HomeMy WebLinkAbout- - Attachment 3 - 4/17/2012ATTACHMENT 3
9 BAR 19 2�12 ,
R�Cp www.ci.irvine.ca.us
City of Irvine, One Civic Center Plaza, P.O, Box 19575, Irvine, California 92623-9575 (949) 724-6000
March 15, 2012
Ms. Minoo Ashabi, AIA, Senior Planner
Planning Department
City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive
P.O. Box 1200
Costa Mesa, CA 92628
SUBJECT: Review of an Addendum to a Final Environmental Impact Report
(FEIR) for.the Pacific Gateway Residences Project
Dear Ms. Ashabi:
0
The City of Irvine has reviewed the notice of availability and addendum to the FEIR
pertaining to the above referenced project and has no comment. Thank you for the
opportunity to review the proposed document. If you have any questions, please contact
me at (949) 724-6314 or by email at dlaw cityofirvine.org.
Sincerely,
V�
David R. Law, AICP
Senior Planner
C: Bill Jacobs, Principal Planner
nnin irrn r�r,i nrr.�ir., rn nn nrn
MAYOR
Miguel A. Pulido
MAYOR PRO TEM
Claudia C. Alvarez
COUNCILMEMBERS
P. David Benavides
Carlos Bustamante
Michele Martinez
Vincent F. Sarmiento
Sal Tinajero
March 19, 2012
INTERIM CITY MANAGER
Paul M. Walters
INTERIM CITY ATTORNEY
Joseph A. Straka
CLERK OF THE COUNCIL
Maria D. Huizar
CITY OF SANTA ANA
PLANNING & BUILDING AGENCY
20 Civic Center Plaza (M-20)
P.O. Box 1988 . Santa Ana, California 92702 REC l AR 2.1 Z012
(714) 667-2700 9 Fax (714) 973-1461 �!
WWW.Santa-ana.org
Minoo Ashabi, AIN Senior Planner
City of Costa Mesa Planning Division
77 Fair Drive
P.O. Box 1200, Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1200
MINOO.ASHABI@costamesaca.gov
RE: Addendum to EIR No. 1050
Dear Ms. Ashabi:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Addendum to Final Environmental
Impact Report No. 1050 for the Pacific Gateway Residences project. The City of
Santa Ana has no comments at this time.
We look forward to the review of the Response to Comments. If you have any
questions or need additional information, please contact me at (714) 647- 5842.
Sincerely,
Hally Soboleske
Associate Planner
HS:
Hs;\\correspondence\no p-5144Michelson_Irvine_031812. docx
c: Sergio Klotz, Principal Planner
37
ATTACHMENT 3
. fir'
C O N S U L T I N G
ADDENDUM TO THE PLAZA RESIDENCES
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
NO. 1050
PACIFIC GATEWAY RESIDENCES PROJECT
(STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2002061128)
Prepared for City of Costa Mesa
Development Services Department, Planning Division
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, California 92628
Prepared by BonTerra Consulting
2 Executive Circle, Suite 175
Irvine, California 92614
T: (714) 444-9199 F: (714) 444-9599
March 2012
w
r�
iF1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
Addendum to FEIR 1050
Plaza Residences
Page
Section1.0 Purpose of Addendum........................................................................................1
Section2.0 Project Background............................................................................................3
2.1 Plaza Residences Final EIR 1050....................................
Section 3.0 Project Description and Setting.........................................................................5
3.1 Project Location ............... ..:....................................................................... 5
3.2 Project Setting...........................................................................................5
3.3 Project Description.....................................................................................6
3.4 Comparison to Originally approved Project...............................................9
Section 4.0 Environmental Analysis....................................................................................11
4.1
Aesthetics................................................................................................11
4.2
Agriculture and Forestry Resources.........................................................13
4.3
Air Quality................................................................................................14
4.4
Biological Resources.................................................................................22
4.5
Cultural/Scientific Resources...................................................................23
4.6
Geology and Soils......................................................................:.............25
4.7
Greenhouse Gas Emissions....................................................................28
4.8
Hazards and Hazardous Materials::.........................................................29
4.9
Hydrology and Water Quality...................................................................30
4.10
Land Use and Planning .......:...................................................................32
4.11
Mineral Resources...................................................................................34
4.12
Noise.......................................................................................................35
4.13
Population and Housing. ................................:.........................................40
4.14
Public Services..............................................................................:.........41
4.15
Recreation...............................................................................................43
4.16
Transportation and Traffic........................................................................44
4.17
Utilities and Service Systems..................................................................46
Section5.0 Conclusions.......................................................................................................51
Section6.0 References.........................................................................................................53
3I
R:\Projects\Costa\J015\Addendum-030612.docx i Table of Contents
�� WORKING DRAFT —NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Table
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
LIST OF TABLES
Addendum to FEIR 1050
Plaza Residences
Page
Proposed Project Statistics...............................................................................................6
Pacific Gateway Residences Development Summary......................................................7
ParkingSummary ..............................................................................................................8
Criteria Pollutant Designations in the South Coast Air Basin..........................................15
SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds................................................................16
Estimated Maximum Daily Construction Emissions (Pounds/day)..................................17
Local Significance Threshold Construction Emissions....................................................18
Peak Daily Operational Emissions..................................................................................19
Noise Measurement Data...............................................................................................36
Trip Generation and Trip Rate Summary ........................................................................44
EXHIBITS
Exhibit
Follows Page
1 Previously Plaza Residences Site Plan............................................................................4
2 Regional Location.............................................................................................................6
3 Local Vicinity.....................................................................................................................6
4 Aerial Photograph.............................................................................................................6
5 Site Plan....................................................................:.......................................................6
6 Architectural Elevation......................................................................................................6
7 Conceptual Landscape Plan.............................................................................................8
8 Construction Phasing Plan................................................................................................8
9 Shade and Shadow Analysis — Summer Solstice — June 21, 2015................................14
10 Shade and Shadow Analysis — Autumn Equinox — September 23, 2015........................14
11 Shade and Shadow Analysis — Winter Solstice — December 21, 2015 ...........................14
12 Noise Barrier Locations...................................................................................................40
LIST OF APPENDICES
A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
B Air Quality Calculations
C Traffic Memorandum
40
RAProjects\Costa\J0151Addendum-030612.docx ii Table of Contents
WORKING DRAFT —NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Addendum to FOR 1050
Plaza Residences
SECTION 1.0
PURPOSE OF ADDENDUM
This Addendum has been prepared in accordance with the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (California Public Resources Code §§21000 et seq.); the
State CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, California Code of Regulations §§15000 et seq.); and the
IJ rules, regulations, and procedures for implementing CEQA as adopted by the City of Costa
Mesa (City). Section 15164(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines states that the lead agency or a
responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or
�( additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for
preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred". Pursuant to Section 15162(a) of the State
CEQA Guidelines, a subsequent Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or Negative Declaration is
only required when:
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the
previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
significant effects;
r� (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is
L undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative
Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a
i
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
(3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have
been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was
certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the
following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous
51 EIR or negative declaration;
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown
~i in the previous EIR;
�- (C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact
be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the
1 project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or
alternative; or
_ (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those
analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant
- I effects on the environment,'but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation
measure or alternative.
The Plaza Residences Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 1050 (hereafter referred to
as "FEIR 1050") was certified by the Costa Mesa City Council on January 20, 2004, as
adequately addressing the potential environmental impacts associated with the Project.
�J The scope of the proposed Pacific Gateway Residences Project ("proposed Project") is
consistent with the concept presented in FEIR 1050. FEIR 1050 provides for development of
7.79 acres in the City to be developed with the 1901 Newport Plaza office/commercial building;
(J
41
RAProjectsTostaW015\Addendum-030612.docx 1 Purpose of Addendum
WORKING DRAFT —NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
1J
Addendum to FEIR 1050
Plaza Residences
145 residential condominiums'; a 2-level, subterranean parking structure; and a 5-level,
above -grade parking structure ("originally approved Project"). Approximately 4.18 acres of the
7.79-acre site is partially developed with the 1901 Newport Plaza office/commercial building,
32 condominium units, and the 5-level above -grade parking structure. The Pacific Gateway
Residences Project proposes to construct the remaining dwelling units as 113 attached, for
lease residential units and to construct a 5-level, (4-levels above -grade) parking structure
instead of two levels of subterranean parking to serve the proposed residential uses.
The purpose of this Addendum is to analyze the potential differences between the impacts
identified in FEIR 1050 for the remaining component of the originally approved Project and the
impacts that would be associated with the current proposal. As described in detail herein, there
are no new significant impacts resulting from these changes, nor are there any substantial
increases in the severity of any previously identified environmental impacts. The potential
impacts associated with these proposed changes would either be the same or less than the
anticipated levels described in FEIR 1050. Therefore, in accordance with Section 15164 of the
State CEQA Guidelines, this Addendum to the previously certified FEIR 1050 is the appropriate
environmental documentation for construction -level approvals associated with the proposed
Pacific Gateway Residences Project. In taking action on any of the approvals outlined in
Section 3.0, Project Description, the decision -making body must consider the whole of the data
presented in FEIR 1050 (discussed in more detail in Section 2.0, Project Background) and this
Addendum to the FEIR.
Section 2.0 of this Addendum provides background information on the approved project,
including actions taken by the City Council; Section 3.0 provides a description of the proposed
actions associated with the proposed Pacific Gateway Residences Project. Section 4.0 presents
an environmental analysis of the proposed Project. Appendix A, the Pacific Gateway
Residences Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, identifies the project design
features, standard conditions of approval, and mitigation measures that are applicable to the
Project. Section 5.0 presents the findings related to the environmental analysis of the proposed
Project.
1 FEIR 1050 evaluated development of 161 residential condominium units; however, the City Council approved
development of 145 residential condominium units at a density of 40 dwelling units per acre. Throughout this
document, the maximum allowable number of residential units is generally referred to as 145, except where
specific calculations from FEIR 1050 are referenced.
RAProjects\Costa\J01SAddendum-030612.doa 2 Purpose of Addendum
WORKING DRAFT —NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION 42,
I
Addendum to FOR 1050
Plaza Residences
j SECTION 2.0
0 l PROJECT BACKGROUND
The proposed Project would be implemented on 2.46 acres of the 7.79-acre site in the City of
Costa Mesa (City). The site has been subject to previous planning efforts. The following section
r , provides a summary of the planning efforts, which are integral to the proposed Project.
J 2.1 PLAZA RESIDENCES FINAL EIR 1050
C j In 2003, the Plaza Residences EIR was prepared to address development on the northern
J 3.61 acres of the 7.79-acre,site with high -density residential condominiums while retaining the
existing 1901 Newport Plaza office building on the site. As shown on Exhibit 1, Previously
1 Approved Plaza Residences Site Plan, the Project would allow 145 residential condominiums in
L 4 separate 4-story buildings with associated recreational amenities. Located below three of the
four residential buildings, a two -level subterranean parking structure would exclusively serve
I� residents of the development. A five -level parking structure would be constructed on the
northeastern portion of the Project site (between the existing building and one of the proposed
residential buildings) to serve both the 1901 Newport Plaza building and the residents and
guests of the development. The Costa Mesa City Council certified FEIR 1050 on January 20,
I 2004. Since that time, 32 condominium units and a 5-level parking structure have been
constructed.
CD
R:\Projects\CostaU015Wddendum-030612.docx 3 Project Background
WORKING DRAFT —NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION ,.
Addendum to FEIR 1050
Plaza Residences
This pate intentionally left blank
R:\Projects\Costa\J015Mdendum-030612.docx 4 Project Background
WORKING DRAFT —NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION 44
26.5'''
/ ) DIYe9T PARI<IHC • /
I SpMD
wtIORcTc�. RNAP1� wp40g0�0
/ WALL ®P.L _ — - llllll
COIdRfE, CIAL PARKIN tE +3 /I -�I -I-TT1
— "- - - — - - - - - 19TH STREET - - - - - - — - -
I
O EST PARKING PARION A-11 = 419-705-15
�+ STEERS, M. DICE 0 TR
-
CaHtlR Ws).t CQVGEI< O I
'� � �. / `•��Eo": w ,:III � � � — — — — --� '
E S011ERS,LW. DE '
3 STORY BUILDING / : :' -�% � \ \ I i
Fem
PACMC SA` IMS PLAZA
T901 HER70R7 BOULEVARD
/ COSTA MESA CA. / C . FIRST UNREO W-In ODIST CHURCH O
2/0 ON 419-205 13
EMINNC-OOTPIONT A5' / 6Ncw ( ) L, 20' I I DAMD A O�
AREA = 39.630 SO FT � i cwE soar aulw c V' / Q
` (WWWAYS ECOLOM) /y
` `�711, • / ''" ;. 412
KMY.
...........
•• 4PD9CAPKMpAND A lA I I
C(NAIAERCIAL I O
It A
A:1 = 419-205-11 A
FARCE A-1 ( E` Dlli➢ 11
?,lii■yl+ mot'
I ��,�� I �t�)il'I���
j� ■�� -fir �"�'►1 �/
a -2051
IIIIIIII �Fl�r 3� L• .:�1�'
■IIIIIIII ��_.+ h
I� ON,�"�
�W No
RESIDENTIAL
BE'RNARD STREET ENTRY
- � IIIIIIII t� -
@7
II I I J -
•�, 11111�� 1`• e:E•'
t�T ��•� ?i113�' � �
rp $I �� RE �� •11A tilt( .+- - �::: h�•; �-:
.■1��•- �._ � �.� ��� ������,� rti• ni�Fi, rl � �. r� . �E�I� LWi'=' �� ` h��''-.'e iik�` :'�%�� L.P:• ��I
■4�--��.�—" �'�► .L. ;(J•1�11■w� � �yi:�:rlra-�EWL..�.uie�..�. ..r. _.i;ui!,•.� �...r�:a...... ��L.��L.�_ .L.�. .i." ;�' t��s
r7
Source: Van Tlburp Banvard & Soderberq 20(
Previously Approved Plaza Residences Site Plan Exhibit 1
Addendum to FEIR 1050
5
3 M 1 h -
C O N S V L T I N G
N 4 (01/26/12 JCD) Projects\Costa\J015\Graphics\Ex1_siteplan2003.pcif
Addendum to FEIR 1050
Plaza Residences EIR
SECTION 3.0
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SETTING
i� 3.1 PROJECT LOCATION
The Pacific Gateway Residences Project site is located in the City of Costa Mesa (City) in
Orange County, California. The Project site is located in downtown Costa Mesa, approximately
LJ one mile north of the City of Newport Beach and approximately two miles east of the City of
Huntington Beach. The overall 7.79-acre site is generally bound by Bernard Street to the north,
19th Street to the south, Newport Boulevard to the east, and Harbor Boulevard to the west. A
-! private access driveway traverses the site in a north -to -south direction. Approximately
4.18 acres of the site is currently developed with the 1901 Newport Plaza office building and
another approximately 1.15 acres is developed with 32 condominium units, known as Pacifica at
`1 Newport Plaza. The remaining acreage (2.46 acres) —which is currently proposed for
development with 113 attached, for lease residential units —exists as an asphalt -paved parking
area with an undeveloped, grassy area at the corner of Bernard Street and Harbor Boulevard.
Exhibit 2, Regional Location, and Exhibit 3, Local Vicinity, depict the Project site in a regional
F� and local context. Exhibit 4, Aerial Photograph, depicts the Project site relative to existing
L� development.
3.2 PROJECT SETTING
The 7.79-acre Project site is flat with no distinguishing topographical features (e.g., hillsides,
canyons). The site is approximately 87 feet above mean sea level (msi).
Approximately 4.18 acres of the 7.79-acre Project site are currently developed with the 1901
Newport Plaza office/commercial building. The 1901 Newport Plaza building is oriented toward
the northwest corner of 19th Street and Newport Boulevard. The 3-story, 127,500-sf, Spanish
Mission -style building is served by surface parking areas and a 488-space shared parking
structure associated with the Pacifica at Newport Plaza condominiums. Within this structure,
F; 391 spaces serve the tenants and guests of the 1901 Newport Plaza commercial office building
while the remaining 97 spaces serve the residents and guests of Pacifica at Newport Plaza.
Perimeter surface parking is located along the southern and the eastern borders with the
majority of the spaces located behind the office/commercial use building within the parking
structure. On -site vegetation includes a large grassy area between the western portion of the
—' parking lot and the First United Methodist Church property; several large ornamental trees
located on the corner of Harbor Boulevard and Bernard Street; and a landscaped setback
running the length of the Project site along Bernard Street. As stated previously, another
1.15 acres on the Project site is developed with 32 condominium residences. Table 1, Proposed
Project Statistics, provides an overview of the existing and proposed uses on the Project site.
n
R:\Projects\Costa\J015\Addendum-030612.docx f D ,, Project Description
WORKING DRAFT —NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION 7W
L.
Addendum to FEIR 1050
Plaza Residences EIR
TABLE 1
PROPOSED PROJECT STATISTICS
Development Phase
Land Use
Area
1901 Newport Plaza Building
Office building
4.18 acres
Phase 1: Pacifica at Newport Plaza
Residential Development
32 attached residential dwelling units
1.15 acres
Proposed Residential Project
113 attached residential dwelling units
2.46 acres
Total
7.79 acres
Overall Site Specific Density
40 dwelling units
per acre
Overall Site Specific Floor to Area Ratio (FAR)
0.70 FARa
e General Plan Amendment GP-02-04 for site specific density, FAR, and building height adopted in January 2004.
Surrounding land uses are predominately commercial with residential uses along Bernard
Street. Land uses in the immediate vicinity of the Project site include:
• North of the Project Site. Bernard Street borders the Project site to the north. Single -
story residences are located on Bernard Street from Newport Boulevard to Parsons
Street. Mixed -density residential uses are located north of Bernard Street. The service
area of a Toyota automobile dealership that fronts onto Harbor Boulevard is located west
of Parsons Street on Bernard Street.
• South of the Project Site. The Triangle Square retail plaza is located across from the
Project site on the south side of 191h Street. The First United Methodist Church is located
on the north side of 19th Street immediately west of the on -site 1901 Newport Plaza
office building.
• East of the Project Site. Directly northeast and adjacent to the on -site Pacifica at
Newport Plaza condominium units are two retail buildings. East of these uses and
adjacent to the southeast portion of the Project site is Newport Boulevard.
• West of the Project Site. The northwestern portion of the Project site is adjacent to
various businesses located in a strip commercial center that fronts onto Harbor
Boulevard. Uses in the center include a dentist office, a printer shop, a salon, a
restaurant, and a tailor.
3.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Residential Development
The Project Applicant proposes to construct 113 for -lease residential units on a 2.46-acre area,
thereby completing the final phase of development on the 7.79-acre 1901 Newport Project site.
A condominium map for the originally approved Project containing 145 residential units has
been approved and recorded. If the units are built according to condominium standards,
applicant has the option of selling the for -lease units in the future. Exhibit 5, Site Plan, and
Exhibit 6, Architectural Elevation, depict the Project site plan and elevations. Table 2 identifies
the number of residential units proposed in each wing of the residential development. The
proposed Project would allow for the development of 113 attached, residential dwelling units (for
lease as apartments with the ability to sell them in the future) in a single, 3- and 4-story building.
As shown in Table 2, the proposed Project would include one-, two-, and three -bedroom
residential units.
RAProjects\Costa\J0151Addendum-030512.docx +7
WORKING DRAFT —NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Project Description
Palmdale
Castaic
fie�•,p Victorvllle
Ser118'` �yara� ,Fief'
Santa
Cladta
Regional Location
Addendum to FEIR 1050
N
w e 10 5 0 10 s Miles TO
Exhibit 2
C O N S U L T I N G
(Rev: 2-13.2012 JCD) ProtectslCcsla1J0151GraphicstEx2_RL, pdf
0
1
1
11
1�
Local Vicinity
Addendum to FEIR 1050
N
w-<�e 2,000 1,000 0 2,000 J�,
s Feet T�
Exhibit 3
$onTr�t
C O N s u L r I N G
(Rev: 2-13.2012 JCD) Pmjecls\Cosla1JO15\Graphlcs\Ex3_LV.pdf
AMM
BERNARD ST.
PROJECT ENTRY 6O RIGH7 OF W)
Site Plan
Addendum to FEIR 1050
N
W-<� E
s
�—1
DENOTES 4 STORIES
Source: Architects Orange 2011
Exhibit 5
C O N S U L T I N G
(01/26/12 JCD) Projects\COstalJ015\Graphics\Ex5_siteplan.pdf
MM
■
T!
nP;!Mt�.!�-,—.�
R
T., MFM
ia
,
giiq
UNP H' AIL
UNIT 81
Ul� I BI UNIT A2
-,ES. AMe
�NTRY
NORTH ELEVATION (BERNARD ST.)
WEST ELEVATION (HARBOR BLVD.)
m s
ff Bill IPT. 91111
M.
I 01�i ;,me, ago
ii
Architectural Elevation
Addendum to FEIR 1050
SOUTH ELEVATION
—M,
M M:
HIT, I'llff,
66A M
rl 4LT.
UWT-��M--42
UVIV C1
M41
n
�11L-111 all,
EAST ELEVATION
WWII
MATERIALS AND
FINISH LEGEND
n
ffl
M.: MI 8
MIMI
MATER14LSAND
FINISH LEGEND
. P�
M
Source: Architects Orange 2011
Exhibit 6
C 0 N S U L T I N G
(01/26/12 JCD) Projects\Costa\J015\Graphics\Ex6_archelevation.pdf
J
Addendum to FEIR 1050
Plaza Residences EIR
�D
As shown on Exhibit 4, the majority of the units within the three-story portion of the building
would be oriented onto Bernard Street with additional units facing to the south (toward Newport
Boulevard) and to the west (toward the on -site access drive). The units within the four-story
portion of the building would be located within the interior of the site, and would be oriented onto
the proposed pool deck and patio. Each residence would be a single -story unit and would have
a patio or balcony. Table 2 provides a statistical overview of the proposed residential uses.
TABLE 2
PACIFIC GATEWAY RESIDENCES DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY
1
10
14
2
26
2
12
19
2
33
3
12
20
2
34
4
7
11
2
20
Total
41
64
8
113
II a The proposed Project would be constructed as a single building with multiple wings or areas. 11
j Measured from the grade, the proposed three-story portion of the residential building would be
L� approximately 42 feet 9 inches in height, and the proposed four-story portion of the residential
building would be approximately 47 feet 8 inches in height.2
Parking
A three-story, four -level parking structure serving residents of the proposed Pacific Gateway
residential building would be constructed between the existing church, the adjacent commercial
development along Harbor Boulevard, and the southeast wing of the proposed residential
building. As detailed in Table 3, the proposed parking structure would have 283 parking spaces,
�J
including 242 parking spaces for residents and 41 parking spaces for guests.
Parking would be available on each of the four levels plus rooftop parking; rooftop parking is
j provided in the existing parking structure on the Project site. Vehicular access to the parking
J structure would be from the Project entrance along Bernard Street. Access from the parking
structure to each level of residential units would be provided via breezeways and walkways.
Access/Circulation
Vehicular access to the proposed Project would be from the proposed Project entrance along
Bernard Street. This entrance would be gated for security and would lead directly into the first
(ground) level of the parking structure. Pedestrian access would also be available along Bernard
Street and the private drive along the east side of the Pacific Gateway Residences Project site,
] which would separate the existing Pacifica at Newport Plaza condominium residences from the
proposed Pacific Gateway Residences.
( 2 Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code defines building height as the distance from the grade to the highest
II
point on the roof, including roof -top mechanical equipment and screening.
RAPro1ects\Costa\J015\Addendum-030612.docx Project Description
f WORKING DRAFT —NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
iJ
Addendum to FEIR 1050
Plaza Residences EIR
TABLE 3
PARKING SUMMARY
Unit Type
Number of
Units
Tenant Covered
Parking
Tenant Open
Parking
Guest Parking
One Bedroom
41
41
41
20.5
Two Bedroom
64
64
96
32
Three Bedroom
8
8
20
4
Subtotal Parking Before Credits
113
157
56.5
Covered Parking Credit
-28.25
Guest Parking Credit
-15.75
Subtotal Parking After Credits
113
128.75
40.75
Total Tenant Parking
242
Total Guest Parking
41
Total Required Parking
283
Open Space and Landscaping
Approximately 42 percent of the residential site area (approximately 0.98 acre) would be
retained as open space through the provision of common open space and private patios and
balconies. Common open space would be a landscaped courtyard located near the southeast
wing of the residential development; a covered outdoor lounge/patio and pool area located near
the northeast wing; and landscaped walkways and setback areas located along the edges of the
proposed residential development with larger areas fronting Bernard Street and Harbor
Boulevard. Along Harbor Boulevard, the proposed residential building would be set back
approximately 21 feet from the existing concrete sidewalk. Along Bernard Street, the proposed
buildings would be setback a minimum of 16.2 feet from the existing concrete sidewalk.
Landscaping is proposed along the perimeter of the Project site as well as within the open
space areas, as depicted in Exhibit 7, Conceptual Landscape Plan. A four -foot -wide concrete
walkway with a six -foot -high tubular steel fence is proposed along the eastern and southern
edges of the site. A three -foot -high tubular steel fence on top of a three -foot -high concrete
retaining wall is proposed along the site's northern perimeter. As shown on Exhibit 7, a six -foot -
high masonry block wall is proposed along the Project's western and southwestern perimeters,
adjacent to the existing commercial development along Harbor Boulevard.
Construction
Construction of the proposed Project is expected to occur within 3 phases over a 28-month
period. As shown on Exhibit 8, Construction Phasing Plan, the first phase would involve
construction of 53 units, the leasing area, clubhouse, fitness area, and parking structure. The
second phase would involve construction of 36 units and the third phase would involve
construction of 24 units. It is anticipated that grading activities for the Project site would require
approximately 3,000 cubic yards (cy) of cut and fill with no required import or export of soil.
Because the proposed Project no longer proposes development of a two -level, subterranean
parking structure beneath the residential units, the quantity of cut associated with soil
excavation would be far less than what was originally analyzed and approved for FEIR 1050.
Material storage and construction staging would be located on the project site, as shown on
Exhibit 8.
RAProjects\Costa\J015VAddendum-030812,docx J� Project Description
WORKING DRAFT —NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION -'"4
r
11
f PROJECT " 6'a7UBULAii STEELWIEW FENC P
ENTRY- 7
MONUMENT ENHANCED
PAVING IN ENTRY,: aEnNarto, `Ii
Conceptual Landscape Plan
Addendum to FOR 1050
/�1N�'�
W— —E
s
[CATION ON 36"
X TUBULAR STEEL VIEW FENCE ON T MASONRY RETAINING
WALL_—
IArI ACCESSx
OBULAR STEEL ACCESS/EXIT GATE
ING OFFICE LOUNGE AREA ,
POOL AREA
6' MASONRY WALL TO MATCH
SAT ENHANCED
EXISTING
ONC
T
Y
P'PACIFICA H.OA ACCESS ONLY
i rL
GATE
TUBULAR STEEL
sy.,...
ACCESSIEXIT GATE
aPOOL
FENCE
Exhibit 7
C O N S U L T I N G
(021312 JFG) R:\Projects\CostaW015\Graphics\Ek7—landscapeplan.pdf
bL
Ej
w
ti
u
Material Storage
& Construction
Staging Areas
Construction Phasing Plan
Addendum to FOR 1050
NN'�
W� pE
s
BERNARD ST.
Source: Architects Orange 2012
Exhibit 8
C O N S U L T I N G
(030512jfg) R:\Projects\Costa\J015\Graphics\ex8_cons_phasing.pdf
Addendum to FOR 1050
Plaza Residences EIR
r l Requested Project Entitlements
j
As part of the proposed Project, the Project Applicant is requesting approval of the following
Ir� entitlements:
Master Plan Amendment to the original approval for the construction of the remaining
113 attached residential units as a "for rent" apartment community. The architecture is
j similar to the proposed project. .
• Minor modification to reduce the street setback along Bernard Street from 20 feet to 16
feet.
3.4 COMPARISON TO ORIGINALLY APPROVED PROJECT
As discussed previously, the proposed Project represents the final phase of development for the
overall 7.79-acre mixed -use site.
