Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCIM/Huntington, LLC - aka CIM Group, LLC - 2002-10-21 (12)flu Ut , mo IBM N'l RZ Prepared for Prepared by: ^""""`^,"" The City ofHuntington Beach E|PAssoates 2000 Main Street 12301 Wilshire Boulevard, SUit843O Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Los Angeles, CA 90025 THE STRAND AT DOWNTOWN HUNTINGTON BEACH Prepared for City of Huntington Beach Prepared by EIP Associates I Contents E Appendices Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D Appendix E Appendix F Appendix G Tables Table S-1 Table 2.6-1 Table 3.2-1 Table 3.2-2 Table 3.2-3 Table 3.2-4 Table 3.2-5 Table 3.2-6 Table 3.6-1 Table 3.6-2 Table 3.6-3 Table 3.6-4 Table 3.6-5 Table 3.6-6 Table 3.6-7 Table 3.6-8 Table 3.8-1 Table 3.8-2 Table 3.8-3 Table 3.8-4 Table 3.8-5 Table 4.5-1 Table 5.3-1 Table 6.1-1 Initial Study/Notice of Preparation and Scoping CommE Air Quality Data Cultural Resources Technical Report Geology, Hydrology, and Water Quality Technical Repo Noise Modeling Data Utilities Technical Reports Traffic Report Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures........................................................................ xiv Cumulative Projects List.................................................................. 2-9 Summary of Ambient Air Quality in the Project Vicinity ....... 3.2-3 Existing Localized Carbon Monoxide Concentrations ............ 3.2-5 Estimated Daily Construction Emissions ................................ 3.2-11 Project Daily Operational Emissions ........................................ 3.2-12 Future Cumulative With. Project Localized Carbon Monoxide Concentrations............................................3.2-13 Project Daily Operational Emissions ........................................ 3.2-15 Typical Sound Levels Measured in the Environment ..... ......... 3.6-2 Existing On -Site Noise Levels ...................................................... 3.6-4 Existing Off -Site Noise Levels ..................................................... 3.6-5 Typical Outdoor Construction Noise Levels...........................3.6-10 Future On -Site Noise Levels ...................................................... 3.6-11 Future Off -Site Noise Levels ...................................................... 3.6-12 Cumulative Project Noise Levels (With River Crossings) ..... 3.6-14 Cumulative Project Noise Levels (Without River Crossings) .............:...........................3.6-16 Proposed Solid Waste Demand ................................................. 3.8-23 Proposed Electricity Demand .................................................... 3.8-24 Proposed Natural Gas Demand ................................................ 3.8-25 Sewer/ Wastewater Generation Rates ...................................... 3.8-27 Sewer/ Wastewater Sewer Loads ...............:.............................. 3.8-27 Summary of Project Alternatives ................................................. 4-18 Organizations and Persons Consulted .......................................... 6-1 Listof EIR Preparers........................................................................ 6-2 The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach V iY M M m ® m ® M ® ® = M = = F� APPENDIX A INITIAL STUDY/NOTICE OF PREPARATION AND SCOPING COMMENTS !7 F L L 11 S�/is-/off I I i PUBLIC NOTICE PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF THE NOTIC OF PREPARATION AND NOTICE OF A PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING FOR PREPARATION OF A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR THE PROPOSED BLOCK 104/105 REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT (THE STRAND AT DOWNTOWN HUNTINGTON BEACH) SCOPING MEETING Date and Time: Wednesday, August 29, 2001 6:30 — 8:30 p.m. Location: Lake Park Clubhouse West side of Lake Street between 12`h and 11`h Avenue Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Purpose: TO accept Verbal and written comments related to the scope of environmental issues to be analyzed within the Draft EIR. NOTICE OF PREPARATION Background: The firm of EIP Associates, under contract to the City of Huntington Beach, has prepared a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Draft EIR for the proposed redevelopment of a portion of Blocks 104/015 in Downtown Huntington Beach. The project has been revised and reduced I scale since the previous Notice of Preparation was issued on June 1, 2000. The Notice of Preparation includes a detailed project description and an Initial Study/Environmental Assessment of the potential environmental impacts that will be addressed in the draft Subsequent EIR. This Scoping Meeting is intended to introduce the revised project to the community as well as provide an opportunity for the public to contribute comments on the Notice of Preparation and the issues that need to be addressed in the EIR. The document described above may be reviewed prior to the public Scoping Meeting at the location identified below. Project Description: The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach is a proposal to redevelop a portion the 2.97-acre Block 104 and 105 site, bounded by the alley between Main Street and Fifth Street, Pacific Coast Highway, Sixth Street, and Walnut Avenue. The revised two -block project area does not include the buildings fronting on Main Street, the El Don Liquor Store building, Oceanview Promenade, or the Worthy property. Proposed development includes retail commercial, entertainment oriented retail, restaurants, office space, and a 149-room hotel. Other project components include subterranean parking garage and surface level parking accessed from Fifth Street. Implementation of the proposed project requires demolition of the existing structures on -site, including existing residences. The Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Initial Study documents will be available for public review and comment for 30 days, at the addresses identified on the reverse side of this notice, beginning Thursday, August 16, 2001 through Monday, September 14, 2001. Written comments on the NOP must be submitted to Ms. Jane James, Huntington Beach Planning Department by 5:00 p.m. at the address below: For further information, please contact: Ms. Jane James, Associate Planner City of Huntington Beach Planning Dept. 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 (714)536-5271 G:Uames110411051N0P Notice Notice of Preparation and Initial Study documents are available for review at the following locations: City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk 2000 Main Street, 2"d Floor Huntington Beach CA 92648 (714)536-5227 Central Library 7111 Talbert Avenue Huntington Beach CA 92648 (714) 842-4481 -q ss We"Wr Pew (.tvxwY Poem cow poor f9SW W 9%4U A3Me City of Huntington Beach Planning Department 2000 Main Street, 3�d Floor Huntington Beach CA 92648 (714)536-5271 PACIMC COAST- MIOM WAY MrfL4& GAJames1104/1051N0P Notice ' Notice of Preparation ' State Clearinghouse 1400 Tenth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 445-0613 Subject: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: Consulting Firm (if applicable): Agency Name: City of Huntington Beach Firm Name: EIP Associates Street Address: 2000 Main Street Street Address: 11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1440 City/State/Zip: Huntington Beach, CA 92648 City/State/Zip: Los Angeles, CA 90025 1 Contact: Jane James, Associate Planner Contact: Terri S. Vitar, Regional Manager ' The City of Huntington Beach will be the Lead Agency and will prepare an environmental impact report (EIR) for the project identified below. We need to know the views of your agency as to the scope and content of the environmental impact information which will be included in the EIR. The document to be prepared by the City of Huntington Beach should include any information necessary for public agencies to meet any statutory responsibilities related to the proposed project. The EIR prepared by the City of Huntington Beach will attempt to provide .sufficient environmental analysis to address any potential permits or other approvals necessary to implement the project. A public Scoping Meeting will be held to solicit comments regarding the scope of environmental review for this project on Wednesday August 29, 2001 from 6:30 to 8:30 PM. The meeting will be held at the Lake Park Clubhouse on the west side of Lake Street, between 12,h and 1 Ph Avenue. The project description, location,, and the potential environmental effects are contained in the attached materials. A copy of the Initial Study (0 is ❑ is not) attached. Due to the time limits mandated by State law, your response must be sent at the earliest possible. date but not ' later than 30 days after receipt of this notice. Please send your response to Jane James, Associate Planner, at the address shown above. Agency responses to ' this NOP should include the name, address, and phone number of the person who will serve as the primary point of contact for this project within the commenting agency. Project Title: Block 104/105 Redevelopment Project Project Location: City of Huntington Beach, County of Orange Project Description: The project proposes to redevelop the 6.31-acre (2.97-acre developable) Block 104/105 site, which is currently ' occupied by retail, commercial, office, and residential uses, with 231,880 leasable square feet of visitor -oriented commercial uses and office uses. Proposed uses include retail commercial, entertainment oriented retail, restaurants, and a 149 room hotel. Implementation of the proposed project requires demolition, e existing structures on -site, including existing residences. �((} Date: August 15, 2001 ■ Title: Associate lann� Telephone: (714p 596-5596 I Reference: California Code of Regulations, Title 14 (CEQA Guidelines) Sections 15082(a), 15103, 15375. 1 I. II. Project Description PROJECT LOCATION The Block 1041105 project site is bounded on the north by Sixth Street, on the south by Main Street, on the west by Pacific Coast Highway (State Route 1), and on the east by Walnut Avenue in the City of Huntington Beach. Fifth Street, an 80-foot right-of-way, bisects the project site from Walnut Avenue to Pacific Coast Highway. EXISTING CONDITIONS Existing on site uses include a row of one- and two-story commercial buildings, which house various retail and restaurant uses and some second -story residential uses. The buildings front Main Street and extend from the comer of Walnut Avenue and Main Street to the edge of the Oceanview Promenade. Two historic structures lie on the Worthy property, which is located within Block 105, but outside of the project site. These two structures would not be removed. The project site is located within the City's downtown core, and surrounding uses are primarily commercial, with the exception of the Pacific Ocean across Pacific Coast Highway to the Southwest. PROJECT PROPOSAL The project proposes to redevelop the Block 104/105 site with 231,880 square feet (sf) of office and visitor - serving commercial uses, including retail, restaurants, and a 149 room hotel in four buildings. Additional features of the project include a 350-space subterranean parking garage and 18 ground -level parking spaces on Fifth Street. All structures and landscaping would be designed to comply with the Downtown Specific Plan. The project, as proposed, is compatible with the zoning and General Plan land use designations of the project site, however, a Conditional Use Permit for encroachment into the minimum ground floor and upper -story setbacks may be necessary, depending on final building design. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Impacts not Anticipated to be Significant Based on the information currently available to the City of Huntington Beach, it is anticipated that implementation of the proposed project will not result in significant impacts on agricultural resources, biological resources, mineral resources, and hazards and hazardous materials. Impacts that may be Potentially Significant Based on the information currently available to the City of Huntington Beach, it is anticipated that implementation of the proposed project will result in significant impacts to land use and planning, population and housing, geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, air quality, transportation/traffic, noise, public services, utilities and service systems, and aesthetics. However, the City of Huntington Beach anticipates that these impacts can be reduced to a less -than -significant level. Impacts that may be Significant and Unavoidable Based on the information currently available to the City of Huntington Beach, it is anticipated that implementation of the proposed project may result in significant and unavoidable impacts to cultural resources. 7 F L F L 1. PROJECT TITLE: Huntington Beach Block 104/105 Redevelopment Project Concurrent Entitlements: Tentative Tract Map No. (not assigned) Conditional Use Permit No. 99-45 Coastal Development Permit No. 99-16 2. LEAD AGENCY: Contact: Phone: Fax: City of Huntington Beach Planning Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Jane James, Associate Planner (714)536-5596 (714)374-1540 3. PROJECT LOCATION: Area bounded by Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) on the West, Walnut Avenue on the East, 6" Street on the North, and Main Street on the South. 4. PROJECT PROPONENTS: CIM Group City of Huntington Beach 6922 Hollywood Boulevard Redevelopment Agency Suite 900 2000 Main Street Hollywood, California 90028 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 5. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: MV-F12-sp-pd (Mixed -Use Vertical —Specific Plan Overlay —Pedestrian Overlay). ' 6. ZONING: Downtown Specific Plan -District 3 (Visitor -Serving Commercial -Pedestrian Overlay) -Coastal Zone. 7. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed project will encompass 2.97 acres (including the Fifth Street right of way) and include four separate buildings ranging in height from two to four stories with a total of 231,880 gross square feet of floor area. Uses will include 121,000 square feet of commercial space and a 110,880 square foot hotel. Of the 121,000 square feet of commercial space, up to 40,000 square feet may be devoted to restaurant uses and a minimum of 28,000 square feet will be devoted to office uses. Any amount of the.total commercial square footage allotted to restaurant use but not utilized for such use will be devoted to retail. Parking will be provided in a two level, 350 space subterranean parking garage accessed from Sixth Street. Additionally, surface level parking and street parking on Fifth Street will provide 18 spaces, for a total of 368. tThe four buildings identified G within the project are as Buildings A through G, with Buildings D, E, F and all contained within one building pad on Block 105. Building A will be located at the southeast corner of Fifth Street and Walnut Avenue, with 127' of frontage on Fifth Street, and 110.5' of frontage on Walnut Avenue. The building will be three stories, 45' in height, and will contain a total of 43,500 square feet of commercial floor area, with 14,500 square feet on each of the three floors. Building B will be located on the east side of Fifth Street midway between Walnut and Pacific Coast Highway with 59.5' of frontage on Fifth Street. The building will be two stories, 35' in height, and will contain a total of 9,200 square feet of commercial floor area with 4,600 square feet of each floor. Building C will be located at the northeast comer of Fifth Street and Pacific Coast Highway with 47.5' of frontage/on Pacific Coast Highway and 99.5' of frontage on Fifth Street. The building will be two stories, 35' in height and will contain a total of 9,400 square feet of commercial floor area with 4,700 square feet on each floor. Buildings D, E, F and G will cover the entire Block 105, with the exception of the Worthy Property at the comer of Walnut Avenue and Sixth Street. The buildings will be four stories, 54.5' in height, and will contain a total of 169,780 square feet of floor area. The buildings will have 240' of frontage on Pacific Coast Highway, 340' of frontage on Fifth Street, 110' of frontage Walnut Avenue and 230' of frontage on Sixth Street. Uses in the buildings will include 50,400 square feet of commercial space on the ground floor, 8,500 square feet of commercial space on the second floor, and a 110,880 square foot hotel on a portion of the second floor, and the entire third and fourth floor. The hotel will contain a total of 149 rooms. S. OTHER PREVIOUS RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION: The project represents a continuation of the 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 the California Environmental Quality Act (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. Although the proposed project is consistent with the zoning and general plan land use designations for the project site, the Lead Agency determined that impacts particular to the project 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 State 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. 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. 9. OTHER AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (AND PERMITS NEEDED): California Department of Transportation (Caltrans Encroachment Permit for encroachment into the Pacific Coast Highway right-of-way), California Regional Water Quality Control Board (permit for dewatering during construction, and operation of the subterranean parking structure). I ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: J d 1 I The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or is "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated," as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Land Use / Planning Population / Housing ® Geology / Soils 0 Hydrology / Water Quality 0 Air Quality ® Agriculture Resources DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: 0 Transportation / Traffic ® Biological Resources ® Mineral Resources ® Hazards and Hazardous Materials Noise 0 Mandatory Findings of Significance ® Public Services 0 Utilities / Service Systems ® Aesthetics ® Cultural Resources 0 Recreation I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an Q ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a potentially significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. MAN "JANNZMIRWF_� Jane James Printed Name 1. .� tom. r. - / Associate Planner Title 3 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT'S: 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported.if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to the project. A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards. 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved. Answers should address off -site as well as on - site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate, if an effect is significant or potentially significant, or if the lead agency lacks information to make a. finding of insignificance. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is warranted. 4. Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVHI, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced). 5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section XVIII at the end of the checklist. 6. References to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances) have been incorporated into the checklist. A source list has been provided in Section XVIII. Other sources used or individuals contacted have been cited in the respective discussions. 7. The following checklist has been formatted after Appendix G of Chapter 3, Title 14, California Code of Regulations, but has been augmented to reflect the City of Huntington Beach's requirements. (Note: Standard Conditions of Approval - The City imposes standard conditions of approval on projects which are considered to be components of or modifications to the project, some of these standard conditions also result in reducing or minimizing environmental impacts to a level of insignificance. However, because they are considered part of the project, they have not been identified as mitigation measures. n SAMPLE QUESTION: Potentially Significant ' Potentially Unless Less Than ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Significant Impact Mitigation Incorporated Significant Lnpact No Impact Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving. ' Landslides? (Sources: 1, 6) ❑ 13 ❑ 0 Discussion: The attached source list explains that I is the Huntington Beach General Plan and 6 is a topographical map of the area which show that the area is located in a flat area. (Note: This response probably would not require further explanation). I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) 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? (Sources: 2, 3, 7, 8) Discussion: The proposed site is zoned Downtown Specific Plan —District 3—Coastal Zone in the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, and is designated as MV-F12-sp-pd (Mixed -Use Vertical —Specific Plan Overlay —Pedestrian Overlay) in the General Plan. The project, as proposed, is compatible with the existing zoning and general plan land use designations. Although not entirely determined, it is anticipated that the current design of the project requires approval of special permits to encroach into minimum ground floor and upper story setbacks. Additional special permit requests may be defined as project components are officially identified. The project will also be subject to review and approval of the Design Review Board for compliance with the Downtown Design Guidelines. Therefore, a complete analysis of the proposed project's consistency with applicable land use plans, policies, and regulations will be included in the subsequent EIR. b) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or El El F1a natural community conservation plan? (Sources: 3, 7) Discussion: No habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan affects the project site. No impact would occur, and no further analysis of this issue is required. L �I, . I Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact c) Physically divide an established community? (Sources: 3, 7) El 11 Discussion: t The proposed project would not result in a change to site access, and would, therefore, not disrupt or divide the project site. The proposed changes to on -site uses and parking are not expected to physically divide the area. Although the project site contains residential units which will be removed to accommodate the proposed development, this action would not be considered a community division. This would constitute a less -than -significant impact, and no further analysis of this issue is required. 1 H. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly El (e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extensions of roads or other infrastructure)? (Source: Project Description) Discussion: The proposed project would not create any new residential dwelling units or create any new roadways, therefore, the project would not result in a direct or indirect population increase. No further analysis of this issue is required. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating a the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Source: N/A) Discussion: The proposed project will require the demolition of existing residential units located within the project site. The demolition of existing residential structures will result in the temporary displacement of existing residents. A complete analysis of this impact will be required in the subsequent EIR. The analysis will include an evaluation of the impact in relation to relocation of and/or compensation to residents according to Federal and State Relocation Law (USC Section 33352(f) and CSC Section 33411, respectively). c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the ® ® 1!t construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Source: 1, 5) Discussion: The proposed project will require the demolition of existing residential units located within the project site. The demolition of existing residential structures will result in the temporary displacement of existing households, as well as the permanent removal of dwelling units. A complete analysis of this issue will be required in the subsequent EIR. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Imo. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: ' a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the 19 11 El most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault (Refer to the California Division of Mines and Geology Spec. Pub. 42)? (Sources: 3, 7, 11, 19) Discussion: Page 5.6-21 of the General Plan EIR states that fault rupture constitutes a direct impact to affected areas within the City of ' Huntington Beach. The most likely areas for fault rupture are the more restricted Alquist-Priolo zones (p. 5.6-21), and "engineering, geologic, and geotechnical engineering investigation report requirements are in place to mandate studies as a means of developing mitigation measures (usually avoidance) for construction." ' Although the subject site is not located within an identified Alquist-Priolo zone, the site is within the Newport -Inglewood Fault zone. Consequently, the proposed project may expose on -site structures to significant seismic hazards if an earthquake occurs along this fault. An analysis of this issue will be included in the subsequent EIR. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (Sources: 3, 7, 11) ri Discussion: Page 5.6-22 of the General Plan EIR states that the effects of groundshaking on the provision of utilities and services constitute an indirect impact. Additionally, ground -shaking resulting from pile -driving or other, similar construction activities may adversely affect adjacent properties, notably the historic Worthy Property located on Block 105, but outside of the project site. Therefore, as described above in the discussion for Item III.a.i., a geologic investigation will be ' included within the EIR. This investigation will analyze the issues identified, and will include conclusions and recommendations for mitigating identified seismic impacts. iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? (Sources: 3, 7, 11) Discussion: The project site in not located within a liquefaction zone, according to the online California Division of Mines and Geology online Seismic Hazard Zones Maps. However, the site is located within an area identified by Figure EH-7 in the City's General Plan as having a "very high" potential for liquefaction. Additionally, as stated above for item III.a.i., the site is located within a fault zone, which may subject the site to other forms of seismic -related ground failure. A geological report is in preparation for the project, and this issue will be analyzed in the EIR. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact iv) Landslides? (Sources: 3, 7, 11) 11 El Discussion: The project proposes the redevelopment of commercial uses along an already developed area located on flat land that is not expected to generate any landslides. No further analysis of this issue is required. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? a (Sources: N/A) Discussion: The project site is currently developed with structures and impervious surfaces, and the proposed project would also entirely cover the site. Given the presence of hardscape throughout the site, no topsoil is known to exist. Grading for above -ground project components is anticipated to be minimal. However, grading for the proposed subterranean parking structure is expected to be substantial, and while it would not impact topsoil, it may result in erosion. Therefore, an analysis of this issue will be included in the subsequent EIR. t c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (Sources: 3, 7, 11) Discussion: 1 While the project site is currently developed, it is located within an area identified by Figure EH-7 in the City's General Plan as having a very high potential for liquefaction and by Figure EH-12 in the General Plan as having a low to moderate (6%-27%) probability for expansion. The site soils could therefore be considered unstable, and an analysis of this issue will be included in the subsequent EIR. d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? (Sources: 3, 7, 11) Discussion: Refer to the discussion for Item III.c., above. 13 11 u 0 0 11 0 ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): IV. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? (Sources: 3, 7, 11) Discussion: Potentially Significant Impact �I Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated ❑t Less Than Significant Impact M No Impact The City's Standard Conditions of Approval require the preparation of a water quality management plan, pursuant to NPDES requirements, which would ensure the project's compliance with applicable waste discharge and water quality requirements. This impact would, therefore, be less than significant, and would not require further analysis. b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? (Sources: 3, 7, 11) Discussion: According to City staff, groundwater wells currently supply 75% of the City's water; the remaining 25% is imported. While the proposed project would not substantially interfere with groundwater recharge (since the majority of the site is already developed with impervious surfaces), according to Pages 5.12.1-5 to 5.12.1-8 of the General Plan EIR, the cumulative theoretical build -out scenario exacerbates current inadequacies in water distribution and storage capacity. This constitutes a potentially significant cumulative impact. A hydrology report is currently in preparation for the proposed project, and an analysis of this issue will be provided in the subsequent EIR. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? (Sources: 3, 7, 11) 1 Discussion: F h L i Although the project site contains no streams or rivers, erosion or siltation could occur during construction activities, and the proposed project could alter the drainage pattern of the project site. This alteration will result partially from additional impervious surfaces, which could affect the velocity of stormwater flows. A hydrology report for the project is currently in preparation, and an analysis of this issue will be provided in the subsequent EIR. Refer also to the discussion for Item IH.b., above. d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or ® 0 area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount or surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off - site? (Sources: 3, 7, 11) ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Discussion: Refer to the discussion for item IV.c. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the 0 capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? (Sources: 3, 7, 11) Discussion: Less Than Significant Impact No Impact The commercial uses proposed for the project are not anticipated to create polluting discharges beyond wastewater (sewer) associated with ordinary human occupation of the facility, and the project will comply with all waste discharge requirements and water quality objectives of State and Federal agencies as part of the City's standard conditions of approval; however, the proposed project would alter the drainage pattern of the site, and would contribute additional impermeable surfaces, which could result in additional runoff that could exceed the capacity of existing systems. As stated above in the discussion for Item IV.c., a hydrology report is currently in preparation for the project, and this issue will be addressed in the subsequent EIR. f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? (Sources: 3, 7, El 1 11) Discussion: The nature of the existing and proposed land uses (i.e., urban) are sufficiently similar so as not to substantially alter the quality of urban runoff. The anticipated changes to the rate will be addressed in the subsequent EIR as described above in the discussions for Items IVA. and IV.e. As stated above in the discussion for item IV.e., the proposed project would comply with all State and Federal waste discharge requirements and water quality objectives as part of the City's standard conditions of approval. No further analysis of this issue is required. g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (Source: 3, 7, 11, 19) Discussion: The proposed project does not include the development of residential dwelling units. No further analysis of this issue is required. h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which r UPI would impede or redirect flood flows? (Source: 3, 7, 11, 19) Discussion: According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and Figures SD-2 and SD-3 of the General Plan EIR, the proposed project site is located within an area classified as "Low Threat" flood hazard area, and would be subject to 10 1 ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Potentially unless Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact "minimal flooding" (i.e., substantially less than I foot, since the category "depth < lfoot" above that assigned for the project site). These flood risk assessments reflect the possibility of the failure of the Prado Dam (the primary flood control mechanism for areas downstream along the Santa Ana River), as well as the raised and strengthened levees along the Santa Ana River. As stated on page 3-28 of the SEIR 82-2 Addendum, FEMA revised the flood maps for areas within the City of Huntington Beach, including the project site, in 1997 in recognition of the improvements to the Santa Ana River Channel: these revisions actually reduced the anticipated flood level by 6.5 feet, which estimated the flood level ' below the elevation of the project site. The project site is currently in Zone "X" according to the January 3, 1997 FEMA map, which indicates that it is outside of the 500 year floodplain. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, seiches, or tsunamis, nor would substantial flood flows be redirected by the placement of structures on the project site. No further analysis of this issue is required. i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury ❑ ❑ ® ❑ or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? (Sources: 3, 7, 11, 19) Discussion: Refer to the discussion for item IV.h. As stated above, the flood risk and potential flood level assessments for the City include the possibility of the failure of Prado Dam, which, while located in Riverside County, provides the primary flood protection means for areas downstream of it. The levees constructed along the Santa Ana River also minimize the flood risks to areas within the City that include the project site. Additionally, as stated on page 5.12.3-6 of the General Plan EIR, the channelization of the Santa Ana River from Weir Canyon Road to the Pacific Ocean has improved the capacity of the channel sufficiently that the channel can convey the water volume associated with a 190-year flood event. As stated above in the discussion for Item IV.h., the revised FEMA flood maps for the City reflect this further minimization of flood risks to the City. j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? (Source: 3, 7, 11) El 9 11 Discussion: The site is located on a flat area that is not expected to generate mudflows. In regard to tsunamis and seiches, page 5.12.3- 7 of the General Plan EIR states that the tsunami hazard for the City is classified as "very low," and that seiche area damage would be most severe in the same areas as tsunami hazards. Further, Figures EH-8 and SD-4 of the General Plan show that the project site is not located within or adjacent to a moderate tsunami run-up area. A less -than -significant impact is therefore anticipated from the proposed project, and no further analysis of this issue is required. V. AM OUA.L,ITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air ® ❑ ❑ ❑ quality plan? (Source: 3, 7, 11) Discussion: The project as proposed would entail significant earth movement and construction activities, and would potentially result in the generation of a significant number of new vehicle trips. These activities could result in inconsistencies with local 1 11 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact and regional planning standards on which the air quality plan was based. Therefore, the project's potential impacts on local and regional air quality will be addressed in the EIR with respect to the following issues: o Exceedance of the South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) thresholds of potential significance, which may result in a conflict with or obstruct the implementation of the AQMP; • Violation of any local and regional air quality standards during construction and operation; ■ Local, ambient CO "hot spots"; ■ Cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant in the South Coast Air Basin; and ■ Exposure of surrounding sensitive receptors to significant pollutant concentrations (as defined by the SCAQMD) during construction and operation. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? (Sources: 3, 7, 11) Discussion: Refer to the discussion for item V.a., above. c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant El 1:1 El concentrations? (Sources: 3, 7, 11) Discussion: Refer to the discussion for item V.a. above. d) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment El El under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (Source: 3, 7, 11) Discussion: Refer to the discussion for item V.a., above. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of ri people? (Source: 3, 7, 11) Discussion: The project does not propose, and would not facilitate, uses that are significant sources of objectionable odors. The only potential source of odor associated with the proposed project may result from construction equipment exhaust during construction activities, or the storage of operation -related solid waste. Given the short-term and temporary nature of construction activities, as well as the standard construction requirements imposed on the applicant, impacts associated with construction -generated odors are expected to be less than significant. It is expected that any project -generated refuse would be stored in covered containers and removed at regular intervals in compliance with the City's solid waste regulations. Therefore, odors generated by project -generated solid waste are not anticipated to have a significant impact, and no further analysis of this issue is required. n 12 k I I k ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): ".TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections? (Sources: 3, 7, 11) Discussion: Potentially Significant Impact MR Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact X No Impact 10 In general, the proposed project is expected to have significant traffic impacts due to a project -related increase in vehicular movement in the area. A number of community traffic issues will be addressed in the EIR, including: • Level of traffic increase and adequacy of the surrounding arterial network to accommodate additional traffic from the proposed development; • Impacts of the increase in vehicle trips resulting from the proposed project on the level of service standards established within the Orange County Congestion Management Plan; • Impacts on nearby residential streets; ■ Turning movements into/out of parking driveway(s), and queuing•, ■ Layout of parking garage and accessibility of spaces for different uses; ■ Physical and operational adequacy of the proposed parking plan to meet the parking demand of the project and its obligations with respect to other users; • Replacement parking for the existing spaces during construction; • Construction parking, hauling and staging; • Truck circulation and turning movements; • Loading activities and their impacts on affected roadways and other businesses located adjacent to the proposed project; • Alternative transportation options supported by adopted plans, policies, and programs; ■ Cumulative impacts; and ■ Possible design features to eliminate traffic -related hazrds. b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service 0 standard established by the county congestion management - agency for designated roads or highways? (Sources: 3, 7, 11) Discussion: Refer to the discussion for item VI.a., above.. c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an F1❑ Q increase in traffic levels or a change in Iocation that results in substantial safety risks? (Sources: 21) 13 ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Discussion: The proposed project is not located within vicinity of any known airports and does not propose any structures whose height would interfere with existing airspace or flight patterns. No further analysis of this issue is required. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses? (Sources: 3, 7, 11) Discussion: Refer to the discussion for item VI.a., above. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Sources: 3, 7, 11) El M MJC El Discussion: Vehicular access to the project will change somewhat, due to the proposed reduction of the 5" Street right-of-way, and possible periodic closure of 5' Street to vehicular traffic. However, the project is located within the boundaries of the Huntington Beach Fire Department's 5-minute response time area, and staff indicates that the site will continue to provide adequate emergency access. Further, the Huntington Beach Police Department and Huntington Beach Fire Department will review the project site plans to ensure compliance with the City's emergency access requirements, per the City's standard conditions of approval. No significant impact is anticipated, and no further analysis of this issue is required. f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Sources: 3, 7, 11) Discussion: Refer to the discussion for item VI.a., above. g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Sources: 3, 7,11) Discussion: Refer to the discussion for item VI.a., above. VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S, Fish and Wildlife Service? (Sources: 3, 7, 11) 19 �' I El x 14 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact 1 Discussion: 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 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 common, 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, -and would not impact biological features. No further analysis of this issue is required. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or ❑ ❑ ❑ FRI other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California 1 Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? (Sources: 3, 7, 11) Discussion: The project site is currently fully developed with urban uses. Therefore, the project would not have any effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish Wildlife Service. No further analysis of this issue is required. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected ❑ wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (Sources: 3, 7, 11) Discussion: ❑ ❑ FA The site contains no wetland habitat, as defined by the Clean Water Act or the Fish and Game Code of California. 1 Therefore, no impacts to this type of habitat would occur. No further analysis of this issue is required in the subsequent EIR. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with ❑ ❑ ❑ established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (Sources: 3, 7, 11) Discussion: Because the site is developed with urban uses, the site does not contain any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species and does not contain any native resident or migratory wildlife movement corridors. Furthermore, the site is surrounded by urban uses and does not provide links between natural areas. No further analysis of this issue is required in the subsequent EIR. 15 ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact fl No Impact 1 1 e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (Sources: 3, 7, 11) Discussion: The project site is not covered by any local policies or ordinances pertaining to the protection of biological resources. No further analysis of this issue is required. f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat El El 1:1 a Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (Sources: 3, 7, 9, 11) Discussion: 1 No habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan affects the project site, therefore, no impact would occur. No further analysis of this issue is required. VIII. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (Sources: 3, 7, 11) Discussion: The General Plan does not identify any important mineral resources on the project site. Therefore, no impacts to mineral I resources are anticipated, and no further analysis of this issue is required. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? (Sources: 3, 7, 11) Discussion: ❑ o The proposed demolition of existing structures and construction of the proposed project will not result in a loss of availability of a known or locally important mineral resource identified in the General Plan, since, as stated above in the discussion for Item VM.a., no important mineral resources have been identified on the project site. Therefore, no impacts to mineral resource availability are anticipated and no further analysis of this issue is required. IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment El El through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (Sources: 3, 7, 11) 16 'I u 0 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Discussion: The project includes the development of ordinary commercial uses and is not expected to introduce any acutely hazardous materials to the area. As the project would be subject to compliance with CaIOSHA (California Occupational Safety and Health Administration) requirements and other State and local requirements, no significant hazards impacts are expected from the project. Further, page 5.11-11 of the General Plan EIR states that implementation of General Plan Policies (such as the existing City and State requirements) would reduce potentially significant impacts based on build -out to less -than - significant levels. Therefore, no further analysis of this issue is required. tb) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? (Sources: 3, 7, 11) Discussion: Refer to discussion item IX.a., above. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely El El El 19 hazardous material, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Sources: 3, 7, 11) Discussion: No school lies within'/4 mile of the project site. Additionally, refer to discussion item IX.a., above. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous El El materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Sources: 3, 7, 11, 20) Discussion: According to the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal EPA), Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), the project site is not on the State's Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List (CORTESE) and has no known history of use involving hazardous materials. No further analysis of this issue is required. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or pubic use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Source: 3, 7, 11) ' Discussion: Although the project site is located within the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for the County of Orange, it is not located within 2 miles of any known public or private airstrip. Additionally, the proposed structures will not exceed heights that require review and approval by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) or Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). 1 17 ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact The project would not, therefore, result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area, and no further analysis of this issue is required. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Sources: 3, 7, 11) Discussion: Refer to discussion for the item IX.e., above. g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an El Del El adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Sources: 3, 7, 11) Discussion: Vehicular access to the project will change somewhat, due to the proposed reduction of the 5' Street right-of-way, and possible periodic closure of 5" Street to vehicular traffic. However, the project is located within the boundaries of the Huntington Beach Fire Department's 5-minute response time area, and staff indicates that the site will continue to provide adequate emergency access. Further, the Huntington Beach Police Department and Huntington Beach Fire Department will review the project site plans to ensure compliance with the City's emergency access requirements, per the City's standard conditions of approval. No significant impact is anticipated, and no further analysis of this issue is required. With regard to emergency response plans, City staff have indicated that the project site does not serve a function in any emergency response or evacuation plan (schools are typically employed for this purpose), and that no emergency response plans would be impaired. No impact is anticipated, and no further analysis of this issue is required. 0 h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, El 19 or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (Sources: 3, 7, 11) Discussion: The project is not located within the vicinity of any wildland areas; therefore, no impacts would occur. No further analysis of this issue is required. X. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess X ❑ t of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (Sources: 2, 3, 8) Discussion: Noise would be generated by the proposed project during periods of construction and by increased traffic during operation and by activity at the site once built and occupied. Construction of the project would also result in a temporary increase in ambient. The noise created by the project could affect residences across Sixth Street (the nearest sensitive receptors), the 18 1 ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Oceanview Promenade, and other land uses in the Downtown Core area. Although noise from mechanical equipment (such as air conditioning systems) associated with operation of the project will be required to comply with the State Building Code requirements pertaining to noise attenuation such that interior noise levels do not exceed 45 dB in any habitable room (including hotels), and with City regulations requiring adequate buffering of such equipment, the amount of traffic generated by the project remains to be calculated, and the potential for excessive noise to be generated by the traffic is therefore also unknown and must be considered significant for the purposes of this analysis. This issue will be addressed in the subsequent EIR. Chapter 8.40 of the Municipal Code for Noise Control generally prohibits construction activity between the hours of 8 p.m. and 7 a.m. on weekdays and Saturdays, and all day on Sundays (§8.40.090). Certain after-hours construction is allowed provided that the noise standards (§8.40.050) of the ordinance are met. Daytime noise greater than 75 dBA in residential areas, and greater than 80 dBA in commercial areas, is prohibited by the ordinance. Additionally, a permit for the construction activities (which requires a review of the proposed activities) must be obtained from the City. Reference data for construction equipment noise illustrates that operation of typical heavy equipment would result in noise levels between approximately 75 dBA and 100 dBA when measured 50 feet from the source, depending primarily on the type of equipment in operation.' The most intense noise would be associated with pile -driving, which may be necessary on a portion of the project site. Noise levels from a single piece of equipment tend to drop off at a rate of 6 decibels per doubling of distance; therefore, distance to sensitive receptors would help to reduce the construction noise. However, because a combination of equipment could possibly be operating simultaneously, the noise could still be perceptible in the Downtown Core area, and to the residences across 6'" . Street. However, noise generated by construction would be intermittent and short-term, and because construction would be temporary and would be required to comply with the Noise Control ordinance and with other standard conditions of approval, no significant noise impacts are anticipated to occur as a result of project construction, and no further analysis of construction -related noise is required. b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome 0 vibration or groundbome noise levels? (Sources: 3, 7, 8, 11) Discussion: In the project vicinity, the only existing source of perceptible ground-bome vibration would be travel of heavy trucks or buses over bumps on the adjacent streets and the Pacific Coast Highway. Pile -driving and the use of heavy equipment during construction of the project may cause substantial additional ground-bome vibration; however, this issue will be analyzed in the geotechnical investigation for the project, as described above in the discussion for Item II.a.ii.. While this is considered a potentially significant impact, it will be addressed in the geology and hydrology section of the subsequent ' EIR, and would not be considered a noise -related issue in this analysis. c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Sources: 3, 7, 8, 11) Discussion: Existing noise levels in the project area are dominated by traffic and by the activities of people throughout the Downtown Core and Oceanview Promenade areas. As stated above in the discussion for Item X.a., the project would contribute to the traffic noise and would cause additional noise from the activity of the people visiting the project site and from operation of mechanical equipment and other facilities at the buildings. Noise from the project's mechanical equipment would be regulated by the Noise Control ordinance; however, the noise generated by project traffic once the project is built and occupied is unknown. In order for project -related traffic to generate a noticeable noise impact (greater than 3 dBA) on any of the surrounding streets, the project would have to cause a two -fold increase in the existing traffic. 'Noise levels from typical construction equipment are shown in the guidance document: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, April 1995. 1 19 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Although the project lies along heavily traveled Main Street and Pacific Coast Highway, the traffic generation is unknown and must, therefore, be considered significant for the purposes of this analysis. As stated above in the discussion for Item X.a., this issue will be addressed in the subsequent EIR. d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise X levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Sources: 3, 7, 8, 11) Discussion: Project construction activities would cause a temporary increase in ambient noise, however the construction noise would be regulated by the Noise Control ordinance as discussed in item X.a, above. The temporary noise increase would not be considered substantial, and no further analysis of this issue is required. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public El airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Sources: 3, 7, 11, 23) Discussion: 0 11 o 1 The project site is not located within two miles of a public airport, public use airport, or private airstrip. The project site is about four miles from the decommissioned Meadowlark Airport and about ten miles from either the Los Alamitos Armed Forces Reserve Center or the John Wayne Airport. Although the City is included within the Airports Environs Land Use Plan of Orange County, the City is outside of the 60 dB CNEL contour for the Los Alamitos Armed Forces Reserve Center. The project would not, therefore, expose people to excessive noise from airports, and no impact would occur. No further analysis of this issue is required. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Sources: 3, 7, 11, 23) Discussion: Refer to discussion for item X.e., above. XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? (Sources: 3, 7, 11) 0 ❑ ❑ 11 20 1 ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): IDiscussion: I I I I L I n Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact As a proposed commercial development surrounded by commercial uses and served by fire protection services (the site lies within the Department's 5-minute response time area), the proposed project is not expected to significantly impact fire protection services. However, due to the volume of commercial development in the project area, the proposed development may result in an increased need for additional fire protection. Therefore, an analysis of this issue will be included in the subsequent EIR. b) Police Protection? (Sources: 3, 7, 11) Discussion: As a proposed commercial development surrounded by commercial uses and served by police protection services, the proposed project is not expected to significantly impact fire protection services. However, due to the volume of commercial development in the project area, the proposed development may result in an increased need for additional police protection. Therefore, an analysis of this issue will be included in the subsequent EIR c) Schools? (Sources: 3, 7, 11) Discussion: ❑ ❑ ❑ rXI The proposed project does not include the development of residential dwelling units. Therefore, the project will not induce any new demand on existing schools serving the area. No further analysis of this issue is required. d) Parks? (Sources: 3, 7, 11) Discussion: ❑ ❑ ❑ z The project proposes no alteration of existing park facilities and would not result in a loss of recreational opportunities. Additionally, no additional parks are proposed or required as part of the project. No further analysis of this issue is required. e) Other public facilities? (Sources: 3, 7, 11) Discussion: The proposed project is not anticipated to impact any additional public facilities or services other than the issues identified above. No further analysis of this issue is required. XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ Regional Water Quality Control Board? (Sources: 3, 7, 11) 1 21 ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Discussion: Refer to discussion for item IV.a., above. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact b) Require or result in the construction of new water or ❑ ❑ wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Sources: 3, 7, 11) Discussion: The project will require incremental extensions of water and wastewater infrastructure to the site, which will be provided by the developer, and by respective governmental agencies and utility companies. All utility connections to the proposed uses will be in accordance with all applicable Uniform Codes, City ordinances, Public Works standards, and Water Division criteria. Extension of these services is not anticipated to create any significant adverse impacts. However, the proposed project may contribute to an impact on wastewater treatment facility capacity. An analysis of this issue will be provided in the subsequent EIR. c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the ❑X ❑ ❑ ❑ construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Sources: 3, 7, 11) Discussion: Refer to the discussion for Item IV.e., above. d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ expanded entitlements needed? (Sources: 3, 7, 11) Discussion: As described above in Item IV(b), and on pages 5.12.2-7 to 5.12.2-9 of the General Plan EIR, the project -related water demand may contribute to an existing shortage of water supply, distribution, and storage capacity. An analysis of this issue will be provided in the subsequent EIR. e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? (Sources: 3, 7, 11) Discussion: Refer to discussion for item XII.b., above. 22 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to M 11 El accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (Sources: 3, 7, 11) Discussion: Solid waste collection service for the City of Huntington Beach is provided by Rainbow Disposal, under an exclusive Ion. --term contract with the City. Collected solid waste is transported to a transfer station where the solid waste is sorted and processed through a Materials Recovery Facility where recyclable materials are removed. The remaining solid waste is transported to the Frank R. Bowerman Landfill located in the City of Irvine. The landfill has a remaining capacity in excess of 30 years based on present solid waste generation rates. However, the proposed project will result in an intensification of land use and generate more solid waste than existing uses. Therefore, this issue will be further analyzed in the EIR g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (Sources: 3, 7, 11) a Discussion: Although participation in City and/or County recycling programs is assumed, final density and design of project features are not yet fmalized. Therefore, a full analysis of the project's consistency with federal, state, and local statutes. and regulations related to solid waste will be included in the subsequent EIR. XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (Sources: 0 3, 7, 11) Discussion: The project site is located on Pacific Coast Highway in the vicinity of the Huntington Beach pier. As stated within the General Plan, the Huntington Beach Pier and Pierside Pavilion are considered a "landmark," which is defined as a significant reference point that helps to identify a particular area in the city. Furthermore, Pacific Coast Highway is designated by the State of California as a Scenic Highway, containing visual amenities which enhance the visual quality and ambiance of the City. The proposed project will result in the demolition and construction of new commercial 1 facilities within these areas. In addition, the two -block project site also contains the four-story Ocean View Promenade retail and office building and the historic Worthy property. Neither Ocean View Promenade nor the Worthy property are part of this development proposal and both would be unaffected by the project. However, development of the project site would encroach visually on both properties. The proposed project would involve the redevelopment of a relatively large-scale commercial/retail facility. As such, the surrounding uses (in particular the Huntington Pier to the southwest of the project), which would have direct views of proposed structures, could perceive project development as degradation of the existing visual character of the neighborhood. Therefore, the following aesthetic issues will be evaluated in the EIR: ■ The proposed project's consistency with the visual character of the neighborhood; ■ Proposed streetscaping and adequacy of proposed trees; ■ Overall mass and scale of structures and their compatibility with surrounding uses; 23 ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact • Compatibility of the structures with adjacent, historic properties; • Architectural quality of structures; • Pedestrian -friendly aesthetics; and ■ Potential impacts from shade and shadows cast by proposed structures on surrounding uses. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Source: 3, 7, 11, 19) Discussion: Refer to the discussion for item XIII.a., above. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Source: 3, 7, 11) Discussion: Refer to discussion for item XIII.a., above. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Source: 3, 7, 11) Discussion: E 0 IM u C LE L 7 C' 0 No -Impact 1 U Light impacts could result from new building activities, security lighting, such as along the buildings' perimeter, in the parking garage, and for the surface lot on 5' Street. Security lighting from the surface parking area may be visible from the street or light-sensitive receptors immediately surrounding the project site, including the Pier, which could be potentially affected by the new lighting system. This issue will be analyzed in the EIR. Glare can result from daytime reflection of sunlight off flat building surfaces. The proposed project may create reflective surfaces (e.g., windows, brightly colored or bare concrete building fagade treatments), and this issue will be addressed in the EIR. XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a 0 historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? (Sources: 3, 7, 11, 18) Discussion: Approximately 11 structures within the project site are part of the Main Street Historical District, which is eligible for u 0 0 IISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact ' listing in the National Register of Historical Places. The visual compatibility of the project with the adjacent historic properties will be analyzed: this issue may also have an effect on the historical setting of these adjacent resources, particularly the Worthy property. An analysis of the project's effect upon these structures will be provided in the subsequent EIR. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? (Sources: 18) Discussion: Although the project site has been previously developed, the subsequent EIR will examine the potential for archaeological resources to occur on -site. c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological 19 El ED El resource or site unique geologic feature? (Sources: 1,2) Discussion: Neither the General Plan nor the General Plan EIR identifies any unique paleontological resources on the project site; therefore, no impacts are anticipated. This issue will be analyzed in the subsequent EIR. d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of M El formal cemeteries? (Sources: N/A ) Discussion: The EIR will examine the potential for buried human remains on the project site. XV. RECREATION. Would the project: a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood, community and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (Sources: 3, 7, 11, 13, 14) Discussion: Significant impacts from the project could occur if the demand or need for lifeguard services from increased beach use exceeds the capacity of the existing level of service. Intensified development and additional parking could result in improved public access and increased beach use. The existing lifeguard staff and resources may not be sufficient to provide protection for an increased beach user population. Therefore, analysis of this issue will be included in the subsequent EIR. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might E3 13 19 El ' have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Sources: 3, 7, 11, 13, 14) Discussion: 1 25 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact The proposed project does not propose to increase the size of existing beach recreation facilities. While the proposed project is anticipated to increase the amount of visitors to the nearby beach area, it is not anticipated to require an expansion of any recreation facilities. No further analysis of these issues is required. 0 c) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (Sources: 3, 7, 11)El ❑ ❑ 0 Discussion: 1 The project proposes no alteration of existing recreational facilities, and would not result in a loss of opportunities. No further analysis of these issues is required. XVI. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project_ a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? (Sources: 3, 7, 11) Discussion: According to Appendix C of A Guide to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program from the California Department of Conservation (1994), the Orange County Board of Supervisors determined that there is no farmland of local importance for the county. This issue will not require further analysis. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (Sources: 3, 7, 11) Discussion: The project site is currently zoned Downtown Specific Plan —District 3—Coastal Zone, and has never been under a Williamson Act Contract. No further analysis is required in the subsequent EIR. t c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? (Sources: 22) n 26 1 I ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Discussion: The USDA Soil Survey of Orange County and Western Part of Riverside County, California (1974) indicates that the soils t present on -site are not Class I or II (i.e., prime) agricultural soils (Sheet 9). Additionally, the site is currently developed with urban uses and is not adjacent to active farmland. No environmental changes associated with the proposed project would result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses. No further analysis is required in the EIR. XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? (Sources: 3, 7, 11, 18) Discussion: As discussed above in sections and V, XIII, and XIV (air quality, aesthetics, and cultural resources, respectively), the proposed project could potentially affect air quality, aesthetics, and significant cultural resources. Additionally, impacts to any of the issue areas described above (for which significant impacts have been identified) could be considered to affect the quality of the environment. This will be further analyzed in the EIR. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) (Sources: 3, 7, 11) Discussion: The EIR will discuss the potential for cumulative impacts in all issue areas analyzed. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause El substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? (Sources: 3, 7, 11) Discussion: The proposed project is adjacent to a number of sensitive receptors and a number of projects proposed for development in the near future. Concurrent construction activities of the proposed project along with those of cumulative projects in the area could have potentially significant impacts on the surrounding neighborhood in all of the issue areas discussed above for which potentially significant impacts have been identified. Therefore, the proposed project's contribution to cumulative construction traffic, air quality, and noise impacts will be evaluated in the EIR 1 27 XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSIS. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration (CEQA Guidelines Section 15063 [c][3][D]). The following earlier documents have been prepared and utilized in this analysis: Reference # Document Title 1 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. 2 Huntington Beach, City of (City). 1994. Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. 3 Huntington Beach, City of (City). 1995. General Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report. State Clearinghouse No. 94091018. Prepared by Envicom Corporation. 4 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. 5 Huntington Beach, City of (City). 1991. Main Pier Phase II and Main Street 100 Block Environmental Impact Report Addendum/Response to Comments. State Clearinghouse No. 89091304. Prepared by STA Planning Incorporated. 6 Huntington Beach, City of (City). 1979. "The Ranch" Planned Residential Development Draft Environmental Impact Report. Prepared by Environmental Resources Group. 7 Huntington Beach, City of (City). 1996. General Plan. Prepared by Envicom Corporation. May 13. 8 Huntington Beach, City of (City). 1990. Municipal Code. 9 Huntington Beach, City of (City). 1999. Northam Ranch House Draft Environmental Impact Report. State Clearinghouse No. 99081123. Prepared by EIP Associates. 10 Huntington Beach, City of (City). 1999. Waterfront Development Project Section 108 Loan Guarantee Draft Environmental Assessment. Prepared by EIP Associates. 11 Huntington Beach, City of (City). 1996. Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report. State Clearinghouse No. 96041075. Prepared by LSA Associates. 12 Huntington Beach, City of (City). 1995. Downtown Specific Plan. 13 Huntington Beach, City of (City). 1983. Downtown Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement. 14 Huntington Beach, City of (City). 1988. Waterfront Ocean Grand Resort Environmental Impact Report. Prepared by LSA Associates. 15 Huntington Beach, City of (City). 1998. Final Environmental Impact Report and Responses to Comments: Crest View School Site, City of Huntington Beach. State Clearinghouse No. 97081046. Prepared by Planning Consultants Research. 16 Huntington Beach, City of (City). 1998. Waterfront Ocean Grand Resort Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. Prepared by EIP Associates. 17 Huntington Beach, City of (City). 1998. Waterfront Ocean Grand Resort Transportation and Circulation Analysis. Prepared by LSA Associates. 28 18 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. 19 Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1998. Flood Insurance Rate Maps. Orange County, California. 20 State of California. 1998. CORTESE Hazardous Site Listings. 21 Thomas Bros. Maps. 1996. Los Angeles and Orange Counties. 22 United States Department of Agriculture. 1974. Soil Su rvey of Orange County and the Western Part of Riverside County, California. 23 County of Orange. 1995. Orange County Airport Environs Land Use Plan. 29 A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS 611 ANTON BOULEVARD, FOURTEENTH FLOOR COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92626-1 931 DIRECT ALL MAIL TO: POST OFFICE BOX 1950 COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92628-1 950 TELEPHONE 714-641-5100 FACSIMILE 714-546-9035 INTERNET ADDRESS www.rutan.com Direct Dial: (714) 641-3441 E-mail: joderman@rutan.com Ms. Jane James Associate Planner City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Dear Ms. James: TAMES R. MOORE' PAUL FREDERIC MAR% RICHARD A. CURNUTT LEONA RD A. HAMPEL I OHN S. HURLBUT, JR. MICHAEL W, IMMELL At LFORD W, OAHL, IR. THEODORE I. WALLACE. IR. GILBERT N. KRUGER IOSEPH D CARRUTI'1 RICHARD P, SINS TAMES B. O'NEAL ROBERT C. BRAUN THOM AS S. SALINGER' DAVID C. LARSEN' CLIF F ORD E. FRIEDEN MICHAEL D. RUBIN IRA G. RIVIN' JEFFREY M. ODERMAN' STAN WOLCOTT ROBERT S. BOWER MARCIA A. FO RSYTH W ILLIAM M. MARTICORENA TAMES L. MORRIS MICHAEL T. HORNAK PHILIP D. KOHN A.W. RUTAN (1880-1972) TAMES B. TUCKER, SR. 0808.195W IOEL D. KUPERSERG STEVEN A. NICHOLS THOMAS G. BROCKINGTON EVRIDIKI(VICK0 DALLAS RANDALL M. BABSUSH MARY h1. GREEN GREGG AMBER MICHAEL F. SITZER THOMAS I. CRANE MARK B. FRAVER PENELOPE PARMES M. KATHERINE IENSON DUKE F. WAHLQUIST RICHARD G. MONTEVIDEO LORI SARNER SMITH ERNEST W. KLATTE, III KIM O. THOMPSON IAYNE TAYLOR KACER DAVID B. COSGROVE HANS VAN LIGTEN STEPHEN A. ELLIS MATTHEW K. ROSS JEFFREY WERTHEIMER ROBERT O. OW EN ADAM N. VOLKERT JEFFREY A. GOLDFARB September 5, 2001 F. KEVIN BRAZIL LAYNE H. MELZER L. SKI HARRISON L ARRY A. CERUTTI CAROL D. CRRTY PATRICK D. cCALLA RICHARD K. HOWELL TAMES S: WEISZ' DAVID H. HOCHNER A. PATRICK MUNOZ S. DANIEL HARBOTTLE PAUL I. SIEVERS IOSEPH L. MAGA. III KRAIG C. KILGER KENT M. CLAYTON DAN SLATER MARK BUDENSIEK STEVEN I. GOON DOUGLAS I. DENNINGTON TREG A. IULANDER TODD O. LITFIN KERRA S. CARLSON CRISTY LOMENZO PARKER JEFFREY T. MELCHING SEAN P. FARRELL MARLENE POSE IURGENSEN APRIL LEE WALTER KAREN ELIZABETH WALTER NATALIE SIBBALD OUNOAS ALISON M. BARBAROSH IOHN W. HAMILTON. IR. IOHN A, RAMIR EZ PHILIP I. BLANC HARD TERENCE 1. GALLAGHER DEIA M. HEMINGWAI IULIE W. RUSS DENISE L. NESTER W. ANDREW MOORE CHARLES A. DAVENPORT. III IULIE L. DREW RICHARD D. ARKO MARK I. MALOVOS NIKKI NG UT IENNIFER 5. ANDERSON IOHN T. BRADLEY ALLISON LEMOINE-BUI KAREN L. KEATING T. LAN NGUYEN USA V. NICHOLAS IENNIFER L. OHILLON MARK I, AUSTIN AMY 1. HALL IENNIFER L. YOKOYAMA TRACEY M. GUACH. NICOLE F. QUI NTArvA MELISSA S. FONTES ROBERT H. MARCEREAU OF COUNSEL: EDWARD D. SYBES..MA, IR. DAVID). GARIBALDI, III WILLIAM 1. CAPLAN 'A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Notice of Preparation of Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Proposed Block 104/105 Redevelopment Project (CIM) 1 On behalf of Abdelmuti Development Company ("ADC") and Huntington Beach Citizens Against Redevelopment Excess ("CARE"), I am writing to provide input with regard to the scope of the EIR to be prepared for the above -referenced project. These comments are submitted without prejudice to my clients' position in the pending lawsuits involving the CIM project and the 2000 amendments to the City's Downtown Specific Plan, in particular their position that an EIR should have been prepared prior to the Redevelop- ment Agency's and City Council's approval of the Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) with CIM and the Cooperation Agreement in June of 1999, and their position that a comprehensive EIR should have been prepared regarding the amendment to the City's Downtown Specific Plan and Downtown Parking Master Plan prior to the City Council's those approval of se actions in November 2000. The Subsequent EIR that the City/Agency is now preparing is nothing more than a "post hoc rationalization" for a decision that has already been made and therefore violates the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). If the City and Redevelopment Agency rescind the actions previously taken and objectively, independently, and in good faith consider an EIR for the proposed CIM project and any proposed revisions to development standards that apply within the Downtown Specific Plan area, my clients believe that the scope of the EIR should consider all of the objections and concerns that they have raised with the City and Redevelopment Agency in this matter since June of 1999. These concerns have been set forth in lengthy and detailed letters to the Redevelopment Agency Board of Directors, the City Council, and the Planning Commission, which I presume you can obtain from the City/Agency's public files. '121019483-0003 216886.01 a09/05/01 RUTAN &TUCKER ' ATTORNEYS AT LAW Ms. Jane James September 5, 2001 Page 2 ' At this point, it is necessary to make only a couple of additional comments with regard to p � Y Y p g the changes in the scope of the CIM project since the original Notice of Preparation was circulated in May of last year. It is inaccurate for the new NOP to say as it does that the CIM project has been "reduced [in] scale." While there has been a very slight reduction in building square footage (from 243,610 square feet last year to 231,880 square feet at the current time), the City/Agency is now proposing to leave in place approximately 18,000 square feet of commercial buildings and at I east 4 residential units (at 117, 119, 1.21, 123, and 127 Main Street and 416 Pacific Coast Highway) that were proposed for demolition under the previous proposal. Thus, the total proposed building square footage within the original CIM site is actually greater today than when the original Notice of Preparation was circulated. Moreover, the City recently approved conditional use permits and coastal development permits for the expansion of the existing commercial buildings at 117-123 Main Street, which would have to be considered in the cumulative impacts section of the EIR and would result in an even greater amount of square footage. Moreover, the on -site parking deficiency for the revised CIM project is even greater than it was at the time the May 2000 Notice of Preparation was circulated. At that time, CIM's Code parking requirement (using the then -applicable 1995 Downtown Parking Master Plan requirements) called for 816 parking spaces, while 346 on -site parking spaces were proposed, a 470-space deficiency. Now, applying the City's parking standards from the 2000 Downtown Parking Master Plan update to the revised CIM project and the other existing uses on the original CIM site (in order to be able to make an apples -to -apples comparison), the on -site parking requirement is 861 spaces, while only 368 spaces are provided, an even larger parking deficiency ' of 493 spaces. (This actually understates the parking deficiency, since it appears that the most recent Notice of Preparation included on -street parking along 5th Street in the calculation of CIM's 368 spaces, which is completely inappropriate, and due to the fact that the additional parking requirement to be generated from the building expansions at 117-123 Main Street is not included.) If anything, then, the revised CIM project will create even greater adverse environmental impacts than the project originally proposed and the proposed subsequent EIR should recognize this fact. By our calculations, using the revised parking standards in the City's 2000 Downtown Parking Master Plan and including all of the uses in Blocks 104 and 105 with the exception of the Worthy building, implementation of the CIM project would result in a staggering deficiency of 991 ijarking spaces. My clients would also take issue with the comments in the Notice of Preparation that the project "is compatible with the zoning and General Plan land use designations" for the site and that the only "special" requirements applicable to the project will be a CUP for encroachment into some of the setbacks. As we have previously noted, we believe that the proposed project exceeds the height and size limits for a development in this area and is seriously deficient in the ' 112/019483-0003 216886.01 a09/05/01 RUTAN &TUCKERS ATTORNEYS AT LAW Ms. Jane James September 5, 2001 Page 3 provision of on -site parking (even if the 2000 Downtown Specific Plan amendment ultimately is upheld in the courts). As you know, substantial development has either been proposed, approved, or is under construction in and around Downtown Huntington Beach (e.g., the CPH and Waterfront sites). Any EIR should consider the cumulative impacts of those developments. In addition, a signifi- cant amount of development in the Downtown has not yet been occupied (e.g., in the 300 block of Main Street) and projections of environmental impacts should assume these new develop- ments Lo be fully occupied. The Redevelopment Agency is contractually bound to provide code -required parking to the Oceanview Promenade project. Given the enormous parking deficiency that the CIM project would generate, ADC requests that the EIR specifically address this parking requirement. Where will ADC's parking be located? How will ADC's office tenants be assured of the availability of convenient, accessible, and affordable parking? As the City/Agency should know, many of the businesses in Downtown Huntington Beach are only marginally successful, if that. There are a number of existing vacancies and there have been a substantial number of business failures in recent years. Particularly given that the CIM project would propose to add approximately 53,000 square feet of new retail uses and 40,000 square feet of new restaurant uses, ADC and CARE believe that the EIR should address the number of business failures that have occurred in this area, the viability of existing businesses, the market support for the proposed amount of new businesses and the damaging impact that the new businesses could have on established businesses in the core Downtown area. As it is now, business in the Downtown area is highly seasonal — strong in the Summer and for many businesses almost non-existent for the Temaining 9 months of the year. Parking is already almost maxed out in the Summer. What will be the impact on Downtown businesses of substantially aggravating the Summer parking problem and adding a substantial amount of commercial square footage to compete for the limited customer base during the long slow Winter? Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, RUTA3 & TUCKER, LLP J ey M. Oderman cc: Mike Abdelmuti Jim Lane 112/019483-0003 2 1 6886.01 a09/05/01 NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION 915 CAPITOL MALL, ROOM 364 \ "� SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 (916)653-4082 (916) 657-5390 - Fax August 5, 2001 Jane James City of Huntington Beach 1 Planning Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: SCH# 2000051109 — Block 104/105 Redevelopment Project The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach P 1 ( 0 9 ) 1 Dear Ms. James: The Native American Heritage Commission. has reviewed the above mentioned NOP. To adequately assess the project -related impact on archaeological resources, the Commission recommends the following actions be required: ✓ Contact the appropriate Information Center for a record search. The record search will determine: 1 ■ Whether a part or all of the project area has been previously surveyed for cultural resources. ■ Whether any known cultural resources have already been recorded on or adjacent to the project area. ■ Whether the probability is low, moderate, or high that cultural resources are located within the project area. ■ Whether a survey is required to determine whether previously unrecorded cultural resources are present. ✓ If an archaeological inventory survey is required, the final stage is the preparation of a professional report detailing the findings and recommendations of the records search and field survey. • The report containing site significance and mitigation measurers should be submitted immediately to the planning department. ■ The site forms and final written report should be submitted within 3 months after work has been completed to the Information Center. ✓ Contact the Native American Heritage Commission for: ■ A Sacred Lands File Check. ■ A list of appropriate Native American Contacts for consultation concerning the project site and assist in the mitigation measures. ✓ Provisions for accidental discovery of archeological resources: ■ Lack of surface evidence of archeological resources does not preclude the existence of archeological i resources. Lead agencies should include provisions for accidentally discovered archeological resources during construction per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) §15064.5 (f). ✓ Provisions for discovery of Native American human remains ■ Health and Safety Code §7050.5, CEQA §15064.5 (e), and Public Resources Code §5097.98 mandates the process to be followed in the event of an accidental discovery of any human remains in a location other than a dedicated cemetery and should be included in all environmental documents. iIf you have any questions, please contact me at (916) 653-4040. Sincerely, Rob Wood Associate Governmental Program Analyst CC: State Clearinghouse .,b ��4 r O� County of Orange og0 Planning & Development Services Department September 11, 2001 Jane James, Associate Planner City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 95814 SUBJECT: NOP for Block 104/105 Redevelopment Project Dear Ms. James: THOMAS B. MATHEWS DIRECTOR 300 N. FLOWER ST. SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA INWLING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 4048 SANTA ANA, CA 927024048 NCL 01-79 The above referenced project is a Notice of Preparation of a Draft EIR to facilitate a redevelopment project for the 6.31-acre Block 104/105 site, which is currently occupied by retail, commercial, office, and residential uses. The County of Orange has reviewed the NOP and offers the following comments: CULTURAL RESOURCES Mitigation for historic properties which provides for a HABS/HAER Level TT documentation of historic structures may not adequately address potential impacts to the Main Street Historical District according to CEQA Guidelines 15126.4. This guideline states that "in some circumstances, documentation of an historical resource, by way of historic narrative, photographs or architectural drawings, as mitigation for the effects of demolition of the resource will not mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur." 2. EIR mitigation measures should be written to specify as to proper disposition of any cultural resources. We encourage the City of Huntingtion Beach to follow the Board of Supervisors lead and to require that any artifacts or fossils found be donated to a suitable institution in Orange County where they may be accessible to the scientific community for further study and for exhibition. 3. In addition, mitigation language should be written to reflect current standards in cultural resources management, specifically related to any found artifacts or fossils: a. Prior to donation, the certified cultural resources professional should prepare the collection to the point of identification. t 11 1 i a b. The project proponent should be prepared to pay potential curation fees to the County or other suitable repository for the long-term curation and maintenance of donated collections. 4. The Orange County Historical Commission is interested in receiving the Draft EIR and any cultural resources reports or historical surveys prepared as a result of the proposed ' document. WASTE MANAGEMENT 5. In order to understand the solid waste capacity issue for Orange Count it is necessary to P Y g Y� �'Y distinguish between refuse disposal capacity and flow rate or "pipeline" capacity. Refuse disposal capacity refers to the current and future air space capacity at one or more landfill sites. Pipeline capacity refers to the amount of daily permitted tonnage that may be disposed. These capacities are established by the landfill permit. Refuse Disposal Capacity The County of Orange owns and operates three active landfills. The Frank R. Bowerman Landfill is the closest facility to the project, and will likely be the solid waste facility receiving the waste. Notwithstanding, the City of Huntington Beach is under contract to IWMD to commit all of its waste to the County landfill system (not to a particular facility) until the year 2007. 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 fifteen (15) years, or identify additional available capacity outside of the county's jurisdiction. Orange County's CIWMP, approved in 1996, contains future solid waste disposal demand based on the County population projections previously adopted by the Board of Supervisors. The Orange County landfill system has capacity in excess of fifteen (15) years. Consequently, it may be assumed that adequate capacity for the subject project is available for the foreseeable future. Pipeline Capacity If the tonnage disposed at a landfill exceeds or threatens to exceed the Permitted Daily Limit on a consistent basis the permit of the affected landfill may need to be modified to increase the Permitted Daily Limit. Recently, the Frank R. Bowerman and Olinda Alpha Landfills have been receiving refuse at rates near the maximum limit. Consequently, a significant increase in solid waste requiring disposal in those landfills could require a modification of its permit. This action would need to be preceded by an environmental analysis pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Therefore, notwithstanding the availability of Refuse Disposal Capacity in the County system, IWNID recommends that the project developer contact the city recycling coordinator to ensure that the proposed project is in compliance with the city's waste reduction and recycling program. These programs implement state law which requires that each city and county demonstrate a reduction of at least 50% in the amount of waste from that jurisdiction that had gone into landfills in the year 1990. Also, the state requires that this level of reduction be sustained in perpetuity. Waste haulers are expected to contribute by recycling residential and commercial waste they have collected, and project developers are expected to employ measures to reduce the amount of construction -generated waste. At this time, IWMD does not have information on solid waste generation rates in Orange County. Any questions about solid waste generation rates should be forwarded to the California Integrated Waste Management Board in Sacramento. The City of Huntington Beach is responsible for meeting the Assembly Bill 939 (AB 939) mandate of 50% disposal reduction by the start of 2000, and for preparing AB 939 solid waste planning documents. These documents include the Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE), the Household Hazardous Waste Element (HHWE), and the Non -Disposal Facility Element (NDFE). Construction- and demolition -generated waste (C&D) is heavy, inert material. This material creates significant problems when disposed of in landfills; since C&D debris does not decompose, it takes up valuable landfill capacity. Additionally, since C&D debris is heavy when compared with paper and plastic, it is more difficult for the County and cities to reduce the tonnage of disposed waste. For this reason, C&D waste debris has been specifically targeted by the State of California for diversion from the waste stream. Projects that will generate C&D waste should emphasize deconstruction and diversion planning, rather than demolition. Deconstruction is the planned, organized dismantling of the prior construction project, which allows maximum use of the deconstructed materials for recycling in other construction projects and sends a minimum of the deconstruction material to landfills. We recommend that this project address a waste reduction plan for the C&D waste generated from this project. This plan should be coordinated with the recycling coordinator for the City of Huntington Beach to help ensure AB 939 requirements are properly addressed. Thank you for the opportunity to respond the NOR Please send one complete set of the DEIR to me at the above address when it becomes available. If you have any questions, please contact Grace Fong at (714) 834-2708. Sincerely, Oimeely, M ter Environmental Planning Services Division I L i F r F k w sn �o �W r N T^" phone: (714) 962-24.1 1 mailing address: Box 8127 untain Valley, CA 92728-8127 street address: 844 Ellis Avenue'. untain:valley, CA 92708-7018 Member Agencies Cities Anaheim Brea Buena. Park Cypress Fountain Valley Fullerton Garden Grove intingtonBeach Irvine La Habra La. Palm Los Alamitos Newport. Beach Orange Placentia Santa Ana Seal Beach Stanton Tustin .Ville: Park Yorba Linda inty of Orange itary: Districts Costa Mesa Midway .City later, Districts Irvine Ranch ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT September 11, 2001 Jane M. James Associate Planner City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 SUBJECT: Notice of Preparation of a Subsequent Draft Environmental Impact Report for Block 104/105 Redevelopment Project (The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach) This letter is in response to the above referenced Subsequent Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the redevelopment of the Strand, located in the City of Huntington Beach. The project is bounded by Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) on the west, Walnut Avenue on the east, Sixth Street on the north, and Main Street on the south. The 6.31-acre development, 2.97-acres developable, will provide for commercial and retail land use, including a 149-room hotel. The area is within the jurisdiction of the Orange County Sanitation District (District). Previous planning has shown primarily residential with some commercial land use for the area. In reviewing the NOP, it is unclear where the sewer(s) for the revised project will connect into the District's collection system. The flow for the project area appears to be tributary to the District's, 54-inch diameter, Coast Trunk Sewer (Contract No. 11-13-3), located in Walnut Street. To determine the potential impacts to our facilities, the District requests that the following information be included in the EIR: Define the point of sewer connection via the local sewer(s) into the District's coilection system. Describe any planned urban runoff (dry weather) discharge to the District sewer system. Provide the projected sewage flows based on the District's unit generation factors provided herein. For your calculations, use flow coefficients listed below: 727 gallons per day per acres (gpd/acre) for estate density residential (0-3 d.u. /acre); 1488 gpd/acre for low density residential (4-7d.u. /acre); 3451 gpd/acre for medium density residential (8-16 d.u./acre);. 5474 gpd/acre for medium -high density residential (17-25 d.u./acre); 7516 gpd/acre for high density residential (26-35 d.u./acre); r "Maintaining World -Class Leadership in Wastewater and Water Resource Management" Jane M. James Page 2 September 11, 2001 - 2262 gpd/acre for commercial/office; - 3167 gpd/acre for industrial; - 2715 gpd/acre for institutional; - 5429 gpd/acre for high intensity industrial/commercial; - 129 gpd/acre for recreation and open space usage. All proposed developments should incorporate a!! practical and mandated water. conservation measures. All users should use ultra -low flow water fixtures to reduce the volume of sewage to the system. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed development. If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact Jim Herberg or Angie Anderson at (714X593-7310 or (714) 593-7305 respectively. I David A. Ludwin, P.E. Director of Engineering DAL:AA:jak \\lead\datal\wp.dta\eng\EIRS\20O0\Huntington Beach Strand Block 104-105 Revised.doc I u STATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY GRAY DAVIS, Govemc nFPORTMFNT nF TRONSPnRTATInN DISTRICT 12 3347 Michelson Drive Suite 100 Irvine, CA. 92612-0661 September 17, 2001 Jane James File: IGR/CEQA City of Huntington Beach SCH#: None Planning Department Log #: 739A 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach , CA 92648 Subject: Block 104/105 Redevelopment Project, The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach (Revised Project) Dear Ms. James, Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Block 104/105 Redevelopment Project. The project area is bounded by Pacific Coast Highway on the west, Walnut Avenue on the East, Sixth Street on the North, and Main Street on the South. The project proposes to redevelop the 6.31-acre (3.87-acre developable) Block 104/105 site, which is currently occupied by retail, commercial, office, and residential uses. The project has been revised and reduced in scale since the previous NOP was issued in June of 2000. Caltrans District 12 status is a responsible agency on this project and has the following comments: • Rage 13- According to Section VI- Transportation/Traffic, please include a discussion on the potential increase in pedestrian traffic and it's impact on the existing state facilities. • All activities in Caltrans right of way will require an encroachment permit. Applicants need to plan for sufficient permit processing time, which may include engineering and environmental studies and documentation. Please continue to keep us informed of this project and other future developments, which could potentially impact our Transportation facilities. If you have any questions or need to contact us please do not hesitate to call Maryam Molavi at (949) 724-2267. S' c rely Robert F. J s h, C ief Advanced Planning Branch cc: Ron Helgeson, HDQRTRS Planning Saied Hashemi, Traffic Operations Nooshin Yossefi, Project Management �J CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Planning Department HUNTINGTON BEACH TO: Jane James, Associate Planner FROM: Ricky Ramos, Associate Planner=' SUBJECT: Environmental Board Comments on Blocks 104/105 Notice of Preparation DATE: October 1, 2001 At the September 6, 2001 meeting the Environmental Board voted to resubmit their previous comment letter dated June 16, 2000 (see attached) in response to the recent Notice of Preparation for Blocks 104/105. Please contact the Environmental Board Chair, Frank Caponi, if you have any questions regarding their comment letter. cc: Frank Caponi, Environmental Board Chair 11 0 H0 J1 Environmental Board 0 CITY OF HONTINGTON..aEACH HUNTINGTON UEACK POST Office. Box 190 . Huntington Beach, California 92648 June 16, 2000 Ms. Jaile James City of Huntington Beach Planning Department 2000 Main Street, 3t1 floor' P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Subject: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report: Block 104/105 Redevelopment Project (The Strand at Downtown, Huntington Beach) Dear Ms. James: The Environmental Board of the City of Huntington Beach is pleased to submit its comments and recommendations on the Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report. Block 104/105 Redevelopment Project. The Environmental Board discussed the NOP at its regularly scheduled meeting on June 8, 2000. The comments included below were approved by Board action at the same meeting. The proposed project will result in.a substantial number of people being displace which has been found in the NOP to be potentially significant. The Environmental Board.agrees that displacement of the current residence will be potentially significant, and also recogniie that the Environmental Impact Repots (EIR) will include an evaluation of the impact in relation to relocation of and/or campensution to residents according to Federal and State Relocation Law, However, the Environmental Board request that staff also provide an analysis of the adequacy of existing law in this area, and further analyze additional measures for, relocating affected people in an equitable manner. The NOP finds all issues related to Geology and Soils as having a potentially significant impact. The Environmental Board agrees that these issues are important and should be thoroughly addressed in the EIR. The Board would also recommends that the EIR examine any potential site contamination issues and verify that no old oil .field, or any other oil related business was conducted at the site: The Environmental Board is very concerned about the additional traffic and congestion that will be created by the proposed project. The additional pedestrian traffic should be analyzed for:the added retail establishments, as well as the proposed hotel. Also, the Board would like staff to analyze ways to reduce congestion such as closing Main Street between Pacific CoastHigbway and Walnut Avenue, and ttirning the street into a pedestrian thoroughfare. Webelieve traffic on tWs street adds significantly to congestion, but more importantly detracts from the aesthetics of the new development. Furthermore, the proposed project will atn•act additional people to the beach areas,.as well as other stirrou.rtding facilities. Staff should analyze the impacts -of this on the current infrastructure. Construction impacts have been identified as being potentially significant. This is a special concern because this project will be built in a very populated area,, where exposure to diesel exhaust, a laiow C carcinogen, will be high. The Environmental Board recommends that staff evaluate the potential of requiring diesel particulate filters to be fitted to all heavy equipment used as part of the project. This mitigation will reduce; dWsS H particulates in excess of 90 percent. Finally, staff should evaluate alternatives to the project, such as siting high density residential housing, instead of the proposed hotel, in addition to the "no project". The Environmental Board appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. Sincerely, ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD Frank R. Capon Chairman I APPENDIX B AIR QUALITY DATA LF-� j LI CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS ESTIMATES DEMOLITION PHASE ' Project Number: 10363-00 Project Name: Block 104/105 Construction Equipment Emissions Emissions = F x G x H F Equipment Type Quantity G Hours/ Day H Emission Factors in Pounds per Hour' CO ROC NOx SOx PM, CO Emissions in Pounds per Day ROC NOx sox PM10 Generator Sets <50 HP 2 2 1.479 0.054 0.002 0.0006 0.00025 5.9 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Fork Lift - 50 HP 0 6 0.18 0.053 0.441 0 0.031 - - - - - Fork Lift- 175 HP 0 6 0.52 0.17 1.54 0 0.93 - - - - - Water Truck 1 4 1.8 0.19 4.17 0.45 0.26 7.2 0.8 16.7 1.8 1.0 Tracked Loader 0 6 0.201 0.095 0.83 0.076 0.059 Tracked Tractor 0 6 0.35 0.12 1.26 0.14 0.112 Scraper 0 7 1.25 0.27 3.84 0.46 0.41 Wheeled Dozer 0 6 0.572 0.12 0.713 0.35 0.165 - - - Wheeled Loader 1 6 0.572 0.23 1.9 0.182 0.17 3.4 1.4 11.4 1.1 1.0 Wheeled Tractor 0 6 3.58 0.18 1.27 0.09 0.14 Roller 0 6 0.3 0.065 0.87 0.067 0.05 Motor Grader 0 7 0.151 0.039 0.713 0.086 0.061 Miscellaneous 0 .7 0.675 0.15 1.7 0.143 0.14 - - - - - Crane 1 6 0.75078 0.25026 1.91866 0.16684 0.12513 4.5 1.5 11.5 1.0 0.8 Backhoe 0 3.5 0.572 0.23 1.9 0.17 0.182 Crushing Equipment 0 4 1.9812 0.29718 2.37744 0.19812 0.14859 Subtotal 21.1 3.9 39.6 3.9 2.8 ' Emission Factors from SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook (1993), Tables A9-8-A, A9-8-B, A9-8-C, and A9-8-D. On -Road Vehicle Source Emissions Emissions = F x G x H x I F G H I Trips/ Miles/ Emission Factors in Pounds per 100 Trips per Mile Emissions in Pounds per Day Type Quantity Vehicle Trip CO ROC NOx S% Pm,CO ROC NOx SOx PM,aul Vehicle TrucksZ 7 2 50 1.42511 0.22467 1.982379 0 0.012118 10.0 1.6 13.9 0.0 0.1 onstruction Employees' 5 3.7 10.6 2.2 0.82 1.16 0 0.22 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 Subtotal 10.4 1.7 14.1 0.0 0.1 s Emission factors from EMFAC7G (Year 2001, 100% heavy-duty diesel, 90F) ' Emission factors from URBEMIS7G (Year 2001, construction worker trips) Structure Demolition PM10 Emissions = 0.00042 Ibs per cubic foot x N / O" N O PM10 Cubic Feet Days of Emissions Emissions Source of Bldg. Demolition (Ibs/day) Structure Demolition 20000 4 2.1 ° Emission Factors from SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook (1993), Table A9-9-H. - Total Demolition Phase Emissions Emissions in Pounds per Day Emissions Source CO ROC NO, SOx PM, 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 31.4 5.6 53.7 3.9 5.0 SCAQMD Threshold 550.0 75.0 100.0 150.0 150.0 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No 1 Construction AQ Workbook New EIP Associates 7/12/02 CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS ESTIMATES SITE EXCAVATION AND GRADING PHASE Project Number: 10363-00 Project Name: Block 104/105 Construction Equipment Emissions Emissions = F x G x H F G H Hours/ Emission Factors in Pounds per Hour' Emissions in Pounds per Day Equipment Type Quantity Day CO ROC NOx sox PM10 CO ROC NOx sox PM, Generator Sets <50 HP 1 2 1.479 0.054 0.002 0.0006 0.00025 3.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Fork Lift - 50 Hp 0 6 0.18 0.053 0.441 0 0.031 - - - - - Fork Lift - 175 Hp 0 6 0.52 0.17 1.54 0 0.93 - - - - - WaterTruck 1 4 1.8 0.19 4.17 0.45 0.26 7.2 0.8 16.7 1.8 1.0 Tracked Loader 0 6 0.201 0.095 0.83 0.076 0.059 - - - - - Tracked Tractor 0 6 0.35 0.12 1.26 0.14 0.112 Scraper 0 7 1.25 0.27 3.84 0.46 0.41 - - - - - Wheeled Dozer 2 6 0.572 0.12 0.713 0.35 0.165 6.9 1.4 8.6 4.2 2.0 Wheeled Loader 2 6 0.572 0.23 1.9 0.182 0.17 6.9 2.8 22.8 2.2 2.0 Wheeled Tractor 0 6 3.58 0.18 1.27 0.09 0.14 - - - Roller 1 6 0.3 0.065 0.87 0.067 0.05 1.8 0.4 5.2 0.4 0.3 Motor Grader 0 7 0.151 0.039 0.713 0.086 0.061 - - - - - Miscellaneous 0 7 0.675 0.15 1.7 0.143 0.14 Subtotal 25.7 5.5 53.3 8.6 5.4 ' Emission Factors from SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook (1993), Tables A9-8-A, A9-8-B, A9-8-C, and A9-8-D. On -Road Vehicle Source Emissions Emissions = FxGxH x I F G H I Trips/ Miles/ Emission Factors in Pounds per 100 Trips per Mile Emissions in Pounds per Day Vehicle Type Quantity Vehicle Trip CO ROC NOx SOx PM, CO ROC N% SOx PM, Haul Trucksz 20 2 50 1.42511 0.22467 1.982379 0 0.012118 28.5 4.5 39.6 0.0 0.2 Construction Employees' 10 3.7 10.6 2.2 0.82 1.16 0 0.22 0.8 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.1 Subtotal 29.3 4.8 40.1 0.0 0.3 2 Emission factors from EMFAC7G (Year 2001, 100% heavy-duty diesel, 90F) 3 Emission factors from URBEMIS7G (Year 2001, construction worker trips) Site Grading PM10 Emissions = (10.0 Ibs per day x A) - B" A O PM,, Acres/ Rule 403 Reduction Emissions Emissions Source Day % Ibs (ibs/day) Site Grading 6 68% 40.8 19.2 " Emission Factors from URBEMIS7G (2000). Total Site Grading Phase Emissions Emissions in Pounds per Day Emissions Source CO ROC NOx SOx PM,, Construction Equipment 25.7 5.5 53.3 8.6 5.4 On -Road Vehicles 29.3 4.8 40.1 0.0 0.3 Site Grading 19.2 Total 55.0 10.3 93.3 8.6 24.9 SCAQMD Threshold 550.0 75.0 100.0 150.0 150.0 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No Construction AQ Workbook New EIP Associates 7/12102 1 1 1 CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS ESTIMATES CONSTRUCTION PHASE Project Number: 10363-00 Project Name: Block 104/105 Construction Equipment Emissions Emissions = F x G x H F G Hours/ Equipment Type Quantity Day H Emission Factors in Pounds per Hour' CO ROC N% sO, PM,o CO Emissions in Pounds per Day ROC N% SO, PMro Generator Sets 150 HP 4 2 Fork Lift - 50 Hp 2 6 1.479 0.18 0.054 0.053 0.002 0.441 0.0006 0 0.00025 0.031 11.8 2.2 0.4 0.6 0.0 5.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 Fork Lift - 175 Hp 1 6 0.52 0.17 1.54 0 0.93 3.1 1.0 9.2 0.0 5.6 Water Truck 0 4 1.8 0.19 4.17 0.45 0.26 Tracked Loader 0 6 0.201 0,095 0.83 0.076 0.059 - - - - - Tracked Tractor 0 6 0.35 0.12 1.26 0.14 0.112 - - - - - Scraper 0 7 0.12 0.35 - - - Wheeled Dozer 0 B .572 0.572 O.t2 0.713 .713 0.35 0.165 .16 ' Wheeled Loader 1 6 0.572 0.23 1.9 0.182 0.17 3.4 1.4 11.4 1.1 1.0 Wheeled Tractor 0 6 3.58 0.18 1.27 0.09 0.14 Roller 1 6 0.3 0.065 0.87 0.067 0.05 1.8 0.4 5.2 0.4 0.3 Motor Grader 0 7 0.151 0.039 0.713 0.086 0.061 - - - - - Miscellaneous 1 7 0.675 0.15 1.7 0.143 0.14 4.7 1.1 11.9 1.0 1.0 Crane 2 6 0.75078 0.25026 1.91866 0.16684 0.12513 9,0 3.0 23.0 2.0 1.5 Backhoe 1 3.5 0.572 0.23 1.9 0.17 0.182 2.0 0.8 6.7 0.6 0.6 Paving Equipment 1 6 0.675 0.15 1.7 0.143 0.14 4.1 0.9 10.2 0.9 0.8 Subtotal 42.1 9.6 82.9 6.0 11.2 ' Emission Factors from SCAOMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook (1993), Tables A9-8-A, A9-8-B, A9-8-C, and A9.8-0. On -Road Vehicle Source Emissions Emissions = F x G x H x I F G H I Trips/ Miles/ Emission Factors in Pounds per 100 Trips per Mile Emissions in Pounds per Day Vehicle Type Quantity Vehicle Trip CO ROC NO, SO, PMio CO ROC NO, 50, PM,o Haul Trucks 6 2 50 1.42511 0.22467 1.982379 0 0.012118 8.6 1.3 11.9 0.0 0.1 Construction Employees' 30 3.7 10.6 2.2 0.82 1.16 0 0.22 2.4 0.9 1.3 O.0 0.2 Subtotal 11.0 2.3 13.2 0.0 0.3 Emission factors from EMFAC7G (Year 2001, 100% heavy-duty diesel, 90F) 1 ' Emission factors from URBEMIS7G (Year 2001, construction worker trips) Stationary Source Emissions Emissions = F x G F G Units or ctors in Pounds per DayEmissions in Pounds per Day Emissions Source 1,000 sf ROC NO, PM10 ROC NO, PMro Stationary Sources 4 0.168 0,137 0.008 0.7 0.5 0.0 ' 4 Emission Factors from URBEMIS7G (2000). Asphalt Paving ROC Emissions = 2.62 Ibs per acre x A / B6 A B ROC ' Acres of Days of Emissions Emissions Source Paving Pavinq (lbs/dav) Asphalt Paving 0.25 1 0.7 'Emission Factors from URBEMIS7G (2000). Architectural Coatings ROC Emissions = 0.0185 lbs per square foot x A6 A ROC Arealace AEmissions Emissions Source Day (Ibs/day) Architectural Coatings 2500 46.3 6 Emission Factors from URBEMIS7G (2000). Total Construction Phase Emissions Emissions in Pounds per Day Emissions Source CO ROC NO, SO, PMlo Construction Equipment 42.1 9.6 82.9 6.0 11.2 On -Road Vehicles 11.0 2.3 13.2 0.0 0.3 Stationary Equipment 0.7 0.5 0.0 Asphalt Paving 0.7 Architectural Coatings 46.3 Total 53.1 59.5 96.7 6.0 11.6 SCAOMD Threshold 550.0 75.0 Exceeds Threshold? No No 100.0 No 150.0 No 150.0 No 1 Construction AQ Workbook New EIP Associates 7/12102 EXPLANATION OF CHANGES MADE TO DEFAULT SETTINGS IN URBEMIS7G Project Number: 10363-00 Project Name: Block 104/105 The following pages include the printed results of the air pollutant emissions modeling for one of the land use components of the proposed project. The air emissions modeling was conducted using the URBEMIS7G for Windows computer program developed for the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District in May 1998. URBEMIS7G is programmed with EMFAC7G emission factors developed by the California Air Resources Board. As part of this analysis, changes have been made to several of the default values programmed into URBEMIS7G. These changes were made to more accurately reflect the nature of the proposed land use. Each of these changes are discussed Vehicle Trip Rates The default vehicle trip rate values were changed to be consistent with the traffic impact analysis prepared for the project. Vehicle Fleet Mix URBEMIS7G is programmed with the following state-wide average vehicle fleet mix: State -Wide Vehicle Type Total Automobiles 75.0% Light Duty Trucks 10.0% Medium Duty Trucks 3.0% Light -Heavy Duty Trucks 1.0% ° 10.00 /° Total Trucks Medium -Heavy Duty Trucks 1 0% Heavy -Heavy Duty Trucks 5.0% Urban Buses 2.0% Motorcycles 3.0% However, this state-wide average fleet mix is not appropriate for the majority of land use analyses. The project land use assessed in this analysis is identified below along with the total percentage of trucks (medium and heavy) that are expected for this land use. The following vehicle mix was calculated based on the percentage of trucks associated with this land use. The percentage of trucks for each land use were determined from the 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th Editions of the ITE Trip Generation manual. Project Land Use: Truck % ADT Truck # 820 Retail/Commercial 2.10% 4,532 95 831 Restaurant 1.63% 5,214 85 710 Office 1.84% 308 6 310 Hotel 1.84% 1,226 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Project Totals: 11,280 208 Project Truck %: 1.85% Vehicle Type Total Automobiles 81.79% Light Duty Trucks 10.91 % Medium Duty Trucks 0.55% Light -Heavy Duty Trucks 0.18% ° 1.85 /° Total Trucks Medium -Heavy Duty Trucks 0.18% Heavy -Heavy Duty Trucks 0.92% Urban Buses 2.18% Motorcycles 3.27% URBEMIS7G Changes EIP Associates 5/7/02 Page: 1 ' URBEMIS 7G For Windows 5.1.0 File Name: C:\Program Files\URBEMIS 7G For Windows\Projects\Block 104_105.urb Project Name: Block 104/105 Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) SUMMARY REPORT (Pounds/Day - Summer) AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO PM10 SOX TOTALS(lbs/day,unmitigated) 0.37 1.11 2.57 0.01 0.00 TOTALS (lbs/day, mitigated) 0.37 1.11 2.57 0.01 0.00 OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO PM10 TOTALS (ppd, unmitigated) 65.25 83.56 470.84 40.78 1 TOTALS (ppd, mitigated) 56.35 71.18 401.32 34.76 I L 0 Page: 2 URBEMIS 7G For Windows 5.1.0 File Name: C:\Program Files\URBEMIS 7G For Windows\Projects\Block 104_105.urb Project Name: Block 104/105 Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) DETAIL REPORT (Pounds/Day - Summer) AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES (Summer Pounds per Day, Unmitigated) Source ROG NOx CO PM10 SOX Natural Gas 0.08 1.09 0.43 0.00 - Wood Stoves - No summer emissions Fireplaces - No summer emissions Landscaping 0.29 0.02 2.13 0.01 0.00 Consumer Prdcts 0.00 - - - - TOTALS(lbs/day,unmitigated) 0.37 1.11 2.57 0.01 0.00 AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Source ROG NOx CO PM10 SOX Natural Gas 0.08 1.09 0.43 0.00 - Wood Stoves - No summer emissions Fireplaces - No summer emissions Landscaping 0.29 0.02 2.13 0.01 0.00 Consumer Prdcts 0.00 - - - - TOTALS (lbs/day, mitigated) 0.37 1.11 2.57 0.01 0.00 Area Source Mitigation Measures 1 Page: 3 UNMITIGATED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS ROG NOx CO High turnover (sit-down) 25.87 31.52 189.06 Hotel 10.50 11.95 62.93 Regnl shop. center < 5700 25.92 36.16 197.59 ' General office building 2.97 3.94 21.26 TOTAL EMISSIONS (lbs/day) 65.25 83.56 470.84 Includes correction for passby trips. Includes the following double counting adjustment for internal trips: Residential trips: 0.00 % reduction. Nonresidential trips: OPERATIONAL (Vehicle) EMISSION ESTIMATES Analysis Year: 2005 Temperature (F): 90 Season: Summer ' EMFAC Version: EMFAC7G (10/96) Summary of Land Uses: Unit Type Trip Rate Size High turnover (sit-down) 130.34 trips / 1000 sq. ft. 40.00 Hotel 8.23 trips / rooms 149.00 Regnl shop. center < 5700 85.51 trips / 1000 sq. ft. 53.00 General office building 11.01 trips / 1000 sq. ft. 28.00 ' Vehicle Assumptions: Fleet Mix: fl d d PM10 14.06 6.36 18.17 2.19 40.78 0.00 % reduction. Total Trips 5,213.60 1,226.27 4,532.03 308.28 Vehicle Type Percent Type Non -Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Duty Autos 81.79 1.16 98.58 0.26 Light Duty Trucks 10.91 0.13 99.54 0.33 Medium Duty Trucks 0.56 1.44 98.56 - Lite-Heavy Duty Trucks 0.18 19.56 40.00 40.44 Med.-Heavy Duty Trucks 0.18 19.56 40.00 40.44 Heavy -Heavy Trucks 0.92 - - 100.00 Urban Buses 2.18 - - 100.00 Motorcycles 3.27 100.00% all fuels Travel Conditions Residential Commercial Home- Home- Home - Work Shop Other Commute Non -Work Customer Urban Trip Length (miles) 11.5 4.9 6.0 10.3 5.5 5.5 Rural Trip Length (miles) 11.5 4.9 6.0 10.3 5.5 5.5 Trip Speeds (mph) 35.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 % of Trips - Residential 20.0 37.0 43.0 % of Trips - Commercial (by land use) High turnover (sit-down) rest. 5.0 2.5 92.5 Hotel 5.0 2.5 92.5 Regnl shop. center < 570000 sf 2.0 1.0 97.0 General office building 35.0 17.5 47.5 Page: 4 MITIGATED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS ROG NOx High turnover (sit-down) 22.15 26.85 Hotel 9.37 10.18 Regnl shop. center < 5700 22.13 30.66 General office building 2.69 3.48 TOTAL EMISSIONS (lbs/day) 56.35 71.18 OPERATIONAL (Vehicle) EMISSION ESTIMATES Analysis Year: 2005 Temperature (F): 90 Season: Summer EMFAC Version: EMFAC7G (10/96) Summary of Land Uses: Unit Type Trip Rate High turnover (sit-down) 130.34 trips / 1000 sq. ft. Hotel 8.23 trips / rooms Regnl shop. center < 5700 85.51 trips / 1000 sq. ft. General office building 11.01 trips / 1000 sq. ft. Vehicle Assumptions: Fleet Mix: CO PM10 161.22 11.99 53.65 5.42 167.60 15.41 18.85 1.94 401.32 34.76 Vehicle Type Percent Type Non -Catalyst Catalyst Light Duty Autos 81.79 1.16 98.58 Light Duty Trucks 10.91 0.13 99.54 Medium Duty Trucks 0.56 1.44 98.56 Lite-Heavy Duty Trucks 0.18 19.56 40.00 Med.-Heavy Duty Trucks 0.18 19.56 40.00 Heavy -Heavy Trucks 0.92 - - Urban Buses 2.18 - - Motorcycles 3.27 100.00% all fuels Travel Conditions Residential Home- Home- Home - Work Shop Other Urban Trip Length (miles) 11.5 4.9 6.0 Rural Trip Length (miles) 11.5 4.9 6.0 Trip Speeds (mph) 35.0 40.0 40.0 % of Trips - Residential 20.0 37.0 43.0 % of Trips - Commercial (by land use) High turnover (sit-down) rest. Hotel Regnl shop. center < 570000 sf General office building Size Total Trips 40.00 5,213.60 149.00 1,226.27 53.00 4,532.03 28.00 308.28 Diesel 0.26 0.33 40.44 40.44 100.00 100.00 Commercial Commute Non -Work Customer 10.3 5.5 5.5 10.3 5.5 5.5 40.0 40.0 40.0 5.0 2.5 92.5 5.0 2.5 92.5 2.0 1.0 97.0 35.0 17.5 47.5 11 11 1 Page: 5 I 7 7 7 d J 7 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS APPLICABLE TO THE PROJECT Pedestrian Environment 3.0 Side Walks/Paths: Complete Coverage 0.5 Street Trees Provide Shade: Some Coverage 3.0 Pedestrian Circulation Access: Most Destinations 5.0 Visually Interesting Uses: Large Number and Variety 1.0 Street System Enhances Safety: Some Streets 2.0 Pedestrian Safety from Crime: High Degree of Safety 2.0 Visually Interesting Walking Routes: High Level 16.5 <- Pedestrian Environmental Credit 16.5 /19 = 0.9 <- Pedestrian Effectiveness Factor Transit Service 20.0 Transit Service: 15-30 Minute Bus within 1/4 Mile 20.0 <- Transit Effectiveness Credit 16.5 <- Pedestrian Factor 36.5 <-Total 36.5 /110 = 0.3 <-Transit Effectiveness Factor Bicycle Environment 3.0 Interconnected Bikeways: Moderate Coverage 2.0 Bike Routes Provide Paved Shoulders: Some Routes 1.0 Safe Vehicle Speed Limits: Some Destinations 2.0 Safe School Routes: Primary and Secondary Schools 3.0 Uses w/in Cycling Distance: Large Number and Variety 1.0 Bike Parking Ordinance: Requires Unprotected Bike Racks 12.0 <- Bike Environmental Credit 12.0 /20 = 0.6 <- Bike Effectiveness Factor Page: 6 MITIGATION MEASURES SELECTED FOR THIS PROJECT (All mitigation measures are printed, even if the selected land uses do not constitute a mixed use.) Transit Infrastructure Measures % Trips Reduced Measure 15.0 Credit for Existing or Planned Community Transit Service 15.0 <- Totals Pedestrian Enhancing Infrastructure Measures (Residential) % Trips Reduced Measure 2.0 Credit for Surrounding Pedestrian Environment 2.0 <- Totals Pedestrian Enhancing Infrastructure Measures (Non -Residential) % Trips Reduced Measure 2.0 Credit for Surrounding Pedestrian Environment 1.0 Mixed Use Project (Commercial Oriented) 1.0 Floor Area Ratio 0.75 or Greater 1.0 Project Uses Parking Structures/Small Dispersed Lots 0.5 Provide Street Lighting 0.5 Project Provides Street Art and/or Street Furniture 0.5 Provide Pedestrian Safety Designs/Infrastructure at Crossings 0.2 Articulated Storefront(s) Display Windows with.Visual Interest 6.8 <- Totals Bicycle Enhancing Infratructure Measures (Residential) % Trips Reduced Measure 7.0 Credit for Surrounding Bicycle Environment 7.0 <- Totals Bike Enhancing Infrastructure Measures (Non -Residential) % Trips Reduced Measure 5.0 Credit for Surrounding Area Bike Environment 5.0 <- Totals Operational Measures (Applying to Commute Trips) Trips Reduced Measure 2.0 Charge for Employee Parking: Less than $3/day 1.5 Preferential Carpool/Vanpool Parking 3.5 <- Totals Operational Measures (Applying to Employee Non -Commute Trips) % Trips Reduced Measure 3.0 Some Frequently Needed Services Provided 3.0 <- Totals Operational Measures (Applying to Customer Trips) % Trips Reduced Measure 2.0 Charge $0.25/hour for parking 2.0 <- Totals Measures Reducing VMT (Non -Residential) IPage: 7 n VMT Reduced Measure 0.0 <- Totals Measures Reducing VMT (Residential) VMT Reduced Measure 0.0 <- Totals k G 0 11 Page: 8 Total Percentage Trip Reduction with Environmental Factors and Mitigation Measures Travel Mode Home -Work Trips Home -Shop Trips Home -Other Trips Pedestrian 0.19 0.76 0.76 Transit 4.98 1.10 1.34 Bicycle 4.20 4.20 4.20 Totals 0.00 0.00 0.00 Travel Mode Work Trips Employee Trips Customer Trips Pedestrian 0.64 5.86 5.86 Transit 4.98 0.10 4.98 Bicycle 3.00 3.00 3.00 Other 0.41 0.18 1.65 Totals 0.00 0.00 0.00 Page: 9 Changes made to the default values for Area The wood stove option switch changed from on to off. The fireplcase option switch changed from on to off. The landscape year changed from 2000 to 2005. Mitigation measure Central Water Heater: Rsdntl Space Heat. has been changed from off to on. ' Changes made to the default values for Operations The double counting option switch changed from off to on. The light duty auto percentage changed from 75.0 to 81.79. The light duty truck percentage changed from 10.0 to 10.91. The medium duty truck percentage changed from 3.0 to 0.555. The light heavy duty truck percentage changed from 1.0 to 0.185. The medium heavy duty truck percentage changed from 1.0 to 0.185. 1 The heavy heavy duty truck percentage changed from 5.0 to 0.925. The urban bus percentage changed from 2.0 to 2.18. The motorcycle percentage changed from 3.0 to 3.27. The operational emission year changed from 2000 to 2005. The double counting option changed from 1 to 0. The double counting work trip default changed from to 10. The double counting shopping trip default percentage changed from to 10. The double counting other trip default changed from to 10. The travel mode environment settings changed from both to: non-residential The default/nodefault travel setting changed from nodefault to: nodefault Side Walks/Paths: No Sidewalks changed to: Side Walks/Paths: Complete Coverage Street Trees Provide Shade: No Coverage changed to:Street Trees Provide Shade: Some Coverage Pedestrian Circulation Access: No Destinations changed to:Pedestrian Circulation Access: Most Destinations Visually Interesting Uses: No Uses Within Walking Distance changed to:Visually Interesting Uses: Large Number and Variety Street System Enhances Safety: No Streets changed to: Street System Enhances Safety: Some Streets Pedestrian Safety from Crime: No Degree of Safety changed to:Pedestrian Safety from Crime: High Degree of Safety Visually Interesting Walking Routes: No Visual Interest changed to:Visually Interesting Walking Routes: High Level Transit Service: Dial -A -Ride or No Transit Service changed to: Transit Service: 15-30 Minute Bus within 1/4 Mile Interconnected Bikeways: No Bikeway Coverage changed to: Interconnected Bikeways: Moderate Coverage Bike Routes Provide Paved Shoulders: No Routes changed to:Bike Routes Provide Paved Shoulders: Some Routes Safe Vehicle Speed Limits: No Routes Provided changed to:Safe Vehicle Speed Limits: Some Destinations 1 Safe School Routes: No Schools changed to: Safe School Routes: Primary and Secondary Schools Uses w/in Cycling Distance: No Uses w/in Cycling Distance changed to:Uses w/in Cycling Distance: Large Number and Variety Bike Parking Ordinance: No Ordinance or Unenforceable changed to:Bike Parking Ordinance: Requires Unprotected Bike Racks Mitigation measure Mixed Use Project (Commercial Oriented):1 has been changed from off to on. Mitigation measure Floor Area Ratio 0.75 or Greater:l has been changed from off to on. Mitigation measure Project Uses Parking Structures/Small Dispersed Lots:l has been changed from off to on. Mitigation measure Provide Street Lighting:0.5 Page: 10 has been changed from off to on. Mitigation measure Project Provides Street Art and/or Street Furniture:0.5 has been changed from off to on. Mitigation measure Provide Pedestrian Safety Designs/Infrastructure at Crossings:0.5 has been changed from off to on.. Mitigation measure Articulated Storefront(s) Display Windows with Visual Interest:0.25 has been changed from off to on. Mitigation measure Charge for Employee Parking: Less than $3/day:2 has been changed from off to on. Mitigation measure Preferential Carpool/Vanpool Parking:1.5 has been changed from off to on. Mitigation measure Some Frequently Needed Services Provided:3 has been changed from off to on. Mitigation measure Charge $0.25/hour for parking:2 has been changed from off to on. Mitigation measuremitop5: Park and Ride Lots has been changed from on to off. SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS I u 7 J d Project Number: 10363-00 Project Title: Huntington Beach Block 104-105 Background Information Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Costa Mesa Background 1-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 8.0 Background 8-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 4.6 Persistence Factor: 0.7 Analysis Year: 2002 Roadway Data Intersection: Ninth Street/PCH Analysis Condition: Existing Traffic Volumes North -South Roadway: Ninth Street East-West Roadway: Pacific Coast Highway A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N 18 0 59 W < v > E 11 ^ ^ 10 2,031 > < 1,338 0v v 0 0 0 0 S Highest Traffic Volumes (Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road: 98 E-W Road: 3,438 Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions = (A x B x C) / 100,000' No. of Average Speed Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. At Grade 2 20 20 At Grade 4 20 20 P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 1_7 26 0 23W v > E 23 ^ ^ 31 1,529 > < 1,656 0v v 0 0 0 0 S N-S Road: 103 E-W Road: 3,239 A, A2 A3 B C Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations Roadway 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors' 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M. Peak Traffic Hour North -South Road 2.7 2.2 1.7 98 9.33 0.02 0.02 0.02 East-West Road 7.0 5.4 3.8 3,438 9.33 2.25 1.73 1.22 P.M. Peak Traffic Hour North -South Road 2.7 2.2 1.7 103 9.33 0.03 0.02 0.02 East-West Road 7.0 5.4 3.8 3,239 9.33 2.12 1.63 1.15 ' Methodology and emission factors from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996) Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions = North -South Concentration + East-West Concentration + Background 1-hour Concentration 8-Hour Emissions = ((Highest Peak Hour Concentration - Background 1-hour Concentration) x Persistence Factor) + Background 8-hour Concentration A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 10.3 10.1 6.2 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 9.8 9.7 5.8 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 9.2 9.2 5.5 2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 5 Ninth Street & PCH.xis EIP Associates 3/7/2002 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS Project Number: 10363-00 Project Title: Huntington Beach Block 104-105 Background Information Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Costa Mesa Background 1-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 8.0 Background 8-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 4.6 Persistence Factor: 0.7 Analysis Year: 2002 Roadway Data Intersection: Sixth Street/PCH Analysis Condition: Existing Traffic Volumes North -South Roadway: Sixth Street East-West Roadway: Pacific Coast Highway A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N 108 8 42 W < v > E 36 A A 20 2,030 > < 1,194 8v v 9 < A > 4 5 7 S Highest Traffic Volumes (Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road: 219 E-W Road: 3,380 Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions = (A x B x C) / 100,000' No. of Average Speed Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. At Grade 2 20 20 At Grade 6 20 20 P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes NI1 50 11 32I W r < v > E 74 A A 26 1,400 > < 1,708 9 v v 35 < A > 16 11 31 S1 N-S Road: 204 E-W Road: 3,257 A, A2 A3 B C Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations Roadway 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors' 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M. Peak Traffic Hour North -South Road 2.7 2.2 1.7 219 9.33 0.06 0.04 0.03 East-West Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 3,380 9.33 1.92 1.55 1.10 P.M. Peak Traffic Hour North -South Road 2.7 2.2 1.7 204 9.33 0.05 0.04 0.03 East-West Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 3,257 9.33 1.85 1.49 1.06 ' Methodology and emission factors from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions = North -South Concentration + East-West Concentration + Background 1-hour Concentration 8-Hour Emissions = ((Highest Peak Hour Concentration - Background 1-hour Concentration) x Persistence Factor) + Background 8-hour Concentration A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 10.0 9.9 6.0 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 9.6 9.5 5.7 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 9.1 9.1 5.4 2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 6 Sixth Street & PCH.xIs EIP Associates 3/7/2002 1 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS p E I I k F C C� CI' Project Number: 10363-00 Project Title: Huntington Beach Block 104-105 Background Information Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Costa Mesa Background 1-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 8.0 Background 8-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 4.6 Persistence Factor: 0.7 Analysis Year: 2002 Roadway Data Intersection: Main Street/PCH Analysis Condition: Existing Traffic Volumes No. of Average Speed Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. North -South Roadway: Main Street At Grade 2 20 20 East-West Roadway: Pacific Coast Highway At Grade 6 20 20 A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N N 91 0 118I 118 0 71I W < > v E W < v > E 63 ^ ^ 65 86 ^ " 111 1,967 > < 1,008 1,434 > < 1,469 0v v 2 _-]< 0v v 1 A > < > 0 0 0F 0 0 f S S Highest Traffic Volumes (Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road: 337 E-W Road: 3,160 Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions = (A x B x C) / 100,000' N-S Road: 386 E-W Road: 3,107 A, A2 A3 B C Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations Roadway 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors' 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M. Peak Traffic Hour North -South Road 2.7 2.2 1.7 337 9.33 0.08 0.07 0.05 East-West Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 3,160 9.33 1.80 1.45 1.03 P.M. Peak Traffic Hour North -South Road 2.7 2.2 1.7 386 9.33 0.10 0.08 0.06 East-West Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 3,107 9.33 1.77 1.42 1.02 ' Methodology and emission factors from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions = North -South Concentration + East-West Concentration + Background 1-hour Concentration 8-Hour Emissions = ((Highest Peak Hour Concentration - Background 1-hour Concentration) x Persistence Factor) + Background 8-hour Concentration A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 9.9 9.9 5.9 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 9.5 9.5 5.7 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 9.1 9.1 5.4 2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 7 Main Street & PCH.xls EIP Associates 3/7/2002 10 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS Project Number: 10363-00 Project Title: Huntington Beach Block 104-105 Background Information Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Costa Mesa Background 1-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 8.0 Background 8-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 4.6 Persistence Factor: 0.7 Analysis Year: 2002 Roadway Data Intersection: First Street/PCH Analysis Condition: Existing Traffic Volumes No. of Average Speed Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. North -South Roadway: First Street At Grade 2 20 20 East-West Roadway: Pacific Coast Highway At Grade 6 20 20 A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N NI 161 25 1046 76 33 110I W < v E W < v > E 68 ^ " 54 144 " " 100 1,774 > < 886 1,327 > < 1,440 14 v v 29 16 v ........ . ... v 53 < > ] 34 15 11F_ ] 33 18 457 S1 S Highest Traffic Volumes (Vehicles Hour) per N-S Road: 429 N-S Road: 481 E-W Road: 2,937 E-W Road: 3,075 Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions = (A x B x C) / 100,000' A, AZ A3 B C Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations Roadway 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors' 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M. Peak Traffic Hour North -South Road 2.7 2.2 1.7 429 9.33 0.11 0.09 0.07 East-West Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 2,937 9.33 1.67 1.34 0.96 P.M. Peak Traffic Hour North -South Road 2.7 2.2 1.7 481 9.33 0.12 0.10 0.08 East-West Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 3,075 9.33 ' 1.75 1.41 1.00 Methodology and emission factors from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions = North -South Concentration + East-West Concentration + Background 1-hour Concentration 8-Hour Emissions = ((Highest Peak Hour Concentration - Background 1-hour Concentration) x Persistence Factor) + Background 8-hour Concentration2 A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 9.8 9.9 5.9 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 9.4 9.5 5.7 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 9.0 9.1 5.4 Z Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 8 First Street & PCH.xls EIP Associates 3/7/2002 1 d 1 7 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS Project Number: 10363-00 Project Title: Huntington Beach Block 104-105 Background Information Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Costa Mesa Background 1-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 8.0 Background 8-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 4.6 Persistence Factor: 0.7 Analysis Year. 2002 Roadway Data Intersection: Huntington Street/PCH Analysis Condition: Existing Traffic Volumes North -South Roadway: Huntington Street East-West Roadway: Pacific Coast Highway A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N 67 24 57 W < v > E 27 ^ ^ 64 1,951 > < 1,556 1v v 1 __ ] < 1 0 1 S Highest Traffic Volumes (Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road: 239 E-W Road: 3,630 No. of Average Speed Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. At Grade 4 20 20 At Grade 4 20 20 P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N 67 1 42 W < v > E 49 ^ ^ 308 433 > < 1,566 4 v v 25 18 3 3 S N-S Road: 470 E-W Road: 2,377 Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions = (A x B x C) / 100,000' A, A2 A3 B C Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations Roadway 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors' 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M. Peak Traffic Hour North -South Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 239 9.33 0.06 0.05 0.04 East-West Road 7.0 5.4 3.8 3,630 9.33 2.37 1.83 1.29 P.M. Peak Traffic Hour North -South Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 470 9.33 0.11 0.10 0.07 East-West Road 7.0 5A 3.8 2,377 9,33 1.55 1,20 0,84 ' Methodology and emission factors from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). ' Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions = North -South Concentration + East-West Concentration + Background 1-hour Concentration2 8-Hour Emissions = ((Highest Peak Hour Concentration - Background 1-hour Concentration) x Persistence Factor) + Background 8-hour Concentratio A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 10.4 9.7 6.3 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 9.9 9.3 5.9 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 9.3 8.9 5.5 2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 1 9 Huntington Street & PCH.xIs EIP Associates 3/7/2002 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS Project Number: 10363-00 Project Title: Huntington Beach Block 104-105 Background Information Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Costa Mesa Background 1-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 6.0 Background 8-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 4.6 Persistence Factor: 0.7 Analysis Year: 2002 Roadway Data Intersection: Beach Boulevard/PCH Analysis Condition: Existing Traffic Volumes No. of Average Speed Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. North -South Roadway: Beach Boulevard At Grade 4 20 20 East-West Roadway: Pacific Coast Highway At Grade 6 20 20 A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes NJ I N 120 6 457 168 17 274 W < v > E W < v > E 71 A A 183 225 A A 692 1,870 > < 860 1,231 > < 1,774 2v -] v 4 12v v 8 < A > < A > 0 7 6 18 24 10 S1 S Highest Traffic Volumes (Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road: 844 N-S Road: 1,400 E-W Road: 3,380 E-W Road: 3,989 Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions = (A x B x C) / 100,000' A, A2 A3 B C Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations Roadway 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors' 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M. Peak Traffic Hour North -South Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 844 9.33 0.20 0.17 0.13 East-West Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 3,380 9.33 1.92 1.55 1.10 P.M. Peak Traffic Hour North -South Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 1,400 9.33 0.34 0.29 0.22 East-West Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 3,989 9.33 2.27 1.82 1.30 ' Methodology and emission factors from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions = North -South Concentration + East-West Concentration + Background 1-hour Concentration 8-Hour Emissions = ((Highest Peak Hour Concentration - Background 1-hour Concentration) x Persistence Factor) + Background 8-hour Concentratio A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 10.1 10.6 6.4 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 9.7 10.1 6.1 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 9.2 9.5 5.7 2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 10 Beach Boulevard & PCH.xIs EIP Associates 3/7/2002 1 �J SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS Project Number: 10363-00 Project Title: Huntington Beach Block 104-105 ' Background Information Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Costa Mesa Background 1-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 8.0 Background 8-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 4.6 Persistence Factor: 0.7 Analysis Year: 2002 �7 Roadway Data Intersection: Main Street/Sixth Street Analysis Condition: Existing Traffic Volumes No. of Average Speed Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. North -South Roadway: Main Street At Grade 2 20 20 East-West Roadway: Sixth Street At Grade 2 20 20 A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N N 10 203 19I 23 235�38W < v > E W < v E 17 ^ ^ 28 23 ^ ^ 30 32 > < 63 73 > < 54 5 v v 40 16 v v 53 8 150 71 12 224 71 S1 S Highest Traffic Volumes (Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road: 477 N-S Road: 611 E-W Road: 253 E-W Road: 319 Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions = (A x B x C) / 100,000' A, A2 A, B C Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations Roadway 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors' 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M. Peak Traffic Hour North -South Road 7.6 5.7 4.0 477 9.33 0.34 0.25 0.18 East-West Road 2.7 2.2 1.7 253 9.33 0.06 0.05 0.04 P.M. Peak Traffic Hour North -South Road 7.6 5.7 4.0 611 9.33 0.43 0.33 0.23 East-West Road 2.7 2.2 1.7 319 9.33 0.08 0.07 0.05 ' Methodology and emission factors from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996) Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions = North -South Concentration + East-West Concentration + Background 1-hour Concentration 8-Hour Emissions = ((Highest Peak Hour Concentration - Background 1-hour Concentration) x Persistence Factor) + Background 8-hour Concentratio A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 8.4 8.5 5.0 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 8.3 8.4 4.9 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 8.2 8.3 4.8 2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 1 17 Main Street & Sixth Street.xis EIP Associates 3/7/2002 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS Project Number: 10363-00 Project Title: Huntington Beach Block 104-105 Background Information Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Costa Mesa Background 1-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 8.0 Background 8-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 4.6 Persistence Factor: 0.7 Analysis Year. 2002 Roadway Data Intersection: Beach Boulevard/Atlanta Avenue Analysis Condition: Existing Traffic Volumes No. of Average Speed Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. North -South Roadway: Beach Boulevard At Grade 6 20 20 East-West Roadway: Atlanta Avenue At Grade 4 20 20 A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes NJ N 101 537 217 169 449 353I W < v > E W < v > E 108 ^ ^ 228 124 ^ ^ 299 444 > < 311 386 > < 533 35 v -] v 20 28 v v 30 < 8 327 85 63 823 85 S1 S Highest Traffic Volumes (Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road: 1,518 N-S Road: 2,217 E-W Road: 1,305 E-W Road: 1,686 Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions = (A x B x C) / 100,000' A, A2 A3 B C Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations Roadwav 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors' 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M. Peak Traffic Hour North -South Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 1,518 9.33 0.86 0.69 0.50 East-West Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 1,305 9.33 0.32 0.27 0.21 P.M. Peak Traffic Hour North -South Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 2,217 9.33 1.26 1.01 0.72 East-West Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 1,686 9.33 0.41 0.35 0.27 ' Methodology and emission factors from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions = North -South Concentration + East-West Concentration + Background 1-hour Concentration 8-Hour Emissions = ((Highest Peak Hour Concentration - Background 1-hour Concentration) x Persistence Factor) + Background 8-hour Concentratio A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 9.2 9.7 5.8 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 9.0 9.4 5.6 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 8.7 9.0 5.3 2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 23 Beach Boulevard & Aflanto Avenue.xls EIP Associates 3/7/2002 1 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS Project Number: 10363-00 Project Title: Huntington Beach Block 104-105 Background Information Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Costa Mesa Background 1-hour CO Concentration (ppm): Background 8-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 8.0 4.6 Persistence Factor: 0.7 Analysis Year: 2002 L k I I I I C 1 L Roadway Data Intersection: Analysis Condition: Beach Boulevard/Indianapolis Avenue Existing Traffic Volumes North -South Roadway: Beach Boulevard East-West Roadway: Indianapolis Avenue A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N 21 769 125 W < v > E 156 ^ ^ 223 185 > < 86 31 v v 28 12 628 31 S Highest Traffic Volumes (Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road: 1,922 E-W Road: 678 Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions = (A x B x C) / 100,000' No. of Average Speed Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. At Grade 6 20 20 At Grade 2 20 20 P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N 100 769 105 W < v > E 105 ^ ^ 165 101 > < 141 33 v v 18 < ^ > 29 1,038 34 S N-S Road: 2,282 E-W Road: 564 A, A2 A3 B C Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations Roadway 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors' 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M. Peak Traffic Hour North -South Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 1,922 9.33 1.09 0.88 0.63 East-West Road 2.7 2.2 1.7 678 9.33 0.17 0.14 0.11 P.M. Peak Traffic Hour North -South Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 2,282 9.33 1.30 1.04 0.75 East-West Road 2.7 2.2 1.7 564 9.33 0.14 0.12 0.09 ' Methodology and emission factors from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines 0996). Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions = North -South Concentration + East-West Concentration + Background 1-hour Concentration2 8-Hour Emissions = ((Highest Peak Hour Concentration - Background 1-hour Concentration) x Persistence Factor) + Background 8-hour Concentratio A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 9.3 9.4 5.6 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 9.0 9.2 5.4 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 8.7 8.8 5.2 2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 1 24 Beach Boulevard & Indianapolis Avenue.xls EIP Associates 3/7/2002 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS Project Number: 10363-00 Project Title: Huntington Beach Block 104-105 Background Information Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Costa Mesa Background 1-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 8.0 Background 8-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 4.6 Persistence Factor: 0.7 Analysis Year: 2002 Roadway Data Intersection: Sixth Street/Walnut Avenue Analysis Condition: Existing Traffic Volumes No. of Average Speed Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. North -South Roadway: Sixth Street At Grade 2 10 10 East-West Roadway: Walnut Avenue At Grade 2 10 10 A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N 6 J 98 7I 6 101 10I W < v > E W < v > E 10A A 12 10A A 12 40 > < 6 40 > < 6 26v v 7 26v v 7 7 57 13 12 81 19 S S Highest Traffic Volumes (Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road: 208 N-S Road: 246 E-W Road: 95 E-W Road: 100 Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions = (A x B x C) / 100,000' A, Az A3 B C Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations Roadway 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors' 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M. Peak Traffic Hour North -South Road 7.6 5.7 4.0 208 18.24 0.29 0.22 0.15 East-West Road 2.7 2.2 1.7 95 18.24 0.05 0.04 0.03 P.M. Peak Traffic Hour North -South Road 7.6 5.7 4.0 246 18.24 0.34 0.26 0.18 East-West Road 2.7 2.2 1.7 100 18.24 0.05 0.04 0.03 ' Methodology and emission factors from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines 0996). Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions = North -South Concentration + East-West Concentration + Background 1-hour Concentration 8-Hour Emissions = ((Highest Peak Hour Concentration - Background 1-hour Concentration) x Persistence Factor) + Background 8-hour Concentratio A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 8.3 8.4 4.9 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 8.3 8.3 4.8 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 8.2 8.2 4.7 2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 27 Sixth Street & Walnut Ave.xls EIP Associates 3/13/2002 1 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS Project Number: 10363-00 Project Title: Huntington Beach Block 104-105 Background Information Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Costa Mesa Background 1-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 8.0 ' Background 8-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 4.6 Persistence Factor: 0.7 Analysis Year: 2002 Roadway Data Intersection: Sixth Street/Olive Avenue Analysis Condition: Existing Traffic Volumes No. of Average Speed Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. North -South Roadway: Sixth Street At Grade 2 10 10 East-West Roadway: Olive Avenue At Grade 2 10 10 A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N N 8 64 4I 7 90 20I W < v > E W < v > E 8A A 7 7^ A 7 24 > < 8 40 > < 28 5v v 4 _-] 6v v 7 < n > < A > 4 47 17 1 75 18 S1 Highest Traffic Volumes (Vehicles Hour) S per N-S Road: 141 N-S Road: 206 E-W Road: 64 E-W Road: 120 Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations ' Emissions = (A x B x C) / 100,000' A, A2 A3 B C Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations Roadway 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors' 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M. Peak Traffic Hour North -South Road 7.6 5.7 4.0 141 18.24 0.20 0.15 0.10 East-West Road 2.7 2.2 1.7 64 18.24 0.03 0.03 0.02 P.M. Peak Traffic Hour North -South Road 7.6 5.7 4.0 206 18.24 0.29 0.21 0.15 East-West Road 2.7 2.2 1.7 120 18.24 0.06 0.05 0.04 Methodology and emission factors from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions = North -South Concentration + East-West Concentration + Background 1-hour Concentration 8-Hour Emissions = ((Highest Peak Hour Concentration - Background 1-hour Concentration) x Persistence Factor) + Background 8-hour Concentratio A.M. P.M. 1 Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 8.2 8.3 4.8 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 8.2 8.3 4.8 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 8.1 8.2 4.7 2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 1 28 Sixth Street & Olive Ave.xls UP Associates 3/ 13/2002 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS Project Number: 10363-00 Project Title: Huntington Beach Block 104-105 Background Information Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Costa Mesa Background 1-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 8.0 Background 8-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 6.3 Persistence Factor: 0.7 Analysis Year: 2010 Roadway Data Intersection: Ninth Street/PCH Analysis Condition: Future Plus Project No. of Average Speed Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. North -South Roadway: Ninth Street At Grade 2 20 20 East-West Roadway: Pacific Coast Highway At Grade 4 20 20 A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N N 19 0 62I 27 0 24I W < v > E W < v > E 12 ^ ^ 11 24 ^ ^ 33 2,281 > < 1,516 1,790 > < 1,904 0v v 0 0v v 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 S1 S Highest Traffic Volumes (Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road: 104 E-W Road: 3,870 Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions = (A x B x C)1100,000' N-S Road: 108 E-W Road: 3,751 A, A2 A3 B C Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations Roadway 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors' 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M. Peak Traffic Hour North -South Road 2.7 2.2 1.7 104 5.52 0.02 0.01 0.01 East-West Road 7.0 5.4 3.8 3,870 5.52 1.50 1.15 0.81 P.M. Peak Traffic Hour North -South Road 2.7 2.2 1.7 108 5.52 0.02 0.01 0.01 East-West Road 7.0 5.4 3.8 3,751 5.52 1.45 1.12 0.79 ' Methodology factors from Bay Area Air Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines and emission Quality (1996). Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions = North -South Concentration + East-West Concentration + Background 1-hour Concentration2 8-Hour Emissions = ((Highest Peak Hour Concentration - Background 1-hour Concentration) x Persistence Factor) + Background 8-hour Concentration A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 1 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 9.5 9.5 7.4 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 9.2 9.1 7.1 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 8.8 8.8 6.9 2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 5 Ninth Street & PCH.xIs EIP Associates 3/13/2002 1 11 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS Project Number: 10363-00 Project Title: Huntington Beach Block 104-105 Background Information Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Costa Mesa Background 1-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 8.0 Background 8-hour CO Concentration (ppm): Persistence Factor: 6.3 0.7 Analysis Year: 2010 J 7 7 d 7 n Roadway Data Intersection: Sixth Street/PCH Analysis Condition: Future Plus Project North -South Roadway: Sixth Street East-West Roadway: Pacific Coast Highway A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N 148 8 103 W < v > E 80 A A 100 2,238 > < 1,334 8v v 18 < A > 4 5 7 S Highest Traffic Volumes (Vehicles per Hour) No. of Average Speed Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. At Grade 2 20 20 At Grade 6 20 20 P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N 114 12 139 W I < v > E 139 A A 144 1,592 > < 1,903 9v v 51 < 17 A 12 > J S N-S Road: 444 N-S Road: 560 E-W Road: 3,812 E-W Road: 3,862 Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions = (A x B x C) / 100,000' A, A2 A3 B C Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations Roadway 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors' 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M. Peak Traffic Hour North -South Road 2.7 2.2 1.7 444 5.52 0.07 0.05 0.04 East-West Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 3,812 5.52 1.28 1.03 0.74 P.M. Peak Traffic Hour North -South Road 2.7 2.2 1.7 560 5.52 0.08 0.07 0.05 East-West Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 3,862 5.52 1.30 1.04 0.75 ' Methodology and emission factors from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions = North -South Concentration + East-West Concentration + Background 1-hour Concentration 8-Hour Emissions = ((Highest Peak Hour Concentration - Background 1-hour Concentration) x Persistence Factor) + Background 8-hour Concentration A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 9.3 9.4 7.3 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 9.1 9.1 7.1 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 8.8 8.8 6.9 2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 6 Sixth Street & PCHAs UP Associates 3/13/2002 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS Project Number: 10363-00 Project Title: Huntington Beach Block 104-105 Background Information Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Costa Mesa Background 1-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 8.0 Background 8-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 6.3 Persistence Factor: 0.7 Analysis Year: 2010 Roadway Data Intersection: Main Street/PCH Analysis Condition: Future Plus Project No. of Average Speed Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. North -South Roadway: Main Street At Grade 2 20 20 East-West Roadway: Pacific Coast Highway At Grade 6 20 20 A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes NJ N 96 0 49I 124 0 75I W < v >� E W < v > E 66 A A 68 90 A A 117 2,239 > < 1,229 1,748 > < 1,784 0v v 7 0v v 6 < A > < A > 0 0 5 0 0 6 S1 S Highest Traffic Volumes (Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road: 279 N-S Road: 406 E-W Road: 3,630 E-W Road: 3,746 Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions = (A x B x C) / 100,000' A, A2 A3 B C Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations Roadway 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors' 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M. Peak Traffic Hour North -South Road 2.7 2.2 1.7 279 5.52 0.04 0.03 0.03 East-West Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 3,630 5.52 1.22 0.98 0.70 P.M. Peak Traffic Hour North -South Road 2.7 2.2 1.7 406 5.52 0.06 0.05 0.04 East-West Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 3,746 5.52 1.26 1.01 0.72 ' Methodology and emission factors from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions = North -South Concentration + East-West Concentration + Background 1-hour Concentration 8-Hour Emissions = ((Highest Peak Hour Concentration - Background 1-hour Concentration) x Persistence Factor) + Background 8-hour Concentration2 A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 9.3 9.3 7.2 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 9.0 9.1 7.0 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 8.7 8.8 6.8 2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996) 7 Main Street & PCH.xis EIP Associates 1.1 n 3/13/2002 1 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS Project Number: 10363-00 Project Title: Huntington Beach Block 104-105 Background Information Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Costa Mesa Background 1-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 8.0 Background 8-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 6.3 Persistence Factor: 0.7 Analysis Year: 2010 Roadway Data Intersection: First Street/PCH Analysis Condition: Future Plus Project No. of Average Speed Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. North -South Roadway: First Street At Grade 2 20 20 East-West Roadway: Pacific Coast Highway At Grade 6 20 20 A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N NI 221 26 111I 140 35 116I W < v > E W < v > E 125 ^ " 57 222 ^ ^ 105 1,988 > < 1,053 1,571 > < 1,698 15 v v 30 17 v v 56 < ^ ^>36 16 412 35 19 47 S1 S1 Highest Traffic Volumes (Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road: 556 N-S Road: 637 E-W Road: 3,438 E-W Road: 3,683 Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions = (A x B x C) / 100,000' A, AZ A3 B C Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations Roadway 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors' 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M. Peak Traffic Hour North -South Road 2.7 2.2 1.7 556 5.52 0.08 0.07 0.05 East-West Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 3,438 5.52 1.16 0.93 0.66 P.M. Peak Traffic Hour North -South Road 2.7 2.2 1.7 637 5.52 0.09 0.08 0.06 East-West Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 3,683 5.52 1.24 1.00 0.71 ' Methodology and emission factors from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions = North -South Concentration + East-West Concentration + Background 1-hour Concentration 8-Hour Emissions = ((Highest Peak Hour Concentration - Background 1-hour Concentration) x Persistence Factor) + Background 8-hour Concentration A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 9.2 9.3 7.2 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 9.0 9.1 7.1 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 8.7 8.8 6.8 Z Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 8 First Street & PCH.xis EIP Associates 3/13/2002 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS 0 Project Number: 10363-00 Project Title: Huntington Beach Block 104-105 Background Information Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Costa Mesa Background 1-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 8.0 Background 8-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 6.3 Persistence Factor: 0.7 Analysis Year: 2010 Roadway Data Intersection: Huntington Street/PCH Analysis Condition: Future Plus Project No. of Average Speed Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. North -South Roadway: Huntington Street At Grade 4 20 20 East-West Roadway: Pacific Coast Highway At Grade 4 20 20 A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes NJ NI 106 1 114 65 1 103r W < v > E W r < v > E 69 ^ ^ 128 101 ^ ^ 399 2,133 > < 1,007 1,633 > < 1,791 1 v v 1 4 v v 26 1 0 f 19 3 3 S1 S Highest Traffic Volumes (Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road: 418 N-S Road: 672 E-W Road: 3,384 E-W Road: 3,955 Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions = (A x B x C) / 100,000' A, AZ A3 B C Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations Roadway 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors' 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M. Peak Traffic Hour North -South Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 418 5.52 0.06 0.05 0.04 East-West Road 7.0 5.4 3.8 3,384 5.52 1.31 1.01 0.71 P.M. Peak Traffic Hour North -South Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 672 5.52 0.10 0.08 0.06 East-West Road 7.0 5.4 3.8 3,955 5.52 1.53 1.18 0.83 ' Methodology and emission factors from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions = North -South Concentration + East-West Concentration + Background 1-hour Concentration 8-Hour Emissions = ((Highest Peak Hour Concentration - Background 1-hour Concentration) x Persistence Factor) + Background 8-hour Concentration A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 9.4 9.6 7.4 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 9.1 9.3 7.2 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 8.7 8.9 6.9 2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 9 Huntington Street & PCH.xls EIP Associates I 3/13/2002 1 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS 0 0 0 0 Project Number: 10363-00 Project Title: Huntington Beach Block 104-105 Background Information Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Costa Mesa Background 1-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 8.0 Background 8-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 6.3 Persistence Factor: 0.7 Analysis Year: 2010 Roadway Data Intersection: Analysis Condition: North -South Roadway: East-West Roadway: A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Beach Boulevard/PCH Future Plus Project Beach Boulevard Pacific Coast Highway N 167 6 522 W < v > E 110 ^ ^ 234 2,062 > < 1,005 2v v 4 < ^ > 0 7 6 S Highest Traffic Volumes (Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road: 1,046 E-W Road: 3,833 Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions = (A x B x C) / 100,000' No. of Average Speed Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. At Grade 4 20 15 At Grade 6 20 15 P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N 241 18 330 W I < v > E 292 ^ ^ 783 1,419 > < 2,015 13v v 8 19 25 11 S N-S Road: 1,689 E-W Road: 4,566 A, AZ A3 B C Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations Roadway 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors' 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M. Peak Traffic Hour North -South Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 1,046 5.52 0.15 0.13 0.10 East-West Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 3,833 5.52 1.29 1.04 0.74 P.M. Peak Traffic Hour North -South Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 1,689 7.30 0.32 0.27 0.21 East-West Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 4,566 7.30 2.03 1.63 1.17 ' Methodology and emission factors from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions = North -South Concentration + East-West Concentration + Background 1-hour Concentration 8-Hour Emissions = ((Highest Peak Hour Concentration - Background 1-hour Concentration) x Persistence Factor) + Background 8-hour Concentration 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 100 Feet from Roadway Edge A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 9.4 10.4 9.2 9.9 8.8 9.4 2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 8-Hour 7.9 7.6 7.3 1 10 Beach Boulevard & PCH.xls UP Associates 3/13/2002 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS I Project Number: 10363-00 Project Title: Huntington Beach Block 104-105 Background Information Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Costa Mesa Background 1-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 8.0 Background 8-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 6.3 Persistence Factor: 0.7 Analysis Year. 2010 Roadway Data Intersection: Main Street/Sixth Street Analysis Condition: Future Plus Project North -South Roadway: Main Street East-West Roadway: Sixth Street A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N 37 252 20 W < v > E 37 ^' ^ 29 34 > < 66 5 v v 42 8 186 14 S Highest Traffic Volumes (Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road: 561 E-W Road: 205 Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions = (A x B x C) / 100,000' No. of Average Speed Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. At Grade 2 20 20 At Grade 2 20 20 P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N 63 298 40 W < v > E 59 ^ ^ 32 77 > < 57 17 v v 56 13 286 75 S N-S Road: 778 E-W Road: 337 A, A2 A3 B C Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations Roadway 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors' 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M. Peak Traffic Hour North -South Road 7.6 5.7 4.0 561 5.52 0.24 0.18 0.12 East-West Road 2.7 2.2 1.7 205 5.52 0.03 0.02 0.02 P.M. Peak Traffic Hour North -South Road 7.6 5.7 4.0 778 5.52 0.33 0.24 0.17 East-West Road 2.7 2.2 1.7 337 5.52 0.05 0.04 0.03 ' Methodology and emission factors from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions = North -South Concentration + East-West Concentration + Background 1-hour Concentration2 8-Hour Emissions = ((Highest Peak Hour Concentration - Background 1-hour Concentration) x Persistence Factor) + Background 8-hour Concentratio A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 8.3 8.4 6.6 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 8.2 8.3 6.5 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 8.1 8.2 6.4 2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 0 1-1 11 11 11 0 17 Main Street & Sixth Street.xls EIP Associates 3/13/2002 1 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS ' Project Number: 10363-00 Project Title: Huntington Beach Block 104-105 Background Information Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Costa Mesa Background 1-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 8.0 Background 8-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 6.3 Persistence Factor: 0.7 Analysis Year: 2010 Roadway Data h 11 C L Intersection: Analysis Condition: Beach Boulevard/Atlanta Avenue Future Plus Project North -South Roadway: Beach Boulevard East-West Roadway: Atlanta Avenue A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N 106 730 228 W < v > E 114 ^ ^ 240 475 > < 338 42 v v 58 ] < 13 488 66 S Highest Traffic Volumes (Vehicles per Hour) No. of Average Speed Roadway Type lanes A.M. P.M. At Grade 6 20 20 At Grade 4 20 20 P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N 178 686 371 W < v > E 130 ^ ^ 314 420 > < 576 36 v v 79 71 1,041 128 S N-S Road: 1,906 N-S Road: 2,720 E-W Road: 1,405 E-W Road: 1,888 Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions = (A x B x C) / 100,000' A, AZ A3 B C Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations Roadway 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors' 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M. Peak Traffic Hour North -South Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 1,906 5.52 0.64 0.52 0.37 East-West Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 1,405 5.52 0.20 0.17 0.13 P.M. Peak Traffic Hour North -South Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 2,720 5.52 0.92 0.74 0.53 East-West Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 1,888 5.52 0.27 0.23 0.18 ' Methodology and emission factors from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions = North -South Concentration + East-West Concentration + Background 1-hour Concentration2 8-Hour Emissions = ((Highest Peak Hour Concentration - Background 1-hour Concentration) x Persistence Factor) + Background 8-hour Concentratio A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour 8-Hour 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 8.8 9.2 7.1 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 8.7 9.0 7.0 100 Feet from Roadway' Edge 8.5 8.7 6.8 2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). ' 23 Beach Boulevard & Atlanta Avenue.xls EIP Associates 3/13/2002 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS Project Number: 10363-00 Project Title: Huntington Beach Block 104-105 Background Information t Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Costa Mesa Background 1-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 8.0 Background 8-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 6.3 Persistence Factor: 0.7 Analysis Year: 2010 Roadway Data Intersection: Beach Boulevard/Indianapolis Avenue Analysis Condition: Future Plus Project North -South Roadway: Beach Boulevard East-West Roadway: Indianapolis Avenue A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N 22 942 140 W < v > E 164 A A 236 196 > < 93 38 v v 55 < A776 > 17 55F S Highest Traffic Volumes (Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road: 2,280 E-W Road: 775 Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions = (A x B x C) / 100,000' No. of Average Speed Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. At Grade 6 20 20 At Grade 2 20 20 P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N 105 1,082 115 W I < v > L E 110 A A 182 109 > < 151 41 v v 50 < 35 1234 > 60 S N-S Road: 2,828 E-W Road: 667 A, AZ A3 B C Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations Roadway 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors' 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M. Peak Traffic Hour North -South Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 2,280 5.52 0.77 0.62 0.44 East-West Road 2.7 2.2 1.7 775 5.52 0.12 . 