Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCIM/Huntington, LLC - aka CIM Group, LLC - 2002-10-21 (10)k I 0 r n 1 The Strand M Downtown Huntington :each (:locks 104 and 1 D5) Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report State Clearinghouse No. 20001109 Volume I (Responses to Comments) lk Prepared for: The City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Prepared by: -EIP,_ A 5 S© C I A T E S EIP Associates 12301 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 430 Los Angeles, CA 90025 D �- 1 n I THE STRAND AT DOWNTOWN HUNTINGTON BEACH FINAL SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SCH No. 200051109 Volume I Prepared for City of Huntington Beach Prepared by EIP Associates r' SEPTEMBER 2002 11 h CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................1-1 1.1 CEQA Requirements..........................................................................................................1-1 1.2 Public Review Process.......................................................................................................1-1 1.3 Contents and Organization of the Final EIR..................................................................1-1 1.4 Use of the Final EIR............................................................................................................1-2 2.0 TEXT CHANGES............................................................................................................................2-1 2.1 Format of Text Changes....................................................................................................2-1 2.2 Text Changes.......................................................................................................................2-1 3.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS...................................................................................................3-1 3.1 Organization of the Responses to Comments................................................................3-1 3.2 Comments and Responses to Comments........................................................................3-1 TABLES Table 3-1 Comment Letters Received During the Northam Ranch House Draft EIR PublicReview Period......................................................................................3-1 Table 3-2 Future Peak Hour Off -Site Noise Levels....................................................3-22 APPENDICES Appendix A Revised Traffic LOS Worksheets for Main/PCH and Sixth/PCH Appendix B Noise Modeling Data for Peak Hour Analysis at Surrounding Intersections Appendix C Economic Analysis Memorandum IThe Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach iii 1.0 INTRODUCTION � 1.1 CEQA REQUIREMENTS Before approving a project, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires the Lead Agency to prepare and certify a Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR). The contents of a Final EIR are specified in Section 15132 of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that: The Final EIR shall consist of: (a) The Draft EIR or a revision of the draft. (b) Comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR either verbatim or in summary. ■ (c) A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR. (d) The responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process. (e) Any other information added by the lead agency. 1 1 1 An overview of the contents of the Final EIR, indicating compliance with Section 15132 of the CEQA Guidelines, is provided in Section 1.3 of this volume. The Lead Agency must provide each agency that commented on the Draft EIR with a copy of the Lead Agency's proposed response at least 10 days before certifying the Final EIR. In addition, the Lead Agency may also provide an opportunity for members of the public to also review the Final EIR prior to certification, though this is not a requirement of CEQA. 1.2 PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS The Draft EIR was distributed to various public agencies, citizen groups, and interested individuals for a public review period, which began July 19, 2002, and ended on September 3, 2002. The Draft EIR was circulated to State agencies for review through the State Clearinghouse, Office of Planning and Research. During the review period, the public was provided with the opportunity to submit written comments on the Draft EIR. 1.3 CONTENTS AND ORGANIZATION OFT -HE FINAL, EIR As required by Section 15132 of the CEQA Guidelines, the Final EIR consists of ■ The Draft EIR (including Technical Appendices) IThe Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 1-1 1.0 Introduction ■ Responses to Comments (including comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR, either verbatim or in summary; all Draft EIR text changes; a complete list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR; copies of the comment letters received; the responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process; the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program [MMRP], pursuant to Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code; and any other information added by the lead agency) Additionally, Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code requires that Findings of Fact be adopted if implementation of the proposed project would result in one or more significant effects on the environment. This Final EIR is composed of two volumes, which are organized as follows: ■ Volume I: Response to Comments —This volume contains the Responses to Comments (including comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR, either verbatim or in summary; all Draft EIR text changes; a complete list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR; copies of the comment letters received; the responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process; and any other information added by the lead agency). (The MMRP is provided under separate cover.) ■ Volume II: Revised Draft EIR and Technical Appendices —This volume describes the existing environmental resources on the project site, and in the vicinity of the project site; analyzes potential impacts on those resources due to the proposed project; identifies mitigation measures that could avoid or reduce the magnitude of significant impacts; evaluates cumulative impacts that would be caused by the project in combination with other future projects or growth that could occur in the region; analyzes long-term implications of the project; and provides a full evaluation of alternatives to the proposed project that could eliminate, substantially reduce, or avoid identified project impacts The Draft EIR has been revised to include margin notes, indicating that text changes have been made. All text changes are provided in Volume I, Section 2 (Responses to Comments) of the Final EIR. This volume also contains the Technical Appendices and Reports that were prepared for use and inclusion in the Draft EIR environmental analysis sections. 1.4 USE OF THE FINAL EIR The Final EIR allows the public and the Lead Agency an opportunity to review revisions to the Draft EIR, the responses to comments, and other components of the EIR—such as the MMRP— prior to approval of the project. The Final EIR serves as the environmental document used by the City when considering approval of the Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach. 1-2 City of Huntington Beach I 1.0lntroduction 1 After completing the Final EIR, and before approving the project, the Lead Agency must make the following three certifications as required by Section 15090 of the CEQA Guidelines: ■ That the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA; ■ That the Final EIR was presented to the decision -making body of the Lead Agency, and that the decision -making body reviewed and considered the information in the Final EIR prior to approving the project; and ■ That the Final EIR reflects the Lead Agency's independent judgement and analysis. Additionally, pursuant to Section 15093(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, when a Lead Agency approves a project that would result in significant, unavoidable impacts that are disclosed in the Final EIR, the agency must state in writing its reasons for supporting the approved action. This Statement of Overriding Considerations shall be supported by substantial information in the record, which includes this Final EIR. Since the proposed project would result in significant, unavoidable impacts, the City of Huntington Beach would be required to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations if it approves the Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach. These certifications, the Findings of Fact, and the Statement of Overriding Considerations are included in a separate Findings document that accompanies the City's staff report. Both the Final EIR and the Findings are submitted to the City for consideration of the proposed project. The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 1-3 1 7l L� 2.0 TEXT CHANGES 2.1 FORMAT OF TEXT CHANGES Text changes are intended to clarify or correct information in the Draft EIR in response to comments received on the document, or as initiated by staff. These changes have been indicated by margin notes in the Revised Draft EIR, which is provided in Part II of this Final EIR. Revisions are shown in Section 2.2 as excerpts from the Draft EIR text, with a line through deleted text, and a double underline beneath inserted text. 2.2 TEXT CHANGES This section includes revisions to text, by Draft EIR Section, that were initiated either by Lead Agency staff, or in response to public comments. The changes appear in order of their location in the Draft EIR. Draft EIR Section 3.1, Aesthetics/Visual Quality Page 3.1-9 In response to Comment 3-2, on page 3.1-9, in the paragraph under "Consistency with Policy C 4.2.2," the third sentence will be revised as follows: Additionally, the proposed project would provide a public terrace on the fourth second floor of the proposed hotel, which would provide enhanced coastal view opportunities. Draft EIR Section 3.3, Cultural Resources Page 3.3-19 On page 3.3-19 of the Draft EIR, Mitigation Measure 3.3-3 will be revised as follows: MM 3.3-3 Prior to reEor-datie^ ^- Ube c....,' maw for- the A submittal for building permits the Applicant shall incorporate a 20-foot setback from the property line between the Helme-Worthy pr-ejee�-ro er and Building '� F/G of the proposed project. The plan shall also include, where Building l�F G adjoins the Helme-Worthy buildings along the southern property line a 10-15-foot average upper - level setback for the third and fourth floors to create a distinct separation between the new and older buildings. This-spaee shaJ4 be The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 2-1 2.0 Text Changes 11 Draft EIR Section 3.4, Geology/Hydrology Page 3.4-17 On page 3.4-17 of the Draft EIR the sixth sentence of Impact 3.4-1 will be revised as follows: Pursuant to City standard conditions of approval, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), a grading/erosion control plan and WQMP would be prepared prior to construction. As a condition of approval to the proposed project, the grading/erosion control plan would be consistent with the provisions of the Air Quality Management District's Rule 403 as related to fugitive dust control. Therefore, construction impacts related to erosion would be less than significant. Draft EIR Section 3.5, Land Use Page 3.5-7 On page 3.5-7 of the Draft EIR, under the heading "Consistency with Policy LU 4.1.1," the sentence will be revised as follows: Refer to the discussion below of project consistency with City of Huntington Beach "� ^ ^i^al Code ^ f'�^'^^ "' ^a "Downtown Specific Plan, below which focuses 22 on design and development in the City of Huntington Beach District #3, where the proposed project is located. Page 3.5-21 In response to Comment 3-1, paragraph 3 on page 3.5-21 of the Draft EIR will be revised as follows: A large, publicly accessible terrace is provided on the second floor of the hotel, overlooking Fifth Street, with views to the Pacific Ocean. The distribution of open space on the proiect site would occur as follows: Table 3.5-1: Open Space Summary Area Space s-f. Corner of Sixth St. and PCH at Bldg. F 1. 007 Walnut Avenue North 625 At elevators/stairs lobby 916 Walnut Avenue South 554 Plaza and passage 4. 551 NE corner of Bldg. 116 Subtotal: Ground level 7 669 2-2 City of Huntington Beach 1 2.0 Text Table 3.5-1: Open Space Summa Area S ace s.f. Level 2 (terracel 3,183 Total Open Svace 10,552 Net site area* 103.935 Required open space (10%1 10.394 Source: CIM Group 2002 * Does not include ROW dedications As shown in Table 3.5-1 above, the proposed project would therefore, be consistent with Section 4.5.10 of the Downtown Specific Plan. Draft EIR Section 3.6, Noise Page 3.6-4 In response to Comment 3-4a, the first sentence of the second paragraph on page 3.6-4 of the Draft EIR will be revised as follows: Existing daytime noise levels were monitored at €ems three locations on the project site in order to identify representative noise levels in various areas." Page 3.6-13 The last paragraph of page 3.6-13 of the Draft EIR will be revised as follows: Cumulative noise impacts would occur primarily as a result of increased traffic on local roadways due to the proposed project and other projects within the study area. As further described in Section 3.9 (Transportation and Circulationl, the General Plan for the City evaluated two possible scenarios for roadway configuration at build -out. One scenario included the proposed construction of bridges over the Santa Ana River at Banning Avenue and at Garfield Avenue; the other scenario, did not include " bridges Consequently, the traffic analysis for the proposed project evaluated cumulative traffic under both scenarios. Therefore, cumulative traffic -generated noise impacts have been assessed based on the difference between the existing traffic volumes and the future traffic volumes with the project, both with and without the proposed new bridges. Page 3.6-17 On page 3.6-17 of the Draft EIR, the text under the heading "3.6.6 Mitigation Measures" will be revised as follows: 3.6.6 Mitigation Measures IThe Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 2-3 2.0 Text The following mitigation measures would be required to ,aaress Potentially sit further reduce construction -related noise impacts: Draft EIR Section 3.9, Transportation and Traffic Page 3.9-4 On page 3.9-4 of the Draft EIR, under the fourth bullet ("Walnut Avenue'), the third sentence will be revised as follows: • Walnut Avenue —Walnut Avenue is a two-lane roadway providing east/west circulation north of and directly adjacent to the project site. The Huntington Beach City Council approved Precise Plan of Street Alignment No. 89-3 in November 1989, reducing the right-of-way between Sixth Street and Main Street from 80 feet to 60 feet. Based on a 1995 adopted precise plan of street alignment and subsequent 1998 amendment to the General Plan, this section of Walnut Avenue adjacent to the project was reclassified as a T eca Rkeet secondary arterial within a 60-foot right-of-wav on the General Plan Circulation Element. In the vicinity of the project site, this street has two undivided lanes. 2-4 City of Huntington Beach I 1 I 1 3.1 3.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ORGANIZATION OF THE RESPONSES TO COMMENTS In total, nine comment letters regarding the Draft EIR were received from seven government agencies/elected officials and two corporations, community groups, and/or individuals. Table 3-1 provides a comprehensive list of commentors in the order that they are presented in the Responses to Comments section of the Final EIR. 'fable 3-1 Comment Letters Received During the Draft EIR Comment Period No. Commentopo►ganization Page 1. Christine Dolan, Orange County Transportation Authority, August 23, 2002 3 2. Robert F. Joseph, California Department of Transportation, August 30, 2002 5 3. City of Huntington Beach Environmental Board, August 31, 2002 14 4. Keith Bohr, September 3, 2002 23 5. David Martin, CIM Group, September 3, 2002 26 6. Timothy Neely, County of Orange, Department of Planning, September 3, 2002 30 7. Garry Brown, Orange County Coastkeeper, September 3, 2002 33 8. Susan K. Worthy, September 3, 2002 37 9. Jeffery M. Oderman, Attorney at Law, Rutan & Tucker, September 3, 2002 45 3.2 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS This chapter of the Final EIR contains all comments received on the Draft EIR during the public review period, as well as the Lead Agency's responses to these comments. Reasoned, factual responses have been provided to all comments received, with a particular emphasis on significant environmental issues. Detailed responses have been provided where a comment raises a specific issue; however, a general response has been provided where the comment is relatively general. Although some letters may raise legal or planning issues, these issues do not constitute significant environmental issues. Therefore, the comment has been noted, but no The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3-1 3.0 Responses to Comments response has been provided. Generally, the responses to comments provide explanation or amplification of information contained in the Draft EIR. The following Section contains the original comment letters, which have been bracketed to isolate the individual comments, each followed by the responses to the comments within the letter. As noted above, and stated in Sections 15088(a) and 15088(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, comments that raise significant environmental issues are provided with responses. Comments that are outside of the scope of CEQA review will be forwarded for consideration to the decision makers as part of the project approval process. These comments are answered with the phrase "Comment noted." In some cases, a response may refer the reader to a previous response, if that previous response substantively addressed the same issues. 3-2 City of Huntington Beach Hug ej Ue 1 1 :'t 1a U11GtJ OT NUn TilrtGUUrl DCal.al 11TJr�'iu ,J 0 I 1 I RECEMD AUG 2 3 Z002 EOARDOFDIRECTORS I August 20, 2002 Todd Spitzer Ghairrran TtmKeerao Ms. Jane James Senior Planner _ City of Huntington Beach Planning Department An!uw C. Arrwtrr Dirpo,for 2000 Main Street Si*1,7VX-t^rrd&Pn P.O. Box 190 �^ Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Onuvt A. P,didt, °'fr, t"r Subject: The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach Draft Environmental Impact Report rr!nrtor Dear Ms. James: G�rprtor "p'"' `"Ri° !7irA-for The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) has reviewed the above referenced document and has the following comments: tirf`<Sr (;raw?r T Page 3.9-4 of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) states that Walnut Street between Sixth Street and Main Street was reclassified to a local street in su'Lwo W3nrrrov the General Plan Circulation Element in 1995. However, the Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) classifies this segment ,of Walnut Street as a DIMS R. Hftlm L secondary (four lane undivided) arterial. In addition, the street is classified as a itic: rnat@ secondary arterial on the current version of the General Plan Circulation Gynthi�P. """' ?,t Element (Figure CE-13) that was adopted in September 1998. This mvp inconsistency should be resolved by the City and the project should be revised, '?ar Pr`rrt, AR-r:.ate if necessary, to allow Walnut Street to be ultimately constructed to its designation as a secondary arterial on the City's Circulation Element. :xivar-ars �Y-t;ttico Mom°.,` OCTA appreciates the opportunity to review and comment on this PP PP Y Project. Please contact me with any questions or concerns at 714-560-5751 or cdolan@octa.net. Sincerely, Christine Dolan Associate Transportation Analyst Cc: Bob Stachelski, Huntington Beach Glen Campbell, OCTA Comment Letter 1 O-nce County ; r —snnrn, tinn Authority ;; �0 $r:;,th A$ain Str?cf t P. v. Rn. 14 1R4 i Orirnge i f. alitamia 92R63-15&J ! (71 d: 560-OCTA IE23Z) 1 3.0 Responses to Comments Letter from Christine Dolan, Orange County Transportation Authority, August 23, 2002 Response to Comment 1-1: The DEIR incorrectly refers to Walnut Avenue between Main Street and 6th Street as a local street. The minimum lanes for a secondary roadway can be accommodated within the Precise Plan of Street Alignment designated right-of-way, and the street should be referenced as a secondary, consistent with the MPAH. 3-4 City of Huntington Beach STATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY GRAY DAVIS- Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ri a District 12 �`�- ', = 3337 Michelson Drive, Suite 380 Irvine, CA 92612-8894 SEP Q �`.�UUC Flex your power! Be energy efficient! FAX & MAIL August 29, 2002 Jane James City Of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 File: IGR/CEQA SCH#: 2002041144 Log #: 739B SR #: PCH Subject: The Strand at Down Town Huntington Beach, (Re -Development Project, and Blocks 104 and 105) Dear Ms. James, Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report dated July 2002 for The Strand at Down Town Huntington Beach, (Re -Development Project, Blocks 104 and 105). The project proposes to redevelop the 2.9-acre block 104/105 site that is currently occupied by retail, commercial, office, and residential uses. Seven two to four stories high buildings including a 152 room hotel are proposed for mixed uses. The site is located northeast of Pacific Coast Highway in the City of Huntington Beach. Caltrans District 12 status is a responsible agency on this project, and has the following comments: Traffic and Permits The Traffic Impact Analysis Per Appendix G assumes a 10% Internal Trip Capture and another 30% Mode shift (Pedestrians and Bicycles), thus reducing up -front the trip generation by 40%. Without this reduction, the Gross trip generation amounts to 11,280 per day. With this reduction, the net trip generation becomes 7106 per day. The analysis was carried for this 7,106. The proposed project has no large residential land use, no large scale mixed use, no clear Traffic Demand Management Plans, etc. to justify such significant vehicular trip reduction. We believe that no more than 10% reduction for internal and mode shift combined should be assumed for this analysis. Accordingly, the analysis needs to reflect this scenario. 2-1 2. Parking spaces are highly underestimated and the Report leaves it to a "Parking Management Plan" to mitigate the problem. Lack of parking supply and poor internal 2- circulation could impact PCH. Specific measures need to be identified. Comment Letter 2 "Caltrans improves mobility across California " Date: August 29, 2002 Page 2 of 4 3. The Traffic analysis underestimates traffic impact on PCH at Main Street and 6Th Street because of the underestimated trip generation and because the analysis 2-3 does not account for pedestrians and bikes. 4. The Report does not address pedestrians, buses and bikes. These are important 2-4 considerations for PCH at this location in the City of Huntington Beach. 5. Based on the Trip Distribution pattern in Figure 14 A and 14 B of Appendix G, project traffic enters/leaves from the South of 6Th Street. Therefore, it appears that the critical movements are at the intersection on PCH and 6 Th Street are 2-5 Northbound Right Turn, and Westbound Left turn. Please examine if an exclusive NB right turn lane is warranted and if a left turn pocket has sufficient storage at 6TH Street. 6. The air quality analysis and noise analysis in the Report came before the traffic analysis. Please make sure that the same traffic data are incorporated in the air 2-6 quality and noise analysis. 7. If the proposed work in Caltrans R/W is to be carried out under an encroachment Permit, the following applies: a) All entities working within State right of way must obtain a Caltrans Encroachment Permit(s) prior to commencement of work. A fee applies in general. Allow 2 to 4 r weeks for a complete submittal to be reviewed and for a permit to be issued. This project may require more than one encroachment permit for surveys, soil sampling and geotechnical borings, potholing, utilities, sidewalk, curb and gutter, intersection and signal improvement, temporary access, or other activities within State Right of 2-7 Way. b) A Caltrans Encroachment Permit for the whole project may be initiated after approval of the environmental document and when detailed plans (PS&E) are completed and signed by a Registered CA Engineer. The City approval for the concept is required prior to application for a Permit. In addition to plans and specifications, a Traffic Control Plan and Water Pollution Control Program (WPCP) will be required. 8. In order to expedite the review of the encroachment permit package, in addition to the information included in the DEIR a detailed traffic analysis would be required. Such analysis should focus mainly on the following: a) The two critical intersections adjacent to the project at 6 Th and Main Streets 2-8 (capacity analysis using 2000 HCM with pedestrian and bikes). b) Address pedestrian's requirements (sidewalk width and crosswalks toward the beach) c) Address bikelane requirements d) Address the possibility and feasibility of a bus stop. Date: August 29, 2002 ' Page 3 of 4 e) Consider for mitigation the following: NB right turn lane at 6th, WB Left Turn storage from 6th to PCH, reconfigure the whole approach from 6th to PCH in conjunction with the access to the parking garage, reconfigure the NB approach on PCH and bring to State Standards all lane widths, bike -lane, curb and gutter, reconfigure and 2"g improve the Signal at 6th Street, examine the coordination of this signal with the signal at Main in order to mitigate Project impact on circulation. 9. For specific details on Caltrans Encroachment Permits procedure, please refer to Caltrans Encroachment Permits Manual, Seventh Edition. This Manual is available 2-9 on the web site: www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/developserv/permits. Environmental Although the DEIR states there will no impact to biological resources, we have the following suggestion: 10.The Summary of the proposed project briefly mentions the landscape plan. The 2-10 landscape plan should not include invasive plant species. The project area is near the coast area; therefore, if non-native plants are used we suggest non-invasive species. 11.There seems to be some discrepancy between the assessment of the building housing Papa Joe's Pizza as listed in the Historical Resources Assessment produced by EIP Associates in March of 2002 and in the corresponding assessment presented within the Draft EIR. While EIP Associates concluded that the structure was "potentially eligible for listing as a local historic resource and a probable contributor to a potential Main Street District," the DEIR seemingly ignored these comments, concluding that "the Papa Joe's Pizza building could not contribute to such a historic district ... [and] would not, therefore, be considered historic for the 2-11 purposes of CEQA." Caltrans believes that EIP Associates had made a convincing case that the demolition of Papa Joe's would be a significant adverse effect to a resource of local historic value, and that greater opportunity for public comment should be allowed before a decision is made to destroy the building. Caltrans recommends that the State Office of Historic Preservation be allowed to comment on the issue, though such an action is not specifically required by CEQA. 12. Caltrans also offers its conclusion that except for the aforementioned issue concerning Papa Joe's Pizza, the City of Huntington Beach appears to have made 2-12 an adequate effort regarding the identification of cultural resources within the project area and the assessment of impacts upon the resources therein. 13.If any construction activity falls within the Caltrans Right of Way, the applicant must apply for an Encroachment Permit. As a condition of the application process, the 2-13 applicant will be required to submit either a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) or a Water Pollution Control Program (WPCP) pursuant to the Caltrans Date: August 29, 2002 Page 4 of 4 Storm Water Quality Handbook. In addition, impacts to cultural and resources will have to be assessed. biological 2-13 1 14.Any runoff draining into the Caltrans Right of Way from construction operations or from the resulting project must fully conform to the Caltrans Statewide NPDES Permit (Order No. 99-06-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000003) and the current discharge 2-14 requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board to avoid impacting water quality. Controls need to be implemented to contain all vehicle loads and avoid any tracking of materials that may fall or blow onto Caltrans roadways or facilities. Hydraulics 15. No additional Surface runoff is allowed to be drained to Caltrans right of way. Post project quantity and pattern of discharges should be less than or equal to the pre project conditions. The Hydrology repot needs to clearly compare the results of the existing and proposed conditions. 16. Please submit final Hydraulics/Hydrology plans to Caltrans for review and comments. 2-15 Please continue to keep us informed of this project and other future developments, which could potentially impact the transportation facilities. If you have any questions or need to contact us, please do not hesitate to call Maryam Molavi at (949) 724-2267. Sincerely, 41 k f ' 6opbert F. Jos , Chie �P IGR/Community Planning C: Terry Roberts, OPR Ron Helgeson, HDQRTRS Planning �. Mory Mohtashemi, Permits Praveen Gupta, Environmental Planning Roger Kao, Hydraulics Saeied.Hashemi, Traffic Operations 3.2 Comments and Responses to Comments L G 1 l 1 Letter from Robert F. Toseph, California Department of 'Transportation, August 30, 2002 Response to Comment 2-1: The assumptions made in Table G of Appendix E of the Draft EIR regarding internal trip captures and mode shift are directly related to the overall concept of the development and its interaction with the downtown area and the beach facilities. In contrast to free-standing individual uses, the proposed project intentionally targets a significant interaction with internal uses and those within a few blocks of the site. The ten percent reduction assumed for internal trip capture can be attributed to the interaction between guests at the hotel and office users with the restaurant and retail components of the project. This assumption is considered conservative for the proposed project mix. The 30 percent reduction in trips based on a mode shift is intended to quantify the effects of the projects' interaction with surrounding uses and attractions. The mode shift is primarily expected to be from vehicles to pedestrian. A substantial interaction between the downtown restaurants and retail and the beach area is expected. The 30 percent reduction (as well as the 10 percent internal trip capture assumption) is supported by the conclusions of the Downtown Parking Master Plan. Without the interaction with other uses, a stand-alone project would be required to provide more than 700 parking spaces. The 40 percent reduction in parking supply supports the assumptions of the trip generation analysis. Response to Comment 2-2: The Downtown Parking Master Plan (DPMP) regulates parking for the proposed project. The DPMP is the parking code for the downtown area adopted by the City of Huntington Beach. The project will provide a parking supply consistent with the requirements of this document. Access to the parking structure will be located on 6th Street and has been analyzed on page 3.9- 14 and 3.9-15 of the Draft EIR. Significant parking impacts are not expected with the proposed project. Response to Comment 2-3: Refer to the response to Comment 2-1. A factor for pedestrians and bikes has been added to the intersection analysis at Pacific Coast Highway/6th Street and Pacific Coast Highway/Main Street. At Pacific Coast Highway/6th Street, 200 existing IThe Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3-9 3.0 to Comments pedestrians plus thirty percent of the mode shift were assumed during the peak hour. At Pacific Coast Highway/Main Street, there is a "pedestrian scramble' phase with an approximately 26 second duration. The analysis has been modified to incorporate this "lost time" into the overall calculation of delay at this intersection. The revised levels of service with these factors included are shown below. Although the delay will increase with the application of factors for pedestrian traffic, both intersections continue to operate at satisfactory levels of service with no significant traffic impacts. Intersection: 61h Street/Pacific Coast Highway AM Peak Hour PMPeakHour Delay LOS Delay LOS Scenario Existing Non -Summer Weekday 5.5 sec. A 5.7 sec. A Existing Summer Weekday 7.9 sec. A 9.3 sec. A Cumulative Non -Sumner Weekday 5.5 sec. A 5.6 sec. A Cumulative Non -Summer Weekday plus Project 8.6 sec. A 10.2 sec. B Cumulative Sumner Weekday 7.7 sec. A 9.2 sec. A Cumulative Summer Weekday plus Project 10.8 sec. B 14.2 sec. B General Plan build out without bridges condition 6.7 sec. A 6.9 sec. A General Plan build out without bridges plus Project condition 9.7 sec. A 13.6 sec. B General Plan build out with bridges condition 6.9 sec. A 7.3 sec. A General Plan build out with bridges plus Project condition 10.0 sec. B 13.9 sec. B Intersection: Main Street/Pacific Coast Highway AMPeakHow PMPeakHmrr Delay LOS . Delay LOS Scenario Existing Non -Summer Weekday 29.8 sec. C 23.2 sec. _ C Existing Summer Weekday 23.8 sec. C 32.9 sec. C Cumulative Non -Summer Weekday 30.9 sec. C 35.3 sec. D . Cumulative Non -Summer Weekday plus Project 33.2 sec. C 41.0 sec. D Cumulative Summer Weekday 26.2 sec. C 37.6 sec. D Cumulative Summer Weekday plus Project 27.1 sec. C 44.9 sec. D General Plan build out without bridges condition 20.7 sec. C 23.0 sec. C General Plan build out without bridges plus Project condition 21.8 sec. C 26.7 sec. C General Plan build out with bridges condition 21.2 sec. C 23.8 sec. C General Plan build out with bridges plus Project condition 22.5 sec. C 28.3 sec. C 3-10 City of Huntington Beach 3.2 Comments and Responses to Comments Response to Comment 24: The pedestrian facilities proposed by the project are discussed on page 3.9-14 of the Draft EIR. The response to Comment 2-3 provides an analysis of pedestrian traffic at the intersections adjacent to the project. Response to Comment 2-5: According to the LOS analysis presented in the response to Comment 2-3, the maximum queue length in the westbound left turning movement (from westbound 6th street to southbound Pacific Coast Highway) would be approximately three vehicles. ' When considering an average vehicle length of 22 feet, this would necessitate a turn pocket of 66 feet. The distance along 6th Street from Pacific Coast Highway to the parking structure driveway is approximately 185 feet. As a result, adequate stacking distance can be provided for left turning vehicles onto Pacific Coast Highway. The maximum westbound right turning movement (from westbound Pacific Coast Highway to northbound 6th Street) forecasted in the Draft EIR is 182 vehicles would only be sufficient to consider the installation of a right turn deceleration lane if capacity considerations warrant. The worst -case level of service at this location is LOS B. Given the intersection LOS, 182 right turns during the p.m. peak hour would not warrant a right turn deceleration lane. Response to Comment 2-6: The air quality and noise analyses resented in Sections 3.2 and P q tY Y p 3.6 of the Draft EIR are based on the data provided in the Traffic Impact Analysis, which is included as Appendix G of the Draft EIR. Therefore, these sections are consistent with the data presented in Section .9, Transportation and Circulation. Response to Comment 2-7: Comment noted. ' Response to Comment 2-8: An analysis of the two critical intersections adjacent to the project (6th Street/Pacific Coast Highway and Main Street/Pacific Coast Highway) is provided in the response to Comment 2-3. This information may be used to address the encroachment permit requirements. The pedestrian facilities proposed by the project are discussed on page 3.9-14 of the Draft EIR. Crosswalks with protected signal phasing are provided at both intersections. A bicycle lane is present along Pacific Coast Highway in the vicinity of the project. The Orange IThe Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3-11 3.0 Responses to Comments County Transportation Authority provides bus service to the downtown area and has a stop at the corner of Main Street/Pacific Coast Highway, adjacent to the project. As shown in the Draft EIR and the responses to Comments 2-3 and 2-5, additional mitigation is not required. Response to Comment 2-9: Comment noted. Response to Comment 2-10: This requirement will be included as a condition of approval for the proposed project. Response to Comment 2-11: The City's determination of the historic status of the Papa Joe's Pizza building is based on prior assessments of the structure that were undertaken as part of the General Plan update and EIR 96-2, which did not determine that the structure was historically significant or part of the potential historic district (which was not realized). However, for a building not identified by the City, State, or any other agency as a historical structure, but located in a "potential historic district" in the City's General Plan, the demolition of the structure would follow the City's standard operating procedure. The procedure requires a demolition/building permit, an asbestos disclosure, SCAQMD procedures for any asbestos abatement, a 45 day postponement for historical documentation and review by the Huntington Beach Historical Society, and compliance with any CEQA requirements. If all the aforementioned have been complied with and all has been documented, the building may be demolished. Because other historical structures (such as the Helme-Worthy property) were potentially affected by the proposed project, the State Historic Preservation Office was included on the State Clearinghouse distribution list and provided with an opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR. Response to Comment 2-12: Comment noted. Response to Comment 2-13: Comment noted. A SWPPP must be prepared for the proposed project, as stated on page 3.4-20 of the Draft EIR. Note that comment 12 of this letter acknowledged that an adequate effort had been made in the Draft EIR to address cultural resources, and that no biological resources, with the exception of trees, have been identified on the project site, and that any mature 3-12 City of Huntington Beach I 1 3.2 Comments and Responses to Comments 11 11 C� 1 1 fl I Ll trees that are removed would be required to be replaced at a 2:1 ratio, per Section 232.04 of the City Zoning Code. Further, to the degree consistent with the landscape guidelines adopted by the City for the Downtown area, the City will require the use of non-invasive plant species in the landscape plan for the proposed project as a condition of approval. Response to Comment 2-14: The proposed project will conform with all applicable State and local laws and regulations, and as stated on page 3.4-17 of the Draft EIR, the City requires the preparation of a grading/ erosion control plan and a water quality management plan. Additionally, the City requires preparation of a storm water pollution prevention plan, although this is not stated in the Draft EIR. Therefore, Impact 3.4-1 on page 3.4-17 of the Draft EIR will be revised as follows: "Pursuant to City standard conditions of approval, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPPI, a grading/erosion control plan and WQMP would be prepared prior to construction. As a condition of approval to the proposed project, the grading/erosion control plan would be consistent with the provisions of the Air Quality Management District's Rule 403 as related to fugitive dust control." Further, the proposed project would be required to comply with NPDES. Response to Comment 2-15: The post -construction runoff would be equal to or less than existing runoff from the project site, and no additional runoff would be directed onto a Caltrans right-of-way. As requested by Caltrans, the final hydraulics plan will be submitted to Caltrans for review and comment. The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3-13 I CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH I ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD August 31, 2002 Ms. Jane James City of Huntington Beach Planning Department 2000 Main Street, 3Td Floor Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RECEIVED SEP 042002 SUBJECT: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 01-02 (THE STRAND) Dear Ms. James: The Environmental Board of the City of Huntington Beach is pleased to submit comments and recommendations regarding the subject Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). After reviewing the DEIR and discussing it at our August 29th meeting, the Environmental Board voted to submit comments and recommendations reflecting the issues discussed below. Total Project Open Space — The DEIR discusses how the Project meets the criteria of providing 10 percent of net project site area as Open Space, however, the document does not provide detail information as to which elements provide what area of Open Space. The June 13, 2002 Gensler drawing of Project Site Plan includes a detailed summary of project Open Space elements and associated areas that documents how the Project will meet the 10 percent Open Space criteria. Please include a copy of this summary in the DEIR. 2. Open Space in Upper Level Structures — In order for the Project to meet the criteria of providing 10 percent of net project site area as Open Space, the Project is designed to provide some Open Space within the upper levels of project structures. We are concerned that the general public will not fully realize that these areas are Open Space provided for the use of the general public. Concerns exist regarding how the general public will be made aware of which areas in elevated structures are Open Space and what methods of easy access will be provided to the general public. Since these areas will also be used for customers at private establishments, tenants and customers may resist their alternate use as Open Space for the general public. Please provide additional information in the DEIR regarding the following areas. a. Describe how easy access to these areas will be provided for the general public. b. Describe how each area will be identified so that the general public can easily determine which areas are open to the general public. Comment Letter 3 3-1 11 7 1-1 11 11 11 11 11 fl 11 3-2 1 I 11 11 Page 1 of 4 11 C 1 r. 1 u L I c. Describe how the tenants, who will be operating businesses within these Open Spaces, will acknowledge the use of these areas by the general public during both business and non -business hours. d. Page 3.1-9 discusses the provision of Open Space on the 41h level of the Project, 3-2 however no further detail is provided describing where this is located, how access will gained, how much area is being provided, and what establishments may be using the same area for business purposes. Please provide an expanded discussion addressing these issues. 3. Traffic Impacts — We believe that the traffic study is lacking in a discussion of potential significant impacts that must be addressed. A discussion of each lacking element is provided below. a. The baseline peak hour analysis was weekday, instead of weekends when the greatest level of traffic is found in this area. Page 3.9-6 states "Generally, the circulation system is designed to accommodate the "typical " condition, such as would be experienced on a daily basis throughout the year. Application of the peak summer weekend as the design condition could result in an inappropriate investment in infrastructure that would be fully utilized only on an infrequent basis. Additionally, analysis of the proposed project in the context of a condition that would occur only on a seasonal basis may require the project to construct mitigation measures that are not commensurate with the level of development. As a result, project traffic is analyzed in the context of daily commute hour conditions to present the most frequently occurring "peak" condition in the vicinity of the project." Although we agree that these peak conditions (i.e. peak summer weekends and seasonal impacts) may result in impacts that are potentially significant and that the Project may not be altered in such a way to fully mitigate these impacts, we believe that Certification of the EIR without full consideration of these impacts would be inappropriate. The severe traffic conditions experienced in the Downtown core area on weekends are not infrequent, and not necessarily isolated to summer periods. Additionally, the daily commute is the more frequent condition, but the weekend traffic events are so prevalent and likely to be so much worse than the daily commuter traffic, that this should be included in the analysis. Page No. 15 of Appendix G states "... the heaviest traffic volumes in the downtown area would be experience during summer weekends ...... Peak traffic periods should be analyzed if they are re -occurring, such as almost every weekend (not just in the summer months). In addition, no quantitative analysis is provided in the DEIR supporting the assertion that the weekend conditions are infrequent enough and only seasonal in occurrence that they do not warrant this condition to be the basis for the traffic analysis. . Please expand the traffic analysis to include an evaluation of supporting data associated with the peak weekend periods, including both summer weekend periods and peak non -summer periods. 3-3a Page 2 of 4 b. Page 1 of Appendix G states "the proposed project is forecast to generate approximately 7,106 daily trips, of which approximately 383 will occur in the a.m. peak hour and 617 will occur in the p.m. peak hour." However, no traffic data is provided to support this conclusion. By taking the approach of only analyzing weekday commute peak periods, only a small portion of the proposed project traffic is addressed. It is not appropriate to just ignore the other 6,000 trips. Please describe when do these 6,000 trips occur, and what impacts will they have the overall traffic patterns in the Downtown core area. c. Page 8 of Appendix G states "Many individual intersections within the downtown core area are expected to serve project traffic but were not included in the detailed intersection analyses. The exclusion was determined on a sensitivity analysis, the ability to analyze operations, and the presence of physical constraints that would prohibit any further improvements." Please include the sensitivity analysis in the Environmental Impact Report and discuss the meaning of "the -ability to analyze operations". A CEQA analysis cannot simply ignore pertinent conditions because there are "physical constraints that would prohibit any further improvements." The proper approach would be to analyze the traffic scenario, and if found significant, and no mitigation was possible, then a statement of overriding consideration may be appropriate. 3-3b 3-3c 4. Noise Impacts — Several areas of the discussion of noise impacts should be expanded. a. Page No. 3.6-4 indicates that four noise monitoring locations were used to access 3-4a existing noise levels, however, Figure 3.6-1 shows only three locations. Please correct this discrepancy in the Final EIR. b. With regard to the monitoring of the existing noise conditions, the assessment was limited to locations surrounding the Worthy property. While it is appropriate to thoroughly analyze any potential noise impacts to residential areas, due to the high potential for an increase in noise levels, other impact areas, such -as Main Street and Pacific Coast Highway, should also be analyzed. Increased traffic both during and 3-4b following construction will likely cause an increase in noise levels, although to a lesser extent than noise levels adjacent to the Worthy property. Please expand the discussion of noise levels to include an evaluation of areas along each side of the project during peak periods as well as 24-hour averages. The project contribution should also be analyzed during peak times. 5. Main Street Congestion — As discussed in our comment letter dated June 16, 2000 regarding the Notice of Preparation for this project, we continue to be concerned about the additional traffic and congestion that will be created by the proposed project. Additional pedestrian 3-5 traffic will result to support the added retail establishments and the new hotel. Therefore, we again recommend that evaluation of impacts be included for converting Main Street into a pedestrian mall with no vehicular traffic. Page 3 of 4 6. Lighting Impacts to Sixth Street Residential Areas — Headlights from vehicles departing from the proposed parking structure will be directed toward the residential buildings directly across Sixth Street. Please describe the mitigation that will be imposed to prevent undesirable lighting impacts to the residences. 3-6 The Environmental Board appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project and is available to discuss these comments if appropriate. Please contact me with any questions or comments you may have. Yours truly, Al Hendricker, Chairman P C' G I C 1 Page 4 of 4 3.0 Responses to Comments Letter from the City of Huntington Beach Environmental Board, September 2, 2002 Response to Comment 3-1: In response to this comment, paragraph 3 on page 3.5-21 of the Draft EIR will be revised as follows: A large, publicly accessible terrace is provided on the second floor of the hotel, overlooking Fifth Street, with views to the Pacific Ocean. The distribution of open space on the project site would occur as follows: Table 3 5-1. Open Space Summary Arm Corner of Sixth St. and PCH at Bldg. F 1.107 Walnut Avenue North 625 At elevators / stairs lobby 916 Walnut Avenue South 554 Plaza and passa-e 4. 551 NE corner of Bldg. C 116 Subtotal: Ground level 7 669 Level 2 (terrace l 3.183 Total Open Space 10,552 Net site area* 103.935 Required open space (10%) 10.394 Source: CIM Group 2002 * Does not include ROW dedications As shown in Table 3.5-1 above, the proposed project would; be consistent with Section 4.5.10 of the Downtown Specific Plan. Response to Comment 3-2: Only one upper level area would be provided as public open space: the rest of the areas would be provided on the ground floor along Fifth Street, Sixth Street, Walnut Avenue, and the proposed Paseo on block 104. For the proposed second -floor terrace, the City will require the provision of direct access to the terrace (via stairway and/or elevator) from the Fifth Street sidewalk without requiring entrance to the hotel proper. Signage would be provided to identify the terrace as a public amenity, and to show the location of the terrace access point(s). 3-18 City of Huntington Beach 1 3.2 Comments and Responses to Comments The public would, therefore, have direct access to the terrace and the enhanced coastal views it would provide. Regarding tenant acknowledgement of the open space areas: tenants will be informed of the purpose of the public open space areas, including the terrace, and will be required and instructed to allow free public access into these areas during both business and non -business hours. Regarding the open space on the fourth level of the project: this tstatement is in error, and on page 3.1-9, in the paragraph under "Consistency with Policy C 4.2.2," the third sentence will be revised as follows: "Additionally, the proposed project would provide a public terrace on the few -second floor of the proposed hotel, which would provide enhanced coastal view opportunities." Response to Comment 3-3a: The predominant weekday summer traffic conditions and potential project impacts under these conditions were evaluated as part of the project. In considering analysis of the weekend condition during the development of the scope of the traffic analysis, staff identified approximately 22 peak summer weekends and 3 typical holidays for a total of 47 potential days. These days represent the peak conditions for the area. Weekday peak hour conditions represent the worst case conditions for approximately 250 days per year. Non -summer weekends and holidays represent approximately 65 days per year and would not generally be considered peak conditions. Under CEQA, the determination of thresholds of significance and the application of those thresholds to specific conditions is delegated to the lead agency. In this case, the City of Huntington Beach has adopted several policies through its General Plan that would tend to support an analysis of the weekday condition as the environmental condition under which levels of significance are evaluated. Level of service standards are identified that were based on evaluations of weekday peak hour conditions throughout the city. While the term "peak hour" is not specifically defined, it is consistently considered to occur during the weekday morning and late afternoon peak periods. No The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3-19 3.0 Resvonses to Comments I specific references are made to the summer weekend'condition in maintaining certain level of service standards. This approach has been supported in the past for other projects such as the Hyatt Regency Resort. One additional issue considered by staff in evaluating the scope of the project analysis is the ability to forecast future weekend traffic volumes. Weekend analysis is not considered "standard" and limited tools are available for forecasting future traffic volumes. For example, buildout scenario analyses for this study were prepared using a computerized traffic model. This model is based on a regional traffic model and does not address weekend conditions. It would be impossible to develop weekend traffic projections under this scenario without imposing great hardship in preparing a new weekend traffic model. To a slightly lesser extent, developing cumulative project scenario weekend projects would also impose an unreasonable hardship. Staff has, therefore, considered the CEQA guidelines, City policies and a practical evaluation of the frequency of occurrence of the summer weekend condition and analysis tools available in not requiring the peak summer weekend traffic condition to be analyzed by the project. Response to Comment 3-3b: The approach to analyzing traffic impacts by focusing on the peak hour traffic volumes is consistent with General Plan policies and goals, and traffic engineering industry standards. ®I The trip generation projections for the project are based on the entire day. The proposed development will essentially be a 24 hour per day operation with the majority of traffic activity occurring between 6 am and 10 pm. It would be impractical to attempt to evaluate the potential impacts during every hour of the day. The analysis does not ignore the 6,000 trip balance as stated in the comment, but attempts to analyze the worst regularly occurring condition consistent with the policies and goals set forth in the City's General Plan. A daily traffic volume analysis is also included in the traffic impact study. 3-20 City of Huntington Beach P 3.2 Comments and Responses to Comments u k 11 1 11 0 Response to Comment 3-3c: The exclusion of the intersection of Walnut Avenue and Main Street from the analyses was based on several factors. The intersection of Main Street and Walnut Avenue is all -way stop controlled. All legs of the intersection experience exceptionally large volumes of pedestrian traffic. While standard all -way stop evaluation methodology exists, it does not account for significant pedestrian traffic. Staff was initially concerned about the ability to adequately analyze operations of this intersection. All of the project traffic estimated to use the intersection of Main Street and Walnut Avenue also travels through the intersection of 6th Street and Walnut Avenue along with other project traffic (approximately 45% of the project traffic using the intersection). The impacts identified at 6th Street and Walnut Avenue range from a 1 to 5 second increase in average vehicle delay. Through extrapolation, it was determined that the project was not likely to result in any potentially significant adverse traffic impacts at the intersection of Main Street and Walnut Avenue. This also negated the need to develop a non-standard analysis methodology to evaluate the intersection. Therefore, the intersection was not included in the analysis. Significantly less traffic was predicted to use the intersection of Main Street and Olive Avenue. Response to Comment 3-4a: Noise levels were measured at three locations for the study in the Draft EIR. On page 3.6-4 of the Draft EIR, the first sentence of the second paragraph will be revised as follows: "Existing daytime noise levels were monitored at €eur three locations on the project site in order to identify representative noise levels in various areas." Response to Comment 3-4b: Per the request of the Environmental Board, peak -hour noise levels were calculated for existing commercial, office, and residential land uses located along the four roadways that surround the proposed project site. The peak hour noise levels were calculated using the traffic volumes presented in the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for the project and included as Appendix G of the Draft EIR. The results of the calculations are presented in Table 3-2, below. IThe Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3-21 3.0 Resvonses to Comments As shown, the proposed project would increase noise levels by a maximum of 2.3 dBA Leq during the peak traffic hour. As discussed on page 3.6-10 of the Draft EIR, an increase of 3.0 dBA or more represents a perceptible increase in noise levels and is the threshold for determining a significant off -site noise impact. Therefore, the proposed project would not increase future noise levels by a significant amount during the peak period. There would also be a slight reduction in peak hour traffic volumes and, therefore, a reduction peak hour noise levels along two of the roadway segments, although this reduction would be minimal. Table 3-2 Future Peak Hour Off -Site Noise Levels Noise Levels in dBA Lg, Year2005 with Roadway Segnwit Noise Sensitive Uses Year2005 Base Project Increase Main Street, Pacific Coast Commercial 58.4 59.8 1.4 Highway to Walnut Avenue Walnut Avenue, 61h Street to Commercial and 58.0 57.6 -0.4 Main Street Office 6th Street, Pacific Coast Residential 58.8 61.1 2.3 Highway to Walnut Avenue Pacific Coast Highway, 61h Commercial 69.5 69.4 -0.1 Street to Main Street Source: EIP Associates, 2002. Response to Comment 3-5: Comment noted. The closure of Main to vehicular traffic being evaluated by the City outside of the scope of this project as resources become available. Response to Comment 3-6: Impact 3.1-4, on pages 3.1-14-3.1-15, cited the impact of vehicular headlights on residences along Sixth Street between Pacific Coast Highway and Walnut Avenue as significant and unavoidable. No mitigation measures have yet been identified; however, the City Planning Department is continuing to work with the Applicant to develop design modifications or measures to reduce this impact. 3-22 City of Huntington Beach I Sep 03 02 05. 43p Ci t ,4 or Huntington Beach SEP---20E2 05= c1P F"= TERM 7145-3 5�9EB I i-f,4ZtsI is To.,Ji4154e . s-T P: c 3 .... C L F k 11 H September 3, 2002 City of Huntington Beach Planning Department Mrs. Jane James. Senior Planner 2i)iiu Amain Street, 3'd Floor Huntington Beach, CA 92648 subject. Public Comments on the Draft Subsequent EIR No. 01-M, for "The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach" (Block 104 & 105) Dear Mrs. lames: Please consider this letter as formal written public comments on the subject project environmental documents as well as the Conditional fuse Permit, Coastal Development Permit et al- F Generally speaking from what 1 have seen of the proposed project to date I am a 4-1 propocleiit of the project and am w-nnag only to sug8e st tip scope be marginally moMed to provide for some potential long term parking solutions for the downtown. It is my intent that by addressing this particular issue as a part of the initial review and approval process that the current emitlement schedule not at all be spewed down, and in fact to allow the process to continue on its current schedule. Issue: I am writing to provide my input as A relates to the "Pateatially Significant Impacts_ Transportation & Circulation, specifically that of "Parking." As proposed the project is pm.'ding 403 panting spaces including 397 subterranean spaces and 5 at grade spaces_ The sunterranean spates are designed to be provided on two levels, the first level down, PI accommodates 258 spaces and the next level down P2, located below Pl, as currently designed will provide 1139 spaces. 4-2 My suggestion is that %r the purposes of the environmental review, the scope be expanded to review an additional parking Scenario that would provide for the P 2 parking level to be fully built out with an additional 100 —119 spaces, to snake it as nearly as big as the PI level, (P] @ 258 spaces minas P2 @ 139 spaces, theoretically leaves room for approximately 119 snore spaces to be Built on P2 if mmumized). Background: The City iRedevelopttsent Agency hwm entered into a l3ispositioa and Development Agre&ment with the li 1 group to develop the proposed project. Flee Rcevelopment Agency currently awns all the of site and will "giving" the land to CIM in return for the 4-3 developer cut of "'I'lte Suand", which hopefully as ,11 provide the downtown wiih :some desira'die retitil te4wnts tha; to date hnve nat been iticlar.ed to bate dow-rit'own. David Biggs, Director of Economic Development, has told me that the DDA dries allow the Comment Letter 4 [I Sep 33 02 05 : 4 4 p C t `�j of Hun t i ng:.on Beach 5EP- 3- 2nEW 05: 2� F rROM TEPM 7145eee 11437416413 TO:3741540 P:3/3 P.i;� Agency to buy additional parking spaces at the "incremental cost." Further, John Given of CiM as early as one year ago, told me he was not opposed to the idea as long as CIM did rot incur any additional out of pocket costs as a result. More recently, Mr. Given expressed that he was less open to the idea, due to the fact he thought it would slow down the proposed entitlement schedule and that could jeopardize the project ever being built given how far behind schedule they already are to date. Once again, my intent of supplying my comments today is in an effort to have this additional project scenario reviewed as a part of the curyent review process and absolutely not to slow it down. As a result should the City/Agency be so inclined to utilize this opportunity to expend their "in lieu" fees to build additional parking they can do so without further environmental assessrnent. The City over the past 15 years or so has been collecting "in Lieu" parking fees from other tenants and landowners to meet their code parking requirements. The Planning Department is sche4uled to ask the City Council for direction as to whether the city should continue to collect "in lieu" fees as well as direction as to whether staff should come up with a plan for utilizing the fees collected to date to provide additional parking in the downtown area. My suggestion is that the City/.,agency take the fees on hand and incoming and use theta all to pay CiM to fully build out level P2 of their proposed structure. The land is FREE and the incremental cost to build these subterranean spaces will be cheaper than at any other time as the equipment and staff will already be on site, the City/Agency therefore pays C511 actual costs, plus a reasonable profit. 1 cannot think of any other scenario today or in the future that will provide for free land and room for approximately 100 spaces to be built at such a reasonable cost. My understanding is the City has approximately $1,300,000 on the books, much of which is being paid to the City in annual payments amortized over 15 years. Keeping the math simple using an even $13,000 a space the city could afford to buy 100 spaces (the City's current in fee is $13,870.35). Given the incremental savings possibly the entire 119 spaces could be accommodated, (minus ramping etc.). '=":.ank y cu for your assistance in this mm-ner. If you should have any questions, please call me at (714) 536-5888. Sincerely, -91<4, e — Keith Bohr Downtown Proper<-y cox Business Owner 4-4 3.2 Comments and Responses to Comments Letter from Keith Bohr, Sel2tember 3, 2002 Response to Comment 4-1: Comment noted. Response to Comment 4-2: Comment noted. The commentor is correct: the Disposition and Development Agreement entered into by the CIM Group with the City includes the option for the provision of additional parking spaces within the proposed parking structure. The City may require CIM to incorporate some additional parking at a future date. Additionally, Staff recommendations to the City Council regarding the use of in -lieu fees include, among other alternatives, the possibility of funding additional parking associated with the proposed project, are currently being developed in order to ensure this option is not lost. Response to Comment 4-3: Refer to the response to Comment 4-3 for a discussion of using in -lieu fees to fund additional parking with the proposed project. Response to Comment 4-4: Refer to the response to Comment 4-3 for a discussion of using in -lieu fees to fund additional parking with the proposed project. 1 The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3-25 RECEiv SEP 0 42002 11 September 3, 2002 Herb Fauland, Principal Planner City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Herb: cim G R O U P Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Strand project on Blocks 104 and 105 in Downtown Huntington Beach. As the developer of the proposed project we are generally supportive of the conclusions and proposed mitigation measures contained in the document, with the exception of the recommended mitigation measure related to the increased setback from the Helme-Worthy property. Section 3.3 (Cultural Resources), Impact 3.3-4 states that the fagade of the proposed hotel building adjacent to the southern property line of the Helme- Worthy property should be setback an additional 8, for a total of 20'. The DEIR does not adequately identify what impact this would mitigate, and we question the underlying assumption that there is an impact that needs to be mitigated. As stated in the DEIR, the significant buildings on the Helme-Worthy property are the historic residence and the "character -defining, false -front elevation of the Helme-Worthy Store". Impact 3.3-4 states that `The garage and associated upper -floor apartments are not contributing elements to the historic property..." Therefore, in consideration of the potential impact of the proposed project on the historic buildings, the distance of the project from the historic structures is more important than the distance from the property line. The preservation of the Helme-Worthy property has been recognized as an objective in all aspects of our planning. The currently proposed 12' setback from the southern property line of the Helme-Worthy propertyy provides a 62' separation between the facade of the hotel and the historic Helme-Worthy Store. 5-3 The recommended mitigation measure would increase this distance to 70% This amount of setback would beexcessive and is not a reasonable response to the issues raised in the DEIR for the following reasons: 6911 Hollywood Blvd.' Comment Letter 5 Ninth Floor Hollywood. CA 90028, 323/860-4900 main 323/860-4901 fax www.cimgroup.com 11 • There is no discussion in the DER as to why an increase of 8' to the setback would further protect the historic buildings. • The portion of the building at the setback line is not a blank wall, but is a fully articulated facade with windows and other design details. • The recent pattern of development in Downtown Huntington Beach includes many three to four story buildings with minimal setbacks. 5-4 Furthermore, under current zoning it would appear possible for the Worthy property to be developed up to three or four stories within the existing yard area. • There are no alternative mitigation measures identified. The DER does not consider other potential mitigation measures such as enhanced privacy walls and/or increased landscaping. If you have any questions, you can contact me at 323 860-4934. Sincerely, David Martin Project Manager 3.0 Resvonses to Comments Letter from David Martin, CIM Grouj2, September 3, 2002 1 Response to Comment 5-1: Comment noted. Response to Comment 5-2: Impact 3.3-16 identifies the potential degradation of the Helme- Worthy property by the encroachment of development that is out of scale with respect to the historic property, into the historic setting of the property. As stated on page 14 of the Historic Resources Assessment (Appendix C to the Draft EIR), the height and bulk of Building D, as proposed, is inconsistent with the two-story height of the existing structures and would detract particularly from the character -defining false -front elevation of the Helme-Worthy Store. Although the residence and commercial structures are the primary elements of the property, the property as a whole is considered historic, even though non-contributing elements exist. Setbacks are, therefore, considered from the property line. Response to Comment 5-3: As noted above, the Helme-Worthy property as a whole is considered historic, and a ground -floor setback of 20 feet from the property line is considered adequate to provide separation from the property as a whole, not specific structures within the property. Additionally, a second -floor setback of 15 � feet was determined necessary by an architectural historian to reduce the massing of the proposed hotel building with respect to the historic property. The surface treatment of the wall can be important, but the height, proximity, and massing with respect to the historic property create the impact. Although the pattern of development has been three- to four- story structures with minimal setbacks, Building D directly abuts an historic property — one of the most important in the City. Consequently, although minimal setbacks may be appropriate for other portions of the development, the Draft EIR and the supporting historic resources report determined that greater setbacks were necessary with respect to the Helme- Worthy property to better preserve its historic setting and avoid t encroachment. Further, although current zoning may theoretically allow development of the Worthy property to the 1 3-28 City of Huntington Beach I 1 P 1 1 rl I I H 1-1 3.2 Comments and Responses to Comments standards described, such development does not constitute the existing or baseline condition from which impacts to the property are evaluated in the Draft EIR. If such a development were proposed in the future, further project -specific environmental review would be required for the project, and would evaluate the effect of such a development on the historic characteristics of the property as a whole. The commentor is incorrect: the Draft EIR states, on page 3.3-17, that other measures were considered, including a landscaped pedestrian walkway and contribution to a loan funding mechanism by the Applicant for the Worthy property, but that these measures were considered infeasible by the City. IThe Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3-29 RECEIVE SEP 0 5 2002 County of ®range 01 ��� Planning & Development Services Department LIFOfR September 3, 2002 Jane James, Senior Planner City of Huntington Beach Planning Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 95814 SUBJECT: DEIR for The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach Dear Ms. James: THOMAS B. MATHEWS DIRECTOR 300 N. FLOWER ST. SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 4048 SANTA ANA, CA 92702-4048 NCL 02-89 The above referenced item is a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the City of Huntington Beach. The proposed project consists of the development of seven buildings ranging in height from two to four stories and containing a total of 226,245 gross square feet. The 2.97- acre project site is located across Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) from the Pacific Ocean, and includes portions of what are designated by the City as Blocks 104 and 105. The County of Orange has reviewed the DEIR and offers the following comments: Transportation 1. The project site fronts partially on PCH. The Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan administered by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) depicts a Class II (on -road, striped lanes, signed) bikeway along PCH. We recommend the project proponent implement this regional bikeway within the project boundaries if not already existing. Comment Letter 6 6-1 1 E Waste Management 2. The impact description for Section 3.8-4 states: "Solid waste generated by the proposed project could/emphasis added/exceed the capacity of local haulers or the Orange County Landfill System." (Page 3.8-23, emphasis added). However, the analysis, which follows, clearly demonstrates that the project will not exceed the capacity of the local haulers or 6 2 the Orange County Landfill System. rThank you for the opportunity to respond to the DEIR. If you have any questions, please contact Charlotte-Harrymanat (714) 834-2522. t 1 ch Sincerely, Timothy Neely,Lng Environmental Pls Division 2 3.0 Responses to Comments u Letter from Timothv Neelv. Manager, Countv of Orange, De6artment of Plannin September 3, 2002 Response to Comment 6-1: There is an existing Class II bikeway along the project frontage on Pacific Coast Highway. Implementation of the proposed project will not alter or remove the existing bikeway. Response to Comment 6-2: The impacts statements for the Draft EIR were stated uniformly in the affirmative for consistency and relied upon the impact analysis that followed to provide the conclusion. 3-32 City of Huntington Beach I 0 0 1 f] 0 ' ®RANGE COUNTY C®ASTKEEPER 441 Old Newport Blvd. Suite 103 Newport Beach, California 92663 Or - Office: (949) 723-5424 Fax: (949) 675-7091 Email: coastkeeperl@earthlink.net http://www.coastkeeper.org RECEIVED Dear Ms. James SEP 0 3 2002 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Strand Project for blocks 104-105 in downtown Huntington Beach. Orange County Coastkeeper has reviewed the EIR for the project and as part of our commitment to coastal water quality in Orange County have the following comments. 1. The EIR states that there have been no reports of water quality problems at the site. Considering that no water quality testing was done here in the past or as part of this EIR that is not surprising. In our opinion a water quality testing program should begin as soon as possible to develop baseline data for water quality on the site and to detect problems during and after construction. — 7-1 2. The EIR states that the project will use the best BMPs necessary for the site both during and after construction. However the developer proposes to develop only the required storm water management plan for the construction phase rather than a more comprehensive SWPPP to address the needs for runoff control. This is inadequate considering the large amount of soil that will be removed and transported during the 7-2 construction phase and (as mentioned in the EIR) the past use of the site in oil operations and the likely contamination of the soil from those operations. Our city deserves the best management of runoff from this site not just the minimum required. 3. When discussing the runoff from the site the EIR states that there will be little change in its composition before and after construction. It is unlikely that the runoff from a lightly used parking lot and one restaurant will be the same as that from a highly developed site with several restaurants, outdoor dining, a heavily used 400 car parking garage, and a 7-3 large hotel. Since any increase in pollutant loads pose a risk to the beach directly in front of the site, the composition and treatment of runoff from this site is critically important to the economic health of the city and the physical health of the marine environment. 4. The structural BMPs that were discussed in the EIR include diverting runoff to landscaped areas where possible and the installation of a water clarifier at the connection to the storm drain. Since the report states that there will be little landscaped area as part 7-4 of this project the vast majority of the runoff from this project will enter the storm drain with no treatment at all. Regarding the clarifier, this will do little or nothing to remove Comment better 7 1 r most contaminants, such as metals, bacteria and automobile fluids generated from the site. The proper situation would include diversion or filtering of runoff from the site to ensure that the water from the site meets the standards for water quality contained in A 411, and the California Toxics Rule. 5. The BMP design of the trash disposal area is limited to keeping roof runoff away from the disposal area. While this is a good idea, the bins should be isolated so that all liquids from the bins or from hosing down the area are contained in the area and are directed to 7-5 a sanitary drain in the trash area. This is a prime location for bacterial contamination and litter it deserves special treatment for possible runoff from the area. While we have no desire to see the site remain undeveloped it is in the best interest of the city and the nearby marine. environment to use the best available technology and design to assure that the quality of the runoff from the site improves from the current situation if possible. Also we would like to see a firm commitment from the developer to help improve the quality of runoff from the surrounding area as well. This Project is deriving tremendous value from its location across from one of the most popular tourist beaches in the state and should do its part to improve and enhance the area. Since the runoff from the project and much of downtown end up on the beach across the street the developers will be protecting their own investment by assuring a quality environment for their patrons and the suggestions above will go a long way toward that goal. Sincerely, Garry Brown Orange County Coastkeeper 11 I k� 1 11 11 I 11 3.2 Comments and Responses to Comments ILetter from Garry Brown. Oranse Countv Coastkeever, Sevtember 3, 2002 Response to Comment 7-1: As stated on page 3.4-18 of the Draft EIR, City standard conditions of approval require compliance with all applicable state and local regulations related to oil well abandonment and associated hazards, which includes contaminated groundwater. Additionally, the proposed project would be required to comply with NPDES Phase II, which would require the preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP would also be subject to review and approval by the City Public ' Works Department, which will require adherence to all requirements that are current at the time of submittal. The opinion on testing to build baseline data does not reflect current requirements. Response to Comment 7-2: As stated on page 3.4-20 of the Draft EIR, a SWPPP would be required to be prepared for the project, pursuant to NPDES Phase II requirements and subject to review and approval by the City Public Works Department. Additionally, as stated on page 3.4-18, the proposed project would be required to comply with City Specification 422, which requires compliance with all requirements of California Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) for well abandonment, and with City Specification 431-92, which specifies soil cleanup standards, prior to development on the project site. Remediation of any contaminated soils would thus be required to occur before construction of the proposed project, which would eliminate the risk of contaminated runoff emanating from the project site. The project would also be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 403, which specifies measures to reduce fugitive dust. These measures also reduce the potential for erosion on the project site, and would reduce the potential for sedimentation resulting from runoff. Response to Comment 7-3: The discussion in the EIR to which the commentor refers is jbased on the Preliminary Hydrology and Water Quality Report prepared for the project by Penco Engineering (March 20, 2002). Page 4 of this report states that "The proposed improvements will decrease the sediment deposits in storm water since the surface flow will now travel across maintained surface The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3-35 3.0 Responses to Comments conditions. In addition, the surface runoff will be controlled to the maximum extent possible by the use of non-structural and structural BMPs, implemented and located to minimize the discharges from the possible polluting sources." Additionally, the reduction in surface parking is anticipated to reduce the direct runoff affected by automobile -related pollutants, such as grease and oil. Additionally, the recommendations for BMPs included in the report include provision of a grease separator to remove oil and grease from water from the proposed restaurant uses. Additionally, the proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable regulations regarding water quality, as well as standards set by the RWQCB and/or SWRCB. Response to Comment 7-4: The proposed project would be required to implement whatever measures are necessary to ensure that water quality meets the standards set in AB 411, the California Toxics Rule, and other standards set by the State and regional water quality control boards. Note also that the measures requested by the commentor exceed the standards set by the RWQCB and SWRCB. Response to Comment 7-5: In response to this comment, the following mitigation measure has been added to the Final EIR: MM 3.4-3: The vrovosed vroiect shall include flatwork desi n and structural BMPs to isolate contamination from the disposal bins and direct any runoff from the disposal area into a sanitary drain with a trash separator, an oil and grease separator, and / or other filtration system as required to meet water quality standards. Response to Comment 7-6: Comment noted. Refer to the responses to comments 7-1-7-5, above. 3-36 City of Huntington Beach ' 1 1 1 0 September 1, 2002 Mrs. Susan K. Worthy 128 Sixth Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 To: Jane James/Senior Planner Planning Department City of Huntington Beach ft�,Vft ZEP ® 3�002 Subject: Response to and comments regarding Draft Environment Impact Report for the Strand Project proposed for blocks 104 and 105 located in the downtown area of Huntington Beach(EIR No 01-02) Dear Mrs. James, I am writing this letter to respond to the Draft EIR No 01-02 and how it addresses impacts on our property and Block 105. As you know our property is located on the North West corner of Block 105 it is commonly called the Worthy Property and more historically known as the Helme/Worthy Historic Site. The property has been in our family's hands since the turn of the 20th century, and my mother and I are the third and fourth generation owners. The lot size of the property is 100ft wide by 117.5ft deep. There are five buildings on the property of mixed uses; residential and commercial. We have seven apartments, one house(single family dwelling) and three store fronts. My Great Grandfather M.E.Helme was the first owner of the property and was one of the city's pioneer founders. We were very proud when our property was considered historically significate to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places (March,1987) meeting all of the requirements as defined by the National Preservation Act of 1966. It is also listed in The California Register of Historical Resources and The City's Historic Resources Survey. Although the buildings need repair and paint, the historic site is a special place to us and we are looking forward to its restoration. Currently, we are working on the eves/roof of the house with a new roof to follow. With regards to the EIR; I would like to address some specific issues. On page 3.3-16 under; Impact 3.3-4, it is stated that the garage and associated upper floor apartments are not considered contributing elements to the historic property. Let me state that while not as significant as the older buildings on the property this building (built in 1948) exceeds the 50 year age limit and shows the evolution of the property. The "little cabin" (shed) was built right after the house was located on the corner. Both buildings were part of the original application submitted to the State Historic M1 IN Comment Letter 8 11 Preservation office in 1986 and onto the National Register of 8_2 Historic Places(1986-87) and accepted as part of the site. Also under Impact 3.3-4 it is stated that rehab funding by grant assistance was refused by us the property owners and was therefore eliminated as a option for consideration. I would like to state that; there was a loan proposed and 8_3 presented to us by the Economic Development Dept. That loan was not a practical program for us, however, we are still open to other possible funding assistance. Therefore we do not feel this option should be entirely eliminated from consideration. Also defined under Impacts 3.3-4 is some of the setbacks and boundaries around our property. Our most urgent concern is with the setback and building height at the southern portion of our property. We strongly support Mitigation Measure 3.3-3 which would require a 20ft setback from our property line and the upper level setbacks for the third and fourth floors. This would create "open space" and would be more of a pleasing exterior affect rather than a vertical wall that would be very encroaching to our property and would cause a dwarfing affect on the historical site. The prior Coultrup project designed for block 105 had the 20ft setback in place all around our property line as was required. It also allowed this 20ft buffer zone to be landscaped and used as a pedestrian corridor. I would desire that this 20ft setback be landscaped along with additional 'Green Pillar'(chamaecyparis lawsoniana) running parallel with the sound buffer wall enclosing the entire length of the service driveway. I cannot emphasize enough the need for these buffers not only for aesthetic/encroachment reasons but also noise and privacy as this puts the service driveway and parking structure entrance and exit further from our buildings. However, this landscaped area should remain private and not for use with the public. Our historic site for viewing for the public access is 6th street and Walnut Avenue not for all around the property. (privacy and noise issues are on the South side of our property and the use of the service driveway on the East side of our property affecting residential tenants. Other mitigating suggestions may included additional obscure glass in the hotel windows on these two sides). Federal Historic preservation laws; Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act National Environmental Policy Act and at the State level; California Environmental Quality Act I am requesting that all the above laws should be followed procedural/substantive in regards to our relationship with the proposed "The Strand project". 0 0 11 on U_ Additionally in addressing noise concerns; on page 3.6-17, MM3.6-1 construction hours not start before 8:00am on Saturdays. This is changed from 7:,00am as stated in-MM3.6-1. The reason fo this is we have several residential tenants living here adjoinin the project most of which have Saturday's off work. Also not really addressed in the EIR but of concern to me is the noise that will be generated by trucks using the service driveway for deliveries and pick-ups after the project is completed. On the East boundary of our property we have five residential apartments units in which all the bedroom windows are located on the property line adjoining the proposed service driveway for the project. I know that this one-way service driveway servicing 10 buildings on Block 105 will impact my tenants that live on this boundary line therefore, I would like to propose a sound buffer wall (concrete material that looks like wood)that would be enclosed and begin at the entrance for the service drive on Sixth street and continue and end at Walnut exit. The impact of the overall project will create more noise and congestion than already exists today, this wall would lessen the impact all around the property line on both impacted sides. Another mitigating measure would be time restraints on the service driveway. With regards to Section 3.8 Public Services and Utilities. Although the EIR does not specifically state; our propert will be occupied and in business during construction of th Section 3.9 Transportation and Circulation. r 8-5 g Me e Our property is located on Sixth Street and on Walnut Avenue. Years ago Sixth Street was a residential street as is Walnut Avenue is today and Fifth street was the Primary Arterial Highway along with Nain Street. Now today, Sixth Street is the Primary Arterial Highway and cars speed up and down this street driving too fast through a residential street. We have had many car accidents on the corner of 6th and Walnut, and I hope that some pedestrian will not get hit however, as it is now, it could be a real reality to happen in the future. This street is not a "pedestrian friendlyAO street. People cross this street all the time, more on the weekends trying to get to the activities downtown. This area needs to be looked at much more closely and addressed than stated in the EIR. This proposed project will also have an impact on the traffic on 6th street, it adds four driveways; three for the parking structure(405) spaces and a service driveway along with our driveway makes 5 driveways in a short distance between PCH and Walnut on a Arterial Highway. The 1st block(PCH to Walnut) will back up and turn into a. U J_ 11 parking lot itself when people turn right into the underground parking structure. Possible mitigation could be decorative brick crosswalks(similar to design existing on 6th and Main) restriping, signage stating a two-way stop, or relocating the entrance or an additional entrance 'all together' to the hotel 8-8 off of 5th street. Also, I am not an expert on traffic and circulation however, I have lived on this corner for thirty years and have seen the changes and the impact its created first hand. Other comments I have is regarding the "Special Permits" � that the applicant is requesting. On all four points; Ground floor setbacks Upper story Setbacks Reduction of Fifth Street view corridor Building Height should be denied. We need to establish and keep as much as the "open space" as we can in considering the impact of this proposed project on the surrounding neighborhood and our neighborhood's view of the ocean, not just for the hotel guests. The neighborhood will be next door and we will have to live with this project forever and it's impact on us. Sincerely, Susan K. Worthy LI11 C F 0 11 3.2 Comments and Responses to Comments ILetter from Susan K. Worthy, September 3, 2002 Response to Comment 8-1: Comment noted. Response to Comment 8-2: Comment noted. Please note that Impact 3.3-4 of the Draft EIR recognizes the impact of the proposed project upon the Helme- Worthy property as a whole, and that Draft EIR Mitigation Measure 3.3-3 requires the provision of setbacks from the property line, rather than from the residence and the commercial structure. .4 Response to Comment 8-3: Comment noted. As stated on page 3.3-17 of the Draft EIR, the - ® City currently has no loan funding mechanism in place; however, this option will be forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration. Response to Comment 8-4: Comment noted. As the commentor states, Mitigation Measure 3.3-3 in the Draft EIR requires 20-foot ground -floor setbacks and 15-foot upper floor setbacks to provide a spatial buffer for the Helme-Worthy property. The mitigation measure also requires that the Applicant provide additional 10-15 foot setbacks for the third and fourth floors of Building F/G, as well as a landscaped buffer along the southern and eastern property lines of the Helme-Worthy property. However, as stated on page 3.3-19 of the Draft EIR, the City believes that the provision of a pedestrian pathway surrounding the Helme-Worthy property would not be feasible due to pedestrian safety concerns. ® The impact of the proposed project upon historic resource of the Helme-Worthy property was evaluated in Section 3.3 of the Draft EIR, pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, as well as in accordance with criteria contained in Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The National Environmental Policy Act would not apply to the proposed project, as no federal nexus exists (City: is this Response to Comment 8-5: Conditions of approval for the proposed project include Compliance with all Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and Municipal Code requirements, including the Noise Ordinance. All activities including truck deliveries associated with construction, grading, remodeling, or repair IThe Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 341 3.0 Responses to Comments shall be limited to Monday - Saturday 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Such activities are prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays, as required by the City Municipal Code. Although it is understood that project construction would affect the tenants living at the Worthy property, compliance with the City's construction hour limits would reduce this impact to a less -than -significant level without putting undue burden on either the project developer or the nearby residents. It would also be consistent with the City's practice for other construction projects located in close proximity to residences. Response to Comment 8-6: Intermittent noise levels would occur in association with delivery vehicles and loading dock activities. Only medium - weight trucks, light -weight trucks and small vans are expected to make deliveries to, and pickups from, the project site when it is completed and operational. Some —not all —of these vehicles could use warning devices (beeping tones) when backing up. Noise monitoring results for another loading dock identified an average noise level of 53.7 dBA Leq at a distance of 45 feet from the leading dock. This noise level occurred with the operation of three delivery trucks, of which one was a lightweight van, one was a medium weight truck, and one was a tractor -trailer. Because tractor -trailer trucks would not make deliveries to the project site, the average noise level at the proposed loading dock would be lower. Instantaneous noise levels monitored over two minutes while a tractor -trailer entered the area, turned, and backed -up to the loading dock averaged 62.0 dBA Leq. Noise levels for medium - weight and light -weight trucks would be lower. A small truck using a back-up warning device averaged 70 dBA Leq over the 30 seconds that it backed up. Existing daytime noise levels at the rear of the Worthy property presently average approximately 57 dBA Leq. Most of this noise is generated by traffic on the nearby roadways. Based on the noise monitoring results presented above, noise levels at the rear of the proposed hotel and commercial buildings could range between 54 and 70 dBA Leq when deliveries occur. 3-42 City of Huntington Beach 3.2 Comments and Responses to Comments During the other times of the day, ambient noise levels would be relatively low and limited to individual vehicles - mainly automobiles - driving behind the building. The City of Huntington Beach has adopted a Noise Ordinance to address noise levels generated by non -roadway sources (in this case, delivery operations would be considered to be non - roadway sources even those the delivery vehicles would travel to and from the site via roadways). The Noise Ordinance specifies that activities (such as the anticipated delivery operations) cannot exceed the existing noise levels by any amount for a cumulative period of more than 30 minutes in any hour, by 5 dBA for a cumulative period of more than 15 minutes in any hour, by 10 dBA for a cumulative period of more than 5 minutes in any hour, 15 dBA for a cumulative period of more than 1 minute in any hour, and 20 dBA for any period of time. Noise levels would not increase by 15 dBA or more at the rear of the Worthy property. However, delivery vehicles could increase existing noise levels by 10 dBA or more for a cumulative period of 5 minutes over an hour, and by 5 dBA over a period of 15 minutes in an hour. Therefore, the proposed project would need to include features such as a sound wall or enclosure of the loading dock area, and/or implement programs restricting the use of back-up warring devices and limiting the times and numbers of deliveries per hour in order to comply with the Noise Ordinance. Compliance with the Noise Ordinance is not considered mitigation under CEQA, since it is based on law rather than specific impacts. Therefore, this is not a new potential environmental impact of the project that would be subject to additional public review. The project applicant will, however, need to ensure that delivery operations do not exceed City standard. The City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission will, therefore, consider adopting conditions of approval to address this issue. These conditions could include the construction of a sound wall of at least eight feet in height along the southern and eastern perimeters of the Worthy property, enclosure of the service drive, but with one reciprocal access opening, restricting the use of back-up warring devices, and The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3-43 3.0 Responses to Comments limiting deliveries to between the hours of 8 A.M. and 8:00 P.M. Monday through Saturday excluding federal holidays, and 9:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. on Sundays and Federal Holidays as conditions of approval for the proposed project. These hour restrictions are consistent with Section 8.40.090(h) of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code for the maintenance of real property. Response to Comment 8-7: Interruptions of utilities and public services to the Helme- Worthy property are not anticipated, and would be required to be maintained during construction. Additionally, review of construction and site plans by the police and fire departments to ensure adequate emergency access is standard City procedure. Response to Comment 8-8: It is acknowledged that the commentor perceives a safety problem at the intersection of Sixth Street/ Walnut Avenue. According to traffic accident statistics provided by the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department, between January 1, 1998 and August 30, 2002 there have been a total of five accidents at this location. This accident history is not one that would indicate any particular problems and none of the accidents resulted in any injuries. In addition, the operation of this intersection was evaluated in the traffic impact analysis and is forecast to operate at satisfactory levels of service in all scenarios. The traffic study and environmental report reflect a detailed evaluation of conditions at the intersection consistent with industry standards for traffic analyses. As shown on the project site plan, northbound Sixth Street will ■ have a width of approximately 25 feet. The restriction of parking on 6th Street along the project frontage will provide for the addition of a right turn lane at the main project access. A de facto right turn lane is available for the delivery driveway as well as the Worthy Property driveway. As a result, it is not expected that right turns into the project will inhibit northbound through traffic along Sixth Street. Response to Comment 8-9: Comment noted. ■ 1 3-44 City of Huntington Beach I � RUTAN � &TUCKER. Cl E 1 ATTORNEYS AT LAW A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS 611 ANTON BOULEVARD, FOURTEENTH FLOOR COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92626-1931 DIRECT ALL MAIL TO: POST OFFICE BOX 1950 COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92628-1950 TELEPHONE 714-647-5100 FACSIMILE 714-546-9035 INTERNET ADDRESS www.rutan.com Direct Dial: (714) 641-3441 E-mail: joderman@rutan.com VIA FACSIMILE AND FIRST CLASS MAID Jane James, Senior Planner City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 A.W. RUTAN (1880-1972) TAMES 8. TUCKER. SR. (1888-1950) JAMES R. MOORE- THOMAS G. BROCKINGTON LARRY A. CERUTTI APRIL LEE WALTER CARISSA K. PEREZ PAUL FREDERIC MARX EVRLOW (VICKI) DALLAS CAROL D. CARTY KAREN ELIZABETH'ALTER ANDREW E.-AINSWORTH RICHARD A. CURNUTT RANDALL M. BABBUSH PATRICK D. —CALLA NATAL IE SIBBALD DUNDAS SET H L HANSON JOHN 8. HURLBUT, JR. MARY M. GREEN RICHARD K. HOWELL JOHN W. HAMILTON, JR. ALEJANDRO 5. ANGULO MICHAEL W. IMMELL GREGG AMBER JAMES S. WEISZ' JOHN A. RAMIREZ ANTHONY L. BfAUMON MI LFORD W. DAHL. JR MICHAEL F. SITZER DAVID H. L OCHNER PHILIP L BLANCHARD CHAD W. FIRETAC THEODORE I. WALLACE, JR.' THOMAS 1. CRANE A. PATRICK MUNOZ TERE NC.'J. GALLAGHER ARON O. HANSEN JOSEPH D. CARRUTH MARK 8 FRAZCR ROBERT D. FISH DEIA M. HEMINGWAY MARC LUESEBRINK RICHARD P SIMS PENELOPE PARME5 S. DANIEL HARBOTTLE DENISE L. MESTER DAMON D. MIRCHEFF JAMES 8. O"HEAL ,M. KATHERINE JENSON PAUL 1. SIEVERS W. ANDREW MOORE LONA LAYMON ROBERT C. BRAUN DUKE F WAHLQUIST JOSEPH L MAGA. III CHARLES A DAVENPORT, III CATHERINE M. OH THOMAS S. SALINGER" RICHARD G. MONTEVIDEO KRAIG C. K(LGER RICHARD D. ARKO POORNIMA JAYAPRAKASH DAVID C. LARSEN' LORI SARNER SMITH 'KENT M. CLAYTON MARK M MALOVOS CLIFFORD E. FRIEDEN ERNES W. KLATTE, III STEVEN I GOON NIKKI NGUYEN MICHAEL D. RUBIN KIM D. THOMPSON DOUGLAS 1. DENNINGTON SANDRA P. THOMPSON IRA G RIVIN' IAYNE TAYLOR KACER MARTIN W. TAYLOR JENNIFER S. ANDERSON OF COUNSEL I EFFREY M. ODER.