L,J
RAProjects\Costa\J015\Addendum-030612.docx S71 Project Description
- WORKING DRAFT —NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
i;,
Addendum to FEIR 1050
Plaza Residences EIR
This page intentionally left blank
R:\Projects\Costa\J015\Addendum-030612.docx = 1 Project Description
WORKING DRAFT —NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION D,0
j } Addendum to FEIR 1050
Plaza Residences EIR
r� SECTION 4.0
i
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
�1 Section 4.0 of this Addendum examines each environmental topical issue analyzed in
FEIR 1050 specific to the proposed Project. The Addendum includes additional areas of
analysis, including forestland resources and greenhouse gas emissions, pursuant to the 2010
j amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines. The focus of this Addendum to FEIR 1050 is to
evaluate the potential for changes in the impacts as a result of modifications to the proposed
site plan, including the construction of a five level parking structure (4-levels above grade)
Jr instead of subterranean parking. This evaluation includes a determination as to whether the
changes proposed for the Pacific Gateway Residences Project would result in any new
significant impacts or a substantial increase in a previously identified significant impact.
The topical areas identified in the CEQA Environmental Checklist (Checklist) were used as
guidance for this Addendum. For each section, a brief summary of the findings of FEIR 1050 is
i provided. This comparative analysis provides the City with the factual basis for determining if
any changes in the Project, any changes in circumstances, or any new information since
FEIR 1050 was certified require additional environmental review or preparation of a subsequent
r, or supplemental EIR.
The mitigation program from FEIR 1050 applicable to the' proposed Project is contained in the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program -(MMRP) included in Appendix A; no new
mitigation measures are proposed.
4.1 AESTHETICS
4.1.1 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
rr 1 FEIR 1050 concluded that the Plaza Residences .Project would result in less than significant
I` impacts related to aesthetics. Specifically, the proposed Project would have no impacts on
scenic resources or scenic vistas, as identified in the Costa Mesa 2000 General Plan. The
-1 implementation of project design features and standard conditions requiring replacement for the
loss of ornamental trees would eliminate any impacts to the visual character or quality of the
Project site or its surroundings.
As discussed in FEIR 1050, the significance threshold used in the shade/shadow analysis is as
follows: a significant impact occurs when a project casts shade or shadow onto sensitive land
uses in adjacent off -site areas for more than two hours between the hours of 10:00 AM and 3:00
PM. Residential lots located on the north side of Bernard Street are considered sensitive land
I uses. The landscaping located in the seven -foot -wide public right-of-way behind the curb face
along Bernard Street is not considered a sensitive use.
Research of shade/shadow significance thresholds from local jurisdictions in Orange and Los
Angeles Counties indicate that few jurisdictions have established thresholds related to
shade/shadow impacts; of these jurisdictions, only the City of Los Angeles has a quantified
significance threshold. The City of Los Angeles' threshold is as,follows:
_. A project impact would normally be considered significant if shadow -sensitive
uses would be shaded by project -related structures for more than three hours
between the hours of 9:00 AM and 3:00 PM Pacific Standard Time (between late
I J October and early April) or for more than four hours between the hours of 9:00
ct
1,
RAProjects\CostaU015Wddendum-030612.docx Environmental Analysis
WORKING DRAFT —NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
I;
Addendum to FEIR 1050
Plaza Residences EIR
AM and 5:00 PM Pacific Daylight Time (between early April and late October)
(source: City of Los Angeles CEQA Thresholds Guide, May 14, 1998).
Because there were no equivalent standard approaches in the industry for shade/shadow
impacts at the time of EIR preparation and certification, the significance threshold developed for
the analysis employed a conservative approach to defining sensitive uses and establishing a
quantified threshold for identifying impacts. The significance threshold used in the analysis was
more conservative than the threshold recommended and developed by the City of Los Angeles.
Other local jurisdictions in Orange County with formally established thresholds do not quantify a
significance threshold for shade/shadow impacts. Based on a shade/shadow analysis, it was
determined that the Plaza Residences Project would result in less than significant impacts and
no mitigation was required. Further, the implementation of specified project design features and
standard conditions were found to eliminate any new sources of substantial light or glare which
may adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. The Project was found to conform to
the 2000 General Plan Land Use Policy LU-1C.1 requiring that multi -story buildings not deprive
existing land uses of adequate light and solar access.
4.1.2 PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Project site and surrounding area are located within a highly urban portion of the City that
does not contain any scenic vistas or resources and is not visible from State and local scenic
highways. The proposed Project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial
increase in the severity of previously identified effects.
The proposed Project modifications would alter the type of residential units by altering the
product type from "for sale" condominium units to for -lease residential units; however, the
potential for future sale of the units would still exist. This change in product type would not affect
the visual appearance of the Project or Project features. The proposed Project would replace
two levels of subterranean parking with a four -level, above -grade parking structure. This parking
structure would alter the Project's anticipated visual appearance from what was evaluated in
FEIR 1050. However, the structure would include uniformly distributed openings to the outside
which would provide visual relief not found with a fully enclosed structure, and it would
incorporate architectural features to complement the Spanish Mission -style architecture of the
on -site 1901 Newport Plaza commercial/office building, the Pacifica at Newport Plaza
condominium development, and the adjacent First United Methodist Church. Further, the
proposed "open" parking structure would be similar in appearance to the proposed residential
buildings as well as the residential buildings that were analyzed in FEIR 1050 and approved for
development on the Project site. Although the First United Methodist Church would experience
a change in views from the existing condition, the proposed Project would be similar in overall
appearance to the approved Plaza Residences Project, as evaluated in FEIR 1050.
A shade/shadow analysis was prepared as a part of this Addendum to evaluate the duration of
shade/shadow effects on shade -sensitive uses (i.e., the residential lots located on the north side
of Bernard Street, not including landscaping located in the seven -foot -wide public right-of-way
behind the curb face along Bernard Street). The shade and shadow analysis was conducted for
three times of the year: the summer solstice on June 21 when the sun is highest in the sky, the
autumnal equinox on September 23, and the winter solstice on December 21 when the sun is
lowest in the sky. The environmental threshold of significance defines a significant shadow
impact occurring when more than two hours of shade/shadow are cast on sensitive uses
between 10:00 AM and 3:00 PM.
RAPro1ects\Costa\J015�Addendum-030612.docx o Environmental Analysis
WORKING DRAFT —NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Addendum to FEIR 1050
Plaza Residences EIR
For the proposed Project, shadow conditions were analyzed at 9:00 AM, noon, and 3:00 PM for
each of the three days (June 21, September 23, and December 21). Exhibits 9 through 11,
(Shade and Shadow Analysis- Summer Solstice — June 21, 2015, Shade and Shadow Analysis
Yl — Autumn Equinox — September 23, 2015, and Shade and Shadow Analysis — Winter Solstice —
J�. December 21, 2015), depict the locations and length of shadows for the three times of year. As
shown, shadows from the Pacific Gateway Residences Project would not extend onto adjacent
-I shade -sensitive land uses. Therefore, consistent with the findings of FEIR 1050, shade and
.� shadow impacts associated with the proposed Project are considered less than significant. No
new impacts would occur, and no mitigation is required. Additionally, the proposed Pacific
Gateway Residences Project conforms to the 2000 General Plan Land Use Policy LU-1 C.1
LJ requiring that multi -story buildings not deprive existing land uses of adequate light and solar
access during the Summer and Spring seasons.
Overall, the proposed Project would be consistent with the project analyzed in FEIR 1050. The
proposed Project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the
severity of previously identified effects. In regard to Section 15162 of the State CEQA
jGuidelines, the proposed Project (1) would not propose substantial changes; (2) would not have
circumstantial changes when the Project is .undertaken; and (3) would bring about no new
information of substantial importance which would (a) create new significant impacts,
i (b) increase the severity of previously examined effects, (c) determine that mitigation measures
or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible; or (4) introduce
mitigation measures which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous
documents. For these reasons, there are no major revisions required to the aesthetics analysis
i l provided in FEIR 1050.
- 4.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
4.2.1 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
F1 FEIR 1050 did not address agriculture and forestland resources. As set forth in the Initial Study
prepared for FEIR 1050, the Project site is not located on or near agricultural land, nor is it
currently in agricultural use. The Project site is not designated as Prime or Unique Farmland.
The site has been historically developed and is located within a highly urbanized area. No
1 J impacts related to this environmental topic were anticipated as a result of Project
implementation, and no mitigation measures were required.
lr 4.2.2 PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
I. ,1
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects,
1 lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment
Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to
use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to
l forestry resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies
I. may refer to (1) information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection regarding the State's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range
Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project and (2) forest carbon
measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air
Resources Board.
_\ Data from the State of California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program, indicates that the Project site contains no land that is designated as Prime
Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Local
RAP rojects\CostaW015Wddendum-030612.docx Environmental Analysis
= WORKING DRAFT —NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION 14'
I
Addendum to FEIR 1050
Plaza Residences EIR
Importance (FMMP 2010), nor is the Project site zoned for agricultural use. In addition, the
Project site is not in agricultural use or under Williamson Act contracts, and no such designated
land is nearby. Therefore, the proposed Project would not create a new significant impact or a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects related to agricultural
resources.
Since the Project site is in an urban area, no changes would result in conversion of farm or
forest land to non-agricultural or non -forest uses. The site is not considered to be farmland of
significance or land in agricultural use. The Project site is not defined as forest land according to
Section 12220(g) of the California Public Resources Cade, which defines forest land as "land
that can support 10 percent native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, under
natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest resources, including
timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public
benefits", nor is it zoned for Timberland Production as defined by Section 51104(g) of the
California Government Code. Therefore, no new impacts related to agricultural and forestry
resources would occur. Although the forest land resources were not an environmental topic of
concern when EIR 1050 was prepared, there are no environmental impacts associated with this
issue; therefore, this does not preclude the use of an addendum to the previous document.
The proposed Project would be consistent with the Project as analyzed in FEIR 1050. The
proposed Project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the
severity of previously identified effects. In regard to Section 15162 of the State CEQA
Guidelines, the proposed Project (1) would not propose substantial changes; (2) would not have
circumstantial changes when the Project is undertaken; (3) would bring about no new
information of substantial importance which would (a) create new significant impacts,
(b) increase the severity of previously examined effects, (c) determine that mitigation measures
or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible; or (4) introduce
mitigation measures which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous
documents. For these reasons, there are no major revisions required to the agriculture and
forestry resources analysis provided in FEIR 1050.
4.3 AIR QUALITY
4.3.1 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FEIR 1050 evaluated impacts related to air quality based on development of the 7.79-acre
project site with 145 condominium units, two levels of subterranean parking, and a 5-level
parking structure. The analysis assumed necessary soil excavation, largely associated with the
subterranean parking, would total approximately 48,892 cubic yards of cut which would be
exported to an off -site location. FEIR 1050 identified that construction -related Project emissions
would exceed established thresholds for significant. Implementation of the proposed mitigation
measures would minimize construction emissions to the maximum extent feasible. However,
short-term, construction -related emissions would exceed South Coast Air Quality Management
District (SCAQMD) thresholds for nitrogen oxides (NOx) and fine particulate matter with a
diameter of 10 microns or less (PM10), resulting in significant and unavoidable emissions. No
significant long-term operational impacts related to air quality were found to occur.at the local
and regional levels.
4.3.2 PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The national and State ambient air quality standards (AAQS) have been revised since the
certification of FEIR 1050. Most notable are the addition of an 8-hour standard for ozone and
R:\Projects\Costa\J015\Addendum-030612.docx (9 X Environmental Analysis
WORKING DRAFT —NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
A
:-A
K k y 71—
J
p
A
r-71
NOON
MORNING
Roofline of Proposed Structures
Al,
Proposed Shadows by Time of Day
June 21st, 2015 - 900 a.m.
June 21st, 2015 - 12:00 p.m.
June 21st, 2015 - 3:00 p.m.
Notes: Shadow estimates are based on conceptual
ry
architectual designs.
All references to the time of day are based on Pacific
Standard Time.
Shade and Shadow Analysis - Summer Solstice -June 21, 2015
Addendum to FEIR 1050
N
W� E 100 50 0 100
Feet (Rev 03105/12 JFG) In
Exhibit 9
C 0 N 3 U L T I N 0
015XGmDhics%Ex9 summarxdf
g ,j -da
-
�:
--� IL �
- is �• +..j'S� � IN �' �', LL'rh Ylt �.
�3 V..^ t..k1.,..... �F. ,. .,....r Qw....wv.1. QL1,.a,.a�„_:
.F M
4
,,... ,
3 _
4
1
jr
of t
..y�•„r
y
■
i
0 Roofline of Proposed Structures
Proposed Shadows by Time of Day
September 23rd, 2015 - 9:00 a.m. y
September 23rd, 2015 - 12:00 p.m.
September 23rd, 2015 - 3:00 P.M.
Notes: Shadow estimates are based on conceptual
architectual designs.
All references to the time of day are based on Pacific
Standard Time.
Shade and Shadow Analysis - Autumn Equinox - September 23, 2015 Exhibit 10
Addendum to FEIR 1050
N WE 100 50 0 100 (04
�5 Feet
(Rev 03105112 JFG)
C O N S U L 7 1 N G
151Greehics1Ex10 eouinox,odf
NOON
F s�
MORNING y RNOOt�"
Q
r.
to -' f! •:>a --
4 Y
® Roofline of Proposed Structures
Proposed Shadows by Time of Day
December 21st, 2015 - 9:00 a.m.
i December 21 st, 2015 - 12:00 p.m.
December 21 st, 2015 - 3:00 p.m.
Notes: Shadow estimates are based on conceptual
architectual designs.
All references to the time of day are based on Pacific
Standard Time.
Shade and Shadow Analysis - Winter Solstice - December 21, 2015 Exhibit 1 1
Addendum to FOR 1050
AN
100 50 0 100
vv Feet cor+su�riNo
s
(Rev 03105172 CJS!) IrvAProJeclslCos1aU015\Graphlcs\Ex11 _winter.pdf
Addendum to FEIR 1050
Plaza Residences EIR
the recognition
size (PM2.5)
Appendix B.
of fine particulate matter, which is particulate matter of 2.5 microns or less in
s a criteria pollutant. The current national and State AAQS are provided in
The SCAQMD Final 2007 Air Quality Management Plan (2007 AQMP) is the current air quality
plan, adopted by the SCAQMD on June 1, 2007. The 2007 AQMP is an update to the 2003
AQMP and incorporates new scientific data, primarily in the form of updated emissions
inventories, ambient measurements, new meteorological episodes, and new air quality modeling
tools. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) approved the plan when the State Strategy
for the State Implementation Plan (SIP) was adopted on September 27, 2007. The Draft SIP
has been submitted to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) for review
and approval. Until such time that the USEPA approves the SIP, the 2003 AQMP remains in
effect for federal Clean Air Act (CAA) conformity analysis. However, for CEQA analysis, projects
must also be considered consistent with the requirements of the 2007 AQMP.
Existing Air Quality
Table 4 provides the current status of attainment of federal and State ambient air quality
standards (AAQS) in the South Coast Air Basin. The status has changed since the certification
of FEIR 1050.
TABLE 4
CRITERIA POLLUTANT DESIGNATIONS IN THE SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN
Pollutant
State.
Federal
03 (1-hour)
Nonattainment
No Standard
03 (8-hour)
Extreme Nonattainment
PM10
Nonattainment
Serious Nonattainment
PM2.5
Nonattainment
Nonattainment
CO
Attainment
Attainment/Maintenance
NO2
Nonattainment
Attainment/Maintenance
S02
Attainment
Attainment
Lead
Attainment/Nonattainmenta
Nonattainment/Attainmentd
All others
Attainment/Unclassified
No Standards
a Los Angeles County was reclassified from attainment to nonattainment for lead in 2010; the remainder of
the SoCAB is in attainment of the State and federal standards.
Source: CARB 2010b
Impact Analysis
Significance Criteria
Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines notes that the significance criteria established by the
applicable air quality management district may be relied upon to make significance
determinations. The SCAQMD has established significance thresholds to assess the regional
and localized impacts of project -related air pollutant emissions; Table 5 presents the most
current significance thresholds. A project with daily emission rates, risk values, or
concentrations below these thresholds is generally considered to have a less than significant
effect on air quality.
R:\Projects\CostaW015\Addendum-030612.docx / „� Environmental Analysis
WORKING DRAFT —NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION lV
Addendum to FEIR 1050
Plaza Residences EIR
As described above, the 2007 AQMP is the current air quality plan. The main purpose of an
AQMP is to bring an area into compliance with the requirements of federal and State air quality
standards. For a project to be consistent with the AQMP, the pollutants emitted from the project
should not exceed the SCAQMD air quality significance thresholds or cause a significant impact
on air quality. Also, a project should not plan development or otherwise have potential
emissions that would substantially exceed the corresponding plans that were used to develop
the AQMP.
TABLE 5
SCAQMD AIR QUALITY SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS
Mass Daily Thresholdsa
Pollutant
Construction
Operation
NOx
100 Ibs/day
55 Ibs/day
VOC
75 Ibs/day
55 Ibs/day
PM 10
150 Ibs/day
150 Ibs/day
PM2.5
55 Ibs/day
55 Ibs/day
Sox
150 Ibs/day
150 Ibs/day
CO
550 Ibs/day
550 Ibs/day
Lead
3 Ibs/day
3 Ibs/day
Toxic Air Contaminants
Maximum Incremental Cancer Risk >_ 10 in 1 million
TACsb
Cancer Burden > 0.5 excess cancer cases (in areas > 1 in 1 million)
Hazard Index z 1.0 (project increment)
Odor
Project creates an odor nuisance pursuant to Rule 402c
Ambient Air Quality For Criteria Pollutantsd
NO2
1-hour average >_ 0.18 ppm
Annual average > 0.03 ppm
24-hour average >_ 10.4 pg/m3 (construction)
PM10
24-hour average > 2.5 pg/m3 (operation)
Annual average z 1.0 pg/m3
PM2.5
24-hour average >_ 10.4 pg/m3 (construction)
24-hour average >_ 2.5 pg/m3 (operation)
Sulfate
24-hour average z 1.0 pg/m3
CO
1-hour average >_ 20.0 ppm (State)
8-hour average >_ 9.0 ppm (State/federal)
Ibs/day: pounds per day; ppm: parts per million; pg/m3: micrograms per cubic meter
a Source: SCAQMD 2011.
b Toxic air contaminants (carcinogenic and non -carcinogenic).
` Rule 402 states that 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. The
provisions of this rule shall not apply to odors emanating from agricultural operations necessary for the growing
of crops or the raising of fowl or animals".
d Ambient air quality threshold based on SCAQMD Rule 403.
As demonstrated below, pollutant emissions from the proposed Project would be less than the
SCAQMD thresholds and would not result in a significant impact. Additionally, it may be
assumed that the development planned in FEIR 1050 was used in the planning assumptions for
the 2007 AQMP, and the Project proposes fewer residences and less traffic generation than
anticipated in FEIR 1050. Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with the
2007 AQMP. There would be no significant impact and no mitigation is required.
RAPro1ects\Costa\J0151Addendum-030612.docx Environmental Analysis
WORKING DRAFT —NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
;l Addendum to FEIR 1050
Plaza Residences EIR
Construction Emissions — Regional
Construction of the proposed Project is anticipated to start in September 2012, with demolition
of approximately 2 acres of asphalt parking area; the asphalt would be pulverized on site and
reused for subsequent construction. Demolition would be followed by grading, with cut and fill
balanced on site. As discussed previously in Section 1.0, development of the proposed Pacific
r� Gateway Residences Project would no longer involve two levels of subterranean parking,
thereby substantially reducing the excavation and export of soil from the Project site. Utilities
and foundations would then be installed, followed by construction of the parking structure and
residential building. Construction of the Project is proposed to be completed in December 2014.
Criteria pollutant emissions would occur during construction from operation of construction
equipment; generation of fugitive dust from grading and earth -moving activities; export of
excavated soil; import of construction materials; and operation of vehicles driven to and from the
site by construction workers. Project -generated construction emissions were estimated using
the California Emission Estimator Model (CaIEEMod) Version 2011.1.1 computer program
(SCAQMD 2011 b). CaIEEMod is designed to model construction emissions for land
development projects and allows for the input of project- and County -specific information. The
CaIEEMod model input was based on the construction assumptions described above and in the
Project description and on information provided by the project applicant. Where specific
information was not known, engineering judgment and default CaIEEMod settings and
parameters were used. The model inputs include estimated equipment use (e.g., dozers and
loaders) for each construction phase and the duration of each phase. The model also includes
dust -control measures in accordance with the requirements of SCAQMD Rule 403, Fugitive
Dust (see standard conditions and requirements). Table 6 presents the estimated maximum
daily emissions for proposed Project construction, and compares the estimated emissions with
the SCAQMD daily mass emission thresholds.
TABLE 6
ESTIMATED MAXIMUM DAILY CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
-� (POUNDS/DAY)
Year of Construction
VOC ,
NOx
CO
PM10 ,
FM2.5
2012
8
69
34
6
4
2013
7
36
36
5
3
2014
55
22
27
4
2
SCAQMD Thresholds
75
100
550
150
55
Exceeds Threshold?
No
No
No
No
No
VOC: volatile organic compounds;' NOx: nitrogen oxides; CO: carbon monoxide; PM10: respirable
particulate matter with a diameter of 10 microns or less; PM2.5: fine particulate matter with a diameter of
2.5 microns or less.
Emissions shown are for winter season; summer emissions would be the same or slightly less.
Source: CaIEEMod data in Appendix B.
As shown in Table 6, construction -related emissions generated by the proposed Project would
be below the SCAQMD regional thresholds of significance. Therefore, the impact would be less
than significant and less than anticipated in FEIR 1050. MM 4.3-1 from FEIR 1050, while not
required, would be incorporated into the Project to minimize construction emissions.
Construction Emissions — Local/Ambient Air Quality
In addition to the mass daily emissions thresholds established by the SCAQMD, short-term local
impacts to nearby sensitive receptors from on -site emissions of nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon
R:\Projects\CostaW015Wddendum-030612.docx C00 Environmental Analysis
WORKING DRAFT —NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Addendum to FEIR 1050
Plaza Residences EIR
monoxide (CO), PM10, and PM2.5 are examined based on SCAQMD's localized significance
thresholds (LST) methodology. Local impacts from construction emissions were not addressed
in FEIR 1050 because the SCAQMD established the thresholds and procedures for this type of
analysis after the EIR analysis was performed. To assess local air quality impacts for
development projects without complex dispersion modeling, the SCAQMD developed screening
(lookup) tables to assist lead agencies in evaluating impacts.
For the purposes of an LST analysis, the SCAQMD considers receptors where it is possible that
an individual could remain exposed to NO2 and CO for 1 hour and PM for 24 hours. The lookup
tables' emissions limits are based on the AAQS included in Appendix B and the SCAQMD
Ambient Air Quality Thresholds shown in Table 5. The closest receptors are the occupants of
the 32 condominium residences immediately east of the area to be developed and the
employees and patrons of the retail businesses and church adjacent to the site.
Table 7 shows the maximum daily on -site emissions for construction activities compared with
the SCAQMD thresholds for local pollutants with receptors at 25 meters (82 feet); the SCAQMD
methodology prescribes the use of the 25-meter factor for all receptors within 25 meters. The
area of the Project site to be developed is approximately 2.46 acres; the thresholds shown are
interpolated from the lookup tables for 2- and 5-acre sites.
TABLE 7
LOCAL SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLD CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
NOx
CO
PM10
PM2.5
Emissions (Ibs/day)
Construction maximum daily on -site emissions
69
34
5.7
4.4
LST Thresholds (2.5-acre site)
142
1087
8.2
5.7
Exceeds Threshold?
No
No
No
No
NOx: nitrogen oxides; CO: carbon monoxide; PM10: particulate matter with a diameter of 10 microns or less; PM2.5:
particulate matter with a diameter 2.5 microns or less; Ibs: pounds; LST: localized significance threshold
Note: Data is for SCAQMD Source Receptor Area 18, North Coastal Orange County.
Source: SCAQMD 2009 (thresholds). See Appendix B for CaIEEMod model outputs.
As shown in Table 7, the local emissions from construction of the proposed Project would be
less than the thresholds. Therefore, local construction emissions would be less than significant,
and mitigation is not required.
Long-term Operation
Operational emissions are comprised of area, energy, and mobile (i.e., vehicle) source
emissions. The primary source of operational criteria pollutant emissions from the proposed
Project, with the exception of volatile organic compounds (VOC), would be vehicles used by
Project residents, guests, vendors, and staff. The proposed Project's mobile source emissions
are based on the Project -related trip generation forecast, as contained in the Project's traffic
impact analysis (Stantec 2012). The primary source of VOC emissions would be an area source
(i.e., the consumer products used by residents). Emissions were calculated with the CalEEMod
model, discussed above. Estimated peak daily operational emissions are shown in Table 8.
As presented in Table 8, operational emissions generated by the proposed Project would be
below the SCAQMD regional thresholds of significance. Therefore, the impact would be less
than significant, consistent with the finding in FEIR 1050 for operational regional impacts. No
mitigation is required.
R:\Projects\Costa\J015W,ddendum-030612.docx Environmental Analysis
WORKING DRAFT —NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Addendum to FEIR 1050
Plaza Residences EIR
j The Orange County portion of the South Coast Air Basin is a nonattainment area for ozone (03),
NO2, PM10 and PM2.5. The proposed Project would generate these pollutants during long-term
operations. As shown in Table 8, long-term emissions would be less than 20 percent of the
i SCAQMD significance thresholds. This magnitude of emissions would not be cumulatively
!.. considerable, and the cumulative impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is
required.
r�
TABLE 8
PEAK DAILY OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
Emissions'{Ibs/day):. ,
.:Emissions Source
VOC
NOx
CO, ....
P,M10, ;
- PM2.5
Area sources �
6
<0.5
10
<0.5
<0.5
Energy sources
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Mobile sources
4
8
40
9
1
Total Operational Emissions
10
9
50
9
1
SCAQMD Significance Thresholds
55
55
550
150
55
Exceeds Threshold?
No
No
No
No
No
Ibs/day: pounds per day; VOC: volatile organic compounds; NOx: nitrogen oxides; CO: carbon monoxide;
PM10:
respirable particulate matter with a diameter of 10 microns or less; PM2.5: fine particulate matter with a diameter
of 2.5 microns or less
Totals may not add due to pounding
Notes: Emissions are the higher of summer or winter seasons.
Sox and lead emissions are not shown; these emissions would be negligible for the Project.
CaIEEMod model data sheets are included in Appendix B.
IDShort-term cumulative impacts related to air quality could occur if Project construction and
nearby construction activities were to occur simultaneously. In particular, with respect to local
impacts, cumulative construction particulate (i.e., fugitive dust) impacts are considered
when projects are located within a few hundred yards of each other. However, as shown in
Table 6, construction emissions would be below the SCAQMD regional significance thresholds;
particularly, PM emissions would be less than 5 percent of the thresholds. Therefore,
r l construction emissions of nonattainment pollutants would not be cumulatively considerable and
Project impacts would be less than significant, consistent with the finding in FEIR 1050 for
cumulative impacts. No mitigation is required.
j CO Hotspot
A CO hotspot is an area of localized CO pollution that is caused by severe vehicle congestion
on major roadways, typically near intersections. FEIR 1050 calculated future CO concentrations
--' at the intersection of Newport Boulevard and 19th Street with the following results:
The future 2020 1-hour CO concentration would be 6.6 parts per million (ppm) without
and with the project. This value is compared with an existing (2003) concentration of
10.6 ppm and the State standard of 20 ppm. The calculation included a forecast
background concentration of 5.8 ppm.
• The future 8-hour CO concentration would be 5.3 parts per million (ppm) without and
r with the project. This value is compared with an existing (2003) concentration of 8.5 ppm
and the State standard of 9.0 m. The calculation included a forecast background
�� �,� pp g
concentration of 3.4 ppm.
