housing and transportation regulations (Senate Bill 375 and Senate Bill 743). 6. Incorporate sustainable development practices that address energy efficiency, support active transportation, and comply with green building code standards. 7. Enhance the visual attributes of the project site and surrounding area through implementation of a high quality design, creative facades, consistent development standards, and design guidelines for lighting, streetscape, landscape, site design, and signage. C. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS The Final EIR includes the One Metro West Draft EIR, dated February 2020; written comments received during the Draft EIR public review period; written responses to those comments; a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and an Errata (hereinafter referred to collectively as the Final EIR). In conformance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the City conducted an extensive environmental review of the proposed project. The following is a summary of the City’s environmental review process of this project: • Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15082, as amended, the City circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) to public agencies, special districts, and members of the public who had requested such notice for a 30-day period. The NOP was submitted to the State Clearinghouse and posted at the Orange County Clerk’s office on May 23, 2019, with the 30-day review period beginning on May 23, 2019, and ending on June 26, 20192. Copies of the NOP were made available for public review at the City of Costa Mesa Development Services Department. • To afford interested individuals, groups, and public agencies a forum in which to orally present input directly to the Lead Agency in an effort to assist in further refining the intended scope and focus of the EIR, as described in the NOP, the City held a public scoping meeting on June 5, 2019 at the Costa Mesa Senior Center located at 695 West 19th Street, Costa Mesa, California 92627. • A Draft EIR was prepared and distributed for a 45-day public review period (which was extended an additional week) beginning February 7, 2020 and ending March 30, 2020. A Notice of Availability (NOA) and Notice of Completion (NOC) was filed with the State Clearinghouse on February 7, 2020. The scope of the Draft EIR was determined, in part, on comments received in response to the NOP; refer to Draft EIR Sections 2.3, Scoping Process, and 2.4, Scope of This Draft EIR. The NOA was sent to interested persons and organizations, to the State Clearinghouse for distribution to public agencies, posted on the City’s website, and published in The Daily Pilot on February 7, 2020. 2 Note, the City extended the NOP public review period end date from June 21, 2019 to June 26, 2019, in exceedance of the required 30-day review period. One Metro West CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 4 • During the public review period, hardcopies of the Draft EIR were made available for public review at the City of Costa Mesa Development Services Department, Mesa Verde Library, and Costa Mesa/Donald Dungan Library. • A digital copy of the Draft EIR was also made available on the City of Costa Mesa website. • A Final EIR was prepared in February 2020, which included comments on the Draft EIR, responses to those comments, an Errata, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The Final EIR was released for a 10-day agency review period prior to anticipated certification of the Final EIR. • Planning Commission hearings on the proposed project were held on April 13, 2020 and May 11, 2020. • Based on modifications to the project proposed by the Applicant, the Final EIR was updated in April 2021. The updated Final EIR was released April 23, 2021 for a 10-day agency review period prior to anticipated certification of the Final EIR. • City Council hearings on the proposed project were held on May 4, 2021 and June 1, 2021. D. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS For purposes of CEQA and these Findings, the Record of Proceedings for the proposed project includes, but is not limited to, the following documents and other evidence: • The NOP, NOA, and all other public notices issued by the City in conjunction with the proposed project; • The Draft EIR and Final EIR for the proposed project; • All written comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the extended public review period of the Draft EIR from February 7, 2020 to March 30, 2020; • All responses to written comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the public review period of the Draft EIR; • All written and verbal public testimony presented during noticed public hearing(s) for the proposed project; • The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; • The reports and technical memoranda included or referenced in the Final EIR; • All documents, studies, EIRs, or other materials incorporated by reference in the Draft EIR and Final EIR; • The Resolutions adopted by the Planning Commission and City Council in connection with the proposed project, and all documents incorporated by reference therein, including comments received after the close of the comment period and responses thereto; • Matters of common knowledge to the City, including but not limited to Federal, State, and local laws and regulations; and One Metro West CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 5 • Any documents expressly cited in these Findings. E. CUSTODIAN AND LOCATION OF RECORDS The documents and other materials that constitute the administrative record for the City’s actions related to the project are located at the City of Costa Mesa Development Services Department, Planning Division, 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, California 92626. The City’s Economic and Development Services Director is the custodian of the administrative record for the project. Copies of these documents, which constitute the record of proceedings, are and at all relevant times have been and will be available upon request at the offices of the City of Costa Mesa Development Services Department, Planning Division. Although all documents were made available at the City’s website, the City Hall placed a physical dropbox at the exterior entrance during the COVID-19 closure that allowed for sharing hardcopies of documents, if requested. No requests were received during the City Hall closure at the time of this publication. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a)(2) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(e). F. INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT AND FINDING The City selected and retained Michael Baker International (Michael Baker) to prepare the One Metro West EIR. Michael Baker prepared the EIR under the supervision and direction of the City. All findings set forth herein are based on substantial evidence in the record, as indicated, with respect to each specific finding. Finding: The City has exercised independent judgment in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21082.1(c)(3) in retaining its own environmental consultant, and directing the consultant in the preparation of the EIR. The City has independently reviewed and analyzed the EIR and finds that the report reflects the independent judgment of the City. The City Council has considered all the evidence presented in its consideration of the project and the EIR, including, but not limited to, the Draft EIR, the Final EIR, written and oral evidence presented at hearings on the project, and written evidence submitted to the City by individuals, organizations, regulatory agencies, and other entities. On the basis of such evidence, the City Council finds that with respect to each environmental impact identified in the review process, the impact (1) is less than significant and would not require mitigation; (2) is potentially significant but would be avoided or reduced to less than a significant level by implementation of identified mitigation measures; or (3) would be significant and not fully mitigatable but would be, to the extent feasible, lessened by implementation of identified mitigation measures. The EIR also identifies certain significant adverse environmental effects of the proposed project which cannot be avoided or substantially lessened. Prior to approving this project, the City Council also adopts a Statement of Overriding Considerations which finds, based on specific reasons and substantial evidence in the record (as specified in Section III, Statement of Overriding Considerations), that certain identified economic, social, or other benefits of the proposed project outweigh such unavoidable adverse environmental effects. One Metro West CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 6 II. FINDINGS AND FACTS The City of Costa Mesa, as lead agency, is required under CEQA to make written findings concerning each alternative and each significant environmental impact identified in the Draft EIR and Final EIR. Specifically, regarding findings, CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 provides: (a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are: 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. 2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. 3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. (b) The findings required by subsection (a) shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. (c) The finding in subdivision (a)(2) shall not be made if the agency making the finding has concurrent jurisdiction with another agency to deal with identified feasible mitigation measures or alternatives. The finding in subsection (a)(3) shall describe the specific reasons for rejecting identified mitigation measures and project alternatives. (d) When making the findings required in subdivision (a)(1), the agency shall also adopt a program for reporting on or monitoring the changes which it has either required in the project or made a condition of approval to avoid or substantially lessen significant environmental effects. These measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. (e) The public agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or other material which constitute the record of the proceedings upon which its decision is based. (f) A statement made pursuant to Section 15093 does not substitute for the findings required by this section. The “changes or alterations” referred to in CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1) may include a wide variety of measures or actions as set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15370, including: (a) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action. (b) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation. (c) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the impacted environment. One Metro West CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 7 (d) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action. (e) Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments. A. Format This section summarizes the significant environmental impacts of the project, describes how these impacts are to be mitigated, and discusses various alternatives to the proposed project, which were developed in an effort to reduce the remaining significant environmental impacts. All impacts are considered potentially significant prior to mitigation unless otherwise stated in the findings. This remainder of this section is divided into the following subsections: Section B, Summary of Environmental Impacts, presents the summary of the proposed project’s impacts. Section C, Findings on Impacts Determined to Be Less Than Significant, presents the impacts of the proposed project that were determined in the EIR to be less than significant without the addition of mitigation measures and presents the rationales for these determinations. Section D, Findings on Impacts Mitigated to Less Than Significant, presents potentially significant impacts of the proposed project that were identified in the Final EIR, the mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program that would reduce these impacts to less than significant levels, and the rationales for the findings. Section E, Findings on Significant Unavoidable Impacts, presents potentially significant impacts of the proposed project that were identified in the Final EIR, the mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program that would reduce these impacts to the extent feasible, the findings for significant and unavoidable impacts, and the rationales for the findings. Section F, Findings on Recirculation, presents the reasoning as to why recirculation is not required under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. Section G, Findings on Project Alternatives, presents alternatives to the project and evaluates them in relation to the findings set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(3), which allows a public agency to approve a project that would result in one or more significant environmental effects if the project alternatives are found to be infeasible because of specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations. B. Summary of Environmental Impacts Based on the Draft EIR, the following is a summary of the environmental topics considered to have no impact, a less than significant impact, a less than significant impact with implementation of mitigation measures, and a significant and unavoidable impact. No Impact • Aesthetics (scenic vistas and scenic resources within State scenic highway) • Agriculture and Forestry Resources • Biological Resources (impacts on special-status species, riparian habitats, or wetlands; conflict with applicable habitat conservation plans) • Cultural Resources (historical resources) One Metro West CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 8 • Geology and Soils (soils incapable of supporting septic tanks) • Hazards and Hazardous Materials (listed pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5; wildland fire hazards) • Land Use and Planning (physically dividing an established community) • Mineral Resources • Noise (excessive airport-related noise) • Population and Housing (displace people or housing) • Tribal Cultural Resources (impacts on historic tribal cultural resources) • Wildfire Less Than Significant Impact • Air Quality (operational emissions contribution to the Basin’s nonattainment designations; exposure to sensitive receptors; consistency with applicable air quality management plan; objectionable odors) • Biological Resources (impacts on wildlife corridors; consistency with local policies protecting biological resources) • Cultural Resources (impacts on human remains) • Energy • Geology and Soils (seismic-related hazards; soil erosion or loss of topsoil; unstable geologic unit hazards; expansive soils) • Greenhouse Gas Emissions (consistency with applicable greenhouse gas reduction plans or policies) • Hazards and Hazardous Materials (safety hazards near airport; emit or handle hazardous substances near schools) • Hydrology and Water Quality • Land Use and Planning (conflict with applicable plans) • Noise (exceedance of applicable construction and operational noise standards; excessive groundborne vibration or noise; excessive cumulative airport-related noise) • Population and Housing (unplanned population growth) • Public Services and Recreation (police protection, schools, libraries, parks, and recreational facilities) • Transportation (safety hazards caused by geometric design features or incompatible uses; emergency access) • Utilities and Service Systems Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated • Aesthetics (conflict with scenic quality related zoning; light and glare) • Air Quality (construction emissions contribution to the Basin’s nonattainment designations) • Cultural Resources (archaeological resources) • Geology and Soils (paleontological resources) • Hazards and Hazardous Materials (transport, use, or disposal of hazardous waste; accidental release of hazardous materials; emergency response plans) • Public Services and Recreation (fire protection) • Tribal Cultural Resources (unknown tribal cultural resources) Significant and Unavoidable Impact • Greenhouse Gas Emissions (project-level and cumulative greenhouse gas emissions) • Transportation (Study Intersection No. 18 – Susan Street/South Coast Drive under General Plan Buildout (2040) Plus Project scenario; Study Intersection No. 28 – Talbert Avenue/Mt. Washington Street intersection under all scenarios; 12 freeway segments and ramps under Existing Plus Project, One Metro West CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 9 Future Short-Term Cumulative (2027) Plus Project, and/or General Plan Buildout (2040) Plus Project scenarios; and VMT) C. Findings on Impacts Determined to be Less Than Significant Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162.2 and 15128, the EIR focused its analysis on potentially significant impacts and limited discussion of other impacts for which it can be seen with certainty there is no potential for significant adverse environmental effects. CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 does not require specific findings to address environmental effects that an EIR identifies as “no impact” or as a “less than significant impact.” Finding: The City Council finds that based on substantial evidence in the record, the following impacts, to the extent they result from the project, would be less than significant. 1. Air Quality Operational air emissions associated with the proposed project would not exceed applicable SCAQMD threshold criteria. Project construction would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Project operations would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The proposed project is consistent with the applicable air quality management plan. The proposed project would not result in odors that affect a substantial number of people. Long-term project operations would not generate cumulative air emissions in exceedance of applicable SCAQMD thresholds. Construction of the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial cumulative pollutant concentrations. Project operations would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial cumulative pollutant concentrations. The proposed project is consistent with the applicable air quality management plan and would not cause a cumulative impact. The proposed project would not result in odors that affect a substantial number of people and would not cause a cumulative impact. 2. Biological Resources Project implementation would not interfere 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. Project implementation would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. One Metro West CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 10 3. Cultural Resources Grading activities would not disturb human remains. Development of the proposed project and related projects would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts to human remains. 4. Energy The project would not result in a significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation. The project would not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. The project would not result in a cumulatively significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation. The proposed project, in combination with related projects, would not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. 5. Geology and Soils Development of the proposed project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects involving seismic-related hazards. Development of the proposed project would not result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil. Development of the proposed project would not 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. The proposed project would not create substantial risks to life and property due to expansive soils. Development of the proposed project and related projects would not result in cumulatively considerable geology and soils impacts. 6. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. Implementation of the proposed project, in combination with related projects, would not cumulatively conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. 7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials The project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. One Metro West CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 11 The project would be located within an airport land use plan (or where such a plan has not been adopted) or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, but would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. The project and related projects could be located within an airport land use plan (or where such a plan has not been adopted) or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, but would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. 