— DAVID B. COS GROVE DAN SLATER JOHN T BRADLEY LEONARD A HAMPEL STAN WOLCOTT HANS VAN LIGTEN MARK I PAYNE ALLISON LEMOINE BUI EDWARD D. SYBESMA. JR. ROBERTS BOWER STEPHEN A. ELLIS MARK BUDENSIEK KAREN L. KEATING SENATOR DICK AC KERMAN MARCIA A FORSYTH IEFF REY WERTHEIMER TREG A IULANDER T. LAN NGUYEN DAVID I GARIBALDI, III WILLIAM M. MARTICORENA ROBERT O OWEN TODD O. LITFIN LISA NICHOLAS NEAL WILLIAM J CAPLAN JAMES L. MCRRIS ADAM N. VOLKERT KERRA S. CARLSON MARK I. AUSTIN MICHAEL T. HORNAK (EFFREY A GO L DFARB CRISTY LOMENZO PARKER ROBERT H- MARCEREAU MARTIN FESSENMAIER" PHILIP D KOHN F. KEVIN BRAZIL JEFFREY T. MELCHING STEVEN W. BURT IOEL D KUPERBERG LAYNE H. MELZER DAVID J. ZOETEWEY NOAM L DUZMAN 'A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION STEVEN A NICHOLS L. SKI HARRISON MARLENE POSE )URGENSEN MITCH MILSTEIN —PATENT AGENT September 3, 2002 RECEWED i SEP 0 4 2002 Re: The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach (Blocks 104 and 105); Comments on Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Dear Ms. James: On behalf of the Citizens Against Redevelopment Excess ("CARE"), I am submitting the 9-1 following comments on the Draft EIR for the Strand project (the "Project"). CARE welcomes this long -overdue EIR. CARE continues to believe, however, that an EIR that fully addresses the impacts of the Project should have been prepared and certified prior to the City's adoption of Ordinance No. 3483 on November 20, 2000, amending the City's Downtown Specific Plan. The 2000 Downtown Specific Plan amendment, after all, was designed to accommodate the Project now at hand by increasing the maximum permitted development cap within the City's Downtown Parking Master Plan area from 500,000 to 715,000 square feet of commercial building area and by slashing the off-street parking requirements for new development in that area by approximately one-third, both changes that fit hand -in -glove with the Strand project. The City has wrongfully prejudged the Strand project by approving its enormous size, its uses, and its parking arrangements before the subject EIR was even prepared. 9-2 The validity of the City's 2000 Downtown Specific Plan amendment is currently pending before Division Three of the Fourth District Court of Appeal in CARE v. City of Huntington Beach, Appellate No. G030388. Since the validity of the City's action on the EIR for the Strand 9-3 project hinges upon the outcome of the pending lawsuit, CARE believes it would be appropriate for the City to defer action on the EIR for the Strand project until after the appeal is decided. Comment Letter 9 1 112/019483-0001 316443.01 a09/03/02 . ,cJTAN &TUCKERS ATTORNEYS AT SAW Jane James, Senior Planner September 3, 2002 Page 2 If the City elects instead to move forward with certification of the EIR and consideration of the Strand project at this time, CARE requests that full written responses be provided to the following comments on the Draft EIR. CARE also requests that all of the documents and testimony that were submitted to the City and included in the Administrative Record of proceedings in the lawsuit involving the 2000 Downtown Specific Plan amendment be incorporated into the record of proceedings concerning the subject Draft EIR and the Strand project. In general, CARE finds the EIR to be deficient in the following respects: it understates or fails to adequately address several significant environmental impacts of the Strand project; it fails to set forth adequate and enforceable mitigation measures to eliminate the significant environmental impacts of the Project or reduce them to a level of insignificance; and it fails to set forth a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed Project that would eliminate or reduce the adverse impacts. CARE's specific comments on the Draft EIR are as follows: 1. Please explain how the determination was made that the Strand project complies with the maximum floor area ratio provisions of the City's Municipal Code and the Downtown Specific Plan. The Strand project qualifies neither as a "full block" or "half block" development under the City's applicable land use regulations. The Project is far out of compliance with City codes even before any "special permits" are considered. (See in this regard 11.2 of my June 16, 2000, letter to you on the Notice of Preparation for the Draft EIR, another copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A.") 2. Please explain how the determination was made that the Strand project complies with applicable building height limits under the City's Municipal Code and Downtown Specific Plan. Once again, the Strand project does not qualify as a "full block" development under the City's codes, and the Project is far out of compliance with applicable building height limits even before considering whether "special permits" should be granted. (See 11.3 of my June 16, 2000, letter.) 3. The adequacy of parking for the Strand project and nearby developments is not adequately addressed in the Draft EIR or any other documents incorporated by reference and summarized in accordance with applicable CEQA Guidelines. Virtually none of the comments or questions raised by CARE with regard to the 2000 Downtown Parking Master Plan update and Downtown Specific Plan amendment have been addressed in the Draft EIR. Instead, all the Draft EIR does is to gloss briefly over the Kaku Report. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.9-15 to 3.9-17.) All of CARE's previous comments on the parking issue, the Kaku Report, and the 2000 Downtown Specific Plan amendment are incorporated herein, including ¶ 2 of my June 16, 2000, letter (attached) and the letters I submitted to the City that are included at pages 04065-04078 and 1-1 11 n 9-4 11 a] 9-7 .• 1121019483-0001 316443.01 a09/03/02 1 1 1 JTAN &TUCKER, ATTORNEYS AT LAW Jane James, Senior Planner September 3, 2002 Page 3 04410-04497 of the Administrative Record in the pending lawsuit. Responses to each of the 9-8 comments and concerns raised in those earlier communications are requested. 4. The Draft EIR should address the adequacy of parking for existing businesses in the Downtown during the approximately 2-year construction period for the Strand project. The Draft EIR (at p. 2-6) deals vaguely with parking for construction workers but does not address 9-9 the impact of the loss of almost 200 existing surface parking spaces within Blocks 104 and 105 during the lengthy construction period. 5. The Draft EIR fails to address how access to the existing businesses along Main Street and PCH will be maintained for service and delivery vehicles during the construction 9-10 period. 6. The Draft EIR fails to adequately address the significant environmental impacts of ground shaking, excavation, and loss of lateral and subjacent support for the Worthy building in Block 105 and the existing buildings along Main Street and PCH within Block 104. The Draft EIR indicates (in Figures 2-6 and 2-7) that there will be 2-level vertical excavations right to the property line adjacent to existing businesses and that pile -driving is expected throughout the Project site (see, e.g., p. x). The City/Agency will recall that pile -driving activities at the municipal pier over a decade ago basically destroyed the building that was formerly located on the site of the Oceanview Promenade development in Block 104. While the existing buildings in this area have either been demolished and rebuilt or seismically reinforced since that time, it seems highly probable that substantial damage will be done by extensive excavation and pile - driving activities much closer to the existing structures. 9-11 7. The Draft EIR understates the extent. of the impact that a four-story hotel enveloping the much smaller historic Worthy Building will have on that significant cultural resource. The Draft EIR should acknowledge the significance of this impact and address a 9-12 legitimate mitigation measure and/or project alternative that provides a compatible adjacent development. 8. The Draft EIR should acknowledge that loss of the 5th Street view corridor — caused by reducing it from the minimum 80 feet width required in the Downtown Specific Plan to only 65 feet — is a significant environmental impact. The Draft EIR should address a 9-13 mitigation measure and/or project alternative that would maintain the current minimum view corridor. 9. A second -story "public" terrace within the hotel does not mitigate the loss of the public view corridor along 5tn Street (see Draft EM, pp. 3.1-7 and 3.1-9). As a practical matter, 9-14 the general public does not have the opportunity to utilize a terrace that is part of a hotel and the loss of the existing view corridor would be significant. 112/019483-0001 316443.01 a09/03/02 ,vTAN &TUCKERS AT T O R N E Y 5 A T l A W Jane James, Senior Planner September 3, 2002 Page 4 10. The Draft EIR identifies a supposed "mitigation measure" of restricting delivery vehicles to vehicles the size of or smaller than a medium or small semi -trailer with a length of 50 feet. (Id, p. 3.9-18.) Is this "mitigation" measure imposed on the Strand project only or also on the existing businesses operating within Block 104? If the latter, it most certainly is not a 9-15 mitigation measure. These businesses do not have the luxury of dictating to their suppliers what size of delivery vehicles they must use. The Draft EIR does not adequately address the impact on delivery/service vehicles for the existing businesses and what effect such a so-called "mitigation" measure would have upon those businesses. 11. The Draft EIR contains vague mitigation measures requiring the applicant to submit a parking management plan for review and approval by the City Planning Department and to provide valet and/or remote parking for special events and activities and during the peak 9-16 summer season. (Id, at p. 3.9-18.) These mitigation measures contain no specificity or enforceable standards and are therefore inadequate under CEQA. 12. The Draft EIR fails to address the potential blighting influences of overbuilding commercial square footage within the Downtown area. As I pointed out at page 3 of my September 5, 2001, letter on the scope of issues to be addressed in the Draft EIR (included in Appendix A), there have been numerous business failures in the past few years and there are also a substantial number of business vacancies. The businesses in Downtown Huntington Beach are 9-17 generally beach -related if not beach -dependent and are highly seasonal in nature. By greatly expanding the square footage devoted to retail and restaurant uses while requiring potential customers to rely upon higher- and higher -priced public parking in greatly restricted locations, the City and Redevelopment Agency will be placing much greater pressure on already marginal existing businesses. This subject should be thoroughly addressed. 13. The Draft EIR indicates that the Redevelopment Agency proposes to quitclaim a portion of the 5`h Street right-of-way to CIM. (Id, at 2-5.) CARE submits that this appears to be a proposed gift of public property (see, e.g., Harman v. City and County of San Francisco (1972) 7 Ca1.3`d 150) and it was not addressed in the CIM Disposition and Development Agreement 9-18 ("DDA") or in the mandatory financial disclosure report that accompanied the DDA (see Health and Safety Code § 33433). Has a secret deal been made to provide even more financial benefits to CIM? 14. The Draft EIR fails to consider or address the accessibility of the subterranean parking, the adequacy of ingress to and egress from the structure, and the public's acceptance of subterranean parking in general. There is only one vehicular entrance and exit to the subterranean parking structure — on 61h Street. This is two blocks away from the existing 9-19 businesses along Main Street. How will frustrated customers even find the parking? The City has noted for years that the subterranean parking at Pierside Pavilion is greatly underutilized. 112/019483-0001 316443.01 a09/03/02 1 I 1 .i rAN &TUCKERg ATTORNEYS AT LAW Jane James, Senior Planner September 3, 2002 Page 5 Has it occurred to the City that the reason is the public's lack of acceptance of subterranean 9-19 parking? 15. The Draft EIR fails to address the Strand project's impact on the availability of convenient parking for nearby office tenants, including the three stories of offices (constructed at the Redevelopment Agency's insistence) in the Oceanview Promenade development in Block 9-20 104. Offices are particularly dependent upon the continuous availability of convenient and accessible parking. 16. In light of the inadequate parking that will be available within Blocks 104 and 1.05 at Project build -out, the Draft EIR should thoroughly analyze a mitigation measure that would allow existing businesses within Block 104 to reserve a minimum number of parking spaces at 9-21 reasonable rates in the portion(s) of the structure closest to the existing businesses. and/or in the parking structure in the 200 block of Main Street. 17. The Draft EIR fails to identify the numerous amendments to the City's General Plan (Coastal Element) and Downtown Specific Plan that would have to be approved in order to 9-22 eliminate conflicts and violations in the areas of floor area ratio, height limits, the visual corridor along 5t' Street, open space, and setback requirements. 18. The traffic analysis accompanying the Draft EIR appears to include only a few of the related projects identified in the cumulative impacts section. (Compare Appendix G, pp. 6 9-23 and 24, with pp. 2-7 to 2-11.) 19. Policy C4.2.3 in the Coastal Element of the City's General Plan, dealing with preservation of public views, requires "strict application of local ordinances ... including 9-24 defined view corridors." (Emphasis added.) The Draft EIR should address a modified project that eliminates this clear violation. 20. The air quality mitigation measures set forth at pp. 3.2-15 to 3.2-16 of the Draft 9-25 EIR contain no performance standards and are therefore inadequate under CEQA. 21. The Cultural Resources Element of the City's General Plan "[e]ncourage[s] new development to be compatible with adjacent existing historic structures in terms of scale, massing, building materials, and general architectural treatment." There is no substantial evidence for the statement at p. 3.3-11 of the Draft EIR that the Strand project is compatible with 9-26 this policy. How can a four-story, 55-foot tall Mediterranean -style building shoved up as close as 20 feet away from a two-story historic wooden structure such as the Worthy Building be considered compatible with any of those criteria? 22. The Draft EIR fails to provide the information needed to calculate the Strand 9-27 project's compliance with the Downtown Specific Plan requirement (at § 4.5.10) that a minimum t 112/019483-0001 316443.01 a09/03/02 TAN &TUCKERI ATTORNEYS AT LAW Jane James, Senior Planner September 3, 2002 Page 6 ° r of 10 /° of the net site area must be set aside for a public open space amenity. (See Draft EIR, p 3.5-21.) How can a hotel terrace qualify as either "public" or "open space" under the City's 9-27 codes? 23. The Draft EIR states that construction noise impacts will be less than significant because the City exempts them from the requirements of the City's noise ordinance. (Id, at p. 3.6-11.) This is a gross non -sequitur. Pile -driving and other loud construction activities 9-28 occurring on the site will have a significant adverse impact on adjacent businesses (including the upper -floor office tenants in the Oceanview Promenade Building) and residences. 24. The proposed noise mitigation measures do not address and may even increase 9-29 office noise impacts on the upper -floor tenants in the Oceanview Promenade building. 1 25. The cumulative air quality impact analysis in the Draft EIR does not identify the 9-30 other projects that were considered. (Id, p. 3.2-14.) r 26. The cumulative traffic impact analysis section of the Draft EIR is inadequate since it considers only four "committed" projects instead of all of the reasonably anticipated and 9-31 related future projects. (See, Draft EIR, pp. 3.9-2 and 2.9-7.) 27. It is inappropriate for the Draft EIR to refuse to consider significant traffic and parking impacts occurring during the summer and on weekends simply because the City doesn't want to invest in additional infrastructure. (See p. 3.9-6.) The Draft EIR should instead 9-32 acknowledge that the impacts are significant and unmitigated and address the failure or refusal to fully mitigate impacts as part the "overriding considerations" analysis if indeed the City believes it is not feasible to mitigate the impacts. 28. The Draft EIR incorrectly assumes (at p. 3.9-16) that private off-street parking is available for shared public use. An accurate inventory of true "public" spaces is needed. 9-33 29. There is no substantial evidence to support the statement at p. 3.9-17 that "the Project is considered fully parked." Even assuming for the sake of argument that the reduced parking requirements of the 2000 Downtown Specific Plan amendment were used, the Kaku 9-34 1 study acknowledged a 245-parking deficiency in Area 1 of the Downtown Parking Master Plan area (the first 3 blocks inland from PCH along either side of Main Street, including Block A). (See p. 04406 of the Administrative Record in the above -referenced litigation.) 1 30. There is no substantial evidence to support the statement at p. 3.9-17 of the Draft EIR that "the proposed project will replace the 150 spaces lost [in Block A] on a one -for -one basis ...." In the first place, the City's own parking inventory prepare as part of the 2000 9-35 Downtown Specific Plan amendment identified significantly more than 150 existing parking spaces in Block A. In addition, the City staff itself acknowledged the CIM project generates a 112/019483-0001 316443.01a09/03/02 FAN &TUCKER ATTORNEYS AT LAW Jane James, Senior Planner September 3, 2002 Page 7 parking requirement somewhere between 834 and 878 spaces (see pp. 04324 and 04557 from the Administrative Record in the pending litigation). With less than half of the Strand project's own 9-35 .parking needs accommodated on -site before the loss of the existing on -site parking is considered, it is grossly deceptive to state that existing parking is being replaced on a one -for -one basis. 1 31. The Draft EIR seems to indicate that the Strand project maximizes its square footage relative to available parking in Downtown Huntington Beach. (Id, at p. 3.9-17.) The Draft EIR does not address the constraints that approval of the Strand project apparently would 9-36 place on the rights of other property owners in the Downtown, particularly existing property owners within Block A, to redevelop their properties. 32. The Draft EIR's refusal to acknowledge a substantial number of significant environmental impacts — dealing with violation of City development standards, impacts on cultural resources (i.e., the Worthy building), scale and massing, inadequate parking, inadequate 9-37 open space, loss of the Sth Street view corridor, and height and setback violations, to name a few — results in a truncated discussion of mitigation measures and alternatives that could avoid those impacts. 33. There is no substantial evidence to support the Draft EIR's assertion at . 4-6 to pp ( Pp 4-7) that there is no alternative site for a project similar to the Strand project that would enable the City to realize the basic project objectives. The property at the corner of PCH and 1st Street is also available for additional commercial, retail, and restaurant development. There are several existing and planned hotels already located in and immediately adjacent to Downtown Huntington Beach, including without limitation the Waterfront Hilton, the Hyatt Regency Resort currently under construction, and hotels that CARE understands are plannedfor the property at 9-38 the corner of PCH and I" Street. CARE requests that the record of proceedings on this EIR include the City files on those other projects. Without the Strand project there are approximately 500,000 square feet of commercial development existing and approved for the "core" Downtown Huntington Beach area. The Draft EIR does not explain how the additional square footage in the precise location identified is necessary and cannot be compromised in order to achieve project objectives. 34. There is no substantial evidence to justify the Draft EIR's rejection of the "No Project / Reasonably Foreseeable Use" alternative. (See p. 4-7.) The Draft EIR should consider a development scenario in accordance with the existing City development standards. The Draft EIR improperly states that such a development would not "substantially lessen environmental impacts" compared to the Strand project by simply misstating (or not stating) what those 9-39a development standards are: A is not a justification for the Draft EIR to state that "the City Redevelopment Agency owns the property and has entered into an agreement with CIM to develop the site ...." Indeed, this smacks of precisely the sort of prejudgment and pre - commitment to the CIM development in the absence of environmental review that CARE has 112/019483-0001 316443.01 a09/03/02 ►AN &T. UCKERI ATTORNE Y 5 AT LAW Jane James, Senior Planner September 3, 2002 Page 8 been complaining about for the past three years. It is also no excuse to state that "the City has no other existing plans for the redevelopment of the project site," as stated in the Draft EIR. The 9-39b purpose of the alternatives section of an EIR is that the City must develop and consider reasonable alternative uses. There also is no substantial evidence to support the EIR's claim (at p. 4-7) that the City "has received no proposals" for development other than the CIM project. In fact, the City itself approved a much smaller scale development for Blocks 104 and 105 in 1992-1995 and that development project did not proceed only because of the developer's lack of financing and the real estate recession at the time. At a minimum, the City should consider that previously 9-39c approved plan or a plan substantially similar to it as one of the reasonable alternatives to the grossly overbuilt CIM project. In this regard, CARE respectfully requests that the City and Redevelopment Agency's entire file relating to the previously approved Coultrup project be included in the record of these proceedings to show what a true reasonable alternative to the CIM project would be. Finally, there is no substantial evidence to support the vague claim in the Draft EIR (at p. 4-7) that the "no project" alternative is infeasible because of unnamed "social and political 9-39d constraints." What does this mean? At a minimum, further explanation of this statement is warranted. 35. There is already substantial retail, restaurant, and office development within the "core" area of Downtown Huntington Beach. If the City's basic Project objective is to locate a hotel in the "core" Downtown Area, a reasonable alternative to the Strand project would be to 9-40 downsize the Project by limiting the additional development to a hotel and leaving enough surface area for parking to reduce the huge financial burden of subterranean excavation and parking. 36. There is no substantial evidence to support the Draft EIR's rejection of the "No Project/No Development" alternative on the basis that the existing property and parking lots within Blocks 104 and 105 would deteriorate and "little active maintenance would be undertaken." (Id. at pp. 4-7 to 4-8.) As the Draft EIR notes, the Redevelopment Agency, an arm 9-41 of the City, owns the Project site. The Redevelopment Agency cannot use its own failure to maintain its property in decent condition — the requirement the City/Agency would impose on any private owner — as a justification for massive over -development of the property. 37. The "Reduced/Revised Project" alternative in the Draft EIR is a complete sham. In fact, this alternative is not "reduced" at all — it adds a three-story above -ground parking structure in Block 104 (with an undefined amount of building square footage) and deletes only 9-42 one small building (Building C) with only 7,715 of gross building area as now proposed by CIM — only about 3% of the total of 226,245 square feet of commercial buildings in the CIM 112/019483-0001 316443.01 a09/03/02 .J rAN &TUCKER3 ATTORNEYS AT LAW Jane James, Senior Planner September 3, 2002 ® Page 9 1 development. (Compare pp. 4-10 and Figure 2-5.) The Draft EIR correctly notes that this so- called "Reduced" project alternative actually generates "identical" land use impacts to the Strand project itself. (Id. at p. 4-12.) The Draft EIR is inadequate unless and until it considers a true 9-42 legitimate alternative development consistent with existing development standards (including the parking requirements and maximum building square footage included within the City's own 1995 Downtown Specific Plan amendment). 38. There is no substantial evidence to support the Draft EIR's rejection of the Reduced/Revised Project" alternative on the basis it "would not meet the Applicant's objective of providing a financially viable commercial project.". (Id, at p. 4-11.) Moreover, the DDA the Redevelopment Agency previously approved called for the City and Redevelopment Agency to contribute well over $30,000,000 of public revenues to the development over a period of 25 years — how is the financial feasibility of the project being evaluated when enormous public funds already are being contributed to make it work? Finally, the economics of the DDA approved in 1999 are no longer valid since CIM is no longer being required to incur the expense of acquiring properties along Main Street and PCH within Block 104 (which are now excluded from the Project site). What is the amount of the City and Redevelopment Agency subsidy to the development at this time? Have the City/Agency and CIM taken into consideration that development of the Project will be required to comply with California's prevailing wage laws (i.e., SB 975)? 9-43 39. The "Alternative Mix of Uses" also fails to provide a reasonable alternative to the Strand project since the only physical changes are adjustments to upper -story setbacks on Building G. (Draft EIR, pp. 4-13 to 4-14.) Once again, the alternative addresses almost none of 9-44 the significant environmental impacts of the Project. A true downsized alternative should be considered. 40. There is no substantial evidence to support the Draft EIR's purported justification ® for rejecting the "Alternative Mix of Uses" on the basis it would not achieve the "basic project objectives of adding a hotel to the Downtown core area." As previously noted, the Waterfront Hilton exists within the Downtown Specific Plan area, the Hyatt Regency Resort is under construction, CARE understands that there are at least two planned hotel developments for the vacant property at 1st Street and PCH, and other hotels exist immediately to the north of the proposed Project site along PCH. 1 9-45 1 112/019483-0001 316443.01 a09/03/02 FAN &TUCKER ATTORNEY 5 AT LAW Jane James, Senior Planner September 3, 2002 Page 10 CARE submits that in light of the serious inadequacies of the Draft EIR a new revised Draft EIR should be prepared and circulated for public review and comment. At a minimum, the new revised Draft EIR should acknowledge the significant environmental impacts of the Strand project which are dismissed as insignificant in the current document, adequate and enforceable 9.46 mitigation measure should be identified and imposed for the Project, and a proper range of reasonable alternatives to the Project (including a development similar to the previously approved Coultrup plan and at least one other alternative development consistent with the 1995 Downtown Specific Plan) should be considered. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, RUT & TUCKER, LLP IfM. Oderman JMO:ctm Enclosure cc: Scott Field, Assistant City Attorney 112/019483-0001 316443.01 a09/03/02 1 1 RUTAN &TUCKER--, ATTORNEYS AT LAW A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS 611 ANTON BOULEVARD, FOURTEENTH FLOOR COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92626-1998 DIRECT ALL MAIL TO: POST OFFICE BOX 1950 COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92628-1950 TELEPHONE 714-641-5100 FACSIMILE 714-546-9035 INTERNET ADDRESS www.rutan.com Direct Dial: (714) 641-3441 E-mail: joderman@rutan.com VIA FACSIMILE & FIRST CLASS MAIL Jane James, Associate Planner City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street TAMES R. MOORE' PAUL FREDERIC MARK RICHARD A CURNUTT LEONARD A_ HAMPEL IOHN B. HURLBUT, IR. MICHAEL W. IMMELL MILFORD W. DAHL. IR, THEOOORE I. WALLACE. IR.- GILBERT N KRUGER IOSEPH D. CARRUTH RICHARD P. SIMS TAMES B. O'NEAL ROBERT C. BRAUN THOMAS 5- SALINGER' DAVID C. LARSEN* CLIFFORD E. FRIEDEN MICHAEL D. RU"N IRA G. RIVIN' IEFFREY M. 0DERMAN' STAN WOLCOTT' ROBERT S BOWER DAVID I. ALESHIRE MARCIA A. FORSYTH WILLIAM M. MARTICORENA TAMES L. MORRIS WILLIAM 1. CAPLAN A.W. RUTAN (1880.1972) 1. B. TUCKER. SR IIBBB-19501 MICHAEL T. HORNAK PHILIP O. KOHN IOEL O KUPE RBERG STEVEN A. NICHOLS THOMAS G. OROCKINGTON WILLIAM W WYNDER EVRIOIKI (VICKII DALLAS RANDALL M. BABBUSH MARY M. GREEN GREGG AMBER MICHAEL F. SITZER THOMAS ICRANE MARK BRA . FZIER PENELOPE PARMES M. KATHERINE IENSON DUKE F. WAHLQUIST RICHARD G. MONTEVIDEO LORI SARNER SMITH ERNEST W KLATTE. III ELIZABETH L. MARTYN KIM D. THOMPSON IAYNE TAYLOR RACER DAVID B. COSGROVE HANS VAN LIGTEN STEPHEN A ELLIS MATTHEW K. ROSS June 16, 2000 IEFFREY WERTHEIMER ROBERT O. OWEN ADAM N. VO.KFRT IEFFREY A. GOLDFARB F. KEVIN BRAZIL LAYNE H. MELZER L. SKI HARRISON ELISE K. TRAYNUM LARRY A. CERUTTI CAROL O. CARTY PATRICK D. .,CALLA RICHARD K. HOWELL TAMES S. WEISZ' DAVID H. HOCHNER A. PATRICK MVMOZ S. DANIEL HARBOTTLE PAUL 1. SIEVERS IOSEPH L. MAGA. III KRAIG C. KILGER MICHAEL K. SLATTERY DEBRA DUNN STEEL DAN SLATER KENT M. CLAYTON MARK BUDENSIEK STEVEN 1. GOON DOUGLAS I. DFNNtNGTON TRIG A. IULANDER TODD O. LITFIN KARA 5. CARLSON ERIC L. DUNN FILED GALANTE CRISTY LOMENZO PARKER IEFFREY T. MELCHING SEAN P. FARRELL MARLENE POSE JORGENSEN APRIL LEE WALTER KAREN ELIZABETH WALTER NATAL IE SIBBALD OUNDAS ALISON M. BARBAROSH IOHN W. HAMILTON, JR. IOHN A. RAMIREZ LYNN IOSCHIN PHILIP J. BLANCHARD TERENCE I. GALLAGHER ROBERT E. KING DEM M. HEMINGWAY IULIE K. WHANG DENISE L. NESTER W. ANDRE. MOORE ALISON L. TSAO CHARLES A. DAVENPORT, III DANIEL L. GEBERT Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Notice of Preparation of Draft Environmental Impact Report P P P for Block 104/105 Redevelopment Project (The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach) Dear Ms. James: IULIE L. DREW NATASHA L. PAVIA RICHARD D ARKO MARK M. MALOVOS NIKKI NGUYEN MATTHEW L. NELSON IEFF C. RISHER JENNIFER S. ANDERSON IOHN T. BRADLEY ALISON L. ROSSMAN ALLISON LEMOINE.BUI BILL W IHRKE KAREN L. MARTINEZ CHYI G. CHEN T. LAN NGUYEN LISA V. NICHOLAS GEORGE A GALLEGOS OF COUNSEL: EDWARD D. SYBESMA. IR.- DAVIDI GARIBALDI, III 'A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION On behalf of Abdelmuti Development Company ("ADC") and the Citizens Against Redevelopment Excess ("CARE"), I am writing to provide you with our views as to the scope and content of the environmental impact information which should be included in the above - referenced EIR. 1 My clients welcome the City's decision to prepare a full EIR for this project. We agree with the City's conclusion that the proposed project will result in significant environmental impacts necessitating the preparation of an EIR. We do continue to believe, however, that the City and Redevelopment Agency already have violated the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") by approving the Disposition and Development Agreement ("DDA") and Cooperation Agreement with CIM and thereby contractually committing the City and Agency to the project before the environmental review process has even commenced. If the City is truly committed to an open-minded consideration of the significant environmental impacts of the CIM project and mitigation measures and feasible alternatives that could reduce or eliminate those impacts, we believe the City and Agency should rescind their approvals of the DDA and Cooperation Agreement before the EIR process proceeds any further. 1 Without prejudice to my clients' existing legal claims regarding the CEQA violations that have already occurred, I would like to make the following additional comments at this time. Uffl T A I12/014820.0001 89198.01 a06/16/00 IAN &TUCKER, ATTORNEYS AT LAW Jane James June 16, 2000 Page 2 1. The Initial Study states that the project, as proposed is compatible with the existing general plan designation and zoning requirements for the project site with the possible exception of the need for special permits to encroach into minimum ground floor and upper story setbacks. We believe that this statement is incorrect in at least three respects, which we believe should be addressed in the EIR: 1.1 The proposed project violates City off-street parking requirements. At the time the DDA and Cooperation Agreement were approved last year, CIM proposed to provide approximately 400 on -site parking spaces (3 80 subterranean spaces and 20 surface spaces) as compared to a minimum parking requirement pursuant to City standards of approximately 800 spaces (a 400-space deficiency), not even considering the approximately 123 existing on -site surface parking spaces that the Agency is contractually, obligated to maintain for the benefit of ADC's Oceanview Promenade development that would be eliminated (resulting in a total parking deficiency of 533 spaces). Since then, the parking deficiency appears to have increased even further due to an increase in the size and scope of the project (by our calculation, resulting in an increase of 16 required parking spaces, or 816 total) and a reduction of 54 spaces to be provided (including a reduction from 380 to 331 subterranean spaces and a reduction from 20 to 15 surface spaces). Thus, the parking deficiency has mushroomed to a total of 470 spaces for CIM's proposed uses and 593 spaces if the existing on -site spaces that are to be eliminated are included in the count.. This extreme violation of the City's Downtown Specific Plan and Zoning Ordinance should be addressed in the EIR. 1.2 The proposed CIM project also violates the maximum floor area ratio or "FAR" requirement in the City's Downtown Specific Plan. The CIM project does not qualify as either a "full block" development or a "half block" development within the meaning of the Downtown Specific Plan since it is neither "bounded on all sides by public streets" nor "bounded on all sides by public streets and/or alleys containing at lease one-half (1/2) the net area of the full block." Accordingly, the maximum permitted floor area ratio for the CIM project is 2.0. (Downtown Specific Plan at Section 4.5.03(a).) While the square footage of total building area of the revised CIM project (including the structured parking) is not disclosed on the face of the Notice of Preparation, it clearly is well over the maximum 2.0 FAR permitted by Code. This discrepancy should be fully addressed in the EIR. 1.3 The CIM project would also exceed the maximum height limit permitted under the City's land use regulations. Section 4.5.04 of the Downtown Specific Plan prescribes a maximum building height in District No. 3 (which encompasses Blocks 104 and 105) of "three stories/35 feet" for projects "less than full block" in size. Our understanding is that the project exceeds this height limit. This discrepancy should be fully addressed in the EIR. 2. The EIR should address the following issues relating to traffic and parking: 112/014820-OWI EXHIBff 91198.01 a06/16/00 J rAN &TUCKER ATTORNEYS AT LAW - Jane James June 16, 2000 Page 3 2.1 The EIR must address the massive parking deficiency referred to in paragraph 1.1 above. 2.2 Our understanding is that the Project will also necessitate the elimination of a certain number of existing on -street parking spaces along Fifth and Sixth Streets. If so, the impacts of this loss of parking will need to be addressed. 2.3 Our understanding is that at some point in time an additional travel lane or lanes are proposed along PCH through Downtown Huntington Beach which will eliminate even more existing on -street parking. If so, this needs to be addressed as a cumulative impact of the Project. 2.4 Office developments need convenient and accessible parking for tenants and clients. The Oceanview Promenade building within Block 104 has substantial upper -floor office space and the revised project description proposes additional office uses within the 2-block area. What accommodation will be made to satisfy this need? 2.5 The revised CIM project description includes a 20,000 square foot market. Markets also require designated nearby parking for customers. How will this be provided? How will designated parking for the market impact upon the pool of available of parking for the balance of the project and the Oceanview Promenade uses? Is adequate area being set aside for shopping cart storage within the portion of the parking structure that, is proposed to be used by r the market? Does this further reduce the number of available parking spaces? 2.6 The City's documents contain conflicting and sometimes ambiguous statements regarding the distances that people will walk from parking spaces to their destination in the Downtown. The proposal to construct this project with grossly inadequate on -site parking is obviously premised upon ' an assumption that people will park "wherever" and walk long distances to their destination. This assumption should be tested empirically and addressed in full in the EIR. 2.7 Many people resist parking in a parking structure if they can find on -street of surface parking instead. In addition, since the project plan proposes only a single point of access into and out of the parking structure along the least commercialized Sixth Street frontage as much as two blocks away from many of the uses within the Project site, it can be anticipated that many people driving to the project will drive around in circles before they ultimately find the entrance to the parking structure. Traffic studies for most projects assume a perfect efficiency of traffic movements (i.e., only one traffic movement approaching the project site). The traffic and parking study for this project should carefully examine the lack of efficiency created by the undesirable and difficult -to -locate parking, which inevitably will add further congestion to the nearby streets. 112/014820.0001 EXHIBIT 89198.01 aO6/16/00 ,AN .� TUCKER; A T T O R N E Y$ AT LAW Jane James June 16, 2000 Page 4 2.8 Our understanding is that the on -site parking structure will be operated by the City and that it will charge for parking. What will the parking fees be? Depending on the level of the fees, people will be incentivized to park on the street, further adding to traffic congestion Downtown, as people drive around looking for an available space, and further impacts on otherwise available parking. This issue should be addressed in the EIR. 2.9 In addition to the previous comments, the parking study should address the adequacy of the single ingress/egress point for the parking structure on Sixth Street from the standpoint. of adequacy of emergency access and problems of congestion (and air pollution) as people back up trying to get into or out of the structure. 2.10 The EIR should re-examine the assumption in the Downtown Parking Master Plan regarding the total demand and supply of parking, including the assumptions regarding the amount of development in each land use category within the Downtown area. 2.11 The parking and traffic studies should address the unique situation with a major commercial development immediately across the street from the Pacific Ocean, the Municipal Pier, and one of the most popular beaches in Southern California. Typical weekday morning/afternoon peak hour commute analyses are not nearly as relevant to this situation. The City's EIR consultants should closely examine traffic and parking needs in the Downtown based on existing and anticipated future Summer, weekend, and holiday peaks. Business in Downtown Huntington Beach is highly seasonal, and it is critically important that a major new project not be designed in such a fashion that tourists and casual beach -goers will be unable to conveniently access the Downtown businesses during the few times of the year when business is normally brisk. 2.12 We understand that the EIR will address traffic and parking problems during the construction, and we would urge that this issue be carefully considered. With subterranean parking, de -watering, and the sort of mid -rise construction that is proposed, it is safe to assume that on -site parking will be entirely lost for a period of at least two years. Where will businesses such as the business as Oceanview Promenade obtain parking during that lengthy period? 2.13 The latest plan we saw for loading/unloading for the businesses within Block 104 was entirely inadequate. Basically, trucks would have to park in, the middle of "parking court," block access, and then back out onto Fifth Street to exit the site. This presents obvious circulation and public safety concerns. The EIR should fully address this issue, including alternatives to enable trucks to pull all the way through this loading area back on to Fifth Street or out to Walnut. A designated loading dock that does not block access for other vehicles needs to be provided. It is totally impractical to expect that deliveries will be made in 112/014820-0001 EXHIBIT 89198.01 a06/16100 i AN 6 TUCKER Jane James June 16, 2000 Page 5 smaller van -size vehicles. Oceanview Promenade's businesses, for one, cannot accommodate this sort of wishful thinking. These issues should be fully addressed in the EIR. t2.14 There are a number of existing vacancies and under-utilized properties in the Downtown area. For purposes of the traffic and parking impact analyses, it should be assumed that at some point in the near future those properties will be fully utilized and their additional impacts on the parking and traffic problems in the Downtown should be taken into account in the EIR analyses. 2.15 As potential mitigation measures to address parking deficiencies, the EIR should consider (i) the impact of requiring all employees and hotel guests within the new project to park off -site, perhaps in the City -owned parking structure on the east side of the 200 Block of Main Street, and (2) reserving an adequate number of on -site parking spaces for Oceanview Promenade and any other existing properties/business (i.e., Bagstad) that will remain within Block 104). 3. We understand the EIR will address the significant impacts that the proposed Project would have on loss of ocean views, massing, etc. This is a significant concern for ADC, since it will further impair its ability to lease upper -floor office space in the Oceanview Promenade building, adding to its existing problems which are related primarily to the lack of convenient, accessible, and designated parking). 4. The EIR should address alternatives and mitigation measures that will eliminate these significant impacts. One alternative that should be considered is a project that meets all of the applicable City code requirements (including FAR, height, and off-street parking), without adversely impacting ADCs existing parking rights. A lower intensity project such as the one that was proposed by the Coultrup Companies and approved by the City and Redevelopment Agency in 1993 should be addressed. In addition, since the Redevelopment Agency does not -have the power of eminent domain to acquire the residentially -occupied property owned by the Bagstads within Block 104, one alternative project that should be considered would be a reduced -scope project that does not encroach onto the Bagstad property, and perhaps a project that is confined entirely to Block 105. 1 112/014820-0001 EXHIBIT 89 198.0 1a06/16/00 . r-;LN UCKER ATTORNEYS AT LAW Jane James June 16, 2000 Page 6 Thank you for your attention to this matter. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please do not hesitate to give me a call. Very truly yours, RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP J f y M. derman JMO: ctm cc: Mike Abdelmuti Jim Lane 112/014820-0001 EXHIBIT 89198.01 a06/16/00 3.2 Comments and Responses to Comments Letter from leffrey M. Oderman Attorney at Law Rattan & Tucker Sel2ternber 3 2002 Response to Comment 9-1: Comment noted. Response to Comment 9-2: Comment noted. This comment appears to be a legal argument involving currently pending litigation involving the City. The City is responding to legal arguments in the currently pending litigation. Response to Comment 9-3: Comment noted. Response to Comment 9-4: Comment noted. Response to Comment 9-5: Sections 3.1 to 3.9 of the Draft EIR identify the project -specific impacts of the proposed project as determined by the independent judgment of the Lead Agency, and propose mitigation measures to reduce the impacts identified. Not all impacts identified in the Draft EIR can be mitigated to a less - than -significant level, and CEQA does not require that all impacts be mitigated to a less -than -significant level if such a reduction cannot be achieved: such impacts are identified as significant and unavoidable, according to Section 15126.2(b) of the CEQA Guidelines. Section 15093(a) of the CEQA Guidelines requires the Lead Agency to balance several factors against the environmental risks when deciding whether to approve the project, and if the City decides to approve the project, then the City would adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations, as required by Section 15093(b) of the CEQA Guidelines. The alternatives evaluated in the Draft EIR were identified based on the CEQA Section 15126.6(f) rule of reason, under which the range of alternatives required in an EIR need only be those that permit a reasoned choice for the Lead Agency. The Draft EIR includes discussions of two alternatives in addition to the two that were determined to be infeasible and a No Project/No IDevelopment alternative. Response to Comment 9-6: The City Planning Department has determined that the proposed project qualifies as a full -block development for planning and code compliance purposes: the Draft EIR did not make this determination, and the determination has no effect upon the status of the project with respect to maximum floor area ratio (FAR) allowed by the Downtown Specific Plan IDistrict 3 standards, which provide the zoning for the site. As IThe Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3-61 3.0 Responses to Comments stated on Page 3.5-18 of the Draft EIR, square footage proposed by the Strand project (226,245 g.s.f.), divided by the area of the project site (104,544 s.f.), yields an FAR of 2.16, which is below the FARs specified for half- to full -block developments (FAR=2.5), as well as full block or greater development (FAR=3.0). The proposed project, therefore, does not exceed the FAR limits imposed by the zoning for the project site. Response to Comment 9-7: As stated above in the response to Comment 6, the City Planning Department determined the full -block status of the project for the purposes of entitlement and EIR analysis. Further, the Draft EIR states that the proposed project does not ultimately comply with the height requirements of the Plan without obtaining Special Permits. As stated on page 3.5-18 of the Draft EIR, Section 4.5.04 of the Downtown Specific Plan sets a maximum building height of four stories or 45 feet for full - block developments. As stated on page 3.5-19 of the Draft EIR, "although the 53-foot parapet heights fall within the acceptable height range (45 feet, plus 10 feet for roof treatments), the 50- foot heights of the rooflines and the 70-foot tower height exceed the maximum values allowed by the Plan; therefore, the proposed project would not be consistent with the height requirements of the Plan." The City determined that with issuance of Special Permits, the project would be brought into compliance with the Downtown Specific Plan. Response to Comment 9-8: The purpose of the parking analysis provided on pages 3.9-15 through 3.9-17 in the Draft EIR is to determine consistency or inconsistency with applicable parking standards currently in place and enforced by the City of Huntington Beach. The Downtown Parking Master Plan (DPMP) has been approved by the City Council and the Coastal Commission and is the applicable code governing parking in this area. It is not within the scope of this project related EIR traffic analysis to analyze the adequacy of City's parking code. As stated on page 3.9-17 of the Draft EIR, the land use and parking supply proposed by the project is consistent with DPMP. Response to Comment 9-9: This comment is incorrect. A portion of the discussion to which the commentor refers discusses parking for construction 3-62 City of Huntington Beach 1 3.2 Comments and Responses to Comments workers. However, page 2-6 of the Draft BIR states that "temporary replacement parking for some spaces is also required to be provided within a reasonable distance of the project site, as approved by the City of Huntington Beach, until construction of the underground parking structure is complete." The availability of parking within a reasonable distance of the project site must be identified by the Applicants, prior to construction, as a part of a temporary or interim parking plan, which is a standard condition of approval of the City. The plan must address on -site construction activities and adjacent properties, and this standard condition is imposed upon all construction to avoid impacts to adjacent properties. Additionally, within 200 feet of the project site, 815 shared public parking spaces are currently available for use, and would Ibe available during the construction period. Response to Comment 9-10: The alley west of Main Street is proposed only to be widened, as the proposed parking structure is not proposed to require excavation beneath the alley. Although periodic interruptions of access could occur, the City requires, as a standard condition of approval, the preparation of a construction phasing plan, which must show access to, movement on and from, materials storage, and staging on the project site, and access for employees and customers is expected to be maintained during and after construction. Additionally, any work within the alleys will require an encroachment permit and review and approval by the Public Works and Fire Departments. Also, loading access to the businesses located along Main Street is provided both by the alley and by loading zones on both sides of Main Street at Walnut Avenue, and are not anticipated to be substantially affected by construction activities. Response to Comment 9-11: Based on the geotechnical evaluations and associated conceptual foundation design assumptions, conventional spread footings will be utilized for The Strand. Therefore, at this time, friction piles (and the attendant "pile -driving") are not needed. For the purpose of shoring the perimeter of the anticipated excavations, soldier beams will be placed in drilled and poured IThe Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3-63 3.0 Responses to Comments concrete footings. Again, driven piles are not envisaged. In many locations, particularly adjacent to the historic Worthy property, there is sufficient separation of the parking structure from the property line to use "lay -back" or sloped shore system. In the event that driven piles become desirable from a technical perspective, the applicant will provide reasonable evaluations of possible mitigation measures for consideration by the appropriate parties, and the project will be required to comply with all applicable UBC requirements to protect all adjacent structures and uses through the working drawings plan check process. Response to Comment 9-12: As stated on page 3.3-16 of the Draft EIR, Impact 3.3-4 states that encroachment of the proposed project into the setting of the Worthy property is a significant impact. This impact occurs along the southern boundary of the Worthy property, as the proposed project already includes a 20-foot ground -floor setback from the Worthy property, and a further 30-foot upper - story setback, from the eastern boundary of the property, and was determined not to encroach upon the setting and scale of the commercial structure on the Worthy property. To mitigate the impact identified with respect to the hotel and the southern boundary of the Worthy Property, Mitigation Measure 3.3-3, on page 3.3-19 of the Draft EIR, the Applicant was required to provide a 20-foot setback from the southern boundary of the Worthy property. The establishment of a buffer zone from the Worthy property line, as well as a lower transition element for the building, was suggested by the architectural historian who prepared the report for the EIR as a measure that could reduce the identified impact, and 20 feet was determined by the City, in consultation with an architectural historian, to provide sufficient ground -level separation from the property and that and average 10-15 feet (the equivalent of the height of a single story) would provide an adequate third and fourth floor setback by creating a lower transition element from the first and second floors of the structure. In addition, the City is also recommending third- and fourth -floor setbacks of ten to 15 feet to further reduce this impact, and the City will, as a condition of approval, require landscaping (including trees) along the 3-64 City of Huntington Beach I 1 3.2 Comments and Responses to Comments southern and eastern boundaries of the Worthy property to soften the effect of the new development upon the setting of the Worthy property and provide a visual buffer from the proposed project. Response to Comment 9-13: The Draft EIR discloses the impact resulting from the proposed narrowing of the Fifth Street right-of-way on page 3.1-13 (Impact 3.1-2). The Draft EIR states that "views available to commuters and pedestrians along Fifth Street would be affected by project encroachment upon Fifth Street, and the proposed structures would not provide the view corridor required in the Downtown Specific Plan for the purpose of preserving coastal views." However, as stated on the same page, the Draft EIR concluded that the provision of enhanced, public, coastal view opportunities, in the form of a public terrace associated with the hotel, would offset the loss of street -level views associated with the project. Response to Comment 9-14: The commentor is incorrect. The City requires the provision of P t3' q direct access to the terrace (via stairway and/or elevator) from Fifth Street without requiring entrance to the hotel proper. The public would, therefore, have direct access to the terrace and the enhanced coastal views it would provide. Response to Comment 9-15: Mitigation Measure 3.9-3, to which the commentor refers, Lapplies only to the proposed project and only at the delivery access from Sixth Street. This restriction is imposed due to the accessibility restrictions imposed by the proposed design, and would not apply to existing businesses in Block 104. It would not affect the existing delivery services to the existing business located within Block 104. Response to Comment 9-16: As stated on page 3.9-17, the proposed project would be adequately parked under the Downtown Parking Master Plan (DPMP), and no significant impact with regard to parking would occur: the preparation of a parking management plan, and the provision of valet parking, are intended to further reduce the less -than -significant impact of the project, and would be fully enforceable as conditions of the Disposition and The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3-65 3.0 Resvonses to Comments Development Agreement (DDA) between the project Applicant and the City's Redevelopment Agency. Response to Comment 9-17: Economic issues are not considered to be environmental issues by the City, and are not addressed in EIRs prepared by the City. Nevertheless, in 1996 the City prepared an economic study of the development, and updated the study in 1998. Additionally, a 2002 memorandum re-evaluates the conclusions of the 1996 and 1998 studies and is included as Appendix B to Part I of the Final EIR. The 1998 study concluded that, "the development of Block 104/105 provides the greatest potential for expanding downtown, and is critical to the area's future success," and that development of Block 104/105 would be synergistic, rather than competitive, with downtown retailers. Sedway Group also recommended concentrating on developing Block 104/105 before other retail sites in Huntington Beach so that the downtown could benefit from a critical mass of retail space, rather than competing with new retail spaces outside the downtown area. The 2002 assessment is consistent with the 1996 and 1998 findings, and concluded that it is likely that other downtown retailers would benefit from, rather than be hurt by The Strand. While there may be some exceptions, The Strand's anticipated tenants, in general, are not direct competitors of existing retailers. On the contrary, the project is likely to expand the customer base. Sales tax trends in the Downtown core, which include Block 104/105, dramatically belie the point made by the commenter with regard to "marginally successful" businesses and "business failures". Whereas there is usually some degree of turnover and/or business failure in any local economy even when healthy, the general retail sales trend for the Downtown core is very positive, as reflected in the fact that sales tax payments nearly doubled between 1995/96 and 2000/2001. While a fiscal impact analysis is not required by CEQA and the memorandum concluded that the project was very likely to generate significant new -taxes on the order of $1 million annually, net of the housing set aside. 3-66 City of Huntington Beach 3.2 Comments and Responses to Comments Response to Comment 9-18: Comment noted. This comment raises legal arguments rather than environmental issues. Response to Comment 9-19: The commentor is incorrect: Impact 3.9-3 addresses P p ingress/egress issues associated with the project and states, on page 3.9-15 of the Draft EIR, that "vehicular queuing, if left unmanaged, may present impacts to the local street system for those extraordinary occasions [major holidays, peak summer season]. However, Mitigation Measure 3.9-2 would require that the entrance to the parking structure be restriped so that two inbound lanes and one outbound lanes are provided. This is to ensure that, during the peak inbound period, vehicles are not forced to merge into a single inbound land and vehicle stacking will not occur on Sixth Street." In addition, as stated on page 3.9-18 of the Draft EIR, Mitigation Measure 3.9-6 requires the Applicant to develop an on -site signage program to clearly identify parking opportunities and direct vehicle to the parking ' structure. Response to Comment 9-20: Nearby offices, including the Oceanview Promenade, are a part of the overall land use of the downtown which is included in f the land use assumptions ofthe DPMP. The shared parking program outlined in the plan is intended to provide parking to all downtown land uses. The DDA for the Project expressly preserves the parking rights previously negotiated and approved for the Oceanview Promenade development. However, the project provides the number of parking spaces assumed in the DPMP so as to maintain the integrity of the shared parking concept developed for this area. As demonstrated in the discussion for Impact 3.9-4 on pages 3.9- 15-3.9-17 of the Draft EIR, the proposed project fulfills its responsibility to provide the required number of parking spaces in accordance with the City's code for the downtown area. Response to Comment 9-21: The commentor is incorrect in his assertion that inadequate parking would be available for Blocks 104 and 105. As discussed in Impact 3.9-4 on pages 3.9-15-3.9-17 of the Draft EIR, and as stated in previous responses, the DPMP is the City's parking code for the downtown area, and the proposed project will provide parking consistent with this code. The DPMP has IThe Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3-67 3.0 Responses to Comments been approved by both the City Council and California Coastal Commission and is supported by a technical study demonstrating the shared parking characteristics of the downtown area. No significant parking impact would occur with the proposed project. Response to Comment 9-22: The commentor is incorrect: the proposed project does not include requests for — and does not require — amendments to the General Plan Coastal Element or to the Downtown Specific Plan. Refer to the response to Comment 9-6 for a discussion of the floor area ratio of the project and the requirements of the Downtown Specific Plan. Refer to the response to Comment 9- 12 for a discussion of the impact associated with the narrowing of the Fifth Street right-of-way. Refer to the response to Comment 9-7 for a discussion of the height of the proposed structures and the compliance of the proposed project with the applicable sections of the Downtown Specific Plan. Note also that, as stated on pages 2-6-2-7 of the Draft EIR, the proposed project requests Special Permits from the City, as allowed under and in accordance with Section 4.1.02 of the Downtown Specific Plan, to exceed maximum building height and reduce the Fifth Street right-of-way. Response to Comment 9-23: As stated on page 3.9-8 of the Draft EIR, and consistent with the CEQA Guidelines, the modeled General Plan traffic analysis in the Draft EIR includes approved projects, plus General Plan build -out of the City under two different scenarios (with and without Santa Ana River crossings) and build -out of General Plans of adjacent jurisdictions. Response to Comment 9-24: Approval of the proposed project would occur in a manner that is consistent with the General Plan Coastal Element. As described in the response to Comment 9-22, Section 4.1.02 of the Downtown Specific Plan allows for Special Permits "when, in the opinion of the Planning Commission, significantly greater benefits from the project can be provided than would occur if all the minimum requirements were met." Response to Comment 9-25: Performance standards are not generally required for mitigation measures under CEQA. If possible, performance standards 3-68 City of Huntington Beach 1 3.2 Comments and Responses to Comments should be identified where and when their effectiveness used to determine whether the resulting impact would continue to be significant even after the measures are implemented. In the case of the proposed project, the Draft EIR recommends appropriate and feasible mitigation measures that have been identified by the South Coast Air Quality Management District in the CEQA Air Quality Handbook. The URBEMIS7G computer model, which was used to calculate the potential daily emissions of the proposed project, utilizes efficiency factors for each of the operational mitigation measures to quantify the emissions that would be reduced by these ' measures. Although specific performance standards are not used or recommended by the SCAQMD, other, air quality agencies, or the URBEMIS7G model, the reductions are based on average for a wide range of equipment that are readily available in the market. These assumptions are applicable to the mitigation measures recommended in the Air Quality section of the Draft EIR. There are three instances, however, where performance standards are applicable to the mitigation measures and have been identified in the Draft EIR. Mitigation Measure (MM) 3.2-2 1 requires that all excavation and grading operations be suspended when wind speeds (as instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 miles per hour over a 30-minute period. This same measure requires that a traffic speed limit 15 miles per hour be posted and enforced for the unpaved construction roads (if any) on the project site. MM 3.2-8 requires the new buildings within the project site to exceed Title 24 wall and attic insulation requirements by at least 5 percent to reduce energy demand and associated emissions. Therefore, performance standards have been included in the applicable and appropriate air quality mitigation measures of the Draft EIR. Response to Comment 9-26: As stated in Impact 3.3-4 on page 3.3-16-3.3-17 of the Draft EIR, the development of the proposed project would encroach upon the historic setting of the Worthy property, and would result in a potentially significant impact. However, as discussed in the same pages of the Draft EIR, implementation of Mitigation 1 Measure 3.3-3, which requires the incorporation of ground -floor The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3-69 3.0 Responses to Comments and upper -level setbacks into the project design, would mitigate this potential impact. Further, the City would require, as a condition of approval, the provision of a landscaped buffer along the southern and eastern property boundaries of the Worthy property to provide an additional visual buffer. With the incorporation of these measures to reduce the impact, the City determined that the project would comply with the policy cited. Response to Comment 9-27: The proposed project would provide 10,552 square feet of open space, including the terrace at the hotel. The required open space is ten percent of the net site area, or 10,393.5 square feet. Because the proposed project provides greater than ten percent of the site area as open space, the proposed project would comply with the minimum open space requirement for the development. Refer to the response to Comment 9-14 for a discussion of the City's requirements for access to the proposed terrace. Response to Comment 9-28: The City treats construction noise as a less -than -significant impact due to its short-term and ubiquitous nature, and for this reason, has exempted construction noise from the requirements of its municipal code. Nevertheless, Table 3.6-4 (Typical Outdoor Construction Noise Levels), on page 3.6-10 of the Draft EIR, includes -all relevant information regarding construction activities and noise and discloses the predicted noise levels at the project site. Response to Comment 9-29: The analysis of potential noise impacts focuses on the potential for construction of the proposed project to impact land uses that are sensitive to noise, particularly the residences across the street from the project site. Any potential construction impacts to the Oceanview Promenade building would be similar to those identified on page 3.6-11 of the Draft EIR for the existing homes located north of Sixth Street. As discussed on page 3.6- 11, construction noise would be short-term, is exempt from the requirements of the City's noise ordinance, and is therefore considered to be less than significant. This conclusion would apply to the Oceanview Promenade building as well as the surrounding residences. 3-70 City of Huntington Beach I 1 3.2 Comments and Resvonses to Comments MM 3.6-1 identifies specific controls and actions that would help to reduce noise levels heard by the surrounding land uses during the construction phases of development. They would also help reduce, not increase, noise levels experienced at the nearby commercial and office uses, including the Oceanview Promenade building. Response to Comment 9-30: As stated on page 3.6-3 of the Draft EIR, the traffic volumes utilized as data inputs in the noise prediction model were ' provided by the project traffic engineer. In fact, they were obtained from the Traffic Impact Analysis, which is included as Appendix G of the Draft EIR. As stated on page 3.9-8 of the Draft EIR, the future general Plan baseline conditions assume build out of the City of Huntington Beach General Plan Land Use and Circulation Element, as well as the General Plans of adjacent jurisdictions. The addition of the project -generated traffic to these future baseline conditions is the cumulative project set. This is considered a worst case analysis since it includes all potential growth within the City of Huntington Beach and adjacent jurisdictions rather than a smaller set of known projects. Response to Comment 9-31: Refer to the response to Comment 9-23 for a discussion of the scope of the cumulative traffic impact analysis. Response to Comment 9-32: The predominant weekday summer traffic conditions and potential project impacts under these conditions were evaluated in the DEIR. In considering analysis of the weekend condition during the development of the scope of the traffic analysis, staff identified approximately 22 peak summer weekends and 3 typical holidays for a total of 47 potential days. These days represent the peak conditions for the area. Weekday peak hour conditions represent the worst case conditions for approximately 250 days per year. Non -summer weekends and holidays represent approximately 65 days per year and would not generally be considered peak conditions. Under CEQA, the determination of thresholds of significance and the application ' of those thresholds to specific conditions is delegated to the lead agency. In this case, the City of Huntington Beach has adopted several policies through its General Plan that would tend to IThe Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3-71 3.0 Resvonses to Comments support an analysis of the weekday condition as the environmental condition under which levels of significance are evaluated. Level of service standards adopted by the City are identified on page 3.9-10 of the Draft EIR. These standards are based on evaluations of weekday peak hour conditions throughout the city. While the term "peak hour' is not specifically defined, it is consistently considered to occur during the weekday morning and late afternoon peak periods. No specific references are made to the summer weekend condition in maintaining certain level of service standards. This approach has been supported in the past for other projects such as the Hyatt Regency Resort. One additional issue considered by staff in evaluating the scope of the project analysis is the ability to forecast future weekend traffic volumes. Weekend analysis is not considered "standard" and limited tools are available for forecasting future traffic volumes. For example, buildout scenario analyses for this study were prepared using a computerized traffic model. This model is based on a regional traffic model and does not address weekend conditions. It would be impossible to develop weekend traffic projections under this scenario without imposing great hardship on the developer in preparing a new weekend traffic model. To a slightly lesser extent, developing cumulative project scenario weekend projects would also impose an unreasonable hardship on the developer. City Staff has, therefore, considered the CEQA guidelines, City policies and a practical evaluation of the frequency of occurrence of the summer weekend condition and analysis tools available in not requiring the peak summer weekend traffic condition to be analyzed by the project. Response to Comment 9-33: Page 3.9-15 of the Draft EIR does not make any statements or assumption that private off-street parking is available for shared public use. An accurate inventory of public parking spaces is provided in the technical analysis supporting the DPMP. The parking supply outlined in the technical analysis is available for shared public use as outlined in the DPMP. 3-72 City of Huntington Beach 1 3.2 Comments and Responses to Comments Response to Comment 9-34: The comment is incorrect. As described above, Impact 3.9-4 in the Draft EIR concluded the project is adequately parked according to its parking burden under the DPMP, which determined that any development on Block A (which includes the project site) would be considered fully parked if it provided at least 403 parking spaces (refer to pages 3.9-15-3.9-17 of the Draft EIR). The proposed project provides 403 parking spaces and would, therefore, be considered fully parked under the DPMP. Response to Comment 9-35: Page 68 of the Downtown Huntington Beach Parking Master Plan Update prepared by Kaku Associates identifies 150 existing spaces on -site. The parking requirement of between 834 and 878 spaces is based on the application of standard City of Huntington Beach parking rates which are not applicable in the downtown area governed by the Downtown Parking Master Plan. The proposed project will supply 411 spaces; therefore, the statement that the project will replace the existing 150 parking spaces on a one-to-one basis is not deceptive and is, in fact, true. Response to Comment 9-36: Comment noted. The Downtown Parking Master Plan analyzed ' a total of 715, 000 sq. ft. of anticipated development in the plan area. In the specific area of blocks 104/105, or block A of the land use analysis in the Kaku report used for land use and building square footage analysis, the plan calls for a total of 295,660 sq. ft. of total buildout with 417 parking spaces. The CIM plan called out in block A calls for 243,610 sq. ft. of anticipated development and a requirement of 403 parking spaces. The proposed plan submitted for entitlement totals 226,536, a reduction of 17,074 sq. ft., and the total provision of 411 parking spaces. This figure may be further reduced by conditions of approval and working drawings. So the block A figures would be amended as part of the DPMP annual review and make available approximately 17,000 sq. ft. of additional building area in block A. Any future development proposed in the block A area would have to be analyzed for consistency with the DPMP and the revised building area figures. J IThe Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3-73 3.0 Responses to Comments Note, however, that even with construction of the proposed project, the development on Block A (as identified in the DPMP) would not reach the 715,000 square foot development limit. The proposed project, would not, therefore, preclude additional development. Response to Comment 9-37: The commentor is incorrect. Refer to the responses to Comment 9-6 and 9-7 regarding development standards; response to Comment 9-12 regarding cultural resources; and the responses to Comments 9-13 and 9-14 regarding the narrowing of the Fifth Street right-of-way. Response to Comment 9-38: The commentor is incorrect. The Downtown core to which the Draft EIR does not refer to the Downtown area as a whole, as the comment suggests, but to District 3 of the Downtown Specific Plan, which includes the area bounded by First Street to the east, Sixth Street to the west, Pacific Coast Highway to the south, and Walnut Avenue to the north. And as stated in the Draft EIR, no other building sites within this area are available for development. As stated on pages 2-x and 4-3 of the Draft EIR, other objectives for the proposed project include "[t]o improve the perception of Downtown and beach area as a destination for local residents as well as people from outside the area," and the proposed project is intended to bring more residents and visitors to the waterfront area and, specifically, the Downtown core. The location of the project in the Downtown core area is, therefore, a very important component of the project, and the presence of other hotels and other commercial development in nearby areas does not obviate the goals of the City for the proposed project. Response to Comment 9-39: The commentor is incorrect: Chapter 4 (Alternatives) of the Draft EIR includes discussions of two alternatives in addition to the two that were determined to be infeasible and a No Project/No Development alternative. The alternatives evaluated include a less intensive alternative to the proposed project. Section 4.3.2, on pages 4-10-4-13 of the Draft EIR, examines a project with a 20% reduction in square footage, and pages 4-13-4-17 include analysis of an alternative mix of uses. As stated on page 4-7 of the Draft EIR, the proposed project 3-74 City of Huntington Beach 3.2 Comments and Responses to Comments r u 1 1 Cl' U I includes development below the maximum FAR stipulated for developments of its type, and other uses that could conform to the development standards - of the project site could actually result in more intense development than proposed. These development standards, as stated in the Draft EIR, are located in the Downtown Specific Plan, and consist of general provisions and specific standards for development in District #3, Visitor - Serving Commercial. As stated on page 4-7 of the Draft EIR, no other reasonably foreseeable use exists for the project site, other than those evaluated, because no other development proposals for the site are currently before the City, and because none of prior development proposals received by the City since 1989 and prior (more than ten years), were ultimately implemented. CIM was selected as developer of the site in 1998 after proposals were solicited from owner -participants for all or part of the balance of blocks 104 and 105. Seven proposals were received and were evaluated. The CIM project was selected because it best met the City's broad goals and objectives for the site. Further, no additional proposals for development of the project are anticipated by the City or are foreseeable which would differ greatly from the current proposal, and as stated by Section 15126.6(f)(3), an EIR need not consider an alternative whose implementation is remote and speculative. The commentor notes that the Coultrup project was approved by the City but not implemented due to financial constraints (recession and a lack of financing). Coultrup was one of the proposers in 1998, but was not selected. The current and prior proposed projects faced social and political constraints cited on pages 4-7 of the Draft EIR, which refer to the substantial public opposition to the previously proposed projects, as well as the unavailability to the City of eminent domain, which would have been required to implement some of the projects, including a previously proposed, more intense version of the current proposed project. The previously proposed projects could, not therefore, be implemented because of these and other constraints. Response to Comment 9-40: Development of a hotel is not the only objective of the proposed project: the goal is also to provide additional, quality retail in The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3-75 3.0 Responses to Comments the Downtown core area and to improve the area and its perception as a destination. Refer to pages 4-6-4-8 of the Draft EIR for further discussion of the project objectives. Further, the proposed project would respond to a perceived increase in demand for commercial office space in the Downtown area. Response to Comment 941: The commentor is incorrect: the No Project/No Development alternative would not meet any of the objectives for the proposed project. This is implicitly recognized for almost any project by Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that "if the environmentally superior alternative is the 'no project' alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives." Further, the purpose of the No Project alternative, as stated in Section 15126.6(e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, is "to compare the impacts of approving the proposed project with the impacts of not approving the proposed project." Response to Comment 9-42: The commentor is incorrect in the assertion that the Reduced/Revised project alternative represents only a three percent reduction from the proposed project. The Reduced/Revised Project Alternative eliminates 56,385 square feet of restaurant and retail uses, or about 25 percent of the proposed project. Further, the City does not include the square footage of parking structures in development/floor area ratio calculations. The parking structure proposed with the Reduced/Revised Project Alternative is not an addition, but was proposed to provide comparable parking to the proposed project, along. with less development. As the commentor notes, the Draft EIR, on page 4-12, states that the proposed project would have identical land use impacts as the proposed project; however, the proposed project would not result in any significant land use impacts, as stated on page 3.5-22 of the Draft EIR. As stated on page 4-18 of the Draft EIR, the Reduced/Revised Project Alternative would result in reduced impacts compared to the proposed project, and is therefore a legitimate alternative. Response to Comment 9-43: As described in the EIR, the Reduced Project Alternative would eliminate approximately 56,385 square feet of rentable area 3-76 City of Huntington Beach 1 3.2 Comments and Responses to Comments CI u 1 I] including approximately 25,000 s.f. of prime ground floor retail space and the balance as second and third floor office space. We would assume that approximately 8,000-10,000 s.f. of retail would be developed in the ground floor of the structure. The alternative would also eliminate the midblock plaza and passageway connecting Fifth Street to Main Street. The parking site would have maximum dimensions of 210 feet in length and 115 feet in width. Because of the narrow dimension there would be two bays of angle parking per level. Required upper level setbacks would further diminish efficiency. Using an average yield 375 s.f. per space and typical gross floor of 20,000 s.f. (setbacks from alley and upper levels) approximately 55 spaces could be developed per level. A three -level structure would generate approximately 165 spaces with 238 or more spaces still required to be subterranean. The financial viability of the Reduced Project Alternative would be diminished by a number of factors. While there may be some reduced costs by constructing an above grade parking structure, there would still be the need for a subterranean structure. The Reduced Project Alternative would see a substantial reduction in not only the total amount of available prime -ground floor lease space, but the reconfigured project would not be able to command the same anticipated rent levels. This is due to the fact that the vibrant ground floor retail environment proposed for Fifth Street would not be generated by in effect a one-sided retail street. This will impact the ability to attract the quality of tenants needed to achieve the City's goals for the Downtown core. The Reduced Project Alternative creates more of a stand-alone project on Block 105 which does not integrate in to the balance of the Downtown and Main Street. In addition, the elimination of the upper story office space further erodes the demand for retail and restaurant uses. In addition: ■ The success of establishing critical mass in the project and in downtown depends upon locating at least ten key tenants with typical square footage of 5,000 s.f. Under the current plan, there are four key tenant locations in The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3-77 3.0 Responses to Comments Block 104. The Alternative Plan would only support secondary tenants. ■ The Parking Structure location would also eliminate the most prominent key tenant location relative to its proximity to Main Street. This is critical to the synergy of the project, and, again, to the greater downtown. • The Parking Structure would in essence isolate the Block 105 development from Main Street. This would directly reduce the attractiveness of the key tenant locations in Block 105, with similar adverse impacts on downtown synergy. The Reduced Project Alternative would see income reduced to a level that it would not support the project costs to a degree greater than the proposed project. This would result in a reduced residual land cost and therefore be less feasible under the current terms of Disposition and Development Agreement between the Agency and the Developer. While the above grade parking structure should cost less than the underground structure, design mitigation of the many above grade levels will be costly. Land value will be diminished by the reduction of leasable area. The value of the remaining leasable area will be reduced ' as a result of the less desirable urban design and leasing characteristics identified above. There would also be a proportionate reduction in the public revenues generated by the project, further eroding the overall economic viability of the Reduced Project Alternative. Response to Comment 9-44: The commentor is incorrect: as illustrated on page 4-18 of the Draft EIR, the Alternative Mix of Uses would reduce impacts to aesthetics, air quality, noise, and traffic. The alternative is not proposed to reduce all impacts of the proposed project, and is not required to do so under CEQA. Response to Comment 9-45: Refer to the response to Comment 9-38 for a discussion of the Downtown core and the placement of a hotel in the downtown core. 3-78 City of Huntington Beach 1 ® m m m® m m m m® m® m m m m 1 i APPENDIX A REVISED TRAFFIC LOS WORKSHEETS FOR MAIN%PCH AND SIXTH/PCH � � � � � � � � � � � ii � � � %i � •� Off -Peak Existing AM Fri Sep 6, 2002 11:33:03 Page 3-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #7 Main Street/Pacific Coast Highway Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.386 Loss Time (sec): 26 (Y+R = 5 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 29.8 Optimal Cycle: 97 Level Of Service: C ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------ Control: I --------------- Protected 11--------------- Protected 11 --------------- Protected 11---------------� Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 14 14 14 14 14 14 12 45 45 0 45 45 Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 3 0 1 ------------ Volume Module: I --------------- 11--------------- 11 --------------- 11---------------� Base Vol: 0 0 0 47 0 91 63 1967 0 2 1008 65 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 47 0 91 63 1967 0 2 1008 65 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 47 0 91 63 1967 0 2 1008 65 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 47 0 91 63 1967 0 2 1008 65 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 0 0 0 47 0 91 63 1967 0 2 1008 65 ------------1--------------- Saturation Flow Module: --------------- 11--------------- ---------------� Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 0.91 0.91 0.95 0.91 0.85 Lanes: 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 0.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 1700 0 1615 0 1445 1615 4641 0 1615 4641 1445 ------------ I --------------- Capacity Analysis Module: --------------- --------------- ---------------� Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.06 0.04 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.04 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.14 0.12 0.45 0.00 0.15 0.48 0.48 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.00 0.45 0.33 0.94 0.00 0.01 0.45 0.09 Uniform Del: 0.0 0.0 0.0 38.1 0.0 39.5 40.3 26.3 0.0 36.2 17.3 14.2 IncremntDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 1.6 1.0 9.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 Delay Adj: 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 38.5 0.0 41.1 41.3 35.6 0.0 36.2 17.4 14.2 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 38.5 0.0 41.1 41.3 35.6 0.0 36.2 17.4 14.2 DesignQueue: 0 0 0 2 0 4 3 66 0 0 31 2 ******************************************************************************** 11 Traffix 7.5.0615 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA ASSOC. IRVINE, CA Off -Peak Existing PM Fri Sep 6, 2002 11:33:54 Page 3-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection 47 Main Street/Pacific Coast Highway ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.559 Loss Time (sec): 26 (Y+R = 5 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 23.2 Optimal Cycle: 97 Level Of Service: C ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I --------------- 11--------------- 11--------------- 11---------------� Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 14 14 14 14 14 14 12 45 45 0 45 45 Lanes; 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 3 0 1 ------------ I --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 0 71 0 118 86 1434 0 1 1469 ill Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 71 0 118 86 1434 0 1 1469 ill User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 71 0 118 86 1434 0 1 1469 ill Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 71 0 118 86 1434 0 1 1469 ill PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 0 0 0 71 0 118 86 1434 0 1 1469 ill --------------------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 0.91 0.91 0.95 0.91 0.85 Lanes: 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 0.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 1700 0 1615 0 1445 1615 4641 0 1615 4641 1445 ------------ I --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.08 0.05 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.08 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.14 0.12 0.45 0.00 0.15 0.48 0.48 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.00 0.58 0.44 0.69 0.00 0.00 0.66 0.16 Uniform Del: 0.0 0.0 0.0 38.7 0.0 40.3 40.9 21.9 0.0 36.1 19.8 14.6 IncremntDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 4.3 1.6 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.1 Delay Adj: 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0,.0 39.5 0.0 44.6 42.5 22.9 0.0 36.2 20.5 14.8 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 39.5 0.0 44.6 42.5 22.9 0.0 36.2 20.5 14.8 DesignQueue: 0 0 0 3 0 6 4 47 0 0 46 3 ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.5.0615 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA ASSOC. IRVINE, CA Peak Existing AM Fri Sep 6, 2002 11:37:30 Page 3-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #7 Main Street/Pacific Coast Highway ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.332 Loss Time (sec): 26 (Y+R = 5 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 23.8 Optimal Cycle: ill Level Of Service: C ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------ Control: I --------------- Protected 11--------------- Protected 11 --------------- Protected 11---------------� Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 14 14 14 14 14 14 12 45 45 0 45 45 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 3 0 1 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------I. Volume Module: Base- ase Vol: 0 0 1 33 0 98 47 1698 1 0 948 51 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Ilse: 0 0 1 33 0 98 47 1698 1 0 948 51 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 1 33 0 98 47 1698 1 0 948 51 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 1 33 0 98 47 1698 1 0 948 51 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 0 0 1 33 0 98 47 1698 1 0 948 51 ------------1--------------- Saturation Flow Module: --------------- --------------- ---------------� Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 0.87 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.85 Lanes: Final Sat.: 0.00 0 0.00 1.00 0 1471 1.00 1615 0.00 1.00 0 1445 1.00 1615 2.99 4638 0.01 3 1.00 1700 3.00 4641 1.00 1445 ------------ I Capacity Analysis --------------- Module: --------------- --------------- ---------------� Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.07 0.03 0.37 0.37 0.00 0.20 0.04 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.25 0.11 0.51 0.51 0.00 0.41 0.41 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.16 0.00 0.27 0.27 0.71 0.71 0.00 0.50 0.09 Uniform Del: 0.0 0.0 42.4 43.3 0.0 33.3 45.5 20.7 20.7 0.0 24.7 20.3 IncremntDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.8 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 Delay Adj: 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 0.0 42.4 43.6 0.0 33.7 46.3 21.8 21.8 0.0 24.9 20.4 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Del/Veh: 0.0 0.0 42.4 43.6 0.0 33.7 46.3 21.8 21.8 0.0 24.9 20.4 DesignQueue: 0 0 0 2 0 5 3 55 0 0 36 2 ******************************************************************************** ITraffix 7.5.0615 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA ASSOC. IRVINE, CA I Peak Existing PM Fri Sep 6, 2002 11:38:03 Page 3-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection 47 Main Street/Pacific Coast Highway ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. W : 0.652 Loss Time (sec): 26 (Y+R = 5 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 32.9 Optimal Cycle: ill Level Of Service: C ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R --------------------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 14 14 14 14 14 14 12 45 45 0 45 45 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 3 0 1 --------------------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 1 115 0 106 144 1180 0 34 1570 149 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 1 115 0 106 144 1180 0 34 IS70 149 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 1 115 0 106 144 1180 0 34 1570 149 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 1 115 0 106 144 1180 0 34 1570 149 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 0 0 1 115 0 106 144 1180 0 34 1570 149 --------------------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 0.87 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 0.91 0.91 0.95 0.91 0.85 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 0.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 0 1471 1615 0 1445 1615 4641 0 1615 4641 1445 ------------ I --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.09 0.25 0.00 0.02 0.34 0.10 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.25 0.11 0.41 0.00 0.11 0.41 0.41 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.56 0.00 0.29 0.82 0.63 0.00 0.19 0.83 0.25 Uniform Del: 0.0 0.0 42.4 45.6 0.0 33.5 48.5 26.3 0.0 45.1 29.7 21.9 IncremntDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.6 0.0 0.4 26.2 0.7 0.0 0.5 3.4 0.2 Delay Adj: 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 0.0 42.4 49.3 0.0 33.9 74.7 27.0 0.0 45.6 33.0 22.1 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 0.0 42.4 49.3 0.0 33.9 74.7 27.0 0.0 45.6 33.0 22.1 DesignQueue: 0 0 0 6 0 5 8 46 0 2 62 6 ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.5.0615 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA ASSOC. IRVINE, CA Off -Peak Cum AM ------------------------------ Fri Sep ---- 6, 2002 11:34:42 ----------------- ---------------------- Page 3-1 ------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #7 Main Street/Pacific Coast Highway ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.418 Loss Time (sec): 26 (Y+R = 5 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 30.9 Optimal Cycle: ill Level Of Service: C ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------ Control: I --------------- Protected 11--------------- Protected 11 --------------- Protected 11---------------� Protected ' Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 14 14 14 14 14 14 12 45 45 0 45 45 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 3 0 1 ------------ I --------------- Volume Module: 11--------------- 11 --------------- 11---------------� Base Vol: 0 0 5 49 0 96 66 2172 0 7 1138 68 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 5 49 0 96 66 2172 0 7 1138 68 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1:00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 5 49 0 96 66 2172 0 7 1138 68 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 5 49 0 96 66 2172 0 7 1138 68 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 0 0 5 49 0 96 66 2172 0 7 1138 68 ------------ I Saturation Flow --------------- Module: --------------- 11--------------- ---------------� Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 0.87 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 0.91 0.91 0.95 0.91 0.85 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 0.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 0 1471 1615 0 1445 1615 4641 0 1615 4641 1445 ---------------- Capacity Analysis ----- ------ Module: ---- ----- ------ ---- ----------- ---- -----------� Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.07 0.04 0.47 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.05 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.25 0.11 0.51 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.41 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.24 0.00 0.26 0.38 0.92 0.00 0.92 0.60 0.12 Uniform Del: 0.0 0.0 42.5 43.7 0.0 33.2 46.0 25.2 0.0 55.2 26.0 20.6 IncremntDel: 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.6 0.0 0.4 1.4 6.5 0.0 274.6 0.6 0.1 Delay Adj: 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 0.0 42.6 44.3 0.0 33.6 47.4 31.6 0.0 329.9 26.6 20.7 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 0.0 42.6 44.3 0.0 33.6 47.4 31.6 0.0 329.9 26.6 20.7 DesignQueue: 0 0 0 3 0 4 4 73 0 0 44 3 ******************************************************************************** 1 Traffix 7.5.0615 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA ASSOC. IRVINE, CA Off -Peak Cum PM Fri Sep 6, 2002 11:35:21 Page 3-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #7 Main Street/Pacific Coast Highway ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.604 Loss Time (sec): 26 (Y+R = 5 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 35.3 Optimal Cycle: III Level Of Service: D ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R --------------------------- 11 --------------- --------------- ---------------� Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights:. Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 14 14 14 14 14 14 12 45 45 0 45 45 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 3 0 1 --------------------------- 11 --------------- --------------- ---------------� Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 6 75 0 124 90 1628 0 6 1652 117 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00' Initial Bse: 0 0 6 75 0 124 90 1628 0 6 1652 117 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 6 75 0 124 90 1628 0 6 1652 117 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 6 75 0 124 90 1628 0 6 1652 117 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 0 0 6 75 0 124 90 1628 0 6 1652 117 --------------------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 0.87 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 0.91 0.91 0.95 0.91 0.85 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 0.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 0 1471 1615 0 1445 1615 4641 0 1615 4641 1445 ------------ I --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.09 0.06 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.08 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.25 0.11 0.41 0.00 0.11 0.41 0.41 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.37 0.00 0.34 0.52 0.87 0.00 0.03 0.88 0.20 Uniform Del: 0.0 0.0 42.6 44.4 0.0 33.9 46.8 30.2 0.0 44.3 30.5 21.4 IncremntDel: 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.1 0.0 0.6 2.7 4.5 0.0 0.1 5.1 0.2 Delay Adj: 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 0.0 42.6 45.6 0.0 34.5 49.4 34.7 0.0 44.4 35.5 21.5 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 0.0 42.6 45.6 0.0 34.5 49.4 34.7 0.0 44.4 35.5 21.5 DesignQueue: 0 0 0 4 0 6 5 65 0 0 66 4 ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.5.0615 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA ASSOC. IRVINE, CA Off -Peak Cum+Proj AM Fri Sep 6, 2002 11:36:06 Page 3-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #7 Main Street/Pacific Coast Highway ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.443 Loss Time (sec): 26 (Y+R = 5 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 33.2 Optimal Cycle: 111 Level Of Service: C ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------ Control: I --------------- Protected 11--------------- Protected 11 --------------- Protected 11---------------� Protected • Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 14 14 14 14 14 14 12 45 45 0 45 45 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 3 0 1 ------------ Volume Module: I --------------- 11--------------- 11 --------------- 11---------------� Base Vol: 0 0 5 49 0 96 66 2239 0 7 1229 68 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Ilse: 0 0 5 49 0 96 66 2239 0 7 1229 68 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 5 49 0 96 66 2239 0 7 1229 68 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 5 49 0 96 66 2239 0 7 1229 68 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 0 0 5 49 0 96 66 2239 0 7 1229 68 ------------1--------------- 11--------------- Saturation Flow Module: --------------- 11---------------� Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 0.87 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 0.91 0.91 0.95 0.91 0.85 Lanes: Final Sat.: 0.00 0 0.00 1.00 0 1471 1.00 1615 0.00 0 1.00 1445 1.00 1615 3.00 4641 0.00 0 1.00 1615 3.00 4641 1.00 1445 ------------ I --------------- Capacity Analysis Module: --------------- --------------- ---------------� Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.07 0.04 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.05 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.25 0.11 0.51 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.41 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.24 0.00 0.26 0.38 0.95 0.00 0.95 0.65 0.12 Uniform Del: 0.0 0.0 42.5 43.7 0.0 33.2 46.0 25.9 0.0 55.2 26.7 20.6 IncremntDel: 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.6 0.0 0.4 1.4 9.1 0.0 297.2 0.8 0.1 Delay Adj: 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 0.0 42.6 44.3 0.0 33.6 47.4 35.0 0.0 352.5 27.5 20.7 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 0.0 42.6 44.3 0.0 33.6 47.4 35.0 0.0 352.5 27.5 20.7 DesignQueue: 0 0 0 3 0 4 4 76 0 0 48 3 ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.5.0615 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA ASSOC. IRVINE, CA r 1 Off -Peak Cum+Prof PM Fri Sep 6, 2002 11:36:48 Page 3-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #7 Main Street/Pacific Coast Highway Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. W : 0.641 Loss Time (sec): 26 (Y+R = 5 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 41.0 Optimal Cycle: ill Level Of Service: D Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R --------------------------- 11 --------------- --------------- ---------------� Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 14 14 14 14 14 14 12 45 45 0 45 45 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 3 0 1 --------------------------- 11 --------------- --------------- ---------------� Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 6 75 0 124 90 1748 0 6 1784 117 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 6 75 0 124 90 1748 0 6 1784 117 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 6 75 0 124 90 1748 0 6 1784 117 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 6 75 0 124 90 1748 0 6 1784 117 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 0 0 6 75 0 124 90 1748 0 6 1784 117 --------------------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 0.87 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 0.91 0.91 0.95 0.91 0.85 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 0.