0.09 0.07 P.M. Peak Traffic Hour North -South Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 2,828 5.52 0.95 0.76 0.55 East-West Road 2.7 2.2 1.7 667 5.52 0.10 0.08 0.06 ' Methodology and emission factors from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions = North -South Concentration + East-West Concentration + Background 1-hour Concentration 8-Hour Emissions = ((Highest Peak Hour Concentration - Background 1-hour Concentration) x Persistence Factor) + Background 8-hour Concentratio A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 8.9 9.1 7.0 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 8.7 8.8 6.9 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 8.5 8.6 6.7 2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996), 24 Beach Boulevard & Indianapolis Avenue.xls EIP Associates 3/13/2002 1 k SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS k L r H 0 H C I C� k F Project Number: 10363-00 Project Title: Huntington Beach Block 104-105 Background Information Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Costa Mesa Background 1-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 8.0 Background 8-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 6.3 Persistence Factor: 0.7 Analysis Year: 2010 Roadway Data Intersection: Ninth StreeVPCH Analysis Condition: General Plan Plus Project with Bridges No. of Average Speed Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. North -South Roadway: Ninth Street At Grade 2 15 20 East-West Roadway: Pacific Coast Highway At Grade 4 15 20 A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N N 16 0 61I 28 0 21I W < v > E W < v > E 11 A " 10 23 A " 31 2,474 > < 1,380 1,721 > < 2,200 0v v 0 0v v 0 < A > < A 0 0 f 0 0 0 0 0> 0 0 S S Highest Traffic Volumes (Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road: 98 N-S Road: 103 E-W Road: 3,925 E-W Road: 3,973 Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions = (A x B x C) / 100,000' A, AZ A3 B C Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations Roadway 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors' 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M. Peak Traffic Hour North -South Road 2.7 2.2 1.7 98 7.30 0.02 0.02 0.01 East-West Road 7.0 5.4 3.8 3,925 7.30 2.01 1.55 1.09 P.M. Peak Traffic Hour North -South Road 2.7 2.2 1.7 103 5.52 0.02 0.01 0.01 East-West Road 7.0 5.4 3.8 3,973 5.52 1.54 1.18 0.83 ' Methodology and emission factors from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions = North -South Concentration + East-West Concentration + Background 1-hour Concentration 8-Hour Emissions = ((Highest Peak Hour Concentration - Background 1-hour Concentration) x Persistence Factor) + Background 8-hour Concentration A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 10.0 9.6 7.7 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 9.6 9.2 7.4 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 9.1 8.8 7.1 2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 5 Ninth Street & PCH.xls UP Associates 3/13/2002 t SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS Project Number: 10363-00 Project Title: Huntington Beach Block 104-105 Background Information Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Costa Mesa Background 1-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 8.0 Background 8-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 6.3 Persistence Factor: 0.7 Analysis Year: 2010 Roadway Data Intersection: Sixth Street/PCH Analysis Condition: General Plan Plus Project with Bridges No. of Average Speed Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. North -South Roadway: Sixth Street At Grade East-West Roadway: Pacific Coast Highway At Grade 2 6 20 20 20 20 , A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes NI N 161 10 141I 134 13 171I W < v > E W < v > E 107 " ^ 128 173 ^ ^ 180 2,516 > < 1,186 1,550 > < 2,189 6v v 17 6v v 51 < > < > 2 7 f 12 15 32 S1 S1 Highest Traffic Volumes (Vehicles per Hour) r N-S Road: 554 E-W Road: 3,995 Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions = (A x B x C) / 100,000' N-S Road: 686 E-W Road: 4,173 A, A2 A3 B C Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations Roadway 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors' 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M. Peak Traffic Hour North -South Road 2.7 2.2 1.7 554 5.52 0.08 0.07 0.05 East-West Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 3,995 5.52 1.35 1.08 0.77 P.M. Peak Traffic Hour North -South Road 2.7 2.2 1.7 686 5.52 0.10 0.08 0.06 East-West Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 4,173 5.52 1.41 1.13 0.81 ' Methodology and emission factors from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions = North -South Concentration + East-West Concentration + Background 1-hour Concentration 8-Hour Emissions = ((Highest Peak Hour Concentration - Background 1-hour Concentration) x Persistence Factor) + Background 8-hour Concentration A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 9.4 9.5 7.4 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 9.1 9.2 7.1 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 8.8 8.9 6.9 2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 6 Sixth Street & PCH.xls EIP Associates 3/13/2002 1 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS k- h I C Project Number: 10363-00 Project Title: Huntington Beach Block 104-105 Background Information Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Costa Mesa Background 1-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 8.0 Background 8-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 6.3 Persistence Factor: 0.7 Analysis Year: 2010 Roadway Data Intersection: Analysis Condition: North -South Roadway: East-West Roadway: A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Main Street/PCH General Plan Plus Project with Bridges Main Street Pacific Coast Highway N 86 0 53 W < v > E 64 A A 64 2,554 > < 1,115 0v v 0 < A > 0 0 0 S Highest Traffic Volumes (Vehicles per Hour) No. of Average Speed Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. At Grade 2 20 20 At Grade 6 20 20 P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N 125 0 64 W < v > E 84 A A 113 1,738 > < 2,172 0v v 0 < A > 0 0 0 S N-S Road: 267 N-S Road: 386 E-W Road: 3,819 E-W Road: 4,119 Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions = (A x B x C) / 100,000' A, A2 A3 B C Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations Roadway 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors' 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M. Peak Traffic Hour North -South Road 2.7 2.2 1.7 267 5.52 0.04 0.03 0.03 East-West Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 3,819 5.52 1.29 1.03 0.74 P.M. Peak Traffic Hour North -South Road 2.7 2.2 1.7 386 5.52 0.06 0.05 0.04 East-West Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 4,119 5.52 1.39 1.11 0.80 ' Methodology and emission factors from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions = North -South Concentration + East-West Concentration + Background 1-hour Concentration 8-Hour Emissions = ((Highest Peak Hour Concentration - Background 1-hour Concentration) x Persistence Factor) + Background 8-hour Concentration 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 100 Feet from Roadway Edge A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 9.3 9.4 9.1 9.2 8.8 8.8 2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 8-Hour 7.3 7.1 6.9 1 7 Main Street & PCH.xls EIP Associates 3/13/2002 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS Project Number: 10363-00 Project Title: Huntington Beach Block 104-105 Background Information Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Costa Mesa Background 1-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 8.0 Background 8-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 6.3 Persistence Factor: 0.7 Analysis Year: 2010 Roadway Data Intersection: First Street/PCH Analysis Condition: General Plan Plus Project with Bridges No. of Average Speed Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. North -South Roadway: First Street At Grade 2 20 20 East-West Roadway: Pacific Coast Highway At Grade 6 20 20 A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N I N 181 26 135 124 32 98 W < v > I-W < v > E 70 ^ ^ 47 162 ^ ^ 79 2,360 > < 989 1,583 > < 2,090 14 v v 29 20 v v 50 35 13 13 44 14 38 S1 S Highest Traffic Volumes (Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road: 472 N-S Road: 509 E-W Road: 3,649 E-W Road: 4,023 Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions = (A x B x C) / 100,000' A, A2 A3 B C Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations Roadway 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors' 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M. Peak Traffic Hour North -South Road 2.7 2.2 1.7 472 5.52 0.07 0.06 0.04 East-West Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 3,649 5.52 1.23 0.99 0.70 P.M. Peak Traffic Hour North -South Road 2.7 2.2 1.7 509 5.52 0.08 0.06 0.05 East-West Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 4,023 5.52 1.35 1.09 0.78 ' Methodology and emission factors from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions = North -South Concentration + East-West Concentration + Background 1-hour Concentration 8-Hour Emissions = ((Highest Peak Hour Concentration - Background 1-hour Concentration) x Persistence Factor) + Background 8-hour Concentration A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 9.3 9.4 7.3 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 9.0 9.1 7.1 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 8.7 8.8 6.9 2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 8 First Street & PCH.xls UP Associates 11 I 3/13/2002 1 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS Project Number: 10363-00 Project Title: Huntington Beach Block 104-105 Background Information Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Costa Mesa Background 1-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 8.0 Background 8-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 6.3 Persistence Factor: 0.7 Analysis Year: 2010 Roadway Data Intersection: Analysis Condition: Huntington Street/PCH General Plan Plus Project with Bridges North -South Roadway: Huntington Street East-West Roadway: Pacific Coast Highway A.M.. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N 71 1 81 W < v > E 29 ^ ^ 72 ' 2,729 > < 1,015 1v v 1 < ^ > 1 1 1 S Highest Traffic Volumes (Vehicles per Hour) No. of Average Speed Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. At Grade 4 15 20 At Grade 4 15 20 P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N 41 1 68 W < v > E 46 ^ ^ 317 1,829 > < 2,286 4 v v 25 19 2 3 S N-S Road: 255 N-S Road: 475 E-W Road: 3,899 E-W Road: 4,528 Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions = (A x B x C) / 100,000' A, AZ A3 B C Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations Roadway 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors' 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M. Peak Traffic Hour North -South Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 255 7.30 0.05 0.04 0.03 East-West Road 7.0 5.4 3.8 3,899 7.30 1.99 1.54 1.08 P.M. Peak Traffic Hour North -South Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 475 5.52 0.07 0.06 0.04 East-West Road 7.0 5.4 3.8 4,528 5.52 1.75 1.35 0.95 ' Methodology and emission factors from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions = North -South Concentration + East-West Concentration + Background 1-hour Concentration 8-Hour Emissions = ((Highest Peak Hour Concentration - Background 1-hour Concentration) x Persistence Factor) + Background 8-hour Concentration A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 10.0 9.8 7.7 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 9.6 9.4 7.4 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 9.1 9.0 7.1 2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 9 Huntington Street & PCH.xIs EIP Associates 3/13/2002 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS u Project Number: 10363-00 Project Title: Huntington Beach Block 104-105 Background Information Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Costa Mesa Background 1-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 8.0 Background 8-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 6.3 Persistence Factor: 0.7 Analysis Year: 2010 Roadway Data Intersection: Beach Boulevard/PCH Analysis Condition: General Plan Plus Project with Bridges North -South Roadway: Beach Boulevard East-West Roadway: Pacific Coast Highway A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes NI 192 6 675I W < v > E 117 ^ ^ 203 2,645 > < 966 2v v 4 < ^ > 1 7 7 S1 Highest Traffic Volumes (Vehicles per Hour) No. of Average Speed Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. At Grade 4 20 20 At Grade 6 20 20 P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes NI 252 15 268I W < v > E 331 ^ ^ 807 1,564 > < 2,478 13v v 8 20 22 9 S N-S Road: 1,200 N-S Road: 1,695 E-W Road: 4,500 E-W Road: 5,134 Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions = (A x B x C) / 100,000' A, AZ A3 B C Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations Roadway 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors' 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M. Peak Traffic Hour North -South Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 1,200 5.52 0.17 0.15 0.11 East-West Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 4,500 5.52 1.52 1.22 0.87 P.M. Peak Traffic Hour North -South Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 1,695 5.52 0.24 0.21 0.16 East-West Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 5,134 5.52 1.73 1.39 0.99 ' Methodology and emission factors from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions = North -South Concentration + East-West Concentration + Background 1-hour Concentration 8-Hour Emissions = ((Highest Peak Hour Concentration - Background 1-hour Concentration) x Persistence Factor) + Background 8-hour Concentration A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 9.7 10.0 7.7 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 9.4 9.6 7.4 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 9.0 9.2 7.1 2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 10 Beach Boulevard & PCH.xls UP Associates 1-1 J 3/13/2002 1 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS Project Number: 10363-00 Project Title: Huntington Beach Block 104-105 Background Information Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Costa Mesa Background 1-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 8.0 Background 8-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 6.3 Persistence Factor: 0.7 Analysis Year: 2010 Roadway Data Intersection: Analysis Condition: North -South Roadway: East-West Roadway: A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Main Street/Sixth Street General Plan Plus Project with Bridges Main Street Sixth Street NI 36 222 23I W < v > E 34 A A 38 32 > < 82 4 v v 50 < A > 8 168 15 S Highest Traffic Volumes (Vehicles per Hour) No. of Average Speed Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. At Grade 2 20 20 At Grade 2 20 20 P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N 64 262 48 W < v > E 58 A A 41 83 > < 74 14 v v 63 < A > 11 255 79 S N-S Road: 521 N-S Road: 728 E-W Road: 240 E-W Road: 388 Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions = (A x B x C) / 100,000' A, AZ A3 B C Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations Roadway 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors' 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M. Peak Traffic Hour North -South Road 7.6 5.7 4.0 521 5.52 0.22 0.16 0.12 East-West Road 2.7 2.2 1.7 240 5.52 0.04 0.03 0.02 P.M. Peak Traffic Hour North -South Road 7.6 5.7 4.0 728 5.52 0.31 0.23 0.16 East-West Road 2.7 2.2 1.7 388 5.52 0.06 0.05 0.04 ' Methodology and emission factors from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions = North -South Concentration + East-West Concentration + Background 1-hour Concentration 8-Hour Emissions = ((Highest Peak Hour Concentration - Background 1-hour Concentration) x Persistence Factor) + Background 8-hour Concentration A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 8.3 8.4 6.6 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 8.2 8.3 6.5 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 8.1 8.2 6.4 2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996) 1 17 Main Street & Sixth Street.xls UP Associates 3/13/2002 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS Project Number: 10363-00 Project Title: Huntington Beach Block 104-105 Background Information Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Costa Mesa Background 1-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 8.0 Background 8-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 6.3 Persistence Factor: 0.7 Analysis Year: 2010 Roadway Data Intersection: Beach Boulevard/Atlanta Avenue Analysis Condition: General Plan Plus Project with Bridges North -South Roadway: Beach Boulevard East-West Roadway: Atlanta Avenue A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N 167 1,026 205 W < v > E 146 " ^ 181 501 > < 365 76 v v 33 < A > 14 411 36 S Highest Traffic Volumes (Vehicles per Hour) No. of Average Speed Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. At Grade 6 20 20 At Grade 4 20 20 P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N 244 734 357 W < v > E 133 ^ " 328 386 > < 761 41 v v 54 < A > 110 1,168 113 S N-S Road: 2,136 N-S Road: 2,964 E-W Road: 1,321 E-W Road: 1,999 Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions = (A x B x C) / 100,000' A, AZ A3 B C Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations Roadway 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors' 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M. Peak Traffic Hour North -South Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 2,136 5.52 0.72 0.58 0.41 East-West Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 1,321 5.52 0.19 0.16 0.12 P.M. Peak Traffic Hour North -South Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 2,964 5.52 1.00 0.80 0.57 East-West Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 1,999 5.52 0.29 0.24 0.19 1 Methodology and emission factors from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions = North -South Concentration + East-West Concentration + Background 1-hour Concentration 8-Hour Emissions = ((Highest Peak Hour Concentration - Background 1-hour Concentration) x Persistence Factor) + Background 8-hour Concentration A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 8.9 9.3 7.2 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 8.7 9.0 7.0 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 8.5 8.8 6.8 2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 23 Beach Boulevard & Atlanta Avenue.xls EIP Associates 1-1 3/13/2002 1 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS k L I G 0 Project Number: 10363-00 Project Title: Huntington Beach Block 104-105 Background Information Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Costa Mesa Background 1-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 8.0 Background 8-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 6.3 Persistence Factor: 0.7 Analysis Year: 2010 Roadway Data Intersection: Beach Boulevard/Indianapolis Avenue Analysis Condition: General Plan Plus Project with Bridges North -South Roadway: Beach Boulevard East-West Roadway: Indianapolis Avenue A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N 26 1,259 128 W < v > E 160 A A 204 184 > < 93 49 v v 40 < A > 15 679 33 S Highest Traffic Volumes (Vehicles per Hour) No. of Average Speed Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. At Grade 6 20 20 At Grade 2 20 20 P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N W 117 1,056 95'' CC E < v > A A > < v v < A > 48 1,293 44 107 246 107 285 47 37 S1 N-S Road: 2,456 N-S Road: 2,914 E-W Road: 682 E-W Road: 814 Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions = (A x B x C) / 100,000' A, A2 A3 B C Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations Roadway 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors' 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M. Peak Traffic Hour North -South Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 2,456 5.52 0.83 0.66 0.47 East-West Road 2.7 2.2 1.7 682 5.52 0.10 0.08 0.06 P.M. Peak Traffic Hour North -South Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 2,914 5.52 0.98 0.79 0.56 East-West Road 2.7 2.2 1.7 814 5.52 0.12 0.10 0.08 ' Methodology and emission factors from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions = North -South Concentration + East-West Concentration + Background 1-hour Concentration 8-Hour Emissions = ((Highest Peak Hour Concentration - Background 1-hour Concentration) x Persistence Factor) + Background 8-hour Concentration A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 8.9 9.1 7.1 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 8.7 8.9 6.9 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 8.5 8.6 6.7 2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). ' 24 Beach Boulevard & Indianapolis Avenue.xls EIP Associates 3/13/2002 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS Project Number: 10363-00 Project Title: Huntington Beach Block 104-105 Background Information Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Costa Mesa Background 1-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 8.0 Background 8-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 6.3 Persistence Factor: 0.7 Analysis Year: 2010 Roadway Data Intersection: Ninth Street/PCH Analysis Condition: General Plan Plus Project without Bridges No. of Average Speed Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. North -South Roadway: Ninth Street At Grade 2 15 20 East-West Roadway: Pacific Coast Highway At Grade 4 15 20 A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N NJ 18 0 59� 26 0 23I W < v > E W < v > E 12 ^ ^ 9 21 ^ ^ 33 2,452 > < 1,369 1,687 > < 2,169 0V _-]< v 0 0V v 0 0 0 0 F 0 0 0 S __L_ S Highest Traffic Volumes (Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road: 98 N-S Road: 103 E-W Road: 3,889 E-W Road: 3,912 Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions = (A x B x C) / 100,000' A, A2 A3 B C Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations Roadway 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors' 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M. Peak Traffic Hour North -South Road 2.7 2.2 1.7 98 7.30 0.02 0.02 0.01 East-West Road 7.0 5.4 3.8 3,889 7.30 1.99 1.53 1.08 P.M. Peak Traffic Hour North -South Road 2.7 2.2 1.7 103 5.52 0.02 0.01 0.01 East-West Road 7.0 5.4 3.8 3,912 5.52 1.51 1.17 0.82 ' Methodology and emission factors from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions = North -South Concentration + East-West Concentration + Background 1-hour Concentration S-Hour Emissions = ((Highest Peak Hour Concentration - Background 1-hour Concentration) x Persistence Factor) + Background 8-hour Concentratio A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 10.0 9.5 7.7 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 9.5 9.2 7.4 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 9.1 8.8 7.1 2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996) 5 Ninth Street & PCH.xis UP Associates 3/13/2002 1 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS Project Number: 10363-00 Project Title: Huntington Beach Block 104-105 Background Information Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Costa Mesa Background 1-hour CO Concentration (ppm): Background 8-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 8.0 6.3 Persistence Factor: 0.7 Analysis Year: 2010 fl n 0 H F Roadway Data Intersection: Sixth Street/PCH Analysis Condition: General Plan Pius Project without Bridges No. of Average Speed Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. North -South Roadway: Sixth Street At Grade 2 20 20 East-West Roadway: Pacific Coast Highway At Grade 6 20 20 A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N 1 NJ 157 9 126I 127 12 168I W < v > E W < v > E 110 ^ ^ 122 164 ^ ^ 182 2,489 > < 1,181 1,508 > < 2,164 7v ___] v 17 5v v 52 < 3 7 7 11 15 32 S1 S Highest Traffic Volumes (Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road: 531 N-S Road: 668 E-W Road: 3,947 E-W Road: 4,106 Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions = (A x B x C) / 100,000' A, A2 A3 B C Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations Roadway 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors' 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M. Peak Traffic Hour North -South Road 2.7 2.2 1.7 631 5.52 0.08 0.06 0.05 East-West Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 3,947 5.52 1.33 1.07 0.76 P.M. Peak Traffic Hour North -South Road 2.7 2.2 1.7 668 5.52 0.10 0.08 0.06 East-West Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 4,106 5.52 1.38 1.11 0.79 ' Methodology and emission factors from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions = North -South Concentration + East-West Concentration + Background 1-hour Concentration2 8-Hour Emissions = ((Highest Peak Hour Concentration - Background 1-pour Concentration) x Persistence Factor) + Background 8-hour Concentratio A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 9.4 9.5 7.3 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 9.1 9.2 7.1 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 8.8 8.9 6.9 2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 6 Sixth Street & PCH.xis EIP Associates 3/13/2002 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS Project Number: 10363-00 Project Title: Huntington Beach Block 104-105 Background Information Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Costa Mesa Background 1-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 8.0 Background 8-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 6.3 Persistence Factor: 0.7 Analysis Year: 2010 Roadway Data Intersection: Main StreettPCH Analysis Condition: General Plan Plus Project without Bridges No. of Average Speed Roadway Type lanes A.M. P.M. North -South Roadway: Main Street At Grade 2 20 20 East-West Roadway: Pacific Coast Highway At Grade 6 20 20 A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N I89 N 0 49 121 0 68 W < v > E W < v > E 68 ^ ^ 60 78 ^ ^ 60 2,517 > < 110 1,690 > < 2,137 0v _-] v 7 0v v 0 < < 0 O_LOF I 0 0 0 S1 S1 Highest Traffic Volumes (Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road: 266 N-S Road: 327 E-W Road: 2,784 E-W Road: 4,026 Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions = (A x B x C) / 100,000' A, A2 A3 B C Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations Roadway 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors' 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M. Peak Traffic Hour North -South Road 2.7 2.2 1.7 266 5.52 0.04 0.03 0.02 East-West Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 2,784 5.52 0.94 0.75 0.54 P.M. Peak Traffic Hour North -South Road 2.7 2.2 1.7 327 5.52 0.05 0.04 0.03 East-West Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 4,026 5.52 1.36 1.09 0.78 ' Methodology and emission factors from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions = North -South Concentration + East-West Concentration + Background 1-hour Concentration 8-Hour Emissions = ((Highest Peak Hour Concentration - Background 1-hour Concentration) x Persistence Factor) + Background 8-hour Concentratio A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 9.0 9.4 7.3 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 8.8 9.1 7.1 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 8.6 8.8 6.9 2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQ4 Guidelines (1996). 11 11 u 7 Main Street & PCH.xls UP Associates 3/13/2002 1 II 7 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS Project Number: 10363-00 Project Title: Huntington Beach Block 104-105 Background Information Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Costa Mesa Background 1-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 8.0 Background 8-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 6.3 Persistence Factor: 0.7 Analysis Year: 2010 Roadway Data Intersection: First Street/PCH Analysis Condition: General Plan Plus Project without Bridges North -South Roadway: First Street East-West Roadway: Pacific Coast Highway A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N 190 26 122 W < v > E 83 ^ ^ 50 2,309 > < 969 16 v v 28 35 14 12 S1 F Highest Traffic Volumes (Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road: 485 E-W Road: 3,602 Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions = (A x B x C) / 100,000' No. of Average Speed Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. At Grade 2 20 20 At Grade 6 20 20 P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N�33 127 97 W < v > E 179 ^ ^ 87 1,508 > < 2,049 19 v v 49 44 16 36 S N-S Road: 539 E-W Road: 3,926 A, AZ A3 B C Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations Roadway 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors' 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M. Peak Traffic Hour North -South Road 2.7 2.2 1.7 485 5.52 0.07 0.06 0.05 East-West Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 3,602 5.52 1.21 0.97 0.70 P.M. Peak Traffic Hour North -South Road 2.7 2.2 1.7 539 5.52 0.08 0.07 0.05 East-West Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 3,926 5.52 1.32 1.06 0.76 ' Methodology and emission factors from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions = North -South Concentration + East-West Concentration + Background 1-hour Concentration 8-Hour Emissions = ((Highest Peak Hour Concentration - Background 1-hour Concentration) x Persistence Factor) + Background 8-hour Concentratio A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 9.3 9.4 7.3 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 9.0 9.1 7.1 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 8.7 8.8 6.9 2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 1 8 First Street & PCH.xls EIP Associates 3/13/2002 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS Project Number: 10363-00 Project Title: Huntington Beach Block 104-105 Background Information Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Costa Mesa Background 1-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 8.0 Background 8-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 6.3 Persistence Factor: 0.7 Analysis Year: 2010 Roadway Data Intersection: Huntington Street/PCH Analysis Condition: General Plan Plus Project without Bridges North -South Roadway: Huntington Street East-West Roadway: Pacific Coast Highway A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N 75 1 76 W < v > E 32 A A 68 2,676 > < 982 1v v 1 _-] < A > 1 1 1 S Highest Traffic Volumes (Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road: 253 E-W Road: 3,804 Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions = (A x B x C) / 100,000' No. of Average Speed Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. At Grade 4 15 20 At Grade 4 15 20 P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N 39 1 70 W < v > E 42 A A 320 1,769 > < 2,245 3 v v 25 < A > 18 2 3 S N-S Road: 474 E-W Road: 4,432 A, A2 A3 B C Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations Roadway 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors' 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M. Peak Traffic Hour North -South Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 253 7.30 0.05 0.04 0.03 East-West Road 7.0 5.4 3.8 3,804 7.30 1.94 1.50 1.06 P.M. Peak Traffic Hour North -South Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 474 5.52 0.07 0.06 0.04 East-West Road 7.0 5.4 3.8 4,432 5.52 1.71 1.32 0.93 ' Methodology and emission factors from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions = North -South Concentration + East-West Concentration + Background 1-hour Concentration 8-Hour Emissions = ((Highest Peak Hour Concentration - Background 1-hour Concentration) x Persistence Factor) + Background 8-hour Concentratio A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 10.0 9.8 7.7 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 9.5 9.4 7.4 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 9.1 9.0 7.1 2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District SAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 9 Huntington Street & PCH.xis EIP Associates 3/13/2002 1 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS Project Number: 10363-00 Project Title: Huntington Beach Block 104-105 Background Information Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Costa Mesa Background 8-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 1 Background 1-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 8.0 6.3 Persistence Factor: 0.7 Analysis Year: 2010 Roadway Data Intersection: Beach Boulevard/PCH Analysis Condition: General Plan Plus Project without Bridges No. of Average Speed Roadway Type lanes A.M. P.M. North -South Roadway: Beach Boulevard At Grade 4 20 20 East-West Roadway: Pacific Coast Highway At Grade 6 20 20 A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes NJ N 209 7 687I 248 15 252I W < v > E W < v > E 113 A A 171 326 A A 775 2,602 > < 920 1,504 > < 2,437 2v v 3 14v v 8 < A > < A > 1 7 7 20 22 9 S S Highest Traffic Volumes (Vehicles Hour) per N-S Road: 1,194 N-S Road: 1,638 tE-W Road: 4,390 E-W Road: 4,985 Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions = (A x B x C) / 100,000' A, A2 A3 B C Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations Roadway 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M. Peak Traffic Hour Volume Factors' 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet North -South Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 1,194 5.52 0.17 0.14 0.11 East-West Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 4,390 5.52 1.48 1.19 0.85 P.M. Peak Traffic Hour North -South Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 1,638 5.52 0.24 0.20 0.15 East-West Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 4,985 5.52 1.68 1.35 0.96 ' Methodology and emission factors from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions = North -South Concentration + East-West Concentration + Background 1-hour Concentration 8-Hour Emissions = ((Highest Peak Hour Concentration - Background 1-hour Concentration) x Persistence Factor) + Background 8-hour Concentratio A.M. P.M. ' Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 9.6 9.9 7.6 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 9.3 9.5 7.4 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 9.0 9.1 7.1 2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 1 10 Beach Boulevard & PCH.xls UP Associates 3/13/2002 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS Project Number: 10363-00 Project Title: Huntington Beach Block 104-105 Background Information Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Costa Mesa Background 1-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 8.0 Background 8-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 6.3 Persistence Factor: 0.7 Analysis Year: 2010 Roadway Data Intersection: Main Street/Sixth Street Analysis Condition: General Plan Plus Project without Bridges No. of Average Speed Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. North -South Roadway: Main Street At Grade 2 20 20 East-West Roadway: Sixth Street At Grade 2 20 20 A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N N 37 220 25I 67 258 50I W < v > E W < v > E 36 ^ ^ 38 60 ^ ^ 43 39 > < 91 98 > < 89 5v v 51 15v v 66 ___] < 8 166 16 13 251 82 S1 S Highest Traffic Volumes (Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road: 522 N-S Road: 729 E-W Road: 260 E-W Road: 428 Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions = (A x B x C) / 100,000' A, AZ A3 B C Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations Roadway 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors' 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M. Peak Traffic Hour North -South Road 7.6 5.7 4.0 522 5.52 0.22 0.16 0.12 East-West Road 2.7 2.2 1.7 260 5.52 0.04 0.03 0.02 P.M. Peak Traffic Hour North -South Road 7.6 5.7 4.0 729 5.52 0.31 0.23 0.16 East-West Road 2.7 2.2 1.7 428 5.52 0.06 0.05 0.04 ' Methodology and emission factors from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions = North -South Concentration + East-West Concentration + Background 1-hour Concentration2 8-Hour Emissions = ((Highest Peak Hour Concentration - Background 1-hour Concentration) x Persistence Factor) + Background 8-hour Concentratio A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 8.3 8.4 6.6 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 8.2 8.3 6.5 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 8.1 8.2 6.4 2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 17 Main Street & Sixth Street.xis EIP Associates 3/13/2002 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS k L h- I h H 0 Project Number: 10363-00 Project Title: Huntington Beach Block 104-105 Background Information Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Costa Mesa Background 1-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 8.0 Background 8-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 6.3 Persistence Factor: 0.7 Analysis Year: 2010 Roadway Data Intersection: Beach Boulevard/Atlanta Avenue Analysis Condition: General Plan Plus Project without Bridges North -South Roadway: Beach Boulevard East-West Roadway: Atlanta Avenue A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N 169 680 352 W < v > E 147 ^ ^ 180 504 > < 366 76 v v 32 ]< 13 394 35 F S1 Highest Traffic Volumes (Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road: 1,922 E-W Road: 1,469 Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions = (A x B x C) / 100,0001 Roadway Type No. of Lanes Average Speed A.M. P.M. At Grade 6 20 20 At Grade 4 20 20 P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N 251 680 352 W I < v > E 134 ^ ^ 318 386 > < 766 38 v v 50 111 1,140 109 S N-S Road: 2,875 E-W Road: 1,981 A, A2 A3 B C Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations Roadway 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors' 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M. Peak Traffic Hour North -South Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 1,922 5.52 0.65 0.52 0.37 East-West Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 1,469 5.52 0.21 0.18 0.14 P.M. Peak Traffic Hour North -South Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 2,875 5.52 0.97 0.78 0.56 East-West Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 1,981 5.52 0.28 0.24 0.19 1 ' Methodology and emission factors from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 1 Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions = North -South Concentration + East-West Concentration + Background 1-hour Concentration 8-Hour Emissions = ((Highest Peak Hour Concentration - Background 1-hour Concentration) x Persistence Factor) + Background 8-hour Concentratio 1 A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 8.9 9.3 7.2 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 8.7 9.0 7.0 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 8.5 8.7 6.8 1 2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 1 23 Beach Boulevard & Atlanta Avenue.xls EIP Associates 3/13/2002 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS Project Number: 10363-00 Project Title: Huntington Beach Block 104-105 Background Information Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Costa Mesa Background 1-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 8.0 Background 8-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 6.3 Persistence Factor: 0.7 Analysis Year: 2010 Roadway Data Intersection: Beach Boulevard/Indianapolis Avenue Analysis Condition: General Plan Plus Project without Bridges No. of Average Speed Roadway Type lanes A.M. P.M. North -South Roadway: Beach Boulevard At Grade 6 20 20 East-West Roadway: Indianapolis Avenue At Grade 2 20 20 A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N N 25 1,247 128I 127 1,112 101I W < v > E W < v > E 161 ^ ^ 210 105 ^ ^ 251 183> < 91 110> < 310 49 v v 40 48 v v 40 < A < A 15 690 33 F 50 1,256 45 S1 S Highest Traffic Volumes (Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road: 2,461 N-S Road: 2,952 E-W Road: 685 E-W Road: 857 Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions = (A x B x C) / 100,000' A, AZ A3 B C tt� Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations Roadway 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors' 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M. Peak Traffic Hour North -South Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 2,461 5.52 0.83 0.67 0.48 East-West Road 2.7 2.2 1.7 685 5.52 0.10 0.08 0.06 P.M. Peak Traffic Hour North -South Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 2,952 5.52 0.99 0.80 0.57 East-West Road 2.7 2.2 1.7 857 5.52 0.13 0.10 0.08 ' Methodology and emission factors from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions = North -South Concentration + East-West Concentration + Background 1-hour Concentration 8-Hour Emissions = ((Highest Peak Hour Concentration - Background 1-hour Concentration) x Persistence Factor) + Background 8-hour Concentratio A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour t 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 8.9 9.1 7.1 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 8.7 8.9 6.9 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 8.5 8.7 6.8 _ 2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 24 Beach Boulevard & Indianapolis Avenue.xls EIP Associates 3/13/2002 C 1 APPENDIX C CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT C Li k 1 Historical Resources Assessment Huntington Beach Block 104/105 Redevelopment Project Prepared for: EIP Associates 12301 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 430 Los Angeles, California 90025 Contact: Mr. Neill Brower Prepared by: Portia Lee, Ph.D. March 2002 Historic Resources Assessment: Huntington Beach Block 104/105 Redevelopment Project I. Background This Historic Resources Assessment has been prepared to examine project -specific significant effects resulting from the implementation of the above captioned Redevelopment Project, a continuation of the Strand of Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project analyzed in Environmental Impact Report 96-2. Although the proposed project is consistent with the zoning and general plan land use designations for the project site, the Lead Agency, City of Huntington Beach, determined that impacts particular to the project site required analysis that was not provided in EIR 96-2. In accordance with Section 21090 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a subsequent EIR has been prepared to address changes in the Strand of Huntington Beach project description and to document resource conditions in the Downtown Specific Plan Area. This report, part of that undertaking, offers a CEQA impact analysis for properties within the project location and updates the survey findings incorporated in the Main Street 100 Block EIR 89-6 prepared in October of 1989 by STA Associates. II. Methodology This document includes information on previous surveys and evaluations of the subject buildings. Historic architectural analyses and determinations of significance have been prepared for each structure in accordance with the criteria for eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places. Impacts and mitigation are addressed as provided for in the California Environmental Quality Act. Research has been conducted in the database of the State Historic Preservation Office; Huntington Beach Main Library; and site records and archives at the South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University, Fullerton. Architectural Historian Portia Lee and Planning Assistant Ashton Stewart surveyed the Area of Potential Effects of the project on January 15, 2002; properties within the project location and the general context area were documented with digital photographs. III. Project Location The proposed project is situated in the City of Huntington Beach, Orange County, California. The project area is bounded by Pacific Coast Highway on the west, Walnut Avenue on the east, 6th Street on the north and the alley between Fifth and Main Street on the south (Figure 1). Not a part of the project area is the Ocean View Promenade building, the retail buildings fronting on Main Street, the El Don Liquor Building, or the National Register Helme-Worthy property at the comer of Sixth Street and Walnut Avenue. On site existing land uses are commercial/retail, office, restaurant, and residential. e Ir GV - •� •. .ir . r• ' f . �t. ,r . � � �' III •� � p �� I�.'i�, i . l.� ,6,�4 .¢.� yy �� dw jk 714 �.. IV r kJ�.r a✓,f y 4ldlb "� m a HUNTINGTON BEAGH���� Iti ^..ro yr kt "k � I�LS;rt� kf 7 F FiAect Location1/y1r ifiV1 t°anq fix.. USGS 7.5' Seal Beach USGS 7.5' Newport Beach TNMN 0 1 f2 1 MILE 13i%sa 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 FEET Printed from TOPO! @1996 Wildflower Productions (www.topo.com) Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map 2 IV. Project Description The proposed project will encompass 2.97 acres (including the Fifth Street right of way) and includes four separate buildings ranging in height from two to four stories with a total of 231,880 gross square feet of floor area. Uses will include 121,000 square feet of commercial space and a 110,280 square foot hotel. Of the 121,000 square feet of commercial space, as much as 40,000 square feet may be devoted to restaurant uses and a minimum of 28,000 square feet will be devoted to office uses. Parking will be provided in a two -level, 350 space subterranean parking garage accessed from Sixth Street. Surface level parking and street parking on Fifth Street will provide an additional 18 spaces. The four buildings within the project are identified as Buildings A through G, with Buildings D, E, F and G all contained within one building pad on Block 105 (Figure 2). The project elements are as follows: Building A ■ Southwest corner of Fifth Street and Walnut Avenue ■ 127 feet of frontage on Fifth Street and 110 feet of frontage on Walnut Avenue ■ Three stories, 45 feet in height containing a total of 43,500 square feet of commercial floor area with 14,500 feet on each of the three floors Building B ■ East side of 5th Street midway between Walnut Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway ■ 59.5 feet of frontage on Fifth Street ■ Two stories, 35 feet in height containing a total of 9,200 square feet of commercial floor area with 4600 square feet on each floor Building C ■ Northeast comer of Fifth Street and Pacific Coast Highway ■ 47.5' feet of frontage on Pacific Coast Highway and 99.5 feet of frontage on Fifth Street ■ Two stories, 35 feet in height containing a total of 9,400 square feet of commercial floor area with 4,700 square feet on each floor Buildings D, E, F, and G ■ Cover Block 105 excluding the Helme-Worthy property at the corner of Walnut Avenue and Sixth Street ■ 240 feet of 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 ■ Four stories, 54.5' feet in height containing a total of 169,780 square feet of floor area with 50,400 square feet of commercial space on the ground floor; 8,500 square feet of commercial space on the second floor; and a 110,800 square foot hotel on a portion of the second floor and the entire third and fourth floors for a total of 149 rooms (1999 City of Huntington Beach). m � m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m Ji. LLJ EXISTING! BUILLINGS � I�INGi ExA41R ` U) NOT PAFT NOT P)N�T LLJ I Lj I BLDG. A x BLDG. D I EXISTING BUILDINGS T A PART NOT SOUTH OPEN SPACE AREA 8491 SF NORTH OPEN SPACE, AREA 6544 SF BLDG B L EXISTING ALLEY �EXIST-C BLDG. F BLDG. E Ld j PARKING NOT -.A PART I L. ul BLDG. C EXISTING PROPEL LINE - ."Y I NOT BUILDING A PART ADDITIONAL 2.5' EXISTING BLDJ R.O.W DE - NOT A PART �ICATION AA TE PROPE TY LINE 41, ULTIMATE PROPERTY LINE PACIFIC COAST KCIHWAY ADDITIONAL 5' R.O.W. DEDICATION— (100* R/W) GROSS SITE AREA PROPERTY LINE PROPOSED PROJECT BOUNDARY SURVEY PACIFIC COAT HIGHWAY 7,GH.AY PACIFIC COAST HICHWAY Figure 2. Project Area 4 V. Surveys and Assessments A. 1985-1989 In 1985 the City of Huntington Beach funded consultant Thirtieth Street Architects to coordinate a survey of historic resources. The survey was intended to identify the historic and cultural resources in Huntington Beach to provide a basis of information for future planning, and to identify structures within the commercial core of the City which should be protected or preserved in conjunction with the City's redevelopment plans. The survey area included the downtown and adjacent areas related to the history or development of the City. The Downtown Priority Area and Commercial Core Area received special review. Both of these study areas included the Area of Potential Effects of the present project. An Historic Resources Survey Report was completed in September of 1986. Following a windshield survey and building history research for structures built before 1946, each structure, or group of related structures, was assigned a significance category rating from A to D. In 1988 Johnson Heumann Associates of Los Angeles prepared an Addendum to the 1986 survey that reviewed the category ratings previously assigned and converted them into National Register of Historic Places Status Codes. Both survey documents identified a potential National Register of Historic Places Main Street Historic District. It included the 100 and 200 blocks of Main Street, 100 and 200 blocks of Fifth Street, and cross -street buildings on Olive Avenue between Third and Fifth Streets and along Walnut Avenue between Third and Sixth Streets. The potential district included 44 commercial and residential buildings that reflected the early small town development of the City of Huntington Beach. Thirty-four of these building were identified as contributing significant buildings; one was considered a possible contributor if alterations were reversed; and nine buildings were considered non-contributing (Thirtieth Street Architects 1986; Johnson Heumann 1988; STA 1989). The Main Street Historic District as originally proposed, has suffered considerable losses through demolition and/or redevelopment. Within the project area the following District structures have been demolished: ■ Pacific Coast Highway: 406, 408, 410 and 502 B ■ Main Street: 101-115. ® Fifth Street: 121-122 and 151 ■ Walnut Avenue: 501/505; demolished 8/1989. The proposed project will not demolish any building called out in the 1986 survey, since the single structure slated for demolition, 508 Pacific Coast Highway, was not evaluated by the City of Huntington Beach Resource Survey and no inventory form was prepared. It is within the boundaries of the potential Main Street Historic District. I B. Survey Update - 2002 Contexts 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 building at 119/121 Main Street was given a 3D status code rating ("Contributor to a district that has been fully documented according to Office of Historic Preservation standards and appears eligible for listing") in the 1988 Johnson Heumann update. Numbers 117, 123, and 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 resurvey conducted for this report indicates that the properties have not sustained additional disqualifying alterations, suggesting that the properties may still contribute to a potential National Register 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 developmental history. At the present time, historic street furniture consists of ornamental double -armed street lights 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. Walnut Street The Helme-Worthy House and Store As described in the 1986 Historic Resources Study, the Helme-Worthy House at 126 6th Street was built ca. 1880 (Figure 3). It is a 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. 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, as the last remaining example and an exemplar of pre-1900 architecture. It was listed in the National Register Figure 3. Helme-Worthy House of Historic Places in 1988. The Helme-Worthy Home Furnishing Building, around the corner at 513-519 Walnut Street, was constructed in 1904 (Figure 4). 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 a manufactured stone false front. Figure 4. Helme-Worthy Store 7 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. With the exception of the Hehne-Worthy House at 6th Street and Walnut Avenue, there are no buildings along the west side of Walnut Street, which is the eastern boundary of the APE. The area is occupied by parking lots or cleared vacant lots. On the east side of Walnut Street, uses are mixed and the streetscape exhibits a variety of styles and dates of construction. At the northeast corner of Main and Walnut is a large recently constructed two-story commercial/restaurant building with large-scale massing in the Neo-Mediterranean Revival style. Other possible contributors to a Main Street District are placed along the street between Main and 5th, including the two-story Moderne Shank building, ca. 1925, at 412-414 Walnut Avenue. It has retained substantial integrity despite additional remodeling since the 1986 survey. At the corner of Walnut Avenue and 5th Street stands the south substation of the Huntington Beach Police Department, an almost totally intact wood shingle Craftsman bungalow. Between 5th Street and 6th Street stands a group of linear wood and stucco Colonial Revival office/commercial/residential structures, ca. 1949. At the corner 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 Street, the projects east boundary. The area is occupied by parking lots and cleared vacant lots. A north -south alley runs from Fifth Street to Sixth Street. It will be eliminated by the L-shaped configuration of Buildings D, E, and F of the proposed project. Sixth Street The south side of Sixth Street, between Pacific Coast Highway and Walnut Street, has no buildings with the exception of the Hehne-Worthy House at the corner of Sixth and Walnut. The north side of Sixth Street, across the street from the project's north boundary, has both two story infill apartment buildings and one-story single family houses. At the northeast corner of Pacific Coast Highway and 6th Street is a drive-in retail complex with a surf shop, sandwich shop, and donut shop. Pacific Coast Highway El Don Liquors No previously surveyed historic properties located on Pacific Coast Highway remain in the APE, with the exception of the structure at 414416 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. The south storefront has kept substantial integrity with a character -defining recessed entry door that was also a feature of Main Street commercial buildings. While the north storefront has been heavily altered, it appears that many of the changes are reversible. The 1986 C k 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 north of 5th Street, at 508-510 Pacific Coast Highway. It was not included in the 1986 Huntington Beach Historic Resources Survey. All other lots on PCH are vacant cleared land. At the present time, the only commercial building with PCH frontage is Papa Joe's Pizza, a 1933 Spanish Colonial Revival stucco structure with a flat roof, composition red tile front pent, tile cornice, and store -width glass front (Figure 5). 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 one-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 an94 d 1 Os it was well known as a beachfront malt shop. A brief history of the property done as part of an Environmental Impact in 1989 reported that it was a "landmark for teens" 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). t xt,s Figure 5. Papa Joe's Pizza 9 Archaeological Resources Records Search Results Archaeological resources are defined as the material remains of prehistoric (aboriginal/Native American) or historical (post -contact) human activity. A records search was conducted by Greenwood and Associates at the South Central Coastal Archaeological Information Center, located at the California State University, Fullerton. Included was a review of all recorded historic and prehistoric archaeological sites within a 0.5 mile radius of the current study area, as well as a review of all known cultural resource survey and excavation reports. Additionally, historic maps of the region were checked. The records search indicated that one previous cultural resource survey included the current project area, and two additional surveys have been conducted within 0.5 mile of the Block 104/105 project area. No prehistoric or historical archaeological sites were recorded by the earlier efforts. Consultation with the Native American Heritage Commission regarding the Block 104/105 project was initiated in January 2002 . A response was received indicating that a record search of the sacred lands file failed to indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources 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. In addition to the Hehne-Worthy House and Store, located within the project area at 126 6th Street and 513-519 Walnut Street, there is one National Register listed property recorded nearby: the Huntington Beach Municipal Pier (1914) is located 0.1 mile west of the study area opposite the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and Main Street. There are no California Historical Landmarks, State Points of Historical Interest, or locally listed resources recorded in the vicinity of the project area. Field Investigations Field investigations included inspection of all exposed areas of ground surface within the project area. Due to the developed urban nature of the project area, surface visibility was limited. Most of the two block area is covered by paved surface parking lots, streets, sidewalks, and buildings. One or more structures had recently been demolished and ground surface exposed and lightly graded in the northwest quadrant of the project site, an area bounded by the Papa Joe's Pizza property (508-510 Pacific Coast Highway) on the south, Pacific Coast Highway on the west, an alley on the east, and 6th Street on the north. A light scattering of recently deposited modern refuse was observed in this area. 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. 10 VI. Environmental Impact Analysis P A. Definition of Resource 1 The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 defines a historic resource as "any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure or object included in, or eligible for, inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. The California Environmental Quality Act, in turn, defines historical resources as "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. B. The California Environmental Quality Act The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) establishes a two step procedure for determining whether or not a project involving a historic resource will have an adverse t impact upon significant resources. First, CEQA defines those properties that must be considered significant resources for purposes of the Act. Second, where a significant historical resource does exist, a determination must be made as to whether the proposed project will result in a substantial adverse change such that the qualities that make the resource significant will be impaired or lost. The California State Legislature has adopted special rules for determining whether impacts to historic resources are or may be significant impacts on the environment. Section 21084.1 requires a lead agency to determine: 1) whether a project may impact a historic resource, and 2) whether the impact will cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of the resource. CEQA applies only to historical resources described in Section 21084.1 and other cross- referenced Public Resource Code provisions. The Section also offers four guidelines for determining whether a resource qualifies as a historic resource. They are summarized as follows: ■ 1 st Guideline. An historic resource is a resource listed in, or determined eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources. ■ 2nd Guideline. Section 21084.1 states that historical resources included in a local register of historic resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1, subdivision (k) are presumed to be historically or culturally significant unless the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates otherwise. ■ 3rd Guideline. Historic resources deemed significant in subdivision (g) of Section 5024.1 are presumed to be historically or culturally significant unless the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates otherwise. The section covers historic surveys. it ■ 4th Guideline. This guideline for determining whether a resource is a historic resource follows the principle that even where a resource does not qualify as historic under any of the three preceding guidelines, a local agency may still exercise its discretion to treat the resources as historical. The first three guidelines refer to resources that are presumed to be, or must be treated as, historical. The fourth guideline allows an agency to move beyond statutory minimums and define historical resources more broadly, applying the requirements of Section 21084.1 to properties that have not previously been formally recognized as historic. If a lead agency determines that its project will affect a historical resource and the effect may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of the resource, Section 21084.1 requires the preparation of an EIR for the project. Public Resource Code Section 21002 provides that where there are feasible mitigation measures or project alternatives to mitigate the impacts, the agency must adopt them. Potential Effects In accordance with CEQA, the effects resulting from the project are evaluated to determine if they will result in a significant adverse impact on the environment. A formal study is required to focus on these effects and offer mitigation measures to reduce or avoid any significant impacts that are identified. Section 5020.1 of the California Public Resources Code establishes the threshold of substantial adverse change as demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration activities that would impair the significance of the historic resource. Historic resource impacts resulting from the proposed project could be considered significant if any of the following occur: ■ The removal or destruction of resources that are designated as historically significant in the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources, or the alteration of such resources in a manner that would undermine their cultural significance. ■ The removal or destruction of resources that are eligible or potentially eligible for the above designation or the alteration of such resources in a manner that would undermine their cultural significance. ■ Conflicts with adopted environmental plans and goals of the community where it is located. Based on the above standards, the effects of the proposed Block 104/105 project have been categorized as either "less -than -significant" or "significant." Mitigation measures are recommended for significant impacts. If a significant impact cannot be reduced to a less -than - significant level through the application of mitigation, it is categorized as a significant and unavoidable impact. Evaluation of the significance of potential impacts in relation to the standards listed above is provided in the following discussion. 12 k IC. Impacts and Mitigation Measures The following project alternatives may be considered as mitigation for the substantial adverse changes or significant adverse environmental effects on identified historical resources evaluated as significant. Demolition cannot be mitigated to a less -than significant level. Mitigation may be implemented for the remaining impacts to reduce them to a less -than - significant level. ® Imnact 1 - Pana Joe's Pizza ' Implementation of the proposed project would result in the demolition of the Papa Joe's Pizza building, potentially eligible for listing as a local historic resource and a probable contributor to a potential Main Street District. Removal of the structure would result in the loss of a historic building in the old commercial core of the city, diminishing the context for remaining historic buildings potentially eligible for inclusion in a historic district. This building represents the last remaining set of structures characteristic of small retail activity along Pacific Coast Highway catering to recreational beach traffic. It also represents the last exemplar of small retail eating establishments along Pacific Coast Highway that catered to young people attracted by the music and beach culture of the 1940s and 1950s. Demolition is a significant adverse effect and cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level, but the following measures will avoid or reduce the impact. Mitigation Measures la) As a condition of project approval, the City of Huntington Beach and/or the building owners may consider offering the building to the City of Huntington Beach Historical Society, or other preservation organization, for moving and relocation to a site close to the project area, preferably along Pacific Coast Highway, in order to preserve the structure's integrity of location, feeling, and association as prescribed by National Register Guidelines. If relocated to a compatible setting, a structure may retain its significance and eligibility to the National Register. lb) As a condition of project approval, the City of Huntington Beach or property owner shall enlist the services of a qualified architectural historian to complete a Historic American Buildings Survey (NABS) according to guidelines established by the Cultural Resources program of the United States Department of the Interior. As part of the survey, a complete photo -documentation and fully developed history will be completed for the subject property. Such a document is forwarded by the National Park Service to the Library of Congress. Additional copies should be made available to public libraries, school libraries, students and educators in Huntington Beach and nearby beach communities, as well as architectural historians, architects, landscape architects, historical groups, the City of Huntington Beach Surfing Museum, and other interested parties and individuals. 13 Since the City of Huntington Beach has a museum devoted to surfing and beach culture, any documentation of Papa Joe's should also be send to that institution. Provision should also be made for HABS photo -documentation to be provided to the museum for an exhibit. Guidelines for the HABS survey are included in the following publications: ■ Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Architectural and Engineering Documentation. ■ Historic American Buildings Survey Guidelines for Preparing Written Historical and Descriptive Data. Division of National Register Programs, National Parks Service, Western Region. ■ Photographic Specifications: Historic American Building Survey, Historic American Engineering Record. Division of National Register Programs, National Park Service, Western Region. While demolition constitutes an avoidable adverse impact, such documentation serves to reduce the level. Impact 2 - Helme-Worthy Residence and Store 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 west boundaries. The height and bulk of Building D along Walnut Avenue is inconsistent with the two-story height of the historic structures and will detract particularly from the character -defining false - front elevation of the Helme-Worthy Store. The height and mass of Building D also encroaches on the Helme-Worth properties' south and western boundaries. This is a significant adverse effect. Mitigation Measures 2a) As a condition of project approval, the City of Huntington Beach may require a buffer zone between the Helme-Worthy project and the proposed project. Where Building D adjoins the Helme-Worthy buildings, it would be advisable to reduce Building D's height, or provide a lower transition element in order to create a distinct separation between the new and older buildings. This space should 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. This strategy may somewhat mitigate the diminution of historic integrity through the loss of setting, feeling, and association with a historic two-story streetscape that the property will incur with its proximity to the proposed new construction. 2b) Additionally, setbacks from sidewalks should conform to those existing for the Helme- Worthy properties and those across Walnut Avenue. 14 Impact 3 - 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. This is comparable to the effects described above for the Helme-Worthy properties, and they could be ameliorated by similar measures. Potential Impact 4 - Archaeology Although the survey revealed no visible evidence of either prehistoric or historical archaeological resources, there is a potential 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 a well, privies, trash deposits, outbuildings, or other 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. D. Recommendations ' 1) As a part of the mitigation program for the project, the City of Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency may wish to consider the implementation of a reconfigured Main Street District with a widened focus or theme that relates more broadly to commercial architecture in the historic core. 2) It is suggested that Papa Joe's Pizza be considered as a contributing element to the Main 1 Street District. 3) At the present time the City of Huntington Beach has a loan funding mechanism in place under the supervision of the City's Redevelopment Agency for restoration of historic properties. As mitigation for the density and height variances requested for The Strand at Huntington Beach project, the city might choose to accept funds to be paid into the loan program specifically earmarked for the restoration of the National Register Helme-Worthy property, so that it might serve as a tourist/ visitors' center exhibiting memorabilia of the early history of the City. Similarly, loan funds could be made available for the relocation of the Papa Joe's Pizza. building. 4) Provision should be made for unanticipated archaeological discovery/discoveries during project implementation. This should include identification and evaluation of the discovery by a professional qualified in historical archaeology, recording of the discovery, and mitigation of impacts if found to be significant. Provision should also be made for the event that human remains are encountered during construction, following State law with notification of the County Coroner, Native American Heritage Commission, consultation with the designated ' tribal representative, and other procedures. 1 15 Sources Consulted 1986 Thirtieth Street Architects Historic Resources Survey Report. City of Huntington Beach, California. On file, Huntington Beach Public Library. 1988 Johnson Heumann Associates Addendum to Historic Resources Survey Report. City of Huntington Beach, California On file, Huntington Beach Public Library 1989 STA Planning Incorporated Main Street 100 Block Draft Environmental Impact Report. 89-6. State Clearinghouse No. 89091304. Volume 11 1999 City of Huntington Beach. Environmental Checklist Form. Planning Department Environmental Assessment No. 99-14. 16 • .: NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION 916 CAPITOL MALL, ROOM 364 9ACRA#A9NTO, CA 99814 (916) SS3.4082 Fax (915) 657-5390 WsE Sita www.nahe.ca.gav January 31, 2002 Ms. Alice Hale Greenwood and Associates 725 Jacon Way Pacific Palisades, CA 90272 RE: Proposed Huntington Beach Block 104/ t 05 Redevelopment Project, Huntington Beach, Orange County. Sent by Fax: (310) 454-3091 Pages sent: 2 1 Dear Mc. Hale: A record search of the sacred lands file has failed to indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources in the immediate project area. The absence of specific site information in the sacred lands file does not indicate the absence of cultural resources fn any project area. Other sources of cultural resources should also be contacted for information regarding known and recorded sites. Enclosed is a list of Native Americans individuals/organizations who may have knowledge of cultural resources in the project area. The Commission makes no recommendation or preference of a single individual, or group over another. This list should provide a starting place in locating area of potentlal adverse Impact within the proposed project area. I sugges-t you contact all of those indicated, if they cannot supply information, they might recommend other with specific knowledge. If a response has not been received within two weeks of notification, the Commission ® requests that you follow-up with a telephone call to ensure that the project information has been received. If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from any these individuals or groups, please notify me. With your assistance we are able to assure that our lists contain current information. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at (916) 653-4040. Sincerely, t Rob Wood Environmental Specialist III VL'JL/LV Vv LV vv ♦.u. vav vv.. v.. ..---- NATIVE AMERICAN CONTACTS Orange County January 31, 2002 Samuel H. Dunlap ralg Torres P.O. Box 1391 Gabrielino 713 E. Bishop Gabrielino Tongva Temecula, 92593 Cahuilla Santa Ana, 92701 CA Chi (909) 507-1958 �� (714) 542-6678 909 282-9351 Voice) ell)M9� 693-9196AX i'At Society Cindi Alvitre PO Box 1138 Gabriellno Avalon, CA 90704 (310) 510-8934 �bert F. Dorame PO Box 490 Gabrielino Tongva Bellflower, 90707 CA 562 925-7989 - Voice 562 920-9449 - Fax "4Vaienzuela PO Box 402597 Chumash Hesperia, 92340 Tatavian CA (760) 949-2103 Home Tongva, Gabrielino 805 492-8076 Work Wanyurne; Serrano Kbrwnuk abrielenolTongva Tribal Council Anthony Morales, Chairperson PO Box 693 Gabrieleno Tongva San Gabriel, CA 91778 626 2W1632 (60 286.1262 Fax (628 286-1758 (Home) .di'm Veiasques 5776 42nd Street Gabrielino Riverside, 92509 Kumeyaay CA (909) 784-6660 rnks Md b cums t mry as of tots dab of Oft cl=xwM n at t :ot not and, person of n;gwWb4KY ae deAnad M sacfoo M" of ttie "Paid hw 8rety Cone, section 5W.960 to �a Rssourm CoQ®end S'eCfios15�718 of Resan=s Coda � Block 10 V1 p jWk HU"4 r4M BMh, OOMW Cow IJL ' APPENDIX D GEOLOGY, HYDROLOGY, AND WATER QUALITY TECHNICAL REPORT III L r E Leighton and Associates GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS } S ri p� 7ATE i 46! 1 , ,` p �CYi'.1 � f' � e n'�' C) p.:�C' ✓. G.�t�r• +P J FCC• �0."1 b �✓'i ®�AMIN A GTG Company A GTG Company Leighton and Associates GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS June 12, 2001 To: CIM Group, LLC 6992 Hollywood Boulevard, Suite 900 Hollywood, California 90028 Attention: Mr. David Martin, Project Manager 0 Project No. 010099-001 Subject: Response to the Review Comment by the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department (City) Regarding Leighton and Associates, Inc.'s Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Report for Blocks 104/105, Westerly of Pacific Coast Highway and Main Street, City of Huntington Beach, California References: Leighton and Associates, Inc., 2000, 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, Project No. 0100990-001, dated May 22, 2000. Morton, P. K., Miller, R. V., 1981, Geologic Map of Orange County, California, Showing Mines and Mineral Deposits; California Division of Mines and Geology, Bulletin 204. As requested by you, Leighton and Associates, Inc. (Leighton) has prepared this letter -report in response to the comment by the City of Huntington (City) Beach Planning Department regarding our referenced report. For ease of reference the City's comment is reiterated below and a copy of the review comment is attached to this response. City's Comment "Planning: Section 2.1 Geologic Setting — Revise statement that site is located 35 ft. above mean sea level on the Huntington Beach Mesa; see attached Geotechnical. Inputs report excerpts dated February 1974." l iJ "I I u u 11 11 11 u 17781 Cowan, Irvine, CA .92614-600.9 (949) .250-1421 FAX `(949) 250-11.14 . www.leigh.tongeo.com 010099-001 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Response to the Citv's Comment According to Leighton's previous work in the area and the Geologic Map of Orange County (Morton and Miller, 1981), the site is located approximately 35 feet above mean sea level on the Huntington Beach Mesa. As such, no revision to Section 2.1 of the above referenced report is deemed necessary. If you have any questions regarding this letter -report or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact this office. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service. Respectfully submitted, LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. �4- 4' Michael b 4� Project Manager oor Nl »es Ar�� CERTIFED ENGINEERING n GEOLOGIST �. Don Terres Associate Geologist �FCX-%f MMR/DRT/lr Attachment: City of Huntington Beach Planning Department Review Sheet, dated April 20, 2001 Distribution: (1) Addressee (1) City of Huntington Beach Planning Department Attention: Ms. Jan James -2- City of Huntington Beach 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING Phone 536-5271 Fax 374-IS40 374-1648 qy uu6 t t April 20,.2001 Mr. David Martin Project Manager CIM Group LLC b922 Hollywood Blvd., Suite 900 Uollywvod, CA 90029 SUBJECT: BLOCKS 104/105 EIR TECHNICAL STUDIES Dear David: _Although the City of.Huntington Beach has not finalized our review of all the technical studies submitted .for the proposed development at Blocks 104 and 1.05, we offer the following comments for your use: DOCUMENT AUTHOR CITY COMMENTS Preliminary Geotechnical Leighton and Public Works: Approved for EIR; see project Investigation for Blocks 104/105 Associates related comments below Planning Section 2.1 Geologic Setting - Revise statement that site is located 35 & above mean sea level on the Huntington Beach Mesa; see attached Geotechnical Inputs report excerpts dated February 1974 Limited Phase II Site Gradient Public Works: Approved for EIR Assessment for Blocks 104/105 Engineers, Inc. .Planning No comments Preliminary Hydrology Report Penco Public Works: Approved for EIR; see project for Renovation of Blocks Engineering, Inc. related comments bolow 104/105 planning: No comments 4 CUP and EIR Support Penco Public Works: Approved for EIR; sec project Documentation for Renovation Engineering, Inc. related comments below . of Blocks 104/105 Planning; Study has not yet been reviewed by Planning - awaiting copy from PR% or CIM Leighton and Associates ®�®._................... ._.._....._....,w-. AGTGCompany GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS 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 May 22, 2000 Project No. 010099-001 Prepared for: CIM Group, LLC 6922 Hollywood Boulevard, Suite 900 Hollywood, California 90028 17781 Cowan, Irvine, CA 92614-6009 (949) 250-1421 FAX (.949) 250-1114 e www.leightongeo.com s; A GTG Company Leighton and Associates GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS May 22, 2000 Project No. 010099-001 To: CIM Group, LLC 6922 Hollywood Boulevard, Suite 900 Hollywood, California 90028 Attention: Mr. David Martin, Project Manager Subject: 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 Introduction In accordance with your request and authorization, Leighton and Associates, Inc. (Leighton) has performed a preliminary geotechnical investigation at the site for the proposed Blocks 104/105 redevelopment located westerly of Main Street, East of 6t' Street, between Pacific Coast Highway and Walnut Street in the city of Huntington Beach, California. Our scope of work for this study included review of available data, field exploration consisting of drilling 10 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 this report containing our general conclusions and recommendations pertaining to the conceptual design and development of the site. Once the site -specific development plans and building types are known, more specific recommendations can be provided. Those recommendations may require additional subsurface exploration or modifications to the recommendations provided in this report. The conclusions and recommendations in this report are based in part upon data that were obtained from a limited number of observations, site visits, samples, and tests. Such information is by necessity incomplete. The nature of many sites is such that differing geotechnical or geological conditions can occur within small distances and under varying climatic conditions. Changes in subsurface conditions can and do occur over time. Therefore, the findings, conclusions, and recommendations_ presented in this report can be relied upon only if Leighton has the opportunity to observe the subsurface conditions during grading and construction of the project, in order to confirm that our preliminary findings are representative for the site. Identification and recommendation for remediation of hydrocarbon impacted soils and other hazardous material was not a part of this geotechnical report. Those tasks are performed by 17781 Cowan, Irvine, CA 92614-6009 (949) 250-1421 .