8. Hydrology and Water Quality The proposed project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality. The proposed project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. The proposed project would not 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 a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. The proposed project would not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff and result in flooding on- or off-site. The proposed project would not impede or redirect flood flows. The proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. Development of the proposed project and related projects would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts to water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality. Development of the proposed project and related projects would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts to groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that sustainable groundwater management of the basin is impeded. Development of the proposed project and related projects would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts related to substantially altering 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 a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. Development of the proposed project and related projects would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts related to substantially increasing the rate or amount of surface runoff and result in flooding on- or off-site. Development of the proposed project and related projects would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts related to impeding or redirecting flood flows. Development of the proposed project and related projects would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts related to conflicting with or obstructing implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. One Metro West CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 12 The project would not result in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation. 9. Land Use and Planning Project implementation would not conflict with applicable plans adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Development of the proposed project in combination with related projects would not result in cumulatively considerable conflicts with applicable plans adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. 10. Noise Construction activities would result in temporary noise increases in the project vicinity but would not exceed applicable standards. Long-term operational noise generated by the proposed project would not exceed applicable standards. The project would not generate excessive short- or long-term groundborne vibration or noise. Cumulative construction activities would not result in temporary noise increases that could exceed applicable standards. Implementation of the proposed project, in combination with related projects, would not result in a cumulatively significant long-term operation-related noise impacts. Implementation of the proposed project, in combination with related projects, would not cumulatively create excessive long-term or short-term groundborne vibration and groundborne noise. Project development, in combination with related projects, would not cumulatively expose future residents and/or workers to excessive airport-related noise. 11. Population and Housing The proposed project would not directly or indirectly result in substantial unplanned population growth in the project area. Development of the proposed project and related projects would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts related to substantial unplanned population growth. 12. Public Service and Recreation The proposed project would not significantly increase the intensity of development at the site, thereby increasing the demand for police protection facilities and personnel. The proposed project would introduce new students into the NMUSD service area, but would not adversely impact school enrollment capacities. Project development would not significantly increase residents in the OCPL service area, thus increasing demands for library facilities and services. One Metro West CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 13 Project development would introduce additional residents in the City, but would not substantially increase demands for park facilities and recreation services. The project, combined with other cumulative projects, would not substantially increase demand for CMPD services that could cause significant environmental impacts. Development of the proposed project, in combination with related projects, would not adversely impact NMUSD’s facilities and resources. The project, combined with other cumulative projects, would not substantially increase demands for OCPL services that could cause significant environmental impacts. The project, combined with other cumulative projects, would not substantially increase demands for parks and recreational facilities that could cause significant environmental impacts. 13. Transportation The project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). The project design would not result in inadequate emergency access on-site or to the site. Development of the proposed project and related projects would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). Development of the proposed project and related projects would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts to emergency access. 14. Utilities and Service Systems Existing and proposed wastewater facilities would be able to accommodate project-generated wastewater. Existing water supply and delivery systems are adequate to meet project-generated water demand. Existing and proposed stormwater facilities would be able to accommodate project-generated stormwater flow. Existing solid waste facilities would be able to accommodate project-generated solid waste and the project would comply with existing solid waste regulations. Existing electricity and natural gas service providers would be able to accommodate project-generated utility demands. Development of the project, in combination with related projects, would not cumulatively impact existing and proposed wastewater facilities. Existing and planned water supply and delivery systems are adequate to meet water demands of the proposed project and related projects. Development of the project, in combination with related projects, would not cumulatively impact existing and proposed storm drain facilities. One Metro West CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 14 The proposed project, in combination with related projects, would not adversely impact the capacity of existing solid waste facilities and would comply with existing solid waste regulations. Development of the project, in combination with related projects, would not cumulatively impact existing electricity and natural gas service providers. D. Findings on Impacts Mitigated to Less Than Significant The following summary describes impacts of the proposed project that, without mitigation, would result in significant adverse impacts. Upon implementation of the mitigation measures provided in the Draft EIR, these impacts would be considered less than significant. 1. Aesthetics Impact 5.1-1: The proposed project could conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. [Threshold AE-3] Support for this environmental impact conclusion is included in Section 5.1, Aesthetics, and in particular, starting on page 5.1-10 of the Draft EIR. Construction Construction would involve the demolition of the existing on-site industrial building, associated parking, and ornamental landscaping to allow for construction of the proposed project. Following site preparation activities, the construction of the proposed project would occur. Construction staging and parking areas would be within the boundaries of the project site. The project’s construction-related visual impacts are considered temporary and would cease upon construction completion. Various controls would be implemented during construction to ensure the project does not conflict with applicable zoning or regulations (see Draft EIR PPP HYD-1 and SCA HYD-1 through SCA HYD-3). Further, all grading and earthwork activities would be conducted in accordance with an approved construction grading plan and grading permit issued by the City. As a result, construction-related impacts concerning the potential to conflict with applicable zoning or other regulations governing scenic quality would be less than significant. Operations The proposed project would redevelop a site close to the City’s eastern gateway along I-405 Freeway as a mixed- use development. The proposed project includes a total of four buildings, open space, trail, and roadway improvements along Sunflower Avenue and the Santa Ana Bike Trail Connection. Proposed development standards, design guidelines, and the Master Plan would serve as the framework for future development within the project site. Zoning Implementation of the proposed project requires a zone change from Industrial Park (MP) to Planned Development Residential – High Density (PDR-HD) with a Specific Plan and Master Plan. The proposed zoning district would allow a mix of residential and non-residential uses and site-specific development standards pursuant to the proposed Specific Plan. Upon City approval of the proposed zone change, the project would be consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard. One Metro West CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 15 General Plan As demonstrated in Draft EIR Table 5.1-1, Project Consistency with the Costa Mesa General Plan, the proposed project is consistent with the City’s applicable goals, objectives, and policies related to scenic quality. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard. Shade/Shadow Analysis Morning, noon, afternoon, and evening shade patterns throughout the year were compared under existing and proposed conditions and are described in Draft EIR Figure 5.1-2 through Figure 5.1-5, Proposed Shade/Shadow Patterns. As illustrated, the only areas that would be substantially shaded include SOCO and Sunflower Avenue right-of-way in the fall and winter months. However, this area is not considered shadow sensitive. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in any significant shading of light-sensitive uses (uses where sunlight is important for function). Therefore, impacts would be less than significant in this regard. Public Art Lighting As part of the project, the Building A Parking elevation (facade) would include public art to enhance the large wall space, as seen from the I-405 Freeway. In order to reduce the potential impacts related to public art lighting, the project would be required to comply with existing regulations. Prior to issuance of the first building permit for the proposed project, the owner/developer is required to submit a design plan for the Building A facade along the I-405 Freeway for approval by the City Cultural Arts Committee (see Draft EIR PPP AES-1). Draft EIR PPP AES-1 also requires the selection of public art to be subject to the City’s Cultural Arts Committee approval to ensure the designs for the public art do not result in significant impacts to adjacent communities and vehicles travelling along I-405 Freeway. The Specific Plan details the requirements for a Public Art Plan to include examples of murals or other works to be used to enhance building walls, particularly the I-405 Freeway facade (see Draft EIR PPP AES-2). It is acknowledged in Draft EIR PPP AES-2 that in order to reduce impacts related to public art lighting, all proposed lighting features would be required to meet the Development Standards required as part of the Specific Plan. The Development Standards specifies requirements to ensure exterior lighting is reduced to low levels during nighttime hours; does not generate light spill above 0.5 foot-candles at off-site residential properties; is shielded and directed downward or otherwise directed away from offsite properties; and does not incorporate moving, flashing, or otherwise visually distracting elements. The Development Standards also stipulates that project lighting adjacent to the I-405 Freeway would be required to meet applicable Caltrans standards. Further, Draft EIR SCA AE-5 would require preparation of a Lighting Plan and Photometric Study for review and approval by the City’s Development Services Department. The Lighting Plan and Photometric Study would include performance standards to minimize the project’s potential to result in lighting impacts. The Lighting Plan would also identify and depict locations, types, scale, and illumination power of lighting fixtures on and within all parking structures and building exteriors prior to issuance of the first building permit. Despite implementation of Draft EIR PPP AES-1, PPP AES-2, and SCA AE-5, there is a potential for light spillover to adjacent properties. Conclusion The proposed project would not conflict with applicable zoning or other regulations (including the City’s General Plan) governing scenic quality and would not result in significant shade/shadow impacts to off-site sensitive uses. The proposed project, although a change to the existing visual quality of the site, would create an attractive, well-designed mixed-use project with high quality details and design articulation, landscaping, and streetscaping. Provisions of the proposed project, including the Development Standards, Design Guidelines, and Master Plan, would ensure design details of the proposed project are context-sensitive and of high quality in terms of materials and craftsmanship. Development of the proposed project would also be subject to several One Metro West CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 16 Standard Conditions of Approval to minimize aesthetic impacts. For example, the City would verify future development associated with the project is architecturally compatible with regard to building materials, style, colors, etc., with the existing surrounding development and consistent with the Specific Plan during the plan check process (see Draft EIR SCA AE-1). Draft EIR SCA AE-2 would ensure no modification(s) of the approved building elevations, including, but not limited to, changes that increase the building height, changes in building articulation, or a change of the finish material(s), are made during construction without prior Planning Division written approval. Draft EIR SCA AE-3 would ensure the project’s exterior features do not detract from the architecture by prohibiting roof access ladders, roof drain scuppers, and roof drain downspouts. These standard conditions would ensure the project is compatible with existing development within the Harbor Gateway District. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard. Despite review of the project’s public art and implementation of the project’s Exterior Lighting Plan and Lighting Plan and Photometric Study (see Draft EIR PPP AES-1, PPP AES-2, and SCA AE-5), there is a potential for the project’s public art to result in light spillover to adjacent properties. As a result, implementation of Mitigation Measure AE-1 would be required. Mitigation Measure AE-1 would ensure the project’s Lighting Plan and Photometric Study required under Draft EIR SCA AE-5 include additional lighting performance measures to demonstrate the project lighting meets minimum security lighting requirements and minimizes lighting impacts to surrounding uses. Specifically, Mitigation Measure AE-1 would ensure the parking structure facade artistic treatment includes light shields or baffles to eliminate glare to travelers along to I-405 Freeway and limits illumination levels to Caltrans maximum brightness of 350candelas per meter squared. With implementation of Mitigation Measure AE-1, impacts in this regard would be reduced to less than significant levels. Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure was included in the Draft EIR and the Final EIR and is applicable to the proposed project. AE-1 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the City’s Development Services Department shall verify that the Applicant’s Lighting Plan and Photometric Study prepared as part of SCA AE- 5 demonstrates compliance with the following: The mounting height of lights on light standards shall not exceed 18 feet in any location on the project site unless approved by the Development Services Director. Rooftop lighting shall include cutoff optics to ensure lighting is aimed downward and does not contribute to sky brightness or skyglow. Parking structure lighting shall use shielding techniques to focus light into the parking lot areas and screen light from spilling to off-site areas, eliminating light trespass. The parking structure facade artistic treatment shall include light shields or baffles to eliminate glare to travelers along to I-405 Freeway. Exterior building lighting shall not exceed the Caltrans maximum brightness of 350 candelas per meter squared as measured from the adjacent freeway shoulder. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft EIR. These changes are identified in the form of One Metro West CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 17 the mitigation measure above. The City of Costa Mesa hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measure is feasible, and the measure is therefore adopted. Impact 5.1-2: The proposed project could create a substantial new source of light and glare. [Threshold AE-4] Support for this environmental impact conclusion is included in Section 5.1, Aesthetics, and in particular, starting on page 5.1-26 of the Draft EIR. A significant impact may occur if lighting, as part of the proposed project, exceeds adopted thresholds for light and glare, including exterior lighting or light spillover, or if the proposed project creates a substantial new source of light or glare. Residential uses to the south of the project site represent the closest light-sensitive uses to the project. Project implementation would result in additional sources of lighting through the development of new residential structures, an office building, and open space amenities. As Draft EIR PPP N-2 would prohibit construction during the evening hours, and nighttime construction is not proposed (refer to Draft EIR Section 3.4.2, Project Construction Timeline), construction of the proposed project is not anticipated to result in new sources of light or glare. However, operation of the project could result in impacts related to nighttime lighting, including towards sensitive residential uses to the south of the project site. In order to reduce impacts related to light and glare, Draft EIR PPP AES-2 would require parking structure to be designed in a way that minimize light spillover. Additionally, the Specific Plan includes Development Standards which specify project lighting requirements to ensure exterior lighting is shielded and directed downward, or otherwise directed away from off-site properties. The Development Standards also stipulates that project lighting adjacent to the I-405 Freeway would be required to meet applicable Caltrans standards. Furthermore, Draft EIR SCA AE-5 would require preparation of a Lighting Plan and Photometric Study which include performance standards to minimize the project’s potential to result in lighting impacts. Future development consistent with the proposed Specific Plan would also introduce new potential sources of glare (i.e., new building materials) and new roadways, driveways, and parking structures that could result in glare impacts from vehicle headlights. The Development Standards, as required by the Specific Plan, includes building and pavement surface requirements to minimize impacts related to glare, including use of low-glare paving, surfaces, and windows (see Draft EIR PPP AES-2). In addition, the project’s proposed parking structure would be screened from view of residential uses to the south through the use of screening features; refer to Impact 5.1-1, above. Thus, potential new sources of glare would be less than significant. Despite review of the project’s public art and implementation of the project’s Exterior Lighting Plan and Lighting Plan and Photometric Study (see Draft EIR PPP AES-1, PPP AES-2, and SCA AE-5), there is a potential for light spillover to adjacent properties. As a result, implementation of Mitigation Measure AE-1 would be required. Mitigation Measure AE-1 would ensure the project’s Lighting Plan and Photometric Study required under Draft EIR SCA AE-5 include additional lighting performance measures in order to demonstrate that the project lighting meets minimum security lighting requirements and minimizes lighting impacts to surrounding uses. With implementation of Mitigation Measure AE-1, impacts in this regard would be reduced to less than significant levels. Mitigation Measure: Refer to Mitigation Measure AE-1. Finding: One Metro West CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 18 Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft EIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measure above. The City of Costa Mesa hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measure is feasible, and the measure is therefore adopted. Impact 5.1-3: Development of the proposed project and related projects could conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. [Threshold AE- 3] Support for this environmental impact conclusion is included in Section 5.1, Aesthetics, and in particular, starting on page 5.1-28 of the Draft EIR. All cumulative projects would be required to show consistency with applicable City development and design plans, including the City’s zoning requirements. All cumulative development would be subject to Draft EIR SCA AE-1, which would ensure future development is architecturally compatible with regard to building materials, style, colors, etc., with the existing surrounding development. Draft EIR SCA AE-2 would make certain that no modification(s) to approved building elevations, including, but not limited to, changes that increase the building height, removal of building articulation, or a change of the finish material(s), are made during construction without prior Planning Division written approval. Draft EIR SCA AE-3 would make sure the exterior features do not detract from the architecture by prohibiting roof access ladders, roof drain scuppers, and roof drain downspouts. These processes would ensure compliance with the City’s desired architectural styles, color schemes, materials, etc., for these specific areas. As a result, related development would not result in cumulatively considerable long-term visual impacts. As concluded in Impact 5.1-1, above, implementation of the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts pertaining to zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality upon compliance with the Specific Plan Design Guidelines, and Development Standards, Master Plan, and Standard Conditions of Approval. However, implementation of the proposed public art could result in potentially significant lighting impacts to visual character/quality. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure AE-1, potential lighting impacts associated with the project’s public art would be reduced to less than significant levels and would not be cumulatively considerable. Mitigation Measure: Refer to Mitigation Measure AE-1. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft EIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measure above. The City of Costa Mesa hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measure is feasible, and the measure is therefore adopted. Impact 5.1-4: Development of the proposed project and related projects could create a new substantial source of light and glare. [Threshold AE-4] Support for this environmental impact conclusion is included in Section 5.1, Aesthetics, and in particular, starting on page 5.1-29 of the Draft EIR. Development of cumulative projects could result in increased lighting and glare in the City. General Plan Community Design Policy CD-8.1.H and Municipal Code Section 13-49 require outdoor lights to be shielded One Metro West CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 19 to avoid spillover onto adjacent properties and specifically, to be directed away from residential areas. Potential impacts would be minimized on a project-by-project basis, which would ensure proper lighting fixtures, placement, and minimal spillover. As a result, related development would not result in cumulatively considerable light and glare impacts. As discussed in Impact 5.1-2, selection of public art along the I-405 Freeway would be subject to the City’s Cultural Arts Committee approval (see Draft EIR PPP AES-1). As required by the Specific Plan Development Standards, an Exterior Lighting Plan would be prepared, prior to issuance of the first building permit, to identify and depict locations, types, scale, and illumination power of lighting fixtures on all building exteriors and within the open space/trail connection areas (see Draft EIR PPP AES-2). Draft EIR SCA AE-5 would require preparation of a Lighting Plan and Photometric Study for review and approval by the City’s Development Services Department. Nonetheless, there is a potential for light spillover to adjacent properties, particularly as a result of the Building A façade along the I-405 Freeway. Impacts would be cumulatively considerable in this regard. As discussed in Impact 5.1-2, above, the project’s operational glare impacts would be less than significant with implementation of the Specific Plan Development Standards. Further, construction activities would not result in new sources of light and glare following conformance with applicable regulations pertaining to allowable construction hours. As such, the proposed project would not significantly contribute to cumulative construction-relative lighting impacts or operational glare impacts. In order to reduce impacts related to public art light spillover, selection of public art along the I-405 Freeway would be subject to the City’s Cultural Arts Committee approval (see Draft EIR PPP AES-1). As required by the Specific Plan Development Standards, an Exterior Lighting Plan would be prepared, prior to issuance of the first building permit, to identify and depict locations, types, scale, and illumination power of lighting fixtures on all building exteriors and within the open space/trail connection areas (see Draft EIR PPP AES-2). Draft EIR SCA AE-5 would require preparation of a Lighting Plan and Photometric Study for review and approval by the City’s Development Services Department. The potential impacts from light spillover to adjacent properties, particularly as a result of the Building A facade along the I-405 Freeway, would be mitigated through implementation of Mitigation Measure AE-1. As such, the project’s lighting impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels and would not be cumulatively considerable. Mitigation Measure: Refer to Mitigation Measure AE-1. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft EIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measure above. The City of Costa Mesa hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measure is feasible, and the measure is therefore adopted. 2. Air Quality Impact 5.2-1: Construction activities associated with the proposed project could generate short- term emissions in exceedance of SCAQMD’s threshold criteria that would cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations in the Basin. [Threshold AQ-2] One Metro West CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 20 Support for this environmental impact conclusion is identified in Section 5.2, Air Quality, and in particular, starting on page 5.2-21 of the Draft EIR. Construction activities associated with the proposed project would produce exhaust air emissions from various sources, including on-site heavy-duty construction vehicles, vehicles hauling materials to and from the site, and motor vehicles transporting construction crew. Demolition and grading activities would produce fugitive dust (particulate matter [PM]) emissions. Air pollutant emissions from construction activities on-site would vary daily as construction activity levels change. The proposed project is anticipated to start construction in 2022 and conclude in 2027, with each building built in a sequential phase, lasting approximately 5.5 years. Occupancy would begin for each building as each are completed; therefore, project-related construction and operational activities would overlap. Draft EIR Table 5.2-10, Phased Short-term Regional Peak Day Construction Emissions, identifies the worst-case construction emissions associated with the project. As shown in Draft EIR Table 5.2-10, Phased Short-term Regional Peak Day Construction Emissions, project construction would result in nitrogen oxides (NOX) emissions in exceedance of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) regional threshold. Project-generated volatile organic compound (VOC), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur oxides (SOX), and PM would not exceed their respective thresholds. The project would be required to comply 13 California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section 2499 (limiting idling to five minutes or less), limit fugitive dust and VOC emissions, and required recycling/reuse of at least 50 percent of the construction material (see Draft EIR PPP AIR-2, PPP AIR-3, and PPP AIR-4). The project would also be required to comply with Draft EIR SCA PLNG-14, SCA AQMD-3, and SCA HYD-1 through SCA HYD-3 pertaining to SCAQMD permits, compliance with Rule 403, and other dust control measures during construction. As shown in Draft EIR Table 5.2-3, Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the South Coast Air Basin, the South Coast Air Basin (Basin) is currently in State nonattainment status for Ozone (O3), coarse particular matter (PM2.5), and fine particular matter (PM10) as well as Federal nonattainment status for O3 and PM2.5. Although O3 would not be directly emitted by construction equipment for the proposed project, the O3 precursors VOC and NOX would be emitted, as well as emissions of other criteria pollutants such as CO, SOX, PM10, and PM2.5. Mitigation Measure AIR-1 would require the construction contractor to utilize newer, Tier 3 construction equipment fitted with Level 2 diesel particulate filters (DPF), which would reduce NOX and PM emissions. As shown in Draft EIR Table 5.2-16, Phased Short Term Regional Peak Day Construction Emissions with Mitigation, NOX emissions would be reduced below the SCAQMD thresholds with implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR- 1. Thus, construction-related emissions impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels with mitigation incorporated. Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure was included in the Draft EIR and the Final EIR and is applicable to the proposed project. AIR-1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the grading plans shall stipulate that the contractor shall use construction equipment that meets the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Tier 3 level of emission controls fitted with Level 2 Diesel Particulate Filters (DPF) for all construction equipment 50 horsepower or more during construction activities. One Metro West CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 21 Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft EIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measure above. The City of Costa Mesa hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measure is feasible, and the measure is therefore adopted. Impact 5.2-7: Cumulative construction activities associated with the proposed project could generate short-term emissions in exceedance of SCAQMD’s threshold criteria that would cumulatively contribute to the Basins’ nonattainment designations. [Threshold AQ-2] Support for this environmental impact conclusion is identified in Section 5.2, Air Quality, and in particular, starting on page 5.2-29 of the Draft EIR. The Basin is designated nonattainment for O3 and PM2.5 under State and Federal standards and nonattainment for PM10 and lead (Pb) (Los Angeles County only) under Federal standards. Construction of cumulative projects would further temporarily degrade the regional and local air quality. As discuss under Impact 5.2-1, the proposed project’s short-term construction emissions would exceed the SCAQMD established thresholds for NOX. However, as shown in Draft EIR Table 5.2-16, Phased Short Term Regional Peak Day Construction Emissions with Mitigation, the project’s NOX emissions would be reduced to below the SCAQMD thresholds with implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-1. Thus, cumulative impacts regarding construction activities would be reduced to less than significant levels with mitigation incorporated. Mitigation Measure: Refer to Mitigation Measure AIR-1. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft EIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measure above. The City of Costa Mesa hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measure is feasible, and the measure is therefore adopted. 3. Cultural Resources Impact 5.3-2: Development of the project could impact archaeological resources. [Threshold C- 2] Support for this environmental impact conclusion is included in Section 5.3, Cultural Resources, and in particular, starting on page 5.3-9 of the Draft EIR. Based on the project’s Cultural Resources Assessment Report, included as Appendix D, Cultural Resources Survey Report, of the Draft EIR, no archaeological resources were identified in the records search or were observed during the field survey conducted in April 2019 and May 2019. There is very little likelihood of encountering archaeological resources during ground-disturbing project activities based on the project area’s location within the prehistoric natural alignment of the Santa Ana River. Additionally, because nearly 90 percent of the project area is either paved street, paved parking lot, or built environment containing an industrial warehouse, the likelihood of encountering archaeological resources is further reduced. However, as proposed excavation could be as deep as 50 feet below ground surface, native soils would be encountered during excavation. As such, One Metro West CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 22 there still remains the possibility that undiscovered, buried archaeological resources could potentially be encountered where grading occurs in native soils. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would ensure the project applicant and construction contractors are aware of potential undocumented cultural resources in native soils on-site and have specified construction- related procedures in place to ensure these potentially uncovered resources are not damaged during grading and construction activities. The mitigation measure requires any archaeological resources encountered during project ground-disturbing activities be preserved and/or recovered, evaluated, and curated, if necessary, by a qualified archaeologist. With implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1, impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels. Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure was included in the Draft EIR and the Final EIR and is applicable to the proposed project. CUL-1 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the City of Costa Mesa shall ensure a qualified archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for professional archaeology has been retained for the project and shall be on-call during all demolition and grading/excavation. The qualified archaeologist shall ensure the following measures are followed for the project: Prior to any ground disturbance, the qualified archaeologist, or their designee, shall provide worker environmental awareness protection training to construction personnel regarding regulatory requirements for the protection of cultural (prehistoric and historic) resources. As part of this training, construction personnel shall be briefed on proper procedures to follow should unanticipated cultural resources be discovered during construction. Workers shall be provided contact information and protocols to follow in the event that inadvertent discoveries are made. The training can be in the form of a video or PowerPoint presentation. Printed literature (handouts) can accompany the training and can also be given to new workers and contractors to avoid the necessity of continuous training over the course of the project. Prior to any ground disturbance, the applicant shall submit a written Project Monitoring Plan (PMP) to the City’s Development Services Director for review and approval. The monitoring plan shall include monitor contact information, specific procedures for field observation, diverting and grading to protect finds, and procedures to be followed in the event of significant finds. In the event unanticipated cultural material is encountered during any stage of project construction, all construction work within 50 feet (15 meters) of the find shall cease and the qualified archaeologist shall assess the find for importance. Construction activities may continue in other areas. If the discovery is determined to not be important by the qualified archaeologist, work shall be permitted to continue in the area. If warranted based on the qualified archaeologist’s evaluation of the find, the archaeologist shall collect the resource and prepare a test-level report describing the results of the investigation. The test-level report shall evaluate the site including discussing the significance (depth, nature, condition, and extent of the resource), identifying final mitigation measures the City’s Development Services Director shall verify are incorporated into future construction plans, and providing cost estimates. One Metro West CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 23 If the qualified archaeologist determines that the find is prehistoric or includes Native American materials, affiliated Native American groups shall be invited to contribute to the assessment and recovery of the resource, as applicable. The qualified archaeologist and any applicable Native American contacts shall collect the resource and prepare a test-level report describing the results of the investigation. The test-level report shall evaluate the site including discussion of significance (depth, nature, condition, and extent of the resources), final mitigation recommendations, and cost estimates. Salvage operation requirements pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines shall be followed. Work within the area of discovery shall resume only after the resource has been appropriately inventoried, documented, and recovered, as applicable. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft EIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measure above. The City of Costa Mesa hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measure is feasible, and the measure is therefore adopted. Impact 5.3-5 Development of the proposed project and related projects could result in cumulatively considerable impacts to archaeological resources. [Threshold C-2] Support for this environmental impact conclusion is included in Section 5.3, Cultural Resources, and in particular, starting on page 5.3-10 of the Draft EIR. Similar to the proposed project, the related cumulative projects identified in Draft EIR Table 4-2, Related Projects, would be located within an urbanized environment on sites that have been previously disturbed as a result of existing development. Nonetheless, the possibility remains that undiscovered, buried archaeological resources could potentially be encountered where grading encounters native soils. As concluded in Impact 5.3-2, above, implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would reduce project impacts to archaeological resources to less than significant levels and would not be cumulatively considerable. Mitigation Measure: Refer to Mitigation Measure CUL-1. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft EIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measure above. The City of Costa Mesa hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measure is feasible, and the measure is therefore adopted. One Metro West CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 24 4. Geology and Soils Impact 5.5-5: Development of the proposed project could impact unknown paleontological resources. [Threshold G-6] Support for this environmental impact conclusion is included in Section 5.5, Geology and Soils, and in particular, starting on page 5.5-14 of the Draft EIR. Based on the project’s Paleontological Resources Assessment, included as Appendix F, Paleontological Resources Assessment, of the Draft EIR, the Holocene to late Pleistocene young alluvial fan deposits within project area have a high paleontological sensitivity below a depth of ten feet. Maximum excavation for the proposed project could have the potential of reaching 50 feet below ground surface, with remedial excavation across the project area extending up to an additional three to 12 feet. As such, paleontological monitoring in these areas would be necessary to reduce impacts involving undocumented paleontological resources during excavation. Mitigation Measures GEO-1 through GEO-3 would require a paleontological monitor to ensure any paleontological finds are properly excavated and preserved and grading is halted to assess the find for significance. With implementation of these mitigation measures, potential impacts associated with paleontological resources would be reduced to less than significant levels. Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measures were included in the Draft EIR and the Final EIR and are applicable to the proposed project. GEO-1 The project applicant shall retain a qualified paleontologist to develop a Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP) for this project. The PRIMP shall be consistent with the guidelines of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology and include the methods that shall be used to protect paleontological resources that may exist within the project area, as well as procedures for monitoring, fossil preparation and identification, curation into a repository, and preparation of a report at the conclusion of grading. A copy of the PRIMP shall be submitted to the Development Services Department prior to the issuance of a grading permit. GEO-2 Excavation and grading activities in deposits with high paleontological sensitivity shall be monitored by a qualified paleontological monitor following a PRIMP. No paleontological monitoring is required for activities in artificial fill or the young alluvial fan deposits from the surface to a depth of ten feet below ground surface (bgs). If paleontological resources are encountered during the course of ground disturbance activities, the paleontological monitor shall have the authority to temporarily redirect construction away from the area of the find in order to assess its significance. In the event paleontological resources are encountered when a paleontological monitor is not present, work in the immediate area of the find shall be redirected, and a paleontologist shall be contacted to assess the find for significance. If determined to be significant, the fossil shall be collected from the field. GEO-3 If paleontological resources are determined to be significant by the qualified paleontologist, the collected paleontological resources shall be prepared to the point of identification, identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible, cataloged, and curated into the permanent collections of a museum repository. At the conclusion of the monitoring program, a report of findings shall be prepared by the qualified paleontologist to document the results of the monitoring program, and a copy of the report shall be provided to the Development Services Department. One Metro West CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 25 Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft EIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measures above. The City of Costa Mesa hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measures is feasible, and the measures are therefore adopted. Impact 5.5-7 Development of the proposed project and related cumulative projects could result in cumulatively considerable impacts to paleontological resources. [Threshold G- 6] Support for this environmental impact conclusion is included in Section 5.5, Geology and Soils, and in particular, starting on page 5.5-15 of the Draft EIR. Cumulative impacts to paleontological resources would occur when the impacts of the proposed project, in conjunction with other projects and development in the City, result in cumulatively considerable impacts to paleontological resources. Similar to the proposed project, the related cumulative projects identified in Draft EIR Table 4-2, Related Projects, could encounter undiscovered paleontological resources where grading occurs in native soils. As concluded under Impact 5.5-5, above, with implementation of Mitigation Measures GEO-1 through GEO-3, project impacts to previously undiscovered or unknown paleontological resources would be reduced to less than significant levels and would not be cumulatively considerable. Mitigation Measure: Refer to Mitigation Measures GEO-1 through GEO-3. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft EIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measures above. The City of Costa Mesa hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measures is feasible, and the measures are therefore adopted. 5. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impact 5.7-1: Project construction and operation could create a significant hazard through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous waste. [Threshold HAZ-1] Support for this environmental impact conclusion is included in Section 5.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and in particular, starting on page 5.7-14 of the Draft EIR. Construction Construction of the proposed project would involve demolition, grading, and construction of new buildings. Potentially hazardous materials used during construction may spill or create hazardous conditions. However, construction activities would be short-term, and the materials used would not be in such quantities or stored in such a manner as to pose a significant safety hazard. To prevent hazardous conditions, existing local, State, and Federal laws such as those listed under Draft EIR Section 5.7.1.1, Regulatory Framework, are to be enforced at the construction sites. The use, storage, transport, and disposal of construction-related hazardous materials would be required to conform to existing laws and regulations (see Draft EIR PPP HAZ-1 and PPP HAZ-2). Compliance with applicable laws and regulations governing the use, storage, transportation, and disposal of One Metro West CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 26 hazardous materials would ensure all potentially hazardous materials are used and handled in an appropriate manner and would minimize the potential for safety impacts. The past use of the project site as an automotive warehouse suggests the potential for past use/storage of hazardous substance and/or petroleum products and the presence of undocumented underground storage tanks (USTs) and/or other subsurface equipment. Excavation and grading activities have the potential to encounter undocumented USTs and releases of hazardous substances and/or petroleum products. If USTs are encountered, the applicant would be required to contact the Orange County Health Care Agency (OCHCA) for application procedures and guidelines in compliance with Draft EIR SCA HAZ-1. However, impacts related to releases of hazardous substances and/or petroleum products, as well as subsurface equipment, would be potentially significant during the construction phase. Implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2 would ensure the safe handling of any suspicious soil or unknown features that may be encountered during grading activities. With compliance of all applicable laws and regulations as well as implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2, impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels. Based on the project’s Asbestos Survey, included as Appendix H, Asbestos Survey, of the Draft EIR, there is a high likelihood that asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) are present in the on-site building (constructed by 1975). Demolition of the existing building has the potential to expose and disturb ACMs. In addition to ACMs, it is possible that lead-based paint (LBPs) were used historically on-site and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are present in building materials. Abatement of all hazardous materials encountered during building demolition would be required to be conducted in accordance with the applicable laws and regulations, including those of Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Division of Occupational Safety and Health of California (Cal/OSHA), and South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) (see Draft EIR PPP HAZ-1 through PPP HAZ-4). Compliance with these regulations would ensure the safe handling, treatment, removal, and disposal of ACMs, LBP, and PCBs. As such, impacts pertaining to demolition of the existing building would be less than significant. Operations Operation of the proposed residential, retail, office, and recreational uses would involve the use of small amounts of hazardous materials. However, the proposed project is not associated with land uses that use, generate, store, or transport large quantities of hazardous materials. Additionally, the use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials would be governed by existing regulations of several agencies, including DTSC, EPA, U.S. Department of Transportation, Cal/OSHA, and OCHCA. Specifically, the project would be required to comply with applicable laws and regulations governing the use, storage, transportation, and disposal of hazardous materials (see Draft EIR SCA HAZ-1 and PPP HAZ-1 through PPP HAZ-4). Therefore, substantial hazards to the public or the environment arising from the routine use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials during long-term operation of the proposed project would not occur. Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measures were included in the Draft EIR and the Final EIR and is applicable to the proposed project. HAZ-1 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Soils Management Plan (SMP) (prepared by Geocon Incorporated, dated July 24, 2019) shall be made available to the contractor and City Engineer for use prior to and during grading activities. The following Performance Criteria shall be incorporated into the SMP prior to issuance of a grading permit: One Metro West CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 27 Site-specific health and safety requirements, pre-field activities, site control, excavation of impacted soil, dust and erosion control, air monitoring, decontamination, field documentation and confirmation soil sampling shall be implemented under the oversight of a licensed professional geologist or engineer and the appropriate regulatory oversight agencies (including DTSC and Santa Ana RWQCB) shall be notified, as required by law; If contaminated soil is encountered, the appropriate regulatory oversight agencies (e.g., DTSC, RWQCB, OCHCA) shall be notified; Soil sampling shall follow the protocols outlined in the DTSC Preliminary Endangerment Assessment Guidance Manual dated October 2015; and Soil import/export verification sampling shall be conducted by a qualified environmental professional to confirm the presence or absence of hazardous materials prior to hauling off-site. Proof of verification sampling shall be provided to the City Engineer prior to import/export. In the event potential contamination is encountered, the contamination shall be evaluated by the qualified environmental professional using appropriate collection and sampling techniques as determined by the appropriate regulatory oversight agency (e.g., DTSC, RWQCB, OCHCA). The nature and extent of contamination shall be determined and the appropriate handling, disposal, and/or treatment shall be implemented in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements. HAZ-2 Contractors shall be responsible for the health and safety of their own employees and are required to have their own Health and Safety Plan (HSP) and Injury and Illness Prevention Plans (IIPPs) to comply with OSHA. The HSP and IIPPs must be submitted to the Development Services Department prior to the issuance of a grading or demolition permit. The copy of the plan(s) must also be kept on site during any soil disturbance and hauling activities, if required. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft EIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measures above. The City of Costa Mesa hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measures is feasible, and the measures are therefore adopted. Impact 5.7-2: Project construction and operations could create a significant hazard through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials. [Threshold HAZ-2] Support for this environmental impact conclusion is included in Section 5.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and in particular, starting on page 5.7-16 of the Draft EIR. The proposed project would be constructed and operated with strict adherence to all emergency response requirements set forth by OCHCA and the City of Costa Mesa’s Emergency Operations Plan (EOP). Additionally, the use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials would be governed by existing regulations of several agencies, including DTSC, EPA, U.S. Department of Transportation, Cal/OSHA, and OCHCA. As the project site historically operated as an automotive warehouse, there is a potential that hazardous materials such as ACMs, LBPs, and PCBs, petroleum products, USTs, and other subsurface equipment may be present on-site. One Metro West CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 28 With implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2 which would ensure the safe handling of any suspicious soil or unknown features that may be encountered during grading activities, impacts with regard to hazards to the public or the environment arising from reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving hazardous materials would be reduced to less than significant levels. Mitigation Measure: Refer to Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft EIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measures above. The City of Costa Mesa hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measures is feasible, and the measures are therefore adopted. Impact 5.7-4: Project development could affect the implementation of an emergency responder or evacuation plan. [Threshold HAZ-6] Support for this environmental impact conclusion is included in Section 5.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and in particular, starting on page 5.7-17 of the Draft EIR. According to the General Plan, the City maintains an EOP, which addresses the City’s planned responses to natural and human-caused disasters. The City of Costa Mesa Fire Department provides emergency medical and fire protection support, and the Costa Mesa Police Department is responsible for coordinating law enforcement and traffic control operations in emergency situations. As shown on Figure S-9, Public Safety Facilities and Emergency Evacuation Routes, of the General Plan’s Safety Element, the nearest designated emergency evacuation route is Harbor Boulevard, to the east of the project site. Project construction activities could result in short-term temporary impacts to street traffic (i.e., temporary lane closures) along Sunflower Avenue. However, travel along surrounding roadways would remain open. The project would be required to comply with Mitigation Measure HAZ-3, which requires the project applicant to notify the Costa Mesa Police Department, Costa Mesa Fire Department, and the City of Costa Mesa Public Services Director of construction activities that would impede movement (such as road or lane closures) along Sunflower Avenue. Compliance with Mitigation Measure HAZ-3 would allow for uninterrupted emergency access to evacuation routes. Thus, project impacts with regard to interfering with an emergency responder or evacuation plan would be reduced to less than significant levels. Mitigation Measure: HAZ-3 At least three business days prior to any lane closure, the construction contractor shall notify the Costa Mesa Police Department and Costa Mesa Fire Department, along with the City of Costa Mesa Public Services Director, of construction activities that would impede movement (such as road or lane closures), to allow for uninterrupted emergency access of evacuation routes. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft EIR. These changes are identified in the form of One Metro West CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 29 the mitigation measure above. The City of Costa Mesa hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measure is feasible, and the measure is therefore adopted. Impact 5.7-5: Construction and operation of the proposed project and related projects could create a cumulatively considerable impact to the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous waste. [Threshold HAZ-1] Support for this environmental impact conclusion is included in Section 5.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and in particular, starting on page 5.7-17 of the Draft EIR. Construction Related projects identified in Draft EIR Table 4-2, Related Projects would have the potential to encounter hazardous substances and/or petroleum products during construction. However, all construction activities would be subject to compliance with existing laws and regulations related to hazardous materials, and future development would be required to evaluate their respective hazards and hazardous materials impacts on a project-by-project basis. With implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2, project impacts through the routine transportation, use, disposal, or release of hazardous materials would be less than significant and would not be cumulatively considerable. Operation Cumulative development would include some industrial and commercial uses, which could involve the use of various hazardous products in greater quantities. Cumulative residential development would also increase the use of household-type hazardous materials. However, all new development would be subject to compliance with applicable laws and regulations related to hazardous materials, and future development would be required to evaluate their respective hazards and hazardous materials impacts on a project-by-project basis. As concluded in Impact 5.7.1, substantial hazards to the public or the environment arising from the routine use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials during long-term operation of the proposed project would not occur. Thus, the proposed project would not result in cumulatively considerable significant impacts through the routine transportation, use, disposal, or release of hazardous materials during operations. Mitigation Measure: Refer to Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft EIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measures above. The City of Costa Mesa hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measures is feasible, and the measures are therefore adopted. One Metro West CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 30 Impact 5.7-6: Construction and operation of the proposed project and related projects could result in a cumulatively considerable impact through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials. [Threshold HAZ-2] Support for this environmental impact conclusion is included in Section 5.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and in particular, starting on page 5.7-18 of the Draft EIR. Cumulative projects could result in the increase in handling of hazardous materials, potential for accidental conditions, or an increase in the transport of hazardous materials, particularly during site disturbance/demolition/remedial activities. However, compliance with applicable Federal and State laws and regulations related to the handling of hazardous materials would reduce the likelihood and severity of accidents. As concluded in Impact 5.7-2, with implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2, project impacts with regard to hazards to the public or the environment arising from reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving hazardous materials would be less than significant and would not be cumulatively considerable. Mitigation Measure: Refer to Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft EIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measures above. The City of Costa Mesa hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measures is feasible, and the measures are therefore adopted. Impact 5.7-8: Development of the proposed project and related projects could affect the implementation of an emergency responder or evacuation plan. [Threshold HAZ- 6] Support for this environmental impact conclusion is included in Section 5.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and in particular, starting on page 5.7-19 of the Draft EIR. Cumulative projects in the area would be analyzed for impairment of emergency access vehicles and consistency with the City’s EOP on a project-by-project basis and would be required to comply with all City roadway design standards to ensure adequate emergency access is not impacted. As concluded in Impact 5.7-4, compliance with Mitigation Measure HAZ-3 would allow for uninterrupted emergency access to evacuation routes. Thus, project impacts with regard to interfering with an emergency responder or evacuation plan would be less than significant and would not be cumulatively considerable. Mitigation Measure: Refer to Mitigation Measure HAZ-3. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft EIR. These changes are identified in the form of One Metro West CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 31 the mitigation measure above. The City of Costa Mesa hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measure is feasible, and the measure is therefore adopted. 6. Public Services and Recreation Impact 5.12-1: The proposed project could increase the intensity of the project site, thereby increasing the demand for fire protection facilities and personnel. [Threshold PSR-1(i)] Support for this environmental impact conclusion is included in Section 5.12, Public Services and Recreation, and in particular, starting on page 5.12-13 of the Draft EIR. Construction Development of the proposed project would require demolition of the existing industrial building and associated parking area and construction of the proposed residential, specialty retail, creative office, and open space uses. Construction activities would be subject to compliance with applicable State and local regulations in place to reduce risk of fire, such as installation of a temporary construction fencing to restrict site access and maintenance of a clean construction site. Specifically, construction would be subject to Municipal Code Title 5, Buildings and Structures, and all adopted State construction codes, including the California Building Code and California Fire Code (see Draft EIR PPP FS-2). Specifically, Municipal Code Section 7-14, Adoption of the California Fire Code (see Draft EIR PPP FS-1), includes site access requirements and fire safety precautions associated with construction activities. Project compliance with applicable State and local regulations related to fire protection would result in less than significant construction-related impacts. Operations Project implementation would introduce additional residential, specialty retail, and creative office uses, which would increase demand for fire protection and emergency services. As indicated on the Draft EIR Section 5.12, Public Services and Recreation, CMFD does not have the response capabilities to reach the project site or adjacent areas within a 4:00 or 8:00 minute travel time or the desirable urban best practices average response time goal of 7:30 minutes as the project is located adjacent to the I-405 Freeway and a drainage channel. It is also acknowledged that the proposed project is estimated to incrementally increase calls for service at the site from 14 to 101 calls and contributes traffic incrementally to the surrounding street system. Further, it was identified that Building A with its associated parking garage design and location would not meet CMFD’s fire apparatus access road or hose pull requirements due to its proximity to the I-405 Freeway. In consultation with CMFD, the project is required to retrofit existing traffic signals along the response corridors from CMFD Stations 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 to include Emergency Vehicle Preemption (EVP) per Mitigation Measure PS-1. CMFD states that implementation of Mitigation Measure PS-1 is acceptable mitigation to incrementally improve response capabilities to the site. The project is also required to provide the additional fire protection features in excess of minimum code requirements to ensure Building A and the associated parking garage design meet CMFD’s fire apparatus access road and hose pull requirements (Mitigation Measure PS-2). Further, the increased demands on CMFD’s services would be offset through the collection of development impact fees, the Development Agreement, and the proportional revenue generated through taxes. Additionally, compliance with existing regulatory requirements would reduce fire risk (see Draft EIR PPP FS- 1 and -2, SCA FIRE-7 through -10, -13 through -17, -25, and -26). With implementation of Mitigation Measures PS-1 and PS-2 as well as all relevant SCAs and PPPs, impacts related to fire protection services would be less than significant. One Metro West CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 32 Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measures were included in the Draft EIR and the Final EIR and are applicable to the proposed project. PS-1 Prior to issuance of the first occupancy permit, the applicant shall provide written documentation to the City of Costa Mesa Development Services Department that the existing traffic signals along the response corridors from Costa Mesa Fire & Rescue Department (CMFD) Stations 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 to the project site have been retrofitted with Emergency Vehicle Preemption (EVP) as required by CMFD. PS-2 In addition to compliance with standard fire protection requirements of the California Fire Code and referenced standards as adopted by the Costa Mesa Fire & Rescue Department (CMFD), the project shall provide the following three fire protection features in excess of minimum code requirements to ensure the proposed Building A and associated parking garage design meet CMFD’s fire apparatus access road and hose pull requirements: Wet standpipes with one, 2.5-inch connection shall be provided at, or near, the end of each of the 300-foot hose pull reaches; An increase fire sprinkler density of 0.20 gallons per minute (GPM)/1500 without any corresponding reduction in design area due to the use of quick response sprinkler heads shall be included in the sprinkler system design; and A two-hour firefighter tunnel shall be provided to reduce the project’s deficient hose pull. All other apparatus access roads, buildings, and structures on-site shall comply with the fire protection requirements of the California Fire Code and referenced standards as adopted by the CMFD. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft EIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measures above. The City of Costa Mesa hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measures is feasible, and the measures are therefore adopted. Impact 5.12-6: The project, combined with other related projects, could increase demand for CMFD services that could cause significant environmental impacts. [Threshold PSR-1(i)] Support for this environmental impact conclusion is included in Section 5.12, Public Services and Recreation, and in particular, starting on page 5.12-19 of the Draft EIR. For purposes of fire protection services analysis, cumulative impacts are considered for projects which would also contract with CMFD (i.e., related projects within the City). However, cumulative development would also be subject to payment of development impact fees to offset their respective increases in demand for fire and emergency services. Related projects would also be required to comply with applicable State and local regulations intended to reduce risk of fire and impacts on fire protection services. Cumulative projects would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis at the project-level, as they are implemented, for their potential to impact CMFD’s services. One Metro West CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 33 As discussed in Impact 5.12-1, above, CMFD does not have response capabilities to reach the project site within a “best practices” amount of time; calls for fire protection service at the project site is estimated to increase and contribute traffic to surrounding street system; and Building A and its associated parking garage design and location do not meet CMFD’s fire apparatus access road or hose pull requirements. The project would be subject to conformance with existing regulatory requirements (see Draft EIR PPP FS-1 and -2, SCA FIRE-7 through -10, -13 through -17, -25, and -26) as well as Mitigation Measures PS-1 and PS-2, which require retrofitting existing traffic signals along the response corridors from CMFD Stations 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 to the project site with EVP, and implementing fire protection features in excess of minimum California Fire Code and CMFD requirements for proposed Building A and its associated parking garage. The increased demands on CMFD’s services would be offset through the collection of development impact fees, the Development Agreement, and the proportional revenue generated through taxes. With implementation of Mitigation Measures PS-1 and PS-2 as well as all applicable PPPs and SCAs, the project’s cumulative impacts to fire protection services would not be cumulatively considerable. Impacts in this regard are less than significant. Mitigation Measure: Refer to Mitigation Measures PS-1 and PS-2. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft EIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measures above. The City of Costa Mesa hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measures is feasible, and the measures are therefore adopted. 7. Tribal Cultural Resources Impact 5.14-1: Development of the proposed project could impact unknown tribal cultural resources. [Threshold TCR-1(ii)] Support for this environmental impact conclusion is included in Section 5.14, Tribal Cultural Resources, and in particular, starting on page 5.14-8 of the Draft EIR. Conducting consultation early in the CEQA process allows tribal governments, public lead agencies, and project proponents to discuss the level of environmental review, identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources (TCRs), and reduce the potential for delay and conflict in the environmental review process. The intent of the consultations is to provide an opportunity for interested Native American contacts to work together with the City during the project planning process to identify and protect TCRs. AB 52 and SB 18 Consultation No cultural resources were identified in the records search or were observed during the field survey conducted in April 2019 and May 2019. Additionally, given the presence of fill materials in the top five feet of on-site soils and the project site’s location within the prehistoric natural alignment of the Santa Ana River, the presence of TCRs is not anticipated. However, in compliance with Assembly Bill 52 (requires TCRs to be analyzed like any other CEQA topic and establishes a consultation process for lead agencies and California tribes) and Senate Bill 18 (requires local jurisdictions to provide opportunities for involvement of California Native Americans in the land planning process), the City sent notification letters to the 30 Native American contacts provided by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), formally inviting tribes to consult with the City on the proposed project. One Tribe responded to the City’s request for consultation: Andrew Salas, Chairperson, One Metro West CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 34 Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation. The City conducted a formal consultation via conference call with Andrew Salas on August 20, 2019. Mr. Salas indicated there was a high potential to encounter unknown buried TCRs due to the project’s proximity to a sacred village (Lupukunga), a historical water course (Santa Ana River), and a major traditional trade route (the Southern Pacific Railroad). Thus, proposed excavation/grading activities within native soils on-site have the potential to inadvertently unearth or impact undocumented TCRs. Mitigation Measure TCR-1 would ensure a qualified Native American Monitor is present during excavation activities involving native soils. If evidence of potential subsurface tribal cultural materials is found during site disturbance/excavation activities and the qualified archaeologist/Native American Monitor determines that the find is prehistoric or includes Native American materials, Mitigation Measure TCR-1 would ensure affiliated Native American groups are invited to contribute to the assessment and recovery of the found resource. With implementation of Mitigation Measure TCR-1, impacts associated with unknown TCRs would be reduced to less than significant levels. Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure was included in the Draft EIR and the Final EIR and is applicable to the proposed project. TCR-1 Prior to issuance of any grading permits, the qualified archaeologist (required pursuant to Mitigation Measure CUL-1) shall identify a Native American Monitor determined by the City of Costa Mesa and in consultation with the Native American Heritage Commission for the project grading activities and/or any other activities involving native soils. In the event unanticipated tribal cultural material is encountered during any phase of site disturbance/construction, the Native American Monitor shall be contacted and all construction work within 50 feet (15 meters) of the find shall cease until the find can be assessed. If, in consultation with the City, the discovery is determined to not be significant, work will be permitted to continue in the area. If the resources appear to be of significant tribal cultural value, they shall be professionally recovered pursuant to the requirements of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 and in consultation with the Native American Monitor identified. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft EIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measure above. The City of Costa Mesa hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measure is feasible, and the measure is therefore adopted. Impact 5.14-2 Development of the proposed project and related projects could result in cumulatively considerable impacts to unknown tribal cultural resources. [Threshold TCR-1(ii)] Support for this environmental impact conclusion is included in Section 5.14, Tribal Cultural Resources, and in particular, starting on page 5.14-9 of the Draft EIR. Cumulative impacts to TCRs would occur when the impacts of the proposed project, in conjunction with other projects, result in cumulatively considerable impacts to TCRs in the area. Each future project considered for approval would be required to comply with California Public Resources Codes 5097.9–5097.991 (which protects Native American historical and cultural resources, and sacred sites), 21084.3 (avoids damaging effects to any tribal cultural resource), and Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 (pertaining to the discovery or One Metro West CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 35 recognition of any human remains), and would be required to include measures on a project-by-project basis to protect these resources if they are uncovered during grading activities (see Draft EIR PPP TCR-1). Similar to the proposed project, the related cumulative projects identified in Draft EIR Table 4-2, Related Projects would be located within an urbanized environment on sites that have been previously disturbed as a result of existing development. Nonetheless, the possibility remains that undiscovered, buried TCRs could potentially be encountered where excavation/grading occurs in native soils. As concluded in Impact 5.14-1, above, with implementation of Mitigation Measure TCR-1, project’s potential impacts to unknown TCRs would be reduced to less than significant levels and would not be cumulatively considerable. Mitigation Measure: Refer to Mitigation Measure TCR-1. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft EIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measure above. The City of Costa Mesa hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measure is feasible, and the measure is therefore adopted. E. Findings on Significant Unavoidable Impacts The following summary describes the unavoidable impacts of the proposed project where mitigation measures were found to be infeasible or would not lessen impacts to less than significant levels. The following impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. 1. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact 5.6-1: Implementation of the proposed project could generate a net increase in GHG emissions that would have a significant impact on the environment. [Threshold GHG-1] Support for this environmental impact conclusion is identified in Section 5.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and in particular, starting on page 5.6-11 of the Draft EIR. Development of the proposed project would contribute to global climate change through direct and indirect greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from land uses associated with the proposed project. Draft EIR Table 5.6- 4, Phased Regional GHG Emissions for Overlapping Construction and Operational Emissions, details the emissions associated with the level of development envisioned for the project. As shown, the proposed project would generate a net increase of 9,046 metric tons3 of CO2 equivalent (MTCO2e) per year, which would exceed the SCAQMD’s threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year. Mitigation Measures GHG-1 and GHG-2 would ensure the provision of preferential parking for low-emitting, fuel-efficient, and carpool/van vehicles, and the provision of electric vehicle charging stations. Draft EIR Table 5.6-6, Phased Regional GHG Emissions for Overlapping Construction and Operational Emissions With Mitigation, details project-generated GHG emissions upon implementation of Mitigation Measures GHG-1 and GHG-2. As shown, emissions would continue to exceed the SCAQMD significance threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year. Therefore, GHG emissions impacts would be significant and unavoidable. 3 A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 tons. One Metro West CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 36 Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measures were included in the Draft EIR and the Final EIR and are applicable to the proposed project. GHG-1 Prior to issuance of a building permit, the City’s Planning Division shall verify that the applicant has designed the proposed parking areas to provide preferential parking for low-emitting, fuel- efficient, and carpool/van vehicles. At a minimum, the number of electric vehicle (EV) charging stations shall be equal to Tier 2 Nonresidential Voluntary Measures of the California Green Building Standards Code Section A5.106.5.1.2. GHG-2 Prior to issuance of a building permit, the City’s Building Division shall verify that the applicant has designed the proposed parking areas to provide electric vehicle (EV) charging stations. At a minimum, the number of EV charging stations shall be equal to the Tier 2 Nonresidential Voluntary Measures of the California Green Building Standards Code Section A5.106.5.3.2. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft EIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measures above. The City of Costa Mesa hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measures is feasible, and the measures are therefore adopted. Nevertheless, the City of Costa Mesa finds that there are no additional mitigation measures that are feasible, taking into consideration specific economic, legal, social, technological or other factors, that would mitigate this impact to a less-than-significant level, and, further, that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the alternatives identified in the EIR, as discussed in Section G of these Findings (Public Resources Code Sections 21081(a)(1) and (3); CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091(a)(1) and (3)). As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City of Costa Mesa has determined that this impact is acceptable because specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including regionwide or Statewide environmental benefits, of the proposed project outweigh its significant effects on the environment. Impact 5.6-3: Implementation of the proposed project could generate a net increase in GHG emissions that would result in a cumulatively significant impact on the environment. [Threshold GHG-1] Support for this environmental impact conclusion is identified in Section 5.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and in particular, starting on page 5.6-14 of the Draft EIR. Project-related GHG emissions are not confined to a particular air basin; instead, GHG emissions are dispersed worldwide. No single project is large enough to result in a measurable increase in global concentrations of GHG emissions. Therefore, impacts identified under Impact 5.6-1 are not project-specific impacts to global climate change, but the proposed project’s contribution to this cumulative impact. As discussed above, the proposed project’s GHG emissions would exceed the SCAQMD significance threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year; refer to Draft EIR Table 5.6-4, Phased Regional GHG Emissions for Overlapping Construction and Operational Emissions. Mitigation Measures GHG-1 and GHG-2 would ensure the provision of preferential parking for low-emitting, fuel-efficient, and carpool/van vehicles, and the provision of electric vehicle charging stations. However, operational GHG emissions associated with the proposed project would continue to exceed the One Metro West CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 37 SCAQMD significance threshold with implementation of Mitigation Measures GHG-1 and GHG-2. Therefore, the project’s cumulative contribution would be significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measure: Refer to Mitigation Measures GHG-1 and GHG-2. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft EIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measures above. The City of Costa Mesa hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measures is feasible, and the measures are therefore adopted. Nevertheless, the City of Costa Mesa finds that there are no additional mitigation measures that are feasible, taking into consideration specific economic, legal, social, technological or other factors, that would mitigate this impact to a less-than-significant level, and, further, that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the alternatives identified in the EIR, as discussed in Section G of these Findings (Public Resources Code Sections 21081(a)(1) and (3); CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091(a)(1) and (3)). As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City of Costa Mesa has determined that this impact is acceptable because specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including regionwide or Statewide environmental benefits, of the proposed project outweigh its significant effects on the environment. 