Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Old Civic Center Site Project - Final EIR 79-1 - Pacific En
• June 19, 1979 City of Huntington Beach PO Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Attention: James R. Barnes Associate Planner Subject: Old Civic Center Site Dear Mr. Barnes This letter is to give our concurrence with the selection of Pacific Environmental Services, Inc. in preparing an EIR on subject site. We understand that a proportionate amount of the $6870.00 fee will be charged to our leasehold portion of the site. Sincerely, THE WILLIAM LYON COMPANY Brian V. Norkai is, Project Manager t:l BVN:sh cc: Steve Kohler - HB Senior Community Devebpment Specialist t CITY OF H u flnG TOn BEACH DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES P. O. BOX 190, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648 (714) 536-5271 ,ate: Mr. Brian Norkaitis June 11, 1979 `1 Project Manager William Lyon Company t 366 San Miguel Drive, Suite 201 Newport Beach, California 92660 Dear Mr. Norkaitis : This is to inform you that the City of Huntington Beach Environmental Review Committee has tentatively selected the firm of Pacific Environmental Services, Inc. to pre- pare the focused environmental impact report for the proposed senior citizen housing/activity center at the e� corner of Sixth and Main Streets in Huntington Beach. Before we .can execute the contract to prepare the EIR, we will need your concurrence on the firm which has been selected. The cost of the EIR as stated in Pacific Environmental Services ' bid proposal (attached) will be $6, 870. Since the EIR will be jointly financed between the City and your firm, the staff has requested PES to. submit a breakdown of the fee, generally separating the costs for assessing the private and public aspects of the 1 project. When the proportionate sums have been determined, we will notify you of the amount to be deposited with the City. If for any reason you do not concur with our selection of cs Pacific Environmental Services, Inc. to prepare the EIR, please contact us immediately so that we may solicit new proposals for the project. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact our office. incereQly, AsJ1mes R. Barnes sociate Planner JRB:df Enclosure cc: Steve Kohler-`-- ® CITY OF HunTinGTOn BEACH DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES P. O. BOX 190, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648 (714i 536-5271 April 24 , 1979 MAILED TO: UJ T ASYS'1'El1S ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT PROFILES ENVISTA INC. ATLANTIS SCIENTIFIC PACIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES INC. Gentlemen: The purpose of this letter is to request your proposal for the preparation of a focused EIR on the proposed senior citizens housing/activity center described in the attached material . The Planning Department has scheduled a meeting on May 1 , 1979 , at the hour of 10: 00 a.m. in the Civic Center Room B8 to present additional information and answer questions relative to the project. Representatives of the firm proposing the project and City Staff will be present at the meeting. Following is a brief description of the scope of services requested by the City: I . INITIAL STUDY. An Initial Study will be prepared by the consultant in conjunction with City Staff evaluating all phases of project planning , implementation , and operation. The Initial Study will be included as an appendix to the EIR. Effects dismissed in the Initial Study as clearly insignificant and unlikely to occur need not be discussed further in the EIR. II . EIR FORMAT. The EIR should be prepared in accordance with the present provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and State EIR Guidelines, as amended. The EIR should discuss environmental effects in proportion to their severity and probability of occurrence , focusing on the potentially significant effects identified in the Initial Study. The format of the EIR will be as follows: A. Introduction 1 . Authors (persons and expertise called upon to complete the EIR. 5 2. Project Description (location and boundaries , objectives of project, etc. ) . B. Project Summary This section will contain a synopsis of the project and a summary of the impacts and major findings. C. Environmental Setting This section will be prepared in accordance with Section 15142 of the State EIR Guidelines. Wherever possible, information on the regional and local setting should be incorporated by reference to other recently prepared documents. D. Environmental Impacts This section will be prepared in accordance with Section 15143 of the State EIR Guidelines, including the following subsections : 1 . Any significant environmental effects which cannot be avoided if the proposal is implemented. 2 . Mitigation measures proposed to minimize the signifi- cant effects. 3 . Alternatives to the proposed action. 4 . Growth inducing impact. E. Discussion of Other Relevant Planning Considerations . All other mandatory and relevant sections required in the State EIR Guidelines shall be included in the EIR. III . CONTENT AND SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS . Each task noted above should be responded to by the consultant in the form of a technical work statement. Each major work item should be related to a cost figure. The technical work statement should contain the effort to be expended by the consultant in preparing the EIR. The selected firm will be required to provide sixty (60) copies of the draft EIR and forty (40) copies of the final EIR. Each report is to be physically constructed in sectional , tabular form with a medium-hard cover separating each section according to the task categories . The final EIR is to include all correspondence with a double cross reference system whereby every comment submitted during the public hearing is responded to and corrections are made in the body of the draft EIR in "italicized" printing . In addition, a representative of the firm selected will be required ,to attend at least three (3) public meetings . Additional meetings will be required to confer with City Staff. Sealed proposals should be submitted to the Department of Planning and Environmental Resources by 5 : 00 p.m. on Friday, May 18 , 1979 . IV. SELECTION PROCEDURE. Selection of a consultant will be made by the City' s Environmental Review Committee. The successful consultant will be selected with due considera- tion for: A. Actual ability to complete the project in conformance with specificaitons of the Request for Proposal and Professional Services Contract. B. Demonstrated ability to prepare professional , accurate, and timely finished products irrespective of unusual or difficult circumstances. C. A reasonable contract price in relation to the size and quality restraints imposed with due consideration of competitive proposals . In the Staff ' s view, the bid proposal for this size project should not exceed $15 , 000 . V. TIME OF PERFORMANCE/RESOURCES AVAILABLE. All assumptions regarding data to be supplied by the City or by the developer should be made explicit in the proposal with a time frame indicated for receipt of the data. The City will make the following resources available: A. Existing Data The City has technical reports , general plan studies , development information, adopted plans , and other EIRs which are available. B. City Staff City Staff will be available to answer questions and for consultation at scheduled intervals . Please address all questions on this matter to James R. Barnes Department of Planning and Environmental Resources , P . O. Box 190 , Huntington Beach, California 92648 . Telephone (714) 536-5278 . Sincerely, James R. Barnes Assistant Planner i CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH To Jim Barnes From Pat Tessier . Environmental Planner Community Development Assistant Subject SUMMARY OF OLD CIVIC CENTER Date April 18, 1979 SENIOR HOUSING/ACTIVITY CENTER COMPLEX On April 2, 1979, the Huntington Beach City Council selected the William Lyon Company as the developer for the senior housing/activity center. The proposal selected will provide for the. construction of 155 apartment units in a three-story structure; the construction . of a new 10,000 square foot, one-story. senior citizen center; and the rehabilitation of the existing branch library. A site plan of the project is attached. The Lyon Company proposal will provide 54 subterranean parking spaces (located under the housing) and 50 car spaces for the senior center (located in a surface lot) . This project consists of three primary components: housing, senior center, and library. Ths housing portion will be owned and operated by the developer on .a portion of the 3. 64 acre site which will be leased from the City for $1.00 per year. The senior center and rehabilitated library will be owned .and maintained by the City. The entire site will be planned, processed, and constructed as a single project. The rental housing will be directed towards low/moderate income senior households, and 50 to 100 per— cent of these units will be subsidized (depending on the amount of federal assistance allocated to this project) . Block Grant funds have been allocated to assist this project. The follow- ing budget outlines the use of City/HCD funds: (1) Site clearance and demolition $ 60,000 (HCD) (2) Utility improvements/rough grading 40,000 (HCD) (3) Construct new senior center 450,000 (HCD) (4) Improve library 100,0.00 (City) Total Budget: $650,000 A number of discretionary actions are required for this project. Thee include: (1) demolition permits for Memorial Hall, the old fire station, and ..the old City Hall Annex. The smaller portable structures and two trailers will also be relocated. (2) Zone change: A specific plan will be developed for this project. Also attached is a copy of the original request for proposals for this project which includes a summary of the Lyon Company proposal. PWT:df Attachments I 1 I S - _ -� .. .R�,j � S i• vs er SR CITIZENS HOU`)!NG- 5A C'IZENS CEN'ER SENIOR CITIZEN HOUSIM OLD CIVIC CENTER SIZE NUNBER 5 , I.D. LYONS 1/25/79 WE OF DEVELOPER THE WILL.IAM LYON COMPANY HOUSING CHA,RACTMISTICS Building Type 3-story, elevatored/Modern design Rental Range Dwellinq Units Number Sec. "8" (per No.) All 155 155. $232 - $332 Studio 10 235 One Bedroan 137 $285 ZWo Bedroom 8 $332 ' Unit Size Studio/l bath 420 sq. ft. 1 bd/1 bath 537 sq. ft. 2 bd/l bath 718 sq. ft. Outdoor Private Space Studio 56 sq. ft. 1 bd ay. 75 sq. ft. 2 bd Av. 85 sq. ft: Apartment Amenities -Most units have kitchen and service bar -large window/glass areas -All units have dining area Can Amenities -Roof-top deck with central laundry facility -All floors. have central lobby/lounge areas -Large common ocean view terrace on end of each floor -Large lobby/lounge area, caammity roots with kitchen facility and arts and crafts area (approximately 4575 sq. ft.) Ccxiimrcial 4000 sq. ft. PIA1'101IFN tMAt.lP TCATTOMS c',00d-m'ajor regional hoiitie .builder with limited experience in governmental housing programs; supported by very good consultant team. l�l ti flay 1'!u"lt�}iti Overall Plan very good-strong orientation and linkage with an innovative use of the land. Lousing For Elderly Excellent-qood mix of units with well designed dwellings, amenity package, good security and parking (underground) . 1,ii l l iam Lyons page 2 Senior Citizen Oenter Good-2-story layout with good amenity package; parking 25 spaces below City requirarent. FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY , project (bst Good-total of $4.8 million or $31,000 per unit. May be as much as 15% law, based cn extensive amenity package. Operational Revenue Good-rents are certainly achievable in existing market; and Mgense allowance for expenses at 28% of gross income should be increased by about 15%. c Proposed Financing Acceptable-CHFA 7�8, QO--year. .CITY OBJECTIVES Very yooc-this is a creative proposal; appears to meet the housing criteria as well as provide a strong, physical carplex. SU4WY . A workable plan by a developer strong in finances and in experiew". Staff Narratives There appears to be no problem with the immediate or long-term financial feasi- bility of this propposal. Although the operational expenses. specified in the proposal seen somewhat lac, this should not jeapozdize the implementation of the project. the Lyon Cgmpany has assembled a highly.reputable and prestigous project team for this proposal. the members of this project team spent a significant. amount of time inter= viewing senior citizen representatives, and City Staff and did in-depth research .regarding the design, .financing, and operation of the proposed facility. The Lyon Company proposal tightly integrates the activities proposed for the site and provides an acceptable number of housing units" without overburdening the site or damaging the character of the surrounding neighborhood. Score of the architectural detail of the proposal, however, may require scmq adjustment. H �!4 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH To Jim Barnes From Pat Tessier Environmental Planner Community Development Assistant Subject SUMMARY OF OLD CIVIC CENTER Date April 18, 1979 SENIOR HOUSING/ACTIVITY .CENTER COMPLEX On April 2, 1979, the Huntington Beach City Council selected. the William Lyon Company as the developer for the senior housing/activity center. The proposal selected will provide for the construction of 155 apartment units. in .a three-story structure; 'the construction of a new 10,000 square foot; one-story senior citizen center; and the rehabilitation of the existing branch library. A site plan of the project is attached. The Lyon Company proposal will provide 54. subterranean parking spaces (located under. the housing) and 50 car spaces for the. senior center (located in a surface lot) . This project consists of three primary components: housing, senior center, and library. Ths- housing portion will be owned and operated by the developer on a portion of the 3.64 acre site which will be leased from the City for $1.00 per year. The senior center- and rehabilitated library will be owned and maintained by the City. The entire site will be planned, processed, -and constructed as a .single project. The rental housing will be directed towards low/moderate-income senior households, and 50 to 100 per- cent of these units will be subsidized"(depending ,on the amount of federal assistance allocated to this project) . Block Grant funds have been allocated to assist this project. The follow- . ing budget outlines the use of City/HCD funds: (1) Site clearance and demolition $ 60,000 (HCD) (2) Utility improvements/rough grading 40,000 (HCD) (3) Construct new senior center . 450,000 (HCD) (4) Improve library 1.00.1.0.00 (City) Total Budget: $650,000 A number of discretionary actions are .required for this project. These include: (1) demolition permits for Memorial Hall, the old fire station, and the old City Hall Annex. The smaller portable structures and two trailers will also be relocated. (2) Zone change: A specific plan will be developed for this project. Also attached is a copy of the original request for proposals for this project which includes a summary of the Lyon Company proposal. P.WT:df Attachments F .OM THE DESK Stephen V. Kohler PY�w �- ,quo . Ja �2� 33 . So DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES P. O. BOX 190, HUNNNGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA. 926e18 (714) 1�36-5271 *ADMINISTRATIVE FEE SCHEDULE FOR REQUEST FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS By resolution of the City Council on October 15 , 19.73 , the following fees have been established : A. Negative Declarations - $75 . 00 B. Environmental Impact Reports: Project Value Administrative Fee- $0 - $1, 000, 000 $400. 00 $1, 000,000 - $2, 500, 000 $400. 00 plus $4. 00 for each $100 , 000 of project value over $1, 000, 000 $2, 500, 000 - $5, 000, 000 $460. 00 plus $3. 50 for each $100, 000 of project value over $2 , 500 , 000 $5 , 000, 000 - . $7 , 500, 000 $550. 00 plus $3 . 00 for each $1.00, 000 of project value• over $5 , 000 , 000 $7 , 500, 000 - $10, 000, 000 $625. 00 plus $2 . 50 for each $100, 000 of project value over $7 , 500, 000 $10, 000, 000 and over $690. 00 plus $2 . 00 for each $100, 000 of project value over $10, 000, 000; up to $1, 500, after which the fee shall be set by the Environment Review Committee C. Any project which does not involve construction shall pay a minimum fee of $400. 00 for the Environmental Impact Report. D. Fees are payable in full at the Department of Planning and Environmental Resources as follows : Negative Declaration - at the time the Environmental Information Form is filed. Environmental Impact Report - prior to execution of a contract with the selected consultant. *These fees cover_ City administrative costs only; the cost of the prepara- tion of the Environmental Report itself is billed separately. ' NOVEMBER 22, 1978 PROJECT NO: A78-2657 tFOUNDATION INVESTIGATION t SENIOR CITIZEN HOUSING DEVELOPMENT OLD CIVIC CENTER SITE MAIN STREET, BETWEEN 5th AND 6th STREET HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 1 1 FOR 1 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ' Department of Planning and Environmental Resources P. O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 t t 1 t ,�o ov`P "e SOILS ENGINEERING.INC. A 7210 AIRPORT WAY - P.O. BOX 20056-LONG BEACH. CALIF. 90801 PHONE 213/426-7990 ' 2021-C THIRD 8TRi6T #IV81l010*. CALIF. 02607 - PHONK 714/004-7274 SOILS ENGINEERING.U4C. Consulting Foundation Enpnays November 22, 1978 Project No: A78-2657 City of Huntington Beach t Department of Planning and Environmental Resources P. O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 r Attention: Mr. Stephen V. Kohler Senior Community Development Specialist ' Reference: Senior Citizen Housing Development Old Civic Center Site Main Street, between 5th and 6th Street ' Huntington Beach, California Dear Mr. Kohler: Presented herewith is our Report of Preliminary Foundation Investigation conducted on the site of the Senior Citizen Housing Development to be located at the above ' referenced site. The investigation was planned in accordance with the plans and information furnished to ' us by your office. ' It is understood that the proposed structures will mainly consist of 1 to 3 story wood frame construction. Maximum column and wall loads of 80 kips and 2.5 kips per lineal ' foot, respectively, have been assumed and utilized in our calculations. ' Prudent evaluation of site conditions has been made with regard to the structural aspects of the proposed development. Respectfully submitted, ASSOCIATED SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. i w ' Richard L. Manning, Jr. Sye . Ahmad Project Engineer R.C. . f�16621 RLM:sda cc: 5 l�. ' SCOPE The purpose of this investigation was to determine the surface and subsurface soil conditions on the site and to obtain information on which to base recommendations for site development and for designing adequate foundations for the proposed Senior Citizens Housing Development. The results of the field investigation and laboratory study, upon which. our recommendations are based, are contained in the Appendix to this report. IN The recommendations contained In! the report reflect our.. best: '.estimate ofl-�•5041 ' conditions at' the time of drilling. only, and based upon Information obtalned from the. limited number of test borings performed. it is not to be construed as.a warranty of the ' condition of'the soil In other areas or at other depths.p Should any unusual conditions F become apparent during grading or foundation construction, this. office should be contacted for instructions prior to continuation of the work; The owner or his- representative should .make sure' that the information and ' recommendations contained in this report are called to the attention of the project f` architect and engineers and incorporated into the plans, and that the necessary steps ' are taken to confirm that the contractors carryout such recommendations In the field. This report is subject to review by the controlling authorities for the project. This office should be notified should any of the following, pertaining to final site development occur. 1) Final plans for site development indicate utilization of areas .not -originally proposed to receive future structures. ' 2) Structural loading conditions vary from those utilized for evaluation and preparation of this report: ' 3) The site is not developed within 12 months following the date of this report. 4) Change of ownership of property occurs. ' Should any of the above occur, this office should be notified and provided with finalized plans of site development. Provided information would be reviewed and necessary ' recommendations for additional work and or updating of the report provided. Any charges for such review and necessary recommendations would be at the prevailing rate at the time of performing review work. A78-2657 Page 2 '3IL9 ENOINEERINM INC. i"! SITE LOCATION AND CONDITIONS l• LOCATION ' The site is located on the property of the old Civic Center on Main Street, between 5th and 6th Street, in Huntington Beach, California. . The following ' information pertaining to site conditions was obtained during the course of performing field work for this project. 2. BOUNDARY CONDITIONS The property site is bound on the north by Main Street, and cri;the south by Orange Street. The site is bound on the east and west by 5th,Street:and 6th ' Street, respectively. ' 3. SURFACE CONDITIONS ' The area of investigation has a generally uniform level grade. Numerous buildings are presently situated on the site (refer to Plot Plan, Plate "A") and ' visually appear to be in good condition. An asphaltic paved street (Pecan Avenue) was noted running across the site in a ' direction parallel to Orange Avenue. Several paved parking lots were also noted on the site., In general, asphaltic pavements visually appeared to be in fair to ' good condition. ' The balance of the site is covered by lawn, landscaped plants, and numerous trees (mostly large palm trees). 1 4. SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION ' Subsurface exploration disclosed no fill soils on the site at testa boring locations. Surface natural soils are classified as silty and clayey sands, sandy silts and silty ' clays, with deeper seated natural soils classified as sands. w0 9 • A78-2657 Page 3 v 601L9 EN6INEERINO.INC SITE LOCATION AND CONDITIONS - continued 5. GROUNDWATERD CAVING AN ' Groundwater was encountered at a depth of 35 feet below existing grade, as determined in test boring no. 1. Measurements taken in test boring nos. 3, 4, and 5 were to the level of driller's ' mud slurry only. The slurry was utilized to minimize-any'potential hole closure during- drilling.,._The level of driller's mud slurry continued to fall during tl� j Period of monitoring and therefore did .not reflect depth to groundwater'2�ble. However,,the-level of driller's mud slurry did stabilize'at a -depth of '34 below existing grade, potentially Indicating the presence of a water table. i 6. UTILITIES No overhead or underground utilities were encountered during the performance iof field work for this project. However, overhead power lines were noted servicing buildings on the northern 1/2 of the site, and underground utility lines are probable. It is understood an oil production line may run through,the site. 7. GENERAL A detailed description of soils encountered and conditions experienced during the '. performance of subsurface exploration is shown on the appended boring logs. STRUCTURAL CONDITIONS The following preliminary structural information is understood to apply for this project (as provided via phone conversations with Steve Kohler) and was considered in our ' evaluation. 1. It is understood that the site will be used for residential development consisting of 1 to 3 story wood frame construction. y A78-2657 Page 4 IL9 ENGINEERING.ING 1 � . STRUCTURAL CONDITIONS - continued ! 1 ' 2. It is understood that slab,on grade construction will be-utilized. 3. It"is understood that several of these structures may have a subsurface.garage. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. GENERAL Based on a review of site conditions disclosed during .the 'performance of field ,' work, and evaluation of available laboratory test' :data, `ttie following ?.' ;7 recommendations are provided. :x 2. SITE PREPARATION Prior to grading, the following items should be performed. 2-1 Organic Growth: 2-1.1 Trees: Trees which lie in areas of future construction must be removed. Such removal must include rootballs and any attendant root systems. ' 2-1.2 Surface Vegetation: ' Grass turf should be stripped and disposed of off site. Stripping should penetrate three to six inches into surface soils. Any soil sufficiently contaminated with .organic matter (such as root systems or strippings mixed into the soils) so as to prevent proper compaction shall be disposed of off site or set aside for future use iin landscape areas. 490 o�P • A78-2657 Page 5 (4y �OIL9 ENGINEERING.INC. i ' RECOMMENDATIONS- continued ' 2• SITE PREPARATION - continued 2-2 Existing Structures: ' 2-2.1 Demolition: ton: ' Slabs on grade and foundation systems from demolished structures should be completely removed before grading operations ' commence. ' 2-2.2 Oversize Material: ' No concrete from demolished structures, structure foundations, or encasing may be used in compacted fill without the approval of the ' foundation engineers. Approval would be dependent upon feasibility of reducing concrete pieces to manageable sizes (six inch maximum), and feasibility of placing such oversized material ' at a minimum of two feet below elevation of future footing bottoms. 1 2-3 Existing Asphaltic Concrete Pavement: ' An existing streets and paved parking areas designated for removal shall Y g Pa Pa g 8n ' be stripped from the site and associated concrete curbs and walks completely removed. ' Such removed asphalt paving anctconcrete fragments should be disposed of off site unless it can be reduced to manageable sizes specified in section ' 2-2.2 above. Reuse would be subject to the above referenced section. ' 2-4 Utilities: ' Any underground utilities should be cut-off a minimum of 4 feet beyond the edge of future buildings. As an alternate, deep hollow lines may be left in place provided they are filled with concrete. No filled line should ' be permitted closer than 2 feet from the bottom of future footings. A78-2657 Page 6 �o 'SOILS ENGINEERING.INM 1 RECOMMENDATIONS - continued ' 2. SITE PREPARATION - continued ' 2-4 Utilities: - continued ' The ends of cut'-off -hollow lines- should be plugged -a minimum of 5 feet with concrete exhibiting minimum shrinkage.characteristics to prevent ' water migrating to'or from hollow. lines. In addition,capping of lines may be required should the plug be subject to any line pressures.. 2=5 Abandoned Wells: ' The condition of any previously abandoned"wells if encountered should be researched to ensure that proper cut-off depths, and plugging and capping ' operations were performed. ' 2-6 Oil Contaminated Soils: ' Should any sumps or oil contaminated soils be encountered, it would be necessary to remove soils sufficiently contaminated with oil to prevent ' proper compaction to full depth. Contaminated soils should be disposed of off site. ' 3. GRADING ' After completion of the above preparatory items, grading may commence. 3-1 Slabs on Grade: ' Natural soils in areas of future slab on grade construction should be scarified 12 inches and recompacted to previously specified percentages and moisture contents prior to replacing any removed old fill. The above specified scarification and recompaction of site surface soils ' would also be required prior to placement of any fill if needed to achieve subgrade elevation. ot3F . A78-2657 Page 7 o� 'SOILS ENGINEERING,ING RECOMMENDATIONS - continued ' 3. GRADING -continued . 3-2 Backfill: Existing site soils encountered in test borings;.were generally clean and are considered suitable for reuse. However, should any deleterious material be encountered, it would be necessary to clean such material from excavated soils prior to reuse. ' Excavated material approved for reuse should be deposited in 6 to 8 inch ' loose lifts and recompacted to 90 percent of maximum density at near optimum moisture contents. ' 3-3 Imported Soils (if needed): Any imported soil required to complete grading operations should consist of granular low expansive material which exhibits an expansion Index of ' not greater than.20 when tested in accordance with U.B.C. 29-2 Expansion Index Test Procedures. ' 3-4 Tests and Inspections: ' Grading, compaction, and utility line backfill operations should be performed in the presence of a field representative of this office. An ' adequate number of field density tests should be taken to ensure compliance with this report and local ordinances. ' If it is determined during grading that soils require reworking to greater depths, for safe support of the proposed structure, this additional work ' should be performed as directed in the field. 1 T • o A78-2657 Page 8 '0ILS ENGINEERING,INC. RECOMMENDATIONS - continued 3. GRADING - continued. 3-4 Tests and Inspections: - continued ' Imported fill soil should be inspected by a representative of this office prior to being hauled to the site. Maximum density for control of grading shall be determined In accordance ' with ASTM D1557-70 test procedures. 4. SHRINKAGE AND SUBSIDENCE 1 The upper'3 to 6 inches of surface soils may not be suitable for use as structural ' fill due to organic contamination. ' Nominal volumetric shrinkage may be expected as a result of soft compaction. ' Site subsidence caused by clearing and compaction operations will also occur. An average value of 0.1 feet is recommended for earth yardage calculations. An estimated 5 cubic yard wastage should be considered fdr each tree football system removed. Losses due to removal of structure foundations, slabs, pavement, and abandoned ' utility lines will also occur, however skjch losses are dependent on the extent of material removed and therefore cannot be accurately estimated at this time. ' Total estimated site shrinkage should be calcualted b combining all the above � Y g values. The estimates given herein should be verified during grading. 49Q g� A78-2657 page 9 m' OILS ENGINEERING.INC. 1 RECOMMENDATIONS - continued ' 5. DESIGN VALUES ' 5-1 Bearing Capacities: . Respective, safe, dead plus live load.allowable bearing.pressures of 1900 and 2100 pounds per square foot may be used In design of continuous and ' spread footings when placed on firm bearing natural, lolls, and when embedded 18 inches below lowest adjacent finish subgrade.; A one third increase in the above bearing pressures may be used r-When considering ' short term loading from wind or seismic sources. No footing should be., built less than 12 Inches wide. Inspections of the footing trench excavations should be performed by a ' representative of this office to confirm embedment into, and placement on competent bearing natural soils, and to ensure any loose or caved soils ' are cleaned from footing bottoms prior to placement of reinforcing or concrete. ' 5-2 Settlements: ' Total settlements for footings laced on approved bearing soils are not g P P g expected to exceed 1 inch. Differential. settlements may be'determined by comparing estimates for total settlements as presented in`the'following table for varying finished floor subgrade elevations and loading conditions. TABLE OF ESTIMATED SETTLEMENTS Finish Floor Footing Load Settlement - ' Subgrade Type Condition Inches Existing Grade Continuous 2.�f ' Existing Grade Spread 80k 1.0 *Partial Basement Continuous 2.5k�if 0.4 'partial Basement Spread 80k 0.8 o *Finish floor subgrade elevation taken at 5 feet below existing grade. AA78-2657 Page 10 m� '30H.9 ENGINEERING,ING RECOMMENDATIONS - continued S, DESIGN VALUES ' 5-2 Settlements: - continued ' Should the structural loading conditions vary by 'more than 10 percent from those assumed for this project, this office should be notified for ' further evaluation and recommendations as necessary. ' 5-3 Lateral Resistance: Lateral resistance may be computed by use of a passive pressure of 230 pounds per square foot per foot of embedment into compacted fill stills, and a friction coefficient of 0.35 between: concrete and the supporting ' soil. ' 6. FLOOR SLABS ' Floor slabs may be safely supported on soils reworked as described in the Grading section of this report. Any slab to receive a moisture sensitive floor covering should be placed on an impermeable membrane topped with two inches of clean, ' coarse sand, or on 4 inches of open-graded gravel. ' 7. EXPANSIVE.SOIL PRESSURES ' Site surface soils exhibit very low expansive soil characteristics. However the degree of expansion should be confirmed after completion of rough grading operations. 