• FAX (949) 250-1114 www.laightongeo.com 010099-001 others and will be reported separately. This geotechnical report should not be construed as certification of those. If you have any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact this office. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service. Respectfully submitted, LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Michael Razban Project Manager , CEG 2I22 Matthew Hawley, r �QPOFE y KHIge Projec logist Q No.2202 ' Exp.: oOM ' `ypFD��Gt�' Ross Khiabani, PE, GE 2202 F CA Vice President/Principal Engineer MMR/MCH/ROK/lr Distribution: (6) Addressee 010099-001 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................I 1.1 Purpose and Scope.........................:...........................................................................1 1.2 Site Location and Proposed Development.................................................................1 1.3 Maximum Anticipated Loads....................................................................................2 1.4 Field Investigation.....................................................................................................2 1.5 Laboratory Testing ................................................. j .................................................... 2.0 GEOTECHNICAL FINDINGS...........................................................................................4 2.1 Geologic Setting........................................................................................................4 2.2 Subsurface Soil and Groundwater Conditions...........................................................4 2.3 Soil Compressibility and Settlement.........................................................................4 2.4 Expansive Soil Characteristics...................................................................................5 2.5 Soil Corrosivity.................................................................... ........ ................5. ......... ..... 2.6 Faulting and Seismicity.............................................................................................6 2.6.1 Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis ........................................................ 2.7 Liquefaction...............................................................................................................8 2.8 Earthquake -Induced Settlement.................................................................................8 3.0 CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................•...9 4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................10 4.1 Earthwork................................................................................ .................10 4.1.1 Site Preparation ................................ 10 4.1.2 Fill Placement and Compaction.................................................................10 4.2 4.3 Seismic Design Parameters......................................................................................10 Excavation Stability and Shoring Requirements.....................................................11 4.4 Lateral Earth Pressure ................................... ..........................11 ................................. 4.5 Foundation Design Recommendations....................................................................12 4.6 Concrete Slabs and Pavement..................................................................................13 4.7 Cement Type and Corrosion Measures....................................................................14 4.8 Surface Drainage......................................................................................................14 t 4.9 Trench Backfill........................................................................................................14 4.10 Plan Review.............................................................................................................15 4.11 Geotechnical Observation and Testing of Earthwork Operations ............ ...._ . 15 t 010099-001 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd.) Appendices Page Appendix A — Boring Logs Al to A-21 Appendix B — Laboratory Test Results B-1 to B-15 Appendix C — Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis C-1 to C-11 Appendix D — Pile Design Criteria D-1 to D-6 Appendix E — References E-1 to E-3 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Figures Figure 1 — Site Location Map Rear of Text Figure 2 — Total Hazard Zero -Period Acceleration Rear of Text Figure 3 — Seismic Source Contributions Rear of Text Figure 4 — Compilation of Blowcounts (Liquefaction Analyses) Rear of Text Figure 5 — Retaining Wall Backfill and Subdrain Detail Rear of Text Plate Plate 1 — Boring Location Map In Pocket i 1 1 1 1 1 010099-001 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PMose and Scope This report presents the results of our preliminary geotechnical investigation for the proposed Blocks 104/105 redevelopment project. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the existing soil conditions in light of the presently conceived plans, and to provide preliminary geotechnical recommendations for design and construction. The scope of work included the following tasks: • Coordination with our drilling subcontractors and Dig -Alert and marking of the boring locations. • Subsurface exploration consisting of excavating, logging, and sampling of geotechnical borings. Relatively undisturbed and bulk soil samples were collected at selected depth intervals and transported to our laboratory for testing. • Laboratory testing of the soil samples recovered from our borings to evaluate engineering characteristics of onsite soils within the exploration depths. • Geotechnical evaluation of collected data and relevant engineering analyses. • Preparation of this report summarizing our findings, conclusions and recommendations. 1.2 Site Location and Proposed Development The site is a rectangular parcel within two city blocks, bounded to the north by Walnut Street, to the south by Pacific Coast Highway, to the east by Main Street and to the west by 6 h Street in the city of Huntington Beach, California (see Figure 1, Site Location Map).. The site is relatively flat and is covered by existing structures. The existing building at the northwest corner of Main Street and Pacific Coast Highway is not a part of redevelopment and will remain in place. The conceptual plan for redevelopment consists of the construction of retail shops, restaurants, offices, markets, and a 120-room (four -level) hotel. A subterranean parking garage planned to accommodate 365 spaces has also been proposed. The underground parking garage will occupy the entire area of the buildings with the exception of the areas under the existing buildings to remain. -1- __ ®® ®_�o 010099-001 1.3 Maximum Anticipated Loads 1 Maximum expected loads provided by Saiful/Bouquet, structural engineers, are as follows: • Expected maximum column loads (dead + line): 700 to 1,000 kips • Maximum wall load: 20 kips/ft. • Seismic axial loads up to 1,200 kips tension and compression. Our structural analyses and foundation recommendations will be based upon the above loads. 1 1.4 Field Investigation ' Prior to the subsurface exploration, a site reconnaissance was performed by our staff to evaluate the proposed location of the borings with respect to access for heavy equipment and subsurface utility lines and structures. The subsurface investigation, performed on April 27, 2000 and April 28, 2000, consisted of drilling ten 8-inch-diameter, hollow -stem auger borings (B-1 through B-10), to depths ranging from 26.5 to 66.5 feet below the existing ground surface. Borings were placed in strategic locations to avoid the existing underground utilities and onsite buildings in an attempt to evaluate the overall subsurface geotechnical conditions. Plate 1, Boring Location Map (in pocket), shows the approximate location of the borings. The logs of these borings are presented in Appendix ' A of this report. All borings were logged and sampled using the SPT (Standard Penetration Test) and California Ring (Ring) samplers at selected intervals. The SPT and Ring samplers were driven using'a 140-pound hammer (automatic hammer) falling freely for 30 inches for a total penetration of 18 inches, and the blowcounts were noted for every 6 inches of penetration. The reported blow in the boring logs is for 12-inch standard penetration. Relatively undisturbed samples were also collected from the borings using the California Ring sampler. In addition, representative bulk samples were collected from the borings. Each soil sample collected was visually inspected and described in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. The soil descriptions were entered on the boring logs, which are included in Appendix A of this report. All samples were sealed and packaged for transportation to, our laboratory. After completion of drilling, the borings were backfilled with native soil cuttings and patched where necessary. -2- � �L ®® 010099-001 1.5 Laboratory Testin Laboratory tests were performed on representative samples to verify the field classification of the recovered samples and to determine the geotechnical properties of the subsurface soils. The following tests were performed: • In -situ moisture content and density; • Grain -size distribution; • Atterberg Limits; • Direct shear; • Consolidation ; • Expansion Index; and • Corrosion tests. All laboratory testing was performed in general accordance with ASTM procedures. The results of the in -situ moisture and density tests are shown on our geotechnical boring logs (Appendix A). The results of other laboratory tests are presented in Appendix B (Tables B-1, B-2, and B-3) of this report. -3- i010099-001 1 2.0 GEOTECHNICAL FINDINGS 1 2.1 Geologic Setting 1 The subject site is located on the Huntington Beach Mesa within the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province of Southern California. The Huntington Beach Mesa is one of 1 several Pleistocene -age marine terrace platforms within the southern coastal edge of the Los Angeles Basin. The site is located at approximately 35 feet above mean sea level (msl), and is underlain by marine terrace deposits comprised of cobbley silts and sands. 1 These nearly horizontal terrace deposits cap the mesa and overly the sedimentary San Pedro Formation. 1 The Huntington Beach Mesa has been warped and uplifted since 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 1 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 1 the project site. Both of these faults are known from existing oil and groundwater well data, but lack geomorphic evidence of surface rupture. 1 2.2 Subsurface Soil and Groundwater Conditions 1 Based on the 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 1 consist of alternating layers of silty sands or sandy silts, moist to saturated, and are generally moderately dense to dense. 1 Groundwater was encountered in all of the borings (except Borings B-5 and B-8) 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 1 groundwater at a shallower depth was not encountered in our borings, it may be present at other locations. This is especially true after a period of heavy rainfall. 1 2.3 Soil Compressibility and Settlement 1 Consolidation tests indicate that the materials encountered at the top 15 to 20 feet of the existing ground are compressible. 1 Based on the anticipated maximum loads, the results of the consolidation tests, and our preliminary analyses, it is our opinion that due to the relatively heavy expected loads, the -4- 1 ®ems 010099-001 2.4 estimated settlement of the conventional footings will be excessive and is estimated to be on the order of 3 to 4 inches for pad footings and approximately 2.5 inches for continuous footings (also see Section 4.5, Foundation Design Recommendations). One half of the total settlement is expected to occur as differential settlement. Preliminarily, differential settlements on the order of 3/4 and '/2 inch over a horizontal distance of 30 feet may be estimated for the pad and wall footings, respectively. Expansive Soil Characteristics Expansion tests performed on the surface soils at the level of sidewalks and other concrete flatwork indicates that these materials possess low expansion potential when tested in accordance with Standard 29-2 of the Uniform Building Code (UBC). Materials at the foundation level, however, are expected to be moderately to highly expansive. As -graded tests will be necessary to verify the expansive characteristics of the onsite soils. 2.5 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. In general, soils with soluble sulfate content over 0.2 percent are considered severely corrosive to concrete. Soils with chloride content over 500 parts per million (ppm) are considered corrosive to metal. Another measure of soil corrosivity to metal is the electrical resistivity. Corrosion of buried metal is an electrochemical process where the amount of metal loss is directly proportional to flow of electrical currents from the metal to the soils. The electrical currents are inversely proportional to the soil resistivity. Therefore, lower soil resistivity (generally due to higher moisture and chemical contents) indicates corrosive soils. In general, a minimum resistivity of 1,000 ohm -cm or less is considered severely corrosive to metals. Corrosivity tests performed on the subsurface soils indicated sulfate contents of .0015 to .0212 percent by weight, and chloride contents ranging from 252 to 771 ppm. Minimum resistivities range from 1,079 ohm -cm to 9,770 ohm -cm. As such, the potential for sulfate attacks on concrete in contact with these soils is considered low. However, based on the minimum resistivity and chloride content of the tested soils, any unprotected steel or other metallic structures in contact with these materials will be subject to moderate to high levels of corrosion. For degree of protection, advice of a corrosion engineer should be sought. ■ 010099-001 1 2.6 Faulting and Seismici 1 The site is located in a seismically active region of Southern California. The major contributing Holocene Faults to the sites for seismic exposure are the Newport - Inglewood, San Joaquin Hills, and Compton Blind Thrust Fault Zones. The site is approximately located 0.4 km from the closest section of the Newport -Inglewood Fault (Ziony and Jones, 1989 and Jennings, 1994). The Newport -Inglewood Fault is postulated 1 to provide a maximum credible earthquake (MCE) with moment magnitude of 7.5 by Caltrans (Mualchin, 1996). Other references (such as, California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), 1998 and CDMG, 1996) postulated that the segments of Newport - Inglewood Fault in close vicinity of the site can produce MCE with moment magnitude of 6.9. The maximum credible peak ground acceleration (PGA) is estimated' to be 0.6g based on the Caltrans' 1996 Seismic Hazard Map (Mualchin, 1996). CDMG 1 Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Map (Petersen et al., 1999) estimates that the PGA will be on the order of 0.30 to 0.40g for a 10 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years. United States Geologic Survey (USGS) National Seismic Hazard Mapping Project web 1 site estimates a PGA of 0.4g for a 10 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years. To refine the PGA determination and contribution of magnitude and distance for the 1 design base earthquake (e.g., with probability of 10 percent in 50 years) a site -specific seismic hazard analysis was performed for this site as described in the following section. Our review of available in-house data indicates that there are no known active faults traversing the site (Hart, 1997). 1 2.6.1 Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis A site -specific probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) was performed to 1 evaluate the likelihood of various ground motion levels at the site as reflected in. peak horizontal ground acceleration (PHGA). A description of the PSHA. 1 methodology utilized for this study is provided in Appendix C of this report. This approach takes into account historical seismicity, the geological slip rate of all faults within 100 km (62.5 miles) of the site, and the site -specific response 1 characteristics. The PSHA results are based on PHGA which corresponds to the anticipated 1 response at a free -field (i.e., ground motions are not influenced by the presence of a structure, topographic features, or ground failure). The recommended free -field PHGA can be used for evaluation of structural response. 1 The site coordinates are N33.6581 ° and W118.0022°. The site is underlain by a shallow sandy soil deposit underlain by Terrace deposits (stiff soil/soft rock) type of material. Soil profile is classified to be So for the upper 100 feet per UBC 1997, Table 16-J, and NEHRP site classes (BSSC, 1994). The average shear 010099-001 wave velocity of the upper 30.5 m (100 feet) at the site was calculated to be 291 meters per second (m/s, 955 feet per second, ft./sec) (Sykora and Stokoe, 1983' Seed et al., 1983). Based upon the results of subsurface characterization at this site, attenuation relationships by Idriss (1994) for Stiff Soil/Rock Site, Boore, Joyner, and Fumal (1997) with an average shear wave velocity (Vs) of 291 m/s, and Abrahamson and Silva (1997) for Rock Site were utilized in this PSHA. The results of the PSHA expressed in terms of the zero -period acceleration (ZPA), which is equivalent to the PHGA, for the attenuation relationships and their average are shown on Figure 2. The acceleration is plotted versus mean number of events per year that results in the ZPA being exceeded (annual frequency of exceedance) and the average return period (ARP), which is the inverse of the annual frequency of exceedance. The average total seismic hazard curve shown on Figure 2 was utilized to estimate the PHGA corresponding to a 10 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years (475-year ARP event) and 10 percent probability of exceedance in 100 years (950-year ARP event). The PHGA for these two events are 0.49g and 0.66g, respectively. Abrahamson and Silva (1997) resulted curve was the closest to the average seismic hazard curve as shown on Figure 2. Therefore, the total seismic hazard and contribution of the primary faults affecting the site are also shown on Figure 3 based on this attenuation relationship. The results shown on this figure indicate that the Newport -Inglewood, San Joaquin Hills, .and Compton Thrust Fault systems contribute the most to the seismic hazard at this site. In this analysis a probability of 50 percent was associated with the existence of the San Joaquin Fault. The result of the deaggregation indicates that the total hazard is dominated by earthquakes with a moment magnitude (M,) of 6.52 at a 6.37 km distance for 475-year ARP events. An averaged PHGA of 0.49g associated with an earthquake with a MW of 6.52, probability of exceedance of 10 percent in 50 years, was utilized in the following analysis per UBC minimum requirements (Sections 1804.5 and 1631.2). PSHA process is further explained in Appendix C of this report. -7- ®gym 010099-001 k P L I C 2.7 Liquefaction Liquefaction is a seismic phenomenon in which loose, saturated, fine-grained granular soils 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. Liquefaction analyses, presented graphically, is on Figure 4 of this report. 2.8 Earthquake -Induced Settlement Granular soils tend to densify when subjected to shear strains induced by ground shaking during earthquakes. Simplified methods were proposed by Tokimatsu and Seed (1987) and Ishihara and Yoshimine (1991) involving SPT N-values used to estimate earthquake - induced soil settlement of the upper 50-foot layer of soil beneath the proposed development. Potential for earthquake -induced settlement is considered to be low. This site may experience a maximum earthquake -induced settlement of 1 inch. if the design earthquake occurs. Earthquake -induced settlements tend to be most damaging when differential settlements result. Earthquake -induced differential settlements are expected to be less than 0.5 in the area of the proposed construction. 010099-001 1 Cl 3.0 CONCLUSIONS Based on our investigation, we conclude that the proposed development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided the recommendations presented in this report are fully implemented in the design and construction of the project. There appear to be no significant geotechnical constraints onsite that cannot be mitigated by proper planning, design, and sound construction practices. Following is a summary of our geotechnical findings: • The subsurface soils at the site generally consist of silty clays up to a depth of 20 feet and silty and clayey sands below that depth. • The surface soils (0 to 5 feet) generally possess low expansion potential and medium to high expansion potential at the foundation level (below the underground garage level). • The differential settlement between adjacent footings using the recommended foundation system is estimated to be on the order of %2 to `/4 inch over a horizontal distance of 30 feet. • Groundwater was encountered in our borings at approximately 26 to 27 feet below existing ground surface. However, it is not expected to have adverse impact on the proposed development. Groundwater will fluctuate seasonally. We recommend water proofing of subterranean walls and installation of subdrains around the perimeter of the buildings. We encourage special groundwater studies by the subcontractors if it will have an adverse effect on their work. • Liquefaction potential of the subsurface soils is considered low. • Damage to concrete in contact with onsite soil due to soluble sulfate concentrations is expected to be low. • Steel components in contact with the onsite soils are expected to have a moderate to high potential for corrosion. • The subsurface soils are readily rippable using conventional earthmoving equipment in good working condition. MA 010099-001 4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are preliminary and are based on the collected data, general site conditions, and the information contained in the conceptual plan submitted to our office as a part of Request for Proposal (RFP) package dated November 2, 1999. Final grading and construction plans should be reviewed by the project geotechnical engineer to ensure that the recommendations presented herein remain applicable. 4.1 Earthwork 4.1.1 Site Preparation n tConsiderable amount of demolition and debris cleanup will be necessary before the construction can begin. Prior to construction, the site should be cleared of all debris resulting from demolition. All underground utility lines and other structures encountered during excavation of the garage should be removed or rerouted if they interfere with the proposed construction. The resulting cavities should be properly backfilled. and compacted. The conduits terminating at the property lines should be pumped full of slurry to prevent possible penetration of water through them. 4.1.2 Fill Placement and Compaction The onsite soils are generally suitable for use as compacted structural fill, provided that they are free of organic material or construction debris. All fill soil should be placed in thin, loose lifts, moisture -conditioned, as necessary, to near ' optimum moisture content, and compacted to a minimum 90 percent relative compaction, as determined by ASTM Test Method D1557-91. 1 4.2 Seismic Design Parameters The site lies within Seismic Zone 4, as defined in the 1997, UBC and 1998, California Building Code (CBC). Based on 1997, UBC and 1998, CBC guidelines, we have developed the seismic design criteria that are stipulated to be the minimum for the seismic design of the proposed structures. It is up to the owner or his representative who must decide on the level of seismic risk that is economically acceptable to him/her. The owner may decide on a risk level that is superior to the CBC recommended minimum. The ' seismic design parameters for the proposed project site is given below. Causative Fault: Newport -Inglewood Fault Distance to Site: <2 km Maximum Credible Earthquake: 6.9 _10- i�\®o 010099-001 Horizontal Peak Ground Acceleration: - 10 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years: 0.49g - 10 percent probability of exceedance in 100 years: 0.66g 1997 UBC/1998 CBC Site Coefficients: Seismic Zone Factor: 0.40 Soil Profile Type: SD Near -Source Acceleration Factor Na: 1.3 Near -Source Velocity Factor Nv: 1.6 Seismic Coefficient Ca: 0.44 Na = 0.572 Seismic Coefficient Cv: 0.56 Nv = 0.896 Seismic Source Type: B 4.3 Excavation Stability and Shoring Requirements 1 4.4 Based on our observations during subsurface investigation and results of laboratory tests, the soils at the site should be readily excavated by conventional earthmoving equipment. Temporary shallow excavations with vertical slopes should be stable to a maximum depth of 3 to 4 feet with no structure support. However, excavation for the parking structure and other excavations 5 feet or deeper should be laid back or shored in accordance with OSHA requirements before personnel are allowed to enter. In addition, special care should be taken for excavation near existing improvements to ensure that the integrity of the existing improvements is not impacted. When the foundation plans are available, they should be reviewed by the geotechnical engineer to provide specific recommendations for excavations at proximity to the existing foundations. Lateral Earth Pressure The following soil parameters may be used for the design of retaining walls with level backfill. Conditions Equivalent Fluid Pressure (psf/ft.) Active 37 (native or imported granular soils, sand equivalent 30 or greater) At -Rest 60 Passive 350 to a maximum of 3,500 pounds per square foot (psf) Retaining structures should be provided with a drainage system, as illustrated on Figure 5, to prevent buildup of hydrostatic pressure behind the wall. If no subdrain is rovided, the equivalent fluid pressure of 80 and 90 sf/ft. should be used for active and P q P P at -rest conditions, respectively. 010099-001 I To design an unrestrained retaining wall, such as a cantilever wall, the active earth pressure may be used. For a restrained retaining wall, such as a basement walls, curved walls without joints or restrained -wall corners, the at -rest pressure should be used. Passive pressure may be used to compute lateral soil resistance developed against lateral structural movement. For sliding resistance, a friction coefficient of 0.40 may be used at the soil -concrete interface. In combining passive and frictional resistance to obtain the total lateral resistance, either the passive pressure or the frictional resistance should be reduced by 50 percent. In addition, the lateral passive resistance can be taken into account only if it is ensured that the soil against embedded structures will remain intact with time. In addition to the above lateral forces due to retained earth, other surcharge such as an adjacent structure, should -be considered in the design of the retaining walls. Loads �.r applied within a 1:1 (horizontal:vertical) projection from the surcharging structure on the stem of the wall shall be considered as lateral surcharge. For lateral surcharge conditions, we recommend utilizing a horizontal load equal to 50 percent of the vertical load, as a minimum. This horizontal load _should be applied below the 1:1 projection plane. To minimize the surcharge load from an adjacent building, deepened building footings may be considered. Retaining wall footings should have a minimum embedment of 12 inches below the adjacent lowest grade unless deeper footings are needed for other reasons. A soil unit weight of 120 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) may be used for retaining wall design if native materials are used for backfilling. All retaining walls should be moisture proofed to prevent nuisance water problems and formation of efflorescence on the basement walls. Moisture proofing should be performed based on the requirements of the project architect or civil engineer. 1 4.5 Foundation Design Recommendations i i C Due to the relatively high anticipated loads, it is our opinion that shallow foundations may not be feasible for all of the proposed structures. It is recommended that buildings E with heavier loads be supported on deep foundations. Drilled cast -in -place caissons are not feasible due to the presence of groundwater, possibility of caving, and difficulties that may be encountered during construction. It is, therefore, recommended that driven piles be used to support the proposed buildings. The allowable axial capacity curves in compression and tension for 12-inch- and 14- inch-square piles as a function of pile tip depths below the ground surface at garage subgrade are presented on Figure D-1 of Appendix D (APPWIN, 1997). These pile capacity curves include safety factors of 2.0 for compression and 1.5 for tension. We -12- 010099-001 recommend that the piles be driven through the dense sand layer, which starts at a depth of approximately 30 feet below the existing ground level or 15 feet below the proposed garage level. It should be noted that he pile capacities shown are based on soil strengths alone. The actual capacities may be limited to lesser values by the strength of pile materials and connections. For seismic or other short-term loading, the pile capacities may be increase by one-third. All piles should be spaced at a minimum on center spacing of three times the pile diameter or width. Lateral load analyses of piles for 12-inch and 14-inch were conducted for a pile -top deflection of 0.25-inch for both fixed and free -head conditions (LPILEP3, 1997). The profiles of deflection, shear force, and maximum induced bending moment along the length of the piles are presented on Figures D-2 and D-3. The results of the lateral load analyses for driven piles are tabulated in Table D-1 of Appendix D of this report. Settlements of piles generally result from the settlement of the supporting soils and elastic compression of the piles. For piles embedded into the sand layer, pile settlement will be principally due to the elastic compression of the piles. The total and differential settlement of the piles is estimated to be on the order of `/2 inch and 1/4 inch, respectively. The geotechnical consultant should be provided with the type of the selected pile driving equipment to develop pile driving criteria. Prior to production of foundation piles, we recommend that an indicator pile driving program be performed to assess pile derivability at the site and to evaluate the performance of the selected hammer. We recommend the indicator pile driving program be observed and monitored by the geotechnical consultant. Shallow foundation may be feasible for the lighter structures and may be considered once when loading conditions for these structures are known. Maximum allowable bearing pressure for shallow footings at garage level is 3,500 psf with one-third increase for wind and seismic design. 4.6 Concrete Slabs and Pavements Soils with medium to high expansion potential may be encountered at finished subgrade 5 for the slabs of the underground garage structure. It is recommended that these slabs be designed based on the as -graded soil condition. Preliminarily, a 6-inch-thick slab reinforced with a minimum of No. 3 reinforcing bars placed in the middle of the slabs at every 18 inches on center is recommended. A 4-inch layer of clean sand or crushed rock is recommended under the slabs. The subgrade under the base should be presaturated to a minimum of 1.3 times the optimum -moisture content and to a depth of 18 inches. Structural -13- o e= ®® 010099-001 slabs should be designed using a modulus of subgrade reaction, k = 150 pounds per cubic inch (pci). Concrete should have a minimum 28-day modulus of rupture of 550 pounds per square inch (psi). If asphaltic concrete pavement is used for the garage floor, a pavement section consisting of 5 inches of asphaltic concrete placed over 10 inches of base is recommended. This preliminary pavement section based on an assumed R-value of 5 and a Traffic Index (TI) of 6.0 is provided for budgetary purposes only. Final design should be based on the site -specific testing and a TI assigned by the City of Huntington Beach. Base material should comply with requirements and specifications for public works, The "Green Book", and should be compacted to 95 percent relative compaction 4.7 Cement Type and Corrosion Measures Based on the relatively low sulfate and chloride content of the subsurface soils, common Type II cement may be used for concrete construction on the site. The low resistivity of the subsurface soils at the site indicate that these soils would be potentially corrosive to metals. Special measures for corrosion control of steel or other metallic elements embedded in soils, such as corrosion allowance or use of protective coatings or sleeves, are recommended. For more specific recommendations regarding protection against corrosion, a corrosion specialist should be consulted. 4.8 Surface Drainage Ponding of water adjacent to structures should be avoided. During and after construction, positive drainage should be provided to direct surface water away from structures and towards suitable, nonerosive drainage devices. Planters adjacent to the building or 1 structure should be properly lined, such as with a membrane, to reduce penetration of * irrigation water into the adjacent footing subgrade or should be avoided wherever possible. Wherever possible, exposed soil areas should be above paved grades. Planters should not be depressed below adjacent paved grades unless drainage, such as catch basins and drains, are provided. 4.9 Trench Backfill Trench excavations for utility pipes may be backfilled with onsite soils under the observation of the geotechnical engineer. After utility pipes have been laid, the space 1 & -14 — 010099-001 under and around the pipe should be backfilled with clean sand or gravel, having sand equivalent of 30 or greater, to a depth of at least 1 foot over the top of the pipe, before the controlled backfill is placed. Care should be exercised not to damage the utility lines during compaction. 4.10 Plan Review The final grading and foundation plans should be reviewed by the project geotechnical consultant to verify that the preliminary recommendations provided in this report are applicable. 4.11 Geotechnical Observation and Testing of Earthwork Operations All grading and excavation should be performed under the observation and testing of the geotechnical consultant at the following stages: • During demolition; • Upon completion of site clearing; • During subgrade overexcavation and recompaction; During fill placement; After building and retaining wall footing excavations and prior to placement of concrete; • Before and during retaining wall backfill and installation of the drainage system; • During excavation and backfilling of all utility trenches; and • When any unusual or unexpected geotechnical conditions are encountered. -15- ■ 117� r3 J 1 F77; 1 I fXl'TIN' T unr A OAAi fl nlaDMAL V Ro.v. DUICAWN rY-V vsorte,Y uR (plan provided by CAM GROUP) SITE LOCATION MAP, BLOCKS 104 & 1051 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA WALNUT AVENUE ' 11 � . • • • �I •' _ . — .. I :1 l 1 1 • i ` i I l i i RETAIL 54663 SF RESTAURANTS 20467 SF t'. RETAIL RETAIL MARKET 22919 SF �� • I hi n!.`d • lld 11 V. i i t �' ;' SUBTOTAL GLA = 98049 SF • 1 ! i. ! . NOTFL (Lobby) 2520 SF LIOIEL (Back of House) 0 SF Sl18TOTAl. HOTEL = 2520 SF RfTAIL 1. I-�rtlq ' PLAZA L ' Ic,llr�l LEVEL 1 101A1 AREA = 100569 SF. rpoes NOT include Vertical Circulation Cores k ' e, i❑ti I Corridors EXCEPT in 110TEL 1 — RIkY T6 ezt 9I� i (.WN L _ EA STING, .I 1 HAURANT/RETAIL NOT A TART 1 11A I ( L {{ C PACIFIC COAST HIC14WAY i Project No. 010099-001 Scale NOT TO SCALE Eng/Geo MMR/ROK Date 5/22/00 m Figure No. I 10000 1 0 2PA-ARP.zIs 0.5 1 Zero -Period Acceleration, ZPA 1.5 0.0001 a� Q 0.001 a CD a) Q w 0 0.01 C Q' Q) ro 0.1 C Q I Dale May 15 2000 ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® i ® ® M ® M ® M ® ® ® ® M 1000000 ro 100000 I� �w 10000 a E ,? 1000 a� Cr e 100 10 L 0 contributor-ABS.As Seismic Source Contributions: Newport -Inglewood (LA Basin) San Joauqin Hills -Fault Campton Thrust . - Palos Verdes f I= - - --- =1 - - L I I= Newport -Inglewood (Offshore) I__ _ t C: Elysian Park Thrust Whittier I I I I I - 0 ELsinore-Glen Ivy — -- — — — All Other Sources L- .-:. _.. - f: - _ T Total Seismic Hazard_- - 7 - - - - I- - - - r - -. .... r - -- I - - -L - _ j _ I-- -- - .I - I -- -I 0.5 1 Zero -Period Acceleration, ZPA 1.5 1 E-006 1 E-005 v a� v" 0.0001 W 4- c 0.001 t LLL. 0.01 0.1 Contribution of Major Sources to Total Seismic Hazard For Abrahamson and Silva (1997) Attenuation Relationship Figure 3 ri 'A na TARSI nrt Data: May 15 20t:- (N1)60-Cs (bpt) CRR 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0 C� • O 0 10 ® o 00 0 0 o 0 • 20 0 0•L 0 30 0 0 • O Liquefiable ' `�- (iflbelow groundwater table) Non -Liquefiable � � (Under the mentioned Seismic Hazard Level) ® 40 o•C� Ooo e 50 O>A OW o 60 00 0 0 0 • O 70 • B-1 CSR for GWT @ 27 ft O B-3 o B-4 O B-10 B-1, B-3, B-4, & B-10.xis CIMBlocks 104 & 105 e010099-001 Compilation of Blowcounts "'Iva .=Leighton and Associates for. the Blocks 104 & 105 5�E GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS Figure 4 Date: Mav 2000 5PT:Gompilation.grt - - - - SUBDRAIN OPTIONS FOR NATIVE MATERIAL BACKFILL ' OiiiON N2, Pioe Surrounded Or--nON Ni- Gravel Wraooed in C1CN N3' Geoteriie Orain with C.a s 2 Material Filter Fabric With Proper Surface With Proper Surface: Wit.1.?roper Suriaee ' Drainage, Siooc or Siooe or S Drainage Drainage — — ` ooe or Level Level 6_' to 1 Li Level � T Fabric Fiao A_- 1 1=' Nalrva Behind Care I NdEa : Native Backfiil B waterproofing ) +:' Baekfill Waterproofing �.e WaterproofingMismaJ• Membrane4 Meaftsrane� �j Z' ruler Fabric Membrane J Drain IOC, Hygrid (Optional) •' (Optional) 1�J :P �[ (Optional) ,t', i • Drain 1, or equivalent :o Cams 2 Filter i+ Y. to 1". Inch Size Gravel Ester Fabric ' Weep Hole Permeable Material Weep Hole-�jj) p3 Wrapped in Filter Fabric Weep HoL s• � �. �,l� <-ineft Diameter Level or / — Level of 5 Level or Slope 7uP- SlopeI.IJrSiopaPerforatsd rTtpe Fabric Flap •" .Finch Diameter Perforated Pipe Behind Core Cass 2 Filter Permeable Material Gracing Proper Outlet Should be 'Miradrain 6c130 or J Drain 100 for ' SievePet' Cattrans Specifications , Size Percent RnzsinC Provided for Gravel Subdrain norewate.•proofed waft; 100 (See Notes) Miradnun 6= or J Drain 200 for W4• 90-100 completed waterproofed walls 2M 40-100 No. 4 25..sp -Feel back the bottom fabric flap, No. 8 18-40 Plata pipe nes+ to =ra, No,'A &M wrap fabric around pipe and No. M 4.7 tuck behind Bore. No. =0 0.3 With Proper SudaSUBDRAIN OPTIONS FOR CLEAN SAND_ BACKFILL Drainage 6�o-'­ Subdrain Option S2: S10 a or Level -: 4' diameter perforated pipe P surrounded with I &31tL of e•s- -�r�x- Class 2 filter material per Waterproofing I "� H/2 or beef Widlh. Wbichever is^_ffi Gmaier Cahrans specstions as above Membranes f ' (Optional) , H • . Clean sand backSil Wee ` ' /i having sand equivalent Subdrain Option S3 Hole of 30 or greater (cart be for Corrveate d Pines Only.: densilied by water jetting) J q• diameter corrugated perforated Pipe wrapped In triter fabric i '•►=� Subdrain Option S1• (this option should not be used Ltvei or ' 1 eill. of Y. to I%. size for non -corrugated, smooth pipes Scope / r gravel wrapped in filler fabric . because fine particle earth materials Z of (see notes for oullelj may accumulate at the perforated holes and reduce the flow of water Heel Width YVhiclreor is Greater into the pipe Notes: Pipe type should be ASTM DIW Aaylonitnie 8utediene Styrene (ASS SDPMS or ASCM D17aS Polyvinyl Chloride plastic (PVC). Schedule 40, Arrnco A20W PVC, or approved equivalent. Pipe should be installed with perforations down. • FMar fabric ahouid be Miraft 1411K 14ONS, Supae 4NP, Amoco 4545, Trtevim IT14, or approved equivalent ' All drains should have a gradient of I percent minimum. • Outlet portion for gravel subdrain should have a 4-diameter pipe with the perforated portion inserted into the gravel approximately 2 minimum and the nonperforated portion extending approximately 1' outside the gravat Proper scaling should be provided at the pipe insertion enabling water to run from the gravel portion Into rather than outside the pipe. • Waterproofing membrane may be required for a speck retaining wall such as a ztuc-a or basement watt • Weephole should be 2 minimum diameter and provided at2T minimum in length of watt tf exposure is permitted, weepholc should be located at 3_' above finished grade. If exposure is not permitted such as for a wail adjacent to a zidewalk/curs, a pipe under the side-zA to discharge through the curb face or equivalent should be provided. or for a basement -type wall, a proper subdrain outlet system shouk ' be provided.. Open vertical masonry joints (Le., omit mortar from joints of first course above finished grade) at 32' maximum intervals Mal be substilrtted for weepholes. Screening such as with a filter fabric should be provided for weepholez/open joints to prevent card Materials from entering the holesloints. RETAINING WALL BACKFILL AND SUBDRAIN DETAIL Figure No. 5 3067 292 GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG S-1 Date 4-27-00 Sheet 1 of 3 Project CIM/BLOCKS 104,105 Project No. 010099-01 Drilling Co. 213 Drlling Type of Rig HSA-CME Hole Diameter 8" Drive Weight 140 Ibs Drop 30" Elevation Top of Hole 20' Location See Index Map d z DESCRIPTION d >LL dry �J r CLCLL o C. c VVj C w Q 0°IL o � 0 Logged & Sampled By PAS CL Checked By MMR F- 20 0 gag-1 CL Top: 4"- thick asphaltic conctere over 3"- thick aggregate base. 0'-5': Fill, Silty CLAY,orangish brown,moist, with Silt and traces of fine Gravel. ,El R j 15 5 R-i 30 119.8 11.2 CL @5': Sandy CLAY, of gish brown, stiff, moist, trace Silt and Gravel. Sand is of fine to medium grain. 10 10 R_2 8 114.7 13.6 CL @10': Sandy CLAY, orangish brown, medium stiff, moist. Sand is of fine to medium grain. 5 15 R-3 23 GM SA - @15': Sandy GRAVEL, medium dense, moist. 0 20 R-4 41 99.4 5.9 SM @20': Silty SAND, orange, medium dense, moist. Sand is of fine S/CN to medium grain. 200 -5 25 R-5 48 103.2 19.3 SM @25': TOP: Silty SAND,light gray, medium dense, very moist. Sand is of fine to medium grain. BOTTOM: Silty SAND, orangish brown, medium dense, very moist. -10J 30 SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: S SPLIT SPOON DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS R RING SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG LIMITS B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION #200 PASSING SIEVE #200 b SMALL BAG SAMPLE CR CORROSION El EXPANSION INDEX 505A(11177) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES A-1 Date 4-27-00 Project Drilling Co. Hole Diameter Elevation Top of Hole GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-1 Sheet 2 of 3 CIM/ BLOCKS 104, 105 Project No. 010099-01 211 Drlling Type of Rig HSA-CME 8" Drive Weight 140 Ibs Drop 30" 20' Location See Index Mat) N C V ° =' o d N DESCRIPTION V m and N Z �G. H O C� C.F. 7 ++ haa) cc UV O jd M 0� aaoD �-� ��• I- ma pG o c _tn m a E Q � 0 �� Logged &Sampled By PAS CL Checked By MMR -10 30 S-1 21 SM 030':Silty SAND, grayish to yellowish brown, medium dense, SA wet. -15 35 3-2 48 SM @35': Silty SAND, bluish gray, dense, wet. -20 40 S-3 37 SM 040' Silty SAND, bluish gray, dense, wet. -25 45 S-4 51 SM C45': Silty SAND, bluish to greenish gray, dense, wet. Sand is of SA 01 medium to coarse grain. -30 50 S-5 61 SM 050': Silty SAND, bluish to greenish gray, very dense, wet. Sand 101 is of medium to coarse grain. -35 55 S-6 67 SM @55': Silty SAND, bluish to greenish gray, very dense, wet. Sand is of medium to coarse grain. -40 60 SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: S SPLIT SPOON DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS R RING SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG LIMITS B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION #200 PASSING SIEVE #200 b SMALL BAG SAMPLE CR CORROSION El EXPANSION INDEX 505A(11177) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES A-2 Date 4-27-00 Project Drilling Co. Hole Diameter Elevation Top of Hole GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-'I Sheet 3 of 3 CIM/ BLOCKS 104, 105 Project No. 010099-01 2R Drlling Type of Rig HSA-CME 8" Drive Weight 140 Ibs Drop 30" 20' Location See Index Map y Y DESCRIPTION m z °_' C. e� _ Rv >LL oLL �° Ha U. O` a=i Da o;: w Q ma- o �v w� Logged &Sampled By PAS to Checked By MMR F' -40 60 S_7 58 SM 060': Silty SAND, bluish gray, very dense, little Gravel. Sand is of medium to coarse grain and gravel is of fine to coarse grain. 45 65 S_8 75 SM @65': Silty SAND, bluish gray, very dense, wet, trace gravel. Sand is of medium to coarse grain. Total depth of hole : 66.5' Water encountered at a depth of : 27' Backfilled with native and asphalt patched -50 70 -55 75 -60 80 i -65 85— -70J 90 L I I I I t SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: S SPLIT SPOON DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS R RING SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG LIMITS B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION #200 PASSING SIEVE #200 b SMALL BAG SAMPLE CR CORROSION El EXPANSION INDEX 505A(11/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES A-3 GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-2 Date 4-27-00 Sheet 1 of 1 Project CIM/ BLOCKS 104, 105 Project No. 010099-01 Drilling Co. 2R Drlling Type of Rig NSA-CME Hole Diameter 8" Drive Weight 140 Ibs Drop 30" Elevation Top of Hole 20' Location See Index Map m m DESCRIPTION a Nz O = =*;* R� (U .. FO .Q U- 00a� O n>U U.)Q W o � - '5� Logged & Sampled By PAS Checked By MMR F- 20 0 4"- thick asphaltic concrete over 2"-thick aggregate base —Top: @0'-5': Silty CLAY, brown, moist with some sand and gravel. CL 15 5 R-1 66 113.7 12.4 SM @5': Silty SAND, grayish brown, very dense, moist, with some Clay and Gravel.Sand is of medium to coarse grain. 10 10 R-2 8 107.7 20.9 SM @10': Silty SAND, grayish brown, loose,moist. 5 15 R-3 17 119.5 30.9 CL @15': TOP: Silty CLAY, olive brown to orangish brown, medium stiff, moist, trace fine Sand. BOTTOM: Silty CLAY, brown, moist, very stiff. @20': Silty SAND, orangish brown, dense, moist. 0 20 R-4 43 104.2 5.6 SM -g 25 R-5 27 122.5 19.4 SM @25': Silty SAND, grayish brown, dense, very moist. Total Depth of hole : 26.5' No water encountered. Backfilled with native, finished with asphalt patch. An zn SAMPLE TYPES: S SPLIT SPOON R RING SAMPLE B BULK SAMPLE b SMALL BAG SAMPLE TYPE OF TESTS: DS DIRECT SHEAR MD MAXIMUM DENSITY CN CONSOLIDATION CR CORROSION 05A(11/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES SA SIEVE ANALYSIS AL ATTERBERG LIMITS #200 PASSING SIEVE #200 El EXPANSION INDEX A-4 GEOTECI- LAICAL BORING LOG B-3 Date 4-27-00 Sheet 1 of 3 Project CIM/ BLOCKS 104,105 Project No. 010099-01 Drilling Co. 213 Drlling Type of Rig NSA-CME Hole Diameter 8" Drive Weight 140 Ibs Drop 30" Elevation Top of Hole 20' Location See Index Map o d z y DESCRIPTION N d cu� ay ao �°' yo cLL dc, wu� UC) r NU f;LL �J -F fl- ~� O°a t7 G Cu u, O w Q Q � - in= Logged & Sampled By PAS 0. Checked By MMR F' 20 0 TOP : 3" thick asphaltic concrete over 3" thick aggregate base @0'-5': Clayey SAND,brownish red,moist with traces of silt. Sand Bag-1 S SC Sulf. is of fine grain. 15 5 R-1 19 120.5 12.2 CL Ca5': Silt CLAY,reddish brown, moist,stiff with some sand. Sand is of fine grain. 10 10 R-2 12 111.3 17.2 SC @ 10' : Clayey SAND, orangish brown to dark brown, medium S stiff, moist. Sand is of fine grain. 5 15 R-3 16 97.1 27.3 CH AL C 15': Silty CLAY, olive brown, medium stiff, moist, with traces of sand. Sand is of fine grain. 0 20 R4 23 93.1 28.7 ML DS @20' : Clayey SILT, olive brown, stiff,moist, with some sand. Sand is of fine grain. -5 25 R-5 42 112.4 17.8 SM I @25': Silty SAND, orangish brown, medium dense, very moist. Sand is of medium to fine grain. ALL-10 30 SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: S SPLIT SPOON DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS R RING SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG LIMITS 8 BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION #200 PASSING SIEVE #200 b SMALL BAG SAMPLE CR CORROSION EI EXPANSION INDEX 505A(IJIM LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES A-5 Date 4-27-00 Project Drilling Co. Hole Diameter Elevation Top of Hole GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-3 Sheet 2 of 3 CIM/ BLOCKS 104, 105 Project No. 010099-01 213 Drlling Type of Rig HSA-CME 8" Drive Weight 140 Ibs Drop 30" 20' Location See Index Map W o m z o �• o yw DESCRIPTION dm to Hm vV F- >m nLL `J 2- ma pa ° ° WLL Q i o �v �� Logged &Sampled By PAS T Checked By MMR 1- -10 30 S-1 13CL-ML @30': Clayey SILT, orangish brown, stiff, wet, low plasticity. A -15 35 S-2 56 SM 200 @35': Silty SAND, orangish brown,very dense, wet, trace clay. Sand is of fine to medium gram. -20 40 S-31/11 44 SM @40': Silty SAND, orangish brown, very dense, wet, with traces of clay. Sand is of fine to medium grain. -25 45 S-4 39 SM @45': Silty SAND, grayish white, very dense, wet, with traces of 01 clay -30 50 S-5 53 SM/Sp @50': SAND, bluish gray, hard, wet. Sand is of fine grain. 200 -35 55 S-6 69 Sp @55': SAND, bluish gray, hard, wet. Sand is of fine to medium grain. -40 60 SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: S SPLIT SPOON DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS R RING SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERSERG LIMITS B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION #200 PASSING SIEVE #200 b SMALL BAG SAMPLE CR CORROSION El EXPANSION INDEX 505A(11/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES A-6 0 GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-3 Date 4-27-00 Sheet 3 Project CIM/ BLOCKS 104, 105 Project No. Drilling Co. 2R DrIling Type of Rig Hole Diameter 8" Drive Weight Elevation Top of Hole 20' Location 140 Ibs See Index Map of 3 010099-01 HSA-CME Drop 30" o DESCRIPTION m wo U� >U. �LL �.� � a °� O°a � a o;; ° w Q 0 i o '5= Logged & Sampled By PAS a y v Checked By MMR 40 60 S-7 75 SP @60': SAND, bluish gray, hard, wet, trace Silt, few fine to coarse - Gravel. 45 65 S S 55 Sp <. Q65': SAND, bluish gray, hard, trace Silt. Sand is of medium to = coarse grain. Total Depth of the hole : 66.5' Ground water encountered at a depth of : 26' Backfilled with native and finished with asphalt patch. -50 70 -55 75 -60 80 -65 85- -70J 90 SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: S SPLIT SPOON DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS R RING SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG LIMITS B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION #200 PASSING SIEVE #200 b SMALL BAG SAMPLE CR CORROSION EI EXPANSION INDEX 505A(11/779 LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES A-7 Date 4-27-00 Project Drilling Co. Hole Diameter Elevation Top of Hole I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-4 Sheet 1 of 3 CIM/ BLOCKS 104, 105 Project No. 010099-01 213 Drlling Type of Rig HSA-CME Drive Weight 140 Ibs Drop 30" 20' Location See Index Map y .- m` H- DESCRIPTION R� L ad Lao m Z .0m 3ti aci� y� VU F— c d� GLL �� �a HN °� ma Da w w C7 Q Q gU �o� Logged & Sampled By PAS C Checked By MMR 20 0 TOP: 3"-thick asphaltic concrete over 2"-thick aggregate base. 0'-5': Silty CLAY, orangish brown, slightly moist to moist, with CL sand. Sand is of fine to medium grain. 15 5 R-1 10 113.7 9.0 SC @5': Clayey SAND, orangish brown, slightly moist to moist,medium dense. Sand is of fine to medium grain. 10 10 R-2 27 100.7 11.1 SM @10': Silty SAND, light brown, medium dense, moist. Sand is of fine gram. 5 15 R-3 46 103.4 3.7 SM 015': Silty SAND, orangish brown to light brown,medium dense, moist. Sand is of fine grain. R 0 20 R-4 43 99.7 5.6 SM 020': Silty SAND, bright orange to brownish orange, medium dense ,slightly moist. Sand is of fine grain. -5 25 R-5 33 104.0 20.7 SM 025': Silty SAND, olive green to brown, medium dense,very moist to wet. Sand is of medium grain. -10J 30 SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: S SPLIT SPOON DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS R RING SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL- ATTERBERG LIMITS B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION #200 PASSING SIEVE #200 b SMALL BAG SAMPLE CR CORROSION El EXPANSION INDEX S05A(11177) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES A-8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Date 4-27-00 Project Drilling Co. Hole Diameter Elevation Top of Hole GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-4 Sheet 2 of 3 CIM/ BLOCKS 104,105 Project No. 010099-01 2R Drlling Type of Rig HSA-CME 8" Drive Weight 140 Ibs Drop 30" 20' Location See Index Map d z ) m° DESCRIPTION N m om a� ao 3 �d 3ti Onor MU)N' MU Uy ~ >LL �U. �.� a ~� C 0Da D rL o;; o w c( Q �V y� Logged &Sampled By PAS CL Checked By MMR F' -10 30 S-1 33 SM g30': Silty SAND, gray -tan, dense, wet, trace Clay. Sand is of medium grain. S-2 30 Sp @35': SAND, grayish tan, medium dense, wet ,trace Silt. -20 40 S-3 30 Sp @40': SAND, gray -tan, medium dense, wet, trace Silt -25 45 _ S-4 39 ON Sp @45': SAND, bluish gray, dense, wet, dense, trace Silt. -30-SO— S-5 54 SM 950': Silty SAND, grayish blue, dense to very dense, wet, with traces of Gravel. Sand is of fine to medium grain and gravel is of fine grain. -35 55 S-6 25 SM @55': Silty SAND, gray, very dense, wet, with traces of Gravel. A 50/6 Sand is of medum to coarse grain and gravel is of fine grain. -An 6n 505A (11 /77) SAMPLE TYPES: S SPLIT SPOON R RING SAMPLE B BULK SAMPLE b SMALL BAG SAMPLE TYPE OF TESTS: DS DIRECT SHEAR MD MAXIMUM DENSITY CN CONSOLIDATION CR CORROSION LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES A-9 SA SIEVE ANALYSIS AL ATTERBERG LIMITS #200 PASSING SIEVE #200 El EXPANSION INDEX Date 4-27-00 Project Drilling Co. Hole Diameter 8" Elevation Top of Hole GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-4 Sheet 3 of 3 CIM/ BLOCKS 104, 105 Project No. 010099-01 213 Drlling Type_ of Rig HSA-CME Drive Weight 140 Ibs Drop 30" 20' Location See Index Map df N DESCRIPTION M d Q = V m z �d y Q 3U- N aci0 y� N:n VU >LL arm �J C ~ Q C°a C :: c w r, Q c o �V Logged &Sampled By PAS 0. rj)� Checked By MMR F" -40 60 S-7 79 SM @60': Silty SAND, bluish gray, very dense, wet, with Gravel. Sand is of medium grain and gravel is of fine grain. -45 65 S-8 62 SM ®65': Silty SAND, bluish gray, very dense, wet, trace Gravel. Sand is of medium to coarse gram and gravel is of fine grain. Total Depth of the hole : 66.5' Ground water encountered at : 26.5' Backfrlled with native and finished with asphalt patch. -50 70 -55 75 -60 80 -65 85 -70 90 SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: S SPLIT SPOON DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS R RING SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG LIMITS B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION #200 PASSING SIEVE #200 b SMALL BAG SAMPLE CR CORROSION El EXPANSION INDEX 505A(II177) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES A-10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-5 Date 4-27-00 Sheet 1 of 1 Project OM/ BLOCKS 104, 105 Project No. 010099-01 Drilling Co. 213 Drlling Type of Rig HSA-CME Hole Diameter 8" Drive Weight 140 Ibs Drop 30" Elevation Top of Hole 20' Location See Index Map W z -- ;vim N- DESCRIPTION N d ;d �+' dd t pl �O "O w d 3Q W O Gu' C.� tyV 7a+ Ham. WN UV H w m� �LL F-� mN 0C. .OG _tn to �.J r+ Q a 20 ink Logged & Sampled By PAS O CL N 0 Checked By MMR 1" 20 0 TOP : 3"-thick asphaltic concrete over 3 "-thick aggregate base CL 0-5": Silty CLAY, orangish brown, moist, with Sand. 15 5 R-1 41 119.1 12.4 CL Cal5':Sandy CLAY, brown, very stiff, moist, some Silt. 10 10 R-2 25 96.9 24.9 CL @10': TOP: Silty CLAY,light brown, stiff„moist, with calliche. BOTTOM: Silty SAND, light brown, medium dense, moist. 5 15 R-3 23 100.9 23.8 CL @a 15% Silty CLAY, light brown, stiff, moist, with calliche. L 0 20 R-4 41 105.0 8.3 SM C20': Silty SAND, olive green to brown, medium dense, moist. Sand is of fine grain. -5 25 R-5 34 SM @25': Silty SAND, orangish gray to white, dense, moist. Sand is of medium grain. Total depth of hole 26.5' No water encountered in the hole. Backfilled with native and finished with asphalt patch -10 30 SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: S SPLIT SPOON DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS R RING SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG LIMITS B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION #200 PASSING SIEVE #200 b SMALL BAG SAMPLE CR CORROSION El EXPANSION INDEX 505A(11177) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES A-1 Date 4-27-00 Project Drilling Co. Hole Diameter Elevation Top of Hole I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-6 Sheet 1 of 2 CIM/ BLOCKS 104,105 Project No. 010099-01 2R Drlling Type of Rig HSA-CME Drive Weight 140 Ibs Drop 30" 20' Location See Index Mar) C d � yo y' DESCRIPTION Z Q. 0 pi, to�� 01 o y d too VU G Du J 00a� t7 Is 4. w Q c Q 2v ins Logged & Sampled By PAS CL Checked By MMR F- 20 0 0'-5': Silty SAND, reddish brown, slightly moist. Sand is of fine Bag-1 SM grain. CR 15 5 R-1 38 121.0 12.9 CL 05': Silty CLAY, reddish brown, stiff, moist. 10 10 R-2 20 87.3 32.1 CL 010': Silty CLAY, brownish orange, stiff, moist. 5 15 R-3 25 95.9 26.6 CH AL,CN 015':Silty CLAY, brown, stiff, moist, some calliche, high plasticity. 0 20 R-4 77 105.8 4.0 SM 020': Silty SAND, yellow, very dense, slightly moist. Sand is of fine to medium gram. -5 25 S-1 31 SM 025' Silty SAND, orange, dense, moist. Sand is of fine grain. -1n in SAMPLE TYPES: S SPLIT SPOON R RING SAMPLE B BULK SAMPLE b SMALL BAG SAMPLE TYPE OF TESTS: DS DIRECT SHEAR MD MAXIMUM DENSITY CN CONSOLIDATION CR CORROSION 505A(11177) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES A-1.2 SA SIEVE ANALYSIS AL ATTERBERG LIMITS #200 PASSING SIEVE #200 El EXPANSION INDEX GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-6 Date 4-27-00 Sheet 2 of 2 Project CIM/ BLOCKS 104,105 Project No. 010099-01 Drilling Co. 213 Drlling Type of Rig HSA-CME Hole Diameter 8" Drive Weight 140 Ibs Elevation Top of Hole 20' Location See Index M Drop 30" ai ° Z i, �+ O �� _ DESCRIPTION y 2. as 5*- am .G p� °, 'G 01 � d H O 3 C� .• vNi V >� m� �� ° 0. ~� ° O°a 0 CL y+; o LU Q o �� N� Logged &Sampled By PAS 0. Checked By MMR 1- -10 30 5-2 36 SM @30': Silty SAND, gray -tan, dense, wet. Sand is of fine to V200 medium grain. -15 35 S-3 36 SM @35': Silty SAND, gray -tan, dense, wet. Sand is of medium to fine gram. -20 40 S-4 56 SM 040': Silty SAND, gray -tan, very dense, wet, some Clay. Total depth of the hole: 41.5' Ground water encountered 26' Backfilled with native. -25 45 -30 50 -35 55 -An <n 505A(11177) SAMPLE TYPES: S SPLIT SPOON R RING SAMPLE B BULK SAMPLE b SMALL BAG SAMPLE TYPE OF TESTS: DS DIRECT SHEAR MD MAXIMUM DENSITY CN CONSOLIDATION CR CORROSION LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES SA SIEVE ANALYSIS AL ATTERBERG. LIMITS #200 PASSING SIEVE.1200 El EXPANSION INDEX A=13 Date 4-28-00 Project Drilling Co. Hole Diameter Elevation Top of Hole GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-7 Sheet 1 of 2 CIM/ BLOCKS 104,105 Project No. 010099-01 2R Drlling Type of Rig HSA-CME 8" Drive Weight 140 Ibs Drop 30" 20' Location See Index Ma N DESCRIPTION z° WO c c 0 F0.d' d and 0°i a w v 'oj Logged &Sampled By PAS Checked By MMR 20 0 TOP : 4"-thick asphaltic concrete over 2-3 "-thick aggregate base. 0'-5': Clayey SAND, reddish brown, moist. Sand is of fine grain. SC 15 5 R-1 25 115.9 14.7 CL (05': Silty CLAY, brown, stiff, moist. 10 10 R-2 19 98.9 24.5 ML 010': Clayey SILT, grayish brown, medium stiff,moist, with traces of fine Sand 5 15 R-3 41 106.6 4.0 SM 015': Silty SAND, oragish brown, medium dense, moist. Sand is of fine to medium gram. 0 20 R 4 44 98.9 4.9 SM C&20' : Silty SAND, orangish brown, medium dense, moist. Sand is of fine to medium gram. -5 25 R-5 63 98.4 21.7 SM @25': Silty SAND, greenish brown, medium dense, very moist. -10J 30 SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: S SPLIT SPOON DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS - R RING SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG LIMITS B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION #200 PASSING SIEVE #200 b SMALL BAG SAMPLE CR CORROSION El EXPANSION INDEX 505A(11 /77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES A-14 Date 4-28-00 Project Drilling Co. Hole Diameter Elevation Top of Hole i GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-7 Sheet 2 of 2 CIM/ BLOCKS 104, 105 Project No. 010099-01 2R Driling Type of Rig HSA-CME Drive Weight 140 lbs Drop 30" 20' Location See Index Map V N Z m\ DESCRIPTION m C~i s C�i 07 O, m 00 C LL. y C— G7 U ++ y y� 0 C i t-i� F- ,. dd LL Q� A J 3 F� a 2 i 00a f' G Q +�, O w Q o �v ion Logged & Sampled By PAS a rn Checked By MMR F- -10 30 S-i 46 SM @30': Silty SAND, grayish brown, dense, wet, Sand is of medium grain. -15 35 S-2 48 SM @35': Silty SAND, bluish gray, dense, wet. Sand is of medium grain. -20 40 S-3 49 SM 040': Silty SAND, bluish gray, dense, wet, some Clay. Sand is of medium grain. Total depth of the hole: 41.5' Ground water encountered at 26' Backfilled with native and finished with asphalt patch. -25 45 -30 50 -35 55 -40 60 505A (11 /77) SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: S SPLrr SPOON DS DIRECT SHEAR R RING SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION b SMALL BAG SAMPLE CR CORROSION LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES A-15 SA SIEVE ANALYSIS AL ATTERBERG LIMITS #200 PASSING SIEVE #200 EI EXPANSION INDEX GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-8 Date 4-28-00 Sheet 1 of 1 Project CIM/ BLOCKS 104, 105 Project No. 010099-01 Drilling Co. 2R Drlling Type of Rig HSA-CME Hole Diameter 8" Drive Weight 140 lbs Drop 30" Elevation Top of Hole 20' Location See Index Map m z .0 DESCRIPTION m pa0i ow Qp �J «O. _� ~cEo oLL 0c a _CD c= UV 0 o w� �LL Q Mw Q �v _ N� Logged & Sampled By PAS m A Checked By MMR F' 20 0 CL 0'-5': Silty CLAY, dark reddish brown, moist, with traces of fine Sand. 15 5-1, R-1 20 105.0 19.7 CL ®5': Silty CLAY, brownish red, stiff, moist. 10 10 R-2 29 97.7 27.3 CL 010': Silty CLAY, grayish brown, stiff, moist, with calliche. 5 15 R-3 51 115.8 11.2 CL @15': Sandy CLAY, grayish brown, very stiff, moist. Sand is of I medium to fine grain. R 0 20 R-4 47 100.7 5.5 SM R @20': Silty SAND, orangish brown, medium dense, moist.Sand is of medium to fine grain. -5 R-5 68 103.E 20.7 SM Ca325': Silty SAND, orangish brown, medium dense, moist. Sand is of medium to fine grain. Total depth of the hole: 26.5' No ground water encountered. Backfilled with native. -10 30 SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: S SPLIT SPOON DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS R RING SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG LIMITS B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION #200 PASSING SIEVE #200 b SMALL BAG SAMPLE CR CORROSION El EXPANSION INDEX 505A(11/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES A-16 1 1 1 1 1 1 Date 4-28-00 Project Drilling Co. Hole Diameter Elevation Top of Hole GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG E-9 Sheet 1 of 2 CIM/ BLOCKS 104, 105 Project No. 010099-01 211 Drlling Type of Rig HSA-CME 8" Drive Weight 140 Ibs Drop 30" 20' Location See Index Map Z y m° ern DESCRIPTION N m ;y .c �y �p ? 3p y0 ALL 44)Q yy UV F- ti u_ �, ~tm .. 00a� o o. -o,,. _W 0 w Q Q �v y� Logged &Sampled By PAS Checked By MMR F- 20 0 Ba -1 S SM 0'-5': Silty SAND, brown, moist. Sand is of fine grain. R,EI 15 5 R-1 43 107.I 3.3 ML 05': Sandy SILT, brown, very stiff, slightly moist, with fine to very fine Gravel. 10 10 R-2 35 115.4 11.8 CL C&10' : Sandy CLAY, orangish brown, very stiff, moist. Sand is of fine to medium grain. 5 15 R-3 18 93.6 27.7 CL 1@15': Silty CLAY, grayish brown, medium stiff, moist. 0 20 R-4 20 88.5 31.8 CL @20': Silty CLAY, grayish brown, stiff, moist. -5 25 R-5 29 94.1 33.8 CL 025': Sandy CLAY, grayish brown, moist, some silt. Sand is of medium to fine gran. SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: S SPLIT SPOON DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS R RING SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG LIMITS B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION #200 PASSING SIEVE #200 b SMALL BAG SAMPLE CR CORROSION El EXPANSION INDEX 505A(11i77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES A-17 Date 4-28-00 Project Drilling Co. Hole Diameter Elevation Top of Hole I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-9 Sheet 2 of 2 CIM/ BLOCKS 104, 105 Project No. 010099-01 2R Drlling Type of Rig HSA-CME Drive Weight 140 lbs Drop 30" 20' Location See Index M y DESCRIPTION .0 zW C cLL mom oi0 MUma c �aM4) ~ UJ �LL C9 Q m °0a L g o y� Logged & Sampled By PAS CL U F' Checked By MMR -10 30 S-1 50 SM 030': Silty SAND, bluish gray, dense to very dense, wet. Sand is of fine to medium grain. Total depth of the hole: 31.5' Ground Water encountered at 26' Backfilled with native. -15 35 -20 40 i -25 45 -30 50 -35 55 -40 60 SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: S SPLIT SPOON DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS R RING SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG LIMITS B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION #200 PASSING SIEVE #200 b SMALL BAG SAMPLE CR CORROSION El EXPANSION INDEX 505A(11177) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES A-18 Date 4-28-00 .Project Drilling Co. Hole Diameter Elevation Top of Hole GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-1 0 Sheet 1 of 3 CIM/ BLOCKS 104, 105 Project No. 010099-01 2R DrIling Type of Rig HSA-CME 8" Drive Weight 140 lbs Drop 30"" 20' Location See Index Map C; DESCRIPTION 0 co Z "o LL I; M*; wcn co 0 >U. (D 0 4) LL E .2 " MW a CL 0) #� 0, UJ (a CLo Logged & Sampled By PAS 0. Checked By MMR 20- 0 _ GP 0'-I'GRAVEL Bag-1 CL 1'-5': Silty CLAY, reddish brown to grayish brown, moist, with -7 Z some fine Gravel. 15. 5 R-1 15 Sp @5':Gravclly SAND, gray, medium dense, moist. Sand is of fine to medium grain and gravel is of fine size. 10- 10— R-2 14 Sp @10':Gravelly Sand, grayish, medium dense, moist. Sand is of .......... .......... .......... fine to medium gram and gravel is of fine size. 5- 15-1"­ .......... R-3 4 GP @15': No Recovery. Crushed rock pieces and gravel, medium to coarse. 0- 20— =7 R-4 5 GP @20': GRAVEL, gray, dry to damp, of medium to coarse sizes, few cobbles. -5- 25—/x R-5 16 91.5 28.4 CL DS X @25': Silty CLAY, bluish gray, medium stiff, very moist, with 7 X some Sand. Sand is of fine grain. Petroleum odor present in sample tip. Clayey SAND at tip. SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: S SPLIT SPOON DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS R RING SAMPLE MD, MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG LIMITS B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION #200 PASSING SIEVE #200 b SMALL BAG SAMPLE CR CORROSION El EXPANSION INDEX 505A(11177) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES A-19 Date 4-28-00 Project Drilling Co. Hole Diameter Elevation Top of Hole 8„ GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-10 Sheet 2 of 3 CIM/ BLOCKS 104, 105 Project No. 010099-01 213 Drlling Type of Rig HSA-CME Drive Weight 140 Ibs Drop 30" 20' Location See Index Map y ; �- r \ m ° y� DESCRIPTION Y +�°+d vm U =tT �d �O C.f. �C t0U w m� �� ° a ° 001i a o:: U� ° C7 Q Logged &Sampled By PAS 0. UJ o 1 ' Checked By MMR -10 30 = R-6 75 25.5 SP 030':SAND, greenish gray, very dense, wet. -IS 35 S-1 56 Sp 035': SAND, greenish gray, very dense, wet. -20 40 S-2 40 SM C&40' : Silty SAND, grayish brown, dense, wet, some Gravel and SA Silt. Sand is of medium grain and gravel is of fine size. -25 45 S-3 101 32 SM 045': Silty SAND, bluish to greenish gray, dense, wet, with Gravel and traces of calcium (sea -shells). Sand is of medium grain and gravel is of medium to coarse size. -30 50 S-4 49 SM @50':Silty SAND, dense to very dense, wet, with some fine Gravel and some sea -shells. -35 55 S-5 59 Sp @55': SAND, bluish gray, very dense, wet, few Gravel. Sand is of medium grain and gravel is of fine size. 40J 60 SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: S SPLIT SPOON DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS R RING SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERSERG LIMITS B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION #200 PASSING SIEVE #200 b SMALL BAG SAMPLE CR CORROSION EI EXPANSION INDEX 505A(IIIM LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES A-20 Date 4-28-00 Project Drilling Co. Hole Diameter Elevation Top of Hole i GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-10 Sheet 3 of 3 CIM/ BLOCKS 104, 105 Project No. 010099-01 2R Drlling Type of Rig HSA-CME Drive Weight 140 Ibs Drop 30" 20' Location See Index Map N �� p� DESCRIP 1�q° ION r d c s ° ap d z �d yo 3ti N we Nf„ asV to >U. aaly a c, aCiv 0a •o:: UN .F o w 0 �� CDQ M °°a o y=; Logged & Sampled By PAS CL W 0 U Checked By MMR � 40 60 S-6 74 SP (r@60': SAND, bluish pray, very dense, wet, some Clay. Sand is of SA fine to medium grain. 45 65 S-7 75 Sp C&65': SAND, gray to white, very dense, wet, trace fine Gravel. CR Sand is of medium to coarse grain. 200 Total depth of hole: 66.5' Water encountered at a depth of 27' Backfilled with native. -50 70 -55 75 -60 80 -65 85 -70 90 SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: S SPLIT SPOON DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS R RING SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG LIMITS B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION #200 PASSING SIEVE #200 b SMALL BAG SAMPLE CR CORROSION El EXPANSION INDEX 505A(11177) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES A-21 ® ® ® M M M ® ® M M ® ® M TABLE B-1 OF 3 SUMMARY OF SOIL LABORATORY DATA (Imperial Units) �r 01- JI y4 ling N Sample , am; " mp(efav 1De 8tit� .N d .. �1 of �� N �ii b-:p�. B-1 I B-1 BULK 0-5 CL 1 1 321 1 1 27.4 1 14.2 13.2 1 1 1 1 7.96 53 771 1 1.686 R-1 RING 5 CL 119.8 11.2 1 75.7 R-2 RING 10 CL 114.7 13.8 1 79.5 R-3 RING 15 GM 1 55.2 35.2 9.6 R-4 RING 20 SM 99.4 5.9 23 9.1 3B 400 30.2 200 R-5 RING 25 SM 103.2 19.3 83.4 S-1 SPT 30 SM 0 92.8 7.2 S-4 SPT 45 SM 6.2 86.2 7.e B-2 R-1 RING 5 SM 101.2 12.4 50.7 R-2 RING 10 SM 89.1 20.9 63.9 R-3 RING 15 CL 91.4 30.9 99.6 R-4 RING 20 SM 98.5 5.6 21.5 R-5 RING 25 SM 102.5 19.4 82.5 B-3 B-1 BULK 0.5 150 R-1 RING 5 CL 120.5 12.2 84.5 R-2 RING 10 SC 111.3 17.2 90.2 32.7 200 31.6 120 R-3 RING 15 CH 97.1 27.3 61.5 23.2 38.3 R-4 RING 20 ML 93.1 28.7 95.5 27.8 210 29.3 50 R-5 RING 25 SM 112.4 17.8 97.6 S-1 SPT 30 CL-ML 1 0 4.1 1 95.9 S-2 SPT 35 SM 6.3 S-5 SPT 50 SP 10A NOTE: The laboratory tests were performed In general accordance with the following standards: Moisture Content - ASTM Test Method D2216 Atlerberg Limits - ASTM D4318 Expansion Test - UBC Standard 18-2 Direct Shear Test - ASTM Test Method D3080 Dry Unit Weight - ASTM Test Method D2937 Grain Size Analysts By Mechanical Sieving and by Hydrometer-ASTM Test Method D422 One -Dimensional Consolidation Test - ASTM Test Method D2435 Corrosivity Tests - CA 532 for pH, CA 417 for soluble sulfates, CA 422 for chlorides, CA 643 for minimum resistivity 'Assumed Gs: CIM/ BLOCKS 104 & 105 Leighton and Associates Huntington Beach, California GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS P:t010099.0011engVab resuns.xis TABLE B-2 OF 3 SUMMARY OF SOIL LABORATORY DATA (Imperial Units) raep rrl le` Gre . et .. �► erne m�, , ea � i7 ft�i5te , o e a . � ::; - B4 R-1 RING 5 SC 113.7 9 51 R-2 RING 10 SM 100.7 11.1 44.9 R-3 RING 15 SM 103.4 3.7 16 8.11 17 334 8,770 R4 RING 20 SM 99.7 5.6 22 R-5 RING 25 SM 104 20.7 91.1 S-6 SPT 55 SM 18.4 78.8 4.8 0-3 R-1 RING 5 CL 119.1 12.4 82.3 R-2 RING 10 CL 98.9 24.9 91.9 R-3 RING 15 CL 100.9 23.8 97.3 47.3 21.2 26.1 R4 RING 20 SM 105 8.3 37.4 B•6 B-1 BULK 0-5 SM >150 R-1 RING 5 CL 121 12.9 90.6 R-2 RING 10 CL 87.3 32.1 94.1 R-3 RING 15 CH 95.9 26.6 96.1 62.3 30 32.3 R-4 RING 20 SM 105.8 4 18.3 S-2 SPT 30 SM 3.8 B•7 R-1 RING 5 CL 115.9 14.6 88.5 R-2 RING 10 ML 98.9 24.5 95.1 R-3 RING 15 SM 106.6 4 18.7 R-4 RING 20 SM 98.9 1 4.9 18.9 R-5 RING 25 1 SM 1 98.41 21.71 83.2 NOTE: The laboratory tests were performed in general accordance with the following standards: Moisture Content - ASTM Test Method D2216 Alterberg Limits - ASTM D4318 Expansion Test- UBC Standard 18-2 Direct Shear Test - ASTM Test Method D3080 Dry Unit Weight - ASTM Test Method D2937 Grain Size Analysis By Mechanical Sieving and by Hydrometer - ASTM Test Method 0422 One-Dimenslonai Consolidation Test • ASTM Test Method D2435 Corrosivlty Tests - CA 532 for pH, CA 417 for soluble sulfates, CA 422 for chlorides, CA 643 for minimum resistivity *Assumed Gs: Leighton and Associates GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS CIMI BLOCKS 104 it.105 Huntington Beach, California r:unouyv.uuiwngvao resunssu ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® M M M M ® ® ® ® M TABLE B-3 OF 3 SUMMARY OF SOIL LABORATORY DATA (Imperial Units) Ell w BOB R-1 RING 5 CL 105 119.7 89.2 R-2 RING 10 CL R-3 RING 15 CL 115.8 1 11.2 67.4 8.4 22 418 4,722 R-4 RING 20 SM 100.7 1 6.5 22.5 R-5 RING 25 SM 103.6 20.7 90.3 8-9 8-1 BULK 0-5 SM 3 7.3 212 252 1,079 R-1 RING 5 ML 107.1 3.3 15.9 R-2 RING 10 CL 115.4 11.8 70.7 R-3 RING 15 CL 93.6 27.7 94.5 R-4 RING 20 CL 88.5 31.8 96 R-5 RING 25 CL 8.10 R-4 RING 20 GP R-5 RING 25 CL 91.5 28.4 9iA 31.2 90 31.9 0 R-6 RING 30 SP 25.5 S-2 SPT 40 SP 13. 777.4 8.7 S-6 SPT 60 SP 0.3 79 2D.7 S.7 SPT 65 SP 5.3 NOTE: The laboratory tests were performed in general accordance with the following standards: Moisture Content - ASTM Test Method D2216 Alterberg Limits -ASTM 04318 Expansion Test - UBC Standard 18.2 Direct Shear Test - ASTM Test Method D3080 Dry Unit Weight - ASTM Test Method D2937 Grain Size Analysis By Mechanical Sieving and by Hydrometer. ASTM Test Method D422 One -Dimensional Consolidation Test - ASTM Test Method D2436 Corroslvity Tests . CA 532 for pH, CA 417 for soluble sulfates, CA 422 for chlorides, CA 643 for minimum resistivity 'Assumed Gs: CIMI BLOCKS 104 & 105 yy� Leighton and Associates Huntington Beach, California �- GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS PA 010090.00V.e 9WE mUNS rrir V7 U) — N C Y U _ t F- O Q E c0 Cn O 0 Z 0 F- Q J 0 Cn z O U VERTICAL STRESS (ksf) LEGEND: O At Field Moisture • After Addition of Water Boring No. B-1 Dry Density (psf) 101 Sample No. R-4 Moisture Content (%): Depth (ft) 20.0 Before 5.9 Soil Type SM After 21.3 Sample Description Olive Silty Sand Project No. 1010099-01 CONSOLIDATION CURVE ASTNI D2435 Project Name CIM/ BLOCKS 164. 105 ° Date 5/00 Figure No. B-4 5 to Ile C U _ F— N a to O °r z O Q 0 J O N z 0 U 21 VERTICAL STRESS (ksf). LEGEND: O At Feld Moisture 0 After Addition of Water Boring No. B-3 Dry Density (psf) 93 Sample No. R-4 Moisture Content M: Depth (ft) 20.0 Before 28.7 Soil Type ML After 30.6 Sample Description Olive Silt CONSOLIDATION CURVE Project No. 1010099-01 ASTM D2435 Project Name CIM/ BLOCKS 104. 105 TFfl Date 5/00 Figure No. C1111111111111 -4 —3 cn — 2 (U C U —1 L l' - O 0 Q.. E co 1 U) O 0 2 Z 3 O F- 4 0 J O 5 Z ON 7 8 0, VERTICAL STRESS (ksf) LEGEND: O At Field Moisture • After Addition of Water Boring No. B-6 Dry Density (psf) 90 Sample No. R-3 Moisture Content (%): Depth (ft) 15.0 Before 33.6 Soil Type CH After 37.3 Sample Description Brown Silty Clay CONSOLIDATION CURVE ASTM D2435 Project No. 1010099-01 Project Name C1M/ BLOCKS 104. 105 ° Date 5100 Figure No. 0 B-6 F wo C 5 X w z 4 H U F— 3 Q J a_2 CH 0 0 0 CL MH or OH 0 O 0 CL-MIS Ml- 0or OL 20 40 60 80 100 LIQUID LIMIT (LL) Symbol y Boring Number Sample Number Depth (feet) Field Moisture (%) LL PI U.S.C.S. Symbol O I B-1 Bag-1 0.0 I 27 13 CL ® I B-3 R-3 I 15.0 27.3 62 38 CH A + B-5 R-3 15.0 23.8 47 26 CL B-6 R-3 15.0 26-6 62 32 CH Project No. 1010099-01 ATTERBERG LIMITS ASTM D4318 Project Name CIM/ BLOCKS 104, 105 Date 5100 Figure No. C GRAVEL SAND SILT OR CLAY COARSE FINE OARS MEDIUM FINE SIEVE OPENING SIEVE NUMBER I HYDROMETER 1" 3/S' 8 16 30 so 100 200 100 80 U>J m 60 0 Z C F— 40 U I LLJ CL � 20 0 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 PARTICLE DIAMETER IN MILLIMETERS G ASTM D422 - ° 0 Symbol Boring Number Sample Number Sample Depth (feet) Percent Passing No.. 200 Sieve Soil Type O B-1 R-3 15.0 10 GM m I B-1 S-1 30.0 7 SM ♦ B-1 S-4 45.0 8 SM GRAVEL SAND SILT OR CLAY COARSE FINE OARSE MEDIUM FINE SIEVE OPENING 1 SIEVE NUMBER I HYDROMETER 1" 3/8" 4 8 16 30 50 100 200 100 80 0 W m 60 C7 Z En d F- 40 Z w U x a 20- 0— 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 PARTICLE DIAMETER IN MILLIMETERS [P5 Date 5/00 Figure No. Symbol Boring Number Sample Number Sample Depth (feet) Percent Passing No. 200 Sieve Soil Type O B-3 S-7 30.0 96 CL-ML m B-3 S-2 35.0 6 SM � B-3 S-5 50.0 10 SM/SP B-9 GRAVEL SAND SILT OR CLAY COARSE FINE COARSEI MEDIUM I FINE SIEVE OPENING SIEVE NUMBER HYDROMETER 100 1" 3/ell4 8 16 30 50 100 200 80 H ci - W } m 60 Z Q D_ {— 40 LU d II 20 0 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 PARTICLE DIAMETER IN MILLIMETERS GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION CURVE Project No. 1010099-01 ASTM D422 Project Name - CIM/ BLOCKS 104, 105 Date 5/00 Figure No. LIJ Symbol Boring Number Sample Number Sample Depth (feet) Percent Passing No. 200 Sieve Soil Type o I B-4 S-6 55.0 5 SM m B-6 S-2 30.0 4 SM 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 GRAVEL SAND SILT OR CLAY COARSE FINE COARS MEDIUM FINE SIEVE OPENING SIEVE NUMBER I HYDROMETER 1" 3/8" 4 8 16 30 50 100 200 100 17 80 H W m 60 Z z Q F- 40 Z W (I U 0= uJ CL I I ( I 20 II I) 0 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 PARTICLE DIAMETER IN MILLIMETERS GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION CURVE Project No. 1010099-01 ASTM D422 Project Name CiM/ BLOCKS 104, 105 `=� 0 Date 5/00 Figure No. Symbol Boring Number Sample Number Sample Depth (feel) Percent Passing No. 200 Sieve Soil Type O 8-10 I S-2 � 40.0 9 SP ® B-10 S-6 60.0 21 I SP s B-10 S-7 65.0 5 SP B-11 - 4.0 3.0 Q a 2.0 L ♦♦^� v/ L 1.0 0.0 4. 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 Horizontal Deformation (inch) 0.020 L 0.015 c o _ Cu 0.010 ` — — E — m 0.005 0.000 -0.005 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 Horizontal Deformation (inch) 4.0 , X N 3.0 � m 2.0 L L cc CD 1.0 VJ 0.0 I 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 Normal Stress [kip/ft2] Normal Peak Shear Shear Stress Stress [kip/ftz] Stress [kip/ft2] @ 0.30" [kip/W] 1.000 O 1.094 00.711 2.000 0 2.020 4.000 A 3.532 ® 1.369 "- `< > = ' =» Project No.: 010099-001 A 2.507 o CIM / Block 104, 105 Boring No. B-1 Sample No. R-4 Depth (ft.) 20.0 DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS Sample Type: Drive Consolidated, Drained, ASTM D 3080 Soil Type Olive yellow poorly graded sand with silt (SP-SM) 05-00 B-12 t 2.0 1.0 ca oL 0.005 m t] Ca C0.000 a) -0.005 0.0 rRM M 0.1 0.2 0.3 Horizontal Deformation (inch) 0.1 0.2 0.3 Horizontal Deformation (inch) � I k .•ice 0.0 0.0 1'0 2.0 Normal Stress [kip/ft2] Normal Peak Shear Shear Stress Stress [kip/ft2] Stress [kip/ft2] @ 0.30" [kip/ft2] 0.500 O 0.561 ® 0.440 1.000 0 0.914 0 0.111 Te^ii-R 2.000 A 1.512 e 1.362 Boring No. : B-3 Sample No. R-2 Depth (ft.) 10.0 Sample Type: Drive Soil Type Dark yellowish brown clayey sand (SC) 3.0 4.0 LE B-I3 Y 2.0 cn in a� U) Cu 1.0 a) U) 0.005 U _C 0.000 C O .6 o-0.005 m -0.010 aD -0.015 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 Horizontal Deformation (inch) 0.1 0.2 Horizontal Deformation (inch) 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Normal Stress [kip/ftz] Normal Peak Shear Shear Stress Stress [kip/ft2] Stress [kip/ft2] @ 0.30" [kip/ft2] 1.000 O 0.711 0 0.577 2.000 ❑ 1.297 M 1.097 4.000 0 2.317 A 2.195rR_' Boring No. B-3 Sample No. R-4 Depth (ft.) 20.0 Sample Type: Drive C Soil Type Olive silt (ML) 0.3 5.0 6.0 B-14 3.0 N V� CL 2.0 tn ''L^^ VJ Cu 1.0 m U) C O 0.005 -0.005 0.0 3.0 N Q Y 2.0 N N CD U) Cu 1.0 a� U) 0.1 0.2 Horizontal Deformation (inch) 0.1 0.2 Horizontal Deformation (inch) 0.3 0.3 i 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Normal Stress [kip/ftz] Normal Peak Shear Shear Stress Stress [kip/ft2] Stress [kip/ft2] @ 0.30" [kip/ftj 1.000 O 0.620 ® 0.433 2.000 ❑ 1.300 ® 0.879 4.000 0 2.522 A 2.317 TrR" Boring No. B-10 Sample No. R-5 Depth (ft.) 25.0 Sample Type: Drive C Soil Type Olive gray and brown lean clay (CL) 5.0 6.0 B-15 010099-001 1 APPENDIX C Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis 1.0 Background Leighton performed a probabilistic seismic hazard assessment (PSHA) to evaluate the likelihood of future earthquake ground motions at the site of the proposed Block 104/105 t redevelopment in the city of Huntington Beach, California. This PSHA incorporates the average results of three different attenuation relationships of Idriss (1994), Boore, Joyner, and Fumal (1997), and Abrahamson and Silva (1997). The site coordinates are N33.6581° and W118.0022°. This site is underlain by Terrace deposit. Soil profile is classified to be SD per UBC, 1997, Table 16-J, and NEHRP site classes (BSSC, 1994). 