RAP roJects\costawo1swddendum-o30612.docx �� Environmental Analysis
WORKING DRAFT —NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
III
Addendum to FEIR 1050
Plaza Residences EIR
As stated in FEIR 1050, "The table (in FEIR 1050) shows lower concentrations in the future
compared to existing conditions. Although traffic volumes are projected to increase in the
future, vehicular pollutant emissions are projected to decrease. In this case, the reduction in
emissions dominated the increase in traffic volumes and the pollutant concentrations are
projected to be lower in the future." Ambient CO concentrations have decreased faster than
forecast when the FEIR 1050 analysis was prepared. The maximum 2008 and 2009 1-hour CO
concentrations measured at the SCAQMD Costa Mesa station were approximately 3 ppm,
compared with the 2001 value of 6.2 ppm. The maximum 8-hour concentrations were 2.2 and
2.1 ppm compared with the 2001 value of 4.6 ppm (Table 3.6-1 of FEIR 1050). The recent
concentrations are also less than the forecast 2020 concentrations of 5.8 and 3.4 ppm for the 1-
hour and 8-hour values used in the FEIR 1050 analysis.
The combination of declining background CO concentrations described above with the fact that
total project trip generation would be slightly less than forecast in FEIR 1050, see Section 4.16.2
and Table 10 of this Addendum, results in the conclusion that CO concentrations at Newport
Boulevard and 19th Street would be less than forecast in FEIR 1050, and the impact would be
less than significant, consistent with the findings in FEIR 1050 for local CO impacts. No
mitigation is required.
Criteria Pollutants from On -Site Construction
Exposure of persons to NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions is discussed above and the
local emissions are summarized in Table 7. As discussed, there would be a less than significant
impact and no mitigation is required.
Toxic Air Contaminant (Diesel PM) Emissions from On -Site Construction
Construction activities would result in short-term, Project -generated emissions of diesel
particulate matter (diesel PM) from the exhaust of off -road, heavy-duty diesel equipment used
for site preparation (e.g., demolition, excavation, and grading); paving; and building
(construction). CARB identified diesel PM as a TAC in 1998. The dose to which receptors are
exposed is the primary factor used to determine health risk. Dose is a function of the
concentration of a substance or substances in the environment and the duration of exposure to
the substance. Thus, the risks estimated for a maximally exposed individual (MEI) are higher if a
fixed exposure occurs over a longer time period. According to the Office of Environmental
Health Hazard Assessment, health risk assessments, which determine the exposure of sensitive
receptors to TAC emissions, should be based on a 70-year exposure period; however, such
assessments should be limited to the period/duration of activities associated with a Project.
There would be few pieces of off -road, heavy-duty diesel equipment in operation,3 and the
construction period would be short (approximately 28 months) when compared to a 70-year
exposure period. When considering these facts combined with the highly dispersive properties
of diesel ,PM and additional reductions in particulate emissions from newer construction
equipment (as required by USEPA and CARB regulations), it can be concluded that TAC
emissions during construction of the proposed Project would not expose sensitive receptors to
substantial emissions of TACs. There would be a less than significant impact and no mitigation
is required. This impact was not addressed in FEIR 1050.
Additionally, the proposed Pacific Gateway Residences Project would not generate
objectionable odors, which are generally associated with agricultural activities; landfills and
3 The equipment assumed for the most intense construction phase —three months of excavation and grading —
includes 2 scrapers, 1 dozer, 1 grader, and 1 water truck.
RAProjects\Costa\J015�Addendum-030612.docx Environmental Analysis
WORKING DRAFT —NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION 11
Addendum to FEIR 1050
Plaza Residences EIR
materials transfer stations; the generation or treatment of sewage; the use or generation of
1 chemicals; food processing; or other activities that generate unpleasant odors. There would be
no impact.
During construction, the proposed Project would operate equipment that may generate odors.
Potential construction odors would result from on -site construction equipment's diesel exhaust
emissions, roofing, or paving operations. However, these odors would be temporary and would
dissipate rapidly from the source with an increase in distance. Construction odors would be
considered less than significant. No mitigation is required.
Mitigation Program
FEIR 1050's Mitigation Program includes measures to reduce potential impacts associated with
the Plaza Residences Project to less than significant levels. The following measures from FEIR
1050 would also be applicable to the proposed Pacific Gateway Residences Project. Any
modifications to the original measures are shown in stFikethrough for deleted text and new,
r inserted text is underlined.
Standard Conditions and Requirements
�) SC 4.3-1 All construction . contractors shall comply with South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD) regulations, including Rule 403, Fugitive Dust.
All grading (regardless of acreage) shall apply best available control measures
for fugitive. dust in accordance with Rule 403. To ensure that the project is in full
compliance with applicable SCAQMD dust regulations and that there is no
nuisance impact off the site, the contractor would implement each of the
i following:
a. Moisten soil not more than 15 minutes prior to moving soil or conduct
(j whatever watering is necessary to prevent visible dust emissions from
exceeding 100 feet in any direction.
b. Apply chemical stabilizers to disturbed surface areas (completed grading
areas) within five days of completing grading or apply dust suppressants or
vegetation sufficient to maintain a stabilized surface.
- c. Water excavated soil piles hourly or cover with temporary coverings.
�..� d. Water exposed surfaces at least twice a day under calm conditions. Water as
often as needed on windy days when winds are less than 25 miles per day or
j -1, during very dry weather in order to maintain a surface crust and prevent the
release of visible emissions from the construction site.
e. Wash mud -covered tires and under -carriages of trucks leaving construction
rl sites.
f. Provide for street sweeping, as needed, on adjacent roadways to remove dirt
dropped by construction vehicles or mud which would otherwise be carried off
by trucks departing project sites.
g. Securely cover loads with a tight fitting tarp on ,any truck leaving the
construction sites to dispose of debris.
�- —� h. Cease grading during periods when winds exceed 25 miles per hour.
1 ) I. Turn equipment off when not in use for more than five minutes.
RAProjects\CostaW015V+ddendum-030612.docx Environmental Analysis
-- WORKING DRAFT —NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION !
1i
Addendum to FEIR 1050
Plaza Residences EIR
Mitigation Measures
MM 4.3-1 During construction activities, the contractor shall implement the following
measures to reduce construction equipment emissions.
a. Maintain construction equipment engines by keeping them tuned.
b. Use low sulfur fuel for stationary construction equipment. This is required by
SCAQMD Rules 431.1 and 431.2.
c. Use existing power sources (i.e., power poles) when feasible. This measure
would minimize the use of higher polluting gas or diesel generators.
d. Configure construction parking to minimize traffic interference.
e. Minimize obstruction of through -traffic lanes. When feasible, construction
should be planned so that lane closures on existing streets are kept to a
minimum.
f. Schedule construction operations affecting traffic for off-peak hours.
4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4.1 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
FEIR 1050 did not address biological resources. The Initial Study prepared for the EIR found
that the Project site is not within the boundaries of a Habitat Conservation Area or an area
protected by local ordinance with respect to biological resources. The Project site is developed
and is surrounded by an urbanized environment, and it does not contain any jurisdictional
wetlands. No impacts were identified relative to biological resources.
4.4.2 PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed Project would construct 113 residential units over a 2.46-acre area, thereby
completing the final phase of development on the 7.79-acre Project site. The area proposed for
development is located within a highly urban area that was previously analyzed and approved
for development as part of FEIR 1050, and that does not support any significant biological
resources. Based on review of the Project site, conditions on the 2.46-acre portion of the Project
site proposed for development have not changed since certification of FEIR 1050; therefore, the
previous determination of "no impact" to biological resources is still valid, and implementation of
the proposed Project would not create any new impacts to biological resources. Specifically, the
proposed Project would not create impacts related to habitat modification; effects on riparian
habitat or sensitive natural communities; federally protected wetlands; migratory wildlife
corridors; or native wildlife nursery sites. The Project would not conflict with local policies or
ordinances protecting biological resources or conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or
State habitat conservation plan since no habitat, wetlands, or corridors are present on the
Project site or nearby. The proposed Project would not create a new significant impact or a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects related to biological resources.
The proposed Project would be consistent with the project as analyzed in FEIR 1050. The
proposed Project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the
severity of previously identified effects. In regard to Section 15162 of the State CEQA
Guidelines, the proposed Project (1) would not propose substantial changes; (2) would not have
circumstantial changes when the Project is undertaken; (3) would bring about no new
RAProjects\Costa\J015�Addendum-030612.docx Environmental Analysis
WORKING DRAFT —NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION 13
Addendum to FEIR 1050
Plaza Residences EIR
information of substantial importance which would (a) create new significant impacts;
i0 (b) increase the severity of previously examined effects, (c) determine that mitigation measures
or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible; or (4) introduce
mitigation measures which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous
!_. I documents. For these reasons, there are no major revisions required to the biological resources
l analysis provided in FEIR 1050.
1 4.5 CULTURAL/SCIENTIFIC RESOURCES
4.5.1 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
FEIR 1050 did not address cultural resources. The Initial Study prepared for the EIR noted that
the Project site is located in an urbanized and developed area of the City of Costa Mesa. The
site was currently developed with an office building and asphalt -paved parking area. Built in
1928, the First United Methodist Church is located adjacent to the .Project site, outside the
southern boundary. According to the Costa Mesa 2000 General Plan, the United Methodist
Church appears to meet the standards for listing in the National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP). No direct and adverse impacts to this existing church were anticipated as a result of
project implementation.
There are no known archaeological or paleontological resources at the Project site. Due to
previous development of a portion of the Project site for office use, the potential for the
[7 discovery of buried archaeological remains on the site is low. The Project involved the
Ll construction of two parking structures. One parking structure serving the attached single-family
residences in the northwest area of the site would have two levels of subterranean parking. In
conjunction with the overall development of the site, the subterranean parking may uncover
ED archaeological and paleontological resources. Although the probability of recovering cultural
resources is expected to be low, mitigation measures would reduce any significant impacts to
below a level of significance.
4.5.2 PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
j l The area proposed for development is located within a highly urban area that was previously
L J analyzed and approved for development as part of FEIR 1050. Based on review of the Project
site, conditions on the 2.46-acre portion of the site proposed for development have not changed
since certification of FEIR 1050. Therefore, the previous determination of "less than significant
,r impact with mitigation" related to cultural resources is still valid, and implementation of the
proposed Project would not create any new impacts to cultural resources assuming
rl implementation of the mitigation measures from FEIR 1050 identified below. No additional
1 ground disturbance would occur beyond what was evaluated and approved in the previous
environmental documents; therefore, the same area would be subject to impacts, and no new
impacts related to cultural resources would occur. Similar to the previous analysis, the, First
United Methodist Church located adjacent to the Project site and outside the southern
boundary, appears to meet the standards for listing in the NRHP. No direct or adverse impacts
to this existing church are anticipated as a result of Project implementation. As a result, the
proposed Project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the
severity of previously identified effects related to cultural resources.
The proposed Project would be consistent with the Project analyzed in FEIR 1050. The
L proposed Project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the
severity of previously identified effects. In regard to Section 15162 of the State CEQA
Guidelines, the proposed Project (1) would not propose substantial changes; (2) would not have
RAProjects\Costa\J0151Hddendum-030612.docx M_ Environmental Analysis
WORKING DRAFT —NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION tr
`_I
Addendum to FEIR 1050
Plaza Residences EIR
circumstantial changes when the Project is undertaken; (3) would bring about no new
information of substantial importance which would (a) create new significant impacts,
(b) increase the severity of previously examined effects, (c) determine that mitigation measures
or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible; or (4) introduce
mitigation measures which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous
documents. For these reasons, there are no major revisions required to the cultural resources
analysis provided in EIR 1050.
Mitigation Program
FEIR 1050's Mitigation Program includes measures to reduce potential impacts associated with
the Plaza Residences Project to less than significant levels. The following measures from FEIR
1050 would also be applicable to the proposed Pacific Gateway Residences Project. Any
modifications to the original measures are shown in strikethre gI for deleted text for new,
inserted text is underlined.
Mitigation Measures
Archaeological Resources
MM 4.5-1 An Orange County -certified archaeologist shall be retained at the expense of the
Project Applicant to attend pre -grade meetings and to monitor earth -moving
activities, including clearing, excavation, and grading of site. The archaeologist
shall carefully inspect the property to assess the potential for significant
prehistoric or historic remains. If a site or resource is uncovered, then a
subsurface evaluation may be needed to assess the resource. Further
subsurface investigation may be needed if the site or resource is determined to
be unique/important for its prehistoric information.
MM 4.5-2 During construction activities, the archaeologist shall have the authority to
temporarily divert or redirect grading to allow time to evaluate any exposed
prehistoric or historic material. In accordance with Public Resources Code
5097.94, if human remains are found, the Orange County coroner must be
notified within 24 hours of the discovery. If the coroner determines that the
remains are not recent, the coroner will notify the Native American Heritage
Commission in Sacramento to determine the most likely descendent for the area.
The designated Native American representative would then determine, in
consultation with the property owner, the disposition of the human remains.
MM 4.5-3 A final survey and monitoring report, including an itemized inventory and
pertinent field data, shall be sent to the property owner and filed with the South
Central Coastal Information Center at the University of California, Fullerton.
MM 4.5-4 Any recovered prehistoric and historic artifacts shall be offered, on a first
right -of -refusal basis, to a repository with a retrievable collection system and an
educational and research interest in the materials such as the Fowler Museum of
Cultural History (UCLA) and California State University, Fullerton.
Paleontological Resources
MM 4.5-5 An Orange County -certified paleontologist shall be retained at the expense of the
Project Applicant to attend pre -grade meetings to discuss the monitoring,
RAPro1ects\Costa\J015Wddendum-030612.docx Environmental Analysis
WORKING DRAFT —NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION 15
Addendum to FEIR 1050
Plaza Residences EIR
collecting, and safety procedures for the Project, and shall supervise the
t monitoring of earthmoving activities, including clearing, excavation, and grading
of site. Particular attention shall be paid to areas of the site where excavations
below three feet would occur. The paleontologist shall carefully inspect these
J_I areas to assess the potential for significant fossil localities. The paleontologist
shall tailor the monitoring schedule to the lithologies present, the rate of fossil
recovery, the numbers of spreads working simultaneously, and the cubic foot
j amounts of rock being excavated or disturbed. Monitoring shall occur under the
supervision of an Orange County -certified paleontologist.
MM 4.5-6 The paleontological monitor shall have the authority to temporarily divert or
redirect grading to allow time to evaluate any exposed fossil material.
r
MM 4.5-7 During monitoring, any scientifically significant specimens shall be properly
salvaged after evaluation by, and under the supervision of, the paleontologist.
Screening of sediments shall routinely be conducted during monitoring under the
supervision of the paleontologist to sample significant small vertebrate remains.
During fossil salvage, contextual stratigraphic data shall also be collected. This
would include lithologic descriptions, localities plotted on a USGS 7.5' Series
topographic quadrangle, photographs, and. field notes.
MM 4.5-8 Specimens shall be prepared to the point of identification, identified, and curated
on a long-term loan basis in a suitable repository that has a retrievable storage
system. Fees for curation shall be the responsibility of the applicant.
MM 4.5-9 A final report shall be prepared at the end of earth moving activities, and shall,
include an itemized inventory of recovered fossils and appropriate stratigraphic
and locality data. This report shall be sent to the City of Costa Mesa to signify the
end of mitigation. Another copy shall accompany any recovered fossils, along
with field logs and photographs, to the designated repository.
4.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
4.6.1 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
FEIR 1050 concluded that, compliance with Uniform Building Code requirements, conditions of
approval, and identified mitigation measures would reduce impacts relative to geology and soils
to a level considered less than significant. The proposed Project was determined to be
consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Costa Mesa 2000 General Plan related
to geology. It was determined that development of the Project site would require the
implementation of standard City development conditions and mitigation measures to reduce
potentially significant impacts to a level considered less than significant. As part of the previous
analysis, several loose, sandy soil deposits were found underlying the Project site which, if
saturated by a perched water table, would have a low potential to liquefy and settle under
conditions such as seismic ground shaking. Proper foundation design would mitigate effects
associated with the potential of near surface soil to compress (settle), collapse, and/or liquefy or
settle during an earthquake. General guidelines are provided in the Leighton and Associates
report (May 2002); it was determined that specific foundation systems and details would be
provided as part of the final geotechnical design report. Foundation recommendations would
also take into account the potential effects of low expansive soils.
R:\Projects\CostaW015\Addendum-030612.docx Environmental Analysis
1- I WORKING DRAFT —NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
L_)
Addendum to FEIR 1050
Plaza Residences EIR
4.6.2 PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Since the certification of FEIR 1050, two additional geotechnical reports have been prepared by
Leighton and Associates (Leighton 2006 and 2011).
Seismic risk at the Project site was comprehensively analyzed as part of the previous
environmental documentation and nothing has changed related to local geologic conditions or
impacts related seismic hazards. The Project site continues to be located in an area that may be
subject to strong ground shaking due to seismic activity anticipated at the site; however, the
Project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (Leighton 2011).
Construction on the 1901 Newport Boulevard site has historically occurred in a manner
consistent with City and State codes and mitigation measures. All future development
associated with the Pacific Gateway Residences Project (the final phase of development on the
1901 Newport Boulevard site) will comply with applicable mitigation measures from FEIR 1050
as detailed below; therefore, impacts related to exposure of people or structures to seismic -
related hazards would be the same for the proposed Project. The proposed Project would not
create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
effects.
Consistent with the previous environmental analysis, surface loading and other stresses can
cause soils to settle. Consistent with FEIR 1050, because the earth materials underlying the site
have relatively low potential to liquefy and settle, estimated settlements would be minimal, causing
no significant adverse impacts. However, because the proposed Project would not involve the
excavation and export of on -site soils to construct a subterranean parking structure, on -site soils
would be subject to remedial removal to provide uniform support and reduce the potential for
differential settlement. The proposed Project would also no longer require construction of
retaining walls or associated subdrains to support the subterranean parking structure (Leighton
2011). Although no specific impacts were previously identified in FEIR 1050 related to the
subterranean parking structure, many of the geotechnical considerations and recommendations
identified in the 2002 and 2006 Leighton and Associates reports are no longer required. Further,
no new impacts have been identified related to the new Project design without a subterranean
parking component.
Due to the nature of the Project and the location of the site within a relatively flat and developed
area, the proposed Project is not anticipated to result in substantial erosion or loss of topsoil.
Furthermore, construction activities would be performed pursuant to the current National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements. No additional ground
disturbance beyond what was previously evaluated in FEIR 1050 would occur. The proposed
Project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of
previously identified effects.
As with the previously analyzed and approved Project, the proposed Project would not involve
the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems.
The proposed Project would be consistent with the Project analyzed in FEIR 1050. The
proposed Project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the
severity of previously identified effects. In regard to Section 15162 of the State CEQA
Guidelines, the proposed Project (1) would not propose substantial changes; (2) would not have
circumstantial changes when the Project is undertaken; (3) would bring about no new
information of substantial importance which would (a) create new significant impacts,
(b) increase the severity of previously examined effects, (c) determine that mitigation measures
or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible; or (4) introduce
R:\Projects\Costa\J015Wddendum-030612.docx Environmental Analysis
WORKING DRAFT —NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION ,I
Addendum to FOR 1050
Plaza Residences E1R
mitigation measures which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous
documents. For these reasons, there are no major revisions required to the geology and soils
analysis provided in FEIR 1050.
-,
L] Mitigation Program
r-1 FEIR 1050's Vitigation Program includes measures to reduce potential impacts associated with
l the Plaza Residences Project to less than significant levels. The following measures from FEIR
1050 would also be applicable to the proposed Pacific Gateway Residences Project. Any
modifications to the original measures are shown in strikethreugI for deleted text for new,
( inserted text is underlined.
r_ Standard Conditions and Requirements
SC 4.6-1 Compliance with URifGFM California Building Code provisions and standard
subdivision engineering requirements, as specified in the City's conditions of
approval, will satisfactorily address geotechnical issues related to seismic
hazards.
SC 4.6-2 The Plaza Residences development shall be designed to comply with all
applicable geological and seismic safety requirements of the ►R California
Building Code and mitigation as defined in the Public Resources Code Section
2693(c). Verification of such compliance will be confirmed during the City's plan
review and building permit issuance processes.
SC 4.6-3 Grading and foundation plans, including foundation loads, shall be reviewed by a
D registered soils engineer and approved by the City of Costa Mesa Building Safety
Division.
(-� SC 4.6-4 All grading and earthwork shall be performed under the observation of a
(� registered geotechnical engineer and engineering geologist in accordance with
the recommendations contained within the Leighton and Associates fepo#
reports. dated October 2. 2006 and May 24. 2011. and in accordance with the
General Earthwork and Grading Specifications included in the report reports by
Leighton and Associates. In order to achieve proper sub -grade preparation,
-1 selection of satisfactory materials, and placement and compaction of all structural
fill.
SC 4.6-5 All grading shall be accomplished under the observation and testing of the
project geotechnical engineer, the engineering geologist and their
representatives.
SC 4.6-6 Prior to approval of each grading plan by the City of Costa Mesa, the property
owner/developer shall submit a soils and geological report for the area to be
graded, based on proposed grading and prepared by registered soils engineer
and approved by the City of Costa Mesa Building Safety Division.
SC 4.6-7 Prior to issuance of each building permit by the City of Costa Mesa, the property
- owner/developer shall submit for review and approval by the City of Costa Mesa
�, Building Safety Division, a detailed foundation design information for the subject
building(s), prepared by a registered civil engineer, based on recommendations
J by a geotechnical engineer.
R:\Projects\Costa\J015\Addendum-030612.docx Environmental Analysis
j-1 WORKING DRAFT —NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
l _J
Addendum to FEIR 1050
Plaza Residences E1R
SC 4.6-8 Prior to issuance of each building permit by the City of Costa Mesa, the property
owner/ developer shall submit plans showing that the proposed structure has
been analyzed by a registered civil engineer for earthquake loading and
designed according to the most recent seismic standards in the WRiform
California Building Code adopted by the City of Costa Mesa.
SC 4.6-9 Additional geotechnical review of plans shall be performed upon completion of
the following: Grading and Precise Grading Plans; Foundation Plans; and
Shoring Plans.
SC 4.6-10 Geotechnical observation and testing shall be conducted during the following
stages:
— Upon completion of clearing and grubbing.
— During all phases of grading, including removals, fill operations, over
excavation, temporary slope excavation, and installation of shoring and
dewatering systems.
During fill placement.
— When any unusual conditions are encountered.
— During subdrain construction.
IlUriRg fill nlanemen+
When any ui:i s al nnnrl ifinnc+ are enn96 mtered d irinn gFadSng
SC 4.6-10 Concrete, in contact with the on -site earth materials, shall be designed in
accordance with the negligible category for exposure to sulfate containing
solutions e€Table 19-A-4 of the 4997 Uniform California Building Code.
Mitigation Measures
MM 4.6-1 Should dewatering be required for the discharge of perched groundwater during
excavation for site improvements, the applicant shall acquire either a National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for the discharge of
wastes to surface waters or a Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) permit for
the discharge of wastes to land, as required, from the Santa Ana Regional Water
Quality Control Board and provide evidence of permit issuance to the Costa
Mesa Building Safety Division prior to initiating any such discharge.
4.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
4.7.1 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
FEIR 1050 did not address greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
4.7.2 PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed Project was a component of a larger Project that was approved based on
previously certified FEIR 1050, which was certified on January 20, 2004. At the time of
certification of the FEIR for the Plaza Residences Project, GHG emissions were not part of the
required CEQA analysis. Effective March 18, 2010, the State adopted amendments to the State
CEQA Guidelines requiring the analysis and mitigation of the effects of GHG emissions in draft
RAProjects\Costa\J015\Addendum-030612.docx SIG Environmental Analysis
WORKING DRAFT —NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION I I
Addendum to FEIR 1050
Plaza Residences EIR
CEQA documents. The State CEQA Guidelines regarding GHG emissions do not specifically
address situations involving subsequent, implementation actions for a project with a previously
J certified EIR.
GHG emissions and global climate change is not "new information" since these effects have
been generally known for quite some time. Therefore, for this Project, this would not be
considered new information under Section 21166 of CEQA, for which a climate change analysis
L_ is required. The proposed Project is simply implementing a component of the originally
approved Project and would not allow for any new development or uses beyond that previously
authorized.
A June 2010 decision by the Fourth District of the California Court of Appeals also instructs and
r confirms that, after an initial EIR is certified, CEQA establishes a presumption against additional
environmental review (San Diego Navy Broadway Complex Coalition v. City of San Diego). In
that case, the court, held that the City of San Diego was not required to prepare a subsequent or
supplemental EIR (SEIR) regarding the potential impact of a redevelopment project on global
n climate change because the City action did not constitute a discretionary approval that would
1 provide it with the authority to address the project's impact on that environmental issue.
Opponents of the project had argued that an SEIR was required to address the project's GHG
emissions because that issue had not been examined in the project's previously certified EIR.
The court in the Navy Broadway Complex case determined that the key question was whether
�- the City had the remaining authority to shape the project in any way that could respond to the
concerns that might be identified in an SEIR (i.e., would it have the authority to require the
project proponent to mitigate the environmental damage to some degree). The court ultimately
found that the scope of the City's remaining authority, which was principally related to an
aesthetic issue, did not extend to potential impacts on global climate change; that is, the City did
not have the authority to modify the project in order to reduce its impact on global climate
r change.
The circumstances related to the proposed Project are similar to those presented in the Navy
Broadway Complex case in that the City has limited discretion with regard to subsequent
approvals. Pursuant to the SEIR Regulations, the City of Costa Mesa's discretion with regard to
additional environmental review is limited to determining whether any of the three triggering
conditions set forth in the SEIR Regulations have occurred.
Since the first and second conditions have not occurred (i.e., that the Project proponent is not
requesting substantial changes to the approved Project and that there have not been substantial
changes in circumstances such that new or more severe environmental impacts will occur
requiring major revisions to the Plaza Residences FEIR), the issue is simply whether GHG
emissions constitute "new information" under the SEIR Regulations. As noted above, a factual
finding is made by the City of Costa Mesa that such emissions do not constitute new
information. Therefore, no further analysis of this topic is required.
4.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
4.8.1 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
I FEIR 1050 did not address hazardous materials. The Initial Study prepared for the EIR
l' determined that the proposed Project would not be expected to generate hazardous materials;
the site has not been historically used for dumping hazardous materials. The existing and
historic uses of the proposed Project site would not be expected to result in contamination of the
RAProjects\Costa\J016\Addendum-030612.dou '47O Environmental Analysis
WORKING DRAFT —NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
�1J
Addendum to FOR 1050
Plaza Residences EIR
underlying soils. Additionally, it was determined that the proposed Project site is not located
within the vicinity of an airport or a private airstrip, nor is it located within an area susceptible to
wildland fires. Proposed actions were determined not to interfere with any known emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan. No impacts related to this environmental topic
were anticipated as a result of Project implementation, and no mitigation measures were
identified.
4.8.2 PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed Project would construct 113 residential units over a 2.46-acre area, thereby
completing the final phase of development on the 7.79-acre 1901 Newport Project site. The
area proposed for development is located within the same Project site analyzed and approved
for development as part of FEIR 1050. Based on review of the Project site, conditions and uses
on the 2.46-acre portion of the site proposed for development have not changed since
certification of FEIR 1050. Consistent with the previous findings, the existing and historic uses of
the Project site are not expected to result in contamination of the underlying soils. Therefore, the
previous determination of "no impact" related to hazards and hazardous materials is still valid,
and implementation of the proposed Project would not create any new impacts related to
hazards or hazardous materials.
The proposed Project would be consistent with the Project as analyzed in FEIR 1050. The
proposed Project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the
severity of previously identified effects. In regard to Section 15162 of the State CEQA
Guidelines, the proposed Project (1) would not propose substantial changes; (2) would not have
circumstantial changes when the Project is undertaken; and (3) would bring about no new
information of substantial importance which would (a) create new significant impacts,
(b) increase the severity of previously examined effects, (c) determine that mitigation measures
or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible; or (4) introduce
mitigation measures which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous
documents. For these reasons, there are no major revisions required to the hazards and
hazardous materials analysis provided in FEIR 1050.