8. PLANTERS Any planter areas placed adjacent to perimeter footings should be provided with ' false bottoms, or other devices, to divert water away from foundation and slab subgrade soils. Excessive lateral water movement to or.from such soils might ' unnecessarily increase differential settlements. This concludes the recommendations. The appendix follows. l!ppg • A78-2657 Page 11 OILS ENGINEERING,WM APPENDIX ' The follow' x contains h n ' data d r e r o following Appends co ns the substantiating an laboratory test results t complement the engineering evaluations and recommendations contained In the report. Plate "A" Plot Plan Plate 1111-1" thru 1115-5" Boring Logs Plate "C-1" thru "C-6" Load-Settlement Curves Plate "D-1" thru "D-6" Direct Shear Tests 1 SITE EXPLORATION: n O October 31, and November 1 and 2, 1978 field explorations were made by drilling 5 ' test borings at the approximate locations indicated on. the attached Plot Plan, Plate "A". A truck mounted rotary mud type drilling rig equipped with.a pump capable of circulating a bentonitic "drillers mud" slurry and 6 inch diameter soil type drill bit was ' used to advance 3 of the 5 bore holes to depths of 25 to 40 feet from existing grade. A truck mounted drilling rig equipped with a 6 inch diameter continuous flight auger bit ' was used to advance 2 of the 5 bore holes to a depth of 30 and 40 feet from the existing grade. Description of the soils encountered, depth of undisturbed cores, field density and field ' moisture content are given on the Log of borings for the test holes. Undisturbed samples of soils were extracted in a barrel sampler with tapered cutting shoe. The undisturbed soil retained in 2.5 inch diameter by one inch rings within the sampler was tested in the laboratory to determine in-place density, moisture content, ' shear resistance and settlement characteristics: ' Continuous observations of the materials encountered in the borings were recorded in the field. The soils were classified in the field by visual and textural examination and these classifications were supplemented by obtaining bulk soil samples for future ' examination in the laboratory. All samples were secured in moisture-resistant bags-as soon as taken to minimize the loss of field moisture while being transported to the tlaboratory and awaiting testing. ' After the samples were visually classified in the laboratory, a testing program that would provide sufficient data for our analysis of the soils was established. K`� • A78-2657 I F e ENOINEERlNO.ING APPENDIX - continued ' LABORATORY TESTS ' Direct shear and consolidation tests were performed on selected undisturbed core samples to determine the shear strength and settlement characteristics of various soil ' samples. LABORATORY TEST RESULTS MAXIMUM DENSITY TEST RESULTS The following maximum density tests were conducted in accordance with ASTM D1537- 70 Method A of test using 5 equal layers, 25 blows each layer, .10 pound hammer, 18 . inch drop in a 1/30 cubic foot mold. Test Hole Depth, Maximum Optimum Material ' Number Feet Density,pcf Moisture, 9i6 Classification 1 0 - 4 128.0 9.0 SM 2 0 - 4 131.5 8.0 SM - ML EXPANSION DETERMINATION Expansion tests .were performed on selected soil. samples.. to determine the swell characteristics of typical site materials and the following results were obtained for 144 pounds per square foot surcharge load. The expansion test was conducted in accordance with Uniform Building Code Standard No. 29-2, Expansion Index Test. Maximum Opt Molded Molded ' Density Moist. Dry Moisture % Expansion Expansion Location pcf . % Density__ Content Saturation Index Classification T. H. 1 128.0 9.0 122.1 9.3 65.2 0 Very Low. 0- 4 T. H. 2 131.5 8.0 120.6 8.1 54.7 0 Very Low 0 -@ �49 A78-2657 II ,SOILS ENGINEERING.ING o VI ! r " W . G�►N �►VE. W x_ I�ENIORtL11. Ne.�.L.� ! 3 � � Loci. to�►,� .-�. 1 k. LOG OF SNIP= ' WAIIIt [ABLE See note below PAWECT A78-2657 CAVING See note below T9V HOLE NO.1 DI PI II OF FILL None an ORILLEO 11-2-78 1't 1.111 I K,tL CWN►ICAi/OM tYI11I16D1 Was" or COS _ ' TEST.HOLE NO. 1 !•--.--^__.-. .. _- ._.._. . .__._ 0.0-1.0 SANDY SILT - Brown to dark brown, borders 11L ' silty sand (SM) - damp 1.0-3.0 SILTY SAND - Brown, borders sandy silt Sm. 2.0 15 * 10.5 ' (ML) , with a trace of clay, with trace roots (to 1/4" diameters) - moist 3.0-5.0 CLAYEY SAND - Brown, with a trace of SC 3.0 30 115.5 12.4 ' rootlets - calcareous - moist 5.0-9.0 SILTY CLAY - Brown, light brown to light CL 5.0 24 117.4 14.3 ' gray brown below 7.0' , with a trace of 8.0 27 111.8 14.3 sand - moist, moist to wet below 7.0' ' 9.0-9.5 SANDY CLAY- Light brown - moist CL 9.5-11.5 FINE SAND - Light brown, with a trace SP-3M of silt - damp ' 11 .5-40.0 FINE TO MEDIUM SAND - Gray and rust - SP 13.0 49 95.1 3.1 damp, moist to wet below 36' 18.0 34 +� ' 23.0 35/6" * 3.6 28.0 33 ' KEY: 1) Blow Count ' 2) Dry Density, pcf 3) Moisture Content, % ' NOTE: Blow counts as determined by droppn8 a 140 lb. hammer through a height of 30 in es on a 2.5 inch I.D. sampling device. Rec ded blows are for 12 inches of penetration, cept as noted. ' *Indicates unsuccessful attempts made in retrieving undisturbed core sample. Bulk sample to n whe e possible for visual classification and moisture ' determination only. 1 ' PLATZ 8• 1 0 �P 1 � • �y v >OILB ENGINEERING,ING r l LOG OF WRING ' wA I I k 1 ABLE A78-2657 CAVING TT IIM 1W 1 - cont'd nt PI If ()F FILE. 06R DOUL M i, rn I «�fY tlI ��I \vI N , wa C�•iHfli•TION ww/tt0 HveOtr N cow MYKe0&4 0 ' TEST HOLE NO. 1 - continued ' WATER TABLE AND CAVING NOTES: After completion of drilling to a depth 40' , test boring closed to 35' below exie ing ' grade -- bottom of hole wet in moisture c ntent After 15 minutes had transpired, bottom of hole at 35' and saturated in moisture contents indicting approximate level of groundwater table. 1 + 1 i r ' P A49 B• -1 - ont'd 0 OU`v • yy v ,;OILS ENGINEERINGANM LW OF WRING$ ' wA I I N I ABI E Not encountered PROJW A78-2657 CAVING None experienced n`n NOW t10• 2 DI PTH OF FILL None DAIS ORMAJ10 11-2-78 SOIL ckawncavlaw rulHnsor `*Von" ACM[ n i c e r Nnitp 1 TEST HOLE NO. 2 ' 0.0-1.0 SILTY CLAY - Brown to dark brown, borders : CL clayey silt, with a trace of sand - moist 1.0-2.0 FINE SAND - Brown, with a trace of silt - SP-SM damp 2.0-4.5 SANDY SILT - Brown, with a trace of ML 2.0 35 116.5 1 9.3 clay, clay percentages increase with 3.0 46 118 A 10.5 depth - damp to moist 4.5-11.0 SILTY CLAY - Brown, light gray brown CL 5.0 33 112.0 16.3 ' below 8.5' , lensed with trace sands - 10.0 18 97.0 24.2 calcareous at 10' - moist, wet-below 8.5' ' 11.0-12.5 FINE SAND - Brown to light brown, SP-S11 with a trace of silt - damp ' 12.5-15.0 FINE SAND - Gray and rust - damp SP . 15.0-30.5 FINE TO MEDIUM SAND - Gray and rust I SP 15.0 40 105.5 3.6 20.0 59/9.5 ' 25.0 53/8.5 30.0 30/6" 94.8 2.6 ' KEY: 1) Blow Count 2) Dry Density, pcf ' 3) Moisture Content, NOTE: Blow counts as determined by dropp no a ' 140 lb. hammer through a height of 30 inc es on a 2.5 inch I.D. sampling device. Recorde blow are for 12 inches of penetration, except is inoted. ' *Indicates unsuccessful attempts made in ietrie ing undisturbed core sample. Bulk sample tak n where ' possible for visual classificaiton and mo sture determination only. ' PlAT9 •• 2 0 1 �s r4� P SOILS EfJGINEFRINO,If�C� 1 ' TOR OF SWIMS ' wAII N IABLE See note below M WECT A78-2657 CAVING, See note below TEST WL9 NO. 3 DEPTH OF FILL None CAT; 011WD 11-1-78 DP1 e1e•reor ua $ of am 13): 1.i SOIL (j) MIIAi� ' TEST HOLE NO. 3 ' 0.0-1.0 6" ASPHALTIC CONCRETE PAVE:�H;NT ON 6" . AGGREGATE BASE 1.0-5.0 SILTY SAND - Brown .to dark brown, borders SM 2.0 26 113..2, .9.3 sandy silt .(14.) , trace. of organics at 3:0 13- 110.1 9.3 2.0' - moist 5.0-11.0 SILTY CLAY - Brown, with sand, gradational CL 5.0 36 116.11 13.0 contact with above silty sand horizon, 8.0 41 118.8 15.6 ' : sand percentages decrease with.depth - moist ' 11.0-13.0 FI14E SAND - Brown with light brown, with SP b f lens of clay (CL) at 12' - moist CL ' 13.0-18.0 FINE TO MEDIUM SAND - Light brown, with SP-SH 13.0 53 107.8 12.4 a trace of silt - moist ' 18.0-39.5 FINE TO MEDIUM SAND - Light brown, light . SP 18.0 52/7.51 101.9 21.7 gray brown below 28' - wet to saturated II 23.0 43 26.0 50/5" * 19.1 ' 39.0 52/6" 23.4 ' KEY: t 11) Blow Count 12) Dry Density, pcf. 3) Moisture Content, NOTE: Blow counts as determined by dropp ng a 250 lb. hammer through a heiht of 18 inc es on a 2.5 inch I.D. sampling device. Reco ded blows are for 12 inches of penetration, cept as noted. *Indicates unsuccessful attempts made in etrie ing undisturbed core sample. Bulk sample tak n for ' visual classificaiton and moisture determination only, where possible. t PLATE B• 3 O ti OJv •. 1 yy v a➢aLS EP401NEF_RtNG.INC. LOP OF BORINGS, ` WA 1111 1 A811 MOJECT A78-2657 ' CAVING1. I TM I.M4 N0.3 - cont'd Df PTff OF FILL QATE Wl"D ' a (s) (s) rn rcc, I so� CLY�IIIC•TI�M IVNrIgI atYN} riti TEST HOLE NO. 3 - continued ! _ WATER TABLE AND CAVING NOTE: ' After completion of drilling operations, he bore hole was partially bailed of drillers mud and the following tabulated'measuremeitts ' were recorded. Bottom of Depth to ' Date Time Hole Driller's MU V emarks � 11-1778 2:30 pm 34.0' Bailed hole f dril er`s m 11-2-78 8:15 am 38.0' 34.0' Depth to dri ler's I ud appf 3rs at Ie. ' PIATt •- 3 - ont'd 0 �v v SOILS ENGINEERING.INC LOG OF WRINU WAII'R TABLE See note below PIROJEM A78-2657 ' CAVING None experienced TW MIXF NO. 4 OIPTH OF FILL None QATE10WLLEQ 11-1-78 __s-�_._:•:ate--:--r•••• --- _c._-_..__.-ems..--- • - i - 64PT14 e Q uu t n *OIL CVMI/1611TIQM WMII1L01 dYNM► M N FCET �� ' . TEST HOLE N0. 4 0.0-2.0 SILTY SAND - Brown to light brown, border . SM ' sandy silt, with a trace of clay -.damp 2.0-3.0 SILTY SAND - Light brown, with clay, SM 2.0 70/10" 122.0 8..1 . iwith trace organic material - moist 3.0-5.0 CLAYEY SAND - Brown with gray brown and SC 3.0 72/10"- . 123.0 9.3 rust - damp 5.0-8.5 SILTY CLAY - Light brown to brown, with CL .5.0 40 118.2 15.6 A trace of sand - moist ' 8.5-10.0 FINE SAND - Light brown with light brown SP - moist ' 10.0-25.5 FINE TO MEDIUM SAND - Light brown, light SP 10.0 47 108..8 11.1. gray brown below 20' .- wet, saturated 15.0 48/6" 107.2 19.1 with depth 20.0 50/6" * 4.7 1 25.0 50/6" 101.8 17.0 i KEY: 1) Blow Count 2) Dry Density, pcf i3) Moisture Content, NOTE: Blow counts as determined -by dropping a i 250 lb. hammer through a height of 18 inc es on a 2.5 inch I.D. sampling device. Record blow are for 12 inches of penetration, except s not i *Indicates unsuccessful attempt made to r triev undisturbed core sample. Bulk sample tak n where possible for visual classification and mo sture idetermination only. i . i i PLAT3 •• 4 0 oo�P I Ny v 1301L9 ENGINEERING,INQ LOG W MIN". F ATI_N 1ABLE ��T A78-2657 AVING UP HM NO. 4 - cont'd DEPTH OF FILL CAT9 GOWLED 11-1-78 N fag I �oT� cWWlfq+M_ ► - ►u>!»�Ko► srw�► MCMs TEST HOLE NO. 4 - continued ' WATER TABLE AND CAVING NOTES: After completion of drilling operations t e bore hole was partially bailed of drillers mud and the following tabulated measurements were recorded.. Bottom of Depth of Date Time Hole Drillers Itud Remar �_ 11-1-78 11:15 am 25.0' 19.0' B iled ho a of d illers lud 11-2-78 8:00 am 25.0' 22.5' 1 i i 1 ' PLAW 6'. 4 - cont'd 0 `P SOILS EWGINEEF TN"-t.tI`—= 1 LOG OF 801Wj$ ' WAILR ]ABLE See note below /RWZCT A78-2657 CAVING See note below TIV MOLE 10. 5 DUPTN OF FILL None DATE ORWD 10-31-78, 11-1 8 o►v,N osnM tWO!►IC•tIO11 4ur"ruab avYl1E1 OrCN[ TEST HOLE N0. 5 -- t 0.0-4.5 SILTY SAND - Brown, with a trace of <clay_: SM' • 2:0' 24 122.4 13.0 - moist 3.0 21 124.0 119 4.5-8.0 SILTY CLAY - Brown to light. brown, with CL 5.0.. 4.1 119,6; 15 6'. ' a trace sand - moist 8.0-12.0 FINE SAND - Brown to light brown, with SP-SM: 8.0 40 •117.' 8- 14.1. ' ' silt - wet j 12.0-13.0 SILTY CLAY - Light brown - stiff - moist CL ' i3.0-22.5 FINE TO MEDIUM SAND - Rust and gray - SP 13.0 37/6" 102.2 19.1 wet to saturated 18.0 53/6" 105.9 21.2 t 22.5-23.0 SANDY CLAY - Gray brown, borders clayey CL sand - moist ' 23.0-23.5 FINE SAND - Gray with rust, with a trace SP-SC 23..0 30/6" 114.8 14.3 of clay - moist 23.5-28.0 FINE SAND - Gray with rust, with lenses SP 23.5 30/3" or layers of fine to coarse sand below 26 feet - moist ' 28.0-39.5 FINE. TO MEDIMI SAND - Light gray brown, SP 28.0 45/6" 106.3 19.1 ! gray to blue gray below 30' - saturated 33.6 60/8" 100.2 22.0 39.0 40/6" 110.2 - 19.1 ' KEY: 1) Blow Count ' 2) Dry Density, pcf 3) Moisture Content, % NOTE: Blow counts as determined by dropp ng a ' 250 lb. hammer through a height of. 18 inc es . on a 2.5 inch I.D. sampling device. Reco ded blows are for 12 inches of penetration, e cept ' as noted. ' MATE B 5 0 boy • v. SOILS ENGINEERING.MJG _ .. . . .. .. ..- .... Viz_ .. ._...__-...`'-': L04 OF 6WIPM. WATLR TABLE PROJECT A78-2657 ' CAVING TT HIM NO- 5 - cont'd DEPTH OF FILL DATE OAILLED U[PT11 MIL 'eYYfOL aCOIRS IN fE[T � ' TEST HOLE NO. 5 - continued '+ ' WATER TABLE AND CAVING NOTES: After completion of drilling operations tle bore ' hole was partially bailed of drillers mud and the following tabulated measurements were record . ' Bottom of Depth of 1 Date Time Hole Drillers 16d Remarks 11-1-78 8:15 am 28.0' Ba led hol of dr lers d ' 11-1-78 9:15 am 36.0' 28.5' 11-1-78 1:15 pm 36.0' 30.0' ' 11-2-78 8:00 am 36.0' 32.0' 11-2-78 1:00 pm 36.0' 32.5' 1 ' PLAW-1 6• 5 - cont'd 0 Od7 Oy v .SOILS ENOfhIEEFhNG.W%I(-' ' PROJECT A78- 2657. CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULiaS NORMAL PRESSURE KIPS"PER SQUARE FOOT 0.3 0.5 1.0 2 3 4 10 15 20 0 1 � 2 � T uj Y 4 2 t -1 5 ` 413 N :$TH.W5 T N.18 � s 2 W U uj d 7 I 2 O a 8 1 a O cn 0 9 ' U cc O J w 10 11 ' 12 u z ' u 13 z W ' W z 14 z W N 0 0 0.3 0.5 1.0 2 3 4 5 10 15 20 H10 INFILTRATED AT 0.5 K S F a ' C PLATE C- m N Q FORM Af H-100 - 1 PROJECT A78- 2657 ' CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS tNORMAL PRESSURE KIPS PER SQUARE FOOT 0.3 0.5 1.0 2 3 4 5 10 15 20 0 WIN 2 3 t uj N U 4 ' -1 T.K 03 5 TH.1#13 a to ' O 6 F- Z W CL Z a 8 J O N 0 8 U Q O I w 10 11 T.H. Z010 12 u __ u 13 z W ' 0 14 z W N J 0 0.3 0.5 1.0 2 3 4 5 10 15 20 W H10 INFILTRATED AT 0.5 K 5 F ' 0 u PLATE C-2 N N Q FORM 11�H-100 - PROJECT Ale-2657 ' CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS ' NORMAL PRESSURE KIPS PER SQUARE FOOT 0.3 05 1.0 2 3 4 10 15 20 0 1 2 3 N T9. 2 z4 TH. .30 Lu 5 Q 4T.H. s5 0 6 Z w cc a 7 . I 2 O Q .8 ' O J O N - 0 9 U O J w 10 N 11 1 12 u Z u 13 z W W_ u 14 z W UI O '" 0.3 0.5 1.0 2 3 4 5 /0 15 20 W H,0 INFILTRATED AT 0.5 K S F Q C PLATE C-3 Ln W Q s oww wse•wo - PROJECT A?8.2 25-7 CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS . NORMAL PRESSURE KIPS PER SQUARE FOOT _ ' 0.3 0,5 1.0 2 3 4 10 15 20 0 2 --�• T.FI: p10: - ... TH. a!3 H N V7 W Z 4 Y U S � 5 a a 0 6 LL w Lu U a 7 I z O Q 8 , O N 0 9 U O J J 10 W N 11 1.2 u , ' Z � 13 z z w ' W Z 14 z W W O 0 0.3 0.5 1.0 2 3 4 5 10 15 20 W N:O INFILTRATED AT 0.5 K 5 F ' G PLATE C-a N N Q FORM ASk•�00 PROJECT A78- 26 57 ' CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS ' NORMAL PRESSURE KIPS PER SQUARE FOOT. 0.3 0 5 1.0 . 2 3 4 5 10 15 20 0 1 Ezz 2 3 _ _ TN, r2 N Y4 T.K .08- U_ S � 5 a y z 6 w U a 7 I 2 O a 8 O O y 0 9 ' cr U O J w 10 y 12 V Z v 13'. z a w w Z 14 u z w a J 0 0.3 0.5 1.0 2 3 4 5 10 15 20 W H10 INFILTRATED AT 0.5 K S F a 1 0 PLATE C-5 m a P 04M •f H•100 ' PROJECT A78T.2657 ' CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS, NORMAL PRESSURE KIPS PER SQUARE FOOT i0.3 0.5 1.0 2 3 4 5 10 15 20 - 0 1 ._ _ T.H e33 2 _ _ e33 TH 28 1 3 :try W Z Y 4 U_ 2 .. H ' w 5 J O. .. Q N O 6 Z w cc _ U w 7 a I Z O Q 8 0 0 9 U O J w 10 i 12 i = 0 13 z a w - z 14 z w N J O 0 0.3 0.5 1.0 2 3 4 6 10 15 20 W H10 ►NFI TRATED AT 0.5 K S F ' u PLATE C— Fj m M ARM /11l-100 � - 1 1 1 064M TW : 1P ( � 1 1 ' 1 - - c yip 1 - 'r1�. 1 � G a.2lD T►.l. ! Q 0.0Afop- 1 1 1 1 1 260 No 1 liosm" STRESS IN I.S P.. M U �' +rr roar sraww. WMWAWMIAM wa .�rrirr � �r�r �r � r►i r .► s .�psis �lld � �r �■r���®ram. s -r�.�wr ors aeerais��� r �ta�r GraeAmus Gum&owdop . Cut Met, Miw.)io ,z z ' N.4�2.0' c i4o 29° too go- J 4 1 260 5Eo 1040 NORMAL STRESS IN P.S.Q. ' PLATE - 3 j. uw+cus ita� 4mbawq (Z4 mask MIN.) 1 ; oe- 1 1 . Q i ' G w-l40 1doL 1 .Ole NORMAL .STKSI IN LS 1. ' PLATE � t i I r� i a f� %d aa� " /dai • ,r sri a0I/� r/ DINUT TpT �+Ws &r�O iw tv dam (24 Mau Mur.) i '� i . i t Q L _ �N.sC 3.0' • 22a od— Q f 4 ' 940 wo 1040 140MMAL STRESS NI P.S.F. ' PLATE �p . 1-4 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ..J4"le 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 P. 0. Box 190 HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT July 21, 1981 Mr. ,Br.ian Norkaitis, Project Manager William Lyon Company 19 Corporate Plaza Newport Beach, California 92660 SUBJECT: ASSOCIATED. SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.. EVALUATION OF NEW STRUCTURAL LOADS, HUNTINGTON SEAVIEW Dear Brian: Enclosed please find one copy of an invoice from Associated Soils Engineering, Inc. , of Long .Beach, for the site review, calculations, and evaluation of new structural loads for the Huntington Seaview project in the amount of $184; A review of our records indicates that the approved Participation Agreement between your firm and the City of Huntington Beach stipulates only that the City will .provide your firm with (a) a copy of the previously approved. soils report, dated November 22, 1978. (page 16, pagagraph 2) ; and (b) the previously garnered approval of the City Ad- , ministrator for securin the services of Associated Soils Engineering was limited to a maximum amount of 92,500, and the previously paid amount was $2,493.50 Therefore, the previous authorization for the services of Associated Soils Engi- neeri:ng, Inc. does not extend to cover their most recent efforts, and I. am for- warding this invoice to you for payment. If you should have any questions, please don't hesitate to call me at the number below. Ver 1 yours, Step en V. Ohl r Senior Communit Development Specialist SVK:jb enclosure bcc: James W. Palin 7'dephunc (714) 5:36-i 42 /7 1� W� y !;MINVOICE NO. 7863 (/JO - A 3310 AIRPORT WAY-P.O.BOX 20056-LONG BEACH,CALIF.90801 -PHONE 213/426-7940 P 2021-C THIRD STREET- RIVERSIDE,CALIF.92507-PHONE 714/684-7274 REMIT TO SOILS ENGINEERING,INC. P.O. BOX 20056 Consulting Foundation Engineers LONG BEACH,CA.90801 B ; 33260-00 P - i City of Huntington Beach o . . Senior Citizen Housing Development L Housing and Community Development E Old Civic Center Site T Post Office Box 190 c Main Street, Between Sth and 6th Street ° Huntington Beach, California 92648 T Huntington Beach, California. Attention: Mr.Ste n V. Kohler Evaluation of New Structural Loads DATE PROJECT NO. S y p Spec COUNT NO- CUSTOMER'S P.O.NO. eraior-Comn�r�nit Development-Special mast- tal f__.__:�___�A__ _ 7/7/91 ASI 2657 (S-1) 330-2 QUANTITY- DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE AMOUNT 4.0 Regular hours Site REview, Calculations, do Letter Staff Engineer $46.00 $I84.00 pbd PLEASE PAY FROM INVOICE STATEMENT ON REQUEST TERMS:Net 1 Oth Prox.-Subject to interest charge at 1'/2%per month after 30 days.118%per annuml a CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALI FOR N[A 92648 P. 0. Box 190 HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT July 13,. 1981 Mr. Mike Casciola, President Housing Concepts 17895 Sky Park Circle, Suite A Irvine, 'California 92714 SUBJECT: HUNTINGTON SEAVIEW EVALUATION OF NEW STRUCTURAL LOADS Dear Mike: Enclosed please find one copy of correspondence from Associated Soils Engineering, dated July 7, 1981, regarding the evaluation of new structural loads for the Huntington Seaview project. As you know, we requested Associated. Soils to re- view the calculations included in its soils investigations of November 22, 1978 in light of the current configuration of Huntington Seaview. The enclosed corres- pondence includes discussion of the bearing value of the soils, estimated settle- ments and a table of active earth pressures. I hope that this information will be of assistance to you. If you. should have any questions please contact me at the number below. Ver y y urs, Step en V. K ThleSenior Communlopment Specialist " SVK:jb enclosure Telephone (714) 536-5542 a i, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 P. 0. Box 190 HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT July 13, 1981 Mr. John Cotton Kamnitzer, Cotton, Vreeland 6330 San Vicente Los Angeles, California •90048 Attention: Mr. Richard Luke SUBJECT: HUNTINGTON SEAVIEW EVALUATION OF NEW STRUCTURAL LOADS Dear Richard: Enclosed please find one copy of correspondence from Associated Soils Engineering, dated July 7, 1981, regarding the evaluation of new structural loads for the Huntington Seaview project. As you know, we requested Associated Soils to re- view the calculations included in its soils investigations of November 22, 1978 in light of the current configuration of Huntington Seaview. The enclosed corres- pondence includes discussion of the bearing value of. the soils, estimated settle- ments and a table of active earth pressures. I hope that .this information will be of assistance to you. If you should have any. questions please contact me at the number below. Ver ly y urs, St oh 1 e Senior Community Development Specialist SVK:jb enclosure Telephone (714) 536-5542 j, CITY OF .HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 P. 0. Box 190 HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT July 13, 1981 Mr. Brian Norkaitis, Project Manager William Lyon Company 19 Corporate Plaza Newport Beach, California 92660 SUBJECT: HUNTINGTON SEAVIEW EVALUATION OF NEW STRUCTURAL LOADS Dear Brian: Enclosed please find one copy of correspondence from Associated Soils Engineering, dated July 7, 1981, regarding the evaluation of. new structural loads for the Huntington. Seaview project. As you know, we requested Associated Soils to re- view the calculations included in its soils investigations of November 22, 1978 in light of the current configuration of Huntington Seaview. The enclosed corres- pondence includes discussion of the bearing value of the soils, estimated settle- ments and a table of active earth pressures. I hope that this information will be of assistance to you. If you should have any questions please contact me at the number below. rul yours, St V. Kohl Senior Com unit Development Specialist SVK:jb enclosure Telephone (714) 536-5542 ` �49 0 3310 AIRPORT WAY - P.O. BOX 20056-LONG BEACH. CALIF. 90801 - PHONE 213/47.6-7990 2021-C THIRD STREET - RIVERSIDE. CALIF. 925.07 - PHONE 714/684-7274 P BOILS ENGINEERING.INC. Consulting Foundation EnginMn ; July 7, 1981 Project No. A81-2657 (S-1) City of Huntington Beach Housing and Community Development Post Office Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 Attention: Mr. Stephen V. Kohler Senior Community Development Specialist Reference: Senior Citizen Housing Development Old Civic Center Site Main Street, Between 5th and 6th Street Huntington Beach, California Subject: Evaluation of New Structural Loads Dear Mr. Kohler: This letter should be considered in conjunction with our November 22, 1978 Report of Preliminary Foundation Investigation (A78-2657). SITE REVIEW We have made a site visitation and found the surface features to be essentially the same as during the performance of field work for our original referenced report. It was noted t the temporary trailers indicated on our original plot plan have been moved from the site, and the area southerly of the Memorial Hall and easterly of the clinic is now being used as a park. PROVIDED INFORMATION Mr. Joe Toister, Project Structural Engineer, has indicated the structures as presently proposed will be of three-story frame construction on a single story of concrete construction for 2 of 3 proposed dwelling units. The remaining unit is to be of three- story frame on grade. No subterranean -garage or partial basement is presently proposed. Some of the provided structural column loads for presently' proposed construction are greater by more than 10 percent from the 80 kip column loads assumed for original evaluation of settlement potential for site soils. Column loads for interior columns are now on the order of 250 kips, with 50 kips and 75 kips for columns on the periphery of the structure. PROVIDED INFORMATION-continued Present bearing wall loads of 2500 pounds per ,lineal foot are identical to those assumed } for preparation of our original report: It is understood that soils will be laid up against exterior portions of first floor concrete construction. BEARING VALUE Based on a review of our original test data and calculations, the bearing value of 2100 pounds per square foot provided in our original report may be increased by 500 pounds per square foot for each additional foot of increase into firm bearing natural soils for a maximum value not to exceed 4000 pounds per square foot. ESTIMATED SETTLEMENTS Presented in the following table' are estimated settlements for presently proposed construction. Included, for purposes of clarity and comparision, are appropriate estimated settlements as presented on page 12 of our original November 28, 1978 report. TABLE OF ESTIMATED SETTLEMENTS J Footing Embedment Bearing Value Structural Settlements, Type Considered Considered Load Inches Spread 18 inches 2100 50 kips 0.75 Spread 18 inches 2100 75 kips 1.0* Spread 3 ft. 6 inches . 3100 250 kips 1.4 Continuous 18.inches 1900 2.5 kips/ft. 0.5* * From Page 10 of referenced November 22, 1978 report. ACTIVE EARTH PRESSURES The following tabulated equivalent fluid pressure values may be used in design of walls required to retain soils placed against exterior surfaces. Values are based on soils typical to the upper 4 feet of existing site soils placed against walls at a relative compaction of 90 percent. Aid A& A81-2657 (S-1) - Page 2 so ENGINEERING,INM TABLE OF ACTIVE EARTH PRESSURES Retained Equivalent Soil Condition Fluid Pressure Level Behind Wall 39 pcf Falling at 2:1 Slope away from Wall 31 pcf. Falling at 1:1 Slope away from Wall 27 pcf This' concludes this supplementary report. All recommendations presented in our November 22, 1978 report, except as modified by this supplemental report, will remain unchanged and are considered in effect for use on this project. Respectfully submitted, ASSOCIATED SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. hiw Richard L. Manning, Jr. Ahmad Project Engineer 16621 RLM/pbd cc: City of Huntington Beach/Housing & Community Development - 5 Mr. Joe Toister - 1 Kamnitzer, Cotton & Breland - 1 40 A81-2657 (S-1) Page 3 v SOILS ENGINEERINM ING 1 ,,•.try,:•.! . � :�t .-. •.- .•.,•. -...., ,.F _ .. .. -- - r .._. . .-1 , /l9� F v�� O A 33f0 AIRPORT WAY - P.O. BOX 20068-LONG BEACH, CALIF. 90801 - PHONE 213/426-7990 2021-C THIRD STREET —RIVERSIDE, CALIF. 92507 - PHONE 714/684=7274 P SOILS ENGINEERING,INC. Consulting Foundation Engineers July 7, 1981 Project No. A81-2657 (S-1) City of Huntington Beach Housing and Community Development Post Office Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 Attention:, Mr. Stephen V. Kohler Senior•Community Development Specialist Reference: Senior Citizen Housing Development Old Civic Center Site Main Street, Between 5th and 6th Street Huntington Beach, California Subject: Evaluation of New Structural Loads 1. Dear Mr. Kohler: This letter .should be considered in conjunction with our November 22, 1978 Report of Preliminary Foundation Investigation (A78-2657). SITE REVIEW We have made a site visitation and found the surface features to be essentially the same as during the performance of field work for our original referenced report. It was noted the temporary trailers indicated on our original plot plan have been moved from the site, and the area southerly of the Memorial Hall and easterly of the clinic is now being used as a park. PROVIDED INFORMATION Mr. Joe Toister, Project Structural Engineer, has indicated the structures as presently proposed will be of three-story frame construction on a single story of concrete construction for 2 of 3 proposed dwelling units. The remaining unit is to be of three- story frame on grade. No subterranean garage or partial basement is presently proposed. Some of the provided structural column loads for presently proposed construction are greater by more than 10 percent from the 80 kip column loads assumed for original evaluation of settlement potential for site soils. Column loads for interior columns are now on the order of 250 kips, with 50 kips and 75 kips for columns on the periphery of the structure. l 5� PROVIDED INFORMATION-continued Present bearing wall loads of 2500 pounds per lineal foot are identical to those assumed for preparation of our original report. It is understood that soils will be laid up against exterior portions of first floor concrete construction. BEARING VALUE Based on a review of our original test data and calculations, the bearing value of 2100 pounds per square foot provided in our original report may be increased by 500 pounds per square foot for each additional foot of increase into firm bearing natural soils for a maximum value not to exceed 4000 pounds per square foot. ESTIMATED SETTLEMENTS Presented in the following table are estimated settlements for presently proposed construction. Included, for purposes of clarity and comparision, are appropriate estimated settlements as presented on page 12 of our original November 28, 1978 report. TABLE OF ESTIMATED SETTLEMENTS Footing Embedment Bearing Value Structural Settlements, Type Considered Considered Load Inches Spread 18 inches 2100 50 kips 0.75 Spread .18 inches 2100 75 kips 1.0* .. Spread 3 ft. 6 inches 3100 250 kips 1.4 Continuous 18.inches 1900 2.5 kips/ft. 0.5* * From Page 10 of referenced November 22, 1979 report. ACTIVE EARTH PRESSURES The following tabulated equivalent fluid pressure values may be used in design of walls required to retain soils placed against exterior surfaces. Values are based on soils typical to the upper 4 feet of existing site soils placed against walls at a relative compaction of 90 percent. Ov � A81-2657 (S-1) Page 2 SOILS ENGINEERING.INC. TABLE OF ACTIVE EARTH PRESSURES Retained Equivalent Soil Condition Fluid Pressure Level Behind Wall 39 pcf Falling at 2:1 Slope away from Wall 31 pcf Falling at 1:1 Slope away from Wall 27 pcf This concludes this supplementary report. All recommendations presented- in our November 22, 1978 report, except as modified by this supplemental report, will remain unchanged and are considered in effect for use on this project. Respectfully submitted, ASSOCIATED SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. R v ewe y Richard L. Manning, Jr. yed . Ahmad Project Engineer R.C. . #16621 RLM/pbd. cc:, City of Huntington Beach/Housing & Community Development - 5 Mr. Joe Toister - 1 Kamnitaer, Cotton & Breland - 1 �o CSP • ono A81-2657 (S-1) Page 3 SOILS ENGINEERINM ING CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH To Steve Kohler, Senior Housing From James R. Barnes S�� & Community Development Specialist Associate Planner Subject DOWNTOWN .SENIOR CITIZENS Date November 14, 1979 HOUSING/ACTIVITY CENTER - FINAL EIR (EIR 79-1) Copies of the final environmental impact report for the Downtown Senior Citizens Housing/Activity Center, prepared by_ the environmental consulting firm of Pacific Environmental Services, are being forwarded to you for distribution to the Planning Commission and City Council. A draft EIR was circulated for a 45-day public review period ending September 27 , 1979 . A list of the persons and agencies receiving copies .of the draft EIR is attached. The final EIR consists of the draft EIR, comments received from persons and agencies who received copies of the draft EIR, and responses to the comments prepared by the City in conjunction with Pacific Environmental Services. All persons and agencies who commented on the draft EIR have been sent a copy of the final EIR. In your transmittal to the discretionary body with the final jurisdiction over the project, it should be recommended that the EIR be certified as being adequate and in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act and with State EIR Guidelines. JRB:df Attached: Distribution List Final EIR CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTIN ON BEACH To Steve Kohler From James R. Barnes Senior Housing Specialist Associate Planner Subject SENIOR CITIZEN HOUSING/ Date October 19 , 1979 ACTIVITY CENTER EIR Attached are the comments and responses to comments prepared by the Planning staff in conjunction with the EIR consultant.; If you have any suggested changes for the responses, please let me know by October 22 , 1979. JRB:df Attachments cf)3 : -' 7 October 18, 1979 Mr. James Barnes Planning Department City of Huntington Beach P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 Dear Mr. Barnes , Enclosed is the Addendum for the Final EIR on the Senior Citizen Housing/Activity Center. This Addendum will be placed after page vi of the EIR and will be set off by medium weight blank sheets of paper. A few very minor text changes have been made in italicized print and referred to in the Addendum. Your review of these textual changes at this time is not necessary. In order to meet the October 26th deadline, I will need your comments by Tuesday, .October 23rd. I will look forward to hearing from you then. Sincerely yours , C Patti O'Brien Environmental Planner PO:k Enclosure Pacific Environmental Services,INC. 1930 14th Street Santa Monica,California 90404 Telephone(213) 450.1800 .COMMENT NO. 1: RALPH R. LEYVA, TRAFFIC ENGINEER CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Comment While the traffic analysis portion of the EIR is adequate, there didn't seem to be any analysis or discussion regarding the demand or supply of parking for the development. Also, Senior Citizen's Housing and Activity Centers constructed recently in Orange County have demonstrated inadequate parking spaces after the Center has been in operation for 1 year. A possible under- estimation of the mobility of seniors through the use of automobiles was suggested. Response The discussion on page IX-10 of the Draft EIR stated that a . total of 54 on-site parking spaces would be provided for the apartments. The Senior Citizen Center parking lot would have 50 on-site spaces with 65 curb parking spaces (total of 115). The Specific Plan for this development would require one on-site parking space per three residential units (52 spaces). The Plan would also require one off-street parking space for every 200 square feet of building area (50 spaces for the Activity Center) . The project conforms to these requirements. For a further discussion of the adequacy of the proposed parking, please refer to the Response to Comment No. 6 on page 6 of this Addendum. COMMENT NO. 2: CAROL INGE, ASSISTANT PLANNER CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Comment A paragraph should be added to Section II, Project Description, which gives a brief history and purpose of the project. -1- Response The project site was once the location of the Huntington Beach Civic Center and main library. The Civic Center was moved .in 1973-1974 and the site now contains the Community Clinic, library annex, old Memorial Hail and an assortment of community service offices and trailers. The City maintained the policy to retain the site for community service or recreational uses. The project site was designated a Planning Reserve in General .Plan Amendment 76-1A until finalized plans were developed for the site. On September 18, 1978, the City .Council endorsed the use of the site for a new senior cit.izen housing and recreation complex to -replace the exist- ing senior citizen center located at Orange Avenue and Seventeenth Street. At this time, the Planning Staff was authorized to request proposals from developers for construction of the project under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Housing and Community Development Program. The Mixed Development designation for the site was necessary since the project encom- passes housing, recreation facilities, the branch library and limited on-site service commercial . The residential units are intended for low- and moderate-income senior citizens only. The rents on all the units will be below market rates as set forth in a rent schedule submitted to the City and additional O.C.H.A. subsidies will be available for 49 percent of the units. COMMENT NO. 3: CAROL INGE, ASSISTANT PLANNER CITY _OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Comment Section XIV, Land Use, should include a paragraph on general land use impacts. This paragraph might describe existing land use -2- on the site, the changes- that would be brought about by the proposed project, and a finding as to whether these changes would be consistent with the policies set forth in the City's adopted Land Use Element. Response Environmental Setting The site' s current General Plan designation is Mixed Develop- ment, and was formerly used as the City's Civic Center. The site now contains a library, the Community Clinic, the old Memorial Hall , the old Fire Station and Administration Building. In addi- tion to the Community Clinic and the library, the other major public use of the site is the Transportation-Lunch-Counseling Program which occupies the Administration Building. Potential Impact The proposed project would result in the removal of the Commu- nity Clinic to another (as yet to be determined) site in the City. Library use will not be affected and the Transportation-Lunch- Counseling Program will move its services into the proposed Activity Center. The project would introduce high density residential and a small amount of commercial use to the site. The project is compat- ible with policies stated in the City's Land Use Element. These policies include its contribution to the revitalization of the downtown area; its introduction of higher densities of people and . dwelling units near the beach ; its aid in reestablishing a beach orientation for Huntington Beach residents; and its combining a community recreation center and branch library in one area. -3- 11 1 COMMENT NO. 4: CAROL INGE, ASSISTANT PLANNER CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Comment The statistics that are based on 1979 Special Census data should be identified as such in the text rather than in a footnote at the back of the EIR. This would avoid confusion by clarifying why the number given for elderly households that spend more than 25 percent of their income on housing does not match the SCAG estimates of elderly families in need of assistance.. In addition, while identifying the Housing Element Draft as a source of data, Section XV might also explain briefly that our Planning Division has just completed .this up-to-date document. The EIR might state a finding as to whether the. proposed project's impact on housing would be consistent with the policies stated in the Housing Element Draft. Response On page XV-1, the 1979 Special Census is referenced in the text at the end of the first paragraph. This change appears in italicized print. In addition, the information on the recently completed Housing Element Draft is included on Page XV-1, after the second paragraph. This information appears in italicized print. COMMENT NO. 5: CAROL INGE, ASSISTANT PLANNER CITY OF. HUNTINGTON BEACH Comment The calculations in Section XVI , Fiscal Analysis, were based on figures that were 2 to 4 years out-of-date. Now there are current -4- figures available that would update this section of the EIR. Response A computerized fiscal impact model is now available to provide these updated calculations. COMMENT NO. 6: THE LYON CO.; KANNANITZER, COTTON, VREELAND; AND HOUSING CONCEPTS Comment Statements questioning adequacy of parking were found on pages II-1, III-2, V-1, IX-10 and XIV-4 of the EIR. The zoning codes for both the City of Huntington Beach and the Coastal Guidelines gener- ally call for two parking spaces per dwelling unit. But, just as the city of Huntington Beach has amended this requirement to reflect the specific needs of low- and moderate- income elderly, so has the Coastal Commission consistently lowered this requirement for section 8 elderly developments within their regulatory boundaries. Section 8 elderly developments in Santa Monica and Port .Hueneme, to name only two similar elderly develop- ments in coastal areas, have both been granted parking requirements which range from .25 to .33 - . 