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 0 1471 1615 0 1445 1615 4641 0 1615 4641 1445 ------------ I --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.09 0.06 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.08 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.25 0.11 0.41 0.00 0.11 0.41 0.41 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.37 0.00 0.34 0.52 0.93 0.00 0.03 0.95 0.20 Uniform Del: 0.0 0.0 42.6 44.4 0.0 33.9 46.8 31.5 0.0 44.3 31.9 21.4 IncremntDel: 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.1 0.0 0.6 2.7 8.7 0.0 0.1 10.9 0.2 Delay Adj: 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 0.0 42.6 45.6 0.0 34.5 49.4 40.2 0.0 44.4 42.8 21.5 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 0.0 42.6 45.6 0.0 34.5 49.4 40.2 0.0 44.4 42.8 21.5 DesignQueue: 0 0 0 4 0 6 5 70 0 0 71 4 ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.5.0615 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA ASSOC. IRVINE, CA 1 1 1 Peak Cumulative AM Fri Sep 6, 2002 11:38:42 Page 3-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #7 Main Street/Pacific Coast Highway Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.376 Loss Time (sec): 26 (Y+R = 5 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 26.2 Optimal Cycle: ill Level Of Service: C ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R. L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I --------------- 11--------------- 11--------------- 11---------------� Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 14 14 14 14 14 14 12 45 45 0 45 45 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 3 0 1 ------------ I --------------- 11--------------- 11--------------- 11---------------� Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 6 35 0 103 49 1889 1 5 1075 54 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 6 35 0 103 49 1889 1 5 1075 54 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 6 35 0 103 49 1889 1 5 1075 54 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 6 35 0 103 49 1889 1 5 1075 54 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 0 0 6 35 0 103 49 1889 1 5 1075 54 --------------------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 0.87 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 0.91 0.91 0.95 0.91 0.85 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 2.99 0.01 1.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 0 1471 1615 0 1445 1615 4639 2 1615 4641 1445 ------------ I --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.07 0.03 0.41 0.41 0.00 0.23 0.04 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.25 0.11 0.51 0.51 0.00 0.41 0.41 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.17 0.00 0.28 0.28 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.57 0.09 Uniform Del: 0.0 0.0 42.6 43.3 0.0 33.4 45.5 22.5 22.5 55.2 25.5 20.4 IncremntDel: 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.9 2.0 2.0 223.6 0.4 0.1 Delay Adj: 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 0.0 42.6 43.7 0.0 33.8 46.4 24.5 24.5 278.8 26.0 20.5 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 0.0 42.6 43.7 0.0 33.8 46.4 24.5 24.5 278.8 26.0 20.5 DesignQueue: 0 0 0 2 0 5 3 63 0 0 41 2 ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.5.0615 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA ASSOC. IRVINE, CA 1 Peak Cumulative+Project AM Fri Sep 6, 2002 11:40:06 Page 3-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #7 Main Street/Pacific Coast Highway Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. W : 0.401 Loss Time (sec): 26 (Y+R = 5 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 27.1 Optimal Cycle: ill Level Of Service: C ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------------------------------------ --------------- ---------------� Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 14 14 14 14 14 14 12 45 45 0 45 45 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 3 0 1 --------------------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 6 35 0 103 49 1956 1 5 1165 54 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 6 35 0 103 49 1956 1 5 1165 54 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 6 35 0 103 49 1956 1 5 1165 54 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 6 35 0 103 49 1956 1 5 1165 54 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 0 0 6 35 0 103 49 1956 1 5 1165 54 --------------------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 0.87 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 0.91 0.91 0.95 0.91 0.85 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 2.99 0.01 1.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 0 1471 1615 0 1445 1615 4639 2 1615 4641 1445 ------------ I --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.07 0.03 0.42 0.42 0.00 0.25 0.04 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.25 0.11 0.51 0.51 0.00 0.41 0.41 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.17 0.00 0.28 0.28 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.62 0.09 Uniform Del: 0.0 0.0 42.6 43.3 0.0 33.4 45.5 23.1 23.1 55.3 26.2 20.4, IncremntDel: 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.9 2.6 2.6 247.0 0.6 0.1 Delay Adj: 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 0.0 42.6 43.7 0.0 33.8 46.4 25.6 25.6 302.2 26.8 20.5 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 0.0 42.6 43.7 0.0 33.8 46.4 25.6 25.6 302.2 26.8 20.5 DesignQueue: 0 0 0 2 0 5 3 65 0 0 45 2 ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.5.0615 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA ASSOC. IRVINE, CA GP w/out Bridge AM Fri Sep 6, 2002 11:41:18 --------------------------------------------------- ---------------------- Page 3-1 ------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #7 Main Street/Pacific Coast Highway ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.391 Loss Time (sec): 26 (Y+R = 5 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 20.7 Optimal Cycle: 97 Level Of Service: C ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------ Control: I --------------- Protected --------------- Protected 11--------------- Protected ---------------� Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 14 14 14 14 14 14 12 45 45 0 45 45 Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 3 0 1 i� ------------ I --------------- Volume Module: --------------- 11--------------- ---------------� Base Vol: 0 0 0 48 0 89 68 2450 0 0 1010 60 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 48 0 89 68 2450 0 0 1010 60 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 48 0 89 68 2450 0 0 1010 60 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: PCE Adj: 0 1.00 0 0 1.00 1.00 48 1.00 0 1.00 89 1.00 68 1.00 2450 1.00 0 1.00 0 1.00 1010 1.00 60 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 0 0 0 48 0 89 68 2450 0 0 1010 60 --------------------------- 11 Saturation Flow Module: --------------- --------------- ---------------� Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1100 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.85 Lanes: 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 0.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 1700 0 1615 0 1445 1615 4641 0 1700 4641 1445 ------------ I --------------- Capacity Analysis 11 Module: --------------- 11--------------- ---------------� Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.06 0.04 0.53 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.04 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.14 0.12 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.48 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.00 0.44 0.35 0.88 0.00 0.00 0.45 0.09 Uniform Del: 0.0 0.0 0.0 38.1 0.0 39.4 40.4 16.9 0.0 0.0 17.3 14.1 IncremntDel: Delay Adj: 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.5 1.00 0.0 0.00 1.5 1.00 1.1 1.00 3.6 1.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.1 1.00 0.1 1.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 38.6 0.0 40.9 41.5 20.5 0.0 0.0 17.4 14.2 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 38.6 0.0 40.9 41.5 20.5 0.0 0.0 17.4 14.2 DesignQueue: 0 0 0 2 0 4 3 61 0 0 31 2 ******************************************************************************** r Traffix 7.5.0615 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA ASSOC. IRVINE, CA I GP w/out Bridge PM Fri Sep 6, 2002 11:41:59 Page 3-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #7 Main Street/Pacific Coast Highway ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. W : 0.706 Loss Time (sec): 26 (Y+R = 5 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 23.0 Optimal Cycle: 97 Level Of Service: C ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I --------------- 11--------------- 11--------------- ---------------� Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 14 14 14 14 14 14 12 45 45 0 45 45 Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 3 0 1 ------------ I --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 0 68 0 121 78 1570 0 0 2004 119 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 68 0 121 78 1570 0 0 2004 119 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 68 0 121 78 1570 0 0 2004 119 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 68 0 121 78 1570 0 0 2004 119 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 0 0 0 68 0 121 78 1570 0 0 2004 119 --------------------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.85 Lanes: 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 0.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 1700 0 1615 0 1445 1615 4641 0 1700 4641 1445 ------------ I --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.08 0.05 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.43 0.08 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.14 0.12 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.48 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.60 0.40 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.17 Uniform Del: 0.0 0.0 0.0 38.6 0.0 40.4 40.7 12.1 0.0 0.0 23.8 14.7 IncremntDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 4.9 1.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 5.4 0.1 Delay Adj: 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 39.4 0.0 45.2 42.1 12.4 0.0 0.0 29.2 14.9 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 39.4 0.0 45.2 42.1 12.4 0.0 0.0 29.2 14.9 DesignQueue: 0 0 0 3 0 6 4 38 0 0 64 3 ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.5.0615 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA ASSOC. IRVINE, CA GP w/out Bridge+Prof AM Fri Sep 6, 2002 11:42:34 Page 3-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #7 Main Street/Pacific Coast Highway Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.417 Loss Time (sec): 26 (Y+R = 5 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 21.8 Optimal Cycle: 97 Level Of Service: C ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------ Control: Rights: --------------- Protected Include 11--------------- Protected Include 11 --------------- Protected Include 11---------------� Protected Include Min. Green: 14 14 14 14 14 14 12 45 45 0 45 45 Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 3 0 1 --------------------------- Volume Module: 11--------------- 11 --------------- 11---------------� Base Vol: 0 0 0 48 0 89 68 2517 0 0 1100 60 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 0_ 48 0 89 68 2517 0 0 1100 60 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 48 0 89 68 2517 0 0 1100 60 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 48 0 89 68 2517 0 0 1100 60 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 0 0 0 48 0 89 68 2517 0 0 1100 60 ------------1--------------- Saturation Flow Module: --------------- --------------- ---------------� Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.85 Lanes: Final Sat.: 0.00 0 1,00 0.00 1700 0 1.00 1615 0.00 0 1.00 1445 1.00 1615 3.00 4641 0.00 0 1.00 1700 3.00 4641 1.00 1445 ------------ I --------------- Capacity Analysis Module: --------------- --------------- ---------------� Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0,00 0,03 0.00 0.06 0,04 0.54 0,00 0,00 0,24 0.04 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.14 0.12 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.48 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.00 0.44 0.35 0.90 0.00 0.00 0.49 0.09 Uniform Del: 0.0 0.0 0.0 38.1 0.0 39.4 40.4 17.5 0.0 0.0 17.7 14.1 IncremntDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 1.5 1.1 4.6 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 Delay Adj: 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 38.6 0.0 40.9 41.5 22.1 0.0 0.0 17.9 14.2 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 38.6 0.0 40.9 41.5 22.1 0.0 0.0 17.9 14.2 DesignQueue: 0 0 0 2 0 4 3 63 0 0 33 2 1 Traffix 7.5.0615 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA ASSOC. IRVINE, CA 1 GP w/out Bridge+Prof PM Fri Sep 6, 2002 11:43:08 Page 3-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #7 Main Street/Pacific Coast Highway ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.744 Loss Time (sec): 26 (Y+R = 5 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 26.7 Optimal Cycle: 97 Level Of Service: C ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound. West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R --------------------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 14 14 14 14 14 14 12 45 45 0 45 45 Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 3 0 1 --------------------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 0 68 0 121 78 1690 0 0 2137 119 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 68 0 121 78 1690 0 0 2137 119 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 68 0 121 78 1690 0 0 2137 119 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 68 0 121 78 1690 0 0 2137 119 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 0 0 0 68 0 121 78 1690 0 0 2137 119 --------------------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.85 Lanes: 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 0.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 1700 0 1615 0 1445 1615 4641 0 1700 4641 1445 ------------ I --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.08 0.05 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.46 0.08 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.14 0.12 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.48 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.60 0.40 0.61 0.00 0.00 0.96 0.17 Uniform Del: 0.0 0.0 0.0 38.6 0.0 40.4 40.7 12.6 0.0 0.0 25.1 14.7 IncremntDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 4.9 1.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 11.1 0.1 Delay Adj: 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 39.4 0.0 45.2 42.1 13.0 0.0 0.0 36.1 14.9 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 39.4 0.0 45.2 42.1 13.0 0.0 0.0 36.1 14.9 DesignQueue: 0 0 0 3 0 6 4 41 0 0 69 3 ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.5.0615 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA ASSOC. IRVINE, CA 1 GP w/Bridge -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AM Fri Sep 6, 2002 11:43:42 Page 3-1 ---------- Level ------------------------------------------------- Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #7 Main Street/Pacific Coast Highway ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.396 Loss Time (sec): 26 (Y+R = 5 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 21.2 Optimal Cycle: 97 Level Of Service: C Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ Control: I --------------- Protected 11--------------- Protected 11 --------------- Protected 11---------------� Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 14 14 14 14 14 14 12 45 45 0 45 45 Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 3 0 1 ------------ I --------------- Volume Module: 11--------------- 11 --------------- 11---------------� Base Vol: 0 0 0 53 0 86 64 2487 0 0 1025 64 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 53 0 86 64 2487 0 0 1025 64 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 53 0 86 64 2487 0 0 1025 64 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 53 0 86 64 2487 0 0 1025 64 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 0 0 0 53 0 86 64 2487 0 0 1025 64 --------------------------- Saturation Flow Module: --------------- --------------- ---------------� Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.85 Lanes: 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 0.00 1.00 3.00 '1.00 Final Sat.: 0 1700 0 1615 0 1445 1615 4641 0 1700 4641 1445 ------------ I --------------- Capacity Analysis Module: --------------- --------------- ---------------� Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.06 0.04 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.04 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.14 0.12 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.48 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.43 0.33 0.89 0.00 0.00 0.46 0.09 Uniform Del: 0.0 0.0 0.0 38.2 0.0 39.3 40.3 17.2 0.0 0.0 17.4 14.1 IncremntDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 1.4 1.0 4.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 Delay Adj: 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 38.8 0.0 40.8 41.3 21.4 0.0 0.0 17.5 14.2 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 38.8 0.0 40.8 41.3 21.4 0.0 0.0 17.5 14.2 DesignQueue: 0 0 0 3 0 4 3 62 0 0 31 2 ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.5.0615 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA ASSOC. IRVINE, CA GP w/Bridge PM Fri Sep 6, 2002 11:44:15 Page 3-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #7 Main Street/Pacific Coast Highway ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. W : 0.718 Loss Time (sec): 26 (Y+R = 5 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 23.8 Optimal Cycle: 97 Level Of Service: C ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I --------------- 11--------------- 11--------------- ---------------� Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 14 14 14 14 14 14 12 45 45 0 45 45 Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 3 0 1 ------------ I --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 0 64 0 125 84 1618 0 0 2039 113 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 64 0 125 84 1618 0 0 2039 113 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 64 0 125 84 1618 0 0 2039 113 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 64 0 125 84 1618 0 0 2039 113 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 0 0 0 64 0 125 84 1618 0 0 2039 113 --------------------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.85 Lanes: 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 0.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 1700 0 1615 0 1445 1615 4641 0 1700 4641 1445 ------------ I --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.09 0.05 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.44 0.08 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.14 0.12 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.48 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.00 0.62 0.43 0.58 0.00 0.00 0.92 0.16 Uniform Del: 0.0 0.0 0.0 38.5 0.0 40.5 40.8 12.3 0.0 0.0 24.1 14.7 IncremntDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 5.7 1.6 0.3 0.0 0.0 6.5 0.1 Delay Adj: 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 39.2 0.0 46.2 42.4 12.6 0.0 0.0 30.6 14.8 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 39.2 0.0 46.2 42.4 12.6 0.0 0.0 30.6 14.8 DesignQueue: 0 0 0 3 0 6 4 39 0 0 65 3 ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.5.0615 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA ASSOC. IRVINE, CA 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 GP w/Bridge+Prof AM Fri Sep 6, 2002 11:44:47 Page 3-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #7 Main Street/Pacific Coast Highway ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.423 Loss Time (sec): 26 (Y+R = 5 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 22.5 Optimal Cycle: 97 Level Of Service: C ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I --------------- 11--------------- 11--------------- ---------------� Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 14 14 14 14 14 14 12 45 45 0 45 45 Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 3 0 1 ------------ I --------------- 11--------- --------------- ---------------� Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 0 53 0 86 64 2554 0 0 1115 64 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 53 0 86 64 2554 0 0 1115 64 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 53 0 86 64 2554 0 0 1115 64 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 53 0 86 64 2554 0 0 1115 64 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 0 0 0 53 0 86 64 2554 0 0 1115 64 Sat/Lane: I1700II1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 17001700 Saturation Flowow Module: : 0 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.85 Lanes: 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 0.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 1700 0 1615 0 1445 1615 4641 0 1700 4641 1445 ------------ I --------------- --------------- --------------- 11---------------� Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.06 0.04 0.55 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.04 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.14 0.12 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.48 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.43 0.33 0.92 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.09 Uniform Del: 0.0 0.0 0.0 38.2 0.0 39.3 40.3 17.8 0.0 0.0 17.8 14.1 IncremntDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 1.4 1.0 5.4 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 Delay Adj: 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 38.8 0.0 40.8 41.3 23.2 0.0 0.0 18.0 14.2 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Del/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 38.8 0.0 40.8 41.3 23.2 0.0 0.0 18.0 14.2 DesignQueue: 0 0 0 3 0 4 3 64 0 0 34 2 ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.5.0615 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA ASSOC. IRVINE, CA GP w/Bridge+Prof PM Fri Sep 6, 2002 11:45:14 Page 3-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #7 Main Street/Pacific Coast Highway ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.756 Loss Time (sec): 26 (Y+R = 5 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 28.3 Optimal Cycle: 97 Level Of Service: C ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R --------------------------- 11 --------------- 11 --------------- ---------------� Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 14 14 14 14 14 14 12 45 45 0 45 45 Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 3 0 1 --------------------------- 11----------- =---11--------------- ---------------� Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 0 64 0 125 84 1738 0 0 2172 113 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 64 0 125 84 1738 0 0 2172 113 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 64 0 125 84 1738 0 0 2172 113 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 64 0 125 84 1738 0 0 2172 113 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 0 0 0 64- 0 125 84 1738 0 0 2172 113 --------------------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.85 Lanes: 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 0.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 1700 0 1615 0 1445 1615 4641 0 1700 4641 1445 ------------ I --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.09 0.05 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.47 0.08 Crit Moves: **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.14 0.12 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.48 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.00 0.62 0.43 0.62 0.00 0.00 0.98 0.16 Uniform Del: 0.0 0.0 0.0 38.5 0.0 40.5 40.8 12.8 0.0 0.0 25.4 14.7 IncremntDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 5.7 1.6 0.4 0.0 0.0 13.7 0.1 Delay Adj: 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 39.2 0.0 46.2 42.4 13.2 0.0 0.0 39.1 14.8 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 39.2 0.0 46.2 42.4 13.2 0.0 0.0 39.1 14.8 DesignQueue: 0 0 0 3 0 6 4 42 0 0 70 3 ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.5.0615 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA ASSOC. IRVINE, CA 1. Peak Cumulative+Project PM Fri Sep 6, 2002 11:40:41 Page 3-1 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume-Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #7 Main Street/Pacific Coast Highway ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.758 Loss Time (sec): 26 (Y+R = 5 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 44.9 Optimal Cycle: ill Level Of Service: D Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------ Control: I --------------- Protected 11--------------- Protected 11--------------- Protected ---------------� Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 14 14 14 14 14 14 12 45 45 0 45 45 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 3 0 1 ------------ I --------------- Volume Module: 11--------------- 11--------------- ---------------► Base Vol: 0 0 7 121 0 ill 151 1482 0 41 1891 157 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 7 121 0 ill 151 1482 0 41 1891 157 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 7 '121 0 ill 151 1482 0 41 1891 157 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 7 121 0 ill 151 1482 0 41 1891 157 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 0 0 7 121 0 ill 151 1482 0 41 1891 157 ------------1---------------��---------------11---------------��---------------� Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 0.87 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 0.91 0.91 0-.95 0.91 0.85 Lanes: Final Sat.: 0.00 0 0.00 1.00 0 1471 1.00 1615 0.00 0 1.00 1445 1.00 1615 3.00 4641 0.00 0 1.00 1615 3.00 4641 1.00 1445 ---------------- Capacity Analysis ----------- Module: ---- ----- ------ ---- ----- ------ ---- -----------� Vol/Sat: 0.00 0,00 0,00 0,07 0,00 0.08 0.09 0,32 0.00 0,03 0,41 0,11 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.25 0.11 0.41 0.00 0.11 0.41 0.41 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.59 0.00 0.30 0.86 0.79 0.00 0.23 1.01 0.27 Uniform Del: 0.0 0.0 42.6 45.8 0.0 33.6 48.7 28.8 0.0 45.3 33.0 22.0 IncremntDel: 0.0 0.0 0.1 4.7 0.0 0.5 33.4 2.3 0.0 0.7 22.0 0.2 Delay Adj: 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 0.0 42.7 50.5 0.0 34.1 82.1 31.1 0.0 46.0 55.0 22.3 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 0.0 42.7 50.5 0.0 34.1 82.1 31.1 0.0 46.0 55.0 22.3 DesignQueue: 0 0 0 7 0 5 8 58 0 2 76 6 ******************************************************************************** ITraffix 7.5.0615 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA ASSOC. IRVINE, CA Peak Cumulative PM Fri Sep 6, 2002 11:39:22 Page 3-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #7 Main Street/Pacific Coast Highway ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.721 Loss Time (sec): 26 (Y+R = 5 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 37.6 Optimal Cycle: ill Level Of Service: D ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R --------------------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 14 14 14 14 14 14 12 45 45 0 45 45 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 3 0 1 --------------------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 7 121 0 ill 151 1361 0 41 1758 157 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 7 121 0 ill 151 1361 0 41 1758 157 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 7 121 0 ill 151 1361 0 41 1758 157 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 7 121 0 ill 151 1361 0 41 1758 157 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 0 0 7 121 0 ill 151 1361 0 41 1758 157 --------------------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 0.87 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 0.91 0.91 0.95 0.91 0.85 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 0.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 0 1471 1615 0 1445 1615 4641 0 1615 4641 1445 ------------ I --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.08 0.09 0.29 0.00 0.03 0.38 0.11 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.25 0.11 0.41 0.00 0.11 0.41 0.41 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.59 0.00 0.30 0.86 0.72 0.00 0.23 0.93 0.27 Uniform Del: 0.0 0.0 42.6 45.8 0.0 33.6 48.7 27.8 0.0 45.3 31.6 22.0 IncremntDel: 0.0 0.0 0.1 4.7 0.0 0.5 33.4 1.4 0.0 0.7 9.3 0.2 Delay Adj: 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 0.0 42.7 50.5 0.0 34.1 82.1 29.2 0.0 46.0 40.9 22.3 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Del/Veh: 0.0 0.0 42.7 50.5 0.0 34.1 82.1 29.2 0.0 46.0 40.9 22.3 DesignQueue: 0 0 0 7 0 5 8 53 0 2 70 6 ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.5.0615 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA ASSOC. IRVINE, CA 1 1 L 1 D Off -Peak Existing AM Fri Sep 6, 2002 11:33:03 Page 2-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #6 Sixth Street/Coast Highway Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.529 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 5.5 Optimal Cycle: 39 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I --------------- 11--------------- --------------- ---------------� Control: Permitted Permitted Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0' 0 Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 ------------ I --------------- 11--------------- --------------- ---------------� Volume Module: Base Vol: 4 5 7 42 8 108 36 2030 8 9 1194 20 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 4 5 7 42 8 108 36 2030 8 9 1194 20 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 4 5 7 42 8 108 36 2030 8 9 1194 20 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 4 5 7 42 8 108 36 2030 8 9 1194 20 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 4 5 7 42 8 108 36 2030 8 9 1194 20 --------------------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.88 0.89 0.87 0.78 0.86 0.81 0.95 0.91 0.91 0.95 0.91 0.91 Lanes: 0.25 0.31 0.44 1.00 0.07 0.93 1.00 2.99 0.01 1.00 2.95 0.05 Final Sat.: 374 468 655 1321 95 1289 1615 4618 18 1615 4555 76 ------------ I --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.08 0.08 0.02 0.44 0.44 0.01 0.26 0.26 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.07 0.83 0.83 0.01 0.78 0.78 Volume/Cap: 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.20 0.53 0.53 0.34 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.34 0.34 Uniform Del: 35.8 35.8 35.8 36.6 38.7 38.7 44.6 2.5 2.5 49.2 3.4 3.4 IncremntDel: 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.5 2.4 2.4 1.9 0.1 0.1 27.9 0.1 0.1 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 35.9 35.9 35.9 37.1 41.1 41.1 46.5 2.7 2.7 77.2 3.5 3.5 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 35.9 35.9 35.9 37.1 41.1 41.1 46.5 2.7 2.7 77.2 3.5 3.5 DesignQueue: 0 0 0 2 0 5 2 21 0 0 16 0 Traffix 7.5.0615 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA ASSOC. IRVINE, CA Off -Peak Existing PM Fri Sep 6, 2002 11:33:54 Page 2-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #6 Sixth Street/Coast Highway ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.463 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 5.7 Optimal Cycle: 35 Level Of Service: A Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R --------------------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Control: Permitted Permitted Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 --------------------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Volume Module: Base Vol: 16 11 31 32 11 50 74 1400 9 35 1708 26 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 16 11 31 32 11 50 74 1400 9 35 1708 26 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 16 it 31 32 it 50 74 1400 9 35 1708 26 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 16 11 31 32 11 50 74 1400 9 35 1708 26 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 16 11 31 32 it 50 74 1400 9 35 1708 26 --------------------------- --------------- ------------------------------� Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.83 0.85 0.82 0.87 0.88 0.83 0.95 0.91 0.91 0.95 0.91 0.91 Lanes: 0.27 0.19 0.54 1.00 0.17 0.83 1.00 2.98 0.02 1.00 2.96 0.04 Final Sat.: 389 267 753 1479 258 1172 1615 4607 30 1615 4562 69 ------------ I --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.30 0.30 0.02 0.3.7 0.37 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.85 0.85 0.06 0.81 0.81 Volume/Cap: 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.23 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.46 0.46 Uniform Del: 43.0 43.0 43.0 42.1 43.0 43.0 42.5 1.7 1.7 45.1 2.9 2.9 IncremntDel: 2.4 2.4 2.4 0.9 2.6 2.6 2.1 0.1 0.1 2.3 0.1 0.1 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 45.4 45.4 45.4 43.0 45.6 45.6 44.7 1.7 1.7 47.4 3.0 3.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 45.4 45.4 45.4 43.0 45.6 45.6 44.7 1.7 1.7 47.4 3.0 3.0 DesignQueue: 1 1 2 2 1 3 4 13 0 2 20 0 ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.5.0615 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA ASSOC. IRVINE, CA 11 1 I L U., 1 1 p Peak Existing AM Fri Sep 6, 2002 11:37:30 Page 2-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #6 Sixth Street/Coast Highway ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.459 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 7.9 Optimal Cycle: 34 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I --------------- 11--------------- 11--------------- 11---------------� Control: Permitted Permitted Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 ------------ I --------------- 11--------------- 11--------------- ---------------� Volume Module: Base Vol: 21 26 29 68 14 86 62 1683 24 32 980 33 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial 13se: 21 26 29 68 14 86 62 1683 24 32 980 33 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 21 26 29 68 14 86 62 1683 24 32 980 33 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 21 26 29 68 14 86 62 1683 24 32 980 33 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 21 26 29 68 14 86 62 1683 24 32 980 33 --------------------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1760 1700 Adjustment: 0.86 0.87 0.85 0.81 0.87 0.83 0.95 0.91 0.91 0.95 0.91 0.91 Lanes: 0.28 0.34 0.38 1.00 0.13 0.87 1.00 2.96 0.04 1.00 2.90 0.10 Final Sat.: 405 501 559 1370 198 1216 1615 4567 65 1615 4467 150 ------------ I --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.07 0.04 0.37 0.37 0.02 0.22 0.22 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.13 0.80 0.80 0.04 0.72 0.72 Volume/Cap: 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.32 0.46 0.46 0.30 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.30 0.30 Uniform Del: 37.7 37.7 37.7 37.6 38.5 38.5 39.7 3.1 3.1 46.7 5.0 5.0 IncremntDel: 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.5 1.5 0.9 0.1 0.1 4.7 0.1 0.1 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.5 40.0 40.0 40.6 3.2 3.2 51.4 5.1 5.1 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.5 40.0 40.0 40.6 3.2 3.2 51.4 5.1 5.1 DesignQueue: 1 1 1 3 1 4 3 20 0 2 16 1 ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.5.0615 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA ASSOC. IRVINE, CA Peak Existing PM Fri Sep 6, 2002 11:38:03 Page 2-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #6 Sixth Street/Coast Highway ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.502 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 9.3 Optimal Cycle: 37 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R --------------------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Control: Permitted Permitted Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 --------------------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Volume Module: Base Vol: 38 14 45 39 5 ill 93 1249 39 37 1634 33 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 38 14 45 39 5 ill 93 1249 39 37 1634 33 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 38 14 45 39 5 ill 93 1249 39 , 37 1634 33 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 38 14 45 39 5 ill 93 1249 39 37 1634 33 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 38 14 45 39 5 ill 93 1249 39 37 1634 33 --------------------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.78 0.80 0.77 0.81 0.86 0.81 0.95 0.91 0.91 0.95 0.91 0.91 Lanes: 0.39 0.14 0.47 1.00 0.04 0.96 1.00 2.91 0.09 1.00 2.94 0.06 Final Sat.: 520 192 616 1381 59 1315 1615 4482 140 1615 4535 92 ------------ I --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.03 0.08 0.08 0.06 0.28 0.28 0.02 0.36 0.36 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.11 0.77 0.77 0.06 0.72 0.72 Volume/Cap: 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.17 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.50 0.50 Uniform Del: 37.3 37.3 37.3 35.6 37.8 37.8 41.6 3.7 3.7 44.9 6.2 6.2 IncremntDel: 1.4 1.4 1.4 0.3 1.7 1.7 2.2 0.1 0.1 2.2 0.1 0.1 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 38.7 38.7 38.7 36.0 39.5 39.5 43.8 3.8 3.8 47.1 6.4 6.4 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 38.7 38.7 38.7 36.0 39.5 39.5 43.8 3.8 3.8 47.1 6.4 6.4 DesignQueue: 2 1 2 2 0 5 5 17 1 2 28 1 ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.5.0615 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA ASSOC. IRVINE, CA IOff -Peak Cum AM Fri Sep 6, 2002 11:34:42 Page 2-1 Level of Service Computation Report e 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection 46 Sixth Street/Coast Highway ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.578 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 5.5 Optimal Cycle: 44 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ' ------------ Control: Rights: --------------- Permitted Include 11 --------------- Permitted Include --------------- Protected Include ---------------� Protected Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 ------------ Volume Module: I --------------- 11--------------- --------------- ---------------� Base Vol: 4 5 7 44 8 114 38 2238 8 9 1334 21 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 4 5 7 44 8 114 38 2238 8 9 1334 21 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 4 5 7 44 8 114 38 2238 8 9 1334 21 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 4 5 7 44 8 114 38 2238 8 9 1334 21 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 4 5 7 44 8 114 38 2238 8 9 1334 21 --------------------------- Saturation Flow Module: --------------- --------------- ---------------� Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.88 0.89 0.87 0.77 0.86 0.81 0.95 0.91 0.91 0.95 0.91 0.91 Lanes: 0.25 0.31 0.44 1.00 0.06 0.94 1.00 2.99 0.01 1.00 2.95 0.05 Final Sat.: 374 467 654 1314 91 1293 1615 4620 17 1615 4560 72 ------------ I --------------- Capacity Analysis Module: --------------- --------------- ---------------� Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.09 0.09 0.02 0.48 0.48 0.01 0.29 0.29 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.06 0.84 0.84 0.01 0.78 0.78 Volume/Cap: 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.22 0.58 0.58 0.37 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.37 0.37 Uniform Del: 36.3 36.3 36.3 37.2 39.4 39.4 44.9 2.5 2.5 49.3 3.3 3.3 IncremntDel: 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.6 4.0 4.0 2.3 0.2 0.2 44.3 0.1 0.1 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 36.4 36.4 36.4 37.7 43.3 43.3 47.2 2.8 2.8 93.6 3.3 3.3 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 36.4 36.4 36.4 37.7 43.3 43.3 47.2 2.8 2.8 93.6 3.3 3.3 DesignQueue: 0 0 0 2 0 5 2 22 0 0 17 0 ******************************************************************************** 1 Traffix 7.5.0615 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA ASSOC. IRVINE, CA 1 Off -Peak Cum PM Fri Sep 6, 2002 11:35:21 Page 2-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #6 Sixth Street/Coast Highway ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.511 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 5.6 Optimal Cycle: 38 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I --------------- 11--------------- 11--------------- 11---------------� Control: Permitted Permitted Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 ------------ I --------------- 11--------------- 11--------------- 11---------------� Volume Module: Base Vol: 17 12 33 34 12 53 78 1592 9 37 1903 27 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 17 12 33 34 12 53 78 1592 9 37 1903 27 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 17 12 33 34 12 53 78 1592 9 37 1903 27 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 17 12 33 34 12 53 78 1592 9 37 1903 27 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 17 12 33 34 12 53 78 1592 9 37 1903 27 --------------------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.80 0.81 0.78 0.88 0.88 0.83 0.95 0.91 0.91 0.95 0.91 0.91 Lanes: 0.27 0.19 0.54 1.00 0.18 0.82 1.00 2.98 0.02 1.00 2.96 0.04 Final Sat.: 370 261 717 1504 264 1167 1615 4610 26 1615 4567 65 ------------ I --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.02 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.35 0.35 0.02 0.42 0.42 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.85 0.85 0.06 0.82 0.82 Volume/Cap: 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.25 0.50 0.50 0.51 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.51 0.51 Uniform Del: 43.4 43.4 43.4 42.4 43.4 43.4 43.1 1.6 1.6 45.5 2.9 2.9 IncremntDel: 3.6 3.6 3.6 1.0 3.2 3.2 2.9 0.1 0.1 2.9 0.1 0.1 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 47.0 47.0 47.0 43.3 46.6 46.6 46.0 1.7 1.7 48.5 3.0 3.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 47.0 47.0 47.0 43.3 46.6 46.6 46.0 1.7 1.7 48.5 3.0 3.0 DesignQueue: 1 1 2 2 1 3 4 14 0 2 21 0 ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.5.0615 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA ASSOC. IRVINE, CA Off -Peak Cum+Proj AM Fri Sep 6, 2002 11:36:06 Page 2-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection 16 Sixth Street/Coast Highway Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.609 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 8.6 Optimal Cycle: 48 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ Control: I --------------- Permitted 11--------------- Permitted 11 --------------- Protected 11---------------� Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------� Volume Module: ase Vol: Base- 4 5 7 103 8 148 80 2238 8 18 1334 100 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 4 5 7 103 8 148 80 2238 8 18 1334 100 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 4 5 7 103 8 148 80 2238 8 18 1334 100 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 4 5 7 103 8 148 80 2238 8 18 1334 100 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 4 5 7 103 8 148 80 2238 6 18 1334 100 ------------I--------------- Saturation Flow Module: 11--------------- --------------- 11---------------� Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.88 0.89 0.87 0.74 0.86 0.81 0.95 0.91 0.91 0.95 0.90 0.90 Lanes: 0.25 0.31 0.44 1.00 0.05 0.95 1.00 2.99 0.01 1.00 2.79 0.21 i Final Sat.: 374 468 655 1258 71 1308 1615 4620 17 1615 4274 320 ------------ I --------------- Capacity Analysis Module: --------------- --------------- ---------------� Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.11 0.11 0.05 0.48 0.48 0.01 0.31 0.31 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.11 0.80 0.80 0.02 0.70 0.70 Volume/Cap: 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.44 0.61 0.61 0.44 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.44 0.44 Uniform Del: 33.5 33.5 33.5 36.1 37.4 37.4 41.5 4.0 4.0 48.7 6.4 6.4 IncremntDel: 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.3 4.2 4.2 1.7 0.3 0.3 31.6 0.1 0.1 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 33.6 33.6 33.6 37.4 41.6 41.6 43.3 4.3 4.3 80.4 6.5 6.5 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 33.6 33.6 33.6 37.4 41.6 41.6 43.3 4.3 4.3 80.4 6.5 6.5 DesignQueue: 0 0 0 5 0 7 4 28 0 1 24 2 ITraffix 7.5.0615 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA ASSOC. IRVINE, CA LJ L' Off -Peak Cum+Proj PM Fri Sep 6, 2002 11:36:48 Page 2-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #6 Sixth Street/Coast Highway ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.613 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 10.2 Optimal Cycle: 48 Level Of Service: B ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ Control: I --------------- Permitted 11--------------- Permitted --------------- Protected 11---------------� Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 ------------ I --------------- Volume Module: 11--------------- --------------- 11---------------I Base Vol: 17 12 33 139 12 114 101 1633 4 51 1903 144 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 17 12 33 139 12 114 101 1633 4 51 1903 144 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 17 12 33 139 12 114 101 1633 4 51 1903 144 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 17 12 33 139 12 114 101 1633 4 51 1903 144 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 17 12 33 139 12 114 101 1633 4 51 1903 144 ------------ Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.85 0.86 0.83 0.78 0.86 0.82 0.95 0.91 0.91 0.95 0.90 0.90 Lanes: 0.27 0.19 0.54 1.00 0.09 0.91 1.00 2.99 0.01 1.00 2.79 0.21 Final Sat.: 391 276 760 1324 133 1262 1615 4630 11 1615 4271 323 ---------------- Capacity Analysis ----------- Module: ---- ----- ------ ---- ----------- ---- -----------� Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.11 0.09 0.09 0.06 0.35 0.35 0.03 0.45 0.45 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.10 0.76 0.76 0.07 0.73 0.73 Volume/Cap: 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.61 0.53 0.53 0.61 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.51 0.61 Uniform Del: 35.9 35.9 35.9 38.4 37.7 37.7 43.0 4.4 4.4 44.8 6.7 6.7 IncremntDel: 0.5 0.5 0.5 4.9 2.2 2.2 6.7 0.1 0.1 3.1 0.3 0.3 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 36.4 36.4 36.4 43.3 39.9 39.9 49.7 4.5 4.5 47.9 7.1 7.1 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 36.4 36.4 36.4 43.3 39.9 39.9 49.7 4.5 4.5 47.9 7.1 7.1 DesignQueue: 1 1 2 7 1 5 5 24 0 3 32 2 ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.5.0615 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA ASSOC. IRVINE, CA 11 11 11 1 [i C P L L k I Peak Cumulative AM Fri Sep 6, 2002 11:38:42 Page 2-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection $#6 Sixth Street/Coast Highway ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.505 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 7.7 Optimal Cycle: 38 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R --------------------------- ---------------'--------------- ---------------� Control: Permitted Permitted Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 --------------------------- --------------- ------------------------------� Volume Module: Base Vol: 22 27 30 71 15 90 65 1874 25 34 1109 35 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 22 27 30 71 15 90 65 1874 25 34 1109 35 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 22 27 30 71 15 90 65 1874 25 34 1109 35 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 22 27 30 71 15 90 65 1874 25 34 1109 35 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 22 27 30 71 15 90 65 1874 25 34 1109 35 --------------------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.86 0.87 0.85 0.82 0.87 0.83 0.95 0.91 0.91 0.95 0.91 0.91 Lanes: 0.28 0.34 0.38 1.00 0.14 0.86 1.00 2.96 0.04 1.00 2.91 0.09 Final Sat.: 407 499 555 1391 202 1212 1615 4571 61 1615 4477 141 ------------ I --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.07 0.04 0.41 0.41 0.02 0.25 0.25 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.12 0.81 0.81 0.04 0.73 0.73 Volume/Cap: 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.35 0.51 0.51 0.34 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.34 0.34 Uniform Del: 38.5 38.5 38.5 38.3 39.3 39.3 40.4 3.0 3.0 46.9 4.7 4.7 IncremntDel: 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 0.1 0.1 6.1 0.1 0.1 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 39.5 39.5 39.5 39.4 41.3 .41.3 41.5 3.1 3.1 53.0 4.8 4.8 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 39.5 39.5 39.5 39.4 41.3 41.3 41.5 3.1 3.1 53.0 4.8 4.8 DesignQueue: 1 1 1 3 1 4 3 22 0 2 17 1 Traffix 7.5.0615 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA ASSOC. IRVINE, CA P Peak Cumulative PM Fri Sep 6, 2002 11:39:22 Page 2-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection 46 Sixth Street/Coast Highway ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.551 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 9.2 Optimal Cycle: 41 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I --------------- 11--------------- 11--------------- 11---------------� Control: Permitted Permitted Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 b 2 1 0 ------------ I --------------- 11--------------- 11--------------- 11---------------� Volume Module: Base Vol: 40 15 47 41 5 117 98 1434 41 39 1825 35 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 40 15 47 41 5 117 98 1434 41 39 1825 35 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 40 15 47 41 5 117 98 1434 41 39 1825 35 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 40 15 47 41 5 117 98 1434 41 39 1825 35 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 40 15 47 41 5 117 98 1434 41 39 1825 35 ------------ I --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700' 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.74 0.76 0.73 0.83 0.86 0.81 0.95 0.91 0.91 0.95 0.91 0.91 Lanes: 0.39 0.14 0.47 1.00 0.04 0.96 1.00 2.92 0.08 1.00 2.94 0.06 Final Sat.: 494 185 580 1405 56 1317 1615 4494 128 1615 4540 87 ------------ I --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.03 0.09 0.09 0.06 0.32 0.32 0.02 0.40 0.40 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.11 0.78 0.78 0.06 0.73 0.73 Volume/Cap: 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.18 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.55 0.55 Uniform Del: 38.3 38.3 38.3 36.2 38.6 38.6 42.2 3.6 3.6 45.4 6.1 6.1 IncremntDel: 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.4 3.0 3.0 3.7 0.1 0.1 2.8 0.2 0.2 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 40.3 40.3 40.3 36.6 41.6 41.6 45.9 3.6 3.6 48.2 6.3 6.3, User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 40.3 40.3 40.3 36.6 41.6 41.6 45.9 3.6 3.6 48.2 6.3 6.3 DesignQueue: 2 1 2 2 0 6 5 19 1 2 30 1 ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.5.0615 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA ASSOC. IRVINE, CA n u r D n n 1 u J J Peak Cumulative+Project AM Fri Sep 6, 2002 11:40:06 Page 2-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #6 Sixth Street/Coast Highway ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.536 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 10.8 Optimal Cycle: 40 Level Of Service: B ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I --------------- 11--------------- 11--------------- 11---------------� Control: Permitted Permitted Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 ------------ I --------------- 11--------------- 11--------------- 11---------------� Volume Module: Base Vol: 22 27 30 130 15 125 107 1874 25 42 1109 114 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 22 27 30 130 15 125 107 1874 25 42 1109 114 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 22 27 30 130 15 125 107 1874 25 42 1109 114 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 22 27 30 130 15 125 107 1874 25 42 1109 114 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 22 27 30 130 15 125 107 1874 25 42 1109 114 --------------------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.86 0.87 0.85 0.78 0.87 0.82 0.95 0.91 0.91 0.95 0.90 0.90 Lanes: 0.28 0.34 0.38 1.00 0.10 0.90 1.00 2.96 0.04 1.00 2.72 0.28 Final Sat.: 406 498 554 1327 150 1250 1615 4571 61 1615 4149 427 ------------ I --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.07 0.41 0.41 0.03 0.27 0.27 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.16 0.76 0.76 0.05 0.65 0.65 Volume/Cap: 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.53 0.54 0.54 0.41 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.41 0.41 Uniform Del: 35.0 35.0 35.0 36.7 36.8 36.8 37.6 4.7 4.7 46.5 8.3 8.3 IncremntDel: 0.6 0.6 0.6 2.1 2.2 2.2 1.1 0.2 0.2 7.1 0.1 0.1 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 35.6 35.6 35.6 38.8 38.9 38.9 38.7 4.8 4.8 53.6 8.4 8.4 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 35.6 35.6 35.6 38.8 38.9 38.9 38.7 4.8 4.8 53.6 8.4 8.4 DesignQueue: 1 1 1 6 1 6 5 27 0 2 23 2 ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.5.0615 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA ASSOC. IRVINE, CA H Peak Cumulative+Project PM Fri Sep 6, 2002 11:40:41 Page 2-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #6 Sixth Street/Coast Highway Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.663 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 14.2 Optimal Cycle: 55 Level Of Service: B ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I --------------- 11--------------- --------------- ---------------� Control: Permitted Permitted Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 ------------ I --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Volume Module: Base Vol: 40 15 47 147 5 178 159 1434 41 54 1825 151 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 40 15 47 147 5 178 159 1434 41 54 1825 151 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 40 15 47 147 5 178 159 1434 41 54 1825 151 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 40 15 47 147 5 178 159 1434 41 54 1825 151 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 40 15 47 147 5 178 159 1434 41 54 1825 151 --------------------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.70 0.71 0.69 0.78 0.85 0.80 0.95 0.91 0.91 0.95 0.90 0.90 Lanes: 0.39 0.14 0.47 1.00 0.03 0.97 1.00 2.92 0.08 1.00 2.77 0.23 Final Sat.: 465 174 546 1334 37 1331 1615 4494 128 1615 4239 351 ------------ I --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.11 0.13 0.13 0.10 0.32 0.32 0.03 0.43 0.43 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.15 0.72 0.72 0.08 0.65 0.65 Volume/Cap: 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.55 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.66 0.66 Uniform Del: 34.8 34.8 34.8 35.8 36.8 36.8 40.2 5.7 5.7 44.2 10.8 10.8 IncremntDel: 1.2 1.2 1.2 2.3 5.9 5.9 6.8 0.1 0.1 2.5 0.6 0.6 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 36.1 36.1 36.1 36.1 42.7 42.7 47.0 5.8 5.8 46.7 11.3 11.3 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 36.1 36.1 36.1 38.1 42.7 42.7 47.0 5.8 5.8 46.7 11.3 11.3 DesignQueue: 2 1 2 7 0 8 8 24 1 3 39 3 ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.5.0615 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA ASSOC. IRVINE, CA I IGP w/out Bridge AM Fri Sep 6, 2002 11:41:18 Page 2-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection 46 Sixth Street/Coast Highway ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.639 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y+R = 4 sec} Average Delay (sec/veh) 6.7 Optimal Cycle: 51 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------ Control: --------------- Permitted 11 --------------- Permitted --------------- Protected ---------------� Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 --------------------------- Volume Module: 11 --------------- --------------- ---------------� Base Vol: 3 7 7 67 9 123 68 2489 7 9 1181 43 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 3 7 7 67 9 123 68 2489 7 9 1181 43 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 3 7 7 67 9 123 68 2489 7 9 1181 43 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 3 7 7 67 9 123 68 2489 7 9 1181 43 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 -1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 3 7 7 67 9 123 68 2489 7 9 1181 43 ---------------------------(--------------- Saturation Flow Module: --------------- ---------------� Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.90 0.91 0.89 0.75 0.86 0.81 0.95 0.91 0.91 0.95 0.91 0.91 Lanes: 0.17 0.41 0.42 1.00 0.06 0.94 1.00 2.99 0.01 1.00 2.89 6.11 Final Sat.: 269 628 628 1283 94 1290 1615 4628 13 1615 4456 162 ---------------- Capacity Analysis ----------- Module: ---- ----- ------ ---- ----------- ---- -----------� Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.10 0.10 0.04 0.54 0.54 0.01 0.27 0.27 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.12 0.84 0.84 0.01 0.73 0.73 Volume/Cap: 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.35 0.64 0.64 0.36 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.36 0.36 Uniform Del: 36.6 36.6 36.6 38.2 40.0 40.0 40.7 2.7 2.7 49.4 4.8 4.8 IncremntDel: 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.1 6.5 6.5 1.2 0.4 0.4 69.8 0.1 0.1 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 36.7 36.7 36.7 39.3 46.5 46.5 41.9 3.1 3.1 119.2 4.9 4.9 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 36.7 36.7 36.7 39.3 46.5 46.5 41.9 3.1 3.1 119.2 4.9 4.9 DesignQueue: 0 0 0 3 0 6 3 25 0 0 18 1 ******************************************************************************** U Traffix 7.5.0615 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA ASSOC. IRVINE, CA P u GP w/out Bridge PM Fri Sep 6, 2002 11:41:59 Page 2-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection 46 Sixth Street/Coast Highway ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.601 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 6.9 Optimal Cycle: 47 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R --------------------------- ---------------11--------------- ---------------� Control: Permitted Permitted Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 --------------------------- ---------------11--------------- ---------------� Volume Module: Base Vol: 11 15 32 62 12 65 105 1508 5 37 2164 65 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 11 15 32 62 12 65 105 1508 5 37 2164 65 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 11 15 32 62 12 65 105 1508 5 37 2164 65 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 11 15 32 62 12 65 105 1508 5 37 2164 65 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 11 15 32 62 12 65 105 1508 5 37 2164 65 --------------------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.80 0.80 0.78 0.87 0.87 0.83 0.95 0.91 0.91 0.95 0.91 0.91 Lanes: 0.19 0.25 0.56 1.00 0.15 0.85 1.00 2.99 0.01 1.00 2.91 0.09 Final Sat.: 254 347 739 1487 221 1198 1615 4626 15 1615 4488 135 ------------ I --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.33 0.33 0.02 0.48 0.48 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.11 0.85 0.85 0.06 0.80 0.80 Volume/Cap: 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.46 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.60 0.60 Uniform Del: 43.3 43.3 43.3 43.2 43.8 43.8 42.5 1.7 1.7 45.2 3.8 3.8 IncremntDel: 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 7.8 7.8 5.8 0.1 0.1 2.5 0.3 0.3 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 46.2 46.2 46.2 45.7 51.5 51.5 48.3 1.7 1.7 47.8 4.1 4.1 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 46.2 46.2 46.2 45.7 51.5 51.5 48.3 1.7 1.7 47.8 4.1 4.1 DesignQueue: 1 1 2 3 1 3 5 14 0 2 27 1 ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.5.0615 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA ASSOC. IRVINE, CA U LI L� U I n C� H [l n GP w/out Bridge+Proj AM Fri Sep 6, 2002 11:42:34 Page 2-1 ------------------------------------------------------=------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection 46 Sixth Street/Coast Highway ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.669 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 9.7 Optimal Cycle: 56 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I --------------- --------------- 11--------------- ---------------� Control: Permitted Permitted Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 ------------ I --------------- --------------- 11 --------------- ---------------� Volume Module: Base Vol: 3 7 7 126 9 157 110 2489 7 17 1181 122 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 3 7 7 126 9 157 110 2489 7 17 1181 122 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 3 7 7 126 9 157 110 2489 7 17 1181 122 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 3 7 7 126 9 157 110 2489 7 17 1181 122 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 3 7 7 126 9 157 110 2489 7 17 1181 122 ------------------------------------------ --------------- ---------------� Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.90 0.91 0.89 0.74 0.86 0.81 0.95 0.91 0.91 0.95 0.90 0.90 Lanes: 0.17 0.41 0.42 1.00 0.05 0.95 1.00 2.99 0.01 1.00 2.72 0.28 Final Sat.: 270 629 629 1259 75 1304 1615 4628 13 1615 4148 428 ------------ I --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.10 0.12 0.12 0.07 0.54 0.54 0.01 0.28 0.28 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.16 0.80 0.80 0.02 0.66 0.66 Volume/Cap: 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.56 0.67 0.67 0.43 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.43 0.43 Uniform Del: 34.0 34.0 34.0 37.4 38.2 38.2 38.0 4.1 4.1 49.0 8.0 8.0 IncremntDel: 0.1 0.1 0.1 3.0 6.9 6.9 1.2 0.5 0.5 51.9 0.1 0.1 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 34.1 34.1 34.1 40.4 45.1 45.1 39.2 4.6 4.6 100.9 8.1 8.1 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 34.1 34.1 34.1 40.4 45.1 45.1 39.2 4.6 4.6 100.9 8.1 8.1 DesignQueue: 0 0 0 6 0 7 5 31 0 1 24 2 ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.5.0615 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA ASSOC. IRVINE, CA GP w/out Bridge+Proj PM Fri Sep 6, 2002 11:43:08 Page 2-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #6 Sixth Street/Coast Highway ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.743 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 13.6 Optimal Cycle: 72 Level Of Service: B ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R --------------------------- 11 --------------- --------------- ---------------� Control: Permitted Permitted Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 --------------------------- 11 --------------- --------------- ---------------� Volume Module: Base Vol: 11 15 32 168 12 127 167 1508 5 52 2164 182 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 11 15 32 168 12 127 167 1508 5 52 2164 182 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 11 15 32 168 12 127 167 1508 5 52 2164 182 Reduct Vol: - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 11 15 32 168 12 127 167 1508 5 52 2164 182 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 11 15 32 168 12 127 167 1508 5 52 2164 182 --------------------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.87 0.88 0.85 0.78 0.86 0.81 0.95 0.91 0.91 0.95 0.90 0.90 Lanes: 0.19 0.25 0.56 1.00 0.08 0.92 1.00 2.99 0.01 1.00 2.77 0.23 Final Sat.: 277 378 807 1318 120 1272 1615 4626 15 1615 4230 356 ------------ I --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.13 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.33 0.33 0.03 0.51 0.51 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.14 0.75 0.75 0.07 0.69 0.69 Volume/Cap: 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.74 0.58 0.58 0.74 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.74 0.74 Uniform Del: 35.7 35.7 35.7 39.3 38.1 38.1 41.3 4.5 4.5 44.3 9.9 9.9 IncremntDel: 0.5 0.5 0.5 12.4 3.6 3.6 12.5 0.1 0.1 2.5 1.0 1.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 36.2 36.2 36.2 51.7 41.7 41.7 53.8 4.6 4.6 46.7 10.9 10.9 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 36.2 36.2 36.2 51.7 41.7 41.7 53.8 4.6 4.6 46.7 10.9 10.9 DesignQueue: 1 1 1 8 1 6 8 22 0 3 42 4 ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.5.0615 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA ASSOC. IRVINE, CA GP w/Bridge AM Fri Sep 6, 2002 11:43:42 Page 2-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #6 Sixth Street/Coast Highway Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.648 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 6.9 Optimal Cycle: 53 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------ Control: Rights: --------------- Permitted Include --------------- Permitted Include --------------- Protected Include ---------------� Protected Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 --------------------------- Volume Module: --------------- --------------- ---------------� Base Vol: 2 7 7 82 10 127 65 2516 6 9 1186 49 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1-.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 2 7 7 82 10 127 65 2516 6 9 1186 49 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 2 7 7 82 10 127 65 2516 6 9 1186 49 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 2 7 7 82 10 127 65 2516 6 9 1186 49 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 2 7 7 82 10 127 65 2516 6 9 1186 49 ------------1---------------��---------------��---------------��---------------� Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.91 0.92 0.89 0.75 0.86 0.81 0.95 0.91 0.91 0.95 0.90 0.90 Lanes: Final Sat.: 0.12 192 0.43 0.45 673 673 1.00 1270 0.07 0.93 101 1286 1.00 2.99 1615 4630 0.01 11 1.00 1615 2.88 4430 0.12 183 ------------ I --------------- Capacity Analysis Module: --------------- --------------- ---------------� Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.10 0.10 0.04 0.54 0.54 0.01 0.27 0.27 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.11 0.84 0.84 0.01 0.74 0.74 Volume/Cap: 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.42 0.65 0.65 0.36 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.36 0.36 Uniform Del: 36.3 36.3 36.3 38.4 39.8 39.8 41.2 2.8 2.8 49.4 4.7 4.7 IncremntDel: 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.5 6.8 6.8 1.3 0.4 0.4 74.1 0.1 0.1 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 36.4 36.4 36.4 39.9 46.7 46.7 42.5 3.2 3.2 123.5 4.8 4.8 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 36.4 36.4 36.4 39.9 46.7 46.7 42.5 3.2 3.2 123.5 4.8 4.8 DesignQueue: 0 0 0 4 0 6 3 25 0 0 18 1 ******************************************************************************** 1 iTraffix 7.5.0615 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA ASSOC. IRVINE, CA 1 11 GP w/Bridge PM Fri Sep 6, 2002 11:44:15 Page 2-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #6 Sixth Street/Coast Highway ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.616 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 7.3 Optimal Cycle: 46 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L ------------ - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R I --------------- Control: 11 Permitted --------------- 11 Permitted --------------- 11---------------� Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 n 1 n 2 1 n ------------I- Volume Module: Base Vol: 12 15 32 65 13 72 ill 1550 6 36 2189 63 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 12 15 32 65 13 72 ill 1550 6 36 2189 63 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 12 15 32 65 13 72 ill 1550 6 36 2189 63 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 12 IS 32 65 13 72 ill 1550 6 36 2189 63 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 12 15 32 65 13 72 ill 1550 6 36 2189 63 ------------I---------- Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.80 0.81 0.78 0.86 0.87 0.83 0.95 0.91 0.91 0.95 0.91 0.91 Lanes: 0.20 0.25 0.55 1.00 0.15 0.85 1.00 2.99 0.01 1.00 2.92 0.08 Final Sat.: 274 342 729 1464 217 1202 1615 4618 18 1615 4493 129 ------------ I --------------- 11--------------- 11--------------- 11---------------� Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.34 0.34 0.02 0.49 0.49 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.65 0.85 0.06 0.79 0.79 Volume/Cap: 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.46 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.62 0.62 Uniform Del: 42.6 42.6 42.6 42.6 43.3 43.3 42.4 1.8 1.8 45.6 4.3 4.3 IncremntDel: 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.3 8.1 8.1 6.3 0.1 0.1 2.8 0.3 0.3 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 45.1 45.1 45.1 44.9 51.4 51.4 48.6 1.8 1.8 48.4 4.6 4.6 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 45.1 45.1 45.1 44.9 51.4 51.4 48.6 1.8 1.8 48.4' 4.6 4.6 DesignQueue: 1 1 2 3 1 4 6 14 0 2 28 1 ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.5.0615 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA ASSOC. IRVINE, CA iGP AM Sep w/Bridge+Prof ----------------------"---------------------------------------------------------- Fri 6, 2002 11:44:47 Page 2-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection 46 Sixth Street/Coast Highway ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.678 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 10.0 Optimal Cycle: 58 Level Of Service: B ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R --------------------------- Control: Permitted --------------- Permitted --------------- Protected ---------------� Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 --------------------------- Volume Module: --------------- --------------- ---------------� Base Vol: 2 7 7 141 10 161 107 2516 6 17 1186 128 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Ilse: 2 User Adj: 1.00 7 7 1.00 1.00 141 1.00 10 1.00 161 1.00 107 1.00 2516 1.00 6 1.00 17 1.00 1186 1.00 128 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00- PHF Volume: 2 7 7 141 10 161 107 2516 6 17 1186 128 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0' 0 Reduced Vol: 2 7 7 141 10 161 107 2516 6 17 1186 128 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 2 7 7 141 10 161 107 2516 6 17 1186 128 '-----------1--------------- Saturation Flow Module: --------------- --------------- ---------------� Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.91 0.92 0.89 0.74 0.86 0.81 0.95 0.91 0.91 0.95 0.90 0.90 Lanes: 0.12 0.43 0.45 1.00 0.06 0.94 1.00 2.99 0.01 1.00 2.71 0.29 Final Sat.: 193 674 674 1257 81 1300 1615 4630 11 1615 4126 445 ---------------- Capacity Analysis ----------- Module: ---- ----- ------ ---- ----------- ---- -----------� Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.07 0.54 0.54 0.01 0.29 0.29 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.16 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.15 0.80 0.60 0.02 0.66 0.66 Volume/Cap: 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.61 0.68 0.68 0.43 0.66 0.68 0.68 0.43 0.43 Uniform Del: 33.8 33.8 33.8 37.6 38.1 38.1 38.4 4.3 4.3 49.0 7.9 7.9 IncremntDel: 0.1 0.1 0.1 4.9 7.2 7.2 1.2 0.5 0.5 55.2 0.1 0.1 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 33.8 33.8 33.8 42.5 45.3 45.3 39.6 4.8 4.8 104.1 8.0 8.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 33.8 33.8 33.8 42.5 45.3 45.3 39.6 4.8 4.8 104.1 8.0 8.0 DesignQueue: 0 0 0 7 0 7 5 31 0 1 24 3 ******************************************************************************** El ITraffix 7.5.0615 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA ASSOC. IRVINE, CA H GP w/Bridge+Prof PM Fri Sep 6, 2002 11:45:14 Page 2-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #6 Sixth Street/Coast Highway ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.753 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 13.9 Optimal Cycle: 75 Level Of Service: B ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement; L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I --------------- 11--------------- --------------- ---------------� Control: Permitted Permitted Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 ------------ I --------------- 11--------------- --------------- ---------------� Volume Module: Base Vol: 12 15 32 171 13 134 173 1550 6 51 2189 180 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 12 15 32 171 13 134 173 1550 6 51 2189 180 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 12 15 32 171 13 134 173 1550 6 51 2189 180 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 12 15 32 171 13 134 173 1550 6 51 2189 180 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 12 15 32 171 13 134 173 1550 6 51 2189 180 --------------------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.87 0.88 0.85 0.78 0.86 0.82 0.95 0.91 0.91 0.95 0.90 0.90 Lanes: 0.20 0.25 0.55 1.00 0.08 0.92 1.00 2.99 0.01 1.00 2.77 0.23 Final Sat.: 297 371 792 1318 123 1269 1615 4618 18 1615 4241 349 ------------ I --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.13 0.11 0.11. 0.11 0.34 0.34 0.03 0.52 0.52 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.14 0.76 0.76 0.07 0.69 0.69 Volume/Cap: 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.75 0.61 0.61 0.75 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.75 0.75 Uniform Del: 35.7 35.7 35.7 39.4 38.3 38.3 41.2 4.5 4.5 44.5 10.2 10.2 IncremntDel: 0.5 0.5 0.5 13.3 4.6 4.6 13.1 0.1 0.1 2.7 1.1 1.1 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 36.2 36.2 36.2 52.6 42.9 42.9 54.3 4.6 4.6 47.3 11.3 11.3 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 36.2 36.2 36.2 52.6 42.9 42.9 54.3 4.6 4.6 47.3 11.3 11.3 DesignQueue: 1 1 1 8 1 6 8 23 0 3 43 4 ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.5.0615 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA ASSOC. IRVINE, CA APPENDIX B NOISE MODELING DATA FOR PEAK HOUR ANALYSIS AT SURROUNDING INTERSECTIONS 1 ii 1 E 11 C Li OFF -SITE TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS Project Number: 10363-00 Project Name: Huntington Beach Block 104-105 Background Information Model Description: FHWA Highway Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) with California Vehicle Noise (CALVENO) Emission Levels. Analysis Scenario(s): Existing and Future Traffic Volumes Source of Traffic Volumes: KAKU Associates Community Noise Descriptor: L&: CNEL: X Assumed 24-Hour Traffic Distribution: Day Evening Night Total ADT Volumes 77.70 % 12.70% 9.60 % Medium -Duty Trucks 87.43 % 5.05 % 7.52 % Heavy -Duty Trucks 89.10 % 2.84 % 8,06 % Traffic Noise Levels Analysis Condition Peak Design Dist. from Barrier Vehicle Mix Peak Hou 24-Hour Roadway Name Median Hour ADT Speed Center to Alpha Attn. Medium Heavy dB(A) dB(A) Roadway Segment Land Use Lanes Width Volume Volume (mph) Receptor' Factor dB(A) Trucks Trucks L., CNEL Existing Traffic Volumes Main Street PCH to Walnut Avenue Commercial 2 0 514 25 50 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 59.6 0.0 Walnut Avenue 6th to Main Street Commercial 2 0 94 25 40 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 53.2 0.0 6th Street PCH to Walnut Ave Commercial 2 0 295 25 40 0 0 13 % 0.7 % 58.2 0.0 PCH 6th St to Main St Commercial 2 0 3,000 25 40 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 68.3 0.0 Future Plus Project Main Street PCH to Walnut Avenue Commercial 2 0 540 25 50 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 59.8 0.0 Walnut Avenue 6th to Main Street Commercial 2 0 259 25 40 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 57.6 0.0 6th Street PCH to Walnut Ave Commercial 2 0 560 25 40 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 61.0 0.0 PCH 6th St to Main St Commercial 2 0 3,862 25 40 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 69.4 0.0 General Plan Plus Project with Bridges Main Street PCH to Walnut Avenue Commercial 2 0 386 25 50 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 58.4 0.0 Walnut Avenue 6th to Main Street Commercial 2 0 141 25 40 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 55.0 0.0 6th Street PCH to Walnut Ave Commercial 2 0 686 25 40 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 61.9 0.0 PCH 6th St to Main St Commercial 2 0 4,119 25 40 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 69.7 0.0 General Plan Plus Project without Bridges Main Street PCH to Walnut Avenue Commercial 2 0 386 25 50 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 58.4 0.0 Walnut Avenue 6th to Main Street Commercial 2 0 141 25 40 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 55.0 0.0 6th Street PCH to Walnut Ave Commercial 2 0 414 25 40 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 59.7 0.0 PCH 6th St to Main St Commercial 2 0 4,106 25 40 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 69.6 0.0 Future without Project Main Street PCH to Walnut Avenue Commercial 2 0 386 25 50 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 58.4 0.0 Walnut Avenue 6th to Main Street Commercial 2 0 279 25 40' 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 58.0 0.0 6th Street PCH to Walnut Ave Commercial 2 0 339 25 40 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 58.8 0.0 Off -Site Noise Levels (new).xls EIP Associates 9/13/2002 PCH 6th St to Main St Commercial 2 0 3,935 Distance is from the centerline of the roadway segment to the receptor location. 25 40 0 0 1.8 % 0.7 % 69.5 0.0 Off -Site Noise Levels (new).xls EIP Associates 9/ 13/2002 APPENDIX C ECONOMIC ANALYSIS MEMORANDUM r 1 H u C� C MEMORANDUM To: David Biggs, Huntington Beach From: Terry Margerum and Kurt Fuchs, Sedway Group Date: September 11, 2002 Subject: CIM Huntington Beach — Response to EIR Questions You have asked Sedway Group to provide a response to a comment made during the EIR public comment period on the Strand project proposed for Block 104/105. Specifically, questions were raised by one party about the potential negative impact of the Project on downtown Huntington Beach retailers. In order to provide you with an appropriate response, we have reviewed previous Sedway Group retail studies conducted for the City of Huntington Beach, the latest anticipated tenant rent roll for the Strand, the 33433 report prepared for the Agency and reviewed data from the City's most recent sales tax report, which summarizes sales tax payments from 1989/90 through 2000/2001. The following bullet points briefly summarize our preliminary thoughts on this issue, which could be expanded to be included in the formal response in the EIR. • Sedway Group prepared a broad retail market assessment (Market Overview of Three Beach Sites) for the City in November 1996, and then a more focused update in April 1998 (Market Assessment of Supportable Retail Space in Downtown Huntington Beach). The latter study concluded that: • "The development of Block 104/105 provides the greatest potential for expanding downtown, and is critical to the area's future success"; and that ® Development of Block 104/105 would be synergistic, rather than competitive, with downtown retailers. Sedway Group also recommended concentrating on developing Block 104/105 before other retail sites in Huntington Beach so that the downtown could benefit from a critical mass of retail space, rather than competing with new retail spaces outside the downtown area. We stand by these findings. • By bringing in national retailers, such as Abercrombie & Fitch, Victoria's Secret, and Limited Express, The Strand would provide downtown with stores capable of serving as "anchor" stores. Although these retailers aren't as large as traditional anchors, as a group they could play a similar 1 role, drawing new shoppers to the area, who will then shop at other stores in the vicinity, including existing downtown stores. It is likely that other downtown retailers would benefit from, rather than be hurt by The Strand. While there may be some exceptions, The Strand's anticipated tenants, in general, are not direct competitors of existing retailers. On the contrary, the project is likely to expand the customer base. • The expansion of the downtown retail core, especially through the development of The Strand, will likely bring shoppers to the area on a more year-round basis, making the downtown core less seasonally dependent. It is also likely to result in an average shopper with a demographic profile associated with higher spending patterns than has previously been the case. Also relevant to this discussion are the additional visitors to Downtown Huntington Beach associated with the new Hyatt. The existence of an upscale retail project like the Strand makes it all the more likely that these visitors will visit the Downtown core, thus increasing retail potential for all Downtown core retailers. Sales tax trends in the Downtown core, which include Block 104/105, dramatically belie the point made by the commenter with regard to "marginally successful" businesses and "business failures". Whereas there is usually some degree of turnover and/or business failure in any local economy even when healthy, the general retail sales trend for the Downtown core is very positive, as reflected in the fact that sales tax payments nearly doubled between 1995/96 and 2000/2001. • While a fiscal impact analysis is not required by CEQA and Sedway Group was not asked to conduct such an analysis, it is worth noting that we concluded that the project was very likely to generate significant new taxes on the order of $1 million annually, net of the housing set aside. \\GLX\VOL1\SEDWAY\USERS\KWFUCHS\1996\03696\Biggs Memo CIM 091102.doe U F F L I I The BMW 0 DowWwn Hunfl'ngWn Reach (Blocks 104 and 105) Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report State Clearinghouse No. 2000051109 Volume II (Revised Draft EIR) .fit Prepared for: 0 J, The City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Prepared by: _-E I P,- A S 8 O C S A T H 5 EIP Associates 12301 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 430 Los Angeles, CA 90025 F I ' THE STRAND AT DOWNTOWN HUNTINGT0IV BEACH 1 REVISED DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SCH No. 200051109 Volume II r n H k Prepared for City of Huntington Beach Prepared by EIP Associates SEPTEMBER 2002 F k L C k CONTENTS Contents................................................................................................................................... iii Summary......................................................................:........................................................... ix Introduction.................................................................................................................... ix Summary of Project Objectives.................................................................................... ix Applicant.............................................................................................................. ix Cityof Huntington Beach.................................................................................. ix Summary of Proposed Project....................................................................................... x Synopsis of Alternatives................................................................................................ xi Alternatives Found To Be Infeasible................................................................ xi Potentially Feasible Alternatives...................................................................... xi No Project/No Development Alternative...................................................... xi Reduced/Revised Project Alternative............................................................ xii Alternative Mix of Uses.................................................................................... xii Areas of Controversy.................................................................................................... xii Classification of Environmental Impacts .................................... "' Impact Summary Tables ........................ "' 1.0 Introduction..................................................................................................................1-1 1.1 Overview of the Proposed Project .........................................:. 1.2 Purpose of the EIR............................................................................................1-1 1.3 Report Background and Context ................................................................1-3 1.4 Subsequent EIR Documents: Definition and Purpose...............................1-4 1.5 Incorporation by Reference.............................................................................1-4 1.6 EIR Adequacy....................................................................................................1-6 1.7 Environmental and Public Review Process..................................................1-6 1.8 Document Organization..................................................................................1-7 2.0 Project Description.....................................................................................................2-1 2.1 Project Location................................................................................................. 2-1 2.2 Existing Site Characteristics............................................................................ 2-2 2.2.1 Topography......................................................................................... 2-2 2.2.2 Existing Land Uses............................................................................. 2-2 2.2.3 Land Use and Zoning Designations ................................................. 2-2 2.3 Project Objectives.............................................................................................. 2-3 2.4 Description of Proposed Project..................................................................... 2-3 1 The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach iii Contents u 3.0 2.4.1 Urban Design....................................................................................... 2-5 2.4.2 Parking and Loading.......................................................................... 2-5 2.4.3 Project Phasing, Schedule, and Construction ................................. 2-6 2.4.4 Parking During Construction........................................................... 2-6 2.5 Discretionary Actions and Approvals........................................................... 2-6 2.6 Other Agency Roles and Approvals.............................................................. 2-7 2.6.1 Cumulative Project Scenario............................................................. 2-7 EnvironmentalAnalysis............................................................................................ 3-1 3.1 Aesthetics/Visual Quality............................................................................3.1-1 3.1.1 Introduction...................................................................................... 3.1-1 3.1.2 Existing Conditions......................................................................... 3.1-1 3.1.3 Regulatory Framework................................................................... 3.1-4 3.1.4 Thresholds of Significance............................................................3.1-11 3.1.5 Impacts............................................................................................ 3.1-12 3.1.6 Cumulative Impacts...................................................................... 3.1-16 3.1.7 Mitigation........................................................................................3.1-17 3.1.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation........................................3.1-17 3.2 Air Quality...................................................................................................... 3.2-1 3.2.1 Air Quality........................................................................................ 3.2-1 3.2.2 Existing Conditions......................................................................... 3.2-1 3.2.3 Regulatory Framework................................................................... 3.2-5 3.2.4 Thresholds of Significance..............................................................3.2-9 3.2.5 Impacts............................................................................................ 3.2-10 3.2.6 Cumulative Impacts...................................................................... 3.2-14 3.2.7 Mitigation Measures......................................................................3.2-15 3.2.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation........................................3.2-18 3.3 Cultural Resources........................................................................................ 3.3-1 3.3.1 Introduction...................................................................................... 3.3-1 3.3.2 Existing Conditions......................................................................... 3.3-1 3.3.3 Regulatory Framework................................................................. 3.3-10 3.3.4 Thresholds of Significance............................................................3.3-14 3.3.5 Impacts............................................................................................ 3.3-15 3.3.6 Cumulative Impacts...................................................................... 3.3-17 3.3.7 Mitigation........................................................................................3.3-17 3.3.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation.........................................3.3-19 3.4 Geology and Hydrology...............................................................................3.4-1 3.4.1 Introduction...................................................................................... 3.4-1 3.4.2 Existing Conditions......................................................................... 3.4-2 3.4.3 Regulatory Framework................................................................... 3.4-7 3.4.4 Thresholds of Significance............................................................3.4-16 iv City of Huntington Beach 0 Contents ri 77 J a J 3.4.5 Impacts............................................................................................3.4-17 3.4.6 Cumulative Impacts...................................................................... 3.4-23 3.4.7 Mitigation Measures......................................................................3.4-24 3.4.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation ........................................ 3.4-25 3.5 Land Use......................................................................................................... 3.5-1 3.5.1 Introduction...................................................................................... 3.5-1 3.5.2 Existing Conditions......................................................................... 3.5-1 3.5.3 Regulatory Framework......................:............................................ 3.5-5 3.5.4 Thresholds of Significance ... ......................................................... 3.5-21 3.5.5 Impacts............................................................................................ 3.5-21 3.5.6 Cumulative Impacts......................................................................3.5-22 3.5.7 Mitigation Measures......................................................................3.5-22 3.5.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation ........................................ 3.5-22 3.6 Noise ................................................................................................................ 3.6-1 3.6.1 Environmental Setting....................................................................3.6-1 3.6.2 Regulatory Framework................................................................... 3.6-6 3.6.3 Thresholds of Significance..............................................................3.6-9 3.6.4 Impacts............................................................................................ 3.6-10 3.6.5 Cumulative Impacts...................................................................... 3.6-13 3.6.6 Mitigation Measures......................................................................3.6-17 3.6.7 Level of Significance After Mitigation........................................3.6-18 3.7 Population and Housing.............................................................................. 3.7-1 3.7.1 Introduction...................................................................................... 3.7-1 3.7.2 Existing Conditions......................................................................... 3.7-1 3.7.3 Regulatory Framework................................................................... 3.7-1 3.7.4 Thresholds of Significance..............................................................3.7-3 3.7.5 Impacts.............................................................................................. 3.7-3 3.7.6 Cumulative Impacts........................................................................ 3.7-4 3.7.7 Mitigation Measures........................................................................3.7-4 3.7.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation..........................................3.7-4 3.8 Public Services and Utilities......................................................................... 3.8-1 3.8.1 Introduction...................................................................................... 3.8-1 3.8.2 Existing Conditions......................................................................... 3.8-1 3.8.3 Regulatory Framework................................................................... 3.8-8 3.8.4 Thresholds of Significance............................................................3.8-20 3.8.5 Impacts............................................................................................3.8-21 3.8.6 Cumulative Impacts...................................................................... 3.8-28 3.8.7 Mitigation Measures......................................................................3.8-31 3.8.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation ........................................ 3.8-32 3.9 Transportation and Circulation................................................................... 3.9-1 3.9.1 Introduction...................................................................................... 3.9-1 1 The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach Contents 3.9.2 Environmental Setting.................................................................... 3.9-1 3.9.3 Regulatory Framework................................................................. 3.9-10 3.9.4 Thresholds of Significance............................................................ 3.9-10 3.9.5 Impacts............................................................................................ 3.9-10 3.9.6 Cumulative Impacts...................................................................... 3.9-17 3.9.7 Mitigation........................................................................................3.9-18 3.9.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation ........................................ 3.9-18 4.0 Alternatives.................................................................................................................. 4-1 4.1 Introduction....................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1.1 Rationale for Selecting Potentially Feasible Alternatives ............. 4-1 4.1.2 Less -Than -Significant and Significant But Mitigated Impacts of , the Proposed Project........................................................................... 4-3 4.1.3 Significant Unavoidable Impacts of the Proposed Project ........... 4-5 4.2 Selection of Alternatives.................................................................................. 4-6 4.2.1 Alternatives Found to Be Infeasible.................................................4-6 4.3 Potentially Feasible Alternatives.................................................................... 4-7 4.3.1 No Project/No Development Alternative.......................................4-7 4.3.2 Reduced/Revised Project Alternative...........................................4-10 4.3.3 Alternative Mix of Uses................................................................... 4-13 4.4 Summary of Project Alternatives................................................................. 4-17 4.5 Environmentally Superior Alternative........................................................4-17 5.0 Long -Term Implications............................................................................................ 5-1 5.1 Growth -Inducing Impacts............................................................................... 5-1 5.1.1 Extension of Public Facilities............................................................. 5-1 5.1.2 Employment Generation................................................................... 5-1 5.2 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes ......................................... 5-2 5.3 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ................................................... 5-3 6.0 Persons Consulted and EIR Preparers.................................................................... 6-1 6.1 List of EIR Preparers........................................................................................ 6-1 7.0 References.....................................................................................................................7-1 vi City of Huntington Beach 1 k H P I L n 0 Contents Appendices Appendix A Initial Study/Notice of Preparation and Scoping Comments Appendix B Air Quality Data Appendix C Cultural Resources Technical Report Appendix D Geology, Hydrology, and Water Quality Technical Report Appendix E Noise Modeling Data Appendix F Utilities Technical Reports Appendix G Traffic Report Tables Table S-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures........................................................................ xiv Table 2.6-1 Cumulative Projects List.................................................................. 2-9 Table 3.2-1 Summary of Ambient Air Quality in the Project Vicinity ....... 3.2-3 Table 3.2-2 Existing Localized Carbon Monoxide Concentrations ............ 3.2-5 Table 3.2-3 Estimated Daily Construction Emissions ................................ 3.2-11 Table 3.24 Project Daily Operational Emissions ........................................ 3.2-12 Table 3.2-5 Future Cumulative With Project Localized Carbon Monoxide Concentrations ............................................ 3.2-13 Table 3.2-6 Project Daily Operational Emissions ........................................ 3.2-15 Table 3.6-1 Typical Sound Levels Measured in the Environment .... :......... 3.6-2 Table 3.6-2 Existing On -Site Noise Levels......................................................3.6-4 Table 3.6-3 Existing Off -Site Noise Levels ..................................................... 3.6-5 Table 3.64 Typical Outdoor Construction Noise Levels...........................3.6-10 Table 3.6-5 Future On -Site Noise Levels ...................................................... 3.6-11 Table 3.6-6 Future Off -Site Noise Levels ...................................................... 3.6-12 Table 3.6-7 Cumulative Project Noise Levels (With River Crossings) ..... 3.6-14 Table 3.6-8 Cumulative Project Noise Levels (Without River Crossings)........................................................................... 3.6-16 Table 3.8-1 Proposed Solid Waste Demand ................................................. 3.8-23 Table 3.8-2 Proposed Electricity Demand .................................................... 3.8-24 Table 3.8-3 Proposed Natural Gas Demand ................................................ 3.8-25 Table 3.8-4 Sewer/ Wastewater Generation Rates ...................................... 3.8-27 Table 3.8-5 Sewer/ Wastewater Sewer Loads .............................................. 3.8-27 Table 4.5-1 Summary of Project Alternatives ................................................. 4-18 Table 5.3-1 Organizations and Persons Consulted .......................................... 6-1 Table 6.1-1 List of EIR Preparers........................................................................ 6-2 The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach vii Contents Figures Figure 2-1 Figure 2-2 Figure 2-3 Figure 2-4 Figure 2-5 Figure 2-6 Figure 2-7 Figure 3.1-1 Figure 3.1-2 Figure 3.1-3 Figure 3.1-4 Figure 3.1-5 Figure 3.1-6 Figure 3.1-7 Figure 3.6-1 Figure 3.9-1 Follows Page Project Vicinity & Regional Location Map ................................... 2-2 Existing Conditions.......................................................................... 2-2 General Plan Land Use Designations ............................................ 2-2 ZoningMap....................................................................................... 2-2 ProposedSite Plan............................................................................ 2-4 Proposed Underground Parking Level 1...................................... 2-6 Proposed Underground Parking Level 2...................................... 2-6 PhotoLocation Map...................................................................... 3.1-2 Photos1 and 2................................................................................3.1-2 Photos3 and 4................................................................................ 3.1-2 Photos5 and 6................................................................................ 3.1-2 Photos7 and 8................................................................................ 3.1-2 Photos9 and 10.............................................................................. 3.1-2 Photos11 and 12............................................................................ 3.1-2 Noise Monitoring Locations........................................................ 3.6-4 Project Location and Study Area Intersections ......................... 