4.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
4.9.1 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
FEIR 1050 concluded that compliance with the identified standard conditions would reduce
water quality impacts to below a level of significance. The Project Applicant would be
responsible for obtaining coverage for the Project under the California General Construction
Activity Storm Water permit and complying with the requirements of the permit. The existing
storm drain system is sufficient to collect proposed on -site flows. No significant impacts related
to hydrology were anticipated. Due to a similar amount of impermeable surfaces associated with
pre- and post -development conditions, the volume and rate of runoff from the site would remain
consistent and was not considered a significant effect. The Project Applicant would file a Notice
of Intent with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), Santa Ana Region,
demonstrating compliance with the County of Orange Drainage Area Master Plan (DAMP). The
Mesa Consolidated Water District prepared a Water System Master Plan in 2000. The Water
System Master Plan identifies necessary water supplies during normal, single -dry, and multiple -
dry years in its 20-year projection period. The proposed Plaza Residences Project's water
demand could be provided by the Mesa Consolidated Water District and is consistent with the
Water District's Urban Water Management Plan.
R:\ProJects\Costa\J015\Addendum-030612.docx Environmental Analysis
WORKING DRAFT —NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION i .
Addendum to FEIR 1050
Plaza Residences E1R
1� According to the Initial Study prepared for EIR 1050, the proposed Project site is located in
I Flood Zone X, an area determined to be outside a 500-year flood zone (FIRM Map No.
06059C0054F, June 14, 2000). Project site hydrology would not be significantly altered through
Project construction. At the time of FEIR 1050 preparation, the proposed Project site existed
_. largely as an impervious surface and, under the proposed actions, was to remain as an
impervious surface; therefore, on -site flows remained the same. Under this assumption, it was
assumed that the existing storm drain system would be sufficient to collect proposed onsite
flows. No impacts related to this environmental topic were anticipated, and no mitigation
measures were required.
4.9.2 PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Project area is considered urbanized and would have similar impacts to groundwater and
I l surface hydrology assumed in FEIR 1050. The area proposed for development would be
consistent with what was previously assumed for development; therefore, implementation of the
proposed Project would not significantly increase impervious surfaces beyond existing
I conditions. According to the Conceptual County of Orange/Santa Ana Region Priority Project
1 Waster Quality Management Plan (WQMP) prepared for the Project by Alliance Land Planning
& Engineering, Inc. (Alliance 2011), under existing conditions, the Project site is approximately
85 percent impervious and storm flows enter City storm drain facilities located in Bernard Street
[_] and Harbor Boulevard. Development of the proposed Project would reduce impervious surfaces
to 80 percent, thereby reducing the volume of storm flows from the Project site. Under 100-year
storm conditions, storm water runoff from the project site would be reduced from 10.7 cubic feet
L.J
per second (cfs) to 8.9 cfs. The proposed drainage system, as analyzed in the previous
environmental document, would not be altered with implementation of the proposed Project
beyond -what was evaluated in FEIR 1050. As part of the Project, storm water would be routed
to the existing storm drain facilities, where storm flows would be filtered through one of three
bio-filtration basins prior to entering the storm drain. The WQMP identifies applicable structural
and non-structural source control best management practices (BMPs) to prevent pollutants from
exiting the Project site and impacting receiving waters (Alliance 2011). Continued compliance
\- with identified standard conditions related to national pollutant discharge elimination system
_ (NPDES) permit requirements and best management practices (BMP) would reduce impacts to
groundwater, surface hydrology, and water quality to less than significant levels.
Development of the proposed Project in addition to the existing 32-unit condominium
( development would not exceed the number of units analyzed in FEIR 1050, therefore, the
i� Project would not increase the demand for water supply beyond what was previously identified
and evaluated. No additional demand for groundwater supplies to satisfy the demand for
domestic water would be needed. No impacts related to groundwater levels would occur.
Additionally, due to the presence of perched groundwater, the project would not include
infiltration BMPs (Alliance 2011).
As a result, the proposed Project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial
increase in the severity of previously identified effects related to groundwater, surface
hydrology, and water quality.
Consistent with the findings of FEIR 1050, the proposed Project site is located within Flood
Zone X, which is outside the 100-year and 500-year floodplains (FEMA 2010). Therefore,
because the Project site is in the same location, a new significant impact or a substantial
increase in the severity of previously identified effects would not be created in relation to the
flood hazard area from the proposed Project.
R:\Projects\Costa\J015\Addendum-030612.doox �(5a Environmental Analysis
l
WORKING DRAFT —NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION f1
i _J
Addendum to FEIR 1050
Plaza Residences EIR
The nearest water bodies are the Upper Newport Bay, located approximately 1.4 miles east of
the Project site, and the Santa Ana River Channel, located approximately 2 miles west of the
site. Due to the development that exists between these water bodies and the Project site, the
potential for inundation by seiche is low and does not represent a significant impact.
Additionally, the site is located within a developed area with limited topography and limited
exposed soil that would be subject to erosion; therefore, the Project site would not be subject to
mudflow. As a result, the proposed Project would not create a new significant impact or a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects.
The proposed Project would be consistent with the Project as analyzed in FEIR 1050. The
proposed Project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the
severity of previously identified effects. In regard to Section 15162 of the State CEQA
Guidelines, the proposed Project (1) would not propose substantial changes; (2) would not have
circumstantial changes when the Project is undertaken; and (3) would bring about no new
information of substantial importance which would (a) create new significant impacts,
(b) increase the severity of previously examined effects, (c) determine that mitigation measures
or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible; or (4) introduce
mitigation measures which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous
documents. For these reasons, there are no major revisions required to the hydrology and water
quality analysis provided in the FEIR 1050.
Mitigation Program
FEIR 1050's Mitigation Program includes measures to reduce potential impacts associated with
the Plaza Residences Project to less than significant levels. The following measures from FEIR
1050 would also be applicable to the proposed Pacific Gateway Residences Project. Any
modifications to the original measures are shown in stFikethm gI for deleted text for new,
inserted text is underlined.
Standard Conditions and Requirements
SC 4.9-1 Construction of structural and non-structural BMPs as required by the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit issued to the project site
by the County of Orange/City of Costa Mesa to capture urban runoff
contaminants from developed areas prior to discharge to on -site storm drain
facilities.
SC 4.9-2 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall develop a Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that contains structural and non-structural
BMPs that comply with NPDES Program requirements. BMPs shall be
implemented as required by the NPDES Permit issued to the site.
SC 4.9-3 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall obtain an NPDES Permit
from the County of Orange. Applicable BMP provisions shall be incorporated into
the NPDES Permit.
4.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING
4.10.1 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The originally approved Project required an amendment to General Plan Land Use Element.
The designation of Commercial Center was amended to allow residential uses at a site -specific
RAProjects\Costa\J015\Addendum-030612.docx Qeq Environmental Analysis
WORKING DRAFT —NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION o
[ Addendum to FEIR 1050
Plaza Residences EIR
l ' density of 40 units per acre and site -specific of 0.70 floor -to -area ratio (FAR). An amendment to
the Zoning Code consistent with the proposed General Plan land use designations was also
�l J required.
The Project required a site -specific amendment to the Land Use Element to allow for
development of the five -level parking structure, which exceeds the allowable four-story limit for
rl sites south of the San Diego Freeway. A minor modification for the 4-foot encroachment of
balconies and patio areas into the 20-foot setback along Bernard Street was also required.
Development of the Project site with residential uses was determined to be consistent with the
I� redevelopment concept for the Downtown Redevelopment Plan. It was determined that the
Project would integrate residential uses with surrounding service and retail development. In
order to provide zoning consistent with the proposed General Plan land use designations, the
existing provisions of the Planned Development Commercial (PDC) designation were amended
to allow the proposed site -specific residential density and FAR. The zoning designation was
amended on a site -specific basis to accommodate the proposed high -density residential uses
(40 du/ac) and site -specific FAR of 0.70. Therefore, no adverse impacts were anticipated. With
n the approval of a General Plan Amendment and Zoning Code Amendment, the Project was
determined to conform with land use planning documents and programs. FEIR 1050 concluded
that the Project would not result in significant land use impacts and no mitigation measures are
r required.
4.10.2 PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
As discussed previously in Section 1.0, the scope of the Pacific Gateway Residences Project is
consistent with the concept presented in FEIR 1050, both in terms of land use and development
density. FEIR 1050 provides for development of 7.79 acres in the City of Costa Mesa to be
developed with the 1901 Newport Plaza office/commercial building; 145 residential
condominiums; a 2-level, subterranean parking structure; and a 5-level, above -grade parking
structure. Under existing conditions, the 7.79-acre site is partially developed with the 1901
�JNewport Plaza office/commercial building, 32 condominium units, and the 5-level parking
J structure. The proposed Pacific Gateway Residences Project would construct the remaining
dwelling units as 113 residential units, which would be substantially similar to the residential
units analyzed and approved as part of FEIR 1050. Development of a four-story, above -ground
parking structure is proposed instead of the previously approved two -level subterranean
structure. Although this modification would not constitute a new land use because parking was
�ll included as part of the originally proposed Project, the proposed parking structure would now be
JI a visible component of the project. Visual impacts associated with the structure have been
previously addressed in Section 4.1, Aesthetics. As discussed, the proposed parking structure
l would be visually compatible with the adjacent church and other development (existing and
proposed) on the 1901 Newport site. Therefore, no land use compatibility impacts would occur.
Adherence to the standard condition from FEIR 1050, identified below, would ensure that no
- new impacts related to land use would occur. The Planning Commission will be the final
approval authority for the Master Plan amendment and Addendum to the EIR.
The proposed Project would be consistent with the Project as analyzed in FEIR 1050. The
proposed Project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the
severity of previously identified effects. In regard to Section 15162 of the State CEQA
Guidelines, the proposed Project (1) would not propose substantial changes; (2) would not have
circumstantial changes when the Project is undertaken; and (3) would bring about no new
information of substantial importance which would (a) create new significant impacts,
(b) increase the severity of previously examined effects, (c) determine that mitigation measures
ror alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible; or (4) introduce
R:1Projects\Costa%J015Mdendum-030612.docx I ' Environmental Analysis
.I WORKING DRAFT —NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION k
I�
;J
Addendum to FEIR 1050
Plaza Residences EIR
mitigation measures which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous
documents. For these reasons, there are no major revisions required to the land use and
planning analysis provided in FEIR 1050.
Mitigation Program
FEIR 1050's Mitigation Program includes measures to reduce potential impacts associated with
the Plaza Residences Project to less than significant levels. The following measures from FEIR
1050 would also be applicable to the proposed Pacific Gateway Residences Project. Any
modifications to the original measures are shown in strikethreug4 for deleted text for new,
inserted text is underlined.
Standard Conditions and Requirements
SC 4.10-1 The proposed project would be subject to all applicable regulation of the City's
General Plan, zoning ordinance, and all requirements and enhancements of
federal, county, and city authorities, and any other governmental entities, and all
such requirements and enactments would, by reference, become conditions of
project implementation.
4.11 MINERAL RESOURCES
4.11.1 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
FEIR 1050 did not address mineral resources. The Initial Study prepared for the EIR identified
that the site is not classified as an area with locally important or known mineral resources
according to the California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey
(previously Department of Mines and Geology). No impacts related to this environmental topic
were anticipated as a result of Project implementation, and no mitigation was required.
4.11.2 PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed Project would construct 113 residential units on 2.46 acres, thereby completing
the final phase of development on the 7.79-acre 1901 Newport Project site. The area proposed
for development is located within the same Project site analyzed and approved for development
as part of FEIR 1050. Based on review of the Project site, conditions and uses on the 2.46-acre
portion of the site proposed for development have not changed since certification of FEIR 1050;
therefore, development of the Pacific Gateway Residences would not result in impacts to
mineral resources.
The proposed Project would be consistent with the Project analyzed in FEIR 1050. The
proposed Project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the
severity of previously identified effects. In regard to Section 15162 of the State CEQA
Guidelines, the proposed Project (1) would not propose substantial changes; (2) would not have
circumstantial changes when the Project is undertaken; and (3) would bring about no new
information of substantial importance which would (a) create new significant impacts,
(b) increase the severity of previously examined effects, (c) determine that mitigation measures
or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible; or (4) introduce
mitigation measures which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous
documents. For these reasons, there are no major revisions required to the mineral resources
analysis provided in FEIR 1050.
R:\Projects\Costa\J015�Addendum-030612.dccx Environmental Analysis
7=
WORKING DRAFT —NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION v)
Addendum to FEIR 1050
Plaza Residences EIR
4.12 NOISE
4.12.1 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
FEIR 1050 concluded that implementation of standard City requirements and recommended
mitigation measures would reduce noise impacts to a level that considered less than significant.
�lFor short periods of time, grading equipment could operate directly across Bernard Street from
the residences along the northern property line and generate significant noise levels.
n Implementation of standard City requirements and recommended mitigation would reduce noise
nimpacts to a level that is considered less than significant.
FEIR 1050 determined that normal operational activities of the Project would not result in noise
(� impacts to off -site land uses.
According to FEIR 1050, two portions of the Project's residential component would be exposed
n to traffic noise levels in excess of 65 dBA on the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL):
adjacent to the corner of Bernard Street at Harbor Boulevard on the northwestern corner of the
Project site and on the east side of the site adjacent to the 5-level parking structure.
Further, outdoor living areas south of Bernard Street and across from the Toyota automobile
dealership would be exposed to noise levels of approximately 75 dBA from delivery trucks
during the nighttime hours. Interior and outdoor living areas adjacent to the parking area located
behind the retail center adjacent to Harbor Boulevard would be exposed to outdoor noise levels
of 81 dBA and interior noise levels of 58 dBA during nighttime hours.
Implementation of standard City requirements and recommended. mitigation would reduce noise
i L-D impacts to a level that is considered less than significant.
4.12.2 PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Long-term Off -site Impacts: Impacts on Surrounding Land Uses
Project Site Activities. The Project proposes development of residential uses and associated
parking facilities. The closest off -site noise -sensitive land uses are the residences northeast of
the Project site and the church adjacent to the Project site's southern property line. As stated in
FEIR 1050, residential uses typically do not generate noise levels that would adversely affect
any nearby noise -sensitive land uses.
j l The parking structure is proposed adjacent to the off -site First United Methodist Church, Noise
J sources associated with parking structures can include tire squeal, slamming doors, and engine
starts. Because the proposed structure would be limited to residential use, there would be less
traffic than in a typical parking structure serving commercial uses. Most activity in the parking
structure would occur on weekday mornings and evenings. MM 4.12-1 requires an acoustical
study to be approved by the City demonstrating that all feasible sound attenuation measures
-� have been incorporated into the parking structure design. Therefore, noise generated by
residential and parking uses on the Project site would not result in a significant noise impact.
Traffic Noise. FEIR 1050 demonstrated that the noise increase from Project traffic added to
Harbor Boulevard, Newport Boulevard, 19th Street, and State Route (SR) 73 would be negligible
(i.e. 0.0 to 0.1 dBA. The noise increase would be less than the 3 dBA threshold of significance
and would not be audible. There would be no change to that analysis and conclusion for the
proposed Project. The impact would be less than significant.
RAP rojects\Costa1J015Wddendum-030612Aocx Environmental Analysis
l WORKING DRAFT —NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
I'� .1
Addendum to FEIR 1050
Plaza Residences EIR
The above analysis shows that the proposed Project would not cause a substantial permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project.
There would be no new impacts and no additional mitigation is required.
Long -Term On -Site Impacts
As stated in FEIR 1050, the primary source of noise at the Project site is traffic on Harbor
Boulevard and, to a lesser degree, Newport Boulevard and 19t" Street. Additionally, the Toyota
dealership and the off -site parking lot of the retail center located west of the site could all
generate noise levels that would impact proposed residents. Table 9 identifies noise
measurement data from the Project site, taken on January 12, 2012, between 3:00 and
4:30 PM. The average noise level (Leq) on the site near Harbor Boulevard was 64 dBA Leq. The
noise level was 55 dBA Leq adjacent to Bernard Street, approximately 350 feet from Harbor
Boulevard and 51 dBA Leq at the southwestern corner of the Project site. Typically, CNEL noise
levels in urban areas are 2 to 3 dBA greater than average daytime noise levels. Therefore, it is
estimated that existing noise levels on the Project site near Harbor Boulevard are 66 to 67 dBA
CNEL.
TABLE 9
NOISE MEASUREMENT DATA
Leq
Lmin
Lmax
Site
Location
Time
(dBA)
(dBA)
(dBA)
Notes
Primary source:
Project site: 50 ft south of
3:23 3:43
Toyota property. 7
1
Bernard St, approx 350 ft
PM
55
46
71
cars passed on
east of Harbor Blvd
Bernard St. Lmax
from car horn.
Project site: Northwest corner
Primary source:
2
at the Harbor Blvd/ Bernard
3:47PM-4:07
64
52
81
Harbor Blvd. Lmax
St intersection, approximately
PM
from bus.
50 ft east of Harbor Blvd.
Project site: Southwest
4:10PM-4:30
Noise from strip
3
corner behind strip retail and
PM
51
47
59
mall and church
church
I
I
I
I bell/clock.
Leq: average noise level; dBA: A -weighted decibels;
Lmin: minimum noise level;
Lmax: maximum noise level.
The FEIR 1050 noise analysis and FEIR Exhibit 3.7-4 showed that the portion of the Project's
residential component adjacent to the corner of Bernard Street at Harbor Boulevard on the
northwestern corner of the Project site would be exposed to traffic noise in excess of 65 dBA
CNEL, and conventional construction may not provide sufficient noise attenuation to meet
interior noise standards. MM 4.12-2 requires an acoustical study to demonstrate that the
building design will include noise attenuation that will provide interior noise levels not exceeding
45 dBA CNEL in compliance with Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations (also known as
the California Building Standards Code) and the City of Costa Mesa Noise Ordinance. It is noted
that the residential units in the proposed Project would have air conditioning, which is required
by the State code when closed windows are required to meet the interior noise standard.
The FEIR 1050 noise analysis showed that residential units facing Bernard Street and the retail
store area west of the site may be subject to noise from truck or car passbys and parking lot
noises such as door slams, car alarm activations, and engine startups. These short noise
events could exceed the Noise Ordinance maximum noise (Lmax) limits of 70 dBA Lmax in the
daytime and 55 dBA Lmax in the nighttime. However, Section 13-280(d)(1) of the Costa Mesa
RAProjects\Costa\J01 SAddendum-0 30612. docx Environmental Analysis
WORKING DRAFT —NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Addendum to FEIR 1050
Plaza Residences EIR
Zoning Code states that the exterior noise standards shall not apply to private balconies or
patios of a multi -family development, regardless of size. Further, the existing block wall
separating the proposed Project site and the existing retail center along Harbor Boulevard would
n attenuate some of this noise. Therefore, no impact would occur.
L Portions of the eastern and northern sides of the proposed parking structure would be located
adjacent to proposed residential units. Garage noise has the potential to exceed the State and
City interior noise standard. As discussed above, MM 4.12-2 requires an acoustical study to
demonstrate that the building design will include noise attenuation to provide interior noise
F— levels that do not exceed 45 dBA CNEL in compliance with the State and City standards.
Title 13, Section 13-280(d) and (e), Exterior Noise Standards, of the Costa Mesa Zoning Code
indicates that exterior noise standards shall not apply to "private balconies or patios regardless
of size" of multifamily residential development located within the Mixed -Use Overlay District and
North Costa Mesa Specific Plan area.
n The intent of this exemption is to recognize the outdoor noise environment of mixed -use
development with residential uses located adjacent to commercial uses in particular. To
promote mixed -use development and acknowledge the unique nature of these uses, this
(1 exemption would exclude private balconies or patios as being identified as a noise sensitive
J area for purposes of noise attenuation. Given that the proposed project is a mixed -use
development, the exterior noise standards will not be required for private balconies or patios.
The above analyses and the incorporation of MMs 4.12-1 through 4.12-3 demonstrate that the
proposed Project would not cause exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in
excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies. There would be no new impacts and no additional mitigation is
required.
Short-term Impacts
J The site preparation phase (which includes excavation and grading) tends to generate the
highest noise levels because the noisiest construction equipment is earthmoving equipment.
Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment ma involve 1-2 minutes of
IL YP p g Y YPY
full -power operation followed by 3-4 minutes at lower -power settings.
The nearest sensitive receptors are the current residences at Pacifica Condominiums located
immediately to the east of the project site. Construction noise is exempt from the City Noise
Ordinance if construction occurs during the specified allowable hours. Given compliance with
the construction hours specified in the City's Noise Ordinance, construction noise impacts are
considered less than significant.
ll Construction noise impacts to the existing residences on the north side of Bernard Street would
be similar to or less than described in FEIR 1050 because the construction on the Project site
closest to those residences has been completed. Further, the completed condominium buildings
(� on the Project site would provide a physical barrier between the proposed Project site and the
existing residences along Bernard Street and would attenuate some of the construction noise.
Construction noise would not exceed City noise standards because the Project construction
would occur between the hours of 7:00 AM and 8:00 PM, and construction during those hours is
\ exempt from the limits of the Noise Ordinance. Additionally, construction of the Project would
require the use of heavy construction trucks, which would use local roadways as access to the
Project site. However, construction activities related to the proposed Project site would not
R:\Projects\Costa\J015\Addendum-030612.docx Q Environmental Analysis
-, WORKING DRAFT —NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
I�_J
Addendum to FEIR 1050
Plaza Residences EIR
generate enough heavy truck traffic to create significant noise increases along the roadways in
the Project vicinity. Further, as described in Section 4.16, Transportation and Traffic, heavy
truck traffic through residential areas is to be minimized. No significant impacts related to
construction traffic noise would occur.
The above analysis demonstrates that the proposed Project would not cause exposure of
persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general
plan or Noise Ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies, nor would it cause a
substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above
levels existing without the Project. There would be no new impacts and no additional mitigation
is required.
The proposed Project would be consistent with the Project as analyzed in FEIR 1050. The
proposed Project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the
severity of previously identified effects. In regard to Section 15162 of the State CEQA
Guidelines, the proposed Project (1) would not propose substantial changes; (2) would not have
circumstantial changes when the Project is undertaken; and (3) would bring about no new
information of substantial importance which would (a) create new significant impacts,
(b) increase the severity of previously examined effects, (c) determine that mitigation measures
or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible; or (4) introduce
mitigation measures which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous
documents. For these reasons, there are no major revisions required to the noise analysis
provided in FEIR 1050.
Mitigation Program
FEIR 1050's Mitigation Program includes measures to reduce potential impacts associated with
the Plaza Residences Project to less than significant levels. The following measures from FEIR
1050 would also be applicable to the proposed Pacific Gateway Residences Project. Any
modifications to the original measures are shown in stFikethreu@Ih for deleted text for new,
inserted text is underlined.
Standard Conditions and Requirements
SC 4.12-1 The City of Costa Mesa has adopted a Noise Ordinance that excludes control of
construction activities during the hours between 7 AM and 9 7 PM Mondays
through Fridays. 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM on Saturdays. Construction activities are
prohibited on Sunday and federal holidays. All noise generating construction
activities `^'ithiR 500 foot of ressideRtiai areas should be limited to these hours.
SC 4.12-2 All activities on the project site are required to comply with the City of Costa
Mesa Noise Ordinance standards.
Mitigation Measures
MM 4.12-1 The Project Applicant shall submit detailed plans for at4 the parking structures
prior to the issuance of a building permit for the residential structures. Said plans
shall be accompanied by an acoustical study prepared by a qualified acoustical
City -approved expert to the satisfaction of the City of Costa Mesa Planning
Division. The acoustical study shall demonstrate that all feasible sound
attenuation in compliance with Costa Mesa Municipal Code (Chapter XIII Noise
Control) has been incorporated into parking structure design, including but not
R:\Projects\Co sta\J015\Addendum-030612.docx I Environmental Analysis
WORKING DRAFT —NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Addendum to FEIR 1050
Plaza Residences EIR
limited to brushed driving surfaces (textured), limited openings oriented toward
sensitive noise sources, etc.
n MM 4.12-2 Prior to the issuance of building permits for residential development, a detailed
L interior acoustical engineering study shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical
engineer and submitted to the City of Costa Mesa to demonstrate compliance
with the City of Costa Mesa and California Code of Regulations Title 24 interior
l l noise requirements. In addition, the acoustical engineering report shall also
demonstrate compliance with the Costa Mesa Noise Ordinance interior noise
standards for the residences significantly impacted by parking lot noise.
Preliminary calculations show that the standards will be achievable with
mechanical ventilation to allow windows to remain closed and, potentially,
upgraded windows. The acoustical engineering report shall specify any upgrades
1 to the standard construction required to meet such standards. The acoustical
i
engineering study shall be prepared under the supervision of a person
experienced in the field of acoustical engineering. The acoustical engineering
study including calculations shall be submitted to the City of Costa Mesa prior to
the issuance of a building permit. The applicant shall implement the
recommendations of the acoustical engineering study into the Project plans prior
to the issuance of a building permit.
17
MM 4.12-3 Prior to the issuance of precise grading permits for the residential development, a
@Ge iStigal engineer anri the Applicant shall submitted final proiect plans to the
l J City of Costa Mesa t^ d�rrm,;ne showing the final heights and locations of noise
barriers ;
-Ct
required to meet the City's noise standards for exterior private residential
Beth living areas. Lttt"-i's 65-- 5 GNELexterinr noise standard onrl the Gesta
Mesa_ Noise Orrlinanoe (MURiginal Code Chapter All h�oiseCeRtrol) standards
Exhibit 2-7 4. Exhibits 12 shows preliminary locations aed
heights Gf harriers that will be required to meet the standards based on
�.� preliminary calculations, including a minimum 6-foot high patiLwall and 5-foot-
high balcony enclosures (as applicable) along Bernard Street and Harbor
Sh
Boulevard. The,,, �t+soIr-e�-9iReeFITrg-s `� All f T� these harrier heights
�- i h 'ci-rc^-rvattt7r'rr.Srcaaed ^vr�-presTrve grading and final building nl�n�. To be effective,
noise barriers will be required to have a surface density of at least 3.5 pounds
per square foot, and have no openings or cracks. They may be a solid wall, an
earthern berm, or a combination of the two. They may be constructed of wood
J studs with stucco exterior, any masonry material, or a material that is less
visually intrusive such as 1/4-inch plate glass or 5/8-inch plexiglass. The
aGE)Usttis^la,—engirTeera stUdy, iRdudin^ GaI^Ylati final site plans shall be
submitted to the City of Costa Mesa prior to the issuance of a precise grading
Ppermit. The nligant shall imnlemeRtt the FeG0rRrnenrdatiE)R5 elf the anneal
�p,roa�,��, r�„r�„,p.�r, ��
_F ZJ __. i lgstudy inte the nr_�r oojeot'S n_� laa.n? nri�ier—te the issuance of a nreoice
L
-1
I
U
RAProjects\Costa\J015Addendum-030612.docx v Environmental Analysis
WORKING DRAFT —NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
J
Addendum to FEIR 1050
Plaza Residences EIR
4.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING
4.13.1 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Project amended the General Plan and Zoning Code to create a site -specific FAR and
density to accommodate a greater density than that currently specified for the area. With
implementation of the proposed Project, 161 residential units would be developed on the Project
site. Assuming 2.2 persons per household, the Project would generate approximately 355 new
residents.4 This anticipated population growth is not considered to be significant because it
represents an incremental increase over current General Plan projections. It would serve to
improve the City's job/housing imbalance.
4.13.2 PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
As discussed previously in Section 1.0, the scope of the Pacific Gateway Residences Project is
consistent with the concept presented in FEIR 1050, both in terms of land use and development
density. FEIR 1050 provides for development of 7.79 acres in the City of Costa Mesa to be
developed with the 1901 Newport Plaza office/commercial building; 145 residential
condominiums; a 2-level, subterranean parking structure; and a 5-level, above -grade parking
structure. Under existing conditions, the 7.79-acre site is partially developed with the 1901
Newport Plaza office/commercial building, 32 condominium units, and the parking structure. The
proposed Pacific Gateway Residences Project would construct the remaining dwelling units as
113 residential units, which would be similar to the residential units analyzed and approved as
part of FEIR 1050 and would result in the same number of overall dwelling units (145 units).
Based on the population figure used for FEIR 1050, the Pacific Gateway Residences Project
would generate 249 new residents plus 71 residents generated by the existing Pacific
condominiums to the east for a total population increase of 320 residents. This projected
population increase would be less than the increase of 355 new residents, as identified in FEIR
1050. Consistent with FEIR 1050 findings, this anticipated population growth is not considered
to be significant because it represents an incremental increase over the City's existing
population and it serves to improve the City's job/housing imbalance.