1 instead of the 2-1 ratio referenced by the EIR as the correct ratio. The City of Huntington Beach has itself .granted another section 8 elderly development a .33 - 1 . parking ratio. It was suggested that the EIR consultants approach the Coastal Commission and HUD directly to confirm the estimates of parking needs of similar elderly developments. It was also suggested that the following references found in the text of the EIR be amended to reflect more accurately the precedents and current policy of the Coastal Commission and the City of Huntington Beach. -5- (p. V-1) "Another such impact may occur on current street parking due to the possibly insufficient number of parking spaces provided for the Housing" -(through .previous deliberation the Coasta-1 Commission has found that low and moderate income, elderly, section 8 developments require significantly less parking. ) .(p. IX-10) the Coastal guideline recommends two on-site parking spaces per unit (312 spaces.) The latter requirement would not be met with the proposed parking." (Reference should be made to current Coastal Commission policy or precedents in the case of elderly section 8 developments.) (p. XIV-4, III-2) "A definite adverse impact of the project has been identified in relation to the number of on-site parking spaces provided. The Coastal guideline, of two parking spaces per dwell- ing unit, is not met." (This statement is incorrect. A disparity with Coastal guidelines has been identified but no information has been offered to suggest that Coastal Commission or city policy of permitting lesser parking ratios for elderly section 8 developments is inadequate.) Response A member of the City's Local Program Staff was again contacted to substantiate this comment. The Coastal Commission was contacted and verified the variance granted for parking requirements in developments of this nature. The proposed .33 - 1 ratio would most likely be accepted by the Coastal Commission. To this end, the following corrections have been made .to the Draft EIR: Page No. Corrections III-2 Last sentence has been deleted. V-1 Last sentence of the second paragraph has been deleted. -6- IX-10 Lines 7 through 11 have been deleted. XIV-4 The last two sentences on the page have been deleted XIV-5 In line 6, delete the word ..may.. COMMENT NO. 7: THE LYON CO. ; KAMNITZER, COTTON, VREELAND; AND HOUSING CONCEPTS Comment In order to ensure consistency and accuracy, describe the development as a combination of three story residential and three residential stories over bermed, at grade, enclosed parking. The Site Plan, which includes a roof plan, should be substituted for the current Figure II-4. Response On page II-1, Section C, the first sentence should read as follows: "The proposed project would entail the construction of 156 senior citizen apartments, which are a combination of three story residential and three residential stories over bermed, at grade, enclosed parking; a new one story senior citizen center; and 4,000 square feet of commercial use (refer to Figure II-4) ." Figure II-4 has been changed as suggested. COMMENT NO. 8: THE LYON CO. ; KAMNITZER, COTTON, VREELAND; AND HOUSING CONCEPTS Comment A paragraph elaborating the benefits of the project should be added. -7- Response Please refer to the responses to comments 2 and 3 of this Addendum. COMMENT NO. 9: THE LYON CO. ; KAMNITZER, COTTON, VREELAND; AND HOUSING CONCEPTS Comment The consumption rates for gas, electricity, water, sewage and solid waste compare the proposed project to "retirement communi- ties" or general apartment type developments. These comparisons do not work since the proposed development includes smaller units reflecting the needs of the elderly. Also, the proposed occupants would be primarily of low- and moderate-income which affects their ability to own and maintain private transportation and expensive appliances. More specific information should be obtained .from HUD to rework these estimates. Response The factors that were used to derive the estimates include a margin of error. If these calculations indicated that a signifi- cant adverse impact would occur, then a change would be warranted. Since no significant impact is expected with the figures used, changes are not necessary. i COMMENT NO.. 10: THE LYON CO. ; KAMNITZER, COTTON, VREELAND; AND HOUSING CONCEPTS Comment The recommendation on page VII-6 that the buildings be built to withstand ground shaking associated with a possible 6.5 magnitude -8- earthquake needs elaboration. What type of shaking, direction, etc. What are the references for this requirement. _Response The project site is not located in the hazards zone as indi- cated by the Alquist-Priolo Geologic Hazards Map. Therefore, the project would be. required to have the buildings conform to the 1976 typical standard of the Uniform Building Code. This recommends that the structures should withstand ground shaking of 6.5 magnitude. . "The amount of surface displacement will vary with the magni- tude of the event, as does the intensity of ground shaking. The state of knowledge of subsurface geologic conditions beneath the City of Huntington Beach and the state-of-the-art does not permit accurate estimation of either the length or magnitude of future surface faulting to be expected from a given magnitude earthquake occurring within the Newport-Inglewood Structural Zone."* The details on type of shaking and direction of movement are not warranted for this document. COMMENT NO. 12: THE LYON CO. ; KAMNITZER, COTTON, VREELAND; AND HOUSING CONCEPTS Comment P. XII-5 - use of' the word "would" is presumptive and might be changed to "should". * Huntington Beach Planning Department, Geotechnical Inputs, February 1974. -9- f U C1TV OF HUNTINGm'lON OFAOH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION NUNTt ON Jim Barnes From Stephen V. Kohler TO Senior Community Development Associate Planner Specialist Subject Old Civic Center Project; Date September 17, 1979 Draft EIR comments Attached please find the comment%, on the old Civic Center Project Draft EIR that I have received from the development team of The Lyon Co. , the, architectural firm of Kamnitzer, Cotton, Vreeland, and Housing Concepts. The comments of these members of the development -team have been combined and are annotated for use by;the authors. If you or the P.E.S. staff should have any questions, please give me a call at Extension 5541. SVK:jb b. .. - Housing Concept REED FLORY MICHAEL A.CASCIOLA September 11, 1979 Mr. Steve V. Kohler Senior Community Development Specialist Development Services Department City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Huntington Seaview Dear Steve: Following are comments from the development team on the Environmental Impact Report prepared by Pacific Environmental Services, Inc. Generally we found the report to be complete, accurate and acceptable. But as with any complex proposal such as this, there were a few major comments or recommendations which we feel must be considered. We have attempted to order our comments in terms of their significance. 1. Parking (Comments found on pp. II-1, III-2, V-1, IX-10, XIV-4) Throughout the EIR, the authors have made reference to an apparent con- flict with Coastal Guidelines and the amount of parking to be provided by this development. Just as the zoning code for the City of Huntington Beach generally calls for two parking spaces per D.U. so do the general Coastal Guidelines call for same amount. But, just as the city of Huntington Beach has amended this requirement to reflect the specific needs of low and moderate income elderly, so has the Coastal Commission consistently lowered this requirement for section 8 elderly developments within their regulatory boundaries. Section 8 elderly developments in Santa Monica and Port Hueneme to name only two similar elderly developments in Coastal Areas have both been granted parking requirements which range from .25 to .33 to 1 instead . of the 2-1 ratio referenced by the EIR as the correct ratio. The city of Huntington Beach has itself granted another section 8 elderly develop- ment a .33 to 1 parking ratio. We ask that the EIR consultants approach the Coastal Commission and HUD directly to confirm our estimates of park- ing needs of similar elderly developments. We also ask that the following references found in the text of the EIR be amended to reflect more accurately the precedents and current policy of the Coastal Commission and the city of Huntington Beach. 17895 SKY PARK CIRCLE,SUITE A ® IRVINE,CA 92714 ® 714-540.8245 • • (p. V-1) " Another such impact may occur on current street parking due to the possibly insufficient number of parking spaces provided for tfie Housing" -(through previous deliberation the Coastal Commission has found that low and moderate income, elderly, section 8 developments require significantly less parking.) (p. IX-10)". . . the Coastal guideline recommends two onsite parking spaces per unit (312 spaces.) The latter requirement would not be met with the proposed parking." (ref, should be made to current Coastal Commission policy or precedents in the case of elderly section 8 developments.) (p. XIV-4, III-2) "A definite adverse impact of the project has been indenti- £ied in relation to the number of on-site parking spaces provided. The Coastal guideline, of two parking spaces per dwelling unit, is not met." (This statement is incorrect. A disparity with Coastal guidelines has been identi- fied but no information has been offered to suggest that Coastal Commission or city policy of permitting lesser parking ratios for elderly section 8 developments is inadequate). 2. Proiect Descrigtion (pp. II-1, Figure II-4 Site Plan) In order to ensure consistency and accuracy we would like to describe the development as a combination of three story residential and three residential stories over bermed..at grade, enclosed parking. We also suggest that the Site Plan which includes a roof plan be substituted for the current Figure I1-4. 3. Protect's Benefits (pp IV-1, X 11-1) We recommend that somewhere in the EIR there should be an expanded discussion of the project's benefits in- cluding but not limited to a further elaboration on elderly housing needs in Huntington Beach (handicapped,current shelter, expenditures, projections etc.) and the positive social implications of the development including but not limited to such things as decreased demand for public services (ie health, security etc.) associated with increased spending capacity. 4. Protect Comnarieons (pp. VIII-1, VIII-6, IX-7, X11-5, XII-8, XII-9, XII-10) The references shown here generally compare the proposed project to "retire- ment communities" or general apartment type developments. 'These comparisons simply do not work. The proposed development includes smaller units re- flecting the needs of the elderly. For instance our current estimates for gas consumption based on similar developments is 1/2 the estimate quoted in the text. Additionally the proposed occupants would be primarily of low and moderate income. This has impact on their ability to own and maintain private transportation, expensive appliances etc. We again recommend that the SIR consultants approach HUD for more specific information related to FHA insured, section 8, elderly developments. 5. Seismicity (p. VII-6) The recommendation that the buildings be built to withstand ground shaking associated with a possible 6.5 magnitude earthquake needs elaboration. What type of shaking, direction etc. What are the references for this require- ment. 6. Police (p. XII-13) The requirement for a six foot wrought iron fence around the entire peri- meter of the housing area and Senior Citizens Center will not complement the aesthetics or the general living environment of the proposed develop- ment. It is felt that through the use of landscaping lighting and design as well as the development of a "drive through" system for police obser- vation, the security and aesthetic requirements and features of the deve- lopment can be preserved. 7. General Comments P. XII-5 - use of the word 'would" is presumptive and might be changed to "should". P. XII-10 - reference to trash compactors should be removed. There is a question as to their "mitigation" function. There is also a trade off related to cost and security which casts doubt on the use of trash com- pactors as a mitigation measure. IX-3 - Dial-a-ride service will also be available to the proposed develop- ment. re CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH \ / To%.� Jim Barnes From Stephen V. Kohler, Senio Associate Planner Community Development Specialist Subject SENIOR CITIZENS HOUSING. AND Date August 2, 1979 RECREATION CENTER: OLD CIVIC CENTER SITE: DRAFT EIR COMMENTS There follows my comments on the subject document: 1 . Page II -. 7, las.t; paragraph I do not feel it is appropriate to characterize the 17th and Orange site as "the most feasible site. . . " for relocation of the Community Clinic. The relocation plans are extremely tentative, and more importantly, relocation of the Clinic to this site has recently met opposition from the Department of Harbors, Beaches, Parks, and Recreation. 2. Page IX - 7, third paragraph While it is true that the Community Clinic will be removed from the site; the TLC Program will operate out of the new senior center. Thus, the trips generated by TLC should be added to total projected ADT' s. 3 . Page IX - 10, second paragraph The parking requirements of one space per 200 square feet cited apply to Site II only, therefore, the commercial square footage should not be included in calculating the required parking spaces since the commercial activity is located on Site I . The Site II parking requirements also apply only to new public facilities and the library is therefore exempt. 4 . Page XIV - 1, "Environmental Setting" The General Plan designation on the site is "Mixed Development. " A General Plan Amendment for the site was approved by the City Council on March 19, 1979. The corresponding footnote (No. 26) and the footnote in "Potential Impact" (No. 27) should be changed as should the map depicting the General Plan designation (Figure XIV - 1) . 5 . Page XV -1, "Environmental Setting" What is the source of demographic information and should it not have a footnote? Of Jim Barnes Page Two 6. Persons and Organizations Contacted The reference to "City Yard" contact person should be "Daryl Smith" not "Gerald. " If I may be of any further assistance, please contact me at extension 5541. Thank you for this opportunity to review the Draft EIR. SVK:gc CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH (!f INTER DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH Jim Palin To Savoy Bellavia From Jim Barnes l ii�- June Catalano Steve Kohler Subject SENIOR CITIZENS HOUSING AND Date July 31, 1979 ACTIVITY CENTER — DRAFT EIR Attached for your review is the preliminary draft environmental impact report for the proposed downtown senior citizens housing and activity center. The purpose of the review at this point is to incorporate the staffs •concerns into the report prior to final distribution to the public. Our schedule calls for submission of comments on the preliminary draft to the consultant by August 6 , so that copies of. the final draft EIR can be printed and delivered by August 10 . Please submit any comments you may have to me by August 3. JRB:df Attachment 1b r CITY OF HUNTINCTON BEACH fly? INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON,BEACH - - - To Michael Zambory, Director From Stephen_ Kohler Public Works Senior Community Development Specialist Subject TRAFFIC COUNTS FOR Date OLD CIVIC CENTER SITE July 12, 1979. In order to complete the Environmental Impact Report for the Old Civic Center Senior Housing Project, traffic counts on streets abutting the project site will be needed (map attached) . Would you please initiate the actions necessary to collect the following data: Two directional/24 . hour volumes .and peak hour Volumes on�' Main Street north of Fifth Street; and Fifth Street west of Main. I appreciate your assistance in this matter. If there are any questions in this regard, please contact me at X5541. SVK/PT/dc f'PLANNNG TONING DM 12 SECTIONAL DISTRICT MA.P II-6-11 F02ND CITY OF _ ADOPTED MARCH 7, 1880 [0 ouxrrD"11I.x^f rx rn Dirw,;n•.•h.nnNr:Y.I>1 -a nrrNw M1Pl rq,r; A. CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.754 .px; 5' r MUfgvll lNYf NI OM1igxi MEN DONUM AW."? DNl: NISDLU (MrNO 'lli ♦xf:lil Ui;rgir � QM__._ �� L.__ iHl� ,rlqu„r>xl lrUy xr,lxUrsiN141 HUNTINGTON BEACH ;:{, �:, >!,, >J•e ;P1 i ypol r:e:f0�.y li XPl bfil xr luti nm l -a-6i are r-M1-rl RN irq� Y e-7-sY aoo I-1-n ez isJ; nNlr.•I nus�alRRcrslr...nf. ., q-I-RY 82p I7-M7 10 Y-!•6[ pia 2>M1 l! .9i1 Yr 1 rrah•iNrel DrR rxir.r la-a-eJ 99> M-l-rO 192! yy,ryi1 1-1,1 Tp 11x1!4Eet,UNeI 1.y•x::r -<-61 0 6-!•15 111a _(I CNYMfM",fete r,rfJ ICNrGI D:lI4rct ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA #a:6 ;zd p: „ too _ Nrutl"PMA19Sr.IN4 DC.rM(r Ifl WiInM1UNxppc Cnuur4:� G.14111 0-1-66 K+° cr' mNl s+ tr x�4r AMENDED BY ZONE CASE: 3-6-ar 1-4 r° ° YO0° q uWx4gl r'r0•1r90.1 4-Ir-e1 Cl'. 10).21734,7,177I-520,,270712,2.13,77,72.2661,,2787-13,22,8727.-1384,728,-316.,7,84-8241,,536,545,66-23,88-41,68-66,67-5, .1344 r.o'of)-�I�snl rlN�Nxgrrxn rtrN fI r.1D- N 1 67 69- 2.70-IU,PP7O-4,713,71.10.71-29,72-33,7243,73-26,74-7,753C,5.7,76"3,76.18 T6-16,67-22,68-35.69-14. 13 69 19 1463 !s11! 1 -Iq "1 > 2 R6-2 x 4no°eu4 corru,4x 1el,rnfr4xW,:r - ] 1-6]0 Ile4 111, - ,GVerW f•wN,011 xx0004frON Ip.191rJ 160M1 R roM ']5J rN nW•-PUUND[D aT PefM II M.UN N[,Rfvf trl.l Nlrf!1 ADAMS AVE. rN•ra.of.1.N.W.oN aa. f ., '•.., �U L—IL_1 l---JI-1 ULJ I 11 11 I �J ��11 L 6: ----- -- -- d ti. }}°bJr �\.aa+R 0 RI-0 RI •/(OIOLDTOWN' 2—`----„f --— /r4�k •h. ��p'r D RI q RI RI q RI R2 �f� -0 'JSPECIFIC PLAN n� _ I•-� by3 bA V.r LOMA AVE roPT^qx n YYllq.._._.--." __. J -._rr .-s'o' II (SMITH!X.I1O0L) •'b•+bPi' _O 1 p ' POPTLIyO_ cq (DISTRICT 2) c: y I F o •0 aJrr O ¢ 172s0 -I ai RIZE.TH RI RI i RI R2 -RI.0 'a _HH D Q O5WEOO AVE. R2•PO-1OC C TH BT. 1 I CF—E RI RI �-0 0 0~ R` - i -D_ �� R2.PD-ID RI RI a RI I - I:I IWYEH S•:ti!}C:.1 R L y NASHVILLE AVE. un_q N� I q'( CRFsr Rf RI Y rWE[-F�~ 9T , _0 R2' PLDTO SPE 1 IC I K R2-Po-10 CF_R ,.�� r y'c I RI RI ILk=.i! "r v^-SN) MEM HIS R2•PD•1O V _ 1!!!� qj R I E�2�)NTH spm =u Mr 1E Mfl 3 CF- 26. R 3T i I r,! RI LrawLN•. vE I R3 ' C4 ti RI RI 9RI� TEN 1 u I!I^^I! �II� II ff ` a RI R2 R2 R I sr.>o , RN � L__J� AVE. i S C� C 1 Ae I R3: R3 RYA'M[6:0gpElK 'P R 2 1(t,a 'v �a al- I. (SECTNIN Q f.:.•I I - AVE-. R3 R2 �11 R3,nvEC: Aj y INL kNAPO'.F lu :. Cf ( HA71 ORD .�. - AVE lj ' 11 4 HEIv -aE a � GE HE VA Ir�� DO o a -•h ;A. - r h rRANAFORT r� �- = Dot to � • 2 1 lo �aoo lam' a� � LMIRA II�1I Irpv-E�.I� s0� ve MH V U 1 Z E DE TR AVE P aj 4'y R2 D A. 0 HICAGD�0�AVE 1. •a CD CJ'y4j C/'SJ .J Q T_._.._..._- rO LJ'h 4J V i r v C cD f BALTIMORE AVE N, - R2-PD (%n Q')A n v p3 4� Gti OG� ATLANTA AVf C` rr IN•:.:N:.` �\ �w�al� ;Nv I�rNf<U rr.,xx:".6 +•�• • i lr;l-f.n xrxr n6e --PURCHASE ORDER PURCHASE ORDER City of Huntington Beach 23290 • BILL TO: ACCOUNTS PAYABLE THIS NUMBER MUST POST OFFICE BOX 190 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CALIFORNIA 92648 APPEAR ON t (714)536.5221 PACKAGES AND INVOICES t DATE 06/29/79 (iUI�I IU wt 1, 1409C+40e�g TRUST= ACCOUNT — WM. LYON IR CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEA ZOO e H 'DEVELOPMENT SVCS(PLANNING) N 1 D P O R T O F.O.B. Destination Delivery within Confirm Plus Frt.Prepay &Add: Terms: 0 days DEPOSIT TO TRUST ACCOUNT FOR PREPARATION OF ENVIROMENTAL IMPACT REPORT BY PACIFIC ENSIROM£NTAL SERVICES, INC. FOR WILLIAM LYON COMPANY 4642•00 I 1 TOTAL --► 4642,00- TERMS AND CONDITIONS ON REVERSE FORM A PART OF THIS ORDER 1' 1 ROY HOW,Purchasing Officer City of Huntington Beach 232078 4642,00 2 3 4 5 6 REQ. NBR. AMOUNT REQ. NBR. AMOUNT REQ. NBR. AMOUNT DEPARTMENT CITY OF HunTin (; T ® n BEACH DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES P. O. BOX 190, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648 (714) 536-5271 June 29, 1979 Ms. Patti O' Brien Pacific Environmental Services 1930 14th Street Santa Monica, California 90404 SUBJECT: Environmental Impact Report; Old Civic Center Project Dear Ms. O' Brien: Thank you for your attendance at our meeting of June 25, 1979, and please forward my thanks to Ms ., Jane Baker as well. . Enclosed you will find the following information for use in the preparation of the EIR: 1. Request for Proposal, including soils report and summary of projects; 2. Fifth Year Housing and Community Development Block Grant Appli- cation, including a summary of previous years ' programs; 3. William Lyon Company Proposal, this is our only copy, please return it to us. The Draft Specific Plan Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance and Site Survey, will be. forwarded to you under separate cover when available. If I may be of any assistance to you during the preparation of the EIR, please do not hesitate to phone me at (714) 536-5541. I look forward to working with you. Very truly yours, Stephen V. Kohler Senior Community Development Specialist SVK:gc Enclosures (3) a CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH �• INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH ram, =% To Jim Barnes From Stephen V. Kohler, ge for Associate Planner Community Development Specialist :.'_Subject PAYMENT OF EIR FEES; :OLD CIVIC Date June 26, 1979 +f.•.:'. CENTER PROJECT You are in receipt of a check from the William Lyon Company for payment of costs for preparation of an EIR on the subject project..';.,., ' : The amount of this check is calculated as follows : z^ ` EIR Consultant Fees: $2,228 .00 City Administration Fee $ 505 . 50 } $2,733. 50 This is based on cost information supplied by Mrs. Patti O'Brian. of PES and the Administration Fee is calculated on a value of ' $3 . 8 mil]-ion for the housing construction. If you c�lnuld have any questions, please call me at Extension ' 5541. SVK:gc .t. FileW � � � , From TO -YearTitle Year � . Subject FWN w on << Mg 1," .�:•.MT � �f/r� •� �GlL�'�/����/.._� ������: I� Alt! � r a� FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT EIR 79-1 SENIOR CITIZE14S HOUSING AND ACTIVITY CENTER HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA • Prepared for City of Huntington Beach ap 1 F•"�••f Lr - . '-fci4 ^ ,;�f October 1979 #.fa'ri1 , Pacific Environmental Services,iNc. CORPORATE AND ENGINEERING 1930 14th Street Santa Monica,California 90404 Telephone (213)450.1800 aA MIDWEST OPERATIONS 465 Fullerton Avenue Elmhurst,Illinois 60126 Telephone (312) 530-7272 s-,. ,_ . TABLE OF CONTENTS i Section Page List of Figures . . . . vi List of Tables . . . . . . ... . .... . . . . vi " Addendum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1 A. Authority for the Study . . . . I-1 B. Purpose of the F.E. I'.R. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . I-1 C. Initial Study and Insignificant Impacts . . . . . . . I-2 II . PROJECT DESCRIPTION • • ... . . . . . . • . . . • • • . II-1 I A. Regional -Setting . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-1 { B. Project Location 'and Zoning-' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-1 C. Scope of the Proposed Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-1 III . ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE f AVOIDED IF THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED III-1 IV. THE RELATIONSHIP _BETWEEN .LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF MAN'.S ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND a ENHANCEMENT OF 1ONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY . . . . . IV-1 -_ " i V. IRREVERSIBLE EN VIRONMENTAL 'CHANGES WHICH WOULD OCCUR WITH IMPLEMENTATION ''OF ,THE_PROPOSED PROJECT. V-1 VI . GROWTH - INDUCING IMPACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-1 i r 1 i Section Page VII SEISMICITY AND SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE . . . ..... . . . . . . . VII-1 A. Seismicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII-1 Environmental Setting . . . VII-1 Potential Impact . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII-6 Mitigation Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII-6 B. Surface Water Drainage . . . . . . . . . . . .. ... . . ... . . . . . . VII-7 Environmental Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . VII-7 Potential Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . VII-7 Mitigation Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII-7 VIII . CLIMATE AND AIR QUALITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII-1 r A. Climate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII-1 Environmental Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII-1 , Potential Impact VIII-1 Mitigation Measures VIII-1 B Air Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII-1 Environmental Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII-1 Potential Impact : • • • • • • • . . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . : VIII-1 I Mitigation Measues VIII-7 i IX. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION IX-1 . A. Environmental Setting . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX-1. t B. Potential Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX-3 C. Mitigation Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . IX-10 j I ! i X. HISTORIC RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X-1 J "1 A. Environmental Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X-1 i B. Potential Impact . . X-1 C. Mitigation Measures . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X-1 i XI'. NOISE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XI-1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i A. Environmental Setting XI-1 B. Potential Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XI-4 C. Mitigation Measures . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XI-6 i 1 r i t Section page 1 XII . PUBLIC UTILITIES AND SERVICES . . . .. . . . XII-1 40 i A. Electricity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XII-1 Environmental Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XII-1 Potential Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XII-1 + Mitigation Measures XII-3 ( B. Natural Gas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XII-3 Environmental Setting . . . . . . . . . . . XII-3 Potential Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XII-3 Mitigation Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XII-5 _C. Telephone Service XII-6 Environmental Setting . . . . . . . XII-6 Potential Impact XII-6 ( Mitigation Measures : . XII-6 D. Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XII-6 Environmental Setting . . . XII-6 i -Potential Impact. . : . . . . . . XII-8 Mitigation Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XII-8 E. Sewage . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . XII-8 Environmental Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XII-8 Potential Impact .. . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XII-9 Mitigation Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XII-9 F. Solid Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XII-9 Enviromental Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . XII-9 Potential Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XII-10 Mitigation Measures . . . . XII-10 i G. Police . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XII-10 Enviromental Setting . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XII-10. Potential Impact . . . . . . . XII-11 • . • . • . • • . . . Mitigation Measures . . • . . . . . . • XII-13 jH. Fire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XII-13 II' Enviromental Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . XII-13 I Potential Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XII-14 Mitigation Measures XII-14 I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I . Parks and Recreation XII-15 j Environmental Setting . XII-15 Potential Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XII-15 Migitation Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XII-15 I I Section Page. I XIII . AESTHETICS . . . . . . . . . XIII-1 A. Environmental Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XIII-1 B. Potential Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XIII-1 C. Mitigation Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XIII-4 XIV. LAND USE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : XVI-1 A. Zoning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XVI-1 j Environmental Setting . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . .. XVI i Potential Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XVI-1 Mitigation Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XVI-1 B. Local Coastal Program . . . . . . . . . . . . XVI-1 Environmental Setting XVI-1 � I Potential" Impact. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XVI-3 Mitigation Measures . . . . . XVI-5 XV. HOUSING AND POPULATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XV-1 A. Environmental Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XV-1 j B. Potential Impact: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . XV-1 ! C. Mitigation Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XV-1 1 XVI . FISCAL ANALYSIS . . . . . XVI-1 i i XVII . LIGHTING AND GLARE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XVII-1 i A. Environmental Setting XVII-1 j i B. Potential Impact . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . ... . XVII-1. C. Mitigation Pleasures . . . . . . . . . . XVII-1 1 i i XVIII .. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT XVIII-1 A. No Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XVIII-1 i B. Alternate Siting . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XVIII-1 C. Alternate Density . . . . . . . . . . . . . XVIII-2 i D. Open Space . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . .... . . . . . . . . . . XVIII-2 II i IV N� j }. I i i Section Pa ge XIX. FOOTNOTES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XIX-1 XX. BIBLIOGRAPHY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XX-1 XXI . PARTICIPANTS.. . . . . . . . XXI-1 XXII. PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONTACTED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XXII-1 I APPENDIX A_ - INITIAL STUDY. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1 f APPENDIX B -'TRIP GENERATIONS . . ... . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1 LEVEL OF SERVICE. . . . . . . . . . . B-2 ' APPENDIX C - PUBLIC UTILITIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1 APPENDIX D - CALCULATIONS (WATER, SEWAGE, AND" SOLID WASTE). D-1 APPENDIX E - TREE REPORT. . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . E-1 APPENDIX F - COASTAL ZONE ISSUES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-1 r J APPENDIX G - COST AND REVENUE CALCULATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-1 I APPENDIX H - COMMENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-1 ji I i i v i i I LIST OF FIGURES i r Figure Page . II-1 Regional . Setting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-2 LI-2 Proposed Project Site Location. . . . . . . . . II-3 I II-3 Existing Structure. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-4 II-4 Site Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... II-5 VII-1 Selected Faults in the Southern California Area. . . . . VII-2 i VII-2 Location of Earthquake Epicenters Along and Near Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII-4 VII-3 Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone and. Geologic Conditions in Huntington Beach. . . . . . . . . . . . VII-5 IX-1 Level. of Service Figure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX-5 IX Bus Stop Locations. . . . . IX-6 - IX-3 Intersection Configuration. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . IX-8 XI-1 Noise Monitoring Points. . . XI-2 j . XII-1 Existing Natural Gas Line. . XII-4 XII-2 ' Existing Underground Telephone Cabl.es:. . . . . . .. . . ... . . . . XII-7 XIII-1 Location of Palm Trees. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XIII-2 XIII-2 Apartment Building Length and Height. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XIII-3 C XIII-3 Apartment Building Schematic. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XIII-3 XIV-1 Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XIV-2 LIST OF TABLES I. A Table Page II-1 Square Footage of Proposed Project. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-6 }_ VII-1 Earthquakes in Southern California. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII-3 VIII-1 Vehicular Emissions - Driving to and From Site - 1981 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII-3 VIII-2 Orange County Emission Inventory, 1976� (ton/day) . . . . . VIII-4 VIII-3 Emissions from Electric Power Generation. . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII-5 E . r IX-1 Current Weekday Traffic Volumes (July 17, 1979) . . . . . . IX-2 i IX-2 Existing Volume-to-Capacity Ratio. . . . . . . . . IX-4 I IX-3 Post-Project Volume-to-Capacity Ratio. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX-9 5 XI-1 Noise .Level Measurements (July 10, 1979) . . . . . . . . . . . . . XI-3 XI-2 Construction Equipment Noise Levels. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XI-5 XII-1 Expected Electricity Consumption. . XII-2 i XII-2 Crime Occurrence in Area of Proposed Project. . . . . . . . . XII-12 i i vi i 1 ADDENDUM This section contains a summary of the comments received on the Draft EIR during the public review period and the response i • to those comments. The letters containing the actual comments are attached in Appendix N. { • I • f P • i • a vii i m ; I ; I COMMENT NO. 1: RALPH R. LEYVA, TRAFFIC ENGINEER I ; CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH A � I - i Comment ,A ' While the traffic analysis portion of the EIR is adequate,. there didn't seem to be any analysts or discussion regarding the demand or .supply of parking for the development. Also, Senior JI 1 i s Housing and Activity Centers constructed recently n j Citizen l Orange County have demonstrated inadequate parking spaces after :1 the Center has been in operation for l year. A possible under.- estimation .of the mobility of seniors through the use of d automobiles was suggested. i Response j The discussion on page IX-10 of the. Draft EIR stated that a total of 54 on-site parking spaces would be provided for the apartments. The Senior Citizen Center parking lot would have 50 on-site spaces with 65 curb parking spaces (total of 115). The t.,H Specific Plan for this development would require one on-site b is parking space-. per three residential units (52 spaces). The Plan . would also require one off.-street parking space for every 200 square feet of building area (50 spaces for the Activity Center) `i The project conforms to these requirements. For a further discussion of the adequacy of the proposed parking, please refer to r ; the Response to Comment No. 6 on page 6 ,of this .Addendum. COMMENT NO. 2: CAROL INGE, ASSISTANT PLANNER I CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH s Comment A paragraph should be added to Section II, Project Description, which gives a brief history and purpose. of the project. >? - viii i 1 � { r 0 (!( i 1 . • � Response The project site was once the location of the Huntington Beach Civic Center and main library. The Civic Center was moved in 1973-1974 and the site now contains the Community Clinic, library • annex, old Memorial Hall and an assortment of community service offices .and trailers. The City maintained the policy to retain the site for community service or recreational uses. The project site • was designated a Planning Reserve in General Plan Amendment 76-1A I until finalized plans were developed for the site. On September 18, 1978, the City Council endorsed the use of the site for a: new senior citizen housing and recreation complex to replace. the exist- ing senior citizen center located at Orange Avenue and Seventeenth Street. At this time, the Planning Staff was autho.rized to request proposals from developers for construction of the project under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Housing and Community Development Program. The Mixed Development designation for the site was necessary since the project encom- passes housing, recreation facilities, the branch library and limited on-site service commercial.. The residential units are intended for low- and moderate-income senior citizens only. The rents on all the units will be below { market rates as set forth in a. rent schedule submitted to the City and additional O.C.H.A. subsidies will. be available for 49 .percent of. the units. COMMENT NO. 3: CAROL INGE, ASSISTANT PLANNER CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Comment Section XIV, Land Use, should include a paragraph on general land use impacts.. This paragraph might describe existing land use f ix i i i t I- t i on the site, the changes that would be brought about by the proposed project., and a finding as to whether these changes would be consistent with the policies set forth in the City's adopted I. Land Use Element. I : - II Response I . Environmental Setting The site' s current General Plan designation is. Mixed Develop- •', ment, and was formerly used as the City's Civic Center. The site now contains a library, the .Community Clinic, the old Memorial _ Hall the old Fire Station and Administration Building. In .addi- j tion to the Community Clinic and the library, the other major I public use of the site is the Transportation-Lunch-Counseling Program which occupies the Administration Building. i Potential Impact ;a The proposed project would result in the removal of the Commu- 1 nity Clinic to another (as yet to be determined) site in the City. i Library use will not be affected and the Transportation-Lunch- ? Counseling Program will- move its services into the proposed Activity Center. The project would introduce high density residential and a `s small amount of commercial use to the site. The project is compat- ` ible with policies stated in the City's Land Use Element. These 1 policies include its contribution to the .revitalization of the ! a downtown. area; its introduction of higher densities of people and dwelling units near .the beach; its aid in reestablishing a beach orientation for Huntington Beach residents; and its combining a i community recreation center and branch library in one. area. ol i I ;!. y :l i COMMENT NO. 4: CAROL INGE, ASSISTANT PLANNER 'CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ! Comment The statistics.that are based on 1979 Special Census data. should be identified as such in the text rather than in a footnote at the back of the EIR. This would avoid confusion by clarifying why the number given for elderly households .that spend more than 25 percent of their income on housing does. not match the SCAG j estimates of elderly. families in need of assistance. In addition, while identifyi.ng the Housing Element Draft as a source of. data, Section XV might also explain briefly that our Planning Division has just completed this up-to-date document. The EIR might state a finding as to whether the proposed project's r ' impact on housing would be consistent with the policies stated in the. Housing Element Draft. Response ! On .page XV-1, the 1979 Special Census is referenced .in the text at the end of the first paragraph. This change appears in italicized print. i In addition, the information on the recently completed Housing Element Draft is included on Page XV-1, after the second paragraph. This information appears in italicized print. COMMENT NO. 5: CAROL INGE, ASSISTANT PLANNER CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 1 Comment The calculations in Section XVI , Fiscal Analysis, were based on figures that were 2 to 4 years out-of-date. Now there are current I xi ! r , figures available that would update this section of the EIR. Response :. i A computerized fiscal impact model is now .available to provide . these updated calculations. COMMENT NO. 6: .THE LYON CO.; KANNANITZER, COTTON, VREELAND; AND HOUSING CONCEPTS 1, Comment Statements questioning adequacy of parking were found on pages. x :I II-1, III-2, V-1, IX-10 and XIV-4 of the EIR. The zoning codes for both the City of Huntington Beach and the Coastal Guidelines. gener- ally call for two parking spaces per dwelling unit. i But, just as the city of Huntington Beach has amended this requirement to reflect the specific needs of low- and moderate- : t income elderly, so has the Coastal Commission consistently lowered this requirement for section 8 elderly developments within their j 1==' regulatory boundaries. Section 8 elderly developments in Santa s i Monica and Port Hueneme, to name only two similar elderly develop- ments in coastal areas, have both been ranted parking requirements- which 9 P 9t range from .25 to .33 - 1 instead of the 2-1 ratio referenced by the EIR as the correct ratio. The City of Huntington Beach has j itself granted another section 8 elderly development a .33 - 1 parking ratio. It was suggested that the EIR consultants approach ! !r, the Coastal Commission and HUD directly to confirm the estimates of r. parking needs of similar elderly developments. It was also suggested that the following references found in the text of the EIR be amended to reflect more accurately the . j precedents and current policy of the Coastal Commission and the s City of Huntington Beach. j xii i � I I (p. V-1 ) "Another such impact may occur on current street parking due to, the possibly insufficient number of parking spaces provided for the Housing" -(through previous deliberation the • Coastal Commission .has found that low and moderate income, elderly,- section 8 developments require significantly lessparking. ) � P q 9 Y (p. IX-10) ". the Coastal guideline recommends two on-site parking spaces per unit (312 spaces. ) The latter requirement would • not be met with. the proposed parking." (Reference should be made f i to current Coastal Commission policy or precedents in the case of elderly section 8 developments.) (p. XIV-4, III-2) "A definite adverse impact of .the project has been identified in relation to the number of on-site parking spaces provided. The Coastal guideline, of two parking spaces per dwell- ing unit, is not met." (This statement is incorrect. A disparity r with Coastal guidelines has been identified but no information has been offered to suggest that Coastal Commission or city policy of permitting lesser parking ratios for elderly section 8 developments is inadequate. ) Response A member of the City's Local Program Staff was again contacted to substantiate this comment. The Coastal Commission was contacted jand verified the variance granted for parking requirements in developments of this nature.. The proposed .33 - 1 ratio would most likely be accepted by the Coastal Commission. To this end, the following corrections have been made to the Draft EIR: ` Page No. Corrections III-2 Last sentence has been deleted. V-1 Last sentence of the second paragraph .has been deleted. I xiii i a a IX-10 Lines 7 through 11 have 3 been deleted. XIV-4 The last two sentences on ; the page have been deleted XIV-5 In line 6, delete the word ..may.. � I COMMENT. NO. 7: THE LYON CO.; KAMNITZER, COTTON, VREELAND; AND HOUSING CONCEPTS Comment In order to ensure consistency and accuracy, describe the development as a combination of three story residential and three , residential stories over bermed, at grade, enclosed parking. The } Site Plan, which includes a roof plan, should be substituted for r' the current Figure II-4 is ! ' Response Oil On page. II-1, Section C, the first sentence should read as follows: "The proposed project would entail the construction of 156 senior citizen apartments, which are a combination of three story j residential and three residential stories over bermed, at grade, t enclosed parking; a new one story senior citizen center; and 4,000 square feet of commercial use (refer to Figure II-4) ." Figure II-4 has been changed as suggested. . •� f COMMENT NO. 8: THE LYON CO.; KAMNITZER, COTTON, VREELAND; AND HOUSING CONCEPTS ' r ' i i 3 i Comment A paragraph elaborating the benefits of the project should be $ added. '� xi v v i I f i 1 • Response Please refer to the responses to comments 2 and .3 of this. Addendum. ! COMMENT NO. 9: THE LYON CO. ; KAMNITZER, COTTON, VREELAND; AND HOUSING CONCEPTS Comment The consumption rates for gas, electricity, water, sewage and . solid waste compare the proposed project to "retirement communi- ties" or general apartment type developments. These comparisons do not work since the proposed development includes smaller units reflecting the needs of the elderly. Also, the proposed occupants would be primarily of low and moderate-income which affects their ability to own and maintain private transportation and expensive appliances. More specific 'informat.ion should be obtained from HUD i to rework these estimates. Response j ! The factors that were used to derive the estimates include a i margin of error. If these calculations indicated that a signifi- cant adverse impact would occur, then a change would be warranted. Since no significant impact .is expected with the figures used, changes are not necessary.. i COMMENT NO. 10: THE LYON CO. • KAMNITZER COTTON, VREELAND• AND HOUSING CONCEPTS f Comment The recommendation on page VII-6 that the buildings be built to withstand ground shaking associated with a possible 6.5 magnitude - - xv - ! earthquake needs elaboration. What type of shaking, direction, etc. What are the references for this requirement. i Response i � The project site is not located in. the hazards- zone as indi- cated by the Alquist-Priolo Geologic Hazards Map. Therefore, the project would be required to have the buildings conform to the 1976. i. typical standard of the Uniform Building Code. This recommends that the structures should withstand ground shaking of 6.5 magnitude. "The amount of surface displacement will vary with the magni- tude of the event, as does the intensity of ground shaking. The , state of knowledge of subsurface geologic conditions beneath the f City of Huntington Beach and the state-of-the-art does not Y 9 permit accurate estimation of either the length or magnitude of future { f surface faulting to be expected from a given magnitude earthquake-occurring within the Newport-Inglewood Structural Zone."* The i I' details on type of shaking and direction of movement are not . is warranted for- this document. j di } COMMENT NO. 11: THE LYON CO. ; KAMNITZER, COTTON, VREELAND; ' AND HOUSING CONCEPTS EComment . 1 � The requirement for a six foot wrought iron fence around the entire perimeter of the housing area and Senior Citizens Center will not complement the aesthetics or the general living environ- ment - of the proposed development. It is felt that through the use { of landscaping lighting and design as well as the development of a j . "drive through" system for police observation, the security and is aesthetics requirements and features of the development can be ► . preserved. l � �I , i i i ' Xvl i I i 4 Response The six-foot wrought iron fence .-was a recommendation and' not a r requirement. The purpose of the EIR is not to draw conclusions, but to offer possible mitigation measures supplied by the police department. COMMENT NO. 12: THE LYON CO.; KAMNITZER, COTTON, VREELAND; AND HOUSING. CONCEPTS Comment • P. XII-5 = use of the word "would" is presumptive and might be changed to "should". P. XII-10 - reference to trash compactors should be removed. There is a question as to their "mitigation" function. There is ! . .also .a tradeoff related to cost and security. which casts doubt on the use of trash compactors as a mitigation measure. IX-3 - Dial-a-ride service will also be available to the • proposed development. Response f` These changes have been made in the text and appear in • I italicized print on the appropriate pages. f * Huntington Beach Planning Department, Geotechnical Inputs, February 1974. • • xvii COMMENT NO. 13: JAMES GEORGES, DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY i CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Comment '; If .the developer has a cost overrun; which is not unlikely, who pays for the costs over $550,000.00 of the Federal - Housing and Development Funds (Section XVI and Appendix G)? , Response If there is a cost overrun on the housing portion of the t I project, the developer would be responsible for the additional money. If there is a cost overrun on. the Activity Center portion of the development, the City would be required to absorb the additional costs. i Ij I L Ili 1:1 :I I 1 �6` ; , xviii • I.. INTRODUCTION A. Authority for the Study Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (Public Resource Code, Sections 21000 et seq.) as amended and. adopted by the California Resources Agency", this Environmental Impact Report has been prepared, as authorized by the City of Huntington Beach, for the proposed senior citizen housing/activity center. -B. Purpose of the Focused Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) The purpose of this document is to analyze those impacts that have been determined significant as a result of the proposed pro- ject. An Initial Study (refer to Appendix A) has identified the impacts considered significant, which are evaluated in this Focused � . Environmental Impact. Report (FEIR) . This FEIR is in compliance with all applicable guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act, as. adopted by the City of Huntington Beach. . The potentially significant impact areas determined from the Initial Study are as follows: • Seismic Hazards • Air Quality • • Noise Light and Glare • Land Use • Population • Housing • Transportation and Circulation • Public Services and Utilities • Aesthetics • • Historic Resources C. Initial Study and Insignificant Impacts ;j i The Initial Study has determined that the areas listed above j would potentially be impacted with implementation of the proposed project. Therefore, their inclusion. in a Focused EIR was deemed necessary. The Initial Study also indicated those areas which would not be significantly affected. Impacts on geologic substructures and soil-s were determined insignificant as well as impacts on hydrology . { and water quality. Significant alterations to native plant and animal life were also discounted in the Initial Study. The risk of an explosion or release of hazardous substances would not i occur with implementation .of the proposed project. Finally, a significant increase in energy consumption would not occur and ad- verse -effects on human health and recreational opportunities would y not result. t 1 ' ' t • ti ' i 4 4 I S I-2 • • II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. Regional Setting The proposed project would be located in the City of Hunting- ton Beach which is situated along the Southern California. co.astline. in Orange County (refer to Figure II-1 ) . The City limits extend approximately 4 miles inland. The City is .linked to other coastal_ communities by Pacific Coast Highway. The proposed project site is located 4 blocks from the ocean within the California Coastal Zone. B. Project Location. and Zoning - The proposed project site is situated between Orange Avenue and Main Street and Fifth and Sixth Streets in downtown Huntington Beach (refer to Figure 11-2) . The site's current General Plan designation is Mixed Development, and was formerly used as the City' s Civic Center. A specific plan amendment to the zoning ordinance will be required (refer to Section XV) . The site contains five municipal buildings and a number of temporary structures (refer to Figure II-3) . It also includes a portion of the Pecan. Avenue right-of-way, which • is presently used for onsite parking and pedestrian access. The proposed project site comprises approximately 3.64 gross acres. C. Scope of the Proposed Project The proposed project would entail the construction of 156 senior citizen apartments in a three story structure, a new one story senior citizen center, and 4,000 square feet of commercial use (refer to Figure 11-4) . The square footage of each project element • is presented in Table 11-1 . Fifty-four parking spaces for the apartments and 50 onsite car spaces for the senior center would be provided. • I II-1 is I _ ;i ' „SOUTHEAST �� ;�/� •--� /�;/ - COASTAL PLAIN � (ORANGE COUNTY). Iicift'v 0 //j'/�•. / j � I�. � � // / /i , ,,. .., • area - �/i//// ! / / Ye'llic LUAU NLLf11TON / - I. : Erne Pma -�h0 u ANA i�:"/ %// ' .% h►w ear•....erre. I H.e // Vdle swntm -i. y •mean Ynorc " % I N"vy,Qry - "NTA ANA 14, xz Maen � i e / to Maq°rl been / / I ( � Figure II-1 . Regional Setting i II-2 � s ADAMS -AVE. �,/•j v U LJL.J LJLJ ULJ L Ln DEB HR �•4 lIK O-� r[ on BE 00 i� ryCr .y e,rpp0 •/.�/ � .ter � i � \111/1 ez" \ `j � • e® � YNa AVE -r CF; F ATi ANTA - AVE r �� Site Boundary Figure II-2. Proposed Project Site Location 1 II-3 a SIXTH STItER s � a i 2 ID ED ;— Mal ® 6D ® s 4 r Z IL ® ® ® ED � s � FlFTH STREET Figure II-3. Existing Structures UBRLcFY LI �` dt ,,'r�,-r c1 - .. �� ^ice.! `�`• (-1NC' �1T' - - -- -� }+��!- [ / ITT 91 - C�R Cl-, HENS MOUSING SR CITIZFNS CENTEFt Figure II-4. Site Plan 1 FF Table II-1 . SQUARE- FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED PROJECT i I:! Proposed Use Square Feet Apartments. 108,445 Senior Center 10,000 Garage 14,300 Commercial 41000 Total 136,745 f it r 1 .I II-6 ;. I a J a f • • In addition to the above-mentioned construction, the exterior of the existing library on the northern portion of.the site would be rehabilitated. Such a rehabilitation would include the addi- tion of a walled sitting area. Also, garden walls and an open arcade would be added to both the library and activity center. In order to prepare the site for the new construction and rehabilitation of the library, certain buildings would be removed. These buildings would include the Memorial Hall , the Fire Station, Administration Building, and the Community Clinic. The Memorial Hall, Administration Building, and Fire Station would be demolished. The City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department would salvage portions of the structures, such as air conditioning units and bannisters. Demolition would begin in September 1980 and last approximately four .weeks. It would also be expected that the bricks. that make up the Memorial Hall would be salvaged by the demo- lition company as partial payment for their work. The Community Clinic would be moved to another site in the City. As yet, an alternative site -has not been selected. The Transportation-Lunch-Counseling (TLC) program, currently utilizing the Administration Building, will be moved to the proposed acti- -vity center. Funding for the proposed project would be the combined re- sources of the developer, the City's Housing and Community Develop- ment, General Fund, and Section 8 Leased Housing Assistance Program. ,F II-7 I III . ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED The adverse environmental effects resulting from the project's implementation are discussed thoroughly within the specific environ- • mental impact and mitigation measure sections of this report. In summary, the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts assoc iated with the proposed project's implementation include the following: 1 . A minimal adverse impact upon the ambient air quality of the Huntington Beach area would result from related automobile emissions and gas consumption by the project. 2. There would be a minimal adverse impact upon the ambient air quality in the area where electrical generation for • the project occurs. 3. There -would be an increase of approximately 443 average daily trips (ADT) on the surrounding road system. 4. Ambient noise levels on the site would increase as a • result of the higher level of activity of the site. A slight increase in noise could also occur along nearby roadways due to the additional traffic expected. 5. There would be an increase in the demand for water, electricity, and natural gas. 6. There would be an increase in demand for police and fire services. 7. The development would generate approximately 918 pounds of solid waste daily. 8. Less than one acre of open space would be lost. 9. There would be a slight increase in surface water run- off due to the placement of additional impervious sur- faces on the site. 10. An increase in the amount of illumination. on the site would occur. 11 . Approximately 20,280 gallons of sewage daily would • be added to the existing sewer system. } 0 • • IV. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL AND SHORT-TERM USES OF MAN 'S ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY • Cumulative and long-term adverse effects that would result with implementation of the proposed project include additional traffic generation, .deterioration of existing air quality, and additional noise. Individually, mitigation, measures for each impact area could • be implemented, but the cumulative effect of these impacts could be , considered significant. Another long-term effect of the project would- be the loss of open space on the southern portion of the site. The adverse effect of this loss, however, could be considered as a trade- off for the establishment of recreational activities on the site. As discussed in Section XV of this report,. approximately 1 ,075 elderly and handicapped households in the City are in need of housing r assistance. This information would justify the timeliness of the proposed project. IV-1 V. IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES WHICH WOULD OCCUR WITH IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT Implementation of the proposed Housing and Activity Center would require commitments of both renewable and nonrenewable resources. Long-term commitments of land, energy (fossil fuels, natural gas , and electricity) , water, and additional police and fire services would accompany the approval and implementation of the proposed project. A significant irreversible impact would be the generation of solid waste in an area that presently utilizes the Coyote Canyon landfill .as a dump site. r V-1 • VI . GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT The proposed housing would not foster population growth, since it would be accommodating an existing need for low to moderate income housing. An increase in the demand for the services of the Police, Fire, and Public Works (water, sewage, drainage) Departments of the City would result. The increase in demand for services, when • evaluated in terms of .related developments occurring in the City that are also increasing the service demands, could be considered a significant secondary impact. In addition, when the existing Senior Citizen Activity Center is moved into its new building, the old Center will . be available for use. If the Community Clinic were to relocate there (or any other use) , adverse impacts could occur in the area surrounding r that site. - It would be necessary, during the selection process for the new Community Clinic location, to evaluate potential impacts, such as traffic, air quality, noise, land use, and public services and utilities. Such an analysis would also be necessary in deter- mining a proper use for the vacated existing Senior Citizen Activity Center. ` VI-1 I. • VII . SEISMICITY AND SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE A. Seismicity • Environmental Setting Recurring accumulations and releases of tension. in the geologic substrait result in systems of faults or zones of weakness, some of which are likely to be associated with future earthquakes. • Faults which have been associated with recorded earthquakes or . which show indications of relative movement within Holocene geo logic time (generally considered to be within the last 11 ,000 years) are referred to as "active faults". Other faults which do not show. • Holocene relative movement and have not been related to recorded earthquake activity are considered "inactive" . The City of Huntington Beach is located in a seismically active area, and in close proximity to several of the many active and potentially active faults in southern California. Active or potentially active faults that could significantly affect the city include the San Andreas and Newport-Inglewood Faults. The loca- tion of the project site in relation to these and. other nearby faults is shown in Figure VII -1 Since 1915, 32 earthquakes have occurred in southern Califor- nia with Richter Scale magnitudes equal. to or exceeding 6.0. A summary of these events is presented in Table VII -1 . Figure VII -2 is a map showing the locations of past earth- quakes with magnitudes greater than 3.0 having epicenters in the proximity of the project site along the Newport-Inglewood fault zone. This fault zone, which is capable of generating earthquakes up to magnitudes 6 to 6.5, runs through Huntington Beach and is characterized by many active fault traces. The project site is located about 1 ,000 feet to the southwest of one of these fault traces ( refer to Figure VII-3) . VII-1 A. f. y # PALMDALE .�. i Ni= R! 0 0� ! e ` :I ,.••,lull e� LOS -.$ANGELES s �IIOu Ce��i• e RIVERSIDE pi _ !�• \ SANNTTAANA ��-- HUNT I NGTON BEACH + Source: Greenstelder, 1972 � It.j Figure VII -1 . Selected Faults in the Southern California Area ! , 3 ;i j VII-2 • Table VII-1 . EARTHQUAKES IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIAa Degrees Degrees Date (N) ("' ) Magnitude Region June 23, 1915 32. 8 115. 5 - 6. 2 Calexico, BC November 21, 1915 32. 0 1 15. 0 7. 1 Colorado Delta, BC October 23, 1916 34. 9 118. 9 6. 0 Tejon Pass April 21, 1.918 33. 7 117..0 6. 8 San Jacinto July 23, 1923 . 34. 0 117. 2 6. 2 Riverside June 29,. 192 _• 34. 3 1 19. 8 6. 3 Santa Ba rba ra September. 18, 1927 37. 5 118. 7 .6. 0 Long Valley . March .11 , 1933 33..6 118. 0 6. 3 Long Beach . December 30, 1924 32: 2 115. 5 6. 5 Colorado Delta, BC December 31, 1934 32. 0 114. 7 7. 1 Colorado Delta, BC February 24, 1935 32. 0 115. 2 6. 0 Colorado Delta, BC March 25, 1937 33. 5 116. 6 .6. 0 Terv�illiger Valley . May 19, 1940 32. 7 115. 5 7. 1 Imperial Valley r December 8, 1940 31. 7 115. 1 6. 0 Colorado Delta, BC July 1 , 1941 34. 3 119. 6 6. 0 Santa Barbara October 21, 1942 -33. 0 116. 0 6. 5 Lower Borrego Valley March 15, 1946 35. 7 118. 0 6. 3 Walker Pass April 10, 1947 35. 0 116. 5 6. 4 Manix December 4, 1948 33. 9 116. 4 6.. 5 Desert Hot Springs July 21, 1952 35. 0 119. 0 7. 7 Kern County July 21 , 1952. 35. 0 119. 0 6. 4 Kern County aftershock July- 23, 1952 35. 4 118. 6 6. 1 Kern County aftershock July 29, 1952 35. 4 118. 8 6. 1 Kern County aftershock March 19, 1954 33. 3 116. 2 6. 2 Santa Rosa Mountains October 24, .1954 31. 5 116. 0 6. 0 Agua Blanca, BC November 12, 1954 31. 5 .116. 0 6. 3 Agua Blanca, BC _. February 9, 1956 31 . 7 115..9 6. 8 San Miguel, BC February 9, .1956 31 . 7 115. 9 6. 1 San Miguel aftershock February 14, 1956 31 . 5 115. 5 6. 3 San Miguel aftershock February 15, 1956 31. 5 115. 5 6. 4 San Miguel aftershock April 9, 1968 33. 2 116. 1 6. 4 Borrego Valley .February 19, 1971 34. 4 118. 4 6. 4 San Fernando Source: California Legislature, Joint Committee on Seismic Safety, "The San Fernando Earthquake of February 9, 1971 and Public Policy" . July 1972 a Magnitude 6.0 and greater in the Southern California region, including the northern- most area of Baja California, 1912-1971 VII-3 i'. \ t�Y_ ��- v�•'. DKDC D bC j •,:�,+.iDAB J[l• '�; i5: ''.;.,'�'.d• N r , i....,..._�"/`?DK�---•lam- .,,�.pK bc • !''� a+ANT/ YON101 YTS -� f'.:•. •,,: OYYON i/ ... .. ,/� � .•.,;,., ,ram. �Y'.. i��RI ���� .tix* •.'`pKDC .�'••. ,�'•.• /I V4 LL +. SAN -eEIRNARDINO i .,d ,��t la r:•.