3.9-4 viii City of Huntington Beach 1 P I r G SUMMARY INTRODUCTION This Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) discusses the environmental impacts associated with the proposed Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach (Blocks 104 and 105) Redevelopment project, and related activities. This DEIR provides a discussion of impacts by issue area and provides mitigation measures, where appropriate. Specific issue areas discussed in this EIR include: Aesthetics, Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Geology and Hydrology, Land Use, Noise, Population and Housing, Public Services and Utilities, and Transportation and Traffic. All other issue areas, including Agricultural Resources, Mineral Resources, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and Recreation were determined to result in no environmental impacts, or less than significant environmental impacts. These issue areas were fully evaluated in the Initial Study/Notice of Preparation (IS/NOP) for the proposed project, which is included as Appendix A to this document. An analysis of alternatives to the proposed project and long-term implications resulting from pro r ject implementation are also provided. In addition, the public review and approval process for the EIR is outlined. SUMMARY OF PROJECT OBJECTIVES The objectives for both the Applicant and the City of H Applicant ■ Develop a commercial project that responds to mar viable ■ Provide adequate infrastructure to support the proposed ■ Promote the development of a commercial product that image and character City of Huntington Beach Beach are stated as follows: demand and is financially project a high quality visual ■ To add a hotel to the Downtown core area and increase the attractiveness of Downtown to the City's tourists and visitors, as well as lodging services for visiting family and friends of residents ■ To improve the perception of the Downtown and beach area as a destination for local residents as well as people from outside the area 1 The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach ix Summa ■ To contribute to efforts to create an 18-hour Downtown, with visitors and residents remaining in the evening for shopping, dining, and entertainment ■ To provide for the highest and best use of previously under-utilized and currently unattractive properties ■ To assist in the implementation of the City's Redevelopment Plan and the Downtown Specific Plan SUMMARY OF PROPOSED PROJECT The project proposes to redevelop the 2.97-acre (129,373 square feet) Block 104/ 105 site, which is currently occupied by retail, commercial, office, and residential uses. Seven buildings ranging in height from two to four stories and containing a total of 226,245 gross square feet (gsf) are proposed as mixed -use vertical, visitor -serving development. Proposed buildings A, B, and C are oriented toward Pacific Coast Highway and Main Street. Buildings D, E, F and G are all contained within one building pad on Block 105. All structures and landscaping are designed to comply with the Downtown Specific Plan and to complement and expand the existing grid pattern of Downtown Huntington Beach. The proposed uses within the project would include 106,075 square feet of commercial space and a 120,170-square foot, 152-room hotel. Of the 106,075 square feet of commercial space, up to 40,000 square feet may be devoted to restaurant uses and a maximum of 38,000 square feet would be devoted to office uses. Any amount of the total commercial square footage allotted to restaurant use but not utilized for such use would be devoted to retail. The hotel would be located in Building G, directly above buildings D, E, and F on Block 105. Parking would be provided in a two -level, 397-space subterranean parking garage located below the entire project site. Additionally, six spaces of surface level parking would be provided on Block 105, for a total of 403 parking spaces at the site. Implementation of the proposed project requires demolition of the existing uses on -site, including existing residences. Some on -site uses occupy structures that are more than 50 years old and may be historically significant. Additionally, ground shaking associated with construction activities (e.g., pile -driving) may adversely affect the Worthy property, a locally significant historic property that is located within the Block 105 area, but is not encompassed by the project site boundaries. x City of Huntington Beach 1 H 0 P P I C F r L 1-1 11 SYNOPSIS OF ALTERNATIVES According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, the discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location, which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if the alternative would impede, to some degree, the attainment of project objectives or would be more costly. These alternatives usually take the form of no project, reduced project size, different project design, or suitable alternative project sites, and are governed by a "rule of reason," which requires the identification of only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice between the alternatives and proposed project. Alternatives Found To Be Infeasible As further described in Section 4 of the EIR, the following alternatives were found to be infeasible: ■ Alternative location ■ No project/reasonably foreseeable use alternative Potentially Feasible Alternatives Feasible alternatives to the proposed project are summarized as follows. No Project/No Development Alternative In addition to alternative development scenarios, Section 15126.6(e) of the CEQA Guidelines requires the analyses of a "no project" alternative. This "no project" analysis must discuss the existing condition, as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not to be approved. The No Project/No Development Alternative, analyzed here, represents the status quo, or maintenance of the project site in its current state, consisting of vacant lots, parking lots, an abandoned oil facility, and a single - story commercial structure. The site would continue as an underutilized commercial site. Because the site would not be developed, any significant adverse environmental impacts directly or cumulatively associated with the proposed project would be avoided; however, no redevelopment of an underutilized site containing visually deteriorated parking lots and vacant lots would occur, little active maintenance would be undertaken, and the property would continue to deteriorate. The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach xi Z Reduced/Revised Project Alternative This alternative describes a proposed development at a reduced density, in order to reduce the traffic generation of the project, while allowing development of the proposed 152-room hotel and 49,690 square feet of restaurant and retail uses as proposed by the project for Block 105. This alternative would also include one level of subterranean parking on Block 104 along with a three-story parking structure, rather than the 56,385 square feet of restaurant, retail, and office uses that the proposed project would develop. The area of the development footprint of this alternative would remain identical to the proposed project, however no development would occur in the footprint of the proposed Building C. This space would be developed as an open space amenity. Additionally, this alternative would provide 403 total parking spaces. The development would be accessible through the parking structure entrance at Fifth Street. Alternative Mix of Uses This alternative describes an alternative mix of uses in a building configuration similar to the proposed project, but which would generate less traffic. Under this alternative, restaurant, retail, and office uses would be developed in proposed project Buildings A, B, C, D, E, and F. Proposed project Building G, however, would be developed with 89 multi -family residential dwelling units instead of 152 hotel rooms. The 89 dwelling units is the maximum amount permitted for a development the size of the proposed project. Each unit is assumed to be an average of 1,000 square feet, yielding a total of 89,000 square feet of uses in proposed project Building G, a 31,370-square-foot reduction from the proposed 120,170-square-foot hotel under the proposed project. This "excess" square footage would, under this alternative, be discarded in favor of providing upper -story setbacks for levels three and four of proposed project Building G. Aside from providing these upper -story setbacks, the physical development characteristics of this alternative would be identical to those of the proposed project, including the provision of 397 subterranean parking spaces and six surface parking spaces. AREAS OF CONTROVERSY The primary area of controversy during the IS/NOP process relates to the provision of adequate parking. xii City of Huntington Beach 1 n Summary k h I C L 11 CLASSIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Potential environmental impacts have been classified in the following categories: ■ Less than Significant —Results in no substantial adverse change to existing environmental conditions ■ Potentially Significant —Constitutes a substantial adverse change to existing environmental conditions that can be mitigated to less -than -significant levels by implementation of feasible mitigation measures or by the selection of an environmentally superior project alternative ■ Significant and Unavoidable —Constitutes a substantial adverse change to existing environmental conditions that cannot be fully mitigated by implementation of all feasible mitigation measures, or by the selection of an environmentally superior project alternative ■ Lastly, cumulative impacts are also analyzed in this environmental document. The analysis of cumulative impacts considers the impacts of the proposed project together with the impacts of other reasonably foreseeable approved and pending projects proposed for development in the vicinity. IMPACT SUMMARY TABLES Pursuant to Section 15123(b)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the following tables contain a summary of potentially significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed project, the mitigation measures proposed, and the level of significance of the impacts following the implementation of those measures. Significant, unavoidable impacts would require a Statement of Overriding Considerations if the proposed project is approved. 1 The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach xiii Table S-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures In"dDescriytion Rwonvtwn edMffzgationMeaswr Residuallmpact AESTHETICS Impact 3.1-1 The proposed project could Project design features and/or standard conditions of approval have been Less Than have an effect on the scenic vista associated incorporated in the project and would ensure that this impact would be less Significant with Pacific Coast Highway, a State Scenic than significant. No mitigation is required. Highway. Impact 3.1-2 Implementation of the Project design features and/or standard conditions of approval have been Less Than proposed development would reduce view incorporated in the project and would ensure that this impact would be less Significant opportunities via the Fifth Street right -of- than significant. No mitigation is required. way. Impact 3.1-3 The proposed project could Project design features and/or standard conditions of approval have been Less Than be incompatible with surrounding incorporated in the project and would ensure that this impact would be less Significant development. than significant. No mitigation is required. Impact 3.14 Implementation of the MM 3.1-1 The Applicant shall use minimum light levels required for Significant and proposed project could introduce new safety, and exterior lights shall be directed downwards and away from Unavoidable sources of light and glare into the project surrounding uses, onto the project site. vicinity. MM 3.1-2 To the extent feasible, the Applicant shall use non -reflective facade treatments, such as matte paint or glass coatings. Impact 3.1-5 The proposed project would Project design features and/or standard conditions of approval have been Less Than cast shadows on surrounding residential incorporated in the project and would ensure that this impact would be less Significant uses. than significant. No mitigation is required. Cumulative Impact See MM 3.1-1 and MM 3.1-2, above. Significant and Unavoidable AIR QUALITY Impact 3.2-1 Demolition, site preparation, MM 3.2-1 The project developer(s) shall develop and implement a Less Than and construction activities would generate construction management plan, as approved by the City of Huntington Significant air pollutant emissions on a daily basis. Beach, which includes the following measures recommended by the SCAQMD, or equivalently effective measures approved by the City of Huntington Beach: ® Configure construction parking to minimize traffic interference • Provide temporary traffic controls during all phases of construction activities to maintain traffic flow (e.g., flag person) xiv City of Huntington Beach ® ® ® ® ® M ® ® S 'fable S-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures hWaaDescrrylion Reconvnm&dMitigaiionMeasum Residmllnrpact ■ Schedule construction activities that affect traffic flow on the arterial system to off-peak hours to the degree practicable ■ Consolidate truck deliveries when possible • Maintain equipment and vehicle engines in good condition and in proper tune as per manufacturers' specifications and per SCAQMD rules, to minimize exhaust emissions ■ Use methanol- or natural gas -powered mobile equipment and pile drivers instead of diesel to the extent available and at competitive prices • Use propane- or butane -powered on -site mobile equipment instead of gasoline to the extent available and at competitive prices MM 3.2-2 The project developer(s) shall implement all rules and regulations by the Governing Board of the SCAQMD that are applicable to the development of the Project (such as Rule 402—Nuisance and Rule 403— Fugitive Dust) and that are in effect at the time of development. The following measures are currently recommended to implement Rule 403 — Fugitive Dust. These measures have been quantified by the SCAQMD as being able to reduce dust generation between 30 and 85 percent depending on the source of the dust generation: • Water trucks will be utilized on the site and shall be available to be used throughout the day during site grading and excavation to keep the soil damp enough to prevent dust being raised by the operations ■ Wet down the areas that are to be graded or that are being graded and/or excavated, in the late morning and after work is completed for the day ■ All unpaved parking or staging areas, or unpaved road surfaces shall be watered three times daily or have chemical soil stabilizers applied according to manufacturers' specifications • Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply approved soil binders to exposed piles (i.e., gravel, sand, and dirt) according to manufacturers' specifications ■ The construction disturbance area shall be kept as small as possible • All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials shall be covered or have water applied to the exposed surface prior to leaving the site to prevent dust from impacting the surrounding areas The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach xv Table S-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures I»q-dDesaiption Reconmwn&dMitigatumMeasm Reseal hzzpact ■ Wheel washers shall be installed where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto paved roads and used to wash off trucks and any equipment leaving the site each trip ■ Streets adjacent to the project site shall be swept at the end of the day if visible soil material is carried over to adjacent roads ■ Wind barriers shall be installed along the perimeter of the site ■ All excavating and grading operations shall be suspended when wind speeds (as instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 miles per hour over a 30-minute period ■ A traffic speed limit of 15 miles per hour shall be posted and enforced for the unpaved construction roads (if any) on the project site ■ Remediation operations, if required, shall be performed in stages concentrating in single areas at a time to minimize the impact of fugitive dust on the surrounding area. Impact 3.2-2 The project would generate MM 3.2-3 Solar or low -emission water heaters shall be installed in all Significant and daily operational emissions of VOC and new buildings within the project site to reduce energy demand and Unavoidable NO. that could exceed established associated emissions. thresholds. MM 3.24 Built-in energy -efficient appliances shall be provided in all new buildings within the project site to reduce energy demand and associated emissions. MM 3.2-5 Air conditioners installed in all new buildings within the project site shall be energy -efficient and shall have automated controls to reduce energy demand and associated emissions. MM 3.2-6 Double -glass -paned windows shall be installed in new buildings within the redevelopment area to reduce energy demand and associated emissions. MM 3.2-7 Lighting installed in new buildings within the project site shall be energy -efficient and shall have automated controls to reduce energy demand and associated emissions. MM 3.2-8 The new buildings within the project site shall exceed Title 24 wall and attic insulation requirements by at least 5 percent to reduce energy demand and associated emissions. xvi City of Huntington Beach Summary 'fable S-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures nW"tD&a*tion Reconanen"MftigationMeaswr ResidualImpact MM 3.2-9 The new buildings within the project site shall use light- colored roof materials to reflect heat and reduce energy demand and associated emissions. Impact 3.2-3 The project could result in a Project design features and/or standard conditions of approval have been Less Than cumulative increase in CO levels at affected incorporated in the project and would ensure that this impact would be less Significant intersections. than significant. No mitigation is required. Impact 3.2-4 The proposed project could Project design features and/or standard conditions of approval have been Less Than impair implementation of the Air Quality incorporated in the project and would ensure that this impact would be less Significant Management Plan. than significant. No mitigation is required. Impact 3.2-5 The proposed project could Project design features and/or standard conditions of approval have been Less Than generate objectionable odors. incorporated in the project and would ensure that this impact would be less Significant than significant. No mitigation is required. Impact 3.2-6 Implementation of the Project design features and/or standard conditions of approval have been Less Than proposed project could release toxic air incorporated in the project and would ensure that this impact would be less Significant contaminants. than significant. No mitigation is required. Cumulative Impact Project design features and/or standard conditions of approval have been Less Than incorporated in the project and would ensure that cumulative impacts would Significant be less than significant. Also, see MM 3.2-1 through MM 3.2-9, above. CULTURAL RESOURCES Impact 3.3-1 The proposed project could MM 3.3-1 Monitor during grading and excavation for archaeological Less Than result in the destruction of paleontological and paleontological resources: Significant resources. (a) The Applicant shall arrange for a qualified professional archaeological and paleontological monitor to be present during demolition, grading, trenching, and other excavation on the project site. Additionally, prior to project construction, construction personnel will be informed of the potential for encountering significant archaeological and paleontological resources, and instructed in the identification of fossils and other potential resources. All construction personnel will be informed of the need to stop work on the project site until a qualified paleontologist has been provided the opportunity to assess the significance of the find and implement appropriate measures to protect or scientifically remove the find. Construction personnel will also be informed of the requirement The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach xvii Summary Table S-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impad Descriptlon Re=vnended Mitigation Measure ResidualImpact that unauthorized collection of cultural resources is prohibited. (b) If archaeological or paleontological resources are discovered during earth moving activities, all construction activities on the project site shall cease until the archaeologist/paleontologist evaluates the significance of the resource: in the absence of a determination, all archaeological and paleontological resources shall be considered significant. If the resource is determined to be significant, the archaeologist or paleontologist, as appropriate, shall prepare a research design for recovery of the resources in consultation with the State Office of Historic Preservation. The archaeologist or paleontologist shall complete a report of the excavations and findings, and shall submit the report for peer review by three County -certified archaeologists or paleontologists, as appropriate. Upon approval of the report, the Applicant shall submit the report to the South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University, Fullerton, the California Coastal Commission, and the City of Huntington Beach. (c) In the event of the discovery on the project site of a burial, human bone, or suspected human bone, all excavation or grading in the vicinity of the find will halt immediately and the area of the find will be protected. If a qualified archaeologist is present, he/she will determine whether the bone is human. If the archaeologist determines that the bone is human, or in the absence of an archaeologist, the Applicant immediately will notify the City Planning Department and the Orange County Coroner of the find and comply with the provisions of P.R.C. § 5097 with respect to Native American involvement, burial treatment, and reburial. Impact 3.3-2 The proposed project could See MM 3.3-1, above. result in the destruction of archaeological resources. xviii Less Than Significant City of Huntington Beach ® ® ® ® ® M ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® M M ® M M ® M M M M ® ® M Summary Table S-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures InW" l m a*tion RwonuneadedMingatumMeaswe Residuallnipact Impact 3.3-3 Potential Historical MM 3.3-2 Building C of the proposed project shall incorporate ground- Less Than Degradation of El Don Liquors. level and second -story design features of the Ocean View Promenade Significant Structure and, to the extent feasible, of the building containing El Don Liquors. These features shall include, but not be limited to, windows, textures, and roofing and lighting materials. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the revised project design concept shall be reviewed by the City Design Review Board for architectural and scale compatibility with the El Don Liquors structure. Impact 3.34 Potential Historical MM 3.3-3 Prior to recordation of the final map for the project, the Less Than Degradation of the Helme-Worthy Applicant shall incorporate a 20-foot setback from the property line between Significant Property. the Helme-Worthy project and Buildings D/G and F/G of the proposed project. The plan shall also include, where Building D adjoins the Helme- Worthy buildings, a 15-foot upper -level setback for the third and fourth floors to create a distinct separation between the new and older buildings. This space shall be continued as a buffer zone and pedestrian walkway around the historic National Register property's southern and western borders, effectively creating a walkway connecting Walnut Avenue and Sixth Street. Cumulative Impact Project design features and/or standard conditions of approval have been Less Than incorporated in the project and would ensure that project -related cumulative Significant impacts would be less than significant. Also, see MM 3.3-1 through MM 3.3-3, above. GEOLOGY AND HYDROLOGY Impact 3.4-1 Project implementation Project design features and/or standard conditions of approval have been Less Than could affect the rate or extent of erosion incorporated in the project and would ensure that this impact would be less Significant occurring on the project site. than significant. No mitigation is required. Impact 3.4-2 Implementation of the Project design features and/or standard conditions of approval have been Less Than proposed project could expose people and incorporated in the project and would ensure that this impact would be less Significant structures on -site to seismic -related ground than significant. No mitigation is required. failure associated with liquefaction. 0 The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach xix Table S-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures hwad Desa*tion Reconwwtu d Mifigatwn Measrnv Res Phial InVact Impact 3.4-3 Construction and operation Project design features and/or standard conditions of approval have been Less Than of the proposed project could expose incorporated in the project and would ensure that this impact would be less Significant workers to contaminated soils or risks than significant. No mitigation is required. associated with hazardous soils conditions. Impact 3.4-4 Construction and operation Project design features and/or standard conditions of approval have been Less Than of the proposed project could degrade incorporated in the project and would ensure that this impact would be less Significant existing water quality. than significant. No mitigation is required. Impact 3.4-5 The proposed project could Project design features and/or standard conditions of approval have been Less Than create additional runoff that would exceed incorporated in the project and would ensure that this impact would be less Significant the capacity of the existing stormwater than significant. No mitigation is required. drainage system. Impact 3.4-6 People and structures on the MM 3.4-1 The grading plan prepared for the proposed project shall Less Than project site could be exposed to seismic contain the recommendations included in the Preliminary Geotechnical Significant hazards associated with groundshaking Investigation for Blocks 104/105, City of Huntington Beach Redevelopment, and fault rupture. Westerly of Pacific Coast Highway and Main Street, City . of Huntington Beach, California prepared by Leighton and Associates, dated May 22, 2000. These recommendations shall be implemented in the design of the project and include measures associated with site preparation, fill placement and compaction, seismic design features, excavation stability and shoring requirements, lateral earth pressure, foundation design, concrete slabs and pavements, cement type and corrosion measures, surface drainage, trench backfill, plan review, and geotechnical observation and testing of earthwork operations. MM 3.4-2 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the final grading and foundation plans shall be reviewed by the project geotechnical consultant and the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department to verify that the preliminary recommendations provided in this report are applicable. Impact 3.4-7 Project development would See MM 3.4-1. Less Than locate structures on potentially expansive Significant soils, unstable soils, soils subject to settlement, or corrosive soils. xx City of Huntington Beach ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® Summa Table S-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Irr"d Description ReconanendedMitigation Measure ResidualInipact Cumulative Impact Project design features and/or standard conditions of approval have been Less Than incorporated in the project and would ensure that cumulative impacts would Significant be less than significant. Also, see MM 3.4-1 and MM 3.4-2, above. LAND USE Impact 3.5-1 The proposed project could Project design features and/or standard conditions of approval have been Less Than conflict with the City of Huntington Beach incorporated in the project and would ensure that this impact would be less Significant General Plan or Downtown Specific Plan. than significant. No mitigation is required. Cumulative Impact Project design features and/or standard conditions of approval have been Less Than incorporated in the project and would ensure that cumulative impacts would Significant be less than significant. No mitigation is required. NOISE Impact 3.6-1 Site preparation activities MM 3.6-1 The project contractor(s) shall implement, but not be limited Less Than would generate noise levels that exceed to, the following best management practices: Significant City thresholds. • Outdoor construction work on the project shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M. on weekdays and Saturdays. No construction activities shall occur on Sundays or federal holidays • All construction equipment with a high noise generating potential, including all equipment powered by internal combustion engines, shall be muffled or controlled • All stationary noise generating equipment, such as compressors, shall be located as far as possible from existing houses ■ Machinery, including motors, shall be turned off when not in use ■ Mobile equipment shall not be allowed to run idle near existing residences ■ Neighbors within 200 feet of major construction areas shall be notified of the construction schedule in writing prior to construction; the project sponsor shall designate a "disturbance coordinator' who shall be responsible for responding to any local complaints regarding construction noise; the coordinator (who may be an employee of the developer or general contractor) shall determine the cause of the complaint and shall require that reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem be implemented; and a telephone number for the noise disturbance coordinator shall be posted conspicuously at the construction site fence and included on the notification sent to neighbors adjacent to the site. The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach xxi M 'fable S-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures ImpactDes� RwvmwndedMi#gatwnMeasure Residual InVact Impact 3.6-2 The proposed project would Project design features and/or standard conditions of approval have been Less Than increase on -site interior noise levels. incorporated in the project and would ensure that this impact would be less Significant than significant. No mitigation is required. Impact 3.6-3 The proposed project would Project design features and/or standard conditions of approval have been Less Than increase off -site roadway noise levels. incorporated in the project and would ensure that this impact would be less Significant than significant. No mitigation is required. Impact 3.6-4 The proposed project would Project design features and/or standard conditions of approval have been Less Than increase noise levels associated with human incorporated in the project and would ensure that this impact would be less Significant activity. than significant. No mitigation is required. Impact 3.6-5 ' The proposed project would Project design features and/or standard conditions of approval have been Less Than produce noise associated with mechanical incorporated in the project and would ensure that this impact would be less Significant equipment. than significant. No mitigation is required. Cumulative Impact See MM 3.6-1, above. Significant and Unavoidable POPULATION AND HOUSING Impact 3.7-1 The proposed project would Project design features and/or standard conditions of approval have been Less Than result in the demolition of an existing incorporated in the project and would ensure that this impact would be less Significant housing unit on Block 105. than significant. No mitigation is required. Cumulative Impact Project design features and/or standard conditions of approval have been Less Than incorporated in the project and would ensure that cumulative impacts would Significant be less than significant. No mitigation is required. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES Impact 3.8-1 The proposed project could MM 3.8-1 Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall Less Than require additional personnel or equipment demonstrate that the project includes adequate access for emergency Significant to maintain an acceptable level of fire vehicles, automatic fire sprinkler systems, automatic fire alarms, properly protection service. sized elevators, and 24-hour security shall be provided. Impact 3.8-2 Implementation of the See MM 3.8-1, above. Less Than proposed project would cause police MM 3.8-2 Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall Significant protection service levels to drop. consult the Huntington Beach Police Department regarding the provision of adequate Crime Prevention Design measures, and shall incorporate the Department's recommendations into the plan. City of Huntington Beach ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® � M M M M ® ® M M ® ® M M M M M &I 'fable S-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures InwadDesarintion RwononendedMitiQationMeasmv Reside Unwact Impact 3.8-3 Implementation of the Project design features and/or standard conditions of approval have been Less Than proposed project could affect levels of incorporated in the project and would ensure that this impact would be less Significant service for lifeguard protection. than significant. No mitigation is required. Impact 3.84 Solid waste generated by the MM 3.8-3 Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall Less Than proposed project could exceed the capacity demonstrate that the project includes adequate access for disposal collection Significant of local haulers or the Orange County vehicles including 55 feet to pickup and drop off containers on a straight shot Landfill System. and a minimum turning diameter of 86 feet. MM 3.8-4 Prior to issuance of building permits for the first project component, the Applicant shall submit a Solid Waste Management Plan to the City Environmental Services Division, Public Works Department, and recycling coordinator. This plan shall discuss how the project will implement source reduction and recycling methods in compliance with existing City programs. Additionally, this plan shall include how the project will address the construction and demolition -generated waste from the site. These methods shall include, but shall not be limited to • Emphasize deconstruction and diversion planning rather than demolition ■ Provision of recycling bins for glass, aluminum, and plastic for visitors and employees of the proposed project ■ Provision of recycling bins for glass, aluminum, plastic, wood, steel, and concrete for construction workers during construction phases • Bins for cardboard recycling during construction • Scrap wood recycling during construction ■ Green waste recycling of landscape materials Impact 3.8-5 The proposed project would Project design features and/or standard conditions of approval have been Less Than increase the demand for electricity. incorporated in the project and would ensure that this impact would be less Significant than significant. No mitigation is required. Impact 3.8-6 The proposed project would Project design features and/or standard conditions of approval have been Less Than increase the demand for additional natural incorporated in the project and would ensure that this impact would be less Significant gas. than significant. No mitigation is required. Impact 3.8-7 The proposed project would Project design features and/or standard conditions of approval have been Less Than increase the demand for water supplies. incorporated in the project and would ensure that this impact would be less Significant than significant. No mitigation is required. The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach xxiii Table S-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures In"ct&saiption Reconrn aukdMitegatwnMeaswr Residuallmpact Impact 3.8-8 The proposed project would Project design features and/or standard conditions of approval have been Less Than increase the demand for sewer service. incorporated in the project and would ensure that this impact would be less Significant than significant. No mitigation is required. Cumulative Impact See MM 3.8-1 through MM 3.8-4, above. Significant and Unavoidable TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Impact 3.9-1 The General Plan Build Out MM 3.9-1 Prior to issuance of an occupancy permit, the applicant shall Less Than with Santa Ana River Bridges Plus Project Restripe the eastbound approach to provide a second eastbound turn lane at Significant Scenario could result in intersections the Brookhurst Street/Pacific Coast Highway intersection, subject to review and/or roadway segments operating at and approval by the City Public Works Department. unsatisfactory levels of service. Impact 3.9-2 The General Plan Build Out See MM 3.9-1, above. Less Than without Santa Ana River Bridges Plus Significant Project Scenario could result in intersections and/or roadway segments operating at unsatisfactory levels of service. Impact 3.9-3 The proposed project could MM 3.9-2 Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall Less Than affect access to and internal circulation on demonstrate the provision of two inbound lanes and one outbound lane for Significant the project site. the proposed subterranean parking structure. MM 3.9-3 Delivery vehicles shall be restricted to vehicles the size of or smaller than a medium or small semi -trailer with a length of 50 feet. MM 3.94 Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a parking management plan, consistent with the Downtown Parking Master Plan, for review and approval by the City Planning Department. MM 3.9-5 The applicant shall provide valet and/or remote parking for special events and activities, and during peak summer season. MM 3.9-6 Prior to issuance of occupancy permits, the applicant shall develop a sign program to direct motorists to primary parking facilities within the Downtown Parking Master Plan. Impact 3.94 The proposed project could Project design features and/or standard conditions of approval have been Less Than provide inadequate parking. incorporated in the project and would ensure that this impact would be less Significant than significant. No mitigation is required. xxiv City of Huntington Beach ® = ® = � ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® M ® ® � Summary 'fable S-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Imwad Dma*tim RwmmwnkW Mitigation Measwr Reskhial Impact Cumulative Impact Project design features and/or standard conditions of approval have been Less Than incorporated in the project and would ensure that cumulative impacts would Significant be less than significant. See MM 3.9-1 through MM 3.9-6, above. The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach xxv I k P 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 OVERVIEW OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT The City of Huntington Beach has received a request to redevelop 2.97 acres of the 6.31-acre Block 104/ 105 site located in the downtown area of the City of Huntington Beach. These two blocks are currently occupied by retail, commercial, office, and residential uses, and vacant parcels. Seven buildings are proposed that would consist of 226,245 gross square feet of visitor -oriented commercial and office uses with associated subterranean and surface parking. All structures and landscaping have been designed to comply with the City of Huntington Beach Downtown Specific Plan and to complement and expand the existing grid pattern of downtown Huntington Beach. Implementation of the proposed project requires demolition of the existing uses on -site, consisting of a commercial building presently occupied by Papa Joe's Pizza and a single -unit residential building, and surface parking lots. 1.2 PURPOSE OF THE EIR This Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared to meet all of the substantive and procedural requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970 (California Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21000 et seq.), California CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq., as amended through January 1, 2002), and the rules, regulations and procedures for implementation of CEQA adopted by the City of Huntington Beach. The purpose of this, or any, EIR is to identify the significant effects of a project on the environment, to indicate the manner in which significant effects can be mitigated or avoided, and to identify alternatives to the project that can eliminate or reduce significant project impacts. An EIR is intended to serve as an informational document for decision -makers and the general public regarding environmental consequences of a project. The City of Huntington Beach is the lead agency for this project in accordance with Section 15065(b) of the CEQA Guidelines. As such, the City will assume primary responsibility for conducting the environmental review and will use this EIR to formulate its actions to either approve or deny the proposed project. The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 1-1 1.0 Introduction According to PRC Section 21081, the lead agency must make specific Findings of Fact ("Findings") before approving the Final EIR, when the Draft EIR identifies significant environmental impacts that may result from a project. The purpose of the Findings is to establish the link between the contents of the Final EIR and the action of the lead agency with regards to approval or rejection of the project. Prior to approval of a project, one of three findings must be made: (1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR. (2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. (3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. Additionally, according to PRC Section 21081.6, for projects in which significant impacts will be avoided by mitigation measures, the lead agency must include in its Findings a mitigation monitoring program (MMP). The purpose of the MMP is to ensure compliance with required mitigation during implementation of the project. However, environmental impacts may not always be mitigated to a level considered less than significant: such impacts are considered significant and unavoidable. If a public agency approves a project that would result in significant and unavoidable environmental impacts, the agency shall state, in writing, the specific reasons for approving the project, based on information contained within the Final EIR, as well as any other information in the public record. The resulting document is called a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and serves to clearly state the proposed projecfs benefits when weighed against its unavoidable environmental risks. The public agency prepares the Statement of Overriding Considerations, if required, after completion of the Final EIR, but before project approval according to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091 and 15093. As further guidance, in Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors of Santa Barbara County (1990, 52 Cal.3d 553), the California Supreme Court stated that: the wisdom of approving any development project, a delicate task that requires a balancing of interest, is necessarily left to the sound discretion of the local officials and their constituents who are responsible for such decisions. The law as we interpret and apply it simply requires that those decisions be informed, and therefore balanced. 1-2 , City of Huntington Beach 1 1.0 Introduction H I LII' C u u 1.3 REPORT BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT Before beginning the preparation of an EIR, the lead agency must decide which specific issues should be evaluated in the document. CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines mandate various steps that lead agencies must take to define the scope and contents of an EIR, and also give lead agencies discretion to use additional "scoping" methods. For this project, the primary tool used to determine the scope of this DEIR was the Initial Study and scoping meeting held August 29, 2001. As allowed by Section 15063 of the CEQA Guidelines, the Initial Study may be used to simplify preparation of an EIR by narrowing the scope of the issues to be evaluated. Therefore, the Initial Study may be used to ■ Focus the EIR on environmental effects determined to be significant ■ Identify effects that are not significant ■ Explain why potentially significant effects were determined not to be significant Under the statute, EIRs should focus their discussion on potentially significant impacts, and may limit discussion of other impacts to a brief explanation of why the impacts are not potentially significant. Under the Guidelines, environmental effects that were dismissed in an initial study need not be discussed in the EIR unless the agency later receives information that is inconsistent with the findings of the Initial Study. This process results in a focused, or limited -topic, EIR, such as this document. The Initial Study prepared for this project has determined that potentially significant impacts may result to the resource areas of land use, population and housing, geology and soils, hydrology, air quality, transportation and traffic, noise, public services, utilities, aesthetics, cultural resources, and recreation. The Initial Study is provided as Appendix A of this EIR. A Notice of Preparation (NOP) that included the Initial Study was prepared to notify public agencies that an EIR was being prepared and to solicit their concerns toward the potential environmental effects of the project. The NOP was distributed to public agencies beginning August 16, 2001, for a required 30-day review and comment period ending September 14, 2001. The responses that were received by the City are provided in Appendix B of this EIR. 1 The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 1-3 1.0 Introduction 1.4 SUBSEQUENT EIR DOCUMENTS: DEFINITION AND PURPOSE The proposed project represents a continuation of implementation of the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project (EIR 96-2) and is considered part of the project analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report prepared for that project, pursuant to Section 21090 of CEQA. The EIR prepared for this project would, therefore, be considered a Subsequent EIR to EIR 96-2, which Section 21166 of CEQA necessitates, due to changes in the project description and the existing conditions in the Downtown Specific Plan area. Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines states: (a) When an EIR has been certified... for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines... one or more of the following: ...(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken 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; or ...(3)(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration.... Although the proposed project is consistent with the zoning and general plan land use designations for the project'site, the City of Huntington Beach determined that impacts particular to the project and site required analysis that was not provided in EIR 96-2 (which analyzed the merger of the redevelopment area that includes the project site), and that a Subsequent EIR was required, pursuant to Section 15183(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states: CEQA mandates that projects which are consistent with the development density established in the existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified shall not require additional environmental review, except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project -specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site. 1.5 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE Incorporation by reference is a procedure for reducing the size of EIRs, and is most appropriate for including long, descriptive, or technical materials that provide general background information, but do not contribute directly to the specific analysis of the project itself. This procedure is particularly useful when an EIR relies on a broadly drafted EIR for its evaluation of cumulative impacts of related projects (Las Virgenes Homeowners Federation v. County of Los Angeles [1986, 177 Ca.3d 300]). If an EIR relies on information from a supporting study that is available to the public, the EIR cannot be deemed unsupported by 1-4 City of Huntington Beach 1.0 Introduction 1 evidence or analysis (San Francisco Ecology Center v. City and County of San Francisco (1975, 48 Ca.3d 584, 595). This EIR incorporates by reference the document from which it is tiered, the Environmental Impact Report for the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project (EIR 96-2, SCH #96041075) prepared for the City of Huntington Beach by LSA Associates, Inc. Issues addressed in the EIR may incorporate existing settings data by reference from EIR 96-2. Other environmental documents prepared that are relevant to the proposed project and which may be incorporated by reference include the following: Huntington Beach ' Downtown Specific Plan EIR 82-2, Subsequent EIR 82-2, Addendum to SEIR 82-2; Main Pier Phase II and Main Street 100 Block EIR 89-6, Addendum to EIR 89-6; and the Huntington ' Beach General Plan EIR. When an EIR incorporates documents by reference, the incorporation must comply with ' Section 15150 of the CEQA Guidelines. These guidelines, and the manner in which the reference documents are incorporated into this EIR, are as follows: ■ The incorporated document must be available to the public or be a matter of public record (CEQA Guidelines Section 15150[a]): The referenced documents shall be made available, along with this Draft Subsequent EIR, at the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department, 2000 Main Street, P.O. Box 190, Huntington Beach, CA 92648. ■ The document must be available for inspection by the public at an office of the lead agency if there is one within the county in which the project will be carried out. If there is no office, the document must be available for inspection at a public building in the county (CEQA Guidelines Section 15150[b]): This EIR is available for review at the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department, 2000 Main Street, P.O. Box 190, Huntington Beach, CA 92648. ■ The EIR must summarize the portion of the document incorporated by reference or briefly describe information that cannot be summarized. Furthermore, the EIR must describe the relationship between the incorporated information and the analysis in the EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15150[c]): The preparers of this EIR have made every effort to appropriately cite, summarize and incorporate relevant sections of the referenced documents. ■ If the EIR incorporates information from an EIR that was previously reviewed through the state review system, the summary or description must include the State identification number of the incorporated document (CEQA Guidelines Section ' 15150[d]): The State Clearinghouse Numbers for the referenced documents are as follows: The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 1-5 1.0 Introduction > General Plan EIR (1994091018) > Huntington Beach Downtown Specific Plan EIR 82-2 (1982012914) > Huntington Beach Downtown Specific Plan Subsequent EIR 82-2 (1982012914) > Huntington Beach Downtown Specific Plan Addendum to SEIR 82-2 (1982012914) > Main Pier Phase II and Main Street 100 Block EIR 89-6 (1989091304) > Main Pier/Main Street Addendum to EIR 89-6 (1989091304) The material to be incorporated should provide general background for the analysis in the EIR; material that contributes directly to analysis of a problem addressed in the EIR should ordinarily be included in the EIR itself (CEQA Guidelines Section 15150[f]): The preparers of this EIR have made every effort to use incorporated material to provide general background information, not wholly as a basis for certain project -specific analysis required by the EIR. 1.6 EIR ADEQUACY As discussed above, the use of a Subsequent EIR enables a Lead Agency to examine the overall effects of projects which have substantially changed or that will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR. The CEQA Guidelines require no particular level of detail for such a document; instead, Section 15151 of the Guidelines states that an EIR, regardless of the type: should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision makers with information that enables them to make a decision that intelligently takes account of environmental consequences. An evaluation of the environmental effects of a proposed project need not be exhaustive, but the sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in the light of what is reasonably feasible. Disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate, but the EIR should summarize the main points of disagreement among the experts. The courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and good faith effort at full disclosure. The critical factor is that an environmental analysis discloses all environmental consequences associated with the project implementation, while avoiding unnecessary, redundant environmental analysis. 1.7 ENVIRONMENTAL AND PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS In accordance with Section 15087 of the CEQA Guidelines, the Draft EIR will be circulated to various public agencies, citizen groups, and interested individuals for a 45-day public review period, which will begin on July 19, 2002, and ends on September 3, 2002. The City will 1-6 City of Huntington Beach 1.0 Introduction L L I k k- I r circulate the Draft EIR to State agencies for review through the California Governor's Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse. The review period provides the public with the opportunity to submit written comments on the Draft EIR, copies of which are available for review at the following locations: City of Huntington Beach Planning Department 2000 Main Street P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach Central Library and Cultural Center 7111 Talbert Avenue Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Written comments addressing the adequacy of the Draft EIR may be submitted to the following address by 5:00 P.M. September 3, 2002: Jane James Senior Planner City of Huntington Beach Planning Department 2000 Main Street P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Agencies or interested persons who do not respond during the public review period for the Draft EIR will have an opportunity to do so at subsequent public hearings on the project. After public review, the City will prepare responses to comments received on the Draft EIR, followed by compilation of the Final EIR package. 1.8 DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION This EIR has been designed for easy use and reference. To help the reader locate information of particular interest, a brief summary of the contents of each section of the EIR is provided. The following chapters are contained within the EIR: ■ Summary — This section contains an overview of the scope of the EIR, as well as a summary of environmental impacts, proposed mitigation, level of significance after mitigation, and unavoidable impacts. Also contained within this section is a summary discussion of project alternatives and potential growth -inducing impacts. 1 The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 1-7 1.0 Introduction 11 ■ Section 1. Introduction —This section provides an overview of the proposed project, the purpose of the EIR, the degree to which other documents are incorporated by reference, a summary of the environmental and public review process, and a brief outline of the organization of the EIR. ■ Section 2. Project Description —This section defines the project location, describes the physical characteristics of the project site, summarizes the proposed project, outlines the Applicant's project objectives, describes the site's history, identifies the approvals required by the City of Huntington Beach for the project implementation, presents a tentative construction schedule, and summarizes the EIR's approach for addressing cumulative impacts. ■ Section 3. Environmental Impact Analysis —This section describes and evaluates the environmental issue areas, including the existing environmental setting and background, applicable environmental thresholds, environmental impacts, policy considerations related to the particular environmental issue area under analysis, mitigation measures capable of minimizing environmental harm, and a residual impact statement as to the effectiveness of mitigation measures. Where additional actions must be taken to ensure consistency with environmental policies, recommendations are made, as appropriate. By consolidating environmental impact assessment and site -specific policy directives within each impact area, clear linkages between impact assessment and related policy consistency can be established. ■ Section 4. Alternatives to the Proposed Project —This section analyzes feasible alternatives to the proposed project, including the No Project Alternative, and a reduction in project scale. ■ Section 5. Long -Term Implications —This section provides a summary of the proposed project's potential to lead to population growth and the indirect implications of that growth on the city; summarizes the discussion of cumulative impacts; provides a list of proposed project impacts that are significant and unavoidable by issue area; and identifies the irreversible changes to the natural environment resulting from the proposed project. ■ Section 6. Organizations and Persons Consulted/List of EIR Preparers —This section identifies the public and private agencies and individuals contacted during the preparation of this report, and all individuals responsible for the preparation of this report. ■ Section 7. References —This section identifies all references used and cited in the preparation of this report. 1-8 City of Huntington Beach 1 0 I F i I L C C 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 PROJECT LOCATION The proposed project site is located in the downtown area of the City of Huntington Beach, California. The City of Huntington Beach is located on the shore of the Pacific Ocean in northwestern Orange County. Cities adjacent to Huntington Beach are Westminster to the north, Fountain Valley to the northeast, Costa Mesa and Newport Beach to the east, and Seal Beach to the northwest. The City of Los Angeles is located 35 miles to the northwest and San Diego is 95 miles to the southeast. The proposed project site, as shown in Figure 2-1, is located across Pacific Coast Highway from the Pacific Ocean, and includes portions of, what are designated by the City as, Blocks 104 and 105. The site consists of 14 legal lots and, as shown in Figure 2-2, is bordered by Sixth Street on the northwest; the alley between Main and Fifth Streets, as well as the structure containing El Don Liquors, on the southeast; Walnut Avenue on the northeast; and Pacific Coast Highway on the southwest. The project site does not include the parcel on Block 105 at the corner of Sixth Street and Walnut Avenue (the Worthy Property), nor does the project area include the parcels of Block 104 fronting Main Street, the Ocean View Promenade at the corner of Pacific Coast Highway and Main Street, and the commercial/residential building adjacent to the Ocean View Promenade on Pacific Coast Highway (El Don Liquors). The area of the proposed project site is 2.97 acres (129,373 square feet). The project site is located at the northern edge of the City's Downtown Core. One- and two- story commercial and residential buildings fronting Sixth Street he to the northwest of the project site. One- and two-story commercial buildings are located across Walnut Avenue to the northeast. Two- to four-story commercial buildings fronting Main Street lie to the southeast. The Pier Plaza and Pacific Ocean are across Pacific Coast Highway to the southwest. 1 The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 2-1 2.0 Project Description 1 2.2 EXISTING SITE CHARACTERISTICS 2.2.1 Topography The project site is generally level, with the surface elevation approximately 32 feet above mean sea level. The highest point is located in the northeastern area of the site and the lowest point is located in the southwestern area of the site. 2.2.2 Existing Land Uses As illustrated in Figure 2-2, existing uses on Block 104 consist of two-story commercial uses fronting Main Street near Walnut Avenue; the four-story Ocean View Promenade commercial office building, which spans from mid -block to PCH along Main Street and from Main Street to about mid -block along PCH, forming an'L'; a small surface parking lot at the northwest corner of the block; El Don Liquors and two residential units in a two-story structure located between the Ocean View Promenade and the surface parking lot on the northwest corner; and a surface parking lot on the corner of Fifth Street and Walnut Avenue that encompasses approximately one third of the block. The proposed project site includes only the existing surface parking lots on the northwest and southwest corners of Block 104. Block 105. is characterized by vacant lots on the northwest portion and southwest corner of the block; a surface parking lot on the southeast corner; existing one-story commercial uses, including Papa Joe's Pizza, fronting PCH at about mid -block; and the Helme-Worthy Property — an historic, two-story commercial and residential property — on the southeast corner of Walnut and Sixth Street. The proposed project site encompasses all of Block 105 except for the Worthy property. 2.2.3 Land Use and Zoning Designations The General Plan Land Use Designation for the project site is MV-F12-sp-pd (mixed use vertical — specific plan overlay — pedestrian overlay). The zoning designation for the site is the Downtown -Specific Plan — District 3 — Coastal Zone. District 3 is designated for Visitor - Serving Commercial/Residential/Office. The District is limited to the five blocks fronting Pacific Coast Highway across from the City pier. The visitor -serving category is intended to include many commercial activities that will also serve the needs of the surrounding community, and thereby provide an off-season clientele for the District. The Downtown Specific Plan also allows residential and office uses in District 3, so long as the required 2-2 City of Huntington Beach 1 REGIONAL LOCATION :/ A b HUNTINGTON /C clTY c0gS,T BEACH tily� HUNTINGTON P BEACH PIER c 0 C qy LOS ANGELES COUNTY SANBERNARDINO --�' COUNTY J AM eye F `\ RIVERSIDE COUNTY ,` GarEn Gina Fay " Onnge � Senla Tuelin •a Ana ORANGE l Pro/ec COUNTY. S,te co . _ luniington I leach -• - _.. Irvin. � HUNTINGTON \ STATE BEACH � San Juan z C.FLV.na �- SAN DIEGO COUNTY 6ae panuMe Orange County 0 J m FIGURE qElR Not to Scale _� Project Vicinity & Regional Location M SOURCE: UP Associates 10363-00 a G < T r . City of Huntington Beach ° Block 104/105 m m_ ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® m 5� RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL HUNTINGTON CITY \ BEACH p9 CIF jc 0C, �9 ti HUNTINGTON BEACH PIER i RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL LEGEND Project Site Boundary E:1 Not a Part Not to Scale FIGURE 2-2 -�- - I - Existing Conditions SOURCE. El Associates 10363-0o City of Huntington Beach - �N `. ., P(RL) 15 5 9a. P OS•P �� r• 4i �i� �� •'i ._ 41- os-v " • �O� /'�M 1'5 R��„ RL•7 • a Sp=- i �.� n �f' �1 " .a�.be pL.7 `1;a 611%7*P(RL y `� RL•7 �,Go '���r•q-'b���Z' OS-P \' �a, •fit ���+���a3''7r.. , S+ o° /CAM_' v'" tom. * �� e . M•15 t , a�S "° k�' yi .fig 8 p RM•15.0• C pL.7_sP �,°:,\ • )� (. �F'-,�` OS•P °? �° ,o .t3Q on ��.. o'= 0-12 B p 0 MH — 'f ••R 5 0 0 tiA, 4 �t PIK) \ RL_ � � � ' f��s,OS•P � � 0 0° � US-P , 7*# 0 d` aibp • o. PIRL-7 CS-P RM7.23 RL-7-sp RL `.r' i s RL-7 r °J RL•7 s � fl n D o °o ;, r 'r � �i� t P(RL) OS•S HUNTINGTON PACIFIC OCEAN BEACH PIER LEGEND RESIDENTIAL RL ? Residential Low Density RM Residential Medium Density MH Residential Medium High Density RH Residential High Density COMMERCIAL 1CN; Commercial Neighborhood CG Commercial General CR' Commercial Regional CO Commercial Office CV Commercial Visitor PUBLIC Public PO School, Hospital, Church (underlying designation) OVERLAY -a Auto District Overlay -d Design Overlay .h Historical Overlay -muo Mixed Use Overlay (Mixed Use Density) .pd Pedestrian Overlay -rmp Residential Mobile Home Park Overlay .sp Specific Plan Overlay MIXED USE am Mixed Use EV Mixed Use Vertical MH Mixed Use Horizontal INDUSTRIAL ® Industrial OPEN SPACE OS-C Wetland/Conservation OS-P Park OS-S Shore OS-CR Commercial Recreation OS-W Water Recreation Commercial, Industrial, Mixed Use Density Schedule Density Permitted Code Density F1 0.35 F2 0.5 F2A 0.75 F3 1.0 F4 1.25 FS 1.5 F6 2.0 F7 3.0 FS 1.5(MU)-0.35(CY25 du/ac F9 1.5(MU)-0.5(C)/25 du/ac F10 1.5(MU)-1.5(Cy25 du/ac F11 2.0(MU)-2.0(C)/25 du/ac F12 3.0(MU)-3.0(C)/35 du/ac F13 1.5(MU)-0.5(Cu15 du/ac General Plan Land Use FIGURE 2-3 Not to Scale Designations SOURCE. City of Huntington Beach 10363-00 City of Huntington Beach • Block 104/105 EIR R KK�SK (LikVYcR ..�rvGe_) CR h� FT RI RI rwEL 5� I R1 RI A. 9� CF-R`£ RI R 1 � Awl (� 4� RI 4C,y R I Z, sae C�q I R 1 R2 P $ 9p RI P� � eRFST TOWNLOT SPECIFIC MR2 PP (SECT A OLIE B",�) I A� hA �Z OR � r<I LEGEND C F WITFIIN FtAOD ZONE-FP2 EM FLOODPLAIN DISTRICT ® QUALIFIED CLASSIFICATION ('"•�'I'" ARCS E COASTAL ZONE SUFFIX TH �-----COASTAL. ZONE BOUNDARY S ---=DT0WN SPECIFIC PLAN %M, MOSILENOME DISTRICT R I ® PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ® LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT R E ® MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT Mn MEDIUM-HNBI DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT irFR-4-1 HIGH DE14SITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT FACILITIESffM COMMUNITY CRECKATIONAU DISTRICT t2 R I M COMMUNITY FACILITIES E ES DUCATIOMAL bSTRLCT ® OFFICE PROFESSIONAL DISTRICT R I M NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DISTRICT i� COMMUNITY BUSIME55 DISTRICT •', IM HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT SZ DESIGNATES PRECISE PLAN OF STREET AUGNMENT E 31COM80ED WITH OIL PRODUCTION —•— SETBACK LINE { COMBINED WITH OIL PRODUCTION IN AREA BOUNDED BY PALM %P AVE.ON NE, SEVENTEENTH SL ON NW, OCEAN AVE. ON SW, B SEVENTH ST. ON BE. R 3 ® PROJECT SITE PA` N HARTI3RD i T U I Z IBM�� ' .yn BA�LT� E /o 14 V G ATLANTA row} c� ,•.�P q , �� �• la, 9i1, D HUNTINGTON BEACH PIER 0 250 500 1000 FIGURE 2-4 Scale In FeetVZoning Map SOURCE. City of Huntington Beach 10363-00 City of Huntington Beach - Block 104/105 EIR L 2.0 Project Description h visitor -serving commercial uses are provided. Ground -level open space is encouraged in the District to further promote the feeling of openness and to provide additional view opportunities. ' 2.3 PROJECT OBJECTIVES The project, as described in the EIR section, is being proposed by CIM Group and the City of Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency. The following objectives have been identified for the proposed project: Applicant ■ Develop a commercial project that responds to market demand and is financially viable. ■ Provide adequate infrastructure to support the proposed commercial project. ■ Promote the development of a commercial product that conveys a high quality visual image and character. City of Huntington Beach ■ To add a hotel to the Downtown core area and increase the attractiveness of Downtown to the City's tourists and visitors, as well as lodging services for visiting family and friends of residents ■ To improve the perception of the Downtown and beach area as a destination for local residents as well as people from outside the area ■ To enhance the Downtown as a destination for quality retailers and restaurants. ■ To contribute to efforts to create an 18-hour Downtown, with visitors and residents remaining Downtown in the evening for shopping, dining, and entertainment ■ To provide for the highest and best use of previously under-utilized and currently unattractive properties ■ To assist in the implementation of the City's Redevelopment Plan and the Downtown Specific Plan ' 2.4 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT In order to implement the project objectives, the applicant is proposing to develop seven buildings ranging in height from two to four stories and containing a total of 226,245 gross square feet (gsf). As shown in Figure 2-5, the buildings within the project are lettered A to G, The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 2-3 2.0 Project Description with Buildings D, E, F and G all contained within one building pad on Block 105. The proposed uses within the project would include 106,075 square feet of commercial space and a 120,170-square foot, 152-room hotel. Of the 106,075 square feet of commercial space, up to 40,000 square feet may be devoted to restaurant uses and a maximum of 38,000 square feet would be devoted to office uses. Any amount of the total commercial square footage allotted to restaurant use but not utilized for such use would be devoted to retail. The hotel would be located in Building G, directly above buildings D, E, and F on Block 105. Parking would be provided in a two -level, 397-space subterranean parking garage located below the entire project site. Additionally, six spaces of surface level parking would be provided on Block 105, for a total of 403 parking spaces at the site. Building A would be located at the southeast corner of Fifth Street and Walnut Avenue, with 127 feet of frontage on Fifth Street, and 110.5 feet of frontage on Walnut Avenue. The building would be three stories, 45 feet in height, and would contain a total of 40,160 square feet of commercial floor area, with 13,890 square feet on floors one and two, and 12,380 square feet on the third floor. Building B would be located on the east side of Fifth Street midway between Walnut and Pacific Coast Highway with 59.5 feet of frontage on Fifth Street. The building would be two stories, 35 feet in height and contain a total of 8,510 square feet of commercial floor area, with 4,600 square feet on the first floor and 3,910 square feet on the second floor. Building C would be located at the northeast corner of Fifth Street and Pacific Coast Highway, with 47.5 feet of frontage on Pacific Coast Highway and 99.5 feet of frontage on Fifth Street. The building would be two stories, 35 feet in height and contain a total of 7,715 square feet of commercial floor area with 4,500 square feet on the first floor and 3,215 square feet on the second floor. Buildings D, E, F and G cover the entire Block 105, with the exception of the parcel containing the Worthy Property at the corner of Walnut Avenue and Sixth Street. The buildings would be four stories, 54.5 feet in height, and contain a total of 169,860 square feet of floor area. The buildings would have 240 feet of combined frontage on Pacific Coast Highway, 340 feet of frontage on Fifth Street,110 feet of frontage on Walnut Avenue, and 230 feet of frontage on Sixth Street. Uses in the buildings include 49,690 square feet of restaurant/retail space on the ground floor, 41,540 square feet of hotel uses on the second floor, and 39,315 square feet each of hotel uses on the third and fourth floors. The hotel 2-4 City of Huntington Beach IJ I I I l� I W.W,V AA L PROPER T, jk',�W JEWA ULTMATF PROPMITIt 122.6' EIMU MOM "M&HINLAMAI RETAfL/RMAURANTS/WXE 101620 SF' Level 1 69323 sf RESWM RAt I#YW 2 20445 sf LOW 3 11850 st TOTAL GLA = 1016M if Total RESTAURANT (we* not to exceed o mothmm of 40,000 SF Total OFFICE orea not to exceed a maxima of 38,000 SF HOTEL 120170 SF --I Level 1 0 sf Level 2 (42 Rooms) 41540 sf Level 3 (56 Rooms) J9J15 sf Level 4,(55 Rawns) 39315 st HOTEL TOTAL (152 Rooms) 120170 Sr EXISTING :SUIL D� NOT PA ' TOTAL PROJECT AREA = 221790 SF COWAV • Does NOT kiclude Vertical CkWatim Cares Cwridors JAL -110KR7— EXCEPT in HOTEL SEMA& 4VE 1 PARKING -21waly SURFACE PARKING TVR W 6 SPACES PARKING 5 Level i (L3 ke) 1238(1 sf BUILMG 8 8510 SF BLD( 'ev" tn Level 2 (office) J910 st HOTEL , BUILMID C 7715 SF Level I (RestwrmllRetod) 4-W sf teef 2 (Ofke) J215 sf BLD( RETAIL/RE! "'S F do G 162860 SF DE Ittf Level I (AerfowwtAiefoi) 4960 sf Level 2 (ftold) 41540 sf TeA Leve J (HOW) 39315 sf �j Lew 4 (Hotel) J9315 sf TOTAL PROJECT AREA = 226245 SF hTdud- Vfffkol Cr odation Cores & Cv,*ws COAST �SAY (IOG' F/W-- 1 j-,'�',SURV[ Y �AURC t067 H;GHWAY wvC� SEMN f4EDMWNT AMCY M JAW STREET "IWGVN MACK CA 9" (114) 536-5582 CIMMUNDICTRI, INC, 6922 HMY*OW WMEVAM SWIt SM MCUYM, C"MMIA 90028 (323) 850-9w iECAL DES WIM OF M 51Tt E= 24-152-02 24-152-03 24-152-04 24451-05 24-W-10 24-152-1 1 24-152-12 24-152-13 24-152-14 MOLD 24:530 1153:03 Z4-153-to 24-t53-16 As w prelififtivy rift Rvwts Iww! by fiat AMaken r4k on My 21, IS" #We* "Y M IM FIGURE 2-5 Not to Scale Proposed Site Plan SOURCE. Gensler City of Huntington Beach - Block 104/105 EIR 2.0 Project Description F I L would contain a total of 152 rooms. The existing building currently occupied by Papa Joe's Pizza would need to be removed to accommodate the proposed buildings within Block 105. To accommodate development of the project and allow for creation of a pedestrian -oriented streetscape and open space, the Redevelopment Agency will quit claim the Fifth Street right- of-way to the applicant. The applicant will then record a 54-foot-wide easement for pedestrian and vehicular traffic between PCH and Walnut Avenue. The current width of the right-of-way is 80 feet. The proposed development encroaches 13 feet onto each of the east and west sides, resulting in the development of 26 feet of the right-of-way. The proposed public access easement consists of two 12-foot traffic lanes, with a 15-foot sidewalk on each side, resulting in a width of 54 feet. 2.4.1 Urban Design The design of the project includes a series of buildings that are intended to comply with and expand the existing grid pattern of downtown Huntington Beach. Each individual building within the project would be uniquely designed for its use and location. While the buildings within the project would be oriented toward the existing streets, Buildings A and B abut an approximately 3,000-square foot paseo connecting to the existing pedestrian passageway leading to Main Street. Additionally, all public areas and open space would be designed to include landscaping and enhanced hardscape materials. An integrated design scheme for pedestrian -oriented open spaces will focus on Fifth Street and extend to include the paseo connection to Main Street, the alley in Block 104, building setback areas, and the sidewalks adjacent to Pacific Coast Highway, Walnut Avenue, and Sixth Street. 2.4.2 Parking and Loading The majority of the parking for the project would be provided in a two -level, 397-space, subterranean parking garage accessed by way of a singlewide drive from Sixth Street. Six surface level parking spaces would also be provided on Block 105. Two primary points of egress provide pedestrian access to and from the parking garage. One elevator and stairwell located in the center of the project provide direct access to Fifth Street as well as the second level hotel lobby area. The other elevator and stairwell would be located within Building A, adjacent to the pedestrian connection to Main Street. Loading areas for Buildings A, B, and C in Block 104 would be provided adjacent to the rear alley between Main and Fifth Streets. The alley in Block 104 would also be widened. IThe Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 2-5 2.0 Project Description Loading for Buildings D, E, F, and G would be provided via a one-way, drive -through loading area. Delivery vehicles would enter the loading area from Sixth Street and exit onto Walnut Avenue. Access to individual tenant spaces within the building would be provided through interior corridors leading from the loading dock to the tenant spaces. 2.4.3 Project Phasing, Schedule, and Construction Subsequent to obtaining all required approvals and permits, construction is anticipated to occur between a 12- and 18-month period. Construction phases consist of demolition, excavation, construction of subterranean parking garage, construction of building structure, exterior and interior finish work, and landscape/hardscape. Some of these phases would likely overlap. There would be between 20 and 100 workers on site daily during the various phases of construction. 2.4.4 Parking During Construction It is anticipated that workers would be able to park in the underground parking structure once it is competed. Until that time, all construction workers would be required to park at an off -site, off-street location approved by the City of Huntington Beach with shuttle service to and from the project site if determined to be necessary by and subject to the approval of the City Public Works Department. Temporary replacement parking for some spaces is also required to be provided within a reasonable distance of the project site, as approved by the City of Huntington Beach, until construction of the underground parking structure is complete. 2.5 DISCRPTIONARY ACTIONS AND APPROVALS The City of Huntington Beach is the lead agency for the proposed project in accordance with Section 15065(b) of the CEQA Guidelines. As such, the City will use this EIR to formulate its actions to either approve or deny the project. The specific actions that would need to be approved to construct the proposed project are as follows: ■ Conditional Use Permit for new construction within Downtown Specific Plan District Three ■ Special Permits for encroachment into the minimum ground floor and upper -story setbacks, exceeding maximum building height, and reduction of the Fifth Street View corridor 2-6 City of Huntington Beach 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Not to Scale SOURCE. Gensler -3-TRZCM`R.;IDMLI —%N—MAIRY PROPERTY UKE M) 235 SPACES T 23 SPACES M) AWNG PROVIDED 2-58 SPACES TA q Fi —, PROPERTY LINE - LILTWATT- PROFIEVY LINE 'AM STRUCTURE SUMMARY LEVEL I LEVEL 2 TOTAL M 235 SPACES 117 SPACES 352 SPACES T 23 SPACES 22 SPACES 45 SPACES (11.3%) rME SPACES 397 SPACES 258 SPACES 139 SPACES Ll - - - - - - - - - - ULTIMATE PROPERTY Oq — PROPERTY LINE FIGURE 2-6 posed Underground Parking Level 1 City of Huntington Beach - Block 104/105 EIR Not to Scale SOURCE. Gensler - - - - - - - - - - NQ STRUCTURE LEVEL 2 5UWAARY PROPERTY LIE )ARD 117 SPACES ACT 22 SPACES (15m.) PARKING PROMDED 139 SPACES PARKING STRUCTURE PROPERTY1 LEVEL P! ABOVE ULTIMATE PROPERTYONE I 1 - - - - - - - - - - ULTIMATE PROPERTY LINE — PROPERTY Y LWE FIGURE 2-7 posed Underground Parking Level 2 City of Huntington Beach • Block 104/105 EIR 7 2.0 Project Description it 0 11 P ■ Coastal Development Permit for development within the City's designated Coastal Zone ■ Tentative Tract map to consolidate properties into one lot for condominium purposes Other City actions and reviews would include: all required permits from the Building and Safety Department, Fire Department, Planning Department, and Public Works Department. The permits include demolition, grading, and building permits, review of construction hauling, parking, and other construction activities, especially those which would take place within public rights -of -way, and installation of public utilities and related permits. 2.6 OTHER AGENCY ROLES AND APPROVALS In addition to the City of Huntington Beach, there are also local, State, and federal responsible agencies that have discretionary or appellate authority over specific aspects of the proposed project. The responsible agencies may also rely on this EIR when acting on those aspects of the project that require their approval. These agencies may similarly rely upon the information contained in this EIR when making decisions, recommendations, or determinations regarding this project. Responsible agencies include ■ Caltrans—A Caltrans encroachment permit would be processed for any work within the State right-of-way, such as signalization, grading, widening, drainage, or mainline improvements, etc. ■ California Regional Water Quality Control Board —Implementation of the project requires a permit for groundwater dewatering during construction 2.6.1 Cumulative Project Scenario Cumulative impacts refer to the combined effect of project impacts with the impacts of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. Both CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines require that cumulative impacts be analyzed in an EIR when the resulting impacts are cumulatively considerable, and therefore, potentially significant. The discussion of cumulative impacts must reflect the severity of the impacts, as well as the likelihood of their occurrence; however, the discussion need not be as detailed as the discussion of environmental impacts attributable to the project alone. Further, the discussion is intended to be guided by the standards of practicality and reasonableness. According to Section 15355 of the 1999 CEQA Guidelines: "Cumulative impacts" refer to two or more individual" effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts. The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 2-7 2.0 Project Description (a) The individual effects may be changes resulting from a single project or a number of separate projects. (b) The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment that results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time. Further, according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 (a)(1): As defined in Section 15355, a "cumulative impact" consists of an impact that is created as a result of the combination of the project evaluated in the EIR together with other projects causing related impacts. An EIR should not discuss impacts that do not result in part from the project evaluated in the EIR. In addition, as stated in the CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064(i)(5) it should be noted that: The mere existence of significant cumulative impacts caused by other projects alone shall not constitute substantial evidence that the proposed project's incremental effects are cumulatively considerable. Therefore, the cumulative discussion in an EIR focuses on whether the impacts of the project under review are cumulatively considerable within the context of impacts caused by other past, present, or future projects. Cumulative impact discussions for each issue area are provided in the technical analyses contained within Section 3.0 (Environmental Analysis). This EIR uses a list of development projects planned, approved, or under construction in the City of Huntington Beach to provide a forecast of cumulative impacts. This list is presented in Table 2.6-1. In addition, several projects located outside the City were determined to be large enough and close enough to impact traffic in the City, as many patrons and employees of these projects would travel City roadways to reach their destinations. These projects have been added to the cumulative list for several issues addressed in this EIR. The cumulative impacts analyzed in this EIR (impacts from related projects in conjunction with the proposed project) would likely represent a "worst -case" scenario for the following reasons: ® Not all of the related projects are expected to be approved and/or built. Further, it is also likely that many of the related projects will not be constructed or opened until after the proposed project had been built and occupied ® Some related projects are now completed and occupied ■ Impact projections for related projects would likely be, or have been, subject to unspecified mitigation measures, which would reduce potential impacts 2-8 City of Huntington Beach 1 L 2.0 Project L P C F 11 L H E ■ Many related projects are expressed in terms of gross square footage or are conceptual plans such as master plans that assume complete development; in reality, such projects may be smaller (i.e. the net new development) because of the demolition or removal of existing land uses resulting from development of the related project Table 2.6-1 Cumulative Projects List PtujectNanw Location P►ojectDes *lion AES Power Northeast corner of Installation of SCR system and retooling two existing Generating Station Beach and Newland mothballed generating units; currently under construction Beachside Northeast corner of 86-unit detached single-family condominiums Beach and Atlanta currently under construction Central Park West side of 20 pipe corrals, three office trailers, 6,500 square feet of Equestrian Goldenwest, 400 feet manure bunkers and other facilities, and 4,000-square- expansion north of Ellis foot maintenance yard; under construction Central Park Sports South side of Talbert 45-acre sports complex with eight lighted softball Complex between Goldenwest fields overlain with eight soccer fields, two 1,680 and Gothard square feet concession/restroom buildings, one 900 square foot maintenance building, two tot lot playgrounds, and an 858-space parking lot; approved, under construction Delaware West side of Delaware 30 apartment units approved; possible conversion to Apartments between Memphis and condominiums Nashville Geil Kiln Northwest corner of 21,000-square-foot kiln manufacturing building; Gothard and Stewart approved, not yet under construction Bella Terra North side of Edinger Demolition of existing mall and new construction of Huntington Beach between Beach and approximately 982,000 square feet; approved, not yet Mall Southern Pacific under construction Railroad In-N-Out Burger East side of Beach, 3,100-square-foot high -volume fast food restaurant; approximately 150 feet approved, construction to begin 2003 south of Talbert Lowe's Home North side of Warner, 135,197 square feet and garden center of 26,873 square Improvement east of B Street feet ' with one 8,500-square-foot restaurant pad; Warehouse submitted but not yet approved Magnolia Pacific Southwest corner of 40 acres, 502 dwelling units; Superfund site, no Specific Plan Magnolia and Hamilton development proposed to date (Ascon/NESI site) Hyatt Regency Northwest corner of 17,000 square feet, 530-room resort hotel; under Resort and Spa Beach and Pacific Coast construction Highway (PCH) 1 The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 2-9 2.0 Project Description 0 Table 2.6-1 Cumulative Projects List Project Name Location Pmaj Description Pacific City North side of PCH 31-acre parcel for mixed -use retail, restaurant, office, between Huntington entertainment, and residential; submitted to the City, and First Streets not yet approved Peninsula Southwest corner of 95,000 square feet of commercial development; Marketplace Goldenwest and construction completed May 2001 Garfield Poseidon Resources Northeast corner of 50 mgd seawater desalination plant facility; Corporation Beach and Newland at application submitted AES Plant Seacliff Village North side of 260,000 square feet of commercial development; Yorktown, between construction nearing completion Main and Goldenwest Seacliff Business East side of 62,000-square-foot industrial business parking; Center Goldenwest, south of approved, not yet under construction Clay Sienna Apartments Northeast corner of 29 apartment units; entitlements approved June 2001, Gothard and Clay under construction Southridge Homes East side of Main, West 13 single-family homes; approved, not yet under of Holly, North of Clay construction Summerlane Midway between Bolsa 313 single-family residential units; under construction, Chica and Graham and nearing completion midway between Heil and Warner Sunrise Assisted North of Yorktown, 126-bed (maximum) assisted -living facility consisting Living Facility east of Main of 3 structures encompassing a total of 66,025 square feet; approved, under construction The Boardwalk Southwest corner of of 188 single-family residential units and 67 multi -family Goldenwest and Palm townhomes; under construction The Tides East side of Goldenwest 77-unit townhomes; under construction at Summit Drive Victoria Woods West side of Main, 271 senior apartment units; approved, not yet under Senior Apartments north of Seacliff Village construction Shopping Center Wal-Mart South side of Talbert, 130,000 square feet plus 9,000-square-foot garden approximately 300 feet center with three retail/restaurant pads from 3,500 east of Beach Boulevard square feet to 6200 square feet; completed; Wal-Mart opened January 2002 Waterfront North of Ocean Grand Maximum of 172 units; project entitled, no plans Residential Resort submitted yet Development 0 2-10 City of Huntington Beach 2.0 Project Description H Table 2.6-1 Cumulative Projects ]List PrOectName Location PrejectDescripiion Woodwind North side of Talbert, 97,000-square-foot industrial business park; completed ' Commerce between Gothard and Industrial Park Beach ' Source: City of Huntington Beach, 2001 L r [I I C 1 1 The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 2-11 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 Introduction This section is the primary component of the EIR, as it provides information on a roject's P �' p P P J ' existing conditions, its potential impacts, and feasible mitigation measures. The existing conditions component defines the environmental conditions as they currently exist on and near the project site. Project impacts are defined as the project's effect on the existing environment. When significant impacts are identified, mitigation measures are provided to reduce these impacts to less -than -significant levels, where possible. Environmental topics ' addressed in the EIR were identified by the City of Huntington Beach through the IS/NOP process. The purpose of this section is to inform readers of the type and magnitude of the 1 project's environmental impacts and how such impacts would affect the existing environment. Effects Not Found to Be Significant Note, however, that not all issue areas are examined in this EIR. The analysis provided in the Initial Study for the project (included in Appendix A) determined that impacts associated with some issue areas would be less than significant and additional environmental review would not be required. Issue areas for which effects were determined not to be significant ' are as follows: ■ Agricultural Resources ® Biological Resources ■ Hazards and Hazardous Materials (However, at the request of the Huntington Beach Fire Department, an analysis of oil wells and associated soils hazards is provided in Section 3.4, Geology and Hydrology.) ■ Mineral Resources ■ Recreation (Note that the Initial Study determined that the only potential recreation impact anticipated under the proposed project would be lifeguard services, which was provided in Section 3.8, Public Services and Utilities.) 1 The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3-1 0 3.1 Aesthetics/Visual Qua I H L H_ r I II CIS' F 3.1 AESTHETICS/VISUAL QUALITY 3.1.1 Introduction The Initial Study prepared for this project (which is included as Appendix A of this document) determined that effects on scenic vistas, scenic highways, and light and glare resulting from implementation of the proposed project would be potentially significant. Therefore, this section discusses the potential effects of the proposed project upon the existing character and visual quality of the project site and its surroundings. This section also considers the potential for shade and shadow effects upon neighboring residential development. The context for this assessment is the quality of the site as a visitor -serving commercial -type visual resource with respect to the surrounding area. The evaluation presented here is primarily based on a site visit by EIP Associates personnel on September 26, 2001. Photographs are included to supplement the textual descriptions provided; Figure 3.1-1 provides a key to the vantage points of these photographs. Complete references for citations in this section are provided in Section 7.0. 3.1.2 Existing Conditions ® The City of Huntington Beach The City of Huntington Beach has approximately ten miles of shoreline along the Pacific Ocean, extending from Anaheim Bay south to the Santa Ana River mouth. Elevations in the eastern portion of the City are within the range of 50 to 60 feet above mean sea level (MSL), dropping at Beach Boulevard, and then rising again further inland (City 1996). Elevations in the remainder of the City rise abruptly at the shoreline, from sea level to approximately 100 feet above MSL at the Huntington Beach Mesa. The project site is an example of this pattern, lying along the coast, with an elevation ranging approximately 30 to 35 feet above MSL. A sequence of mesas and small bays are found along this portion of the Orange County coast that provide the most notable diversity in local landforms in Huntington Beach. These landform features have played a notable role in the development of the City and figure considerably into the City's visual resources. These mesas and their virtually vertical bluffs are visible from many directions. When viewed from the coast, the bluffs partially mask urban development in northern Orange County In contrast, broad views of the Pacific 1 The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3.1-1 3.0 Environmental Ana coastlines are available from the bluffs of the Huntington Beach and Bolsa Chica mesas, and from portions of the Pacific Coast Highway (Pacific Coast Highway). No single urban pattern defines the City of Huntington Beach. The General Plan EIR (City 1996) describes three identifiable patterns: town lot, superblock, and planned development communities. The Project Vicinity According to the City of Huntington Beach General Plan EIR (City 1996), the project site lies within an area known as the Downtown district. This district was developed in the town lot pattern, in which lots were configured to convey a distinct "coastal village character" that is representative of many Southern California coastal communities. This consists of small lots and short blocks that have been developed in a consistent grid pattern and include bricked, pedestrian -friendly crosswalks on Main Street in the Huntington Beach Pier area. Development surrounding the site consists of residential uses to the north and northeast, commercial/office uses to the east, southeast, northwest, and the Pacific Ocean to the southwest. The project site is located within the distinct Downtown district, and in general, the area surrounding the project site exhibits a consistent coastal design theme. The nearby visitor -serving commercial/ office developments bordering Main Street provide the most appropriate basis for an aesthetic pattern and are comprised of a series of similar white and subdued earthen tone concrete, two- to four-story structures with a modern Mediterranean style of architecture. The Ocean View Promenade, located immediately south/southeast of the project site, is an example of this type of mixed -use vertical development, with set -backs at its upper levels and facade treatment composed of white and subdued earthen tone concrete with light, reflective glass, balconies, and terra cotta tile roofing (see Photo 6 [Figure 3.1-41 and Photo 7 [Figure 3.1-5]). The residential development north and northeast of the project site, across Walnut Avenue and the intersection of Walnut Avenue and Sixth Street, consists primarily of one-story, single-family dwelling units along with some two-story multi -family units that characterize the typical small lots and short blocks of beach communities. ® Views Onto And Through The Project Site Most views of the project site consist of vacant lots, older parking lots, and the backs of commercial buildings bordering the project site. With the exception of the on -site structure, 3.1-2 City of Huntington Beach 1 ® ® ® ® ® ® m ® ® m ® ® ® ® ® ® ® m FIGURE 3.1-1 Not to Scale - Photo Location Map SOURCE. EIP Associates 10363-00 City of Huntington Beach 0 CI' I L L Photo ® View of Worthy property from the north. Photo ® View of Block 105 parking lot, looking northeast from behind Papa Joe's Pizza restaurant. 1 FIGURE 3.1-2 Not to Scale Photos 1 and 2 SOURCE: EIP Associates 10363-00 A s s n T b 6 City of Huntington ton Beach u U P ii F I L �i kO A Photo ® Rear view of the Ocean View Promenade on Block 104, looking south/southwest from Walnut Street. IF �=i`,• yw 1 �I � rk •°,• -- -$:� +Ir IV�l hill F, Ei Qm�3£4*,'w --„ „<+egjryp�WeM'n Photo 0 Rear view of the Ocean View Promenade and El Don Liquor/Surf and Sport building from the northeast. FIGURE 3.1-3 Not to Scale _.... .��?. Photos 3 and 4 SOURCE: EIP Associates 10363-00 > 8 r City of Huntington Beach Photo ® View of vacant lot and Papa Joe's Pizza restaurant along Pacific Coast Highway from the northwest. Photo Q View of Ocean View Promenade and other commerciaVoffice buildings near the Main Street Pier entrance, looking southeast along Pacific Coast Highway. FIGURE 3.1-4 Not to Scale Photos 5 and 6 SOURCE. E I P Associates 10363-00 City of Huntington Beach I 7 l i d 7 d d Photo ® View of El Don Liquor/Surf and Sport building from the southwest, looking across Pacific Coast Highway. Photo Q View down 5th Street from northeast of, the project site. FIGURE 3.1-5 Not to Scale Photos 7 and 8 TE 5 ....•., ,.. SOURCE. EIP Associates 10363-00 1 O is 1 ACity of Huntington Beach L I L I I L Photo Q View of Main Street Pier and the Pacific Ocean, looking south from Block 105 portion of the project site. Photo View of Huntington Beach police sub -station and residences along 5th Street, looking northeast from the project site. FIGURE 3.1-6 Not to Scale � .. Photos 9 and 10 SOURCE. EIP Associates 10363-00 c T E City of Huntington Beach 7 7 7 L 7 I Photo View of commercial structures at the intersection of Main Street and Walnut Street, looking east from Block 104 portion of the project site. Photo ® Pacific Coast Highway frontage to the southeast (not included on Photo Location Map), looking northwest to the project site. FIGURE 3.1-7 Not to Scale Photos 11 and 12 SOURCE. EIP Associates 10363-00 City of Huntington ton Beach 3.1 AestketicslVisual Quality Papa Joe's Pizza, which is small in stature and surrounded by undeveloped lots, the project site serves as an underutilized resource that provides parking between existing uses. The aesthetics analysis in the Downtown Specific Plan EIR (City 1983, p. 39), which is hereby incorporated by reference, determined (at the time of preparation of that EIR) that "the areas immediately inland from Pacific Coast Highway include a wide variety of uses, most of which are visually unattractive," and that "most aesthetic impacts from the [Downtown Specific] Plan will be positive ones." Project site features visible from the northeast residential and commercial uses consists of vacant lots, parking lots (see Photo 2 [Figure 3.1- 2]), and the backs of commercial buildings along Pacific Coast Highway on Block 104 (see Photos 3 and 4 [Figure 3.1-3]). A fenced, abandoned oil production facility, vacant lots, and commercial building containing Papa Joe's Pizza (see Photo 5 [Figure 3.1-4]) comprise the view of the project site from commercial and residential uses to the northwest. The most substantial public views that could be affected by the project are those from the Fifth Street right-of-way, which provides a public view corridor of the beach and the Pacific 1 Ocean. The existing right-of-way is 80 feet wide, and the view of the coast through the right- of-way is shown in Photo 8 (Figure 3.1-5).0ther public views through the site include those ' available from Walnut Avenue, immediately northeast of the Block 105 portion of the project site. Public views from Walnut Avenue through Block 104 are almost completely obscured, as shown in Photo 3 (Figure 3.1-3), by two- to four-story commercial buildings, including the Ocean View Promenade, along the Main Street and Pacific Coast Highway frontages of the block. Public views currently exist from Walnut Avenue through portions of Block 105, similar to the views shown in Figure 3.1-5, Photo 8. However, the Helme-Worthy Property, located on the northern corner of Block 105 adjacent to the northern portion of the project site, dominates views onto and through the site from many of the residential properties to the north and east (see Photo 1). This private property consists primarily of historic, two-story ' residential and commercial structures. Additionally, as shown in Photo 1 (Figure 3.1-2) and Photo 5 (Figure 3.1-4), fencing lines extending from the fenced yard of the Worthy Property, across the Sixth Street and Pacific Coast Highway frontages of the vacant parcels along the northwestern side of Block 105, which obscures substantial portions of the street -level views through the project site from Sixth Street. Private views through the project site also exist ' from commercial and residential uses along Walnut Avenue, as well as from the Worthy 1 The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3.1-3 3.0 Environmental Analysis property itself; however, the California Coastal Act and the City emphasize the preservation of public views. The Ocean View Promenade, the commercial building that contains El Don Liquor and Surf and Sport (see Photo 7 [Figure 3.1-4]), vacant lots and parking, and Papa Joe's Pizza dominate the view of the project site from the beach, located on the coastal side of Pacific Coast Highway, and the Main Street Pier. Views From The Project Site As described above, portions of Huntington Beach Blocks 104 and 105 contain the project site and possess significant frontage along Pacific Coast Highway. Therefore, ocean, beach, and pier views from the project site would be integral to project design. The entire western portion of the project site that borders Pacific Coast Highway has a direct view of the Pacific Ocean, the beach, (see Photo 9 [Figure 3.1-6]) and the Main Street Pier. Palm trees line the beach side of Pacific Coast Highway and are prominent in the southwestern view from the project. A small police substation on the eastern corner of Walnut Street and Fifth Street (see Photo 10 [Figure 3.1-6]) can be seen from the middle to eastern portions of the project site. The northwestern and northeastern views from the project site consist of residential and commercial uses (see Photo 11 [Figure 3.1-7]). The Ocean View Promenade offers virtually complete visual relief from views to the southeast from the project site. The beach, ocean, and City amenities along the beach are visible only from the existing commercial structures on Block 104 along Pacific Coast Highway, and the ocean is not visible from most of the eastern portion of Block 105 due to the Papa John's Pizza structure and the fences surrounding the vacant lots on the northwestern half of the block. 3.1.3 Regulatory Framework The proposed project was evaluated for consistency with applicable policies in the Huntington Beach General Plan: consistency of the project with the District 3 development standards in the Downtown Specific Plan is evaluated in Section 3.5, Land Use. Where a specific policy associated with a goal or objective was not identified as applicable to the project, the project was evaluated for consistency with the goal or objective itself. 