2. Transportation Impact 5.13-1: The project could conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. [Thresholds T-1 and T-2] Support for this environmental impact conclusion is identified in Section 5.13, Transportation, and in particular, starting on page 5.13-23 of the Draft EIR. Construction Construction activities would result in partial street closures on Sunflower Avenue on a temporary and intermittent basis to allow for construction activities such as roadway improvements and utility undergrounding/hook ups. Any lane closures within the City would require an encroachment permit and is subject to the review and approval of the City of Costa Mesa, Transportation Services. Per the City’s Circulation Element, a detour designed to ensure the safety of cyclists and pedestrians would be required around the construction zone (see Draft EIR PPP T-1). As lane and sidewalk closures would be temporary and complete roadway closures are not anticipated, impacts relating to lane and sidewalk closures would be less than significant. Project construction is estimated to generate approximately 1,760 hauling truck trips over a 100-day demolition stage (18 trips per day) and approximately 24,250 hauling truck trips over a 400-day grading and excavation stage (61 trips per day). The proposed project’s construction-related vehicle trips (up to 61 average daily traffic [ADT]) would be less than one percent of the project’s operational trips (6,800 ADT) and a small fraction of the vehicle trips in the overall study area; refer to Draft EIR Appendix C, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis. As such, a less than significant impact would occur relating to construction trips. One Metro West CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 38 Operations Operational impacts on the circulation system in the project vicinity are analyzed and described under the following scenarios: Existing, Future Short-Term Cumulative, and General Plan Buildout Plus Project. Traffic volumes were developed by subtracting the trips for the existing uses from the corresponding baseline scenarios and adding the project traffic. Existing Plus Project Intersection Analysis Analysis of the existing with project scenario is provided to identify direct project impacts if the project were to be built and in operation today. This scenario eliminates the effects of ambient growth and other cumulative projects and deals specifically with project impacts. Draft EIR TIA Figure 6-1, Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes, illustrates existing plus project peak hour traffic volumes at study intersections under existing conditions. Draft EIR TIA Table 4-A, Existing Freeway Segment and Ramp Traffic Volumes, summarizes peak hour PCE volumes at study area freeway ramp merge/diverge locations and freeway segments under existing conditions and existing plus project conditions. Draft EIR Table 5.13-7, Existing and Existing with Project Intersection Level of Service Summary, summarizes the results of the analysis and shows that all intersections are projected to operate at an acceptable LOS standard, except for the following: No. 2. Euclid Street/I-405 Freeway Northbound Ramps – Newhope Street (a.m. peak hour only); No. 3. I-405 Freeway Southbound Ramps/Ellis Avenue – Euclid Street (p.m. peak hour only); and No. 28. Talbert Avenue/Mt. Washington Street (both a.m. and p.m. peak hours based on the City of Fountain Valley LOS standards). All three intersections currently operate at a deficient LOS under existing without project conditions. The intersection of I-405 Freeway Southbound Ramps/Ellis Avenue - Euclid Street would be reconfigured as part of the I-405 Freeway Improvement Project. This intersection would operate at an acceptable LOS under all future scenarios with implementation of the reconfigured geometry. Therefore, no mitigation is necessary in this regard. Since Study Intersection Nos. 2 and 3 do not contribute a v/c ratio greater than 0.01 as indicated in Draft EIR Table 5.13-7, Existing and Existing with Project Intersection Level of Service Summary, these intersections are not considered significant impacts under the existing plus project condition. Based on the cities’ criteria for determining significant traffic impacts, the proposed project would result in a potentially significant impact at the following intersection under the existing with project condition: No. 28. Talbert Avenue/Mt. Washington Street (Study Intersection No. 28, based on the City of Fountain Valley LOS Standards). Freeway Analysis Draft EIR Table 5.13-8, Existing Freeway Segment and Ramp Levels of Service, summarizes the existing plus project peak hour ramp merge/diverge and freeway segment LOS and shows that all freeway segments, ramp merge/diverge locations, and weaving areas are projected to operate at an acceptable LOS standard, except for the following: One Metro West CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 39 Northbound I-405 No. 6. Hyland Avenue On-Ramp (p.m. peak hour only). Southbound I-405 No. 7. Harbor Boulevard Off-Ramp (a.m. peak hour only); No. 8. Harbor Boulevard Off-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Loop On-Ramp (a.m. peak hour only); No. 9. Harbor Boulevard Loop On-Ramp (a.m. peak hour only); No. 10. Harbor Boulevard Loop On-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Slip-On Ramp (a.m. peak hour only); No. 11. Harbor Boulevard Slip-On Ramp (a.m. peak hour only); and No. 12. Harbor Boulevard Slip-On Ramp and Fairview Road Off-Ramp (a.m. peak hour only). As indicated in Draft EIR Table 5.13-8, Existing Freeway Segment and Ramp Levels of Service, these seven freeway ramps/segments also operate at a deficient LOS under existing conditions. As discussed under Draft EIR Section 5.13.2, Thresholds of Significance, a significant impact occurs when the project causes a deficient condition or when the project contributes to an existing deficiency. Therefore, the project would result in a potentially significant impact at the identified freeway ramps/segments above. Future Short-Term (2027) Cumulative Plus Project Intersection Analysis An intersection LOS analysis was conducted for future short-term cumulative plus project conditions. Draft EIR TIA Figure 6-2, Future Short-Term Cumulative (2027) Plus Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes, illustrates the peak hour traffic volumes at study intersections under future short-term cumulative plus project condition. Draft EIR TIA Table 5.13-9, Future Short-Term Cumulative (2027) Intersection Level of Service Summary, summarizes the results of the analysis and shows that all intersections are projected to operate at an acceptable LOS standard, except for the following: No. 1. Euclid Street/Talbert Avenue (both a.m. and pm. peak hours based on City of Fountain Valley LOS standards); No. 2. Euclid Street/I-405 Northbound Ramps - Newhope Street (a.m. peak hour only); No. 9. Harbor Boulevard/Scenic Avenue – West Lake Center Drive (p.m. peak hour only; based on City of Santa Ana LOS standards); No. 19. Fairview Street/MacArthur Boulevard (p.m. peak hour only based on City of Santa Ana LOS standards); No. 28. Talbert Avenue/Mt. Washington Street (both a.m. and p.m. peak hours based on City of Fountain Valley LOS standards); and No. 29. Harbor Boulevard/Segerstrom Avenue (both a.m. and p.m. peak hours based on City of Santa Ana LOS standards). As indicated in Draft EIR Table 5.13-9, Future Short-Term Cumulative (2027) Intersection Level of Service Summary, all six identified intersections are forecast to operate at a deficient LOS even under future short-term cumulative baseline conditions, except for Intersection No. 23. The intersection of Fairview Road/I-405 Southbound Ramps (Study Intersection No. 23) is forecast to operate at a deficient LOS under future short-term cumulative plus project conditions using ICU methodology. However, since this intersection is under Caltrans’ jurisdiction, a significant impact at this intersection is based on Caltrans’ significant impact criteria which uses HCM methodology. This intersection is forecast to operate at a satisfactory LOS under both without and with project conditions using HCM methodologies. Therefore, the project does not have a significant impact at this intersection. One Metro West CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 40 Based on the cities’ criteria for determining significant traffic impacts, the proposed project would result in a potentially significant impact at the following intersection under the future short-term cumulative plus project conditions: No. 28 Talbert Avenue/Mt. Washington Street (based on the City of Fountain Valley LOS Standards). Since Study Intersection Nos. 1, 2, 9, 19, and 29 do not contribute a v/c ratio greater than 0.01 as indicated in Draft EIR Table 5.13-9, Future Short-Term Cumulative (2027) Intersection Level of Service Summary, these intersections are not considered significant impacts under the future short-term cumulative plus project conditions. Freeway Analysis Draft EIR Table 5.13-10, Future Short-Term Cumulative (2027) Freeway Segment and Ramp Levels of Service, summarizes the future short-term cumulative plus project peak hour ramp merge/diverge and freeway segment LOS and shows that all ramp merge/diverge and freeway segments are projected to operate at an acceptable LOS standard, except for the following: Northbound I-405 No. 3. Fairview Road On-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard On-Ramp (p.m. peak hour only); No. 4. Harbor Boulevard On-Ramp (p.m. peak hour only); No. 5. Harbor Boulevard On-Ramp and Hyland Avenue On-Ramp (p.m. peak hour only); and No. 6. Hyland Avenue On-Ramp (p.m. peak hour only). Southbound I-405 No. 7. Harbor Boulevard Off-Ramp (both a.m. and p.m. peak hours); No. 8. Harbor Boulevard Off-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Loop On-Ramp (both a.m. and p.m. peak hours); No. 9. Harbor Boulevard Loop On-Ramp (both a.m. and p.m. peak hours); No. 10. Harbor Boulevard Loop On-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Slip-On Ramp (a.m. peak hour); No. 11. Harbor Boulevard Slip-On Ramp (a.m. peak hour); and No. 12. Harbor Boulevard Slip-On Ramp and Fairview Road Off-Ramp (a.m. peak hour). As indicated in Draft EIR Table 5.13-10, Future Short-Term Cumulative (2027) Freeway Segment and Ramp Levels of Service, all ten freeway ramps operate at a deficient LOS under future short-term cumulative baseline conditions. As discussed under Draft EIR Section 5.13.2, Thresholds of Significance, a significant impact occurs when the project causes an unsatisfactory condition or when the project contributes to an existing deficiency. Therefore, impacts would be potentially significant at the identified freeway ramps. General Plan Buildout (2040) Plus Project Intersection Analysis An intersection LOS analysis was conducted for General Plan buildout conditions. Draft EIR Table 5.13-11, General Plan Buildout (2040) Intersection Level of Service Summary, summarizes the results of this analysis and shows that all intersections are projected to operate at an acceptable LOS standard, except for the following: No. 1. Euclid Street/Talbert Avenue (p.m. peak hour only based on City of Fountain Valley LOS standards); No. 2. Euclid Street/I-405 Northbound Ramps - Newhope Street (both a.m. and p.m. peak hours); One Metro West CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 41 No. 4. Newhope Street/Talbert Avenue (a.m. peak hour only based on City of Fountain Valley LOS standards); No. 9. Harbor Boulevard/Scenic Avenue – West Lake Center Drive (p.m. peak hour only; based on City of Santa Ana LOS standards); No. 18. Susan Street/Sunflower Avenue (p.m. peak hour only based on City of Costa Mesa LOS standards); No. 19. Fairview Street/MacArthur Boulevard (p.m. peak hour only based on City of Santa Ana LOS standards); No. 21. Fairview Road/South Coast Drive (p.m. peak hour only based on City of Costa Mesa LOS standards); No. 23. Fairview Road/I-405 Southbound Ramps (a.m. peak hour only); No. 28. Talbert Avenue/Mt. Washington Street (both a.m. and p.m. peak hours based on City of Fountain Valley LOS standards); and No. 29. Harbor Boulevard/Segerstrom Avenue (both a.m. and p.m. peak hours based on City of Santa Ana LOS standards). As indicated in Draft EIR Table 5.13-11, General Plan Buildout (2040) Intersection Level of Service Summary, ten intersections are forecast to operate at a deficient LOS even under future General Plan buildout conditions, except Intersection No. 23. The intersection of Fairview Road/I-405 Southbound Ramps (Study Intersection No. 23) is forecast to operate at a deficient LOS under future General Plan buildout conditions using ICU methodology. Since this intersection is under Caltrans’ jurisdiction, a significant impact at this intersection is based on Caltrans’ significant impact criteria which uses HCM methodology. As shown in Draft EIR Table 5.13-11, General Plan Buildout (2040) Intersection Level of Service Summary, this intersection is forecast to operate at a satisfactory LOS under both without and with project conditions using HCM methodologies. Therefore, the project does not have a significant impact at this intersection. Thus, based on the cities’ criteria for determining significant traffic impacts, the proposed project would result in potentially significant impacts at the following intersections under the General Plan buildout plus project condition: No. 18. Susan Street/South Coast Drive (based on City of Costa Mesa LOS standards); and No. 28 Talbert Avenue/Mt. Washington Street (based on City of Fountain Valley LOS standards). Since Study Intersection Nos. 1, 2, 4, 9, 19, 21, 23, and 29 do not contribute a v/c ratio greater than 0.01 as indicated in Draft EIR Table 5.13-11, General Plan Buildout (2040) Intersection Level of Service Summary, these intersections are not considered significant impacts under the General Plan buildout plus project conditions. Freeway Analysis Draft EIR Table 5.13-12, General Plan Buildout (2040) Freeway Segment and Ramp Levels of Service, summarizes the General Plan buildout plus project peak hour ramp merge/diverge and freeway segment LOS and shows that all ramp merge/diverge locations and freeway segments are projected to operate at an unacceptable LOS standard: Northbound I-405 No. 1. South of Fairview Road On-Ramp (p.m. peak hour only); No. 2. Fairview Road On-Ramp (p.m. peak hour only); No. 3. Fairview Road On-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard On-Ramp (p.m. peak hour only); No. 4. Harbor Boulevard On-Ramp (p.m. peak hour only); No. 5. Harbor Boulevard On-Ramp and Hyland Avenue On-Ramp (both a.m. and p.m. peak hours); and No. 6. Hyland Avenue On-Ramp (both a.m. and p.m. peak hours). One Metro West CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 42 Southbound I-405 No. 7. Harbor Boulevard Off-Ramp (both a.m. and p.m. peak hours); No. 8. Harbor Boulevard Off-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Loop On-Ramp (both a.m. and p.m. peak hours); No. 9. Harbor Boulevard Loop On-Ramp (both a.m. and p.m. peak hours); No. 10. Harbor Boulevard Loop On-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Slip-On Ramp (a.m. peak hour only); No. 11. Harbor Boulevard Slip-On Ramp (both a.m. and p.m. peak hours); and No. 12. Harbor Boulevard Slip-On Ramp and Fairview Road Off-Ramp (both a.m. and p.m. peak hours). As indicated in Draft EIR Table 5.13-12, General Plan Buildout (2040) Freeway Segment and Ramp Levels of Service, all twelve freeway ramps are forecast to operate at a deficient LOS under General Plan buildout conditions. As discussed under Draft EIR Section 5.13.2, Thresholds of Significance, a significant impact occurs when the project causes a deficient condition or when the project contributes to an existing deficiency. As such, a potentially significant impact would occur at all twelve identified freeway roadway ramps above. Study Intersection No. 18: Susan Street/South Coast Drive As discussed above and shown in Draft EIR Table 5.13-15, Improvements for Intersections, a significant impact would occur at the Susan Street/South Coast Drive intersection under General Plan buildout (2040) plus project scenario. Mitigation Measure T-1 would require the project to contribute towards its fair share for roadway improvement (adding a southbound right‐turn lane by restriping Susan Street) to the intersection Susan Street/South Coast Drive. As shown in Draft EIR Table 5.13-16, Study Intersection No. 18 Level of Service with Recommended Improvements, with incorporation of Mitigation Measure T-1, traffic impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels for the General Plan buildout (2040) plus project scenario. However, although fair share funds to this improvement would be made, there is no guarantee that the full improvement funds would be secured nor that these improvements would be constructed. Thus, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable in this regard. Study Intersection No. 28: Talbert Avenue/Mt. Washington Street As discussed above and shown in Draft EIR Table 5.13-15, Improvements for Intersections, a significant impact would occur at the Talbert Avenue/Mt. Washington Street intersection under all scenarios. The Talbert Avenue/Mt. Washington Street intersection is located in the City of Fountain Valley. Mitigation Measure T-2 would require the project to contribute towards its fair share to the City of Fountain Valley Transportation Division for improvements to the intersection of Talbert Avenue/Mt. Washington Street (Study Intersection No. 28), including adding a traffic signal, restriping the northbound approach to a shared left through lane and a dedicated right turn lane, converting the southbound right turn lane to a dedicated channelized free right turn lane, and adding overlap phasing for a northbound right turn movement. As shown in Draft EIR Table 5.13- 17, Study Intersection No. 28 Level of Service with Recommended Improvements, with incorporation of Mitigation Measure T-2, traffic impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. While improvements are identified for this intersection, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable, since the intersection is not located within the City of Costa Mesa and there is no guarantee that the improvements identified would be implemented. As such, although impacts to this intersection could be reduced to less than significant with recommended improvements, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Freeway Segments and Ramps As discussed above, twelve freeway segments and ramps would operate at deficient LOS under existing plus project, future short-term cumulative (2027) plus project, and/or General Plan buildout (2040) plus project One Metro West CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 43 scenarios. The project would contribute to the segments and ramps’ deficient status at project-level as well as cumulatively to the freeway system near the project site. To mitigate the impacts at the identified locations, freeway main-line and/or freeway ramp widening would be required. However, this type of infrastructure is extremely costly and is typically infeasible for one development project to undertake. Implementation of the transportation improvements to impacted Caltrans facilities is the primary responsibility of Caltrans. The City cannot assure the construction of improvements to freeway facilities that may be needed to improve traffic flow. Caltrans has recognized that private development has a role to play in funding fair share improvements to impacts on these facilities, but neither Caltrans nor the State has adopted a program that can ensure that locally contributed impact fees would be tied to improvements to freeway mainlines. Only Caltrans has jurisdiction over mainline improvements. State and Federal fuel taxes generate most of the funds used to pay for improvements. Funds expected to be available for transportation improvements are identified through a fund estimate prepared by Caltrans and adopted by the California Transportation Commission (CTC). These funds, along with other fund sources, are deposited in the State highway account to be programmed and allocated to specific project improvements by the CTC. However, since there is no guarantee that these programs would be implemented by the agencies with the responsibility to do so, the project’s identified impacts to the freeway system are considered significant and unavoidable. Project VMT Trip Generation The City of Costa Mesa has not yet formally adopted vehicle miles traveled (VMT) thresholds of significance for purposes of determining transportation impacts under CEQA. Notwithstanding, in order to address the provisions of Senate Bill 743, a VMT comparison was completed for the residential and non-residential components of the project per the California Office of Administrative Law guidance for VMT analysis. The project VMT per capita has been compared with the regional VMT per capita to provide a comparison between the two and has been included as a conservative approach. As shown in Draft EIR Table 5.13-13, Existing Regional and Project VMT Comparison, proposed residential component of the proposed project would result in an 18 percent decrease in regional VMT; however, the office component of the project would result in a three percent increase in regional VMT. Thus, although the City has not formally adopted VMT thresholds of significance, the office component of the project would result in significant VMT impacts. It should be noted that the project is a mixed-use development that would add housing to an area within walking and biking distance to existing employment, retail, restaurant, and entertainment opportunities that could potentially further reduce VMT for the entire project. In fact, the mixed-use nature of the project along with the pedestrian and bikeway improvements are all intended to reduce the project’s overall VMT. In addition, the proposed Specific Plan and proposed project features encourage/implement VMT reduction strategies which include pedestrian network improvements, traffic calming measures (to encourage biking/walking), car-sharing programs, encouraging telecommuting and alternative work schedule, as well as encourage the use of ride-share programs. However, it is not reasonable or feasible to require these measures and/or quantify the number of reduced VMT. Thus, although these VMT reduction strategies reduce VMT impacts from the proposed creative office use, the project impacts would remain significant and unavoidable with respect to the office component and, thereby, the project as a whole. Bicycles, Pedestrians, and Transit The proposed project would enhance bikeways and walkways on Sunflower Avenue, upgrade the existing bicycle path that connects to the Santa Ana River Trail system, and install a bicycle parking/active transportation hub at the 1.5-acre open space area. Transit ridership may increase slightly with the addition of residents and workers to the project area. However, the project would not interrupt or displace any bus routes or facilities. As such, the proposed project would support and enhance existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities One Metro West CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 44 and would be consistent with the City’s goals, policies, and recommendations in place to promote development of active transportation systems. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard. Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measures were included in the Draft EIR and the Final EIR and are applicable to the proposed project. T-1 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall contribute its fair share contribution to the City of Costa Mesa Transportation Division for the implementation of adding a southbound right‐turn lane by restriping Susan Street at the intersection Susan Street/South Coast Drive (Study Intersection No. 18). Upon project approval, the City shall update the Capital Improvement Projects list accordingly. T-2 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall contribute its fair share contribution to the City of Fountain Valley Transportation Division for improvements to the intersection of Talbert Avenue/Mt. Washington Street (Study Intersection No. 28), including adding a traffic signal, restriping the northbound approach to a shared left through lane and a dedicated right turn lane, converting the southbound right turn lane to a dedicated channelized free right turn lane, and adding overlap phasing for a northbound right turn movement. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft EIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measures above. The City of Costa Mesa hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measures is feasible, and the measures are therefore adopted. However, although fair share funds to Study Intersection No. 18 would be made with implementation of Mitigation Measure T-1, there is no guarantee that the full improvement funds would be secured nor that these improvements would be constructed. The City of Costa Mesa finds that there are no additional mitigation measures that are feasible, taking into consideration specific economic, legal, social, technological or other factors, that would mitigate this impact to a less-than-significant level, and, further, that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the alternatives identified in the EIR, as discussed in Section G of these Findings (Public Resources Code Sections 21081(a)(1) and (3); CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091(a)(1) and (3)). Additionally, while improvements are identified for Study Intersection No. 28, the intersection is not located within the City of Costa Mesa and there is no guarantee that the improvements identified would be implemented. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency (City of Fountain Valley) and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. Development of the proposed project would also result in significant and unavoidable impacts at twelve freeway segments and ramps under existing plus project, future short-term cumulative (2027) plus project, and/or General Plan buildout (2040) plus project scenarios. To mitigate the impacts at the identified locations, freeway main-line and/or freeway ramp widening would be required. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency (Caltrans) and not the agency making the finding. One Metro West CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 45 Last, VMT per employee for the office portion of the project would be three percent higher than the regional estimate. Thus, although the City has not formally adopted VMT thresholds of significance, the office component of the project would result in significant VMT impacts. VMT reduction strategies in the Specific Plan include pedestrian network improvements, traffic calming measures (to encourage biking/walking), car- sharing programs, encouraging telecommuting and alternative work schedule, as well as encourage the use of ride-share programs. However, it is not reasonable or feasible to require these measures and/or quantify the number of reduced VMT. The City of Costa Mesa finds that there are no additional mitigation measures that are feasible, taking into consideration specific economic, legal, social, technological or other factors, that would mitigate this impact to a less-than-significant level, and, further, that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the alternatives identified in the EIR, as discussed in Section G of these Findings (Public Resources Code Sections 21081(a)(1) and (3); CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091(a)(1) and (3)). As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City of Costa Mesa has determined that this impact is acceptable because specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including regionwide or Statewide environmental benefits, of the proposed project outweigh its significant effects on the environment. Impact 5.13-4: Development of the proposed project and related projects could cumulatively conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. [Thresholds T-1 and T-2] Support for this environmental impact conclusion is identified in Section 5.13, Transportation, and in particular, starting on page 5.13-43 of the Draft EIR. Cumulative traffic impacts consider the impacts of future growth of the City and vicinity of the project site. Cumulative traffic impacts for future short-term cumulative (2027) and General Plan buildout (2040) using LOS are analyzed under Impact 5.13-1, above. For the future short-term cumulative (2027) scenario, potentially significant impacts were identified for the following intersection: No. 28. Talbert Avenue/Mt. Washington Street (Study Intersection No. 28, based on the City of Fountain Valley LOS Standards). For the General Plan buildout (2040) scenario, potentially significant impacts were identified for the following intersections: No. 18. Susan Street/South Coast Drive (Study Intersection No. 18, based on City of Costa Mesa LOS standards); and No. 28. Talbert Avenue/Mt. Washington Street (Study Intersection No. 28, based on the City of Fountain Valley LOS Standards). Future and cumulative growth would also lead to freeway ramps operating at deficient LOS. For the future short-term cumulative (2027) scenario, potentially significant impacts were identified for the freeway ramps: Northbound I-405 No. 3. Fairview Road On-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard On-Ramp (p.m. peak hour only); No. 4. Harbor Boulevard On-Ramp (p.m. peak hour only); One Metro West CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 46 No. 5. Harbor Boulevard On-Ramp and Hyland Avenue On-Ramp (p.m. peak hour only); and No. 6. Hyland Avenue On-Ramp (p.m. peak hour only). Southbound I-405 No. 7. Harbor Boulevard Off-Ramp (both a.m. and p.m. peak hours); No. 8. Harbor Boulevard Off-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Loop On-Ramp (both a.m. and p.m. peak hours); No. 9. Harbor Boulevard Loop On-Ramp (both a.m. and p.m. peak hours); No. 10. Harbor Boulevard Loop On-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Slip-On Ramp (a.m. peak hour); No. 11. Harbor Boulevard Slip-On Ramp (a.m. peak hour); and No. 12. Harbor Boulevard Slip-On Ramp and Fairview Road Off-Ramp (a.m. peak hour). For the General Plan buildout (2040) scenario, potentially significant impacts were identified for the following freeway segments and ramps: Northbound I-405 No. 1. South of Fairview Road On-Ramp (p.m. peak hour only); No. 2. Fairview Road On-Ramp (p.m. peak hour only); No. 3. Fairview Road On-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard On-Ramp (p.m. peak hour only); No. 4. Harbor Boulevard On-Ramp (p.m. peak hour only); No. 5. Harbor Boulevard On-Ramp and Hyland Avenue On-Ramp (both a.m. and p.m. peak hours); and No. 6. Hyland Avenue On-Ramp (both a.m. and p.m. peak hours). Southbound I-405 No. 7. Harbor Boulevard Off-Ramp (both a.m. and p.m. peak hours); No. 8. Harbor Boulevard Off-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Loop On-Ramp (both a.m. and p.m. peak hours); No. 9. Harbor Boulevard Loop On-Ramp (both a.m. and p.m. peak hours); No. 10. Harbor Boulevard Loop On-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Slip-On Ramp (both a.m. and p.m. peak hours); No. 11. Harbor Boulevard Slip-On Ramp (both a.m. and p.m. peak hours); and No. 12. Harbor Boulevard Slip-On Ramp and Fairview Road Off-Ramp (both a.m. and p.m. peak hours). Potentially significant impacts would be cumulatively considerable with regard to freeway segments and ramps. The project’s cumulative contribution to VMT would be cumulatively considerable as well. The proposed project is consistent with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities and the performance and safety of such facilities. The proposed project would not combine with the related projects to result in significant impacts to such facilities. As a result, the project would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts to transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant. As discussed in Impact 5.13-1, above, despite implementation of Mitigation Measures T-1 and T-2, project impacts to the identified intersections and freeway ramps would be significant and unavoidable under the existing (2019), future short-term cumulative (2027) plus project, and General Plan buildout (2040) plus project conditions. Further, the project’s VMT associated with the creative office use would be significant and unavoidable. Thus, cumulative impacts would be significant and unavoidable in this regard. One Metro West CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 47 Mitigation Measure: Refer to Mitigation Measures T-1 and T-2. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft EIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measures above. The City of Costa Mesa hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measures is feasible, and the measures are therefore adopted. However, although fair share funds to Study Intersection No. 18 would be made with implementation of Mitigation Measure T-1, there is no guarantee that the full improvement funds would be secured nor that these improvements would be constructed. The City of Costa Mesa finds that there are no additional mitigation measures that are feasible, taking into consideration specific economic, legal, social, technological or other factors, that would mitigate this impact to a less-than-significant level, and, further, that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the alternatives identified in the EIR, as discussed in Section G of these Findings (Public Resources Code Sections 21081(a)(1) and (3); CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091(a)(1) and (3)). Additionally, while improvements are identified for Study Intersection No. 28, the intersection is not located within the City of Costa Mesa and there is no guarantee that the improvements identified would be implemented. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency (City of Fountain Valley) and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. Development of the proposed project would also result in significant and unavoidable impacts at twelve freeway segments and ramps under existing plus project, future short-term cumulative (2027) plus project, and/or General Plan buildout (2040) plus project scenarios. To mitigate the impacts at the identified locations, freeway main-line and/or freeway ramp widening would be required. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency (Caltrans) and not the agency making the finding. Last, VMT per employee for the office portion of the project would be three percent higher than the regional estimate. Thus, although the City has not formally adopted VMT thresholds of significance, the office component of the project would result in significant VMT impacts. VMT reduction strategies in the Specific Plan include pedestrian network improvements, traffic calming measures (to encourage biking/walking), car- sharing programs, encouraging telecommuting and alternative work schedule, as well as encourage the use of ride-share programs. However, it is not reasonable or feasible to require these measures and/or quantify the number of reduced VMT. The City of Costa Mesa finds that there are no additional mitigation measures that are feasible, taking into consideration specific economic, legal, social, technological or other factors, that would mitigate this impact to a less-than-significant level, and, further, that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the alternatives identified in the EIR, as discussed in Section G of these Findings (Public Resources Code Sections 21081(a)(1) and (3); CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091(a)(1) and (3)). As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City of Costa Mesa has determined that this impact is acceptable because specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, One Metro West CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 48 including regionwide or Statewide environmental benefits, of the proposed project outweigh its significant effects on the environment. F. Findings on Recirculation CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 requires a lead agency to “recirculate an EIR when significant new information is added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the Draft EIR for public review under Section 15087 but before certification. As used in this section, the term ‘information’ can include changes in the project or environmental setting as well as additional data or other information. New information added to an EIR is not ‘significant’ unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the project’s proponents have declined to implement.” Comment letters received on the Draft EIR and responses to those comments provided in the Final EIR do not identify any significant new information requiring recirculation. As such, recirculation of the EIR is not required. G. Findings on Project Alternatives CEQA requires that the discussion of alternatives focus on alternatives to the project or its location that are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project. As discussed above, all environmental impacts could be mitigated below a level of significance with the exception of greenhouse gas emissions (project-level and cumulative greenhouse gas emissions) and transportation (Study Intersection No. 18 – Susan Street/South Coast Drive under General Plan Buildout (2040) Plus Project scenario; Study Intersection No. 28 – Talbert Avenue/Mt. Washington Street intersection under all scenarios; 12 freeway segments and ramps under Existing Plus Project, Future Short-Term Cumulative (2027) Plus Project, and/or General Plan Buildout (2040) Plus Project scenarios; and VMT). The Draft EIR analyzed two alternatives to the proposed project that could avoid or substantially lessen the project’s impacts. 1. No Project/No Development Alternative CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e) requires that an EIR evaluate and analyze the impacts of a “No Project” Alternative. In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, “the no project analysis shall discuss the existing conditions …, as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services.” The CEQA Guidelines continue to state that “in certain instances, the no project alternative means ‘no build’ wherein the existing environmental setting is maintained.” The No Project/No Development Alternative includes a discussion and analysis of the existing baseline conditions at the time the Notice of Preparation was published on May 23, 2019. The “No Project/No Development” scenario is described and analyzed to enable the decision-makers to compare the impacts of approving the proposed project with the impacts of not approving the proposed project. The No Project/No Development Alternative assumes the proposed Specific Plan would not be approved and no new development would occur on-site. The existing one-story 345,000-square foot industrial building would continue to operate similar to existing conditions. One Metro West CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 49 Conclusion: The No Project/No Development Alternative would eliminate the proposed project’s significant and unavoidable impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions and transportation. This alternative would also lessen environmental impacts in the areas of air quality, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, noise, public services and recreation, tribal cultural resources, and utilities and services systems. Weighing the tradeoffs between the proposed project and the No Project/No Development Alternative in regard to aesthetics, hazards and hazardous materials, and population and housing, this alternative would result in similar impacts. Impacts related to hydrology and water quality and land use and planning would be greater. No development would occur on-site under the No Project/No Development Alternative. The existing industrial uses would continue to operate on-site and none of the project objectives would be achieved under this alternative. Specifically, this alternative would not redevelop the site with a mix of residential, office, and retail uses (Objective No. 1); increase the City’s housing stock, including affordable housing (Objective No. 2); provide enhanced recreation and open space opportunities (Objective No. 3); enhance pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure in the project vicinity (Objective No. 4); improve jobs-housing ratio and reduce vehicle miles traveled (Objective No. 5); implement sustainable development practices (Objective No. 6); or enhance the visual attributes of the project site and surrounding area (Objective No. 7). Finding: This alternative is rejected because it would not accomplish any of the objectives of the proposed project. The findings of the proposed project set forth in this document and the overriding social, economic, and other issues set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations provide support for the proposed project and the elimination of this alternative from further consideration. 2. Reduced Development Intensity Alternative The Reduced Development Intensity Alternative was selected to avoid or substantially lessen the proposed project’s significant unavoidable impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions and transportation. This alternative assumes a 20 percent reduction in residential units and elimination of the 25,000-square foot creative office building and 1.5-acre open space. Similar to the proposed project, and as shown on Draft EIR Figure 7-1, Reduced Development Intensity Alternative, the 845 residential units would be constructed in three multi-story buildings, however, Building B would be slightly relocated to the west where the 1.5-acre open space was previously proposed and one level of Building A would be eliminated, reducing its height to five stories. Similar to the proposed project, construction would occur in three phases with occupancy occurring after each building is completed. Additionally, this alternative would still provide affordable units, but the number of units would be proportionally lower than the proposed project. Given the reduction in residential units, parking on-site would also be reduced by a proportional amount while still meeting the Specific Plan parking requirements. Conclusion: Under the Reduced Development Intensity Alternative, impacts to greenhouse gas emissions and transportation would be reduced compared to the proposed project, but would remain significant and unavoidable, with the exception of VMT, which would be avoided. This alternative would not construct the project’s proposed creative office use; the project’s significant and unavoidable impacts pertaining to VMT would be avoided with this alternative. This alternative would also lessen the project’s less than significant impacts pertaining to air quality, energy, noise, public services and recreation, and utilities and service systems. This alternative would result in similar impacts in the areas of aesthetics, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, population and housing, and tribal cultural One Metro West CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 50 resources. Potential impacts related to land use and planning would be slightly greater due to reduction of on- site and off-site amenities. Under the Reduced Development Intensity Alternative, some of the proposed project’s objectives would be achieved, including the incorporation of sustainable development practice related to energy efficiency and green building standards (Objective No. 6) and enhancement of the visual attributes of the project site with high quality design, creative facades, and consistent development standards and design guidelines (Objective No. 7). This alternative would also achieve several project objectives to a lesser extent compared to the proposed project. For example, this alternative would redevelop the project site with a mix of residential and retail uses in a master planned setting that is fiscally neutral or positive for the City (Objective No. 1), increase the City’s housing stock in areas with adequate public utilities and services and in close proximity to major employment centers (Objective No. 2), and improve jobs-housing ratio and reduce vehicle miles traveled (Objective No. 5), although not to the same extent as the proposed project due to the reduction of residential units and elimination of the creative office building, community room, open space, and bicycle amenities. Additionally, this alternative would not provide enhanced recreation and open space opportunities to serve future residents and commercial office tenants (Objective No. 3) or encourage alternative modes of travel through enhancing pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure (Objective No. 4) because it would eliminate the open space, bicycle amenities, pedestrian and bicycle facility improvements along Sunflower Avenue, and trail improvements along the western portion of the site towards the Santa Ana River Trail. Finding: This alternative is rejected because it would not accomplish the objectives for the proposed project to the extent of proposed project. The findings of the proposed project set forth in this document and the overriding social, economic, and other issues set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations provide support for the proposed project and the elimination of this alternative from further consideration. One Metro West CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 51 III. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(b) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City of Costa Mesa has balanced the benefits of the proposed project against the following significant and unavoidable impacts associated with the proposed project and has adopted all feasible mitigation measures with respect to greenhouse gas emissions and transportation. The City also has examined alternatives to the proposed project. None of the alternatives analyzed in the EIR concurrently meet the project objectives and is environmentally preferable to the project. Regarding a Statement of Overriding Considerations, CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 provides: (a) CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered “acceptable.” When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the final EIR and/or other information in the record. The statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. (b) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of determination. This statement does not substitute for, and shall be in addition to, findings required pursuant to Section 15091. A. BACKGROUND CEQA requires decision makers to balance the benefits of the proposed project against its significant unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits of the project outweigh the significant unavoidable adverse effects, those effects may be considered “acceptable” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15093[a]). CEQA requires the agency to support, in writing, the specific reasons for considering a project acceptable when significant impacts are infeasible to mitigate. Such reasons must be based on substantial evidence in the Final EIR or elsewhere in the administrative record (CEQA Guidelines Section 15093[b]). The agency’s statement is referred to as a Statement of Overriding Considerations. The following sections provide a description of each of the project’s significant and unavoidable adverse impacts and the justification for adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations. B. SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS The following impacts of the proposed project are considered significant, unavoidable, and adverse based on the Draft EIR, Final EIR, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the findings discussed in Section II, Findings and Facts, of this document. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact 5.6-1: Implementation of the proposed project would generate a net increase in GHG emissions that would have a significant impact on the environment. Mitigation Measures GHG-1 and GHG-2 would ensure the applicant designs the proposed parking areas to provide preferential parking for low-emitting, fuel-efficient, and carpool/van vehicles. At a minimum, the number of electric One Metro West CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 52 vehicle charging stations is required to be equal to Tier 2 Nonresidential Voluntary Measures of the California Green Building Standards Code Section A5.106.5.1.2. As shown in Table 5.6-6, Phased Regional GHG Emissions for Overlapping Construction and Operational Emissions With Mitigation, of the Draft EIR, implementation of Mitigation Measures GHG-1 and GHG-2 would reduce GHG emissions; however, project emissions would continue to exceed the SCAQMD significance threshold of 3,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year. Therefore, project-level GHG emissions impacts would be significant and unavoidable. Impact 5.6-3: Project implementation would generate a net increase in GHG emissions that would result in a cumulatively significant impact. As analyzed above, operational GHG emissions associated with the proposed project would continue to exceed the SCAQMD significance threshold with implementation of Mitigation Measures GHG-1 and GHG-2. Therefore, the project’s cumulative contribution of GHG emissions would be significant and unavoidable. Transportation Impact 5.13-1: Development of the proposed project would result in a potentially significant impacts at the following study intersections under existing plus project, future short-term cumulative (2027) plus project, and/or General Plan buildout (2040) plus project scenarios: o Study Intersection No. 18 (Susan Street/South Coast Drive). As shown in Table 5.13-15, Improvements for Intersections, of the Draft EIR, a significant impact would occur at the Susan Street/South Coast Drive intersection under General Plan Buildout (2040) Plus Project scenario. The project would be responsible for contributing towards its fair share for implementation of the proposed improvements (Mitigation Measure T-1). Mitigation Measure T-1 would require the project applicant to contribute its fair share contribution to the City of Costa Mesa Transportation Division for the implementation of adding a southbound right‐ turn lane by restriping Susan Street at the intersection Susan Street/South Coast Drive (Study Intersection No. 18). As shown in Draft EIR Table 5.13-16, Study Intersection No. 18 Level of Service with Recommended Improvements, with incorporation of Mitigation Measure T-1, traffic impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels for the General Plan Buildout (2040) Plus Project scenario. However, although fair share funds to this improvement would be made, there is no guarantee that the full improvement funds would be secured nor that these improvements would be constructed. Thus, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable for the General Plan Buildout (2040) Plus Project scenario at Susan Street/South Coast Drive (Study Intersection No. 18). o Study Intersection No. 28 (Talbert Avenue/Mt. Washington Street). As shown in Table 5.13- 15, Improvements for Intersections, of the Draft EIR, a significant impact would occur at the Talbert Avenue/Mt. Washington Street intersection under all scenarios. The Talbert Avenue/Mt. Washington Street intersection is located in the City of Fountain Valley. The project would be responsible for contributing towards its fair share for implementation of the proposed improvements (Mitigation Measure T-2). Mitigation Measure T-2 would require the project applicant to contribute its fair share contribution to the City of Fountain Valley Transportation Division for improvements to the intersection of Talbert Avenue/Mt. Washington Street (Study Intersection No. 28), including adding a traffic signal, restriping the northbound approach to a shared left through lane and a dedicated right turn lane, converting the southbound right turn lane to a dedicated channelized free right turn lane, and adding overlap phasing for a northbound right turn movement. As shown in Draft EIR Table 5.13-17, Study Intersection No. 28 Level of Service with Recommended Improvements, with incorporation of Mitigation Measure T-2, traffic impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. While One Metro West CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 53 improvements are identified for this intersection, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable, since the intersection is not located within the City of Costa Mesa and there is no guarantee that the improvements identified would be implemented. As such, although impacts to this intersection could be reduced to less than significant with recommended improvements, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Development of the proposed project would also result in a potentially significant impacts at the following freeway segments and ramps under existing plus project, future short-term cumulative (2027) plus project, and/or General Plan buildout (2040) plus project scenarios: Northbound I-405 1. South of Fairview Road On-Ramp; 2. Fairview Road On-Ramp; 3. Fairview Road On-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard On-Ramp; 4. Harbor Boulevard On-Ramp; 5. Harbor Boulevard On-Ramp and Hyland Avenue On-Ramp; and 6. Hyland Avenue On-Ramp. Southbound I-405 7. Harbor Boulevard Off-Ramp; 8. Harbor Boulevard Off-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Loop On-Ramp; 9. Harbor Boulevard Loop On-Ramp; 10. Harbor Boulevard Loop On-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Slip-On Ramp; 11. Harbor Boulevard Slip-On Ramp; and 12. Harbor Boulevard Slip-On Ramp and Fairview Road Off-Ramp. The proposed project would contribute to the identified segments and ramps’ deficient status. Therefore, there are project-level and cumulative impacts to the freeway system near the project site. To mitigate the impacts at the identified locations, freeway main-line and/or freeway ramp widening would be required. However, this type of infrastructure is extremely costly and is typically infeasible for one development project to undertake. The City cannot assure the construction of improvements to freeway facilities that may be needed to improve traffic flow. Improvements to State highway facilities are planned, funded, and constructed by the State of California through a legislative and political process involving the State legislature; the California Transportation Commission (CTC); the California Business, Transportation, and Housing Agency; California Department of Transportation (Caltrans); and the Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA). Although potential impacts to the freeway mainline segments and ramps have been evaluated, implementation of the transportation improvements to Caltrans facilities listed above is the primary responsibility of Caltrans. Caltrans has recognized that private development has a role to play in funding fair share improvements to impacts on these facilities, but neither Caltrans nor the State has adopted a program that can ensure that locally contributed impact fees would be tied to improvements to freeway mainlines. Only Caltrans has jurisdiction over mainline improvements. State and Federal fuel taxes generate most of the funds used to pay for improvements. Funds expected to be available for transportation improvements are identified through a fund estimate prepared by Caltrans and adopted by the CTC. These funds, along with other fund sources, are deposited in the State highway account to be programmed and allocated to specific project improvements by the CTC. Since there is no guarantee that these programs would be implemented by the agencies with the responsibility to do so, the project’s identified impacts to the freeway system are considered significant and unavoidable. One Metro West CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 54 Last, VMT per employee for the office portion of the project would be three percent higher than the regional estimate. Thus, although the City has not formally adopted VMT thresholds of significance, the office component of the project would result in significant VMT impacts. It should be noted, that the project is a mixed-use development that would add housing to an area within walking and biking distance to existing employment, retail, restaurant, and entertainment opportunities that could potentially further reduce VMT for the entire project. In fact, the mixed-use nature of the project along with the pedestrian and bikeway improvements are all intended to reduce the project’s overall VMT. In addition, the proposed Specific Plan and proposed project features encourage/implement VMT reduction strategies. These strategies include pedestrian network improvements, traffic calming measures (to encourage biking/walking), car-sharing programs, encouraging telecommuting and alternative work schedule, as well as encourage the use of ride-share programs. However, it is not reasonable or feasible to require these measures and/or quantify the number of reduced VMT. Thus, although these VMT reduction strategies reduce VMT impacts from the proposed creative office use, the project impacts would remain significant and unavoidable with respect to the office component and, thereby, the project as a whole. Impact 5.13-4: Implementation of the proposed project and related projects could cumulatively result in potentially significant impacts at study intersections and freeway segments and ramps under existing plus project, future short-term cumulative (2027) plus project, and/or General Plan buildout (2040) plus project scenarios. Refer to the discussion above regarding Impact 5.13-1. Despite implementation of Mitigation Measures T-1 and T-2, project impacts to the identified intersections and freeway ramps would be significant and unavoidable under the future short-term cumulative (2027) plus project and General Plan buildout (2040) plus project conditions. Cumulative impacts in this regard would be significant and unavoidable. C. CONSIDERATIONS IN SUPPORT OF THE STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS CEQA requires the lead agency to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project. After balancing the specific economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the proposed project, the City has determined that the significant, unavoidable, adverse environmental impacts identified above are considered “acceptable” due to the following specific considerations, which outweigh the significant, unavoidable, adverse environmental impacts of the proposed project. Incorporates Mitigation Measures and Alternatives Analysis The City finds that all feasible mitigation measures have been imposed to lessen project impacts; and furthermore, that the alternatives to the project are infeasible because while they have similar or less environmental impacts, they do not meet project objectives or provide benefits to the same extent as the proposed project, or are otherwise socially or economically infeasible when compared to the project, as described herein. Contributes Towards Meeting the City’s Housing Goals and RHNA Requirements As recently recognized by the California Legislature, “California has a housing supply and affordability crisis of historic proportions.” (Gov. Code § 65589.5; see also Gov. Code §§ 65009 [“The Legislature finds and declares that there currently is a housing crisis in California and it is essential to reduce delays and restraints upon expeditiously completing housing projects”].) In order to alleviate that crisis, the Legislature has taken a number of steps to ensure that local jurisdictions accommodate their share of needed housing, including by requiring One Metro West CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 55 that cities adopt—and update according to a fixed schedule—the Housing Element portion of their General Plan, and submit said element to State Department of Housing and Community Development for review. (Gov. Code § 65585.) Among other things, the Housing Element is required to demonstrate how the city will meet its share of regional housing needs, known as its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (“RHNA”). (Gov. Code § 65583. If a city does not have adequate sites to accommodate its RHNA, it is required to rezone sites in order to meet its allocation. (See Gov. Code, § 65583(c)(1)(A); see also Gov. Code, § 65913.1 [requiring cities to “zone sufficient vacant land for residential use”].) The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is currently in the process of developing a RHNA allocation plan to cover the planning period from October 2021 through October 2029. It is acknowledged, however, that the City’s 6th cycle RHNA allocations will substantially increase from its 5th cycle allocation of two low income units. The City is projected to be allocated a total of 11,727 housing units, including 2,910 very-low income and 1,789 low-income units. Thus, the City anticipates Citywide policy changes will be necessary to accommodate more housing in infill and mixed-use environments in order to meet its RHNA requirements for the next planning period. Given that the project would provide up to 1,057 housing units, including a minimum of 105 units as affordable housing, the project would be a step towards meeting the City’s affordable housing allocations and contribute towards the City’s future housing goals. The project would also help improve the City’s jobs-housing balance by providing more housing opportunities in close proximity to employment centers. Redevelops an Underutilized Industrial Property into a Mixed-Use Development The project represents an opportunity for the City to provide a walkable community that brings residents in closer proximity to existing and proposed resident-serving retail and adjacent employment centers (such as Vans, Auto Club, and The Press) as well as concentrates and accommodates residential, office, retail, and open space uses within a single property. A mix of land uses within close proximity to one another in the project area would offer more active transportation opportunities (e.g., walking, bicycling, and transit use), thus encouraging alternative modes of travel and resulting in reduced vehicle trips and lengths. Implements VMT Reduction Strategies Although the current methodology for VMT projections does not include a mixed-use scenario applicable to this site, the proposed Specific Plan and project features encourage and implement VMT reduction strategies as well as provide on-site employment opportunities. The site planning strategies include pedestrian network improvements, traffic calming measures (to encourage biking/walking), car-sharing programs, encouraging telecommuting and alternative work schedule, as well as encouraging the use of ride-share programs. The proposed project would improve the jobs-housing ratio in the City and surrounding area and reduce vehicle miles traveled by placing housing in proximity to a major employment center in support of Statewide housing and transportation regulations. Provides Open Space and Recreational Amenities in an Underserved Area The project proposes to develop a 1.5-acre open space with seating and resting areas, creative landscaping/art pieces, and shade structures; an active transportation hub with bicycle amenities; a 1,500-square foot community room available for public and private events; trail resurfacing and landscaping along the southwest portion of the project site towards the Santa Ana River Trail; and multimodal upgrades along Sunflower Avenue. The project would introduce open space and recreational amenities into a predominantly industrial area that currently has minimal open space/recreational amenities and would improve pedestrian and bicyclist access to the regional Santa Ana River Trail system to the west. One Metro West CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 56 Upgrades Sunflower Avenue with Multimodal Facilities The proposed project would include the following improvements to Sunflower Avenue from Cadillac Avenue to Hyland Avenue: Narrow Sunflower Avenue from a four-lane roadway to a three-lane roadway with one travel lane in each direction with a center striped left turn lane; Add a six-foot sidewalk, eight-foot parkway, seven-foot bike lane, seven-foot landscaped median, and seven-foot parallel parking lane on the southern side of Sunflower Avenue adjacent to the project site; Add a six-foot bike lane and two-foot striped buffer median on the northern side of Sunflower Avenue; and Underground existing SCE poles and utility lines (only along the project frontage; although it may extend as far as Hyland Avenue, subject to coordination with the adjacent property owner). These improvements to Sunflower Avenue would create a more pedestrian and bicyclist-friendly environment compared to existing conditions and would enhance the project area’s connection to the nearby Santa Ana River Trail. The undergrounding of the utility poles would improve the aesthetics as well as set the standard for remaining portions of Hyland Avenue. Retrofits Existing Traffic Signals to Include Emergency Vehicle Preemption Mitigation Measure PS-1 requires the applicant to retrofit existing traffic signals along major corridors with Emergency Vehicle Preemption (EVP). While this mitigation is required to reduce adverse impacts to CMFD response times to the project site in particular, the retrofitted traffic signals would benefit the City at large. CMFD would be able to more quickly respond to calls for service along the same corridors with the retrofitted traffic signals. Improves the Visual Character and Quality of the Project Area The proposed project, although a change to the existing visual quality of the site, would enhance the visual attributes of the project site and surrounding area by creating an attractive, well-designed mixed-use project with high quality details and design articulation, landscaping, and streetscaping. Provisions of the proposed project, including the Development Standards, Design Guidelines, and Master Plan, would ensure design details of the proposed project are context-sensitive and of high quality in terms of materials and craftsmanship. D. CONCLUSION Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(b) and the Guidelines Section 15093, the Costa Mesa City Council has balanced the project’s benefits against the significant unavoidable project impacts. The City Council finds that the project’s benefits of implementing the proposed One Metro West Project outweigh the project’s significant unavoidable impacts, and those impacts, therefore, are considered acceptable in light of the project’s benefits. The City Council finds that each of the benefits described above is an overriding consideration, independent of the other benefits, that warrants approval of the project notwithstanding the project’s significant unavoidable impacts.