2.0 Methodolo A PSHA is a mathematical process based on probability and statistics that is used to ' estimate the mean number of events per year in which the level of some ground parameter, Z (peak ground acceleration and/or spectral acceleration in the investigation), exceeds a specified value z at the project site. This mean number of events per year, also ' referred to as "annual frequency of exceedance," is designated as "v(Zs)." The inverse of this number is called the "average return period" (ARP), which is expressed in terms of years. Having the annual frequency of exceedance of a certain level of acceleration, ' v(Z?z), the probability of exceeding that level, Pr(Z>z), within any time period of interest, t, is then obtained assuming a Poisson Distribution, as follows: Pr(Z>s)=1-e(-"(Z-) . If (C.1) This procedure was originally proposed by Cornell (Cornell, 1968), which has been significantly improved during the recent. years and is described in more details by National Research Council (1988) and Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (1989). Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) procedures require the specification of probability functions to describe the uncertainty in both the time and location of future earthquake occurrences and the uncertainty in the ground motion level that will be produced at the site. The basic key elements of a PSHA are: • Defining the location, geometry, and characteristics of earthquake sources relative to the site; • Specifying an earthquake recurrence relationship for various magnitudes on each source, up to the maximum magnitude; C-1 010099-001 1 OR • Selecting appropriate attenuation relationships, which relate .the variation of the earthquake ground motion parameter with. earthquake distance, directivity, magnitude, site geology, and subsurface characterization; and • Determining the probability of exceedance of peak ground accelerations and/or response spectra levels (i.e., seismic hazards) utilizing the above input parameters. The frequencies of exceedance of different values of peak ground and spectral accelerations at the site were calculated by combining the following probability functions: • The annual frequency of earthquakes of various magnitudes on a fault obtained from the fault recurrence relationships; • Given an earthquake of a certain magnitude on a certain fault, the probability distribution of the location of the earthquake on the fault was obtained using the selected rupture area versus magnitude relationship and assuming equal likelihood of rupture along the length and some prescribed probabilities along the depth of the fault; and • Given an earthquake of a certain magnitude occurring at a certain distance from the site, the probability distribution of ground motion at the site was obtained from the selected attenuation relationships. The above process is repeated sufficient number of times to cover all the sources, then summed to obtain the total seismic hazard at the site. This process results in a relationship between ground motion level and probability of being exceeded. The computer program FRISKSP (Blake, 1998a), developed originally .by McGuire (1978) for probabilistic seismic hazard analysis, was utilized to compute site -specific Peak horizontal ground acceleration (PHGA) values. The seismic source model of the program was updated to include refined digitized locations of the near -field faults and the latest California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG) information on fault parameters (Blake, 1998b) in Southern California. Seismic Sources Seismic hazard analysis in Southern California is routinely based on fault slip rate and paleoseismic data (Petersen et al., 1996). Potential sources of earthquakes in Southern California that may have significance with regard to future ground motions at the site have been identified and listed in Table C-1. These primary faults and numerous other faults in the vicinity of the site were modeled in the PSHA. Information on selected faults (faults having a major contribution to the site seismicity) was updated based on the data from recent publications on faulting and seismic hazards in California (Petersen, 1996, and http://www.consrv.ca.gov/dmg/shezp/fltindex.html). Fault traces for these faults were conservatively chosen and digitized based on review of 1:750,000 scale Jennings, 1994,1:250,000 scale Ziony and Jones, 1989, and 1:24,000 C2 010099-001 scale Alquist-Priolo (Hart, 1994) maps of the Orange County region, California. Surface projections of blind thrust faults were also chosen and digitized based on review of maps developed by Petersen et al., 1996, and Shaw and Suppe, 1996. The seismic hazard potential of blind thrusts is currently difficult to assess, as many ' uncertainties exist. Nonetheless, for completeness, we have assigned what we believe to be reasonable seismic parameters to these blind thrusts and have included them in our database. The seismic source parameters were mainly based on recent information published by CDMG and United States Geologic Survey (USGS) scientists and other researchers studying seismicity and faulting of Southern California. 1 4.0 Earthquake Recurrence The historical seismicity record in the United States and most other areas of the world is generally too short to characterize the recurrence characteristics of particular faults, especially for "rare" or low probability events. The earthquake catalog for California ' includes only earthquakes for approximately the past 200 years or so, whereas the return times for large earthquakes on many faults are at least an order of magnitude longer. Therefore, seismicity data alone are not adequate to define earthquake recurrence on individual faults. To estimate recurrence on individual faults, geologic evidence for the long-term rate of seismicity must be utilized as well. This seismicity rate is assessed from the geologic slip rate of the fault using the seismic moment rate approach (Molnar, 1979 and Youngs and Coppersmith, 1985). Seismic moment is a measure of the seismic energy release during relative fault movement; therefore, the moment rate describes the frequency of energy release from the fault over geologic time. Total moment rate is the product of the average geologic slip rate along the fault, the total area of the fault plane, and the rigidity or shear ' modulus of the geologic materials on the fault plane. Assuming that seismic moment is released through earthquake occurrence, the rate release must be distributed to earthquakes of all magnitudes ranging up to the maximum earthquake assigned to the fault. Regional and fault -specific historical seismicity data are sufficient to provide estimates of the relative rate of occurrence among more frequent, smaller -magnitude events; and are used to define the slope ("b"-value) of the magnitude -frequency ' relationship. When this magnitude -frequency slope is then coupled with the total moment rate evaluated from geologic evidence, average recurrence for earthquakes of various magnitudes on a fault may be formulated. Slip rates for the controlling faults used in the study were taken from several recent publications (Petersen et al., 1996 and Dolan et al., 1995). The slip rate values are summarized in Table C-1. For this study, earthquake recurrence has been modeled in a way that accounts for our current understanding of fault behavior using the "characteristic" distribution proposed by Youngs and Coppersmith (1985). The characteristic earthquake concept has been tdeveloped from geologic and seismicity data on interplate and intraplate faults (Schwartz and Coppersmith, 1984) and seismological evidence of the rupture process lends support C-3 1 11 • alN W to the concept (Aki, 1983). This concept has direct implications to fault -specific earthquake recurrence relationships (Youngs and Coppersmith, 1985) and has been suggested that the characteristic earthquake model aptly describes large earthquakes on Southern California Faults (Wesnousky, 1994). The estimated error range in recurrence may be examined by the method proposed by Weichert (1980). Attenuation Relationships Attenuation relationships describe the relation of ground motion levels with earthquake magnitude and distance (distance between the site and seismic source), site geology, and subsurface characterization. These relationships can be used to describe the variation of peak ground and response spectral acceleration with earthquake magnitude and distance, and to also incorporate the local geological conditions and the near source effects. Based upon the results of subsurface characterization at the site, attenuation relationships by Idriss (1994) for Soil Site, Boore, Joyner, and Fumal (1997) for Vs = 203 m/s, and Abrahamson and Silva (1997) for Soil Site were used in this PSHA. The selected attenuation relationships also provide a measure of the near -field effects on ground motions. The model of rupture directivity effects on ground motions, developed by Somerville et al. (1997), was directly included in the probabilistic seismic hazard calculations. Design Ground Motions FRISKSP plots resulting from the analyses are provided at the rear of this Appendix. The contributions of these attenuation relationships were averaged to determine the total shaking hazard for the zero -period acceleration (ZPA) as shown on Figure 2 of this report. The averaged contribution of the main seismic sources to the total hazard at this site is also presented on Figure 3 of the main body of this report. The calculated ZPA for a probability of 10 percent in 50 years was also obtained from the CDMG Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Map (Petersen, et al, 1999) and USGS World Wide Web site (http://geohazards.cr.usgs.2ov/eq/html/lookup.shtml) to be 0.3 to 0.4g and 0.40g for a soft rock site, respectively. The ZPA for a probability of 5 percent in 50 years was estimated to be 0.55g by the USGS World Wide Web site for a firm rock site (VS 760 m/s). These values do not consider the softness of material at this site and effect of the San Joaquin Hills Fault on the PSHA. The site specific FRISKSP PSHA resulted in 0.49g and 0.66g for probabilities of 10 percent in 50 and 100 years, respectively, for a soil site. FRISKSP outputs are provided at the end of this Appendix. C-4 1 11 L k I C I Longitude — 118.0022 W Huntington Beach Marriot, Proj. Manager: MMR (01000099-00 5-15-00 FRISKSP FAULT MAP JOB No.: 010099-01 C-5 I AVERAGE RETURN PERIOD vs. ACCELERATION i00000 6 6 4 L 0 2 10000 e 0 O 6 4 LLJ 2 z :D 1000 6 Lit 6 4 Ld 2 L1 _ �N Q j 100 Q 6 6 4 2 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 ACCELERATION (g) Huntington Beach Morriot, Proj. Manager: MMR (01000099-001), 5-15-00 CRISS (1994) HOR. RX/STIFF S JOB No.: 010099-01 ® ® ® ® ® IMIIIIIIIIIIII ® ® m PROBABILITY OF EXCEEDANCE vs. ACCELERATION 100 90 0° W 80 U Q 70 W U 60 X W W 50 O }- 40 I— m 30 m � 20 10 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 ACCELERATION (g) EXPOSURE PERIODS: IDRISS (1994) HOR. RX/STIFF S 25 years 75 years 50 years 100 years JOB No.: 010099-01 AVERAGE RETURN PERIOD vs. ACCELERATION 100000.8 6 4 L 2 10000 Q B 0 6 4 w 2 z o' 1000 i-' 6 W 6 4 `/ Q 2 W > 100 Q 8 6 4 2 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 ACCELERATION (g) Huntington Beach Marriot, Proj. Manager: MMR (01000099-001), 5-15-00 ABRAHAMSON & SILVA (1997) ROCK JOB No.: 010099-01 ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® � ® ® ® m ® m ® m ® ® ® ® m ® m ® m PROBABILITY OF EXCEEDANCE vs. ACCELERATION I&WAA W �� .I w 80 U z Q 70 0 w U 60 X w w 50 O } 40 J m 30 Q m � 20 n 10 SI ltllllllllll�,,,,,,��,����„ ���„ ��„ II Ill 111,l, II I„ H Ill IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII II I,II I„ I „ lIT .0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 ACCELERATION (g) EXPOSURE PERIODS: ABRAHAMSON & SILVA (1997) ROCK 25 years 75 years 50 years 100 years JOB No.: 010099-01 AVERAGE RETURN PERIOD vs. ACCELERATION 100000a 6 a L 0 2 10000 8 (� 6 O 4 ry w n 2 z 1000 r 6 f-- w 4 D' W 2 0 (Y 100 e w 6 Q 4 2 10 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 ACCELERATION (g) Huntington Beach Morriot, Proj. Manager: MMR (01000099-001), 5-15-00 BOORE ET AL(1997) NEHRP D (291) JOB No.: 010099-01 ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® . mg PROBABILITY OF EXCEEDANCE vs. ACCELERATION M"I • e, 00, w 80 U z Q 70 0 w U 60 x w w 50 O 40 Q� 30 Q m � 20 n 10 8 Hil HII III III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIILIIII�ITIi li � �� ���11i " '1..-:'111L II�o .0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 ACCELERATION (g) EXPOSURE PERIODS: BOORE ET AL(1997) NEHRP D (291) 25 years 75 years 50 years 100 years JOB No.: 010099-01 010099-001 TABLE D-1 Lateral Load Results Driven Piles 12-inch 14-inch Particulars Free Head Fixed Head Free Head Fixed Head 1. Deflection at Top (inches) 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 2. Maximum Design Lateral Load (kips) 7.4 17.7 10.1 23.8 3. Maximum Bending Movement at Top (ft.-kips) 0 -63.5 0 -94.4 4. Maximum Bending Movement in Pile Shaft (ft.-kips) 22.2 20.7 33.0 30.4 5. Distance From Pile Butt to Maximum Bending Movement in Pile Shaft (ft.) 5.2 8.0 5.6 8.8 6. Distance From Pile Butt to Counter Flexure (ft.) 22.4 23.6 24.8 26.4 D-1 0 N 5 10 Is 4) 20 E 25 E LLI 0 4. 30 35 40 45 so Allowable Axial Capacity in Generalized Sol[ Profile Allowable Axial Capacity in Compression (kips) Tension (kips) 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Factor of Safety = 2.0 NOTE: 12-INCH SQUARE PILE -------- 14-INCH SQUARE PILE Sand/Silty Sand (SM) 30* 10 15 20 25 A (SP) with some gravel 0 = 350 30 35 40 45 50 0 so 100 150 200 250 300 Factor of Safety = 1.25 AXIAL CAPACITIES OF 12-INCH AND 14-INCH SQUARE PROJECT NAME: CIMBLOCKS 104 & 105 PRECAST CONCRETE PILE PROJECT NUMBER: 010099-001 CIM / BLOCKS 104 & 105, Huntington Beach, California DESIGNED/CHECKED BY: DXS/MMR Figure D-1 Ml 1=1 IM M IM 1=1 IM 1=1 IM IM 1=1 Ml M M M M M M M d 1 W Deflection (in) Moment (kips-ft) Shear (kips) -0.10 0-00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 -20 -10 0 - 0 10 20 30 40 50 -10 .5 0 0 5 10 15 20 0 O ed° Iplot.xlsl5/25100 Deflection (in) Moment (kips-ft) Shear (kips) -0.10 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0,40 0.50 .180 -120 -60 0 80 120 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 2D 25 30 0 5 --- t0 -- 0 --- 5 --- - - --- 10 0 5 10 - - --- ••• C ••o • --- •• ---- ------. _. ----- -- ---- - - -- 15 -- - ---- -- -- -- 15 ---- ----- - - 15 20 - - -- 20 ------ 20 -- -- - ---- ---- +r9 25 a d 0 - --- --- - 25 -- --- - -- --- -- - -- - - - -- -- 25 30-- ---- 30 ------ ----'- 30 -- --- ----- -'-- - 35 - 35 35 40 40 40 -- -- - 45 45 -- 45 50 50 50 012-in ch • 14-inch LATERAL LOAD CAPACITIES OF 12-INCH AND 14-INCH SQUARE CONCRETE PILE FOR 0.25" DEFLECTION FIXED HEAD CONDITION PROJECT NAME: CIM/BLOCKS 104 & 105 PROJECT NUMBER: 010099-001 CIM I BLOCKS 104 & 105, HUNTING TON BEACH, CALIFORNIA DESIGNED/CHECKED BY: DXS/MMR Fi ure D-3 O • 00 • O 00 •• •• Iplot.xW5/25/00 ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® JVV w250 CL 200 m 150 _ EE 100 E X 50 1 0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Deflection (in) ou CL 50 v 40 co 30 E E 20 'x 10 1 � 0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 tDeflection (in) 12-INCH 9 14-INCH DEFLECTION VS. Project Name: CIM / BLOCKS 104 & 105 MAXIMUM MOMENT AND MAXIMUM SHEAR Project Number: 010099-001 FREE HEAD CONDITION Designed/Checked : DXS/MMR 12-& 14-INCH SQUARE CONCRETE PILE lil CIM / BLOCKS 104 & 105, HUNTINGTON Figure D-4 D-5 E:Iiie7 5 700 N Y 600 500 m E 400 2 E 300 M E 200 100 00! 0.0 140 y 120 'Y v 100 L � 80 W E 60 E 40 .R 20 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 Deflection (in) 3.0 3.5 4.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Deflection (in) --0--12-INCH —e--14-INCH DEFLECTION VS. Project Name: CIM / BLOCKS 104 & 105 MAXIMUM MOMENT AND MAXIMUM SHEAR Project Number: 010099-001 FIXED HEAD CONDITION Designed/Checked : DXS/MMR 12-& 14-INCH SQUARE CONCRETE PILE CIM / BLOCKS 104 & 105, HUNTINGTON Figure D-5 D-6 010099-001 IAPPENDIX E 1 References Abrahamson, N. A., and Silva, W. J., 1997, Empirical Response Spectral Attenuation Relationships for Shallow Crustal Earthquakes, in Seismological Research Letter, Vol. 68, No. 1, January/February 1997. Aki, K., 1983, Seismological Evidence in Support of the Existence of "Characteristic Earthquakes", Earthquake Notes, Vol. 54, No. 1, pp. 60-61. Blake, T. F., 1998a, FRISKSP — A Computer Program to Perform Probabilistic Earthquake Hazard Analyses Using Multiple Forms of Ground -Motion -Attenuation Relations — Modified from `FRISK' (McGuire, 1978), Thomas F. Blake Com,.,.puter Services and Software. ,1998b, Annual Update of California Seismicity Database, Thomas F. Blake Computer Services and Software. Boore, David M., Joyner, William B., and Fumal, Thomas E., 1997, Empirical Near -Source Attenuation Relationships for Horizontal and Vertical Components of Peak Ground Acceleration, Peak Ground Velocity, and Pseudo -Absolute Acceleration Response Spectra, in Seismological Research Letter, Vol. 68, No. 1, January/February 1997. BSSC, 1994, NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations. for New Buildings, Part 1 — Provisions, FEMA 222A, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 290p. Cornell, C. A., 1968, Engineering Seismic Risk Analysis, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 58, No. 5, pp. 1583-1606. Dolan, J. F., Sieh, K., Rockwell, T. K., Yeats, R. S., Shaw, J., Suppe, J., Huftile, G. J., and Gath, E. M.,. 1995, Prospects for Larger or More Frequent Earthquakes in the Los Angeles Metropolitan Region, Science, Vol. 267, January 13, 1995, pp. 199-205. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, 1989, The Basics of Seismic Risk Analysis, Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 5, No. 4, pp. 675-702. Hart, E. W., 1997, Fault -Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with Index to Earthquake Fault Zones Maps, California Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Idriss, I. M., 1994, Attenuation Coefficients for Deep and Soft Soil Conditions, Personal Communication. E-1 010099-001 1 APPENDIX E (Cont'd) References Ishihara, K., and Yoshimine, M., 1991, Evaluation of Settlements in Sand Deposits Following Liquefaction during Earthquakes, Soils and Foundations, Vol. 32, No. 1, pp: 173-188. Jennings, C. W., 1994, Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas, with Locations and Ages of Recent Volcanic Eruptions, California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Geologic Data Map Series, Map No. 6 - Faults, Locations of Recent Volcanic Eruptions, Scale 1:750,000. McGuire, R. K., 1978, FRISK: Computer Program for Seismic Risk Analysis Using Faults as Earthquake Sources, U.S. Geological Survey Open -File Report 78-1007, 69p. Molnar, P., 1979, Earthquake Recurrence Intervals and Plate Techtonics, Bulletin of the Seismoloizical Society of America, Vol. 69, no. 1, pp. 115-133. Mualchin, L., 1996, California Seismic Hazard Map 1996, Based on Maximum Credible Earthquakes (MCE), Caltrans. National Research Council, 1988, Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 97p. Petersen, M. D., Bryant, W. A., Cramer, C. H., Cao, T., Reichle, M. S., Frankel, A. D., Lienkaemper, J. J., McCrory, P. A., and Schwartz, D. P., 1996, Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the State of California, California Department of. Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology Open -File Report 96-08• U.S. Geological Survey Open - File Report 96-706. Petersen, M. D., Beeby, D., Bryant, W., Cao, C., Cramer, C., Davis, J., Reichle, M., Saucedo, G., Tan, S., Taylor, G., Toppozada, T., Treiman, J., Wills, C., 1999, Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Maps of California, California Department of Conservation. Division of Mines. Schwartz, D. P., and Coppersmith, K. J., 1984, Fault Behavior and Characteristic Earthquakes from the Wasatch and San Andreas Faults, Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 101, No. B7, pp. 5681-5698. Seed, H. B., Idriss, 1. M., Arango, I., 1983, Evaluation of Liquefaction Potential Using Field Performance Data, Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, American Society of Civil Engineering Division, Vol. 109, No. 3, pp. 458-482. Shaw, J. H., and Suppe, J., 1996, Earthquake Hazards of Active Blind -Thrust Faults Under the Central Los Angeles Basin, California, Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 101, No. B4, pp. 8623-8642. 0 0 E-2 010099-001 APPENDIX E (Cont'd) 1 References Somerville, P. G., Smith, N. F., Graves, R. W., and Abrahamson, N. A., (1997), "Modification of Empirical Strong Ground Motion Attenuation Relations to Include the Amplitude and Duration Effects of Rupture Directivity," Seismological Research Letters, Volume 68, ' Number 1, January/February. Sykora, D. W., and Stokoe, K. H., II, 1983, Correlations of In -Situ Measurements in Sands with ' Shear Wave Velocity, Geotechnical Engineering Report GR83-33, The University of Texas at Austin, Texas. ' Tokimatsu, K. and Seed, H. B., 1987, Evaluation of Settlements in Sands Due to Earthquake Shaking, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 113, No. 8, pgs. 861-878. Weichert, D. H., 1980, Estimation of the Earthquake Recurrence Parameters for Unequal Observation Periods for Different Magnitudes, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 70, pp. 1337-1346. Wesnousky, S. G., 1994, The Gutenberg-Ritchter or Characteristic Earthquake Distribution, Which Is It?, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 84, No. 6, pp. 1940- 1959. Youngs, R. R., and Coppersmith, K. J., 1985, Implications of Fault Slip Rates and Earthquake tRecurrence Models to Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Estimates, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 75, No. 4, pp. 939-964. Ziony, J. I., and Jones, L. M., 1989, Map Showing Late Quaternary Faults and 1978-84 Seismicity of the Los Angeles Region, California, U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-1964, Scale 1:250,000. 1 E-3 PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY REPORT FOR RENOVATION OF BLOCKS 104 & 105 Prepared For: CIM GROUP LLC REAL ESTATE SERVICES 6922 HOLLYWOOD BLVD., SUITE 900 HOLLYWOOD, CALIFORNIA, 90028 Prepared By: PENCO ENGINEERING, INC. ONE TECHNOLOGY PARK, J-725 IRVINE, CA 92718 3.3cim 1-01�;� 9 �F MARCH 20, 2002 OF i PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULICS AND WATER QUALITY REPORT FOR RENOVATION OF BLOCKS 104 & 105 Prepared By: PENCO ENGINEERING, INC. ONE TECHNOLOGY PARK, J-725 IRVINE, CA 92718 Under the Supervision of Carlos A. Pineda Registered Civil Engineer No. 38639 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION...........................................................................1 2. SETTING........................................................................................1 Hydrology Existing Drainage Facilities Existing Runoff and Storm Volumes Water Quality Regulatory Background Best Management Practices 3. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS...........................................................3 Proposed Improvements Water Quality Development Generated Pollutants Maintenance Schedule Measures to Improve or Maintain Water Quality Non -Structural BMPs Structural BMPs 4. APPENDICES TO HYDROLOGY REPORT A. References B. Rational Method Hydrology C. Storm Models D. Supplemental Calculations 5. WATER QUALITY Site Plan Inspection and Maintenance Responsibilities iii HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 1 INTRODUCTION This report describes the local hydrologic conditions for the Proposed Renovation of Blocks 104 & 105 Project in Huntington Beach, Orange County, California. The report describes the drainage and water quality characteristics of the site in its existing condition and also describes the proposed drainage and water quality improvements associated with the Project and their effect on the City's Master Plan of Drainage. This report also describes the proposed best management practices (BMPs) that will be included with this project. SETTING Hydrology The project site is part of a drainage area that is shown in the City of Huntington Beach Master Plan of Drainage and is generally bounded by I Vh Street, Acacia Avenue, Third Street and PCH. This drainage area, approximately 120 acres in area, drains in a southwesterly direction towards Pacific Coast Highway (PCH). The drainage area is ultimately drained into the Pacific Ocean by 3-30" Reinforce Concrete Pipes (RCPs) located near the intersection of Seventh Street and PCH. Existing Drainage Facilities The project site for Blocks 104 and 105 is bounded by Sixth Street, Walnut Avenue, Main Street and Pacific Coast Highway (PCH). The location may be seen on the vicinity map in Appendix A of this report. 1 The site is approximately 6.2 acres in area. In its existing condition the site consists of PP Y g several buildings and asphalt concrete parking lots as well as undeveloped barren areas. Most of the site surface flows onto the nearest streets and the runoff is carried by within the 6-inch to 8-inch curb and gutters into an existing 7-foot catch basin located at the northerly corner of PCH and Main Street. The existing storm drain system serving the drainage area consists of a network of curb opening catch basins and reinforced concrete pipe varying in size from 18" to 54" in diameter. The storm drain system consists of mainlines.along PCH, 6 h Street, Walnut Avenue, Main Street, Olive Avenue and Orange. The system generally conveys the runoff in a southwesterly direction towards PCH. The storm drain system in PCH begins at the intersection of PCH and Main Street. A series of catch basins intercept runoff from Main Street and PCH and outlet into a 30" RCP that drains in a northwesterly direction towards the PCH and 6t' Street intersection. A 48" RCP in 6t' Street confluences with the 30" RCP in PCH and continues in a 54" RCP in a northwesterly direction to its junction with 2-30" RCPs at the intersection of Seventh Street and PCH that outlet to the Pacific Ocean. Existing Runoff and Storm Volumes The City Master Plan of Drainage provides data for existing runoff for and 25-year storm volumes for the project area. See Exhibit in Appendix A of this report. The existing storm drain system was designed to convey the 25-year peak discharge. In the existing condition, the storm water collected in the alley areas between Fifth Street and Main Street (Sub areas C 1 and C2 in the hydrology map) is intercepted by grated inlets and conveyed by existing 12" and 18" RCP into a storm drain system in Main Street. Some of the water from the northerly portion of Main Street flows into an existing catch basin located midway between PCH and Walnut Avenue on the westerly side of Main Street. The storm water from these two areas collects at the northerly catch basin at the corner of PCH and Main Street. The storm water for the entire site then exits the catch basin via a 3-foot wide x 1-foot tall box culvert into the existing storm drain facility in PCH (Ref. 7). The 48" RCP in 6t` Street was designed to convey a 25-year peak Q of 129.Ocfs. The pipe will operate under pressure, but the hydraulic grade line (HGL) is about 4 ft. below the finished surface. The catch basins at the PCH and Main intersection are designed to intercept runoff from Main Street and the project site. The Master plan of drainage shows a catch basin at the comer of 6t' Street and PCH. This catch basin would intercept runoff from the northerly area of the site but it was not constructed and the runoff from the northerly area of the project site presently flows along PCH to the Main Street intersection.. The project site is shown on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map 06059CO045E (September 15, 1989). The site is located in the unshaded "Zone X", which means that it is determined to be outside the 500-year flood plain. Water Quality There are no reports of existing water quality problems in the site. Groundwater was found at a depth of 26 to 27 feet below the existing ground surface. No perched water was encountered in the borings. Regulatory Backzround The project falls under the City's NPDES permit requirement for a WQMP. The CIM Group is working with the City of Huntington Beach to process a Conditional Use Permit application and obtain Entitlements for a proposed project to renovate Blocks 104 and 105 in Downtown Huntington Beach. The context of this report is to support the submittal of the CUP and EIR reports, with regards to water quality management of proposed runoff from the proposed site, when the site gets constructed and in perpetuity. A Notice of Intent will be submitted prior to grading permit. rz Best Management Practices The existing condition does not include any structural Best Management Practices. 2 0 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ' The project consists of the construction of multi -level buildings for retail, office, restaurant and hotel use. An underground parking lot will also be a part of this project. Since the majority of the project site will consist of the construction of buildings, the proposed drainage will largely include storm water being collected into roof drains and exiting onto the existing street gutters through down spout to curb face drains. Hydrology sub -areas denoted as "Cl" and "C2" will continue to be served by existing 12" and 18" RCP storm drain facilities that presently discharge into the system along Main Street. 1 According to the Master Plan of Drainage (Ref. 6), herein referred to as the MPD, the northerly portion of the project site is supposed to be collected in a catch basin at the comer of PCH and 6t' Street. However, this catch basin was never constructed with the 6`h Street Storm Drain Project and consequently the existing drainage pattern shows that the street flows continue along PCH and are collected by the existing catch basin at the ' corner of PCH and Main Street. This project will include the construction of a new 10 ft catch basin at the corner of PCH and 6 h Street. This basin will collect the storm water from hydrology sub -areas D 1 and D2 (see hydrology mag). The flows intercepted by this basin will be discharged into the existing 48" RCP in 6 Street. The Q25 for this basin is 7.6 cfs and the Q 100 is 9.7 cfs. ' The calculations for this basin indicate that there will be some flow bypassing the proposed basin. (Q25 = 2.3 cfs, Q 100= 4.4 cfs). This report includes the street capacity calculations that demonstrate that PCH will handle the flow that bypasses the proposed basin. According to our calculations the existing sump catch basin at the corner of Main and PCH will intercept a Q25 = 8.1 cfs and Q 100 = 15.5 cfs. Note that for the 25-year storm the flows tributary for this basin have been reduced by the addition of the proposed basin at 6 h and PCH. (From 10.8 to 8.1 cfs). Our calculations indicate that the existing 7 ft basin will handle the 25 year storm tributary Q with a depth of ponding of 0.5 ft, and hydraulic calculations for the 1' X 3' culvert result in an HGL of 23.89ft, an elevation that is more than 1 ft below the lip of the gutter. In order to determine the impacts of the development on the system, we have utilized the following criteria: • Pad elevations shall be 1 ft above 100-year flood level. • PCH shall convey the 25-year storm and still maintain 1 dry lane on each direction. • Catch basins shall exhibit a minimum freeboard of 6" (25 year Storm) Our calculations demonstrate that the development of the proposed site will not have a negative effect on the existing system and the resulting storm drain system will meet the above criteria. t A copy of a portion of the MPD hydrology map has been included in the reference section of this report. The existing catch basin located midway on Main Street, between PCH and Walnut Avenue, will be removed and replaced with a manhole in the proposed development. The storm water previously served by this catch basin will street flow via curb and gutter and be intercepted by the existing catch basin at the northerly corner of PCH and Main Street. All hydrology boundaries can be clearly seen on the hydrology map provided at the end of this report. This conforms with the City's MPD. The project's contribution to the cumulative flows anticipated by recent and anticipated development is not significant. The following recent developments are not affected or will not affect the proposed Renovation of Blocks 104 & 105: • 31-Acre Pacific City Development - • Water Hyatt Resort & Spa • Waterfront Residential • Boardwalk Residential A review of all of the developments listed above indicates that they belong to different drainage areas than the proposed Blocks 104 and 105. A review of the Master Plan of Drainage indicate that the 4 developments listed above drain to systems that are totally independent of the drainage system that serves the proposed Blocks 104 & 105 project. Water Quality Development Generated Pollutants The principal pollution sources originating at the site will be: • Silt and sand during construction. • Grease and oil from vehicles using the parking areas. • Contaminants from trash dumpsters. • Normal paper and other wastes. • Grease and oil from the restaurant. A separate Grease Interceptor will treat this water before connecting into the sewer system. The proposed improvements for the site will decrease the sediment deposits in storm water since the surface flow will now travel across maintained surface 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. The development will be consistent the Phase II stormwater regulations and incorporate structural BMPs that will filter or treat either a 24-hr 85t' Percentile storm event, the maximum flow rate of runoff produced from a rainfall intensity of 0.2 inch of rainfall per r hour or the maximum flow rate of runoff produced by the 85 th Percentile hourly rainfall intensity. Maintenance Schedule ' The owner will have regularly scheduled maintenance of the different facilities on -site. The City of Huntington Beach will be responsible for maintenance of the different facilities within public right-of-way. Measures Proposed to Improve or Maintain Water Ouali Appropriate BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPs) will be implemented both during the construction period and after normal operations begin. Non -Structural BMPs Non-structural BMPs will be implemented to help carry out this storm water management program as effectively as possible. The owner will be responsible to maintain these BMPs during and after construction. The non-structural BMPs to be implemented are outlined below: (NI) Education for Property Owners and Occupants No Property Owner Association will be formed for this project. The property owner of this site will take the lead in providing information and instruction to all the users regarding the need to practice good pollution prevention measures. These will include good housekeeping practice, as well as careful practices in the parking areas and trash enclosure. General information reminders will be posted in appropriate locations and there will be available handouts explaining the importance of implementing these measures. Handouts will include: • "The Ocean Begins at Your Front Door" • "Partners in Protecting the Ocean - Steps You Can Take Now" • "The Solution to Pollution - Begins With You" • "Preventing Pollution Through Efficient Water Use" • "When It Rains It Drains" • "Used Oil and the Law" • "Management Guidelines For Use of Fertilizers and Pesticides" • "Guide To Disposal of Used Water -Based Cleaners" (N2) Activity Restrictions No POA will be formed for this project. The owners will occupy or lease portions of the buildings and will ensure that all employees are familiar with the proper implementation of the appropriate BMPs. Food or beverage handling for ' commercial purpose will be permitted in these facilities. (N3) Common Area Landscape Management Careful planning will be done to insure the new limited landscaping system will be effective, and be consistent with the County Water Conservation Resolution (Ordinance No.3802). The irrigation system will be designed so as to maximize the usage and reduce the runoff. The O.C.E.M.A Management Guidelines for Use of Fertilizers and Pesticides dated March 12, 1993, shall be given to the 5 landscaper to insure that procedures for using these materials will follow these guidelines. (N4) BMP Maintenance The owner will be responsible for seeing that these BMPs are properly maintained and kept in good order. The owner must delegate these specific duties, but he will remain the responsible person. (N5) Title 22 CR Compliance N/A. (N6) Local Industrial Permit Compliance N/A. (N7) Spill Contingency Plan N/A. (N8) Underground Storage Tank Compliance N/A. (N9) Hazardous Materials Disclosure Compliance N/A. N10) Uniform Fire Code Implementation Compliance with Article 80 of the Uniform Fire Code will be enforced. W11) Litter Control No POA will be formed for this project. There will be proposed trash enclosures in this project. Trash enclosures will be located away from drainage swales. The bin lids will be kept closed and the trash will be emptied with enough frequency so that the provided bins do not overflow and the surrounding areas are kept clean. (N12) Employee Training Integrate training regarding storm water quality management with existing . training programs that must be require. (N13) Housekeeping of Loading Docks There are no loading docks proposed at this time, but if designed in the future, the loading dock will be kept clean and no food or industrial waste will be handled. (N14) Catch Basin Inspection The owner shall be responsible for the inspection of on -site catch basins. Inspection shall be performed at regular intervals to assure they are kept clean and functioning properly especially prior to the storm season, no later than October 15th of each year. (N15) Private Street/Lot Sweeping The owners will be responsible to maintain site parking area clean especially prior to the storm season, no later than October 15'h of each year. (N16) Commercial Vehicle Washing N/A. 6 Structural BMPs Structural BMPs were selected to control the storm water quality problems identified above. The primary effort is to reduce the hydrocarbons and oils from the parking areas from being carried into the public storm drains. The following structural BMPs are proposed for this site: (SI) Filtration Surface runoff is directed to landscape areas whenever practical. (S2) Common Area Efficient Irrigation Landscaping plans have not been approved at this time. The limited landscaping will be planned to be consistent with County Water Conservation measures. (S3) Common Area Runoff- Minimizing Landscaping Very few areas will be landscaped at grade. A detailed landscaping plan will be submitted, when the project gets designed, to address planters above grade as approved by the City. (S4) Community Car Wash Racks N/A. (S5) Wash Water Controls for Food Preparation Areas Food establishments (per State Health & Safety Code 27520) shall have either contained areas, sinks, each with sanitary sewer connections for disposal of wash waters containing kitchen and food wastes. If located outside, the contained areas, sinks shall also be structurally covered to prevent entry of storm water. (S6) Trash Container Area Trash container (dumpster) areas to have drainage from adjoining roofs and pavements diverted around the area(s), and for trash container areas associated with restaurants and warehouse/grocery operations such areas are to be screened or walled to prevent off -site transport of trash. (S7) Self-contained areas for Washing/Steam Cleaning/Repair/Material Processing N/A. (S8) Outdoor Storage N/A. (S9) Motor Fuel Concrete Dispensing Areas — N/A (SI 0) Motor Fuel Dispensing Area Canopy - N/A. (S11) Motor Fuel Dispensing Area Drainage - N/A. (S12) Energy Dissipaters N/A. (S13) Catch Basin Stenciling Each of the proposed catch basins will be stenciled with "No Dumping - Drains to Ocean" to alert the public to the destination of any pollutants being discharged into the storm drains. (S14) Diversion of Loading Dock Drainage N/A. (SIS) Inlet Trash Racks 7 A standard trash rack will be installed in all proposed catch basins. The trash enclosure area must have a gate or fence that will serve as a trash rack in keeping all trash inside the designated area. (S16) Water Quality Inlets (Water Clarifier) A water clarifier will be installed at the connection with the existing storm drain system so as to avoid the pollutants getting into the waters of the state. No special BMPs are required for this site. 9 Q W z ® �m m mm m m ® ® ® m ® m ® m 11 REFERENCES 1. "Orange County Hydrology Manual"; Williamson and Schmid on behalf of the Orange County Environmental Management Agency; October 1986. 2. "Rational Method Hydrology Computer Program Package (RATSC2);" Advanced Engineering Software; January, 1992. 3. "Plans for the Construction of Huntington Beach Channel Facility No. DO1"; Orange County Public Facilities and Resources Department; November, 1998. 4. "Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM);" Map Number 060590045E; National Flood Insurance Program, Federal Emergency Management Agency; September 15, 1989. 5. "Hydrology & Hydraulics for Jack's Surf Shop, P.W. #92-29, Parcel Map No. 91-235;" ' 6. Fuscoe Williams Lindgren & Short; July 6, 1992. "Master Plan of Drainage;" City of Huntington Beach; September 19, 1989. 7. "Plan of Improvement Construction of Pacific Coast Highway Storm Drain, Main Street to 7 h Street, CC-726;" City of Huntington Beach; May 21, 1988. 8. "STORM" Computer Program; Los Angeles County Road Department. F F F L L C L F C APPENDIX B: RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY ® ® m ® m M **************************************************************************** RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE (Reference: 1986 OCEMA HYDROLOGY CRITERION) (c) Copyright 1983-92 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 1.9A Release Date: 6/26/92 License ID 1233 Analysis prepared by: PENCO ENGINEERING, INC. 1920 MAIN STREET, SUITE 550 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92714 (714) 660-7030 FAX (714) 660-7009 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- FILE NAME: 20544P.DAT TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 15: 3 5/30/2000 - - - - -- --------------------------------------------------------------- USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: --- --- --------------------------- - - --*TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION MODEL*-- USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 25.00 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) 6.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE _ .90 *DATA BANK RAINFALL USED* FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 111.00 TO NODE 115.00 IS CODE = 2.1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< ------------------------------------------------------------- --- - DEVELOPMENT IS COMMERCIAL TC = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]** .20 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 280.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 28.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 26.90 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 1.10 TC(MIN.) = .304*[( 280.00** 3.00)/( 1.10)]** .20 8.768 25 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.541 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B" COMMERCIAL SUBAREA LOSS RATE, Fm(INCH/HR) _ .0300 SUBAREA PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = .36 SUBAREA PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap .10 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) _ .41 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _ .13 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) _ .41 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 115.00 TO NODE 126.00 IS CODE = 5.1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<< >>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION 26.90 DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 26.80 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 40.00 CHANNEL SLOPE _ .0025 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) _ .00 "Z" FACTOR = 4.000 MANNING'S FACTOR = .015 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) _ .50 CHANNEL FLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) _ .41 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC) = 1.32 FLOW DEPTH(FEET) _ .28 TRAVEL TIME(MIN. ) _ .51 TC (MIN. ) = 9.27 wwwwwwwwwww,t*w***w*wwwww**w*wwww*w**w*w****ww,tww**,rwwwwwwwww*wwwww*,rw****w** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 126.00 TO NODE 126.00 IS CODE = 1 ------------------------------------------------ --------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< ------------------------------------------------------ - TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 9.27 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.43 AREA -AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) _ .03 AREA -AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) _ .30 AREA -AVERAGED Ap = .10 EFFECTIVE. STREAM AREA(ACRES) _ .13 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) _ .13 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE _ .41 k**ww*w**wwwwwwww*w***w*****ww*ww**wwww*******ww*w**ww,tww*ww*ww**w**w,twwwwww FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 121.00 TO NODE 125.00 IS CODE = 2.1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< DEVELOPMENT IS COMMERCIAL TC = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]** .20 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 170.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 28.10 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 27.20 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) _ .90 TC(MIN.) _ .304*[( 170.00** 3.00)/( .90)]** .20 = 6.765 25 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.121 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B" COMMERCIAL SUBAREA LOSS RATE, Fm(INCH/HR) _ .0300 SUBAREA PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) _ .30 SUBAREA PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = .10 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.51 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _ .41 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.51 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww**wwwwww,tww�rwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww*ww*wwww*ww FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 125.00 TO NODE 126.00 IS CODE = 5.1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<< ® � ® m m ® m ® m ® ® ® ® m m ® ® m >>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 27.20 DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION 26.80 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 40.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = .0100 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = .00 "Z" FACTOR = 4.000 MANNING'S FACTOR = .015 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) _ .50 CHANNEL FLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 1.51 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC) = 3.01 FLOW DEPTH(FEET) _ .35 TRAVEL TIME(MIN. ) = .22 TC (MIN. ) = 6.99 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 126.00 TO NODE 126.00 IS CODE 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<« >>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<< ------------------------------------------------------------------------ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 6.99 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.03 AREA -AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = .03 AREA -AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = .30 AREA -AVERAGED Ap = .10 EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) _ .41 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = .41 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 1.51 RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** Q Tc Intensity Fp Ap Fm Ae (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) 1 1.69 9.27 3.425 .30 .10 .03 .54 2 1.87 6.99 4.033 .30 .10 .03 .51 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.87 Tc(MIN.) = 6.987 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) _ .51 AREA -AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) _ .03 AREA -AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) _ .30 AREA -AVERAGED Ap .10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = .54 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 126.00 TO NODE 135.00 IS CODE 9 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE "V" GUTTER FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< -------------------------------------------------------------------------- UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION(FEET) = 26.80 DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION(FEET) 26.50 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 240.00 "V" GUTTER WIDTH(FEET) = 4.00 GUTTER HIKE(FEET) _ .200 PAVEMENT LIP(FEET) _ .040 MANNING'S N = .0150 PAVEMENT CROSSFALL(DECIMAL NOTATION) _ .02000 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) _ .50 25 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) 3.120 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B" COMMERCIAL SUBAREA LOSS RATE, Fm(INCH/HR) _ .0300 SUBAREA PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) _ .30 SUBAREA PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = .10 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 1.02 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) _ .39 FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 19.44 "V" GUTTER FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 3.91 TC(MIN.) = 10.90 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) _ .39 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.08 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) _ .90 AREA -AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 03 AREA -AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) _ .30 AREA -AVERAGED Ap = .10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _ .93 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 2.50 END OF SUBAREA "V" GUTTER HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) _ .39 FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) 19.44 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 1.05 DEPTH*VELOCITY = .42 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 135.00 TO NODE 145.00 IS CODE 9 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE "V" GUTTER FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< - ----------------------------------------------------------- UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION(FEET) = 26.50 DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION(FEET) = 26.00 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 210.00 "V" GUTTER WIDTH(FEET) 4.00 GUTTER HIKE(FEET) _ .200 PAVEMENT LIP(FEET) _ 040 MANNING'S N = .0150 PAVEMENT CROSSFALL(DECIMAL NOTATION) _ .02000 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) _ .50 25 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) 2.773 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B" COMMERCIAL SUBAREA LOSS RATE, Fm(INCH/HR) _ .0300 SUBAREA PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) _ .30 SUBAREA PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = .10 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 1.42 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) _ .38 FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 17.81 "V" GUTTER FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 2.47 TC(MIN.). = 13.36 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) _ .35 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) _ .86 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 1.25 AREA -AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) _ .03 AREA -AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) _ .30 AREA -AVERAGED Ap = .10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.28 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 3.08 END OF SUBAREA "V" GUTTER HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) _ .38 FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 17.81 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 1.49 DEPTH*VELOCITY = .56 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 145.00 TO NODE 155.00 IS CODE = 6 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® m ® m m m ® ® m m ® ® ® m --------------------------------------------------- UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 26.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 25.50 STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 100.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES).= 6. STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 40.00 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) 38.00 INTERIOR STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = .020 OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = .083 SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1 **TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING MEAN FLOW(CFS) = 3.56 STREET FLOW MODEL RESULTS: STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) _ .42 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 12.9.8 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = . 1.91 PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY = .80 STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = .87 TC(MIN.) = 14.24 25 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 2.676 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B" COMMERCIAL SUBAREA LOSS RATE, Fm(INCH/HR) _ .0300 SUBAREA PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = .30 SUBAREA PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = .10 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = .40 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) _ .95 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 1.65 AREA -AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) _ .03 AREA -AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = .30 AREA -AVERAGED AP = .10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.68 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 3.92 END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = .43 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 13.58 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 1.95 DEPTH*VELOCITY = .84 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 155.00 TO NODE 326.00 IS CODE = 6 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< -------------------------------------------------- UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 25.50 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 24.60 STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 130.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6. STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 40.00 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 38.00 INTERIOR STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = .020 OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = .083 SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1 **TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING MEAN FLOW(CFS) = 4.10 STREET FLOW MODEL RESULTS: STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) _ .42 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 12.98 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.20 PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY = .92 STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = .98 TC(MIN.) = 15.22 25 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 2.571 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B" COMMERCIAL SUBAREA LOSS RATE, Fm(INCH/HR) _ .0300 SUBAREA PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = .30 SUBAREA PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = .10 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = .15 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) _ .34 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 1.80 AREA -AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) _ .03 AREA -AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = .30 AREA -AVERAGED Ap = .10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.83 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 4.11 END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = .42 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 12.98 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.21 DEPTH*VELOCITY = .92 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 326.00 TO NODE 326.00 IS CODE = .10 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>MAIN-STREAM MEMORY COPIED ONTO MEMORY BANK # 1 <<<<< FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 211.00 TO NODE 215.00 IS CODE = 2.1 ------------------------------------------------------- -------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<< <<< DEVELOPMENT IS COMMERCIAL TC = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]** .20 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 190.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 28.70 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 27.70 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 1.00 TC(MIN.) = .304*[( 190.00** 3.00)/( 1.00)]** .20 = 7.082 25 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.996 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B" COMMERCIAL SUBAREA LOSS RATE, Fm(INCH/HR) _ .0300 SUBAREA PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = .30 SUBAREA PERVIOUS'AREA FRACTION, Ap = .10 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.89 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = .53 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) 1.89 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 215.00 TO NODE 245.00 IS CODE = 6 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<< <<< ------------------------- UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 27.70 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 26.60 STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 160.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6. STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 23.00 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 21.00 s ® � ® � _ m m ® _ ® ® m ® ® m INTERIOR STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) _ .020 OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) _ .083 SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1 **TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING MEAN FLOW(CFS) = 2.04 STREET FLOW MODEL RESULTS: STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) _ .35 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 9.55 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 1.88 PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY = .65 STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.42 TC(MIN.) = 8.50 25 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.601 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B" COMMERCIAL SUBAREA LOSS RATE, Fm(INCH/HR) _ .0300 SUBAREA PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) _ .30 SUBAREA PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = .10 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) _ .09 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) _ .29 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) _ .62 AREA -AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) _ .03 AREA -AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) _ .30 AREA -AVERAGED AP = .10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _ .62 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.99 END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) _ .35 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 9.55 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 1.84 DEPTH*VELOCITY = .64 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 245.00 TO NODE 326.00 IS CODE 6 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<< <<< ------------ -------------------------------------------------- UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 26.60 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 24.60 STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 220.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6. STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 23.00 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 21.00 INTERIOR STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) _ .020 OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) _ .083 SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1 **TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING MEAN FLOW(CFS) = 2.16 STREET FLOW MODEL RESULTS: STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) _ .34 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 8.89 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.25 PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY = .75 STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN. ) = 1.63 TC (MIN. ) = 10.14 25 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.239 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B" COMMERCIAL SUBAREA LOSS RATE, Fm(INCH/HR) _ .0300 SUBAREA PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) _ .30 SUBAREA PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = .10 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) _ .12 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) _ .35 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) _ .74 AREA -AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) _ .03 AREA -AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) _ .30 AREA -AVERAGED Ap = .10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _ .74 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 2.14 END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) _ .34 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 8.89 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.22 DEPTH*VELOCITY = .74 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 326.00 TO NODE 326.00 IS CODE = 11 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>CONFLUENCE MEMORY BANK # 1 WITH THE MAIN -STREAM MEMORY<<<<< ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** Q Tc Intensity Fp Ap Fm Ae (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) 1 5.59 10.14 3.239 .30 .10 .03 1.94 2 5.80 15.22 2.571 .30 .10 .03 2.54 3 5.46 17.25 2.392 .30 .10 .03 2.57 TOTAL AREA = 2.57 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 5.80 Tc(MIN.) = 15.220 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 2.54 AREA -AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) _ .03 AREA -AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) _ .30 AREA -AVERAGED Ap = .10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.57 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 326.00 TO NODE 326.00 IS CODE = 12 =--------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>CLEAR MEMORY BANK # 1 <<<<< **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 326.00 TO NODE 326.00 IS CODE = 10 ------=--------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>MAIN-STREAM MEMORY COPIED ONTO MEMORY BANK # 1 <<<<< **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 311.00 TO NODE 325.00 IS CODE = 2.1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< DEVELOPMENT IS COMMERCIAL TC = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]** .20 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 270.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 27.00 ® m ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® m � � � ® � _ � � m ® ® i ® ® m m ® m DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 26.60 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = .40 TC(MIN.) = .304*[( 270.00** 3.00)/( .40)]** .20 = 10.502 25 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.182 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B" COMMERCIAL SUBAREA LOSS RATE, Fm(INCH/HR) _ .0300. SUBAREA PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = .30 SUBAREA PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = .10 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.05 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = .37 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.05 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 325.00 TO NODE 325.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE.« <<< -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 10.50 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.18 AREA -AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = .03 AREA -AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = .30 AREA -AVERAGED Ap = .10 EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) _ .37 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) _ .37 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 1.05 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 321.00 TO NODE 325.00 IS CODE = 2.1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<< <<< - --- -- - -------------------- DEVELOPMENT IS COMMERCIAL TC = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE))** .20 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 240.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 27.80 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 26.60 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 1.20 TC(MIN.) = .304*[( 240.00** 3.00)/( 1.20))** .20 = 7.855 25 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.749 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B" COMMERCIAL SUBAREA LOSS RATE, FM(INCH/HR) _ .0300 SUBAREA PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) _ .30 SUBAREA PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = .10 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.14 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = .64 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 2.14 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 325.00 TO NODE 325.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< >> >>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<< TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES.USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 7.86 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.75 AREA -AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = .03 AREA -AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = .30 AREA -AVERAGED Ap = .10 EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) _ .64 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = .64 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 2.14 RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** Q Tc Intensity Fp Ap Fm Ae (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) 1 2.86 10.50 3.182 .30 .10 .03 1.01 2 3.07 7.86 3.749 .30 .10 .03 .92 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 3.07 Tc(MIN.) = 7.855 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) _ .92 AREA -AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) _ .03 AREA -AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) _ .30 AREA -AVERAGED Ap = .10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) 1.01 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 325.00 TO NODE 326.00 IS CODE 3 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<< <<< >>>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< -- -- ------------------------------------------- DEPTH OF FLOW IN 12.0 INCH PIPE IS 9.3 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.7 UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION(FEET) = 26.60 DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION(FEET) = 24.60 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 215.00 MANNING'S N .013 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 12.00 NUMBER OF PIPES 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 3.07 TRAVEL TIME(MIN. ) _ .76 TC (MIN. ) = 8.61 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 326.00 TO NODE 326.00 IS CODE = 11 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>CONFLUENCE MEMORY BANK # 1 WITH THE MAIN -STREAM MEMORY<<<<< ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** Q Tc Intensity Fp Ap Fm Ae (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) ® ® ® ® m ® ® ® ® m m ® m ® ® m m m 1 8.32 8.61 3.576 .30 .10 .03 2.56 2 8.51 11.27 3.062 .30 .10 .03 3.08 3 8.55 10.14 3.239 .30 .10 .03 2.91 4 8.20 15.22 2.571 .30 .10 .03 3.55 5 7.70 17.25 2.392 .30 .10 .03 3.58 TOTAL AREA = 3.58 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 8.55 Tc(MIN.) = 10.135 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 2.91 AREA -AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) _ .03 AREA -AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) _ .30 AREA -AVERAGED AP = .10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 3.58 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 326.00 TO NODE 326.00 IS CODE = 12 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>CLEAR MEMORY BANK # 1 « « < **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 411.00 TO NODE 415.00 IS CODE = 2.1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< ------------------------------------------------------------------- DEVELOPMENT IS COMMERCIAL TC = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]** .20 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 330.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 28.90 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 27.20 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 1.70 TC(MIN.) = .304*[( 330.00** 3.00)/( 1.70)]** .20 = 8.869 25 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.518 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B" COMMERCIAL SUBAREA LOSS RATE, Fm(INCH/HR) = .0300 SUBAREA PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = .30 SUBAREA PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = .10 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 4.43 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.41 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 4.43 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 415.00 TO NODE 425.00 IS CODE 6 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< ---------------------------------------------------- UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 27.20 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 27.00 STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 120.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6. STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 23.00 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) _ 21.00 INTERIOR STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = .020 OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = .083 SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1 **TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING MEAN FLOW(CFS) = 6.19 STREET FLOW MODEL RESULTS: NOTE: STREET FLOW EXCEEDS TOP OF CURB. THE FOLLOWING STREET FLOW RESULTS ARE BASED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT NEGLIBLE FLOW OCCURS OUTSIDE OF THE STREET CHANNEL. THAT IS, ALL FLOW ALONG THE PARKWAY, ETC., IS NEGLECTED. STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) _ .57 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) 20.70 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 1.39 PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY = .79 STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.44 TC(MIN.) = 10.31 25 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.212 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B" COMMERCIAL SUBAREA LOSS RATE, FM(INCH/HR) = .0300 SUBAREA PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = .30 SUBAREA PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = .10 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.23 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.52 ..EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 2.64 AREA -AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) _ .03 AREA -AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) _ .30 AREA -AVERAGED Ap = .10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.64 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 7.56 END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = .60 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 22.02 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 1.51 DEPTH*VELOCITY = .90 -------------------------------------------------------------------- END OF STUDY SUMMARY: TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.64 TC(MIN.) = 10.31 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 2.64 AREA -AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR)= .03 AREA -AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) _ .30 AREA -AVERAGED Ap = .10 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 7.56 END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS � m ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® m RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE (Reference: 1986 OCEMA HYDROLOGY CRITERION) (c) Copyright 1983-92 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 1.9A Release Date: 6/26/92 License ID 1233 Analysis prepared by: PENCO ENGINEERING, INC. 1920 MAIN STREET, SUITE 550 IRVINE CALIFORNIA 92714 (714) 660-70AO FAX (714) 660-7009 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- FILE NAME: 20544P.DAT TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 11:41 1/15/2002 -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --*TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION MODEL* -- USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00 AI - SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 6.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE _ .90 *DATA BANK RAINFALL USED* **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 111.00 TO NODE 115.00 IS CODE = 2.1 -------------------------------------------------------------------sue- ----- >>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< DEVELOPMENT IS COMMERCIAL TC = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE))** .20 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 280.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 28.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET.) = 26.90 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 1.10 TC(MIN.) = .304*[( 280.00** 3.00)/( 1.10))** .20 = 8.768 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.525 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B" COMMERCIAL SUBAREA LOSS RATE, Fm(INCH/HR) = 0300 SUBAREA PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, FV INCH/HR) _ .30 SUBAREA PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = .10 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 53 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = .13 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) _ .53 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 115.00 TO NODE 126.00 IS CODE = 5.1 ------ -------- ----- ----- --------- -------- --------- -------- --------------=--- »»>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW««< > >TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA« < < ----------- ----------- ------------------------------- ----------- UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 26.90 DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 26.80 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 40.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = .0025 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = .00 "Z" FACTOR = 4.000 MANNING'S FACTOR = .015 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) _ .50 CHANNEL FLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = .53 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC) = 1.39 FLOW DEPTH(FEET) _ .31 TRAVEL TIMENI N.) = .48 TC(MIN.) = 9.25 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 126.00 TO NODE 126.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- » >>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE « < < ' ----------------------- TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 9.25 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.38 AREA -AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = .03 AREA -AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = .30 AREA -AVERAGED Ap = 10 EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) _ .13 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = .13 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE _ .53 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 121.00 TO NODE 125.00 IS CODE = 2.1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »-RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< DEVELOPMENT IS COMMERCIAL TC = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]** .20 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 170.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 28.10 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 27.20 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = .90 TC(MIN.) = .304*I( 170.00** 3.00)/( .90)]** .20 = 6.765 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 5.279 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B" COMMERCIAL SUBAREA LOSS RATE, Fm(INCH/HR) = .0300 SUBAREA PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = .30 SUBAREA PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION Ap = .10 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.94 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _ .41 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.94 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 125.00 TO NODE 126.00 IS CODE = 5.1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW««< »»>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< -------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 27.20 DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 26.80 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 40.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = .0100 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = .00 "Z" FACTOR = 4.000 ' MANNING'S FACTOR = .015 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) _ .50 CHANNEL FLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 1.94 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC) = 3.25 FLOW DEPTH(FEET) _ .39 TRAVEL T1ME(MIN.) = .21 TC(MIN.) = 6.97 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 126.00 TO NODE 126.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE ««< »»>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES-- ----------------- - - - ------------------------------------------------ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 6.97 RAINFALL iNTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 5.17 AREA -AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 03 AREA -AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = .30 AREA -AVERAGED Ap = .10 EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) _ .41 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = .41 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 1.94 RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS'. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** o Tc Intensity Fp Ap Fm Ae (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) m ® m ® ® _ m ® m _ ® ® ® ® _ mom mm 2.16 9.25 4.382 .30 .10 .03 .54 2.41 6.97 5.173 .30 .10 .03 .51 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 2.41 Tc(MIN.) = 6.971 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) _ .51 AREA -AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) _ .03 AREA -AVERAGED Fp(1NCH/HR) _ .30 AREA -AVERAGED Ap = .10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _ .54 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 126.00 TO NODE 135.00 IS CODE = 9 ------------------ --------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE "V" GUTTER FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< ---------------- - -------------------------------- UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION(FEET) = 26.80 DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION(FEET) = 26.50 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 240.00 "V" GUTTER WIDTH(FEET) = 4.00 GUTTER HIKE(FEET) _ .200 PAVEMENT LIP(FEET) = .040 MANNING'S N = .0150 PAVEMENT CROSSFALL(DECIMAL NOTATION) _ .02000 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = .50 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) _ .4.071 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B" COMMERCIAL SUBAREA LOSS RATE, Fm(INCH/HR) = .0300 SUBAREA PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = .30 SUBAREA PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 10 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 1.15 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = .41 FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 21.06 "V" GUTTER FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 3.47 TC(MIN.) = 10.44 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = .39 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.42 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) _ .90 AREA -AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) _ .03 AREA -AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) _ .30 AREA -AVERAGED Ap = .10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = .93 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 3.27 END OF SUBAREA "V" GUTTER HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = .43 FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 22.69 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 1.07 DEPTH*VELOCITY = .46 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 135.00 TO NODE 145.00 IS CODE = 9 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- » >>COMPUTE "V" GUTTER FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA«« < UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION(FEET) 26.50 DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION(FEET) = 26.00 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 210.00 "V" GUTTER WIDTH(FEET) = 4.00 GUTTER HIKE(FEET) _ .200 PAVEMENT LIP(FEET) = .040 MANNING'S N = .0150 PAVEMENT CROSSFALL(DECIMAL NOTATION) _ .02000 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = .50 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.601 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B" COMMERCIAL SUBAREA LOSS RATE, Fm(1NCH/HR) = 0300 SUBAREA PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, FP(INCH/HR) = .30 SUBAREA PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 10 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 1.42 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = .41 FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 21.06 "V" GUTTER FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 2.47 TC(MIN.) = 12.91 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = .35 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.12 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 1.25 AREA -AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) _ .03 AREA -AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = .30 AREA -AVERAGED Ap = .10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.28 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 4.01 END OF SUBAREA "V" GUTTER HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = .41 FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 21.06 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 1.49 DEPTH*VELOCITY = .61 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 145.00 TO NODE 155.00 IS CODE = 6 »»>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA« «< UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 26.