The proposed Project would be consistent with the Project analyzed in FEIR 1050. The
proposed Project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the
severity of previously identified effects. In regard to Section 15162 of the State CEQA
Guidelines, the proposed Project (1) would not propose substantial changes; (2) would not have
circumstantial changes when the Project is undertaken; and (3) would bring about no new
information of substantial importance which would (a) create new significant impacts,
(b) increase the severity of previously examined effects, (c) determine that mitigation measures
or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible; or (4) introduce
mitigation measures which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous
documents. For these reasons, there are no major revisions required to the population and
housing analysis provided in FEIR 1050.
Note that the Project was approved by City Council for development of 145 residential units, reducing the
population generation to 319.
R:\ProJects\Costa\J015�Addendum-030612.docx Q 1 Environmental Analysis
WORKING DRAFT —NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION _1
Noise Barrier Locations
Addendum to FOR 1050
N WGE 1 1
1Ys�
MAM iZIiSpmra+ww+
;f e UNITSVIT ,I POTENTIAL
SO
IU.IV 3 � I RIEI ,LC0 S- 1NQ P P T 01-}:
i
r t lu►mRare�ceeaml''
PEO. SIPIANI 0088ANU.;CIRCUICAW
DENOTES 4 STORIES;
Source: Architects Orange 2011
Exhibit 12
j!3 n
c 0 N s U L r f N G
(03106112 JCD) Projects\Costa\J015\Graphics1Ex12 noisebarrier.pdf
Addendum to FEIR 1050
iJ
Plaza Residences EIR
4.14 PUBLIC SERVICES
'(D 4.14.1 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Police Protection
According to FEIR 1050, the originally approved Project was expected to result in a increased
police response to the Project area associated with traffic control and accident investigations,
`— crime investigations, disturbances, and residential burglaries; however, the Costa Mesa Police
�l Department indicated that the Project would not create a significant impact on police services,
nor would there be a need to expand existing facilities. This conclusion was based on the
�J assumption that population increases associated with this Project would be no greater than 355
people or an average of 2.2 persons per residence. Implementation of the safety design
J features and continued coordination with the Police Department would ensure that adequate
police protection services could be provided to serve the Project. Effects to the Costa Mesa
Police Department were considered less than significant.
Fire Protection
The Costa Mesa Fire Department anticipated that implementation of the proposed Project would
increase the number of emergency responses by an estimated 21 responses per year. This
response rate would be similar if the Project site were to be developed with additional office
uses. Although the percentage of responses within five minutes could have been potentially be
reduced due to the increase in simultaneous responses, the Fire Department determined that
�. this impact was less than significant.
According to FEIR 1050, the City of Costa Mesa Fire Department required that the five -level
parking structure be equipped with automatic fire sprinklers to eliminate the need for fire access
between the parking structure and the north side of the on -site 1901 Newport Plaza building.
The alley on the west side of the Project site (between proposed on -site residences and the
existing off -site strip mall) would be wide enough to accommodate the required turning radius
for fire apparatus. Implementation of the mitigation program would reduce impacts from the
Project to below a level of significance. In addition, new fire hydrants are required to be installed
in the alley to access the interior units.
As stated in FEIR 1050, the Project area is served by a water system that has adequate water
pressure and volumes to serve the emergency fire protection needs of the Project. It was
determined that any necessary improvements to this system would be determined upon
submittal of detailed building plans and would be based on building size, relationship to other
structures and property lines, and type of building construction.
Schools
L. J The Project allowed for 145 residential condominiums. It was determined that the Newport -
Mesa Unified School District would have sufficient capacity at the school sites for the projected
number of students to be generated by the Project. Under existing conditions at the time of
�( FEIR 1050 preparation, the Project would not result in the need to expand existing or construct
new school facilities. No significant impacts were expected.
L Following the approval of Proposition IA by the voters of the State of California, Senate Bill 50
(SB 50), was fully implemented on November 4, 1998. One of the provisions of SB 50 was the
t� suspension of the Mira-Hart-Murrieta court decisions until January 1, 2006. Under SB 50,
R:\Projects\coslaW0ls\Addendum-03061z.docx Environmental Analysis
WORKING DRAFT —NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
I
I
Addendum to FEIR 1050
Plaza Residences EIR
statutory caps have been placed on developer fees, and local governments cannot deny a
project based on the adequacy of school facilities. In lieu of the powers granted to the school
districts by the Mira-Hart-Murrieta court decisions, SB 50 provides school districts with a
reformed statutory school fee collection procedure that, subject to certain conditions, authorizes
school districts to collect alternative school fees on residential developments. In order to levy
alternative fees, a school district must first approve a one-time School Facilities Needs Analysis,
which assesses existing capacity and unhoused students. Documentation for eligibility has been
submitted to the Office of Public School Construction. However, none of the identified schools
are currently eligible for the SB 50 funding.
4.14.2 PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed Project would involve development of the final phase of the 1901 Newport Project
area. Although the classification of proposed uses would be changed from for -sale
condominium units to for -lease residential units, the overall density analyzed in FEIR 1050
would be slightly reduced. Therefore, the anticipated demand for public services including police
protection, fire protection, and schools would be similar to what was analyzed and approved as
part of FEIR 1050. Implementation of the mitigation measures identified below would continue to
reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels, and no new impacts would occur. No
new significant impacts or substantially worse impacts beyond what was previously identified
related to fire protection, police protection and schools would occur.
The proposed Project would be consistent with the Project analyzed in FEIR 1050. The
proposed Project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the
severity of previously identified effects. In regard to Section 15162 of the State CEQA
Guidelines, the proposed Project (1) would not propose substantial changes; (2) would not have
circumstantial changes when the Project is undertaken; (3) would bring about no new
information of substantial importance which would (a) create new significant impacts,
(b) increase the severity of previously examined effects, (c) determine that mitigation measures
or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible; or (4) introduce
mitigation measures which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous
documents. For these reasons, there are no major revisions required to the public services
analysis provided in FEIR 1050.
Mitigation Program
FEIR 1050's Mitigation Program includes measures to reduce potential impacts associated with
the Plaza Residences Project to less than significant levels. The following measures from FEIR
1050 would also be applicable to the proposed Pacific Gateway Residences Project. Any
modifications to the original measures are shown in strikethre gI for deleted text for new,
inserted text is underlined.
Standard Conditions and Requirements
SC 4.14-1 Vehicular access must be provided and maintained serviceable throughout
construction to all required fire hydrants. Additional fire hydrants must be
provided in the alley serving the interior units subiect to approval by Fire
Prevention Division.
SC 4.14-2 The fide level parking structure must be equipped with automatic fire sprinklers.
RAPrcJects\Costa\J015\Addendum-030612.docx �/J_ Environmental Analysis
WORKING DRAFT —NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION 'f
i
Addendum to FEIR 1050
Plaza Residences EIR
SC 4.14-3 Prior to issuance of a building permit, the project applicant shall pay developer
fees to the Newport -Mesa Unified School District pursuant to the requirements
established in SB 50. The amount of fees to be paid will be determined based on
the established State formula for determining construction costs.
Mitigation Measures
MM 4.14-1 Prior to the initiation of grading, a construction security service shall be
established at the construction site. Initially, the service shall ensure that no
unauthorized entry is made into the construction area. For the duration of each
phase of construction, the Project Applicant shall provide sufficient on -site
security personnel on a 24-hour, seven days a week basis, to patrol all areas of
construction and prohibit unauthorized entry. Evidence of compliance with this
requirement is subject to periodic site inspections by City staff.
4.15 RECREATION
I
P 4.15.1 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Based on the City of Costa Mesa's park dedication standard of 4.26 acres of parkland per 1,000
�j population, the residential component of the Project was projected to generate the need for
1.5 acres of parkland based on a population of 355 residents (2.2 persons per residence). It was
determined that, if the Plaza Residences site were to be subdivided, the Project Applicant would
be required to comply with this policy. This obligation could have been met through the
dedication of land within the City of Costa Mesa, the payment of in -lieu fees, or a combination of
land and fees. Compliance with this obligation would have precluded significant impacts.
4.15.2 PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
As discussed previously, the proposed Project would involve development of the final phase of
IJ the 1901 Newport Project area. Although the classification of proposed uses would be changed
from for -sale condominium units to for -lease residential units, the overall density analyzed in
F-1 FEIR 1050 would be slightly reduced. The City's park dedication standard continues to be
4.26 acres per 1,000 population. Therefore, based on a comparable population to what was
previously approved, the anticipated demand for recreation uses, parklands, and park facilities
would be similar to what was analyzed and approved as part of FEIR 1050. Implementation of
�I the Mitigation Measures identified below would continue to reduce potential impacts to less than
} significant levels, and no new impacts would occur. No new significant impacts or substantially
worse impacts beyond what was previously identified related to recreational uses would occur.
The proposed Project would be consistent with the Project analyzed in FEIR 1050. The
_ proposed Project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the
severity of previously identified effects. In regard to Section 15162 of the State CEQA
Guidelines, the proposed Project (1) would not propose substantial changes; (2) would not have
circumstantial changes when the Project is undertaken; (3) would bring about no new
information of substantial importance which would (a) create new significant impacts,
(b) increase the severity of previously examined effects, (c) determine that mitigation measures
or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible; or (4) introduce
mitigation measures which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous
l L documents. For these reasons, there are no major revisions required to the recreation
resources analysis provided in FEIR 1050. The condominium map has been recorded and all
�i
RAProjects\C0
sta\J015tAddendum-030612.docx Q Environmental Analysis
r� WORKING DRAFT —NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION I�
I_I
Addendum to FEIR 1050
Plaza Residences EIR
applicable park fees submitted with the first phase of development. No mitigation measures are
required.
4.16 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.16.1 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
According to EIR 1050, the Plaza Residences Project would result in a significant impact at the
intersection of Newport Boulevard at 19th Street by increasing the intersection level of service
(LOS) to LOS F. Implementation of mitigation, which was completed as part of the previous
development phase associated with the Pacifica at Newport Plaza condominium units, would
reduce this impact to a less than significant level. It was determined that the Project would not
interfere with alternative, non -vehicular transportation, including public transit, bikeways, and
pedestrian access. Existing facilities would continue to serve the Project area, and the provision
of internal walkways and sidewalks would provide additional opportunity for pedestrian
circulation.
4.16.2 PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The following analysis is based on the Pacific Gateway Apartment Conversion Traffic Impact
Comparison, prepared by Stantec Consulting Services Inc. (Stantec 2012).
The Project consists of 113 residential units located on the south side of Bernard Street east of
Harbor Boulevard. The Project site was previously approved for a total of 145 condominium
units, of which 32 units have been built. The Project is currently proposing to construct the
remaining 113 units as for -lease residential units instead of the originally approved residential
condominiums project. The original traffic analysis prepared to support FEIR 1050 applied the
Costa Mesa Traffic Model (CMTM) High Density Residential trip rates to the condominium
Project. The same CMTM High Density Residential trip rates would have been applied if the
originally approved Project had been apartments or condominiums, and the resulting trip
generation would have been the same. In comparison, application of the most recent Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation (8th Edition) Apartment trip rates to the currently
proposed 113 for -lease residential units results in a decrease of 3 trips in the AM peak hour and
a decrease of 4 trips in the PM peak hour, with a total daily decrease of 23 trips (refer to
Table 10).
TABLE 10
TRIP GENERATION AND TRIP RATE SUMMARY
" `Land Use
Amount
AM, Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
ADT
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
Trip Generation
Approved — High Density Residential
113 du
10
50
60
49
25
74
774
Proposed — For -Lease Residential
113 du
11
46
57
45
25
70
751
Trip Rates
High Density Residentiala
113 du
0.09
0.44
0.53
0.43
0.22
0.65
6.85
Apartmentb
113 du
0.10
0.41
0.51
0.40
0.22
0.62
6.65
ADT: average daily traffic; du: dwelling units
a Costa Mesa Traffic Model (CMTM) High Density Residential rate (blend of ITE rates 210, 220 & 231)
b Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Apartment rate (220), Trip Generation (81h Edition, 2008)
Source: Stantec 2012
RAProjects\Costa\J015Wddendum•030612.docx � Environmental Analysis
WORKING DRAFT —NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
i Addendum to FEIR 1050
Plaza Residences EIR
I The difference between the assumptions in the original traffic analysis and the current analysis
- Iis a very minor change in the access and the distribution of Project traffic to Bernard Street. The
0 original traffic analysis assumed a connection to 19th Street, which is no longer available to the
�I proposed Project because of the new project access on Bernard Street. Fewer than 20 inbound
1 or outbound trips were assigned to this connection during the peak hours in the original study;
however, the use of this access was minimal since the intersection with 19th Street was limited
to right turns only. The trip generation and the overall distribution are virtually unchanged from
1 the original study.
Access to the proposed residential units would be provided by a single driveway on Bernard
Street east of Harbor Boulevard as shown on Exhibit 5. The total driveway volume is estimated
to be 57 AM peak hour trips (11 inbound, 46 outbound), 70 PM peak hour trips (45 inbound,
25 outbound), and 751 daily trips. Approximately 75 percent of the trips are estimated to travel
on Bernard Street to/from Harbor Boulevard, and approximately 25 percent are estimated to
travel on Parsons Street (see Figure 1 in Attachment C). The driveway is slightly offset to the
west from the existing Toyota dealership service department driveway, creating a potential
conflict between left turns into and out of the car dealership driveway and the Project driveway.
However, the expected traffic volumes from the proposed Project are low enough not to create a -
significant problem on this low volume, low speed street. For example, during the AM peak
hour, approximately 35 vehicles are estimated to exit the Project driveway via a northbound left
turn toward the west. This is an average of approximately one vehicle every two minutes. The
PM peak hour left -turn volume is estimated to be even lower, approximately 20 vehicles (i.e.,
one vehicle every three minutes). Inbound Project trips from Parsons Street entering via a left
turn from westbound Bernard Street are estimated to be fewer than 10 trips during the AM or
PM peak hour. These low volumes are not expected to create a significant conflict with vehicles
entering and exiting the car dealership driveway.
In conclusion, the trip generation,, distribution, and impacts from the proposed Project have not
significantly changed from the originally approved Project analyzed in 2002. The conclusions
from the original analysis are still valid, and the Project is not expected to have a significant
impact on the circulation system. Further, the Project has already complied with all identified
traffic mitigation as set forth in FEIR 1050, including payment of all traffic impact fees and
contribution toward improvements at the intersection of Newport Boulevard at 19th Street.
Therefore, no mitigation for the proposed Project is required.
Consistent with the conditions of approval placed on the originally approved Project, a condition
of approval is applicable to the proposed Project related to a traffic signal at the intersection of
Bernard Street at Harbor Boulevard. Specifically, the need for the traffic signal at the
intersection of Bernard Street at Harbor Boulevard would be verified following Project buildout
and installed only when warrants based on actual counts are met. The Project Applicant has
been conditioned to a deposit equal to full cost of traffic signal installation (based on residential
component's contribution). The need for a traffic signal would be evaluated every year following
full occupancy of the Project for a period of five years. If the need for a signal is verified, it will
be installed using the money deposited. If a signal is not warranted in five years, the deposit will
be returned to the Project Applicant. As discussed previously, a four -level parking structure
serving residents of the proposed Pacific Gateway residential buildings would be constructed.
The parking structure would have 283 parking spaces, including 242 parking spaces for
residents and 41 parking spaces for guests, and would meet the City parking code requirement
through the provision of 283 parking spaces and can adequately serve the proposed Project. No
new impact would occur related to parking.
RAProjects\Costa\J015\Addendum-030612.docx 1iEnvironmental Analysis
WORKING DRAFT —NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION s'
Addendum to FEIR 1050
Plaza Residences EIR
Additionally, the Project site would continue to be served by non -vehicular transportation
options, including a transit stop located along Harbor Boulevard, bikeways, pedestrian
walkways, which would be incorporated into the proposed Project. The Project would support
these alternative modes of transportation by introducing a new population to the Project area
that can take advantage of these options.
The proposed Project would be consistent with the Project analyzed in FEIR 1050. The
proposed Project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the
severity of previously identified effects. In regard to Section 15162 of the State CEQA
Guidelines, the proposed Project (1) would not propose substantial changes; (2) would not have
circumstantial changes when the Project is undertaken; (3) would bring about no new
information of substantial importance which would (a) create new significant impacts,
(b) increase the severity of previously examined effects, (c) determine that mitigation measures
or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible; or (4) introduce
mitigation measures which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous
documents. For these reasons, there are no major revisions required to the transportation and
traffic resources analysis provided in FEIR 1050.
4.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.17.1 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Water
According to FEIR 1050, the proposed Project would require approximately 511 gallons of
potable water per day. It was determined that the proposed Plaza Residences Project's water
demand could be provided by the Mesa Consolidated Water District and would be consistent
with the Water District's Urban Water Management Plan. According to FEIR 1050, distribution
pipeline stub -outs were identified in the Project area that would accommodate most of the new
demand; additional water service lines from the distribution system would also be added, if
needed. No significant impacts to potable water supplies were identified.
Sewer
A sewer capacity study was performed by Hunsaker & Associates to determine available
capacity to serve the Project, as well as existing, planned, and foreseeable future development
within the sewer study area. Based on a generation factor of 85 gallons per day per capita
(161 residences x 2.5 persons per unit [worst -case]), the proposed Project was projected to
generate 34,213 gallons per day of sewer flow.5 As a part of the Project evaluated in FEIR
1050, the Applicant proposed to redirect sewer flows from the proposed residential development
to the sewer system in Newport Boulevard (instead of using Bernard Street). The Project would
connect to the Costa Mesa Sanitation District sewer system in Newport Boulevard, north of
19th Street. Based on estimated sewer flows, the gravity sewer reach between 20th Street and
Bay Street would have marginally exceeded design capacity with the addition of the proposed
Project. Project flows represent an approximate 9.6 percent increase when compared to existing
measured flows. However, field measurements indicated that flows in this reach at that time
were approximately 20.6 percent less than calculated sewer flows (design capacity flows). It
was determined that capacity is available to serve the Project. No significant impacts were
identified.
5 Note that the Project was approved by City Council for development of 145 residential units, which would
subsequently reduce the projected sewer flow.
RAProjects\Costa\J015tAddendum-030612.docx Q� , Environmental Analysis
WORKING DRAFT —NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION 6
I
Addendum to FEIR 1050
Plaza Residences EIR
Solid Waste
oBased on solid waste generation factors provided by the California Integrated Waste
Management Board, FEIR 1050 found that the residential portion of the proposed Project was
projected to generate 118 tons of solid waste annually. The County of Orange Integrated Waste
Management Department (IWMD)6 indicated that adequate capacity is available for the Project.
No significant impacts to solid waste service would result with implementation of the proposed
! Project.
Electricity
According to FEIR 1050, electricity loads of the proposed Project fall within the parameters of
Southern California Edison's (SCE's) projected load growth in the Project area. The estimated
electrical demand for the Project was projected at 0.9 million kilowatt hours per year (kWh/year).
SCE is required to provide service to the Project site, and coordination is typical between a
Project Applicant and SCE to avoid any notable service disruptions during extension, relocation,
and upgrading of services and facilities. This coordination ensures that the nature, design, and
timing of electrical system improvements are adequate to serve the Project and are in
compliance with California energy conservation requirements as specified in California Code of
Regulations (Titles 24 and 25). It was determined that implementation of the Project would not
result in a significant impact on electrical services or facilities.
rl�, Natural Gas
According to FEIR 1050, the Southern California Gas Company identified that gas service to the
Project could be served without any significant impact on the environment. It was determined
that any gas facility additions for the expansion would be completed in accordance with the
company's policies and extension rules on file with the California Public Utilities Commission at
the time contractual arrangements were made.
4.17.2 PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed Project would develop the Project site with land uses similar to those previously
evaluated; the overall number and type of residential units proposed would not exceed what
was previously evaluated. Therefore, the demand on utility systems, including water,
wastewater, solid waste, electricity, and natural gas, would be substantially similar to what was
analyzed and approved as part of FEIR 1050. The Project would continue to be served by Mesa
Consolidated Water District for water services, Costa Mesa Sanitation District for wastewater
services, the County of Orange for solid waste disposal services, SCE for electricity, and the
Southern California Gas Company for natural gas. Therefore, the proposed Project would not
create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
effects related to utilities.
The proposed Project would be consistent with the Project analyzed in FEIR 1050. The
proposed Project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the
j severity of previously identified effects. In regard to Section 15162 of the State CEQA
Guidelines, the proposed Project (1).would not propose substantial changes; (2) would not have
circumstantial changes when the Project is undertaken; and (3) would bring about no new
information of substantial importance which would (a) create new significant impacts,
(b) increase the severity of previously examined effects, (c) determine that mitigation measures
i'
6 The Orange County IWMD has since been renamed to OC Waste & Recycling.
RAProjects\Costa\J015Mdendum-030612.docx ape Environmental Analysis
WORKING DRAFT —NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION `� _ I
jJi
Addendum to FEIR 1050
Plaza Residences EIR
or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible; or (4) introduce
mitigation measures which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous
documents. For these reasons, there are no major revisions required to the utilities and services
systems analysis provided in FEIR 1050.
Mitigation Program
FEIR 1050's Mitigation Program includes measures to reduce potential impacts associated with
the Plaza Residences Project to less than significant levels. The following measures from FEIR
1050 would also be applicable to the proposed Pacific Gateway Residences Project. Any
modifications to the original measures are shown in strikethr, UgI for deleted text for new,
inserted text is underlined.
Standard Conditions and Requirements
SC 4.17-1 Mesa Consolidated's Water Efficiency Specialist shall be consulted with during
landscape planning to ensure that appropriate water conservation measures are
used.
SC 4.17-2 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall pay the
applicable connection fees charged to new development by the Mesa
Consolidated Water District.
SC 4.17-3 Water conservation measures, as required by the State of California, shall be
incorporated into building plans for the project. These may include, but are not
limited to, the following:
— Health and Safety Code Section 17921.3 which requires low -flush toilets and
urinals in all new construction;
— Title 24, California Administrative Code Sections 2-5352(I) and Q) which
require insulation of water -heating systems and pipe insulation to reduce
water used before hot water reaches equipment or fixtures; and,
— Government Code Section 7800 which specifies that lavatories in all public
facilities be equipped with self -closing faucets.
SC 4.17-4 Prior to issuance of building permits, a letter shall be obtained from the Costa
Mesa Sanitary District verifying that there is sufficient capacity in the receiving
trunk lines to serve the project.
SC 4.17-5 Prior to the issuance of a connection permit(s), the applicant shall pay the
applicable connection fees.
SC 4.17-6 Prior to the recordation of the final Master Plan, the applicant shall provide to the
City of Costa Mesa a letter from both the Southern California Edison Company
and the Southern California Gas Company indicating their ability to provide
service to the project.
SC 4.17-7 Structures on the site shall be required to meet the Energy Building Regulations
adopted by the California Energy Commission (Title 24). Meeting these
specifications would conserve non-renewable natural resources to levels
acceptable to the State.
RAProjects\Costa\J015Wddendum-030612.docx f�I( ) Environmental Analysis
WORKING DRAFT —NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION w
Addendum to FEIR 1050
Plaza Residences EIR
SC 4.17-8 The applicant shall comply with guidelines provided by Southern California
Edison Company with respect to easement restrictions, construction guidelines,
and potential amendments to right-of-way in the areas of any existing Southern
California Edison Company easements.
SC 4.17-9 The applicant shall implement the following measures on the residential portions
of the project to reduce energy consumption:
1. Energy Star labeled appliances, water heaters, air conditioners, windows, etc.
2. Low-e insulated glass reduces heat gain due to solar radiation for windows
3. Programmable thermostats
4. HVAC Duct Sealing
5. Increased insulation
Mitigation Measures
MM 4.17-1 All sewer flows originating from the residential portion of the Project site shall be
connected to the Costa Mesa Sanitary District's sewer system at Manhole No. 4
in Newport Boulevard.
MM 4.17-2 In accordance with the requirements of AB 939, construction contractors shall
reuse construction forms where practicable or applicable, attempt to balance
soils on the site, minimize over cutting 'of lumber and polyvinyl chloride (PVC)
piping where feasible, and reuse landscape containers to the extend feasible.
MM 4.17-3 Recycling bins for glass, metals, paper, wood, plastic, green waste, and
cardboard shall be placed on the construction sites for use by construction
workers.
MM 4.17-4 In construction specifications and bid packages, require building materials made
of recycled materials, to the extent feasible and economically practical.
MM 4.17-5 Prior to the initiation of demolition and construction activities, the Project
Applicant shall prepare a waste reduction plan for acceptance by the City of
Costa Mesa. The waste reduction plan shall be included in all construction bid
packages. During the term of the demolition and construction, the goal is to
recycle or divert 50 percent of construction and demolition wastes and keep
records thereof in tonnage or in other measures deemed acceptable to the City
of Costa Mesa. To the maximum extent feasible, on -site separation of scrap
wood and clean green waste shall occur to permit chipping and mulching for soil
enhancement of land cover purposes.
RAP rojects\Costa\J015Wddendum-030612.docx Environmental Analysis
WORKING DRAFT —NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
i�,
Addendum to FEIR 1050
Plaza Residences EIR
This page intentionally left blank
RAProjects\CostaW015\Addendum-030612.dom I N) Environmental Analysis
WORKING DRAFT —NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION lJ
i Addendum to FEIR 1050
Plaza Residences EIR
SECTION 5.0
CONCLUSIONS
F
Based on the analysis provided in this Addendum, there is sufficient evidence in the record to
determine that (1) the proposed Project does not represent a substantial change from the
r i Project evaluated in FEIR 1050; (2) there are no substantial changes with respect to the
` circumstances under which the Project is undertaken; and (3) there is no new information of
substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known at the time
_ FEIR 1050 was certified as complete. The Pacific Gateway Residences Project would not have
jany new or substantially more severe impacts than what was evaluated FEIR 1050. There are
J no new mitigation measures that were not adopted at the time the FEIR was certified that would
further reduce the Project impacts. FEIR 1050, when considered in conjunction with this
y Addendum, provides adequate documentation pursuant to the CEQA For the Pacific Gateway
_i Residences Project.
I�
r(D
R:\Projects\Costa\J01SAddendum-030612.dom Conclusions
WORKING DRAFT —NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
iJ
Addendum to FEIR 1050
Plaza Residences EIR
This page intentionally left blank
R:\Projects\Costa\J015Wddendum-030612.docx �/�'/j Conclusions
WORKING DRAFT —NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION �J�1
% Addendum to FEIR 1050
Plaza Residences EIR
r-
SECTION 6.0
-�� REFERENCES
i, California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resources Protection. 2010. Farmland
MaDDina and Monitorina Program (FMMP) Farmland Map: Oranqe Countv, California.
Sacramento: FMMP.
Costa Mesa, City of. 2003 (July). Plaza Residences Final EIR No. 1050 SCH No. 2002061128.
Costa Mesa, CA.
Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD). 2011 (May). CEQA
Guide to Air Quality Assessment. Sacramento, CA: SMAQMD.
http://www.airquality.org/cega/cegaguideupdate.shtm1.
Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 2012 (January). Pacific Gateway Apartment Conversion Traffic
Impact Comparison. Irvine, CA.
U.C. Davis Institute of Transportation Studies (UCD ITS). 1997 (December). Transportation
Project -level Carbon Monoxide Protocol. Davis, CA: UCD ITS.U.S.
D
RAPro1ects\Costa\J01 RAddendum-030612.docx 106 References
WORKING DRAFT —NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
l
Addendum to FEIR 1050
Plaza Residences EIR
This page intentionally left blank
R:\Projects\Costa\J015\Addendum-030612.docx low References
WORKING DRAFT —NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
APPENDIX A
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
NO-1
109
;o.