-�. -•!11 *. �.ter �. .� •t•���' P. VALLEY 'i B•••t r't I - ' 4i: i ';.Y - L -.�' DKD: !'i � LO•,kn9tl ! OOYON� .R.�II4KTTb..:y !Og '+, s;. 1; L0e QA G[I.LS '.•,�•. ,JIILLS_�, .�. �` r+ {/Ir Ir 41 Mon;ebtlio - N•00 / 14•00 Ploys .., I ,Del Ray � � / e Sr OILL S Sonic E[ $prin S J} o o t�-ly; rT'f I'. El�tpndo C �� Eoi I '.' c_! • R accrons West Co ots ""c I>�- LG.rnddlt � � I � O ��.• �� .a- •�. Zvi/ Do nq�ee t 1( 'once + -�N• Pprf-In I•wood �i:_" J$P S� i °+c Redon o. fbylf zone j •.....,W .. + a ,i S. 5.4 At 04L 0, l, FDKC" '- �c JSPAdk a �` p •s' f QSiNTi ♦Nx !a•.i i �• d P C I •`... . C v(� Brach ! w I;; 2 •West O C .1 Na-port ; ' ' I; ! isp-Sonllogo Pooh volcanic/ E4 ® © .DKC-Col01in0 •Cnlel - ✓0 I hem-Sonto Monlco Slot• h Tibc-Bedford Canyon fm. - L1eUP •EEC pKbc-Eastern b•droek COmpl•e . � undlff rent Wild —� Exposed fault !!•to h .•• • •• Concealed fault �..� Oil field t 0 IO MILES i { �n•oe• In•a' Ot•N!0' III'i�• na•st' Yu•�i 'fII- !; Source: Woodford et al , 1954. Figure VII-2. Location of earthquake epicenters along and near Newport Inglewood II` fault zone. Magnitude of earthquakes are as follows : I • 3.0 - 3.9 I • 4.0 - 4.9 ' ;'. Magnitude as shown x II VII-4 m REGEM ALLUVIAL a TIDAL MARSH SEDMEMS I' OLDER ALLUVR)M • IM OLDER MAW* SEDMPOS [IEA BEACH d DUPE SAND ACTIVE FAULT IOCATION jr 1 �� - ! `�( ice � t�"��-r—••��' - �, �aN!'. . � '.•.�. . . •/! A` ). _ i �_ '.r�; •Its �y`•� rimm YIN mm I WLM MI MIMIM(310M if KM ."A 1 - PRWECT SITE Source: Leighton-Yen and Assoc. , September .1973 Figure VII-3. Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone and. Geolo.gic Conditions in Huntington Beach i ;. Potential Impact While the proposed project would not have an impact on local seismicity, future earthquakes on the faults mentioned above could ; Ai i "'. affect the project. Although the project site is located in a relatively safe area regarding potential damage from fault rupture, � :.i. liquefaction, tsunamis, sliding, and fire during an earthquake, ground shaking from seismic activity in the Newport-Inglewood fault zone may pose a danger. If strong enough, anticipated ground y shaking could .buckle streets, rupture utility lines, and cause structural damage. - Future seismic events in the Newport-Inglewood fault zone �5 would have a greater affect on the project than seismic events ii'.; occurring elsewhere in southern California, including, for exam- ple, activity occurring along the San Andreas fault zone. Although the San Andreas fault is capable of a seismic event registering I! up to 8.5 in magnitude, its distance from the project site dampens its destructive potential . Ground shaking at the project site during such an occurrence would be much less severe than a locally induced disturbance of magnitude 6.5. j Mitigation Measures i ` Buildings constructed on the site should be designed to !! ' withstand round shaking associated with a possible 6.5 magnitude l� 9 9 P 9 l. earthquake in the Newport-Inglewood fault .zone. A detailed site investigation should be conducted prior to the issuance of build- ing I; ing permits for the proposed project, and a seismicity review as part of the foundation design should be required. A seismic disaster emergency preparedness plan should be �. developed and maintained for project occupants Periodic exercises . VII-6 Ii. is II it ; I i , t • • should be conducted to ensure that all City departments respond efficiently during emergencies. - • B. Surface Water Drainage Environmental Setting The project site has no appreciable topographic features or slope, and. does not currently have any surface water drainage • facility. Rainfall runoff is assimilated for the most part by the topsoil , or flows into the curb gutters which channel water into the storm drain in Pacific Coast Highway. Potential Impact The construction of buildings, parking areas, roads, and pavements would inhibit the percolation of rainfall and result in increased runoff. Additionally, excessive lateral water movement in planter areas adjacent to perimeter footings might .unnecessarily increase differential settlement s.I The drainage plan for the project proposes to channel the water through the curbs to the • gutters, with ultimate disposal in the storm drain in Pacific Coast Highway.2 I Mitigation Measures None required. VII-7 • VIII. CLIMATE AND AIR QUALITY A. Climate Environmental Setting A complete discussion of the climate in Huntington Beach can be found' in the Conservation Technical Report on file with the • Huntington Beach Planning Department. Potential Impact The microclimate of the project- site would be changed slightly 'by the replacement of open space-With structures. The thermal characteristics of the property would be affected ;by the changes in reflectivity, heat absorption, and radiation balance. The regional and local climate would not. be influenced by the slight micro- 40 climate changes that would be experienced. Mitigation Measures • None required. B. Air Quality Environmental Setting The environmental setting for air quality in the Huntington Beach area is provided in the Conservation Technical Report, on file with the City Planning Department. • Potential Impact Mobile Source Emissions - It is estimated that 443 average daily trips per day will be generated by future motor vehicle usage associated with the project. With an assumed average round • VIII-1 40 !. trip length of 2 miles, approximately 886 vehicle miles per day will be generated. This usage rate is equivalent to 323,390 vehicle miles per year. Using this value for the vehicular traffic and a representa- tive mix of 95 percent light duty gasoline vehicles, 2.5 percent heavy duty gasoline vehicles, and 2.5 .percent heavy duty diesel vehicles and emission factors developed by the SCAQMD, it is possible to estimate the total emissions attributable to vehicles while driving to and from the site. 3 It is assumed that 1981 will be the. first year of. full .usage for the development Table VIII-1 gives the estimates of emissions for that year. When the values shown in Table VIII-1 are compared to the 1976 Emissions Inventor for. Orange Count y g y (Table ViII-2) , it is seen that emissions from,. this development represent a very small fraction of the total county emissions, and that the air quality impact on this basis would be minimal . Emissions from the underground parking area, however, i represent a very localized source so that there will be an ad r verse impact on the air quality within the development itself. ,i The assessment of the impact of emissions on the ambient air u quality in this area requires the use of sophisticated mathe- matical diffusion models and is beyond the scope of this EIR . Fbwever, it is expected that the impact on local air quality �. would be small . Stationary Source Emissions - ' It is estimated that the electric power requirement will be 2,435 kWh/day, and the natural gas requirement for onsite heating will be 24,789 cf/day: Electric i! power will be supplied by the Southern California Edison Plant at VIII-2 f • Table VI II-1 . VEHICULAR EMISSIONS - DRIVING TO AND FROM SITE-1981 • WEIGHTED EMISSION EMISSIONS EMISSIONS POLLUTANT FACTOR lb/day ton/yr g/mile CO 18.7 . 36.5 6.7 HC 1 .3 2.5 0.5 • NOx 2.4 4.7 0.9 Particulates .34 0.7 0.1 SO .16 0.2 0.04 x • • • VIII-3 VIII .y' Table -2. ORANGE COUNTY EMISSION .INVENTORY, 1976 (ton/day) I I i r Stationary On Road Motor Off Road Motor ' Pollutant Sources Vehicles Vehicles CO .9.1 1 ,451 .5 99.5 I HC 91 .7 187.1 17.7 . NOX 32.7 135.5 24.3 Particulates 20.7 18.3 4-5. SOX 22.8 7.1 6.2 Source: Southern California Assocation of Governments and SCAQMD, Draft Air Quality Management Plan, October 1978 I;I , IT i! ii V VIII-4 1 F 1 - ,7 ; 4 • Table. VI.II-3. EMISSIONS FROM ELECTRIC POWER GENERATION Weighted r: Pollutant Emission Factor Emissions Emissions i (lb/1 ,000 kWh) (ton/yr) (ton/yr) CO .19 .46 .08 HC .15 .37 .07 NO 2.0 4.87 .89 x Particulates .3 .73 .13 sox 3.9 9.5 1 .73 4 !I `I VIII-5 Huntington Beach. The additional load on this electrical genera- tion facility will result in an increase of emissions at the power- plant. Historical data indicate that oil fired electric generation f accounted for about 73 percent of the power produced at the Hunting- d I' ton Beach facility in _1975; .the remainins .27 percent was .produced by gas.4 Assuming that power will be supplied by these fuels in i' their historical proportions, it is estimated that the additional emissions at this facility resulting from the project will be.as shown in Table VIII-3. Emissions due to natural gas combustion. will occur on the 1 : project site. It is estimated that approximately 2.87 pounds per day ( . 53 ton/yr) of NO and .45 pounds per day ( .08 ton/yr) x !k , of particulates will be generated. A short term adverse impact will be the dust generated during �." the grading phase of the project. Since the prevailing winds are from the west, the dust generated will have the greatest impact on the area to the east, immediately adjacent to the site, so that a minor short term adverse impact will. be felt in this area, during the construction phase of the project.. Emissions Summary - The annual emissions from the various !! sources involved in this development are summarized in Table VIII-4. l {j It can be seen that a major amount of these pollutants are ! associated with motor vehicle activity. The SCAQMD expects that emissions from automobiles will be significantly reduced in the future because of improved emission '' control systems that are being installed on new cars so that by the year 1990, the AQMD predicts that automotive emissions will be reduced to about 25 percent of their 1979 values. Since auto- motive emissions represent the greatest single source associated' I!' ' VIII-6` !F • with the project, the impact of the project on the ambient air quality is expected to decline in future years even allowing for some increase in total vehicular traffic. • Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures are available to reduce the air quality impacts • e. All energy mitigation measures should be. implemented (refer to Section XII) • During the construction phase of the project there should be adequate sprinkling of water in order to reduce the fugitive dust emissions • • No mitigation measures exist for vehicular emissions • • • • • VIII-7 • • IX. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION A. Environmental Setting • The existing points of ingress and egress on the proposed project .site are located along Sixth Street at Pecan Avenue, and Fifth Street, again at Pecan Avenue. The roadway system that would be affected by implementation of the proposed project • include Main Street (a north-south secondary roadway in the immediate project area) , Fifth Street (an east-west secondary roadway) , Orange Avenue (a north-south secondary roadway) , and Sixth Street. (an east-west roadway). Following is a brief des- cription of each of these roads: Main Street is a north-south roadway that extends from the Huntington Beach Pier north to Beach Boulevard. Its classifica- r tion from the Pier to just north of the project site (Indianapolis • Avenue) is a secondary two-lane roadway with an 80 foot right-of- way. Its main function is to move traffic from the northern portion of the City to the beach area. Buses, trucks, and autos use this roadway. On-street parking is allowed. Its current • traffic volumes (24-hour .and peak hour) are contained in Table IX-1 . Fifth Street is an east-west secondary two-lane roadway. It has a right-of-way. o.f 80 feet. It -extends from the beach (Pacific • Coast Highway) to Alabama Street. On-street parking is allowed, with buses and autos as its primary users. The current 24-hour and peak hour traffic volumes of Fifth Street in the project site vicinity are presented in Table IX-1 . • Orange Avenue is a northwest-northeast secondary two-.lane roadway with an 80 foot right-of-way. On-street parking is allowed with primarily autos and buses using it. Orange Avenue extends from Second Street on a northwesterly angle to Golden West • Avenue. IX-1 . F Table IX-1 . CURRENT WEEKDAY TRAFFIC VOLUMES (July 17, 1979)* =� 4. Street Peak Hourly Volumes Total 24-hour `I Volumes . . Main Street ;k. (north of 5th Street) 325 2,882 5th Street (between Main Street and Orange Avenue) 200 2,455 IL * Represents summer traffic volumes which would be higher than the yearly average . T yI1'ji ,, a I y: `` :I IX-2 ;r Sixth Street is a residential two-lane roadway that extends from the beach (i .e. , Pacific Coast Highway) to Main Street. Its orientation is east-west. It is used primarily by local residents. On-street .parking is allowed. A Level of Service analysis was performed for both Main Street and Fifth Street (refer to Appendix B for a description of Level of Servi.ce) . The capacity of a two-lane, two-way roadway 0 under ideal conditions is defined as 2,000 vehicles per hour for Uninterrupted. flow capacities by the Highway Capacity Manual , 1965.5 In Table IX-2, the volume-to-capacity ratios are presented. . The ratio is determined by comparing the peak hourly volumes to the roadway's capacity. In order to determine what level of. service the roadways are operating at, Figure IX-1 was used. Both Main Street and Orange Avenue are currently operating within the limits of Level of Service A. Public Transportation The project site is currently served by the Orange County Transit District (refer to Figure IX-2 for bus stop locations) . Bus Stop No 1 has service every .half-hour, while Bus Stop No. 2 has service every hour. In addition, the Senior Citizen Activity Center would provide transportation for its participants. Two vans .and two station wagons would be available for the senior citizens requiring trans- portation to the. Center. moo, dial-a-tide zenvice.s w.iU. be avaitabCc. B. Potential Impact The proposed project would provide three points of ingress and egress along Sixth Street for the Senior Activity Center, and I)(-3 E ; r•i, Table IX -2. EXISTING VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO " � I� i Existing Peak . .Volume-to- Roadway Capacity Hourly Volume Capacity Ratio i !d Main Street (north of 5th Street) 2,000 325 0.2 It 5th Street (between Main Street t and Orange Avenue. 2,000 200 0.1 fx , a tii j' i4 It ' C [:t Lifl "l IX-4 j; t • • 1 • eve/A Level B lb h Lev e/o service C evell ozz • I of service F L'eve Volume/Copocit Rotio to Source: Fundamentals of Traffic Engineering, 7th Edition, 1969 Figure IX-1 . Schematic Concept of Relationship of Levels of Service to Operating Speed and Volume/Capacity Ratio IX-5 • '�►' '�'�'��'' ����� rya Slip Qj �NNI N�, �IIHf NNN�NNII9b �� � '� maul Ilti Ait ' INIINNN INNH "aIIIIN II1911NIIt® �►�Ir1� ►�� NiNNNN NNN 51� 1■ � i:� �� � es • N�NNNINININIH IHI��NINI NIIINA� qll I*IIHIINNNH HN�II 91NIHNIINNII�1 NNNIIINIi1NNN �� 1�1� Ll �AAI �� IIH Mill �� ANNNb ON No N�IIN NIINIIN HHINN NNNHH HNINm HNNNH H��N .., NNNNN 1111111 NIINAI sm NNNN NNNNN NNNNII N NHIINH IIIIHN 9NNNN 11H9d ANNIN MINN NUN N HIM INNNN �ANIIA IIIHHIN 011 NH11M NHNI PKINNI NNNNN NINIII Nunn H11�9 1NIIIIN WIN HIHHI NHHHH III11HH WHHI =;1111111 .. INNNH HHOH NIIN N11� ttltt ■ IIIAIIN NNHNN IIIIIIIlH �111 LZ. �� IHIAIN NIIINN NNE N H111 11111 11111= 11111 M11 11111111111111111111111 = ■� 1111 illllllllllllllll_.:� one point of ingress and egress along Orange Avenue for the .Senior Citizen Housing (refer to Site Plan) . It is -expected that. approximately 443 Average Daily Trips (ADT) would be generated by the proposed project (refer to Appen- dix B for Trip Generation Calculations) . Approximately 44 addi- tional vehicles would utilize the surrounding roadways during peak hour (this assumes that 10 percent.of the trips generated occur during peak hour) . It is estimated that approximately 37 vehicles (85 percent.) would be from the north on Main Street, and 7 vehicles (15 percent) from the south on Main Street during peak hour periods. The 85/15 percent split was made, based on the assumption that the proposed project would draw from the residential areas of the City located north of the downtown area. 6 The trips generated by the Activity Center would have no significant effect on the existing traffic volume of Sixth Street. The existing configuration of the intersection of Sixth Street and Acacia, and Sixth Street and Main Street (refer to Figure IX-3) , however, could present some safety problems for those making left turns from Sixth Street onto Main Street. The J proposed project would not necessarily increase the safety risk, S but the intersection represents an existing safety problem that t should be mitigated (refer to.Mitigation Measures) . The roadway volume-to-capacity ratios, incorporating the �r trips generated by the proposed project, are presented in Table • IX-3. The existing levels of service would remain unchanged. The proposed project would not put traffi-c volumes .beyond the capacity of the roadways. The trips generated would not be con- sidered a significant adverse impact. • IX-7 • _ x u J. I-� X 1 w rD . sr x Soh 00fD ��h Qua 0 � eti�P Qom? 0 Q cn � c a Main Street o. Z �..< _r:..:.� t1_..,�:.e:?�2�.:•:':"•�.Xr-;=.'r.°R5`. �v.°�.:a.h s.s iFk2. .G`.......r.:�.„??. .:�:.�n .._.�'t .T :�.i... .:T:' 14t�.. `xY r/f... ,.-:.�.s<�.; 't��?i:�- {^�+.�_„'pa'�k.,�"��. '�'�..ar.,.,.�.. _ ...r .:"v� w. • • Table IX-3. POST-PROJECT VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO Lane Capacity Post-Project Volume-to- Roadway (Vehicles/hr) Traffic Volume Capacity Ratio • Main Street (north of 5th Street) 29000 559 0.3 5th Street (between Main Street and-Orange Avenue) 2,000 409 0.1 • r • • • • IX-9 e 4.S.: A °4 The total of 54 parking spaces provided for the apartments =_ [A would be located in a subterranean garage. The Senior Citizen Center parking lot would have 50.onsite spaces, with 65 curb parking spaces (total of 115 spaces) , while the Specific Plan f for this development would require one onsite parking space per three residential units (52 spaces). .a l„ The Specific Plan would require one off-street parking space for every 200 square feet of building area (50 spaces for. the Activity Center) . The project currently proposes 50 onsite - 1; spaces for the Activity. Center which conforms to the Specific . Plan requirements. If required, however, the project could accom- modate an additional 24 cars with the construction of a parking i; deck over the proposed lot a_lon Sixth Street refer to Figure p P 9 ( �. II-4) C. Mitigation Measures :r Due to the elderly's dependence on public transportation, I" the expected increase in daily vehicle trips is'-not expected to adversely impact the surrounding roadways. The proposed Activity Center would provide the use of two vans. and two station wagons ) :a for the senior citizens. p ! k.t The potential safety problem. at the intersection of Sixth Street at Main Street should be mitigated. One possible measure . would be to create a right-turn only requirement from Sixth Street onto Main Street and no left-turn from Acacia onto Sixth Street. This would encourage traffic originating off of' Sixth Street to circulate from Orange Avenue to Fifth Street in order to go north on Main .Street. It. would also reduce r the amount of through traffic eastbound on Sixth Street. Fi IX-10 f ' �t { {. ; The Specific Plan should determine the--transit facilities to be provided by the propos.ed project. The •exis•ting bus stoo. along Orange- Avenue near Fifth Street should include a' canopy shelter 3 fa.r_ the convenience and' comfort _of the `persons utilizing the transit facilities. Appropriate setbaek`:requirements for the .-transit stop should also be determined in the Specific Plan. • 3' IX-11 • X. HISTORIC RESOURCES • A. Environmental Setting The old Memorial Hall was built in 1923. . It was originally • used as a theatre with the entrance to the building on Fifth Street. In 1931 ,. the building was modified to serve as a meeting hall and the entrance was changed to front on Sixth Street. The old Fire Station was built in 1939. In 1952, the Fire • Department outgrew the building and moved into larger quarters. The small building behind the Fire- Station was. also built in the 1930's. It was originally used .as a Horseshoe Club, later_ becoming'_a Muni- cipal Court. Now, however, both buildings serve a variety of uses. • Both buildings have been identified in the Conservation. Technical Report. as- having potential historical significance. • B. Potential Impact. • Due to the age of the buildings and their former uses, the historic significance of .the old Memorial Hall and the old Fire Station was questioned. . Both buildings were made with brick and currently are in poor condition. While their role in recent City • history could be considered interesting, their actual historical importance would be considered insignificant. 8 This is due to the fact that more value is given to "turn of the century" build- ings located in the City, since the City is rather young (incor- porated in 1909) . It would be expected, then, that no significant impact would occur with demolition of the old Memorial Hall and Fire Station. • C. Mitigation Measures No measures are required for the historic resources . Any salvagable portions of the buildings (i .e. , bricks , bannisters, • air conditioning units) would not be destroyed in the demolition process. X-1 • XI NOISE A. Environmental Setting Outdoor sources of urban noise include transportation, con- struction, industrial operations, the individual human being, and miscellaneous sources. According to the Noise Element of the City of Huntington Beach General Plan, vehicular traffic is a major source of noise within the City. In order to determine the ambient noise levels at the project site, noise levels were determined at three onsite locations .(refer. to Figure XI -1 ). To measure the ambient levels from the subject site, a General Radio Company Model 1565C Sound Level Meter was used. This is a type 2 instrument with tolerances required by the r American National Standards Institute, Standard Specification 0 S1 .4-1971 for sound level meters. The instrument covers the sound- level from 30 to 130 dB above the standard reference level of 20 µn/m2 (0.0002 µubar). The instrument was calibrated at the A weighted level , according to General Radio's calibration Manual . The monitoring points and time period were selected to give read- ings representative of peak traffic for morning and evening hours. Monitoring point No. 1 was selected to give an indication of the noise levels from traffic at the intersection of Main and Fifth Streets. Monitoring point No. 2 was along Orange Avenue approxi- mately 50 feet north of Fifth Street, and was selected to give an indication of the noise levels currently experienced by nearby residences. This point also. corresponds to one of the parking lots being proposed by this project. Monitoring point No. 3 was located along Sixth Street approximately 100 feet west of Pecan Avenue. This point was also selected to show the ,noise levels currently experienced by nearby residences. This monitoring point also XI-d 3 { p ' i N ; . I � Flf1Fi ST1tEET Figure XI-1 . Noise Monitoring Points • corresponds to the second. parking lot being proposed. The noise level measurements are presented in Table XI-1 . The data is based on 15-second interval readings over a 15-minute • time period at each monitoring g point. - The noise levels presented include both high and low readings and the ambient (averaged) read- ing. In addition, the cumulative distributions (the percent of oc- . currences each level is exceeded during the sampling period) are presented. For example, the L90 dB(A) value is the dB(A) level that was exceeded 90 percent of the time. This value represents the background noise level in -the absence of specific identifiable noise events. Also, the equivalent sound level - (L ) is presented e • to take into account the statistical nature. of noise (i .e. , non- steady- noise, such as traffic, fluctuates over wide ranges. The purpose of Leq is to provide a single number measure of time- • varying noise for a predetermined time period) . The Leq, then, provides a quantity which relates the intensity and the duration of noise. The highest noise level (both a.m. and p.m. ) was recorded at • monitoring point No. 2. The noise associated with the bus stops located nearby was the main contributing factor to this reading. The lowest noise level (both a.m. and p.m. ) was recorded. at moni- toring point No. 3. This location experienced the lowest level of traffic activity. B. Potential Impact Short-term adverse impacts on the ambient noise levels would • be expected during the construction phase of the project. Table XI-2 shows expected noise levels from construction equipment. The additional traffic expected from the proposed development • XI-3 • Table XI-1 . NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS (July 10, 1979) Noise Level Monitoring Point a Time Period - Low Ambient High L10 L50 �90 Leq 1 8:37 a.m. : 47 58 72 64 57 51 61 8:52 a.m. 2 9:03 a.m. - 53 62 80 68 60 55 67 9:18 a.m. 3 9:23 a.m. - 47 54 68 62 52 48 58 A 9:38 a.m. 1 3:22 p.m. - 51 59 72 67 58 53 63 3:37 p.m. 2 3:42 p.m.' - 54 60 72 67 59 55 63 3:57 p.m. 3 4:02 p.m. - 48 55 71 61 55 51 58 4:17 p.m. a Refer to Figure XI-1 for location of monitoring points • Table XI-2. CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVELS (MEASURED AT A DISTANCE OF 50 FEET) • Equipment Noise Level [dB(A.)] Earthmoving Front Loader 79 Backhoes 85 Dozers 80 Tractors 80 Scrapers 88 Graders 85 Truck 91 Paver 89 Materials Handling Concrete Mixer 85 Concrete Pump 82 Crane 83 Derrick 88 Stationary Pumps ..76 Generators 76 Compressors 81 Impact Pile Drivers 101 Jack Hammers 88 Rock Drills 98. Pneumatic Tools 86 . Other Saws 78 Vibrator 76 Source: City of Carson General Plan, Noise Element, page 28. i XI-5 I . .�. (refer to Section. IX) would:not cause a significant increase in F S3. noise along the roads serving the project site. Although no G impact is .expected to occur on the existing noise levels on :fig the surrounding roadways, a slight increase could be expected Rg onsite due to the increased activity. These expected increases , however, would not exceed the limits set forth in the Noise ; 1 Element of the General Pl.an.. 9 ! C. Mitigation Measures 1 Construction. and demolition activities should be limited to between the hours of 7 a.m. and 8 m. , Monday through Saturday. ' The landscaping proposed should serve as a mitigating measure for the expected increase in noise levels on the site. I 'ilk ;III, I ! i. 1 I f�ii' s;; r rn:• XI-6 k,�n • XII . PUBLIC UTILITIES AND SERVICES A. Electricity Environmental Setting The proposed project is located within the service territory of the Southern California Edison Company (SCE) . The major fuel is used in Edison's generating facilities is Tow sulfur fuel oil • SCE has developed a projected load growth for the project site �i area. It is expected that their total system demand will continue to increase annually. A delay in the development of new .generating facilities could result in. marginal service to all customer loads during peak demand periods by 1984�0 Service to the project site would be provided by the underground transmission lines presently utilized by the existing development. Potential Impact Southern California Edison Company -has indicated that the electric loads of the proposed project are within the parameters of the projected load growth which SCE is planning to. meet in this area. This summation is. based on the assumption that SCE's esti- mates are not exceeded by the demand for electrical- generated capacity and that no unexpected outages of major electrical supplies will occur. The combined effect of a low sulfur fuel oil inventory, existing contractual commitments for delivery and customers ' conservation efforts has allowed SCE to anticipate meeting the current forecasted demands for electricity through 197911 The electricity consumption expected from the proposed project is contained in Table XII -1 . XII-1 r 3 _ i Table XII- 1. EXPECTED ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION Consumption2 Amount r Proposed Use Square Feet Factor .(kWh/ft /yr) (k6!h/yr). y5; I I' Apartments With t) ' i < PP Gas Appliances 108,445 4 43.3,780 ;f i Recreation and Commercial** 14,000 32.5 455,000 Il ; Total 888,780 S r * City of Los Angeles Planning Department, EIR Manual for Private Projects, August 1875 Due to the small-scale nature of the commercial use (i .e. , 4,000 ft2) , it was included in the factor for recreational use •I flf1 . . if I�lii T 14 _ XII-2 r. �it'. • • Mitigation Measures Building structures should be designed according to the state energy conservation standards for new residential and new nonresi- dential buildings.12 . .Specific conservation measures would include the use of fluores- cent lamps indoors and high pressure sodium lamps outdoors which would provide a high efficiency lighting. The use of heat-of-light systems when more than 75 foot candles are required would also contribute to the conservation of electrical energy. The instal- lation of -individually switched banks of lights would eliminate lighting in unoccupied areas which receive sufficient natural •. light during daylight hours. l3 B. Natural Gas Environmental Setting The City of Huntington Beach is provided with natural gas service by the Southern California Gas Company. The service for the proposed project would be in accordance with the Gas Company's policies and extension rules on file with the California Public Utilities Commission at .the time the contractual arrangements are made. Gas service to the proposed project could be provided from the existing main shown in Figure XII-1 . Potential Impact The availability of natural gas service is based upon exist- ing conditions of gas supply and.regulatory policies. As a publ.ic • XII-3 — — a .N /.'y^a a is•` / %a�� / a°,\<.�`'j < ata / ♦ y°�` / 'a��. as �a �0��°c`< ^ r°t\♦ / .�t\y / cc ' •� � •y. an as O`a �(!la /<�y� Hy 1• / ! TI .�L y yti « ✓ as p` te z 17 .. . .... �..... o- .,v•. .': ..�-w. . . '-w•.c''\' nk-G'ax.�YcY�'bd:n?:.?,y•4..7i � n-,'Yi,q�5':r+..nysY c^.}u,1�;'.3.` �.•.�awas�t`a,.`�;Fr..:�ma<'a�.,�Y�'.+a+s'_k.'`i ��:,.t,-�.�:r:i;+h�� ..':._..., -a.._, :.n '••K-.;...... ',a:r.r:.»ac,.vsy..r. ..1"7'�r;'��J..`+l.�Jsa"•.....,,..t.-..w'�...;n..........�.+f....•-..•...n..�..�{s s`Jw.1. .i...5+6'�..: i?•W .,.J...ta.�;�`. .+tom,.,+..°+�.ra...wr �cr.•..,.-,.�.. ,v.,n• .,.•. _- _ ._._. -_..� v '^7 , Ufa' .:;::..•a. "+u.: • i utility, the Southern California Gas Company is under the juris- diction of the California Public Utilities Commission as well as • Federal. regulatory agencies. The actions of these regulatory bodies could affect gas supply or the conditions under which the service is available. • It has been estimated that approximately 90,480 therms of natural gas would be consumed annually with the implementation of i the proposed project. The above estimate is based on 580 therms/ yr/dwelling unit which is the residential use system area average • for multi-family structures containing 5 or more units.14 It should be noted, however, that• these estimates are based on gas con- sumption in residential units served by Southern California Gas Company in 1975, and it should not be implied that any particular apartment would use these amounts of energy. This is particularly true due to the State's new insulation requirements and consumers ' ' efforts toward energy conservation. • Mitigation Measures Designing all structures to maximize energy conservation -6houZd mitigate the impact of using a nonrenewable resource. By i:. increasing structural mass and using highly insulative construc- • t.ion materials, a more efficient energ y use 4hvu.Cd be realized. Additional energy conservation measures would include the insulation of heating ducts and/or hot water or steam pipes that pass through unheated spaces. The use of insulating and/or re- flective window coverings cou.Cd also serve as a mitigating measure. The proper orientation or siting of structures with respect to -the sun would minimize "heat-loading" . • XI 1-5 i.. it a Assistance in selectingan energy conservation program 9Y P 9 I' could .be obtained by contacting the Market Services Department r E.j of the Southern California Gas Company. At this time, use of solar heat for. the_ central hot water system is being contemplated.15 , C. Telephone Service F Environmental Setting i' Telephone service to the existing buildings on the proposed j project site. is provided by the General Telephone Company. of :. California. Underground cables are located within the rights-of- way of Sixth Street (refer to Figure XII-2) . Potential Impact ni Communication with the General Telephone Company has indica- � � ted that the proposed project would not require the reinforcement ' of the existing facilities.16 No significant impact, then, 'would r be expected. 1 Mitigation Measures jig' •�. None required. D. Water Environmental Setting IWater is supplied to the project site area by the City of Huntington Beach. During winter months, 100 percent of the water supply is obtained from City-operated wells. In the summer, higher F 5 . j water demands necessitate the purchasing of .approximately 25 percent. . 'i ` 1 XII-6 • • 60 as �ST. �.� ]i0'TrW I!'� . '-.�'1 `r t!•I•ACp - 114 Y i OP ° TOP!!•tDAC'c!�C1�r�i is CO w55TcI ♦ ItIU00 t 'u A L IN Sixth Street !'n'AL 0. A � • 1 � DD_iGr - �• � urr twArD cpvnws 3 I�n•ca.�.�.n. I C k IN TOTAL LUILIN A'TOiat l[MfiTN t - MMTiA67t)V _ - I�c /(ACA' Z • car rrrt Pow iv W� (L 3 Source: General Telephone Company Figure XII-2. Existing Telephone Underground Cables . • `(II-7 I of the required water from the Metropolitan Water District. 