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 25.50 STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 100.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6. - STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 40.00 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 38.00 INTERIOR STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = .020 OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = .083 SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1 **TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING MEAN FLOW(CFS) = 4.63 STREET FLOW MODEL RESULTS: STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = .45 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 14.77 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 1.97 PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY = .89 STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = .85 TC(M1N.) = 13.76 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.479 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B" COMMERCIAL SUBAREA LOSS RATE, Fm(INCH/HR) = 0300 SUBAREA PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = .30 SUBAREA PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 10 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = .40 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.24 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 1.65 AREA -AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = .03 AREA -AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = .30 AREA -AVERAGED Ap = .10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.68 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 5.12 END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = .47 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 15.36 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.02 DEPTH*VELOCITY = .94 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 155.00 TO NODE 326.00 IS CODE = 6 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 25.50 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 24.60 STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 130.09 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6. STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 40.00 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 38.00 INTERIOR STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 020 OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = .083 SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1 **TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING MEAN FLOW(CFS) = 5.34 STREET FLOW MODEL RESULTS: STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = .45 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 14.77 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.27 PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY = 1.03 STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = .96 TC(MIN.) = 14.71 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.341 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B" COMMERCIAL SUBAREA LOSS RATE, Fm(INCH/HR) = 0300 SUBAREA PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = .30 SUBAREA PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = .10 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = .15 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) _ .45 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 1.80 AREA -AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = .03 AREA -AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = .30 AREA -AVERAGED Ap = .10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.83 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 5.36 END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = .45 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 14.77 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.28 DEPTH*VELOCITY = 1.03 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 326.00 TO NODE 326.00 IS CODE = 10 ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® m ® ® ® m ® m m ® ® m m m O --------------------- I------------------------------------------------------- »»>MAIN-STREAM MEMORY COPIED ONTO MEMORY BANK # 1 ««< ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 211.00 TO NODE 215.00 IS CODE = 2.1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS ««< --=------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- DEVELOPMENT IS COMMERCIAL TC = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE))** .20 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 190.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 28.70 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 27.70 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 1.00 TC(MIN.) = .304*[( 190.00** 3.00)/( 1.00)1** .20,= 7.082 100 YEAR RAINFALL 1NTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 5.116 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B" COMMERCIAL SUBAREA LOSS RATE, Fm(INCH/HR) = .0300 SUBAREA PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = .30 SUBAREA PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION Ap = .10 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.41 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _ .53 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 2.43 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 215.00 TO NODE 245.00 1S CODE = 6 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- » >>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 27.70 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) 26.60 STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 160.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6. STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 23.00 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 21.00 INTERIOR STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = .020 OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = .083 SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1 **TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING MEAN FLOW(CFS) = 2.61 STREET FLOW MODEL RESULTS: STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = .38 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 10.86 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 1.93 PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY = .72 STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.38 TC(M1N.) = 8.46 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.615 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B" COMMERCIAL SUBAREA LOSS RATE, Fm(INCH/HR) = 0300 SUBAREA PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = .30 SUBAREA PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = .10 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = .09 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) _ .37 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) _ .62 AREA -AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) _ .03 AREA -AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) _ .30 AREA -AVERAGED Ap = .10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = .62 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 2.56 END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = .38 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 10.86 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 1.89 DEPTH*VELOCITY = .71 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 245.00 TO NODE 326.00 IS CODE = 6 . ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »» COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 26.60 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 24.60 STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 220.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6. STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 23.00 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 21.00 INTERIOR STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = .020 OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = .083 SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1 **TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING MEAN FLOW(CFS) = 2.78 STREET FLOW MODEL RESULTS: STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) _ .36 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 10.20 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.29 PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY = .83 STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.60 , TC(MIN.) = 10.06 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(1NCH/HR) = 4.147 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B" COMMERCIAL SUBAREA LOSS RATE, Fm(INCH/HR) = .0300 SUBAREA PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, FV INCH/HR) = .30 SUBAREA PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 10 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = .12 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) _ .44 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) _ .74 AREA -AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = .03 AREA -AVERAGED Fp(1NCH/HR) _ .30 AREA -AVERAGED Ap = .10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = .74 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 2.74 END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = .36 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 10.20 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.26 DEPTH*VELOCITY = .82 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 326.00 TO NODE 326.00 IS CODE = 11 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>CONFLUENCE MEMORY BANK # 1 WITH THE MAIN -STREAM MEMORY ««< ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** Q Tc Intensity Fp Ap Fm Ae (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) 1 7.30 10.06 4.147 .30 .10 .03 1.97 2 7.56 14.71 3.341 .30 .10 .03 2.54 3 6.96 17.32 3.040 .30 .10 .03 2.57 TOTAL AREA = 2.57 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 7.56 Tc(MIN.) = 14.712 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 2.54 AREA -AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) _ .03 AREA -AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) _ .30 AREA -AVERAGED Ap = .10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.57 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 326.00 TO NODE 326.00 IS CODE = 12 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- » >>CLEAR MEMORY BANK # 1 « « < **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 326.00 TO NODE 326.00 IS CODE = 10 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>MAIN-STREAM MEMORY COPIED ONTO MEMORY BANK # 1 ««< ------------- **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 311.00 TO NODE 325.00 IS CODE = 2.1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- » >>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS-- ------------ - - - - --------------------------------------------------------------- DEVELOPMENT IS COMMERCIAL TC = K*E(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE))** .20 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 270.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 27.00 m ® � ® ® ® ® ® � � � m m m®® m_ m m®®® m s DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 26.60 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 40 TC(MIN.) = .304*[( 270.00** 3.00)/( .40))** .20 = 10.502 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.060 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B" COMMERCIAL SUBAREA LOSS RATE, Fm(INCH/HR) = 0300 SUBAREA PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) _ .30 SUBAREA PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION Ap = .10 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) 1.34 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = .37 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.34 wwwwwwwwwwwww*wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww*www*wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 325.00 TO NODE 325.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE ««< - -------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 10.50 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.06 AREA -AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = .03 AREA -AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = .30 AREA -AVERAGED Ap = 10 EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) _ .37 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = .37 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 1.34 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 321.00 TO NODE 325.00 IS CODE = 2.1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS -- DEVELOPMENT IS COMMERCIAL TC = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE))** .20 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 240.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 27.80 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 26.60 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 1.20 TC(MIN.) = .304*[( 240.00** 3.00)/( 1.20))** .20 = 7.855 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.795 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B" COMMERCIAL SUBAREA LOSS RATE, Fm(INCH/HR) = 0300 SUBAREA PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = .30 SUBAREA PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION Ap = .10 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.74 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = .64 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 2.74 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww*wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 325.00 TO NODE 325.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE ««< »»>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<< < --------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 7.86 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.79 AREA -AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = .03 AREA -AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = .30 AREA -AVERAGED Ap = 10 EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) _ .64 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = .64 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 2.74 RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** Q Tc Intensity Fp Ap Fm Ae (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) 3.66 10.50 4.060 .30 .10 .03 1.01 3.93 7.86 4.795 .30 .10 .03 .92 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 3.93 Tc(MIN.) = 7.855 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) _ '.92 AREA -AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = .03 AREA -AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) _ .30 AREA -AVERAGED Ap = .10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.01 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 325.00 TO NODE 326.00 IS CODE = 3 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- » >>>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »»>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW)««< --------------- -------------------------------------------------3-------------------------- DEPTH OF FLOW IN 15.0 INCH PIPE IS 8.9 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.2 UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION(FEET) = 26.60 DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION(FEET) = 24.60 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 215.00 MANNING'S N = .013 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 15.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 3.93 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) _ .70 TC(MIN.) = 8.55 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 326.00 TO NODE 326.00 IS CODE = 11 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>CONFLUENCE MEMORY BANK # 1 WITH THE MAIN -STREAM MEMORY-<- ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** Q Tc Intensity Fp Ap Fm Ae (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) 1 10.80 8.55 4.589 .30 .10 .03 2.59 2 11.03 11.21 3.918 .30 .10 .03 3.12 3 11.08 10.06 4.147 .30 .10 .03 2.94 4 10.68 14.71 3.341 .30 .10 .03 3.55 5 9.80 17.32 3.040 .30 .10 .03 3.58 TOTAL AREA = 3.58 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 11.08 Tc(MIN.) = 10.064 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 2.94 AREA -AVERAGED Fm(1NCH/HR) _ .03 AREA -AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) _ .30 AREA -AVERAGED Ap = .10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 3.58 wwwwwwww*wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 326.00 TO NODE 326.00 IS CODE = 12 -------------------------------------------------------- ------ >>>CLEAR MEMORY BANK # 1 ««< wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 411.00 TO NODE 415.00 IS CODE = 2.1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS -- DEVELOPMENT IS COMMERCIAL TC = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]** .20 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 330.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 28.90 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 27.20 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 1.70 TC(MIN.) = .304*[( 330.00** 3.00)/( 1.70)]** .20 = 8.869 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.495 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B" COMMERCIAL SUBAREA LOSS RATE, Fm(INCH/HR) = .0300 ® � ® m1m ® ® ® m SUBAREA PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = .30 SUBAREA PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION Ap = .10 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 5.65 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.41 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 5.67 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 415.00 TO NODE 425.00 IS CODE = 6 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------= >>-COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA-- UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 27.20 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 27.00 - STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 120.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6. STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 23.00 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 21.00 INTERIOR STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = .020 OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = .083 SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1 **TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING MEAN FLOW(CFS) = 7.93 STREET FLOW MODEL RESULTS: NOTE: STREET FLOW EXCEEDS TOP OF CURB. THE FOLLOWING STREET FLOW RESULTS ARE BASED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT NEGLIBLE FLOW OCCURS OUTSIDE OF THE STREET CHANNEL. THAT IS, ALL FLOW ALONG THE PARKWAY, ETC., IS NEGLECTED. STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = .61 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 22.67 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 1.49 PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY = .91 STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.34 TC(MIN.) = 10.21 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.118 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B" COMMERCIAL SUBAREA LOSS RATE, Fm(INCH/HR) = 0300 SUBAREA PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = .30 SUBAREA PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 10 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.23 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 4.53 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 2.64 AREA -AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = .03 AREA -AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = .30 AREA -AVERAGED Ap = .10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.64 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 9.71 END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = .62 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 23.00 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 1.53 DEPTH*VELOCITY = .94 - -------------------------------------------------------------------------- END OF STUDY SUMMARY: TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.64 TC(MIN.) = 10.21 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 2.64 AREA -AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR)= .03 AREA -AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = .30 AREA -AVERAGED Ap = .10 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 9.71 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS a PROJECT : 20544p2:RENOVATION OF BLOCKS 104 & 105 - SO ON SIXTH ST. DATE: 1/16/2002 TIME: 11:32: 5 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Z_5'-YEAF- STORM INPUT DATA LISTING ------------------ CD L2 MAX Q ADJ 0 LENGTH FL 1 FL 2 CTL/TW D W S KJ KE KM LC L1 L3 L4 Al A3 A4 J N -- 8 -- ----- ----- ------ 1 ---- ---- ------ --- --- - ---- 20.23 4--- GoN- VDL. ---- ---- -- H(-,,L CSEE -- -- -- --- --- --- ---- ---- REFC-RENCE -r%) 2 2 5.3 5.3 75.00 14.20 14.50 .00 48. 0. 3 .00 .00 .20 1 3 0 0 90. 0. 0. .00 .013 2 3 5.3 5.3 20.00 14.50 20.00 .00 18. 0. 1 .00 .20 .00 0 0 0 0 0. 0. 0. .00 .013 STORM DRAIN ANALYSIS RESULTS ---------------------------- LINE Q D W DN DC FLOW SF -FULL V 1 V 2 FL 1 FL 2 HG 1 HG 2 D 1 D 2 TW TW NO (CFS) (IN) (IN) (FT) (FT) TYPE (FT/FT) (FPS) (FPS) (FT) (FT) CALC CALC (FT) (FT) CALC CK - -- ----- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----------- ----- ----- ------ ------ ------ ------ ----- ----- ------ ------ 1 HYDRAULIC GRADE LINE CONTROL = 20.23 2 5.3 48 0 .65 .66 FULL .00001 .4 .4 14.20 .14.50 20.23 20.23 6.03 5.73 .00 .00 Tc.= 7-7.7 3 5.3 18 0 .31 .89 SEAL .00255 3.0 4.9 14.50 20.00 20.24 20.89 5.74 .89 21.33 .00 HJ X = 15.43 X(N) _ .00 X(J) = 15.43 F(J) = 1.89 D(BJ) _ .48 D(AJ) = 1.53 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS --------------------- V 1, FL 1, D 1 AND HG 1 REFER TO DOWNSTREAM END V 2, FL 2, D 2 AND HG 2 REFER TO UPSTREAM END X - DISTANCE IN FEET FROM DOWNSTREAM END TO POINT WHERE HG INTERSECTS SOFFIT IN SEAL CONDITION X(N) - DISTANCE IN FEET FROM DOWNSTREAM END TO POINT WHERE WATER SURFACE. REACHES NORMAL DEPTH BY EITHER DRAWDOWN OR BACKWATER X(J) - DISTANCE IN FEET FROM DOWNSTREAM END TO POINT WHERE HYDRAULIC JUMP OCCURS IN LINE F(J) - THE COMPUTED FORCE AT THE HYDRAULIC JUMP D(BJ) - DEPTH OF WATER BEFORE THE HYDRAULIC JUMP (UPSTREAM SIDE) D(AJ) - DEPTH OF WATER AFTER THE HYDRAULIC JUMP (DOWNSTREAM SIDE) SEAL INDICATES FLOW CHANGES FROM PART TO FULL OR FROM FULL TO PART Hi INDICATES THAT FLOW CHANGES FROM SUPERCRITICAL TO SUBCRITICAL THROUGH A HYDRAULIC JUMP HJU INDICATES THAT HYDRAULIC JUMP OCCURS AT THE JUNCTION AT THE UPSTREAM END OF THE LINE HJD INDICATES THAT HYDRAULIC JUMP OCCURS AT THE JUNCTION AT THE DOWNSTREAM END OF THE LINE ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® m m � ® ® m m ® m ® m ® ® m ® m ® ® ® m m PROJECT : 20544p3:RENOVATION OF BLOCKS 104 & 105 - SO NEAR MAIN STREET DATE: 1/16/2002 TIME: 15:36:56 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Z 5 `Yr-Af. STDKM INPUT DATA LISTING ------------------ CD L2 MAX Q ADJ Q LENGTH FL 1 FL 2 CTL/TW D W S KJ KE KM LC L1 L3 L4 Al A3 A4 J N -- -- ----- ----- ------ ---- ---- ------ --- --- - ---- ---- ---- -- -- -- -- --- --- --- ---- ---- 8 1 23.60-t-- C-jN TP_DL H&i L (SEE. PCFEkF-N(F- rl) 2 2 10.9 10.9 23.00 22.00 22.10 .00 12. 36. 3 .00 .00 .00 1 3 0 0 22. 0. 0. .00 .014 2 3 10.9 10.9 37.00 22.10 22.30 .00 12. 36. 1 .00 .20 .00 0 0 0 0 0. 0. 0. .00 .014 STORM DRAIN ANALYSIS RESULTS ---------------------------- LINE Q D W DN DC FLOW SF -FULL V 1 V 2 FL 1 FL 2 HG 1 HG 2 D 1 D 2 TW TW NO (CFS) (IN) (IN) (FT) (FT) TYPE (FT/FT) (FPS) (FPS) (FT) (FT) CALC CALC (FT) (FT) CALC CK ---- ----- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----------- ----- ----- ------ ------ ------ ------ ----- ----- ------ ------ 1 HYDRAULIC GRADE LINE CONTROL = 23.60 2 10.9 12 36 .80 .74 FULL .00433 3.6 3.6 22.00 22.10 23.60 23.70 1.60 1.60 .00 .00 TL-- Z5.3 3 10.9 12 36 .74 .74 FULL .00433 3.6 3.6 22.10 22.30 23.73 23.89 1.63 1.59 24.14 .00 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS --------------------- V 1, FL 1, D 1 AND HG 1 REFER TO DOWNSTREAM END V 2, FL 2, D 2 AND HG 2 REFER TO UPSTREAM END X - DISTANCE IN FEET FROM DOWNSTREAM END TO POINT WHERE HG INTERSECTS SOFFIT IN SEAL CONDITION X(N) DISTANCE IN FEET FROM DOWNSTREAM END TO POINT WHERE WATER SURFACE REACHES NORMAL DEPTH BY EITHER DRAWDOWN OR BACKWATER X(J) - DISTANCE IN FEET FROM DOWNSTREAM END TO POINT WHERE HYDRAULIC JUMP OCCURS IN LINE F(J) - THE COMPUTED FORCE AT THE HYDRAULIC JUMP D(BJ) DEPTH OF WATER BEFORE THE HYDRAULIC JUMP (UPSTREAM SIDE) D(AJ) - DEPTH OF WATER AFTER THE HYDRAULIC JUMP (DOWNSTREAM SIDE) SEAL INDICATES FLOW CHANGES FROM PART TO FULL OR FROM FULL TO PART HJ INDICATES THAT FLOW CHANGES FROM SUPERCRITICAL TO SUBCRITICAL THROUGH A HYDRAULIC JUMP HJU INDICATES THAT HYDRAULIC JUMP OCCURS AT THE JUNCTION AT THE UPSTREAM END OF THE LINE HJD INDICATES THAT HYDRAULIC JUMP OCCURS AT THE JUNCTION AT THE DOWNSTREAM END OF THE LINE ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® 0 11 u L F 11 p APPENDIX D: SUPPLEMENTAL CALCULATIONS FLOW -BY CATCH BASIN CALCULATIONS NODE NO. Q (cfs) y (ft) a (in) Q/L L (ft) Lp (ft) 426 7.6 0.6 2 0.4 19 10 NODE NO. Q (cfs) Lp/L a/y Qp/Q Qp (cfs) Q-bypass (cfs) 426 7.6 0.63 0.3 0.7 5.3 2.3 Q = calculated flow from Rational Method Hydrology (see Appendix B) L = length of catch basin (required) Lp = length of catch basin (provided) y = depth of flow Q/L = value obtained from using Figure 5-10 from the Local Drainage Manual Q-int = Q intercepted at L(provided) Q-bypass = Q bypassed to next downstream catch basin a = depth of local depression Qp = partial flow intercepted at L(provided) PROJECT #: 20548.00 to node 326 ® ® ® M ® M M M ® ® ® ® ® M PROJECT #: 00581.00 SUMP CATCH BASIN CALCULATIONS 25-YEAR STORM NODE NO. Q (cfs) L(provided) (ft) Q/L L(required) (ft) y/h h (ft) y (ft) Q-int. (cfs) 326 5.8+2.3=8.1 7.0 1.2 7.0 0.90 0.6 0.5 8.1 Q = calculated flow from Rational Method Hydrology (see Appendix B) L = length of catch basin y = depth of water (see attached nomograph from OC Local Drainage Manual) h = height of catch basin opening Q-int. = amount of Q intercepted at catch basin length L LL mI II 0 a'R 38•RCP SD� ; ..pper� --- El �k� I r_____-_- �� IIII II. I; I i1 I ' I I I II ----- - IIII '�I � II a I Ills 14oi; -- ----- .I I —_ - I -- — # - z•sn 14 VCP 5 ABVLD YRRP' 6'VCPy' A9AND). yAlI I III II I ! 1 'Qloo=q.�"t p .I I BUT AVENI E � � � I" � Q .R _ I —. _— __ _ __ JB•RCP 50� I I a I - a.l I I � _ I I mllll�l Ed I - I I W I ;I ti I ' ❑ l i � I w AC 7W I I I I I� ❑ b i I ' I f�PACIFIC .� IGHWAY (100' R/W) ----7 PACIIFI& CD' ST HIGHWAY SrO.O26 cO ®5 III .19466'/e`\\� L9-QE—%ACP W ) /�W Wy s.n OsurcxOW WV O it . I t ¢. ¢ t }�m o�Z? c0 t- c3 e A Z" SmNa >- ozi Q o =a >OR w°z >' ui ait ~ R R`� SHEET 1 OF 1 OCE4A Street Half Width = 22' STREET FLOW TABLES Curb Type = A2-6" Flow Flow Flooded Widths Maximum S Conveyance Depth Area Street Parkway for Q/S**.5 ft sgft ft ft Y*V=6 0.20 0.3 4.1 0.0 3.933 3.8 0.21 0.3 4.7 0.0 3.440 4.6 0.22 0.3 5.3 0.0 2.980 5.5 ' 0.23 0.4 5.8 0.0 2.571 6.5 0.24 0.5 6.4 0.0 2.215 7.8 0.25 0.5 7.0 0.0 1.912 9.2 0.26 0.6 7.6 0.0 1.654 10.8 0.27 0.7 8.2 _ 0.0 1.436 12.7 0.28 0.8 8.8 0.0 1.251 14.7 0.29 0.9' 9.4 0.0 1.094 17.0 0.30 1.0' 10.0 0.0 0.961 19.5 0.31 1.1' 10.6 0.0 0.847 22.3 0.32 1.2 11.2 0.0 0.750 25.3 ' 0.33 1.3 11.8 0.0 0.666 28.6 0.34 1.4 12.3 0.0 0.594 32.1 0.35 1.5 12.9 0.0 0.532 36.0 0.36 1.7 13.5 0.0 0.477 40.1 0.37 1.8 14.1 0.0 0.430 44.5 0.38 1.9 14.7 0.0 0.388 49.3 0.39 2.1 15.3 0.0 0.351 54.3 0.40 2.2 15.9 0.0� 0.3I9 59.7 0.41 2.4 16.5 0.0 0.291 65.5 0.42 2.6 17.1 0.0 0.265 71.5 r 0.43 17.7 0.0 0.243 _ 78.0 0.44 2.9 18.2 0.0 0.223 84.8 0_45 3.1 18.8 0.0 0.205 91.9 0.0 0.188 99.5 0.47 3.5 20.0 0.0 0.174 107.4 0.48 3.7 20.6 0.0 0.161 115.7 0.49 3.9 21.2 0.0 0.149 124.4 ' 0.50 4.1 21.8 0.0 0.138 133.5 E X C E E D S C U R B A N D C R 0 W N 0.51 8.7 44.0 0.5 0.129 285.5 0.52 9.2 44.0 1.0 0.119 306.5 0.53 9.6 44.0 1.4 0.110 328.3 0.54 10.1 44.0 1.9 0.102 351.0 0.55 10.6 44.0 2.4 0.095 374.5 0.56 11.1 44.0 2.9 0.089 398.9 0.57 11.6 44.0 3.4 0.083 424.1 0.58 12.1 44.0 3.8 0.077 450.3 0.59 12.6 44.0 4.3 0.072 477.3 0.60 13.1 44.0 4.8 0.068 505.2 ' 0.61 13.7 44.0 5.3 0.064 534.1 0.62 14.2 44.0 5.8 0.060 563.8 0.63 14.8 44.0 6.2 0.056 594.5 0.64 15.4 44.0 6.7 0.053 626.2 0.65 15.9 44.0 7.2 0.050 658.8 0.66 16.5 44.0 7.7 0.047 692.4 R I G H T- 0 F.- W A Y E X C E E D S .r Street Capacity v.9.96 Table 5-2 (B) PARTIAL INTER- CEPTION RATIO FOR INLETS OF LENGTH LESS THAN L 0.05 0.1 LPG 0.'5 1 L CAPACITY OF INLETS FIGURE 5-10 5-39 � ® m ® m ® ® m m m m ® m m m m m m m d m N• � C n N• (D En a 0 o Height of opening (h) in feet rn o c ra : a A �+ A A A th a 'o o w n � � NI iA W � w w � ve tq ®► o� .J � u u O� b � � N :3' P \ w 0 m Height of opening \(h) in inches ♦ x ° \46 N o tu \ d m Q n Capacity per foot of length of opening (Q/L) in cfs per foot b y 1 O N e O00i tv aw ®e 4► ® M to �k o► 03 ° • 0• ee -- p�\ o 9 0 l 1 A 8 p ' e • �.i�� ■�_ . u .�.�11.i.Lid�� r4. - Y Jed d.�L a.r� w �`pr ` \` �%%o In 'N % 's N• zo b \` pq C 1 o` ro Ratio of depth of.water at opening to height of opening (H/h) in ft/ft LA 1-1 I r 7 W ® - N N N W W W '=a= N N N O O O N O O _ra aav ALLow AISLE (D25 FKoM - KE M ASTE�- P-AK of P M RAf,6�E- (SEE NEAP ON FoL-t-DlNl Rec mete). Q Be To 1' x 3' CRL-V cfs, AF-M P- V X-5 C VLV(—::�P-T = IS, 2 cis 16, 2.- R,C = 9,2- cfs 71-1 R5 , j , L Gar 1S THC Yk�--�'�t�:'- Q 25 �k T MOD : J2b (a;E 't6P AT Tf-t T--- EN.0 O f --T-H P,TS . PER. 7}e ASS Rut AT �Jor-� .5 CFS C© tj s Q L2 5-)'JTLj 7716 57-0 i4Z n1 (2 L) tj V t` T? - } r-i e-D T ?94 E L !S ' m b/2 Z 77-- rJ / ,8 DLO c.j �iP ©;:o 774ifT C13 67v77FR, //V 4.Z> 51 ?7 DA3, A—T `l LO C— 4' 7Z CAS-' D N IOC 14 7—*�'— w 717Z _ D N THi7- s TW-&�-7- C) N f,- /00- I e. s-7Z)A1/V( I I I I is J 871 H.. F-7 r—T 1 3-- -12 2-3 32. j 6.0 1 -:7 n 0 ri Y( RM �DRAIN:,;. FACILITIES A407E elnoL -REVISIONS DATE.. DRAWN BY, DATE 1, DRAWN BY m m®® m m® m m®®®® m® m m 5.1 FIGURE A: SITE PLAN 5.2 INSPECTION / MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITIES FOR BMPs PROPERTY OWNER - The property owner will be responsible for this development on -site. They will assure that all applicable BMPs are properly operated and maintained throughout the life of the facility. Owner: CIM Group/ Huntington LLC 6922 Hollywood Blvd. Suite 900 Hollywood, CA 90028 David Martin Phone: 323-860-934 Fax: 323-860-4901 The contractor (once selected) shall be responsible for checking implementation of BMP's every week. The owner's representative will be responsible for checking this implementation once a month. All this information will be sent to the owner for their review weekly. All BMP's listed on this report shall be checked periodically for compliance. If the contractor, owner or any of their representatives is aware of any deficiencies it should be reported immediately for correctness. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH — The City of Huntington Beach will be responsible for the maintenance of the off -site improvements. City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 1 1 APPENDIX E NOISE MODELING DATA I 1 u I L a L I L L 0 L h ON -SITE TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS AND NOISE CONTOURS Project Number: 10363-00 Project Name: Huntington Beach 104-105 Background Information Model Description: FHWA Highway Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) with California Vehicle Noise (CALVENO) Emission Levels. Source of Traffic Volumes: KAKU Associates Community Noise Descriptor: Ld,,: 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% Analysis Condition Design Vehicle Mix Distance from Centerline of Roadway Roadway Name Median ADT Speed Alpha Medium Heavy CNEL at Distance to Contour Roadway Segment Lanes Width Volume (mph) Factor Trucks Trucks 100 Feet 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL Existing Traffic Volumes Main Street PCH to Walnut Ave 2 0 3,000 25 0 1.8% 0.7%, 52.4 - 17 Walnut Avenue 6th St to Main St 2 0 10,600 25 0 1.8% 0.7% 57.8 19 61 6th Street PCH to Walnut Ave 2 0 2,000 25 0 1.8% 0.7%, 50.6 - - - PCH 6th St to Main St 6 12 40,000 35 0 1.8% 0.7% 66.5 45 142 448 Future Plus Project Traffic Volumes Main Street PCH to Walnut Ave 2 0 4,100 25 0 1.8% 0.7% 53.7 - - 23 Walnut Avenue 6th St to Main St 2 0 3,900 25 0 1.8% 0.7% 53.5 22 6th Street PCH to Walnut Ave 2 0 4,900 25 0 1.8% 0.7% 54.5 - - 28 PCH 6th St to Main St 6 12 47,800 35 0 1.8% 0.7% 67.3 54 169 535 General Plan Buildout Plus Project with Bridges Traffic Volumes Main Street PCH to Walnut Ave 2 0 7,500 25 0 1.8% 0.7% 56.3 - 14 43 Walnut Avenue 6th St to Main St 2 0 3,300 25 0 1.8% 0.7% 52.8 - 19 6th Street PCH to Walnut Ave 2 0 8,800 25 0 1.8%, 0.7% 57.0 - 16 50 PCH 6th St to Main St 6 12 50,700 35 0 1.8% 0.7% 67.5 57 180 568 General Plan Buildout Plus Project without Bridges Traffic Volumes Main Street PCH to Walnut Ave 2 0 7,500 25 0 1.8% 0.7% 56.3 14 43 Walnut Avenue 6th St to Main St 2 0 3,700 25 0 1.8% 0.7% 53.3 - 21 6th Street PCH to Walnut Ave 2 0 8,600 25 0 1.8% 0.7% 56.9 - 16 49 PCH 6th St to Main St 6 12 .50,100 35 0 1.8%, 0.7% 67.5 56 177 561 Distance is from the centerline of the roadway segment to the receptor location. = contour is located within the roadway lanes. L On -Site Noise Contours.xls EIP Associates 7/16/02 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 Scenaho(s): Existing and Future Traffic Volumes Source of Traffic Volumes: KAKU Associates Community Noise Descriptor: L J,: CNEL: X Assumed 24-Hour Traffic Distribution: Day Evening Night Total ADT Volumes 77.70 % 12.70 % 9.60 % Medium -Duly Trucks 87.43 % 5.05 % T52 % Heavy -Duty Trucks 89.10 % 2.84 % 8.06 % Traffic Noise Levels Analysis Condition Roadway Name Existing Traffic Volumes Pacific Coast Highway 17th to 9th 9th to 6th Main to 1st Beach Boulevard PCH to Atlanta Atlanta to Indianapolis Indianapolis to Adams Lake Street Adams to Indianapolis Indianapolis Avenue Lake to Huntington Huntington to Beach Beach to Newland Atlanta Avenue Newland to Beach Beach to Huntington Huntington to 1st 1st to Lake Lake to Main Main Street 6th to Palm Palm Avenue 17th to 9th 17th to 9th 9th Street Palm to Orange Orange to Olive Olive to Walnut Walnut to PCH Orange Avenue Main to 6th 6th to 9th Walnut Avenue 9th to 6th 6th to Main Olive Avenue Main to 6th 6th to 9th 6th Street Lake to Main Main to Orange Orange to Olive Olive to Walnut Walnut to PCH Future Pius Project Pacific Coast Highway 17th to 9th 9th to 61h Main to 1st Beach Boulevard PCH to Atlanta Atlanta to Indianapolis Peak Design Dist. from Barrier Vehicle Mix Peak Hour 24-Hour Median Hour ADT Speed Center to Alpha Alin. Medium Heavy dB(A) dB(A) Land Use Lanes Width Volume Volume (mph) Receptor' Factor dB(A) Trucks Trucks L,q CNEL Multi -Family Residential 4 12 0 40,000 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 69.0 Multi -Family Residential 4 12 0 40,000 35 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 67.7 Multi -Family Residential 6 12 0 40,000 35 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 68.0 Single Family Residential 6 12 0 13,000 35 100 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 61.6 Single Family Residential 6 18 0 21,000 40 100 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 65.1 Single and Multi -Family Resir 6 18 0 29,000 40 100 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 66.5 Single Family Residential 2 12 0 6,000 35 50 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 61.1 Single Family Residential 2 0 0 5,000 30 50 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 59.2 Single Family Residential 2 0 0 7,000 40 50 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 63.0 Single Family Residential 4 0 0 7,000 30 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 59.0 Multi -Family Residential 4 12 0 16,000 35 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 63.7 Single and Multi -Family Resit 2 12 0 16,000 35 50 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 65.4 Single and Multi -Family Resir 2 0 0 16,000 30 50 0 0 1,8 % 0.7% 0.0 64.2 Single and Multi -Family Resit 2 0 0 16,000 30 50 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 64.2 Single Family Residential 2 0 0 16,000 30 50 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 64.2 Single Family Residential 2 0 0 3,000 30 50 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 56.9 Single and Multi -Family Resir 2 0 0 13,900 30 50 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 63.6 School 2 0 0 13,900 30 125 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 59.6 Single Family Residential 2 0 0 1,300 30 40 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 54.3 Single Family Residential 2 0 0 1,300 30 40 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 54.3 Single Family Residential 2 0 0 1,300 30 40 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 54.3 Multi -Family Residential 2 0 0 1,300 30 40 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 54.3 Multi -Family Residential 2 0 0 2,900 30 40 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 57.8 Single Family Residential 2 0 0 2,900 30 40 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 57.8 Single Family Residential 2 0 0 1,500 30 40 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 54.9 Single and Multi -Family Resir 2 0 0 3,600 30 40 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 58.7 Single Family Residential 2 0 0 3,600 30 40 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 58.7 Single Family Residential 2 0 0 1,500 30 40 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 54.9 Single Family Residential 2 0 0 3,200 30 40 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 58.2 Single and Multi -Family Resii 2 0 0 2,100 30 40 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 56.4 Single Family Residential 2 0 0 5,300 30 40 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 60.4 Single Family Residential 2 0 0 6,200 30 40 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 61.1 Mufti -Family Residential 2 0 0 4,700 30 40 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 59.9 Multi -Family Residential 4 12 0 46,500 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 69.7 Multi -Family Residential 4 12 0 46,500 35 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 68.3 Multi -Family Residential 6 12 0 44,300 35 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 68.5 Single Family Residential 6 12 0 24,300 35 100 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 64.3 Single Family Residential 6 18 0 31,200 40 100 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 66.8 Off -Site Noise Levels.xls EIP Associates 7/16/02 0 Indianapolis to Adams Single and Multi -Family Resit 6 18 0 37,000 40 100 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 67.6 Lake Street Adams to Indianapolis Single Family Residential 2 12 0 10,100 35 50 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 63.4 Indianapolis Avenue Lake to Huntington Single Family Residential 2 0 0 1,600 30 50 0 0 1.8 % 0.7 % 0.0 61.0 Huntington to Beach Single Family Residential 2 0 0 7,600 40 50 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 63.4 ' Beach to Newland Single Family Residential 4 0 0 7,600 30 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 59.3 Atlanta Avenue Newland to Beach Multi -Family Residential 4 12 0 19,800 35 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 64.6 Beach to Huntington Huntington to 1st Single and Multi -Family Resit Single and Multi -Family Resir 2 2 12 0 0 0 19,800 19,800 35 30 50 50 0 0 0 0 1.8% 1.8% 0.7% 0.7% 0.0 0.0 66.3 65.1 1st to Lake Single and Multi -Family Resir 2 0 0 19,800 30 50 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 65.1 Lake to Main Single Family Residential 2 0 0 19,800 30 50 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 65.1 Main Street 6th to Palm Single Family Residential 2 0 0 4,100 30 50 0 0 -1.8% 0.7% 0.0 58.3 Palm Avenue 17th to 9th Single and Multi -Family Resir 2 0 0 14,500 30 50 0 0 1.8 % 0.7% 0.0 63.8 17th to 9th School 2 0 0 14,500 30 125 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 59.8 9th Street Palm to Orange Single Family Residential 2 0 0 1,300 30 40 0 0 1.8 % 0.7% 0.0 54.3 ' Orange to Olive Single Family Residential 2 0 0 1,300 30 40 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 54.3 Olive to Walnut Single Family Residential 2 0 0 1,300 30 40 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 54.3 Walnut to PCH Multi -Family Residential 2 0 0 1,300 30 40 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 54.3 Orange Avenue Main to 6th Multi -Family Residential 2 0 0 3,100 25 40 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 56.5 ' 6th to 9th Single Family Residential 2 0 0 3,100 25 40 0 0 1.8% 0.7 % 0.0 56.5 Walnut Avenue 9th to 6th Single Family Residential 2 0 0 1,600 25 40 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 53.6 6th to Main Single and Multi -Family Resir 2 0 0 3,900 25 40 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 57.5 Olive Avenue ' Main to 6th Single Family Residential 2 0 0 3,900 25 40 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 57.5 6th to 9th Single Family Residential 2 0 0 1,200 25 40 0 0 1.8% 0.7 % 0.0 52.4 6th Street Lake to Main Single Family Residential 2 0 0 3,200 25 40 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 56.7 Main to Orange Single and Multi -Family Resir 2 0 0 2,100 25 40 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 54.8 Orange to Olive Single Family Residential 2 0 0 5,200 25 40 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 58.8 Olive to Walnut Single Family Residential 2 0 0 6,100 25 40 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 59.5 Walnut to PCH Multi -Family Residential 2 0 0 4,900 25 40 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 58.5 General Plan Plus Project with Bridges ' Pacific Coast Highway 17th to 9th Multi -Family Residential 4 12 0 47,800 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 69.8 9th to 6th Multi -Family Residential 4 12 0 48,000 35 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 68.5 Main to 1st Multi -Family Residential 6 12 0 50.700 35 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 69.1 Beach Boulevard PCH to Atlanta Single Family Residential 6 12 0 26,000 35 100 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 64.6 Atlanta to Indianapolis Single Family Residential 6 18 0 33,700 40 100 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 67.2 Indianapolis to Adams Single and Multi -Family Resir 6 18 0 36,900 40 100 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 67.6 Lake Street Adams to Indianapolis Single Family Residential 2 12 0 10,000 35 50 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 63.3 ' Indianapolis Avenue Lake to Huntington Single Family Residential 2 0 0 7,500 30 50 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 60.9 Huntington to Beach Single Family Residential 2 0 0 7,500 40 50 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 63.3 Beach to Newland Single Family Residential 4 0 0 8,800 30 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 60.0 Atlanta Avenue Newland to Beach Multi -Family Residential 4 12 0 20,200 35 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 64.7 Beach to Huntington Single and Multi-Famity Resii 2 12 0 19,000 35 50 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 66.1 Huntington to 1st Single and Multi -Family Resit 2 0 0 19,000 30 50 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 65.0 1st to Lake Single and Multi -Family Resir 2 0 0 3,200 30 50 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 57.2 Lake to Main Single Family Residential 2 0 0 3,200 30 50 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 57.2 Main Street Orange to 6th Multi -Family Residential 2 0 0 7,500 30 50 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 60.9 Palm Avenue 17th to 9th Single and Multi -Family Resir 2 0 0 14,400 30 50 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 63.8 17th to 9th School 2 0 0 14,400 30 125 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 59.8 9th Street Palm to Orange Single Family Residential 2 0 0 1,300 30 40 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 54.3 Orange to Olive Single Family Residential 2 0 0 1,300 30 40 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 54.3 Olive to Walnut Walnut to PCH Single Family Residential Multi -Family Residential 2 2 0 0 0 0 1,300 1,300 30 30 40 40 0 0 0 0 1.8% 1.8% 0.7% 0.7% 0.0 0.0 54.3 54.3 Orange Avenue Main to 6th Multi -Family Residential 2 0 0 3,200 25 40 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 56.7 6th to gth Single Family Residential 2 0 0 3,200 25 40 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 56.7 Walnut Avenue ' 9th to 6th Single Family Residential 2 0 0 1,600 25 40 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 53.6 6th to Main Single and Multi -Family Resir 2 0 0 3,600 25 40 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 57.2 Olive Avenue Main to 6th Single Family Residential 2 0 0 3,600 25 40 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 57.2 6th to 9th Single Family Residential 2 0 0 1,200 25 40 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 52.4 6th Street ' Off -Site Noise Levels.xls UP Associates 7/16/02 Lake to Main Single Family Residential 2 0 Main to Orange Single and Multi -Family Resii 2 0 Orange to Olive Single Family Residential 2 0 Olive to Walnut Single Family Residential 2 0 Walnut to PCH Multi -Family Residential 2 0 General Plan Plus Project without Bridges Pacific Coast Highway 17th to 91h Multi -Family Residential 4 12 9th to 6th Multi -Family Residential 4 12 Main to 1st Multi -Family Residential 6 12 Beach Boulevard PCH to Atlanta Single Family Residential 6 12 Atlanta to Indianapolis Single Family Residential 6 18 Indianapolis to Adams Single and Multi -Family Resii 6 18 Lake Street Adams to Indianapolis Single Family Residential 2 12 Indianapolis Avenue Lake to Huntington Single Family Residential 2 0 Huntington to Beach Single Family Residential 2 0 Beach to Newland Single Family Residential 4 0 Atlanta Avenue Newland to Beach Multi -Family Residential 4 12 Beach to Huntington Single and Multi -Family Resii 2 12 Huntington to 1st Single and Multi -Family Resk 2 0 1st to Lake Single and Multi -Family Resi. 2 0 Lake to Main Single Family Residential 2 0 Main Street 6th to Palm Single Family Residential 2 0 Palm Avenue 17th to 9th Single and Multi -Family Resi( 2 0 17th to 9th School 2 0 9th Street Palm to Orange Single Family Residential 2 0 Orange to Olive Single Family Residential 2 0 Olive to Walnut Single Family Residential 2 0 Walnut to PCH Multi -Family Residential 2 0 Orange Avenue Main to 6th Multi -Family Residential 2 0 6th to 9th Single Family Residential 2 0 Walnut Avenue 9th to 6th Single Family Residential 2 0 6th to Main Single and Multi -Family Resin 2 0 Olive Avenue Main to 6th Single Family Residential 2 0 6th to 9th Single Family Residential 2 0 6th Street Lake to Main Single Family Residential 2 0 Main to Orange Single and Multi -Family Resu 2 0 Orange to Olive Single Family Residential 2 0 Olive to Walnut Single Family Residential 2 0 Walnut to PCH Multi -Family Residential 2 0 r Distance is from the centerline of the roadway segment to the receptor location 0 3,200 25 40 0 0 1.8 % 0.7% 0.0 56.7 0 2,100 25 40 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 54.8 0 8,800 25 40 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 61.0 0 5,000 25 40 0 0 1.8 % 0.7% 0.0 58.6 0 5,900 25 40 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 59.3 0 47,400 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 69.8 0 47,600 35 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% O.D 68.5 0 46,200 35 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 68.7 0 25,600 35 100 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 64.6 0 33,700 40 100 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 67.2 0 37,0W 40 100 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 67.6 0 10,100 35 50 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 63.4 0 7,600 30 50 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 61.0 0 7,600 40 50 0 0 1.8% 0.7% OD 63.4 0 8,900 30 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 60.0 0 20,200 35 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 64.7 0 19,000 35 50 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 66.1 0 3.100 30 50 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 57.1 0 3,100 30 50 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 57.1 0 3,100 30 50 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 57.1 0 7,500 30 50 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 60.9 0 14,500 30 50 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 63.8 0 14,500 30 125 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 59.8 0 1,300 30 40 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 54.3 0 1,300 30 40 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 54.3 0 1,300 30 40 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 54.3 0 1,300 30 40 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 54.3 0 3,100 25 40 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 56.5 0 3,100 25 40 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 56.5 0 1,600 25 40 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 53.6 0 3,700 25 40 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 57.3 0 1,200 25 40 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 52.4 0 3,700 25 40 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 57.3 0 3,200 25 40 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 56.7 0 2,100 25 40 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 54.8 0 8,600 25 40 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 60.9 0 3,800 25 40 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 57.4 0 4,900 25 40 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 58.5 Off -Site Noise Levels.xls EIP Associates 7/16/02 IAPPENDIX F UTILITIES TECHNICAL REPORTS L 11 1 n C I L C 1 May 15 02 03:16p Planning Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Phone: 714-536-5596 Fax 714-374-1529 To: Nell Brower From: Jane James Fair 310-268-8175 Date: May 15, 2002 Phone: Pages: 2 Re: The Strand Water Supply Assessment CC: David Martin 323-860-4901 ❑ Urgent ❑ For Review 0 Please Comment ❑ Please RePly ❑ Please Recycle Comments: Neill: The attached memo from Public Works Water Division is intended to complete your informational needs on water supply for The Strand EIR. Please let me know if you have any questions or if you need any additional information. Jane James TETRA TECH, INC. Infrastructure Services Group 1 January 25, 2002 ' Ms. Debbie Debow City of Huntington Beach Department of Public Works 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Reference: Water Analysis for the Strand Development Dear Ms. Debow: Tetra Tech has performed a water analysis for The Strand, the proposed development in downtown Huntington Beach as requested by the Water Division of the City of Huntington Beach's Department of Public Works (Water Division). In the analysis, which is documented in this letter report, the effects new water demands at the proposed development will have on the City's water distribution system were evaluated. Estimated development demands were input into the City's H2Onet hydraulic model of the distribution system to analyze pressures in this area and to determine if water system improvements beyond the minimum improvements already identified by the City are required to satisfy the requirements outlined in this letter report. Development Location and Description iThe proposed development is a 2.97-acre site located in downtown Huntington Beach. As shown on Figure 1, which is attached, the site is bordered by Sixth Street on the northwest, the alley between Main Street and Fifth Street on the southeast, Walnut Avenue on the northeast, and Pacific Coast Highway on the southwest. The project site is designated Mixed Use in the City's General Plan. The zoning for the property is Downtown Specific Plan — District #3 — Coastal Zone. District #3 is designated for Visitor Serving Commercial uses. The project will include four separate buildings ranging from two to four stories with a total of 231,880 gross square feet of floor area. Uses will include 121,000 square feet of commercial space and a 110,880 square -foot hotel. Minimum Changes/Improvements to be made by Developer M The Water Division has informed the developer, CIM Group (Developer), that minimum changes/improvements to the water system will need to be made by the Developer to accommodate the proposed development including: 16241 Laguna Canyon Road, Suite 200, Irvine, CA 92618 Tel 949.727.7099 Fax 949.727.7097 www.tetratech.com itTETRA TECH, INC. infrastructure Services Group Ms. Debbie Debow January 25, 2002 Page 2 1. The existing public water pipelines located within the proposed project area shall be removed per Water Division standards including: (a) Approximately 500 linear feet (If) of 6-inch pipeline located in the alley north of and parallel with Pacific Coast Highway. (b) Approximately 200 if of 12-inch pipeline in 5`h Street. (c) Approximately 250 if of 8-inch/4-inch pipeline located in the alley west of and parallel with 5th Street. 2. At a minimum, the Developer shall construct the following new water pipelines: (a) Approximately 450 if of 8-inch water pipeline in Walnut Avenue (between 6`h Street and Main Street). (b) Approximately 900 if of 12-inch water pipeline in 6th Street (between Olive Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway). These changes/improvements are shown on Figure 1 with the pipelines to be removed color coded green and the pipelines to be constructed color coded blue. These changes/improvements are minimum requirements that are independent of additional changes/improvements that could result from the water analysis conducted herein. Demand Estimates and Performance Criteria The Developer, through their subconsultant J & S Engineering, has estimated the following demands for the proposed development: 1. Average -day water demand: 33 gpm 2. Maximum -day water demand: 42 gpm 3. Peak -hour water demand: 174 gpm The large peak -hour demand is primarily attributed to the hotel planned within the proposed development. Average -day and peak -hour model simulations were run with the existing system model to determine water system performance with inclusion of the respective estimated demands for the proposed development. The existing system model simulates current development and water demands and the current water system. The City also has an ultimate system model. The ultimate system model incorporates system demands estimated to occur when Huntington Beach reaches full development in the future (approximately 20 years from now). The ultimate system model also incorporates improvements TETRATECH, INC. Infrastructure Services Group TOM 1* Ms. Debbie Debow January 25, 2002 Page 3 recommended in the 2000 Water Master Plan including the proposed Southeast Reservoir, 16" and 24" transmission pipelines from this reservoir to the downtown loop (water main that loops downtown), and upgraded and new cross connections within the downtown piping grid. Simulation results from the existing model are deemed more significant than results obtained from the ultimate system model because the ultimate system is approximately 20 years in the future. However, the same simulations run with the existing system model were run with the ultimate system model to check future system performance with the proposed development included. To be more conservative, the ultimate model was run with the future Southeast Reservoir closed. The following pressure requirements at the proposed development and within the immediate development area, i.e. the existing area surrounding the proposed development, were imposed in analyzing the system with the proposed development demands included: Average -Day Simulations: Pressures in the immediate area of the proposed development must not drop by more than 3 psi. Pressures in the proposed development area including the proposed development.must not drop below 50 psi. Peak -hour Simulations: Pressures in the immediate area of the proposed development must not drop by more than 5 psi. Pressures in the proposed development area including the proposed development must not drop below 40 psi. The City of Huntington Beach Fire Department requires a 4,000-gpm fireflow at the proposed development using four hydrants while maintaining a minimum residual pressure of 20 psi at each the four hydrants. Because a fire can occur on any given day, the required fireflow at the proposed development was run with maximum -day demands occurring elsewhere throughout the water system. The pressures discussed herein are to be expected at the pipeline located in the street. It is the developer's responsibility to evaluate the pressure service requirement within the buildings, specifically the multi -story buildings. Analysis Methodology The minimum changes/improvements as required by the Water Division and as shown on Figure 1 were input into the computer model. In making a model simulation, 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. Om TETFtATECH, INC. Infrastructure Services Group ,b' Ms. Debbie Debow January 25, 2002 Page 4 Analysis Results Average -Day Demand —Existing System Model Existing pressures in the area of the proposed development during average -day demand ranges from 64 to 67 psi. A simulation was run with average -day demands throughout the existing system and the estimated average -day demand of 33 gpm placed at the proposed development site. The results showed pressures of 66 to 67 psi at the proposed development site, with other pressures in the immediate area ranging from 64 to 67 psi, i.e. no noticeable drop from existing pressures. All pressure requirements were met without the need for additional piping improvements. Peak -Hour Demand — Existing_System Model Existing pressures in the area of the proposed development during peak -hour demand ranges from 56 to 59 psi). A simulation was run with peak -hour demands throughout the existing system and the estimated average -day demand of 174 gpm placed at the proposed development site. The results showed pressures of 55 to 57 psi at the proposed development site, with other pressures in the immediate area ranging from 53 to 56 psi, i.e. a drop of about 3 psi. All pressure requirements were met without the need for additional piping improvements. Fire Flow plus Maximum -Day Demand — Existing System Model A simulation was run with maximum -day demands throughout the ultimate system and the estimated fire -flow demand of 4,000 gpm allocated between the four hydrants located adjacent to the proposed development as shown on Figure 1. The results showed pressures of 55 to 56 psi at the four hydrants, with other pressures in the immediate area ranging from 55 to 58 psi. The pressure requirement of a 20-psi residual pressure at each hydrant was met without the need for additional piping improvements. Average -Day Demand — Ultimate System Model Ultimate pressures without the proposed development in the area of the proposed development during average -day demand ranges from 63 to 66 psi. A simulation was run with average -day demands throughout the ultimate system and the estimated average -day demand of 33 gpm placed at the proposed development site. The results showed pressures of 65 to 66 psi at the proposed development site, with other pressures in the immediate area ranging from 63 to 66 psi, i.e. no change from the ultimate estimated pressures without the proposed development. All pressure requirements were met without the need for additional piping improvements. I 0 C I I C P TETRA TECH, INC. Infrastructure Services Group Ms. Debbie Debow January 25, 2002 Page 5 Peak -Hour Demand — Ultimate Svstem Model Ultimate pressures without the proposed development in the area of the proposed development during peak -hour demand ranges from 57 to 60 psi. A simulation was run with peak -hour demands throughout the ultimate system and the estimated peak -hour demand of 174 gpm placed at the proposed development site. The results showed pressures of 59 to 60 psi at the proposed development site, with other pressures in the immediate area ranging from 57 to 60 psi, i.e. no change from the ultimate estimated pressures without the proposed development. All pressure requirements were met without the need for additional piping improvements. It should be noted that the pressures in this area are approximately 4 psi higher in the ultimate system compared to the existing system because of the proposed upgraded and new cross connections within the downtown piping grid. Fire Flow plus Maximum -Day Demand — Ultimate Svstem A simulation was run with maximum -day demands throughout the ultimate system and the estimated fire -flow demand of 4,000 gpm allocated between the four hydrants located adjacent to the proposed development as shown on Figure 1. The results showed pressures of 58 to 59 psi at the four hydrants, with other pressures in the immediate area ranging from 58 to 60 psi. The pressure requirement of a 20-psi residual pressure at each hydrant was met without the need for additional piping improvements. The model simulation results are attached.. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Robert Brandom, P.E. &J. d,Project Engineer g Engineer RJO/RGB/tic JA0600\00 12\100 1 do-rgb.doc (300) 0 FESSI ``, Attachments CO *.zO �a c W No. 9t006 Exp. 3-39.03 9% C L Fi ctAKE- PALM AMALY51> PoR. /s xt N T�> WAT[-% v1poj NEW WATER MAIN WATER MAIN) TO 6E KEPADVEb, FEMIAF-TER OF 359 PM Tll EC j"K S, 452 451 0 I r C I L H I I Hydqua.rpt City of Huntington Beach Water Master Plan - Existing Conditions Existing Model - Average Day Demand Number of Pipes ................... 18766 Number of Nodes ................... 17459 Number of Tanks ................... 5 Number of Pumps ................... 8 Number of Valves .................. 7 Headloss Formula .................. Hazen -Williams Hydraulic Timestep ................ 1.00 hrs Hydraulic Accuracy ................ 0.010000 Maximum Trials .................... 100 Quality Analysis .................. None Specific Gravity .................. 1.00 Kinematic Viscosity ............... 1.10e-005 sq ft/sec Chemical Diffusivity .............. 1.30e-008 sq ft/sec Vapor Pressure .................... 8.40e-001 ft Total Duration .................... 0.00 hrs Hydraulic Convergence at 00:00 hrs: Trial 1 2.135904 accuracy PRV 30028 switched from OPEN to ACTIVE FCV 30062 switched from ACTIVE to OPEN FCV 30064 switched from ACTIVE to OPEN FCV 30082 switched from ACTIVE to OPEN FCV 30084 switched from ACTIVE to OPEN FCV 30090 switched from ACTIVE to OPEN Trial 2 0.854721 accuracy FCV 30064 switched from OPEN to ACTIVE FCV 30084 switched from OPEN to ACTIVE Pipe 190667 switched from OPEN to CLOSED Pipe 190671 switched from OPEN to CLOSED Trial 3 3.146680 accuracy PRV 30028 switched from ACTIVE to OPEN FCV 30082 switched from OPEN to ACTIVE FCV 30090 switched from OPEN to ACTIVE Trial 4 0.038948 accuracy PRV 30028 switched from OPEN to ACTIVE FCV 30064 switched from ACTIVE to OPEN FCV 30082 switched from ACTIVE to OPEN FCV 30084 switched from ACTIVE to OPEN FCV 30090 switched from ACTIVE to OPEN Pipe 190671 switched from CLOSED to OPEN Trial 5 1.005464 accuracy FCV 30084 switched from OPEN to ACTIVE FCV 30090 switched from OPEN to ACTIVE Trial 6 5.547637 accuracy Page 1 Hydqua.rpt PRV 30028 switched from ACTIVE to OPEN FCV 30082 switched from OPEN to ACTIVE Pipe 190641 switched from OPEN to CLOSED Pipe 190667 switched from CLOSED to OPEN Pipe 190671 switched from OPEN to CLOSED Trial 7 1.176679 accuracy PRV 30028 switched from OPEN to ACTIVE FCV 30064 switched from OPEN to ACTIVE FCV 30082 switched from ACTIVE to OPEN FCV 30084 switched from ACTIVE to OPEN FCV 30090 switched from ACTIVE to OPEN Trial 8 1.176451 accuracy PRV 30028 switched from ACTIVE to OPEN FCV 30082 switched from OPEN to ACTIVE FCV 30090 switched from OPEN to ACTIVE Pipe 190641 switched from CLOSED to OPEN Pipe 190671 switched from CLOSED to OPEN Pipe 190685 switched from OPEN to CLOSED Trial 9 5.526619 accuracy PRV 30028 switched from OPEN to ACTIVE FCV 30064 switched from ACTIVE to OPEN FCV 30082 switched from ACTIVE to OPEN FCV 30084 switched from OPEN to ACTIVE Trial 10 1.176241 accuracy PRV 30028 switched from ACTIVE to OPEN FCV 30062 switched from OPEN to ACTIVE FCV 30082 switched from OPEN to ACTIVE Pipe 190641 switched from OPEN to CLOSED Pipe 190685 switched from CLOSED to OPEN Trial 11 19.134779 accuracy PRV 30028 switched from OPEN to ACTIVE FCV 30062 switched from ACTIVE to OPEN FCV 30082 switched from ACTIVE to OPEN FCV 30084 switched from ACTIVE to OPEN FCV 30090 switched from ACTIVE to OPEN Trial 12 1.173502 accuracy FCV 30064 switched from OPEN to ACTIVE Trial 13 1.159573 accuracy PRV 30028 switched from ACTIVE to OPEN FCV 30090 switched from OPEN to ACTIVE Trial 14 1.118434 accuracy Trial 15 0.999230 accuracy Trial 16 : 0.794307 accuracy Trial 17 : 0.553941 accuracy Trial 18 : 0.290187 accuracy Trial 19 : 0.101490 accuracy Trial 20 : 0.027662 accuracy Trial 21 : 0.005587 accuracy Pipe 190641 switched from CLOSED to OPEN Pipe 190667 switched from OPEN to CLOSED Trial 22 : 0.008095 accuracy Page 2 Hydqua.rpt PRV 30028 switched from OPEN to ACTIVE Trial 23 : 0.080035 accuracy ' FCV 30064 switched from ACTIVE to OPEN FCV 30084 switched from OPEN to ACTIVE ' Trial 24 FCV 30090 switched : 0.277422 accuracy from ACTIVE to OPEN FCV 30064 switched from OPEN to ACTIVE Trial 25 : 0.166190 accuracy Trial 26 : 0.013463 accuracy Trial 27 : 0.000766 accuracy Pipe 190671 switched from OPEN to CLOSED Trial 28 : 0.003661 accuracy FCV 30064 switched from ACTIVE to OPEN Trial 29 : 0.002014 accuracy 1 Hydraulic Status: Balanced 29 trials (0.002014 accuracy) at-0.0583 gpm Flow Supplied 21100.00 gpm Flow Demanded 21764.00 gpm Flow Stored -637.85 gpm Tank 20107 Closed (166.32 ft level) Tank 20109 Emptying (120.12 ft level) Tank 20111 Emptying (173.25 ft level) Tank 20115 Closed (173.25 ft level) Tank 20117 Closed (120.12 ft level) Pipe CV 10538 12076 Closed Closed CV 15809 Closed CV 15878 Closed CV 15920 Closed CV 190323 Closed Pipe 190675 Closed Pipe 190699 Closed ' Pipe 3151 Closed CV 3175 Closed CV Pump 3312 50043 Closed Closed (0.00 setting) Pump 50045 Closed (0.00 setting) Pump 50047 Closed (0.00 setting) Pump 50049 Open (1.00 setting) Pump 50051 Closed (0.00 setting) Pump 50127 Open (1.00 setting) Pump 50129 Open (1.00 setting) Pump 50131 Open (1.00 setting) PRV 30028 Active (75.00 psi setting) PRV 30056 Closed FCV 30062 Cannot deliver flow (1.00 gpm setting) FCV 30064 Cannot deliver flow (710.00 gpm setting) FCV 30082 Cannot deliver flow (20.00 gpm setting) Page 3 k 1 t Hydqua.rpt FCV 30084 Active (1.00 gpm setting) FCV 30090 Cannot deliver flow (20.00 gpm setting) *** WARNING: FCV 30062 - Cannot deliver flow at 00:00 hrs. *** *** WARNING: WARNING: FCV FCV 30064 30082 - Cannot - Cannot deliver deliver flow flow at 00:00 at 00:00 hrs. hrs. *** WARNING: FCV 30090 - Cannot deliver flow at 00:00 hrs. *************************************** Warning/Error Messages during Run *************************************** ** Retrieving Network Data ** 1 ** Simulating Network Hydraulics ** at time: 00:00 *** WARNING: FCV 30062 - Cannot deliver flow at 00:00 hrs. *** WARNING: FCV 30064 - Cannot deliver flow at 00:00 hrs. *** WARNING: FCV 30082 - Cannot deliver flow at 00:00 hrs. *** WARNING: FCV 30090 - Cannot deliver flow at 00:00 hrs. ** Warning conditions exist, please check Output.Report for details 1 7 I 7 11 Page 4 7 C L L City of Huntington Beach - Existing Model: Avers a Day Demand 011iPUTa - QUIPIJT :DEMAND `:ElEV`A�ON`.REE O�UiP O O , a 'y> 1 t •e.' 1® yy,, .�C`�S��e,Y� \ ,y-8.a`/ `), - � y. 1 .4ty�""v`{a" T'�,,.,*�� 16611 3.21 28.42 177.86 64.78 16614 3.21 28.48 177.86 64.76 0.0 16725 3.21 26.61 177.85 65.56 16729 3.21 26.61 177.85 65.56 16731 0.00 30.97 179.00 64.17 16742 0.00 30.47 179.00 64.39 7 tx 16750 1.40 25.98 177.73 65.78 $ 16752 1.40 25.95 177.73 65.79 4 16768 1.40 30.11 178.61 64.38 16769 0.00 30.15 178.98 64.52 16794 1.40 29.88 178.07 64.24 12 16802 1.40 28.80 178.53 64.91 T3:x' 16803 1.40 26.48 177.84 65.62 16809 1.40 28.73 178.53 64.94 16815 1.40 29.93 178.07 64.22 16826 1.40 26.11 177.96 65.83 16827 1.40 29.33 178.08 64.48 r 1;,FW 16831 1.40 26.17 177.96 65.80 16837 1.40 29.36 178.08 64.47 16849 1.40 23.80 178.00 66.85 16854 1.40 23.77 178.00 66.86 16855 1.40 25.21 177.89 66.19 16857 1.40 25.20 177.89 66.19 16867 1.40 29.94 178.07 64.21 16893 1.40 25.64 178.26 66.16 16896 1.40 25.64 178.26 66.16 2JMR 16903 1.40 25.60 178.26 66.18 16907 0.00 29.88 178.15 64.27 16909 1.40 24.60 177.96 66.48 16911 0.00 29.80 178.97 64.67 16927 1.40 25.81 178.26 66.09 ;x 32 ' 16934 1.40 23.26 178.00 67.08 . °„33 ., ::> 16935 1.40 29.52 178.07 64.39 34 " 16946 0.00 29.22 178.15 64.56 16947 1.40 29.14 178.14 64.59 36.. 16953 1.40 23.01 178.00 67.19 16954 1.40 22.85 178.00 67.26 35 . '. 16961 1.40 27.17 178.00 65.38 39:" v 16962 1.40 26.76 178.00 65.56 , 1 Date: Wednesday, January 16, 2002, Time: 16:32:36, Page 1 City of Huntington Beach - Existing Model: Ave ra a Day Demand s t•� �' "ti IifTANDE ELEVATION`" CRDEr �PRESSURz l!.�. . •�!ps.+lr�',®y� � (gym`■ t `■ C[]c t, 40 16%9 1.40 26.39 178.14 65.78 17020 1.40 26.50 178.13 65.73 17023 1.40 26.50 178.13 65.73 w 17025 1.40 26.47 178.13 65.75 17032 0.00 25.53 178.09 66.14 17035 0.00 25.56 178.09 66.12 Q 17042 1.40 23.24 178.00 67.09 47f ' f 17043 1.40 26.78 178.10 65.60 17045 1.40 26.42 178.13 65.77 `494 17046 1.40 26.77 178.10 65.60 17047 1.40 26.43 178.13 65.76 17051 0.00 26.49 178.13 65J4 17052 1.40 23.24 178.02 67.10 kx< 17056 1.40 23.10 178.02 67.16 54 xr 17080 1.40 26.50 178.09 65.71 17082 1.40 26.50 178.13 65.73 56:::. ' 17090 1.40 26.50 178.09 65.71 57j 17117 1.40 26.50 178.08 65.71 17123 1.40 26.50 178.08 65.71 .w . 17127 0.00 26.20 178.05 65.83 17136 0.00 27.07 178.05 65.45 17163 0.00 24.77 178.02 66.43 624017172 0.00 25.22 178.02 66.24 i a 17186 0.00 24.42 178.02 66.59 17213 0.00 25.61 178.02 66.07 17216 0.00 25.09 178.02 66.30 -66Z-3 � ,; �3 17259 0.00 26.18 178.02 65.82 67" E' 17286 0.00 25.54 178.02 66.10' 68� 17289 0.86 24.11 178.02 66.72 - 69 ` * 17290 0.00 25.02 178.02 66.33 70' . 17293 0.86 23.69 178.02 66.90 71 ff u-`: 17308 0.00 24.98 178.02 66.34 72 17309 0.00 24.33 178.02 66.62 Date: Wednesday, January 16, 2002, Time: 16:32:36, Page 2 Hydqua.rpt City of Huntington Beach Water Master Plan - Proposed Strand Development Existing Model - Average Day Demand Number of Pipes ................... Number of Nodes ................... Number of Tanks ................... Number of Pumps ................... Number of Valves .................. Headloss Formula .................. Hydraulic Timestep ................ Hydraulic Accuracy ................ Maximum Trials .................... Quality Analysis .................. Specific Gravity .................. Kinematic Viscosity ............... Chemical Diffusivity .............. Vapor Pressure .................... Total Duration .................... 18768 17461 5 8 7 Hazen -Williams 1.00 hrs 0.010000 100 None 1.00 1.10e-005 sq ft/sec 1.30e-008 sq ft/sec 8.40e-001 ft 0.00 hrs Hydraulic Convergence at 00:00 hrs: Trial 1 2.136421 accuracy PRV 30028 switched from OPEN to ACTIVE FCV 30062 switched from ACTIVE to OPEN FCV 30064 switched from ACTIVE to OPEN FCV 30082 switched from ACTIVE to OPEN FCV 30084 switched from ACTIVE to OPEN FCV 30090 switched from ACTIVE to OPEN Trial 2 0.854441 accuracy FCV 30064 switched .from OPEN to ACTIVE FCV 30084 switched from OPEN to ACTIVE Pipe 190667 switched from OPEN to CLOSED Pipe 190671 switched from OPEN to CLOSED Trial 3 3.139084 accuracy PRV 30028 switched from ACTIVE to OPEN FCV 30082 switched from OPEN to ACTIVE FCV 30090 switched from OPEN to ACTIVE Trial 4 0.040073 accuracy PRV 30028 switched from OPEN to ACTIVE FCV 30064 switched from ACTIVE to OPEN FCV 30082 switched from ACTIVE to OPEN FCV 30084 switched from ACTIVE to OPEN FCV 30090 switched from ACTIVE to OPEN Pipe 190671 switched from CLOSED to OPEN Trial 5 : 1.005455 accuracy FCV 30084 switched from OPEN to ACTIVE FCV 30090 switched from OPEN to ACTIVE Trial 6 : 5.531809 accuracy 1 Page 1 Hydqua.rpt PRV 30028 switched from ACTIVE to OPEN FCV 30082 switched from OPEN to ACTIVE Pipe 190641 switched from OPEN to CLOSED Pipe 190667 switched from CLOSED to OPEN Pipe 190671 switched from OPEN to CLOSED Trial 7 1.176680 accuracy PRV 30028 switched from OPEN to ACTIVE FCV 30064 switched from OPEN to ACTIVE FCV 30082 switched from ACTIVE to OPEN FCV 30084 switched from ACTIVE to OPEN FCV 30090 switched from ACTIVE to OPEN Trial 8 1.176452 accuracy PRV 30028 switched from ACTIVE to OPEN FCV 30082 switched from OPEN to ACTIVE FCV 30090 switched from OPEN to ACTIVE Pipe 190641 switched from CLOSED to OPEN Pipe 190671 switched from CLOSED to OPEN Pipe 190685 switched from OPEN to CLOSED Trial 9 5.259643 accuracy PRV 30028 switched from OPEN to ACTIVE FCV 30064 switched from ACTIVE to OPEN FCV 30082 switched from ACTIVE to OPEN FCV 30084 switched from OPEN to ACTIVE Trial 10 1.176265 accuracy PRV 30028 switched from ACTIVE to OPEN FCV 30082 switched from OPEN to ACTIVE Pipe 190641 switched from OPEN to CLOSED Pipe 190685-switched from CLOSED to OPEN Trial 11 : 1.017646 accuracy PRV 30028 switched from OPEN to ACTIVE FCV 30064 switched from OPEN to ACTIVE FCV 30082 switched from ACTIVE to OPEN FCV 30084 switched from ACTIVE to OPEN FCV 30090 switched from ACTIVE to OPEN Trial 12 : 1.028328 accuracy PRV 30028 switched from ACTIVE to OPEN FCV 30082 switched from OPEN to ACTIVE FCV 30090 switched from OPEN to ACTIVE Trial 13 1.704523 accuracy PRV 30028 switched from OPEN to CLOSED FCV 30062 switched from OPEN to ACTIVE FCV 30084 switched from OPEN to ACTIVE Trial 14 1.176680 accuracy PRV 30028 switched from CLOSED to ACTIVE FCV 30064 switched from ACTIVE to OPEN FCV 30082 switched from ACTIVE to OPEN FCV 30090 switched from ACTIVE to OPEN Trial 15 : 1.176447 accuracy FCV 30064 switched from OPEN to ACTIVE FCV 30084 switched from ACTIVE 'to OPEN Trial 16 : 1.176472 accuracy Page 2 Hydqua.rpt PRV 30028 switched from ACTIVE to OPEN Trial 17 : 1.176421 accuracy Trial 18 : 1.176358 accuracy Trial 19 : 1.176200 accuracy Trial 20 : 1.175762 accuracy Trial 21 : 1.174653 accuracy Trial 22 : 1.170877 accuracy ' Trial Trial 23 24 : 1.158136 accuracy 1.116789 accuracy Trial 25 . 1.009133 accuracy. Trial 26 : 0.793079 accuracy ' PRV 30028 switched from OPEN to ACTIVE FCV 30062 switched from ACTIVE to OPEN Trial 27 : 0.485010 accuracy Trial 28 : 0.296928 accuracy ' FCV 30090 switched from OPEN to ACTIVE Trial 29 : 0.113693 accuracy PRV 30028 switched from ACTIVE to OPEN FCV 30082 switched from OPEN to ACTIVE Trial 30 : 0.038004 accuracy FCV 30082 switched from ACTIVE to OPEN Trial 31 : 0.005961 accuracy Pipe 190641 switched from CLOSED to OPEN Pipe 190667 switched from OPEN to CLOSED Trial 32 : 0.006814 accuracy PRV 30028 switched from OPEN to ACTIVE Trial 33 : 0.131821 accuracy FCV 30064 switched from ACTIVE to OPEN ' FCV 30084 switched from OPEN to ACTIVE FCV 30090 switched from ACTIVE to OPEN Trial 34 : 0.349438 accuracy FCV 30064 switched from OPEN to ACTIVE Trial 35 : 0.168060 accuracy Trial 36 : 0.013761 accuracy Trial 37 : 0.000805 accuracy Pipe 190671 switched from OPEN to CLOSED Trial 38 : 0.001065 accuracy FCV 30064 switched from ACTIVE to OPEN Trial 39 : 0.000560 accuracy Hydraulic Status: ------------------------------------------------------------------- Balanced 39 trials (0.000560 accuracy) at-0.0151 gpm Flow Supplied 21100.00 gpm Flow Demanded 21797.01 gpm Flow Stored -690.23 gpm Tank 20107 Closed. (166.32 ft level) Tank 20109 Emptying (120.12 ft level) Tank 20111 Emptying (173.25 ft level) Tank 20115 Closed (173.25 ft level) Page 3 Hydqua.rpt Tank 20117 Closed (120.12 ft level) Pipe 10538 Closed CV 12076 Closed CV 15809 Closed CV 15878 Closed CV 15920 Closed CV 190323 Closed Pipe 190675 Closed Pipe 190699 Closed Pipe 3151 Closed CV 3175 Closed CV 3312 Closed Pump 50043 Closed (0.00 setting) Pump 50045 Closed (0.00 setting) Pump 50047 Closed (0.00 setting) Pump 50049 Open (1.00 setting) Pump 50051 Closed (0.00 setting) Pump 50127 Open (1.00 setting) Pump 50129 Open (1.00 setting) Pump 50131 Open (1.00 setting) PRV 30028 Active (75.00 psi setting) PRV 30056 Closed FCV 30062 Cannot deliver flow (1.00 gpm setting) FCV 30064 Cannot deliver flow (710.00 gpm setting) FCV 30082 Cannot deliver flow (20.00 gpm setting) FCV 30084 Active (1.00 gpm setting) FCV 30090 Cannot deliver flow (20.00 gpm setting) *** WARNING: FCV 30062 - Cannot deliver flow at 00:00 hrs. *** WARNING: FCV 30064 - Cannot deliver flow at 00:00 hrs. *** WARNING: FCV 30082 - Cannot deliver flow at 00:00 hrs. *** WARNING: FCV 30090 - Cannot deliver flow at 00:00 hrs. *************************************** Warning/Error Messages during Run *************************************** ** Retrieving Network Data ** ** Simulating Network Hydraulics ** at time: 00:00 *** WARNING: FCV 30062 - Cannot deliver flow at 00:00 hrs. *** WARNING: FCV 30064 - Cannot deliver flow at 00:00 hrs. *** WARNING: FCV 30082 - Cannot deliver flow at 00:00 hrs. *** WARNING: FCV 30090 - Cannot deliver flow at 00:00 hrs. ** Warning conditions exist, please check Output Report for details Page 4 I Citv of Huntinaton Beach - Proposed Model: Average Dov Damond ":� r* ,DEMAPID E a- FRESSURE, (Dr�� OSO 16611 3.21 28.42 177.81 64.76 16614 3.21 28.48 177.81 64.74 16725 3.21 26.61 177.76 65.52 16729 3.21 26.61 177.76 65.52 sM ""-.. 16731 0.00 30.97 178.63 64.01 16742 0.00 30.47 178.63 64.23 16750 1.40 25.98 177.65 65.75 16752 1.40 25.95 177.65 65.76 16768 1.40 30.11 178.47 64.31 16769 0.00 30.15 178.62 64.36 16794 1.40 29.88 178.17 64.28 16802 1.40 28.80 178.45 64.88 16803 1.40 26.48 177.73 65.57 :. T4 r; 16809 1.40 28.73 178.45 649T 16815 1.40 29.93 178.17 64.26 T6'` 16826 1.40 26.11 178.02 65.85 16827 1.40 29.33 178.19 64.53 16831 1.40 26.17 178.02 65.83 16837 1.40 29.36 178.19 64.52 16849 1.40 23.80 178.47 67.05 r 21 ' " zK'W 16854 1.40 23.77 178.47 67.06 ='- 22 '. AA`"R 16855 1.40 25.21 177.73 66.12 16857 1.40 25.20 177.73 66.12 16867 1.40 29.94 178.16 64.25 16893 9.65 25.64 178.42 66.23 T°s M�26�.:. 16896 1.40 25.64 178.42 66.23 16903 1.40 25.60 178.42 66.25 16907 0.00 29.88 178.26 64.32 16909 1.40 24.60 178.02 66.51 16911 0.00 29.80 178.61 64.51 31� 16927 1.40 25.81 178.41 66.15 16934 9.65 23.26 178.47 67.28 16935 1.40 29.52 178.16 64.43 34 `t. ` 16946 0.00 29.22 178.26 64.61 16947 1.40 29.14 178.26 64.64 { `" ,.�`` 16953 1.40 23.01 178.46 67.39 16954 1.40 22.85 178.46 67.46 16961 1.40 27.17 178.44 65.57 39:.; m°. 16962 1.40 26.76 178.44 65.75 1 Date: Wednesday, January 16, 2002, rime: 15:50:43, Page 1 City of Huntington Beach - Proposed Model: Average Day Demand 'OUTPttC " ` O " UT OinPUT f ir .vw u N''OV1fVI F a E ANDS ELEVATIOGRADE PRESSURE WOO 16969 1.40 26.39 178.32 65.86 �Y •.- 41 a ,;. 17020 1.40 26.50 178.32 65.81 . '_.... 42 _ _ �., 17023 1.40 26.50 178.32 65.81 17025 1.40 26.47 178.32 65.83 x :: • 44 r 17032 0.00 25.53 178.31 66.23 x 45 17035 0.00 25.56 178.31 66.22 17042 9.65 23.24 178.44 67.28 17043 1.40 26.78 178.25 65.66 �4s"x t s 17045 1.40 26.42 178.32 65.85 r "49"ti' .... 17046 1.40 26.77 178.25 65.66 17047 1.40 26.43 178.32 65.84 0" St .,,, 3 ,.: 17051 0.00 26.49 178.32 65.82 ; . 17052 1.40 23.24 178.32 67.23 17056 1.40 23.10 178.32 67.29 rr; 54,, - ';' '; 17080 1.40 26.50 178.24 65.78 17082 1.40 26.50 178.32 65.81 17090 1.40 26.50 178.24 65.78 17117 1.40 26.50 178.24 65.78 -A 17123 1.40 26.50 178.24 65.78 17127 0.00 26.20 178.31 65.94 17136 0.00 27.07 178.31 65.56 61 `� 17163 0.00 24.77 178.31 66.56 p, y6Zu+ 17172 0.00 25.22 178.31 66.36 17186 0.00 24.42 178.30 66.71 17213 0.00 25.61 178.28 66.18 F u 66 u 17216 0.00 25.09 178.28 66.41 .� _.,.. 17259 0.00 26.18 178.26 65.93 17286 0.00 25.54 178.26 66.20 6$"° s 17289 0.86 24.11 178.26 66.82 17290 0.00 25.02 178.26 66.43 ... 70 17293 0.86 23.69 178.26 67.00 71`� a 17308 0.00 24.98 178.25 66.44 ,: 72 17309 0.00 24.33 178.25 66.73 s. 200000 8.25 27.00 178.53 65.69 74 j 200002 0.00 29.50 178.64 64.65 Date: Wednesday, January 16, 2002, Time: 15:50:43, Page 2 r L Hydqua.rpt City of Huntington Beach Water Master Plan - Existing Conditions Existing Model - Peak Hour Demand Number of Pipes ................... 18766 Number of Nodes ................... 17459 Number of Tanks ................... 5 Number of Pumps ................... 8 Number of Valves .................. 7 Headloss Formula .................. Hazen -Williams Hydraulic Timestep ................ 1.00 hrs Hydraulic Accuracy ................ 0.010000 Maximum Trials .................... 100 Quality Analysis .................. None Specific Gravity .................. 1.00 Kinematic Viscosity ............... 1.10e-005 sq ft/sec Chemical Diffusivity .............. 1.30e-008 sq ft/sec Vapor Pressure .................... 8.40e-001 ft Total Duration .................... 0.00 hrs Hydraulic Convergence at 00:00 hrs: Trial 1 : 1.637243 accuracy PRV 30028 switched from OPEN to ACTIVE FCV 30062 switched from ACTIVE to OPEN FCV 30084 switched from ACTIVE to OPEN Trial 2 : 0.739611 accuracy FCV 30062 switched from OPEN to ACTIVE FCV 30084 switched from OPEN to ACTIVE Trial 3 : 1.872855 accuracy Trial 4 : 0.014502 accuracy Trial 5 : 0.001763 accuracy Hydraulic Status: ------------------------=------------------------------------------ Balanced 5 trials (0.001763 accuracy) at 0.0068 gp Flow Supplied Flow Demanded Flow Stored Tank 20107 Tank 20109 Tank 20111 Tank 20115 Tank 20117 Pipe 10538 CV 12076 CV 15809 CV 15878 34046.00 gpm 54542.62 gpm -20499.69 gpm Emptying (166.32 ft level) Emptying (120.12 ft level) Emptying (173.25 ft level) Emptying (173.25 ft level) Emptying (120.12 ft level) Closed Closed Closed Closed Page 1 I Hydqua.rpt CV 15920 Closed CV 190323 Closed Pipe 190675 Closed Pipe 3151 Closed CV 3175 Closed CV 3312 Closed Pump 50043 Closed (0.00 setting) Pump 50045 Closed (0.00 setting) Pump 50047 Closed (0.00 setting) Pump 50049 Open (1.00 setting) Pump 50051 Closed (0.00 setting) Pump 50127 Open (1.00 setting) Pump 50129 Open (1.00 setting) Pump 50131 Open (1.00 setting) PRV 30028 Active (75.00 psi setting) PRV 30056 Closed FCV 30062 Active (1.00 gpm setting) FCV 30064 Open FCV 30082 Active (4500.00 gpm setting) FCV 30084 Active (1.00 gpm setting) FCV 30090 Open Page 2 k I k City of Huntington Beach - Existing Model: Peak Hour Demand ocarPoU I W.1 Tv 'Ity 16611 8.02 1 28.42 . 157.26 55.85 16614 8.02 28.48 157.26 55.83 j =� 3 #w; 16725 8.02 26.61 157.20 56.61 16729 8.02 26.61 157.20 56.61 5 . 16731 0.00 30.97 163.15 57.30 6 r,,, ; 16742 0.00 30.47 163.15 57.52 "r 7 M ,; 16750 3.49 25.98 156.49 56.58 16752 3.49 25.95 156.49 56.59 16768 3.49 30.11 161.21 56.83 16769 0.00 30.15 163.07 57.62 I 16794 3.49 29.88 158.46 55.74 16802 3.49 28.80 160.78 57.21 16803 3.49 26.48 157.17 56.65 ' 14 16809 3.49 28.73 160.78 57.24 16815 3.49 29.93 158.46 55.72 }16.... 