3.1-4 City of Huntington Beach 1 3.1 Aesthetics/Visual Quality H n C I r 0 City of Huntington Beach General Plan Environmental Resources/Conservation Element The Environmental Resources/Conservation Element of the Huntington Beach General Plan includes goals, objectives, and policies for environmental resources, including aesthetic resources. The following goals, and objectives were determined to be potentially relevant to the proposed project. This section also includes an assessment of the proposed project's consistency with the policies adopted in support of these goals and objectives. Goal ERC 4 Maintain the visual quality of the City's natural landforms and water bodies. Objective ERC 4.1 Enhance and preserve the aesthetic resources of the City, including natural resources of the City, including natural areas, beaches, bluffs, and significant public views. Consistency with Objective ERC 4.1 As described in Section 3.1.2, public views through Blocks 104 and 105 are blocked by fencing, two- to four-story commercial structure, and the Helme-Worthy property and do not exist through the site from Walnut Avenue, Fifth Street, Sixth Street, or the site itself. Views only exist through the Fifth Street and Sixth Street rights -of -way. Proposed development is allowed by the General Plan land use and zoning designation on the property. The project would develop two- to four-story commercial structures on portions of Blocks 104 and 105. These new structures require a Conditional Use Permit, and Special Permits are requested to encroach into required ground floor and upper story setback, to exceed maximum building height, and to narrow the Fifth Street view corridor. The applicant would be required to demonstrate that the Special Permits would result in a better project than that which could be constructed in strict compliance with the provisions of the Downtown Specific Plan. Views of the coast from Sixth Street would not be affected by the project; however, the Fifth Street right-of-way would be narrowed. Section 4.2.16(f) of the Downtown Specific Plan, which provides for the narrowing of north -south streets connecting Walnut Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway, requires that a view corridor be provided that is not less than the width of the street to be vacated. The existing width of Fifth Street is 80 feet, and the proposed project would provide a building -to -building view corridor of 65 feet. Therefore, 1 The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3.1-5 3.0 Environmental Ana the new structures would not provide the view corridor required in the Downtown Specific Plan for the purpose of preserving coastal views. However, the proposed project includes a request for a Special Permit to narrow the Fifth Street View corridor. Obtaining these Special Permits would bring the project into compliance with the intent of the Downtown Specific Plan. Additionally, the proposed project would provide a public terrace on the first floor of the proposed hotel, which would provide enhanced coastal view opportunities. The proposed project would, therefore, be consistent with Objective ERC 4.1. Policy ERC 4.1.6 Require that future development be designed and sited to maintain the natural topographic characteristics of the City including the minimization of the area and height of cuts and fills. Consistency with Policy ERC 4.1.6 The project would redevelop an underused site that has previously been graded and is generally flat, with no distinct natural topographical features. Although the proposed project requires cut grading to accommodate the proposed 397-space subsurface parking facility, the effects of this grading would not be visible upon completion of the project, as the ground level of the project structures would be nearly identical to the grade currently existing on the project site. The proposed project would, therefore, be consistent with Policy ERC 4.1.6. Policy ERC 4.1.8 Include . commercial, residential, industrial, and natural areas in the electrical undergrounding program. Consistency with Policy ERC.4.1.8 Existing wet utilities and gas lines serving the project site are located underground. As shown in Photo 2 (Figure 3.1-2), some aboveground utility lines cross Block 105. However, any 66kV lines would, upon entering the project site, be routed underground, and all new utilities installed underground. Additionally, the proposed project provides new utility connections to the project, which would be placed underground, following the current requirements of the City of Huntington Beach. The project would, therefore, be consistent with Policy ERC 4.1.8. 3.1-6 City of Huntington Beach 1 F 3.1 Aesthetics/Visual Quali G E 11 L 0 I I 11 0 0 City of Huntington Beach General Plan -Coastal Element Goal C 4 Preserve and, where feasible, enhance and restore the aesthetic resources of the City's coastal zone, including natural areas, beaches, harbors, bluffs, and significant public views. Policy C 4.1.1 The scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of public importance. Permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect public views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas. Consistency with Policy C 4.1.1 The project would develop two- to four-story commercial structures on portions of Blocks 104 and 105. The Downtown Specific Plan, which governs development on the project site, specifies no maximum site coverage for the project site. The project proposes to encroach into the Fifth Street right-of-way, narrowing the current 80-foot right-of-way to a 65-foot- wide building -to -building separation, which would constrain an existing public view of the coast. Therefore, the new structures would not provide the view corridor required in the Downtown Specific Plan for the purpose of preserving coastal views. However, as stated above, the proposed project includes a request for a Special Permit to narrow the Fifth Street View corridor. Obtaining these Special Permits would bring the project into compliance with the intent of the Downtown Specific Plan with regard to coastal views. Additionally, Special Permits would be requested to encroach into required ground level and upper story setbacks, and to exceed maximum building height. The proposed project would also provide a public terrace on the first floor of the proposed hotel, which would provide enhanced coastal view opportunities. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Policy C 4.1.1. Policy C 4.1.4 Preserve skyward, nighttime views through minimization of lighting levels along the shoreline. 1 The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3.1-7 3.0 Environmental Consistency with C 4.1.4 Proposed Mitigation Measure 3.1-1, below, requires the applicant to use minimum safe light levels and specially designed lights directed downwards and away from surrounding. uses, including the shoreline, and onto the project site to avoid light pollution and spillage. The proposed project would, therefore, be consistent with Policy C 4.1.4. Policy C 4.2.1 Ensure that the following minimum standards are met by new development in the Coastal Zone as feasible and appropriate: (A) Preservation of public views to and from the bluffs, to the shoreline and ocean and to the wetlands. (B) Adequate landscaping and vegetation. (C) Evaluation of project design regarding visual impact and compatibility. Consistency with Policy C 4.2.1 The project would incorporate appropriate design elements from the surrounding coastal development, including architectural style, form, ornamentation, color, pedestrian -friendly aesthetics, and overall mass and scale, in order to make the appearance of the buildings proposed as consistent or as complementary to the coastal atmosphere and visual quality of surrounding development, notably the Ocean View Promenade, to the extent feasible. The City's Design Review Board has reviewed the project and recommended approval of the design concept. Surrounding uses on Sixth Street and north of Walnut Avenue are primarily residential uses and some commercial uses, and although the character of the proposed structures is fundamentally different, the proposed project, as a mixed -use project, is a transitional use, and the differences in scale and allowed uses occur according to the zoning provided by the Downtown Specific Plan, as well as the General Plan land use designations. Additionally, as described above, the proposed project includes a request for Special Permits to encroach into ground floor and upper level setbacks, which would bring the project into consistency with the intent of the General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan. Views of the coast from Sixth Street would not be affected by the project; however, the Fifth Street right-of-way would be narrowed. Section 4.2.16(f) of the Downtown Specific Plan, which provides for the narrowing of north -south streets connecting Walnut Avenue and 3.1-8 City of Huntington Beach 1 h 3.1 AestheticslVisual Quality I I Pacific Coast Highway, requires that a view corridor be provided that is not less than the width of the street to be vacated. The existing width of Fifth Street is 80 feet, and the proposed project would provide a building -to -building view corridor of 65 feet. Therefore, the new structures would not provide the view corridor required in the Downtown Specific Plan for the purpose of preserving coastal views. However, the proposed project includes a request for a Special Permit to narrow the Fifth Street View corridor. Obtaining these Special Permits would bring the project into compliance with the intent of the Downtown Specific Plan regarding coastal views. Additionally, the proposed project would provide a public terrace on the fourth floor of the proposed hotel, which would provide enhanced coastal view opportunities. The proposed project would, therefore, be consistent with Policy C 4.2.1. 1 Policy C 4.2.2 k P Require that the massing, height, and orientation of new development be designed to protect public coastal views. Consistency with Policy 4.2.2 As described above, the proposed project would require a Special Permit to encroach into upper level setbacks and into the Fifth Street view corridor, as required by the Downtown Specific Plan. Obtaining these Special Permits would bring the project into consistency with the intent of the Downtown Specific Plan regarding public views. Additionally, the proposed project would provide a public terrace on the fourth floor of the proposed hotel, which would provide enhanced coastal view opportunities. The project would, therefore, be consistent with Policy C 4.2.2., Policy C 4.2.3 Promote the preservation of significant public view corridors to the coastal corridor including views of the sea and the wetlands through strict application of local ordinances, design guidelines, and related planning efforts, including defined view corridors. Consistency with C 4.2.3 Views of the coast from Sixth Street would not be affected by the project; however, the Fifth Street right-of-way would be narrowed. Section 4.2.16(f) of the Downtown Specific Plan, which provides for the narrowing of north -south streets connecting Walnut Avenue and ' Pacific Coast Highway, requires that a view corridor be provided that is not less than the 1 The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 34-9 3.0 Environmental Analysis width of the street to be vacated. The existing width of Fifth Street is 80 feet, and the proposed project would provide a building -to -building view corridor of 65 feet. Therefore, the new structures would not provide the view corridor required in the Downtown Specific Plan for the purpose of preserving coastal views. However, the proposed project includes a request for a Special Permit to narrow the Fifth Street View corridor. Obtaining these Special Permits would bring the project into compliance with the intent of the Downtown Specific Plan with respect to preserving coastal views. Additionally, the proposed project would provide a public terrace on the fourth floor of the proposed hotel, which would provide enhanced coastal view opportunities. The proposed project would, therefore, be consistent with Policy C 4.2.3. Objective C 4.6 Enhance the visual appearance of the Coastal Zone through the development and implementation of landscaping standards. Policy C 4.6.3 For new redevelopment, require the preservation of existing mature trees (as defined by the City's Landscape Ordinance). If preservation of existing mature trees is not feasible, require that removed trees be replaced at a minimum 2 to 1 ratio either on site, or elsewhere within the Coastal Zone, as prescribed by the City. Consistency with Policy C 4.6.3 Although a landscaping plan has yet been developed for the project, the landscaping provisions of the City's standard conditions of approval for the project require existing, mature perimeter trees that are to be removed from the project site be replaced at a 2:1 ratio with a 36-inch box tree or palm equivalent (13 to 14 feet of trunk height for Queen Palms and 8 to 9 feet of brown trunk). This condition of approval also requires the Applicant to provide a consulting arborist report on all existing trees to quantify, identify, size, and analyze the health of the existing trees. The report would also recommend how the existing trees that are to remain (if any) would be protected and how far construction/ grading would be kept from the trunk. With the incorporation of the City's standard conditions of approval, the proposed project would be consistent with policy C 4.6.3. 3.1-10 City of Huntington Beach 1 k 3.1 Aesthetics/Visual Qua k k I Objective C 4.7 Improve the appearance of visually degraded areas within the Coastal Zone. Policy C 4.7.1 Promote the use of landscaping material to screen uses that detract from the scenic quality of the coast along public rights -of -way and within public view. Consistency with Policy C 4.7.1 The proposed project would redevelop a visually degraded area within the Coastal Zone with new, high -quality commercial uses. The proposed project would, therefore, be consistent with Policy C 4.7.1. Policy C 4.7.2 Continue to locate new and relocated utilities underground when possible. All others shall be placed and screened to minimize public viewing. ' Consistency zvith Policy C 4.7.2 Existing wet utilities and gas lines serving the project site are located underground. As shown in Photo 2 (Figure 3.1-2), some aboveground electrical lines cross Block 105. However, these lines would, upon entering the project site, be routed underground, and all new utilities undergrounded. Additionally, all new utilities and connections necessary for the project would be placed underground, following the current requirements of the City of Huntington Beach. The project would, therefore, be consistent with Policy C 4.7.2. 3.1.4 Thresholds of Significance The proposed project will have a significant visual impact if it would do any of the following: ■ Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista ' ■ Remove existing visual elements that enhance the character of the area, or damage scenic resources within a State Scenic Highway ® Introduce a new visible element that would be inconsistent with the overall quality, scale and character of the surrounding development ■ Introduce a substantial new source of light or glare The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3.1-11 3.0 Environmental Ana ■ Result in the casting of shadows on adjacent residential properties for more than three hours ■ Conflict with applicable plans and policies adopted for the purpose of protecting aesthetic resources 3.1.5 Impacts Impact 3.1-1 The proposed project could have an effect on the scenic .vista associated with Pacific Coast Highway, a State Scenic Highway. The project site is located on Pacific Coast Highway in the vicinity of the Huntington Beach Pier and Main Street within the downtown area. As stated within the General Plan, the Huntington Beach Pier and Pierside Pavilion are collectively considered a landmark, which is defined as a significant reference point that helps to identify and characterize a particular area within the City. Development of the proposed project could provide the potential for the loss of the scenic vista that includes the pier and the pavilion. However, Block 104 already contains the existing four-story Ocean View Promenade retail and office building, as well as the two-story El Don Liquor building and other commercial structures fronting Main Street, and the proposed project structures would be developed adjacent to and substantially similar to the scale of these uses. Additionally, the tallest structures associated with the proposed project would be developed on Block 105: a city block and the entire Pacific Coast Highway right-of-way would therefore separate the project from the Huntington Beach Pier and Pierside Pavilion, which would provide horizontal separation that would reduce the visual effect associated with additional development on the project site. Project implementation could also alter scenic resources along Pacific Coast Highway, which is designated as a State scenic highway. This section of Pacific Coast Highway adjacent to the project site runs parallel and adjacent to the coastline, providing scenic views of the Pacific Ocean and City beaches to pedestrians and commuters. The proposed project would include development limited to the east side of Pacific Coast Highway, and would not affect views of the Pacific Ocean from Pacific Coast Highway. Currently, the view corridor that includes the project site contains vacant lots, parking lots, and an occupied structure (Papa Joe's Pizza), which were considered by the Downtown Specific Plan EIR (as described above) to be degraded visual resources and not consistent with the visual quality and ambiance envisioned by the Downtown Specific Plan. Those site features would be improved by redevelopment. Therefore, as previously determined in the Downtown Specific Plan EIR, the proposed project would improve the visual character of the viewshed along Pacific Coast 3.1-12 City of Huntington Beach 1 I 3.1 Aesthetics/Visual Quality r�� C Highway, which includes Blocks 104 and 105, by providing new development that is generally consistent with adjacent commercial uses along Pacific Coast Highway. Additionally, the beach, the Huntington Beach Pier, and the Pacific Ocean— the salient visual resources of the Pacific Coast Highway viewshed — would not be affected by the proposed project. Therefore, the impact of the proposed project upon the Pacific Coast Highway view corridor in the vicinity of the project, as well as project effects upon scenic resources, would be less than significant. Impact 3.1-2 Implementation of the proposed development would reduce view opportunities via the Fifth Street right-of-way. As described above, views exist of the beach and the Pacific Ocean through the Fifth Street right-of-way. View through the Fifth Street right-of-way would be constrained by the project, which proposes to narrow the right-of-way from the current 80 feet to a 65-foot building -to -building separation. The view down Fifth Street is considered a public view of the beach and the Pacific Ocean. Views available to commuters and pedestrians along Fifth Street would be affected with project encroachment upon Fifth Street, and the proposed structures would not provide the view corridor required in the Downtown Specific Plan for the purpose of preserving coastal views. However, the proposed project includes a request for a Special Permit to narrow the Fifth Street View corridor. Obtaining these Special Permits would bring the project into compliance with the intent of the Downtown Specific Plan with respect to preserving coastal views. Additionally, the proposed project would provide a public terrace on the fourth floor of the proposed hotel, which would provide enhanced, unrestricted, public coastal view opportunities. The narrowing of the Fifth Street right -of way would therefore be considered a less -than -significant impact. Impact 3.1-3 The proposed project could be incompatible with surrounding development. The development proposed would be compatible in massing and character with existing commercial development on Block 104, notably the 4-story Ocean View Promenade, as well as commercial and retail development along Main Street and Walnut Avenue associated with the distinct downtown district area. Although the project would exceed height limits, the applicant would obtain Special Permits to exceed maximum heights. Further, the existing Ocean View Promenade building also exceeds maximum height and does not provide full upper -story setbacks, pursuant to Special Permits issued for that project. The proposed project would incorporate the coastal design theme and modern Mediterranean style The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3.1-13 3.0 Environmental Ana architecture utilized by surrounding visitor -serving commercial/office developments bordering Main Street and Pacific Coast Highway (see Photo 6 [Figure 3.1-4] and Photo 12 [Figure 3.1-7]). As determined by the City's Design Review Board, the overall mass and scale of the structures, as well as design, would be compatible with these nearby and adjacent developments that characterize the downtown area. Proposed project structures would range up to four stories in height with small, beach -oriented retail and restaurant uses on the ground level and hotel and office uses on the upper levels. As the proposed project would provide the required upper -story setbacks along Sixth Street, the project would be visually consistent with surrounding residential and single -story commercial development along Sixth Street. The Downtown Specific Plan does not require upper -story setbacks along Walnut Avenue. Further, as stated above, the City's Design Review Board determined that the project would be compatible with existing uses. Therefore, the proposed project would be substantially compatible with surrounding development Impact 3.1-4 Implementation of the proposed project could introduce new sources of light and glare into the project vicinity. Project implementation would increase overall nighttime lighting in the project area with the introduction of: additional street lighting, building exterior lighting, and vehicle headlights. Uses across Walnut Avenue from Block 104 are commercial uses, which would not be considered sensitive receptors and, therefore, would not be adversely affected by increased light in the area. Residential uses across Walnut Avenue and Sixth Street from Block 105, as well as the Pacific shoreline across Pacific Coast Highway, could be exposed to exterior lighting associated with proposed Buildings D, E, F, and G; however, the lighting provisions of the Huntington Beach standard conditions of approval require that all outdoor lighting be directed to prevent light spillage onto adjacent properties, with indication of such provision on the final site plans. Implementation of the proposed project could also introduce additional reflective surfaces (e.g., brightly colored building facades, reflective glass) that could increase existing levels of daytime glare. This effect would potentially constitute a significant impact. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.1-2 would reduce this effect to a less -than - significant level by requiring the use of textured materials and coated glass on the exterior of the proposed structures. 3.1-14 City of Huntington Beach 1 3.1 Aesthetics/Visual Quality Ingress and egress from the proposed underground parking structure would be located on Sixth Street only. This entrance would be situated across from residences, so vehicle headlights could be directed onto residential properties across Sixth Street. Therefore, the impacts of vehicle headlights on residences, increased exterior lighting, and glare as a result of the proposed project would be potentially significant. Although implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.1-1 reduces the effect of increased, project -related nighttime lighting ' to a less -than -significant level, the effects of vehicle headlights on adjacent residential uses on Sixth Street cannot feasibly be mitigated and remains significant and unavoidable. Parking structure access cannot be relocated: Fifth Street, especially after the proposed reduction in right-of-way with implementation of the proposed project, as well as Walnut Avenue, does not contain sufficient right-of-way to accommodate such parking structure access. Fifth Street also provides the majority of pedestrian access to the proposed uses and would be subject to periodic closure to vehicular traffic to provide enhanced pedestrian opportunities, as well as for special events. In addition, Pacific Coast Highway cannot accommodate such access due to safety issues of locating parking structure access along a major highway, and Caltrans and the City Public Works Department have indicated that they would not allow such access. Additionally, the relocation could create aesthetic impacts to the Pacific Coast Highway viewshed. Impacts related to vehicular headlights on neighboring residences would, therefore, remain significant and unavoidable. Impact 3.1-5 The proposed project would cast shadows on surrounding residential uses. The potential shadows cast by the proposed project were derived by estimates of shadow length and direction for the following dates and times: ■ June 21, 2002 (Summer Solstice), 9:00 A.M.,12:00 P.M., and 3:00 P.M. ■ December 22, 2002 (Winter Solstice), 9:00 A.M.,12:00 P.M., and 3:00 P.M. The two solstice periods were evaluated in order to assess the most extreme shadow effects; the times were selected as a representative sample of shadow migration throughout the day. The United States Naval Observatory provided the surfs altitude and azimuth relative to the project site for the dates and times provided, and the mathematical formulae used to derive the corresponding shadow azimuths and lengths are available upon request from EIP ' Associates. Height for the four-story structures proposed on Block 105 was assumed to be 53 feet: although a tower structure proposed at Fifth Street and Pacific Coast Highway reaches 1 70 feet, no major project structure exceeds 53 feet, the bulk of the tower is low compared to The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3.1-15 3.0 Environmental Ana rest of the development, and assuming a 70-foot height for Buildings D, E, F, and G would substantially overstate impacts. Given the placement of surrounding uses (see Figure 2-2), shadows cast to the east or north would affect neighboring residential uses. The two-story structures proposed on Block 104 are not located near and would not affect residential uses. On the Summer Solstice (June 21, 2002), morning (9:00 A.M.) shadow lengths from the 53-foot structures on Block 105 would reach 67 feet and extend due west. Shadows would not be cast over the residential portion of the Worthy property, and would not reach residential uses across the 80-foot Sixth Street right-of-way. Noon shadows are oriented to the southwest, away from neighboring residential uses. Afternoon (3:00 P.M.) shadow lengths from the 53-foot structures on Block 105 would reach 29.9 feet. No shadow is oriented to be cast on the residential portion of the Worthy property, and because the Walnut Avenue right- of-way is 60 feet, no shadow extends to a neighboring use across Walnut Avenue. During Winter Solstice (December 22, 2002), the 53-foot-tall proposed project buildings would cast an approximately 146-foot shadow, bearing southwest, at 9:00 A.M. This shadow would not reach neighboring residential buildings. Shadows cast at noon during the Winter Solstice would extend due south, away from neighboring residential uses. Shadows cast at 3:00 P.M. during the Winter Solstice would reach approximately 170 feet, bearing southeast, and would also not reach residential structures. The proposed project would, therefore, not result in significant shade/ shadow impacts to adjacent and nearby residential structures. 3.1.6 Cumulative Impacts This analysis evaluates cumulative impacts citywide. Although the project site is currently zoned for mixed, visitor -serving uses, the project -induced loss of public views of the beach and the Pacific Ocean, although not significant on a project -specific level, contributes to the loss of such opportunities citywide, which constitutes a significant cumulative impact. The project is visually compatible with surrounding uses and would not contribute to any cumulative impact related to architectural compatibility. The project would, however, contribute to lighting impacts within the city, both by contributing to the ambient nighttime light levels, and by contributing to vehicular headlight impacts upon residences that neighbor commercial developments with parking structures or major ingress -egress routes directed towards residences. 3.1-16 City of Huntington Beach 1 3.1 Aesthetics/Visual Qua 3.1.7 Mitigation MM 3.1-1 The Applicant shall use minimum light levels required for safety, and exterior lights shall be directed downwards and away from surrounding uses, onto the project site. MM 3.1-2 To the extent feasible, the Applicant shall use non -reflective facade treatments, such as matte paint or glass coatings. 3.1.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation Impacts to the Pacific Coast Highway and Fifth Street viewsheds, as well as impacts regarding visual compatibility and shadows, would be less than significant. However, the proposed project would, after implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.1-1 and 3.1-2, result in significant and unavoidable impacts regarding nighttime lighting. The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3.1-17 3.2 Air L h r 0 0 3.2 AIR QUALITY 3.2.1 Air Quality This section evaluates the potential impacts on air quality resulting from construction and operation of the proposed project. This includes the potential for the proposed project to conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan, to violate an air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, to result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment, to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, or to create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Documents used in preparation of this section include the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) CEQA Air Quality Handbook and the 1997 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), as amended, as well as federal and state regulations and guidelines. 3.2.2 Existing Conditions Air Quality Background The proposed project site is located within the South Coast Air Basin (Basin); named so because its geographical formation is that of a basin, with the surrounding mountains trapping the air and its pollutants in the valleys or basins below. This area includes all of Orange County and the non -desert portions of Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. A wide range of emissions sources influence the air quality within the Basin, including dense population centers, heavy vehicular traffic, industry, and meteorology. Air pollutant emissions within the Basin are generated by stationary and mobile sources. Stationary sources can be divided into two major subcategories: point and area sources. Point sources occur at an identified location and are usually associated with manufacturing and industry. Examples are boilers and combustion equipment that produces electricity or generates heat. Area sources are widely distributed and produce many small emissions. Examples of area sources include residential and commercial water heaters, painting operations, lawn mowers, agricultural fields, landfills, and consumer products such as barbeque lighter fluid and hair spray. Mobile sources refer to emissions from motor vehicles, including tailpipe and evaporative emissions, and are classified as either on -road or off -road. IThe Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3.2-1 3.0 Environmental Ana On -road sources may be legally operated on roadways and highways. Off -road sources include aircraft, ships, trains, racecars, and self-propelled construction equipment. Mobile sources account for the majority of the air pollutant emissions within the Basin. Both the federal and state governments have established ambient air quality standards for outdoor concentrations of various pollutants in order to protect public health. The federal and state standards have been set at concentrations that could be generally harmful to human health and welfare, to protect the most sensitive persons from illness or discomfort with a margin of safety. Applicable standards are identified later in this EIR section. The SCAQMD is responsible for bringing air quality within the Basin into conformity with federal and State standards. The air pollutants most relevant to air quality planning and regulation in the Basin include ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), fine particulate matter (PMlo), and toxic air contaminants. Each of these is briefly described below. ■ Ozone gas forms when volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOX) — both byproducts of internal combustion engine exhaust —undergo slow photochemical reactions in the presence of sunlight. Ozone concentrations are generally highest during the summer months when direct sunlight, light wind, and warm temperature conditions are favorable. ■ Carbon Monoxide is a colorless, odorless gas produced by the incomplete combustion of fuels. CO concentrations tend to be the highest during winter mornings with little to no wind, when surface -based inversions trap the pollutant at ground levels. Because CO is emitted directly from internal combustion engines — unlike ozone — and motor vehicles operating at slow speeds are the primary source of CO in the Basin, the highest ambient CO concentrations are generally found near congested transportation corridors and intersections. ■ Fine Particulate Matter (PMlo) consists of extremely small suspended particles or droplets (10 microns or smaller in diameter). Some sources of PMlo, like pollen and windstorms, occur naturally. However, in populated areas most PMlo is caused by road dust, diesel soot, combustion products, abrasion of tires and brakes, and construction activities. ■ Toxic Air Contaminants refer to a diverse group of air pollutants that can affect human health, but have not had ambient air quality standards established for them. This is not because they are fundamentally different from the pollutants discussed above, but because their effects tend to be local rather than regional. 3.2-2 City of Huntington Beach 1 I 3.2 Air Quality C k L Existing Regional Air Quality The entire Basin is designated as a federal -level non -attainment area for ozone (extreme), CO, and Mo. The Basin is also a State -level non -attainment area for ozone, CO (Los Angeles County only), and Mo. In an effort to monitor the various concentrations of air pollutants throughout the Basin, the SCAQMD has divided the region into 27 source receptor areas (SRAs) in which 31 monitoring stations operate. The proposed project site is located within SRA 18, which covers the northern coastal area of Orange County. Table 3.2-1 identifies the federal and state air quality standards for relevant air pollutants that are -monitored within SRA 18 along with the ambient pollutant concentrations that were measured from 1999 to 2001. Table 3.2-1 Summary of Ambient Air Quality in the Project Vicinity PoAutant Air Quality Year Standards 1999 2000 2001 SRA 18—North Coastal Orange County Ozone Maximum 1-hour concentration 0.10ppm 0.10ppm 0.098ppm Number of days exceeding federal 1-hour standard >0.12 ppm 0 1 0 Number of days exceeding State 1-hour standard >0.09 ppm 1 1 1 Maximum 8-hour concentration 0.08ppm 0.087ppm 0.073ppm Number of days exceeding federal 8-hour standard >0.08 ppm 0 1 0 Carbon Monoxide (CO) Maximum 1-hour concentration 8.0ppm 8.Oppm N/A Number of days exceeding federal 1-hour standard >35.0 ppm 0 0 N/A Number of days exceeding State 1-hour standard >20.0 ppm 0 0 N/A Maximum 8-hour concentration 6.4ppm 6.3ppm 4.64ppm Number of days exceeding federal 8-hour standard 2:9.5 ppm 0 0 0 Number of days exceeding State 8-hour standard >9.0 ppm 0 0 0 ppm Parts by volume per million of air NA 2001 data is not available as of July 2002 Ambient concentrations of PM,o are not monitored within SRA 18. Sources: SCAQMD 2000, and 2001; California Air Resources Board 2002 ® Existing Local Air Quality The vicinity of the project site includes commercial, institutional, industrial, and residential land uses. Local emissions sources include stationary activities, such as space and water The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3.2-3 3.0 Environmental Analysis heating, landscape maintenance, consumer products, industrial processes, and mobile sources (primarily automobile and truck traffic). Motor vehicles are the primary source of pollutants within the project vicinity. Traffic - congested roadways and intersections have the potential to generate localized high levels of CO. Localized areas where ambient concentrations exceed federal and/or state standards for CO are termed CO "hotspots." Section 9.4 of the SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook identifies CO as a localized problem requiring additional analysis when a project is likely to subject sensitive receptors to CO hotspots. The SCAQMD recommends the use of CALINE4, a dispersion model for predicting CO concentrations, as the preferred method of estimating pollutant concentrations at sensitive receptors near congested roadways and intersections. For each intersection analyzed, CALINE4 adds roadway -specific CO emissions calculated from peak hour turning volumes to ambient CO air concentrations. For this analysis, CO concentrations were calculated based on a simplified CALINE4 screening procedure developed by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and accepted by the SCAQMD. The simplified model is intended as a screening analysis to identify potential CO hotspots. This methodology assumes worst -case conditions and screens maximum, worst -case, CO concentrations. Maximum CO concentrations were calculated for nine intersections in close proximity to the project site. The results of these calculations are presented in Table 3.2-2 for representative receptors located 25, 50, and 100 feet from each roadway. As shown, existing CO concentrations near these intersections do not exceed federal or State ambient air quality standards. Therefore, CO hotspots do not exist near these intersections. Existing summer traffic counts were performed as part of the study due to higher traffic volumes associated with seasonal beach usage. However, background CO concentrations are substantially lower in the summer than they are in the winter when surface -based inversions trap the pollutants at ground levels. Therefore, localized CO concentrations on weekends would be lower than the levels shown in Table 3.2-2. ® Existing Site Emissions The proposed project site is developed with a small commercial building and surface parking lots. There are also two vacant lots within the site. Minimal emissions are generated by the motor vehicles traveling to and from the commercial use. 3.2-4 City of Huntington Beach 1 3.2 Air Table 3.2-2 Existing Localized Carbon Monoxide Concentrations CO Commfthmns m PartsWMillimn Intersection t 25 feet 50 Feet 100 Feet 1-Hour 8-Hour 1-Hour 8-Hour 1-Hour 8-Hour Ninth Street & Pacific Coast Highway Sixth Street & 10.3 6.2 9.8 5.8 9.2 5.5 Pacific Coast Highway 10.0 6.0 9.6 5.4 9.1 5.4 Main Street & Pacific Coast Highway 9.9 5.9 9.5 5.7 9.1 5.4 First Street & Pacific Coast Highway 9.9 5.9 9.5 5.7 9.1 5.4 Huntington Street & Pacific Coast Highway 10.4 6.3 9.9 5.9 9.3 5.5 Beach Boulevard & Pacific Coast Highway 10.6 6.4 10.7 6.1 9.5 5.7 1 Main Street & Sixth Street 8.5 5.0 8.4 4.9 8.3 4.8 Beach Boulevard & Atlanta Avenue 9.7 5.8 9.4 5.6 9.0 5.3 tBeach Boulevard & Indianapolis Avenue 9.4 5.6 9.2 5.4 8.8 5.2 Federal 1-hour standard is 35.0 parts per million. State 1-hour standard is 20.0 parts per million. Federal 8-hour standard is 9.5 parts per million. State 8-hour standard is 9.1 parts per million. Source: OF Associates, 2002. Calculation sheets are provided in Appendix D. 3.2.3 Regulatory Framework Air quality within the Basin is addressed through the efforts of various federal, State, regional, and local government agencies. These agencies work jointly, as well as individually, to improve air quality through legislation, regulations, planning, policy - making, education, and a variety of programs. The agencies responsible for improving the air quality within the Basin are discussed below. ® U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ' The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) sets and enforces federal ambient air quality standards for atmospheric pollutants. It regulates emission sources that fall under ' the exclusive authority of the federal government, such as aircraft, ships, and certain locomotives. The U.S. EPA also has jurisdiction over emissions sources outside state waters (beyond the outer continental shelf), and establishes various emissions standards for vehicles sold in states other than California. As part of its enforcement responsibilities, the U.S. EPA requires each state with non - attainment areas to prepare and submit a state implementation plan (SIP) that demonstrates the means to attain the federal standards. The SIP must integrate federal, State, and local plan components and regulations to identify specific measures to reduce pollution, using a combination of performance standards and market -based programs. The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3.2-5 3.0 Environmental Ana California Air Resources Board The California Air Resources Board (ARB), a part of the California Environmental Protection Agency, is responsible for the coordination and administration of both state and federal air pollution control programs within California. In this capacity, the ARB conducts research, sets State ambient air quality standards, compiles emission inventories, develops suggested control measures, and provides oversight of local programs. The ARB establishes emissions standards for motor vehicles sold in California, consumer products (such as hair spray, aerosol paints, and barbecue lighter fluid), and various types of commercial equipment. It also sets fuel specifications to further reduce vehicular emissions. ® Southern California Association of Governments The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is a council of governments of Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura Counties. It is a regional planning agency and serves as a forum for regional issues relating to transportation, the economy and community development, and the environment. Although SCAG is not an air quality management agency, it is responsible for developing transportation, land use, and energy conservation measures that affect air quality. SCAG's Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG) provides growth forecasts used in the development of air quality -related land use and transportation control strategies by the SCAQMD. The RCPG is a framework for decision -making for local governments, assisting them in meeting federal and state mandates for growth management, mobility, and environmental standards, while maintaining consistency with regional goals regarding growth and changes through the year 2015 and beyond. Policies within the RCPG include consideration of air quality, land use, transportation, and economic relationships by all levels of government. ® South Coast Air Quality Management District The SCAQMD is the agency principally responsible for comprehensive air pollution control in the Basin. To that end, the SCAQMD, a regional agency, works directly with SCAG, county transportation commissions, and local governments and cooperates actively with all State and federal agencies. The SCAQMD develops rules and regulations, establishes permitting requirements, inspects emissions sources, and enforces such measures though educational programs or fines, when necessary. 3.2-6 City of Huntington Beach 1 3.2 Air Quality 1 The SCAQMD is directly responsible for reducing emissions from stationary (area and point), mobile, and indirect sources. It has responded to this requirement by preparing a series of AQMPs. The Governing Board of the SCAQMD adopted the most recent of these on November 16, 1996. This AQMP (the 1997 AQMP) was prepared to comply with the federal and State Clean Air Acts and amendments, to accommodate growth, to reduce the high pollutant levels of pollutants in the Basin, to meet federal and state air quality standards, and tto minimize the fiscal impact that pollution control measures have on the local economy. The Governing Board adopted an amendment to the ozone portion of the 1997 AQMP on December 10, 1999. Principal control measures of the AQMP focus on adoption of new regulations, enhancement of existing regulations for stationary sources, and implementation and facilitation of advanced transportation technologies (i.e., telecommunication, zero emission and alternative -fueled vehicles and infrastructure, and both capital and non -capital 1 transportation improvements). Capital improvements consist of high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes, transit improvements, traffic flow improvements, park and ride facilities, intermodal facilities, and urban freeway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. Non -capital improvements consist of rideshare matching and transportation demand management activities derived from the congestion management program. The future air quality levels projected in the 1997 AQMP and the 1999 Amendment are based q tS' P l Q on several assumptions. For example, the SCAQMD assumes that general new development within the Basin will occur in accordance with population growth and transportation projections identified by SCAG in its most current version of the RCPG. The AQMP also assumes that general development projects will include strategies (mitigation measures) to reduce emissions generated during construction and operation. ® City of Huntington Beach Local jurisdictions, such as the City of Huntington Beach, have the authority and responsibility to reduce air pollution through their police power and decision -making authority. Specifically, the City is responsible for the assessment and mitigation of air emissions resulting from its land use decisions. The City of Huntington Beach is also responsible for the implementation of transportation control measures as outlined in the AQMP. Examples of such measures include bus turnouts, energy -efficient streetlights, and synchronized traffic signals. In accordance with CEQA requirements and the CEQA review process, the City assesses the air quality impacts of new development projects, requires The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3.2-7 3.0 Environmental Ana mitigation of potentially significant air quality impacts by conditioning discretionary permits, and monitors and enforces implementation of such mitigation. City of Huntington Beach General Plan —Air Quality Element The Environmental Resources/Conservation Element of the Huntington Beach General Plan includes goals, objectives, and policies for environmental resources, including air quality. The following goals were determined to be potentially relevant to the proposed project. This section also includes an assessment of the proposed project's consistency with the policies adopted in support of these goals and objectives. Goal AQ 1: Improve regional air quality by (a) decreasing reliance on single occupancy vehicular trips, (b) increasing efficiency of transit, (c) shortening vehicle trips through a more efficient jobs -housing balance and a more efficient land use pattern, and (d) increasing energy efficiency. Consistency with Goal AQ 1 The commercial, hotel, restaurant, and office uses proposed for this site represent development which would help to create a more viable and useful area for residents and visitors alike. Commercial and restaurant spaces already exist in close proximity to the proposed project site and would therefore expand upon these already successful areas. Residential areas and local hotels are located within walking or bicycling distance and would therefore create a pedestrian -friendly environment with a low dependence on transit and energy. Objective AQ 1.7.1: Reduce vehicle emissions through traffic flow improvements, and use of alternate fuel consuming vehicles. Consistency with Objective 1.7.1 The Traffic and Circulation section of this EIR recommends mitigation measures to ensure that future traffic flow conditions at the intersections affected by project -generated traffic would meet City standards. Although occupants of the project site may choose to operate alternative fuel consuming vehicles, this objective is best met by uses that own and operate large fleets of vehicles (such as municipal governments and distribution centers). This objective would not apply to the smaller uses such as those proposed for the project site. 3.2-8 City of Huntington Beach 1 3.2 Air Qua P r F L Policy AQ 1.8.2 Require installation of temporary construction facilities (such as wheel washers) and implementation of construction practices that minimize dirt and soil transfer onto public roadways. Consistency zvith Policy AQ 1.8.2 Potential impacts associated with dust, dirt, and soil transfer into the ambient air'and onto public streets is addressed through Mitigation Measure AQ-2 in this EIR section. Policy AQ 1.10.1: Continue to require the utilization and installation of energy conservation features in all new construction. Consistency with Policy AQ 1.10.1 It is assumed that, as with all new construction in Huntington Beach, the project will incorporate energy -efficient materials such as insulation, windows and other materials. It is also assumed that mechanical systems such as heat, air, HVAC and other electrical systems will use new, energy -efficient equipment. 3.2.4 Thresholds of Significance According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project may have a significant air quality impact if it would do any of the following: ■ Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan ■ Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation ■ Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors) ■ Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations ■ Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make these determinations. As the agency principally responsible for comprehensive air pollution control in the Basin, the SCAQMD recommends that projects should be evaluated in terms of 1 The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3.2-9 3.0 Environmental Ana air pollution control thresholds established by the SCAQMD and published in the CEQA Air Quality Handbook. 3.2.5 Impacts Impact 3.2-1 Demolition, site preparation, and construction activities would generate air pollutant emissions on a daily basis. During construction, three basic types of activities would be expected to occur and generate emissions. First, the existing commercial buildings would be demolished and parking surfaces cleared. Second, the development sites would be prepared, excavated, and graded to accommodate the new subterranean parking structure, building foundations, and roadways. Third, the buildings and roadways would be constructed and readied for use. Because of the construction time frame and the normal day-to-day variability in construction activities, it is difficult, if not impossible, to precisely quantify the daily emissions associated with each phase of the proposed construction activities. Nonetheless, Table 3.2-3, identifies daily emissions associated with typical equipment for the different construction phases envisioned for the project. These calculations assume that appropriate dust control measures would be implemented during each phase of development as required by SCAQMD Rule 403 —Fugitive Dust. As shown, construction related daily emissions would not exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds for any of the criteria pollutants. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. Demolition of the existing structure at the project site could disturb asbestos -containing materials and potentially release asbestos into the air. However, the project would be subject to SCAQMD Rule 1403, which specifies work practice requirements to limit asbestos emissions from building demolition and renovation activities. The requirements of Rule 1403 ensure that there is virtually no release of asbestos into the air. Mandatory compliance with Rule 1403 would reduce this potential impact to a less -than -significant level. Impact 3.2-2 The project would generate daily operational emissions of VOC and NO. that could exceed established thresholds. Operational emissions generated by both stationary and mobile sources would result from normal day-to-day activities on the project site after occupation. Stationary area source 3.2-10 City of Huntington Beach 3.2 Air Qua Table 3.2-3 Estimated Daily Construction Emissions Emissions Source Peak Day Emissions in PoundsMDay CO voc NOX Sox PM10 Demolition Phase Construction Equipment 21.1 3.9 39.6 3.9 2.8 On -Road Vehicles 10.4 1.7 14.1 0.0 0.1 Structure Demolition - - - - 2.1 Total Emissions 31.4 5.6 53.7 3.9 5.0 SCAQMD Thresholds 550.0 75.0 100.0 150.0 150.0 Significant Impacts? No No No No No Site Excavation and Grading Phase Construction Equipment 25.7 5.5 53.3 87.6 5.4 On -Road Vehicles 29.3 4.8 40.1 0.0 0.3 Site Excavation and Grading - - - - 19.2 Total Emissions 55.0 10.3 93.9 8.6 24.9 SCAQMD Thresholds 550.0 75.0 100.0 150.0 150.0 Significant Impacts? No No No No No Construction Phase Construction Equipment 42.1 9.6 82.9 6.0 11.2 On -Road Vehicles 11.0 2.3 13.2 0.0 0.0 Stationary Equipment - 0.7 0.5 - - Asphalt Paving - 0.7 - - - Architectural Coatings - 46.3 - - - Total Emissions 53.1 59.5 96.7 6.0 11.6 SCAQMD Thresholds 550.0 75.0 100.0 150.0 150.0 Significant Impact? No No No No No Source: EIP Associates, 2002. Calculation sheets are provided in Appendix D. emissions would be generated by the consumption of natural gas for space and water heating devices, and the operation of landscape maintenance equipment. Mobile emissions would be generated by the motor vehicles traveling to and from the project site. The analysis of daily operational emissions has been prepared utilizing the URBEMIS7G computer model recommended by the SCAQMD. The results of these calculations are presented in Table 3.2-4. As shown, the daily operational emissions associated with the proposed project would exceed SCAQMD thresholds for both VOC and NOX. Therefore, this impact would be significant. The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3.2-11 3.0 Environmental Ana Table 3.2-4 Project Daily Operational Emissions Emissions m Pounds per Day Emissions Smam CO VOC NOX PM10 Water and Space Heating 0.4 0.1 1.1 0.0 Landscape Maintenance 2.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 Consumer Products — 0.0 — — Motor Vehicles 470.8 65.3 83.6 40.8 Total Emissions 473.3 65.7 84.7 40.8 Thresholds (lb/ day) 550.0 55.0 55.0 55.0 Significant Impact No Yes Yes No Source: EIP Associates, 2002. Computer sheets are provided in Appendix D Impact 3.2-3 The project could result in a cumulative increase in CO levels at affected intersections. As was done to assess existing localized CO concentrations, the simplified CALINE4 screening procedure was used to predict future CO concentrations at the study -area intersections in 2020 when all cumulative development in the area of the project is expected to be completed. The results of these calculations are presented in Table 3.2-5. As shown, future CO concentrations near these intersections would not exceed federal or State ambient air quality standards. Reductions from existing conditions are attributable to improvements in automotive emission technology assumed for newer and future vehicles. Therefore, CO hotspots are not predicted to exist near these intersections in the future and the contribution of project traffic -related CO at these intersections would not be considered significant. Impact 3.2-4 The proposed project could impair implementation of the Air Quality Management Plan. The 1997 AQMP, discussed previously, was prepared to accommodate growth, to reduce the high levels of pollutants within the areas under the jurisdiction of SCAQMD, to return clean air to the region, and to minimize the impact on the economy. Projects that are considered to be consistent with the AQMP would not interfere with attainment because this growth is included in the projections used to formulate the AQMP. Therefore, projects, uses, and activities that are consistent with the applicable assumptions used in the development of the AQMP would not jeopardize attainment of the air quality levels identified in the AQMP, even if they exceed the SCAQMD's recommended daily emissions thresholds. 3.2-12 City of Huntington Beach 1 3.2 Air Qua Table 3.2-5 Future Cumulative With Project Localized Carbon Monoxide Concentrations Co Conamtratums m Parts MMinion brte►section 25feet 50Feet 100Feet 1-Hour 8-Hour 1-Hour 8-Hrnm 1-Hour 8-Hour Ninth Street & Pacific Coast Highway 9.5 7.4 9.2 7.1 8.8 6.9 Sixth Street & Pacific Coast Highway 9.4 7.3 9.1 7.1 8.8 6.9 Main Street & Pacific Coast Highway 9.3 7.2 9.1 7.0 8.8 6.8 First Street & Pacific Coast Highway 9.3 7.2 9.1 7.1 8.8 6.8 Huntington Street & Pacific Coast Highway 9.6 7.4 9.3 7.2 8.9 6.9 Beach Boulevard & Pacific Coast Highway 10.4 7.9 9.9 7.6 9.4 7.3 Main Street & Sixth Street 8.4 6.6 8.3 6.5 8.2 6.4 Beach Boulevard & Atlanta Avenue 9.2 7.1 9.0 7.0 8.7 6.8 Beach Boulevard & Indianapolis Avenue 9.1 7.0 8.8 6.9 8.6 6.7 Federal 1-hour standard is 35.0 parts per million. State 1-hour standard is 20.0 parts per million. Federal 8-hour standard is 9.5 parts per million. State 8-hour standard is 9.1 Darts Der million. Source: EIP Associates, 2002. Calculation sheets are provided in Appendix D. Projects that are consistent with the projections of employment and population forecasts identified in the Growth Management Chapter of the RCPG are considered consistent with the AQMP growth projections. This is because the Growth Management Chapter forms the basis of the land use and transportation control portions of the AQMP. The project site is located within the Orange County subregion of the RCPG. SCAG estimates that employment for Orange County will increase from 1,558,000 persons in 2000 to 1,886,000 persons by 2010. The project would contribute an incremental portion to this growth in employment. The project is consistent with all adopted land use designations for the site and would not increase the local employment within the City or Orange County beyond those already projected. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the AQMP employment forecasts for the Orange County subregion, and it would not jeopardize attainment of State and Federal ambient air quality standards in Orange County. Another measurement tool in determining consistency with the AQMP is to determine how a project accommodates the expected increase in population or employment. Generally, a project's planning is consistent with the AQMP if it minimizes vehicle miles traveled (VMT), within both the project and the community in which it is located, and consequently minimizes air pollutant emissions. The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3.2-13 3.0 Environmental Analysis The project site's proximity to other commercial and residential uses means that local residents could walk or ride bicycles to and from the project site, guests of the hotel could walk to nearby commercial areas, and the distance that people would otherwise need to drive to and from these areas would be reduced. This is consistent with the goals of the AQMP for reducing the emissions associated with the new development. Based on this information, the proposed project would not impair implementation of the AQMP and this impact would be less than significant. Impact 3.2-5 The proposed project could generate objectionable odors. Airborne odors associated with the project would result from cooking activities within the proposed restaurant and bar uses. These odors would be typical of all restaurant and bar developments and are already associated with the adjacent existing commercial uses. There are no uses located within the project site that could expose residents to any new objectionable odors. Consequently, impacts from such odors would be less than significant. Impact 3.2-6 Implementation of the proposed project could release toxic air contaminants. Toxic or carcinogenic air pollutants are not expected to occur in any meaningful amounts in conjunction with operation of the proposed land uses within the project site. Only small quantities of common forms of hazardous or toxic substances, such as cleaning agents, which are typically used, stored, or sold in conjunction with commercial and restaurant/bar uses, would be present. Most uses of such substances would occur indoors. Based on the common uses expected on the site, impacts would be less than significant. 3.2.6 Cumulative Impacts The SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook identifies possible methods to determine the cumulative significance of land use projects. These methods differ from the methodology used in other cumulative impact analyses in which all foreseeable future development within a given service boundary or geographical area is predicted and its impacts measured. The SCAQMD has not identified thresholds to which the total emissions of all cumulative development can be compared. Instead, the SCAQMD's methods are based on performance standards and emission reduction targets necessary to attain federal and State air quality standards as predicted in the AQMP. 3.2-14 City of Huntington Beach 3.2 Air Quality As discussed previously, the 1997 AQMP was prepared to accommodate growth, to reduce the high levels of pollutants within the Basin, to meet federal and State air quality standards, and to minimize the fiscal impact that pollution control measures have on the local economy. According to the CEQA Air Quality Handbook, projects which are consistent with the AQMP performance standards and emission reduction targets should be considered less -than - significant unless there is other pertinent information to the contrary. The method employed for this analysis is that the Project shows a one percent per year Y ) P P Y reduction in project emissions of CO, VOC, NO, and PMlo. Table 3.2-6 shows the reduction in daily emissions that would be provided by the existing trip reducing characteristics of the surrounding vicinity (i.e., sidewalks and pedestrian circulation access, safe and interesting walking routes, transit service, safe and interesting bicycle routes, numerous services in vicinity, etc.), planned project features (i.e., parking structure, pedestrian system, street furniture, articulated storefronts with display windows, etc.), and the operational mitigation measures recommended later in this EIR section. As shown, the reduction of each pollutant type ranges from 13.7 to 14.7 percent. Based on this, the Project would meet the performance standard for annual emissions reductions and would not be considered cumulatively significant. Table 3.2-6 Project Daily Operational Emissions Emissions Source Emissions in Powuls perDm/ co VOc NO. PM,p Unmitigated Operational Emissions 473.3 65.7 84.7 40.8 Mitigated Operational Emissions 403.9 56.7 72.3 34.8 Total Reduction 69.4 9.0 12.4 6.0 Percent Reduction 14.6 13.7 14.6 14.7 Source: EIP Associates, 2002. Computer sheets are provided in Appendix D. 3.2.7 Mitigation Measures MM 3.2-1 The project developer(s) shall develop and implement a construction management plan, as approved by the City of Huntington Beach, which includes the following measures recommended by the SCAQMD, or equivalently effective measures approved by the City of Huntington Beach: The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3.2-13 3.0 Environmental ■ Configure construction parking to minimize traffic interference ■ Provide temporary traffic controls during all phases of construction activities to maintain traffic flow (e.g., flag person) w Schedule construction activities that affect traffic flow on the arterial system to off-peak hours to the degree practicable ■ Consolidate truck deliveries when possible ■ Maintain equipment and vehicle engines in good condition and in proper tune as per manufacturers' specifications and per SCAQMD rules, to minimize exhaust emissions ■ Use methanol- or natural gas -powered mobile equipment and pile drivers instead of diesel to the extent available and at competitive prices ■ Use propane- or butane -powered on -site mobile equipment instead of gasoline to the extent available and at competitive prices MM 3.2-2 The project developer(s) shall implement all rules and regulations by the Governing Board of the SCAQMD that are applicable to the development of the Project (such as Rule 402 — Nuisance and Rule 403 — Fugitive Dust) and that are in effect at the time of development. The following measures are currently recommended to implement Rule 403 — Fugitive Dust. These measures have been quantified by the SCAQMD as being able to reduce dust generation between 30 and 85 percent depending on the source of the dust generation: ■ Water trucks will be utilized on the site and shall be available to be used throughout the day during site grading and excavation to keep the soil damp enough to prevent dust being raised by the operations ■ Wet down the areas that are to be graded or that are being graded and/or excavated, in the late morning and after work is completed for the day ■ All unpaved parking or staging areas, or unpaved road surfaces shall be watered three times daily or have chemical soil stabilizers applied according to manufacturers' specifications ■ Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply approved soil binders to exposed piles (i.e., gravel, sand, and dirt) according to manufacturers' specifications ■ The construction disturbance area shall be kept as small as possible ■ All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials shall be covered or have water applied to the exposed surface prior to leaving the site to prevent dust from impacting the surrounding areas 3.2-16 City of Huntington Beach 1 3.2 Air Quality ■ Wheel washers shall be installed where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto paved roads and used to wash off trucks and any equipment leaving the site each trip ■ Streets adjacent to the project site shall be swept at the end of the day if visible soil material is carried over to adjacent roads ■ Wind barriers shall be installed along the perimeter of the site ■ All excavating and grading operations shall be suspended when wind speeds (as instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 miles per hour over a 30-minute period ■ A traffic speed limit of 15 miles per hour shall be posted and enforced for the unpaved construction roads (if any) on the project site ■ Remediation operations, if required, shall be performed in stages concentrating in single areas at a time to minimize the impact of fugitive dust on the surrounding area. Although construction impacts are not considered significant, Mitigation 3.2-1 and 3.2-2 would address air quality emissions associated with construction ' activities and ensure that the dust control requirements of the SCAQMD and City of Huntington Beach are met. MM 3.2-3 Solar or low -emission water heaters shall be installed in all new buildings within the project site to reduce energy demand and associated emissions. MM 3.2-4 Built-in energy -efficient appliances shall be provided in all new buildings within the project site to reduce energy demand and associated emissions. MM 3.2-5 Air conditioners installed in all new buildings within the project site shall be energy -efficient and shall have automated controls to reduce energy demand and associated emissions. MM 3.2-6 Double -glass -paned windows shall be installed in new buildings within the redevelopment area to reduce energy demand and associated emissions. MM 3.2-7 Lighting installed in new buildings within the project site shall be energy - efficient and shall have automated controls to reduce energy demand and associated emissions. MM 3.2-8 The new buildings within the project site shall exceed Title 24 wall and attic insulation requirements by at least 5 percent to reduce energy demand and associated emissions. The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3.2-17 3.0 Environmental Analysis MM 3.2-9 The new buildings within the project site shall use light-colored roof materials to reflect heat and reduce energy demand and associated emissions. 3.2.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation The recommended mitigation measures would reduce the emissions generated by the proposed project to some extent. No mitigation is considered feasible to reduce the emissions to below the SCAQMD's recommended thresholds of significance. Therefore, the daily operational air quality impacts of the project would remain significant and unavoidable. 3.2-18 City of Huntington Beach 0 3.3 Cultural Resources k L I L 3.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES 3.3.1 Introduction This section contains information from the Historical Resources Assessment for the Huntington Beach Block 1041105 Redevelopment Project (Greenwood and Associates 2002), provided as Appendix C in this EIR, as well as previous environmental documentation and the City of Huntington Beach General Plan. This section describes existing conditions associated with on -site cultural resources (i.e., historic and archaeological resources), as well as existing regulations relevant to cultural resource issues associated with implementation of the proposed project. Additionally, this section identifies potential impacts to culturalresources that the project may create and proposes mitigation measures intended to lessen these effects. Section 9.0 of Appendix C provides a glossary of architectural terms used in this section. Complete references to citations made in this section are provided in Section 7.0 of this document. 3.3.2 Existing Conditions Paleontology The rock units that underlie the project vicinity consist of Quaternary Terrace Deposits and Holocene Alluvium and Colluvium. While no fossil remains have been reported as occurring in the Holocene deposits, and the project site has previously been developed (many of the now -vacant lots were occupied as recently as 1989), fossils have been recovered in nearby Quaternary terrace deposits. The proposed project site would, therefore, be considered sensitive for paleontological resources. Due to the developed urban nature of the project area — the majority of the project site is covered by paved surface parking lots, streets, sidewalks, and buildings— surface visibility was limited. No paleontological material was identified on the visible surface area of the project site. An area of exposed ground surface immediately south of the Papa Joe's Pizza property was also inspected, and also found to be devoid of material. Archaeology Archaeological resources are defined as the material remains of prehistoric (aboriginal/Native American) or historical (post -contact) human activity. A records search The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3.3-1 3.0 Environmental Ana of the project site and a 1/2-mile radius was conducted at the South Central Coastal Information Center, located at the California State University, Fullerton. Additionally, historic maps of the region were checked. The records search indicated that one previous cultural resource survey included the project site. No prehistoric or historical archaeological sites were recorded by previous efforts. Field investigations for archaeological resources included inspection of all exposed areas of ground surface within the project area. Due to the developed urban nature of the project area — the majority of the project site is covered by paved surface parking lots, streets, sidewalks, and buildings —surface visibility was limited. No prehistoric or historic cultural material was identified. An area of exposed ground surface immediately south of the Papa Joe's Pizza property was also inspected, and also found to be devoid of prehistoric or historic cultural material. Consultation regarding the project was undertaken with the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC completed a sacred lands file check and contacted appropriate Native American groups, which failed to indicate the presence of Native American cultural sites in the immediate project area. Letters were subsequently sent to Native American individuals and organizations that may have specific knowledge of resources within the project area. To date, no responses have been received. ® Definitions of Historical Resources Federal Historic Preservation Laws National Register of Historic Places The National Register of Historic Places (National Register) is the official Federal list of cultural resources that have been nominated by State Offices as being historically significant at the local, state, or national level. As established by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, properties listed in the National Register must meet certain criteria for historic significance and possess integrity. Significance may be found in any of four aspects of American history or prehistory recognized by the National Register Criteria: ■ Association with historic events or activities o Association with the lives of important persons ■ Distinctive design or physical characteristics 3.3-2 City of Huntington Beach 1 0 3.3 Cultural Resources t■ Potential to provide important information about prehistory or history To be eligible, a property must meet at least one of the criteria. Qualities of integrity must also be evident. The quality of integrity is measured by the degree to which the resource retains its historic location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and depends on ■ The degree to which the resource or landscape conveys its historic character ■ The degree to which the original fabric has been retained ■ The irreversibility of changes to the property In general, the resource must be 50 years of age to be considered for the National Register, but there are exceptions and overriding considerations to the criteria. State Historic Preservation Laws The California Register of Historical Resources In 1992, the California legislature established the California Register of Historical Resources based on the federal model that established the National Register of Historic Places (National Historic Preservation Act of 1966). The California Register is to be used as a guide by state and local agencies, private groups, and citizens to identify the state's historical resources and to indicate what properties are to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change. The California Register, as instituted by the California Public Resources Code (PRC), includes all California properties already listed in the National Register and those formally determined to be eligible, as well as specific listings of State Historical Landmarks and State Points of Historical Interest (Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 5024.1[d]). As defined by Section 15064.5(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the term "historical resource' shall include the following: A resource listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission, for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (PRC Sections 5024.1): (1) A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in section 5020.1(k) of the PRC or identified as significant in an historical resource survey meeting the requirements Section 5024.1(g) of the PRC, shall be presumed to be historically or culturally significant. Public agencies must treat any such resource as significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is no historically or culturally significant; 1 The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3.3-3 3.0 Environmental Ana (2) Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which is historically or archaeologically significant, or is significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California may be considered to be an historical resource, provided the lead agency's determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be "historically significant" if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (PRC Sections 5024.1) including the following: (D) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage; (E) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; (F) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or (G) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. The California Register may also include historical resources that have been nominated for listing in accordance with specified procedures and determined by the State Historical Resources Commission (the Commission) to be significant (PRC 5024.1[e]). The types of resources that may be included in the California Register pursuant to the nomination process, with the concurrence of the Commission, include ■ Individual historic resources ■ Resources that contribute to the significance of an historic district ■ Resources identified as significant in historic resource surveys ■ Resources identified as city or county historic landmarks pursuant to ordinance, if the State Office of Historic Preservation (State Office) has determined that the criteria used for designation are consistent with the California Register criteria adopted by the Commission ■ Local landmarks or historic properties designated under any municipal or county ordinance If the owner of the property objects to the nomination, and the property is not listed in the California Register for that reason, the Commission may then formally designate the property as eligible for listing (PRC 5024.1[f][5]) and it would thereby be entitled to the same level of concern for preservation. 3.3-4 City of Huntington Beach I 3.3 Cultural Resources California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) CEQA applies to discretionary projects, such as new construction. It associates a "substantial adverse change" in the significance of an historic resource with a significant impact on the environment. The term "substantial adverse change" is defined as demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the historical resource or its immediate surroundings such that the 1 significance of the resource would be materially impaired (PRC Section 5020.1). The lead agency must resolve two questions: Is there a significant resource that may be impacted by the proposed project, and will it result in a substantial adverse change to the extent that the significant resource is materially impaired or lost. CEQA specifically states that a resource need not be listed on any register to be found historically significant (PRC Section 21084.1). Once the lead agency has made a determination of significance, and determined that a substantial adverse change will occur to the resource, then a Mitigated Negative Declaration or an Environmental Impact Report must address ways to lessen the adverse affect on the resource. Under CEQA, impacts to cultural resources must be considered when a proposed 1 undertaking has the potential to affect prehistoric or historical resources deemed to be significant. The criteria for eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places have been employed as a model for the California Register of Historical Resources, as well as many local preservation ordinances, and provide the highest standard for evaluating the significance of historical resources. While a resource may still be considered historically significant at a local or state level if it does not meet the National Register standards, one that does is clearly significant. As defined by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (and the criteria for eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places), as well as Section 15064.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, a historic property must possess the quality of significance in American history, architecture (interpreted in the broadest sense to include landscape architecture and planning), archaeology, engineering and culture, and: Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage; or Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. 1 The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3.3-5 3.0 Environmental A Existing Historical and Potentially Historical Resources Main Street Based on photos and architectural descriptions in the 1986 Huntington Beach Survey, the 100 block of both the north and south sides of Main Street shows little change in appearance with the exception of the more recent Ocean View Promenade infill buildings at the northeast and southeast corners of Main Street and Pacific Coast Highway. An alley separates the rear elevations of the Main Street buildings from the southern boundary of the proposed project. These buildings appear to have retained most of the character -defining elements of their architectural styles reflective of typical "new town' commercial/retail building design in the first decades of the 20th century. The McElfreash Mercantile Company Building at 119/120 Main Street was given a 3D status code rating under the National Register of Historic Places in the 1988 Johnson Heumann update. The 31) status code rates the property as a "Contributor to a district that has been fully documented according to Office of Preservation of standards and appears eligible for listing". The Sealy and Lavering Building (117 Main Street), Huntington Cafe (123 Main Street), and Huntington Beach Cut Rate Drugs/Terry's Drugs (127 Main Street) were given 3D/ NC ratings, indicating that they were within the proposed boundaries of the district, but did not contribute to its historical or architectural significance. The 2002 survey conducted by Greenwood and Associates indicates that the properties have not sustained additional disqualifying alterations, suggesting that the properties may still contribute to a potential Main Street Historic District. Even if the context proposed in 1986 may no longer be viable in full due to some loss of contributing resources, a new historic context could be identified relating the remaining Main Street properties into a historical theme within their shared geographical area and common chronological period. Such a conceptual grouping could enable the properties to convey their significance and importance in Huntington Beach commercial and development history. At the present time, existing historic street furniture consists of ornamental double -armed streetlights with lantern globes, fluted shafts, and tiered bases. Palm trees and brick sidewalks at the northeastern and southeastern corners of Main Street and Pacific Coast Highway appear to have been part of the contemporary corner infill construction. Along Main Street to the east of the infill buildings, a variety of trees and shrubs have been planted. 3.3-6 City of Huntington Beach J 3.3 Cultural Resources 1 Walnut Avenue 1 The Helme-Worthy House and Store As described in the 1986 Historic Resources Study, the Helme-Worthy House at 126 Sixth Street was built ca.1880. It is modified gable -on -hip, clapboard Queen Anne residence, has a mansard style porch enclosed with large pane glass windows and a half -width, one-story bay with a hip roof whose center cottage window has diamond quarrels. One of the finest pre - incorporation houses in Huntington Beach, it was purchased by Matthew Helme, Huntington Beach City Councilman and the City's first mayor, in Santa Ana and moved to its present location in 1903. The house is significant for its association with persons prominent in the City's history, its place in the broad patterns of Huntington Beach history, and as the last remaining example of pre-1900 architecture in the City. It was listed in the National Register of Historic Places in 1988. The Helme-Worthy Home Furnishing Building, around the corner at 513-519 Walnut Avenue, was constructed in 1904. It is the only pre-1910 commercial building in Huntington Beach to retain almost complete integrity in its original facade, windows, transoms, and doors. A centered stairway entrance leads to second floor apartments, and is flanked by identical storefront spaces. On the north side of the property is a lean-to style addition with 1 a manufactured stone false front. The 2002 survey indicates that neither the house nor the store has been materially altered, although the condition of each property appears to have deteriorated since the 1986 survey. Both the house and store have smaller rear properties, a beaded tongue -and -groove clad shed behind the house, and an apartment residence behind the store. The Helme-Worthy House has partial fencing that runs along the east elevation. Other Structures on Walnut Avenue With the exception of the Helme-Worthy House at Sixth Street and Walnut Avenue, which was also considered to be a contributor to the Main Street Historic District, there are no buildings along the south side of Walnut Avenue on Blocks 104 or 105: the remaining lots are occupied by parking lots or are vacant. On the north side of Walnut Avenue, uses are mixed and the streetscape exhibits a variety of styles and dates of construction. Other possible contributors to a Main Street District are placed along the street between Main and Fifth, including the two-story Moderne Shank The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3.3-7 3.0 Environmental Analysis building, ca. 1925, at 412-414 Walnut Avenue. It has retained substantial integrity despite additional remodeling since the Huntington Beach Police Department began using the structure in 1986, as an almost totally intact wood shingle Craftsman bungalow. Between Fifth Street and Sixth Street stands a group of linear, wood and stucco Colonial Revival office/commercial/residential structures, ca. 1949. At the corner of Fifth Street and Walnut Avenue is another large recent three-story apartment residence with balustraded porches and applied chimneys, exhibiting the heavy massing of Neo Mediterranean Revival elements. Fifth Street No buildings remain on either side of Fifth Street between Pacific Coast Highway and the west side of Walnut Avenue, the project's east boundary. The area is occupied by parking lots and cleared vacant lots. An east/west alley runs from Fifth Street to Sixth Street. It will be eliminated by the L-shaped configuration of Buildings D, E, F, and G of the proposed project. Sixth Street The east side of Sixth Street, between Pacific Coast Highway and Walnut Avenue, has no buildings with the exception of the Helme-Worthy House at the corner of Sixth Street and Walnut Avenue. The west side of Sixth Street, across the street from the project's western boundary, has both two story infill apartment buildings and one-story single-family houses. At the northwest corner of Pacific Coast Highway and Sixth Street is a drive-in retail complex with a surf shop, sandwich shop, and donut shop. No structures other than those on the Helme-Worthy property would be potentially affected by the proposed project. Pacific Coast Highway El Don Liquors No previously surveyed historic properties located on Pacific Coast Highway remain on the project site, with the exception of the structure at 414-416 Pacific Coast Highway, ca. 1905. This was originally the offices of the City's pioneer developer, the Huntington Beach Company. A two-story commercial duplex consisting of two storefronts with a continuous entrance bay, it has had numerous uses over time and now houses the El Don Liquor Store and Michael's Surf and Sport. The south storefront has kept substantial integrity with a character -defining recessed entry door that was also a feature of Main Street commercial 3.3-8 City of Huntington Beach 3.3 Cultural Resources buildings. While the north storefront has been heavily altered, it appears that many of the changes are reversible. The 1986 Huntington Beach Historic Resource Survey found the structure significant despite alterations for its connections with the City's pioneer developer, the Huntington Beach Company. Papa Joe's Pizza One other property, a one-story commercial structure with two smaller rear buildings, still stands between Fifth and Sixth Street, at 508-510 Pacific Coast Highway. This property, currently occupied by Papa Joe's Pizza, was not included in the 1986 Huntington Beach Historic Resources Survey. All other lots on Block 105, fronting Pacific Coast Highway, are 1 vacant cleared land. Papa Joe's Pizza is a 1933 Spanish Colonial Revival stucco structure with a flat roof, composition red file front pent, tile cornice, and store -width glass front. Immediately behind it stands a similar style stucco rectangular plan retail addition/residence with a flat parapet roof, decorative canales, and double and single three -light casements. The last building in the row is a single -story apartment/residence ca. 1920 with a front gable, composition shingle roof with exposed rafter ends, channel siding, and replacement aluminum frame sliding windows. Originally the Harris Candy Shop building built in 1933, the Papa Joe's structure has had a variety of restaurant uses over time. During the 1930 and 1940s, it was well known as a beachfront malt shop. A brief history of the property completed as part of Environmental Impact Report 89-6 (STA 1989) reported that Papa Joe's Pizza was a "landmark for teens" 1 through the war years and into the 1960s as the Boogie-Woogie Malt Shop. It continued to be used as a small restaurant and coffee shop until the present time. The last two tenants have been pizza shops (STA 1989). The City General Plan (1996) did not include this structure on the list of historically significant properties in the City, even though the structure was more than 50 years old at the time, and the City does not consider the building to be a historically significant structure. Further, the historic resources assessment in EIR 89-9 did not include this structure in the proposed Main Street Historic District, and ascribed no historical significance to the structure. Further, the General Plan states that the proposed historic district was not considered eligible for the National Register of Historic Places; therefore, the Papa Joe's Pizza The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3.3-9 3.0 Environmental Analysis building could not contribute to such an historic district. This structure would not, therefore, be considered historic for the purposes of CEQA. 3.3.3 Regulatory Framework City of Huntington Beach To date, the City of Huntington Beach has not adopted an official landmark or historic preservation ordinance. While the 1996 City General Plan makes provision for an Historic Element and Ordinance, it did not create them. The General Plan did incorporate, however, a list of structures prepared by the City Historic Resources Board that were considered historically significant, or that could be determined significant in the future. The list, which includes the Helme-Worthy House and Store, has been used by the City Planning Commission in decision making, but at present the City does not have a mechanism for formally recognizing historically significant structures, objects, or sites (Persons; Schultz, pers. comm. 1999). General Plan Historic and Cultural Resources Element According to the City of Huntington Beach (1996), Goal HCR 1 has been articulated in the General Plan Historic and Cultural Resources Element that addresses both historical and prehistoric resources, and reads, "To promote the preservation and restoration of sites, structures and districts which have architectural, historical, and/or archaeological significance to the City of Huntington Beach." Objectives under this goal call for the identification and protection of these resources; the creation by the City of ordinances, policies, and programs designed to facilitate achievement of the goal; and the development of incentive strategies encouraging preservation of resources. Policies HCR 1.1.1 through HCR 1.1.4 and enabling programs have been recommended under each of the objectives stated that would assist the City in achieving this goal. These policies provide mechanisms to identify, record, and preserve significant architectural resources, but would not be directly applicable to the proposed project. These policies also encourage recordation of significant archaeological resources (i.e., HRC 1.1.1 and 1.1.2), but are directed toward identification and recognition and do not specify protection of such resources through recovery. 3.3-10 City of Huntington Beach 1 11 3.3 Cultural Resources L L k L k h P k h C k I Several implementation programs are identified in the General Plan (City 1996). Of primary importance is the call for studies, mapping, and surveys to provide baseline data on structures and sites having historical or archaeological significance to the City (II-HCR 1). Implementation of policies HCR 1.2.2, and 1.3.7 would provide for the identification and protection of historic resources. Objective HCR 1.2 Ensure that City ordinances, program, and policies create an environment that fosters preservation, rehabilitation, and sound maintenance of historic and archaeological resources. Policy HCR 1.2.2 Encourage new development to be compatible with adjacent existing historic structures in terms of scale, massing, building materials and general architectural treatment. Consistency with Policy HCR 1.2.2 As described in Section 3.1 (Aesthetics), the City's Design Review Board determined that the project would be architecturally compatible with existing development in Block 105, particularly the Ocean View Promenade building, which was designed to be compatible with existing structures in the proposed (now ineligible) Main Street Historic District by providing a unifying Mediterranean design theme. Compatibility with this design theme would ensure compatibility with the architecture of the remaining historic structures. Further, as described below in Section 3.3.5, the proposed project would provide setbacks and visual buffers to mitigate potential effects with regard to scale and massing of Building D and its upper -story Building G component upon the Helme-Worthy Property. The property line setbacks (as required by Mitigation Measure 3.3-3) and upper -floor setbacks provided as part of the project would provide adequate relief for these existing historic structures adjacent to the project site. The project would, therefore, be consistent with Policy HCR 1.2.2. General Plan Coastal Element Goal C 5 Promote the preservation of significant archaeological and paleontological resources in the Coastal Zone. 1 The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3.3-11 3.0 Environmental Ana Policy C 5.1.2 Where new development would adversely impact archaeological or paleontological resources within the Coastal Zone, reasonable mitigation measures to minimize impacts shall be required. Consistency with Policy C 5.1.2 As described below in Section 3.3.5, the proposed project could affect archaeological resources that are potentially present on the project site. Section 3.3.7 proposes Mitigation Measure 3.3-1, which requires the presence of a qualified professional monitor during excavation and grading activities to identify and evaluate subsurface resources if they are encountered during construction. Policy C 5.1.3 In the event that any Native American human remains are uncovered, the County Coroner, the Native American Heritage Commission, and the Most Likely Descendants, as designated by the California Native American Heritage Commission, shall be notified. The recommendations of the Most Likely Descendants shall be obtained prior to the disposition of any prehistoric Native American human remains. Consistency with Policy 5.1.3 Mitigation Measure 3.3-1, below, includes provisions for the appropriate treatment of Native American (or any human) remains if they are discovered during grading or excavation. These provisions include all applicable provisions of the California Health Code, as well as notification of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The project would, therefore, be consistent with Policy 5.1.3. Policy C 5.1.4 Policy C 5.1.4 requires submission of an archaeological research design with any coastal development application. The design must address the significance of archaeological or paleontological resources, present recommendations for preservation, and be developed and reviewed in conjunction with the State Office of Historic Preservation, the Native American Heritage Commission, and peer reviewers. 3.3-12 City of Huntington Beach 1 7 3.3 Cultural Resources 7 I Consistency with Policy C 5.1.4 The proposed project involves the redevelopment of a site that is currently occupied by active and vacant commercial uses, rendering archaeological survey impractical, as no results would be apparent. As described above, this cultural. resources investigation included an archaeological records check for the project site, which indicated that a previous survey that included the project site, as well as two other surveys within 1/2 mile of the site, did not yield archaeological or historical archaeological sites. This investigation also included a Sacred Lands File Check from the NAHC, as well as consultation with appropriate Native American representatives (as determined by the NAHC). The NAHC indicated that no Native American cultural resources were known on the project site, and consultation with tribal representatives has yielded no indication that such resources are known on the site. However, as stated in Section 3.3.5, below, this cultural resources investigation acknowledges the possibility of encountering previously unknown archaeological or paleontological resources during grading or excavation, and Mitigation Measure 3.3-1 includes provisions for monitoring earthmoving activities and for evaluation and treatment of paleontological and archaeological remains (including burials) if these types of remains are encountered. These provisions have been developed from standard professional practices, applicable codes (such as the California Health Code, which governs the treatment of human remains), and the provisions of the Coastal Element. In the event that archaeological or paleontological resources are discovered, a report would be prepared that would comply with the provisions of Policy C 5.1.4. The proposed project would, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.3-1, be consistent with Policy C 5.1.4. Policy C 5.1.5 Policy C 5.1.5 requires a County -certified paleontologist/archaeologist to monitor all grading operations where there is a potential to affect cultural or paleontological resources. If resources are uncovered, activity on the site must cease until the resource can be evaluated and preserved and/or recovered. Consistency with Policy C 5.1.5 As described above, Mitigation Measure 3.3-1 includes provisions for monitoring earthmoving activities and for cessation of activities to allow for evaluation and treatment of paleontological and archaeological remains (including burials) if these types of remains are The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3.3-13 3.0 Environmental Ana encountered. These provisions have been developed from standard professional practices, applicable codes (such as the California Health Code, which governs the treatment of human remains), and the provisions of the Coastal Element. In the event that archaeological or paleontological resources are discovered, a report would be prepared that would comply with the provisions of Policy C 5.1.4, as described above. The proposed project would, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.3-1, be consistent with Policy C 5.1.5. Policy C 5.1.6 Reinforce downtown as the City's historic center and as a pedestrian -oriented commercial and entertainment/recreation district, as follows: 1. Preserve older and historic structures 2. Require that new development be designed to reflect the Downtowns historical structures and adopted Mediterranean theme Consistency with Policy C 5.1.6 As described above, the project is designed to complement the Mediterranean theme of the Downtown area (see Section 3.1, Aesthetics), which would ensure consistency with El Don Liquors and other Downtown structures. The project would also provide adequate buffers and upper -story setbacks from the western perimeter of the Helme-Worthy property, and setbacks from the southern property line of the Helme-Worthy property, with implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.3-3. The proposed project would, therefore, be consistent with Policy C 5.1.6. 3.3.4 Thresholds of Significance For the purposes of this analysis, potentially significant impacts to paleontological, archaeological, cultural, or historical resources are defined as project impacts that would do any of the following: ■ Demolish or materially alter in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for, inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5[b][2][A]) ® Demolish or materially alter in an adverse manner those physical characteristics that account for its inclusion in a local register of historical resources pursuant to local ordinance or resolution (PRC Section 5020.1[k]), or its identification in an historical 3.3-14 City of Huntington Beach 3.3 Cultural Resources resources survey meeting the requirements of PRC Section 5024.1(g) (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[b][2][C]) ■ Demolish or materially alter in an adverse manner those physical characteristic of a resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility for its inclusion on the California Register as determined by a lead agency 3.3.5 Impacts Impact 3.3-1 The proposed project could result in the destruction of paleontological resources. Because the majority of the project site is or has been developed with urban uses, the presence on the site of paleontological resources is difficult to assess prior to excavation, and is unlikely, given the depth of disturbance for oil extraction and related activities. However, rock units that underlie the project vicinity have yielded fossils in the past and the project would involve extensive excavation of areas of the project site that may not previously have been occupied by oil wells. Therefore, the potential for paleontological resources on the site must be assumed to exist, and grading and excavation activities associated with construction could reach a sufficient depth to result in damage to or destruction of paleontological resources. Because paleontological resources could yield, or are considered likely to yield information important in prehistory, as defined in Section 15064.5(a)(3)(D), damage to or destruction of such resources would be considered a significant impact; however, this impact can be reduced to a less -than -significant level with the implementation of Mitigation 1 Measure 3.3-1. Impact 3.3-2 The proposed project could result in the destruction of archaeological resources. Although the survey revealed no visible evidence of either prehistoric or historical archaeological resources, the presence, extent, and significance of subsurface archaeological deposits is not known at this time. Given the age and function of the historic property, there is a reasonable probability that a residence of the 1880s, such as the Helme-Worthy home, or other early structures within the project area, would be associated with such features as wells, privies, trash deposits, outbuildings, or other structural foundations and remains. If such features retain adequate integrity and demonstrate research potential, they could be significant contributing elements. Demolition, construction, utility installations, landscaping, grading, or other process of surface disturbance would constitute an impact. In addition, impacts on any unanticipated discoveries during construction are potentially significant. 