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR
THE ADDENDUM TO THE PLAZA RESIDENCES
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
No. 1050
PACIFIC GATEWAY RESIDENCES PROJECT
(STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2002061128)
Prepared for City of Costa Mesa
Development Services Department, Planning Division
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, California 92628
Prepared by BonTerra Consulting
2 Executive Circle, Suite 175
Irvine, California 92614
T: (714) 444-9199 F: (714) 444-9599
March 2012
1-71 r7l C- -1
Addendum to FOR 1050
3tion Monitoring Program
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
Paqe
Section1.0 introduction.............................................................................................................1
Section 2.0 Project Management...............................................................................................1
2.1 Responsibilities..........................................................................................1
2.2 General Procedures...................................................................................1
Section 3.0 Mitigation Monitoring Program Table...................................................................2
R:\Projects\Costa\JD15\MMP\Draft MMP-030612.docx \ \ 1 Table of Contents
Addendum to FOR 1050
Mitigation Monitoring Program
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Paqe
Table 1 Plaza Residences Mitigation Monitoring Program...........................................................3
RAProjects\COsta\J015\MMP\Draft MMP-030612.docx ` l Table of Contents
r�I
` Addendum to FEIR 1050
Mitigation Monitoring Program
SECTION 1.0
/ I� INTRODUCTION
f-
Section 21081.6 to the State of California Public Resources Code requires a Lead or
Responsible Agency that approves or carries out a project where an environmental impact
report (EIR) has identified significant environmental effects to adopt a "reporting or monitoring
program for adopted or required changes to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects."
The Addendum to Final EIR 1050 (FEIR 1050) includes all applicable mitigation measures from
FEIR 1050. The City of Costa Mesa, Development Services Department was the Lead Agency
F1 for Final EIR 1050 and is the lead agency for the Addendum to FEIR 1050 and, therefore, is
responsible for implementation of the mitigation monitoring program. The Addendum to FEIR
_ 1050 has been prepared for the Pacific Gateway Residences project which addressed the
potential environmental impacts and, where appropriate, recommended measures to mitigate
L, these impacts. As such, a mitigation measure reporting and monitoring program is required for
the Addendum to FEIR 1050 to ensure that all relevant mitigation measures that have been
ii adopted are implemented.
LL
Section 2 describes the roles of responsible parties in implementing and monitoring the adopted
r mitigation measures, and generally describes the program procedures.
Table 1 in Section 3 includes the list of mitigation measures and identifies the timing of the
implementation or verification of each measure, the method of verification, and the party
j� responsible for verifying that the measure is complete. The City and/or project applicant are
ll responsible for the implementation of each measure, and the City representative is responsible
for verifying that the measure has been satisfactorily completed, and/or written evidence
j submitted to the City, which verifies that the measure has been satisfactorily completed.
L SECTION 2.0
�i PROJECT MANAGEMENT
2.1 RESPONSIBILITIES
The mitigation monitoring program (MMP) for the Pacific Gateway Residential project will be in
place through construction of the project or until all mitigation measures are implemented. The
City of Costa Mesa Development Services Department is the Lead Agency for the project. If
required, the City will be responsible for designating another responsible agency to take
responsibility for implementation of portions of the MMP, if and when appropriate.
The primary City of Costa Mesa personnel responsible for verifying compliance with the
mitigation measures listed within Section 3, is the Development Services Department including
having the primary role of coordinating the compliance verifications of all other parties. These
parties, or designated assignees, are responsible for ensuring that the mitigation measures are
completed, and are vested with the authority to act accordingly.
2.2 GENERAL PROCEDURES
The Planning and Redevelopment Manager, Development Services Department, or designated
I i assignee will be responsible for the overall management of the MMP. Assignments of
responsibility are included in Section 3.
The above -noted designated "monitor" shall oversee elements of the MMP and review
Jcompliance through the use of procedures developed by the Planning and Redevelopment
R:\Projects\Costa\J015\MMP\Draft MMP-030612.docx ' i13 Pacific Gate Residences Project
L r
Addendum to FOR 1050
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Manager, Development Services Department. The designated monitor shall ensure compliance
with the adopted mitigation measure and ensure proper action is taken on each measure. If it is
found that an adopted mitigation measure is not being properly implemented, the Planning and
Redevelopment Manager, Development Services Department shall require corrective actions to
ensure adequate implementation.
SECTION 3.0
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM TABLE
RAProjects\Costa\J015\MMP\Draft MMP-030612.docx I 1 /+ Pacific Gate Residences Project
Addendum to FCj50
Mitigation Monitoring Program
TABLE 1
PLAZA RESIDENCES MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
Funding
EIl2 Section/Mitigation Program
Timing of Mitigation
Responsible Party(iesj
Sources
Air Quality
Standard Conditions and Requirements
SC 4.3-1 All construction contractors shall comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District
During grading and
Project applicant; Costa
Project
(SCAQMD) regulations, including Rule 403, Fugitive Dust. All grading (regardless of acreage) shall apply
construction activities;
Mesa Building Safety
applicant
best available control measures for fugitive dust in accordance with Rule 403. To ensure that the project is
inspection during
Division
in full compliance with applicable SCAQMD dust regulations and that there is no nuisance impact off the
grading and construction
site, the contractor would implement each of the following:
a. Moisten soil not more than 15 minutes prior to moving soil or conduct whatever watering is necessary
to prevent visible dust emissions from exceeding 100 feet in any direction.
b. Apply chemical stabilizers to disturbed surface areas (completed grading areas) within five days of
completing grading or apply dust suppressants or vegetation sufficient to maintain a stabilized surface.
c. Water excavated soil piles hourly or cover with temporary coverings.
d. Water exposed surfaces at least twice a day under calm conditions. Water as often as needed on
windy days when winds are less than 25 miles per day or during very dry weather in order to maintain
a surface crust and prevent the release of visible emissions from the construction site.
e. Wash mud -covered tired and under -carriages of trucks leaving construction sites.
f. Provide for street sweeping, as needed, on adjacent roadways to remove dirt dropped by construction
vehicles or mud which would otherwise be carried off by trucks departing project sites.
g. Securely cover loads with a tight fitting tarp on any truck leaving the construction sites to dispose of
debris.
h. Cease grading during period when winds exceed 25 miles per hour.
i. Turn equipment off when not in use for more than five minutes.
Mitigation Measures
MM 4.3-1 During construction activities, the contractor shall implement the following measures to reduce
Prior to grading permit
Project applicant, Costa
Project
construction equipment emissions.
issuance
Mesa Planning Division
applicant
a. Maintain construction equipment engines by keeping them tuned.
b. Use low sulfur fuel for stationary construction equipment. This is required by SCAQMD Rules 431.1
and 431.2.
c. Use existing power sources (i.e., power poles) when feasible. This measure would minimize the use of
higher polluting gas or diesel generators.
d. Configure construction parking to minimize traffic interference.
RAProjects\Costa\J015\MMP\Draft MMP-030612.docx q5 Pacific Gate Residences Project
Addendum to FEIR 1050
Mitigation Monitoring Program
TABLE 1
PLAZA RESIDENCES MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
(CONTINUED)
Funding
EIR Section/Mitigation Program
Timing of Mitigation
Responsible Party(ies)
Sources
e. Minimize obstruction of through -traffic lanes. When feasible, construction should be planned so that
lane closures on existing streets are kept to a minimum.
f. Schedule construction operations affecting traffic for off-peak hours.
g. Develop a traffic plan to minimize traffic flow interference from construction activities (the plan may
include advance public noticeof routing, use of public transportation and satellite parking areas with a
shuttle service).
3.4 Cultural Resources
Mitigation Measures
MM 4.5-1 An Orange County -certified archaeologist shall be retained at the expense of the Project
Final Master Plan
Costa Mesa Planning
Project
Applicant to attend pre -grade meetings and to monitor earth moving activities, including clearing,
review; prior to building
Division
applicant
excavation, and grading of site. The archaeologist shall carefully inspect the property to assess the
permit issuance
potential for significant prehistoric or historic remains. If a site or resource is uncovered, then a subsurface
evaluation may be needed to assess the resource. Further subsurface investigation may be needed if the
site or resource is determined to be unique/important for its prehistoric information.
MM 4.5-2 During construction activities, the archaeologist shall have the authority to temporarily divert or
Final Master Plan
Costa Mesa Planning
Project
redirect grading to allow time to evaluate any exposed prehistoric or historic material. In accordance with
review; prior to building
Division
applicant
Public Resources Code 5097.94, if human remains are found, the Orange County coroner must be notified
permit issuance
within 24 hours of the discovery. If the coroner determines that the remains are not recent, the coroner will
notify the Native American Heritage Commission in Sacramento to determine the most likely descendent for
the area. The designated Native American representative would then determine, in consultation with the
property owner, the disposition of the human remains.
MM 4.5-3 A final survey and monitoring report, including an itemized inventory and pertinent field data,
Final Master Plan
Costa Mesa Building
Permit
shall be sent to the property owner and filed with the South Central Coastal Information Center at the
review; prior to building
Safety Division
fees
University of California, Fullerton.
permit issuance
MM 4.5-4 Any recovered prehistoric and historic artifacts shall be offered, on a first right of refusal basis, to
Prior to building permit
Costa Mesa Planning
Permit
a repository with a retrievable collection system and an educational and research interest in the materials
issuance
Division
fees;
such as the Fowler Museum of Cultural History (UCLA) and California State University, Fullerton.
Project
applicant
M.0
R:\Prniacts\Costa\J015\MMP\Draft MMP-030612.docx Pacific Gate Residences Project
Addendum to FE, ,50
gation Monitoring Program
TABLE 1
PLAZA RESIDENCES MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
(CONTINUED)
Funding
EIR Section/Mitigation Program „
Timing of Mitigation
Responsible Party(ies)
Sources
MM 4.5-5 An Orange County -certified paleontologist shall be retained at the expense of the Project
During pre -grade
Costa Mesa Planning
Project
Applicant to attend pre -grade meetings to discuss the monitoring, collecting, and safety procedures for the
meetings
Division
applicant
Project, and shall supervise the monitoring of earthmoving activities, including clearing, excavation, and
grading of site. Particular attention shall be paid to areas of the site where excavations below three feet
would occur. The paleontologist shall carefully inspect these areas to assess the potential for significant
fossil localities. The paleontologist shall tailor the monitoring schedule to the lithologies present, the rate of
fossil recovery, the numbers of spreads working simultaneously, and the cubic foot amounts of rock being
excavated or disturbed. Monitoring shall occur under the supervision of an Orange County -certified
paleontologist.
MM 4.5-6 The paleontological monitor shall have the authority to temporarily divert or redirect grading to
During earth -moving
Costa Mesa Planning
Project
allow time to evaluate any exposed fossil material.
activities
Division
applicant
MM 4.5-7 During monitoring, any scientifically significant specimens shall be properly salvaged after
During earth -moving
Costa Mesa Planning
Project
evaluation by, and under the supervision of, the paleontologist. Screening of sediments shall routinely be
activities
Division
applicant
conducted during monitoring under the supervision of the paleontologist to sample significant small
vertebrate remains. During fossil salvage, contextual stratigraphic data shall also be collected. This would
include lithologic descriptions, localities plotted on a USGS 7.5' Series topographic quadrangle,
photographs, and field notes.
MM 4.5-8 Specimens shall be prepared to the point of identification, identified, and curated on a long-term
After completion of
Costa Mesa Planning
Project
loan basis in a suitable repository that has a retrievable storage system. Fees for curation shall be the
earth -moving activities
Division
applicant
responsibility of the applicant.
MM 4.5-9 A final report shall be prepared at the end of earth moving activities, and shall include an
After completion of
Costa Mesa Planning
Project
itemized inventory of recovered fossils and appropriate stratigraphic and locality data. This report shall be
earth -moving activities
Division
applicant
sent to the City of Costa Mesa to signify the end of mitigation. Another copy shall accompany any
recovered fossils, along with field logs and photographs, to the designated repository.
Geology and Soils
Standard Conditions and Requirements
SC 4.6-1 Compliance with WRiferrF1 California Building Code provisions and standard subdivision
Final Master Plan
Costa Mesa Building
Permit
engineering requirements, as specified in the City's conditions of approval will satisfactorily address
review; prior to building
Safety Division
fees
geotechnical issues related to seismic hazards.
permit issuance
SC 4.6-2 The Plaza Residences development shall be designed to comply with all applicable geological
Final Master Plan
Costa Mesa Building
Permit
and seismic safety requirements of the UR4fefri} California Building Code and mitigation as defined in the
review; prior to building
Safety Division
fees
Public Resources Code Section 2693(c). Verification of such compliance will be confirmed during the City's
permit issuance
plan review and building permit issuance processes.
SC 4.6-3 Grading and foundation plans, including foundation loads, shall be reviewed by a registered soils
Prior to grading permit
Registered soils
Permit
engineer, and approved by the City of Costa Mesa Building Safety Division.
issuance
engineer; Costa Mesa
fees
Building Safety Division
R:\Projects\Costa\J015\MMP\Draft MMP-030612.docx i i^ I Pacific Gate Residences Project
Addendum to FEIR 1050
Mitigation Monitoring Program
TABLE 1
PLAZA RESIDENCES MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
(CONTINUED)
Funding
EIR Section/Mitigation Program
Timing of Mitigation
Responsible Party(ies)
Sources
SC 4.6-4 All grading and earthwork shall be performed under the observation of a registered geotechnical
Inspection during
Registered geotechnical
Project
engineer and engineering geologist in accordance with the recommendations contained within the Leighton
grading
engineer, Costa Mesa
applicant
and Associates reports dated October 2 2006 and May 24 2= and in accordance with the General
Building Safety Division
Earthwork and Grading Specifications included in the reports by Leighton and Associates.
SC 4.6-5 All grading shall be accomplished under the observation and testing of the project geotechnical
Inspection during
Registered geotechnical
Project
engineer, the engineering geologist and their representatives.
grading
engineer, Costa Mesa
applicant
Building Safety Division
SC 4.6-6 Prior to approval of each grading plan by the City of Costa Mesa, the property owner/developer
Prior to grading permit
Project applicant; Costa
Permit
shall submit a soils and geological report for the area to be graded, based on proposed grading and
issuance
Mesa Building Safety
fees
prepared by registered soils engineer and approved by the City of Costa Mesa Building Safety Division.
Division
SC 4.6-7 Prior to issuance of each building permit by the City of Costa Mesa, the property owner/developer
Prior to building permit
Project applicant/
Permit
shall submit for review and approval by the City of Costa Mesa Building Safety Division, a detailed
issuance
registered civil engineer;
fees
foundation design information for the subject building(s), prepared by a registered civil engineer, based on
Costa Mesa Building
recommendations by a geotechnical engineer.
Safety Division
SC 4.6-8 Prior to issuance of each building permit by the City of Costa Mesa, the property owner/developer
Prior to building permit
Project applicant/
Permit
shall submit plans showing that the proposed structure has been analyzed by a registered civil engineer for
issuance
registered civil engineer;
fees
earthquake loading and designed according to the most recent standards in the WRifeFFR California Building
Costa Mesa Building
Code adopted by the City of Costa Mesa.
Safety Division
SC 4.6-9 Additional geotechnical review of plans shall be performed upon completion of the following:
Prior to building permit
Project applicant/
Permit
Grading and Precise Grading Plans; Foundation Plans; and Shoring Plans.
issuance
registered civil engineer;
fees
Costa Mesa Building
Safety Division
SC 4.6-10 Geotechnical observation and testing shall be conducted during the following stages:
Prior to building permit
Project applicant/
Permit
— Upon completion of clearing and grubbing.
issuance
registered civil engineer;
fees
— During all phases of grading, including removals, fill operations, over excavation, temporary slope
Costa Mesa Building
excavation, and installation of shoring and dewatering systems.
Safety Division
— During fill placement.
— When any unusual conditions are encountered.
During fill nlaGemen+
SC 4.6-11 Concrete, in contact with the on -site earth materials, shall be designed in accordance with the
Prior to building permit
Project applicant/
Permit
negligible category for exposure to sulfate containing solutions of Table 19-A-4 of the 1997 Uniform
issuance
registered civil engineer,
fees
Building Code.
Costa Mesa Building
Safety Division
RAPm1qcts\Costa\J015\MMP\Draft MMP-030612.docx Pacific Gate Residences Project
UAddendum to FE,,____,150
Mitigation Monitoring Program
TABLE 1
PLAZA RESIDENCES MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
(CONTINUED)
Funding
EIR Section/Mitigaton:Program
Timing.of Mitigation ,,,I,
Responsible Party(ies)
,,Sources
Mitigation Measures
MM 4.6-1 Should dewatering be required for the discharge of perched groundwater during excavation for
Prior to - discharge of
Regional Water Quality
Permit
site improvements, the applicant shall acquire either a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
perched groundwater
Control Board; project
fees
(NPDES) permit for the discharge of wastes to surface waters or a Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR)
during grading and
applicant; Costa Mesa
permit for the discharge of wastes to land, as required, from the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control
construction
Building Safety Division
Board and provide evidence of permit issuance to the Costa Mesa Building Safety Division prior to initiating
any such discharge.
Hydrology and Water Quality
Standard Conditions of Approval
SC 4.9-1. Construction of structural BMPs as required by the NPDES Stormwater Permit issued to the
Obtain NPDES permit;
Costa Mesa Planning
Permit
project site by the County of Orange/City of Costa Mesa to capture urban runoff contaminants from
construct during grading
Division; Costa Mesa
fees;
developed areas prior to discharge to on -site storm drain facilities.
and site development
Building Safety Division
Project
applicant
SC 4.9-2 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall develop a Storm Water Pollution
Obtain NPDES permit;
Costa Mesa Planning
Permit
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that contains structural and non-structural BMPs that comply with NPDES
construct during grading
Division; Costa Mesa
fees;
Program requirements. BMPs shall be implemented as required by the NPDES Permit issued to the site.
and site development
Building Safety Division
Project
applicant
SC 4.9-3 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall obtain an NPDES Permit from the
Obtain NPDES permit;
Costa Mesa Planning
Permit
County of Orange. Applicable BMP provisions shall be incorporated into the NPDES Permit.
construct during grading
Division; Costa Mesa
fees;
and site development
Building Safety Division
Project
applicant
Land Use and Planning Programs
Standard Conditions and Requirements
SC 4.10-1 The proposed project would be subject to all applicable regulations of the City's General Plan,
Final Master Plan
Costa Mesa Planning
Permit
zoning ordinance, and all requirements and enactments of Federal, County, City authorities, and any other
review; prior to building
Division
fees
governmental entities, and all such requirements and enactments would, by reference, become conditions
permit issuance
of project implementation.
Noise
Standard Conditions and Requirements
SC 4.12-1 The City of Costa Mesa has adopted a Noise Ordinance that excludes control of construction
Inspection during
Costa Mesa Planning
Project
activities during the hours between 7 a.m. and 8 7 p.m. Mondays thrnt,ah Fridays. 9:00 AM to 6900 PM on
grading and construction
Division
applicant
Saturdays Construction activities are prohibited on Sunday and federal holidays. All noise generating
activities
construction activities .mth' inn feet Of res'de^tial areas should be limited to these hours.
RAProjects\Costa\J015\MMP\Draft MMP-030612.docx 119 Pacific Gate Residences Project
Addendum to FE/R 1050
Mitigation Monitoring Program
TABLE 1
PLAZA RESIDENCES MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
(CONTINUED)
Funding
EIR Section/Mitigation Program
Timing of Mitigation
Responsible Party(ies)
Sources
SC 4.12-2 All long-term activities on the project site are required to comply with the City of Costa Mesa
Noise Ordinance standards.
Prior to grading permit
issuance
Project applicant; Costa
Mesa Building Safety
Division
Project
applicant
Mitigation Measures
MM 4.12-1 The Project Applicant shall submit detailed plans for all the parking structures prior to the
issuance of a building permit for the residential structures. Said plans shall be accompanied by an
acoustical study prepared by a qualified acoustical City -approved expert to the satisfaction of the City of
Prior to the issuance of
grading permits
Acoustical engineer,
project applicant, Costa
Mesa Planning Division
Project
applicant
Costa Mesa Planning Division. The acoustical study shall demonstrate that all feasible sound attenuation in
compliance with Costa Mesa Municipal Code (Chapter XIII Noise Control) has been incorporated into
parking structure design, including but not limited to brushed driving surfaces (textured), limited openings
oriented toward sensitive noise sources, etc.
MM 4.12-2 The project applicant shall submit detailed plans for all parking structures prior to the issuance
of a grading or building permit for the structure. Said plans shall be accompanied by a acoustical study
prepared by a City -approved acoustical expert to the satisfaction of the Costa Mesa Planning Division. The
Prior to issuance of
grading or building
permit for a parking
Acoustical engineer;
project applicant; Costa
Mesa Planning Division
Project
applicant
acoustical study shall demonstrate that all feasible sound attenuation in compliance with the City's Noise
structure
Ordinance has been incorporated into parking structure design, including but not limited to brushed driving
surfaces (textured), limited openings oriented toward sensitive noise sources, etc.
MM 4.12-3 Prior to the issuance of precise grading permits for the residential development, a �'�, eta led
eRgineeP_and_the__AppR=
Prior to issuance of
precise grading permits
Project Applicant; Costa
Mesa Planning Division
Project
applicant
shall submitted final project_ plans to the City of Costa Mesa to �'� �;, ti the final heights and
locations of noise barriers required to meet the City's noise standards for exterior private residential living
for the residential
development
GNEL the Gesta Mesa Noise QrdiRaMe (MURiGipal
areas. Both the City's 66 exteFieF RGiSe standaFd and
Exh4bit 3.7-4. Exhibits 3.7 5 and 3.7 6 12show5 preliminary locations and "eights of "aff^ers that will be
required to meet the standards based on preliminary calculations, including a minimum 6-foot high patio
wall and 5-foot-high balcony enclosures (as applicable) along Bernard Street and Harbor Boulevard. T#e
finalize these baFFieF heights and leGatiGR6 based GR 9Fad!Rg and
aGeUSt*Gal eRO'Reering study shall pFedse
f^^l buil iRg ^'a^,. To be effective, noise barriers will be required to have a surface density of at least 3.5
pounds per square foot, and have no openings or cracks. They may be a solid wall, an earthen berm, or a
combination of the two. They may be constructed of wood studs with stucco exterior, any masonry material,
or a material that is less visually intrusive such as 1/4-inch plate glass or 5/8-inch plexiglass. The aseUstisal
engineeFiRg +udy, IRGludiRg GalGU!atieRs, final site clans shall be submitted to the City of Costa Mesa prior
to the issuance of a precise grading permit. The l' + hall le.,. eRt the .,,,.,,FRFReRdatieRs Gf the
R:\P-1-cts\Costa\J015\MMP\Draft MMP-03W12.d0cx Pacific Gate Residences Project
-- _
-- �----,ter
�Addendum to FL,_,50
Mitigation Monitoring Program
TABLE 1
PLAZA RESIDENCES MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
(CONTINUED)
Funding
EIR Section/Mitigation Program
Timing, of Mitigation
Responsible Party(ies)
, °Sources
Public Services
Standard Conditions and Requirements
SC 4.14-1 Vehicular access must be provided and maintained serviceable throughout construction to all
Part of Master Plan
Project applicant; Costa
Permit
required fire hydrants. Additional fire hydrants must be provided in the alley serving the interior units subject
submittal
Mesa Fire Department;
fees
to approval by Fire Prevention Division.
Costa Mesa
Transportation Services
Division
SC 4.14-2 The five -level parking structure must be equipped with automatic fire sprinklers.
Site inspection; Prior to
Project applicant; Costa
Permit
certificate of occupancy
Mesa Fire Department;
fees
issuance
Costa Mesa
Transportation Services
Division
SC 4.14-3 Prior to issuance of a building permit, the project applicant shall pay developer fees to the
Prior to building permit
Project applicant; Costa
School
Newport -Mesa Unified School District pursuant to the requirements established in SB 50. The amount of
issuance
Mesa Planning Division
fees
fees to be paid will be determined based on the established State formula for determining construction
costs.
Mitigation Measures
MM 4.14-1 Prior to the initiation of grading, a construction security service shall be established at the
Prior to grading permit
Project applicant; Costa
Project
construction site. Initially, the service shall ensure that no unauthorized entry is made into the construction
issuance; site inspection
Mesa Police Department
applicant
area. For the duration of each phase of construction, the project applicant shall provide sufficient on -site
security personnel on a 24-hour, 7 days per week basis, to patrol all areas of construction and prohibit
unauthorized entry. Evidence of compliance with this. requirements is subject to periodic site inspections by
City staff.
Utilities and Service Systems
Standard Conditions and Requirements
SC 4.17-1 Mesa Consolidated's Water Efficiency Specialist shall be consulted with during landscape
Prior to building permit
Project applicant, Water
Fees
planning to ensure that appropriate water conservation measures are used.
issuance
District
SC 4.17-2 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall pay the applicable
Prior to building
Project applicant;
Fees
connection fees charged to new development by the Mesa Consolidated Water District.
permit issuance
Water District
SC 4.17-3 Water conservation measures, as required by the State of California, shall be incorporated into
Prior to building permit
Project applicant; Costa
Project
building plans for the project. These may include, but are not limited to, the following:
issuance; prior to
Mesa Building Safety
applicant
of occupancy
Division
— Health and Safety Code Section 17921.3 which requires low -flush toilets and urinals in all new
ssulancee
construction;
— Title 24, California Administrative Code Sections 2-5352(I) and Q) which require insulation of
water -heating systems and pipe insulation to reduce water used before hot water reaches
RAPro1ects\Costa\J015\MMP\Draft MMP-030612.docx 1 ) , Pacific Gate Residences Project
Addendum to FEIR 1050
Mitigation Monitoring Program
TABLE 1
PLAZA RESIDENCES MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
(CONTINUED)
Funding
EIR Section/Mitigation Program
Timing of Mitigation
Responsible Party(ies)
Sources
equipment or fixtures; and,
— Government Code Section 7800 which specifies that lavatories in all public facilities be equipped
with self -closing faucets.
SC 4.17-4 Prior to issuance of building permits, a letter shall be obtained from the Costa Mesa Sanitary
Prior to building permit
Costa Mesa Sanitary
Project
District and the Orange County Sanitation District verifying that there is sufficient capacity in the receiving
issuance
District, Orange County
applicant
trunk lines to serve the project.
Sanitation Districts, and
project applicant
SC 4.17-5 Prior to the issuance of a connection permit(s), the applicant shall pay the applicable connection
Prior to connection
Costa Mesa Sanitary
Fees
fees.
permits issuance
District, Orange County
Sanitation Districts, and
project applicant
SC 4.17-6 Prior to the recordation of a final Master Plan, the applicant shall provide to the City of Costa
Prior to recordation of
Project applicant; Edison
Project
Mesa, a letter from Southern California Edison Company and Southern California Gas Company indicating
final Master Plan
Company; Southern
applicant
their ability to provide service to the project.
California Gas
Company; Costa Mesa
Planning Division
SC 4.17-7 Structures on the site shall be required to meet the Energy Building Regulations adopted by the
Prior to building permit
Project applicant; Costa
Permit
California Energy Commission (Title 24). Meeting these specifications would conserve non-renewable
and certificate of
Mesa Planning Division
fees;
natural resources to levels acceptable to the State.
occupancy issuance
Project
applicant
SC 4.17-8 The applicant shall comply with guidelines provided by Southern California Edison Company
Prior to recordation of
Project applicant;
Project
with respect to easement restrictions, construction guidelines, and potential amendments to right-of-way in
final Master Plan
Southern California
applicant
the areas of any existing Southern California Edison Company easements.
Edison; Southern
California Gas
Company; Costa Mesa
Planning Division
Mitigation Measures
MM 4.17-1 All sewer flows originating from the residential portion of the project site shall be connected to
Prior to connection
Costa Mesa Sanitary
Fees
the Costa Mesa Sanitary District's sewer system at Manhole No. 4 in Newport Boulevard.
permits issuance
District, Orange County
Sanitation District, and
project applicant
MM 4.17-2 In accordance with the requirements of AB 939, construction contractors shall reuse
Ongoing during
Project applicant; Costa
Project
construction forms where practicable or applicable, attempt to balance soils on the site, minimize over
construction; inspection
Mesa Building Safety
applicant
cutting of lumber and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) piping where feasible, and reuse landscape containers to the
during construction
Division
extent feasible.