4; Currently, there are 7 City wells in operation. Fora complete le, f� description of the City's water supply, refer to Conservation E'oi Technical Report, on file with the City. Planning Department. j Potential Impact ' The proposed project would be served by the existing 6-inch. ; f ' water line in Sixth Street and the 8-inch water line in Orange Avenue. It is expected that the proposed project would result , in an increase of 50,369 gallons of water per day.17 This amounts would represent a maximum daily average of 75,554 gallons and a I` peak hour consumption .of approximately 120,886 gallons. j V.IL Mitigation Measures t: Utilization. of automatic landscape watering systems during 'I early morning hours or during evening hours would reduce the r amount of water normally lost through evaporation. Utilization of native and/or drought-tolerant plants would also reduce over- all water requirements. Other water conservation measures would include low volume water closets, and selection of plumbing �,' ! ' fixtures which.would reduce water loss. N� E. Sewage to ' Environmental Setting i , The City of Huntington Beach provides and maintains local sewage collection facilities. The local sewage collection facili- ` A�. ties in the project site area empty into larger lines under major - � i streets which, in turn, empty into trunk lines owned and maintained I i L X I I-8 ; , , 1 • by Orange County Sanitation District 11 . For a complete des- cription of the City's sewage disposal service, refer to Con- servation Technical Report, `March 1974, on file with the City Planning Department. Potential Impact The proposed project would result in an average sewage flow of approximately 20,280 gallons per day. This represents 18 a daily peak flow of approximately 51 ,876 gallons. The portion of the site north of the Pecan Avenue right-of- way would be served by the existing 8-inch sewer line located in the alley on the east side of Fifth Street. The residential portion of the proposed project would be served by the existing 8-inch sewer line located in the alley between Fifth and Sixth Streets, adjacent to Orange Avenue. The amount of additional sewage is considered to be sig- nificant, but it is expected that the existing systems could accommodate it.19 Mitigation Measures Wherever possible, water-saving plumbing fixtures should be used to reduce the anticipated sewage flow. F. Solid Waste Environmental Setting The City is serviced by a private waste collection agency (Rainbow Disposal ) . The waste is taken to the Coyote Canyon XII-9 i k landfill , located south of Bonita Canyon Road off MacArthur t;f{: Boulevard. For a complete discussion of solid .waste generation and disposal within the City, refer to Conservation Technical _: Report, March 1974, on file with the City Planning Department. rar Potential Impact .110 The proposed pro ect would generate approximately 918 pounds of solid waste- daily. Rainbow Disposal would be able to service the site with no significant impact to its facilities. The Coyote Canyon landfill is estimated to close in 1.980, with a proposed alternate site in the Bee and Round Canyon. % The amount of solid waste generated b the proposed project would `3 9 Y P P P j be insignificant when compared to the amount generated regionally. ' ;., The cumulative impact, however, would affect the demand for solid : waste disposal sites and facilities. is { i; Mitigation Measures In order to reduce the dependence on sanitary landfills, i;f, solid waste technology (including source reduction) should be `# till, s '`'' ' encouraged. If possible, recycling programs should be initiated. i ,i G. Police ti ' Environmental Setting The proposed project site would be served by the City of - I Huntington Beach Police Department. The project site is located !' }t, in the Department's Reporting District 451 , which contains an a area of one-quarter square mile. . .!,' i 1 R s `tl X I I-10 i<Y'C t IV ��' The site .is located in an area with a high crime rate. A. major contributing factor to the rate i.s the highly transitory population .(in summer, the population increases 80 percent) . 21 ` A comparison of crime statistics for Reporting District 451 �t from January 1977 through September 1977, and January 1978 through September 1978 revealed the following: n :i Crime Percent Increase Violent (robberies, assaults) 17 IN Property 14 is Over the same time period, there was a 10 percent increase in crime City-wide.. In Reporting District 461 , which is immediately i adjacent to the previously mentioned district, a similar com- parison of data was made with the following results: Crime pi Percent Increase Violent (robberies, assaults) 51 J! Property 1 This district includes the downtown shopping area and the beach. Potential Impact if The downtown area of Huntington Beach already receives more calls for service than any other area of the City. By planning a • population of usually vulnerable senior citizens an increase in assaults and robberies would be expected. Table XII -2 shows the breakdown of these crimes over the past two years. By designing special security measures into the proposed project, the. impact � • on crime occurrence could be mitigated. It has been estimated that the proposed project would require less than one additional police officer. This would represent a fiscal impact .of approximately $12,000. 22 This is not considered E a significant adverse impact. r i 1 XII-11 J. al, Table XII-2. CRIME OCCURRENCE IN AREA OF PROPOSED PROJECT* an-Set 1977 an- e t 1978 Reporting ; I District Robberies Assaults. Robberies Assaults III h - I 451** 9 26 9 32 11",I 461 5 32 5 51 * Data 'supplied by Huntington Beach Police Department, Special ` Operations Division IR; ** Contains project site ia Ii l!1• 1I' 'I L II` a i li;': XII-12 • Mitigation Measures The mitigation measures have been supplied to the project i ' 23 pro onents .to aid in developing a private security system. il! The main thrust for security considerations should be cen- tered around keeping non-authorized transients from entering ;I into the complex and wandering around at will . The following measures would aid in achieving this: *. Card type entry for apartment parking lot. • Card type entry for all entries into the housing area itself. • High density lighting, specifically located at the drop off area of 5th Street and the Senior Citizens Center !` Parking Lot on 6th Street. • Install a six foot wrought iron fence around the perimeter !. of the housing area and Senior Citizens Center. Specifi- cally, along 6th Street, Orange and 5th Streets, to include Citizen Center Parking. ' • Design landscaping to allow for high police patrol visi- bility in the central areas of the complex, to include . ' the courtyard, shuffleboard area, cafe/pharmacy area, and lounge/game room areas. Further, proper lighting around the perimeter of the complex and within open courtyard areas would provide officers with a high visibility of unauthorized intruders during nighttime hours . 'I !1 H. Fire Environmental Setting �I A complete description of the fire safety situation in Huntington Beach is contained in: the Fire Hazard/Fire Protection. g it Study, July 1974 which is on file with the City Planning Depart- ment. I� si XII-13 - .i. 444 {; 't . Initial response from the p proposed. project site would be handled by the Lake Fire Station (located at Lake Street and T ; Indianapolis Avenue) and the Gothard Fire Station (located on r Gothard Street, north of Ellis). The Lake Fire Station has a . #� truck company, a pumper company, and a paramedic unit. The ;F � )) Gothard Fire Station has a pumper company. The combined manning 4 of these two stations is 13. 05 Potential Impact t Tlie proposed project would. not require an increase in Fire Department personnel . A preliminary review of the proposed pro- ject has indicated that three additional fire hydrants would be r required.24 This would require extensions of existing water mains. i;IMP � Also, it would be necessary to upgrade one existing hydrant to I conform to current standards. The fire-flow requirements. of this project has been estimated i to be 3,000-4,000 gallons per minute (gpm) . The project would create no major problems for access of emergency vehicles. An increase in paramedic calls would occur. Mitigation Measures In order to mitigate the increase in fire flow, a sprinkler jj! system and stand pipe system should be installed in the apartment structure as required by City fire codes. This would also apply to the rooms of the recreation center and the library. Ili Other safety measures would include the placement of smoke ,.� detectors in each apartment. Also, an emergency call station should be included in the apartment complex. Such a station bi would allow each apartment dweller to push a button that would s;av ,t+ X I I-14 ;t i • alert the main desk. It would also be possible to tie the smoke detectors into this unit, to notify the desk when one is activated. Overall , a good maintenance program. for the proposed develop- • ment should be implemented, in order to avoid deteriorated condi- tions 'that would be conducive to fire outbreaks The residents is should also be educated as to an emergency evacuation plan and general fire prevention programs. i I I. Parks and. Recreation Environmental Setting Ij .i For a complete discussion of park and recreation facilities within the City of Huntington Beach, refer to Open Space Potentials, j February 1974, on file with the City Planning Department. r Potential Impact • The proposed project would remove some open space (refer to `3 Section XIII) . The design of the project, however, would mitigate any significant impact. • There would be no significant impact on the provision of recreational facilities in the City. A beneficial impact would result with the construction of the new Activity Center. • Mitigation Measures Upon completion of the project' s working plans, the Park and Recreation Building Maintenance Division should review the plan to assure that maintenance costs would be kept at a minimum. �! • it ij I` q ii I. XII-15 XIII. AESTHETICS A. Environmental Setting The most striking visual asset of the proposed project site is the 30 to 35 foot palm trees (approximately 57 such trees . exist on the site - refer to Figure XIII-1 ) . A preliminary site survey by City .of Huntington Beach personnel has indicated that several of the large palm trees are diseased. A report on their condition is attached in Appendix E. According to the report, the nature of the disease makes it difficult to diagnose absolute healthy trees within an infected planting of trees. Trees that appear healthy now, could be infected, but with symptoms becoming visible a year or more from now. Recommendations are made below with regard to re-.landscaping the site. Most of the site is covered . by lawn with a large open space area at the site's southern end. The project site is of uniform grade with the existing struc- tures .varying from one to two stories. There are also landscaped plants throughout. An asphaltic paved street (Pecan Avenue) cuts through the site, with its primary function as a parking lot. B. Potential Impact Several design features have been incorporated into the pro- posed project and are intended to mitigate possible adverse aesthetic impacts. The open space and low scale of the surround- ing residential areas would be maintained with the limits placed on the length and height of the apartment building facing on Sixth Street and Orange Avenue (refer to Figure XIII-2). The length of the apartment building along Sixth Street would be limited to less than one-third of the property length, and not more than three stories in height. The ends of all housing wings "would terrace down from three stories to one story, providing a transition to the surrounding single story residences (refer to Figure XIII-3) . XIII-1 MET ram. -- - - - -- ---- - -_ _ - - fIX/M !TREK s ®jP eD ,� - Z � - X ® ® ED N ® ® ..® ® ® ® ® QOb s FIFTH STREET ® Denotes tree Note: All palms are 30 in diameter, 30 ft to 35 ft in height. Figure XIII-1 . Location of Palm Trees • - ^h._ — 4.- z .y{_ ,� xh .' .vt - - _ .- ��i,>r=. s:cT.. _ - - ^f<-Y`.' -_ _ - y- _a.:� ....�e_EA •!'v w '..,�''�t"� �R � I�I''�`� Imo+ �r- ��.. ��],• � �:. !'f� t /°.'�I�'i. • - > �•.T' f�/''�"�,'�+ '� " gel t L ENGIH OF 6ult-DiNO i L LFNGTN OF PROPERTY J Figure XIII-2. Apartment Building Length and Height x w Figure XIII-3. Apartment Building Schematic. In addition, the underground- parking for the housing would optimize the open green space for the residents. The landscape rk =`I plan of the, proposed development would have a. "rural" theme with +a soft planting, benches, pergolas, and curved walkways. It is also aA intended that the proposed project would be established as the- {� i northern node of a linear spine which runs along a proposed promenade ` on Main Street, linking the proposed project with other green spaces a. . L!; 25 k_ and activities. C. . Mitigation Measures j! The following recommendations can be made with regard to the :1 i ; ;L transplantation or removal of trees around the old Civic Center { 26 for the purpose of construction and- re-landscaping in the area. I�; ' 1 . All obviously diseased trees should be removed. The City's lj� currently injecting fungicides into diseased trees around the Library, and would like to have the use of these trees for at least another year (Sept. 1980) . There are no N;;; ;; treatments in trees in the area west of the parking lot, �. bordering Orange Avenue. ('i , Alii 2. At this time none of the. trees in the old Civic Center t area can be certified as healthy. Transplantation of trees of this size is costly and in my opinion would not be worth the risk. 3. Trees apparently healthy could remain in place and construc- N ,,, tion could be continued around .trees . However, any tree should be removed if it is in a position where later � ;1jjj'. removal , after building construction, would be costly, ver- `� sus removal before. construction. H i,. : 4. The City is checking the pathogenicity of the two fungi on other species of plam, and studying the effect of replating A P. canariensis in sites where trees have dies For further � •; landscaping in this area plams other than Phoenix sp should , definitely be used and perhaps other nonpalm species of trees should be used. .� ; :';, XIII-4 XIV. LAND USE A. Zoning Environmental Setting A General Plan Amendment for the site was approved by-the City Council on March 19, 1979, making the General Plan designa- tion on the site mixed development.27 Surrounding land uses include low density residential . to the west, mixed development to the north, east, and south, and high density residential abuts a portion of the site's southern boundary (refer to Figure XIV-1) . Potential Impact The current General Plan designation of mixed development would permit the implementation of the proposed project. In addition, the City Council has endorsed the use of the site for the new senior citizen housing/activity center, as a replacement for the existing senior citizen center located at Orange Avenue and Seventeenth Street.28 Mitigation Measures In order to permit the proposed development, a Specific Plan amendment to the zoning ordinance would be required. Such a Specific Plan is being prepared at the time of this writing. B. Local Coastal Program Environmental Setting The proposed project would be located in an area under juris- diction of the South Coast Regional Commission and the California XIV-1 m ' ' SST , ' ///�• ''rd� �'/ ' ' ' s?.� c IV a / N rD .N a• / ' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I)I I 1 1 , , ( 1 I 1 1 \ `.1\ \\ LAKL .1 f3 N' .^ ,7 mm ::. , [ Zo L- to 1 ALA BAMANow --- > -- z - - m -- --CD r im z >- -- -4 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 11MT 1 I ; U • Coastal Commission. It would also be in the coastal planning area for the Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program (LCP) . A Coastal Element and Land Use Plan in conformance with the poli- cies of the Coastal Act of 1976 is being completed by the City. • The LCP Area Study for the Downtown, which includes the proposed project site, will be completed .about .October, 1979.29 This Area Study will be the background research to be used to deter- mine the policies for the Coastal Element and Land Use Plan. j • The Coastal Element may be submitted to the Coastal Commission i by the end of the year, or early 1980, for certification. After q the Commission receives it (up to five months) the City will i ;i become the permit issuing agency.. Potential Impact The proposed project would conform to the Coastal Act due to the following features of the project (the parenthesized reference indicate the Section of the Coastal Act the particular project element conforms to) : 1 . The community center would serve seniors at little or j no cost and the library would continue to provide low cost passive recreation (Section 30213) . 2. The proposed project would provide housing units (appro- ximately half of the units would be funded) for senior citizens of low or moderate income (Section 30213) . . 3. The new development would be placed near existing j development rather than away from existing areas (Section 30250) . 4. The design of the project would blend in with the colora- tion and landscaping features of the surrounding older community. The question of on-site palm trees that may XIV-3 41 be diseased should be resolved; refer to Section XI II for discussion of Tree Report. , 5. On-site recreational facilities for new residents and other elderly. residents would be provided (Section 30252) . 6. The proposed project could ea%ily hook into existing :'f water and sewer mains. Also, a public bus stop is on ;41 ,,l the site. When the LCP Area Stud for the Downtown Area is completed, the 4s Y P following issues will be evaluated. !; 1 . Those upland areas that support coastal recreational , sad uses should be reserved for such uses, when feasible (Section 30223). The need for upland support in the Downtown Area has yet to be determined. 'I 2. Although the Downtown area of Huntington Beach has been identified as a special community in the LCP Work Pro- gram due to some unique characteristics and visitor attraction, the manner in which this special community i; ' is to be enhanced has not yet been determined (Section 30253). Compatibility of the proposed project with the special community theme cannot- be determined at the time of this writing. . For a discussion of the historical significance of the old Memorial Hall , ,refer to Section X. I Mitigation Measures IfiY! The proposed project will be reviewed by the Coastal Com- mission to assess its conformance with the policies of the Coastal Act. f �It. An evaluation of the parking needs of the elderly housing por- tion of the project should be made. The population characteristics indicate that a variance in the Coastal requirement to reflect the 1►h� , parking requirement of the Specific Plan could be accommodated. XIV-4 31 ¢.f3lj . XV. HOUSING AND POPULATION A. Environmental Setting There are approximately 11 ,775 elderly residing in Hunting- ton Beach, or 7 percent of the City's total population. Elderly , persons head a total of 6,722 households, nearly half of which are lower-income households. Of. these lower-income elderly house- holds, 1 ,880, or. 56 percent are. paying .greater than 25 percent ' of their income for housing 30 These Asa tisi e� ahe baked an the 1979 Spec Lat Cen,6u.6. i i The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) has recently estimated that there are 1 ,075 elderly and handicapped households which are in need of housing assistance. In addition, r SCAG has identified Huntington Beach's "fair share" adjustment, which includes 251 elderly and handicapped households. The City o6 Huntington Beach P.ean.n.ing Depantment ha,6 neeentey comp.2eted a Aa6t tevizipa o6 -th.e A Housing Etemewt. The ptopoded pno j ect is eona.i scent with the pot c i a o6 thin document since it meetis ,the speciat needs o6 eideAty pWonz. The nnopo.6ed pnojeet '! c� ti�sted in the Housing EZement dnabt ass one o6 the pnognam in the City .that woutd contkibute to neati.zing the .intended pot%ciez. (Source: City o6 Huntington Beach PZanning aepah tment, Dna6 t j Housing ftement, pp 54 and 55) . ,I XV-1 XVI . FISCAL ANALYSIS . Total costs and revenues resulting from development of the i • proposed project were estimated based on factors supplied by the Huntington Beach Finance Department. Total annual revenues to the City are estimated at $19,900 per year plus a one-time con- struction tax of $165,000. Costs associated with the proposed I project are estimated at $22,571 per year plus a one-time expen- diture of $100,000 for library improvements. Not considered in this analysis are $550,000 of Federal housing and community develop- ment funds which will finance site clearance and demolition, utility improvements and rough grading, and the construction of the new senior center. Cost and revenue calculations are sum- marized in Appendix G. �i :i `i i r ii t i! - M •1 i i i • E , t t i XVI-1 1 XVII . LIGHTING AND GLARE A. Environmental Setting The proposed .project site lighting is currently centered around the buildings. This consists mainly of .a few lights on . the outside .of. the Community Clinic, Fire Station, Administra- tion Building and the Library. In addition, the Pecan Avenue right-of-way has a city owned system. It is lit by a 2,500 lumen 6.6 series system which produces a low level of lighting. B. Potential Impact The existing lighting would be modified with implementation of the .proposed project. There are lighting standards promulgated by the Housing and Urban Development Department (HUD) which would r be implemented in this project. At this time, the location of the lights is not known. However, it is anticipated that there will be lighting with a luminosity of .4-foot candles at every entrance, 2-foot candle lights at walkways and 1-foot candle lights in the parking lots. It is anticipated that a low-level of brightness would be achieved,31 C. Mitigation Measures Any lighting should be .shielded away from any nearby resi- dences. XVII-1 III i XVII1 . ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT i In this section, alternatives to the .proposed project are evaluated and the significant tradeoffs among the .uses of available alternative resources are presented. Major alternatives to the : . proposed project include: (1 ) no project; (2) alternate siting; (3). alternate density; .and (4) open space. `I -t I,. A. No Project The proposed project site has a General Plan designation of 'I Mixed Development. It is underutilized since the old .Memorial ik Building and Fire Station have not been fully utilized for the past few ears. The Community Clinic, consisting of a portable I!'' P Y Y 9 p building and two trailers, are .temporary structures currently using the site. This alternative would effectively preclude the introduction of impacts anticipated if the proposed project were implemented These impacts include increased air pollution, in- creased traffic, increased on-street parking, increased noise levels, increased surface water run-off, and a loss of open space. The negative impacts associated with no project include a loss of low to moderate cost housing for senior citizens. I' IV. of B. Alternate Siting ;f This alternative evaluated the placement of the proposed pro- ject at another site within the City of Huntington Beach. I The location and characteristic of the proposed project site make it particularly suited to the proposed project's concepts. .'t. The development of the Activity Center in a centrally located area of the City and adjacent to the Public Library will create a com- >rf munity oriented service. The additional provision of low to mod- I�I; XVIII-1 l�g�h 's ;y r Y . ` 1 r erate income housing at this site will .intensify the .viability of the other proposed uses i e: ,;4 p p ( ' . Activity Center and limited commer- i; . cial ) . In. addition to the convenient location of the site as it relates to centrality, the site is. attractive because of its close proximity to the .beach. Other sites with similar amenities could be sought out, but l � 4 due to the current underutilization of the proposed site and. its ability to accommodate the proposed project, such a search could result in few additional benefits. C. Alternate Density This alternative would propose the development of ,the same project with a reduced number of dwelling units. This would effec- tively reduce the expected_•impacts on air quality, traffic and circulation, and noise. . A significant, reduction in the number of All ,+ dwelling units would be necessary in order to alleviate the. in- adequate number of parking spaces. Again, however, the benefits of providing low-to-moderate income housing to as many senior citizens as possible would be lost. This is, particularly true since a demand for such housing has been identified. D. Open Space The last major alternative-would be the development of a park. Such a proposal would require a change in the zoning of the site. There would also be monetary costs to the City with this alternative. Such costs would include development of the property (i .e. , removal of the old Memorial Hall and Fire Station) , and the provision of personnel to maintain the park. As a park, no revenues could be obtained from 14�II! the site. The beneficial impact of preservation and enhancement. of open 4Fil�: space that would otherwise be lost an indefinite period of time, if if the proposed project is implemented, would be offset by the loss of senior citizen housing and a new senior Activity Center. XVIII-2 l i 1 XIX. FOOTNOTES „r 1 . Soils Engineering, Inc: , Foundation Investigation, November 1978 2.. Communication with Mr. John Cotton, Kamnitzer, Cotton, Vreeland !' • 3. SCAQMD, Air Quality Handbook for Environmental Impact Reports, I I' February 1977 I .4. . SCAQMD, Fuel Use and Emissions from Stationary Combustion.-Source, July 1976 IEl 5. Highway Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual , 1965, Special Report 87 , 6. Based on Census Tract information for Huntington Beach which 9 indicated location of elderly residents 7. Oral communication with Mr. Bud Higgins, Historian for City of Huntington Beach I,I 8. Ibid. 9. Huntington Beach General Plan, Noise Element, December 1976, p. 40 I. 10. Personal communication with Southern California Edison Company ;i ,i, 11 . Ibid. 12. California Energy Commission, Conservation Division, Regulations Establishing Energy Conservation Standards for New Residential and New Nonresidential Buildings, as amended July 26, 1978 . 13. John Henderson, Playa del Amo Shopping Center Final EIR, City of Torrance, June 1975 • 14. Written communication with Mr. J. D. Allen, Technical Supervisor, Southern California Gas Company, Orange County Division. Refer to Appendix C. 15. Personal communication with Mr. John Cotton, Kamnitzer, Cotton, • Vreeland 1� 16. •Written communication with Mr. Dale R: Park, Area Construction t; Superintendent, General Telephone Company. Refer to Appendix C. F 17. Refer to Appendix D for calculations I. XIX-1 18. Refer to Appendix D for calculations i' 19. Personal communication with Mr. Jeff Renna, Huntington Beach Public Works Department; July 23, 1979 i .j 20. City of Los Angeles Planning Department, EIR Manual for Private .: Projects, factors for Solid Waste Generation, August 1975. Refer to Appendix D for calculations. 21 . Personal. communication with Officer Van Bethea, City of Hunting- ton Beach Police Department a6' 22. Ibid. 23. City of Huntington Beach. Inter-Department Communication from Officer .Van Bethea, Police Department Special Operations Divi- sion, to Mr. . Stephen Kohler, Senior Community Development Specialist; June 19, 1979. 24. Personal communication with Captain Mel Ott Huntington Beach Fire Department. :V 25. Information from drawing submitted by Kamran Safamanesh, of J 1.; Kamni tzer, Cotton, Vreeland ,.1�9�• 26. Tree Report, competed by Mr. Tolbert Feather, Department of Pathology, University of California, Riverside, July 27, 1979. � Il 27. General Plan Amendment 76-1A. 28. General Plan Amendment 79-1A, March 1979, .p.29. 29. Refer to Appendix F for correspondence with LCP Staff. 30. Huntington Beach General Plan, Draft Housing Element revision, Section 3.1 .1 .1 . 31 . Communication with Mr. John Cotton, Kamnitizer, Cotton, Vreeland. is M 1 XIX-2 •17Z1' {01, XX. BIBLIOGRAPHY u Huntington Beach Planning Department, Seismic Safety Element Preliminar� Y) , August 1974 ;k Huntington Beach Planning Department, _ "z Leighton - Yen and Associates, Geotechnical Inputs, February 1974 74.N I. _ Huntington Beach Planning Department, Conservation Technical Report, .March 1974 Huntington Beach Planning Department, -' x Open. Space Potential , February 1974 {f : Huntington Beach Planning Department, . Circulation. Element Background Report August 1976 City of Huntington- Beach, F° Housing and Community Development Program, Fifth Year Application, _March 1979 Huntington Beach General Plan, December 1976 Huntington Beach Planning Department, ..� .:; General Plan Amendment 79-1A, March 1979 Highway Research Board, ., j Highway Capacity Manual , 1965 ay. City of Los Angeles Planning Department, - EIR Manual for Private Projects, August. 1975 Soils Engineering, Inc. , Foundation Investigation, hlovember 1978 SCAQMD, Air Quality Handbook for Environmental Impact Reports, February 1977. Southern California Association of Governmental and SCAQMD, Draft Air Quality Management Plan, October 1978 Q Y 9 SCAQMD, Fuel Use and Emissions from Stationary Combustions +' Source July 1.976 . s 1: .-� XX-1 • XXI . PARTICIPANTS The personnel who participated in the preparation of this • Environmental Impact Report include the following: Environmental Analysis: Jane Osborne Baker Patti O'Brien Contact Person: Patti O'Brien • Project Manager Pacific Environmental Services 1930 14th Street Santa Monica, CA 90404 (2.13) 450-1800 C • XXI-1 XXII. PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONTACTED City of Huntington Beach • Fire: Captain Mel Ott Police: Officer Van Bethea Parks and Recreation: Mr. Bill Fowler • Planning: Mr. James Barnes, Mr. Stephen Kohler., Ms. June Catalano, Mr. Bill Holman Public Works: Mr. Jeff Renna l r Traffic: Mr. Bruce Gilmer, Mr. Ralph Leyva Local Coastal Program: Ms. Mary Lynn Norby City Yard': Mr. Daryl Smith f • Other Organizations and Agencies General Telephone Company: Hs. Lorraine Kelley, Mr. Dale R. Park Southern California Gas Company: Mr. R. G. Burette, Mr. J. D. Allen M Southern California Edison: Mr. Bill Compton, Mr. Ralph Coolidge Rainbow Disposal : Stan Huntington Beach Historical • Society: Ms. Virginia Wipple City Historian: Mr. Bud Higgins i Kamnitzer, Cotton, Mr. John Cotton Vreeland: i i 1 XXII-I i z • > , - lid r`•J << APPENDIX A • INITIAL STUDY 7A ra+ _ ,5 E�}tl 4_f �_f FNVIRONMENTAI. CHECKLIST FORM r Environmental Checklist Form I. Background .1. Name of Proponent William Lyon Company 2. Address and Phone. Number of Proponent 3. Date of Checklist Submission July 2, 1979 • 4. Agency Requiring Checklist City. of Huntington Beach Planning Department 5. Name of Proposal , if applicable Senior Citizen Housing/Activity Center • II. . Environmental Impacts (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) YES MA Y BE NO 1. Earth Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? X _ b. Disruptions , displacements., com- paction or overcovering of the soil? X c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? X d. The destruction, covering or modi- fication of any unique geologic or physical features? X e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? X f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands , or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or • lake? X A-1 • :,-•,ii,i YES MAYBE NO g. Exposure of people or property to geological hazards such as .earth— �:i ff� quakes , landslides , mudslides, ground X 1'. failure, or similar hazards? 41 RV { !; ` 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: t a. Substantial air emissions or tieteri— E � 'i oration of ambient air quality? X "" b. The creation of objectionable odors? X C. Alteration of air movement , moisture or temperature, or any change in TM?l climate , either locally or regionally? X r I;1 3. . Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes. in currents , or the course or direction of water movements , in either A�I'U - marine or _fresh .waters? - X b. Changes in absorption rates , drainage patterns , or the rate and amount of surface runoff. c. Alterations to the course of flow of flood waters? X ►1iil� d. Change in the amount of surface water I ! in any water body? X y is e. Discharge into surface waters or in : III i an alteration of surface water .I. y quality, including but not. limited to temperature , dissolved oxygen_ or turbidity? X :11 II; '': f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? X Illy lyl;i I` g. Change in the quantity of ground " ! waters , either through direct addi— tions or withdrawals or through Ijk interception. of an aquifer by cuts i' or excavations? X Ali — Ii'lle h. Substantial reduction in the amount IIi_ . of water otherwise available for '!Ypublic water supplies? X Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? X "` A rPF-2k"'i • YES MAYBF NO ` 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in : a.' Change in the diversity of species , or number of any species of plants (in.cluding trees , shrubs, grass , crops , and •aquatic plants)? X b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? X c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area , or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? X d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? X • 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of. any species of animals (birds , land animals including reptiles , �• fish and shellfish , benthic organisms , or insects)? X b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique , rare or endangered species of animals? X • C. Introduction of new species of ani- mals into an area , or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? X d. Deterioration to existing fish or . • wildlife habitat? X 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? X b. Exposure of people Ito severe noise levels? X 1. LiPht and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? X 0 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? X A-3 • YFS MAYBE. No'. - '`' 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any i 3jUnatural resources? X b. Substantial depletion of an P Y non- renewable natural resource? X 10. Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve a risk of an explosion or the release of .