1 The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3.3-15 3.0 Environmental Ana However, implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.3-1 would avoid or reduce such impacts to less -than -significant levels if they occur. Impact 3.3-3 Potential Historical Degradation of El Don Liquors. Having been deemed significant by prior studies, primarily for its historical associations, the setting of the structure would be affected by the encroachment of the proposed new Building C that would abut the west side. Although this is similar to the effect described above for the Helme-Worthy properties, the structure proposed in this case (Building C) is only two stories, rather than four, and is closer to the height of the existing structure. The facade of El Don Liquors has few distinctive design features, and the proposed project would not represent as significant an incursion into the setting as the existing, four-story Ocean View Promenade. Further, the Environmental Impact Report for the Ocean View Promenade (STA 1986, p. 51) determined that the incorporation of Mediterranean style into the project and the incorporation of historical elements into the design of that project would assure consistency with neighboring historical uses. Therefore, the impact of the proposed project to the setting of El Don Liquors could be mitigated by incorporating design elements of nearby structures, including the Ocean View Promenade, into the facade of proposed Building C. This impact would, therefore, be mitigated to a less -than -significant level by implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.3-2. Impact 3.34 Potential Historical Degradation of the Helme-Worthy Property. The project as proposed would adjoin the National Register Helme-Worthy properties on its Walnut Avenue frontage and enclose the historic property on its south and east boundaries. The height and bulk of Building D, the portion of which nearest the eastern boundary of the Helme-Worthy property provides a 30-foot upper -story setback along Walnut Avenue, would be sensitive to the two-story height of the historic residence and the character - defining, false -front elevation of the Helme-Worthy Store. Additionally, the portion of the vacated alley that would go to the Helme-Worthy property would provide 7.5 feet of separation, and the proposed access drive and property line setback would provide 17.5 feet, for a total separation of over 20 feet between the Helme-Worthy property line and proposed Building D/G. The garage and associated upper -floor apartments are not contributing elements to the historic property, and are not considered here, as encroachment upon the historical setting of this structure could not occur. The provision of 20-foot-wide setbacks on the southern line of the Helme-Worthy property, as required by proposed Mitigation Measure 3.3-3, would reduce this effect to a less -than -significant impact. 3.3-16 City of Huntington Beach 3.3 Cultural Resources k 11 r u 0 U Other measures were also originally considered to further mitigate this potential effect. These included the provision of a landscaped pedestrian walkway adjacent to the eastern and southern boundaries of the Helme-Worthy property, to provide an enhanced public view opportunity of the historic site. However, the use of the access drive as a secondary parking area, as well as for deliveries and for solid waste pickup, was considered to present too great a potential pedestrian safety risk, and this option was eliminated from further consideration. Another option included the contribution by the owner of the- project site to a loan funding mechanism for rehabilitation of the Helme-Worthy property; however, the City does not currently have a loan funding mechanism in place, and previous efforts by the City to assist the owners of the Helme-Worthy property in restoring the structures (by grant assistance) have been refused; therefore, this option was also eliminated from consideration. 3.3.6 Cumulative Impacts The loss of contributing elements will contribute to the degradation of the historic fabric of the City of Huntington Beach. Rapid growth and development has already resulted in the loss of other archaeological sites and numerous older buildings in Huntington Beach, including several on the Historic Landmarks list. The recent loss of the historic Northam Ranch House and Garage/Carriage House has also degraded the historic fabric of the City. However, the character of the downtown setting has been affected by demolition of adjacent historic buildings and new construction, and the proposed Main Street Historic District described in EIR 89-6 is no longer eligible for listing on the National Register. Under existing local ordinances, changes in the setting may continue, and cumulative impacts related to further encroachment on the property and the ongoing loss of historic setting and fabric would occur. However, the proposed project design is sensitive to the exiting historic structures on and adjacent to the project site (the Helme-Worthy property and El Don ' Liquors), and would not contribute to such an impact. The contribution of the proposed project to the degradation of the historic fabric of the City of Huntington Beach would not, therefore, be cumulatively considerable. 3.3.7 Mitigation MM 3.3-1 Monitor during grading and excavation for archaeological and paleontological resources: (a) The Applicant shall arrange for a qualified professional archaeological and paleontological monitor to be present during demolition, grading, trenching, The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3.3-17 3.0 Environmental Ana and other excavation on the project site. Additionally, prior to project construction, construction personnel will be informed of the potential for encountering significant archaeological and paleontological resources, and instructed in the identification of fossils and other potential resources. All construction personnel will be informed of the need to stop work on the project site until a qualified paleontologist has been provided the opportunity to assess the significance of the find and implement appropriate measures to protect or scientifically remove the find. Construction personnel will also be informed of the requirement that unauthorized collection of cultural resources is prohibited. (b) If archaeological or paleontological resources are discovered during earth moving activities, all construction activities on the project site shall cease until the archaeologist/paleontologist evaluates the significance of the resource: in the absence of a determination, all archaeological and paleontological resources shall be considered significant. If the resource is determined to be significant, the archaeologist or paleontologist, as appropriate, shall prepare a research design for recovery of the resources in consultation with the State Office of Historic Preservation. The archaeologist or paleontologist shall complete a report of the excavations and findings, and shall submit the report for peer review by three County -certified archaeologists or paleontologists, as appropriate. Upon approval of the report, the Applicant shall submit the report to the South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University, Fullerton, the California Coastal Commission, and the City of Huntington Beach. (c) In the event of the discovery on the project site of a burial, human bone, or suspected human bone, all excavation or grading in the vicinity of the find will halt immediately and the area of the find will be protected. If a qualified archaeologist is present, he/she will determine whether the bone is human. If the archaeologist determines that the bone is human, or in the absence of an archaeologist, the Applicant immediately will notify the City Planning Department and the Orange County Coroner of the find and comply with the provisions of P.R.C. § 5097 with respect to Native American involvement, burial treatment, and reburial. MM 3.3-2 Building C of the proposed project shall incorporate ground -level and second - story design features of the Ocean View Promenade Structure and, to the extent feasible, of the building containing El Don Liquors. These features shall include, but not be limited to, windows, textures, and roofing and lighting materials. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the revised project design concept shall be 3.3-18 City of Huntington Beach 1 1 3.3 Cultural Resources reviewed by the City Design Review Board for architectural and scale compatibility with the El Don Liquors structure. MM 3.3-3 Prior to recordation of the final map for the project, the Applicant shall incorporate a 20-foot setback from the property line between the Helme-Worthy project and Buildings D/G and F/G of the proposed project. The plan shall also ' include, where Building D adjoins the Helme-Worthy buildings, a 15-foot upper -level setback for the third and fourth floors to create a distinct separation 1 between the new and older buildings. This space shall be continued as a buffer zone and pedestrian walkway around the historic National Register property's southern and western borders, effectively creating a walkway connecting Walnut Avenue and Sixth Street. 1 3.3.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation Implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.3-1 to 3.3-3 would reduce all potentially significant cultural resources impacts to a less -than -significant level. 0 1 The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3.3-19 3.4 Geology and Hydrology 3.4 GEOLOGY AND HYDROLOGY 3.4.1 Introduction This section of the EIR describes the existing geologic, soils, and seismic conditions at the project site and analyzes the potential environmental effects related to seismic hazards, underlying soil characteristics, erosion, liquefaction, excavation, and export of soils. Potential effects on air quality as a result of construction -related activities are discussed in Section 3.2 (Air Quality). In addition, this section describes the existing hydrological and water quality characteristics on the various building sites and in the project vicinity, and evaluates potential physical environmental effects related to drainage, groundwater dewatering, and groundwater and surface water quality. Impacts of the project on existing and future surface water and groundwater supply sources and wastewater treatment are described in Section 3.5 (Public Services and Utilities). The Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation for Blocks 104/105 prepared for the project site by Leighton and Associates (May 2000) provided the geological data and analysis contained in this section. This study included review of available data, field exploration consisting of drilling ten borings ranging in depth from 26.5 to 66.5 feet below the existing ground surface, laboratory testing, geotechnical analyses of collected data, and preparation of a report containing general conclusions and recommendations pertaining to the conceptual design and development of the site. Information presented in this section summarizes relevant information from this document regarding regional and local geological conditions. Site - specific geotechnical studies were also used to supplement the discussion of existing 1 conditions. The Preliminary Hydrology and Water Quality Report for the Renovation of Blocks 104 & 105 prepared for the project site by Penco Engineering (March 2002) provided the hydrological, hydraulic, and water quality data and analysis contained in this section. This report describes the drainage and water quality characteristics of the site, the proposed drainage and water quality improvements associated with the proposed project, and the effect of project development on the City's Master Plan of Drainage. Additionally, this report also describes the proposed best management practices (BMPs) that will be implemented as part of the proposed project. 1 The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3.4 3.0 Environmental Analysis 11 A Limited Phase II Site Assessment (Gradient 2000) prepared for the project site provided information on soils, oil wells, and possible underground storage tanks (USTs). This report describes the chemical properties of the soils and groundwater, as well as potential sources of contamination, and includes recommendations regarding the condition of the site and the presence of abandoned oil wells and potential USTs. In terms of geological issues, landsliding risk was scoped out in the Initial Study due to the flat nature of the proposed project site and is not analyzed in this document. Additionally, hydrological risks associated with tsunamis, seiches, flooding, and mudflows were scoped out in the Initial Study because the project site lies outside of identified hazard area boundaries. Oil well and soil hazard issues were also scoped out of this analysis in the Initial Study, but were included at the request of the Huntington Beach Fire Department (HBFD). 3.4.2 Existing Conditions Geologic Setting The project site is located on the Huntington Beach Mesa within the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province of Southern California. The Huntington Beach Mesa is one of several Pleistocene -age marine terrace platforms within the southern coastal edge of the Los Angeles Basin. Located at approximately 35 feet above mean sea level (msl), the site is underlain by marine terrace deposits comprised of cobble -like silts and sands. These nearly horizontal terrace deposits cap the mesa and overlay the sedimentary San Pedro Formation. All older alluvium is unconsolidated to semi -consolidated, contains "aquifers" in the thicker sand units, and has a moderate to high erosion potential at bluff edges and in the mouths of canyons. The Huntington Beach Mesa has been warped and uplifted since the mid -Pleistocene along recurrent movements on the Newport -Inglewood Fault zone. The fault zone acts as a structural trap for petroleum deposits, which have .been extracted from the mesa since the 1920s. The Newport -Inglewood Fault zone consists of several potentially active branches including the Bolsa-Fairview Fault and the South Branch Fault, located north of the project site. Both of these faults are known from existing oil and groundwater well data, but lack geomorphic evidence of surface rupture. 3.4-2 City of Huntington Beach 1 3.4 Geology and Hydrology h C I F h Subsurface Soil and Groundwater Conditions Based on field investigation, the upper 5 to 20 feet of the subsurface soils at the site generally consist of silty and sandy clays. The silty clay is generally medium stiff to stiff and moist and is considered compressible. Material below 20 feet to the end of borings (26 to 66 feet) consists of alternating layers of silty sands or sandy silts, moist to saturated, and are generally moderately dense to dense. Mesa areas, such as the project site, have water depths ranging from 10 to more than 30 feet within this older alluvium material due to their higher elevations. Groundwater was encountered in all of the borings drilled during the geologic investigation, except two, at a depth of 26 to 27 feet below the existing ground surface. It should be noted that the groundwater elevation fluctuates depending on the climatic changes. Although perched groundwater at a shallower depth was not encountered during the geologic investigation, it may be present at other locations, especially after rainfall. Soil Chemistry Of the 13 soil borings conducted during the geotechnical investigation, one boring on Block 105 indicated the presence of petroleum hydrocarbons, which are thought to be related to previous oilfield activities on the project site, as the boring was adjacent to abandoned wells. Test of soils from other borings did not yield hydrocarbons, but other areas of hydrocarbon - impacted soil may exist immediately surrounding the abandoned oil wells on the project site. Soil vapor tests across the site yielded no detectable levels of volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Soil Corrosivity Chemical contents within the soils can deteriorate concrete structures when present in high concentrations. These chemicals are mostly present in fine-grained, cohesive soils, such as clays and silts. The geotechnical investigation indicates that any unprotected steel or other metallic structures in contact with soils on -site will be subject to moderate to high levels of corrosion. However, damage to concrete in contact with the on -site soils due to soluble sulfate concentrations is anticipated to be low. 1 The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3.4-3 3.0 Environmental Ana Soil Compressibility and Settlement The geotechnical investigation indicates that the soils encountered at the top 15 to 20 feet of the site are compressible, and settlement is expected to occur with project development. Expansive Soil Characteristics The geologic investigation performed on the surface soils at the level of sidewalks and other concrete flatwork indicates that these materials possess low expansion potential. Subsurface soils, however, are expected to be moderately to highly expansive. Faulting and Seismicity The site is located in a seismically active region of Southern California, and the major contributing faults that could affect the site are the Newport -Inglewood, San Joaquin Hills, and Compton Blind Thrust Fault zones. No known active faults traverse the site, and the site is located approximately 0.25 miles from the closest section of the Newport -Inglewood Fault. The California Division of Mines and Geology indicate that the segments of the Newport - Inglewood Fault in close vicinity of the site can produce maximum credible earthquake (MCE) with moment magnitude of 6.9, while Caltrans indicates that the site would produce a MCE with moment magnitude of 7.5. A site -specific probabilistic seismic hazard analysis was performed to evaluate the likelihood of various ground motion levels as reflected in peak horizontal ground acceleration (PHGA). This approach takes into account historical seismicity, the geological slip rate of all faults within approximately 62 miles of the site, and the site -specific response characteristics. Results indicate that the Newport -Inglewood, San Joaquin Hills, and Compton Thrust Fault systems contribute the most to the seismic hazard at this site. In addition, results indicate that earthquakes with a moment magnitude of 6.52 at a 3.96 miles distance dominate the total hazard. An averaged PHGA of 0.49 g associated with an earthquake with moment magnitude of 6.52, with exceedance probability of 10 percent in 50 years, was utilized in the analysis per UBC minimum requirements. Oil Wells and Other Subsurface Finds Geophysical investigations, including magnetometer readings, yielded four anomalies. The major anomaly encountered appear to be five previously abandoned oil wells on Block 105, a finding supported by California Department ' of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas, and 3.4-4 City of Huntington Beach 3.4 Geology and Hydrology Geothermal Resources (DOGGR). The other three anomalies are unknown, but may include an underground storage tank or other abandoned oil wells. Seismic Hazards Liquefaction Liquefaction is a seismic phenomenon in which loose, saturated, fine-grained granular soils lose internal shear strength and behave similarly to fluid when subjected to high -intensity ground shaking. Liquefaction occurs when three general conditions exist: (1) shallow groundwater; (2) low -density, fine, clean, sandy soils; and (3) high -intensity ground motion. The potential for liquefaction of the subsurface soils at the site is considered low, due to the absence of loose, sandy soils above the groundwater level. 1 Earthquake -Induced Settlement Granular soils tend to densify when subjected to shear strains induced by ground shaking during earthquakes. However, the potential for earthquake -induced settlement is considered to be low on the project site, which may experience a maximum earthquake -induced settlement of one inch if the design earthquake occurs. Earthquake -induced settlements tend to be most damaging when differential settlements result, which are expected to be less than 0.5 inch in the area of the proposed construction. ® Hydrology As indicated in the City of Huntington Beach Master Plan of Drainage, the project site is part of a drainage area generally bounded by Eleventh Street, Acacia Avenue, Third Street, and Pacific Coast Highway. Approximately 120 acres, this area contains flows that drain in a southwesterly direction towards Pacific Coast Highway. Runoff in this area is ultimately drained into the Pacific Ocean by three 30-inch reinforced concrete pipes (RCPs) located near ® the intersection of Seventh Street and Pacific Coast Highway. Existing Drainage Facilities and Runoff Currently, the project site consists of several buildings and concrete parking lots as well as undeveloped areas. Most of the surface runoff flows onto the nearest streets and is carried within the 6-inch to 8-inch curb and gutters into an existing 7-foot catch basin located at the northerly corner of Pacific Coast Highway and Main Street. The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3.4-5 3.0 Environmental Analysis Drainage Area The existing storm drain system serving the drainage area consists of a network of curb opening catch basins and RCPs varying in size from 18 inches to 54 inches in diameter. The storm drain system consists of mainlines along Pacific Coast Highway, Sixth Street, Walnut Avenue, Main Street, Olive Avenue, and Orange Avenue. Generally, the system conveys the runoff in a southwesterly direction toward Pacific Coast Highway, and the storm drain system in Pacific Coast Highway begins at the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and Main Street. A series of catch basins intercept runoff from Main Street and Pacific Coast Highway and outlet into a 30-inch RCP that drains in a northwesterly direction towards the Pacific Coast Highway and Sixth Street intersection. An existing 48-inch RCP in Sixth Street confluences with the 30-inch RCP in Pacific Coast Highway and continues in a 54-inch RCP in a northwesterly direction to its junction with two 30-inch RCPs at the intersection of Seventh Street and Pacific Coast Highway that eventually flow to the Pacific Ocean. Project Site The existing storm drain system serving the project site was designed to convey the 25-year peak discharge. Currently, the storm water collected in the alley areas between Fifth Street and Main Street is intercepted by grated inlets and conveyed by existing 12-inch and 18-inch RCPs into a storm drain system in Main Street. Some of the runoff from the northern portion of Main Street flows into an existing catch basin located midway between Pacific Coast Highway and Walnut Avenue on the westerly side of Main Street. Located at the corner of Pacific Coast Highway and Main Street, an existing catch basin collects the storm water from these two areas. The storm water for the entire project site then exits the catch basin via a 3- foot-wide by 1-foot-tall box culvert into the existing storm drain facility in Pacific Coast Highway. The existing 48-inch RCP in Sixth Street was designed to convey a 25-year peak discharge of 129.0 cubic feet per second (cfs). Water Quality There are no reports of existing water quality problems at the project site. 3.4-6 City of Huntington Beach Hydrology 3.4 Geology and H ogy 3.4.3 Regulatory lato Framework Uniform Building Code/California Building Code The State of California provides minimum standards for building design through the California Building Code (CBC). The CBC is based on the Uniform Building Code (UBC), which has been modified for California conditions, and is generally adopted on a jurisdiction -by -jurisdiction basis, subject to further modification based on local conditions. The UBC defines different regions of the United States and ranks them according to their seismic hazard potential. There are four types of these regions, including Seismic Zones 1 through 4, with Zone 1 having the least seismic potential and Zone 4 having the highest seismic potential. The project site is located in Seismic Zone 4; accordingly, the project would be required to comply with all design standards applicable to Seismic Zone 4. Chapter 16 of the CBC contains requirements specific to seismic safety. Chapter 18 of the CBC regulates excavation, foundations, and retaining walls. Chapter 33 of the CBC contains specific requirements pertaining to site demolition, excavation, and construction to protect people and property from hazards associated with excavation cave-ins and falling debris or construction materials. Chapter 33 and Appendix Chapter 33 of the CBC regulate grading activities, including drainage and erosion control. Consistency with UBC/CBC Requirements and Local Regulations Construction activities such as excavation and grading and site development within the City of Huntington Beach is required to comply with the CBC and all State requirements pertaining to geologic, soils, and seismic hazards. Consistency with the UBC and CBC is required by statute, and local regulations further seek to ensure such consistency. Therefore, the proposed project will comply with all prevailing laws and regulations that pertain to geologic resources. ® Clean Water Act The 1972 amendments to the Clean Water Act (CWA) prohibit the discharge of pollutants to navigable waters from a point source (a discharge from a single conveyance such as a pipe) unless the discharge is authorized by an National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. In 1987, in recognition that diffuse, or non -point, sources were significantly 1 1 The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3.4-7 3.0 Environmental Ana impairing surface water quality, Congress amended the CWA to address non -point source stormwater runoff pollution in a phased program requiring NPDES permits for operators of municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s), construction projects and industrial facilities. Phase I, promulgated in 1990, required municipal permits for MS4s generally serving populations over 100,000, construction permits for projects five acres or greater and industrial permits for industries determined by Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code. Phase II regulations were finalized and issued in January 2000 and are designed to implement programs to control urban stormwater runoff from additional MS4s in urbanized areas and operations of small construction sites that are not already covered by Phase I permits. The purpose of the NPDES program is to establish a comprehensive stormwater quality program to manage urban stormwater that minimizes pollution of the environment to the maximum extent practicable (MEP). The NPDES program consists of (1) characterizing receiving water quality, (2) identifying harmful constituents, (3) targeting potential sources of pollutants, and (4) implementing a Comprehensive Stormwater Management Program (CSWMP). General stormwater discharge permits under the NPDES Phase I permit system are required by the State for stormwater discharges associated with construction activities involving the disturbance of five acres or more. Construction on sites less than five acres requires a permit if the project is part of a larger development or land sale. Landowners are responsible for obtaining and complying with the permits, but may delegate specific duties to developers and contractors by mutual consent. Permit applicants are required to prepare, retain, and implement at the construction site a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that describes the site, erosion and sediment controls, runoff water quality monitoring, means of waste disposal, implementation of approved local plans, control of post -construction sediment and erosion control measures and maintenance responsibilities, and non- stormwater management controls. Inspection of construction sites is required before and after storms to identify stormwater discharge from construction activity, and to identify and implement controls where necessary. The main objectives of the NPDES Phase II regulations are to (1) reduce, to the maximum extent possible, the amount of pollutants being discharged and (2) protect the quality of the receiving waters. To meet this goal, the permittee must implement a stormwater management program, for project sites encompassing one to five acres, which addresses six 3.4-8 City of Huntington Beach 1 3.4 Geology and Hydrology minimum control measures, including (1) public education and outreach, (2) public participation/involvement, (3) illicit discharge detection and elimination, (4) construction site stormwater runoff control for sites greater than 1 acre, (5) post -construction stormwater management in new development and redevelopment, and (6) pollution prevention/ good housekeeping for municipal operations. These control measures will typically be addressed by developing Best Management Practices (BMPs). 1 Consistency. with CWA L' r I r Because construction activities would occur on less than 5 acres with project development, a Phase II NPDES permit would be required. The permit would require the implementation of a stormwater management program, which would minimize construction impacts associated with water quality through the use of control measures. In addition, project implementation would fall under the City's existing NPDES permit, and preparation of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) would be required. Thus, the proposed project would be consistent with the CWA requirements. Basin Plan Pre-existing water quality issues have been identified in the watershed planning process and are incorporated in the Water Quality Control Plan (WQCP) for the Santa Ana River Basin (Basin Plan). The Basin Plan designates beneficial uses of the waters of the region and specifies water quality objectives intended to protect those uses. The Basin Plan also specifies an implementation plan describing actions that are necessary to achieve and maintain water quality standards and regulates waste discharges to minimize and control their effects. Dischargers must comply with the water quality standards contained in the Basin Plan. Consistency with Basin Plan The proposed project would implement actions, as necessary, outlined in the Basin Plan to achieve and maintain water quality standards and regulate waste discharges to minimize and control water quality effects. Additionally, project discharge would be consistent with standards contained in the Basin Plan. As such, project development would be consistent with the Basin Plan. 1 The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3.4-9 3.0 Environmental Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan In order to ensure that construction sites implement the appropriate pollution control measures, the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) details recommended BMPs to be applied to new development and significant redevelopment in Orange County. Appendix G of the DAMP identifies appropriate structural and non- structural BMPs that may be implemented to minimize the introduction of pollutants into the drainage system. Applicable structural and non-structural BMPs implemented, on the site will depend on the ultimate configuration of the proposed land use. Appropriate retail/office center non-structural BMPs listed in the DAMP Appendix G that may be utilized onsite to control predictable pollutant runoff include: activity restrictions, common area landscape management, BMP maintenance, common area litter control, catch basin inspection, employee training, and private street/lot sweeping. Consistency with the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan As required by the DAMP, the proposed project would implement the appropriate structural and non-structural BMPs into the design of the project such that the amount of pollutants entering the drainage system would be reduced. Project implementation would be consistent with the DAMP. City of Huntington Beach General Plan Environmental Hazards Element The proposed project was evaluated for consistency with applicable policies of the Huntington Beach General Plan. Where a goal or objective was identified as applicable to the project, but no supporting policy was applicable, the goal or objective was evaluated. Objective EH 1.1 Ensure that land use planning in the City accounts for seismic and geologic risk, including ground shaking, liquefaction, subsidence, soil and slope stability, and water table levels. 3.4-10 City of Huntington Beach 3.4 Geology and Hydrology 0 r F I I H Policy EH 1.1.2 Support land use patterns, Zoning Ordinances, and locational criteria that mitigate potential risks posed by development in hazard areas, or which significantly reduce risk from seismic hazards. Consistency with Policy EH 1.1.2 The proposed project would not occur in an area subject to liquefaction, subsidence, soil and slope instability, or high water table levels. The site is located in the seismically active region of Southern California. However, project implementation would be constructed in a way as to minimize seismic risk. In addition, project development would support land use patterns, ordinances, and locational criteria that mitigate potential risks. The project would be consistent with this policy. Objective EH 1.2 Ensure that new structures are designed to minimize damage resulting from seismic hazards, ensure that existing unsafe structures are retrofitted to reduce hazards and mitigate other existing unsafe conditions. Policy EH 1.2.1 Require appropriate engineering and building practices for all new structures to withstand groundshaking and liquefaction such as stated in the Uniform Building Code. Consistency with Policy EH 1.2.1 Site development work in the City of Huntington Beach is required to comply with the CBC, which is based on the UBC. Compliance with the CBC would ensure that new structures are designed to minimize damage resulting from seismic hazards, such as groundshaking and liquefaction. The proposed project would be consistent with this policy. City of Huntington Beach General Plan Utilities Element The Utilities Element contains the following objectives and policies that are applicable to the proposed project. 1 The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3.4-11 3.0 Environmental Ana Objective U 3.1 Ensure that adequate storm drain and flood control facilities are provided and properly maintained in order to protect life and property from flood hazards. Consistency with Objective U 3.1 A proposed drainage system largely consisting of roof drains on the new buildings and catch basins to be located in the streets would be constructed as part of the proposed project. Implementation of these improvements would ensure that adequate storm drain and flood control facilities are provided. The proposed project would be consistent with this policy. Policy U 3.1.1 Maintain existing public storm drains and flood control facilities, upgrade and expand storm drain and flood control facilities. Consistency with Policy U 3.1.1 The proposed project would include storm drain improvements consisting of roof drains and catch basins. Additionally, the hydrology report indicates that project development would not adversely affect the existing system. As such, the proposed project would be consistent with this policy. Policy U 3.1.3 Monitor the demands and manage development to mitigate impacts and/or facilitate improvements to the storm drainage system. Consistency with Policy U 3.1.3 As discussed above, the proposed project would include storm drain improvements consisting of roof drains and catch basins. Additionally, the hydrology report indicates that project development would not adversely affect the existing system. As such, the proposed project would be consistent with this policy. 3.4-12 City of Huntington Beach 1 3.4 Geologyand Hydrology y Sy Policy U 3.2.1 Require improvements to the existing storm drain and flood control facilities necessitated by new development be borne by the new development benefiting from the improvements; ' either through the payment of fees, or by the actual construction of the improvements in accordance with State Nexus Legislation. Consistency with Policy U 3.2.1 As discussed above, the proposed project would provide new roof drains and catch basins to accommodate new development. The existing storm drain system with the new improvements would be adequate to serve the proposed project. As such, the proposed project is consistent with this policy. City of Huntington Beach General Plan Coastal Element The following goals, objectives, and policies of the Coastal Element are applicable to the proposed project. 1 Goal C-1 I 'L F 'J Develop a land use plan for the Coastal Zone that protects and enhances coastal resources, promotes public access and balances development with facility needs. Objective C 1.1 Ensure that adverse impacts associated with coastal zone development are mitigated or minimized to the greatest extent feasible. Policy C 1.1.9 Minimize risks to life and property in areas of high geologic, flood and fire hazard through siting and design to avoid the hazard. New development shall be designed to assure stability and structural integrity, and neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the site or surrounding area or in anyway require the construction of a protective device. 1 The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3.4-13 3.0 Environmental Analysis Consistency with Policy C 1.1.9 The proposed project would not be located within a high flood or fire hazard area. The site is located within the seismically active Southern California region. However, buildings under the proposed project would be constructed in accordance with CBC requirements such that stability and structural integrity would occur. Additionally, the project would not create or contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the site or surrounding area or in anyway require the construction of a protective device. Project implementation would be consistent with this policy. Goal C 6 Prevent the degradation of marine resources in the Coastal Zone from activities with an urban environment. Objective C 6.1 Promote measures to mitigate the adverse impacts of human activities on marine organisms and the marine environment through regulation of new development, monitoring of existing development, and retrofitting necessary and feasible. Policy C 6.1.1 Require that new development include mitigation measures to enhance water quality, if feasible, and at a minimum, prevent the degradation of water quality of groundwater basins, wetlands, and surface water. Consistency with Policy C 6.1.1 The proposed project would be consistent with stormwater regulations under the NPDES permit, and structural BMPs that would filter or treat stormwater runoff would be implemented. In addition, non-structural BMPs would be implemented to further reduce water quality impacts. As such, the proposed project would prevent the degradation of water quality of groundwater basins, wetlands, and surface water. The project would be consistent with this policy. 3.4-14 City of Huntington Beach 3.4 Geology and 1 Policy C 6.1.6 The City shall require that new development and redevelopment, as appropriate, employ nonstructural Best Management Practices (BMPs) and structural BMPs designed to minimize the volume, velocity and pollutant load of stormwater runoff, prior to runoff discharge into stormwater conveyance systems, receiving waters and/or other sensitive areas. BMPs should be selected based on efficacy at mitigating pollutants of concern associated with respective development types or uses. To this end, the City shall continue implementation of the Municipal Non -Point Source National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards program of which the City is a co-permittee with the County of Orange through the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. Per program parameters, continue to require a Water Quality Management Plan for all applicable new development and redevelopment within the Coastal Zone, and include mitigation measures such as the following: ' (a) Regulating development to include the use of the best available erosion and runoff control management techniques and BMPs designed to minimize pollutant loads contained in post -development runoff, and to maintain post -development runoff, and levels to maintain post -development peak runoff rate and average volume at similar to pre -development levels to the maximum extent feasible. Design elements and other measures shall be incorporated into new development and appropriate re- development in order to carry out the objectives specified herein, including implementation of measures required pursuant to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Standards, and any amendment to or re -issuance thereof. (b) Adoption of guidelines to reduce runoff (silt, debris, litter, and chemicals) from tconstruction sites. These implementation guidelines will be developed with the guidance and approval of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control -Board ' and/or the State Water Resources Control Board. (c) Establishment of runoff controls for soils removed in restoration and/or remediation of oil sites (d) Encourage and assist, where appropriate, County efforts to implement restoration or other water quality improvement projects in flood control channels that empty into the Bolsa Chica, Huntington Beach Wetlands and beach areas in order to minimize negative impacts from urban runoff while maintaining flood control effectiveness The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3.4-15 3.0 Environmental Consistency with Policy C 6.1.6 Project design includes the implementation of structural and non-structural BMPs designed to minimize the volume, velocity and pollutant load of stormwater runoff during construction and operation of the project. In addition, a WQMP consistent with the SARWQCB guidelines would be prepared to minimize water quality impacts of construction and post -construction runoff generated on the project site. As such, the proposed project would be consistent with this policy. Goal C 10 Minimize risks to life and property in areas of high hazards (e.g., geologic, flood and fire) within the Coastal Zone and ensure stability and structural integrity, and neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the site or surrounding area or in any way require the construction of protective devices that would substantially alter natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs. Objective C 10.1 Identify potential hazard areas in the City and manage/mitigate potential risks and impacts through land use regulation, public awareness, and retrofitting where feasible. Policy C 10.1.4 Require appropriate engineering and building practices for all new structures to withstand groundshaking and liquefaction such as those stated in the Uniform Building Code. Consistency with Policy C 10.1.4 As required by the City of Huntington Beach, the project would be constructed in accordance with the CBC, which is based on the UBC. Thus, the project would be constructed to withstand groundshaking and liquefaction. The proposed project would be consistent with this policy. 3.4.4 Thresholds of Significance Geologic impacts resulting from implementation of the proposed project would be considered significant if any of the following would occur: 3.4-16 City of Huntington Beach 1 k 3.4 Geology and Hydrology 1-1 0 H U C C F ■ Exposure of people or property to substantial and adverse geological hazards such as groundshaking, fault rupture, liquefaction, and soil characteristics that could result in erosion or high expansion (shrink/swell) potential ■ Exposure of workers to contaminated soils or hazardous soil conditions Hydrology and/or water quality impacts resulting from implementation of the proposed project would be considered significant if any of the following would occur: ■ Violation of any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements ■ Substantially degrade water quality ■ Substantial depletion of groundwater supplies or substantial interference with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level ■ Substantial alteration of the existing drainage pattern of the site or area ■ Creation or contribution of runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems, or provision of substantial additional sources of polluted runoff ■ Placement of structures within a 100-year flood hazard area, which would impede or redirect flood flows ■ Exposure of people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam ■ Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow 3.4.5 Impacts Impact 3.4-1 Project implementation could affect the rate or extent of erosion occurring on the project site. Currently, the project site is developed with structures and impervious surfaces, and project implementation would also result in similar conditions on -site. Given the presence of impervious surfaces throughout the site, no topsoil is known to exist. Additionally, no topsoil would exist after project implementation, and the potential for erosion to occur during operational activities would be minimal. However, grading for the proposed subterranean parking structure is expected to be substantial and may result in erosion during construction. In addition, poor surface water drainage could damage structures and contribute to an increased rate of erosion. Pursuant to City standard conditions of approval, a grading/erosion control plan and WQMP would be prepared prior to construction. As a 1 The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3.4-17 3.0 Environmental Analusis condition of approval to the proposed project, the grading/erosion plan would be consistent with the provisions of the Air Quality Management District's Rule 403 as related to fugitive dust control. Therefore, construction impacts related to erosion would be less than significant. Impact 3.4-2 Implementation of the proposed project could expose people and structures on -site to seismic -related ground failure associated with liquefaction. Although the site is located within an area identified by the City's General Plan as having a very high potential for liquefaction, the project site is not located within a liquefaction zone, according to Seismic Hazard Zones Maps of the CDMG. Additionally, the potential for liquefaction of the subsurface soils at the site is considered low, due to the absence of loose, sandy soils above the groundwater level as indicated in the geotechnical investigation prepared for the proposed project. Therefore, liquefaction impacts associated with seismic - related ground failure to people and structures on -site would be less than significant. Impact 3.4-3 Construction and operation of the proposed project could expose workers to contaminated soils or risks associated with hazardous soils conditions. As described above, the proposed project site includes abandoned oil wells and other, unidentified underground features that have affected some proximate soils on the project site. Construction activities, such as grading and excavation for utilities and the proposed underground parking structure, could expose workers to contaminated soils and other hazards associated with abandoned oil wells, including the potential presence of methane, which is commonly associated with abandoned oil wells. However, the standard conditions of approval for the City include compliance with all applicable State and local regulations pertaining to abandonment of oil wells and remediation of associated hazards. Local requirements include City Specification 422, which requires in addition to all conditions therein, compliance with all applicable regulations and permit conditions of the DOGGR with regard to the abandonment of oil wells; City Specification 429, which specifies requirements for permits for construction within methane districts (i.e., in the vicinity of abandoned oil wells), including the provision of methane barriers for structures; and City Specification 431-92, which articulates soil cleanup standards. With compliance with all applicable State and local regulations and permit conditions, this impact would be less than significant. 3.4-18 City of Huntington Beach 3.4 Geology and Hydrology I I I r Impact 3.4-4 Construction and operation of the proposed project could degrade existing water quality. Currently, the project site is developed with structures and other impervious surfaces. Construction activities associated with the project would require grading and excavation to accommodate the proposed subterranean garage and structures. Silt and sand would be the primary pollution sources from the site during construction. However, project construction would be required to obtain a Phase II NPDES permit, which would require the implementation of a stormwater management program that addresses minimum control measures for construction site stormwater runoff. As such, water quality impacts associated with construction impacts would be less than significant. Principal pollution sources originating at the project site during operation would be typical of urban development, and would include the following: grease and oil from vehicles using the parking areas; contaminants from trash dumpsters; normal paper and other wastes; and grease and oil from the restaurant. However, a separate grease interceptor would be implemented to treat grease and oil from the restaurant prior to connecting into the sewer system. Project development would also be consistent with the Phase II stormwater regulations and a WQMP would be prepared by a Civil or Environmental Engineer and would be subject to review and approval by the City Public Works Department. The plan is intended to eliminate polluted runoff from the site and would at a minimum include ■ BMPs to be incorporated into the project design ■ Certifications to be signed by the operator/manager ■ Debris removal and maintenance routines within any detention, infiltration, and desiltation basins ■ Requirements for manual removal and maintenance routines for all portions of the treatment train ■ Maintenance schedule and responsible parties for all BMPs ■ Any on -site fueling systems storage areas for emergency generator shall be noted and documented in the BMPs ■ Monitoring program ■ Incorporation of the County Management Guidelines for storage and cleanup of fertilizers and pesticides in landscaped areas, analysis of acceptance of flows from neighboring properties ■ Acceptance of flows from adjacent properties shall be addressed 1 The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3.4-19 3.0 Environmental A The BMPs to be incorporated must include a structural BMP that would filter or treat either a 24-hour 85th percentile storm event (the maximum flow rate of runoff produced from a rainfall intensity of 0.2 inch of rainfall per hour) or the maximum flow rate of runoff produced by the 85th percentile hourly rainfall intensity would occur. In addition to the above, NPDES also requires the preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which must be submitted to the City Public Works Department for review concurrently with the grading plan for the project. In addition, the proposed improvements for the project site would decrease the sediment deposits in stormwater since the surface flow would now travel across maintained surface conditions. Furthermore, the urban nature of the existing and proposed land uses is sufficiently similar so as not to substantially alter the quality of urban runoff. Surface runoff would be further controlled to the maximum extent possible by the use of non-structural and structural BMPs as described on pages 5 through 8 of the Preliminary Hydrology and Water Quality Report for Renovation of Blocks 104 & 105 dated by March 2002. Non-structural BMPs would be implemented as part of the proposed project, and the owner would be responsible to maintain these BMPs during and after construction. These non-structural BMPs would include (1) education for property owners and occupants —no property owner association (POA) will be formed for this project, and the property owner of the project site would take the lead in providing information and instruction to all the users regarding the need to practice good pollution prevention measures; (2) activity restrictions — the owners would occupy or lease portions of the buildings and will ensure that all employees are familiar with the proper implementation of the appropriate BMPs; (3) common area landscape management —proposed landscaping would be consistent with the County Water Conservation Resolution, and the proposed irrigation system would be designed so as to maximize the usage and reduce the runoff; (4) litter control —proposed trash enclosures would be provided by this project, located away from drainage swales, bin lids would be kept closed, and the trash would be emptied with enough frequency such that the bins do not overflow and the surrounding areas are kept clean; (5) employee training — training regarding storm water quality management will be integrated with existing training programs; (6) housekeeping of loading docks —if a loading dock is proposed at a later date, it would be kept clean and no food or industrial waste would be handled; (7) catch basin inspection —on-site catch basins would be inspected by the owner, and inspections would be performed at regular intervals to assure they are kept clean and functioning properly 3.4-20 City of Huntington Beach 1 1 3.4 Geologyand Hydrology y Sy especially prior to the storm season, no later than October 15 of each year; and (8) private street/lot sweeping —the owner would be responsible for maintaining the parking area especially prior to the storm season, no later than October 15 of each year. The following structural BMPs would be implemented as part of the proposed project, and would further control stormwater runoff: (1) filtration —surface runoff would be directed to landscape areas where practical; (2) common area efficient irrigation —landscaping plans would be consistent with County Water Conservation measures; (3) common area runoff — very few areas would be landscaped at grade; (4) wash water controls for food preparation areas —food establishments would have either contained areas, sinks, each with sanitary sewer connections for disposal of wash waters containing kitchen and food wastes; (5) trash container area — trash container areas would have drainage from adjoining roofs and pavements diverted around the areas, and for trash container areas associated with restaurants and warehouse/ grocery operations such areas are to be screened or walled to prevent off -site transportation of trash; (6) catch basin stenciling —the proposed catch basins would be stenciled with "No Dumping — Drains to Ocean' to alert the public to the destination of any pollutants being discharged into the storm drains; (7) inlet trash racks — a standard trash rack would be installed in all proposed catch basins, and the trash enclosure area would have a gate or fence that would serve as a trash rack in keeping all trash inside the designated area; and (8) a water clarifier would be installed at the connection with the existing storm drain system. Thus, operational impacts associated with the degradation of water quality by the proposed project would be less than significant with implementation of structural and non-structural BMPs as discussed above and compliance with Phase II stormwater regulations. Impact 3.4-5 The proposed project could create additional runoff that would exceed the capacity of the existing stormwater drainage system. Currently, the project site is developed with structures and impervious surfaces. Project implementation would alter the existing drainage pattern on -site and contribute to additional impermeable surfaces, which could result in additional runoff that could exceed the capacity 1 of the existing storm drain system. However, proposed drainage improvements such as providing roof drains and catch basins would be implemented with project development. Generally, the proposed system would include storm water being collected into new roof drains on the proposed buildings and exiting onto the existing street gutters through down spout to curb face drains. 1 The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3.4-21 I 3.0 Environmental Analysis Proposed drainage improvements specifically include the construction of a 10-foot catch basin at the corner of Pacific Coast Highway and Sixth Street. The flows intercepted by this basin will be discharged into the existing 48-inch RCP in Sixth Street. This basin would be designed to accommodate a 25-year peak stormwater discharge of 7.6cfs, and a 100-year peak stormwater discharge of 9.7 cfs. The water quality report indicates that there will be some flow bypassing the proposed basin; however, street capacity calculations by Penco Engineering demonstrate that Pacific Coast Highway will be able to handle the flow that bypasses the proposed basin. In addition, the existing catch basin located on Main Street between Pacific Coast Highway and Walnut Avenue will be removed and replaced with a manhole with implementation of the proposed project. The storm water previously served by this catch basin would street flow via curb and gutter and be intercepted by the existing catch basin at the northerly corner of Pacific Coast Highway and Main Street. This improvement would conform to the City's Master Plan of Drainage. Finally, the water quality report also indicates that the proposed project would not have a significant adverse effect on the existing storm drain system. As such, project implementation would not create additional runoff such that the capacity of the existing storm drain system is exceeded. Impacts would be less than significant. Impact 3.4-6 People and structures on the project site could be exposed to seismic hazards associated with groundshaking and fault rupture. There are no known active faults traversing the site; thus, the potential for fault rupture to occur on the site is minimal. The site is, however, within the Newport -Inglewood Fault zone and located approximately 0.25 miles from the closest section of the Newport -Inglewood Fault. Consequently, the proposed project may expose on -site structures and people to significant seismic hazards if an earthquake occurs along this fault. CDMG and Caltrans have estimated that a maximum credible earthquake caused by this fault would result in moment magnitudes of 6.9 and 7.5, respectively. Damage from an earthquake of this range in intensity could include general damage to foundations, shifting of frame structures if not bolted, and breaking of underground pipes. Although the project site is located in the seismically active region of Southern California, impacts related to seismically induced groundshaking would be potentially significant. However, implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.4-1 and 3.4-2 would reduce this impact associated with groundshaking to a less - than -significant level through compliance with seismic design parameters. 3.4-22 City of Huntington Beach 1 3.4 Geology and Hydrology 11 C I H U H L 0 h Impact 3.4-7 Project development would locate structures on potentially expansive soils, unstable soils, soils subject to settlement, or corrosive soils. While the project site is currently developed, it is located within in area identified by the City's General Plan as having a low to moderate (6%-27%) probability for expansion. The surface soils (0 to 5 feet) generally possess low expansion potential, as indicated in the geotechnical investigation. However, a medium to high expansion potential exists at the foundation level (below the underground garage level), and site soils could, therefore, be considered unstable. In addition, existing fill soils that are not compacted properly could result in unstable foundations. Furthermore, differential settlement of soils could occur on site, and affect the foundation materials. Expansive soils, unstable soils, and settlement of soils could create substantial risks to life and property. Although preparation of a grading plan for the proposed project is a City standard condition of approval, these soil impacts could still occur with project development. Therefore, impacts related to soil expansion potential, unstable soils, and settlement would be potentially significant. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-1 would reduce these impacts to a less -than - significant level. It is anticipated that steel components in contact with the on -site soils would have a moderate to high potential for corrosion. As such, this would be a potentially significant impact. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-1 would reduce this impact to less -than -significant level, by requiring the implementation of recommendations outlined within the geotechnical investigation, which recommends the use of special measures for corrosion control of steel. 3.4.6 Cumulative Impacts This cumulative impact analysis considers development of the proposed project, in conjunction with other development within the vicinity of the project in the City of Huntington Beach. Cumulative projects that are anticipated to occur in the same time frame of the proposed project include the following four developments: (1) 31-Acre Pacific City Development; (2) Hyatt Regency Resort and Spa; (3) Waterfront Residential; and (4) Boardwalk Residential. Buildings and facilities within the City of Huntington Beach will be sited and designed in accordance with appropriate geotechnical and seismic guidelines and recommendations consistent with the CBC and UBC. This project would not incrementally contribute to these The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3.4-23 3.0 Environmental Analysis impacts. Development in the vicinity of the project site will cumulatively expose and engineer soil surfaces, and this will further alter soil conditions. To minimize the potential for cumulative impacts that could cause erosion, related projects in the adjacent area are expected to be developed in conformance with the provisions of applicable federal, state, county, and City laws and ordinances to prevent further impacts. The cumulative impact on geology, soils, and seismicity is considered less than significant. As described above, compliance with all applicable State and local requirements regarding oils wells, soils, and methane would ensure the project impacts are less than significant. Additionally, other projects within the City that would be constructed near abandoned oil wells would also be required to comply with such regulations, and less -than -significant impacts would occur with these projects. No cumulative impact would occur, as all associated effects would be mitigated, and the proposed project would not, therefore, contribute to a cumulative impact regarding hazards related to oil wells and adjacent soils. Cumulative development within the City of Huntington Beach would generate similar hydrology and water quality impacts to those of the proposed project. Each of these projects would be subject to the basic requirements and mitigation measures as the proposed project to address hydrology and water quality issues. Projects involving construction on sites greater than 1 acre would be required to obtain NPDES permits and construction and operation activities would occur in compliance with the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan and the Basin Plan. Additionally, the water quality report indicates that the four cumulative projects anticipated to occur are located in different drainage areas than the proposed project. The City's Master Plan of Drainage indicates that these developments drain to systems that are independent of the drainage system that serves the proposed project. Therefore, the project's contribution to the cumulative storm drain flows and degradation of water quality is not significant. 3.4.7 Mitigation Measures MM 3.4-1 The grading plan prepared for the proposed project shall contain the recommendations included in the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation for Blocks 104/105, City of Huntington Beach Redevelopment, Westerly of Pacific Coast Highway and Main Street, City of Huntington Beach, California prepared by Leighton and Associates, dated May 22, 2000. These recommendations shall be implemented in the design of the project and include measures associated 3.4-24 City of Huntington Beach 1 3.4 Geology and Hydrology I G with site preparation, fill placement and compaction, seismic design features, excavation stability and shoring requirements, lateral earth pressure, foundation design, concrete slabs and pavements, cement type and corrosion measures, surface drainage, trench backfill, plan review, and geotechnical observation and testing of earthwork operations. MM 3.4-2 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the final grading and foundation plans shall be reviewed by the project geotechnical consultant and the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department to verify that the preliminary recommendations provided in this report are applicable. 1 3.4.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation All geology, soils, and hydrology impacts that are anticipated under the proposed project would either be less than significant prior to mitigation, or reduced to a less -than -significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.4-1 and 3.4-2. 1 The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3.4-25 3.5 Land Use 3.5 LAND USE ' 3.5.1 Introduction ' This information section provides on the existing land use characteristics of the project site and the adjacent areas. The Land Use section of the Initial Study (Appendix A) determined that the divide proposed project would not physically an established community, nor would it conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation rplan. Consequently, this section addresses conformity of the proposed project with local land use plans and policies, and existing and planned land uses in the project vicinity. 3.5.2 Existing Conditions City of Huntington Beach ' The City of Huntington Beach, which is in northwestern Orange County, is a beach community located about 35 miles southeast of Los Angeles on the shore of the Pacific Ocean. The City consists of approximately 17,730 acres, or 27.7 square miles and contains a variety of land uses. Ninety-eight percent of the City is developed with residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, public uses, and streets/highways. The remaining two percent of the land within city boundaries is vacant according to the City of Huntington Beach General Plan (1996). The proposed project is located in the City's Downtown area, as defined by the Downtown Specific Plan (City of Huntington Beach 2002). The project site includes portions of Blocks 104 and 105, which are about six miles south of the San Diego Freeway (I-405). As illustrated in Figure 2-1, Block 104 is bounded by Main Street on the east and Fifth Street on the west, and by Walnut Avenue on the north and Pacific Coast Highway on the south. Block 105 is bounded by Fifth Street on the east, Sixth Street on the west, Walnut Avenue on the north, and Pacific Coast Highway on the south. The project site, which includes portions of Blocks 104 and 105, is bounded by Sixth Street on the west, the alley between Main and Fifth ' Streets — as well as neighboring commercial uses on Pacific Coast Highway — on the east, Walnut Avenue on the north, and Pacific Coast Highway on the south. 1 The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3.5-1 3.0 Environmental Ana Project Site Characteristics and Land Uses As illustrated by Figure 2-2 (Existing Conditions), Block 105 is characterized by vacant lots on the southeast and southwest portions of the block; a surface parking lot on the northeast corner; existing one-story commercial uses, including Papa Joe's Pizza, fronting Pacific Coast Highway at about mid -block; and the Worthy property —a historic, two-story commercial and residential property —on the northeast corner of the block. The Papa Joe's Pizza fronts Pacific Coast Highway within Block 105 and will need to be removed to accommodate the proposed project. The proposed project site encompasses all of Block 105 except for the Worthy property. Existing uses on Block 104 consist of two-story commercial uses fronting Main Street near Walnut Avenue; the four-story Ocean View Promenade commercial office building, which spans from mid -block to Pacific Coast Highway along Main Street and from Main Street to about mid -block along Pacific Coast Highway, forming an 'L'; a small surface parking lot at the southwest corner of the block; El Don Liquors and two residential units in a two-story structure located between the Ocean View Promenade and the surface parking lot on the northwest corner; and a surface parking lot on the corner of Fifth Street and Walnut Avenue that encompasses approximately one third of the block. The proposed project site includes only the existing surface parking lots on the northwest and southwest corners of Block 104: none of the existing commercial or residential uses would be developed. Surrounding Land Uses Generally, land uses on the blocks surrounding the proposed project site consist of a mixture of commercial and residential uses. As described above, neighboring uses on Blocks 104 and 105 consist of visitor -serving commercial uses along Pacific Coast Highway and Main Street, and generally include restaurants and retail geared towards beach visitors, such as souvenir shops and swimwear shops. The Huntington Beach South Police Substation is located on the northeast corner of Walnut Avenue and Fifth Street, and multiple -story commercial/office uses also are located along the north side of Walnut Avenue and along Main Street, north of Walnut Avenue. One- and two-story residential uses are the most prominent uses along the north side of Walnut Avenue, across from Block 105. Commercial and residential uses occupy the west side of Sixth Street, across from Block 105. Other uses proximate to the project site include multiple -story commercial uses along the east side of Main Street, as well 3.5-2 City of Huntington Beach L 3.5 Land Use k L [J as the Pier Plaza and the Pacific Ocean, located across Pacific Coast Highway from the project site. General Plan Land Use Designations The City of Huntington Beach General Plan (City 1996) outlines a rational order of progress through which the City can grow and maintain economic and environmental integrity. As a policy, the General Plan serves as a guide to the adoption of laws necessary to execute its intent. General Plan Land Use Element rThe General Plan Land Use Element (LUE) is the primary policy for directing the use of land within the City of Huntington Beach and consists of the Land Use Map (see Figure LU-1 of the General Plan: Figure 2-1 of this EIR includes a relevant portion of this map); technical synopsis regarding distribution of existing land uses, special development areas, and existing land use conflicts, issues, citywide land use policies; and implementation programs. The LUE also. provides direction for development of a proposed project with typical permitted uses, permitted density/intensity, and characteristics/requirements pertaining to various land use categories. The LUE designates six broad categories of land uses: Residential, Commercial, Industrial, Public and Institutional, Mixed Use, and Open Space. Within each of these broader categories are more specific designations (e.g., varying densities of residential or commercial uses). The LUE provides no definitions beyond the designations themselves; however, the City of Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (Commercial Districts, Chapter 211, and Coastal Zone Overlay District, Chapter 221) provides the specific guidance for development standards, and is discussed separately below. The project site contains 14 legal lots, with a General Plan Land Use Designation of MV-F12- sp-pd (Mixed -Use Vertical —Specific Plan Overlay —Pedestrian Overlay). General Plan Coastal Element The City's General Plan includes a broad "mixed development" category intended to encourage maximum flexibility. The Coastal Element refined the category to provide more direction for the types and level of development desired. Two new mixed -use categories 1 The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3.5-3 3.0 Environmental were developed for the coastal zone: Mixed Use Horizontal and Mixed Use Vertical. These are further discussed under Zoning Designations, below. General Plan Economic Development Element The City's General Plan Economic Development Element does not assign designations to areas in the City (and thus, to the project site); rather, the purpose of the element is to show and evaluate general economic trends and growth patterns that affect the City, as well as to formulate policy to ensure the competitiveness and economic viability of the City. The major land use implications of the economic and growth trends observed in the Economic Development Element are the gradual recycling of older manufacturing and distribution areas with mid- to high-rise office buildings, high-tech oriented tilt -ups, hotels, mixed use projects, and in some cases, residential complexes. The proposed project reflects this general pattern by proposing the continued redevelopment of former oil extraction facilities and underutilized and vacant commercial properties in the downtown area with a mixed -use commercial project that includes a hotel. Downtown Specific Plan The Downtown Specific Plan (City 2002) provides the zoning for the portion of the City's coastal zone that lies between Goldenwest Street and Beach Boulevard. It also recommends public improvements that are considered important to revitalizing the downtown. The design concept concentrates on the City pier and emphasizes the ocean, ocean activities, forms, shapes, and colors. This relationship to the ocean establishes a theme to serve as a guideline for new private and public investment in the Downtown area and is intended to serve as a catalyst for the revitalization effort. According to the Final Downtown Specific Plan EIR, the Specific Plan would implement the General Plan land uses for the area and rezone the blocks fronting Pacific Coast Highway from Sixth Street to Lake Street (which includes the proposed project site) from general commercial (CG) to mixed use, with visitor -serving or other commercial uses generally required on the ground floor and residential or office uses allowed above. The original CG zoning imposed few development restrictions and did not provide the types of regulations necessary to implement the quality of development envisioned for this area, and, therefore, was no longer an appropriate zoning for Downtown. 3.54 City of Huntington Beach 3.5 Land Use L I k k Zoning Designations City zoning ordinances control the type of development allowed within every identified parcel in the City. These ordinances are intended to function collectively as the primary implementing mechanism for the City's General Plan, and future uses are subject to the restrictions and limitations imposed; furthermore, no existing structure shall be used, or new structure erected, without compliance with the existing zoning, or without alteration of zoning by the City. As described above, the zoning for the project site was amended by the City's adoption of the Downtown Specific Plan in 1983, and subsequent modifications as of 2002. The project site is located in District 3 of the Downtown Specific Plan, and is zoned Downtown Specific Plan — District 3—Coastal Zone. District 3 is limited to the five blocks fronting Pacific Coast Highway across from the City pier (Blocks 101 to 105), and is intended for Visitor -Serving Commercial/Residential/Office use. Visitor -serving commercial uses are located in "tourist oriented" areas, such as Pacific Coast Highway, Downtown, Peter's Landing, Old World Village, and Beach Boulevard. The visitor -serving category is intended to include commercial activities that will also serve the needs of the surrounding community, and thereby provide an off-season clientele for the District. The plan also allows residential and office uses in District 3, so long as the required visitor -serving commercial uses are also provided. 3.5.3 Regulatory Framework The proposed project was evaluated for consistency with applicable policies in the Huntington Beach General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan. Where a specific policy associated with a goal or objective was not identified as applicable to the project, the project was evaluated for consistency with the goal or objective itself. ® General Plan Land Use Element Goal LU 1 Achieve development that maintains or improves the City's fiscal viability and reflects economic demands while maintaining and improving the quality of life for the current and future residents of Huntington Beach. The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3.5-5 3.0 Environmental Analusi, Consistency with Goal LU 1 The commercial, hotel, restaurant, and office uses proposed for the site represent development which would support the perceived needs and reflect market demand of City residents and visitors. The proposed development improves the project site, much of which is currently vacant, and provides additional destination uses (such as the proposed hotel) that would attract and complement retail and restaurant uses. In addition, the proposed project would help the City to achieve its goal of creating an 18-hour Downtown, with visitors and residents remaining Downtown in the evening for shopping, dining, and entertainment. The proposed project would be consistent with this goal. Policy LU 1.1.2 Promote development in accordance with the Economic Development Element. Consistency with Policy LU 1.1.2 The proposed project promotes development in accordance with Huntington Beach's Economic Development Element, as commercial, hotel, restaurant, and office development will broaden and stabilize the City's economic base. The goals and policies of the Economic Development Element are formulated to provide new policy direction for the City and the planning area. The project would provide a range of employment opportunities, as several small shop as well as hotel operations will be needed. In addition, the longer hours of visitor activity and, therefore, visitor -serving retail and commercial uses would further support the economic needs of the City. Discussion regarding specific, relevant policies from the Economic Development Element is provided below. Goal LU 4 Achieve and maintain high quality architecture, landscape, and public open spaces in the City. Consistency with Goal LU 4 The design of the project promotes development of commercial buildings that convey a unified, high -quality visual image and character, with integrated landscaping, that are intended to expand the existing pattern of Downtown Huntington Beach. The City's Design Review Board has reviewed the proposed architecture, colors, and materials and 3.5-6 City of Huntington Beach 1 3.5 Land Use k III I k L recommends approval of the design concept. While the buildings within the project will be oriented toward the existing streets, Buildings A and B will abut an approximately 3,000- square-foot paseo that will connect to the existing pedestrian passageway leading to Main Street. Additionally, public areas and open space included with the project incorporate enhanced hardscape materials. The alley between Fifth Street and Main Street will also be enhanced with landscaping and hardscape to promote a pedestrian -friendly atmosphere. The proposed project would, therefore, be consistent with this policy of the Land Use Element. Policy LU 4.1.1 W et Require adherence to or consideration of the policies prescribed for Design and Development in the Huntington Beach General Plan, as appropriate. ;: 0 0 Consistency with Policy LU 4.1.1 H x rt Refer to the discussion of project consistency with City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code Articles 211 and 221, below, which focus on design and development in the City of Huntington Beach.. C Policy LU 4.1.2 Require that an appropriate landscape plan be submitted and implemented for development °, rt projects subject to discretionary review. w Consistency with Policy LU 4.2.2 As required by the City Planning Department, a landscape plan for the proposed project will be submitted prior to discretionary review of the project. The proposed project would, therefore, be consistent with this policy of the Land Use Element. Policy LU 4.2.1 Require that all structures be constructed in accordance with the requirements of the City's building and other pertinent codes and regulations; including new, adaptively re -used, and renovated buildings. The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3.5=7 3.0 Environmental Ana Consistency with Policy LU 4.2.1 Refer to the discussion of project consistency with City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code Articles 211 and 221, which focus on design and development in the City of Huntington Beach. Policy LU 4.2.4 Require that all development be designed to provide adequate space for access, parking, supporting functions, open space, and other pertinent elements. Consistency with Policy LU 4.2.4 The proposed project provides for adequate access along Fifth Street, parking in a subterranean garage, supporting functions such as delivery entrances along Sixth Street, and other pertinent elements. Final circulation plans will be submitted prior to development approval, and will be subject to review and approval by the City Planning Department and Public Works Department. Policy LU 4.2.5 Require that all commercial, industrial, and public development incorporate appropriate design elements to facilitate access and use as required by State and Federal Laws such as the American's with Disabilities Act. Consistency with Policy LU 4.2.5 Development associated with the proposed project will incorporate appropriate design elements facilitating access and use, notably for persons with disabilities. Final design plans will be submitted prior to development approval. Goal LU 5 Ensure that significant environmental habitats and resources are maintained. Consistency with Goal LU 5 According to Figure ERC-2 of the General Plan and Figure BR-1 of the General Plan EIR, the project site is not located within any of the generalized habitat areas defined by the Natural 3.5-5 City of Huntington Beach 3.5 Land Use Resources Chapter of the Environmental Resources/Conservation Element, nor does the project site lie within or contain natural open space with biological resource value. Additionally, the majority of the project site is developed and the only vegetation on the vacant (graded dirt) portion of the site consists of three ornamental trees, and sparse, common weeds. While the project may support common, urban animal life (e.g., gophers, ground squirrels, and perhaps snakes), no habitat for special status species exists on site, and none of these species would be expected to occur. The proposed project would result in an intensification of largely existing land uses. City policy requires replacement of affected trees at a 2:1 replacement -to -loss ratio, and with this requirement the project would not impact environmental habitats and resources and would, therefore, be consistent with this objective. Policy LU 5.1.1 ' Require that development protect environmental resources by consideration of the policies and standards contained in the Environmental Resources/Conservation Element of the General Plan and federal (NEPA) and State (CEQA) regulations. Consistency with Policy LU 5.1.1 All development will comply 1 with the policies and standards of the Environmental Resources/Conservation Element of the General Plan and CEQA regulations. The proposed project characterizes an infill, redevelopment project and would not impact any ' environmental habitats or resources. Also, refer to Section 3.1.3 (Aesthetics, Regulatory from Framework) for an evaluation of specific, relevant policies the Environmental Resources/Conservation Element. _ 1 Goal LU 7 Achieve a diversity of land uses that sustain the City's economic viability, while maintaining the City's environmental resources and scale and character. Policy LU 7.1.2 1 Require that development be designed to account for the unique characteristics of project sites and objectives for community character and in accordance with the Development "Overlay" Schedule, as appropriate. The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3.5-9 3.0 Environmental Analysis Consistency with Policy LU 7.1.2 Refer to the discussion of project consistency with City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code Article 221, which focuses on Coastal Zone Overlay District development requirements in the City of Huntington Beach. Policy LU 7.1.5 Accommodate the development of a balance of land uses that maintain the City's fiscal viability and integrity of environmental resources. Consistency with LU 7.1.5 Diversity of land uses within the proposed project site is achieved through vertical mixed - uses. Buildings D, E, F, and G will be four stories with uses varying by floor. Uses in the buildings will include commercial space on the ground floor, commercial and hotel uses on the second floor, and hotel uses on the entirety of the third and fourth floors. Multiple commercial uses and a 152-room hotel promote beach tourism with extended stay possibilities, thus, promoting and sustaining the City's economic viability. These commercial uses will be geared towards beach consumerism, including shops and restaurants, while architecture will be characterized by modern Mediterranean styles and marine motifs, meshing with existing styles fronting Main Street and Pacific Coast Highway. In addition, the site contains no wetland habitat and is developed with urban uses. Therefore, the project would not have an affect on the City's environmental resources. Goal LU 8 Achieve a pattern of land uses that preserves, enhances, and establishes a distinct identity for City's neighborhoods, corridors, and centers. Policy LU 8.1.1 Accommodate land use development in accordance with the patterns and distribution of use and density depicted on the Land Use Plan Map, in accordance with the appropriate principles. 3.5-10 City of Huntington Beach 1 3.5 Land Use P I C F r] C F k P F H Consistency with Policy LU 8.1.1 The proposed project utilizes mixed -vertical uses in accordance with the patterns and distribution of use and density within the Land Use Plan Map of the City of Huntington Beach General Plan. Commercial uses such as retail establishments and restaurants will reside within the first story, while hotel and office uses will dominate the upper stories. The project would be consistent with this policy. General Plan Coastal Element Goal C 1 Develop a land use plan for the Coastal Zone that protects and enhances coastal resources, promotes public access and balances development with facility needs. Objective C 1.1 Ensure that adverse impacts associated with coastal zone development are mitigated or minimized to the greatest extent feasible. Policy C 1.1.1 With the exception of hazardous industrial development, new development shall be encouraged to be located within, contiguous or in close proximity to, existing developed areas able to accommodate it or, where such areas are not able to accommodate it, in other areas with adequate public services, and where it will not have significant adverse effects, either individual or cumulative, on coastal resources. Consistency with Policy C 1.1.1 The proposed project would develop a mix of commercial uses on parcels contiguous to similar uses in an established, urban, downtown core area. Public services are currently available to the project site, as well as the surrounding parcels, and the project includes improvements to existing infrastructure to ensure adequate service after project implementation, as described in Section 3.7 (Public Services and Utilities). Additionally, as stated in Section 3.1.5 (Aesthetics, Impacts), the proposed project would not have a significant effect on public views of the coast. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Policy C 1.1.1. 1 The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3.5-11 3.0 Environmental Analysis Policy C 1.1.4 Where feasible, locate visitor -serving commercial uses in existing developed areas or at selected points of attraction for visitors. Consistency with Policy C 1.1.4 As described above, the proposed project would develop visitor -serving commercial uses in the City's downtown core area, which has been targeted for redevelopment as a destination location. Portions of the downtown core have already been established, and include uses generally similar to those proposed by the project, with the exception of a hotel, which the Lead Agency feels would help further establish the area. The project site is also located near other established points of attraction, including the Huntington Beach Municipal Pier, and is intended to reinforce the vicinity as a major visitor -serving district. The proposed project would, therefore, be consistent with Policy C 1.1.4. Objective C 1.2 Provide a land use plan that balances location, type, and amount of land use with infrastructure needs. Policy C 1.2.1 Accommodate existing uses and new development in accordance with the Coastal Element Land Use Plan and the Development and Density Schedule Table C-1. Consistency with Policy C 1.2.1 According to Table C-1 of the Coastal Element, the density, location, and mix of uses for areas zoned MV (Mixed Use -Vertically Integrated Housing) shall be governed by a Specific Plan. As described above, the Downtown Specific Plan establishes uses and intensity for the proposed project, and the project complies with the requirements pertaining to the mix of uses and the development intensity. The project would, therefore, be consistent with Policy C 1.2.1. Goal C 3 Provide a variety of recreational and visitor -serving commercial uses for a range of cost and market preferences 3.5-12 City of Huntington Beach 1 3.5 Land Use r E Objective C 3.2 Ensure that new development and uses provide a variety of recreational facilities for a range of income groups, including low-cost facilities and activities. Policy C 3.2.3 Encourage the provision of a variety of visitor -serving commercial establishments within the Coastal Zone, including, but not limited to, shops, restaurants, hotels and motels, and day spas. Consistency with Policy 3.2.3 The project proposes a mix of visitor -serving commercial and office uses, including retail, restaurant, and hotel uses, in District 3 of the Coastal Zone. The project would, therefore, be consistent with Policy 3.2.3. Objective C 3.4 Encourage and protect water -oriented recreational activities that cannot readily be provided at inland water areas. 1 Policy C 3.4.2 Enhance the Municipal Pier and surrounding area to function as the "hubs' of tourist and community activity. 1 Consistency with Policy C 3.4.2 The proposed project would redevelop and enhance an underutilized and visually unattractive commercial site in the Downtown core area (District 3) of the City by providing additional visitor -serving and office commercial uses, including a hotel. The project site is located on Blocks 104 and 105, near other established points of attraction, including Main Street and the Huntington Beach Municipal Pier, and is intended to reinforce these uses to ' enhance the Downtown core area as a major visitor -serving district. Other objectives for the project include helping to extend the hours of use within the district to promote an "18-hour" Downtown. The proposed project would, therefore, be consistent with Policy C 3.4.2. 1 The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3.5-13 3.0 Environmental Ana 10 General Plan Economic Development Element Goal ED 2 Aggressively retain and enhance the existing commercial, industrial, and visitor serving uses while attracting new uses to Huntington Beach. Objective ED 2.6 Expand and enhance the existing visitor serving uses. Policy ED 2.6.1 Encourage the attraction of coastal and inland visitor serving uses to offer a wider spectrum of visitor opportunities Consistency with Policy ED 2.6.1 The proposed project consists of a major, multiple -block consolidation for developing a range of visitor serving and other commercial uses that would complement existing development in the Downtown area. Additionally, the proposed project would provide a hotel in the Downtown core, a new use for the Downtown core that would support existing and proposed commercial uses and a major goal of the Lead Agency in promoting an 18-hour Downtown. The proposed project would, therefore, be consistent with this policy. Policy ED 2.6.2 Encourage visitor supported commercial development to concentrate in selected areas of the City, thereby creating identifiable visitor -oriented centers. Consistency with Policy ED 2.6.2 As described in Chapter 2.3 (Project Description, Project Objectives), an objective of the Lead Agency for this project is the improvement of the perception of the Downtown area as a destination for local residents as well as visitors, and to promote 18-hour activity in that area. The proposed project would develop a hotel and additional, visitor -oriented commercial uses in the Downtown core, which would establish the Downtown core as a place to stay as well as to shop and eat, and would draw visitors to the core area and would support existing and 3.5-14 City of Huntington Beach 1 3.5 Land Use C LEI proposed commercial uses. The proposed project would, therefore, be consistent with this policy. Goal ED 3 Enhance Huntington Beach's economic development potential through strategic and land use planning and sound urban design practices. Objective ED 3.1 Maximize the economic viability of commercial and industrial use through the creation of specialized districts and nodes. Policy ED 3.1.1 Create differentiated clusters or nodes of retail, industrial, and office uses. Consistency with Policy ED 3.1.1 As described above, the Downtown Specific Plan divided the downtown area into distinct districts, each with a varied mix of permitted uses and development standards to establish identities for different areas of Downtown. The proposed project would be located in District 3, the Downtown core, and would be consistent with the uses permitted by the Specific Plan. The proposed project would also be consistent with existing development in the district, particularly with the Ocean View Promenade building, the most physically prominent structure on Blocks 104 and 105. The proposed project would, therefore, be consistent with this policy. Policy ED 3.2.1 Create commercial -recreation nodes along the inland side of Pacific Coast Highway. Consistency with Policy ED 3.2.1 The proposed project would redevelop underutilized commercial property on the inland side of Pacific Coast Highway, on Blocks 104 and 105 of the Downtown area, and would complement and reinforce the existing commercial uses in the Downtown core area. The development of a hotel in the Downtown core would further reinforce the district as a The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3.5-15 3.0 Environmental Analysis visitor -serving commercial node. The proposed project would, therefore, be consistent with this policy. Policy ED 3.2.2 Encourage mixed -use (retail/office/residential) structure on the downtown area and at the visitor -serving nodes along Pacific Coast Highway. Consistency with Policy ED 3.2.2 The proposed project consists of a mixed -use retail, office, and hotel development in District 3 of the Downtown Specific Plan area, along Pacific Coast Highway. The proposed project is, therefore, consistent with this policy. Policy ED 3.2.3 Attract visitor -serving uses near the beach in order to create better linkages between the beach and visitor -supporting retail uses. Consistency with Policy ED 3.2.3 The proposed project would develop visitor -serving retail uses, including a hotel, across Pacific Coast Highway from the beach and the Main Street Municipal Pier, and would create a strong visitor -serving presence near the waterfront. The proposed project would, therefore, be consistent with this policy. Downtown Specific Plan The visitor -serving commercial designation is a new category adopted in City's Coastal Element in response to State Coastal Act policy, which encourages adequate visitor -serving facilities in the coastal area. The visitor -serving commercial designation includes four Districts of the Downtown Specific Plan (Districts One, Three, Seven, and Ten) that encompass approximately 51 gross acres. Section 4.5 of the Downtown Specific Plan governs development in District 3, which is intended to provide visitors and residents with numerous opportunities to view the beach activities and truly experience the ocean environment. District 3 is identified as the most appropriate location for high intensity development; therefore, large minimum parcel sizes should be established. Hotel, retail, restaurant, and other commercial uses with structured 3.5-16 City of Huntington Beach 1 3.5 Land Use parking which could also service the pier and Main Street are considered appropriate uses for this District. Development could be consolidated into multi -block parcels providing for greater design flexibility; however, view corridors should be maintained along the existing rights -of -way. Restaurant and retail space should be developed at the street level on Main Street and Pacific Coast Highway. According to the plan, the vitality and magnetism associated with these areas are considered critical to the reinforcement and continuation of commercial developments throughout the Downtown core. Additional inducements may be necessary to attract the type of viable development that will support and improve the entire area. Therefore, office and high - density residential uses are permitted only as part of a mixed -use project and only above the pedestrian level, which should remain commercial. Anticipating high intensity development in this District requires that additional design considerations be addressed; upper story setbacks, staggered building envelopes, preservation of view light and air corridors should all be included in any project review in order to assure that the area maintain a pleasant pedestrian environment. The design concept calls for an emphasis on pedestrian level amenities and a gradual controlled transition in building heights and uses between the commercial core and the adjacent residential uses. As described above, the proposed project site is located in District 3 (Visitor -Serving ' Commercial), and development on the site would be subject to the requirements of Section 4.2, which articulates the general provisions of the development standards of the Plan, as well as Section 4.5, which governs development in District 3. The requirements of the Downtown Specific Plan are described below by characteristic (e.g., height, intensity, setbacks). Each discussion includes the requirements of the general provisions, as well as the provisions for District 3, followed by the consistency of the proposed project with the requirements. Permitted Uses Requirements Section 4.5.01 of the Plan lists permitted uses for District 3. Permitted uses include a wide variety of retail, and hotel and restaurant uses are conditionally permitted uses. The ground ' floor or street level of all buildings in the District that front Main Street or Pacific Coast Highway must be devoted to visitor -serving commercial uses, and one third of each development proposed must consist of visitor -serving commercial uses. The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3.5-17 3.0 Environmental Ana Compliance The project proposes a mix of retail, restaurant, and hotel uses on Blocks 104 and 105, and includes a request for a Conditional Use Permit for the restaurant and hotel uses. The hotel uses would be developed on the second, third, and fourth floors of Buildings D, E, F, and G, and restaurant and retail uses would be provided on the ground floors. According to Section 2.4 (Description of the Proposed Project) of this EIR, of the 226,245 gsf proposed under the project, a minimum of 188,245 gsf (83 percent) would be dedicated to hotel, restaurant, and (non -office) commercial uses. The project is, therefore, consistent with the Downtown Specific Plan use requirements. Maximum Density/Intensity Requirements Intensity is specified by District: Section 4.5.03 of the Plan specified a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 3.0 for a full block development. Compliance The proposed project includes 226,245 gross square feet of development on 2.4 acres, or 104,544 square feet, yielding an FAR of 2.16, which is well below the maximum FAR of 3.0. The proposed project is consistent with the intensity requirements of the Plan. Maximum Building Height Requirements Section 4.5.04 of the Plan sets a maximum building height of four stories or 45 feet for a full - block or larger development. Additionally, Section 4.2.04 of the General Provisions of the Plan allows an additional 10 feet in height for roofline treatment, architectural features, and mechanical equipment, and an additional 14 feet in height for elevator equipment. Mechanical equipment must be set back and screened to prevent visibility from rights -of - way. Compliance The project proposes structures that range in height from two to four stories. The maximum roof height of these structures is 50 feet, with parapets and other treatments reaching 53 feet in height. Additionally, the project includes a 70-foot tower at the corner of Fifth Street and 3.5-18 City of Huntington Beach 3.5 Land Use 1 Pacific Coast Highway. Although the 53-foot parapet heights fall within the acceptable height range (45 feet, plus 10 feet for roof treatments), the 50-foot heights of the rooflines and the 70-foot tower height exceed the maximum values allowed by the Plan; therefore, the proposed project would not be consistent with the height requirements of the Plan. However, the proposed project includes a request for Special Permits to exceed maximum building heights, as allowed by the Downtown Specific Plan. Obtaining these Special Permits would bring the project into compliance with the intent of this requirement of the Specific Plan. Maximum Site Coverage Section 4.2.05 of the General Provisions of the Plan states that maximum site coverage should be set for each District; however, Section 4.5.05 establishes no maximum site coverage for developments in District 3. Setbacks (Front Yard) Requirements Section 4.2.06 of the Plan establishes minimum front -yard setbacks of 10 feet. However, Section 4.5.06 establishes more stringent front -yard setbacks for portions of District 3, and specifies a 15-foot minimum setback for Pacific Coast Highway and Walnut Avenue. Also, for parcels fronting Pacific Coast Highway or Sixth Street, additional right-of-way dedications of five and 2.5 feet, respectively, are required for additional sidewalk and parkway. Compliance Buildings C, E, and F/G associated with the proposed project will front on Pacific Coast Highway, and would require 15-foot setbacks under Section 4.5.06; however, no setbacks are provided. Buildings A and D each have frontage along Walnut Avenue and provide 5-foot setbacks instead of the 15 feet required along Walnut by Section 4.2.06. The proposed project would not, therefore, comply with the front -yard setback provisions of the Plan. However, the proposed project includes a request for Special Permits to encroach upon the required ground -floor setbacks, as allowed by the Downtown Specific Plan, and obtaining these Special Permits would bring the project into compliance with the intent of the Specific Plan. E 1 The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3.5-19 3.0 Environmental Analysis Setbacks (Side Yard) Requirements Section 4.5.07 of the Plan requires the provision of sideyard setbacks for portions of District 3. Applicable requirements of this section include the provision of exterior sideyard setbacks for buildings fronting Sixth Street. These sideyard setbacks requirements are equal to the required frontyard setback of the respective street, or 15 feet minimum. No interior sideyard setbacks are established in this district. Compliance Building F/G has a Pacific Coast Highway frontage and a Sixth Street sideyard, which would require a 15-foot setback from Sixth Street. However, the proposed project provides only 6 feet, 6 inches. The proposed project would not, therefore, comply with sideyard setback requirements of the Plan. However, as stated above, the proposed project includes a request for Special Permits to encroach upon the required ground -floor setbacks, as allowed by the Downtown Specific Plan. Obtaining these Special Permits would bring the project into compliance with the intent of the Specific Plan. Setbacks (Upper Story) Requirements Section 4.5.09 of the Downtown Specific Plan establishes upper story setbacks for District 3. Subsections (a) and (b) would apply to the proposed project. ■ Subsection (a) requires that project buildings on parcels fronting Pacific Coast Highway and Sixth Street must have all stories above the second set back an average of 25 feet from the ultimate street right-of-way. Up to 50 percent of the building frontage may be set back 15 feet from the right-of-way, provided that the average setback on upper stories is no less than 25 feet. Compliance Buildings E and F front Pacific Coast Highway and have four stories; however, the upper story setbacks for the entire Pacific Coast Highway frontages are only 15 feet from the Pacific Coast Highway right-of-way, and are not consistent with Section 4.5.09(a). The proposed project would not, therefore, comply with upper -story setback requirements of the Plan. However, the proposed project includes a request for Special Permits to encroach upon the 3.5-20 City of Huntington Beach 1 1 3.5 Land Use required upper story setbacks, as allowed by the Downtown Specific Plan. Obtaining these Special Permits would bring the project into compliance with the intent of the Specific Plan. Open Space Requirements ' Section 4.5.10 of the Downtown Specific Plan governs open space, and requires that all development projects within District 3 provide a public open space amenity, and that a minimum of 10 percent of the net site area must be provided for this purpose. Compliance As described above, the proposed project would develop 69.5 percent of the net site area. T Public open space amenities provided are a courtyard that encompasses about 3,000 square 0 1 feet and abuts Buildings A and B, and a paseo with landscaping and enhanced hardscape o that would link the project to Main Street. Additional open space is provided in strips along c Walnut Avenue, at the corners of Pacific Coast Highway and Fifth Street, and at the ground X X floor entry to the hotel. A large, publicly accessible terrace is provided on the second floor of tthe hotel, overlooking Fifth Street, with views to the Pacific Ocean. The proposed project ' would, therefore, be consistent with Section 4.5.10 of the Downtown Specific Plan. o 3.5.4 Thresholds of Significance r. As stated in Appendix G to the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project would result in rt significant land use impacts if it would conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. 