16826 3.49 26.11 157.87 57.12 17. 3.49 29.33 158.50 55.99 16831 3.49 26.17 157.87 57.09 16837 3.49 29.36 158.50 55.98 20 16849 3.49 23.80 158.13 58.23 21 rt 16854 3.49 23.77 158.13 58.25 i.� ' 22 � 16855 3.49 25.21 157.47 57.33 23 :w 16857 3.49 25.20 157.47 57.34 16867 3.49 29.94 158.43 55.70 F 16893 3.49 25.64 159.41 57.99 f.25",'` 26 " -t 16896 3.49 25.64 159.41 57.99 i . 27«wo ,_ . 16903 3.49 25.60 159.41 58.01 -:28 16907 0.00 29.88 158.85 55.91 29 -. 16909 3.49 24.60 157.86 57.77 I .. x � -r4'S `,±tip✓. 16911 0.00 29.80 163.04 57.76 16927 3.49 25.81 159.41 57.92 16934 3.49 23.26 158.13 58.47 33 16935 3.49 29.52 158.43 55.88 34 16946 0.00 29.22 158.85 56.19 16947 3.49 29.14 158.84 56.23 "aa> 16953 3.49 23.01 158.13 58.58 r j _ 37...E 16954 3.49 22.85 158.13 58.65 `38 ` 16961 3.49 27.17 158.12 56.77 x r`a 39 16962 3.49 26.76 158.12 56.95 IDate: Friday, January 25, 2002, Time: 12:28:19, Page 1 city of Huntington tseacn - txisfin MOGGI: reaK hour uemana 330 Irr OU4P ® OUTPUT PRESSU y 16969 3.49 26.39 158.81 57.40 17020 3.49 26.50 158.80 57.35 i� 17023 3.49 26.50 158.80 57.35 17025 3.49 26.47 158.80 57.37 17032 0.00 25.53 158.60 57.69 17035 0.00 25.56 158.60 57.67 17042 3.49 23.24 158.13 58.48 «- K.;,47 s; 17043 3.49 26.78 158.65 57.16 17045 3.49 26.42 158.80 57.39 17046 3.49 26.77 158.65 57.17 17047 3.49 26.43 158.80 57.38 17051 0.00 26.49 158.80 57.36 17052 3.49 23.24 158.24 58.52 17056 3.49 23.10 158.24 58.58 54�- 17080 3.49 26.50 158.59 57.26 ` r+' 17082 3.49 26.50 158.80 57.35 17090 3.49 26.50 158.59 57.26 17117 3.49 26.50 158.56 57.25 17123 3.49 26.50 158.56 57.25 ,Oft 17127 0.00 26.20 158.41 57.31 17136 0.00 27.07 158.41 56.94 b#- 17163 0.00 24.77 158.26 57.87 62 4 17172 0.00 25.22 158.26 57.67 17186 0.00 24.42 158.26 58.02 17213 0.00 25.61 158.26 57.50 17216 0.00 25.09 158.26 57.73 17259 0.00 26.18 158.26 57.26 17286 0.00 25.54 158.26 57.53 17289 2.15 24.11 158.26 58.15 17290 0.00 25.02 158.26 57.76 70 17293 2.15 23.69 158.26 58.34 7 '' ` ' 17308 0.00 24.98 158.26 57.78 '2 17309 0.00 24.33 158.26 58.06 Date: Friday, January 25, 2002, Time: 12:28:19, Page 2 C C r I C L Hydqua.rpt City of Huntington Beach Water Master Plan - Proposed Strand Development Existing Model - Peak Hour Demand Number of Pipes ................... Number of Nodes ................... Number of Tanks ................... Number of Pumps ................... Number of Valves .................. Headloss Formula .................. Hydraulic Timestep ................ Hydraulic Accuracy ................ Maximum Trials .................... Quality Analysis .................. Specific Gravity .................. Kinematic Viscosity ............... Chemical Diffusivity .............. Vapor Pressure .................... Total Duration .................... 18768 17461 8 7 Hazen -Williams 1.00 hrs 0.010000 100 None 1.00 1.10e-005 sq ft/sec 1.30e-008 sq ft/sec 8.40e-001 ft 0.00 hrs Hydraulic Convergence at 00:00 hrs: Trial 1 1.635235 accuracy PRV 30028 switched from OPEN to ACTIVE FCV 30062 switched from ACTIVE to OPEN FCV 30082 switched from ACTIVE to OPEN FCV 30084 switched from ACTIVE to OPEN Trial 2 0.750190 accuracy FCV 30062 switched from OPEN to ACTIVE FCV 30084 switched from OPEN to ACTIVE Trial 3 1.827342 accuracy Trial 4 : 0.019456 accuracy Trial 5 : 0.002526 accuracy Hydraulic Status: Balanced 5 trials (0.002526 accurac ) at 0.0068 m Flow Supplied Flow Demanded Flow Stored Tank 20107 Tank 20109 Tank 20111 Tank 20115 Tank 20117 Pipe 10538 CV 12076 CV 15809 34046.00 gpm 54716.63 gpm -20673.69 gpm Emptying (166.32 ft level) Emptying (120.12 ft level) Emptying (173.25 ft level) Emptying (173.25 ft level) Closed (120.12 ft level) Closed Closed Closed Page 1 Hydqua.rpt CV 15878 Closed CV 15920 Closed CV 190323 Closed Pipe 190675 Closed Pipe 190699 Closed Pipe 3151 Closed CV 3175 Closed CV 3312 Closed Pump 50043 Closed (0.00 setting) Pump 50045 Closed (0.00 setting) Pump 50047 Closed (0.00 setting) Pump 50049 Open (1.00 setting) Pump 50051 Closed (0.00 setting) Pump 50127 Open (1.00 setting) Pump 50129 Open (1.00 setting) Pump 50131 Open (1.00 setting) PRV 30028 Active (75.00 psi setting) PRV 30056 Closed FCV 30062 Active (1.00 gpm setting) FCV 30064 Open FCV 30082 Cannot deliver flow (4500.00 gpm setting) FCV 30084 Active (1.00 gpm setting) FCV 30090 Open *** WARNING: FCV 30082 - Cannot deliver flow at 00:00 hrs. *************************************** Warning/Error Messages during Run *************************************** ** Retrieving Network Data ** ** Simulating Network Hydraulics ** at time: 00:00 *** WARNING: FCV 30082 - Cannot deliver flow at 00:00 hrs. ** Warning conditions exist, please check Output Report for details Page 2 k I I City of Huntington Beach - Proposed Model: Peak Hour Demand O'er OUTPUT DWA6� tft OUTPUT `EL�E�F �O ®UTPUf GRADE��. ;� OUTPUT "1-4 � �PR�S ARE 16611 1 8.02 28.42 150.32 52.84 2 16614 8.02 28.48 150.32 52.82 3 16725 8.02 26.61 149.99 53.48 . ,;. 4 16729 8.02 1 26.61 149.99 53.48 ;5 16731 0.00 30.97 154.47 53.54 6 16742 0.00 30.47 154.47 53.76 7 '' = 16750 3.49 25.98 149.38 53.50 8 rt' . * °° 16752 3.49 25.95 149.38 53.51 16768 3.49 30.11 153.70 53.58 = 16769 0.00 30.15 154.43 53.88 x *-4 16794 3.49 29.88 152.27 53.06 =,12,- 16802 3.49 28.80 153.62 54.11 1 "3 ' "13 '` 16803 3.49 26.48 149.82 53.47 `44 16809 3.49 28.73 153.62 54.14 16815 3.49 29.93 152.27 53.04 16826 3.49 26.11 151.48 54.35 r 17 , , w ' -' 16827 3.49 29.33 152.35 53.33 j '.18 16831 3.49 26.17 151.48 54.32 19 ' =` 16837 3.49 29.36 152.35 53.31 16849 3.49 23.80 153.63 56.28 16854 3.49 23.77 153.63 56.30 ,,22 16855 3.49 25.21 149.82 54.02 23 = 16857 3.49 25.20 149.82 54.02 j 24 16867 3.49 29.94 152.22 53.01 16893 46.99 25.64 153.41 55.39 j 26....- 16896 3.49 25.64 153.41 55.39 27 16903 3.49 25.60 153.41 55.40 28 ot5 16907 0.00 29.88 152.77 53.27 i 24'}` ` ` 16909 3.49 24.60 151.48 55.00 30 - 16911 0.00 29.80 154.41 54.02 31 16927 3.49 25.81 153.37 55.30 32 16934 46.99 23.26 153.63 56.52 33 16935 3.49 29.52 152.22 53.19 34 16946 0.00 29.22 152.77 53.56 35 16947 3.49 29.14 152.77 53.59 ' 36 16953 3.49 23.01 153.61 56.61 `37 16954 3.49 22.85 153.61 56.68 38 16961 3.49 27.17 153.48 54.76 :: 39 16962 3.49 26.76 153.48 54.93 Date: Friday, January 25, 2002, Time: 12:20:39, Page 1 City of Huntington Beach - Proposed Model: Peak Hour Demand �' t OUTPUT i uOUTPUT * OUTPUT OUTPUT 'DEMAN GRADE PRESSURE. t9Pm) (ft} �ff X (FA h, i)..: t.'r ... 16969 3.49 26.39 152.96 54.87 -41 4o: ; 17020 3.49 26.50 152.96 54.82 17023 3.49 26.50 152.96 54.82 17025 3.49 26.47 152.96 54.83 17032 0.00 25.53 152.95 55.23 e{5; .. 17035 0.00 25.56 152.95 55.22 y 46 = t y 17042 46.99 23.24 153.48 17043 3.49 26.78 152.71 54.59 17M 3.49 26.42 152.96 54.86 49 r 17046 3.49 26.77 152.71 54.59 17047 3.49 26.43 152.96 54.85 17051 0.00 26.49 152.96 54.82 "52` 17052 3.49 23.24 153.01 56.26 j 17056 3.49 23.10 153.01 7 56.32 j ,• 54 4x '. 17080 3.49 26.50 152.69 54.70 17082 3.49 26.50 152.96 54.82 17090 3.49 26.50 152.69 54.70 17117 3.49 26.50 152.68 54.70 `58 . 17123 3.49 26.50 152.68 54.70 17127 0.00 26.20 152.93 54.94 17136 0.00 27.07 152.93 54.56 I 61 �,."` 17163 0.00 24.77 152.93 55.56 17172 0.00 25.22 152.93 55.36 17186 0.00 24.42 152.92 55.70 64 17213 0.00 25.61 152.84 55.16 j '65 17216 0.00 25.09 152.84 55.38 66 17259 0.00 26.18 152.74 54.87 17286 0.00 25.54 152.74 55.14 17289 2.15 24.11 152.74 55.76 7 69: 17290 0.00 25.02 152.74 55.37 70 17293 2.15 23.69 152.74 55.94 j 71 17308 0.00 24.98 152.72 55.37 72 17309 0.00 24.33 152.72 55.66 uw =7a 200000 43.50 27.00 153.92 55.02 74 200002 0.00 29.50 154.56 54.21 Date: Friday, January 25, 2002, Time: 12:20:39, Page 2 � m Hydqua.rpt City of Huntington Beach Water Master Plan - Proposed Strand Development Existing Model - Maximum Day Demand w/ Fire Flow Number of Pipes ................... Number of Nodes ................... Number of Tanks ................... Number of Pumps ................... Number of Valves .................. Headloss Formula .................. Hydraulic Timestep ................ Hydraulic Accuracy ................ Maximum Trials .................... Quality Analysis .................. Specific Gravity .................. Kinematic Viscosity ............... Chemical Diffusivity .............. Vapor Pressure .................... Total Duration .................... 18768 17461 8 7 Hazen -Williams 1.00 hrs 0.010000 100 None 1.00 1.10e-005 sq ft/sec 1.30e-008 sq ft/sec 8.40e-001 ft 0.00 hrs Hydraulic Convergence at 00:00 hrs: Trial 1 : 1.713363 accuracy PRV 30028 switched from OPEN to ACTIVE FCV 30062 switched from ACTIVE to OPEN FCV 30084 switched from ACTIVE to OPEN Trial 2 : 0.755811 accuracy FCV 30062 switched from OPEN to ACTIVE FCV 30084 switched from OPEN to ACTIVE Pipe 190671 switched from OPEN to CLOSED Trial 3 : 2.015933 accuracy Trial 4 : 0.031152 accuracy Trial 5 : 0.003717 accuracy Hydraulic Status: ------------------------------------------------------------------- Balanced 5 trials (0.003717 accuracy) at 0.0061 gp Flow Supplied Flow Demanded Flow Stored Tank 20107 Tank 20109 Tank 20111 Tank 20115 Tank 20117 Pipe 10538 CV 12076 CV 15809 28400.00. gpm 38772.49 gpm -10375.23 gpm Closed (166.32 ft level) Emptying (120.12 ft level) Emptying (173.25 ft level) Emptying (173.25 ft level) Emptying (120.12 ft level) Closed Closed Closed Page 1 I Hydqua.rpt CV 15878 Closed CV 15920 Closed CV 190323 Closed Pipe 190675 Closed Pipe 3151 Closed CV 3175 Closed CV 3312 Closed Pump 50043 Closed (0.00 setting) Pump 50045 Closed (0.00 setting) Pump 50047 Closed (0.00 setting) Pump 50049 Open (1.00 setting) Pump 50051 Closed (0.00 setting) Pump 50127 Open (1.00 setting) Pump 50129 Open (1.00 setting) Pump 50131 Open (1.00 setting) PRV 30028 Active (75.00 psi setting) 'PRV 30056 Closed FCV 30062 Active (1.00 gpm setting) FCV 30064 Open FCV 30082 Active (2500.00 gpm setting) FCV 30084 Active (1.00 gpm setting) FCV 30090 Open Page 2 0 11 7 11 I 0 H- 11 11 11 11 I 11 11 0 1.1 H 0 U E p p 11 C C City of Huntington Beach - Existin Model: Maximum Day Demand w/ Fire Flow y . � i'F-'"iy; a"'*" .�Y �� „ _:-- : e _ . � - ..,,., -ter . ' ✓wivr ,: r.. .,r es /off► SSURE 16611 5.14 28.42 159.42 56.79 16614 5.14 28.48 159.42 56.76 16725 5.14 26.61 159.40 57.56 16729 5.14 26.61 159.40 57.56 16731 0.00 30.97 158.53 55.30 16742 0.00 30.47 158.53 55.51 16750 2.24 25.98 159.39 57.83 16752 2.24 25.95 159.39 57.84 j `r 16768 2.24 30.11 158.37 55.60 4 Y 16769 0.00 30.15 158.52 55.65 16794 2.24 29.88 158.65 55.82 16802 2.24 28.80 157.69 55.87 16803 2.24 26.48 159.40 57.62 1 i4 16809 2.24 28.73 157.69 55.90 16815 2.24 29.93 158.65 55.80 16826 2.24 26.11 159.35 57.76 " 16827 2.24 29.33 158.39 55.95 1$ 16831 2.24 26.17 159.35 57.73 g� 16837 2.24 29.36 158.39 55.94 16849 2.24 23.80 152.99 i 56.00 +, 16854 2.24 23.77 152.99 56.02 l 16855 2.24 25.21 159.39 58.17 16857 2.24 25.20 159.39 58.17 w _ 16867 2.24 29.94 158.89 55.90 16893 1,012.73 25.64 154.47 55.85 j 16896 2.24 25.64 154.49 55.86 h F'- •9p_ 2.. 16903 2.24 25.60 154.49 55.87 �.,,. 2 16907 0.00 29.88 160.41 56.59 4 29,]'4`";> 16909 2.24 24.60 159.35 58.41 3Q 16911 0.00 29.80 158.52 55.80 i t�Ft.:31"3' 16927 2.24 25.81 155.53 56.23 r.. 16934 1,012.73 23.26 152.99 56.24 16935 2.24 29.52 158.89 56.08 16946 0.00 29.22 160.40 56.87 � 16947 2.24 29.14 160.38 56.89 16953 2.24 23.01 152.98 56.34 7,� 16954 2.24 22.85 152.98 56.41 16961 2.24 27.17 152.98 54.54 16962 2.24 26.76 152.98- 54.71 1 Date: Friday, January 25, 2002, Time: 13:13:28, Page 1 ary or nunnn Ton rseacn - txisnn moaec maximum uay yematn�apw/ Tire mow }f Q E E[ 0 D P,RESSUR 16969 2.24 26.39 156.37 56.35 17020 2.24 26.50 156.37 56.30 17023 2.24 26.50 156.37 56.30 43'• . 17025 2.24 26.47 156.37 56.31 lF 17032 0.00 25.53 156.38 56.72 4 44 < ' 17035 0.00 25.56 156.38 56.71 17042 1,012.73 23.24 152.98 56.24 17043 2.24 26.78 159.79 57.66 17045 2.24 26.42 156.37 56.33 rt 17046 2.24 26.77 159.79 57.67 17047 2.24 26.43 156.37 56.33 . 17051 0.00 26.49 156.37 56.30 " 17052 2.24 23.24 155.80 57.46 *01, NW-4314.1 17056 2.24 23.10 155.80 57.52 #« '' 17080 2.24 26.50 159.61 57.70 44 17082 2.24 26.50 156.37 56.30 17090 2.24 26.50 159.61 57.70 17117 2.24 26.50 159.53 57.67 17123 2.24 26.50 159.53 57.67 5. 17127 0.00 26.20 156.38 56.43 17136 0.00 27.07 156.38 56.06 17163 0.00 24.77 156.30 57.02 17172 0.00 25.22 156.30 56.82 17186 0.00 24.42 156.39 57.21 17213 0.00- 25.61 156.74 56.85 17216 0.00 25.09 156.74 57.07 =�66 17259 0.00 26.18 157.24 56.81 ¢;�, �7= 17286 0.00 25.54 157.24 57.09 17289 1.37 24.11 157.26 57.72 *' 17290 0.00 25.02 157.27 57.33 17293 1.37 23.69 157.26 57.90 17308 0.00 24.98 157.40 57.40 a" 72°...tiF 17309 0.00 24.33 157.40 57.68 200000 1,010.50 27.00 154.40 55.23 7 74 200002 0.00 29.50 158.54 55.94 Date: Friday, January 25, 2002, Time: 13:13:28, Page 2 L C I I C I 11 k C C Hydqua.rpt City of Huntington Beach Water Master Plan - Existing Conditions Ultimate Model - Average Day Demand Number of Pipes ................... Number of Nodes .................... Number of Tanks ................... Number of Pumps ................... Number of Valves .................. Headloss Formula .................. Hydraulic Timestep ................ Hydraulic Accuracy ................ Maximum Trials .................... Quality Analysis .................. Specific Gravity .................. Kinematic Viscosity ............... Chemical Diffusivity .............. Vapor Pressure .................... Total Duration .................... 18834 17483 8 8 Hazen -Williams 1.00 hrs 0.010000 150 None 1.00 1.10e-005 sq ft/sec 1.30e-008 sq ft/sec 8.40e-001 ft 0.00 hrs Hydraulic Convergence at 00:00 hrs: Trial 1 2.017667 accuracy PRV 30028 switched from OPEN to FCV 30064 switched from ACTIVE FCV 30082 switched from ACTIVE FCV 30090 switched from ACTIVE Trial 2 : 0.402758 accuracy FCV 30064 switched from OPEN FCV 30090 switched from OPEN Pump 50045 switched from OPEN Trial 3 : 0.231708 accuracy Trial 4 : 0.047504 accuracy Trial 5 : 0.008591 accuracy Hydraulic Status: ACTIVE to OPEN to OPEN to OPEN to ACTIVE to ACTIVE to CLOSED Balanced 5 trials (0.008591 accuracy) at-0.0031 g pm Flow Supplied 23330.00 gpm Flow Demanded 23142.00 gpm Flow Stored 189.37 gpm Tank 20107 Emptying (166.32 ft level) Tank 20109 Emptying (120.12 ft level) Tank 20111 Closed (173.25 ft level) Tank 20115 Closed (173.25 ft level) Tank 20117 Filling (120.12 ft level) Tank 20119 Closed (178.12 ft level) Pipe 1 Closed Page 1 Ij Hydqua.rpt Pipe 117 Closed CV 12076 Closed Pipe 125 Closed Pipe 127 Closed Pipe 13 Closed CV 15809 Closed CV 15878 Closed CV 15920 Closed Pipe 16613 Closed Pipe 16614 Closed Pipe 17 Closed Pipe 18153 Closed Pipe 19 Closed CV 190323 Closed Pipe 190375 Closed Pipe 190667 Closed Pipe 190675 Closed Pipe 190707 Closed Pipe 190785 Closed Pipe 190789 Closed Pipe 190793 Closed Pipe 190795 Closed Pipe 190799 Closed Pipe 219 Closed Pipe 25 Closed Pipe 27 Closed Pipe 3 Closed Pipe 31 Closed Pipe 3151 Closed CV 3175 Closed CV 3312 Closed Pipe 39 Closed Pipe 5 Closed Pipe 59 Closed Pipe 8314 Closed Pump 50043 Closed (0.00 setting) Pump 50045 Cannot deliver head (1.00 setting) Pump 50047 Closed (0.00 setting) Pump 50049 Open (1.00 setting) Pump 50051 Closed (0.00 setting) Pump 50127 Closed (0.00 setting) Pump 50129 Closed (0.00 setting) Pump 50131 Closed (0.00 setting) PRV 30028 Active (75.00 psi setting) PRV 30056 Closed FCV 30062 Closed FCV 30064 Active (10.00 gpm setting) FCV 30082 Cannot deliver flow (10.00 gpm setting) FCV 30084 Closed FCV 30090 Active (10.00 gpm setting) FCV 30092 Closed Page 2 k I 11 C Hydqua.rpt *** WARNING: Pump 50045 - Cannot deliver head at 00:00 hrs. *** WARNING: FCV 30082 - Cannot deliver flow at 00:00 hrs. *************************************** Warning/Error Messages during Run *************************************** ** Retrieving Network Data ** ** Simulating Network Hydraulics ** at time: 00:00 *** WARNING: Pump 50045 - Cannot deliver head at 00:00 hrs. *** WARNING: FCV 30082 - Cannot deliver flow at 00:00 hrs. ** Warning conditions exist, please check Output Report for details Page 3 City of Huntington Beach - Ultimate Model (Existing): Average Day Demand 21HPUTIV5 I,OUTPUT � DEMy�,�D }E):E1f ►TiON ; GRADENtPRESSURE41 Y4 3 f ,0 r 16611 2.11 28.42 175.98 63.97 16614 2.11 28.48 175.98 63.94 16725 2.11 26.61 175.95 64.74 16729 2.11 26.61 175.95 64.74 ;_ F = 16731 0.00 30.97 175.95 62.85 16742 0.00 30.47 175.95 63.06 16750 1.52 25.98 175.93 65.01 16752 1.52 25.95 175.93 65.02 ? N 16768 1.52 30.11 175.93 63.21 16769 0.00 30.15 175.94 63.20 t ;'" 16794 1.52 29.88 175.90 63.30 16802 1.52 28.80 175.92 63.77 16803 1.52 26.48 175.94 64.79 1.4 16809 1.52 28.73 175.92 63.81 15 16815 1.52 29.93 175.90 63.28 j fi 1� 4VK �,.. K 6826 1.52 26.11 175.93 64.95 4 rtT 3? 16827 1.52 29.33 175.90 63.54 16831 1.52 26.17 175.93 64.92 16837 1.52 29.36 175.90 63.52 16849 1.52 23.80 175.87 65.92 16854 1.52 23.77 175.87 65.94 16855 1.52 25.21 175.93 65.34 ,� 16857 1.52 25.20 175.93 65.34 7 Y 24 4 16867 1.52 29.94 175.90 63.27 16893 1.52 25.64 175.89 65.13 16896 1.52 25.64 175.89 65.13 16903 1.52 25.60 175.89 65.15 .. t 28 16907 0.00 29.88 175.92 63.31 16909 1.52 24.60 175.92 65.60 30 ; 16927 1.52 25.81 175.89 65.06 16934 1.52 23.26 175.87 66.16 ' '.32 16935 1.52 29.52 175.90 63.46 16946 0.00 29.22 175.92 63.59 34 16947 1.52 29.14 175.92 63.63 =35 16953 1.52 23.01 175.87 66.27 36 s.r , _ 16954 1.52 22.85 175.87 66.33 16961 1.52 27.17 175.87 64.46 38 sY 16962 1.52 26.76 175.87 64.64 y a Fi39 t , 16969 1.52 26.39 175.89 64.81 Date: Thursday, January 17, 2002, Time: 09:02:03, Page 1 L n IJ r F F F L City of Huntington Beach - Ultimate Model (Existin )): A�vvera a Day Demand �OLiT -- O� T�(� CV/ DEM DtEI.EE1fATlO[�i ' GRAD RRESSURE + 7 ., --i t ,, t 33��x K-vFi17im�Fr♦rrte'` w t h�/p �. 3* i P��"p`�.l;,�SAp�,fi. �! �� k 17020 1.52 26.50 175.89 64.76 "41 z 17023 1.52 26.50 175.89 64.76 17025 1.52 26.47 175.89 64.77 17032 1.52 25.53 175.88 66.18 17035 1.52 25.56 175.88 65.16 17042 1.52 23.24 175.87 66.17 _ 17043 1.52 26.78 175.89 64.64 17045 1.52 26.42 175.89 64.79 x..e 17046 1.52 26.77 175.89 64.65 17047 1.52 26.43 175.89 _ 64.79 17051 1.52 26.49 175.89 64.76 r* 5}k 17052 1.52 23.24 175.86 66.16 17056 1.52 23.10 175.86 _ 66.22 :`~'�32"x 53 `" 17082 1.52 26.50 175.89 64.76 54 17090 1.52 26.50 175.89 64.76 'x y „? 17117 1.52 26.50 175.88 64.76 lkt17123 1.52 26.50 175.88 64.76 . a r St,,O, 41a 17127 1.52 26.20 175.87 64.88 *•. 58 17136 1.52 27.07 175.87 64.50 17163 0.00 24.77 175.86 65.50 17172 0.00 25.22 175.86 65.30 17186 0.00 24.42 175.86 65.65 17213 0.00 25.61 175.86 65.13 63 4W 17216 0.00 25.09 175.86 65.36 sr.. 64.. hu 5545 2.43 28.00 175.92 64.12 5599 0.00 0.00 175.89 76.25 5601 2.43 28.00 175.90 64.11 _ 5623 2.43 28.00 175.90 64.11 5667 2.43 28.00 175.91 64.12 = .69 - 5689 2.43 28.00 175.92 64.12 70 "' 5765 2.43 28.00 175.91 64.12 71 5767 2.43 28.00 175.90 64.11 72 5771 2.43 28.00 175.90 64.11 5837 2.43 27.00 175.89 64.55 " }?=T4 '`" y'"; 5877 2.43 28.00 175.89 64.11 58M 0.00 0.00 175.89 76.25 _ 6257 0.00 30.00 175.92 63.26 z.77 6383 0.00 0.00 175.96 76.28 m7.8 6387 0.00 0.00 175.95 76.28 ve 1 Date: Thursday, January 17, 2002, Time: 09:02:03, Page 2 City of Huntington Beach - Ultimate Model (Existing): Average Day Demand L. WOWout DElNIAN �OVTrV{ ' `,,ECEVATION� �yOU V1 rGRADE� OVe{' 1 � P�tESSURE.,� 1,...u5Y,7.., i- „49}=` .fit.•%•' 6397 6493 _:t. 0.00 0.00 t 0.00 1 0.00 175.98 1 175.98 �.76.29 1 76.29 Date: Thursday, January 17, 2002, Time: 09:02:03, Page 3 k k L L h Hydqua.rpt City of Huntington Beach Water Master Plan - Proposed Strand Development Ultimate Model - Average Day Demand Number of Pipes ................... Number of Nodes ................... Number of Tanks ................... Number of Pumps ................... Number of Valves .................. Headloss Formula .................. Hydraulic Timestep ................ Hydraulic Accuracy ................ Maximum Trials .................... Quality Analysis .................. Specific Gravity .................. Kinematic Viscosity ............... Chemical Diffusivity .............. Vapor Pressure .................... Total Duration .................... Hydraulic Convergence at 00:00 hrs: Trial 1 : 2.019724 accuracy 18835 17464 8 8 Hazen -Williams 1.00 hrs 0.010000 150 None 1.00 1.10e-005 sq ft/sec 1.30e-008 sq ft/sec 8.40e-001 ft 0.00 hrs PRV 30028 switched from OPEN to ACTIVE FCV 30064 switched from ACTIVE to OPEN FCV 30082 switched from ACTIVE to OPEN FCV 30090 switched from ACTIVE to OPEN Trial 2 : 0.402443 accuracy FCV 30064 switched from OPEN to ACTIVE FCV 30090 switched from OPEN to ACTIVE Pump 50045 switched from OPEN to CLOSED Trial 3 : 0.231993 accuracy Trial 4 : 0.046602 accuracy Trial 5 : 0.008797 accuracy Hydraulic Status: ------------------------------------------------------------------- Balanced 5 trials (0.008797 accuracy) at-0.0030 g pm Flow Supplied 23330.00 gpm Flow Demanded 23174.99 gpm Flow Stored 156.37 gpm Tank 20107 Emptying (166.32 ft level) Tank 20109 Emptying (120.12 ft level) Tank 20111 Closed (173.25 ft level) Tank 20115 Closed (173.25 ft level) Tank 20117 Filling (120.12 ft level) Tank 20119 Closed (178.12 ft level) Pipe 1 Closed Page 1 I Hydqua.rpt Pipe 117 Closed CV 12076 Closed Pipe 125 Closed Pipe 127 Closed Pipe 13 Closed CV 15809 Closed CV 15878 Closed CV 15920 Closed Pipe 16613 Closed Pipe 16614 Closed Pipe 17 Closed Pipe 18153 Closed Pipe 19 Closed CV 190323 Closed Pipe 190375 Closed Pipe 190667 Closed Pipe 190675 Closed Pipe 190707 Closed Pipe 190785 Closed Pipe 190789 Closed Pipe 190793 Closed Pipe 190795 Closed Pipe 190799 Closed Pipe 219 Closed Pipe 25 Closed Pipe 27 Closed Pipe 3 Closed Pipe 31 Closed Pipe 3151 Closed CV 3175 Closed CV 3312 Closed Pipe 39 Closed Pipe 5 Closed Pipe 59 Closed Pipe 8314 Closed Pump 50043 Closed (0.00 setting) Pump 50045 Cannot deliver head (1.00 setting) Pump 50047 Closed (0.00 setting) Pump 50049 Open (1.00 setting) Pump 50051 Closed (0.00 setting) Pump 50127 Closed (0.00 setting) Pump 50129 Closed (0.00 setting) Pump 50131 Closed (0.00 setting) PRV 30028 Active (75.00 psi setting) PRV 30056 Closed FCV 30062 Closed FCV 30064 Active (10.00 gpm setting) FCV 30082 Cannot deliver flow (10.00 gpm setting) FCV 30084 Closed FCV 30090 Active (10.00 gpm setting) FCV 30092 Closed Page 2 11 Hydqua.rpt *** WARNING: Pump 50045 - Cannot deliver head at 00:00 hrs. *** WARNING: FCV 30082 - Cannot deliver flow at 00:00 hrs. *************************************** Warning/Error Messages during Run *************************************** ** Retrieving Network Data ** ** Simulating Network Hydraulics ** at time: 00:00 *** WARNING: Pump 50045 - Cannot deliver head at 00:00 hrs. *** WARNING: FCV 30082 - Cannot deliver flow at 00:00 hrs. ** Warning conditions exist, please check Output Report for details F n C 0 u n Page 3 0 ON of Hunfinaton Beach - Ultimate Model: Average Dav Demand : OUTPtDI~.� ^OUTPUT OUTPUT.OUTPUT �.. OUTPUT rDEIVI' 7 ELEVATION GRADE ' r PRESSURE ' t" t r.rFivs �1r vca,9R,mTce �iftj 's#tvri cft}r c.. y 4, : ,�4x�9Pn►.),., ; -wise) It 16731 0.00 30.97 175.89 62.82 :2 3 16742 0.00 30.47 175.89 63.04 3 16768 1.52 30.11 175.88 63.19 16769 0.00 30.15 175.89 63.18 � 16794 1.52 29.88 175.86 63.28 6 16802 1.52 28.80 175.87 63.76 16809 1.52 28.73 175.87 63.79 16815 1.52 29.93 175.86 63.26 16826 1.52 26.11 175.90 64.93 16827 1.52 29.33 , 175.86 63.52 16831 1.52 26.17 175.90 64.91 16837 1.52 29.36 175.86 63.51 "i3 �" <tw , 16855 1.52 25.21 175.91 65.33 16857 1.52 25.20 175.91 65.33 15 16867 1.52 29.94 175.86 63.26 16893 9.77 25.64 175.86 65.12 ti' .. 16896 1.52 25.64 175.86 65.12 yy� 16903 1.52 25.60 175.86 65.14 16907 0.00 29.88 175.87 63.29 16909 1.52 24.60 175.90 65.59 wi 16927 1.52 25.81 175.86 65.05 �221'r'>« ` 16934 9.77 23.26 175.87 66.16 w 23 16935 1.52 29.52 175.86 63.44 16946 0.00 29.22 175.87 63.57 ti=' 2S *�� _ 16947 1.52 29.14 175.87 63.61 16953 1.52 23.01 175.87 66.26 16954 1.52 22.85 175.87 66:33 16961 3.04 27.17 175.86 64.46 16969 1.52 26.39 175.85 64.79 30- 16980 1.52 28.95 175.82 63.67 3V ` ~ 16983 1.52 28.92 175.82 63.68 ' 17020 1.52 26.50 175.85 64.74 17023 1.52 26.50 175.85 64.74 17025 1.52 26.47 175.85 64.76 17032 1.52 25.53 175.85 65.16 <' 36 » Y 17035 1.52 25.56 175.85 65.15 3'l 17042 9.77 23.24 175.86 66.16 17043 1.52 26.78 175.86 64.62 a39 .:' 17M 1.52 26.42 175.85 64.78 Date: Wednesday, January 16, 2002, Time: 17:14:28, Page 1 k p H C 11 fl E H- City of Huntington Beach - Ultimate Model: Average Day Demand Qitx S V ...z+ sc ELEVATIONGRA®E,` s<Yc c.Y 'PRESSURE°" 40 17046 1.52 26.77 175.86 64.63~ 17047 1.52 26.43 175.85 64.77 3w -4 , ? 17051 1.52 26.49 175.85 64.75 "43 F'. t' 17052 1.52 23.24 175.84 66.15 17056 1.52 23.10 175.84 66.21 17082 1.52 26.50 175.85 64.74 " 46 17090 1.52 26.50 175.85 64.74 -47.' 17117 1.52 26.50 175.85 64.74 17123 1.52 26.50 175.85 64.74 17127 1.52 26.20 175.84 64.87 17136 1.52 27.07 17544 64.49 17163 0.00 24.77 175.84 65.49 N�4q- 17172 0,00 25.22 175.84 65.29 17176 1.52 26.46 175.84 64.76 54 17186 0.00 24.42 175.84 65.64 17213 0.00 25.61 175.83 65.12 17216 0.00 25.09 175.83 65.35 "5T s 17259 1.52 26.18 175.83 64.87 �,x5g h �w 17286 0.00 25.54 175.83 65.15 : S9 7- 17289 0.90 24.11 175.83 65.77 `6® 17290 0.00 25.02 175.83 65.37 17293 0.90 23.69 175.83 65.95 w 2- 17308 0.00 24.98 175.82 65.39 17309 0.00 24.33 175.82 65.67 17319 1.52 24.61 175.82 65.55 17373 0.00 14.55 175.79 69.90 5545 2.43 28.00 175.88 64.10 5599 0.00 0.00 175.86 76.24 68 _ 5601 2.43 28.00 175.86 64.10 .$9 5623 2.43 28.00 175.86 64.10 w' aZ0 5667 2.43 28.00 175.87 64.10 7T 5689 2.43 28.00 175.88 64.10 J2 a: 5765 2.43 28.00 175.87 64.10 73 '�. 5767 2.43 28.00 175.86 64.10 74 _ r:°.:_, ,_ 5771 2.43 28.00 175.86 64.10 5837 2.43 27.00 175.86 64.53 - 76 . -h " 5877 2.43 28.00 175.85 64.09 77f 5883 0.00 0.00 175.85 76.23 78 6257 0.00 30.00 175.87• 63.24 IDate: Wednesday, January 16, 2002, Time: 17:14:28, Page 2 City of Huntington Beach - Ultimate Model: Average Day Demand #DEIRJAND EfJ V ON GRADES PRESSURE 6383 0.00 0.00 175.90 76.25 i gp ;_ s 6387 0.00 0.00 175.90 1 76.25 j 200000 8.25 27.00 175.88 64.54 200002 0.00 29.50 175.91 63.47 Date: Wednesday, January 16, 2002, Time: 17:14:28, Page 3 7 7 Hydqua.rpt City of Huntington Beach Water Master Plan - Existing Conditions Ultimate Model - Peak Hour Demand Number of Pipes ................... Number of Nodes ................... Number of Tanks ................... Number of Pumps ................... Number of Valves .................. Headloss Formula .................. Hydraulic Timestep ................ Hydraulic Accuracy ................ Maximum Trials .................... Quality Analysis .................. Specific Gravity .................. Kinematic Viscosity ............... Chemical Diffusivity .............. Vapor Pressure .................... Total Duration .................... 18834 17483 8 8 Hazen -Williams 1.00 hrs 0.010000 150 None 1.00 1.10e-005 sq ft/sec 1.30e-008 sq ft/sec 8.40e-001 ft 0.00 hrs Hydraulic Convergence at 00:00 hrs: Trial 1 1.616431 accuracy PRV 30028 switched from OPEN to ACTIVE FCV 30064 switched from ACTIVE to OPEN FCV 30082 switched from ACTIVE to OPEN ' FCV 30090 switched from ACTIVE to OPEN Trial 2 0.271015 accuracy FCV 30082 switched from OPEN to ACTIVE ' Trial 3 0.106046 accuracy FCV 30064 switched from OPEN to ACTIVE Trial 4 : 0.023584 accuracy PRV 30028 switched from ACTIVE to OPEN Trial 5 : 0.001254 accuracy Hydraulic Status: . ' ------------------------------------------------------------------- Balanced 5 trials (0.001254 accuracy) at-0.0033 g pm Flow Supplied 37140.00 gpm Flow Demanded 59165.33 gpm Flow Stored -22023.84 gpm Tank 20107 Emptying (16.6.32 ft level) Tank 20109 Emptying (120.12 ft level) Tank 20111 Closed (173.25 ft level) ' Tank 20115 Tank 20117 Closed (173.25 ft Emptying (120.12 ft level) level) Tank 20119 Closed (178.12 ft level) Pipe 1 Closed Page 1 Pipe CV Pipe Pipe Pipe CV CV CV Pipe Pipe Pipe Pipe Pipe CV Pipe Pipe Pipe Pipe Pipe Pipe Pipe Pipe Pipe Pipe Pipe Pipe Pipe Pipe Pipe Cv Cv Pipe Pipe Pipe Pipe Pump Pump Pump Pump Pump Pump Pump Pump PRV PRV FCV FCV FCV FCV FCV FCV 117 12076 125 127 13 15809 15878 15920 16613 16614 17 18153 19 190323 190375 190667 190675 190707 190785 190789 190793 190795 190799 219 25 27 3 31 3151 3175 3312 39 5 59 8314 50043 50045 50047 50049 50051 50127 50129 50131 30028 30056 30062 30064 30082 30084 30090 30092 Hydqua.rpt Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed (0.00 Open Closed Open Closed Closed Closed Closed Open Closed Closed Active Active Closed Cannot Closed (1.00 (0.00 (1.00 (0.00 (0.00 (0.00 (0.00 (75.00 setting) setting) setting) setting) setting) setting) setting) setting) psi setting) (15850.00 gpm setting) (4300.00 gpm setting) deliver flow (1900.00 gpm setting) Page 2 Hydqua.rpt *** WARNING: FCV 30090 - Cannot deliver flow at 00:00 hrs. Warning/Error Messages during Run *************************************** ** Retrieving Network Data ** **.Simulating Network Hydraulics ** at time: 00:00 *** WARNING: FCV 30090 - Cannot deliver flow at 00:00 hrs. ' ** Warning conditions exist, please check Output Report for details Page 3 ON of Huntinaton Beach - Ultimate Model (Existing): Peak Hour Demand R Q�`OUtPUT° ®UT!'ITi 4t "D ECE�iRfilO BRAD PRE.SSCiRE� 'P•:" .i! r�/tom ,y{.'?''\{{�� �+�,�'`!.,•.�i to ',i 7 •.. .. Wes.. .4' ;"3:4.. . � ,�1.� 4. y�Sr�' T 16611 5.32 28.42 162.25 58.01 2 `{'$ ' 16614 5.32 28.48 162.25 57.99 >'3w 16725 5.32 26.61 162.11 58.74 16729 5.32 26.61 162.11 58.74 ' 16731 0.00 30.97 162.15 56.87 6 .A 16742 0.00 30.47 162.15 57.08 16750 3.83 25.98 161.94 58.94 16752 3.83 25.95 161.94 58.95 rt9. a, 16768 3.83 30.11 162.08 57.21 =:10 - ' yF 16769 0.00 30.15 162.12 57.21 16794 3.83 29.88 161.97 57.26 =T2 16802 3.83 28.80 162.05 57.76 16803 3.83 26.48 162.04 58.76 16809 3.83 28.73 162.05 57.79 16815 3.83 29.93 161.97 57.24 °s 16•'� 16826 3.83 26.11 162.05 58.93 16827 3.83 29.33 161.96 i 57.50 16831 3.83 26.17 162.05 58.90 f;-Tq 16837 3.83 29.36 161.96 57.48 16849 3.83 23.80 161.83 59.83 16854 3.83 23.77 161.83 59.85 x ' ; 22 16855 3.83 25.21 162.02 59.31 23;.,� n' 16857 3.83 25.20 162.02 59.31 T`24 16867 3.83 29.94 " 161.97 57.24 �� 25 16893 3.83 25.64 161.95 59.09 u 26 = 16896 3.83 25.64 161.95 59.09 .27 _ � "irl. ' 16903 3.83 25.60 161.95 59.11 28 16907 0.00 29.88 162.07 57.30 _ 29 16909 3.83 24.60 162.01 59.57 30 16927 3.83 25.81 161.95 59.02 16934 3.83 23.26 161.83 60.07 32 16935 3.83 29.52 161.97 57.42 33, 16946 0.00 29.22 162.06 57.59 34 ;z,°tea, 16947 3.83 29.14 162.06 57.62 35 z 16953 3.83 23.01 161.83 60.18 36 16954 3.83 22.85 161.83 60.25 16961 3.83 27.17 161.83 58.38 38 "`"` € * ' 16962 3.83 26.76 161.83 58.55 16969 3.83 26.39 161.93 58.75 Date: Thursday, January 17, 2002, Time: 09:04:54, Page 1 j 0 III p C L L City of Huntington Beach - Ultimate Model (Existing): Perak Hours Demand _ } 1 __FOU LIMA, 0RESSURE � �{ you x, JAP FM.z; 17020 3.83 26.50 161.93 58.71 41 17023 3.83 26.50 161.93 58.71 42 L 17025 3.83 26.47 161.93 58.72 43�'' 17032 3.83 25.53 161.87 59.11 ~` 44 17035 3.83 25.56 161.87 59.09 . ". 17042 3.83 23.24 161.83 60.08 46'> 17043 3.83 26.78 161.96 58.60 "47 }f '- 17045 3.83 26.42 161.93 58.74 484"`.-.►�. ' 17046 3.83 26.77 161.96 58.60 .=49r` "' 17047 3.83 26.43 161.93 58.74 50 .<.-;. _:;-:_;:;: 17051 3.83 26.49 161.93 58.71 17052 3.83 23.24 161.81 60.07 -4- 52 ` ?,9 17056 3.83 23.10 161.81 60.13 53`�'" 17082 3.83 26.50 161.93 58.71 17090 3.83 26.50 161.93 58.71 17117 3.83 26.50 161.91 58.70 56A,..` 17123 3.83 26.50 161.91 58.70 " .. ;' S7 r��4 :1r< 17127 3.83 26.20 161.83 58.80 58 ris 17136 3.83 27.07 161.83 58.42 17163 0.00 24.77 161.80 59.40 17172 0.00 25.22 161.80 59.21 n 61 2 17186 0.00 24.42 161.80 59.56 17213 0.00 25.61 161.79 59.03 17216 0.00 25.09 161.79 59.26 64 5545 2.44 28.00 162.07 58.12 5599 0.00 0.00 161.95 70.21 66 =� 5601 2.44 28.00 161.97 58.07 5623 2.44 28.00 161.97 58.08 5667 2.44 28.00 162.01 58.09 69 = 5689 2.44 28.00 162.07 58.12 70 5765 2.44 28.00 162.01 58.09 71 k .' 5767 2.44 28.00 161.97 58.08 72 5771 2.44 28.00 161.97 58.07 73 uhN° ; 5837 2.44 27.00 161.95 58.50 5877 2.44 28.00 161.93 58.06 75 5883 0.00 0.00 161.9370.20 6257 0.00 30.00 162.07 57.25 77 6383 0.00 0.00 162.19 70.31 78 , z 6387 0.00 0.00 162.17 70.30 i Date: Thursday, January 17, 2002, Time: 09:04:54, Page 2 City of Huntington Beach - Ultimate Model (Existin ): Peak Hour Demand .A{` �O�RM�T°A ''+y 4 Jf{+r".+i4 K � 1 4kWR'✓' �p D�a � �4 "Y7 ElE1lATt� ++.f:yrtpt rt - GRAD 1 R�ESSUR� 6397 0.00 0.00 162.29 70.35 +' gp 6493 0.00 0.00 162.25 70.33 Date: Thursday, January 17, 2002, Time: 09:04:54, Page 3 k h n H I Hydqua.rpt City of Huntington Beach Water Master Plan - Proposed Strand Development Ultimate Model - Peak Hour Demand Number of Pipes ................... Number of Nodes ................... Number of Tanks ................... Number of Pumps ................... Number of Valves .................. Headloss Formula .................. Hydraulic Timestep ................ Hydraulic Accuracy ................ Maximum Trials .................... Quality Analysis .................. Specific Gravity .................. Kinematic Viscosity ............... Chemical Diffusivity .............. Vapor Pressure .................... Total Duration .................... 18835 17484 8 8 Hazen -Williams 1.00 hrs 0.010000 150 None 1.00 1.10e-005 sq ft/sec 1.30e-008 sq ft/sec 8.40e-001 ft 0.00 hrs Hydraulic Convergence at 00:00 hrs: Trial 1 : 1.616435 accuracy Trial 2 : 0.254986 accuracy FCV 30090 switched from ACTIVE to OPEN Trial 3 : 0.069069 accuracy Trial 4 : 0.010506 accuracy Trial 5 : 0.001045 accuracy C P Hydraulic Status: Balanced 5 trials (0.001045 accuracy) at-0.0033 g pm Flow Supplied 37140.00 gpm Flow Demanded 59339.34 gpm Flow Stored -22197.84 gpm Tank 20107 Emptying (166.32 ft level) Tank 20109 Emptying (120.12 ft level) Tank 20111 Closed (173.25 ft level) Tank 20115 Closed (173.25 ft level) Tank 20117 Emptying (120.12 ft level) Tank 20119 Closed (178.12 ft level) Pipe 1 Closed Pipe 117 Closed CV 12076 Closed Pipe 125 Closed Pipe 127 Closed Pipe 13 Closed CV 15809 Closed Page 1 F CV 15878 CV 15920 Pipe 16613 Pipe 16614 Pipe 17 Pipe 18153 Pipe 19 CV 190323 Pipe 190375 Pipe 190667 Pipe 190675 Pipe 190707 Pipe 190785 Pipe 190789 Pipe 190793 Pipe 190795 Pipe 190799 Pipe 219 Pipe 25 Pipe 27 Pipe 3 Pipe 31 Pipe 3151 CV 3175 CV 3312 Pipe 39 Pipe 5 Pipe 59 Pipe 8314 Pump 50043 Pump 50045 Pump 50047 Pump 50049 Pump 50051 Pump 50127 Pump 50129 Pump 50131 PRV 30028 PRV 30056 FCV 30062 FCV 30064 FCV 30082 FCV 30084 FCV 30090 FCV 30092 Hydqua.rpt Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed (0.00 setting) Open (1.00 setting) Closed (0.00 setting) Open (1.00 setting) Closed (0.00 setting) Closed (0.00 setting) Closed (0.00 setting) Closed (0.00 setting) Open Closed Closed Open Active (4300.00 gpm setting) Closed Cannot deliver flow (1900.00 gpm setting) Closed *** WARNING: FCV 30090 - Cannot deliver flow at 00:00 hrs. *************************************** Page 2 d 0 H Hydqua.rpt Warning/Error Messages during Run *************************************** ** Retrieving Network. Data ** ** Simulating Network Hydraulics ** at time: 00:00 *** WARNING: FCV 30090 - Cannot deliver flow at 00:00 hrs. ** Warning conditions exist, please check Output Report for details Page 3 City of Huntington Beach - Ultimate Model: Peak Hour Demand _OUTPUT� ID GOUTPUT z x DEMAND (gpm) OUTPUT.. ELEVATION : MY(ft). ,OUTPUT : GRADE ' OUTPUT: PRESSURE (psi) 1 16731 0.00 1 30.97 162.66 57.09 2 16742 0.00 30.47 162.66 57.30 3. - 16768 3.83 30.11 162.61 57.44 41 16769 0.00 30.15 162.64 57.43 16794 3.83 29.88 162.52 57.50 6 16802 3.83 28.80 162.58 57.99 T 16809 IV 28.73 162.58 58.03 8 16815 3.83 29.93 162.52 57.48 16826 3.83 26.11 162.68 59.20 16827 3A3 29.33 162.51 57.73 11 16M I 3.83 26.17 162.68 59.18 12... 16837 3.83 29.36 162.51 57.72 :=.13 3 `'r 16855 3.83 25.21 162.61 59.56 14 =' = : 16857 3.83 25.20 162.61 59.57 j 15 .= 16867 3.83 29.94 162.52 57.47 -16w e,4 16893 47.33 25.64 162.52 59.34 16896 3.83 25.64 162.52 59.34 16903 3.83 25.60 162.52 59.35 '19 a 16907 0.00 29.88 162.60 57.53 20 16909 3.83 24.60 162.68 59.86 16927 3.83 25.81 162.52 59.26 16934 47.33 23.26 162.49 60.36 16935 3.83 29.52 162.52 57.65 1 24 _ •;= 16946 0.00 29.22 162.60 57.82 < 25 16947 3.83 29.14 162.59 57.85 26 x 16953 3.83 23.01 162.49 60.46 27 16954 3.83 22.85 162.49 60.53 - 28 16961 7.67 27.17 162.46 58.65 j 2q _ 16969 3.83 26.39 162.49 59.00 30 16980 3.83 28.95 162.37 57.84 31. 16983 3.83 28.92 162.37 57.85 32 17020 3.83 26.50 162.48 58.95 33 17023 3.83 26.50 162.48 58.95 34 17025 3.83 26.47 162.48 58.96 35 17032 3.83 25.53 162.45 59.35 W. 17035 3.83 25.36 162.45 59.34 37 'Rx 17042 47.33 23.24 162.46 60.35 17043 3.83 26.78 162.51 58.84 39 17045 3.83 26.42. 162.48 58.98 Date: Thursday, January 17, 2002, Time: 09:17:44, Page 1 0 n H r CII CII I L k r I City of Huntington Beach - Ultimate Model: Peak Hour Demand * a OUTPUT 3 ,OUTPUT: � 'DEMAND OUTPUT. J ELEVATION (ff} �OUTPUT� ..GRADE;' It � PRESSURE (Psi) ` '(Psi) 40 w:° 17046 3.83 26.77 162.51 58.84 '41 17047 3.83 26.43 162.48 58.98 42 17051 3.83 26.49 162.48 58.95 43 17052 3.83 23.24 162.41 60.33 17056 3.83 23.10 162.41 60.39 45 17082 3.83 26.50 162.48 58.95 46 17090 3.83 26.50 162.48 58.95 47- : ` 17117 3.83 26.50 162.47 58.94 k 748= 17123 3.83 26.50 162.47 58.94 49 j r` 17127 3.83 26.20 162.42 59.05 Sp , K> 17136 3.83 27.07 162.42 58.67 51 R 17163 0.00 24.77 162.40 59.66 17172 0.00 25.22 162.40 59.47 j 53 17176 3.83 26.46 162.43 i 58.94 54 17186 0.00 24.42 162.40 59.81 55 !.: 17213 0.00 25.61 162.38 59.29 17216 0.00 25.09 162.38 59.52 57 =jw€ 17259 3.83 26.18 162.36 59.04 j w58�;;r 17286 0.00 25.54 162.36 59.31 i '.59 17289 2.26 24.11 162.36 59.93 60-.. "' 17290 0.00 25.02 162.36 59.54 <` 61 _{ 17293 2.26 23.69 162.36 60.11 -" 62- "" 17308 0.00 24.98 162.36 59.55 63 �'` 17309 0.00 24.33 162.36 59.84 64 17319 3.83 24.61 162.36 59.71 65 17373 0.00 14.55 162.24 64.02 66 5545 2.44 28.00 162.60 58.35 67 5599 0.00 0.00 162.52 70.45 68 5601 2.44 28.00 162.53 58.32 69 5623 2.44 28.00 162.53 58.32 70 5667 2.44 28.00 162.55 58.33 i 71 5689 2.44 • 28.00 162.60 58.35 72 5765 2.44 28.00 162.55 58.33 " 73 5767 2.44 28.00 162.53 58.32 74 5771 2.44 28.00 162.53 58.32 75 5837 2.44 27.00 162.52 58.75 76 5877 2.44 1 28.00 162.49 58.30 77 ' ' 5883 0.00 0.00 162.49 70.44 78 6257 0.00 30.00 162.60 57.48 1 Date: Thursday, January 17, 2002, Time: 09:17:44, Page 2 I City of Huntington Beach - Ultimate Model: Peak Hour Demand �` OUTPUT 4.OUTPUT ,_ ' . OUTPUT:, .,,,,;OUTPUr. DEMAND ELEVATION GRADE PRESSURE i� 1p (ff) (ft) (Psi) W.(9Pm) . 79 err=� 6383 0.00 0.00 162.69 70.52 - 80 6387 0.00 0.00 162.68 70.52 ":aSlwr 200000 43.50 27.00 162.57 58.77 200002 0.00 29.50 162.72 57.75 j Date: Thursday, January 17, 2002, Time: 09:17:44, Page 3 11 0 Hydqua.rpt City of Huntington Beach Water Master Plan - Proposed Strand Development Ultimate Model - Maximum Day Demand w/ Fire Flow Number of Pipes ................... 18835 Number of Nodes ................... 17484 Number of Tanks .. 6 Number of Pumps ................... 8 Number of Valves .................. 8 Headloss Formula Hazen -Williams Hydraulic Timestep ................ 1.00 hrs Hydraulic Accuracy ................ 0.010000 Maximum Trials .................... 150' Quality Analysis .................. None Specific Gravity 1.00 Kinematic Viscosity ............... 1.10e-005 sq ft/sec Chemical Diffusivity 1.30e-008 sq ft/sec Vapor Pressure 8.40e-001 ft Total Duration .................... 0.00 hrs Hydraulic Convergence at 00:00 hrs: Trial 1 1.622113 accuracy PRV 30028 switched from OPEN to ACTIVE FCV 30062 switched from ACTIVE to OPEN FCV 30082 switched from ACTIVE to OPEN FCV 30084 switched from ACTIVE to OPEN FCV 30090 switched from ACTIVE to OPEN Trial 2 0.803762 accuracy FCV 30084 switched from OPEN to ACTIVE Trial 3 2.192762 accuracy FCV 30082 switched from OPEN to ACTIVE Trial 4 0.034888 accuracy ' Trial 5 0.002723 accuracy Hydraulic Status: Balanced 5 trials (0.002723 accurac ) at 0.0026 m Flow Supplied 31576.00 gpm Flow Demanded 41633.53 gpm Flow Stored-10058.71 gpm Tank 20107 Filling (166.32 ft level) Tank 20109 Emptying (120.12 ft level) Tank 20111 Emptying (173.25 ft level) Tank 20115 Closed (173.25 ft level) ' Tank 20117 Emptying (120.12 ft level) Tank 20119 Closed (178.12 ft level) Pipe 1 Closed Page 1 Pipe CV Pipe Pipe Pipe CV CV CV Pipe Pipe Pipe Pipe Pipe CV Pipe Pipe Pipe Pipe Pipe Pipe Pipe Pipe Pipe Pipe Pipe Pipe Pipe Pipe Pipe CV CV Pipe Pipe Pipe Pipe Pump Pump Pump Pump Pump Pump Pump Pump PRV PRV FCV FCV FCV FCV FCV FCV 117 12076 125 127 13 15809 15878 15920 16613 16614 17 18153 19 190323 190375 190667 190675 190707 190785 190789 190793 190795 190799 219 25 27 3 31 3151 3175 3312 39 5 59 8314 50043 50045 50047 50049 50051 50127 50129 50131 30028 30056 30062 30064 30082 30084 30090 30092 Hydqua.rpt Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed (0.0 Closed (0. Closed (0.0 Open (1.0 Closed (0.0 Closed (0.0 Closed (.0.0 Closed (0.0 Active (75. Closed Cannot Open Active Active Cannot Closed 0 setting) 00 setting) 0 setting) 0 setting) 0 setting) 0 setting) 0 setting) 0 setting) 00 psi setting) deliver flow (1.00 gpm setting) (1000.00 gpm setting) (1.00 gpm setting) deliver flow (4000.00 Page 2 gpm setting) U 1 Hydqua.rpt ***,WARNING: FCV 30062 - Cannot deliver flow at 00:00 hrs. *** WARNING: FCV 30090 - Cannot deliver flow at 00:00 hrs. F L *************************************** Warning/Error Messages during Run ** Retrieving Network Data ** ** Simulating Network Hydraulics ** at time: 00:00 *** WARNING: FCV 30062 - Cannot deliver flow at 00:00 hrs. *** WARNING: FCV 30090 - Cannot deliver flow at 00:00 hrs. ** Warning conditions exist, please check Output Report for details Page 3 City of Huntington Beach - Maximum Day Demand w/ Fire Flow 1 16731 0.00 30.97 165.43 58.29 16742 0.00 30.47 165.43 58.51 c X 3 16768 2.44 30.11 164.92 58.44 16769 0.00 30.15 165.43 58.64 16794 2.44 29.88 165.11 58.62 16802 2.44 28.80 164.37 58.77 16809 2.44 28.73 164.37 58.80 x 8 16815 2.44 29.93 165.11 58.60 16826 2.44 26.11 165.44 60.40 16827 2.44 29.33 164.98 58.80 u _ 1i1401 '` ". ; 16831 2.44 26.17 165.44 60.37 r> 12 NU 16837 2.44 29.36 164.98 58.79 ri 16855 2.44 25.21 165.66 60.88 16857 2.44 25.20 165.66 60.89 ;TSB""'., 16867 2.44 29.94 165.23 58.65 16893 1,012.94 25.64 161.59 58.93 F?�wT7� 16896 2.44 25.64 161.61 58.94 16903 2.44 25.60 161.61 58.96 16907 0.00 29.88 165.44 58.77 16909 2.44 24.60 165.44 61.06 - � 16927 2.44 25.81 162.70 59.34 16934 1,012.94 23.26 160.10 59.32 16935 2.44 29.52 165.23 58.83 .a, - ,x �, ,� , .. •-� 16946 0.00 29.22 165.27 58.98 16947 2.44 29.14 165.26 59.01 z 26` z 16953 2.44 23.01 160.10 59.43 27'� , .:_ . 16954 2.44 22.85 160.10 59.50 �i 16961 4.88 27.17 160.09 57.62 16969 2.44 26.39 163.92 59.62 16980 2.44 28.95 164.89 58.93 31. 16983 2.44 28.92 164.89 58.94 32 .. ,a 17020 2.44 26.50 164.21 59.70 33 'h 17023 2.44 26.50 164.21 59.70 17025 2.44 26.47 164.24 59.72 17032 2.44 25.53 163.82 59.95 t" 36 ,r= 17035 2.44 25.56 163.82 59.93 16-0 17042 1,012.94 23.24 160.09 59.33 17043 2.44 26.78 164.59 59.74 17045 2.44 26.42 164.34 59.79 Date: Friday, January 25, 2002, Time: 12:05:12, Page 1 d H p r L I City of Huntington Beach - Maximum Day Demand w/ Fire Flow "40:.= 17046 2.44 26.77 164.59 59.74 �, 41 A 17047 2.44 26.43 164.36 59.79 17051 2.44 26.49 164.34 59.76 17052 2.44 23.24 163.03 60.60 5 h 17056 2.44 23.10 163.03 60.66 17082 2.44 26.50 164.38 59.77 46Jf�'`" ' 17090 2.44 26.50 164.38 59.77 17117 2.44 26.50 164.38 59.77 17123 2.44 26.50 164.38 59.77 17127 2.4.4 26.20 163.72 59.62 - 17136 2.44 27.07 163.72 59.24 y40"` `� 17163 0.00 24.77 163.56 60.16 ,z52 17172 0.00 25.22 163.56 59.97 17176 2.44 26.46 164.36 59.78 - � } 17186 0.00 24.42 163.65 60.36 17213 0.00 25.61 163.76 59.89 - -._-W :56 ? 17216 0.00 25.09 163.76 60.11 `ST' *� 17259 2.44 26.18 163.90 59.70 17286 0.00 25.54 163.90 59.98 17289 1.44 24.11 163.91 60.60 't4' 6Q 17290 0.00 25.02 163.91 60.21 17293 1.44 23.69 163.91 60.79 17308 0.00 24.98 163.96 60.25 17309 0.00 24.33 163.96 60.53 17319 2.44 24.61 164.01 60.43 ` '"; 17373 0.00 14.55 164.14 64.85 r*4^ 66hs 5545 2.44 28.00 164.67 59.25 "', R- •y 67 ��'`' _ 5599 0.00 0.00 162.70 70.53 5601 2.44 28.00 163.00 58.52 5623 2.44 28.00 163.14 58.58 5667 2.44 28.00 163.71 58.83 5689 2.44 28.00 164.67 59.25 5765 2.44 28.00 163.71 58.83 5767 2.44 28.00 163.14 58.58 �• : ; 74 y , 5771 2.44 28.00 163.00 58.52 75n,i 5837 2.44 27.00 162.70 58.83 "jv..=76 y 5877 2.44 28.00 163.58 58.77 • ' `-:.< 77 5883 0.00 0.00 163.58 70.91 78 ;" 6257 0.00 165.44 58.71 .30.00 1 Date: Friday, January 25, 2002, Time: 12:05:12, Page 2 p of Huntinaton Beach - Maximum Day Demand w/ Fire Flow 6383 0.00 0.00 165.44 71.72 6387 0.00 0.00 165.44 71.72 l 200000 1,010.50 27.00 161.47 58.29 k _ 200002 0.00 29.50 165.44 58.93 Date: Friday, January 25, 2002, Time: 12:05:12, Page 3 Prepared for: CIM GROUP LLC Real Estate Services 6922 Hollywood Blvd., Ste 900 Hollywood, CA 90028 PRELIlAINARY SEWER CAPACITY STUDY FOR THE STRAND DOWNTOWN OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Supervising Engineer Andrew Grechuta, P.E. RECEIVED .tar, 14 2002 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING GCo RE t5 Q 46 C52312 m 12/ 1 /0 IVIL TFOF AUFO CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ARTMENT OF PUBLIC YYORKS JANUARY 2002 A ® 1� Prepared by: G & G ENGINEERING, INC. 1341 MILLER ST., STE 209 ANAHEIM, CA 92806 714/524-6616 714/524-6672 FAX J� City of Huntington Beach 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 926U DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING Phone 536-5271 Fax 374-1640 374-1648 January 22, 2002 Mr. Neill Brower EIP Associates 12301 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 430 Los Angeles, CA 90025 SUBJECT: THE STRAND AT DOWNTOWN HUNTINGTON BEACH SUPPLEMENTAL SEWER UTILITY STUDY Dear Neill: A copy of the supplemental sewer utility study for The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach (Blocks 104/105) EIR project is enclosed. Public Works staff has reviewed and approved the enclosed report. A Water Quality Management Plan and the supplemental storm drain analysis were received from CIM today. Public Works has been requested to review the studies and provide comments by Wednesday, January 30, 2002. If approved, the revised studies will be forwarded to EIP immediately. Please let me know if you have any questions regarding the enclosed material or if you need any additional information. Sincerely, ?ane James Associate Planner Enclosure (g: jj\blocks 104105\eipplanstransmittal) r , .JJ CITY. OF _HUNTIN,GTON BEACH INTERDEPA`RTMEN TAL C0MMLJNICAT`IQN TO: Jane James, Senior Planner FROM.: Terri Elliott, Principal Engineer ,�i117M `d7 1 3 i it i DATE: January 17, 2002 SUBJECT: The Strand - Technical Studies Supplemental Information Public W.orks has reviewed the supplemental information: from CIM regarding the sewer study and water information. The sewer study is acceptable for. EIR use and the information provided for the hydraulic analysis is.adequate. TE:II t 0 n 0 0 u 0 0 C r Sewer Capacity Study The Strand — Downtown of Huntington Beach January 2002 Table of Contents I. Introduction..................................................................... 3 H. . Design Criteria.................................................................5 III. Proposed Sewer................................................................7 IV. Conclusions...................................................................11 V. Maps............................................................................13 2 CIM Group, LLC Sewer Capacity Study The Strand — Downtown of Huntington Beach January 2002 L Introduction The City of Huntington Beach requests that a Sewer Study be prepared analyzing the impact of the proposed `The Strand' development on the existing sewer systems around the project. The proposed development is surrounded by the following streets: PCH, 6'h Street, Walnut Ave, and Main Street. Existing structures from the site will be demolished except for some that will stay. Existing historical building at the comer of 6t' Street and Walnut Ave will remain. All buildings at Main Street and PCH between 5"' Street and Main will also stay. Existing services to these buildings will be maintained intact. There are three alleys that accommodate some of the utilities serving the existing buildings. Existing sewer mains run through these alleys. Some of these sewer mains will be removed and some will be reconstructed. Again, existing active sewer laterals will be reconnected to new reconstructed sewer mains. See proposed utilities in Section V for more detailed locations. Proposed development will accommodate several business establishments as: Hotel, Restaurants, Retails Shops, and Office Space. A Proposed Subterranean Parking Structure level I and II will not generate any waste water or sewage. Proposed sewer loads have been estimated based on a preliminary occupancy for the project. The existing sewer facilities have been located in the field, documented from the City records and are shown on a Map in Section V. The Sewer Study has been divided into five primary sections. 4 CM Group, LLC Sewer Capacity Study The Strand — Downtown. of Huntington Beach January 2002 U P � Section H L 0 L k C C Design Cr40 iteria 5 CBI Group, LLC Sewer Capacity Study The Strand — Downtown of Huntington Beach January 2002 L Design Criteria The Uniform Plumbing Code 1997 edition design criteria has been used for determining Waste Water and Sewer Loads. 1. Restaurant 1.0 ga/customer/hr (45 customers) 2. Restaurant 2.0 gal/customer/hr (80 customers) 3. Office 18.6 ga/hr 4. Hotel lobby 195 ga/hr 5. Hotel 1 bdrm 47 gal/day 6. Hotel 2 bdrm 94 gal/day Based on the above listed design criteria the Waste Water and Sewer Loads have been determined for each proposed building (A through G). The maximum pipe flow capacity is based on the pipe being V2 full for pipes 8" diameter and 3/4 full for pipes 10" diameter and larger. The minimum velocity for pipes 8" and larger is. 2ft/sec. All existing sewer mains are at 1 /3 of their respective capacities as per City of Huntington Beach. 6 r- CIM Group, LLC 1 Sewer Capacity Study 1 The Strand — Downtown of Huntington Beach January 2002 F k I Section III � ProposedSewer CBI Group, LLC Sewer Capacity Study The Strand — Downtown of Huntington Beach January 2002 III. Proposed Sewer A. Proposed Waste Water and Sewer Loads Based on preliminary analysis of building occupancy the following projections are anticipated for each building. Building A 83 7 gal/hr ( 0. 03 cfs ) Lat A Building B 357 gal/hr ( 0.01 cfs ) Lat B Building C 332 gaUhr ( 0.01 cfs ) Lat C Building D 365 gal/hr ( 0.01 cfs ) Lat. D Building E 480 gal/hr ( 0.02 cfs ) Lat. E Building F 200 gal/hr ( 0.01 cfs ) Lat. E Building G 540 gal/hr ( 0.02 cfs ) Lat. E See the Map in Section V of this report for locations of proposed laterals A through E. These proposed laterals will discharge into the existing or reconstructed sewer mains as described in the introductory part of this report. Proposed laterals will be 6" in diameter. 8 CIM Group, LLC n Sewer Capacity study The Strand —Downtown of Huntington Beach January 2002 B Proposed Sewer Load Distribution Laterals A. B, and C will generate a total of 0.05 cfs of waste. It will be discharged into a reconstructed 8" sewer main located in the alley behind buildings A-C. Additionally this 8" sewer will accommodate all existing laterals currently connected into the existing 8" sewer in this alley. Existing flow generations (from existing buildings) have been assumed to be 1/3 of the pipe capacity and it is presented on the next calculation sheet. As presented, the proposed waste discharge from laterals A-C into this sewer main will be about 6% of the existing flow. This added discharge will be about 4% of total capacity for 8" sewer pipe based on design criteria. Lateral ID will generate a total of 0.01 cfs of waste. It will be discharged into a reconstructed 8" sewer main located in the alley behind building D and existing historical building. Additionally, this sewer main will accommodate all existing sewer laterals from historical building. This lateral has a minimum impact on the proposed reconstruction of 8" sewer main in this alley. Lateral E will generate a total of 0.05 cfs of waste. It will be discharged into the existing 8"sewer in a Street. This is an identical impact as in first case (laterals A, B, and Q. With an assumption of 1/3 flow capacity in the existing main the proposed discharge will be about 6% of the existing flow. 9 CW (Group, LLC Sewer Capacity Study The Strand - Downtown of Huntington Beach January 2002 C. Typical Capacity of an Existing 8" Sewer Main Project Description Project File c:\haestad\academic\fmw\projectl.fm2 Worksheet The Strand Flow Element Circular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Input Data Mannings Coefficient 0.009 Channel Slope 0.020000 ft/ft Diameter 8.00 in Discharge 0.80 cfs Results Depth 0.26 ft Flow Area 0.13 ft2 Wetted Perimeter 0.90 ft Top Width 0.65 ft Critical Depth 0.42 ft Percent Full 39.16 Critical Slope 0.003930 ft/ft Velocity 6.31 ft/s Velocity Head 0.62 ft Specific Energy 0.88 ft Froude Number 2.52 Maximum Discharge 2.66 cfs Full Flow Capacity 2.47 cfs Full Flow Slope 0.002101 ft/ft Flow is supercritical. 10 CBI Group, LLC Sewer Capacity Study The Strand — Downtown of `Huntington Beach January 2002 Section IV Conclusions 11 -MEIJI I CBI Group, LLC Sewer Capacity Study The Strand — Downtown of Huntington Beach January 2002 IV. Conclusions The following significant conclusions can be drawn based on the criteria, methodology, data and analysis presented in this report; 1) The existing 8" sewer main in the 6'b Street has sufficient capacity to accept flow from proposed lateral E. 2) The proposed reconstructions of existing sewer mains in both alleys will have sufficient capacities to accept flows from their respective proposed and existing laterals. 12 CIM Group, LLC Sewer Capachy Study The Strand —Downtown of Huntington Beach January 2002 0 U P � Section V I C I i r U I m 13 CM Group, LLC fl L� I APPENDIX G TRAFFIC REPORT 1 �7 11 1 fl ItEC 'IVE JUN 2 5 2002 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS THE STRAND HUNTINGTON BEACH BLOCKS 1104/io5 REDEVELOPMENT HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA pFESs +1 26281 0 a' m m d � CIV11• oQ. OF CAd�F pog, This traffic study has been prepared under the supervision of Leslie E. Card, P.E. QRWSSIpN9 �RpFESStpNq l �D ER Rl� /C 9�ya Signed C.D o rn CmLAJ o No. 34410 r No 3 x * Exp. 4( Exp. 9lfOF CAUF���\� L S sf A -A o� June 21, 2002 1 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS t HUNTINGTON BEACH BLOCKS I04/1o5 REDEVELOPMENT ' HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA Submitted to: EIP Associates 12301 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 430 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Prepared by: LSA Associates, Inc. 20 Executive Park, Suite 200 Irvine, California 92614 (949)553-0666 LSA Project No. EIP030 June 21, 2002 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY......................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION................................................................ 4 METHODOLOGY AND LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA .............................. 4 EXISTING SETTING............................................................ 10 CUMULATIVE (YEAR 2005) CONDITIONS ........................................ 24 FUTURE GENERAL PLAN BACKGROUND CONDITION ............................. 34 PROJECT IMPACTS............................................................ 41 CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS ...................................... 48 FUTURE GENERAL PLAN PLUS PROJECT CONDITION ............................. 61 CMP REQUIREMENTS.......................................................... 73 PROJECT ACCESS AND INTERNAL CIRCULATION ................................ 73 PARKING..................................................................... 78 RECOMMENDED CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENTS ................................ 80 APPENDICES A - EXISTING NON -SUMMER WEEKDAY PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC COUNT DATA SHEETS B - EXISTING NON -SUMMER WEEKDAY ICU AND HCM WORKSHEETS C - EXISTING SUMMER WEEKDAY PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC COUNT DATA SHEETS D - EXISTING SUMMER WEEKDAY ICU AND HCM WORKSHEETS E - CUMULATIVE NON -SUMMER WEEKDAY ICU AND HCM WORKSHEETS F - CUMULATIVE SUMMER WEEKDAY ICU AND HCM WORKSHEETS G - MODELING SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION AND GENERAL PLAN TRAFFIC VOLUMES PREPARED BY URBAN CROSSROADS H - GENERAL PLAN WITH BRIDGES ICU AND HCM WORKSHEETS I - GENERAL PLAN WITHOUT BRIDGES ICU AND HCM WORKSHEETS J - THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH "CMP MONITORING CHECKLIST: LAND USE COORDINATION COMPONENT" P:\EIP030\Traffic (Revised June, 2002)(2).wpd 06/21/02» 1 FIGURES AND TABLES 1 FIGURES Figure 1:The Strand Site Plan ....................................................... 5 Figure 2: Project Location.......................................................... 9 Figure 3: Intersection Geometrics, Number of Arterial Mid -Block Lanes, and Method of Traffic Control..................................................................... 11 Figure 4: Existing Non -summer Weekday (2000) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ............... 16 Figure 5: Existing Summer Weekday (2000) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ................... Figure 6: Existing Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Volumes and Volume/Capacity Ratios ........ 20 25 Figure 7: Cumulative Non -Summer Weekday A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ...... 26 Figure 8: Cumulative Summer Weekday A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes .......... Figure 9: City of Huntington Beach General Plan Circulation Plan ......................... 30 35 Figure 10: General Plan With Bridges Baseline Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ................. 36 Figure 11: General Plan With Bridges Baseline Daily Traffic (ADT) ....................... Figure 12: General Plan Without Bridges Baseline Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ............... 40 42 Figure 13: General Plan Without Bridges Baseline Daily Traffic (ADT) .................... 46 Figure 14: Project Trip Assignment and Regional Trip Distribution Percentages .............. 49 Figure 15: Cumulative Non -Summer Weekday Plus Project A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes . 53 Figure 16: Cumulative Summer Weekday Plus Project A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes...................................................... Figure 17: General Plan With Bridges Plus Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes .............. 57 62 Figure 18: General Plan With Bridges plus Project Daily Traffic (ADT) Volumes ............. 66 Figure 19: General Plan Without Bridges plus Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ............ 67 Figure 20: General Plan Without Bridges plus Project Daily Traffic (ADT) .................. 72 Figure 21: Parking Structure Internal Circulation ....................................... 75 TABLES Table A: Existing Non -summer Weekday Level of Service Analysis ....................... 19 Table B: Existing Summer Weekday Level of Service Analysis ........................... 23 Table C: Cumulative Non -Summer Weekday Level of Service Analysis .................... 29 Table D: Cumulative Summer Weekday Level of Service Analysis ........................ 33 Table E: General Plan With Bridges Baseline Level of Service Analysis .................... 39 Table F: General Plan Without Bridges Baseline Level of Service Analysis .................. 45 Table G: Project Trip Generation ..........................................::::::::: 47 Table H: Cumulative Non -Summer Weekday Plus Project Level of Service Analysis . 56 Table I: Cumulative Summer Weekday Project Level of Service Analysis ................... 60 Table J: General Plan With Bridges plus Project Level of Service Analysis .................. 65 Table K: General Plan Without Bridges Plus Project Level of Service Analysis ............... 71 Table L: Percentage of Net Traffic Impact ............................................ 73 Table M: The Strand Stacking Analysis .............................................. 77 1 PASPOMTraffic (Revised June, 2002)(2).wpd «6/21/02» ii LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. JUNE. 2002 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS THE STRAND (BLOCKS 104/105 REDEVELOPMENT) HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA The Blocks 104/105 Conceptual Master Plan, known as "The Strand," is composed of two parcels: Parcel A on Block 105 to the west of Fifth Street and Parcel B on Block 104 to the east of Fifth Street. The Strand proposes the construction of four separate buildings ranging in height from two to four stories with a total of 226,245 gross square feet of floor area. Uses will include 53,000 square feet of retail/commercial, 40,000 square feet of restaurant, 28,000 square feet of office, and a 149 room hotel. Parking will be provided in a subterranean 397 space parking garage accessed from Sixth Street. Additional surface level parking and street parking on Fifth Street will provide six spaces, for a total of 403 spaces. The proposed project is forecast to generate approximately 7,106 total daily trips, of which approximately 383 will occur in the a.m. peak hour and 617 will occur in the p.m. peak hour. 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 analysis of off -site traffic conditions and impacts examines the following conditions: • Existing Non -Summer Weekday • Existing Summer Weekday • Cumulative (Existing plus approved projects plus growth rate) Non -Summer Weekday • Cumulative Non -Summer Weekday plus Project • Cumulative Summer Weekday • Cumulative Summer Weekday plus Project • 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 Summer weekday conditions were analyzed to provide a comparison between non -summer and summer periods. ,Direct project impacts and mitigation measures were developed based on non - summer weekday traffic counts. Intersections operating at unsatisfactory levels of service are summarized in the table below: PAEIP030Uraffic (Revised June, 2002)(2).wpd (<6/21/02» LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. JUNE. 2002 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS THE STRAND (BLOCKS 104/105 REDEVELOPMENT) HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA I I I Intersections Warner/PCH Seapoint/PCH Brookhurst/PCH Roadway Segments PCH-North of Warner PCH-Between Seapoint & Warner PCH-South of Beach Palm -Between Golden West & 7th Main -Between Adams & Palm Scenario Existing Cumulative General Plan Build Out Non- Summer Summer+ Without Without With With Summer Proj Bridges Bridges + Bridges Bridges + = 1.31 PM = 1.02 PM = 1.03 PM = 0.93 PM = 0.93 Recommendations/Mitigation Measures PM = 1.01 PM = 1.01 PM = 1.01 PM = 1.01 AM = 0.87 AM = 0.87 AM = 0.82 AM = 0.83 PM = 0.95 PM = 0.96 PM = 0.96 PM = 0.97 v/c = 1.04 v/c = 1.04 v/c = 1.04 v/c = 1.04 v/c = > 1.00 v/c = > 1.00 v/c = > 1.00 v/c = > 1.00 v/c = 1.07 v/c = 1.07 v/c = 1.06 v/c = 1.11 v/c = 0.83 v/c = 0.83 v/c = 0.83 v/c = 0.83 As shown in the table, while Warner Avenue/Coast Highway will operate with unsatisfactory levels of service, 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. Restriping the eastbound approach to provide a second eastbound left turn lane will result in this intersection operating with an ICU of 0.82 and 0.84 in the p.m. peak hour in the with bridges plus project and without bridges plus project condition respectively. An analysis of on -site parking was completed to ensure adequacy of parking, consistent with the City of Huntington Beach Downtown Parking Master Plan. This analysis concluded that on -site parking is consistent with the assumptions set forth in the Downtown Parking Master Plan. On -site circulation and vehicle stacking into the parking structure were analyzed to ensure safe and efficient on -site circulation and ingress/egress to/from the project site. Based on this analysis, the following recommendations were made to improve circulation on site: • To ensure that traffic entering the parking structure does not queue onto the public right-of-way, two inbound lanes and one outbound lane should be provided at the parking structure entrance. According to the project site plan, this change is feasible and will only require a change to the striping of the driveway. Review of the site plan indicates that there is adequate width for four service booths/ticket dispensers at the entrance to the structure (two inbound and two outbound). It is recommended that the four service booths/ticket dispensers be maintained to ensure efficient ingress and egress at the structure entrance. 1 PASP030\Traffic (Revised June, 2002x2).wpd E(6/21/02N 2 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. JUNE, 2002 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS THE STRAND (BLOCKS 104/105 REDEVELOPMENT) HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA • Delivery vehicles should be restricted to vehicles the size of or smaller than the ArB-40 design vehicle, defined as a medium or small semitrailer with a length of 50 feet. • It should be noted that the project is proposing to utilize Fifth Street, a two lane collector on the City's General Plan Circulation Element, as a circulator for local project traffic and drop-off for hotel and valet guests. Approval of final design of Fifth Street is subject to approval of the City PASP030\Trafc (Revised June, 2002)(2).wpd Et6/21/02>> 3 LSA AS S O C IATES, INC. TRAFFIC I PACT ANALYSIS DUNE, .12 THE STRAND (BLOCKS 104/105 REDEVELOPMENT) HUNTINGTON BEACH,CALIFORNIA 1 INTRODUCTION Statement of Purpose The purpose of this traffic impact analysis is to assess the potential circulation impacts associated with the proposed redevelopment of Blocks 104/105, located in the area bounded by Pacific Coast Highway, Walnut Avenue, Sixth Street, and Main Street in the City of Huntington Beach. The Blocks 104/105 Conceptual Master Plan, known as "The Strand," is composed of two parcels: Parcel A on Block 105 to the west of Fifth Street and Parcel B on Block 104 to the east of Fifth Street. Existing land uses surrounding the site include mixed use commercial/residential buildings on the eastern half of Block 104, commercial and residential buildings and a police substation to the north of the project, and commercial and residential buildings to the west of the project. Project Description ® The Strand proposes the construction of four separate buildings ranging in height from two to four stories with a total of 226,245 gross square feet of floor area. Uses will include 53,000 square feet of retail/commercial, 40,000 square feet of restaurant, 28,000 square feet of office, and a 149 room hotel. Parking 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. Fifth Street, a two lane collector on the City's General Plan Circulation Element, is proposed as a circulator for local project traffic and drop-off for hotel and valet guests. With the proposed project, a 54 foot wide public easement for vehicle and pedestrian circulation will be provided. This easement includes two 12-foot wide travel lanes with a 15-foot sidewalk on each side. The site plan for The Strand is presented in Figure 1. 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 • Non -Summer Weekday • Summer Weekday Cumulative Existing plus approved projects plus growth rate corresponding to the year 2005. • Non -Summer Weekday • Non -Summer Weekday plus Project ' PAEIP03OUraffic (Revised June, 2002x2).wpd E(6/21/02» 4 7-- -% /� - MEE/ . on 0 245.27' COMO RM FLMA PAMW L S A FIGURE I 0 so 100 The Strand FEET Site Plan SOURCE: EIP ASSOCIATES. LTIPOMSite Plan.edr (3/29/02) ' LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS JUNE, 2002 THE STRAND (BLOCKS 104/105 REDEVELOPMENT) HUNTINGTON BEACH. CALIFORNIA k �I r 0 • 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 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 non -summer weekday. Common traffic engineering practice is to mitigate traffic impacts to a non -summer 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 non -summer and summer periods. Direct ,project impacts and mitigation measures have been developed based on non -summer 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 Resort Hotel • The Palm/Golden West 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 meth- odology compares the volume to capacity (v/c) ratios of conflicting turn movements at an inter- section, 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 0.91 is PAMP030Uraffic (Revised June, 2002)(2).wpd 06/21/02» 6 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. JUNE. 2002 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS THE STRAND (BLOCKS 104/105 REDEVELOPMENT) HUNTINGTON BEACH. CALIFORNIA 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 geometrics take into account the City's policy for de facto right turn lanes at the key study area intersections. To maintain consistency with Caltrans methodology, all intersections along State highways (Pacific Coast Highway and Beach Boulevard) have also been analyzed using the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) signalized intersection methodology. For unsignalized study area intersections, the 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 volume to capacity (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 0.10 above the base 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. Study Area Determination The study area was developed in consultation with City of Huntington Beach Public Works Engineering staff, and includes the following intersections: • Warner Avenue/Coast Highway (CMP intersection) • Seapoint Avenue/Coast Highway PAUP030\Traffic (Revised June, 2002)(2).wpd EK6/21/02)) 7 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. JUNE. 2002 n ' • Golden West Street/Coast Highway • 171 Street/Coast Highway • Ninth Street/Coast Highway • Sixth Street/Coast Highway • Main Street/Coast Highway • First Street/Coast Highway • Huntington Street/Coast Highway • Beach Boulevard/Coast Highway (CMP intersection) • Newland Street/Coast Highway • Magnolia Street/Coast Highway • Brookhurst Street/Coast Highway • Golden West Street/Orange Avenue • Golden West Street/Palm Avenue • Golden West Street/Yorktown Avenue • Main Street/Sixth Street • Main Street/Adams Avenue • Main Street/Utica Street 0 Main Street/Yorktown Avenue • Lake Street/Adams Avenue • Lake Street/Yorktown Avenue ' • Beach Boulevard/Atlanta Avenue • Beach Boulevard/Indianapolis Avenue • Beach Boulevard/Adams Avenue (CMP intersection) • Beach Boulevard/Yorktown Avenue Sixth Street/Walnut Avenue ' • Sixth Street/Olive Avenue TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS THE STRAND (BLOCKS 104/105 REDEVELOPMENT) HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA Figure 2 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 PAUP030Uraffic (Revised June, 2002)(2).wpd (K6/21/02YN 8 F GARFIELD AVE F 16 20 26 YORKTOWN AVE 2 22 19 r UTICA AVE 15 18 21 25 1 ADAMS AVE F 14 rA 1 3 F a O� 4GT 24 yS z INDIANAPOLIS A 5 6di 28ST 17 C7 F h 27 z 6 1.x 23 ATLAN IA AVE 7 gc 8 PROJECT SITE 9 HAMILTON AVE 10 11 12 13 Legend le Study Area Intersection FIGURE 2 The Strand Project Location and Study Area Intersections P:\CUF130\Project_Location.xls\Figure (1/23/02) 'SA ASSOCIATES, INC. TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS JUNE, 2002 THE STRAND (BLOCKS 104/105 REDEVELOPMENT) HUNTINGTON BEACH. CALIFORNIA 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. EXISTING SETTING An inventory of the existing circulation system was conducted on arterials adjacent to the proposed project. The existing intersection geometrics, number of arterial mid -block lanes, and method of traffic control are presented in Figure 3. It should be noted that roadway and intersection improvements in the project study area were completed between the time the non -summer weekday (year 2000) traffic counts and the summer weekday (year 2001) traffic counts were taken. These improvements include the restriping of Pacific Coast Highway in the vicinity of the project to six lanes. In addition, a traffic signal at the intersection of Lake Street/Adams Avenue is currently under construction and will be completed by the end of the year. As a result, this intersection is analyzed as a signalized intersection. The intersection geometrics shown in Figure 3 represent the existing geometrics during the summer (year 2001) traffic counts, and are used for intersection analysis throughout this study. 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, 170' Street, Ninth Street, Sixth Street, and Main Street. The posted speed limit in the vicinity of the project site is 35 MPH. • Sixth Street - Sixth Street is a Primary Arterial Highway (ultimate four lane) with an 80 foot right-of-way 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. • 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 for hotel and valet guests. 1 With the proposed project, a 54 foot wide public easement for vehicle and pedestrian circulation will be provided. This easement includes two 12-foot wide travel lanes with a 15-foot sidewalk on each side. • 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, this section of Walnut Avenue adjacent to the project was reclassified as a Local P:\EIP030\Traffic (Revised June, 2002)(2).wpd <<6/21/02» 10 4 GARREL D AVE 4 4 16 20 126 YO AVE 2 22 4 6 19 Q UnCA Co AVE 41 15 18 21 25 ADAMS AVE 4 14 Co E_ 6 3 6 2 y^ti2 22 2 0 4 24 (4 4 2 INDLANAPOUS AVE 4 6th ST 5 17 r 7 z 6 6 ATIANTA AVE 7 14, 6 rb PROJECT 6 6 SITE 9 T 6 HAMILTON AVE 10 6 11 6 12 6 13 FIGURE 3A Legend Study Area Intersection Number of Mid -Block Lanes The Strand Intersection Geometrics, Traffic Control, and Mid -Block Lanes PACUF I 3ft-Geometrics-A.AsTigure (5/29/02) JJ d LL J LL J LL 1 Warner Avenue/Coast Highway 2 Seapoint Avenue/Coast Highway 3 Golden West 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 f �-- �- —� t t 10 Beach Boulevard/Coast Highway 11 Newland Street/Coast Highway 12 Magnolia Street/Coast Highway Legend FIGURE 1a Study Area Intersection d de facto lane _! Travel Lane f Free right turn lane The Strand Signal Intersection Geometrics, Traffic Control, and Mid -Block Lanes i Stop Sign 1 P:\CUF130\g-Geometrics-B.xisTigure (5/29/02) FIGURE 3c Legend Study Area Intersection d de facto lane --k Travel Lane f Free right turn lane ne Strand C) Signal Intersection Geometrics, Traffic Control, and Mid -Block Lanes -d- Stop Sign 1 P:\CUF130\g-Geometries-C.xls\Figure (5/29/02) 4-- L— d �tttd =! -�ttta + -- -_► d —� 25 Beach Boulevard/Adams Avenue 26 Beach Boulevard/Yorktown Avenue 27 6th Street/Walnut Avenue + + F 28 6th Street/Olive Avenue FIGURE 3D Legend ® Study Area Intersection d de facto lane Travel Lane f Free right turn lane The Strand Signal Intersection Geometrics, Traffic Control, and Mid -Block Lanes i Stop Sign P:\CUF130\g-Geometrics-D.xls\Figure (5/29/02) LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. JUNE. 2002 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS THE STRAND (BLOCKS 104/105 REDEVELOPMENT) HUNTINGTON BEACH. CALIFORNIA u Street on the General Plan Circulation Element. In the vicinity of the project site, this street has two undivided lanes. Main Street - Main Street is a two lane Collector on the City's Circulation Plan and provides two undivided travel lanes. This roadway provides north/south circulation on the east side of the property. In the vicinity of the project site, the speed limit is 25 MPH. Traffic Volumes and Levels of Service Figure 4 presents the non -summer 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. The existing non -summer weekday peak hour traffic count data sheets are provided in Appendix A. Table A presents the non -summer weekday peak hour level of service analysis. The ICU and HCM worksheets are provided in Appendix B. As shown in Table A, all of the study area intersections operate with satisfactory levels of service in both peak hours. The non -summer weekday traffic volumes were surveyed in April, 2000, and the summer weekday traffic volumes in August, 2001. Between the time that these surveys were conducted, some intersection and roadway improvements were implemented, including 1) construction of Golden West Street between Ellis Avenue and Yorktown Avenue to six lanes; 2) addition of a second southbound left turn lane at Golden West Street/Yorktown Avenue; 3) addition of a dedicated westbound right turn lane at Golden West Street/Coast Highway; and 4) restriping Coast Highway to six lanes in the vicinity of the proposed project. These improvements, as well as application of the City's de facto right turn policy, have been included in the circulation system for the analysis of all scenarios. 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 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 LSA in August, 2001. The existing summer weekday peak hour traffic count data sheets are provided in Appendix C. The existing summer weekday level of service analysis is presented in Table B. The ICU and HCM worksheets are provided in Appendix D. As shown in Table B, all of the study area intersections currently operate with satisfactory levels of service in both peak hours. PASP030\Traffic (Revised June, 2002)(2).wpd ((6/21/02)N 15 1 0 F L F E I 0 o 326/432 N a a .N- 2 206/224 � °r �; F- 1621/1169 CO cc 2 31/34 N � F 1492/1447 F1 y L, 25/34 � L> F 1791/1572 J y �- 19/28 385/707 -1 <1 T r-> 105/268 J 195/231 1 1304/1459 --> 1669/1623 -> 1490/1442 22/14 Z ' M C', 1 Warner Avenue/Coast Highway 2 Seapoint Avenue/Coast Highway 3 Golden West Street/Coast Highway CO e CIO g �, - -0 ; L 20126 t 30/54 °r n L 10/31 v E- 1194/1708 F► L, E- 1347/1622 <J L, F 1338/1656 cj y L> F 9/35 76/114 1 11/23 J 36/74 J *i T r, 1982/1417 -> 2031/1529 2030/1400'- 8/9 " in 4 17th Street/Coast Highway 5 Ninth Street/Coast Highway 6 Sixth Street/Coast Highway Go L 65/111 CO 0 54/100 N C14 L 64/308 -Itf- 1008/1469 `r N F 886/1440 n F 876/1566 � L> , - 2/1 * y L, f- 29/53 .0 y L. F 1/25 63/86 68/144 _T *-i T r+ 27/49 J <-i T r), 1967/1434 -► 1774/1327 c) °O LO 1951/1433 --)- O2 " Q 14/16 S 1/4 q 7 Main Street/Coast Highway 8 First Street/Coast Highway 9 Huntington Street/Coast Highway cL 183/692 CD L 89/215 C o o L 57/176 c v <- 860/1774 - � r e- 930/2358 m - <- 866/2500 <-j $ Li F 4/8 <_J y Li 2/15 <-j y Li F 1/6 71/225 1 *i T r" 60/136 J <-I T r- 62/109 -1 *1 T r> 1870/1231 0 2139/1416 -> °2 '' c Ri 2423/1375 -> ' o 2/12 _r0 o `; 1/11 Z. A - 9/6 - 10 Beach Boulevard/Coast Highway 11 Newland Street/Coast Highway 12 Magnolia Street/Coast Highway FIGURE 4A 123/456 AM/PM Peak Hour Turn Volumes ne Strand Existing Non -Summer Weekday AM and PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 1 P:\EIP030\g-Existing_Off-Peak-B.xls (5/30/02) � N 289/698 �"� a CO � OD Q � G ; '� 161/111 o f 840/2505 v � n L 63/68 v roi rn f 50/63 j y L, F 19/17 l L, 59/14 j $ L, T 62/17 236/220 J E T r> T F 47/62 1<-i Tf--> 2333/1291 --> `e CO N oC14 70/50 v 9 a 6/6 -1 N P 55/24 N C4 Cl) cr) 13 Brookhurst Street/Coast Highway 14 Golden West Street/Orange Avenue 15 Golden West Street/Palm Avenue v Cl) L 28/30 � o t 45/10 L 161/267 N <°•° r' F 63/54 � ' E- 332/155 y L, ` 137/249 fl y L, ` 40/53 F1 4 L> 143/4 T � 17/23 s -, T r- 131163 -1 T r> M Go 32/73 -> � N C 339/261 � " CD 5/16 CO o 51/32 v M CJ (V 16 Golden West Street/Yorktown Avenue 17 Main Street/Sixth Street 18 Main Street/Adams Avenue N'' '- L 78/22 c co L 128/95 N L 120/120 F 150/14 � N - E- 203/287 4 o 318/379 .j y L, ` 79/35 j ( L> C 196/54 j 4 L> F 84/170 74/33 J T r> 89/60 J T 4/5 .T T r-> 110/20 -> N v 317/340 - M 1 C 457/312 � c �,zi 70/27 -1 80 g o 3391127 -1. n c�c rn 0/12 -1. � v a7 O _ N O) 19 Main Street/Utica Street 20 Main Street/Yorktown Avenue 21 Lake Street/Adams Avenue CM CO 0 0 L 10/30 2 L 228/299 c 223/165 04 o roi 373/294 0 LO N E- 311/533 N E- 86/141 j$ L, 258/158 4 1 L, f 20/30 j y L, 28/18 5/22 J Et T r> 108/124 .T " T r� 156/105 J *i T f- 363/399 v r' N 444/386 -> Cn N U 185/101 -> N aO, 82/104 Z 35/28 1 O° N 31/33 7 ? r, C, N t0 22 Lake Street/Yorktown Avenue 23 Beach Boulevard/Atlanta Avenue 24 Beach Boulevard/Indianapolis Avenue FIGURE 4B 123/456 AM/PM Peak Hour Turn Volumes The Strand Existing Non -Summer Weekday AM and PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P:\EIP030\g-Existing_Off-Peak-C.ids (5/30/02) in Co o O L 292/389 Coo Co v F 367/673 ,_j s L, ` 136/209 197/208 ? T 982/460 72/61 Go CDN Go 25 Beach Boulevard/Adams Avenue Not part of original off-peak period existing counts 28 Sixth Street/Olive Avenue M Cn O Cl) ZZ '� 161/123 co 4 F 357/305 ,_J y L, 115/113 137/135 T 356/326 -� 119/134 o in CO Lo t• 26 Beach Boulevard/Yorktown Avenue Not part of original off-peak period existing counts 27 Sixth Street/Walnut Avenue FIGURE 4c 123/456 AM/PM Peak Hour Turn Volumes The Strand Existing Non -Summer Weekday AM and PM.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P:\EIP030\g-Existing_Off-Peak-D.xis (5/30/02) LSA ASSOC IATES. INC. Table A: Non -Summer Weekday Existing Condition Level of Service Summary ICU/Delay' AM LOS PM ICU/Delay' LOS Intersection 1 Warner Avenue/Coast Highway 0.80 D 0.91 E 28.1 sec. C 32.8 sec. C 2 Seapoint Avenue/Coast Highway 0.81 D 0.69 B 17.9 sec. B 12.0 sec. B 3 Golden West Street/Coast Highway 0.70 C 0.67 B 16.3 sec. B 12.4 sec. B 4 17th Street/Coast Highway 0.70 B 0.62 B 9.0 sec. A 6.1 sec. A 5 Ninth Street/Coast Highway 0.68 B 0.57 A 2.3 sec. A 1.7 sec. A 6 Sixth Street/Coast Highway 0.52 A 0.49 A 5.3 sec. A 5.6 sec. A 7 Main Street/Coast Highway 0.47 A 0.43 A 5.0 sec. A 7.5 sec. A 8 First Street/Coast Highway 0.51 A 0.50 A 11.6 sec. B 12.3 sec. B 9 Huntington Street/Coast Highway 0.67 B 0.57 A 4.1 sec. A 3.6 sec. A 10 Beach Boulevard/Coast HighwayZ 0.56 A 0.73 C 11.9 sec. B 14.0 sec. B 11 Newland Street/Coast Highway 0.57 A 0.64 B 8.5 sec. A 10.2 sec. B 12 Magnolia Street/Coast Highway 0.58 A 0.65 B 6.0 sec. A 7.0 sec. A 13 Brookhurst Street/Coast Highway 0.71 C 0.77 C 19.4 sec. B 16.4 sec. B 14 Golden West Street/Orange Avenue 0.22 A 0.26 A 15 Golden West Street/Palm Avenue 0.24 A 0.30 A 16 Golden West Street/Yorktown Avenue 0.33 A 0.30 A 17 Main Street/Sixth Street 0.22 A 0.32 A 18 Main Street/Adams Avenue 0.56 A 0.46 A 19 Main Street/Utica Street 0.45 A 0.29 A 20 Main Street/Yorktown Avenue 0.40 A 0.38 A 21 Lake Street/Adams Avenue 0.50 A 0.48 A 22 Lake Street/Yorktown Avenue 0.46 A 0.36 A 23 Beach Boulevard/Atlanta Avenue 0.40 A 0.65 B 23.6 sec. C 29.9 sec. C 24 Beach Boulevard/Indianapolis Avenue 0.43 A 0.46 A 25.2 sec. C 19.8 sec. B 25 Beach Boulevard/Adams Avenue 0.61 B 0.70 B 30.5 sec. C 32.8 sec. C 26 Beach Boulevard/Yorktown Avenue 0.52 A 0.60 A 23.8 sec. C 25.0 sec. C 27 Sixth Street/Walnut Avenue' Not part of original off-peak period existing counts 28 Sixth Street/Olive Avenue' Not part of original off-peak period existing counts 1 Intersections along State Routes and unsignalized intersections are calculated using Highway Capacity 2000 methodology. Results are expressed as seconds of delay (sec.) with corresponding LOS. 2Intersections designated as Congestion Management Program intersections. Level of Service threshold is LOS E at these location P:\EIP030\Model.xls\Off-Peak ICU Summary (5/30/02) 1-1 0 11 I C F C F I I r E E COf r.