`; hazardous substances (including , but not limited to oil , pesticides , chemicals or ' ".0 radiation) . in the event of an accident or i upset conditions? X al;l•; 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the q location, distribution , density, or growth rate of the human population .of an area? X t,qlf, 12. Housing. Will .the proposal affect existing housing , or create a demand for additional housing? X 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the i; proposal result in : i' a. Ceneration of substantial additional 1 i, vehicular movement? X 11' b. Effects on existing parking facilities , I I�; or demand for new parking? X C. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems. X d. Alterations . to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? X I � � '. e. Alterations to waterborne , rail or I air traffic? X - ;It`' f. Increase in traffic hazardous to i motor vehicles , bicyclists or pedestrians? X 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in .any of the following areas : I' A-4 iii� Vh-2A . YES MAYBE NO a. Fire protection? X b. Police protection?' X c. Schools? X d. Parks or other recreational facilities? X e. Maintenance of public facilities , including roads? X f. Other governmental services?. X 15. Ene rEy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? X b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy,. or require the development of new sources -of energy? X lb. Utilities. Will the .proposal result in a need for new systems , or substantial alterations to the following utilities : a. Power or natural gas? X b Communications systems? X c. Water? X d. Sewer or septic tanks? X e. Storm water drainage? X f. Solid waste and disposal? X 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? X b. Exposure of people to potential . health hazards? X 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public , or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site .open to public view? X A-5 - -YES MAYBE N(1 : 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon. the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? X 20. Archeological/Historical. Will thf, proposal result in .an alteration of a A. significant archeological or historical site , structure, object or building? _ X 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. - �� a. Does the project have the. potential to degrade the quality .of the environment, I'! 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, 3 reduce the number or restrict the range .of a rare or endangered_ plant . + or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of ,i California history or prehistory? X 3 b. Does the project have the. potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage . of long-term, environmental goals? (A i short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief definitive period of time while long- term impacts will endure well into the future.) X +. c. Does the Project have impacts which" lilt are individually limited , but cumu- latively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each i� !,.,�, resource is relatively small , but where the effect of the total of IIII° those impacts on the environment is X significant.) O '� d. Does the have environmental project effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings , either directly or indirectly? X �i'V ! III. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation lilll ,it ' IV. P.etermination I'jl (To be completed by the Lead Agency) { j A-6 ' d Iir—LA: Ib i On the basis of this initial evaluation : I find that the proposed projectSCOULD 'NOT have a significant effect on the environment , and a NEGATIVE. DFCI.ARATION will be prepared . 0 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment , there will not be a significant effect in this casebecause the mitigation measures described on an attached • sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect. on the environment , and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Date Signature For M (Note: This is only a suggested form. Public agencies are free to devise ,I their own format for initia.l studies,) i A-7 i , 1 : 41 �;,;' III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION ,ILIII, 6a.- Noise levels would probably be increased due to additional Y/ passenger vehicles utilizing the site. Further evaluation- of the impact of noise and. its mitigation should be consi- dered. W, 7. New light and glare produced by security lighting on the. . i. site could possibly impact surrounding residences. P Y P 9 . 8. The present land use designation would, be altered with this r; project. The impact should be discussed. ! ; 11 . The population distribution and location would be altered 4 and should be assessed. i 12. The introduction of new housing in the City could affect existing housing. The impact should be addressed. 13a. The proposed project would attract additional vehicular traffic to the site. An evaluation of conditions should be considered in order to determine if the additional movement would be substantial enough to impact the present circula- tion pattern. 13b. Existing parking would be removed. The parking to be pro- f vided would be less than that Y Y parking required b City arkin codes. . The impact should .be evaluated. i' 13c. Provisions for additional. public transportation should be addressed. III;' 13d. Existing circulation patterns would be altered. The impact of the change, and the problems produced due to the change should be evaluated further to determine possible mitiga- ,ih tion measures. 1 I9 :i11 III A-8 li�fl 14a. Additional fire services would be required. The fire department's ability to accommodate this project should be assessed. • 14b. Additional police protection should be assessed. A dis- cussion of the private security system should be included. 14d. Removal of an existing park-like area should be addressed.. 14e.& Additional city services could be required. The extent of 14f. this additional need should be evaluated. 16a. through f. An alteration to the existing public utilities would occur with this project. The impact on the community infra- structure should be assessed. 18b. Open space would be removed with the placement of a three- story apartment building. The aesthetic impact on the surrounding area should be discussed. 20. The removal of the old memorial hall and fire station would occur with implementation of the proposed project. The historic significance of these buildings should be assessed and the impact of their removal evaluated. A-9 r APPENDIX B • TRIP GENERATIONS • LEVEL OF SERVICE { • TRIP GENERATION CALCULATIONS Housing (proposed use ) Factor used: 3.3 trips/day/d.u. (for retirement community)* Activity Center (proposed use) Approximately 5700 persons use the existing activity center each month.** This equals approximately 259 persons/weekday. • Activity Center will supply the use of 2 .vans and 2 station wagons which would accommodate approximately 50 persons; assume 20% (43) of the seniors would use public buses and 50% of the senior center population (103) will come from the housing on-site. Trips Generated: 259 50 - 43 - 103 = 63 trips per day Clinic (to be removed) : 5.9 trips/day/employee TLC Program (the trip generation factor for the retirement community includes both housing and special services; therefore, the current number of trips generated by the TLC program are removed for this analysis) : Serves @ 80 persons per day. Assume 20% (16) use buses. Trips per day: 64 Total Trips Generated: Housing 156 x 3.3 = 515 Activity Center + 63 578 Clinic 5.9 x 1.2 = 71 TLC Program - 64 135 Trips 578 - 135 = 443 vehicles/day * Institute of Traffic Engineers, "Trip Generation" Traffic Engineering, October 1976: Please note, this factor maces into consideration both housing and special services offered by a re- tiftment Community. **Average of data supplied by Huntington Beach Planning Department rl,• THE CONCEPT OF LEVEL OF CAPACITY AND LEVEL OF SERVICE The standard method for determining roadway adequacies or de- ficiencies- is by a volume-capacity analysis. This procedure deter- mines the ability of the roadway to serve traffic volumes based on : y y I the physical characteristics of the roadway at various levels of I.Ai service. �911 Level of service is a term which denotes any of an infinite " number of .differing combinations of operating conditions that may q. if{ 91 occur on a given lane or roadway when it is accommodating various traffic volumes. Level of service is a qualitative measure of the � ! effect of a number of factors, which include speed and travel time, traffic. interruptions, freedom to maneuver, safety, driving comfort and convenience, and operating cost. (1) There are six levels of service, levels A through F, which relate to driving conditions from 1 jib a Ij best to worst, respectively. The characteristics of traffic flow i `i:> t 'i' for these various levels of service are summarized in Table B-1 . , Corresponding to each level of service, a service volume is III defined. This is the maximum traffic volume that can operate over 1, 1 I,I;I a given section of roadway while maintaining the stated operating �I.L1; conditions for that level of service_. The service. volume for a � I'Ilsl. I''T given level of service will vary with the type of facility being tll�l. analyzed. For example, the service volume for a four-lane highway I�I'! will have a higher service volume than a four-lane undivided highway for the same level of service. .Y Two levels of service,. E and C, warrant further discussion as III; they are particularly important in traffic engineering. Level of n 1'! 1 Highway Capacity Manual , Special Report 87, Highway Research Board, Washington, D.C. , 1965, p. 7. �l,,I; B-2 i It'„ fl I�i� • Table B-1 . LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTIONS . LEVEL OF SERVICE A • • Free flow conditions • Low volumes • High operating speeds • Uninterrupted flow • No restriction on maneuverability . • Drivers maintain desired speeds • • Little or no delays LEVEL OF SERVICE B • Stable flow condition • Operating speeds beginning to be restricted • Design level for rural conditions LEVEL OF SERVICE C • Stable flow but speed and maneuverability restricted by higher traffic volumes • Satisfactory operating speed for urban conditions LEVEL OF SERVICE D • Approaching unstable flow • Tolerable speeds maintained. ' • Temporary restrictions • Little freedom to maneuver LEVEL OF SERVICE E (CAPACITY) • Lower operating speed (approximately 30 mph) • Volumes at or near capacity • Unstable flow • Momentary stoppages LEVEL OF SERVICE F i • Forced flow conditions * Low speeds • Volumes below capacity, may be zero • Stoppages for short or long periods because of. downstream congestion i B-3 1 ,W, s; Service "E" is defined as capacity. It is the "maximum number of; !i! vehicles which have a reasonable expectation of passing over a given section of a lane or roadway in. one direction (or both directions for a two-lane or three-lane highway) during a given time period under prevailing traffic' conditions ." (2) Unpredictable ; i factors such as accidents and vehicle breakdowns can totally dis- rupt traffic flow at which time the practical service volume of a roadway is significantly reduced.. The service volume of a roadway is related to the capacity of that roadway by a factor called. the volume to capacity ratio ;I c . `i For a given level of service,. a .ratio is defined. Conversely, if the existing volume is known, the level of service at which that roadway is operating can be determined. The Level of Service "C" is defined as a condition of stable p. traffic flow but speeds and maneuverability are somewhat restricted. This level is generally considered to be an acceptable level of traf- fic flow and not an inconvenience to automobile drivers. Most ! A. drivers are restricted in their freedom to select their own speed, I' change lanes, or pass. However, a relatively satisfactory operating speed is still obtained and most drivers do not find this operation objectionable. Further, Level of Service "C" indicates that although a vehicle may not pass through a signalized intersection on one given cycle, it should be able to pass during the following cycle. I .� This level of service is used as the design capacity for urban con- ditions. N. k 'J ! 1 .7 a y. B-4 Ii .i APPENDIX C PUBLIC UTILITIES F • ORANGE COUNTY DIVISION. P. O BOX 3334, ANAHEIM. CALIF 92803 July 10, 1979 Pacific Environmental Services Inc. 1930 l4th Street Santa Monica, Calif. 90404 • SUBJECT: Ability to Serve This letter is not to be interpreted. as a contractual commitment to serve the proposed project, but only as -an information service. Its intent is to notify you that the Southern California Gas Company has facilities in the area where the above-named project is proposed. Gas service to the project could be pro- vided from an existing main as shown on the attached atlas sheet without any significant impact on the environment:_ The service would be in accordance with the Company's policies and extension rules on file with the California Public Utilities Commission at the time contractual arrangements are made. The availability of natural gas service, as set forth in this letter, is based upon present conditions of gas supply and regulatory policies. As a public utility, the Southern California Gas Company is under the jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission. We can also be affected by actions of federal regulatory agencies. Should these agencies ,take any action which affects gas supply or the .condition under which service is available, gas service will • be provided in accordance with revised. conditions. Residential (System Area Average) Yearly Single Family 1095 Therms/year/dwelling unit Multi-Family 4 or less units 640 Therms/year/dwelling unit Multi-Family 5 or more units 580 Therms/year/dwelling .unit . These estimates are based on gas consumption in residential units served by Southern California Gas Company during 1975 and it should not be implied that any particular home, apartment or tract of homes will use these amounts of energy. This is particularly true due to the State new insulation requirements and consumers' efforts toward energy conservation. C-1- `tI' � I II II• ' t We have developed several programs which are available , upon request, to provide assistance in selecting the most effective applications of energy t - i l!+IHk'l conservation techniques. for a particular project. If you desire further information on any of our energy conservation programs, please contact this office for assistance. �I :. Sincerely, I ICI,' J. D. Allen LII, Technical Supervisor i G/es Attach, � jlal. IN 4r� ;u III ill;. l C-2 ih C . = RECEIVED JUL 1 8 15�= GEnERALTELEPHonc: crimpp_riv of 'CF:LtFOr;;i. . Ar E 7 77 HUNTINGTON CENTER, P.O. BOX 109E. HUNTINGTON BEQCM,CF.LIF.O;'04' 225-7 7'- E i JulY 13, 1979 3763 E3.5A j I Pacific Environmental Services, Inc. F 1930- 14th Street Santa Monica, California 90404 Dear Patti O'Brien . The following is in answer to your letter dated Jul;; 6, 1a7c, Reinforcement of existing facilities will not be required, and no significant impact can be. foreseen. See attached. map of existing underground facilities. r Very truly yours GENTRAL TELEPHONE C01f.PANY OF CALIFORNIA DALE R. PARK Area Construction Superintendent. JDF:BF CC S. Botelho - 6230 1. C-3 t 4 j • • • APPENDIX D CALCULATIONS FOR: Water Sewage Solid Waste I I 4 • • ,t CALCULATIONS FOR PUBLIC SERVICES WATER • Factors used (proposed uses) : Housing 157 gallons/person/day* Activity Center 5.gallons/seat/day ** Commercial 100 gallons/1000 ft2 GFA ** • Landscaping 0. 132 gallons/ft2 ** .(existing uses, .to be removed) : Clinic 300 gallons/1000 ft2 GFA ** • TLC Program 50 gallons/seat ** Consumption (daily) : Housing 28,260 gallons Activity Center 2,750 gallons Commercial 4,000 gallons Landscaping 20,929 gallons 55,939 gallons/day Clinic 1 ,320 gallons TLC Program*** 4,250 gallons -5,570 gallons Total Consumption = 55,939 minus 5,570 = 50,369 gallons/day Maximum Daily Average: 5,0,369 .X 1 .5* = 75,554 gallons Peak Hour: 75,554 gallons/day X 1 .6* 120,886 gallons * Supplied by Huntington Beach Public Works Department ** City of Los Angeles Planning Department, EIR Manual for Private Projects, August 1975 ***Existing consumption removed, since. its projected consumption is included in the Activity Center calculation 4 D-1 G I I SEWAGE Average Flow Factor: 130 gallons/day%d.u.* Irl{ji;l l4llil llf� jri, Average flow = 20,280 gallons/day Peak flow* _ (.02 X 10. •892 .X .1 .7 el-1i I - - �'"i, k = .05 X 106 gallons/day tfj',,11 SOLID WASTE ! Factors used (proposed uses) : 14>i Housing 3.6 lb/unit/day31 ** Activity Center 20.9 lb/employee/day ** II! (existing uses, to be removed) : Clinic 20.9 lb/employee/day Waste generated (daily): i' Housing 562 lb 1, 'I Activity Center 606 lb 1 ,168 lb I i Clinic. -250 lb '; Total waste generated: 1 ,168 lb minus 250 lb = 918 lb/day I� Ills' * Huntington Beach Public Works Department factor 'I: I I I D-2 I 41 t APPENDIX E TREE RFPORT r i. L. i 1 . i i s CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH_ INTER DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTIN(lON MACH • qqj E l To James Barnes From. Daryl D. Smith Associate Planner Tree/Landscape-Supervisor 4 Subject Downtown Senior Citizens Date .August 3 , 1979 ! • e Housing Development y Tolbert Feather and I made a field inspection of the subject site on Julv 26, 1979 . I have attached Mr. Feather ' s report of • t that inspection,. and I concur with all of Mr. Feather ' s recom- mendations. We did not have a specific site plan of the proposed develop- ment, therefore, we could not be specific in precise single tree location findings or recommendations . 4 If you have any further questions , please call . �4 Q x a S DEFT, !_ Tree/Landscape Supervisor DDS:mr P. O. L;x 1�)o Huntington Ceach, CA 92648 t ) + t i £t£� E-1 +t- UNIVERSITY 01" CALIFORNIA, RIVER,SIDF F ; I-I�4 J/1�• t - f1lllK lLC)'- DA\"IC •'lll\IN1: LOS ANGlLFS f11\f:IlS1U1. SAN DIf.CO iAK fIiANC.15C0 �I ±� (•.II SAI,TA UAIMA1lA SAN7-A CUUZ 1 i DEPANI MIEN I OF PLAN PAIIIUI.06Y RI%'flt1,InF.t A[IFORNIA 92521 I COLLEGE OF NATURAL AND 1 •. r_ �rilhl , AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES July 27, 1979 I!lil CITRUS RKSEARCII CI:NTF.P AND I'I.�` ,I :� U^hT. ii AGIRICULTURAL EXPER;MEN1 S1AlION 1 t ilG�i - - 3��j; TO: Daryl Smith P. 0. Fso� Huniingtol E: �Ch, CA 92648 FROM: Tolbert. Feather RE: Status of Phoenix canariensis palms at old Civic Center Huntington Beach, and recommendations for transplantation and removal. A fungal disease of Phoenix canariensis has recently been discovered and described in S. California. The disease causes reduction of the tree canopy and can be easily recognized by the characteristic unilateral death of leaves � '•'•! (leaflets on 1/2 of the leaf die first followed by total death of the leaf) . Two fungi , Gliocladium vermoeseni and Fusarium oxysporum have been con- ?!a'�ri' sistently cultured from diseased trees in Huntington Beach, Loyola Marymount University in L.A. , Shelter Island in San Diego, and Arrowhead Springs in San r Bernardino Co. Both fungi are pathogenic on P. canariensis seedlings. Field observations indicate that the disease is spread by pruning. ` The nature of disease spread among trees and disease development within a �lg single tree makes it difficult to diagnose absolute healthy trees within an infected planting of trees. This is the problem at the old Civic Center in Huntington Beach. Trees which presently appear healthy could have been exposed to the fungi 2 3 years ago and symptoms of disease may not appear until later ia`; this year or perhaps next year, or the year after. It would be impossible to �:'` guarantee that a particular tree would remain seemingly healthy in this area, !'I considering the above. The following recommendations can be made with regard to the transplanta- tion or removal of trees around the old Civic Center for the purpose of con- struction and re-landscaping in the area. P. I; i 1) All obviously diseased trees should be removed. We are currently 1 '4 injecting fungicides. into diseased trees around the Library` , and we would like to have the use of these trees for at least another year ( Sept. 1980) . We it have no treatments in trees in the area west of the parking lot , bordering !I Orange Street. t { 2) At this time none of the trees in the old Civic Center area can be certified as healthy. Transplantation of trees of this size is costly and y in m opinion inion would not be worth the risk. - 1 3) Trees apparently healthy could remain in place and construction I!t.. could be continued around trees. : However, any tree should be removed if it is , it .l E-2 i I. •A 1• ,�I 1 r Daryl Smith Page 2 July 27 , 1979 f in a position where latter removal, after building construction, would be costly, verses removal before construction. �ff 4) We are checking the pathogenicity of the 2 fungi on other species of palm, and . studying the effect of replanting g P. canariensis in sites where- trees have died. For further landscaping in this area palms other than Phoenix sp should definitely be used and perhaps other non—palm species of • f trees should be used. i s s C i Z i; $3f' {Fy�L t i • j . . • E APPENDIX F COASTAL ZONE ISSUES I f i f • t . y ,i • i RLDEIVED JUL 2 5 1979 • CITY OF Hun -T-in (; Ton BEACH DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 4. BUILDING DIVISION (714)536.5241 PLANNING DIVISION (714)536.5271 P.O. Box 190, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648 July 20, 1979 Ms . Patti O'Brien Pacific Environmental Services , Inc. 1930 14th Street Santa Monica, CA. . 90404 RE: EIR for Senior Center . Project Dear 11s . O'Brien: Following are some issues which should be covered in your EIR for this project. These comments are from the Local Coastal Program s Staff. - The project is located within the jurisdiction of the South Coast Regional Commission and the California Coastal Commission . Therefore, a coastal permit will be required upon completion of City processes and approvals . • - The coastal zone area of Huntington Beach is also the coastal planning area for the Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program (LCP) . The City is contracted to complete a Coastal Element and Land Use Plan in conformance with the policies of the Coastal Act of 1.976 . Some of the Background Reports have been completed and policies developed in conjunction with a public input process . �.: The LCP Area. Study for Downtown which includes the project location will not be complete until about October. This Area Study will be " the background research to be used to determine .the policies for the Coastal Element and the Land Use Plan. The Coastal Element may be submitted to the Coastal Commission by the end of the year or s #: early in 1980 for certification ., After Commission reviews (up to five months) the City will become the permit issuing agency . jj. 1 F t F-1 I r ,. Patti O'Brien yr: July 20 , 1979 Page 2 - Coastal Act policies which may be applicable to this project !� include : Mall ,I 1) Section 30213, requiring protection and encouragement and provision of lower cost visitor and recreational facilities applies to this } project in its enhancement of public library and community center._ The community center will serve seniors at little or no cost and the library provides low cost passive recreation. ,4 . 2) Section 30223 which states "Upland areas necessary to support coastal recreational uses shall be reserved for such uses , . where ly feasible" . . may apply to this property.. However, the Area Study of the downtown and ocean front areas of the coastal zc•ne is not i yet complete so the need for upland support is not as yet determined.. 3) Section 30213 states that: j 30213. Housing opportunities for persons of low and moderate income shall be protected, encouraged, and where feasible , provided } . . . New housing in the coastal zone shall be developed in conformity ' htl with the standards , policies, and goals of local housing elements ; adopted in accordance with the requirements of subdivision (c) P q of Section 65302 of the Government Code. This project with its 49+% of assisted units provided for senior i citizens of low or moderate income appears to be a positive '4I1 activity in conformity with this policy' s intent. ; 4) Section 30.252 stipulates that on-site recreational facilities to serve new residents be provided. This project does make such provisions for the residents in the housing portion as well as other City . � r1 residents in the senior sector. r 5) Section 30250 provides " that new development be placed near .J existing development rather than away from existing ?reas . The . project- comrlies . 6) Section 30251 requires the character of new development to be tf visually compatible with surrounding areas and to restore visual fr} quality to degraded areas . The .design of the -project though providing modern facilities is expected to blend in coloration ' and landscaping features with the surrounding older community . `i The problem of the on-site palm trees which appear diseased should be investigated. These are a major site feature which should be preserved or mitigated by replacement. 7) Section 30253 requires protection of '-special communities . The .I Downtown area of Huntington Beach has been identified as a special community in the LCP Work Program because of some unique character- istics and visitor attraction. The manner in which this special community is to be enhanced has not been determined. Recommend- ations will be part of the LCP Area Study. Therefore, whether . e•i j� this project will be compatible with the special community theme cannot be determined. The demolition of the Veteran ' s Memorial g Hall should be evaluated to determine the Hall ' s value as an architectural and historical .laridmark. �! F-2 , • f Patti O'Brien July 20, 1979 Page 3 7: n 8_) The project is .convenient to sewer and water mains and a public bus stop is on the site. The lack of provision of sufficient on-site parking may cause congestion in the local neighborhood. The Coastal guideline, of two parking .space per unit, is not met. 9) Although the LCP Citizen Advisory Committee has reviewed the project briefly - the project lacks the citizen participation required by the Coastal Act at this point. During the LCP process, the public would have a particular chance to review f the project in relation to the neighborhood and the full coast- Lod.F line. The land use plan particularly must be processed through several public hearings. Therefore, this project will precede the LCP. It will be the Coastal Commission' s task to determine if the predetermining of plans in this area is significant. It may be' decided that this under-5-acre project which provides ?d positive housing benefits and Downtown focus does- not signifi- cantly prejudice the LCP. Very truly yours , Mary Lynn Norby Local Coastal Program ;ions E MLN:dc • r j s d i t 4 1 � r- t F-3.. • i'- Sr • .b f' C.. • ii APPENDIX G • COST AND REVENUE CALCULATIONS Y F 4 F Y f r i RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUES Property Tax = 9% of 1% of assessed value $4,833,338 = assessed value X 1% 48,333 = property tax • X 9% .Huntington Beach share $ 4,350 revenue Sales Tax Revenue • $ 32.99 per capita X 180 population of project 1' $ 5,938.00 revenue r • Subventions $ 23.98 per capita X 180 population of project $4,316:00 revenue . t Water Charges $ 321 .00 per acre X 2.6 project acres $ 835.00. revenue Utility User Tax $ 507.00 per acre �. X 2.6 project acres t $1 ,318.00 revenue a 40 , G-1 i` NNI Revenue Sharing $ 9.68 per capita X 180 project population $1 ,742.00 revenue I(til 11I Recreation Fees $ 0.82 per capita. X 180 project population i 148.00 revenue 7y Fines, Forfeitures, and Penalties $ 1 .36 per capita X 180 project population _ $ 245.00 revenue Licenses $ 1 .07 per capita X 180 project population �, $ 193.00 revenue T Construction Tax I' iy $165,000 one-time tax Total $ 19,085 per year plus $165,000 one-time construction tax i� i I� 1 I I. G-2 N r: • RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT COSTS. • City Support Services $ 557 per acre X 3.64 � project acres is $ 2,027 cost Civic Improvement -Fund $ 123 per acre X 3.64. project acres • $ 448 cost Fire $ 665 per acre X 3.64 project acres $ 2,421 cost a Park-related $ 255 per acre �. X 3.64 project acres $ 928 cost 5 ' • Police $12,000 refer to Public Services Section Public Works $ 845 per acre • X 3.6.4 project acres $ 3,076 cost i. R • F j e r G-3 • 0 ill • Il j[ �r rl Refuse Collection k $ 426 per acre • X 3.64 project acres F., $ 1 ,551 cost Special Gas Tax Fund F, $ 33 . per acre ` X 3.64 project acres $ 120 cost Library Improvements "f $100,000 one-time cost E, Total Cost $ 22,571 per year plus $100,000 library improvements i rli II. I; fI l 'tlll , ii ?'�` G-4 r x E pp� .k v u a. R c. APPENDIX H C COMMENTS k k { t { • 4' { l ` r CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ��. INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION • - HUNTINGTON BEACH - 4 To Jim Barnes From Ralph R. -Leyva Associate Planner Traffic Engineer Subject EIR 79-1 Date August 23, 1979 The traffic analysis portion of the EIR appears to be adequate. However, there didn't seem to be any analysis or discussion regarding the demand or supply of parking for the development. Recent Senior M Citizen's Housing and Activity Centers constructed in this County • have demonstrated inadequate parking spaces after the Center has been in operation for one year. Perhaps there has been an under estimation * of the mobility of seniors through the -use of automobiles. � a Ralph Re L yva • RRL:ek F. ? EN i i i f I i i I } H-1 � I CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH IJ,-,J�j INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH _ To June Catalano From Carol Inge Senior Planner Assistant Planner Subject SENIOR- CITIZEN HOUSING AND. Date August 16, 1979 ACTIVITY CENTER DRAFT EIR My comments address the following four sections of the Senior Citizen Housing and Activity Center Draft EIR: 1.. Section II. Project Description k 2. Section XIV. Land Use ` 3. Section XV. Housing and Population 4. Section XVI. _ Fiscal Analysis 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION - A paragraph giving a brief history and purpose of this project might be added .to this section. Specifically this . paragraph could point out that the residential units are intended for f; low and moderate income senior citizens only, that rents on all units will .be below market rates as set forth in a rent schedule submitted to the City, and that additional O.C.H.A.. subsidies will be available JIM,;M for 49 percent of the units. This information would be especially helpful to readers who are not particularly familiar with these details of the project. 3, LAND USE - This section addresses the impacts on zoning and on the Local Coastal Program. It would be appropriate for this section to include also a paragraph on general land use impacts. This paragraph might describe existing land use on the site, the changes that would be brought about by the proposed project, and a finding as to whether these changes would be consistent with the policies set forth in the City' adopted Land Use Element. (The project is in fact compatible with a number of stated policies in that it promotes revitalization of the downtown area, allows higher densities of people and dwelling units near the beach, helps to reestablish a .beach orientation for Huntington i Beach residents, and combines a community recreation center and branch library in one area. ) Mary Lynn Norby indicated to that most of the information contained in the EIR' s discussion of Local Coastal Program Impacts came directly from her. Mary Lynn feels the section is basically complete but would Ill like to personally submit one -or two additions of her own for review. 4, HOUSING AND POPULATION - The housing and population statistics. in this section are correct. They are taken from two sources: 1) Housing Element Draft statistics based on the 1979 Special Census, and 2) S.C.A.G. estimates. The statistics that are based on 1979 Special Census data should be identified as such in the text rather than in a footnote at the back of the EIR. This would avoid confusion by clarifying why the H-2 k jPage Two I t }' number given for elderly households that spend more than .25 percent of their income on housing does not match the S.C.A.G. -estimates. of elderly families in need of assistance. While identifying the Housing Element Draft as a source of data, this • section might also explain briefly that our Planning Division has just completed this up-to-date document. The EIR might state a finding as to whether the proposed project' s impact on housing would be consistent with the policies stated in the Housing Element Draft. 15. FISCAL ANALYSIS - As might be expected, the cost and revenue totals. • , 1 . presented in this section are based on figures that are 2-4 years out of date. The EIR states that the estimates were "based on factors supplied by the Huntington Beach Finance Department. This is a little misleading. Appendix G of the EIR shows the individual cost and revenue calculations. The factors used are taken practically verbatim from a 1977 EIR on theSeacliff Phase IV project (The Seacliff factors, • in. .turn, were based on 1975 figures presented in the Planning Division' s 1976 Revenues/Expenditures Analysis of Land Use) . Furthermore, the property . tax calculation in the EIR is based on a 9 percent Huntington Beach Share. It is my understanding that the City' s share is actually 15 percent. The Advanced .Plann :ng division does have current cost and revenue factors for the City of Huntington Beach. Either I or Charles Clark would be happy to supply these figures in order to update this section of the EIR. 1 CI:gc . r G. j d H-3 1 i i I I� CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT. COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON-BEACH .. - To Jim Barnes From Stephen V. KohlerSenior Community Development Associate Planner Specialist Subject Old Civic Center .Project; Date September 17, 1979 Draft EIR comments Attached please find the comments on the old Civic Center Project Draft EIR that I have received from the development team of The Lyon Co. , the architectural firm of Kamnitzer, Cotton, Vreeland, and Housing Concepts. The comments of these members of the development team have been combined and are annotated for use by the authors. If you , or the P.E.S. staff should have any questions, please . give me a call at Extension 5541. 