3.5.5 Impacts Impact 3.5-1: The proposed project could conflict with the City of Huntington Beach General Plan or Downtown Specific Plan As discussed above in Section 3.5.3 (Land Use, Regulatory Framework) and Section 3.1.3 (Aesthetics, Regulatory. Framework), the proposed project would be consistent with applicable Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the Huntington Beach General Plan, and with the Downtown Specific Plan, assuming that Special Permits requested for the project are The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3.5-21 3.0 Environmental Ana obtained. Also, the uses proposed are consistent with the General Plan land use and zoning designations for the project site. The proposed project would, therefore, result in a less -than - significant land use impact. 3.5.6 Cumulative Impacts The proposed project would not result in inconsistencies with adopted plans and policies. Therefore, it would not contribute to cumulative land use impacts. 3.5.7 Mitigation Measures Because impacts would be less than significant, no mitigation would be required. 3.5.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation The land use impacts associated with this project would be less than significant. 3.5-22 City of Huntington Beach 3.6 Noise L C 11 L I k L 3.6 NOISE This section evaluates the potential noise impacts resulting from implementation of the proposed project. This includes the potential for the project to cause a substantial temporary and/or permanent increase in ambient noise levels within or around the project site, or to expose people to excessive noise levels. The purpose of this analysis is to evaluate the project in terms of its planning to ensure that new uses are planned appropriately from a noise perspective and to evaluate the noise impacts of the project on the surrounding community. 3.6.1 Environmental Setting Fundamentals of Noise Sound is technically described in terms of amplitude (loudness) and frequency (pitch). The standard unit of sound amplitude measurement is the decibel (dB). The decibel scale is a logarithmic scale that describes the physical intensity of the pressure vibrations that make up any sound. The pitch of the sound is related to the frequency of the pressure vibration. Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to a given sound level at all frequencies, a special frequency -dependent rating scale has been devised to relate noise to human sensitivity. The A -weighted decibel scale (dBA) provides this compensation by discriminating against frequencies in a manner approximating the sensitivity of the human ear. Noise, on the other hand, is typically defined as unwanted sound. A typical noise environment consists of a base of steady "background" noise that is the sum of many distant and indistinguishable noise sources. Superimposed on this background noise is the sound from individual local sources. These can vary from an occasional aircraft or train passing by to virtually continuous noise from traffic on a major highway. Table 3.6-1 lists noise levels for common events in the environment. Several rating scales have been developed to analyze the adverse effect of community noise on people. Since environmental noise fluctuates over time, these scales consider that the effect of noise upon people is largely dependent upon the total acoustical energy content of the noise, as well as the time of day when the noise occurs. Those that are applicable to this analysis are as follows: ■ Leq, the equivalent energy noise level, is the average acoustic energy content of noise for a stated period of time. Thus, the Leq of a time -varying noise and that of a steady 1 The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3.6-1 3.0 Environmental Ana Table 3.6-1 Typical Sound Levels Measured in the Environment A -Weighted Sound Level Noise Some (Distance) (dBA) Subjectivelmpression Civil Defense Siren (100') 130 Pain Threshold Jet Takeoff (200') 120 Rock Music Concert (50') 110 Pile Driver (50') 100 Very Loud Ambulance Siren (100') 90 Pneumatic Drill (50') 80 Freeway (100') 70 Moderately Loud Vacuum Cleaner (10') 60 Light Traffic (100') 50 Large Transformer (200') 40 Quiet Soft Whisper (5') 0-30 Threshold of Hearing Source: Arnold Peterson and Ervin Gross,1963; Ogden Environmental,1992. noise are the same if they deliver the same acoustic energy to the ear during exposure. For evaluating community impacts, this rating scale does not vary, regardless of whether the noise occurs during the day or the night. ■ CNEL, the Community Noise Equivalent Level, is a 24-hour average Leq with a 10 dBA "penalty" added to noise during the hours of 10:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M., and an additional 5 dBA penalty during the hours of 7:00 P.M. to 10:00 P.M. to account for noise sensitivity in the evening and nighttime. The logarithmic effect of these additions is that a 60 dBA 24-hour Leq would result in a measurement of 66.7 dBA CNEL. Noise environments and consequences of human activities are usually well represented by median noise levels during the day, night, or over a 24-hour period. Environmental noise levels are generally considered low when the CNEL is below 45 dBA, moderate in the 45-60 dBA range, and high above 60 dBA. Noise levels greater than 85 dBA can cause temporary or permanent hearing loss. Examples of low daytime levels are isolated natural settings with noise levels as low as 20 dBA and quiet suburban residential streets with noise levels around 40 dBA. Noise levels above 45 dBA at night can disrupt sleep. Examples of moderate level noise environments are urban residential or semi -commercial areas (typically 55-60 dBA) and commercial locations (typically 60 dBA). People may consider louder environments adverse, but most will accept the higher levels associated with more noisy urban residential or residential -commercial areas (60-75 dBA) or dense urban or industrial areas (65-80 dBA). Generally, a difference of 3 dBA over 24 hours is a barely -perceptible increase to most 3.6-2 City of Huntington Beach 1 E 3.6 Noise people. A 5 dBA increase is readily noticeable, while a difference of 10 dBA would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. Noise levels from a particular source generally decline as distance to the receptor increases. Other factors such as the weather and reflecting or shielding also intensify or reduce the noise level at any given location. A commonly used rule of thumb for roadway noise is that for every doubling of distance from the source, the noise level is reduced by about 3 dBA. Noise from stationary or point sources is reduced by about 6 dBA for every doubling of distance. Noise levels may also be reduced by intervening structures —generally, a single row of buildings between the receptor and the noise source reduces the noise level by about 5 dBA, while a solid wall or berm reduces noise levels by 5 to 10 dBA. The manner in which older homes in California were constructed generally provides a reduction of exterior -to - interior noise levels of about 20 dBA with closed windows. The exterior -to -interior reduction of newer homes is generally 30 dBA or more. ® Noise Analysis Methodology The analysis of the existing and future noise environments presented in this analysis is based on noise prediction modeling and empirical observations. Noise modeling procedures involved the calculation of existing and future vehicular noise levels along individual roadway segments in the site vicinity. This task was accomplished using the Federal Highway Administration Highway Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108). The model calculates the average noise level at specific locations based on traffic volumes, average speeds, roadway geometry, and site environmental conditions. The average vehicle noise rates (energy rates) utilized in the FHWA Model have been modified to reflect average vehicle noise rates identified for California by Caltrans.' The Caltrans data show that California automobile noise is 0.8 to 1.0 dBA higher than national levels and that medium and heavy truck noise is 0.3 to 3.0 dBA lower than national levels.' Traffic volumes utilized as data inputs in the noise prediction model were provided by the project traffic engineer. ® Existing Noise Levels Land uses in the vicinity of the project site include commercial, institutional, industrial, and residential uses. Residential units are located to the north, northwest, and northeast of the I Rudolf W. Hendriks, California Vehicle Noise Emission Levels (January 1987), NTIS, FHWA/CA/TL-87/03. IThe Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3.6-3 3.0 Environmental project site across Walnut Avenue and Sixth Street. Pacific Coast Highway forms the w western boundary of the project site. Existing commercial uses are located on -site at Block w 105 on the southern and southeastern borders, while additional commercial buildings and a police station are located across Walnut Avenue to the southeast of the project site. w ° Commercial and residential units are located on -site at Block 104 at the north corner. v o Existing daytime noise levels were monitored at four locations on the project site in order to identify representative noise levels in various areas. These locations are identified in Figure b3.6-1 along with the average noise levels and sources of noise monitored at each location. uThese daytime noise levels are characteristic of an urban residential environment. X x H Existing 24-hour noise levels have been calculated for the various roadways adjacent to the 0 project site. These noise levels are presented in Table 3.6-2 along with the distances to 0 various noise level contours. 0 a. v Table 3.6-2 Existing On -Site Noise Levels Distance to Noise Contour' dBA CNEL 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA Roadway Segment at 100 Feet CNEL CNEL CNEL Main Street, PCH to Walnut Ave. 52.4 — — 17 Walnut Avenue, Sixth St. to Main St. 57.8 — 19 61 Sixth Street, PCH to Walnut Ave. 50.6 — — 100 PCH, Sixth St. to Main St. 66.5 45 142 448 — = Noise contour is located within the roadway lanes. 1. Distances are in feet from roadway centerline. Source: EIP Associates, 2002. Calculation data and results are provided in Appendix E. Existing roadway noise levels were also calculated for the roadway links in the project vicinity that have noise sensitive uses facing the roadways. The average daily noise levels along these roadway segments are presented in Table 3.6-3. 3.6-4 City of Huntington Beach 1 � m m m ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ! m COMMERCIAL HUNTINGTON CITY \ BEACH '04 16 0 cF 92 HUNTINGTON BEACH PIERvo A 4C/ Cb�sr y� COMMERCIAL L E G E N D Project Site Boundary Not a Part ® Monitoring Location Not to Scale FIGURE 3.6-1 E P Noise Monitoring Locations SOURCE: UP Associates t osss•oo City of Huntington Beach 0 3.6 Noise h I P Table 3.6-3 Existing Off -Site Noise Levels Roadway Segment Noise Sensitive Uses dBA CNEL Pacific Coast Highway, 17th Street to 9th Street Multi -family Residential 69.0 Pacific Coast Highway, 911, Street to Sixth Street Multi -family Residential 67.7 Pacific Coast Highway, Main Street to 1st Street Multi -family Residential 68.0 Beach Boulevard, Pacific Coast Highway to Atlanta Avenue Single-family Residential 61.6 Beach Boulevard, Atlanta Avenue to Indianapolis Avenue Single-family Residential 65.1 Beach Boulevard, Indianapolis Avenue to Adams Avenue Single-family Residential 66.5 Lake Street, Adams Avenue to Indianapolis Avenue Single-family Residential 61.1 Indianapolis Avenue, Lake Street to Huntington Street Single-family Residential 59.2 Indianapolis Avenue, Huntington Street to Beach Boulevard Single-family Residential 63.0 Indianapolis Avenue, Beach Boulevard to Newland Street Single-family Residential 59.0 Atlanta Avenue, Newland Street to Beach Boulevard Multi -family Residential 63.7 Atlanta Avenue, Beach Boulevard to Huntington Street Single-family Residential 65.4 Atlanta Avenue, Huntington Street to 1s' Street Single-family Residential 64.2 Atlanta Avenue, 1st Street to Lake Street Single-family Residential 64.2 Atlanta Avenue, Lake Street to Main Street Single-family Residential 64.2 Main Street, Sixth Street to Palm Avenue Single-family Residential 56.9 Palm Avenue,l7th Street to 9th Street Single- and Multi -family 63.6 Residential Palm Avenue,l7th Street to 9th Street School 59.6 9th Street, Palm Avenue to Orange Avenue Single-family Residential 54.3 9th Street, Orange Avenue to Olive Avenue Single-family Residential 54.3 901 Street, Olive Avenue to Walnut Avenue Single-family Residential 54.3 9th Street, Walnut Avenue to Pacific Coast Highway Multi -family Residential 54.3 Orange Avenue, Main Street to Sixth Street Multi -family Residential 57.8 Orange Avenue, Sixth Street to 9th Street Single-family Residential 57.8 Walnut Avenue, 9th Street to Sixth Street Single-family Residential 54.9 Walnut Avenue, Sixth Street to Main Street Single-family Residential 58.7 Olive Avenue, Main Street to Sixth Street Single-family Residential 58.7 Olive Avenue, Sixth Street to 9th Street Single-family Residential 54.9 Sixth Street, Lake Street to Main Street Single-family Residential 56.2 Sixth Street, Main Street to Orange Avenue Single-family Residential 56.4 Sixth Street, Orange Avenue to Olive Avenue Single-family Residential 60.4 Sixth Street, Olive Avenue to Walnut Avenue Single-family Residential 61.1 Sixth Street, Walnut Avenue to Pacific Coast Highway Single- and Multi -family 59.9 Residential Source: EIP Associates, 2002. Calculation data and results are provided in Appendix E. The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3.6-5 3.0 Environmental Ana 3.6.2 Regulatory Framework IM City of Huntington Beach General Plan Noise Element Goal N 1.1 Ensure that all necessary and appropriate actions are taken to protect Huntington Beach residents, employees, visitors, and noise sensitive uses from the adverse impacts created by excessive noise levels from stationary and ambient sources. Consistency with Goal N 1.1 It is assumed that all current building code requirements and current construction practices will be used during the building and operation of the proposed project site. Current noise ordinance guidelines will be followed as to the hours of operation for the restaurant and bar portions of this project so as to not disturb local residents, employees, or visitors. Thus, this project will be consistent with Goal N 1.1. , Objective N 1.2 Prevent and mitigate the adverse impacts of excessive noise exposure on the residents, employees, visitors, and noise sensitive uses of Huntington Beach. Consistency with Objective N 1.2 Mitigation Measure 3.6-1 will ensure that residents, employees, and visitors will not be subject to excessive noise exposure during the construction of the proposed project. Current Noise Ordinance guidelines will be followed as to the hours of operation for the restaurant and bar portions of this project so as to not disturb the local residents, employees and visitors. Thus, this project will be consistent with Objective N 1.2. Policy N 1.2.1 Require, in areas where noise levels exceed an exterior La„ of 60 dBA and an interior Lan of 45 dBA, that all new development of "noise sensitive" land uses, such as housing, health care facilities, schools, libraries, and religious facilities, include appropriate buffering and/or construction mitigation measures that will reduce noise exposure to levels within acceptable limits. 3.6-6 City of Huntington Beach 1 3.6 Noise I 0 7 Consistency with Policy N 1.2.1 Residential units that are located in close proximity to the proposed project site may be subject to exposure of noise levels in excess of Ldn of 60 dBA for exterior noise receptors and an interior Lan of 45 dBA. Mitigation Measure 3.6-1 will ensure that the residents, employees and visitors will not be subject to excessive noise exposure during the construction of the proposed project. Thus, this project will be consistent with Policy N 1.2.1. Policy N 1.2.2 Require new industrial and new commercial land uses or the major expansion of existing land uses to demonstrate that the new or expanded use would not be directly responsible for causing ambient noise levels to exceed an exterior Ld„ of 65 dBA on areas containing "noise sensitive" land uses as depicted in Figure N-1 of the Huntington Beach General Plan Noise Element. Consistency with Policy N 1.2.2 The proposed project is an expansion of the existing commercial and restaurant/bar development close to the project site. The proposed uses would not generate an exterior Ldn of 65 dBA on areas containing "noise sensitive" land uses as depicted in Figure N-1 of the Huntington Beach General Plan Noise Element. Thus, this project will be consistent with Policy N 1.2.2. Policy N 1.2.5 tRequire development that generates increased traffic and subsequent increases in the ambient noise levels adjacent to noise sensitive land uses to provide for appropriate mitigation measures in accordance with the acceptable limits of the City noise ordinance. Consistency with Policy N 1.2.5 The project is designed so that all parking for the proposed hotel and restaurant/bar will be subterranean. The ingress/ egress ramp located on Sixth Street is not located near any noise sensitive areas. This will also provide the most direct route to the Pacific Coast Highway, t which is the main existing access route to the proposed project site. Thus, this project is consistent with Policy N 1.2.5 The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3.6-7 3.0 Environmental Analysis Policy N 1.3.1 Require all new non-residential development to design and configure on -site ingress and egress points diverting traffic away from nearby "noise sensitive" land uses to the greatest degree possible. Consistency with Policy N 1.3.1 All ingress and egress points associated with the subterranean parking structure will be constructed on Sixth Street, which will allow for the shortest route to Pacific Coast Highway, which will serve as the proposed project's main traffic thoroughfare. Thus, this project is consistent with Policy N 1.3.1 Policy N 1.3.9 Alter surface street traffic flow through various methods (including but not limited to one way streets, speed limit reductions, truck and heavy vehicle prohibitions) to maximize steady flow conditions. Consistency with Policy N 1.3.9 The existing commercial uses have previously ensured that street traffic flow maximize a steady flow condition. The proposed project will be an addition to existing commercial uses and will use the same traffic flow patterns. Thus, the proposed project is consistent with Policy N 1.3.9. Objective N 1.4 Minimize noise spillover or encroachment from commercial and industrial land uses into adjoining residential neighborhoods or "noise -sensitive" uses. Consistency with Objective N 1.4 Mitigation Measure 3.6-1 will ensure that the residential neighborhoods will not be subject to excessive noise exposure during the construction of the proposed project. Thus, this project will be consistent with Policy N 1.4. Objective N 1.6: Minimize the impacts of construction noise on adjacent uses. 3.6-8 City of Huntington Beach 1 3.6 Noise Consistency Objective with ective N 1.6 7 Mitigation Measure 3.6-1 will ensure that adjacent uses will not be subject to excessive noise exposure during the construction of the proposed project. Thus, this project will be consistent with Policy N 1.6. ' Policy N 1.6.1 Ensure that construction activities be regulated to establish hours of operation, to prevent and/or mitigate the generation of excessive or adverse noise impacts through the implementation of the existing Noise Ordinance and/or any future revisions to the Noise 1 Ordinance. Consistency with Policy N 1.6.1 ' Mitigation Measure 3.6-1 will ensure that construction activities will be monitored to ensure ' that that there are no excessive or adverse noise impacts, pursuant to the existing Noise Ordinance and/or any future revisions to the Noise Ordinance. Thus, this project will be consistent with Policy N 1.6.1 Objective N 1.8 Minimize the generation of excessive noise level impacts from entertainment and restaurant/bar establishments into adjacent residential or "noise sensitive" land uses. Consistency with Objective N 1.8 Current Noise Ordinance guidelines will be followed as to the hours of operation for the restaurant and bar portions of this project so as to not disturb the local residential areas or "noise sensitive" land uses. Thus, this project is consistent with Objective N 1.8. 3.6.3 Thresholds of Significance Noise impacts would be considered significant if one or more of the following conditions result from implementation of the proposed project: ■ Temporarily increase daytime noise levels at sensitive uses to 75 dBA or more during construction The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3.6-9 3.0 Environmental Ana ■ Generate noise levels associated with pile driving that substantially interfere with normal communication at sensitive uses ■ Expose the outdoor useable areas of new on -site residential uses to noise levels of 65 dBA or more, as these noise levels would exceed the City of Huntington Beach General Plan Noise Element maximum acceptable noise standards for the proposed uses ■ Cause an increase of 3 dBA or more at existing off -site sensitive uses; this 3-dBA increase would represent a perceptible increase in noise levels ■ Generate noise that exceeds the noise standards of the Municipal Code 3.6.4 Impacts Impact 3.6-1 Site preparation activities would generate noise levels that exceed City thresholds. Project development would require the use of heavy equipment for site grading and excavation, installation of utilities, paving, and building fabrication. Development activities would also involve the use of smaller power- tools, generators, and other sources of noise. During each stage of development there would be a different mix of equipment operating and noise levels would vary based on the amount of equipment in operation and the location of the activity. The U.S. EPA has compiled data regarding the noise generating characteristics of specific types of construction equipment and typical construction activities. These data are presented in Table 3.6-4. These noise levels would diminish rapidly with distance from the construction site at a rate of approximately 6 dBA per doubling of distance. For example, a noise level of 84 dBA measured at 50 feet from the noise source to the receptor would reduce to 78 dBA at 100 feet from the source to the receptor, and reduce by another 6 dBA to 72 dBA at 200 feet from the source to the receptor. Table 3.64 Typical Outdoor Construction Noise bevels Noise Levels at50Feet Co►zshuction Phase ORAW Noise Levels at 50Feet u ithMuJ}iers WEAL„ Ground Clearing 84 82 Excavation, Grading 89 86 Foundations 78 77 Structural 85 83 Finishing 89 86 Source: EPA, Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment and Home Appliances, PB 206717,1971. 3.6-10 City of Huntington Beach 1 J 3.6 Noise H fl 0 The nearest sensitive receptors are the Helme-Worthy House on Block 105, the existing residences located west of Sixth Street (approximately 50 feet from the project site), and the existing residences located north of Sixth Street (approximately 75 feet north of the project site). Construction activities would generate noise levels of up to 84 dBA Leq at the Helme- Worthy House and the nearest homes west of Sixth Street during ground clearing, and 89 dBA Leq at these homes during excavation and grading. Noise levels at the homes north of Walnut Avenue would range from 75 dBA Leq to 89 dBA Leq. However, construction noise would be short-term. Additionally, the City's Municipal Code exempts construction noise from the requirements of the noise ordinance. Therefore, this impact would be considered less than significant. 1 Impact 3.6-2 The proposed project would increase on -site interior noise levels. C L' C C C 1 Future noise levels within the project site would continue to be dominated by vehicular traffic on the adjacent roadways. Table 3.6-5 presents the future (year 2020) average daily noise levels associated with these roadways. As discussed earlier in this section, the exterior - to -interior reduction of new construction is generally 30 dBA or more. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. Table 3.6-5 Future On -Site Noise Levels Distance to NoiseCouhxM dBA CNEL 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA Roadway Segment at 100Feet CNEL CNEL CNEL Main Street, PCH to Walnut Ave. 53.7 — — 23 Walnut Avenue, Sixth St. to Main St. Sixth Street, PCH to Walnut Ave. PCH, Sixth St. to Main St. 53.5 — — 22 54.5 — — 28 67.3 54 169 535 — = Noise contour is located within the roadway lanes. 1. Distances are in feet from roadway centerline. Source: EIP Associates, 2002. Calculation data and results are provided in Appendix E. Impact 3.6-3 The proposed project would increase off -site roadway noise levels. Off -site locations in the vicinity would experience increased noise caused by traffic generated by the proposed Project. The increases in noise levels at noise -sensitive locations along the study -area roadway segments are identified in Table 3.6-6. As shown, the proposed Project would increase local noise levels by a maximum of 2.7 dBA CNEL. Because this is below the 3.0 dBA threshold, this impact would be less than significant. Along ten roadway segments, 1 The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3.6-11 3.0 Environmental Analysis future noise levels would actually be reduced as a result of changes in local circulation patterns that occur with the project. Table 3.6-6 Future Off -Site Noise Levels Noise Levels in dBA CNEU Year20o2 Year2o05 Roadway Segment Noise Sensitive Uses Base with Project Increase Pacific Coast Highway,17th Street to 9th Street Multi -family Residential 69.0 69.7 0.7 Pacific Coast Highway, 9th Street to Sixth Street Multi -family Residential 67.7 68.3 0.6 Pacific Coast Highway, Main Street to 1st Street Multi -family Residential 68.0 68.5 0.5 Beach Boulevard, Pacific Coast Highway to Single-family Residential 61.6 64.3 2.7 Atlanta Avenue Beach Boulevard, Atlanta Avenue to Single-family Residential 65.1 66.8 1.7 Indianapolis Avenue Beach Boulevard, Indianapolis Avenue to Adams Single-family Residential 66.5 67.6 1.1 Avenue Lake Street, Adams Avenue to Indianapolis Single-family Residential 61.1 63.4 2.3 Avenue Indianapolis Avenue, Lake Street to Huntington Single-family Residential 59.2 61.0 1.8 Street Indianapolis Avenue, Huntington Street to Beach Single-family Residential 63.0 63.4 0.4 Boulevard Indianapolis Avenue, Beach Boulevard to Single-family Residential 59.0 59.3 0.3 Newland Street Atlanta Avenue, Newland Street to Beach Multi -family Residential 63.7 64.6 0.9 Boulevard Atlanta Avenue, Beach Boulevard to Huntington Single-family Residential 65.4 66.3 0.9 Street Atlanta Avenue, Huntington Street to 1st Street Single-family Residential 64.2 65.1 0.9 Atlanta Avenue,1st Street to Lake Street Single-family Residential 64.2 65.1 0.9 Atlanta Avenue, Lake Street to Main Street Single-family Residential 64.2 65.1 0.9 Main Street, Sixth Street to Palm Avenue Single-family Residential 56.9 58.3 1.4 Palm Avenue,17th Street to 9th Street Single- and Multi -family 63.6 63.8 0.2 Residential Palm Avenue,17th Street to 9th Street School 59.6 59.8 0.2 9th Street, Palm Avenue to Orange Avenue Single-family Residential 54.3 54.3 0 9th Street, Orange Avenue to Olive Avenue Single-family Residential 54.3 54.3 0 9th Street, Olive Avenue to Walnut Avenue Single-family Residential 54.3 54.3 0 9th Street, Walnut Avenue to Pacific Coast Multi -family Residential 54.3 54.3 0 Highway Orange Avenue, Main Street to Sixth Street Multi -family Residential 57.8 56.5 -1.3 Orange Avenue, Sixth Street to 9th Street Single-family Residential 57.8 56.5 -1.3 Walnut Avenue, 9th Street to Sixth Street Single-family Residential 54.9 53.6 -1.3 3.6-12 City of Huntington Beach 3.6 Noise Table 3.6-6 Future Off -Site Noise Levels Noise Levels in deA CNEV Year2002 Year2005 Roadway Segment Noise Sensitive Uses Base with Project Increase Walnut Avenue, Sixth Street to Main Street Single-family Residential 58.7 57.5 -1.2 Olive Avenue, Main Street to Sixth Street Single-family Residential 58.7 57.5 -1.2 ' Olive Avenue, Sixth Street to 9th Street Single-family Residential 54.9 52.4 -1.5 Sixth Street, Lake Street to Main Street Single-family Residential 56.2 56.7 0.5 Sixth Street, Main Street to Orange Avenue Single-family Residential 56.4 54.8 -1.6 Sixth Street, Orange Avenue to Olive Avenue Single-family Residential 60.4 58.8 -1.6 Sixth Street, Olive Avenue to Walnut Avenue Single-family Residential 61.1 59.5 -1.6 Sixth Street, Walnut Avenue to Pacific Coast Single- and Multi -family 59.9 58.5 -1.4 Highway Residential Source: EIP Associates, 2002. Calculation data and results are provided in Appendix E. Impact 3.6-4 The proposed project would increase noise levels associated with human activity. Noise levels would also be generated by human activity within the project site. Types of noise would include people talking, doors slamming, tires squealing, truck deliveries, landscape maintenance equipment operation, stereos, domestic animals, etc. Noise levels associated with these non -roadway noise sources would average between 45 and 55 dBA Leq within the project site. This would be a less -than -significant impact. Impact 3.6-5 The proposed project would produce noise associated with mechanical equipment. Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems would be installed for each occupant at the new development site. These systems would be shielded from the adjacent homes and sensitive noise receptors. Therefore, mechanical equipment at the project site would riot exceed City Municipal Code standards and the impact would be less than significant. 3.6.5 Cumulative Impacts Cumulative noise impacts would occur primarily as a result of increased traffic on local roadways due to the proposed project and other projects within the study area. Therefore, cumulative traffic -generated noise impacts have been assessed based on the difference between the existing traffic volumes and the future traffic volumes with the project, both The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3.6-13 3.0 Environmental Ana with and without the proposed new bridges. Table 3.6-7 identifies the cumulative increase in noise level under the General Plan Update with Santa Ana River crossings scenario and Table 3.6-8 identifies the cumulative increase in noise level under the existing General Plan without the Santa Ana River crossings scenario. As shown, both scenarios would increase noise levels along the roadway segment of Main Street from Sixth Street to Palm Avenue by more than 3.0 dBA CNEL, which would be significant. The increase in noise levels along all other roadway segments would increase by 3.0 dBA CNEL or less. Table 3.6-7 Cumulative Project Noise Levels (With River Crossings) Now Levels in dBA CNEU Year2020 General Plan Build outPlus Year2002 Ptgectwith Roadway Segment Noise Sensitive Uses Base Bridges Increase Pacific Coast Highway, 17th Street to 9th Multi -family Residential 69.0 69.8 0.8 Street Pacific Coast Highway, 9th Street to Sixth Multi -family Residential 67.7 68.5 0.8 Street Pacific Coast Highway, Main Street to 1st Multi -family Residential 68.0 69.1 1.1 Street Beach Boulevard, Pacific Coast Highway to Single-family Residential 61.6 64.6 3.0 Atlanta Avenue Beach Boulevard, Atlanta Avenue to Single-family Residential 65.1 67.2 2.1 Indianapolis Avenue Beach Boulevard, Indianapolis Avenue to Single-family Residential 66.5 67.6 1.2 Adams Avenue Lake Street, Adams Avenue to Indianapolis Single-family Residential 61.1 63.3 2.2 Avenue Indianapolis Avenue, Lake Street to Single-family Residential 59.2 60.9 1.7 Huntington Street Indianapolis Avenue, Huntington Street to Single-family Residential 63.0 63.3 0.3 Beach Boulevard Indianapolis Avenue, Beach Boulevard to Single-family Residential 59.0 60.0 1.0 Newland Street Atlanta Avenue, Newland Street to Beach Multi -family Residential 63.7 64.7 1.0 Boulevard Atlanta Avenue, Beach Boulevard to Single-family Residential 65.4 66.1 0.7 Huntington Street Atlanta Avenue, Huntington Street to 1st Single-family Residential 64.2 65.0 0.8 Street Atlanta Avenue,1st Street to Lake Street Single-family Residential 64.2 57.2 -7.0 3.6-14 City of Huntington Beach 1 1 3.6 Noise Table 3.6-7 Cumulative Project Noise Levels (With River Crossings) Noise Levels in dBA CNEU Year2020 General Plan Build outPhis Year2002 Rroectudth Roadway Segment Noise Sensitive Uses Base Bridges In arose Atlanta Avenue, Lake Street to Main Street Single-family Residential 64.2 57.2 -7.0 Main Street, Sixth Street to Palm Avenue Single-family Residential 56.9 60.9 4.0 Palm Avenue, 17th Street to 9th Street Single- and Multi -family 63.6 63.8 0.2 Residential Palm Avenue, 17th Street to 9th Street 9th Street, Palm School 59.6 59.8 0.2 Avenue to Orange Avenue Single-family Residential 54.3 54.3 0 9th Street, Orange Avenue to Olive Avenue Single-family Residential 54.3 54.3 0 9th Street, Olive Avenue to Walnut Avenue Single-family Residential 54.3 54.6 0.3 9th Street, Walnut Avenue to Pacific Coast Multi -family Residential 54.3 54.6 0.3 Highway Orange Avenue, Main Street to Sixth Street Multi -family Residential 57.8 56.7 -0.9 Orange Avenue, Sixth Street to 9th Street Single-family Residential 57.8 56.7 -0.9 Walnut Avenue, 9th Street to Sixth Street Single-family Residential 54.9 53.6 1.3 Walnut Avenue, Sixth Street to Main Street Single-family Residential 58.7 57.2 -1.5 Olive Avenue, Main Street to Sixth Street Single-family Residential 58.7 57.2 -1.5 Olive Avenue, Sixth Street to 9th Street Single-family Residential 54.9 52.4 -2.5 Sixth Street, Lake Street to Main Street Single-family Residential 56.2 56.7 0.5 1 Sixth Street, Main Street to Orange Avenue Single-family Residential 56.4 54.8 -1.6 Sixth Street, Orange Avenue to Olive Single-family Residential 60.4 61.0 0.6 Avenue Sixth Street, Olive Avenue to Walnut Single-family Residential 61.1 58.6 4.3 Avenue Sixth Street, Walnut Avenue to Pacific Coast Single- and Multi -family 59.9 59.3 -0.6 Highway Residential Source: EIP Associates, 2002. Calculation data and results are provided in Appendix E. 1 The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3.6-15 3.0 Environmental Ana Table 3.6-8 Cumulative Project Noise Levels (Without River Crossings) Noise Levels in dBA CNal Year2020 General Plan Build out Plus Year2002 Project with Roadway Segment Noise Sensitive Uses Base out Bridges Increase Pacific Coast Highway, 17th Street to 9th Multi -family Residential 69.0 69.8 0.8 Street Pacific Coast Highway, 9th Street to Sixth Multi -family Residential 67.7 68.5 0.8 Street Pacific Coast Highway, Main Street to 1st Multi -family Residential 68.0 68.7 0.7 Street Beach Boulevard, Pacific Coast Highway to Single-family Residential 61.6 64.6 3.0 Atlanta Avenue Beach Boulevard, Atlanta Avenue to Single-family Residential 65.1 67.2 2.0 Indianapolis Avenue Beach Boulevard, Indianapolis Avenue to Single-family Residential 66.5 67.6 1.1 Adams Avenue Lake Street, Adams Avenue to Indianapolis Single-family Residential 61.1 63.4 2.3 Avenue Indianapolis Avenue, Lake Street to Single-family Residential 59.2 61.0 0.8 Huntington Street Indianapolis Avenue, Huntington Street to Single-family Residential 63.0 63.4 0.4 Beach Boulevard Indianapolis Avenue, Beach Boulevard to Single-family Residential 59.0 60.0 1.0 Newland Street Atlanta Avenue, Newland Street to Beach Multi -family Residential 63.7 64.7 1.0 Boulevard Atlanta Avenue, Beach Boulevard to Single-family Residential 65.4 66.1 0.7 Huntington Street Atlanta Avenue, Huntington Street to 1st Single-family Residential 64.2 57.1 -7.1 Street Atlanta Avenue,1st Street to Lake Street Single-family Residential 64.2 57.1 -7.1 Atlanta Avenue, Lake Street to Main Street Single-family Residential 64.2 57.1 -7.1 Main Street, Sixth Street to Palm Avenue Single-family Residential 56.9 60.9 4.0 Pahn Avenue,17th Street to 9th Street Single- and Multi -family 63.6 63.8 0.2 Residential Pahn Avenue,17th Street to 9th Street School 59.6 59.8 0.2 9th Street, Palm Avenue to Orange Avenue Single-family Residential 54.3 54.3 0 9th Street, Orange Avenue to Olive Avenue Single-family Residential 54.3 54.3 0 9th Street, Olive Avenue to Walnut Avenue Single-family Residential 54.3 54.3 0 9th Street, Walnut Avenue to Pacific Coast Multi -family Residential 54.3 54.3 0 Highway 3.6-16 City of Huntington Beach k3.6 Noise Table 3.6-8 Cumulative Project Noise Levels (Without River Crossings) l � g) Noise Levels in dBA CNED Year2020 General Plan Build outplus Year2002 Pr jecturith Roadway Sgment Noise Sensitive Uses Base out Bridges Inamse Orange Avenue, Main Street to Sixth Street Multi -family Residential 57.8 56.5 -0.7 Orange Avenue, Sixth Street to 9th Street Single-family Residential 57.8 56.5 -0.7 Walnut Avenue, 9th Street to Sixth Street Single-family Residential 54.9 53.6 -1.3 1 Walnut Avenue, Sixth Street to Main Street Single-family Residential 58.7 57.3 -1.4 Olive Avenue, Main Street to Sixth Street Single-family Residential 58.7 52.4 -6.3 Olive Avenue, Sixth Street to 9th Street Single-family Residential 54.9 57.3 2.4 Sixth Street, Lake Street to Main Street Single-family Residential 56.2 56.7 0.5 Sixth Street, Main Street to Orange Avenue Single-family Residential 56.4 54.8 -1.6 Sixth Street, Orange Avenue to Olive Single-family Residential 60.4 60.9 0.5 Avenue Sixth Street, Olive Avenue to Walnut Single-family Residential 61.1 57.4 -3.7 Avenue Sixth Street, Walnut Avenue to Pacific Coast Single- and Multi -family 59.9 58.5 -1.4 Highway Residential Source: EIP Associates, 2002. Calculation data and results are provided in Appendix E. 1 3.6.6 Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures would be required to address potentially significant construction -related noise impacts: MM 3.6-1 The project contractor(s) shall implement, but not be limited to, the following best management practices: ■ Outdoor construction work on the project shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M. on weekdays and Saturdays. No construction activities shall occur on Sundays or federal holidays ■ All construction equipment with a high noise generating potential, including all equipment powered by internal combustion engines, shall be muffled or controlled ■ All stationary noise generating equipment, such as compressors, shall be located as far as possible from existing houses ■ Machinery, including motors, shall be turned off when not in use ■ Mobile equipment shall not be allowed to run idle near existing residences IThe Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3.6-17 3.0 Environmental Analysis ■ Neighbors within 200 feet of major construction areas shall be notified of the construction schedule in writing prior to construction; the project sponsor shall designate a "disturbance coordinator' who shall be responsible for responding to any local complaints regarding construction noise; the coordinator (who may be an employee of the developer or general contractor) shall determine the cause of the complaint and shall require that reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem be implemented; and a telephone number for the noise disturbance coordinator shall be posted conspicuously at the construction site fence and included on the notification sent to neighbors adjacent to the site. 3.6.7 Level of Significance After Mitigation The recommended mitigation measures would reduce the noise level impacts of the proposed project to less -than -significant levels. All other potential noise impacts of the project would be less than significant. Cumulative, development, however, would result in a significant, unavoidable impact from noise levels on Main Street, from Sixth Street to Palm Avenue. 3.6-18 City of Huntington Beach I 3.7 Population and Housing ' 3.7 POPULATION AND HOUSING 3.7.1 Introduction This section provides a discussion of the potential impacts of the proposed project on ' housing units on the project site. Data used in the preparation of this section were obtained from the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency Status of Affordable Housing Production & Replacement Obligations As of May 2002. 3.7.2 Existing Conditions ® Housing Units on the Project Site ' One vacant housing unit exists on the project site. This unit is an apartment in a single -story, detached structure located behind the Papa Joe's Pizza Building on Block 105 (refer to Figure ' 2-2). Housing in the City According to the 2000 U.S. Census (httP�//factfnder.census. ov)� the City of Huntington Beach has 75,662 housing units, of which 2005 (2.6 percent) are vacant. According to the Redevelopment Agency's affordable housing status report (May 2002), the Agency's existing housing surplus includes 112 very low-income housing units and 113 low- to moderate - income housing units as of May 2002. 3.7.3 Regulatory Framework City of Huntington Beach General Plan -Housing Element The following goals, objectives, and policies from the City of Huntington Beach General Plan Housing Element are applicable to the proposed project. Goal HE 1 Conserve and Improve Existing Affordable Housing in Huntington Beach. r 1 The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3.7-1 3.0 Environmental Ana lusis Consistency with Goal HE 1 As described above, one residential unit exists on the project site and would be demolished as a part of implementation of the proposed project. However, no tenant would be displaced as a result of implementation of the proposed project. Additionally, as described above, a surplus of obligated units exists within the City. The proposed project is, therefore, consistent with this policy. Policy HE 1.1.12 Mitigate displacement impacts occurring as a result of residential demolition through unit replacement or relocation of tenants. Consistency with Policy HE 1.1.12 As described above, one residential unit exists on the project site and would be demolished as a part of implementation of the proposed project. However, the City Redevelopment Agency has a replacement housing requirement; consequently, the unit would be replaced according to Redevelopment Agency policy, and no tenant would be displaced because the unit to be demolished is currently vacant. The proposed project is, therefore, consistent with this policy. Goal HE 3 Assist in Development of Affordable Housing. Policy HE 3.1.13 Encourage the provision of alternative housing through replacement housing and/or relocation for low or moderate -income households displace by public or private development. Consistency with Policy HE 3.1.13 As stated above, the City Redevelopment Agency would be required to replace the unit that would be demolished. Additionally, according to the Redevelopment Agency, a surplus of obligated very low and low- to moderate- income housing exists within the City. No relocation of tenants would be necessary, and the project would be consistent with this policy. 3•7-2 City of Huntington Beach 1 3.7 Population and Housing 3.7.4 Thresholds of Significance tA significant impact would occur if the proposed project would result in any of the following: ■ Displace substantial numbers of existing housing ■ Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement thousing elsewhere 3.7.5 Impacts Impact 3.7-1 The proposed project would result in the demolition of an existing housing unit on Block 105. As described above, a single apartment exists in a detached structure behind the Papa Joe's Pizza building. This apartment would be demolished as part of implementation of the proposed project. However, a single housing unit is not considered to be a substantial number of housing units within the context of the total number of units in the City of Huntington Beach, which has a total of over 75,000 housing units, as described above. Further, the City Redevelopment Agency is required to provide replacement housing and would be required to comply with applicable provisions of the California Health and Safety Code: City standard conditions of approval require the Redevelopment Agency, prior to demolition of the residential unit, to demonstrate compliance with State law and Program I - HE 14 of the City of Huntington Beach General Plan Housing Element, by preparing a housing replacement plan and financial assistance for relocation of the resident of the residential unit behind Papa Joe's Pizza. Further, a surplus of very low- and low- to moderate -income housing currently exists within the City and provides ample opportunity for relocation assistance without necessitating construction of replacement units. Additionally, as described above, the housing unit .on the project site is vacant. Therefore, project implementation would not displace any residents, and no relocation would be required. With implementation of City standard conditions of approval and compliance with applicable statutes and regulations, this impact would be considered less than significant. tThe Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3.7-3 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.7.6 Cumulative Impacts Although the project would result in the loss of one housing unit within the City of Huntington Beach, this loss represents less than one half of one percent of the vacant affordable housing available in the City. Further, as required by State law and City policy, the City Redevelopment Agency would be required to relocate the occupant affected by the proposed project, as well as other occupants that could be affected by redevelopment projects elsewhere in the City. The impact of this project would not, therefore, be cumulatively considerable 3.7.7 Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required. 3.7.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation The impact of the proposed project regarding population and housing would be less than significant. 3.7-4 City of Huntington Beach 1 11 3.8 Public Services and Utilities L C I k L 0 11 3.8 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES 3.8.1 Introduction This section provides a discussion of the existing public services and utilities available to the proposed project. Services to be evaluated include fire protection, law enforcement, solid waste, electric service, natural gas service, water supply, sewer/wastewater service, and storm drain service. Agencies providing these services were contacted as part of the Notice of Preparation (NOP) process for the EIR to obtain information regarding available service levels and current or anticipated constraints that would result from the proposed development. Information regarding water supply, sewer, and storm drainage are based, in part, on the following reports prepared for the proposed project: (1) CUP and EIR Support Documentation for Renovation of Blocks 104 and 105, City of Huntington Beach, CA, prepared by Penco Engineering, Inc., dated May 30, 2000; (2) Preliminary Sewer Study for the Strand, Downtown Huntington Beach, prepared by G & G Engineering, Inc., dated January 2002; (3) Water Analysis for the Strand Development prepared by Tetra Tech, Inc., dated January 25, 2002; and (4) memorandum from Tom Rulla regarding water supply for the Strand Project, date May 14, 2002. All of these documents are included in Appendix D to this EIR or are available for review at the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department. Telephone and cable television services are "on demand" services and were, therefore, not considered in this analysis. 3.8.2 Existing Conditions ® Fire Protection Fire protection and emergency services in the vicinity of the proposed project are provided by the Huntington Beach Fire Department (HBFD). Two of the eight HBFD stations operate in the vicinity of the proposed project site and would serve the site. These stations are listed below along with staffing and equipment at the stations. Station #1 18311 Gothard Street 1 Paramedic Engine Company Staffing-1 Captain,1 Engineer (all EMTs), and 2 paramedics 1 The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3.8-1 3.0 Environmental Ana Station #5 530 Lake Street 1 Paramedic Engine Company Staffing-1 Captain,1 Engineer (all EMTs), and 2 paramedics Stations #1 and #5 have an average emergency response time to the project area of less than five minutes. Criteria for evaluating acceptable service levels and for determining the thresholds of significance associated with service levels are based on response standards in the Growth Management Element of the Huntington Beach General Plan. The emergency response time objective in the Growth Management Element, including participation by other cities in the automatic aid agreement, is for the first fire or paramedic unit to arrive within five minutes, 80 percent of the time. The non -emergency response time goal is 15 minutes, 85 percent of the time. Approximately 59 percent of calls for paramedic service are responded to within five minutes. The slower paramedic response time is due to the current number and location of paramedic units (although all fire stations contain paramedic units). However, according to HBFD, the department now responds to all emergency calls in less than five minutes. Sixty-eight percent of the calls received by the HBFD are for medical aid, six percent are for fires, and the remaining 26 percent are calls for other types of service. No plans currently exist for immediate or near -future expansion of fire protection facilities, staff, or equipment inventory. Law Enforcement Police protection at the project site would be provided by the Huntington Beach Police Department (HBPD). HBPD provides police protection services within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Huntington Beach. The main station, located at 2000 Main Street provides first -response service to the project area. In addition, a police sub -station is located at the intersection of Fifth Street and Walnut Street, immediately adjacent to the project site. This is not a fully operational police station, and it is used more frequently in the summer months when tourism is at its peak. The City of Huntington Beach has an approximate population of 200,000 persons. Currently, 175 sworn officers are employed by HBPD, representing an estimated ratio of 1.1 officers per 1,000 residents. According to a recent study by the Maximus group, the recommended ratio is 1.2 officers per 1,000 residents (HBPD 2001). However, many western U.S. police agencies recommend a ratio of 1.8 officers per 1,000 residents in beach cities such as Huntington Beach 3.8-2 City of Huntington Beach 3.8 Public Services and Utilities HBPD 2001 . However, the average non -emergency response time within the City is one to ( ) � g g Y P �' three minutes, the average emergency response time is one minute or less, and the HBPD indicates that the department now provides a level of service that it considers acceptable. HBPD utilizes the "beat cop" system. The City is divided into 10 2.7-square mile beats. Following a minimum staffing protocol, depending on time of day and year, this beat system allows for quick response time and specific beat coverage unless officers are called upon by nearby beat officers for backup. The police sub -station uses the Beach/Downtown foot beat system during the summer months, where eight sworn officers and 16 non -sworn officers patrol the immediate area. This is in addition to the citywide system, to offset the surge in the daytime population of the beach/downtown area during the summer. Law enforcement services require certain equipment, in addition to staff, in order to maintain an acceptable level of service. HBPD equipment includes vehicles, radios, and mobile data terminals, which HBPD has indicated are currently adequate. Current expansion plans for the HBPD include only the construction of a communication center. 'N Lifeguard Services The City of Huntington Beach Marine Safety Division provides lifeguard and marine safety services to the visitors of the three and half miles of City beach. The City beach area north of Huntington Beach Main Street Municipal Pier that stretches to Seapoint Drive is designated as Area 2 and is staffed by two units. Each unit consists of three towers, each with a lifeguard, one truck with two lifeguards, and a relief lifeguard that alternates between the towers. One of these units, as well as,another tower (and corresponding lifeguard) on the Main Street pier, serves the beach area between the pier and Sixth Street. This area (designated as Area 2, Section 1) is the most heavily frequented portion of Area 2. In addition, greater attendance at the beach or bigger surf may require reserve staff, which is called as needed. The Marine Safety Division estimated total attendance for Area 2 percent ercent of which ( concentrated in Area 2, Section 1) as follows: ■ July 2001: 357,000 ■ August 2001: 467,000 ■ June 2002: 400,000 The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3.8-3 3.0 Environmental Ana The Marine Safety Division currently considers its level of service to be adequate. Solid Waste Rainbow Disposal, as the exclusive hauler of all solid waste for the City of Huntington Beach, operates a Transfer Station, located at 17121 Nichols Street within the City of Huntington Beach, and two Materials Recovery Facilities (MRFs) through which all solid waste is processed. One MRF processes primarily residential solid waste, and the other MRF processes residential and quasi -industrial solid waste, including construction and demolition waste. Construction -related waste is processed at various steps including sorting at the site followed by sorting at the tipping deck at the MRF. Thus, construction -related solid waste is processed via a primary and secondary sort, while the majority of solid waste is processed solely through a secondary (or dirty) sort. Additionally, Rainbow Disposal maintains a 63 percent diversion rate to the Orange County landfills, which exceeds the AB939 requirement of 50 percent diversion of solid waste by the year 2000. The County of Orange presently owns and operates three active landfills, which have a combined design capacity of 20,000 tons per day. The Orange County Landfill System is planned to operate until 2035. The Frank R. Bowerman Landfill is the closest facility to the site and would likely be the solid waste facility to serve the site. The City is under contract to the County's Integrated Waste Management Division to haul all waste to the County landfill system (not a particular facility) until the year 2007. Rainbow Disposal's Transfer Station has a design capacity of 2,800 tons per day. Rainbow Disposal indicated that landfill capacity would not be an issue for the City of Huntington Beach for at least 40 years (Jerry Maffat, May 2002). Rainbow Transfer/Recycling capacity is only at 50 percent utilization today. The California Integrated Waste Management Board requires that all counties have an approved Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan (CIWMP). To be approved, the CIWMP must demonstrate sufficient solid waste disposal capacity for at least 15 years, or identify additional available capacity outside of the County's jurisdiction. Orange County's CIWMP, approved in 1996, indicates the County Landfill System has capacity in excess of 15 years. Consequently, it may be assumed that adequate capacity for the project site is available. In addition, Orange County Landfill System has a study group and 40-year plan for expansion considering future expansive options for the three county -operated landfills. 3.8-4 City of Huntington Beach 1 3.8 Public Services and Utilities 01 Electric Service The primary electricity provider for the City of Huntington Beach is Southern California Edison (SCE). Facilities and infrastructure providing service to the project area include transmission, distribution, and communication lines. SCE has approximately 280 miles of electrical lines in the City ranging from household connections to generating station distribution lines. An AES generating station and six SCE substations are also located within the City. The AES generating station, which provides power to the City of Huntington Beach and surrounding areas, is located at 21730 Newland Avenue. The six SCE substation names and locations are as follows: 1. Bolsa —15971 Graham Street 2. Ocean View — 8081 Warner Avenue 3. Slater —1875 Edwards Street 4. Wave — 730 Lake Street 5. Hamilton — 21202 Brookhurst Avenue 6. Ellis —19118 Ward Street The basic electrical transmission system begins at the generating station, which sends electricity to a transformer. The transformer distributes the electricity through the switching yards to the distribution lines. The distribution lines then disperse electricity throughout the City. In cooperation with the City, SCE is presently working to underground all electrical distribution lines. SCE also owns several easements located throughout the City, some of which are being leased to private businesses (such as nurseries) or are being used as parkland. Existing SCE service currently meets the City's electrical demands. ® Natural Gas Service Southern California Gas Company (SCGC) is the primary provider of natural gas for the City of Huntington Beach. The availability of natural gas service is based upon present conditions of gas supply and regulatory policies. As a public utility, the SCGS is under jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission. SCGC receives its supply of natural gas from several sources, which include Southern California, Northern California, and out of state suppliers with the largest source being El Paso, Texas. The natural gas from Texas enters California through transmission lines that The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3.8-5 3.0 Environmental Analysis can contain natural gas ranging from 500 to 1,000 pounds of pressure. These lines connect to transmission compressor stations, which decrease the pressure and clean the natural gas. From the compressor stations, the natural gas is transmitted through supply lines with gases ranging from 150 to 500 pounds of pressure. The supply lines terminate at the distribution stations, where the natural gas pressure is further reduced to approximately 44 pounds and then provided to consumers. Located along Main Street is a three-inch diameter pipeline that could serve the proposed project (SCGC 2001). Two-inch pipelines also currently extend into the alleys within Blocks 104 and 105 from north of the respective blocks. SCGC has no immediate plans to update the existing infrastructure or to implement new technologies other than normal maintenance checks and replacements of deteriorating supply lines. Currently, SCGC is meeting existing natural gas supply demands. Water Supply The City of Huntington Beach provides potable water to the project site. Currently, the water system that serves the project site includes 6- to 12-inch pipelines located along Pacific Coast Highway (PCH), Main Street, and Fifth Street. To accommodate the demands of the project, new water lines would be constructed and some would be removed. Specifically, the existing 12-inch water pipeline located in PCH and the 8-inch water pipeline in Main Street would remain in place. Existing water pipelines to be removed in conjunction with construction of the proposed project include ■ Approximately 500 linear feet of six-inch pipeline located in the alleys, within Blocks 104 and 105, east of and parallel with Pacific Coast Highway ■ Approximately 200 linear feet of twelve -inch pipeline located in Fifth Street ■ Approximately 250 linear feet of eight-inch/four-inch pipeline located in the alley west of and parallel with Fifth Street Water pipelines to be constructed as part of the proposed project include ■ Approximately 450 linear feet of eight -inch water pipeline in Walnut Avenue between Sixth Street and Main Street ■ Approximately 900 linear feet of twelve -inch water pipeline in Sixth Street between Olive Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway 3.8-6 City of Huntington Beach 1 3.8 Public Services and Utilities I I C CI' CJ III C C P The proposed system would be located in the streets surrounding the site in order to serve the proposed buildings. This includes the previously mentioned installations and their ties into the existing waterlines located along PCH, Walnut Avenue, and the alley to remain within Block 104. The City of Huntington Beach adopted a Water Master Plan in December, 2000, as well as an Urban Water Management Plan, to evaluate and plan for adequate water supply at build -out of the General Plan, as amended, and adopted specific plans, including the Downtown Specific Plan, as amended. According to these plans, water can be provided at full system build -out by Year 2020 (Rulla 2002). Further, according to the City (Rulla 2002) a February 11, 2002, report by the Metropolitan Water District concluded that if all imported water supply programs and local projects proceed as planned, with no change in demand projections, reliability could be assured beyond 20 years. Sewer/Wastewater Service An existing 54-inch sewer line is located along Walnut Avenue, and connections to this main would be routed through Sixth Street and Main Street. There are also three alleys that accommodate some of the utilities serving the existing buildings on the project site. Some of these sewer mains would be removed, and some would be reconstructed as part of project implementation. In addition, existing sewer laterals will be reconnected to newly reconstructed sewer mains. ® Storm Drainage System The Hydrology report prepared by Penco Engineering, Inc. includes the existing and proposed drainage flows for the project site. In addition, based on the topographic survey prepared by Penco Engineering, Inc., the existing impervious area is approximately 2.9 acres, and approximately 0.8 acres of the site is pervious. The amounts of proposed impervious and pervious areas would be determined when the final project design is completed, although a minimum of 5 to 10 percent of the gross area would be a combination of in - ground and potted planting. An existing 30-inch storm drain line is located along PCH. A catch basin at the corner of Main Street and PCH would be replaced by a proposed catch basin at the corner of PCH and Sixth Street. This proposed catch basin would flow into an existing 54-inch storm drain line located west of Sixth Street at PCH. 1 The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3.8-7 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.8.3 Regulatory Framework AB 939-California Integrated Waste Management Act In 1989, the Legislature adopted the California Integrate Waste Management Act of 1989. The Act requires that each county prepare a new Integrated Waste Management Plan. The Plan was required to include a Source Reduction and Recycling Element prepared by each city within the State by July 1, 1991. Each source reduction element included a schedule providing for source reduction, recycling, or composting of 25 percent of solid waste in the jurisdiction by January 1, 1995, and 50 percent by January 1, 2000. SB 2202 (Senate Environmental Quality Committee 2000) made a number of changes to the municipal solid waste diversion requirements under the Integrated Waste Management Act. These changes included a revision to the statutory requirement for 50 percent diversion of solid waste to clarify that local governments shall continue to divert 50 percent of all solid waste on and after January 1, 2000. City of Huntington Beach General Plan -Utilities Element The following goals, objectives, and policies from the City of Huntington Beach General Plan Utilities Element are applicable to the proposed project. Goal U1 Provide a water supply system that is able to meet the projected water demands; upgrade deficient systems and expand water treatment, supply, and distribution facilities; and pursue funding sources to reduce the costs of water in the City. Policy U 1.1.1 Monitor the demands on the water system, manage the development to mitigate impacts and/or facilitate improvements to the water supply and distribution system, and maintain and expand water supply and distribution facilities. Consistency with Policy U 1.1.1 Implementation of the proposed project would include improvements to the existing water system to accommodate development, which includes the removal of some existing public water pipelines and the construction of new infrastructure within the project area. Analysis 3.8-8 City of Huntington Beach 1 3.8 Public Services and Utilities J 0 fl n H E by computer models regarding these required improvements indicated that pressure requirements for average -day demand, peak -hour demand, and fireflow plus maximum -day demand would be adequately met without additional (i.e., other than those previously identified on page 3.8-6) piping improvements. Thus, the proposed project would be consistent with this policy. Policy U 1.1.2 Approve and implement development in accordance with the standards identified in the Growth Management Element. Consistency with Policy U 1.1.2 The proposed project would be developed in accordance with the water supply standards identified in the Growth Management Element. Standards require water pressure be provided under average and peak hour demand conditions at a minimum 50 pounds per square inch (psi), maximum 80 psi, average 60 to 65 psi and no more than 5 psi fluctuation in a 24-hour period. In addition, fire flow capabilities meet the Fire Department's requirements, emergency water supply for a minimum of five days is provided, the best quality of water available at the most reasonable cost is provided, and all requests for service are adhered to in a timely manner. The project would provide water services following these standards as well as explore the economic and practical feasibility of using reclaimed water, especially for landscaping purposes. Policy U 1.2.2 Require new developments to connect to the sewer system. Consistency with Policy U 1.2.2 All new buildings of the proposed project would be connected to the existing sewer system. Specifically, the wastewater generated from proposed laterals for buildings A, B, and C would be discharged into a reconstructed 8-inch sewer main located in the alley behind these buildings. Wastewater from proposed lateral D, which would serve building D, and all current sewer laterals from the existing Worthy structure would be discharged into a reconstructed 8-inch sewer main located in the alley behind building D and the Worthy structure. The existing 8-inch sewer in Sixth Street would receive the wastewater from proposed lateral E, which serves buildings E-G. The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3.8-9 3.0 Environmental Ana Objective U 1.3 Minimize water consumption rates through site design, use of efficient systems, and other techniques. Policy U 1.3.2 Continue to require the incorporation of water conservation features in the design of all new construction and site development. Consistency with Policy U 1.3.2 Improvements to the existing water system would be made as part of the proposed project to accommodate additional demands and include the removal of some existing public water pipelines and the construction of new ones within the project area. These improvements would occur in accordance with all local and State regulations. Thus, water conservation features would be incorporated into the project design as necessary. The proposed project would be consistent with this policy. Objective U 1.4 Ensure the costs of improvements to the water supply, transmission, distribution, storage and treatment systems are borne by those who benefit. Policy U 1.4.1 Ensure the costs of improvements to the water supply, transmission,' distribution, storage and treatment systems are borne by the new development benefiting from the improvements, either through the payment of fees, or by the actual construction of the improvements in accordance with State Nexus Legislation. Consistency with Policy U 1.4.1 Improvements to the water system would be required to accommodate additional demands of the proposed development, and include the removal of portions of three existing public water pipelines located within the proposed project and the construction of two new water pipelines. These improvements would occur as part of the proposed project, and the proposed project would be consistent with this policy. 3.8-10 City of Huntington Beach I r-- 3.8 Public Services and Utilities IL 7 7 d 0 J r� J E E Goal U2 Provide a wastewater collection and treatment system that is able to support permitted land uses; upgrade existing deficient systems; and pursue funding sources to reduce costs of wastewater service provision in the City. Objective U 2.1 Ensure the City provides and maintains a wastewater collection and treatment facilities system that adequately conveys and treats wastewater generated by existing and planned development at a maximized cost efficiency. Policy U 2.1.1 Approve and implement development in accordance with standards identified in the Growth Management Element. Consistency with Policy U 2.1.1 The proposed project would be developed in accordance with the wastewater treatment standards identified in the Growth Management Element. These entail improvement and development of sewer lines along the coast serving the project and compliance with Orange County Sanitation requirements. Newly constructed and reconfigured sewer lines would serve the project. These lines would tie into the appropriate coastal mains, which have been established as being able to adequately serve the project by Orange County Sanitation. The proposed project would be consistent with this policy. Policy U 2.1.2 Conduct a study to determine the existing wastewater collection system's adequacy. This evaluation shall include an analysis of the possible land use intensification in older areas and a plan for infrastructure upgrading, as necessary. Consistency with Policy U 2.1.2 A Sewer Capacity Study was prepared for the proposed project, which analyzed the capacity of existing infrastructure serving the site. The proposed project would be consistent with this policy. 1 The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3.8-11 3.0 Environmental Analysis Policy U 2.1.5 Maintain, upgrade, and expand existing wastewater collection and treatment facilities. Consistency with Policy U 2.1.5 As mentioned in the consistency analysis for Policy U 1.2.2, existing wastewater lines would be reconstructed and new wastewater lines would be implemented as part of the proposed project. The Sewer Capacity Study for the proposed project concluded that with improvements to existing wastewater infrastructure, sufficient capacities to accept additional flows exist. Consistency of the proposed project with this policy exists. Policy U2.1.6 Require that sewer capacity is available before building permits are issued for new development. Consistency with Policy U 2.1.6 Mitigation Measure 3.8.4 would require the developer to submit a comprehensive analysis of waste generation of the proposed project before the issuance of a building permit. Objective U 2.2 Ensure that costs of wastewater infrastructure improvements are borne by those who benefit. Policy U 2.2.1 Ensure the costs of improvements to the existing wastewater collection facilities, which are necessitated by new development, to be borne by the new development benefiting from the improvements, either through the payment of fees, or by the actual construction of the improvements in accordance with State Nexus Legislation. Consistency with Policy 2.2.1 Wastewater infrastructure improvements would occur with implementation of the proposed project. Thus, construction of the improvements would be completed by the new development, and consistency with this policy would exist. 3.8-12 City of Huntington Beach 3.8 Public Services and Utilities Goal U3 Provide a flood control system that is able to support the permitted land uses while preserving the public safety; upgrade existing deficient systems; and pursue funding sources ' to reduce the costs of flood control provision in the City. Consistency with Goal U3 Please see Section 3.4, Geology and Hydrology, for all discussion of storm water drainage conditions and policy consistency. Goal U4 Maintain adequate solid waste collection for commercial, industrial, and residential developments in accordance with state law. Objective U 4.1 Ensure an adequate and orderly system for the collection services and the disposal of solid q Y P waste to meet the demands of new and existing development in the City. Policy U 4.1.1 Maintain adequate solid waste collection for commercial, industrial, and residential developments in accordance with state law. Consistency with Policy U 4.1.1 1 Adequate solid waste collection for the uses on -site would be maintained with State law. Additionally, the proposed project would produce approximately 14,866 tons of solid waste per year, which equates to approximately 41 tons of solid waste per day. Since the existing landfills that service the proposed site have a permitted capacity for approximately 20,000 tons per day and the County has indicated it can adequately serve the site, adequate solid waste capacity is available to handle the approximate 41 tons per day that would be generated by the proposed project. Thus, the proposed project would be consistent with this policy. The Strand at Downtown Huntington reach 3.8-13 3.0 Environmental Ana Policy U 4.1.2 Investigate the feasibility of providing trash and recycling receptacles along City streets in pedestrian oriented commercial areas (i.e., Downtown, Peter's Landing, Beach Boulevard nodes, etc.); design receptacles to be aesthetically compatible with the district in which they are located. Consistency with Policy U 4.1.2 The proposed project would investigate the feasibility of providing trash and recycling receptacles along City streets within the project area. Objective U 4.2 Recycle solid waste to reduce the amount of bulk that must be disposed of in area landfill, to conserve energy resources, and to be consistent with the provisions of the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989. Consistency with Objective U 4.2 Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.8-4 would require the developer to submit a Solid Waste Management Plan to the Solid Waste Coordinator, Public Works Department, that discusses how the project would implement source reduction and recycling methods in compliance with existing City programs. Goal U5 Maintain and expand service provision to City of Huntington Beach residences and businesses. Objective U 5.1 Ensure that adequate natural gas, telecommunication, and electrical systems are provided. Policy U 5.1.1 Continue to work with service providers to maintain current levels of service and facilitate improved levels of service. 3.8-14 City of Huntington Beach 1 3.8 Public Services and Utilities k L R C L L Consistency with Policy U 5.1.1 Impact analysis of the proposed project on utilities is provided later in this section. The analysis reveals that the proposed project would result in less -than -significant impacts to solid waste generation and collection, sewer/wastewater loads, water supply, electricity supply, and natural gas supply. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.8-3 and 3.8-4 would further reduce any impacts related to service providers for the proposed project site. Policy U 5.1.2 Continue to underground above ground electrical transmission lines. Consistency with Policy U 5.1.2 Electrical transmission lines serving the proposed project site would be located underground. City of Huntington Beach General Plan -Public Facilities and Services Element Goal PF 1 Protect the community from criminal activity, reduce the incidence of crime, and provide other necessary services within the City. Policy PF 1.1.1 Enhance and maintain personnel and facilities in the City's Police Department necessary to provide response times at standards determined by the Growth Management Element. Consistency with Policy PF 1.1.1 The Growth Management Plan calls for development to incorporate security requirements, ensure police services include appropriate equipment, facilities, and staffing, and establish a 5-minute response time for priority 1 calls (where there is a threat to life or property) for police service 85 percent of the time and response times in concurrence of Chief of Police and City Council for priority 2 (where a threat to life or property is possible) and priority 3 (where there is no threat) calls. The proposed project would cause police protection service levels to decrease by increasing response times and altering the personnel -to -population ratio. This would likely cause daytime service levels to drop below acceptable levels. As a The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3.8-15 3.0 Environmental Ana result, this impact is considered potentially significant. However, implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.8-1 and 3.8-2 would reduce impacts related to police protection service levels to a less -than -significant level. Policy PF 1.3.2 Ensure that new development and land use proposals are analyzed to determine the impact their operators, occupants, visitors, or customers may have on the safety and welfare of the community. Consistency with Policy PF 1.3.2 Implementation of the proposed project would decrease non-residential officer per person ratios, possibly adversely affecting the safety and welfare of the business operators, occupants, visitors, and customers that make up the community. However, these impacts could be mitigated by implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.8-1 and 3.8-2 identified in this section. Goal PF2 Ensure adequate protection from fire and medical emergencies for Huntington Beach residents and property owners. Policy PF 2.2.2 Utilize modern equipment and techniques to ensure adequate safety for the citizens of Huntington Beach. Consistency with Policy PF 2.2.2 The HBPD and HBFD would utilize appropriate equipment to ensure adequate safety for the citizens of the City. The proposed project would be. consistent with this policy. Objective PF 2.3 Attempt to achieve "built-in" fire protection for all structures. Policy PF 2.3.1 Continue to require all structures to follow all State and nationally recognized fire codes. 3.8-16 City of Huntington Beach 1 3.8 Public Services and Utilities G F E C Consistency with Policy PF 2.3.1 The proposed buildings would be constructed in compliance with all State and nationally recognized fire codes. In addition, the proposed project would be required to pass all applicable fire inspection codes prior to occupancy. Policy PF 2.3.2 Ensure that new construction is designed with fire and emergency access and safety in mind. Consistency with Policy PF 2.3.2 All new construction as part of the proposed project will be required to comply with Uniform Fire Code and Uniform Building Code requirements for safety, fire, and emergency access. City of Huntington Beach General flan -Coastal Element Goal C 1 Develop a land use plan for the Coastal Zone that protects and enhances coastal resources, promotes public access and balances development with facility needs. Objective C 1.1 Ensure that adverse impacts associated with coastal zone development are mitigated or minimized to the greatest extent feasible. Policy C 1.1.1 With the exception of hazardous industrial development, new development shall be encouraged to be located within, contiguous or in close proximity to, existing developed areas able to accommodate it or, where such areas are not able to accommodate it, in other areas with adequate public services, and where it will not have significant adverse effects, either individually or cumulatively, on coastal resources. Consistency with Policy PF 3.3.1 The proposed project would be located in an area that is currently developed with existing utility infrastructure and public services. With implementation of the utility improvements 1 The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3.8-17 3.0 Environmental Ana and payment of fees, the existing utilities and public services would be able to accommodate the proposed new development. Objective C 1.2 Provide a land use plan that balances location, type, and amount of land use with infrastructure needs. Policy C 1.2.3 Prior to the issuance of a development entitlement, the City shall make the finding that adequate services (i.e., water, sewer, roads, etc.) can be provided to serve the proposed development, consistent with policies contained in the Coastal Element, at the time of occupancy. Consistency with Policy C 1.2.3 The proposed project would have less -than -significant impacts on utility services and public services, except law enforcement. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.8-1 and 3.8.2 would reduce impacts related to police protection service levels to a less -than -significant level. Therefore, adequate services would be provided to the project site. Goal C 6 Prevent the degradation of marine resources in the Coastal Zone from activities associated with an urban environment. Objective C 6.1 Promote measures to mitigate the adverse impacts of human activities on marine organisms and the marine environment through regulation of new development, monitoring of existing development, and retrofitting necessary and feasible. Policy C 6.1.7 Improve and maintain existing infrastructure to prevent sewage system failures that may result in the discharge of untreated sewage into coastal and ocean waters. Regular inspection of sewer lines, pumps stations and preventative maintenance activities shall be undertaken to minimize the potential for ruptured lines or faulty infrastructure to cause or contribute to a 3.8-18 City of Huntington Beach 3.8 Public Services and Utilities sewage spill. The City shall implement management measures for its systems to prevent sewage spills, and other causes of bacterial pollution in coastal waters in response to scientific findings and recommendations resulting from monitoring and other investigations. 1 Consistency with Policy C 6.1.7 1 Improvements to existing wastewater infrastructure and new lines would be implemented under the proposed project to prevent sewage system failures. Regular inspection of the sewage system at the project site would be conducted as necessary to minimize the potential for any leakage or spills. Policy C 6.1.12 Periodically review the City's policies on water conservation, including the Water Conservation ordinance, to ensure the use of state of the art conservation measures for new development and redevelopment, and retrofitting of existing development, where feasible and appropriate, to implement these measures. Consistency with Policy C 6.1.12 Water conservation features would be incorporated to the extent feasible in the design of the proposed project. The proposed project would be consistent with this policy. Goal C 8 Accommodate energyfacilities with the intent to promote beneficial effects while mitigating p c ects any potential adverse impacts. Objective C 8.3 Accommodate new energyproduction facilities while requiring maximum efficiency and P q g cY 1 mitigation of adverse impacts. Policy C 8.3.16 As part of the permit process, require mitigation measures to repair scarring, grading or other vegetative removal resulting from transmission line or pipeline installation or maintenance through methods including but not limited to spreading topsoil removed in 0 1 The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3.8-19 3.0 Environmental Ana pipeline trenching over the surface of the construction area. Affected areas are to be re - vegetated with plants similar to those in the area. Consistency ivith Policy C 8.3.16 Areas affected by improvements and construction of utility infrastructure are not natural areas, and would he underneath the proposed development upon completion of the project. Implementation of the proposed project would include the provision of new vegetation, and any trees removed would be replaced at a 2:1 ratio, pursuant to the City's standard conditions of approval. The proposed project would, therefore, be consistent with Policy C 8.3.16. 3.8.4 Thresholds of Significance In general, impacts upon public services and utilities would be considered significant if project implementation would exceed the capacity of existing or planned infrastructure or public service facilities. Significant impacts would occur if the proposed project would result in any of the following: Fire/Police/Emergency/Lifeguard Services ■ Require additional emergency response personnel and/or equipment to maintain acceptable levels of service, or if project -related development results in increased response times of service providers to a degree that would adversely impact public health and safety ■ Interfere with emergency response or evacuation plans ® Solid Waste ■ Conflict with State and local requirements relating to source reduction, recycling, litter control, and solid waste handling ■ Construction- or operational -related solid waste exceeds available capacities of landfills servicing the project area on a long-term basis ® Electrical Power and Natural Gas ■ Substantially increase demands beyond available supply ■ Result in the upgrading of existing utility systems that will result in attracting more or higher density development to an area 3.8-20 City of Huntington Beach 1 3.8 Public Services and Utilities Water ■ Conflict with water conservation and supply requirements imposed by State and local agencies ' ■ Cause the substantial and adverse depletion of existing services of domestic water ■ Cause a water supply to be drawn from a groundwater basin that is overdrawn in ' relation to demand and historical levels ■ Cause construction of new water facilities beyond those already planned ■ Water demands generated by the project are greater than those anticipated and provided in the hydraulic analysis for the project ' ■ Water improvements associated with this project are not designed and constructed in accordance with City of Huntington Beach Water Division Standards (particularly with regard to separation between other utilities, and installation of backflow protection devices) Wastewater ■ Cause an increase in wastewater treatment that reaches or exceeds the current capacity or causes a reduction in the level of service, thereby requiring substantial expansion or 1 development of new facilities ■ Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board ® Storm Drainage ■ Adequate capacity to convey stormwater runoff via the existing system ' 3.8.5 Impacts A project's demand for additional public services or utilities is not itself considered a significant environmental impact; however, to the extent that the demand may result in the expansion or construction of new utilities or community service facilities, the proposed project would be considered to have a significant effect on the environment if the new or expanded public facilities were, in turn, to result in a significant effect on the environment. Impact 3.8-1 The proposed project could require additional personnel or equipment to maintain an acceptable level of fire protection service. The HBFD has indicated that it has sufficient facilities and staff to accommodate the needs of the proposed project and can serve the project without causing service levels to drop below The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3.8-21 3.0 Environmental current levels (Deputy Fire Marshall Tim Greaves, August 28, 2001). The HBFD employs a minimum of 12 personnel at both Fire Station #1 and #5, which provide first -response service to the project area with an emergency response time of less than five minutes. Considering the station locations, the population density, and call volume, the Fire Department considers this an acceptable level of staffing and response time. Additionally, implementation of the proposed project would not increase response times. Therefore, HBFD staff and equipment would be sufficient to respond to the needs of the project. Therefore, impact would be less than significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.8-1 would further decrease any fire -protection related impacts. Impact 3.8-2 Implementation of the proposed project would cause police protection service levels to drop. The existing service ratio of 1.1 officers per thousand residents is considered adequate by the HBPD. In addition, equipment required to maintain an acceptable level of service is adequate. Implementation of the proposed project would increase response times and alter the personnel -to -population ratio with the project's contribution to the current daytime population. Additionally, no plans for expansion of HBPD personnel levels currently exist. The proposed project would not result in an increase in residential population; the number of daytime and nighttime visitors to this area is expected to increase with development of more visitor -serving uses. The HBPD recognizes that service levels will drop in terms of number of officers per persons in the area, especially in the summer season. Even though the HBPD states that implementation of the proposed project would not further decrease the current 1.1 officers per 1,000 residents ratio, it recognizes that an increase in daytime and nighttime population in conjunction with such development would cause levels of police service to drop within the project vicinity. Therefore, this impact is considered potentially significant. However, implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.8-1 and 3.8-2 would reduce impacts related to police protection service levels to a less -than -significant level. Impact 3.8-3 Implementation of the proposed project could affect levels of service for lifeguard protection. The proposed project would result in a higher level of activity within the Downtown area of Huntington Beach and a corresponding increase in attendance at the adjacent City beach. However, the Huntington Beach Marine Safety Division has indicated that implementation of the proposed project would not result in a significant adverse impact upon lifeguard and 3.8-22 City of Huntington Beach 3.8 Public Services and Utilities F marine safety services within the project vicinity. Therefore, this impact is less than significant. Impact 3.8-4 Solid waste generated by the proposed project could exceed the capacity of local haulers or the Orange County Landfill System. Generation rates were employed to calculate the project's solid waste production per year as follows: Table 3.8-1 Proposed Solid Waste Demand Type of Use Generation Rate Square Footage Tonsgawmteoeryear Hotel 2.5 pounds/room/day 120,170 69 (152 rooms) Retail 2.5 pounds/day/100 square feet 28,075 128 Office 1.0 pound/day/100 square feet 38,000 69 Restaurant 200 feet 40,000 14,600 pounds/day/100 square Total N/A 226,245 14,866 Existing Landfill Capacity N/A N/A 8,322,000.00 tons permitted/year Source: Preliminary Sewer Study for the Strand, Downtown Huntington Beach, prepared by G & G Engineering, Inc., dated January 2002 Total solid waste produced by the proposed project would be approximately 14,866 tons per year. This tonnage per year equates to approximately 41 tons of solid waste from the proposed project per day. Rainbow Disposal, the exclusive hauler of solid waste for the City of Huntington Beach, has indicated that the estimated construction and operational solid waste generated by the proposed project can be accommodated within existing haul routes and MRF facility capacities. The project would, therefore, have a less -than -significant impact upon solid waste haulers serving the City of Huntington Beach. Existing permitted capacities for the landfills that could service the proposed site within ' Orange County total 20,000 tons per day. Therefore, these landfills would adequately handle the approximate 41 tons per day, which represent 0.2 percent of the daily tonnage at these ' landfills that would be generated by the proposed project. However, 63 percent of the solid waste generated by the City of Huntington Beach is diverted by Rainbow Disposal to recycling facilities, which further reduces the amount of solid waste actually disposed at the ' The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3.8-23 3.0 Environmental landfills; and, as described previously, construction -related waste is sorted in two steps. Even though Orange County is also looking at future expansive options for the three county - operated landfills, the County has indicated that adequate capacity of existing landfills within the County exists. Furthermore, the City is responsible for meeting the requirements of AB939, which include a 50 percent disposal reduction by the start of 2000 and preparation of a solid waste reduction plan. The estimated waste generation of the proposed project would not exceed the available capacity of the Orange County Landfill System. Therefore, a less -than -significant impact would occur. Additionally, implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.8-3 would ensure access for solid waste haulers, and implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.8-4 would further reduce any impacts related to the generation of solid waste. Impact 3.8-5 The proposed project would increase the demand for electricity. Southern California Edison provided the following demand rates in kilowatts (kW) for the proposed project: Table 3.8-2 Proposed Electricity Demand Type of L&e Generation Rate SquareFootage Kilowatts gewmW per year Hotel 4.7 watts/square feet/day 120,170 206,152 Commercial 8.6 watts/square feet/day 66,075 207,409 Restaurant 20.5 watts/square feet/day 40,000 299,300 Total N/A 226,245 712,861 Source: Southern California Edison, 2002 SCE indicated that the project would not substantially increase demands beyond available supply (Lee Dickerhoof, April 2002). In addition, the project -generated demand for electricity would be negligible in the context of overall demand within Huntington Beach and the State, and would not in and of itself require a major expansion of power facilities. Therefore, the energy demand associated with the proposed project would not result in a significant physical environmental effect. Impact 3.8-6 The proposed project would increase the demand for additional natural gas. As shown in Table 3.8-3, the Southern California Air Quality Management (SCAQMD 1993) provided the following demand rates in cubic feet for the proposed project: 3.8-24 City of Huntington Beach 1 3.8 Public Services and Utilities 1 'fable 3.8-3 Proposed Natural Gas Demand 1 Type of Use GenerationRate SquareFootage CubwFeetgenemted per year Hotel 4.8 cubic feet/square foot/month 120,170 6,921,792 1 Commercial/Retail 2.9 cubic feet/square foot/month 68,075 2,369,010 Office 2.0 cubic feet/ square foot/ month 38,000 912,000 1 Total N/A 226,245 10,202,802 Source: SCAQMD,1993 1 Based upon the rate information, the total project demand would be estimated as 10,202,802 1 cubic feet of natural gas per year. SCGC has indicated that the project could be served by an existing three-inch natural gas line located along Main Street. The Block 105 portion of the 1 project site could also connect to the two-inch pipeline that runs down its alley from north of the site, and the Block 104 portion could connect to the two-inch pipeline that runs down its alley also from the north. The service would be in accordance with the company's policies 1 and extension rules on file with the California Public Utilities Commission at the time contractual agreements are made. In addition, the project would not require an upgrading of 1 the existing utility system. Therefore, the natural gas demand associated with the proposed project would not result in a significant physical environmental effect. 1 Impact 3.8-7 The proposed project would increase the demand for water supplies. 1 The following water demands in gallons per minute (gpm) for the proposed project were used: 1 ■ 33 gpm — Average -day water demand ■ 42 gpm — Maximum -day water demand 1 ■ 174 gpm — Peak -hour water demand 1 Pressure requirements of the proposed project and within the immediate area include the following: 1 o Average -Day Simulations —Pressures in the immediate area of the proposed project must not drop by more than 3 psi. Pressures in the area including the proposed project must not drop below 50 psi. 1 ■ Peak -hour Simulations —Pressures in the immediate area of the proposed project must not drop by more than 5 psi. Pressures in the area including the proposed 1 project must not drop below 40 psi. 1 The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3.8-25 3.0 Environmental Analysis The City's conditions of approval require that water lines be sized to meet the minimum requirement of the California Plumbing Code and the Uniform Fire Code, and include an appropriate backflow protection device. HBFD requires a 4,000 gpm fireflow at the project site using four hydrants while maintaining a minimum residual pressure of 20 psi at each of the four hydrants. Due to the possibility of a fire occurring on any given day, the required fireflow at the project site would be operated with maximum -day demands occurring elsewhere throughout the water system. The required pressures are to be expected at the water pipeline located in the street. The proposed project would evaluate the pressure service requirement within the buildings, specifically the multi -story buildings. The improvements to the water pipeline system in the project area required by the City were taken into consideration when determining the average -day demand, peak -hour demand, and fireflow plus maximum -day demand. If the pressure requirements could not be met with only these minimum improvements, then additional pipeline improvements would be made until the pressure criteria was achieved. The report (Tetra Tech 2002) analyzing water infrastructure determined that the proposed project met pressure requirements without the need for additional (i.e., other than those previously identified on page 3.8-6) piping improvements. It should be noted that during water line relocations, if water service off the site would be affected, the proposed project would coordinate the disruption of service and effects of the relocation of these services to the proposed new water lines, as required under the City's conditions of approval. As described above in Section 3.8.2 (Existing Conditions), the City recently adopted a Water Master Plan and an Urban Water Management Plan to evaluate and ensure that adequate water is available to serve all planned developments at General Plan build -out, as well as adopted Specific Plans, including the Downtown Specific Plan. Because the development intensity of the proposed project is within the limits specified in the Downtown Specific Plan, the City has determined that adequate water supplies exist to serve the project. Due to this determination, as well as the fact that the project would develop less than half of the square footage of the threshold for water supply assessments, no water supply assessment would be necessary. Further, the City has calculated that the water demands of the proposed project would be less than half of the demand of a 500-unit residential development, which would also exempt the project from the requirement for a water supply assessment. Finally, as stated above, the Metropolitan Water District has determined that adequate regional water 3.8-26 City of Huntington Beach 1 3.8 Public Services and Utilities supplies exist to serve supplemental development. Therefore, no significant impact to water supply would result from the proposed project. Impact 3.8-8 The proposed project would increase the demand for sewer service. The Uniform Plumbing Code 1997 edition design criteria is used for determining wastewater and sewer loads for the corresponding development. 