- Go 264/258 C C14 a r-_ N t 143/238 CO v � v E- 1676/1834 ch co t 28/185 Z� C14 f- 1275/1558 y �, r 8136 J 4 F- 1421/1606 EJ L, ` 14/34 526/692 J T 1411336 J 128/292 1 1381/1621 -� °r �' �:, C 1645/1727 1574/1525 7/43 Z O° o 1 Warner Avenue/Coast Highway 2 Seapoint Avenue/Coast Highway 3 Golden West Street/Coast Highway 0 c 0 �, t 33/33 0 0 23/28 Cli o t 9/29 0- o 980/1634 L, .- 1354/1932 J L, F- 1098/1721 f.l y L, ` 32/37 88/151 j 18/29 J 62/93 J +i T r> 1857/1687 1672/1516 1683/1249 7 24/39 N N N 4 17th Street/Coast Highway 5 Ninth Street/Coast Highway 6 Sixth Street/Coast Highway CO t 51/149 � '-- N t 33/104 M W) t 48/128 rn r�i F- 948/1570 N F 793/1474 co rn F 788/1625 *j y r 0/34 j $ L, r 16/29 <.j $ L, l7- 14/15 47/144 -T r' 54/134 -T -I T r' 46/45 -T ? r-> 1698/1180 1616/1087 -> v v o 1599/1202 -� o "2 1/0 Z 26/30 Z �' 15/9 OD 7 Main Street/Coast Highway 8 First Street/Coast Highway 9 Huntington Street/Coast Highway ao o rn f 232/657 o `r' rn t 35/267 C can CO m t 36/242 774/1602 rn o r F 863/2185 0'o C-4 < 793/2358 <-j y L, ` 7/9 EJ y L, F 0/7 <-j y L, .t 9/26 41/184 -1 -"I T r" 58/112 J T 53/94 -T <-i T r' 1662/1092 > oO � �° `� 0 2226/1356 -� '� •N 2308/1360 a ' 'm o, 6/2 1 4/22 Z ' a 26/42 ' o � 10 Beach Boulevard/Coast Highway 11 Newland Street/Coast Highway 12 Magnolia Street/Coast Highway FIGURE 5A 123/456 AM/PM Peak Hour Turn Volumes T {te Strand Existing Summer Weekday AM and PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 1 P:TIP030\g-Existing_Peak-B.xls (5/30/02) FIGURE 5s 123/456 AM/PM Peak Hour Turn Volumes The Strand Existing Summer Weekday AM and PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes PAEIP030\g-Existing_Peak-C.x1s (4/4/02) CO Co `r CDL 2191344 co ACO CD N 2401567 +j 1 L, ` 98/146 208/174 - T r' 657/588 v rn LO 36/74 a, r` 1 25 Beach Boulevard/Adams Avenue rn CDL 7/7 Co 00 v F 8128 1 b 1- 417 89 +1 T r' 24/40 C •° 5/5 1 28 Sixth Street101ive Avenue Co tr co. L 90/93 CDM a <- 155/363 70/120 1251150 --T T r' 229/321 o o N 114/92 Z 305 a C ti 0 26 Beach Boulevard/Yorktown Avenue 0 o L 12112 to M F 6/6 .c-j 1 4 1 -C- M 10/10 -1 T r' 40/40 r' 26i26 Z. 27 Sixth Street/Walnut Avenue FIGURE 5c 123/456 AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes ne Strand Existing Summer Weekday AM and PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P:\CUF130\g-Existing_Peak-D.xts\Figure (1/25/02) LSAASSOCIATES, INC. I Table B: Summer Weekday Existing Condition Level of Service Summary AM ICU/Delay1 LOS PM ICU/Delay' LOS Intersection 1 Warner Avenue/Coast Highway 0.88 D 0.94 E 29.8 sec. C 43.4 sec. D 2 Seapoint Avenue/Coast Highway 0.70 B 0.80 C 17.3 sec. B 23.2 sec. C 3 Golden West Street/Coast Highway 0.60 A 0.76 C 13.8 sec. B 17.1 sec. B 4 17th Street/Coast Highway 0.66 B 0.74 C 6.9 sec. A 7.5 sec. A 5 Ninth Street/Coast Highway 0.57 A 0.60 A 2.3 sec. A 2.5 sec. A 6 Sixth Street/Coast Highway 0.49 A 0.51 A 7.8 sec. A 9.1 sec. A 7 Main Street/Coast Highway 0.42 A 0.51 A 5.2 sec. A 10.0 sec. B 8 First Street/Coast Highway 0.43 A 0.54 A 8.1 sec. A 12.6 sec, B 9 Huntington Street/Coast Highway 0.59 A 0.59 A 6.6 sec. A 3.9 sec. A 10 Beach Boulevard/Coast Highway 0.53 A 0.66 B 12.3 sec. A 11.5 sec. B I 1 Newland Street/Coast Highway 0.59 A 0.63 B 7.7 sec. A 10.9 sec. B 12 Magnolia Street/Coast Highway 0.59 A 0.64 B 7.6 sec. A 8.8 sec. A 13 Brookhurst Street/Coast Highway 0.68 B 0.73 C 15.9 sec. B 14.4 sec. B 14 Golden West Street/Orange Avenue 0.23 A 0.30 A 15 Golden West Street/Palm Avenue 0.23 A 0.33 A 16 Golden West Street/Yorktown Avenue 0.30 A 0.46 A 17 Main Street/Sixth Street 0.24 A 0.37 A 18 Main Street/Adams Avenue 0.36 A 0.58 A 19 Main Street/Utica Street 0.21 A 0.32 A 20 Main Street/Yorktown Avenue 0.30 A 0.49 A 21 Lake Street/Adams Avenue 0.44 A 0.52 A 2 Lake Street/Yorktown Avenue 0.30 A 0.39 A 23 Beach Boulevard/Atlanta Avenue 0.36 A 0.60 A 23.8 sec. C 29.0 sec. C 24 Beach Boulevard/Indianapolis Avenue 0.33 A 0.54 A 21.3 sec. C 20.9 sec. C 25 Beach Boulevard/Adams Avenue 0.49 A 0.73 C 27.4 sec, C 33.0 sec. C 26 Beach Boulevard/Yorktown Avenue 0.40 A 0.74 C 19.4 sec, B 25.8 sec. C 27 Sixth Street/Walnut Avenue' 10.1 sec. B 10.5 sec. B 28 Sixth Street/Olive Avenue 10.0 sec. A 10.7 sec. B ' Intersections along State Routes and unsignalized intersections are calculated using Highway Capacity 2000 methodology. Results are expressed as seconds of delay (sec.) with corresponding LOS. 2Intersections designated as Congestion Management Program intersections. Level of Service threshold is LOS E at these locations. P:\EIP03011CU\Model.xls\Peak ICU Summary (5/30/02) LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS JUNE. 2002 THE STRAND (BLOCKS 104/105 REDEVELOPMENT) HUNTINGTON BEACH. CALIFORNIA k I L I L u L Figure 6 illustrates the existing average daily traffic (ADT) volumes and v/c ratios. The existing ADT volumes are referenced from the City of Huntington Beach Traffic Flow Map dated September, 2000, and the Caltrans website (www.dot.ca.gov). As shown in Figure 6, most of the roadway segments have We 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) 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 non -summer weekday period and summer weekday period conditions; thus, two cumulative traffic conditions will be developed. The geometrics assumed in the cumulative condition include the intersection geometrics as of the August, 2001, traffic counts, as well as application of the City's de facto right turn policy. Traffic Volumes and Levels of Service Cumulative Non -Summer Weekday. The cumulative non -summer weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic volumes are illustrated in Figure 7. Table C presents the cumulative non -summer weekday period level of service analysis. The ICU and HCM worksheets are provided in Appendix E. As shown in Table C, all of the study area intersections are forecast to operate with satisfactory levels of service in the cumulative non -summer weekday scenario. Cumulative Summer Weekday. The cumulative summer weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic volumes are illustrated in Figure 8. Table D presents the cumulative summer weekday period level of service analysis. The ICU and HCM worksheets are provided in Appendix F. As shown in Table D, the following two locations are forecast to operate with 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 hour) • Seapoint Avenue/Coast Highway (ICU of 0.93, LOS E, during the p.m. peak hour) 1 PASP030\Traffic (Revised June, 2002x2l.wpd ((6/21/02)> 24 NOT TO SCALE L S A FIGURE 6 T he Strand Existing Daily Traffic Volumes and Volume to Capacity Ratios BEIP0MDaily Traffic Volumes 7.cdr (1/23/02) 0 u n F CI' C n L L In N `V' L 382/497 CO � CO LO t. 246/289 co r' v f- 1765/1294 � L 42/46 za N v f- 1609/1565 E.1 y L, C 26/36 j L F 1937/1696 � 4` 20/29 405/743 <-i T r-> 133/363 1 214/288 1 1411/1622 1791/1773 -> 1611/1572 -� 23115 Z. N v v 1 Warner Avenue/Coast Highway 2 Seapoint Avenue/Coast Highway 3 Golden West Street/Coast Highway N v CO N N C7 ' N 21/27 1` 41/67 L 11/33 w 4 , 1334/1903 Fl L, .- 1486/1803 j 4 F 1485/1848 y ` 9/37 80/120 1 12/24 1 38l78 +i T r-> 2178/1598 j 2239/1728 -> 2238/1592 819 �' 4 17th Street/Coast Highway 5 Ninth Street/Coast Highway 6 Sixth Street/Coast Highway C L 68/117 v c � T- 57/105 co 2 128/399 rn v F 1138/1652 c:i N F 974/1582 .- E- 928/1675 .j y F 7/6 -j y 4 F 30/56 <-j y L.> ,l= 1/26 66/90 1 r" 117/208 1 *1 T f-* 69/101 1 +i T r' 2172/1628 `a 1929/1466 ; 2075/1527 �2 o 15/17 R `r ? 1/4 '- 7 Main Street/Coast Highway 8 first Street/Coast Highway 9 Huntington Street/Coast Highway Cl) CO L 234/783 CO 2 94/226 L 60/185 c n E- 965/1956 r' ��' <- 1048/2566 <- 969/2703 1 L_> ` 4/8 <.j y L.> r 2/16 <.j y L. , 1/6 81/239 1 <1 T r' 90/178 1 *1 T r-> 74/126 1 `1 T 2033/1366 r2 N ;: 2315/1563 �' 2604/1508 - 2/13 `o ` cc 1/12 c1. M `- 9/6 -1 CO 10 Beach Boulevard/Coast Highway 11 Newland Street/Coast Highway 12 Magnolia Street/Coast Highway 1 123/456 FIGURE 7A AM/PM Peak Hour Turn Volumes The Strand Cumulative Non -Summer Weekday AM and PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 1 P:\EIP030\g-Cumulative_Off-Peak-B.xls (5/30/02) at. 304/734 N L 175/139 �, o f 940/2702 CO n 2 67/75 v F 61/107 y L, 20/18 y l- 62/15 j 1 L, r 65/18 254/234 - T T r* 2081154 J *i T r' 2504/1417 --> M a 112R4 N go 6/6 c i co 129/72 1 v o N v � 13 Brookhurst Street/Coast Highway 14 Golden West Street/Orange Avenue 15 Golden West Street/Palm Avenue `00 ? 29/32 `f' ' rn L 55/31 co v (_ 174/297 N N <- 66/57 ' <- 349/163 y L, ` 165/369 4 L_> ` 42/56 EJ y l> f 150/4 T 18124 _T T 14/171 -1 <-i T r" c' U7 34177 �2 v `c' 356/274 -> c" "2 U 00 5/17 OD � 54/34 Z v CM cV 16 Golden West Street/Yorktown Avenue 17 Main Street/Sixth Street 18 Main Street/Adams Avenue o 82l23 N^ t 135/100 O° v L 126/126 V v � F 158/15 to , r2_ F 234/394 v cc .- E 343/419 Fl y L, 89/43 EJ i. L, ` 206/57 EJ y L, ` 88/179 78/35 .T t T r' 227/133 1 <-) T r4 4/5 `, T 116/21 -> ' ' 405/412 -� 0 499/340 -� °� N 80/35 Z v rn 375/147 Z o c 0/13 Z N to .— 'Cr o N 19 Main Street/Utica Street 20 Main Street/Yorktown Avenue 21 Lake Street/Adams Avenue 11/32 j ' 2 240/314 u' o � � � 5; t 236/182 v' M M <- 413/401 CD 0@0 N F- 3271560 N M- F 90/148 .0 y L.> f` 271/166 j y L, ,` 51/69 <-j $ L> r 55/50 5/23 S F1 T r- 114/130 1 T 164/110 -1 Fl T r> 454/474 v N N 467/406 -* r' 194/106 M ^ 8 86/109 Z 42/36 M 38/41 -1 22 Lake Street/Yorktown Avenue 23 Beach Boulevard/Atlanta Avenue 24 Beach Boulevard/Indianapolis Avenue FIGURE 7s 123/456 AM/PM Peak Hour Turn Volumes The Strand Cumulative Non —Summer Weekday AM and PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P:\EIP030\g-Cumulafive_Off-Peak-C.xls (5/30/02) 01 c, Q` D5rn t 307/409 N� 2 L 169/129 CD o� v E- 386/707 to rn rn F 391/394 I L, 173/257 T r� j $ 166/154 L, 1 F 126/125 207/219 -1 +-i T r-> 1032/483 R 424/385 -+ c.2 N $ 95/77 zz130/147 Z O N l(J 25 Beach Boulevard/Adams Avenue 26 Beach Boulevard/Yorktown Avenue Not part of original off-peak period existing counts 28 Sixth Street/Olive Avenue I Not part of original off-peak period existing counts 27 Sixth Street/Walnut Avenue FIGURE 7c 123/456 AM/PM Peak Hour Turn Volumes The Strand Cumulative Non -Summer Weekday AM and PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P:\EIP030\g-Cumulative—Off-Peak-D.xis (5/30/02) 0 LSp ASSOCIATES, INC. - Table C: Non -Summer Weekday Cumulative Condition Level of Service Summary ICU/Delayl AM LOS PM ICU/Delayt LOS Intersection 1 Warner Avenue/Coast Highway2 0.86 D 0.97 E 32.9 sec. C 38.6 sec. D 2 Seapoint Avenue/Coast Highway 0.90 D 0.79 C 27.5 sec. C 20.5 sec. C 3 Golden West Street/Coast Highway 0.77 C 0.76 C 19.6 sec. B 15.4 sec. B 4 17th Street/Coast Highway 0.77 C 0.69 B 10.0 sec. B 6.6 sec. A 5 Ninth Street/Coast Highway 0.75 C 0.62 B 3.9 sec. A 1.8 sec. A 6 Sixth Street/Coast Highway 0.57 A 0.53 A 5.3 sec. A 5.6 sec. A 7 Main Street/Coast Highway 0.51 A 0.48 A 5.2 sec. A 7.5 sec. A 8 First Street/Coast Highway 0.57 A 0.57 A 14.4 sec. B 15.4 sec. B 9 Huntington Street/Coast Highway 0.73 C 0.67 B 7.5 sec. A 7.8 sec. A 10 Beach Boulevard/Coast Highway2 0.61 B 0.80 C 12.8 sec. B 16.1 sec. B 11 Newland Street/Coast Highway 0.61 B 0.71 C 10.5 sec. B 13.8 sec. B 12 Magnolia Street/Coast Highway 0.62 B 0.70 B 6.7 sec. A 8.4 sec. A 13 Brookhurst Street/Coast Highway 0.76 C 0.82 D 20.4 sec. C 18.4 sec. B 14 Golden West Street/Orange Avenue 0.24 A 0.30 A 15 Golden West Street/Palm Avenue 0.37 A 0.39 A 16 Golden West Street/Yorktown Avenue 0.41 A 0.36 A 17 Main Street/Sixth Street 0.24 A 0.34 A 18 Main Street/Adams Avenue 0.60 B 0.51 A 19 Main Street/Utica Street 0.47 A 0.32 A 20 Main Street/Yorktown Avenue 0.54 A 0.46 A 21 Lake Street/Adams Avenue 0.54 A 0.51 A 22 Lake Street/Yorktown Avenue 0.50 A 0.39 A 23 Beach Boulevard/Atlanta Avenue 0.44 A 0.71 C 24.9 sec. C 31.1 sec. C 24 Beach Boulevard/Indianapolis Avenue 0.47 A 0.50 A 25.5 sec. C 20.1 sec. C 25 Beach Boulevard/Adams Avenue2 0.68 B 0.74 C 32.0 sec. C 34.9 sec. C 26 Beach Boulevard/Yorktown Avenue 0.57 A 0.66 B 24.8 sec. C 26.7 sec. C 27 Sixth Street/Walnut Avenue Not part of original off-peak period existing counts 28 Sixth Street/Olive Avenue' Not part of original off-peak period existing counts Intersections along State Routes and unsignalized intersections are calculated using Highway Capacity 2000 methodology. Results are expressed as seconds of delay (sec.) with corresponding LOS. 2Intersections designated as Congestion Management Program intersections. Level of Service threshold is LOS E at these location P:\EIP030\Model.x1s\0ff-Peak ICU Summary (6/3/02) 0 0 H F r r I C I I I CD aO ` 317/314 I Cl) M � :: I 00 � CIA 04 m 2 I 180/304 ,n co c f- 1823/1993 � M 2 381204 N c`5 <- 1381/1682 fl 1 L, ` 8138 j L, <- 1549/1732 E1 L, �- 15/36 5531727 J <-i T r- 1701435 j 1441352 J 1492/1793 r' o ; 1766/1882 -� 1700/1659 -4 7/45 °O o 1 Warner Avenue/Coast Highway 2 Seapoint Avenue/Coast Highway 3 Golden West Street/Coast Highway CD a M a ` �, L 35/35 Z 33l39 N n L 9/30 rn ti 1109/1825 j L> <- 1493/2128 EJ L, F 1233/1917 4.j y t_, F 34/39 92/159 -7 19/30 J 65/98 J `1 T r> 2046/1882 1862/1714 -> 1874/1434 25/41 -. N N Cn 4 17th Street/Coast Highway 5 Ninth Street/Coast Highway 6 Sixth Street/Coast Highway L o L 35/109 c� CO 'L 111/21054/157 1075/1758 -NC C-4 - 876/1618 no !9 F- 835/1737 <-j L ` 5/41 <j y 4 F 17/30 j y t_, F 15/16 49/151 J r+ 102/197 J *-i T r* 89/97 J Et T r-> 1889/1361 -j C 1763/1213 1705/1284 -+ "' v CO00 1/0 27/32 1 �' � � 16/9 -1 a 7 Main Street/Coast Highway 8 First Street/Coast Highway 9 Huntington Street/Coast Highway � C t 2861746 0� L 37/281 CD 38/254 CO M f- 875/1775 2 o `r E- 978/2384 0 r° E- 892/2554 yL-> F 7/9 < 1 L F 0/7 j yL. 9/27 49/196 J 4-1 T F" 88/153 -T -i T r4 65/111 J +1 T r-> 1814/1220 ' 2406/1500 eD N °r 2483/1493 -> 6/2 Z 4/23 -1 ' 27/44 -1 "' '- 10 Beach Boulevard/Coast Highway 11 Newland Street/Coast Highway 12 Magnolia Street/Coast Highway FIGURE 8A 123/456 AM/PM Peak Hour Turn Volumes The strand Cumulative Summer Weekday AM and PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 1 P:\EIP030\g-Cumulative_Peak-B.xts (5/30/02) FIGURE 8s 123/456 AM/PM Peak Hour Turn Volumes The Strand Cumulative Summer Weekday AM and PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P:\EIP030\g-Cumulative_Peak-C.xls (4/4/02) N "'r r' T.. 230/362 Co 7o L 95/98 L 13/13 oCD N F 252/596 o LO 1781455 ti F 22/80 1 L, ` *1 133/191 T r1 1 1531170 � J ` 79/132 *i T r+ +j 1 33/23 4 j ` 12/14 2191183 -1 T r-> 691/618 N N 291/380 QO rn 92/84 -> a u' 57/91 c; Cl) 1251103 N 32/34 CD co Cn o 1 25 Beach Boulevard/Adams Avenue � "' L 717 M c F- 241103 1 Li F 9/14 30/19 J <-) T r-* 75/84 -> s c N N 10/12 1 28 Sixth Street/Olive Avenue 26 Beach Boulevard/Yorktown Avenue 27 Sixth Street/Walnut Avenue FIGURE 8c 123/456 AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes The Strand Cumulative Summer Weekday AM and PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes PACUF I 30\g-CumulativePeak-D.xls\Figurel1/25/02) 11 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. Table D: Summer Weekday Cumulative Condition Level of Service Summary AM ICU/Delayl LOS ICU/Delay1 PM LOS Intersection I Warner Avenue/Coast Highway 0.95 E 36.1 sec. D 5kO 2 Seapoint Avenue/Coast Highway 0.79 C 22.3 sec. C 50.6 sec. D 3 Golden West Street/Coast Highway 0.66 B 0.85 D 16.5 sec. B 21.8 sec. C 4 17th Street/Coast Highway 0.73 C 0.81 D 7.5 sec. A 8.9 sec. A 5 Ninth Street/Coast Highway 0.63 B 0.66 B 2.4 sec. A 2.7 sec. A 6 Sixth Street/Coast Highway 0.53 A 0.56 A 7.6 sec. A 9.0 sec. A 7 Main Street/Coast Highway 0.47 A 0.56 A 5.2 sec. A 10.2 sec. B 8 First Street/Coast Highway 0.46 A 0.61 B 10.8 sec. B 15.3 sec. B 9 Huntington Street/Coast Highway 0.66 B 0.69 B 10.4 sec. B 8.3 sec. A 10 Beach Boulevard/Coast Highway 0.58 A 0.74 C 13.1 sec. B 12.9 sec. B I 1 Newland Street/Coast Highway 0.63 B 0.69 B 8.8 sec. A 14.1 sec. B 12 Magnolia Street/Coast Highway 0.63 B 0.70 B 8.3 sec. A 10.1 sec. B 13 Brookhurst Street/Coast Highway 0.73 C 0.78 C 16.5 sec. B 15.5 sec. B 14 Golden West Street/Orange Avenue 0.25 A 0.34 A 15 Golden West Street/Palm Avenue 0.34 A 0.43 A 16 Golden West Street/Yorktown Avenue 0.38 A 0.52 A 17 Main Street/Sixth Street 0.25 A 0.39 A 18 Main Street/Adams Avenue 0.40 A 0.62 B 19 Main Street/Utica Street 0.22 A 0.34 A 20 Main Street/Yorktown Avenue 0.40 A 0.59 A 21 Lake Street/Adams Avenue 0.47 A 0.55 A 22 Lake Street/Yorktown Avenue 0.33 A 0.42 A 23 Beach Boulevard/Atlanta Avenue 0.40 A 0.66 B 24.9 sec. C 29.5 sec. C 24 Beach Boulevard/Indianapolis Avenue 0.37 A 0.58 A 21.1 sec. C 21.5 sec. C 25 Beach Boulevard/Adams Avenue 0.52 A 0.77 C 28.3 sec. C 36.0 sec. D 26 Beach Boulevard/Yorktown Avenue 0.44 A 0.81 D 20.3 sec. C 28.8 sec. C 27 Sixth Street/Walnut Avenues 12.4 sec. B 13.4 sec. B 28 Sixth Street/Olive Avenue 11.8 sec. B 13.5 sec. B ' Intersections along State Routes and unsignalized intersections are calculated using Highway Capacity 2000 methodology. Results are expressed as seconds of delay (sec.) with corresponding LOS. 2Intersections designated as Congestion Management Program intersections. Level of Service threshold is LOS E at these locations. P:\EIP030\ICU\Model.xls\Peak ICU Summary (5/30/02) LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS DUNE. 2002 THE STRAND (BLOCKS 104/105 REDEVELOPMENT) HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA L ' The intersection of Warner Avenue/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/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/Coast Highway. As will be discussed, the project will not add to this condition. FUTURE GENERAL PLAN BACKGROUND CONDITION 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 of Huntington Beach General Plan Circulation Plan is illustrated in Figure 9. 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. To maintain consistency with the Santa Ana River Crossings Cooperative Study (SARCCS) Traffic Impact Analysis,' year 2020 traffic forecasts from this document at the intersection of Brookhurst Avenue/Pacific Coast Highway have been used for both General Plan scenarios. Appendix G presents the Traffic Impact Analysis Modeling Support documentation, along with the General Plan baseline and General Plan plus project traffic volumes prepared by Urban Crossroads. 1 Traffic Volumes and Levels of Service General Plan Build Out With Santa Ana River Bridges. The General Plan with bridges baseline peak hour traffic volumes are illustrated in Figure 10. Table E presents the General Plan with bridges baseline level of service analysis. The ICU and HCM worksheets are provided in Appendix H. 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) • Brookhurst Street/Coast Highway (ICU of 0.96 in the p.m. peak, LOS E) Figure 11 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 = > 1.00) ' Santa Ana River Crossings Cooperative Study, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., June, 2001. ' PASPOOMatiic (Revised June, 2002x21.wN « 6/21/02» 34 \ AMENDMENTS p1mvinro , ;aaee Caty two --� ( WESTMINSTER Oda Ne:ow6a1 Ome Rrdufoe Number rbmpev 10.17.78 1236 11.648 4M SEAL 3.6." 1243 3-T1-79 4722 BEACH 8.2.83 1310 tY •6.63 U24 BOLSA 5./S84 1322 6.4.84 8385 140-88 VIMARGOSY .�. 8.7.69 80S! MC g 1.6�60 6058 .32. FADDEN: 9.9.98 103A8 9&76 Tw EDINGER NEIL WARNER FOUNTAIN. VALLEY 405 • SLATER ORANGE (BOLSA MCA) COUNTY OF: TALSERT £LUs —L"00 GARFm PACIFIC YORKTOWN OCEAN ADAMS • • • INDONAPOUS Legend • ATLANTA (� � CITY BOUNDARY ®� F1A69LTON FREEWAY STREET CAPACITY • _. MAJOR 45,000 ® PRIMARY 30,000 / COSTA SECONDARY 20,000 MESA • • • • • COLLECTOR 10,000 NOTE: SOLID LINES @$=TE EXISTWG RIGHT OF WAY NOT NECESSARLY WIMATE RIGHT OF WAY DASHED iM$ lNDX:ATE AREAS WHERE NO RIGHT OF WAY EXISTS CIRCULATION PLAN OF ARTERIAL STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CE-13 CITY OF. HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL :PLAN. FIGURE 9 The Strand City of Huntington Beach General Plan Circulation Plan PAEIP030\GenPIan.xIs (5/29/02) 0 n C LI' C� p %- Q. t 440/590 11, N C � Q r- N o <- 1515/1332 o o t 54150 M o t 237/419 <J 4 L4 r 22/25 ,j L, <- 1756/1743 <j L, <- 1470/1676 605/858 J `1 T r-> 158/335 -f 222/350 J 1544/1333 L o O°, 1913/1598 -> 1722/1370 22/9 v 1 Warner Avenue/Coast Highway 2 Seapoint Avenue/Coast Highway 3 Golden West Street/Coast Highway N O CO N ti o L 49/63 `r t 50/109 `r (0 2 10/31 o <- 1186/2189 <j L, <- 1355/2009 <j 4 F 1349/2144 <j $ L. ` 9/36 120/140 J 11/23 J 65/111 J <-i T r-> 2359/1490 2432/1659 2516/1550 S2 6/6 a 4 17th Street/Coast Highway 5 Ninth Street/Coast Highway 6 Sixth Street/Coast Highway Go c c 2 47179 L 72/317 CO 0 2 64/113 tz N V F 910/1973 r-00 ^ ao F 936/2169 L, <- 1025/2039 <1 y L ` 29150 <J 4 L, r 1/25 64/84 J 62/147 J 1 T r4 29/46 -f `i T r� 2487/1618 2301/1477 4 :'t CO 2670/1723 E-'! E2 14/20 o 1/4 7 Main Street/Coast Highway 8 First Street/Coast Highway 9 Huntington Street/Coast Highway a 00 cc L 203/807 C L 102/308 M N 37/106 �`o c F 926/2420 <- 1003/3158 .- <- 945/3325 <-j s L* r 4/8 <.j y L.> C 2/18 <-j y L, . 1/4 88/278 J *) T rl 63/149 -T `1 T r< 50/131 -T *i T r-> 2616/1511 3157/1699 -> ^ 3494/1600 -> 2/13 ^ 1/10 a 1117 °O 10 Beach Boulevard/Coast Highway 11 Newland Street/Coast Highway 12 Magnolia Street/Coast Highway FIGURE l0A 123/456 AM/PM Peak Hour Turn Volumes The Strand General Plan Buildout with Bridges AM and PM Peak Hour ' Traffic Volumes 1 P:\EIP030Gg-GPwithBridges_P2020-B.xis (5/29/02) OD aD L CD N M a Q L 362/631 e �' t 354/158 r' a to � F 745/2538 r v t- 31/148 n :2 <- 85/252 j y L. r 515 $ 4 F 102/15 y L, r 44/10 481 /534 -1 F1 T T f -,> 643/339 J <-I T f--> 2914/1191 CO ,� 472/115 -� N °D LOrz 3/6 N 244/5200 N ? C7 M 13 Brookhurst Street/Coast Highway 14 Golden West Street/Orange Avenue 15 Golden West Street/Palm Avenue � lA Cr) C C2 N Q c 2 38/41 Q cq 2 44/10 CO CO L 190/389 r' N F 82/74 N za u; F 334/155 y L, ` 217/467 *j y L, ` 50/63 EJ y L� f 142/4 T r-> 14/23 -T <-i T 13/166 J T r" 32/83 `D C 336/263 4/14 ° 51/32 - v Cn N .- 16 Golden West Street/Yorktown Avenue 17 Main Street/Sixth Street 18 Main Street/Adams Avenue M Go N 00 l� N N L 94/25 -,1 L 218/173 `D � Q o 2 132/206 iO F 132/20 o co o F 274/475 u`�, Z2 F 315/376 E.1 y L> ` 90/40 E1 y ` 194/87 fJ y L,. r' 92/228 106/48 J *i T r" 195/116 J +i T f-4 5/5 J t r' 109/19 598/449 o R' 454/324 C W V 94/40 433/219 Z M ti c., 1/10 Z o 1� CD N CV 19 Main Street/Utica Street 20 Main Street/Yorktown Avenue 21 Lake Street/Adams Avenue L 7/34 GGo M i L 181/328 o 2 207/241 M v E 430/499 `r CR N F 3541145 ccj S�! V E- 89/251 j y L, l- 270/277 FJ y 4 F 26/44 FJ y L, r 40136 6/31 146/133 -T T 160/103 J `-i T r-> 702/444 o c; 493/371 -> N o 181/103 a N 142/223 76/41 -1 48144 C N N CO aO Cr) CO 22 Lake Street/Yorktown Avenue 23 Beach Boulevard/Atlanta Avenue 24 Beach Boulevard/Indianapolis Avenue FIGURE IOs 123/456 AM/PM Peak Hour Turn Volumes Tice Strand General Plan Buildout with Bridges AM and PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P:\EIP030\g-GPwidiBridges_P2020-C.xts (5/29/02) C%j N � L 249/413 v CD a t 149/149 00� t 56178 U E- 310/749 7t S-2 �2 F 344/469 a!�2 R E- 13/9 E.1 y L F *1 188/293 T r> * y 177/157 4 J ` <-, 143/145 T r-> E1 y 15/21 L, .T 12/8 181/200 .1 <-I T r-> 1065/507 --> 'M M QD 620/405 -> N 'W R) 72/69 -* '0 o M 107/77 206/165 -114/10 Z c N S2 1 25 Beach Boulevard/Adams Avenue 3 !;�2 L 43/87 N 16/39 *-j y L ` 7/20 11/11 .T -1 T r-> 37/52 -> r, M 5154 2/2 Z 2B Sixth Street/Olive Avenue 26 Beach Boulevard/Yorktown Avenue 27 Sixth Street/Walnut Avenue FIGURE 10c 123/456 AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes The Strand General Plan Buildout with Bridges AM and PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P:\CUF130\g-GPwithBridges_P2020-D.xls\Figure (5/29/02) I 1SA ASSOCIATES. INC. Table E: General Plan Buildout With Bridges Level of Service Summary 7 AM ICU/Delay' LOS PM FICU/Delay' LOS Intersection 1 Warner Avenue/Coast Highway' 0.88 D F, M 39.2 sec. D 49.0 sec. D 2 Seapoint Avenue/Coast Highway 0.71 C 0.80 C 25.9 sec. C 23.0 sec. C 3 Golden West Street/Coast Highway 0.78 C 0.84 D 20.6 sec. C 20.2 sec. C 4 17th Street/Coast Highway 0.82 D 0.78 C 11.4 sec. B 10.1 sec. B 5 Ninth Street/Coast Highway 0.80 C 0.71 C 3.1 sec. A 2.2 sec. A 6 Sixth Street/Coast Highway 0.63 B 0.63 B 6.7 sec. A 7.2 sec. A 7 Main Street/Coast Highway 0.57 . A 0.54 A 4.3 sec. A 6.5 sec. A 8 First Street/Coast Highway 0.59 A 0.59 A 11.1 sec. B 11.7 sec. B 9 Huntington Street/Coast Highway 0.89 D 0.76 C 7.9 sec. A 5.2 sec. A 10 Beach Boulevard/Coast Highway' 0.77 C 0.93 E 15.7 sec. B 25.0 sec. C. 11 Newland Street/Coast Highway 0.81 D 0.80 C 11.1 sec. B 11.7 sec. B 12 Magnolia Street/Coast Highway 0.79 C 0.82 D 6.3 sec. A 16.3 sec. B 13 Brookhurst Street/Coast Highway 0.82 D 21.9 sec. C 14 Golden West Street/Orange Avenue 0.27 A 0.42 A 15 Golden West Street/Palm Avenue 0.65 B 0.62 B 16 Golden West Street/Yorktown Avenue 0.43 A 0.45 A 17 Main Street/Sixth Street 0.23 A 0.34 A 18 Main Street/Adams Avenue 0.56 A 0.47 A 19 Main Street/Utica Street 0.55 A 0.39 A 20 Main Street/Yorktown Avenue 0.55 A 0.57 A 21 Lake Street/Adams Avenue 0.57 A 0.62 B 22 Lake Street/Yorktown Avenue 0.64 B 0.54 A 23 Beach Boulevard/Atlanta Avenue 0.44 A 0.78 C 23.7 sec. C 32.4 sec. C 24 Beach Boulevard/Indianapolis Avenue 0.45 A 0.57 A 23.0 sec. C 21.3 sec. C 25 Beach Boulevard/Adams Avenue' 0.71 C 0.77 C 32.4 sec. C 35.0 sec. C 26 Beach Boulevard/Yorktown Avenue 0.62 B 0.70 B 26.7 sec. C 28.8 sec. C 27 Sixth Street/Walnut Avenue' 12.9 sec. B 16.4 sec. C 28 Sixth Street/Olive Avenue 11.4 sec. B 15.7 sec. C Intersections along State Routes and unsignalized intersections are calculated using Highway Capacity 2000 methodology. Results are expressed as seconds of delay (sec.) with corresponding LOS. 'Intersections designated as Congestion Management Program intersections. Level of Service threshold is LOS E at these locations. P:\EIP030UCU\Ivlodel.xls\Peak ICU Summary (5/30/02) L S A FIGURE 11 The Strand General Plan Buildout With Bridges Daily Traffic Volumes and Volume to Capacity Ratios IAMP030Zaily Traffic Volumes 6.cdr (1/23/02) LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS JUNE, 2002 THE STRAND (BLOCKS 104/1 (1 5 REDEVELOPMENT) HUNTINCTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA Palm Avenue - Between Golden West Street and 7`' 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. The General Plan without bridges baseline peak hour traffic volumes are illustrated in Figure 12. Table F presents the General Plan Without Bridges baseline level of service analysis. The ICU and HCM worksheets are provided in Appendix I. 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 (0.95 in the p.m. peak, LOS E) Figure 13 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 = > 1.00) • Palm Avenue - Between Golden West Street and 7' Street (v/c = 1.07) • Main Street - Between Adams Avenue and Palm Avenue (v/c = 0.83) PROJECT IMPACTS This portion of the Strand Traffic Analysis 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. 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 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. PAEI1`030\Traffic (Revised June, 2002X2).wpd ((6/21/02)) 41 r E F C p 11 k L 437l583 M $ c v r N L E- 1512/1321 Cl)D rn t 51153 i n L 228/407 Fl y L�, ` 22/25 Fl L, E- 1749/1732 j L, <- 1466/1666 606/853 J -i T r' 159/325 j 225/346 1541/1318 �2 2 1913/1582 1718/1356 -� 22/9 v c 1 Warner Avenue/Coast Highway 2 Seapoint Avenue/Coast Highway 3 Golden West Street/Coast Highway co Zr Cl) C, - L 43/65 t 48/113 °2 L, Z 9/33 � 1181/2164 <-j L, F 1340/1986 j L, E- 1338/2113 E.l y 9/37 122/132 J 12/21 1 68/105 1 T r' 2337/1455 --> 2410/1625 2489/1508 -� 7/5 4 17th Street/Coast Highway 5 Ninth Street/Coast Highway 6 Sixth Street/Coast Highway 74 CO a, j L 50/87 C 68/320 o v 2 60/119 N �2 E- 890/1932 r= r F 903/2128 L> F 1010/2004 j 1. L> r 28/49 j y L, r 1/25 68178 J 75/164 -T 32142 J 4-1 T r" 2450/1570 -> 2250/1402 2617/1663 O2 Z' Q 16/19 a 1/3 7 Main Street/Coast Highway 8 First Street/Coast Highway 9 Huntington Street/Coast Highway N L 1711775 j L 95/377 CO L 48/145 `r ( F 880/2379 !�2 N E-- 922/3070 O F 871/3380 F► y L 3/8 <j yL.> r 2/19 E l y L. ,` 1/5 84/273 J T r' 66/143 J <-) T r11 71/142 J *i T r' 2573/1451 3145/1630 -> `�2 o V 3507/1557 2/14 Z " 1/8 a `' 11/8 1 °a 10 Beach Boulevard/Coast Highway 11 Newland Street/Coast Highway 12 Magnolia Street/Coast Highway FIGURE 12A 123/456 AM/PM Peak Hour Turn Volumes The Strand General Plan Buildout without Bridges AM and PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes tP:\EIP030\g-GPwithoutBridges_P2020-B.xls (5/29/02), l!) a L 356/800 4 ^ N ' 353/153 Z: ' <- 784/2748 o v L 34/155 r' F 87/250 y L, ` 5/1 y L, ` 103/15 , y L, T 43/10 388/426 T r' T F> 636/339 -1 `1 T r> 3147/1243 M c�`o � 484/117 -� C1; v r, 315 � N 235/54 Z N r- M Cn 13 Brookhurst Street/Coast Highway 14 Golden West Street/Orange Avenue 15 Golden West Street/Palm Avenue CO � co a 53 L 38/43 L 44/10 CO CO L 192/392 °' � 91/89 N � F 334/155 y L, ` 215/468 j y L., 51/66 EJ 4 L, ` 142/4 T r> 16/25 j T 13/166 1 `, T r-> rn 39/98 --> �2 N ixi 3361263 -� ZZ rn v 5/15 OD v ' 51/32 v izz P N 16 Golden West Street/Yorktown Avenue 17 Main Street/Sixth Street 18 Main Street/Adams Avenue iY r- N L 93/24 N t 222/170 CO Q CO S 'L150/219 .- CO F- 133/21 Z.) e cr <- 277/464 Q U') r <- 3161376 <.j y L, r 90/40 Ej 1 L, (- 192177 *j y L, F 100/226 105/47 -T T 203/120 J T r- 5/6 T r* 110/19 600/458 o c 4551323 -> C cn u) M o 95/40 rn 437/202 N O N 1/10 N 9 CO N N 19 Main Street/Utica Street 20 Main Street/Yorktown Avenue 21 Lake Street/Adams Avenue v "' � � t 7/30 � se^ N 180/318 O �2 Z M L 210/242 v ; F 412/461 cr m N F- 3551750 N F 90/284 I L, T 272/274 F! 25/40 EJ y ` 37/36 7/29 -1 <-i T r-> 147/134 -f +i T r-> 165/101 J `1 T r-O 683/444 - * "' N v. 496/371 -� rn c 178/106 -> " v ,n 3 N `o 159/233 -1a . 76/38 0 46/44 M N N C CO C7 CO CO 22 Lake Street/Yorktown Avenue 23 Beach Boulevard/Atlanta Avenue 24 Beach Boulevard/Indianapolis Avenue FIGURE 12B 123/456 AM/PM Peak Hour Turn Volumes The Strand General Plan Buildout without Bridges AM and PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P:\EIP030\g-GPwithoutBridges_P2020-C.xis (5/29/02) N O M c" = ; L 269/415 rn n F 357/758 ,.j y L ` 198/286 181/208 1 -i T r-> 1066/523 105/78 -1 rn Z;5 rn 9 N 25 Beach Boulevard/Adams Avenue to L 55189 o n F 14/38 ,,j y L-> ,` 4/17 11/10 J T r' 39/53 -> a CD N 1 /2 rn v 28 Sixth Street/Olive Avenue o 152/145 F 341/438 E.1 y t_, 140/139 179/157 J T r> 608/402 N r'0- rn 201/163 LD 26 Beach Boulevard/Yorktown Avenue 66n8 F 12/8 I C 9/6 14/21 *-1 T r> 78/72 ;2`5 'coo A 917 o M 27 Sixth Street/Walnut Avenue FIGURE 12c 123/456 AM/PM Peak Hour Turn Volumes The Strand General Plan Buildout without Bridges AM and PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P:\EIP030\g-GPwithoutBridges_P2020-D.xls (5/29/02) I LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. . I Table F: General Plan Buildout Without Bridges Level of Service Summary AM ICU/Delayl LOS PM ICU/Delayl LOS Intersection 1 Warner Avenue/Coast Highway2 0.88 D 39.2 sec. D 48.4 sec. D 2 Seapoint Avenue/Coast Highway 0.70 B 0.79 C 26.0 sec. C 21.7 sec. C 3 Golden West Street/Coast Highway 0.77 C 0.83 D 20.6 sec. C 19.6 sec. B 4 17th Street/Coast Highway 0.81 D 0.77 C 11.7 sec. B 9.6 sec. A 5 Ninth Street/Coast Highway 0.79 C 0.70 B 3.0 sec. A 2.1 sec. A 6 Sixth Street/Coast Highway 0.62 B 0.62 B 6.5 sec. A 6.8 sec. A 7 Main Street/Coast Highway 0.56 A 0.53 A 4.5 sec. A 6.3 sec. A 8 First Street/Coast Highway 0.57 A 0.60 A 11.7 sec. B 12.7 sec. A 9 Huntington Street/Coast Highway 0.87 D 0.75 C 7.5 sec. A 5.1 sec. A 10 Beach Boulevard/Coast Highway 0.76 C 0.91 E 16.0 sec. B 22.9 sec. C 11 Newland Street/Coast Highway 0.82 D 0.80 C 12.1 sec. B 11.8 sec. B 12 Magnolia Street/Coast Highway 0.79 C 0.83 D 7.1 sec. A 12.2 sec B 13 Brookhurst Street/Coast Highway 0.87 D 21.8 sec. C 40.6 sec. D 14 Golden West Street/Orange Avenue 0.27 A 0.44 A 15 Golden West Street/Palm Avenue 0.65 B 0.62 B 16 Golden West Street/Yorktown Avenue 0.43 A 0.45 A 17 Main Street/Sixth Street 0.23 A 0.35 A 18 Main Street/Adams Avenue 0.56 A 0.47 A 19 Main Street/Utica Street 0.54 A 0.39 A 20 Main Street/Yorktown Avenue 0.54 A 0.57 A 21 Lake Street/Adams Avenue 0.59 A 0.63 B 22 Lake Street/Yorktown Avenue 0.65 B 0.55 A 23 Beach Boulevard/Atlanta Avenue 0.44 A 0.77 C 23.6 sec. C 32.1 sec. C 24 Beach Boulevard/Indianapolis Avenue 0.45 A 0.58 A 23.3 sec. C 21.7 sec. C 25 Beach Boulevard/Adams Avenue2 0.71 C 0.77 C 32.7 sec. C 35.2 sec. D 26 Beach Boulevard/Yorktown Avenue 0.61 B 0.69 B 26.5 sec. C 28.3 sec. C 27 Sixth Street/Walnut Avenue' 13.6 sec. B 18.0 sec. C 28 Sixth Street/Olive Avenue' 11.9 sec. B 16.8 sec. C 1 Intersections along State Routes and unsignalized intersections are calculated using Highway Capacity 2000 methodology. Results are expressed as seconds of delay (sec.) with corresponding LOS. 2Intersections designated as Congestion Management Program intersections. Level of Service threshold is LOS E at these location P:1EIP030\Model.x1s10ff--Peak ICU Summary (5/30/02) FIGURE 13 The Strand General Plan Buildout Without Bridges Daily Traffic Volumes and Volume to Capacity Ratios MEIP030Daily Traffic Volumes.cdr (123/02) I-SAASSOCIATES, INC. Table G: The Strand Trip Generation Total AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use Size Units ADT In Out Total In Out Total Retail/Commercial Trip Rate I 53.00 TSF 85.51 1.26 0.81 2.06 3.74 4.05 7.79 Trip Generation 4,532 67 43 109 198 215 413 Restaurant 40.00 TSF Trip Rate t 130.34 4.82 4.45 9.27 6.52 4.34 10.86 Trip Generation 5,214 193 178 371 261 174 434 Office 28.00 TSF Trip Rate 1 11.01 1.37 0.19 1.56 0.25 1.24 1.49 Trip Generation 308 38 5 44 7 35 42 Hotel 149 Rooms Trip Rate I 8.23 0.34 0.22 0.56 0.32 0.29 0.61 Trip Generation 1,226 51 33 83 48 43 91 Gross Trip Generation 11,280 349 258 607 514 466 980 Internal Trip Capture (10%) 1,128 35 26 61 51 47 98 Potential Trip Generation 10,152 314 233 547 463 419 882 30% Mode Shift (Pedestrian and Bicycle)Z 3,046 94 70 164 139 126 265 Net Effective Trip Generation 7,106 220 163 383 324 293 617 Notes: I Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 6th Edition, 1997. z A 30 percent reduction factor was assumed based on the high percentage of walk-in trade due to the proximity of the beach and the downtown core area. TsF Thousand Square Feet 5129102 (P.•IEIP03OWode1.xts1Trip Gen) ' LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS JUNE. 2002 THE STRAND (BLOCKS 104/105 REDEVELOPMENT) HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA ITrip 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 trip distribution percentages in Figure 14. 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 Banning 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 non -summer weekday plus project a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic volumes are illustrated in Figure 15. Table H presents the cumulative non -summer weekday plus project level of service analysis. The ICU and HCM worksheets are provided in Appendix E. 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. 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. Table I presents the cumulative summer weekday plus project level of service analysis. The ICU and HCM worksheets are provided in Appendix F. As shown in Table I, the following two locations are forecast to 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 Avenue/Coast Highway (ICU of 0.93, LOS E, during the p.m. peak hour) I 1 PAUP030\Traffic (Revised June, 2002x2).wpd E(6/21/02)) 48 1%� h 11% 11% 15% GARFfFLD AVE �2%4 2% GO 5� 16 20 2G YORKTOWN AVE 2 /o► 22 ° .A� 1�0%� 2 /o PA( 19 UTICA OCOq AVE 0 � 15 18 21 25 ADAMSSAVE F+ 14 h 1 3 y,�r ♦5%► z 4�'`�'Gio 24 ova 'Gj,� yS zz INDIANAP 2 %S� 2gTl 17� 27 z 6 � x 23 AZI.ANTA AVE 7 ti,�,S 8%4 � g PROJECT SITE 9 F AMII.TON AVE 10 4% 17 12 13 18°/ar••. Legend Study Area Intersection Regional Trip Distribution FIGURE 14A The Strand Project Trip Assignment and Regional Trip Distribution PAW03ft-TripAssign-Axis (5/29/02) L p 11 U C r III' L a t- 2/6 co N L 18/32 L F 3/6 <- 7/12 L> F 7/12 4/6 -j 9/13 9/13 -� 1 Warner Avenue/Coast Highway 2 Seapoint Avenue/Coast Highway 3 Golden West Street/Coast Highway i� m o rn 2 7/12 chi n L 79/117 <- 24/44 <- 31/56 1, 8/15 33/49 42/62 42162 4 17th Street/Coast Highway 5 Ninth Street/Coast Highway 6 Sixth Street/Coast Highway F 90/133 <- 79/117 <- 79M 17 67/120 > 8/15 1 59/106 -> 59/106 7 Main Street/Coast Highway 8 First Street/Coast Highway 9 Huntington Street/Coast Highway Go 0 <-J <- 40/58 <- 40/55 <- 40/55 29/53 .T 29/50 29/50 -� 29/53 -+ 10 Beach Boulevard/Coast Highway 11 Newland Street/Coast Highway 12 Magnolia Street/Coast Highway FIGURE 14B 123/456 AM/PM Peak Hour Turn Volumes The Strand Project Trip Assignment 1 PAEIP030\g-TripAssign-B.x1s (5/29/02) O = (D M <- 35/45 y 2 3/6 y F 3/6 3/9 - T 4/6 T 26/41 � 4/6 Z M m 13 Brookhurst Street/Coast Highway 14 Golden West Street/Orange Avenue 15 Golden West Street/Palm Avenue N f7 O O ` E2 O Q a N (D . N N to CV y *J y y 13/19 T 20/35 T T r' rn rn u.) ao c�c o N 0 N 0 16 Golden West Street/Yorktown Avenue 17 Main Street/Sixth Street 18 Main Street/Adams Avenue CN 1 l 20129 F 13/19 T 2/3 1 10/18 O M tN0 19 Main Street/Utica Street 20 Main Street/Yorktown Avenue 21 Lake Street/Adams Avenue v 11/16 E 20/29 y ` 7/10 y .- 2/3 15/26 8/15 -> T r4 2/3 T rn za: N M N 22 Lake Street/Yorktown Avenue 23 Beach Boulevard/Atlanta Avenue 24 Beach Boulevard/Indianapolis Avenue FIGURE 14c 123/456 AM/PM Peak Hour Turn Volumes The Strand Project Trip Assignment PAEIP0301g-TripAssign-C.x1s (5/29/02) M 1 F 11/16 8115 —> T g N 25 Beach Boulevard/Adams Avenue M 1 F 4/6 3/6 T N 26 Beach Boulevard/Yorktown Avenue `aV 1 F 36/54 4/6 Et T F, C M N 27 Sixth Street/Walnut Avenue Ln M 4/6 Z Ft T fO � N 28 Sixth Street/Olive Avenue FIGURE 14D 123/456 AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes The Strand Project Trip Assignment P:\CUF130\g-TripAssipn D.xls\Figure (5/29/02) L 384/503 � Z4 L 264/321 r' F 1768/1300 r L 42/46 N � v E- 1615/1577 J y L, C 26/36 J L, E- 1944/1708 J y ` 20/29 405/743 J T 133/363 J 214/288 J 1415/1629 C M 1800/1786 -� 1620/1585 23/15 N v v 1 Warner Avenue/Coast Highway 2 Seapoint Avenue/Coast Highway 3 Golden West Street/Coast Highway c N N v N rn r, 100/144 V V L 47/78 r' co L 11/33 m E- 1334/1903 El L. E- 1510/1847 E1 L, F 1516/1904 <_J y L> ` 18/51 80/120 J 12/24 J 80/139 _T -i T r-4 2211/1646 -> 2281/1790 2238/159212 8/9 v n 4 17th Street/Coast Highway 5 Ninth Street/Coast Highway 6 Sixth Street/Coast Highway N C L 68/117 o 2 m L 57/105 M L 128/399 to rn r F 1229/1784 CO N N F 1053/1698 <- 1007/1791 �J L. ` 7/6 J y L, l7- 30/56 Fr y L. ` 1/26 66/90 J 125/222 1 * T r�, 69/101 _T <-i T r > 2239/1748 -> 1988/1571 -> u" r' v 2133/1633 r' o 15/17 1 - `r A 1/4 Z 7 Main Street/Coast Highway 8 First Street/Coast Highway 9 Huntington Street/Coast Highway v Cl) 234/783 m v L 94/226 rn C., v L 60/185 `r 5 n F 1005/2015 r' .^- F 1088/2621 `r F 1008/2758 + 1 L. F 4/8 <.J y L, ` 2/16 EJ y L, f 1/6 110/292 S 4-1 T r' 90/178 J *-i T r- 74/126 J *i T r+ 2062/1419 r' N - 2344/1613 -� �' In 2633/1558 -� 2/13 Z c , `O 1/12 Z `� 9/6 `2; 10 Beach Boulevard/Coast Highway 11 Newland Street/Coast Highway 12 Magnolia Street/Coast Highway FIGURE 15A 123/456 AM/PM Peak Hour Turn Volumes The Strand Cumulative Plus Project Non -Summer Weekday AM and PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P:\EIP030\g-Cumulative+Proj_Off-Peak-B.xls (5/30/02) k 11 11 0 0 0 M N CO a L 304/734 N 'r CO N a0 c L 1751139 N o (0 E- 975/2747 CO CO L 70/81 v Z: F 64/113 .J y L, ` 20/18 y L, f 62/15 F 1 y L, l- 65/18 257/243 _T +i T T r-> 2081154 J -1 T r+ 2530/1458 Cl) U') 116/80 , CD M M 6/6 v '- o ? 133l18 M N N v v 13 Brookhurst Street/Coast Highway 14 Golden West Street/Orange Avenue 15 Golden West Street/Palm Avenue N o N M j a L 29/32 0) o L 55/31 � Co L 174/297 ; N N f- 66/57 `r co a' F 349/163 y L, 165/369 ,J y L- 17 42/56 $ 163/24 T r� 37/59 J h T r-> 14/171 J Et T r> "' n 34/77 -> " o C 356/274 N c 5/17 Z ° 54/34 v 16 Golden West Street/Yorktown Avenue 17 Main Street/Sixth Street 18 Main Street/Adams Avenue v c L 82/23 N ti L 135/100 CO L 126/126 n V E-- 158/15 cao C-i i'z: E- 234/394 v co <- 356/439 Fl y La ` 89/43 <_J y L> 226/86 EJ 4 L., C 88/179 78135 _T T r> 227/133 1 +1 T f- 4/5 1 `1 T r4 116/21 ,� 405/412 0 509/358 -� N v 80/35 -1 c`�Oo 8 rn 378/150 1 N rn 0/13 1 N o U.? N 19 Main Street/Utica Street 20 Main Street/Yorktown Avenue 21 Lake Street/Adams Avenue 00 co � ao � 00 � o in r- N L 11/32 c L 240/314 `� a c L 236/182 Ri M� 432/431 co N <- 338/576 N rn F 93/151 +J y L, r 271/166 F1 y F- 58/79 E.J y L+ ,` 55/50 5/23 J � T r" 114/130 T r+ 164/110 J `1 T r' 468/500 v N N 475/420 CO 196/109 -+ R A1z' 86/109 Z Z 42/36 38/41 -1 .- CO r.- v � 22 Lake Street/Yorktown Avenue 23 Beach Boulevard/Atlanta Avenue 24 Beach Boulevard/Indianapolis Avenue 1 123/456 FIGURE MD AM/PM Peak Hour Turn Volumes The Strand Cumulative Plus Project Non —Summer Weekday AM and PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 1 P:lEIP0301g-Cumulative+Proj_Off-Peak-C.xls (5/30/02) o00 307/409 397/724 I L, C 173/257 207/219 T r> 1040/498 M ui v'i N 95/77 N N M 25 Beach Boulevard/Adams Avenue I Not part of original off-peak period existing counts 28 Sixth Street/Olive Avenue co C', - N oO L 169/129 rn rn F 395/401 y F- 126/125 166/154 -1 T 4281391 -� o 130/147 Z 5 Go CD CV 26 Beach Boulevard/Yorktown Avenue I Not part of original off-peak period existing counts 27 Sixth Streefflalnut Avenue FIGURE 15c 123/456 AM/PM Peak Hour Turn Volumes The Strand Cumulative Plus Project Non -Summer Weekday AM and PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P:\EIP030\g-Cumulative+Proj_Off-Peak-D.xis (5/30/02) 11 G r� LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. Table H: Non -Summer Weekday Cumulative plus Project Condition Level of Service Summary m_.I 'r . :....1117001,.7.... !'.....n to tivn .1..c P-Apt . A ICU/Delay' LOS -PM ICU/Del ayi LOU/Delayi S AM IC LOS PM ICU/Delayr LOS Intersection I Warner Avenue/Coast Highway2 0.86 D 0.97 E 0.87 D 0.97 E 32.9 sec. C 38.6 sec. D 33.0 sec. C 38.8 sec. D 2 Seapoint Avenue/Coast Highway 0.90 D 0.79 C 0.90 D 0.80 C 27.5 sec. C 20.5 sec. C 27.7 sec. C 20.6 sec. C 3 Golden West Street/Coast Highway 0.77 C 0.76 C 0.78 C 0.77 C 19.6 sec. B 15.4 sec. B 19.7 sec. B 15.9 see. B 4 17th Street/Coast Highway 0.77 C 0.69 B 0.77 C 0.71 C 10.0 sec. B 6.6 sec. A 10.2 sec. B 6.8 sec. A 5 Ninth Street/Coast Highway 0.75 C 0.62 B 0.76 C 0.64 B 3.9 sec. A 1.8 sec. A 2.7 sec. A 1.9 sec. A 6 Sixth Street/Coast Highway 0.57 A 0.53 A 0.59 A 0.65 B 5.3 sec. A 5.6 sec. A 8.3 sec. A 10.0 sec. A 7 Main Street/Coast Highway 0.51 A 0.48 A 0.53 A 0.50 A 5.2 sec. A 7.5 sec. A 5.1 sec. A 7.2 sec. A 8 First Street/Coast Highway 0.57 A 0.57 A 0.59 A 0.60 A 14.4 sec. B 15.4 sec. B 14.8 sec. B 15.8 sec. B 9 Huntington Street/Coast Highway 0.73 C 0.67 B 0.75 C 0.71 C 7.5 sec. A 7.8 sec. A 7.5 sec. A 7.9 sec. A 10 Beach Boulevard/Coast Highway2 0.61 B 0.80 C 0.61 B 0.83 D 12.8 sec. B 16.1 sec. B 13.2 sec. B 20.7 sec. C 11 Newland Street/Coast Highway 0.61 B 0.71 C 0.62 B 0.72 C 10.5 sec. B 13.8 sec. B 10.4 sec. B 13.9 sec. B 12 Magnolia Street/Coast Highway 0.62 B 0.70 B 0.62 B 0.72 C 6.7 sec. A 8.4 sec. A 6.7 sec. A 8.4 sec. A 13 Brookhurst Street/Coast Highway 0.76 C 0.82 D 0.76 C 0.84 D 20.4 sec. C 18.4 sec. B 20.6 sec. C 19.4 sec. B 14 Golden West Street/Orange Avenue 0.24 A 0.30 A 0.25 A 0.31 A 15 Golden West Street/Palm Avenue 0.37 A 0.39 A 0.36 A 0.40 A 16 Golden West Street/Yorktown Avenue 0.41 A 0.36 A 0.41 A 0.36 A 17 Main Street/Sixth Street 0.24 A 0.34 A 0.26 A 0.36 A 18 Main Street/Adams Avenue 0.60 B 0.51 A 0.62 B 0.54 A 19 Main Street/Utica Street 0.47 A 0.32 A 0.48 A 0.33 A 0 Main Street[Yorktown Avenue 0.54 A 0.46 A 0.56 A 0.46 A 21 Lake Street/Adams Avenue 0.54 A 0.51 A 0.55 A 0.52 A 22 Lake Street/Yorktown Avenue 0.50 A 0.39 A 0.51 A 0.40 A 23 Beach Boulevard/Atlanta Avenue 0.44 A 0.71 C 0.45 A 0.72 C 24.9 sec. C 31.1 sec. C 25.0 sec. C 31.2 sec. C 24 Beach Boulevard/Indianapolis Avenue 0.47 A -0.50 A 0.48 A 0.51 A 25.5 sec. C 20.1 sec. C 25.3 sec. C 19.8 sec. B 25 Beach Boulevard/Adams Avenue2 0.68 B 0.74 C 0.68 B 0.75 C 32.0 sec. C 34.9 sec. C 32.0 sec. C 35.1 sec. D 26 Beach Boulevard/Yorktown Avenue 0.57 A 0.66 B 0.57 A 0.67 B 27 28 Sixth Street/Walnut Avenue] Sixth Street/Olive Avenue' 24.8 sec. C 26.7 sec. C Not part of off-peak period existing counts Not part of off-peak period existing counts 24.7 sec. C 26.6 sec. C Not part of off-peak period existing counts Not oart of off-peak period existin counts ' Intersections along State Routes and unsignalized intersections are calculated using Highway Capacity 2000 methodology. Results are expressed as seconds of delay (sec.) with corresponding LOS. 2Intersections designated as Congestion Management Program intersections. Level of Service threshold is LOS E at these locations. 1 P:\EIP030\Model.xls\Off-Peak+ProjICU Summary (5/30/02) r, 2 319/320 ' 198/336 ui oo v E- 1826/1999 Cl)M 2 38/204 N CAM 1387/1693 <.J y L, C 8/38 � L> E- 1555/1743 <-J L, 15/36 553/727 +i T r� 170/435 J 144/352 J 1496/1799 o c' 1775/1895 -� 1709/1672 -� 7/45 O° CO "' 1 Warner Avenue/Coast Highway 2 Seapoint Avenue/Coast Highway 3 Golden West Street/Coast Highway ao r` 114/151 40/51 N n L 9/30 �2 �2 F 1109/1825 +-J L, F 1517/2172 EJ L, F 1264/1972 FJ y 4 ` 42/54 92/159 j 19/30 1 107/159 J <-i T r� 2079/1930 1904/1776 1874/1434 -> o v "�' � g 25/41 1 N N � 4 17th Street/Coast Highway 5 Ninth Street/Coast Highway 6 Sixth Street/Coast Highway 54/157 zz zz"0 V L 35/109 L 111/210 1165/1891 `r CIq 4 F 956/1734 c n %2 <- 914/1853 fJ L. 5/41 EJ y L3 ` 17/30 EJ y L ` 15/16 49/151 J 110/212 J <-I T rj 89/97 1 *i T r4 1956/1482 1821/1319 1763/1390 110 27/32 16/9 -1 ? OD 7 Main Street/Coast Highway 8 First Street/Coast Highway 9 Huntington Street/Coast Highway CO o � L 286/746 CO L 37/281 CD ° 1: 38/254 M M � <- 915/1834 o `r E- 1017/2439 r�i go — F 931/2609 Fl y L.> ` 7/9 <J y L3 r 0/7 +J 4 L, r 9/27 78/249 1 T 88M53 1+) T r-> 65/111 J E T r* 1844/1273 --> `" ' 2435/1550 O° N °r 2513/1543 6/2 4/23 a 27/44 "' .- 1 10 Beach Boulevard/Coast Highway 11 Newland Street/Coast Highway 12 Magnolia Street/Coast Highway FIGURE 16A 123/456 AM/PM Peak Hour Turn Volumes Tire Strand Cumulative Plus Project Summer Weekday AM and PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P:1EIP0301g-Cumulative+Proj_Peak-B.xis (5/29/02) F C' �I! CII E p �, 4 N 1: 167/667 0) 1 Co v N L 9a/36 rn o CO w, F 961/2627 c:, o M 2 109/83 F- is � F 35/94 Fl 4 L. f 4/7 j y L, 1- 25/15 J $ L, F 21/9 1991246 1 -i T 18/30 *1 T r> 206/149 J <-I T r* 2563/1251 --> Cv 0/3 LZ05 o 121171 c, v M 2/4 o 115/96 Z o N v u, 13 Brookhurst Street/Coast Highway 14 Golden West Street/Orange Avenue 15 Golden West Street/Palm Avenue CO s U7 C a'0 L 19/29 N 36/82 n N 2 234/477 N 73/81 �r, N � 133/198 y L� f 189/373 J y L> ` 26/39 4 L, r 69/163 T r, 51/90 -1 T r-> 614 J *1 T r' M LO 60/86 °2 23 co 187/158 c M o allo 4/15 Z `� N 12/17 -1 5 00 lNf, C.) N CC., 16 Golden West Street/Yorktown Avenue 17 Main Street/Sixth Street 18 Main Street/Adams Avenue vGo 29/17 o N u, Go a L 115/156 eo c� LO L 67/148 M F 3/1 M N F 318/528 M r- F 209/409 14/22 J $ L> 64/106 E.J y L-,, ` 67/163 6/5 J T 213/141 1<-) T r+ 2/6 J-i T r-" 1/2 Crc"-) 1 316/468 r rn C 447/367 cD o w 8/8 76/187 c M -M 6/12 `� N N.- 19 Main Street/Utica Street 20 Main Street/Yorktown Avenue 21 Lake Street/Adams Avenue --T M L 18/26 N f�, c _ L 220/396 ti oo cf L 121/189 v °r° F 339/478 ZZ r' <- 293/545 v o F 51/111 y L� 55/96 .0 ` 73/10 y L- ` 57173 9/53 J *i T r- 115/147 J <-I T r+ 135/118 -T +-i T r' 374/516 u' 0 371/419 c�`o rn rN, 116/132 ! G � rn 102/233 59/44 Z N v CD40/35 LO cc o, v � 22 Lake Street/Yorktown Avenue 23 Beach Boulevard/Atlanta Avenue 24 Beach Boulevardllndianapolis Avenue FIGURE 16B 123/456 AM/PM Peak Hour Turn Volumes The Strand Cumulative Plus Project Summer Weekday AM and PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 1 P:\EIP030\g-Cumulative+Proj_Peak-C.xls {5/29/02) 2301362 N <- 263/612 ,J ,(- 1331191 219/183 J +-i T r4 6991633 o Lc,' N 57/91Go Go 1 25 Beach Boulevard/Adams Avenue N a _ 7/7 F 241103 +-J y L ` 9/14 30/19 h T F" 75/84 a .- 15/18 N N 1 28 Sixth Street/Olive Avenue N M N L 95/98 U F 183/461 *J l L, ` 79/132 153/170 J +� T r- 294/385 Mo !Z? N 125/103 �E � a, 0 26 Beach BoulevardlYorktown Avenue 13113 22180 < 1 L, 1- 49168 33/23 J T 92/84 , o e 37/40 27 Sixth Street/Walnut Avenue FIGURE 16c 123/456 AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes The Strand Cumulative Plus Project Summer Weekday AM and PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes i P:\CUF130\g-Cumulative+Proj Peak-D.xlslFigure (5/29/02) ISA ASSOCIATES, INC. Table I: Summer Weekday Cumulative plus Project Condition Level of Service Summary n .117--GA- /'`.......1.,4:vn nine P-.0f v AM ` ICU/Delay' v� LOS N _ PM ICU/Delay' LOS AM ICU/Delayl LOS PM ICU/Delay' LOS Intersection 1 Warner Avenue/Coast Highway 2 0.95 E 0.95 E v,1:`02 F 103. F 36.1 sec. D 58.O�sec. Y� E 36.3 sec. D ��,_58.5s�e 2 Seapoint Avenue/Coast Highway 0.79 C 0 93 0.79 C 22.3 sec. C 50.6 sec. D 22.4 sec. C 51.3 sec. D 3 Golden West Street/Coast Highway 0.66 B 0.85 D 0.67 B 0.86 D 16.5 sec. B 21.8 sec. C 16.6 sec. B 22.2 sec. C 4 17th Street/Coast Highway 0.73 C 0.81 D 0.74 C 0.83 D 7.5 sec. A 8.9 sec. A 7.7 sec. A 9.6 sec. A 5 Ninth Street/Coast Highway 0.63 B 0.66 B 0.64 B 0.67 B 2.4 sec. A 2.7 sec. A 2.4 sec. A 2.8 sec. A 6 Sixth Street/Coast Highway 0.53 A 0.56 A 0.57 A 0.68 B 7.6 sec. A 9.0 sec. A 10.6 sec. B 13.8 sec. B 7 Main Street/Coast Highway 0.47 A 0.56 A 0.48 A 0.59 A 5.2 sec. A 10.2 sec. B 5.1 sec. A 9.9 sec. A 8 First Street/Coast Highway 0.46 A 0.61 B 0.48 A 0.64 B 10.8 sec. B 15.3 sec. B9 11.2 sec. A 15.8 sec. B 9 Huntington Street/Coast Highway 0.66 B 0.69 B 0.68 B 0.72 C 10.4 sec. B 8.3 sec. A 10.3 sec. B 8.4 sec. A 10 Beach Boulevard/Coast Highway 0.58 A 0.74 C 0.58 A 0.77 C 13.1 sec. B 12.9 sec. B 13.7 sec. B 15.5 sec. B 11 Newland Street/Coast Highway 0.63 B 0.69 B 0.63 B 0.70 B 8.8 sec. A 14.1 sec. B 8.7 sec. A 14.1 sec. B 12 Magnolia Street/Coast Highway 0.63 B 0.70 B 0.64 B 0.71 C 8.3 sec. A 10.1 sec. B 8.2 sec. A 10.1 sec. B 13 Brookhurst Street/Coast Highway 0.73 C 0.78 C 0.73 C 0.79 C 16.5 sec. B 15.5 sec. B 16.5 sec. B 16.2 sec. B 14 Golden West Street/Orange Avenue 0.25 A 0.34 A 0.26 A 0.35 A 15 Golden West Street/Palm Avenue 0.34 A 0.43 A 0.33 A 0.43 A 16 Golden West Street/Yorktown Avenue 0.38 A 0.52 A 0.38 A 0.52 A 17 Main Street/Sixth Street 0.25 A 0.39 A 0.28 A 0.44 A 18 Main Street/Adams Avenue 0.40 A 0.62 B 0.41 A 0.65 B 19 Main Street/Utica Street 0.22 A 0.34 A 0.23 A 0.35 A 20 Main Street/Yorktown Avenue 0.40 A 0.59 A 0.40 A 0.59 A 21 Lake Street/Adams Avenue 0.47 A 0.55 A 0.48 A 0.56 A 22 Lake Street/Yorktown Avenue 0.33 A 0.42 A 0.34 A 0.43 A 23 Beach Boulevard/Atlanta Avenue 0.40 A 0.66 B 0.41 A 0.67 B 24.9 sec. C 29.5 sec. C 24.9 sec. C 30.5 sec. C 24 Beach Boulevard/Indianapolis Avenue 0.37 A 0.58 A 0.38 A 0.59 A 21.1 sec. C 21.5 sec. C 20.9 sec. C 21.3 sec. C 25 Beach Boulevard/Adams Avenue 0.52 A 0.77 C 0.52 A 0.79 C 28.3 sec. C 36.0 sec. D 28.2 sec. C 36.4 sec. D 26 Beach Boulevard/Yorktown Avenue 0.44 A 0.81 D 0.45 A 0.82 D 20.3 sec. C 28.8 sec. C 20.1 sec. C 29.0 sec. C 27 Sixth Street/Walnut Avenue' 12.4 sec. B 13.4 sec. B 14.0 sec. B 20.4 sec. C 28 Sixth Street/Olive Avenue' 11.8 sec. B 13.5 sec. B 12.6 sec. B 15.6 sec. C 1 Intersections along State Routes and unsignalized intersections are calculated using Highway Capacity 2000 methodology. Results are expresseu as seconds of delay (sec.) with corresponding LOS. 2Intersections designated as Congestion Management Program intersections. Level of Service threshold is LOS E at these locations. P:\EIP030\Ivlodel.xls\Peak+ProjlCU Summary (5/30/02) r LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS JUNE, 2002 THE STRAND (BLOCKS 104/105 REDEVELOPMENT) HUNTINGTON BEACH. CALIFORNIA 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. Traffic Volumes and Levels of Service General Plan Build Out With Santa Ana River Bridges Plus Project. The General Plan with bridges plus project peak hour traffic volumes are illustrated in Figure 17. Table J presents the General Plan with bridges plus project level of service analysis. The ICU and HCM worksheets are provided in Appendix H. As shown in Table J, the following two 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 (0.97 in the p.m. peak hour, LOS E) Review of Table J 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. Construction of a second eastbound left turn lane will result in this intersection operating with an ICU of 0.82 in the p.m. peak hour. Figure 18 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 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 = >1.00) • Palm Avenue - Between Golden West Street and 71 Street (v/c = 1.11) • Main Street - Between Adams Avenue and Palm Avenue (v/c = 0.83) General Plan Build Out Without Santa Ana River Bridges Plus Project. The General Plan without bridges plus project peak hour traffic volumes is illustrated in Figure 19. PASPOMTraffic (Revised June, 2002x2).wpd K6/21/02)) 61 1 co,C L 442/600 N � ° `�" s; F 1518/1329 co 54/51 M LO L 255/451 <-J 1 L> -f- 22/25 <-J L., F 1761/1752 *J L> E- 1477/1688 6041855 <-1 T r-> 157/339 222/350 J 1546/1348 -> 1918/1621 1731/1383 22/9 M 1 Warner Avenue/Coast Highway 2 Seapoint Avenue/Coast Highway 3 Golden West Street/Coast Highway 128/180 V L 57/121 �2 G 'L 10/31 `r o F 1186/2189 (-J L, E- 1379/2053 *J L-> f- 1380/2200 y L> ,6- 17/51 120/140 -.T 11/23 J 107/173 -T T r' 2392/1539 -> 2474/1721 2516/1550 -> 6/6 -'1 a 4 17th Street/Coast Highway 5 Ninth Street/Coast Highway 6 Sixth Street/Coast Highway LO .1w C-4 00 L 47179 00 'C 72/317 64/113 N - F 989/2090 r- - ao F 1015/2286 �-J <- 1115/2172 *J 1 L> ,C 29/50 * y L> t- 1/25 64/84 -T 70/162 J T r> 29/46 J <-� T r> 2554/1738 > 2360/1583 2729/1829 -> r' 14120 M 1/4 7 Main Street/Coast Highway 8 First Street/Coast Highway 9 Huntington Street/Coast Highway C14 Co L 203/807 t- 101/287 N C Z 45/99 �' E 966/2478 zzN F 999/3199 ti F 944/3362 1L-> F 418 +J I L F 2/17 < y 4 1' 1/4 1171331 J E T r+ 64/147 J E T r4 58/129 J h T r" 2645/1564 -> � CN �' 3184/1724 -> �: e ; 3518/1609 �2 2/13 1/10 a 11/8 °D 10 Beach Boulevard/Coast Highway 11 Newland Street/Coast Highway 1 12 Magnolia Street/Coast Highway FIGURE 17A 123/456 AM/PM Peak Hour Turn Volumes The Strand General Plan Buildout with Bridges Plus Project AM and PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P:\EIP030\g-GPwithBridges+Proj P2020-B.xis (5/29/02) CO CO Q L 30631 o v e L 354/158 CO a � F 780/2583 L 341154 ° F 881258 � yL-> F 5/5 T F> y L, 102115 T F> J 1 L, 643/339 J F 44110 484/543 E T r> 2940/1232 ti a 4761121 --> 316 N 248158 N M 1 13 Brookhurst Street/Coast Highway 1 14 Golden West Street/Orange Avenue 1 15 Golden West Street/Palm Avenue zC 38/41 411 to CIDL 186/383 ;', N N F 82174 - N % F- 333/155 1 L 215/469 T F> < 1 L, 34158 J ` 50/63 E T < 4 13/169 J F 14214 E T r-> CO 32/83 L'n e 335/259 v COse NCN 4/14 Z °° W 51133 Co CO Ln N � 1 16 Golden West Street/Yorktown Avenue 1 17 Main Street/Sixth Street 1 18 Main Street/Adams Avenue o aIm Cl) a L 94/25 rn �' L 2151168 L 1231206 V V F 132/20 � F 268/472 u; F 3111376 - <-J 1 L, F 90/40 h T r-> <j i 196/120 L, J ` 193/90 T r* J 5/5 T F 1011255 106148 J E1 T r* 109/19 'Q N a 592/441 -> `r o 4541322 -> o O Q 95/40 435/239 2/11 `V g 19 Main Street/Utica Street 20 Main Street/Yorktown Avenue 21 Lake Street/Adams Avenue L 8/37 v M N 1O LO C L 181/328 Co O t- 2041246 428/498 1 o N F 365/761 N$2 F 93/285 J F 281/314 J L, ` 33154 < 1 L 40137 6/27 --T T r> 146/133 T 160/107 -.T T r> 7051451 -1 501/386 -> o �2 184/107 - M 137/208 �- 76/41 Z r, 49/47 N N �f 1� f0 22 Lake Street/Yorktown Avenue 123 Beach Boulevard/Atlania Avenue 124 Beach BoulevardAndianapolis Avenue FIGURE 17B 123/456 AM/PM Peak Hour Turn Volumes The Strand General Plan Buildout with Bridges Plus Project AM and PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P:\EIP030\g-GPwithBridges+Proj_P2020-C.xls (5/29/02) Co N ' L 249/414 o Z 147/150 v c i 56178 7 o U F 3131785 N F 346/486 ? N M F 1319 I t_, F 1881296 y 170/159 ` 146/145 T � L 15/21 F 48162 182/204 -T h T r-> 1062/531 645/409 N � QM 72/69 �_ N Co 108/79 � N 206/166 --120 10 18/16 Z ego 1 25 Beach Boulevard/Adams Avenue Co r' L 43/87 16139 +-J 1 L F M0 11/11 J T 37/52 o 6/8 N N 1 28 Sixth Street/Olive Avenue 26 Beach Boulevard/Yorktown Avenue 27 Sixth Street/Walnut Avenue FIGURE 17a 123/456 AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes The Strand General Plan Buildout with Bridges Plus Project AM and PM _ Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P:\CUF130\g-GPwithBridges+Proj_P2020-D.xls\Figure (5129102) ISA ASSOCIATES. INC. Table J: General Plan Buildout With Bridges plus Project Level of Service Summary general Plan With Bridles General Plan With Bridl _- -- AM ICU/DelayI LOS I PM ICU/Delayl LOS Intersection 1 Warner Avenue/Coast Highway 0.88 DF49.0 7:01 r `. 39.2 sec. D sec. D Seapoint Avenue/Coast Highway 0.71 C0.80 C 25.9 sec. C.0 sec. C 3 Golden West Street/Coast Highway 0.78 C 0.84 D 20.6 sec. C 20.2 sec. C 17th Street/Coast Highway 0.82 D 0.78 C 11.4 sec. B 10.1 sec. B 5 Ninth Street/Coast Highway 0.80 C 0.71 C 3.1 sec. A 2.2 sec. A 6 Sixth Street/Coast Highway 0.63 B 0.63 B 6.7 sec. A 7.2 sec. A 7 Main Street/Coast Highway 0.57 A 0.54 A 4.3 sec. A 6.5 sec. A 8 First Street/Coast Highway 0.59 A 0.59 A 11.1 sec. B IL 7 sec. B 9 Huntington Street/Coast Highway 0.89 D 0.76 C 7.9 sec. A 5.2 sec. A 10 Beach Boulevard/Coast Highway 0.77 C 0.93 E 15.7 sec. B 25.0 sec. C 11 Newland Street/Coast Highway 0.81 D 0.80 C 11.1 sec. B 11.7 sec. B 12 Magnolia Street/Coast Highway 0.79 C 0.82 D 6.3 sec. A 16.3 sec. B 13 Brookhurst Street/Coast Highway 0.82 D 21.9sec. C S9.8sec With a second EB left turn lane 14 Golden West Street/Orange Avenue 0.27 A 0.42 A 15 Golden West Street/Palm Avenue 0.65 B 0.62 B 16 Golden West Street/Yorktown Avenue 0.43 A 0.45 A 17 Main Street/Sixth Street 0.23 A 0.34 A 18 Main Street/Adams Avenue 0.56 A 0.47 A 19 Main Street/Utica Street 0.55 A 0.39 A 20 Main Street/Yorktown Avenue 0.55 A 0.57 A 1 Lake Street/Adams Avenue 0.57 A 0.62 B 2 Lake Street/Yorktown Avenue 0.64 B 0.54 A 3 Beach Boulevard/Atlanta Avenue 0.44 A 0.78 C 23.7 sec. C 32.4 sec. C 24 Beach Boulevard/Indianapolis Avenue 0.45 A 0.57 A 23.0 sec. C 21.3 sec. C 25 Beach Boulevard/Adams Avenue 0.71 C 0.77 C 32.4 sec. C 35.0 sec. C 26 Beach Boulevard/Yorktown Avenue 0.62 B 0.70 B 26.7 sec. C 28.8 sec. C 7 Sixth Street/Walnut Avenuel 12.9 sec. B 16.4 sec. C g Sixth Street/Olive Avenuel 11.4 sec. B 15.7 sec. C AM ( PM ICU/DelayI LOS ICU/Delay' LOS 0.88 D 39.2 sec. D 48.1 sec. D 0.71 C 0.80 C 26.1 sec. C 23.3 sec. C 0.78 C 0.86 D 20.8 sec. C 20.9 sec. C 0.83 D 0.80 C 11.7 sec. B 10.5 sec. B 0.81 D 0.72 C 3.2 sec. A 2.3 sec. A 0.66 B 0.75 C 9.7 sec. A 13.6 sec. B 0.58 A 0.56 A 4.2 sec. A 6.3 sec. A 0.60 A 0.63 B 11.6 sec. B 12.8 sec. B 0.90 D 0.80 C 8.5 sec. A 5.6 sec. A 0.77 C 0.96 E 16.3 sec. B 38.9 sec. D 0.81 D 0.80 C 11.2 sec. B 11.6 sec. B 0.79 C 0.82 D 6.4 sec. A 14.9 sec. B 0.83 D 22.1 sec. C 63Xsec„ ,' E 0.83 D 0.82 D 20.0 sec. B 29.9 sec. C 0.28 A 0.44 A 0.66 B 0.63 B 0.43 A 0.46 A 0.25 A 0.36 A 0.56 A 0.48 A 0.55 A 0.40 A 0.55 A 0.57 A 0.59 A 0.65 B 0.65 B 0.56 A 0.45 A 0.79 C 23.8 sec. C 32.7 sec. C 0.46 A 0.59 A 22.9 sec. C 21.8 sec. C 0.71 C 0.78 C 32.4 sec. C 35.1 sec. D 0.63 B 0.70 B 27.0 sec. C 29.0 sec. C 14.3 sec. B 20.5 sec. C 12.0 sec. B 17.5 sec. C I Intersections along State Routes and unsignalized intersections are calculated using Highway Capacity 2000 methodology. Results are expressed as seconds of delay (sec.) with corresponding LOS. 2Intersections designated as Congestion Management Program intersections. Level of Service threshold is LOS E at these locations. P:1EIP0301Mode1.xis1Peak+ProjICU Summary (6/19/02) NU I "1 U Sl:ALA. L S A FIGURE 18 The Strand General Plan Buildout With Bridges Plus Project Daily Traffic Volumes and Volume to Capacity Ratios BEIP0300aily Traffic Volumes 5.cdr (123/02) CO '00 C c" 1_ 441/589 ao ;D N Ul) F 1516/1322 ° o L 156/51 I L,, t 22/25 L, F 1915/1736 6041858 -T <-) T r' 54/332 -T 1543/1339 "' M eD 1759/1616 2219 - ' 1 Warner Avenue/Coast Highway 1 2 Seapoint Avenue/Coast Highway Z 55/125 U T- 9/33 <-J L> F 1364/2030 <-J L, F 1369/2169 122/132 --T 12121 J 2370/1504 -► 2452/1687 -- 1 4 17th Street/Coast Highway 1 5 Ninth Street/Coast r— L 50/87 60/119 � N N F 969/2049 � L. - 1100/2137 J I L, 28149 68R8 J 831179 -T T r� 2517/1690 2309/1508 16/19 -71 1 7 Main Street/Coast Highway 1 8 First Street/Coast N Ln L 171/775 2n L 98/369 c co 920/2437 N � � CN E- 944/3107 �(-J L> 3/8 <-J y L> C- 2/18 113/326 T r' 61/155 J *-i T f- 2602/1504 a' 3153/1735 "' o N 2114 -1. 1/9 1 10 Beach Boulevard/Coast Highway 111 Newland Street/Coast FIGURE 19A 123/456 AM/PM Peak Hour Turn Volumes The Strand General Plan Buildout without Bridges Plus Project AM and PM t Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P:\EIP0301g-GPwithoutBridges+Proj_P2020-B.xls (5/29/02) 356/800 U" � 353f153 a F 819/2793 ,, L 37/161 V S�2 <- 90/256 ,,-j y 4 F 517 T y L, F 103/15 T r' *J 4 Lj 6361339 .-T ,` 43/10 391/435 1 *-I T r> 3173/1284 M C 488/123 3/5 N 239/60 Z ' e N -- 1 13 Brookhurst Street/Coast Highway 1 14 Golden West Street/Orange Avenue 1 15 Golden West Street/Palm Avenue cc)a T- 38/43 L 45/11 to � 192/387 ; N N F- 91/89 N ,� <- 333/155 216/475 T F" J 1 L., 36/60 J F 51/66 T r> �(J 1 L 131169 J 14214 T ^ EO 39/98 r' U—) 0 335/259 Z 5115 51/33 co N 1 16 Golden West StreetlYorktown Avenue 1 17 Main Street/Sixth Street 1 18 Main Street/Adams Avenue N 94/24 � Go L 220/163 u� � L 144/210 M F 132/20 0 F 275/457 < 315/374 y L- ` 90/41 T F" c y L> 203/128 -T<-i F 192180 T r-> *J y L> 5/6 111/254 106/48 T h T r> 109/19 -+ N 597/446 --> "' = CO% 455/320 N N 95/41 439/233 1 � 9 - 1/12 1 19 Main Street/Utica Street 1 20 Main Street/Yorktown Avenue 1 21 Lake Street/Adams Avenue o V -- eD 7/33 co cli v!9 u" L 1801318 N o 210/251 M F 421/470 � N F 3661766 N r' �' < 91/310 ,J C- 287/312 *� T r4 * y 4 147/134 J F 32/50 *-i T r> 40 1 L, 161/105 F 40/40 6/25 J *-1 T r* 693/457 -> 504/386 0 183/110 S L 152/209 co co N N 76/38 M a LM 49/48 Z V o M cm 22 Lake StreetfYorktown Avenue 1 23 Beach Boulevard/Atlanta Avenue 1 24 Beach Boulevardlindianapolis Avenue FIGURE 19B 123/456 AM/PM Peak Hour Turn Volumes The Strand General Plan Buildout without Bridges Plus Project AM and PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P:\EIP030\g-GPwithoutBridges+Proj_P2020-C.xis (5/29/02) FIGURE 19c 123/456 AM/PM Peak Hour Turn Volumes The Strand General Plan Buildout without Bridges Plus Project AM and PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P:\EIP0301g-GPwithoutBridges+Proj_P2020-D.xls (5/29/02) LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS JUNE, 2002 THE STRAND (BLOCKS 104/105 REDEVELOPMENT) HUNTINGTON BEACH. CALIFORNIA. Table K presents the General Plan without bridges plus project level of service analysis. The ICU and HCM worksheets are provided in Appendix I. 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 (0.96 in the p.m. peak hour, LOS E) Review of Table K 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 1 the ICU in the p.m. peak hour. Construction of a second eastbound left turn lane will result in this intersection operating with an ICU of 0.84 in the p.m. peak hour. Figure 20 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) • Pacific Coast Highway - all segments South of Beach Boulevard (v/c = 1.00) • Palm Avenue - Between Golden West Street and 71 Street (v/c = 1.12) • Main Street - Between Adams Avenue and Palm Avenue (v/c = 0.83) Percentage of Net Traffic Impact The Percentage of Net Traffic Impact was computed for all study area intersections significantly impacted by the project, and this analysis is presented in Table L. The following format was used for this calculation: I = 100(Vp) (Vc)-(Ve) Where: I = Percent of Project Traffic Impact Vp = Project Traffic Volume (PM Peak Hour) Vc = Cumulative Volume for Study Period (General Plan Build Out With/Without Bridges Plus Project - PM Peak Hour) Ve = Existing Traffic Volume (Non -Summer Weekday Existing - PM Peak Hour) 1 P:\EIP030\Traffic (Revised June, 2002x2).wpd 06/21/02» 70 ISAASSOCIATFS, INC. Table K: General Plan Buildout Without Bridges plus Project Level of Service Summary !'.. ..1 m.,.. •x7ss.....♦ R..:An ..L.e P� of v AM ICU/Delay' LOS vpM ICU'Delayr LOS AM ICU/DelayI LOS PM ICU/Delayl LOS Intersection 1 Warner Avenue/Coast Highway2 0.88 D 0.88 D 1.01" F ,_ 1(7I" ,' J, 39.2 sec. D 48.4 sec. D 39.1 sec. D 48.5 sec. D 2 Seapoint Avenue/Coast Highway 0.70 B 0.79 C 0.72 C 0.80 C 26.0 sec. C 21.7 sec. C 23.9 sec. C 22.3 sec. C 3 Golden West Street/Coast Highway 0.77 C 0.83 D 0.78 C 0.85 D 20.6 sec. C 19.6 sec. B 20.8 sec. C 20.2 sec. C 17th Street/Coast Highway 0.81 D 0.77 C 0.83 D 0.79 C 11.7 sec. B 9.6 sec. A 12.0 sec. B 10.0 sec. B 5 Ninth Street/Coast Highway 0.79 C 0.70 B 0.81 D 0.71 C 3.0 sec. A 2.1 sec. A 3.1 sec. A 2.2 sec. A 6 Sixth Street/Coast Highway 0.62 B 0.62 B 0.65 B 0.74 C 6.5 sec. A 6.8 sec. A 9.4 sec. A 13.2 sec. B 7 Main Street/Coast Highway 0.56 A 0.53 A 0.57 A 0.56 A 4.5 sec. A 6.3 sec. A 4.4 sec. A 6.1 sec. A 8 First Street/Coast Highway 0.57 A 0.60 A 0.59 A 0.63 B 11.7 sec. B 12.7 sec. A 12.2 sec. B 13.5 sec. B 9 Huntington Street/Coast Highway 0.87 D 0.75 C 0.88 D 0.78 C 7.5 sec. A 5.1 sec. A 8.0 sec. A 5.4 sec. A 10 Beach Boulevard/Coast Highway2 0.76 C 0.91 E 0.77 C 0.94 E 16.0 sec. B 22.9 sec. C 16.5 sec. B 35.9 sec. D 11 Newland Street/Coast Highway 0.82 D 0.80 C 0.82 D 0.81 D 12.1 sec. B 11.8 sec. B 12.4 sec. B 12.4 sec. B 12 Magnolia Street/Coast Highway 0.79 C 0.83 D 0.80 C 0.84 D 13 Brookhurst Street/Coast Highway 7.1 sec. 0.87 A D0."95 12.2 sec .- B °E'"� 6.7 sec. 0.87 A D 11.5 sec. B 21.8 sec. C 40.6 sec. D 22.1 sec. C 44.8 sec. D With a second EB left turn lane a87 D 0.84 D 20.4 sec. C 22.9 sec. C 14 Golden West Street/Orange Avenue 0.27 A 0.44 A 0.27 A 0.45 A 15 Golden West Street/Palm Avenue 0.65 B 0.62 B 0.66 B 0.63 B 16 Golden West Street/Yorktown Avenue 0.43 A 0.45 A 0.43 A 0.46 A 17 Main Street/Sixth Street 0.23 A 0.35 A 0.26 A 0.37 A 18 Main Street/Adams Avenue 0.56 A 0.47 A 0.56 A 0.48 A 19 Main Street/Utica Street 0.54 A 0.39 A 0.55 A 0.40 A 20 Main Street/Yorktown Avenue 0.54 A 0.57 A 0.55 A 0.59 A 21 Lake Street/Adams Avenue 0.59 A 0.63 B 0.60 A 0.65 B 22 Lake Street/Yorktown Avenue 0.65 B 0.55 A 0.66 B 0.56 A 3 Beach Boulevard/Atlanta Avenue 0.44 A 0.t C 0.45 A 0.79 C 23.6 sec. C 32.1 sec. C 23.8 sec. C 32.4 sec. C 24 Beach Boulevard/Indianapolis Avenue 0.45 A 0.58 A 0.45 A 0.60 A 23.3 sec. C 21.7 sec. C 23.2 sec. C 22.5 sec. C 25 Beach Boulevard/Adarns Avenue 0.71 C 0.77 C 0.72 C 0.78 C 32.7 sec. C 35.2 sec. D 33.0 sec. C 35.6 sec. D 6 Beach Boulevard/Yorktown Avenue 0.61 B 0.69 B 0.62 B 0.70 B 26.5 sec. C 28.3 sec. C 26.6 sec. C 28.8 sec. C 7 Sixth Street/Walnut Avenue' 13.6 sec. B 18.0 sec. C 15.2 sec C 23.1 sec C 28 Sixth Street/Olive Avenue' 11.9 sec. B 1 16.8 sec. C 12.5 sec. B 18.9 sec. C 1 Intersections along State Routes and unsignalized intersections are calculated using Highway Capacity 2000 methodology. Results are expressed as seconds of delay (sec.) with corresponding LOS. P:\ElP03O\Modei.xls\Off-Peak+ProjlCU Summary (6/19/02) L S A FIGURE 20 The Strand General Plan Buildout Without Bridges Plus Project Daily Traffic Volumes and Volume to Capacity Ratios IAMP0WDaily Traffic Volumes 3.cdr (1/23/02) LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS JUNE. 2002 THE STRAND (BLOCKS 104/105 REDEVELOPMENT) HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA Table L: Percentage of Net Traffic Impact No. Intersection Name Traffic Percent of Traffic Percent of Volumes Project Volumes Project (Without Traffic (With Bridge) Traffic Bridge) Impact Impact 1. Warner Ave/Coast Hwy VP = 25 3.1% VP = 25 3.0% Vc, = 6,104 Vr = 6,118 Ve = 5,295 Ve = 5,295 13. Brookhurst St/Coast Hwy VP = 105 14.8% VP = 105 24.4% V, = 5,945 V� = 5,665 Ve = 5,235 Ve = 5,235 CMP REQUIREMENTS In 1990, California voters passed Proposition 111, establishing a gas tax for the purpose of transportation funding improvements statewide. In order for a city to be eligible for these funds, projects must be consistent with the adopted Congestion Management Plan (CMP) and not create impacts on CMP facilities. Pacific Coast Highway is designated as a CMP facility adjacent to the proposed project. The City of Huntington Beach "CMP Monitoring Checklist: Land Use Coordination Component" is provided in Appendix J. PROJECT ACCESS AND CIRCULATION The purpose of this analysis is to assess the adequacy of project ingress and egress. Design features at the parking structure entry have been analyzed, however, analysis of the internal circulation of the parking structure is not within the scope of this traffic study. As illustrated in the site plan (previously referenced Figure 1), access to the proposed development will be provided via a driveway off of Sixth Street, which will provide access to the subterranean parking structure. Access through the project and patron drop-off areas will be provided from Fifth Street. With the proposed project, Fifth Street is proposed as a circulator for local project traffic and drop-off for hotel and valet guests. A 54 foot wide public easement will be provided for vehicle and pedestrian circulation. This easement includes two 12-foot wide travel lanes with a 15-foot sidewalk on each side. Along Sixth Street, there is one 25 foot wide travel lane in each direction. A 2 F-9" sidewalk is proposed along the Sixth Street project frontage, between Pacific Coast Highway and the parking structure entrance. 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 and are consistent with the pedestrian orientation of the downtown area. It should be noted that Fifth Street is designated as a two lane collector on the City of Huntington Beach General Plan Circulation Element. Approval of final design of Fifth Street is subject to PAEI1`030\Traffic (Revised June, 2002)(2).wpd f(6/21/02)> 73 1 ' LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS JUNE, 2002 THE STRAND (BLOCKS 104/105 REDEVELOPMENT) HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA approval of the City. The City will need to consider the consistency of the proposed use of Fifth Street in the context of the General Plan designation of this roadway. Fifth Street should remain open to public access at all times unless an appropriate permit is issued by the City. 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. 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 semitrailer (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, as well as through the alley behind buildings A, B, and C. In order to ensure efficient circulation on site, delivery vehicles should be restricted to vehicles the size of or smaller than the W13-40 design vehicle, defined as a medium or small semitrailer with a length of 50 feet. Stacking Analysis Parking for The Strand will be provided via a 397 space subterranean parking structure. Access to The Strand parking structure will be managed via a driveway off Sixth Street with one inbound and ' two outbound lanes. At the entrance to the structure, the driveway widens to provide two inbound and two outbound service booths/ticket dispensers. The internal circulation of the subterranean parking structure is illustrated in Figure 21. Two inbound gates with ticket dispensers and two outbound gates with manned service booths will be provided. To enter the gate, a patron would take a ticket and drive past the rocker arm gate. Approximately 150 feet of storage is provided between Sixth Street and the inbound gate. Based on a design vehicle length of 22 feet, available vehicle storage is approximately six vehicles. Queue formation is a function of the peak inbound traffic volume and the service rate of the device to accommodate the demand. The inbound traffic volume is determined by generating a.m. and p.m. peak hour directional trips for the proposed development and identifying the peak inbound volume. This volume is compared to standard gate service rates, and the queue length is determined. The ' inbound project trips at the parking structure entrance driveway are based on the project trip assignment shown in Figure 13. The purpose of this analysis is to determine whether the vehicular storage is adequate to accommodate the total forecast inbound peak hour volume. PASP030\Traiiic (Revised June, 2002)12).wpd 06/21/02)) 74 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I _L Nur4AVENUE _ _ _ _ _ 1 _ ------- -- cum s(�.I—�— e.nS--�aattlac----I-----�----- j 1 � I s I 135 PKG-STD P SIIiY,C 1LWf rr s t° a f, 23 PKG-q6iP ' Lf PI I FNOPERtr 1/E I LK LL1YM1R �-1 j 1R�h 1/[ I 1 I III °+° 4 •+° + 1 LLawa a1�Rh IlE O" rtt Ult = L S A 0 45 90 MMM FEEr SOURCE:GENSLER BEIP0MParking Circ.cdr (5/10/02) 257 ACES X WK Sae LLw[ PaavtSlr uE w ` W 0 r 6' I I N Y IJI W I li h 3 b N 1 e • I II_., I 1 I I I LL1elAff Wt�fAh t!E PR�ERtt U[ ' I Y (� O I 1b. �' 1 • IA♦1 . t ---------------- - 1� it GLB ABOYE (11P.�J _� I I - t>ela - ilroJto eaeo er - _ _ _ _ - _ PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY FIGURE 21 The Strand Parking Structure Internal Circulation ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® 1 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS JUNE, 2002 THE STRAND (BLOCKS 104/105 REDEVELOPMENT) HUNTINGTON BEACH. CALIFORNIA E C To determine the potential queues that may develop at the proposed gate location, the methodology described in the Robert Crommelin report entitled Entrance -Exit Design and Control for Major Parking Facilities' is used. According to this report, vehicular reservoir needs at a gated facility can be determined for a given volume of peak hour inbound and outbound traffic and service rate of the proposed gated entrance device. According to the Crommelin report, the service rate for a coded card operation with gate with a direct approach is as follows: Type of Control Typical Service )[fates Per Lane Average Headway (Sec/Veh) Design Capacity (Veh/Hr.) Maximum Capacity (Veh/Hr.) Entering - Ticket Dispenser w/Gate: 5.5 520 650 Exiting- Cashier, Variable Fee w/ Gate 19.5 150 1 185 As stated previously, in order to accurately represent project trips in the downtown area, LSA, in consultation with the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Engineering staff, manually redistributed project trips in the downtown area. The project trips are illustrated in Figure 14. Peak hour inbound and outbound trips at the parking structure entry are based on this trip assignment. These trips do not represent 100 percent of the project trip generation because a small percentage of project traffic will be destined to the drop-off areas along Fifth Street, on -street and surface parking spaces, and other parking opportunities in the downtown area. Based on the volume of inbound and outbound traffic illustrated in Figure 14, and the service rates presented above, the traffic intensity (i.e., volume to service rate ratio) is determined. Table M presents the results of The Strand stacking analysis: Based on these ratios and the methodology described in the Crommelin document, the storage lengths at each gate are sufficient to accommodate the forecast demand. It is noted that the traffic condition evaluated for queuing considers the project assignment in a non - summer environment. During extraordinary events and traffic conditions (i.e., major holidays, peak summer season, etc.), vehicular traffic (in fact, all modes of traffic) around the downtown area will be greater than non -summer conditions. This may also be true for the attraction to The Strand and the subterranean parking. Therefore, vehicular queuing, if left unmanaged, may present impacts to the local street system for those extraordinary occasions. However, as discussed under mitigation measures, the project applicant will be responsible for developing and implementing a Parking Management Plan (PMP). This PMP shall address parking management and ingress/egress at the gated access along Fifth Street. This plan shall include all necessary elements to the satisfaction of the City to ensure minimal impacts to the streets adjacent to the project. Crommelin, Robert W., "Entrance -Exit Design and Control for Major Parking Facilities," "SEMINAR `72" LOS Angeles Parking Association, October 5, 1972. PAEIPOWTraffic (Revised June, 2002)(2).wpd <(6/21/02)) 76 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. JUNE, 2002 Table M: The Strand Stacking Analysis TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS THE STRAND (BLOCKS 104/105 REDEVELOPMENT) HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA No. of Service Peak our Volumes Traffic Intensity 2 Reservoir Required (ft) 3 Is Reservoir Direction Lanes Rate' AM PM AM PM AM I PM Adequate? Inbound 2 1040 203 301 0.20 0.29 22 22 Yes Outbound 2 300 156 281 0.52 0.94 22 132 Yes Source: Robert Crommelin, Entrance -Exit Design and Control for Major Parking Facilities, 1972. ' Service Rate is the design capacity multiplied by number of lanes. 2 Traffic Intensity is the ratio of peak hour volume to service rate. Vehicle length is 22 feet. PAEIP0301TrafTc (Revised June, 2002)(2).wpd « 6/21/02>) 77 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS JUNE, 2002 THE STRAND (BLOCKS 104/105 REDEVELOPMENT) HUNTINCTON BEACH. CALIFORNIA According to the project site plan, one inbound lane is provided from Sixth Street, which widens to two lanes at the gated parking structure entrance. Two outbound lanes are provided onto Sixth Street. As shown in Table M, adequate stacking exists to accommodate vehicle entering and exiting the parking structure. However, it is recommended 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 from the southbound left and northbound right movement have an entry lane, and are not forced to merge into a single lane while entering the structure. The proposed two lane entry will help to reduce the likelihood of vehicles using the left turn lane on Sixth Street as a storage reservoir waiting for the "merge" to clear. Review of the site plan indicates that there is adequate width for four service booths/ticket dispensers at the entrance to the structure (two inbound and two outbound). It is recommended that the four service booths/ticket dispensers be maintained to ensure efficient ingress and egress at the structure entrance. Outbound traffic has adequate distance to queue in the interior drive aisles of the parking structure. Review of the project site plan indicates that this change appears feasible with a change to the striping of the driveway. 1 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 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 16 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 t 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. PAMP030\Traffic (Revised June, 2002)(2).wpd «6/21 /02» 78 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS JUNE. 2002 THE STRAND (BLOCKS 104/105 REDEVELOPMENT) HUNTINGTON BEACH. CALIFORNIA 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 build out development of Block A, and for Block 104/105 (The Strand). Table N shows the assumptions that the Kaku analysis makes for the development of Block 104/105 and provides a comparison to the currently proposed project. As shown in Table N, The Strand proposes less overall square footage of development than is assumed for the site in the Kaku analysis. Table N: Land Use Comparison Land Use I Parking Master Plan Proposed Project Difference Restaurant 44,210 square feet 40,000 square feet - 4,210 Retail 89,860 square feet 53,000 square feet - 36,860 Office 6,430 square feet 28,000 square feet + 21,570 Hotel 139 rooms 149 rooms + 10 rooms The Kaku analysisassumed 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. Table N shows that 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 six 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. In addition, City staff has requested a discussion of City of the eight strategies identified in the DPMP and available to the Planning Commission or City Council to ensure that adequate parking is provided for each development. These strategies are as follows: 1. Require projects over 30,000 square feet or one-half block in size provide fifty percent of the code -required parking identified in Figure 4.2 of Ordinance 3483. 2. Require that any parking in -lieu fees be full cost recovery based on the parking requirement for specific uses. However, allow that these fees be paid over an amortization period, with appropriate security provided by the applicant to guarantee payment. PAEI1`030Uraffic (Revised June, 2002)(2).wpd ((6/21/02)) 79 1 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS JUNE. 2002 THE STRAND (BLOCKS 104/105 REDEVELOPMENT) HUNTINGTON BEACH. CALIFORNIA 3. Require valet parking once the maximum build out of restaurant activity has been obtained. 4. Commercial projects greater than 10,000 square feet in size shall be required to submit a parking management plan consistent with the Downtown Parking Master Plan. 5. Require valet and/or remote parking for special events and activities, and during the peak 1 summer season. 6. Require the for development. applicant to provide additional on -site and/or off -site parking any 7. Develop parking options which may generate additional parking for any development. 8. Develop a sign program to direct motorists to primary parking facilities within the Downtown Parking Master Plan. These measures are discretionary and are not specifically required of each project in the downtown area. However, after evaluation of the above eight strategies, LSA recommends that Numbers 4, 5, ' and 8 be implemented for The Strand project. A Parking Management Plan will ensure that all tenants and employees park in designated areas, freeing up the most desirable parking for downtown patrons. Additionally, valet parking should be instituted to accommodate busy evenings and special events and to provide alternative parking opportunities for downtown visitors. The valet plan shall demonstrate a parking layout, vehicle routing system, drop-off and pickup areas with kiosks, and the employee travel system for retrieving vehicles. Finally, LSA recommends that The Strand project include an on -site sign 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. Although the proposed project is fully parked according to the Kaku analysis and DPMP, if the Planning Commission or City Council believes that additional parking will be required, additional measures from those listed above may be implemented. RECOMMENDED CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENTS To offset impacts to the surrounding roadways and intersections resulting from The Strand in the General Plan Build Out scenario, it is recommended that the eastbound approach at the intersection of Brookhurst Street/Coast Highway be restriped to provide a second eastbound left turn lane. Approval of final design of Fifth Street is subject to approval of the City. The City will need to consider the consistency of the proposed use of Fifth Street in the context of the General Plan designation of this roadway. Fifth Street should remain open to public access at all times unless an appropriate permit is issued by the City. While adequate stacking exists to accommodate vehicles entering and exiting the parking structure, it is recommended that two inbound lanes and one outbound lane be provided. This change appears feasible with a change to the striping of the driveway. ' 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 semitrailer with a length of 50 feet. PAEIP030\Traffic (Revised June, 2002x2).wpd 06/21/02N 80 1