RAPm1octs\Costa\J015\MMP\DraftMMP-030612.docx Pacific Gate Residences Project
1
/ Addendum to FEJ50
Mitigation Monitoring Program
TABLE 1
PLAZA RESIDENCES MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
(CONTINUED)
Funding
EIR Section/Mitigation Program
Timing of Mitigation <
Responsible Party(ies)_
Sources --
MM 4.17-3 Recycling bins for glass, metals, paper, wood, plastic, green waste, and cardboard shall be
Ongoing during
Project applicant; Costa
Project
placed on the construction sites for use by construction workers.
construction; inspection
Mesa Building Safety
applicant
during construction
Division
MM 4.17-4 In construction specifications and bid packages, require building materials made of recycled
During grading and
Project applicant; Costa
Project
materials, to the extent feasible and economically practical.
construction; inspections
Mesa Building Safety
applicant
Division
MM 4.17-5 Prior to the initiation of demolition and construction activities, the Project Applicant shall
Prior to initiation of
Project applicant; Costa
Project
prepare a waste reduction plan for acceptance by the City of Costa Mesa. The waste reduction plan shall
demolition and
Mesa Building Safety
Applicant
be included in all construction bud packages. During the term of the demolition and construction, the goal is
construction activities
Division
to recycle or divert 50 percent of construction and demolition wastes and keep records thereof in tonnage
or in other measures deemed acceptable to the City of Costa Mesa. To the maximum extent feasible, on -
site separation of scrap wood and clean green waste shall occur to permit chipping and mulching for soil
enhancement of land cover purposes.
RAProjects\Costa\J015\MMP\Draft MMP-030612.docx �� Pacific Gate Residences Project
F�
APPENDIX B
AIR QUALITY CALCULATIONS
f�
�a5 -
i I]
CALIFORNIA AND NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
� F]
� U
0
ID
i�
coIlutant "
"
`Averag"ing Time
Standards
Primarya
Secondary'"
1 Hour
0.09 ppm (180 lag/m3)
—
03
8 Hour
0.070 ppm (137 lag/m3)
0.075 ppm (147 lag/m3)
Same as Primary
24 Hour
50 lag/m3
150 lag/m3
Same as Primary
PM10
AAM
20 lag/m3
—
Same as Primary
24 Hour
—
35 pg/m3
Same as Primary
PM2.5
AAM
12 pg/m3
15.0 lag/m3
Same as Primary
1 Hour
20 ppm (23 mg/m)
35 ppm (40 mg/m)
Co
8 Hour
9.0 ppm (10 mg/m)
9 ppm (10 mg/m)8
—
Hour
(Lake Tahoe)
6 ppm (7 mg/m3)
—
—
AAM
0.030 ppm (57 lag/m3)
0.053 ppm (100 lag/m3)
Same as Primary
NOz
1 Hour
0.18 ppm (339 lag/m3)
0.100 ppm (188 lag/m3)
—
24 Hour
0.04 ppm (105 lag/m3)
—
—
SOz
3 Hour
—
—
0.5 ppm3
(1,300 pg/m )
1 Hour
0.25 ppm (655 lag/m3)
0.075 ppm (196 lag/m3)
—
30-day Avg.
1.5 lag/m3
—
—
Lead
Calendar Quarter
—
1.5 lag/m3
Same as Primary
Rolling
3-month Avg.
—
3
0.15 lag/m
Extinction coefficient of
Visibility 0.23 per km — visibility >_
Reducing 8 hour 10 miles
Particles ( 0.07 per km — >:30
miles for Lake Tahoe) No z
Sulfates 24 Hour 25 lag/m3 Standards
Hydrogen 1 Hour 0.03 ppm (42 lag/m3)
Sulfide
Vinyl 24 Hour 0.01 ppm (26 lag/m3)
Chloride
03: ozone; ppm — parts per million; Ng/m3 — micrograms per cubic meter; PM10: large particulate matter; AAM:
Annual Arithmetic Mean; PM2.5: fine particulate matter; CO: carbon monoxide; mg/m3: milligrams per cubic meter;
NO2: nitrogen dioxide; S02: sulfur dioxide; km: kilometer.
—: No Standard ;: milligrams per cubic meter
a National Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary, within an adequate margin of safety, to protect the
public health.
National Secondary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or
anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant.
Note: More detailed information in the data presented in this table can be found at the CARB website
(www.arb.ca.gov).
Source: CARB 2010
r
Ian
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMOd.2011.1.1
Pacific Gateway Project - Costa Mesa
Orange County, Winter
1.0 Project Characteristics
1.1 Land Usage
n
"r Lad Uses
3SIie
Metric
Parking Structure
283
Space
Apartments Mid Rise
113
Dwelling Unit
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s) Utility Company Southern Califomia Edison
Climate Zone 8
Precipitation Freq (Days)
2.2
1.3 User Entered Comments 30
Project Characteristics - Operational end of December 2014; use 2015
Land Use - Per project description, garage area 105,832 sf
Acreage 1.8 for res; 0.69 for garage for 2.49 total
Construction Phase -Demo 9/4-30/2012; grad 10/1-12/31/2012; util 1/1-2/28/2013
Build 3/1/2013-10/30/2014; pave 4/15-19/2013; paint 9/15-12/15/2014
Off -road Equipment -
Off -road Equipment - Bldg - no crane or generator
Off -road Equipment - Demo- Pulverizer (dozer is surrogate), loader
Off -road Equipment - Grade-2 scraper, dozer, grader
Off -road Equipment- Pave 1 paver, 1, roller, 1 loader
Off -road Equipment - Util- 1 excavator, 1 loader, 6hr/day
Trips and VMT - No demo hauling; asphalt reused on site
Demolition -
Date: 2/2/2012
�� 1 of 16
Grading - grade 2.49 acre; no export or import
Vehicle Trips - Weekday trip rate 6.65 per traffic study
Woodstoves - No fireplaces
Construction Off -road Equipment Mitigation -
Highlight indicates data used for LST analysis
2.0 Emissions Summary
2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
Unmitigated Construction
ROG
lu
Pmloii;�
p,?NW":
'��PMU� 1 .
.. I
I ,
, - -1
z�'coze
z%�
'a,
V.
fl.w.
Year
Y
IbI08Y
IbIday,
2012
7.87
68.74 i 34.29 U.Ub E
6.22 2.94 9.16 4.32 2.94 6.26 U.UU
U. tz
U.UV
7,086.15
2013
.. . ............ . ......... 6
35.54 0.0
...... .................. ................ . ............... ..................
........... .................. 2.68 2.78 0.00
2.68 5.04 0.�6
..................
0.65
..................
0.00
5,540.06
201455.42
'"****
. ............. ...... ................... ..................
................. .................. ..................................... ...... . .........
0 1. .1 1 4.7. 1.57
26.76 •0.05 2.59 1.47 0.00
...............
f 0.44
...... .....
6959
Total
NA
NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
NA
NA
.A
2 of 16
0S
Mitigated Construction
O
x:
2. :
ugarve
sash
P 70 otal
ugi[ive
haust
M2.5
8io- C 2
6io- 02
Tatal CO2
C
N20
CO2e
u
PM10
PM70
PM2.5
'PM2.5
Total
n Year
Ib/day
lb/day
2012
7.97
68.74
34.29
0.06
2.88
2.94
5.82
1.50
2,94
4.44
0,00
0.72
0.00
7.086,15
2013
.....7.30.....{
....................................»............................
• 36.02
• 35.54
j 0.06
.......
i...................................»........
2.68
_
5.04
................
0.10
...........:.......
2.68
_ ..........:....
2.78
........... ............
...a... ............. .........
0.00
_
0.65
0.00 •••
5,540.06
2014
.................»..................i..................i..................i...................
55.42
21.71 '
26.76
j 0.05
j 2.59
i...................................»..................i......
1.47
_
4.06
0.11
1..........>
1.47
....... ..........:....
1.57
................................................._
•••'
0.00
0.44
0.00EN.
Total
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA NA NA
NA
NA
2.2 Overall Operational
Unmitigated Operational
3_e
7 RO
NOX
CO'_
-502 :;
Fugitive
Exhaust.
PM10 Totell
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5-
10-0O2
N610-0O2
Total CO2
C 4
N20
CO2e
-
PM10
PM10
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
ategory
1131day
Ib/day
Area
5.55
0.11
9.61
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.00
0.05
i 0.02
0.00
17.36
Energy
...................................:.....0.15
0.04
0.34
.....i..................
E...................
i 0.00
i.......
...........i
0.00
..................b...
i 0.03
............. ...:......
...........:......0...........i....
0.00 ?
0.03
........... ............. ...........
0.01
0.01
438.75
................. b
4.29
..................
8,23
5.....................................
i 39.39
.
i 0.07
.
&.................. i..................b...................i...
8.91 0.36
9.28
..............................e..................i
0.30
0.36
0.66
... ....i... ...i. ...e...................
........... ............. ...........
0.29
.. ...........�
7,792.57
FMobile
Total:Il
9.88
1 3.63
49.15
0.07
8.91 0.36
9.36
0.30
0.36
0.74
0.32
0.01
7,648.62
�A 3of16
I�r
Mitigated Operational
3.0 Construction Detail
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Water Exposed Area
3.2 Demolition - 2012
Unmitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
Fugitive
_Exhaust
M 0 Total
��Uhatls t
NlEliomQ02
I Total CO2
I -A20 W2e
I—Noxf—
PM 0
•Pmz
Total_
jg—w g�
lb
------- --
AMEW—
Fugitive Dust
1.13 0.00
1.13 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00
i:i7.-99'! ........ . ......................
0.02
.................
1.31
. .......................................
1.31
................. .
...................
.......... ........... ................. .
0.29
2,534.35
Off -Road
Total
3.28 1 26.93 j 14.99 1 0.02
1 1.13 1.31
2.44 0.00 1.31 j 1.31
1
0.29
2,534.35
4 of 16
130
Unmitigated Construction Off -Site
Ox
-CO
S
ugdrve
Exhaust
M10Total
Fugitive
I MUM
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
PM70
PM70
PM2.5
PM25
1 Total
1
Category.E.
lb/day
Id/day
Hauling
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
............................. i............................... ...
.................>..................i........................ .....�.............
0.00 o.ao o.00 o.00 o.00 o.00
i.................::.......
o.00
..........i... ............ ..........................................
o.00l
0.00
Vendor
....................................i..........,,,,....i................. _ ............. ...........
@.................a.................s...............,.
0.03 i........................ .. .......
' 0.04 0.34 :.... ' 0.00y i 0.08 3 0.00 0.08 [ 0.00 0.00 0.01 i
.. .�0.0() �
E�..21
Worker
Total
0.03 0.04
0.3A
0.00
0.08 0.00
0.08
D.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
Mitigated Construction On -Site
PM2.5 I Total
Mitigated Construction Off -Site
-
-,
FROG7
FugitiveExhaust'°
PM10 Totall
Fug tive'°.Exhaust
rPM2:5
Bio-0O2
NBio-0O2
Total
CH4-
N20
CO2e
-
-
PM70
PM16 -
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Category',
Iblday
IWday
Hauling
0.00
0.00
0.00
O.OD
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
.................o..................d..................i..................(...................>.................o...................i...
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00 0.00
................
0.00
i .................. a .................:.....
0.00 0.00
..............i..................................... b.....0...........i ......
0.00
0.00
Vendor
.................
0.03
f,...... ............r..................i..................i...................i..................o..................n..
0.04
0.34
0.00
0.08
0.00 0.08
...................................
i 0.00
a ..................
0.00 0.01
i ..... ..............i...................3..................?.....0.00 _... _.............
5821
Worker
Total
0.03
0.04
0.34
0.00
0.08
0.00
0.08
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
5821
5of16
131
3.3 Grading - 2012
Unmitigated Construction On -Site
Unmitigated Construction OffSite
Mitigated Construction On -Site
6of16
IZ')�
Mitigated Construction Off -Site
-
- x
%^.
,Fugitive=.:
PM10 `
aust'
PM10`
PM10 Total
ug i ve
PM2.5
heust-
PM2.5
.5
Total
Bio• 02
NBia 2
otaI CO2
C
N20
CO2e
Category;. ;
Iblday
lb/day
Hauling
0.00 i 0.00 i 0.00 0.00 0.00 i 0.00 ? 0.00 O.OD 0.00 O.OD ? 0.00
............. i................. ?..................:.................. i......
.................i..................?....................................i.... ........... ............ ........... ...........
0.00 ... ;..� ....:..
0.00 .. .........- ..................� ...
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.OD 0.00 0.00 0.00
................. i............. ..... i...................i.................3.... _ ........... ............. ........... ...........
0.69 ;.... ... ;..�
0.07 0.07...................0.........i........ .........i...... • .. ..........i........ ..............0..........
• 0.00 0.15 �'
o.1s o.01 0.00 0.01 0.01
0.00
0.00
E16
Vendor
Worker
Total
0.07
0.07
0.69
0.00
0.15 0.00
0.16
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.01
3.4 Utilities - 2013
Unmitigated Construction On -Site
•ROG
Ox=
;-`CO :
S02°
ugfti"`
PM10
Exhaust
I MID
PM40Tota
Eugibve-
PM2.5.
-'Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bhr CO2
NB Io-0O2
Total CO2
: -CH4
1120
CO2e
ategory !
lb/clay
lb/clay
Off -Road
1.14
8,08 6.11
0.01
0.54 0.54
0.54
0.54
0.10
984.06
Total
1.14
8.08 6.11
0.01
0.54 0.54
0.54
0.54
A.
984.06
Unmitigated Construction Off -Site
=R00
N x=,'
G
2
FtgiUve
Exhauster
PM10•Totai
- ugi ve s
Exhaust
PM2.5
>Bio= 02
NBIo-0O2
TotatCO2
-0H4-
N20
CO2e
PM10
PM10
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
ategory,. z
lb/day
Hauling
0.00
.............................................................00...............
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
...... .e......0
0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
_ _
.................................0.00......i......
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00
_.................._
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
............ ........... ...........
0.00
0.00
0.00
Vendor
................. .................o.....0.82....e..................
0.03 : ;
0.00
...................
0.08
_ _
0:00 ; 0.08 0.00
0.00
0.01
........... ............ ........... ...........
••••0.00
56.96
Worker
Total
0.03
0.03
0.32
0.00
0.08
0.00 0.08 0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
5696
133 7of16
Mitigated Construction On -Site
RUG
x:..
- ug ve x east a ug ve
'� PM10 PM10 I�* RM25 r,r.PM25�' Tof`al
e
u • ,z, • •,;.;
09
b e �k„
.,Category r
YOH-Road
1,14
0.08 i
.,
0.11 -p .0.01
U.b4 0 54
p U.04 0.54
0.10
984.08
Total
1.14
8.08
6.11 0.01
0.54 0.54
0.54 0.54
0.10
904.06
Mitigated Construction Off -Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2013
Unmitigated Construction On -Site
R G-.
=:
W •-
;-FuglOve
Exhaust
PM10 Total
ugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
t310- CO2_ N&o-o-_
Tdal Co
CH4 _
20 [
2e -.
<NOx
PM70
:pM10
PM2.0PM2.5
otal
=
- -
daY -
T113
-
�;
• .1.13
_-
Ib day _
Off -Road
3.51
14.69
1326 ? 0.0Z _
1.13
1.13
0.31 i
1,721.60
Total
3.51
14.69
13.26 0.02
1.13 1.13
1.13
1.13
1
1
0.31
1,721.60
8of16
GIr
Unmitigated Construction Off -Site
`
. _
-"
ugttroe
PM10
beast-
I PM10
10_ otal
- ugltive
PM2.5
heust
PM2.5
.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- 2
Total CO2
CH4
NW
C e
Category.: '7
lb/day
Iblday
Hauling
0.00
i 0.00
0.00
i 0.00
0.00 ? 0.00
0.00
0.00
i 0.00
i 0.00 i 7
0.00
0.00
Vendor
i.................?..................A........ ..........
.................'s..................i.................i..................3........... ....... ........... ..............................._
3.29 ....
' 4.73 ;.... ...s...
0.43 i........ .........-.................
i 0.01 i 0.27 i 0.15 0.42 0.02 i 0.15 i 0.17 ' •••••0.02
••••• ...........
77727
................. i..................._.................a............................
...79
•
' 0.85
7.96
i 0.01
....... i.................i.........................
1.93 6.06
? 1.99
..........i......
0.07
...........:.......
[ 0.06
_ ........... ............. .............
..........i.... ...�...
i •••'••••
i 0.13 i
...........
0.08 •
1,435.40
Worker
Total
1.22
1 5.53
11.25
0,02
2.20 0.21
2.41
0.09
0.21
0.30
0.10
2,21267
Mitigated Construction On -Site
`ROG
'NOX'.
CO'=
S02'
Fugitive
PM10 "
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total
+FugiOve
PM2.5 "
>ExheOstr
'FPM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Blo- CO2
NBo-0O2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Category,
Iblday
Iblday
Off -Road
3.51
14.69
13.26 0.02
•
1.13
1.13
1.13
1.13
i i 0.31
1,721.60
Total
3.51
14.69
13.26 0.02
j j 1.13
j 1.13 j
1 1.13
1 1.13
1
1,721.60
Mitigated Construction Off -Site
_-
R:°G-
•'NOX
C
S 2 =
FugrWe-
PM10
Exhaust:
PM10
PM10 Total
Fugitive-
PM2.5 '
--Exhaust
- PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio-, 02
I Nttjo-0O2
I Total 02 I CH4
I N20
I CO2e
- ategory--=lb/day
- ..
way
Hauling
0.00 0.00 p 0.00 0.00 i 0.00
.................i.................._..................i...................................
0.43 4.73 i 3.29 i 0.01 0.27
.................i..................d...................................i.................i
0.79 [ 0.85 i 7.96 i 0.01 1.93
; 0.00
e..................
i 0.15
.....................................a........
i 0.06
i 0.00 0.00
?.................. :......... ..........i......
i 0.42 0.02
..........i.......
1.99 0.07
i 0.00
0.15
0.06
0.00
i 0.17
_
0.13
i
...........
i 0.00
0.02 -
............. ........... ..................
0.08
...........
0.00
77727
0Total
E21
Vendor
Worker
1.22 5.58
11.zt.
0.02
2.20
0.21
2.41 0.09
0.21
0.30
0.10
7
� j 9of16
13✓
3.nBuilding Construction 'oo14
Unmitigated Construction On -Site
Unmitigated Construction Off-S!
um
Mitigated Construction On -Site
PMIO
mmm
k�u/
\�L.
Mitigated Construction Off -Site
'--
"- OGNOx
Z :'
ugitive--
xhaust'r
P 7 atal
'- uglhve
ust
PM2.5
Bio• CO2
Bio- 02
Total C 2
Cti4
N20
G02e
_.
4
..-.
PM10
I PM10
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
'Category-
Iblday
IWday
Hauling
0.00 i 0.00
i 0.00
0.00
9 0.00 ? 0.00
i 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00 ?
? 0.00
0.00
Vendor
..... ............ ?...... .............................. ............................ .......
0.40 i.................:....................................i......
• 3.03
• 4.27i i 0.01 0.27 0.14
_
9 0.41
i 0.02
...........>
0.14
.................:.... ........... ...�...
0.16
:
............ ............_ ...........
? ',•••0.02 •••••
779.91
............i.................z..................'..................
.............................................................................. _ ........... _
0.74 7.34 i.................s.................»....
0.77 i 0.01 I 1:93 i 2.00 � 0.07 0.06 0.13
.............................._ ...........
? ���O.UB ����� �
1,407.40
Worker
Total
1.14 5.04
10.37
0.02
2.20 0.20
2.41
0.09
0.2D
0.29
0.10
2,187.31
3.6 Paving - 2013
Unmitigated Construction On -Site
°ROG
NOX
CO'.:
S02
Fugitive r
Exhausts
PM70 Total
Fugitive
:'Exhaust
PM2.5
Bfo- CO2
NBIo-0O2
Totat CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
PM10 -'-
PM10
PM2.1
PM2.5
Total
Category)
IWday
IWday
Off -Road
2,51
15.69 10.41 0.02 1,33
1.33
1.33
1.33
022
Paving
....................................5..................i..................e...................6......
0.00
............5
0.00
..................d...................i......
0.00
.............>..................i...............
0.00
0.00
............ ........... ..._...... ...........
i
t.491.87
Total
2.51
15.69 10.41 0.02 1.33
U3
1.33 -
1.33
0.22
Unmitigated Construction Off -Site
ROO
NOx:
C -_:
` S02 -:-
FugOive :
PM10
Exhaust=.
Pm,()
PM10-Total
FugOive '
PM2.5
Exhaust'
PM2.5
'Y 2:5
Total
Bio-CO2
NBio-:CO2
TotalCO2
CFk1
N20
CO2e
Category,.
ninay
lb/day
Hauling
Vendor
0.00 i 0.00 i
.................e..................o..................i
..................;............................,,,,,,......................................d:................;...
0.06 0.07
0.00
0.63
0.00
? 0.00
0.00
0.15
0.00 ? 0.00
0.00
0.00 0.16
0.00
.......o..
o.Do
................i........................................................
0.01
0.00
.....
.oD
0.00
i 0.00
e.....a
0.01
i
.............
i 0.00
i.................................i...........................................o..Doi.......y....
' """"""
................ ........... ._.......
0.01
0.00
0.00
713.92
Worker
F
Total
0.06 0.07
0.63
0.00
0.15
0.00
0.16
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.01
113.92
I�� 11 of 16
-- ---1 --~__ --
[--�
--
Mitigated Construction On -Sit
Mitigated construction Off -Si
Unmitigated Construction On -Site
mm
\Y
1umm
Unmitigated Construction Off -Site
_
-
NOX
Fugitive
PM10
I -Exhaust
I PM10
IPM10Totalj
- Fugdlve °
PM2.5
Fxheust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio• CO2
N8Kr CO2
Total 02
CH4
I N20
I CO2e
Category , ,'
lomay,
In/day
Hauling
0.00 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
.................i.................. ?....................................i.................. _ ........... ............. ........... ............
i.................i........ .........:..................
0.00 0.00 0.00 O.OD 0.00 0.00
0.00 . 0.00 0.00 0.00
................................... i.................. i........... ...... �?.... _ ........... .............................._ ...........
............. E................. I .............. �. �.-.. �...
0.15 [ 0.15 1.46 0.00 ? 0.38 0.01 0.40 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.02 �����
0.00
E279.2,1Total
Vendor
Worker
0.15
0.15
1.46
0.00
0.38 0.01
0.40
0.01
0.01
0.D3
0.02
Mitigated Construction On -Site
_
7 ROC
OX-'
EO='
2'
Fughive
EKhaust3
PM10Tota
-Fugitives
FXhaust=
PM2:5�
Blo- CO2
NBIo-02
Tata1:CO2
_CH4
-N20 -
CO2a
'
'PM10
PM10
PM2.5 :'
PM2.5
Total
--category'>
: Ibtday
lb/day
Archit. Coating
50.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0D
Off -Road
...........i..................:... ...i......
.................o.................. 5..................i................. .o.................. i....... .............
0.45 2.77 1.92 0.00 0.24 0.24 i 0.24 i 024
........... ............ ........... ...........
E i O.U4
E282-03
Total
50.96 2.77 1.92 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.24 024
0.04
Mitigated Construction Off -Site
ROO
NOX
CO _
S02 I
Fugdlve r
PM10
Exhaus[ °
PM10.
PM10 Total
: Fugitive9
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
:: PM2.5
Total
Bio--0O2r
IN CO?
Total CO2
CH4
1�-
Categorys.
Iblday,
IWday
Hauling{
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
.................o..................o..................i.................. i..................................... o...................i...................i..................q..................�
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
E 0.00 i 0.00
.................e..................o..................i..................i...................5................p..................n...................i..................e..................i...................
0.15 0.15 1.46 i 0.00 i 0.38 i 0.01 is 0.40 ? 0.01 0.01
0.00
0.00
i 0.03
..... .............i...................'s.................o.....
i ? ?
0.00
0.00 i
...........••i•••••.•
0.02
0.00
0.00
27925
Vendor
Worker
Total
0.15
0.15
1.46
0.00
9.38 0.01
0.40
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.02
279.25
13 of 16
130k
F_12 1,71
4.0 Mobile Detail
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
4.2 Trip Summary Information
AveragaOdjj�.
Hp Rate
MitigiOd' ur,,W5
Land Use _i
Weekday,
RtyrdayAnnual
T-'V
r.
Apartments Mid Rise
751.45
809.08 685.91
2.498,997
.......
2,498,997
1
.
Parking Structure
.....................................
0.00
............. 6.66 ............ ..................................
0.00
Total
751.45
809.08 685.91
2M,498,997
2,498,997
4.3 Trip Type Information
Miles
Land Use —-W
�.=WWorC H-S H- Qi
-
C-C--
WOorlz;-NW
Apartments Mid Rise
12.70 7.00 9.50 40.20 19.20
40.60
Parking Structure
8.90 1 13.30 1 7.40 0,00 0.00
0.00
14 of 16
140
5.0 Energy Detail
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
- - �-�--
> N x'.
2' ':
Fugitive
PM10
aust .
PM10
PM10 otal
Fugitive -
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- 02
o-C
TotalCO2
CH4
120
CO2e
category.
IWday
IWday
NaturalGas Mdigated
0.04 0.34
..... ..............................
0.04 ; 0.34
0.15 0.00
........................ ............
i 0.15 i 0.00
j 0.00
i................ ........... .................
i i 0.00
E 0.03
...... ...4..............�
0.03
....��...�
0.00
.............................
p 0.00
0.03
... ....:...
...........
i 0.03
0.01
............. ...........
.. i....
; ? 0.01
0.01
i 0.01
438.75
438.75
NaturalGas
Total
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
NA
NA
NA
NA NA
NA
NA NA
NA
I NA
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
Unmitigated
_.
atura as se
-' R
x
2
Fugitive
Exhaust
0` otal
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5 TotalRio-
2
NBio-COZ
TotalCO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
PM10
PM10
PM2.5
PM2.5
Land Use.:
kBTU
IWday
IWday
Apartments Mid Rise
3706.0
p 0.04
p 0,34 0.15
0.00
p p 0.00
i 0.03
1 i 0.00
0.03
1
0.01
0.01
43875
Parking Structure
.............................................i..............................................
0
�.... ............ ..........i........
...... ........... _
• 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 ' 0.00
......... _ ............ _
0.00 O.OD
0.00
_ ........... ••••••
........... _ ........�
0.00
_
0.00
0.00
Total
0.04
0.34 0.15
0.00
0.00
0.-
D.OD
0.03
0.01
0.01
435.75
Mitigated
aturw as se
x
t 2
Fugitive'
PM10
_Exhaust`
PM10
10= dta
=•Fugilrve
P.
° Exhausr
PM2.5
Total
Bic, 2=
io-� 2
TotalCO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Land Use--
kBTU
lb/day
lb/day
Apartments Mid Rise
3.7066
............. ..............
0
0.04
5..................
0.00
0.34
..................
0.00
0.15 0.00
c.................. i..........................
0.00 0.00
0.00
............ E...................i..................<.......
0.00
0.03 0.00
...........>.................i......
0.00 0.00
0.03
0.00
0.01
? 0.00
0.01
0.00
438.75
0.00
Parking Structure
Total
0.04
0.34
0.15 0.00
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.03
0.01
0.01
430.75
4\ 15 of 16
J
6.0 Area Detail
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
6.2 Area by SubCategory
Unmitigated
i am
NuExhaus
O.Q
%_,MzS_ P02
NBiq,_ 21 Total Gaz
A
I CH4:
XR
ROM
lblday
0.91
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
U.UU
Architectural Coating
. .............. .................. .................. ...... . ..... ...... . ..... ................... ---- . .. . ....
00 0.
. . . ............ ..................
.................. ..................
0.00
Consumer Products
. ...... ub ..... . ......... ... .......
.................. ............ 6 ..................................... . .................... .................. . ..... . ............ .................
0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00
. .........................
0.00
0.05
Hearth
................................... ..... . ............................. . .................. : ........... . .................. . ...................................... . ........... ...... ....... .
9.61 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 Eff
........... ..................
—r'rC2—r
......... ............