1 Table 3.84 Sewer/Wastewater Generation Rates 7 H Type of Use Generation Rate Restaurant (45 customers assumed) 1.0 gallons/customer/hour Restaurant (80 customers assumed) 2.0 gallons/customer/hour Office 18.6 gallons/ hour Hotel Lobby 195 gallons/hour Hotel Room (one bedroom) 47 gallons/day Hotel Room (two bedroom) 94 gallons/day Source: Penco Engineering, Inc., 2000 Based on the above design criteria and preliminary analysis of building occupancy, the following wastewater and sewer loads and corresponding distributing laterals were determined for proposed buildings A through G: Table 3.8-5 Sewer/Wastewater Sewer Loads Gallons perHow Building (CubwFeetperSwm4 Lateral A 837 A (0.03) B 357 B (0.01) C 332 C (0.01) D 365 D (0.01) E 480 E (0.02) F 200 E (0.01) G 540 E (0.02) Source: G & G Engineering, Inc., January 2002 IThe Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3.8-27 3.0 Environmental Analysis Laterals A, B, and C would generate a total of 0.05 cfs of wastewater. This wastewater would be discharged into a reconstructed 8-inch sewer main located in the alley behind buildings A through C. Additionally this 8-inch sewer would accommodate all flows from existing laterals currently connected into this sewer located in the alley. Existing flows from existing buildings have been assumed to be one-third of the pipeline capacity. The proposed wastewater discharge from laterals A through C into this sewer main would be approximately six percent of the existing flow. This additional discharge would be about four percent of the total capacity for an 8-inch sewer pipe based on design criteria. Lateral D would generate a total of 0.01 cfs of wastewater, which would be discharged into a reconstructed 8-inch sewer main located in the alley behind building D and the existing Worthy structure. Additionally, this sewer main would accommodate all flows from the existing sewer laterals from the Worthy structure. This lateral has a minimum impact on the proposed reconstruction of an 8-inch sewer main in this alley. Lateral E would generate a total of 0.05 cfs of wastewater, which would be discharged into the existing 8-inch sewer in Sixth Street. With an assumption of one-third flow capacity in the existing main, the proposed discharge would be about six percent of the existing flow. Therefore, the existing 8-inch sewer main in Sixth Street has sufficient capacity to accept flows from proposed lateral E. In addition, the proposed reconstructions of existing sewer mains in both alleys on -site would have sufficient capacities to accept flows from their respective proposed and existing laterals. Therefore, impacts upon wastewater infrastructure would be less than significant. 3.8.6 Cumulative Impacts Infrastructure capacity for utilities and other public services is a regional problem due to recent and projected population increases in the Southern California area. This population increase creates additional demand for public services, which may already be at or near capacity. It has been determined that, with implementation of recommended mitigation measures, all project -specific impacts to public services can be reduced to a less -than - significant level. However, the contribution of the proposed project to cumulative public services impacts in the respective areas of service providers can be considered cumulatively considerable. 3•8-28 City of Huntington Beach 1 3.8 Public Services and Utilities Fire Protection HBFD has indicated that additional development in this area would not exacerbate demands. In addition, the fire department did not identify issues associated with development of the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less -than -significant contribution to this cumulative impact. Law Enforcement HBPD has indicated that additional development in this area in combination with cumulative visitor -serving and commercial uses within the area would exacerbate demands. Police levels of service would decrease due to increased police workload associated with the increased visitor and residential population of cumulative development in Huntington Beach. However, the project, along with other foreseeable development, is anticipated to generate additional revenue in the form of sales tax or property tax revenue for the City General Fund, which would allow expansion of public services, including law enforcement, to meet anticipated demands. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in a significant cumulative impact on law enforcement services. ® Lifeguard Service The proposed project combined with other visitor -serving and commercial development along the waterfront would increase the number of visitors to City beaches near the 1 Downtown area, which would increase the workload of available lifeguards. However, the project, along with other foreseeable development, is anticipated to generate additional revenue in the form of sales tax or property tax revenue for the City General Fund, which would allow expansion of public services, including lifeguard services, to meet anticipated demands. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in a significant cumulative impact on lifeguard services. 1 M Solid Waste The service provider has indicated that current landfill capacity is adequate to accommodate the proposed projects' solid waste disposal needs. However, additional generation of solid waste would exacerbate regional landfill capacity issues. Implementation of source reduction measures that would be implemented on a project -specific basis would address these issues in part. However, the proposed project would increase the overall generation of 1 The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3.8-29 3.0 Environmental Ana solid waste, and would, therefore, constitute a potentially significant cumulative impact due to regional solid waste disposal issues. Electrical Service Related development would increase demands on electricity. SCE is constantly analyzing the capacity of its systems and projecting and planning for new load growth based on commercial, industrial, and residential customer demand. Southern California consumers have recently experienced rising energy costs and uncertainties regarding the supply of electricity. However, based on current supply and demand assessments, the California Energy Commission has indicated that the supply of energy has improved for the near -term, and during this time long-term policy decisions would be made to address energy demands throughout the state (California Energy Commission 2002). In the context of statewide demands, related development in and of itself would not be anticipated to substantially increase demands beyond available supply. Therefore, cumulative impacts on electricity would be less than significant. ® Natural Gas Service The proposed project would create an ongoing demand for increased natural gas during operations. The service provider anticipates that gas supply and infrastructure are adequate to meet projected demands and that no foreseeable short or long-term cumulative impacts to natural gas are anticipated as a result of the proposed project. ® Water Supply The proposed removal of portions of three existing public water pipelines and the construction of two new water pipelines are the improvements that would need to be implemented in order to accommodate the proposed development. Analysis of water demand using the City's ultimate system model, which incorporates system demands estimated to occur when the City of Huntington Beach reaches full development in the future (approximately 20 years from now), revealed that pressure requirements for average -day demand, peak -hour demand, and fire flow plus maximum -day demand for the proposed project would be met without the need for additional (i.e., other than those previously identified on page 3.8-6) piping improvements. Therefore, increased water supply demand by the City in the future would not result in water supply deficiencies and cumulative impacts on water supply would be less than significant. 3.8-30 City of Huntington Beach 1 3.8 Public Services and Utilities E I E k 12 Sewer/Wastewater Service The proposed reconstructions of existing sewer mains would have sufficient capacities to accept flows from their respective proposed and existing laterals. Increased wastewater generation would not result in sewer capacity issues for no existing deficiencies have been identified. Project -specific review would ensure that sewage generation would not exceed capacity. In addition, as upgrades occur in association with proposed projects, overall City sewer capacity could increase. Cumulative impacts on wastewater would be less than significant. 3.8.7 Mitigation Measures MM 3.8-1 Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall demonstrate that the project includes adequate access for emergency vehicles, automatic fire sprinkler systems, automatic fire alarms, properly sized elevators, and 24-hour security shall be provided. MM 3.8-2 Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall consult the Huntington Beach Police Department regarding the provision of adequate Crime Prevention Design measures, and shall incorporate the Department's recommendations into the plan. MM 3.8-3 Prior to issuance of a building, permit, the Applicant shall demonstrate that the project includes adequate access for disposal collection vehicles including 55 feet to pickup and drop off containers on a straight shot and a minimum turning diameter of 86 feet. MM 3.84 Prior to issuance of building permits for the first project component, the Applicant shall submit a Solid Waste Management Plan to the City Environmental Services Division, Public Works Department, and recycling coordinator. This plan shall discuss how the project will implement source reduction and recycling methods in compliance with existing City programs. Additionally, this plan shall include how the project will address the construction and demolition -generated waste from the site. These methods shall I include, but shall not be limited to 1 The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3.8-31 3.0 Environmental Ana ■ Emphasize deconstruction and diversion planning rather than demolition ■ Provision of recycling bins for glass, aluminum, and plastic for visitors and employees of the proposed project ■ Provision of recycling bins for glass, aluminum, plastic, wood, steel, and concrete for construction workers during construction phases ■ Bins for cardboard recycling during construction ■ Scrap wood recycling during construction ■ Green waste recycling of landscape materials 3.8.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation All public services impacts would be less than significant after implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.8-1 through 3.8-4. 3.8-32 City of Huntington Beach 3.9 Transportation and Circulation H I I I 11 E R 11 D 3.9 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 3.9.1 Introduction This section describes the results of a traffic analysis carried out for the proposed project by LSA Associates dated June 21, 2002. This report is included as Appendix E, and the technical appendix to the traffic technical report is available for review at the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department. A total of twenty-eight intersections and four arterial roadways within the project vicinity were analyzed. The project analysis takes into account new vehicle trips that would result from the proposed development, as well as other traffic growth due to development in the surrounding area. 3.9.2 Environmental Setting ® Methodology and Level of Service Criteria Issues addressed in this analysis include local off -site arterial and intersection impacts, site access, and internal circulation. The analysis of off -site traffic conditions and impacts examines the following conditions: Existing Typical Weekday ® Summer Weekday Cumulative Existing plus approved projects plus growth rate corresponding to the year 2005. ■ Typical Weekday ■ Typical Weekday plus Project ■ Summer Weekday ■ Summer Weekday plus Project Modeled General Plan Build Out (Post-2020) ■ General Plan build out without bridges condition ■ General Plan build out without bridges plus Project condition ■ General Plan build out with bridges condition ■ General Plan build out with bridges plus Project condition 1 The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3.9-1 3.0 Environmental Ana It should be noted that the summer weekday condition represents a "peak" period due to the beach resort character of the downtown. Consequently, higher levels of traffic are experienced in the vicinity of the proposed project during the summer than during a typical weekday. Common traffic engineering practice is to mitigate traffic impacts to a typical weekday period, rather than a peak day (such as a holiday weekend, or summer period). As a result, the summer weekday condition is presented to provide a comparison between typical and summer periods. Direct project impacts and mitigation measures have been developed based on typical weekday traffic counts. A list of approved projects was developed in consultation with the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department for use in developing the cumulative scenarios. The cumulative traffic condition takes into account impacts from the following committed projects: ■ The Hyatt Regency Grand Coast Hotel ■ The Palm/Goldenwest Specific Plan ■ Seacliff Village Redevelopment ■ Peninsula Marketplace To determine the potential impact of the proposed project in the horizon of the build out of the City's General Plan Land Use Element, the City's traffic model was used to disclose post- 2020 traffic conditions. Two scenarios have been modeled: one with the proposed Santa River bridges at Banning Avenue and Garfield Avenue, and one without the proposed bridges. To determine peak hour intersection operation at signalized intersections, the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology was used for intersections within the study area. The ICU methodology compares the volume to capacity (v/c) ratios of conflicting turn movements at an intersection, sums these critical, conflicting v/c ratios for each intersection approach, and determines the overall ICU. The resulting ICU is expressed in terms of level of service, where level of service (LOS) A represents free flow activity and LOS F is overcapacity operations. According to the City of Huntington Beach Traffic Impact Assessment Preparation Guidelines, the upper limit of LOS D is considered satisfactory operation for study area intersections. An ICU value in excess of 0.92 is considered unsatisfactory and would require project mitigation back to 0.90 or to the baseline, if greater than 0.90. It should be noted that the existing summer period and cumulative scenario 3.9-2 City of Huntington Beach 3.9 Transportation and Circulation geometrics take into account the City's policy for de facto right turn lanes at the key study area intersections. For unsignalized study area intersections, the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) unsignalized intersection methodology has been used to determine intersection levels of service. The level of service is presented in terms of total intersection delay and approach ' delay of the major and minor streets. To determine the level of service on arterial links, a v/c ratio is calculated. The v/c ratios are ' determined using roadway capacities defined in the City's, Traffic Impact Assessment Preparation Guidelines. The following roadway capacities were used for this analysis: ■ Major arterial highway (six lanes) 54,000 ® Primary arterial highway (four lanes) 32,000 ■ Secondary arterial highway (four lanes) 28,000 ■ Collector arterial highway (two lanes) 13,000 In accordance with the City's policy, LOS C shall be considered acceptable for arterial links. ' A v/c ratio in excess of 0.80 would exceed the LOS C criteria. For intersections and roadway that are designated as part of the Congestion Management Program (CMP) Highway System, acceptable level of service is defined as LOS E. According to the CMP, mitigation is required when the v/c ratio increases beyond 0.01 above the base 1 condition, when the base condition is greater than LOS E. The designated CMP routes in the vicinity of the project are Warner Avenue, Pacific Coast Highway, Beach Boulevard, and Adams Avenue. Prior to preparation of this traffic analysis, City staff and LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA) agreed upon the scope of work and specific analysis requirements. The traffic impact analysis has been prepared consistent with the City of Huntington Beach's Traffic Impact Assessment Preparation Guidelines, revised November 1996, and under the supervision of a Registered Professional Engineer. The analysis provides an assessment of traffic impacts and determination of traffic mitigation as required for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance for approval of The Strand project. The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3.9-3 3.0 Environmental Ana Existing Street Network The project location and study intersections are shown in Figure 3.9-1. An inventory of the existing circulation system was conducted on arterial streets adjacent to the proposed project. The existing in lane configurations, number of arterial mid -block lanes, and method of traffic control are presented in the figure. The following presents a brief description of the key study area arterials: ■ Pacific Coast Highway (SR-1) —Pacific Coast Highway is a State Highway and is classified as a Major .Arterial Highway (six -lane divided highway) on the County's Master Plan of Arterial Highways. This classification is also reflected in the City's Circulation Plan. A Route Concept Report, which provides the overall designation of the roadway, has been completed for Pacific Coast Highway. This arterial provides east/west circulation on the south side of the property. In the vicinity of the project site, Coast Highway has six travel lanes divided by a raised median. Coast Highway is signal controlled at its intersections with Seapoint Avenue, Golden West Street, Seventeenth Street, Ninth Street, Sixth Street, and Main Street. The posted speed limit in the vicinity of the proposed project site is 35 mph. ■ Sixth Street —Sixth Street is a Primary Arterial Highway (ultimate four lane) on the City's Circulation Plan. This street provides north/south circulation on the west side of the property. In the vicinity of the project site, Sixth Street is a two-lane undivided roadway north of PCH, and a two-lane parking lot access driveway south of PCH. w■ Fifth Street —Fifth Street is classified as a two-lane collector on the City's Circulation Plan. Currently, Fifth Street is a two-lane undivided roadway providing north/south circulation. Fifth Street is proposed as a circulator for local project traffic and drop-off w for hotel and valet guests. With the proposed project, a 54-foot-wide public easement v for vehicle and pedestrian circulation will be provided. This easement includes two 12-foot-wide travel lanes with a 15-foot-wide sidewalk on each side. 0 ■ Walnut Avenue — Walnut Avenue is a two-lane roadway providing east/west y circulation north of and directly adjacent to the project site. The Huntington Beach City Council approved Precise Plan of Street Alignment No. 89-3 in November 1989, ureducing the right-of-way between Sixth Street and Main Street from 80 feet to 60 feet. Based on a 1995 adopted precise plan of street alignment, this section of Walnut 0 Avenue adjacent to the project was reclassified as a Local Street on the General Plan Circulation Element. In the vicinity of the project site, this street has two undivided 0 L lanes. V d c ■ Main Street —Main Street is a two-lane collector on the City's Circulation Plan and w provides two undivided travel lanes. This roadway provides north/south circulation d 3.9-4 City of Huntington Beach 1 C I FIGURE 3.9-1 Not to Scale —fNY— L Project Location and Study Area Intersections waaoc�wras SOURCE. LPA toass-oo City of Huntington Beach • Block 104/105 EIR 3.9 Transportation and Circulation P H H r F P on the east side of the property. In the vicinity of the project site, the speed limit is 25 mph. Study Area Determination The study area was developed in consultation with City of Huntington Beach Public Works Engineering staff, and includes the following intersections: 1. Warner Avenue/Coast Highway (CMP intersection) 2. Seapoint Street/Coast Highway 3. Goldenwest Street/Coast Highway 4. 17th Street/Coast Highway 5. Ninth Street/Coast Highway 6. Sixth Street/Coast Highway 7. Main Street/Coast Highway 8. First Street/Coast Highway 9. Huntington Street/Coast Highway 10. Beach Boulevard/Coast Highway (CMP intersection) 11. Newland Street/Coast Highway 12. Magnolia Street/ Coast Highway 13. Brookhurst Street/Coast Highway 14. Goldenwest Street/Orange Avenue 15. Goldenwest Street/Palm Avenue 16. Goldenwest Street/Yorktown Avenue 17. Main Street/Sixth Street 18. Main Street/Adams Avenue 19. Main Street/Utica Street 20. Main Street/Yorktown Avenue 21. Lake Street/Adams Avenue 22. Lake Street/Yorktown Avenue 23. Beach Boulevard/Atlanta Avenue 24. Beach Boulevard/Indianapolis Avenue 1 The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3.9-5 3.0 Environmental Analysis 25. Beach Boulevard/Adams Avenue (CMP intersection) 26. Beach Boulevard/Yorktown Avenue 27. Sixth Street/ Walnut Avenue 28. Sixth Street/Olive Avenue Figure 2 of Appendix E illustrates the location of the proposed project and the study area intersections. The intersections were selected based on an initial assessment of potentially significant traffic impacts and current conditions and restrictions. Many individual intersections within the downtown core area are expected to serve project traffic but were not included in the detailed intersection analyses. The exclusions were determined based on a sensitivity analysis, the ability to analyze operations, and the presence of physical constraints that would prohibit any further improvements. ® Traffic Volumes and Levels of Service Figure 4 of Appendix E presents the typical weekday period (2000) A.M. and P.M. peak hour traffic volumes for the study area intersections. These peak hour intersection turn volumes were collected by LSA in April 2000. All of the study area intersections operate with satisfactory levels of service in both peak hours. The summer weekday traffic volumes were surveyed in August 2001. Although the heaviest traffic volumes in the downtown area would be experienced during the summer weekends, weekday A.M. and P.M. peak hours have been analyzed in this analysis. Generally, the circulation system is designed to accommodate the "typical" condition, such as would be experienced on a daily basis throughout the year. Application of the peak summer weekend as the design condition could result in an inappropriate investment in infrastructure that would be fully utilized only on an infrequent basis. Additionally, analysis of the proposed project in the context of a condition that would occur only on a seasonal basis may require the project to construct mitigation measures that are not commensurate with the level of development. As a result, project traffic is analyzed in the context of daily commute hour conditions to present the most frequently occurring "peak" condition in the vicinity of the project. Figure 5 of Appendix E presents the existing summer weekday (2001) A.M. and P.M. peak hour traffic volumes for the study area intersections. These peak hour intersection turn volumes were collected by the LSA in August 2001. The existing summer weekday level of 3.9-6 City of Huntington Beach 1 3.9 Transportation and Circulation service analysis is resented in Table B of Appendix E. As shown in Table B, all of the stud Y P PP Y area intersections currently operate with satisfactory levels of service in both peak hours. The existing ADT volumes are referenced from the City of Huntington Beach Traffic Flow 1 Map dated September 2000 and the Caltrans website (www.dot.ca.gov). Most of the roadway segments have v/c ratios less than 0.80 (v/c of less than 1.00 on CMP routes) with the following exception: ■ Pacific Coast Highway —Between Seapoint Avenue and Warner Avenue (v/c =1.31) ' Planned Roadway Improvements The City of Huntington Beach has committed or implemented several intersection and roadway improvements since the time LSA conducted the traffic volume survey. These ' improvements include the following: ■ Construction of Goldenwest Street between Garfield and PCH to six lanes ■ Addition of a second southbound left -turn lane at Goldenwest Street/Yorktown Avenue ■ Addition of dedicated westbound right -turn lane at Goldenwest Street/Coast Highway ■ Restriping of Coast Highway to six lanes M— the vicinity of the proposed project These improvements, as well as the City's de facto right -turn policy, have been included in tthe circulation system for the summer weekday conditions and for the subsequent cumulative conditions analysis. 1 Cumulative (Year 2005) Conditions The cumulative condition was developed to analyze circulation impacts for the opening year of the proposed project. To establish a cumulative base traffic volume condition, LSA obtained the traffic studies prepared for the four committed developments to derive the project study area cumulative traffic volumes and approved circulation system improvements. The forecast cumulative traffic condition was based on the contribution of committed developments' peak hour traffic volumes to the City's circulation system, along with a one percent per annum growth factor to account for ambient growth. The existing conditions to which committed projects have been added are both typical weekday period and summer weekday period conditions; thus, two cumulative traffic conditions were developed. The geometrics assumed in the cumulative condition include the intersection ' The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3.9-7 3.0 Environmental Analysis geometrics as of the August 2001 traffic counts, plus planned, committed, or completed improvements, as well as application of the City's de facto right turn policy. Traffic Volumes and Levels of Service Cumulative Typical Weekday Table C of Appendix E presents the cumulative typical weekday period level of service analysis. As shown in Table C all study area intersections are forecast to operate with satisfactory levels of service in the cumulative typical weekday scenario. Cumulative Summer Weekday Table D of Appendix E presents the cumulative summer weekday period level of service analysis. As shown in Table D, the following three locations are forecast to operate at unsatisfactory levels of service in the cumulative summer weekday scenario: ■ Warner Avenue/Coast Highway (ICU of 1.02, LOS F, during the P.M. peak) ■ Seapoint Street/Coast Highway (ICU of 0.93, LOSE, during the P.m. peak hour) The intersection of Warner Avenue/Pacific Coast Highway was addressed in the Bolsa Chica Environmental Impact Report (Revised Draft EIR No. 551, August 22, 1994), which stated that this intersection is projected to experience unavoidable adverse impacts with its maximum feasible configuration. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted for this forecast impact. Subsequently, in 1996, Caltrans completed improvements at Warner Avenue/Pacific Coast Highway, which built out the intersection to its maximum feasible configuration. Therefore, no additional improvements have been or will be recommended to improve the level of service at the intersection of Warner Avenue/Pacific Coast Highway. As will be discussed, the project will not add to this condition. Future General Plan Background Condition without Project The future General Plan baseline conditions assume build out of the City of Huntington Beach General Plan Land Use and Circulation Element, as well as the General Plans of adjacent jurisdictions. The City's SARX 2.8 traffic model was used to forecast the traffic volumes for the future General Plan conditions both with and without the proposed Santa Ana River bridges at Banning Avenue and Garfield Avenue. 3.9-8 City of Huntington Beach 1 H C P D 3.9 Transportation and Circulation Traffic Volumes and Levels of Service General Plan Build Out With Santa Ana River Bridges. Table E of Appendix E presents the General Plan with bridges baseline level of service analysis. As shown in Table E, the following two intersections are forecast to operate with unsatisfactory levels of service in the General Plan With Bridges baseline scenario: ■ Warner Avenue/Coast Highway (ICU of 1.01, LOS F, during the P.M. peak hour) e Brookhurst Street/Coast Highway (ICU of 0.96 in the P.M. peak, LOS E) Figure 11 of Appendix E illustrates the General Plan With Bridges baseline daily traffic (ADT) volumes and v/c ratios. As shown in Figure 11, most of the study area roadways have v/c ratios less than 0.80 (v/c of less than 1.00 on CMP routes), with the following exceptions: ■ Pacific Coast Highway —North of Warner Avenue (v/c =1.04) ® Pacific Coast Highway —all segments South of Beach Boulevard (v/c Z 1.00) ■ Palm Avenue— Between Goldenwest Street and 7th Street (v/c =1.06) ® Main Street— Between Adams Avenue and Palm Avenue (v/c = 0.83) General Plan Build Out Without Santa Ana River Bridges Table F of Appendix E presents the General Plan Without Bridges baseline level of service analysis. As shown in Table F, the following two intersections are forecast to operate with unsatisfactory levels of service in the General Plan Without Bridges baseline scenario: ■ Warner Avenue/Coast Highway (ICU of 1.01, LOS F, during the P.M. peak hour) ■ Brookhurst Street/Coast Highway (ICU of 0.95 in the P.M. peak, LOSE) Figure 13 of Appendix E illustrates the General Plan Without Bridges baseline daily traffic (ADT) volumes and volume/capacity ratios. As shown in Figure 13, most of the study area roadways have v/c ratios less than 0.80 (v/c of less than 1.00 on CMP routes) with the following exceptions: ■ Pacific Coast Highway —North of Warner Avenue (v/c =1.04) ■ Pacific Coast Highway —all segments South of Beach Boulevard (v/c Z 1.00) ■ Palm Avenue— Between Goldenwest Street and 7th Street (v/c =1.07) ■ Main Street —Between Adams Avenue and Palm Avenue (v/c = 0.83) 1 The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3.9-9 3.0 Environmental 3.9.3 Regulatory Framework Orange County Congestion Management Plan For intersections and roadway that are designated as part of the Congestion Management Program (CMP) Highway System, acceptable level of service is defined as LOS E. The designated CMP routes in the vicinity of the project are Warner Avenue, Pacific Coast Highway, Beach Boulevard, and Adams Avenue 3.9.4 Thresholds of Significance ■ According to the City of Huntington Beach Traffic Impact Assessment Preparation Guidelines, the upper limit of LOS D is considered satisfactory operation for the study area signalized intersections. An ICU greater than 0.92 would be considered unsatisfactory and would require mitigation back to 0.90 or to the baseline. ® According to the City of Huntington Beach Traffic Impact Assessment Preparation Guidelines, the upper limit of LOS C is considered satisfactory operation for the study area unsignalized intersections. An ICU greater than 0.80 would be considered unsatisfactory. ® Based on City of Huntington Beach Traffic Impact Assessment Guidelines, MPAH and CMP guidelines, the upper limit of LOS C shall be considered satisfactory operation for arterial links. A v/c ratio in excess of 0.80 would exceed the LOS C criteria. Any contribution of traffic within the project area in excess of 3 percent of LOS E capacity that would result in a LOS of D or worse, and either intersection at segment termini with a LOS E or worse, would be considered a significant impact. ■ For intersections and roadways that are designated as part of the Congestion Management Program (CMP) Highway System, acceptable level of service is defined as LOS E. According to the CMP, mitigation is required when the v/c ratio increases beyond 0.10 above the baseline condition, when the base condition is greater than LOS E. 3.9.5 Impacts This portion of the Traffic and Circulation Section provides a project specific analysis of the potential circulation impacts of the proposed project. This analysis is provided in summer weekday and non -summer weekday cumulative year 2005. General Plan, without and with the proposed Santa Ana River bridges scenarios, is also provided for non -summer weekday conditions. 3.9-10 City of Huntington Beach 0 3.9 Transportation and Circulation Methodology Project Trip Generation Daily and A.M. and P.M. peak hour trips are generated for the proposed Strand project based on the application of trip rates to the total units of development for each use category. Trip rates used in this analysis are based on Trip Generation, 6th Edition, 1997, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). Table G of Appendix E illustrates the project trip generation. The proposed project is forecast to generate approximately 7,106 total ADT, of which ' approximately 383 will occur in the A.M. peak hour and 617 will occur in the P.M. peak hour. Vehicle Trip Distribution and Assignment The directions of approach to and departure from The Strand were identified based on the City of Huntington Beach SARX 2.8 Traffic Model trip distribution. The SARX 2.8 Traffic Model provided generalized forecasts in the downtown area. To accurately represent the contribution of project vehicle trips to the downtown area, LSA, in consultation with City of Huntington Beach Public Works Engineering staff, manually redistributed project trips in the ' downtown area. Application of the trip distribution percentages to the project trip generation results in a trip assignment, which is illustrated along with the regional trips distribution percentages in Figure 14 of Appendix E. This trip assignment is added to the cumulative summer weekday and cumulative non -summer weekday conditions, as well as future General Plan conditions with and without the proposed Santa Ana River bridges at tBanning Avenue and Garfield Avenue, and levels of service are determined. ' Cumulative Plus Project Conditions To assess the direct project impacts on the study area circulation system for the interim year conditions, the project trip assignment is added to the cumulative traffic base, and levels of service are determined. ' Cumulative Non -Summer Weekday plus Project ' The cumulative typical weekday plus project A.M. and P.M. peak hour traffic volumes are illustrated in Figure 15 of Appendix E. Table H of Appendix E presents the cumulative typical weekday plus project level of service analysis. As shown in Table H, addition of project traffic to the cumulative non -summer weekday scenario would not cause any study ® area intersection to operate at an unsatisfactory level of service. The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3.9-11 I 3.0 Environmental Analysis Cumulative Summer Weekday Plus Project To provide a comparison to the non -summer weekday operation, the cumulative summer weekday plus project A.M. and P.M. peak hour traffic volumes are illustrated in Figure 16 of Appendix E. Table I of Appendix E presents the cumulative summer weekday plus project level of service analysis. As shown in Table I, the following two locations are forecast operate with unsatisfactory levels of service in the cumulative summer weekday scenario: ■ Warner Avenue/Coast Highway (ICU of 1.03, LOS F, during the P.M. peak) ■ Seapoint Street/Coast Highway (ICU of 0.93, LOS E, during the P.M. peak hour) Future General Plan Plus Project Condition The future General Plan plus project conditions were modeled using the SARX 2.8 traffic model. As stated previously, project traffic in the downtown area was manually redistributed to account for the fact that the SARX 2.8 traffic model was not refined to provide accurate forecasts in the downtown area. Project Impacts Impact 3.9-1 The General Plan Build Out with Santa Ana River Bridges Plus Project Scenario could result in intersections and/or roadway segments operating at unsatisfactory levels of service. The General Plan with bridges plus project peak hour traffic volumes are illustrated in Figure 17 of Appendix E. Table J presents the General Plan with bridges plus project level of service analysis. As shown in Table J, the following locations are forecast to operate with unsatisfactory levels of service in the General Plan with bridges plus project scenario: ■ Warner Avenue/Coast Highway (ICU of 1.01, LOS F, during the P.M. peak) ■ Brookhurst Street/Coast Highway (ICU of 0.97 in the P.M. peak hour, LOS E) Review of Table J of Appendix E shows that while the intersections of Warner Avenue/Coast Highway and Brookhurst Street/Coast Highway will operate with unsatisfactory levels of service in this scenario, addition of project traffic does not result in any change to the ICU at this location. The deficiency is a background condition and no project -specific mitigation is required. At the intersection of Brookhurst Street/Coast Highway, the project will create an increase of 0.01 in the ICU in the P.M. peak hour. Mitigation Measure 3.9-1 requires restriping of the 3.942 City of Huntington Beach 3.9 Transportation and Circulation eastbound approach at the intersection of Brookhurst Street/ Coast Highway to provide a second eastbound left -turn lane. Implementation of this mitigation measure results in this intersection operating with an ICU of 0.82 in the P.M. peak hour and reduces this impact to a less -than -significant level. Figure 18 of Appendix E illustrates the General Plan with bridges plus project daily traffic (ADT) volumes and volume/capacity ratios. As shown in Figure 18, most of the study area roadway segments have v/c ratios less than 0.80 (v/c of less than 1.00 on CMP routes) with the following exceptions: ■ Pacific Coast Highway— North of Warner Avenue (v/c =1.04) ■ Pacific Coast Highway— all segments South of Beach Boulevard (v/c >_ 1.00) ' B Palm Avenue —Between Goldenwest Street and 7a' Street (v/c =1.11) ■ Main Street —Between Adams Avenue and Palm Avenue (v/c = 0.83) As described in Section 3.9.4 (Thresholds of Significance), a project is considered to have a significant adverse impact on a street segment when the result v/c exceeds 0.80 (1.00 on CMP routes), the project adds more than 0.03 to the v/c, and either intersection at segment termini exceeds LOS D. Since all segment termini intersections will be maintained at or below LOS D, impacts on street segments would be less than significant. Impact 3.9-2 The General Plan Build Out without Santa Ana River Bridges Plus ' Project Scenario could result in intersections and/or roadway segments operating at unsatisfactory levels of service. The General Plan without bridges plus project peak hour traffic volumes is illustrated in Figure 19 of Appendix E. Table K of Appendix E presents the General Plan without bridges plus project level of service analysis. As shown in Table K, the following two locations are forecast to operate with unsatisfactory levels of service in the General Plan without bridges plus project scenario: ' ■ Warner Avenue/Coast Highway (ICU of 1.01, LOS F, during the P.M. peak) ■ Brookhurst Street/Coast Highway (ICU of 0.96 in the P.M. peak hour, LOSE) Review of Table K of Appendix E shows that while the intersection of Warner Avenue/Coast Highway will operate with unsatisfactory levels of service in this scenario, addition of project traffic does not result in any change to the ICU at this location. The deficiency is a background condition, and no project specific mitigation is required. At the intersection of Brookhurst Street/Coast Highway, the project will create an increase of 0.01 in the ICU in the P.M. peak hour. However, restriping for a second eastbound left -turn lane, as 1 The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3.9-13 3.0 Environmental Analysis required by Mitigation Measure 3.9-1, would result in this intersection operating with an ICU of 0.84 in the P.M. peak hour, and would reduce this impact to a less -than -significant level. Figure 20 of Appendix E illustrates the General Plan without bridges plus project daily traffic (ADT) volumes and v/ c ratios. As shown in Figure 20, most of the study area roadways have v/c ratios less than 0.80 (v/c of less than 1.00 on CMP routes) with the following exceptions: ■ Pacific Coast Highway —North of Warner Avenue (v/c =1.04) e Pacific Coast Highway— all segments South of Beach Boulevard (v/c =1.00) • Palm Avenue —Between Goldenwest Street and 7th Street (v/ c =1.12) ■ Main Street —Between Adams Avenue and Palm Avenue (v/c = 0.83) Mitigation Measure 3.9-1 would, as described above, reduce impacts on the Brookhurst Street/Pacific Coast Highway intersection resulting in all segment termini intersections maintaining a LOS D or better. Therefore, impacts to roadway segments would be less than significant. Impact 3.9-3 The proposed project could affect access to and internal circulation on the project site. As illustrated in the site plan, access to the subterranean parking structure will be provided via a driveway off of Sixth Street. Access through the project and patron drop-off areas will be provided from Fifth Street. With the proposed project, Fifth Street will provide one 12-foot-wide travel lane in each direction with adjacent sidewalk area varying in width between 11 feet and 22 feet, 6 inches. Along Sixth Street, there is one 25-foot-wide travel lane in each direction. The sidewalk is varied, with the minimum width being 18 feet. These roadway and sidewalk widths meet or exceed the standards set forth in A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 2001. Furthermore, the wide sidewalks and enhanced paving patterns are consistent with the pedestrian orientation of the downtown area. The roadways in the vicinity of the project are laid out in a grid pattern. The proposed driveways shown on the project site plan are all designed to intersect the existing roadways at a 90 degree angle, thus providing maximum sight distance to the motorist. 3.9-14 City of Huntington Beach 3.9 Transportation and Circulation J J 7 d 1 I The heaviest volume of traffic exiting the parking structure onto Sixth Street is expected to occur during the P.M. peak hour: 281 vehicles. According to the Peak Hour Volume Warrant from the Caltrans Traffic Manual, a signal would be warranted at the driveway when the conflicting volume on Sixth Street reaches approximately 800 vehicles. As shown in the traffic volume figures, traffic volumes along Sixth Street are not expected to reach this volume in any scenario; thus, a traffic signal would not be warranted at the project driveway. To assess whether adequate circulation is provided for deliveries, the site plan was evaluated with turning vehicle templates. It appears that there is adequate space for a small semi- trailer (design vehicle WB-40) with a 40-foot turning radius, or a single unit truck (design vehicle SU-30) with a 60-foot turning radius, to safely maneuver through the service drive and the loading area located behind buildings D, E, and F. In order to ensure efficient circulation on site, delivery vehicles should be restricted to vehicles the size of or smaller than the WB-40 design vehicle, defined as a medium or small semi -trailer with a length of 50 feet. Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.9-3 would reduce this potential impact to a less -than -significant level. Additionally, during extraordinary events and traffic conditions (e.g., major holidays, peak summer season, etc.), vehicular traffic around the downtown area will be greater than during non -summer conditions. This may also be true for attraction to the proposed project and subterranean parking. Therefore, vehicular queuing, if left unmanaged, may present impacts to the local street system for those extraordinary occasions. However, Mitigation Measure 3.9-2 would require that the entrance to the parking structure be restriped so that two inbound lanes and one outbound lane are provided. This is to ensure that, during the peak inbound period, vehicles are not forced to merge into a single inbound lane and vehicle stacking will not occur on Sixth Street. Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce this potential impact to a less -than -significant level. Impact 3.9-4 The proposed project could provide inadequate parking. The Downtown Parking Master Plan (DPMP) regulates parking in the downtown and is contained in Section 4.2.14 of the Downtown Specific Plan. The DPMP references an analysis of parking and land uses prepared by Kaku Associates dated September 27, 2000. The Kaku analysis was used as the parking and land use analysis in the 2000 update of the DPMP. The Kaku analysis examines existing and future parking demand in the downtown area, defined as the area generally bounded by First Street on the east, Sixth Street on the west, Pacific 71 1 The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3.9-15 3.0 Environmental Ana Coast Highway on the south, and Acacia Avenue on the north. For purposes of the Kaku analysis, the downtown area was divided into three areas with sixteen subareas. Each subarea roughly encompasses a one or two block area. Briefly, the DPMP applied the shared parking methodology to existing and projected land uses in the downtown area. Shared parking accounts for the opportunity for a mix of land uses within one area to share the same parking supply without having to provide additional parking for each individual land use. This is due to variations in the peak hour of parking, and the multiple trip purposes that can be satisfied at a mixed -use project site. Hourly parking demand for land uses in the downtown area was determined by surveys of the downtown area. The peak hour of parking demand for the individual land uses within the area was then identified, and the opportunity to share parking, due to offsetting peak hours of parking demand, was determined. The DPMP forecasts that the build out of the downtown area will consist of 715,000 square feet of land use made up of restaurant, retail, office, and miscellaneous type uses. The peak parking demand analyzed in the Kaku analysis is forecast to occur on Friday evenings at 9:00 P.M., with a total demand of 1,406 spaces. It should be noted that, because the land uses in the downtown area will share parking, these 1,406 spaces do not need to be provided only by the businesses that will be operating at 9:00 P.M. on Friday evenings. Patrons present at 9:00 P.M. on Friday evenings will be able to utilize all the parking present in the downtown area, including parking at businesses that are closed, such as offices or retail establishments. As a result, the peak parking demand can still be satisfied even though each land use in the downtown area may not provide enough parking to meet its own parking demand. Once the peak parking demand of 1,406 spaces was determined, the Kaku analysis examined individual subareas to identify the potential level of development and parking supply of each undeveloped area. The Strand is located in what the DPMP identifies as Block A. Block A is bounded by Pacific Coast Highway, Sixth Street, Walnut Avenue, and Main Street. The DPMP established a maximum threshold of 295,660 square feet for all existing and proposed development on Block A. Appendix A of the Kaku analysis identifies the existing and proposed development for the downtown area, including a summary of the existing and buildout development of Block A, and for Block 104/105 (The Strand). The Strand proposes less overall square footage of development than is assumed for the site in the Kaku analysis. 3.9-16 City of Huntington Beach 1 1 3.9 Transportation and Circulation The Kaku analysis assumed that 417 parking spaces would be provided for all existing and proposed development on Block A. Furthermore, the shared parking concept determined that any new proposed development located within Block A on Block 104/105 would be considered fully parked if it provides at least 403 parking spaces. The 417 parking spaces on Block A were factored into the shared parking concept for the entire downtown area. Any development on Block A above the 295,660 square feet threshold identified in the Kaku analysis would be required to provide additional parking according to the shared parking ratios in the DPMP. The Strand project will not exceed the development threshold established in the Kaku analysis. According to the Kaku analysis, development of The Strand will result in the loss of 150 existing parking spaces. Parking for The Strand will be provided in a subterranean 397 space parking garage accessed from Sixth Street. Additional surface level parking will provide 6 spaces, for a total of 403 spaces. Therefore, the proposed project will replace the 150 spaces lost on a one -for -one basis and is considered fully parked according to the Kaku analysis and the DPMP. Although the project is considered fully parked, there are several measures available to ensure maximum utilization and efficiency of the proposed parking on site. Mitigation Measure 3.9-4 would require the applicant to develop a Parking Management Plan (PMP) to ensure that all tenants and employees park in designated areas, freeing up the most desirable parking for downtown patrons. Mitigation Measure 3.9-5 would require the applicant to provide valet and/or remote parking during special events and activities during the peak summer season to ensure maximum efficiency of the parking structure. Mitigation Measure 3.9-6 requires the applicant to develop an on -site signage program to clearly identify parking y opportunities, to direct vehicles to the subterranean parking structure, and to guide patrons to pedestrian access points and elevators within the project. Implementation of these mitigation measures in addition to the 403 parking spaces provided on site would reduce this potential impact to less than significant. 3.9.6 Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts are included in the project -specific impact discussion above. 1 The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3.9-17 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.9.7 Mitigation MM 3.9-1 Prior to issuance of an occupancy permit, the applicant shall restripe the eastbound approach to provide a second eastbound turn lane at the Brookhurst Street/Pacific Coast Highway intersection, subject to review and approval by the City Public Works Department. MM 3.9-2 Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall demonstrate the provision of two inbound lanes and one outbound lane for the proposed subterranean parking structure. MM 3.9-3 Delivery vehicles shall be restricted to vehicles the size of or smaller than a t medium or small semi -trailer with a length of 50 feet. MM 3.94 Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a parking management plan, consistent with the Downtown Parking Master Plan, for review and approval by the City Planning Department. MM 3.9-5 During ongoing operations of the project, the applicant shall provide valet and/or remote parking for special events and activities, and during peak summer season. MM 3.9-6 Prior to issuance of occupancy permits, the applicant shall develop an on -site signage program to clearly identify parking opportunities, to direct vehicles to the subterranean parking structure, and to guide patrons to pedestrian access points and elevators within the project. 3.9.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation Impacts to intersections roadway segments, project access, circulation, and parking impacts P � Y gm P l P g P are either less than significant or mitigated to a less -than -significant level. 1 3.9-18 City of Huntington Beach 1 4.0 ALTERNATIVES 4.1 INTRODUCTION Section 15126.6(a) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project or its location that could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project, but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant impacts of the project. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project; rather, it must consider a range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision -making and public participation. An EIR should also evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. Therefore, this chapter sets forth potential alternatives to the proposed project and evaluates them, as required by CEQA. Key provisions of the CEQA Guidelines relating to the alternatives analysis (Section 15126.6 et seq.) are summarized below: ■ The discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly. ■ The "no project" alternative shall be evaluated along with its impact. The ."no project" analysis shall discuss the existing conditions, as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project is not approved. ■ The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a "rule of reason"; therefore, the EIR must evaluate only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The alternatives shall be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. ■ For alternative locations, only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project need be considered for inclusion in the EIR. ■ An EIR need not consider an alternative whose effects cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose implementation is remote and speculative. 4.1.1 Rationale for Selecting Potentially Feasible Alternatives Since the CEQA Guidelines require that an EIR state why an alternative is being rejected, a preliminary rationale for rejecting an alternative is presented, where applicable, in this EIR. If the City ultimately rejects any, or all alternatives, the rationale for the rejection will be 1 The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 4-1 4.0 Alternatives presented in the findings that are required to be made before the City certifies the EIR and takes action on the project. The alternatives may include no project, a different type of project, modification of the proposed project, or suitable alternative project sites. However, the range of alternatives discussed in an EIR is governed by a "rule of reason" which CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f) defines as: set[ting] forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The alternatives shall be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. Of those alternatives, the EIR need examine in detail only the ones that the lead agency determines could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project. The range of feasible alternatives shall be selected and discussed in a manner to foster meaningful public participation and informed decision -making. Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and whether the project proponent could reasonably acquire, control, or otherwise have access to an alternative site. An EIR need not consider an alternative whose effects could not be reasonably identified, and whose implementation is remote or speculative. Those alternatives found to be infeasible are described in Section 4.2.1 of this document. For purposes of this analysis, the project alternatives are evaluated to determine the extent to which they attain the basic project objectives, while significantly lessening any significant effects of the project. The objectives for both the Applicant and the City of Huntington Beach are stated as follows: ® Applicant ■ Develop a commercial project that responds to market demand and is financially viable. ■ Provide adequate infrastructure to support the proposed commercial project. ■ Promote the development of a commercial product that conveys a high quality visual image and character. City of Huntington Beach ■ To add a hotel to the Downtown core area and increase the attractiveness of Downtown to the City's tourists and visitors, as well as lodging services for visiting family and friends of residents 4-2 City of Huntington Beach 1 P 4.0 Alternatives 11 U ■ To improve the perception of the Downtown and beach area as a destination for local residents as well as people from outside the area ■ To enhance the Downtown as a destination for quality retailers and restaurants. ■ To contribute to efforts to create an 18-hour Downtown, with visitors and residents remaining Downtown in the evening for shopping, dining, and entertainment ■ To provide for the highest and best use of previously under-utilized and currently unattractive properties ■ To assist in the implementation of the City's Redevelopment Plan and the Downtown Specific Plan 4.1.2 Less -Than -Significant and Significant But Mitigated Impacts of the Proposed Project The EIR has found the following potential adverse effects of the proposed project to be less than significant or mitigated to a less -than -significant level: Aesthetics ' ■ Effect on public views ■ Effect on the scenic vista from Pacific Coast Highway ■ Introduction of new sources of light and glare into the project vicinity ■ Shade/Shadow effects ® Air Quality ■ Site preparation and construction activities ■ Local air quality ■ Release of objectionable odors or hazardous contaminants ® Cultural Resources ' ■ Destruction of paleontological resources ■ Destruction of archeological resources ■ Historical degradation of El Don Liquors ' Geology and Hydrology ■ Seismically induced hazards, such as liquefaction ■ Use and excavation of soils I The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 4-3 4.0 Alternatives ■ Landsliding or erosion rate ■ Soil expansion hazards ■ Oil wells and contaminated soils ■ Water quality standards ■ Waste discharge requirements ■ Depletion of groundwater supplies ■ Alteration of existing drainage patterns ■ Flood hazards ® Land Use ■ Compliance with plans and policies Noise ■ Noise associated with site preparation and construction ■ On -site interior noise levels ■ On -site noise levels, including those associated with human activity and mechanical equipment ■ Off -site roadway noise levels Population and Housing ■ Demolition of one housing unit ■ Displacement of one resident ® Public Services and Utilities ■ Fire protection ■ Police protection ■ Solid Waste ■ Electricity ■ Natural Gas ■ Sewer/wastewater services ■ Water supply 4-4 City of Huntington Beach 1 4.0 Alternatives Transportation and Circulation ■ Intersection levels of service in cumulative, non -summer weekday scenario ■ Intersection levels of service in cumulative, summer weekday scenario ■ Vehicular Queuing ■ Parking ■ Stacking at parking structure ■ Access and Circulation ■ Roadway segment levels of service in General Plan Build -Out with Bridges scenario ■ Roadway segment levels of service in General Plan Build -Out without Bridges scenario ' 4.1.3 Significant Unavoidable Impacts of the Proposed Project The proposed project has been found to cause significant unavoidable impacts in the following areas: ' ® Aesthetics/Visual Quality ■ Vehicular headlights on neighboring residences ® Air Quality ■ Daily emissions generated during operation ® Cultural Resources ■ None ® Land Use ■ None ® Noise ■ Roadway noise levels on Main Street, from Sixth Street to Palm Avenue ® Population and Housing ■ None 1 The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 4-5 4.0 Alternatives Public Services and Utilities ■ None Transportation and Circulation ■ None 4.2 SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVES The alternatives were selected to identify ways to mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects identified above resulting from the proposed project. Some of the alternatives were ultimately found to be infeasible, as further described in Section 4.2.1 of this document; however, the following potentially feasible alternatives were analyzed: ■ No Project/No Development Alternative; ■ Reduced/ Revised Project Alternative (Hotel and commercial development on Block 105 only); and ■ Alternative Mix of Uses Alternative (Development of proposed commercial components on both blocks, substituting residential units for hotel rooms). In summary, the purpose of this section is to discuss feasible alternatives and to evaluate the ability of each alternative to reduce or avoid significant or adverse impacts. The reader is referred to the individual sections of the EIR and to the Executive Summary for a detailed discussion of the levels of significance in each issue area for the proposed project. 4.2.1 Alternatives Found to Be Infeasible ® Alternative Location Under this alternative, the hotel and commercial development would be relocated to another site in the downtown core. Similarity of the alternative site with downtown waterfront attraction qualities would be necessary to maintain the context within which the proposed structures would exist. However, no other suitable location exists in the downtown waterfront area (the five Blocks that compose District Three) that has not already been developed. Development in another part of the City would not contribute to the development and/or redevelopment of the downtown as a major destination, would not develop a hotel use in the downtown core to increase the area's attraction, and would not create an 18-hour Downtown for the people and retailers of the City, as well as visitors. 4-6 City of Huntington Beach 1 ■ 4.0 Alternatives Because, this alternative would not meet the basic objectives of the project and would not, therefore, meet the "rule .of reason" under CEQA, this alternative was eliminated from further consideration in this EIR. No Project/Reasonably Foreseeable Use Alternative ■ The consideration of this alternative is required by Section 15126.6(e)(3)(B) of the CEQA Guidelines and describes the use of the project site if the proposed project were not to occur, but a reasonably foreseeable use for the project site were to occur. However, for a number of reasons, no reasonably foreseeable use for Blocks 104 and 105 exists, other than the proposed project. First, the property is currently zoned for mixed -use vertical, visitor -serving development. As a full block development within District 3 (Downtown core), the maximum floor area ratio (FAR) allowed is 3.0 and the maximum building height allowed is 45 feet. Assuming build -out at the maximum allowable density, the reasonably foreseeable use would not substantially lessen environmental impacts. Furthermore, the City Redevelopment Agency owns the property and has entered into an agreement with CIM Group to develop the site at a density below that allowed by zoning. If an alternate use plan were to be implemented, the likely sponsor would be the City; however, the City has no other existing plans for the redevelopment of the project site and has received no proposals. ' Further, the current CIM/City plan is one of only three proposals received by the City since 1989 and social, and political constraints prevented both of the previous efforts. Therefore, this alternative would not be feasible, nor would it meet the "rule of reason" under CEQA. Consequently, this alternative was eliminated from further consideration in this EIR. 4.3 POTENTIALLY FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES 4.3.1 No Project/No Development Alternative ® Description ■ In addition to alternative development scenarios, Section 15126.6(e) of the CEQA Guidelines requires the analyses of a "no project" alternative. This "no project" analysis must discuss the existing condition, as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not to be approved; however, the No ■ Project/Reasonably Foreseeable Use Alternative is described above and was found to be infeasible. The No Project/No Development Alternative, analyzed here, represents the status ■ IThe Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 4-7 4.0 Alternatives I quo, or maintenance of the project site in its current state, consisting of vacant lots, parking lots, an abandoned oil facility, and a single -story commercial structure. The site would continue as an underutilized commercial site. Because the site would not be developed, any significant adverse environmental impacts directly or cumulatively associated with the proposed project would be avoided; however, no redevelopment of an underutilized site containing visually deteriorated parking lots and vacant lots would occur, little active maintenance would be undertaken, and the property would continue to deteriorate. Attainment of Project Objectives This alternative would not meet any of the project objectives listed above for either the Applicant or the Lead Agency. Impacts Aesthetics Under the No Project/No Build Alternative, the current aesthetic condition would not change. Although the site would remain deteriorated and underutilized, no visual elements incompatible with surrounding development would be introduced onto the project site. Additionally, public coastal views across the project site from Walnut Avenue and Sixth Street would be preserved and the full width of the public view corridor provided by Fifth Street would be maintained. This alternative would create no new, significant aesthetic impacts; however, considering the existing condition of the site, the overall aesthetic quality associated with this alternative is considered less than that of the proposed project. Nonetheless, aesthetic impacts of this alternative would be less severe overall than those associated with the proposed project. Air Quality Under the No Project/No Build Alternative, the same number of cars would continue to use the surface parking lots on Blocks 104 and 105, and vehicle trips associated with existing uses would continue. Additionally, construction, demolition, and operational traffic impacts would not occur, as no development would occur and no uses would change. Air quality would, therefore, remain the same as on the existing condition of the site and impacts would be reduced from those of the proposed project. 4-8 City of Huntington Beach 1 4.0 Alternatives Cultural Resources Because no development would occur, no grading or excavation would occur and no impacts to archaeological or paleontological resources would occur. Maintaining the project site in its current state would also prevent any compromise of the settings of the historic Helme- Worthy and El Don Liquors properties from being infringed upon by new, incompatible ' development. Therefore, this alternative would cause fewer impacts to cultural resources than the proposed project. 1 Geology and Hydrology The No Project/No Build Alternative would negate any dangers associated with development within a seismically active region. Impacts to water quality and storm drain capacity associated with the proposed project would also not occur under this alternative. Overall geology and hydrology impacts would be less severe than those anticipated under the proposed project. Land Use The No Project Alternative would create conflicts with General Plan Economic Development Element goals and policies, as this alternative would not expand the City's economic base, would not help to develop the downtown area as a commercial node, would not help to create a link between the beach and visitor -serving uses, and would not promote the downtown area as a destination. Additionally, the project would not implement the intent of the Downtown Specific Plan. Land use impacts would, therefore, be more severe than those anticipated under the proposed project. Noise This alternative would not result in any construction -related noise or change the existing operational noise levels on the site. Noise impacts would, therefore, be less sever than those anticipated under the proposed project. Population and Housing No development would occur, and demolition of the housing unit behind Papa Joe's Pizza, as well as the displacement of the resident, would not occur. The impact of this alternative would be less severe than under the proposed project. I The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 4-9 4.0 Alternatives Public Services and Utilities No utility infrastructure would be required to be built, nor would any increased demands for public services or utilities occur under this alternative. Because no new development would occur, and no additional demand for public services would be created, impacts to public services and utilities would not occur under this alternative. Transportation and Circulation Because no new construction would occur and no new uses would be developed under this alternative, traffic and circulation patterns would not change from the existing condition. Therefore, no impacts would occur, and this alternative would result in less severe impacts than the proposed project. 4.3.2 Reduced/Revised Project Alternative Description This alternative describes a proposed development at a reduced density, in order to reduce the traffic generation of the project, while allowing development of the proposed 152-room hotel and 49,690 square feet of restaurant and retail uses as proposed by the project for Block 105. This alternative would also include one level of subterranean parking on Block 104 along with a three-story parking structure, rather than the 56,385 square feet of restaurant, retail, and office uses that the proposed project would develop. The area of the development footprint of this alternative would remain identical to the proposed project, however no development would occur in the footprint of the proposed Building C. This space would be developed as an open space amenity. Additionally, this alternative would provide 403 total parking spaces. The development would be accessible through a parking structure entrance on Fifth Street. ® Attainment of Project Objectives This alternative would achieve several of the project objectives identified by the Applicant and the City: it allows the Applicant to create a mixed -use, visitor -serving product with adequate infrastructure to support the project and could constitute a commercial product of high -quality visual character. This alternative would accomplish City objectives of developing a hotel in the Downtown core area and assisting in the implementation of the City's Redevelopment Plan and Downtown Specific Plan. However, it would not fully meet 4-10 City of Huntington Beach 4.0 Alternatives project objectives of providing the highest and best use of previously underutilized and currently unattractive properties with full redevelopment of only Block 105. It would contribute to efforts to create an 18-hour Downtown, but would not meet the Applicant's objective of providing a financially viable commercial project. Impacts Aesthetics Under the Reduced/Revised Project Alternative, redevelopment of Block 105 would increase the visual quality of the project site by eliminating vacant lots and deteriorating surface parking lots and would eliminate the impact of vehicular headlights upon the residences on the east side of Sixth Street. The lack of sufficient setbacks would exist as in the proposed project plans and the narrowing of the Fifth Street right-of-way would occur; however, Special Permits would be requested for this alternative. However, the introduction of a parking structure to Block 104 could result in the introduction of an incompatible visual element into the project vicinity. Nonetheless, aesthetic impacts would generally be less severe than the proposed project. Air Quality Under the Reduced/Revised Alternative, the current site would be developed to the same site coverage but not the same intensity of commercial development as the proposed project. Air Quality impacts associates with demolition/ site preparation activities would be the same as under the proposed project; however, fewer operational trips by consumers and/or delivery trucks would occur, and air quality impacts would be less severe than those anticipated under the proposed project. Cultural Resources Cultural resources impacts under this alternative would be reduced from those of the proposed project. Because excavation would still be required for subterranean parking and utilities improvements, potentially significant impacts could still occur with respect to paleontological and archeological resources; however, the extent of excavation would be reduced. Additionally, buildings D, E, F, and G would still have the potential to affect the historical setting of the Helme-Worthy property. However, the provision of an open space amenity in the footprint of proposed project Building C would provide a buffer that would avoid impacts to the setting of the building containing El Don Liquors, and the parking The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 4-11 4.0 Alternatives structure, which would occupy the footprint of proposed project Buildings A and B, as well as the intervening plaza, would also be set sufficiently back from El Don Liquors to avoid affecting the setting of that structure. Impacts to cultural resources would, under this alternative, be less severe than those anticipated under the proposed project. Geology and Hydrology Although the ultimate commercial development potential would be reduced, impacts would be similar to those described for the proposed project, because the same amount of impermeable surface area would be created under this alternative as under the proposed project. New development affecting water quality would occur, and similar to the proposed project, this development would be governed by existing regulations, including the NPDES process. As with the proposed project, implementation of structural and non-structural best management practices (BMPs) described for the proposed project would ensure that impacts would remain less than significant. Impacts related to development on potentially unstable soils and long-term exposure of persons and property to seismic risks, as well as risks associated with abandoned oil wells and associated soils, would still result and would be identical to the risks posed by the proposed project. Similar to the proposed project, impacts would be reduced to less than significant by mitigation measures described for the proposed project. Overall, geology and hydrology impacts would be similar to those of the proposed project. Land Use The proposed project would not result in conflicts with the City's General Plan or with the Downtown Specific Plan. Land use impacts would be identical to the proposed project. Noise Because the ultimate development potential would be reduced under this alternative, operational vehicle trips would be reduced, and roadway noise impacts would be less intense than those described for the proposed project. A level of development similar to the proposed project would occur, resulting in short-term exposure of persons to the same level and duration of demolition, sire preparation, and construction noise. Similar to the proposed project, construction -related impacts would remain significant, despite implementation of mitigation measures described for the proposed project, as limiting the amount of construction equipment at the project site is not considered feasible. However, on -site noise 4-12 City of Huntington Beach 4.0 Alternatives impacts related to the reduced commercial development of this alternative would be less than that of the proposed project, with fewer visitors arriving and departing from the project site than with the commercial intensity of the proposed project. Overall, noise impacts would be less intense under this alternative than under the proposed project. Population and Housing tThis alternative, like the proposed project, would result in the demolition of one housing unit and would displace one resident. This impact would be mitigated by the same standard conditions as the proposed project, and impacts would be identical. Public Services and Utilities Although the commercial development intensity would be reduced, impacts would be similar to those described for the proposed project. Similar to the proposed project, the implementation of this alternative would likely cause police workload to increase and would affect police service levels. However, the overall demands for police and fire protection, lifeguard services, water supply, and sewer and landfill capacity under this alternative would be less severe than under the proposed project because less gross square footage of development would result, and fewer visitors would be attracted or accommodated. ' Transportation and Circulation This alternative would develop substantially less commercial square footage, which would reduce traffic generation. Therefore, traffic impacts would be reduced under this alternative. 4.3.3 Alternative Mix of Uses Description This alternative describes an alternative mix of uses in a building configuration similar to the proposed project, but which would generate less traffic. Under this alternative, restaurant, retail, and office uses would be developed in proposed project Buildings A, B, C, D, E, and F. Proposed project Building G, however, would be developed with 89 multi -family residential ' dwelling units instead of 152 hotel rooms. The 89 dwelling units is the maximum amount permitted for a development the size of the proposed project. Each unit is assumed to be an average of 1,000 square feet, yielding a total of 89,000 square feet of uses in proposed project Building G, a 31,370-square-foot reduction from the proposed 120,170-square-foot hotel The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 4-13 0 4.0 Alternatives under the proposed project. This "excess" square footage would, under this alternative, be discarded in favor of providing upper -story setbacks for levels three and four of proposed project Building G. Aside from providing these upper -story setbacks, the physical development characteristics of this alternative would be identical to those of the proposed project, including the provision of 397 subterranean parking spaces and six surface parking spaces. Attainment of Project Objectives This alternative would achieve some of the project objectives identified by the Applicant and the City. Specifically, it allows the Applicant to create a residential/commercial product, as well as adequate infrastructure to support the project. This alternative creates a residential/commercial development that is compatible with existing residential and commercial land uses adjacent to the project and would provide the highest and best use of previously underutilized and currently unattractive property. However, this alternative would not meet the basic project objectives of adding a hotel to the Downtown core area and, in turn, of improving the perception of the Downtown and beach area as a destination for local residents, as well as people from outside the area. ® Impacts Aesthetics As with the proposed project this alternative would have a beneficial impact upon the current aesthetic qualities of unattractive, underutilized vacant uses and parking lots that currently characterize Blocks 104 and 105, by replacing existing, deteriorating urban uses with a mix of commercial and residential uses. Although the property would generally restrict public coastal views through the project site, this impact would be mitigated by the provision of upper level setbacks, pursuant to the Downtown Specific Plan, which would reduce the feeling of increased intensity. The provision of these setbacks would also serve as a visual buffer for, and would provide visual consistency with, surrounding, smaller -scale residential and commercial uses. As with the proposed project, this alternative would infringe upon public views of the coast from the Fifth Street right-of-way, but would do so according to the allowed limits specified in the Downtown Specific Plan. Increased nighttime lighting levels would still occur, as would impacts of vehicular headlights upon neighboring residences on Sixth Street. Overall, the aesthetic impacts of this alternative are slightly less severe than those of the proposed project. 4-14 City of Huntington Beach 4.0 Alternatives Air Quality y Under this alternative, the current site would be developed to a lower overall intensity than the proposed project. Restaurant, retail and office development intensity is identical to the proposed project, and the same number of vehicle trips by consumers and/or deliveries would be expected to occur. Construction activities would also be similar in scope, and air quality impacts associated with demolition, site preparation, construction, and construction worker and truck trips would not be substantially reduced from those expected from the proposed project. However, residential development, assuming primarily low-rise apartments, generates 6.59 daily trips per unit versus hotel development, which generates 8.23 daily trips per unit, and 89 dwelling units would generate a total of 587 daily trips, versus 1,251 daily trips anticipated from a 152-room hotel development. This residential generation of approximately half the vehicle trips of the hotel results in lower -intensity operational air quality impacts under this alternative than under the proposed project. Therefore, this alternative would result in less severe impacts to air quality than the proposed project. Cultural Resources Because grading and excavation for parking, foundations and infrastructure improvements Sr' g P g� � P would be identical to the requirements of the proposed project, potential impacts to paleontological and archaeological resources would also be identical to those anticipated under the proposed project. As with the proposed project, the potentially significant impact to the historic setting of the building containing El Don Liquors could be mitigated to a less - than -significant level with the incorporation of appropriate building facade treatments. Similarly„ potential impacts to the historic setting of the Helme-Worthy property would still occur, but would be mitigated under this alternative by the provision of setbacks. Overall impacts to cultural resources under this alternative would be similar to those under the proposed project. Geology and Hydrology With the same development footprint and grading and excavation requirements as the proposed project, impacts to geology and 'hydrology under this alternative would be ' identical to those described for the proposed project. New development that would increase the impermeable surface area on the site, which would affect water quality, would still occur and similar to the proposed project, this development would be governed by existing 1 The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 4-15 4.0 Alternatives 11 regulations, including the NPDES process. Implementation of structural and non-structural best management practices (BMPs) described for the proposed project would ensure that impacts would remain less than significant. Additional impacts related to development on potentially unstable soils and long-term exposure of persons and property to seismic risks would still result. Similar to the proposed project, impacts would be reduced to less than significant by mitigation measures described for the proposed project. Property rehabilitation would occur with updated seismic safety of newly constructed buildings. Potential impacts resulting from abandoned oil wells and associated soils hazards would be reduced to less -than -significant level by mitigation measures described for the proposed project. Impacts under this alternative would be similar to those under the proposed project. Land Use This alternative would, like the proposed project, be consistent with applicable goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan. Impacts would be similar to the proposed project. Noise Construction activities, which would result in short-term exposure of persons to construction noise, would still occur under this alternative, and would be substantially similar to the impact anticipated under the proposed project. As with the proposed project, such impacts would be significant and unavoidable despite implementation of mitigation measures described for the proposed project, as limiting the amount of construction equipment at the project site is not considered feasible. As described above, under Air Quality, less project - generated traffic would be anticipated under this alternative than under the proposed project, and operational traffic noise impacts would be reduced from those anticipated from the proposed project. However, multi -family residential uses are considered to be higher noise generators than hotel uses, and on -site noise levels under this alternative would be greater than those anticipated under the proposed project. Overall, noise impacts under this alternative would be less severe than those under the proposed project. Population and Housing This alternative, like the proposed project, would result in the demolition of one housing unit and would displace one resident. This impact would be mitigated by the same standard conditions as the proposed project, and impacts would be identical. 4-16 City of Huntington Beach t4.0 Alternatives Public Services and Utilities With the same ultimate gross square footage development potential as the proposed project, impacts would be similar to those described for the proposed project. Additional demands ' on public services and utilities from development activities could still occur. Similar to the proposed project, the implementation of this alternative would likely cause daytime police ' service levels to drop below acceptable ratios, as police workload would increase. Therefore, this impact is considered potentially significant. In addition, overall demands for services ' and utilities would be the same as under the proposed project because similar gross square footage of development would result. Thus, the magnitude of the impacts would be the same as described for the proposed project. Transportation and Circulation Although construction -related traffic impacts under this alternative would be nearly identical to those anticipated under the proposed, project, operational traffic impacts would be substantially reduced under this alternative. Restaurant, retail, and office uses under this alternative would be identical to those anticipated under the proposed project. However, residential development, assuming primarily low-rise apartments, generates 6.59 daily trips per unit versus hotel development, which generates 8.23 daily trips per unit, and 89 dwelling units would generate a total of 587 daily trips, versus 1,251 daily trips anticipated from a 152- room hotel development. This residential generation of approximately half the vehicle trips of the hotel results in lower -intensity operational traffic impacts under this alternative than under the proposed project. Therefore, this alternative would result in less severe traffic impacts overall, compared to the proposed project. 4.4 SUMMARY OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES A summary of the three feasible project alternatives, and a comparison of environmental impacts relative to the proposed project, is presented in Table 4.5-1. 4.5 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE According to the above analysis, the No Project/No Build Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative. However, according to Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, if the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project alternative, the EIR shall also ® identify the environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 4-17 I 4.0 Alternatives Table 4.5-1 Summary of Project Alternatives IssueAm No Pru ew No Bidld Reduw4lRawd Project AlternntiveMix of Uses Aesthetics -1 -1 -1 Air Quality -1 -1 -1 Cultural Resources -1 -1 0 Geology and Hydrology -1 0 0 Land Use +1 0 0 Noise -1 -1 -1 Population and Housing -1 0 0 Public Services and Utilities -1 -1 0 Transportation and Traffic -1 -1 -1 Total -8 -6 -4 +1: Impacts are greater than those created by the proposed project -1: Impacts are less than those created by the proposed project 0: Impacts are the same as those created by the proposed project Therefore, the Reduced/Revised Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative. Impacts to aesthetics, air quality, cultural resources, noise, public service and utilities, and transportation and traffic associated with this alternative would, to varying degrees, be less severe than those impacts associated with the proposed project. However, as stated above, this alternative would not satisfy several of the basic objectives of the proposed project. The Reduced/Revised Project Alternative would not make optimal use of available waterfront land with commercial development and would not be economically feasible. Further, this does not meet the City objective of making highest and best use of the property and does not fully implement the Downtown Specific Plan. 4-18 City of Huntington Beach 1 N 1 L 5.0 LONG-TERM IMPLICATIONS 5.1 GROWTH -INDUCING IMPACTS Section 15126.2(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that this section discuss the ways in which the proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. According to the Section 6.0 of the General Plan EIR (City 1995), incorporated herein by reference, implementation of the General Plan would induce growth, particularly in the associated removal of impediments to growth (e.g., provision of new access to an area) and increased potential for economic expansion. The proposed project, itself, could result in the following types of growth -inducing impacts: ■ Extension of public facilities, such as roads, sewers and water ■ Generation of employment opportunities, including short-term, construction employment opportunities 1 5.1.1 Extension of Public Facilities While the project proposes sewer and water improvements, such project -related extension 1 has generally been anticipated by the General Plan EIR, and in any case would be provided by the applicant. The project site is zoned for more intense development than that proposed 1 by the project, and as such, does not create any growth -inducing impacts due to extension of public facilities, including electricity and natural gas, for service beyond the levels 1 envisioned by the City Department of Public Works or the respective service providers, who typically base demand projections on General Plans and also continually update projections 1 as development occurs. 5.1.2 Employment Generation 1 Development of the proposed project would generate some short-term, construction -related 1 employment opportunities. However, growth -inducing impacts due to employment generation would not exceed those impacts already fully discussed in the General Plan EIR. 1 Furthermore, the construction phases of the project would require a limited labor force due to the relatively short-term nature of the proposed construction schedule. Also, given the supply of construction workers in the local work force, it is likely that these workers would 1 1 The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 5-1 5.0 Long -Term Implications S P come from within the Huntington Beach area. Therefore, the proposed project would not be considered growth -inducing from a short-term employment perspective, nor would it provide long-term employment opportunities increasing local demand for housing, as long- term employees are also anticipated to come from within the Huntington Beach area. 1 5.2 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES Section 15126.2(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires a discussion of any significant irreversible environmental changes that the proposed project would cause. Specifically. Section 15126.2(c) states: Uses of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the project may be irreversible since a large commitment of such resources makes removal or nonuse thereafter unlikely. Primary impacts, and particularly, secondary impacts (such as highway improvement which provides access to a previously inaccessible area) generally commit future generations to similar uses. Also, irreversible damage can result from environmental accidents associated with the project. Irretrievable commitments of resources should be evaluated to assure that such current consumption is justified. The construction and implementation of the proposed project will entail the commitment of energy and human resources. This commitment of energy, personnel, and building materials will be commensurate with that of other residential development projects of similar magnitude. Manpower will also be committed for the construction of buildings and the upgrading and maintenance of public facilities necessary to support the new development. On -going maintenance and operation of the project will entail a further commitment of energy resources in the form of petroleum products (diesel fuel and gasoline), natural gas, and electricity. Long-term impacts would also result- from an increase in vehicular traffic, and the associated air pollutant and noise emissions. This commitment of energy resources will be a long-term obligation in view of the fact that, practically speaking, it is impossible to return the land to its original condition once it has been developed. In summary, implementation of the proposed project would involve the following irreversible environmental changes to existing on -site natural resources: ■ Commitment of energy and water resources as a result of the operation and maintenance of the proposed development ■ Alteration of the existing topographic character of the site However, the significant irreversible environmental changes associated with build -out of this site, at the maximum allowed density,, was anticipated in the General Plan EIR. Because the proposed project envisions development at a reduced density, in comparison to the density 5-2 City of Huntington Beach 5.0 Long -Term Implications 0 r F I H allowed by zoning, the significant irreversible environmental changes are expected to be less than those disclosed in the General Plan EIR. 5.3 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACT'S According to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(b), Significant Environmental Effects Which Cannot Be Avoided if the Proposed Project is Implemented. Describe any significant impacts, including those which can be mitigated but not reduced to a level of insignificance. Where there are impacts that cannot be alleviated without imposing an alternative design, their implications and the reasons why the project is being proposed, notwithstanding their effect, should be described. As described in Section 1.2 of this document, environmental impacts associated with implementation of a project may not always be mitigated to a level considered less than significant. In such cases, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be prepared prior to approval of the project, and in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091 and 15093. Because implementation of the proposed project would create several significant, unavoidable impacts, as further described, a 'Statement of Overriding Considerations is required to describe the specific reasons for approving the project, based on information contained within the Final EIR, as well as any other information in the public record. The following are significant, unavoidable adverse impacts that would result from project implementation. A detailed discussion of each of the impacts can be found in Section 3, (Environmental Impact Analysis) of this document. ® Aesthetics/Visual Quality ® Vehicular headlights on neighboring residences ® Air Quality ■ Daily emissions generated during operation ® Noise ■ Roadway.noise levels on Main Street, from Sixth Street to Palm Avenue 1 The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 5-3 6.0 PERSONS CONSULTED AND EIR PREPARERS The following organizations and persons preparation of this EIR: were contacted for information during the Table 5.3-1 Organizations and Persons Consulted Name AgenciyY7►ga . tion Chuck Burny, Division Chief/Fire Marshall Huntington Beach Fire Department Tim Greaves, Deputy Fire Marshall Huntington Beach Fire Department Duane Olson, Division Chief of Operations Huntington Beach Fire Department Shawna Krone -Schmidt Huntington Beach Police Department ' Kyle Lindo, Marine Safety Lieutenant Huntington Beach Marine Safety Division Jerry Maffat, Vice President Rainbow Disposal Company Sandy Jacobs Rainbow Disposal Company Lee Dickerhoof, Technical Specialist Southern California Edison Spring Bowles, Design Service Representative Southern California Edison Jeffrey Gilbert, Customer Service Planner Southern California Edison Kris Keas Southern California Gas Company 6.1 LIST OF EIR PREPARERS EIP Associates prepared this EIR under contract to the City of Huntington Beach. Because no one individual can be an expert in all of the environmental analysis presented in this EIR, an interdisciplinary team, consisting of technicians and experts in various issue areas, was 1 required to prepare and complete this study. Assisting EIP Associates in this task were Greenwood and Associates, LSA Associates, Urban Crossroads, City of Huntington Beach staff members, and the Project Applicant. The following specific organizations, agencies, and persons were directly involved in the preparation of this EIR. u 1 The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 6-1 6.0 Persons Consulted and EIR Preparers Table 6.1-1 List of EIR Preparers Name RoWFide Lead Agency: City of Huntington Beach Herb Fauland Principal Planner Jane James Senior Planner Terri Elliott Principal Civil Engineer Tom Rulla Principal Civil Engineer Bob Righetti Public Works Bob Stachelski Transportation Manager Debbie Debow Associate Civil Engineer Gus Duran Housing and Redevelopment Manager EIR Consultant: EIP Associates Michael Brown Project Supervisor Neill Brower Project Manager Kelsey Bennett Environmental Planner Scott Wirtz Environmental Planner Harriet Lai Ross Associate Manager Terrance Wong Environmental Planner EIR Subconsultant: Greenwood Associates John Foster Principal Roberta Greenwood Principal Dana Slawson Architectural Historian Portia Lee Architectural Historian EIR Subconsultant: LSA Associates Tony Petros Principal Meghan Macias Transportation Planner Carleton Waters EIR Subconsultant: Urban Crossroads Senior Associate Project Applicant: CIM Group LLC John Given Principal David Martin Project Manager 6-2 City of Huntington Beach 1 I 7.0 REFERENCES Community History Project. 1981. Huntington Beach: An Oral History of the Early Development of a Southern California Beach Community. Oral History Program, California State University, Fullerton. Huntington Beach, City of (City). 1994. Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. Huntington Beach, City of (City). 1995. General Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report. State Clearinghouse No. 94091018. Prepared by Envicom Corporation. Huntington Beach, City of (City). 1989. Main Pier Phase II and Main Street 100 Block Draft Environmental Impact Report. State Clearinghouse No. 89091304. Prepared by STA Planning Incorporated. Huntington Beach, City of (City). 1991. Main Pier Phase II and Main Street 100 Block Environmental Impact Report Addendum/Response to Coments. State Clearinghouse No. 89091304. Prepared by STA Planning Incorporated. 1 City f Huntington Beach, . 1979. "The Ranch" Planned Residential Development Draft g t3' o(City). t3') op ' Environmental Impact Report. Prepared by Environmental Resources Group. Huntington Beach, City of (City). 1996. General Plan. Prepared by Envicom Corporation. May 13. Huntington Beach, City of (City). 1990. Municipal Code. Huntington Beach, City of (City). 1999. Northam Ranch House Draft Environmental Impact Report. State Clearinghouse No. 99081123. Prepared by EIP Associates. Huntington Beach, City of (City). 1999. Waterfront Development Project Section 108 Loan Guarantee Draft Environmental Assessment. Prepared by EIP Associates. Huntington Beach, City of (City). 1996. Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report. State Clearinghouse No. 96041075. Prepared by LSA Associates. Huntington Beach, City of (City). 1995. Downtown Specific Plan. Huntington Beach, City of (City). 1983. Downtown Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement. Huntington Beach, City of (City). 1988. Waterfront Ocean Grand Resort Environmental Impact ' Report. Prepared by LSA Associates. The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 7-1 n 7.0 References Huntington Beach, City of(City). 1998. Final Environmental Impact Report and Responses to Comments: Crest Viezv School Site, City of Huntington Beach. State Clearinghouse No. 97081046. Prepared by Planning Consultants Research. Huntington Beach, City of (City). 1998. Waterfront Ocean Grand Resort Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. Prepared by EIP Associates. Huntington Beach, City of (City). 1998. Waterfront Ocean Grand Resort Transportation and Circulation Analysis. Prepared by LSA Associates. Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency. 2002. Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency Status of Affordable Housing Production & Replacement Obligations As of May 2002. Thirtieth Street Architects, Inc. 1986. Historic Resources Survey Report, City of Huntington Beach. Prepared for the City of Huntington Beach. Thirtieth Street Architects, Inc., Newport Beach. 7-2 City of Huntington Beach 1