17.36
EW�U6_
Landscaping
Total —
5.55
0.11 9.61 0.00 TOO 0.05 j j .00 0.115 j
j
0-10
Mitigated
0.00
16 of 16
CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2011.1.1
Pacific Gateway Project - Costa Mesa
Orange County, Summer
1.0 Project Characteristics
1.1 Land Usage
and,Uses
.sue _
Slze
Metric ,
Parking Structure
q
283
Space
Apartments Mid Rise
113
Dwelling Unit
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s) Utility Company Southern California Edison
Climate Zone
Precipitation Freq (Days)
2.2
1.3 User Entered Comments 30
Project Characteristics - Operational end of December 2014; use 2015
Land Use - Per project description, garage area 105,832 sf
Acreage 1.8 for res; 0.69 for garage for 2.49 total
Construction Phase - Demo 9/4-30/2012; grad 10/1-12/31/2012; util 1/1-2/28/2013
Build 3/1/2013-10/30/2014; pave 4/15-19/2013; paint 9/15-12/15/2014
Off -road Equipment -
Off -road Equipment - Bldg - no crane or generator
Off -road Equipment - Demo- Pulverizer (dozer is surrogate), loader
Off -road Equipment - Grade-2 scraper, dozer, grader
Off -road Equipment - Pave 1 paver, 1, roller, 1 loader
Off -road Equipment - Util-1 excavator, 1 loader, 6hr/day
Trips and VMT - No demo hauling; asphalt reused on site
Demolition -
Grading - grade 2.49 acre; no export or import
Date: 2/2/2012
I �� 1 of 21
-- - - _ -jk
Vehicle Trips - Weekday trip rate 6.65 per traffic study
Woodstoves - No fireplaces
Construction Off -road Equipment Mitigation -
2.0 Emissions Summary
2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
Unmitigated Construction
2of21
Mitigated Construction
ROG
- NOx.
CO . -
5 2
FugOrve'-
Exhaust
PM10Total
Fugitive :
Exhaust
PM2.5
Sio. CO2
NBIo- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
e�� `
�aa
PM10
PM10
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
lb/day
Ib/day
2012
7.96
68.73
34.32
0.06
2.88 2.94
5.82
1.50
[ 2.94
i 4.44
I I 0.00
i 0.72
0.00
7,094.25
..... .............'...................p..................>..................t...................1.....
7.21 i 35.88 35.70
0.06
...........6
�
2.36 2.88
..................i..................[...............
5.04
0.10
� .:..•...••.••••..._i....
2.68
........... ...3...
................i........ .. ......c
�
• 0.85
0.00
5.652.39
2013
2014
.................8..................0..................)..................<.....,.,...........I..................0.....••••••........>...... .....
55.33 i 21.39 �� �� I • � � i 26.95 i 0.05 2.59 1.47 4.05 0.11 1.A7
J.................. :..... .»...........
1.57
)................... :..................6..............••..;..................
0.00
0.44
0.00
4.591.73
Total
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA NA
NA
NA
NA
NA NA
NA NA
NA
NA
NA
2.2 Overall Operational
Unmitigated Operational
=RQG".
NOxr
CO',:.
S02
Fugitive
::Exhaust .
PM10
-,+Total Fug hve
>Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBIo- CO2
Total 002
N20
COZe
PM10
PM10
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
I
I
7
alegoty
-
lb/day
Ib/day
Area
5.55
i 0.11
; 9.61
0.00
; 0.00
p 0.05
0.00
0.05
p i 0.02
0.00
17.36
Energy
.................�.......................0.15
0.04
- o.3a
.................................................
o.00
o.Do
0.03
.............
...........;
0.00
..................:...
0.03
............ ............. ...........
....;... ........
0.01
0.01
438.75
Mobile
.........................................................................................
4.00
• 7.48
40.35
0.08
[ 8.91 0.36
_
9.27
0.30
:...................:...
0.36
0.66
...�... ...:..
............ ............. ...........
.. ..._.....
[ 0.30
...........
7,620.59
Total
9.59
7.93
50.11
0.08
8.91 0.36
9.35
0.30
0.36
0.74
0.33
0.07
8,076.70
I4-5 3of21
Mitigated Operational
3.0 Construction Detail
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Water Exposed Area
3.2 Demolition - 2012
Unmitigated Construction On -Site
1
4of21
J o
Unmitigated Construction Off -Site
- e
x'.
ugiave:-
haust"
M10 Total
Fug,h"I.
haust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio- 2
otal CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
PM10
PM1D
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Category<
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
...... ..............................i......................................... _
0.00 • 0.00 o.00 o.00 o.00 ': o.ao o.oD o.00
o.00
_
........... ............. .......
i o.00
........... _ ...........
""'o:'u'o""'"
o.00
Vendor
.................5..........................36....4....................
0.03 ' 0.03
_
0.08 ? 0.00 0.08 0.00
1••�� ���~���
_ ........... ............
O.OD 0.01
... ; ..... 0.00 .... �.....
........... _ ..._.._
Worker
p
E62,26Total0.03
0.03
0.36
0.00
0.08 0.00
0.08
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
Mitigated Construction On -Site
NO
CO]
S02'
FugiBve
PM10 Totai
aFugll ve �`
Exhaust
'-PM25-BIo-0O2
NBIo-0O2
TotalCO2
--CH4
- N20
CO2e
-
PM10
PM1Dhausti
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
ategoryW
lb/day
Ibtday
Fugitive Dust
0.51 0.00
0.51 0.00 0.00
0.00
0.0
Off -Road
..................i.................. 5..................i..................
i i '14.99
3.28 26.93
............................u...
F...................i.......
j 0.02 1.31
_ ............. ...i.................
1.31 ..31
........... ............. ........... ..........
••••••••••t... ......
i 1.31 i "' "" ""'0.29 .[E2,5340355
Total
3.28 26.93
14.99
0.02 0.51 1.31
1.82 0.00 1.31
1.31 0.29
I�� 5of21
Mitigated Construction Off -Site
3.3 Grading - 2012
Unmitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
N
0.-?�].
V3
gm"liv X 8 11 U.919,Vle. 0 %auntB
��i CH4.
I,--
[FU
ETWI
Y,
MUM I
alegory
m
h
ti.ub 0.00 6.06 3.31 0.00 3.31
0.013
Fugitive Dust
.
Off -Road
. ...............
..... TM UWE Ti'66" 0.06
.................. ................. ................... .......
2.94
. ....
- — -------------- b7i
................ .
695-972
Total
7.90 66.fi6 33.60 0.06
6.06 2.94 9.00 3.31 2.94 6.25
0.71
6,969.72
6 of 21
a
Unmitigated Construction Off -Site
-..
r
-. Ox'
-� .' .
2 ..
_ ugi6ve-
x crust-
PM10 Tota
Fugitive '
heust
PM2.5.
Bio-0O2
NBio- Z
otal CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
PM10
PM10
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Category; .
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling`--
0.00
0.00
i 0.00
1 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.0D
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Vendor
...................................i....................................i.......... ....... ........... .............
0.00 ............................ i.....
• 0.00 ....g... ...:....
0.00 i.................;.................?........ ................
p 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ? O.OD 0.00 ? 0.00 ?•••0.00
••••y
........... _ ...........
0.00
.................
0.06
L..................
0.060.72
i................. 3
..................
0.000.150.00
i.................. i.................?
................. E..................
0.16
0.01
......
0.00
_ ........... .............
O.Dt�•••••
........... ...........
P-11210-L-01,
0.06
0.06
0.72
0.00
0.15 0.00
0.16
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.01
124.52
Mitigated Construction On -Site
- -
ROG
NOx
CO ;=
S02 -
ugttrve=
PM1 a -
6chaust
PM10.
PM10,Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
.Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bb-0O2
Bio- CO2
Total CO2 CH4
N20
CO2e
y-
Categot•
.lb/day
Way
Fugitive Dust
Off -Road
2.73 0.00
................. i................................... e.................. o............... ...:.................i.....................
7.90 68.66i 33.fi0 0.06 2.94
2.73
2.94
1.49
............. .......................................:....
0.00
? 2.94
1.49
2.94
........... ............ ........... ...........
; �� • ? 0.71••••� �
0.00
6,969.72
Total
7.90
68.66
33.60 0.06 2.73 2.94
5.67
1.49
2.94
4.43
0.71
6,969.72
14� 7 of 21
Mitigated construction Off -Site
3.4 Utilities - 2013
Unmitigated Construction OnSite
K."
Fu vejq�Lqq�
01.19ve 1tim.
W 'To I
uz
r
P
Cate
Ow
i:j,
11310ay
VO
Off -Road
1.14 8.08 6.11 0.01
0.54 0.54
0.54.
0.54
Mu
Total
1116-
1.14 8.08 j 6.11
1 0.01
j
0.54 0.54
0.54
j 0.54
1
0.10
984.06
8 of 21
150
Unmitigated Construction Off -Site
0 ,•
`N x
2
ugR ve Exheush
10. otal
: ugitive
ust
PM2.5
Bio-0O2
BiG-COZ
TotalCO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
-
PM10 I PM10
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Category
k
ID/day
Iblday
Hauling
0.00
0.00
i 0.00
0.00
0.00 ; 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
D.DD ;
0.00
0.00
.................-..................z.....
O.OD
' 0.00
............ .5......
g
............
0.00
..... ...... ....... i.................?..........................
0.00 0.00
_
? 0.00
.. .......
i 0.00
i........ ..........................
0.00
i.... ...:...
........... .............
0.00
........... ...........
0.00
Vendor
.................i..................z..........................................
...03
D.03
' 0.33
' 0.00
............ 2...................................
0.08 ? 0.00
i
0.08
.................
O.OD
i........ .........s..........
0.00
[.... ....;... ...:....
....... ........... .............
i 0.01 i
........... _ ...........
0.00
60.93
Workar
Total
0.03
0.03
0.33
0.00
O.Ott 0.00
0.0B
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
60.93
Mitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
rNOx
CO
S02•°:`
Fugitive:':
Exhaust-
PM10Total
r:. Fugitive
-:Exhaust
PM25
Ell=
NBio-402
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
PM10
PM'IO
PM2.5 °
PM2.5
Total
Catagory
.'
lb/day
Ib/day
Off -Road
1.14
[ 8.08
6.11
0.01
0.54
i 0.54 i
i 0.54
0.54
? 0.10
994.06
Total
1.14
8.08
6.11
0.01
0.54
0.54
0.54
0.54
0.10
984.06
9of21
IJ\
Mitigated Construction Off -Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2013
Unmitigated Construction On -Site
0 PM2St
M
Mlmam
.. . ... .......
C M ON
. .
CaIMF
3.51 14.69 13.26 0.02 1.13 1.13
0.31
. . . . . . .
11,721. 0
ad
Off -Road
Total
3.51 14.69 13.26 0.02 1.13 1.13
1.13
1.13
0.31
10 of2l
115a
Unmitigated Construction Off -Site
_i.
r,
7::'�
x
-;
2 -.
ugNve:
'PM10
xhaust-
PM10
PM70. atal
ugilive
PM2.5
haust
PM2.5
M2.5
Total
Blo•C 2
=1CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
•Category
Iblday
lb/day
Hauling
0.00
.................E..................i.......................................................i.......
0.41 i
................. i
0.72
i 0.00 ?
4.49
............ ...... E.................
0.74
0.00
2.98
.i..................
8.39
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.00 0.00
...........:
0.27 0.15
i..........................
...........
1.93 0.06
0.00
...................i..................;........
0.42
s.................:..................:.................:......
1.99
0.00
0.02
0.07
0.00
_
.........;.....
0.15
0.06
0.00
.. ..........:.... ...y... ...;....
........... .............
0.17
0 ��������������� ........... .............
0.13
i 0,00
........... _ ...........
0.02
........... _ _ ...........
0.08
0,00
767.74
Vendor
Worker
Total
1.13
5.23
11.37
0.03
2.20 0.21
2.41
0.09
D.21
0.30
0.10
E535.32
Mitigated Construction On -Site
-
-
ROG
NOx
CO-
`S02 '+
Fugitw-.
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
jPM10Totalj
Fugitive
P102.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
9b-0O2
N8]o-CO2
Total CO2
CH4 I
N20
I CO2e
Category,
lb/day
lb/day
Off -Road
3.51 i 14.69 i 13.26 i 0.02 i i 1.13 i 1.13 i i 1.13 i 1.13
0.31
1.721.60
Total
3.51 14.69 13.26 0.02 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13
0.31
1,721.60
11 of 21
1��
^--~ `--� `---' `--~ ----' ----' ---- l \ ---- --- -- -- -- / \
Mitigated construction Off -Site
3.oBuilding Construction 'om4
Unmiti_qated Construction On -Site
MEW
1um21
\��Z�
\i� `
Unmitigated Construction Off -Site
_
- x
ugdtve'
ExhaustrrIPM10Totall
FUgltie '
Exhaust
P .5
Bio. CO2
NBio- C 2
TotalCO21
CH4
N20
CO2e
PM10
PM70
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
I
I
Category,,
lb/day
ItNday
Hauling
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Vendor
................. ...... ............ i.................?...... ............ i..... ............. i....... - ........... ............. ...........
4.07 a 2.72...........:..................i....
0.38...........'..................i........ ................
0.13 '; 0.40 O.D2 0.13 0.15
_ ...........
0.(12 �����
784.58
Worker
e...................................?........ .. .......
..................i..................i..................i..................i.......... ....... -.................._
0.68 0.67 ' 7.76 0.02 j 1.93 0.06 2.00 0.07
:......0 .........�..... .............:.. ............ ...........
0.06 0.13 �
�•••••0.08 ••�•� ...........
1,505.A2
?
?
Total
1.06
4.74
10.A8
0.03
2.20 0.19
2.40
0.09
0.19
0.28
0.10
2,290.00
Mitigated Construction On -Site
.�
' ROG
-*NOx
CO<":-
S02
Fugftnre 'sI
PM10
Exhaust =
PM10
PM10 Total
FugNve
PM2.5 '
aExhaust
PM2.5
I PM25
Total
Bb-0O2
NBio-CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Category',
Ib/day
IWday
Off -Road
3.18 i 13.74 13.01 i 0.02 i i 1.01 i 1.01 1.01 i 1.01
j i 0.29
1,721.00
Total
3.18 13.74 13.01 0.02 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01
0.29
1,721.00
13 of 21
155
Mitigated Construction OffSite
3.6 Paving - 2013
Unmitigated Construction on -Site
14 of 21
150(
Unmitigated Construction Off -Site
. ---,-ROG_NOX
CQ,-,_
S02
Fugitive-
Exhaust
PM10Totalj
Fugitive-
Exhaust
PM2.5
Blo- CO2
NBio-0O2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
PM10
PM10
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Category:-
lb/day
Iblday
Hauling
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
............................. ? ..................
.................e..................?............���..3..................a...... _
0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00
y................ .i
0.00
.................i..................i....
0.00
0.00
........... ............ ........... ...........
0.00
O.DD
Vendor
0.00
0.00
a
worker
• i.................?........-........?.........................
.....0.06............................0.67.....5......OAO.....3.................. _
• 0.16
0.06 i i 0.15 i 0.00
i 0.01
.............................i....
0.00
_
0.01
.. ........._....
........... ............ ........... _ ...........
0.01
121.85
To,.,
0.06
0.06
0.67
0.00
0.15 0.00
0.16
0.01
0,00
0.01
0.01
121.85
Mitigated Construction On -Site
--
'RQG
.NOx::
CO :-
.S02=i
FugOive.
PM10
'.Exhaust ':
PM10
PM10?otel
Fugitive
PM2.5 '
haust
- PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Blo-0O2
NBio-0O2
Total CO2
I CP
N20
CO2e
ategory=
I day
lb/day
Off -Road
.
2.51 [ 15.69 i 10.41
.................�..................o..................i..................E.........................
0.00 - ;
-
i 0.02 1.33
............5
0.00
1.33
..................:...................i.......
0.00 ;
1.33
0.00
1.33
_
? 0.00
[ ' 0.22
........... ............. ........... ........... ...........
i
1,491.67
0.00
Paving
Total
2.51 15.69 10.41
0.02 1.33
1.33
1.33
1.33
0.22
1,491.87
�_� 15 of 21
1-1
Mitigated Construction Off -Site
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2014
Unmitigated Construction On -Site
16 of 21
15Z
Unmitigated Construction Off -Site
--
x
O :'-
2
-Fugitive
Exhaust-
PM10Total
ugdive-.
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio-0O2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
70
CO2e
= 1 �
PM10
PM10
PM2:5
PM2.5
Total
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling
0.00
.................i..................i.................y..................3..................i.......
0.00
i 0.00
0.00
? 0.00
;
p 0.00
o.00
i U0 0.00
...........i
o.ao o.00
0.00
..................5..................:........
o.00
p 0.00
o.00
0.00
.........c.....
o.00
[ 0.00
........... ............. ...........
...........:.... ...'...
o.00
i 0.00
._...._..
0 00
:"""'
0.00
0 00
Vendor
......o;i3...................... .................._
0.13 i 0.00.............................:....
0.01 0.03
_ 0.02
-=770
Worker
Total
0.13
0.13
1.54
0.00
0.38 0.01
0.40
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.02
298.70
Mitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
roNOx
CO �.
502 --
Fug Rive =
Exhaust's
PM10 Total
'- Fug hve
;-Exhaust
PM2.5
Blo-CO2
N810- CO2
Total CO2
GH4
N20
CO2e
PM10
PM10
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Category
ib/day
IWday
Archit. Coating
5D.51 t
om
0.00 i
0.00
[ 0.00
'
0.00
Off -Road
...........o
......................2.77.....E........92.....i..................i..................i.......
0.45 0.00 0.24
............
...................i... ....e.................
0.24
0.24 ?
_ .....
0.24
........... ..............................._................_
i ••0.04�
282.03
Total
50.96 2.77
1.92 0.00 1 0.24
1 0.24 j
0.24
1 0.24
j 1 0.04
282.03
I5\ 17of21
r
Mitigated Construction Off -Site
ROG
east, -,.. -,-
p ,T. .
... ..PM1
. . ..... M.
-inga'a-..
0.00 0.00
c 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.01:1 0.01)
0.00
0.00
Hauling
................ ............... . ............. + . ............. .................. .................. . ...
0.00 0.00 i-0.1w 000 0.00 0.00 0.00
. ............. ............... ..................
om •�.00
Vendor
.......... .................. v ..................................... . ...... 6.ii� .................
. . .............. . ............... . ..... ............ . ... I ........ . ..................
................ :: 0.00 : : Ry 1 0.01 0.03
.0.13 1.64 6.01
Worker
298.70
Total
0.13 0.13
-='.00 0.38 0.01 0.40 0.01 0.01 0.03
0.02
298.70
4.0 Mobile Detail
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
R G -
0
FUgiWe,_Exhaust;
HiviluAolal
"02 Total C�02
7 1,144�,- N20
,
E'S02
Pmloz-� 7plwib,;
1,,-:
lb/day
4.00
7.48 40.35 U.Ut$
U-VI
0.30
7,520.59c
Mitigated
Unmitigated
.................
0.08
67.iFi :
6:5g .......... .
6.w ................... ......
0.30 0.66
i ........... . ...
. .........
z b36 ..................
620.59
_R71
Total
NA
NA NA NA
MNA -""
NA NA NA NA
NA
NA NA NA NA
18 Of 21
IV)
4.2 Trip Summary Information
Average Daily Trip Rate
Unmiti ated
Mitigated
Land:Use
Weekday
Saturday
Sunday
Annual VMT
Annual VMT
Apartments Mid Rise
751.45
809.08
685.91
2,498,997
2,498,997
Parking Structure
.....................................:..................................................................._...................................................................
0.00
0.00
0.00
Total
751.45
809.08
685.91
2,498,997
2,498,997
4.3 Trip Type Information
r '
Miles
Trip %
+.: Land Use
H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-D or C-NW
H-W or C-W H-S or C-C
H-O or C-NW
Apartments Mid Rise
12.70 7.00 9.50
40.20 19.20
40.60
Parking Structure
8.90 13.30 7.40
0.00 0.00
0.00
5.0 Energy Detail
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
_. =
CO -e
2a
ugNve=
PM10
aust,
PM10
1D otal
ugfive""
PM2.5 --
�- haust
PM2.5
-- M2.5 -
Total
Bio- 2
810 C 2
TotalCO2
CH4
N
CO2e
Category
101day
-
1h(day
NaturalGas Mitigated
0.04 0.34 0.15
.........................................................................................e.......
0.04 0.15
' 0.34
0.00 0.00
0.00 i 0.00
0.03
_ _ ..........
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.03
_.............................__
0.03
0.01
.
.............................._
0.01
0.01
0.01
435.75
430.75
NaturalGas
Unmitlaated
Total
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
NA NA
NA
NA
NA
NA NA NA
NA
NA
I�1 19of21
r--�
---- ^--� �--- ---- —'--- ----- ---- l \ ---- �-- �� / \
auEnergy uyLand Use 'mmxoralGaa
Unmitigated
Mitigated
mm
coofo
6.0 Area Detail
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
.N x`
-
ugitive
Exhaust
P 10 Total
- ugisve;
Maustl
PM2.5
Bic-CO2
io- 02
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
PM10
I PM70
PM2.5
`.PM2.5
Total
Calegoryg
lb/day
Ib/day
Mitigated
5.55 0.11
9.61 0.00
0.00
0.05
0.00
0.05
0.02
0.00
17.36
.................»..................s..... ............. .................. i................
5.55 0.11 9.61 0.00 0.00
0.05
.............
O,DD 0.05
............ ...........................»..................i..................
0.02
0.00
17,36
Unmitigated
Total
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA NA NA NA
NA
NA
6.2 Area by SubCategory
Unmitigated
_-
ugtuve aust=
PM70 PM10 -
P 70 ota
r ugitive
PM2.5 '
':` haust
' PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Blo- 02
Bic- 02
otat CO2
CH4
N2O
GO2e
> SubCategory
ID/day
Ib/day
Architectural Coaling
0.91 i i i i 0.00 i 0.00 i i 0.00 i 0.00
.................:..................»...................i...................:............... _�.....- ....
0.00 0.01:..................:.................a.................. v ..................
......
a........................................................................€....... _ _ ............. _
0.00 0.00 i 0 6.00 0.00 i 0.00 i 0.00 0.00
................. d.................. ?................. .e.................. ?............... _ _ ............. ......................................
0.31 0-11 i 9.61 ? 0.00 - 0.00 0.05 - 0.00 0.05
........... ........... ........... _ .............. _:... ........... ...
_ ............ _
0.00 0.00 ---
............ ........... _ ...........
= 0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
17.36
Consumer Products
Hearth
Landscaping
Total
5.55
0.11 9.61 0.00
0.00 0.05
0.00
0.05
0.02 0.00
17.36
Mitigated
NO 7C'
=
O i
S 2 =.
Fugitive :
PM10
FxhausL
'PM10
PM10=Total
-
- Fuginve:4
PM2.5 '
Exhaust
PM2.5
I PM2.5 Blo•CO2
Total
Blo-CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
COZa
ub ategory
'I day
IWday
Architectural Coating
0.91 i 0.00 0.00 i 0,00 i 0.00 i
.................0ii................e.........................
0.00 0.00 0.00..............................
.................o.................. b..................i..................i..................................... ....... ............. i................... i.................. b.................. i......
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.OD
.................»..................»..................i..................2.....................................»...................i..................::.... .0..........».................. i.....
9.61 i 0.00 0.00 i 0.05 ? 0.00 i 0.05 ;
...........
0.00 0.00
? o- 0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
17.36
Consumer Products
Hearth
Landscaping
Total
5.55
0.11 9.61
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.00
0.05
0.02 0.00
17.36
�� 21 of21
i�
II
APPENDIX C
TRAFFIC MEMORANDUM
j
J
1. I (Q4-
k95
j
Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
19 Technology Drive Suite 200
n Irvine CA 92618-2334
Tel: (949) 923-6000
-1 l Fax: (949) 923-6121
Stantec
L..
-� January 31, 2012
File: 2073006680
l�
BonTerra Consulting
2 Executive Circle, Suite 175
D Irvine CA 92614
Attention: Jennifer Marks
U
Reference: Pacific Gateway Apartment Conversion Traffic Impact Comparison
�J Dear Jennifer:
�I Stantec Consulting Services Inc. has prepared an analysis of the trip generation and project access of the
J proposed Pacific Gateway Apartments in the City of Costa Mesa. This letter summarizes the results of our
investigation.
The project consists of 113 apartment units located on: the south side of Bernard Street east of Harbor
IL Boulevard. The project site was previously approved for a total of 161 condominium units of which 113 units
have not been built. The project is currently proposing to construct the remaining 113 units as rental
ill apartments instead of the originally proposed residential condominiums. The original traffic analysis
J (prepared by Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. in 2002) applied the Costa Mesa Traffic Model (CMTM) High
Density Residential trip rates to the condominium project. The same CMTM High Density Residential trip
rates would have been applied if the original project had consisted of apartments instead of the residential
condominiums, and the resulting trip generation would have been the same as the residential condominiums.
J In comparison, application of the most recent Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, 8th
_ Edition Apartment trip rates to the currently proposed 113 apartments results in a decrease of three trips in
I the AM peak hour and a decrease of four trips in the PM peak hour, with a total daily decrease of 23 trips (see
Table 1).
The difference between the assumptions in the original traffic analysis and the current analysis is a very minor
change in the access and the distribution of project traffic to Bernard Street. The original traffic analysis
assumed a connection to 19th Street which is no longer available to the proposed project. A small amount of
project traffic was assigned to this connection in the original study; however, the use of this access was
minimal since the intersection with 19th Street was limited to right -turns only. The trip generation and the
J overall distribution are virtually unchanged from the original study.
Access to the current apartment project will be provided by a single driveway on Bernard Street east of
�._) Harbor Boulevard. The total driveway volume is estimated to be 57 AM peak hour trips (11 inbound, 46
outbound), 70 PM peak hour trips (45 inbound, 25 outbound), and 751 daily trips. Approximately 75 percent
of the trips are estimated to travel on Bernard Street to/from Harbor Boulevard, and approximately 25 percent
are estimated to travel on Parsons Street (see Figure 1). The driveway is slightly offset to the west from the
j existing Toyota dealership service department driveway creating a potential conflict between left turns into
and out of the car dealership driveway and the project driveway; however, the expected traffic volumes from
the proposed project are low enough not to create a significant problem on this low volume, low speed street.
For example, during the AM peak hour, approximately 35 vehicles are estimated to exit the project driveway
Stantec
January 31, 2012
Jennifer Marks
Page 2 of 4
Reference: Pacific Gateway Apartment Conversion Traffic Impact Comparison
via a northbound left turn toward the west. This is an average of approximately one vehicle every two
minutes. The PM peak hour left -turn volume is estimated to be even lower, approximately 20 vehicles
(i.e., one vehicle every three minutes). Inbound project trips from Parsons Street entering via a left turn from
westbound Bernard Street are estimated to be fewer than 10 trips during the AM or PM peak hour. These low
volumes are not expected to create a significant conflict with vehicles entering and exiting the car dealership
driveway.
In conclusion, the trip generation, distribution, and impacts from the proposed apartment project have not
significantly changed from the original condominium/townhouse project analyzed in 2002. The conclusions
from the original analysis are still valid, and the project is not expected to have a significant impact on the
circulation system.
Sincerely,
STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES INC.
Cathy Lawrence, P.E.
Transportation Engineer
Tel: (949) 923-6064
Cathy. Lawrence@stantec.com
Attachments: Table 1 — Trip Generation and Trip Rate Summary
Figure 1 — Project Peak Hour Trips
c. Raja Sethuraman, City of Costa Mesa
cal v:\2073\active\2073006660\reportllet_pacgatewayapts_020112.docx
r-i
i
�_il
0
��L
0-
0.-
sunwc i C9.K
L.J
Table 1 Trip Generation and Trip Rate Summary
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Land Use
Amount In Out .. Out
.. AD
Trip Generation
Approved — High Density Residential
113 DU
10
50
60
49
25
74
774
Proposed — Apartments
113 DU
11
46
57
45
25
70
751
Trip Rates
High Density Residential'
DU
.09
.44
.53
.43
.22
.65
6.85
Apartment2
DU
.10
.41
.51
.40
.22
.62
6.65
Notes:
1 Costa Mesa Traffic Model (CMTM) High
Density Residential rate (blend of ITE rates 210,
220 & 231)
2 Institute of Transportation Engineers
ITE Apartment rate (220), Trip Generation, 8th Edition, 2008
Stantec I (-Q9 letpacgatewayapts_020112.docx
Ei
C
IT