1 SVK:jb i i i i t H-4 ;i i cm, - Housing Concepts REEDFLORY : MICHAEL A.CASCIOLA September 11, 1979 • Mr. Steve V. Kohler Senior Community Development Specialist Development Services Department City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Huntington Seaview Dear Steve: Following are comments from the development team on the Environmental Impact Report prepared .by Pacific Environmental Services, Inc Generally we found. the report to be complete, . accurate and acceptable. But as with any complex proposal such as this, there were a few major comments or recommendations which we feel must be considered. We have attempted to order our comments in terms of their significance. ( 6 • Parking (Comments found on pp. II-1, III-2; V-1, TX-10, RIV-4) Throughout the EIR, the authors have made reference to an apparent con- flict with Coastal Guidelines and the amount of parking to be provided by this development. Just as the zoning code for the City of Huntington Beach generally calls for two parking spaces per D.U. so do the general Coastal Guidelines call for same amount. But, just as the city of Huntington Beach has amended this requirement to reflect the specific needs of low and moderate income elderly, so has the Coastal Commission consistently lowered this requirement for section 8 elderly developments within their regulatory boundaries. Section 8 elderly developments in Santa Monica and Port Hueneme to name only two similar elderly developments. in Coastal Areas have both been granted parking requirements which range from .25 to .33 to 1 instead of the 2-1 ratio referenced by the EIR as the correct ratio. The city of Huntington Beach has itself granted another section 8 elderly develop- ment a .33 to 1 parking ratio. We ask that the EIR consultants approach the Coastal Commission and HUD directly to confirm our estimates of park- ing needs of similar elderly developments. f We also ask that the following references found in the text of the EIR be amended to reflect more accurately ,the precedents and current policy of the Coastal Commission and the city of Huntington Beach, 1 H-5 I . t 17895 SKY PARK CIRCLE, SUITE A IRVINE, CA 92714 714.540.8245 r� II I� 1 (p. V-1) Another such impact may occur on current street parking due to the possibly insufficient number of .parking spaces provided for the Housing" -(through previous deliberation the Coastal Commission has found that low and moderate income, elderly, .section 8 developments require significantly. less parking.) (p,. IX-'10)11. . . the Coastal guideline recommends two onsite parking spaces per unit (312 spaces.) The latter requirement would not be met with the . proposed parking." (ref. should be made to current Coastal Commission policy or precedents in the case. of .elderly section 8 developments.) (p, XN-4, III-2) "A definite adverse impact of the project has been indents= Pied in relation to the number of on-site parking spaces provided. The Coastal guideline, of two parking spaces per dwelling unit, is not met." (This statement is incorrect. A disparity with Coastal guidelines has been-identi- fied but no information has been offered to suggest that Coastal Commission or city policy of permitting lesser parking ratios for elderly section 8 developments is inadequate) . Project Description (pp. II-1, .Figure II-4 Site Plan) In order to ensure consistency and accuracy we would like to describe the development as a combination of three story residential and three residential stories over bermed,_at grade, enclosed parking. We also suggest that the Site Plan j� which includes a roof plan be substituted for the current Figure I1-4. NIN't g . Proiect's Benefits (pp IV-1, X 11-1) We recommend that somewhere in the EIR there should be an expanded discussion of the project's benefits in- cluding but not limited to a further elaboration on elderly housing needs in Huntington Beach (handicapped,current shelter, expenditures, projections etc.) and the positive social implications of. the development including i but not limited to such things as •decreased demand for public services (ie health, security etc.) associated with increased spending capacity. Project Com sons ( VIII-1 VIII-6, IX-7 XII-5 XII-8 XII-9 XII-1.0) 3 Pgr�` pp• f , The references shown here generally compare the proposed project to "retire- ment communities" or general apartment type developments. These comparisons.. simply do not work. The proposed development includes smaller units re- flecting the needs of the elderly. For instance our current estimates for gas consumption based on similar developments is 1/2 the estimate quoted in the text. Additionally the proposed occupants would be primarily of low and moderate income. This has impact on their ability to own and maintain private transportation, expensive appliances etc. We again recommend that the EIR consultants approach HUD for more specific information related to FHA insured, section 8, elderly developments. 10• Seismicity (p. . VII-6) The recommendation that the buildings be built to withstand ground shaking associated with a possible 6.5 'magnitu.de earthquake needs elaboration. What type of shaking, direction etc. What are the references for this require'- men t. H-6 k f 11 Police (p. XII-13) ° The requirement for a six foot wrought iron fence around the entire peri- meter of the housing area and Senior Citizens Center will not complement the aesthetics or the general living environment of the proposed develop- ment. It is felt that through the use of landscaping lighting and design as well as the development of a "drive through" system for police obser- vation, the security and aesthetic requirements and features of the deve- lopment can be preserved. 12 Gene=al Comments P. XII-5 - use of the word "would" is presumptive and might be changed to j. ' should". P. XII-10 -- reference to trash compactors should be removed. There is a question as to their "mitigation" function. There is also a trade off related to cost and security which casts doubt on the use of trash com- pactors as a mitigation measure. IX-3 - Dial-a-ride service will also be available to the proposed develop- ment. r k f f j i C I H-7 • I �S "I CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH J' INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH - - - - To JAMES R. BARNES From JAMES GEORGES Associate Planner Deputy City Attorney Subject Environmental Impact Report 79-1 ,Date August 16, 1979 Proposed Senior Housing- Facility 13. Reviewed subject EIR and have no legal comments regarding same . My personal opinion regarding. Roman Numeral section and page numbers are an eyestrain. As an afterthought , if the developer has a cost overrun, which is not unlikely, who pays for the costs over $550, 000 . 00 of the Federal Housing and Development Funds? See Section 16 and appendix G. J ieputy GEORGES City Attorney II, JG:lm . F n-^i I : f H-8 i. j Chapter 17 .56 UNIFORM FIRE CODE S ec tions: 17.56.010 Adopted. 17.56.020 Definitions . 17.56.030 Section 2. 107 amended--Right of entry . 17.56.040 Section 2.303 amended--Standards for compliance. 17.56.050 Section 9. 103 amended--Assembly defined. 17.56.060 Section 10.203 amended--Hydrant use approval. 17.56.070 Section 10 .207 amended--Access roadways for fire apparatus . 17.56. 080 Section 10 .208 amended--Premises identification. 17.56.090 Section 10 .307(a) amended--Fire alarm systems required. 17.56.100 Section 10 .309 amended--Automatic sprinkler system. 17.56.110 Section 12 .114 added--Mall use. 17.56.120 Section 25 .106(b) amended--Exit doors . 17. 56.130 Section 45 .204 amended--Dry type overspray collectors (exhaust air filters) . 17956.140 Section 49 .111( c) amended--Fuel gas cylinder storage. 17.56.150 Section 77 .105 amended--Bond required. 17.56.160 Prohibited districts for storage of explosives and blasting agents . 17.56.170 Section 78 .102(a) amended--Fireworks manufacture. 17.56.180 Sections 78.107 , 78. 108 and 78 .109 added-- Fireworks. 17.56.190 Safe and sane fireworks . 17.56.200 Section 79 .104 amended--Flammable/combustible liquid containers . 17.56.210 Section 79 .201 amended--Defines districts where aboveground storage of flammable/combustible liquids is prohibited. 17.56.220 Section 79 .216 added--Underground combustible/ flammable liquid tanks prohibited. 17.56.230 Section 79 .221 amended--Abandonment of tanks. 17.56.240 Section 79 .307 added--Tank piping test. 17.56. 250 Section 79.601--Location of bulk plants limited. 17.56.260 Section 79 .1001(a) amended--Permit required. 17.56.270 Subsections (b) and (e) of section 79 .1002 amended--Oil well drilling. 17.56.280 Section 79 .1012 added--Huntington Beach Oil Code, Title 15. a 500 t 17. 56.010--17 .56 .030 Sect ions: (Continued) 17.56.290 Section 79 .1101 amended--Permits for tank vehicles . 17.56.300 Section 79 .1102 amended--Tank vehicle con- struction. 17.56.310 Section 79 .1201 deleted--Transportation pipe- . lines . 17.56.320 Subsection (a) of section 82.105 defined-- Restricted districts for bulk storage of liquefied petroleum gases. 17.56.330 Appendix F, Marinas, amended'. 17.56.340 Appeals . 17.56.350 New materials, processes or occupancies--. Permits . 17.56.360 Violation--Penalty. 17.56.010 Adopted. There is adopted by the city council for the purpose of prescribing regulations governing conditions hazardous to life and property from fire or explosion, that certain code known as the Uniform Fire Code , compiled by the International Conference of Building Officials and the Western Fire Chiefs Associaions , Inc . , being particularly the 1979 edition thereof and the whole thereof, save and except such por- tions as are hereinafter deleted, modified or amended, of which code not less than three (3) copies have been and are now filed in the office of the clerk of the city and the same, together with Appendices A-I and amendments thereto, are adopted and in- corporated as fully as though set out at length herein, and from the date on which the Uniform Fire Code shall take effect, the provisions thereof shall be controlling within the limits of the city of Huntington Beach and shall hereinafter be referred to in this chapter as the Huntington Beach Fire Code. (Ord . 2430 , 16 Jul 80; Ord. 2188, 6/77; Ord. 1900, 3/74; Ord. 1414, 6/68; Ord . 1131, 4/65) 17.56.020 Definitions . (a) Wherever the word "municipality" is used in the Huntington Beach Fire Code , it shall mean the city of Huntington Beach. (b) Wherever the term "corporation counsel" is used in the Huntington Beach Fire Code, it shall mean the attorney for the city of Huntington Beach. (Ord . 2430 , 16 Jul 80; Ord. 2188, 6/77; Ord. 1414, 6/68; Ord. 1131, 4/65) 17.56.030 Section 2.107 amended--Right of entry. The second paragraph of section 2.107 is amended to read as follows: "Sec. 2.107 . 'Authorized representative' shall include 501 i Y 17.56.040--17 .56 .070 the officers named in sections 2. 104 , 2.105 and 2 .106 of this code and all other fire- department safety personnel." (Ord. 2430, 16 Jul 80) 1 .56.040 Section 2.303 amended--Standards for compliance. Section 2.303 is hereby amended by adding thereto subsection b) to read as follows : "Sec. 2.303(b) More current editions of these publications or supplements thereto may apply if the intent of the listed standard remains unchanged ." (Ord. 2430, 16 Jul 80; Ord. 2188, 6/77; Ord. 1900, 3/74; Ord. 1414, 6/68; Ord. 1311, 4/65) 17.56.050 Section 9.103 amended--Assembly defined. Section 9 .103, defining "Assembly" is hereby amended to read as follows: "Sec. 9 .103 . Assembly building is a building or portion of a building: " (a) Used or intended to be used for the gathering together of fifty (50) or more persons for such purposes as amusement, en- tertainment , instruction, education, deliberation, worship, drinking or dining, or awaiting transportation; and " (b) Any building or structure or portion thereof used to show motion pictures where an admission fee is charged and such building or structure is open to the public and has a capacity of ten ( 10) or more persons. " (Ord. 2430, 16 Jul 80; Ord. 2188, 6/77; Ord. 1900 , 3/74; Ord. 1414, 6/68; Ord. 1131, 4/65) 17.56.060 Section 10 .203 amended--Hydrant use approval. Sec- tion 10.203 is amended to read as follows: "Sec . 10 .203. No person shall use or operate any hydrant or other valve installed on any water system intended for use by the chief for fire suppression purposes and which is accessible to any public highway, alley or private way open to or generally used by the public, unless such person first secures a written permit for such use from the city water department. This section does not apply to the use of a hydrant or other valve by a per- son who is authorized to make such use, employed by the water company which supplies water such hydrant or other valve." (Ord. 2430, 16 Jul 80; Ord. 2188, 6/77; Ord. 1900, 3/74; Ord. 1414, 6/68 ) 17.56.070 Section 10 .207 amended--Access roadways for fire apparatus . Section 10. 207 is amended to read as follows: "Sec. 10 .207. (a) Every building hereafter constructed shall be accessible to fire department apparatus by way of road- 502 "Y f 17.56.080--17.560090 ways which conform to the established standards and specifica- tions of the Huntington Beach fire department. All roadways shall have all-weather driving surfaces constructed to conform to the standards and specifications of the Huntington Beach public works department . "EXCEPTION: When there are not more than two Group R, Division 3 or M occupancies, as defined in the building code, the requirement of this section may be modified when, in the opinion of the chief, fire-fighting or rescue operations would not be impaired. " (b) The required width of access roadways shall not be obstructed in any manner, including parking of vehicles . Ap- proved 'NO PARKING ' signs and/or other appropriate notices pro- hibiting obstructions may be required and shall be maintained to conform to the standards and specifications of the Huntington Beach fire department. " (c) The access roadway shall be extended to within 150 feet travelling distance to all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of any building. Where an access roadway cannot be provided, approved fire protection sytem( s) shall be installed as required and approved by the chief. " (d) Where fire protection systems , approved by the chief, are provided, the above required clearance may be modified. " (e) The chief shall have the authority to require an in- crease in the minimum access widths where such widths are not ade- quate for fire or rescue. operations." (Ord. 2430, 16 Jul 80; Ord. 2188, 6/77 ) 17.56.080 Section 10 .208 amended--Premises identification. Section 10. 208 is amended to read as follows: "Sec. 10 .208. Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Such numbers shall be a minimum of four (4) inches in height with a one-half (1/2) inch brush stroke, and shall be superimposed on a contrasting background." (Ord. 2430, 16 Jul 80) 17.56.090 Section 10 .307(a) amended--Fire alarm systems required . Subsection a of section 10.307 is amended to read as follows: "Sec. 10 .307(a) Every apartment house three (3) stories or more in height, or containing more than fifteen (15) apartments , 503 . 1 17.56.100 and every hotel three (3) stories or more in height , or con- taining twenty (20) or more guest rooms, shall have installed therein an approved automatic or manually-operated fire alarm system designed to warn occupants of the building in the event of fire. Such fire alarm system shall be so designed that all occupants of the building may be warned simultaneously." (Ord. 2430, 16 Jul 80; Ord. 2188, 6/77) 17 .56.100 Section 10 .309 amended--Automatic sprinkler systems. Section 10.309 is amended to read as follows: "Sec. 10 .309(a) GENERAL. Automatic sprinkler systems shall be provided in accordance with the provisions of this section. When an automatic sprinkler system is required by this section and by no other provisions of the Huntington Beach building code, reasonable reduction of other fire protection requirements may be permitted when; in the opinion of the fire chief and building official, the level of protection contemplated in the Huntington Beach building code is substantially maintained. EXCEPTION: four ( 4) hour fire-resistive occupancy separations , with parapets and no openings, may be provided in place of automatic sprinkler systems except as specified herein. " (b) WHERE REQUIRED. Automatic sprinkler systems shall be installed and maintained in operable condition in the following locations, as specified in this section: 111. All occupancies except Group R, Division 3, and Group M: "A. In every story or basement of all build- ings when the floor area exceeds 1500 square feet: and there is not provided at least 20 square feet of opening entirely above the adjoining ground level in each 50 lineal feet or fraction thereof of exterior wall in the story or base- ment on at least one side of the building. Openings shall have a minimum dimension of not less than 30 inches . Such openings shall be accessible to the fire department from the exterior and shall not be obstructed in a manner that fire fighting or rescue cannot be accomplished from the exterior. "When openings in a story are provided on only one side and the opposite wall of such story is more than 75 feet from such openings , the story shall be provided with an approved automatic sprinkler system, or openings , as specified above, shall be provided on at least two ( 2) sides of an exterior wall of the story. "If any portion of a basement is located 504 17.56.100 more than 75 feet from openings required by this section, the basement shall be provided with an approved automatic sprinkler system. "B. At the top of rubbish and linen chutes and their terminal rooms . Chutes extending .through three (3) or more floors shall have additional sprinkler heads installed within such chutes at alternate floors . Sprinkler heads shall be accessible for servicing. "C. All rooms where nitrate film is stored or handled shall be equipped with an approved automatic sprinkler system as specified in U.B.C. Standard No. 48-1. "D. In protected combustible-fiber storage vaults as in section 9 .118 of this code. 112. Group A occupancies: "A. In basements larger than 1500 square feet in floor area . "B. Throughout the building when the gross floor area exceeds 12,000 square feet or has an occupied floor area more than 55 feet above grade or contains more than three (3) stories. "C. In any enclosed usable space below or over a stairway in Group A, Divisions 2, 2.1, 3 and 4 occupancies . "D. Under the roof and gridiron, in the tie and fly galleries and in all places behind the proscenium wall of stages; over enclosed platforms in excess of 500 square feet in area, and in dressing rooms , workshops and storerooms accessory to such stages or enclosed platforms . "EXCEPTIONS : 11 (1) Stages_ or enclosed platforms open to the auditorium room on three ( 3) or more sides. 11 (2) Altars, pulpits or similar plat- forms and their accessory rooms . 11 (3) Stage gridirons when side-wall sprinklers with 135 degree F rated heads with heat-baffle plates are installed around the entire perimeter of the stage at points not more than 30 inches below the gridiron nor more than 6 inches below the. baffle plate. 505 17.56.100 "E. Throughout the occupancy when the gross floor area exceeds 6000 square feet or with an occupant load over one hundred. fifty (150) persons and is used as a drinking or dining establishment. "F. Throughout the building when there is a stage or enclosed platform provided. "G. Throughout the building when a portion of the building above the first floor is used for drinking and/or dining, having an occupant load of fifty (50) or more persons . "H. Throughout .the building when a portion of the building above the first floor is used for any assembly . purpose other than drinking and/or dining, having an occu- pant load of 150 or more persons. "I. Throughout all bowling alleys when the gross floor area is over 6000 square feet. "3. Group E occupancies: "A. In basements larger than 1500 square feet in floor area. "B. In any enclosed usable space below or over stairway. "C. Throughout the building when the gross floor area exceeds 12,000 square feet or has an occupied floor area more than 55 feet above grade or contains more than three (3) stories. 114 . Group I occupancies: "EXCEPTIONS: "A . In hospitals of Types I, II fire-resistive and II one-hour construction, the automatic sprinkler system may be omitted from operating, delivery, cardiac , X-ray and intensive care rooms and patient sleeping rooms not exceeding 450. square feet in area when each such room is provided with smoke detectors con- nected to a continuously attended station or location within the building. Increases for area and height specified in sections 506(c) and 507 shall not apply when this exception is used. "B. In jails, prisons and reformatories , the piping system may be dry, provided a smoke-detector-actuated valve is installed within the water supply to the system. Opening of the valve will cause the piping system to be charged. Sprinkler 506 r 17.56.100 heads in such systems shall be equipped with fusible elements or the system in U.B.C. Standard No. 38-1. "5 . Group H occupancies: "A.. In Group H, Division 1 and 2 occupancies larger . than 1500 square feet in floor area. "B. In Group H, Division 3 occupancies larger than 3000 square feet in floor area. "C. In Group H, Division 4 occupancies when the gross floor area exceeds 12, 000 square feet or is more than one ( 1) story in height. "D. In rooms where flammable or combustible liquids are stored or handled in excess of 30 gallons of Class I-A, 60 gallons of Class I-B, 90 gallons of Class I-C, 120 gallons of Class II, 250 gallons of Class III-A , or any combination of flam- mable liquids totalling 240 gallons . "E. For paint spray booths or rooms and for special provisions on hazardous chemicals and magnesium, and calcium carbide, see section 45.208, Articles 48, 49 and 80. See also section 10.301. 116. Group B, Division 1 and 2 occupancies: "A. Throughout the building when the gross floor area exceeds 12,000 square feet or has an occupied floor area more than 55 feet above grade or contains more than three (3) stories. "B. In buildings used for high-piled combustible storage, fire protection shall be in accordance with Article 81 . "7 . Group B, Division 3 occupancies: "Throughout the building when the gross floor area exceeds 6000 square feet below grade or does not qualify as open parking. 118 . Group R, Division 1 occupancies: "A. Throughout the building where the gross floor area exceeds 12,000 gross square feet or has an occupied floor area more than 55 feet above grade or contains more than three (3) stories or when the total number of units in the building exceeds fifty (50) . EXCEPTION: two (2) hour fire-resistive occupancy separations , as described in the Huntington Beach building code, f 507 r 17.56. 100 may be provided in place of automatic sprinkler systems . In ad- dition, when automatic sprinkler systems are not provided, four (4) hour fire-resistive occupancy separations, with parapets and no openings , shall be provided in every forty-eight thousand ( 48 ,000) square feet of gross floor area. " (c) ALARMS. When serving more than one hundred (100) sprinklers, automatic sp.rinkler systems shall be supervised by an approved central, proprietary or remote station service or a local alarm which will give an audible signal at a constantly attended location. " (d) PERMISSIBLE OMISSIONS . Subject to the approval of the building official with the concurrence of the chief of the fire department, sprinklers may be omitted in rooms or areas as fol- lows 111 . Where sprinklers are considered undesirable be- cause- of the nature of the contents or in rooms or areas which are of noncombustible construction with wholly noncombustible contents and which are not exposed by other areas. Sprinklers shall not be omitted from any room merely because it is damp or of fire-resistive construction. 112. Sprinklers shall not be installed where the ap- plication of water or flame and water to the contents may con- stitute a serious life or fire hazard as in the manufacture or storage of quantities of aluminum powder, calcium carbide, calcium phosphide, metallic sodium and potassium, quicklime, magnesium powder, and sodium peroxide. "3 . Safe deposit or other vaults of fire-resistive con- struction, when used for the storage of records, files and other documents, when stored in metal cabinets . 114 . Communication equipment areas under the exclu- sive control of a public communication utility agency, provided: "A. The equipment areas are separated from the remainder of the building by one-hour-fire-resistive occu- pancy separation; and "B. Such areas are used exclusively for such equipment; and "C. An approved automatic smoke detection system is installed in such areas and is supervised by an approved central, proprietary or remote station service, or a local alarm which will give an audible signal at a constantly 508 t 17.56.110--17.56 .150 attended location; and "D. Other approved fire protection equipment such as portable fire extinguishers or Class II standpipes , is installed in such areas . "5 . Other approved automatic fire-extinguishing systems shall be installed to provide safeguards for .special hazards or occupancies when automatic sprinklers are omitted. " (Ord. 2430, 16 Jul 80) 17.56.110 Section 12 .114 added--Mall use . The Huntington Beach Fire Code is amended by adding section 12.114 to read as follows: "Sec. 12 .114. When malls in shopping centers are used for purposes other than a means of ingress and egress to the stores located in such centers such as places to display mer- chandise, to put on various types of entertainment, or any ac- tivity which attracts audiences , Articles 12 and 25 of this code shall apply." (Ord. 2430, 16 Jul 80; Ord. 2188, 6/77; Ord. 1900, 3/74 ; Ord . 1414,. 6/68; Ord. 1131 , 4/65) 1 .56.120 Section 25 .106(b) amended--Exit doors . Sub- section b of section 25-106 is hereby amended by deleting the "Exception." (Ord . 2430, 16 Jul 80) 1 .56.130 Section 45 .204 amended--Dry type overs ra collectors exhaust air filters . Section 45. 204 is hereby amended by adding thereto subsection ( i) to read as follows: "Sec. 45.204( 1) When. alternative methods of protection, as approved by the chief, are provided, the above may be modi- fied or waived." (Ord. 2430, 16 Jul 80; Ord. 2188, 6/77) 1 .56.140 Section 49 .111(c) amended--Fuel gas cylinder storage. Subsection c of section 49 .111 is hereby amended to read as follows: "Sec. 49.111( c) The storage of fuel gas cylinders in such rooms shall not exceed a total capacity of two thousand (2000) cubic feet of gas, or total water capacity of 735 pounds of methylacetylene propadiene stabilized." (Ord. 2430, 16 Jul 80; Ord. 2188, 6/77; Ord. 1900, 3/74) 17.56.150 Section 77 .105 amended--Bond required. Section 77.105 is amended to read as follows: "Sec. 77.105 . Before a permit is issued to use explosives 509 17. 56. 160--17.56 .170 or blasting agents, pursuant to section 77. 104(a)3, the appli- cant shall file with the city a corporate surety bond in the principal sum of one million dollars ( $1, 000,000) , or a public liability insurance policy for the same amount for the purpose of paying for all damage to persons or property which arise from, or are caused by, the conduct or any act authorized by the per- mit . The chief may specify a greater or lesser amount when, in his opinion, conditions at the location of use indicate a greater or lesser amount is. required. "The applicant, pursuant to requirements adopted by resolu- tion of the city council, agrees that the city of Huntington Beach city council , and/or all city council-appointed groups, committees, commissions , boards and any other city council,- appointed body, and/or elective and appointive officers , servants or employees of the city of Huntington Beach when acting as such, shall be additional insureds thereunder. "The applicant shall provide the city with a certificate of insurance containing the above additional insured endorse- went and the hold harmless agreement hereinafter mentioned. "The applicant shall agree to protect, defend, indemnify and save harmless the city of Huntington Beach against loss, damage or expense by reason of any suits, claims , demands, judg- ments and causes of action caused by the applicant, his employees, agents or any subcontractor, arising out of or in consequence of the performance of all or any operations covered by the certifi- cate of insurance, and such insurance shall be primary to any insurance of the city. "Public agencies shall be exempt from the foregoing bond requirement." (Ord. 2430, 16 Jul 80; Ord. 2188, 6/77; Ord. 1900, 3/74; Ord. 1414, 6/68; Ord. 1131 , 4/65) 17 .56.160 Prohibited districts for storage of explosives and blasting agents . The limits referred to in section 77.10 (b) of the Huntington Beach Fire Code prohibiting the storage of explosives and blasting agents , are established for all zones within the city except the M2 or heavy industrial district. (Ord. 2430, 16 Jul 80; Ord. 2188, 6/77; Ord. 1900, 3/74; Ord. 1414, 6/68) 17 .56.170 Section 78 .102(a) amended--Fireworks manufacture. Subsection a of section 76 .102 is hereby amended to read as follows: "Sec. 78.102(a) The manufacture of fireworks within the city is prohibited." (Ord . 2430 , 16 Jul 80; Ord. 2188 , 6/77; 510 I 17.56. 180 Ord . 1900, 3/74 ; Ord . 1414 , 6/68; Ord. 1131 , 4/65) 17.56.180 Sections 78.107 , 78 .108 and 78 .109 added--Fireworks. Sections 7 .107, 7 -10d and 78.109 are hereby added to the fire code: "Sec. 78.107. Permitted use of safe and sane fireworks. Nothing in this article shall prohibit the use of fireworks classi- fied and registered by the California state fire marshal as ' safe and sane, ' or ' consumer fireworks' for religious or pa- triotic celebrations if such use is under the direct supervision of a pyrotechnic operator, licensed by the state of California in accordance with Division 1. Part 2, Chapter 5 of the Health and Safety Code." "Sec. 78.108. Temporary retail sales of fireworks . It .shall be unlawful for any person to offer for sale any fireworks within the city without first obtaining a permit from the fire chief or his authorized representative. Application for and is- suance of the permit shall be governed by the following regula- tions: 11 (1) Eligibility. Fireworks permits shall be issued only to such applicants who meet the following qualifications: " (a) A nonprofit corporation or association, organized and existing primarily for youth, veterans, patriotic , religious , charitable, civic betterment or community service purposes , using one of the following criteria to establish the nonprofit chari- table or religious status: 1) copy of articles of incorporation as a nonprofit charitable or religious organization from the secretary of state; 2) letter from the Internal Revenue Service showing organization to be tax exempt (Federal) ; 3) letter from the state franchise tax board showing organization to be tax ex- empt ( California) ; 4) proof of registration with California state registry of charitable trusts as a charitable organization; and 5 ) statement of accountability with respect to how funds collected are dispersed as to charity and as to overhead and expenses. "(b) Said corporation or association has its princi- pal and permanent meeting place in the city of Huntington Beach, and has been organized and established in said city for a period of at least one (1) year prior to the date of application. " (c) If a dispute or question arises relative to the nonprofit charitable or religious status of any organization, the applicant may appeal to the fire chief whose decision shall be final . 11 (2) Number of stands. A permit for only one ( 1) fireworks 511 1 17.56.180 stand will be issued to any one organization, including its af- filiated organizations. " (3) Prior rights to locations . Any applicant having had a fireworks stand the previous year shall have a prior right to the same site location. "If a dispute arises between applicants concerning locations of stands, the matter may be referred to the fire chief for his decision, and such decision shall be final. 11 (4) Location approval . In no instance shall a permit be issued for a fireworks stand in the following locations: " (a) Within three-fourths mile of any other tem- porary stand (measured over the nearest surface streets) ; " (b) On the ocean side of Pacific Coast Highway; "( c) Within the boundaries of any principal busi- ness district . " (5) Application for permit . (a) Applications may be obtained at the fire department administrative offices on or after the first day of January. "(b) Applications shall be submitted to the fire department on or before the first day of May or the first work- ing day thereafter of the calendar year for which the permit is sought. All sections of the permit application shall be com- pleted. 11 (6) Permits . Permits shall be issued by the fire chief or his appointed representative. Any permit issued shall be valid only for the site location for which it is issued. Per- mits shall not be transferable, assignable or renewable, and shall be valid only for the dates specified in the permit. " (7) Fees . An application fee in the sum of fifteen dollars ($15 Tshall be paid by the applicant. A service fee shall be paid in the sum of ten dollars ( $10) to cover the cost of inspections and processing. These fees shall be paid at the time the application is submitted. 11 (8) Cash bond. At the time of application, the permittee must post a cash bond in the sum of one hundred dollars ($100 ) with the city. If the permittee fails to remove his stand, equipment and rubbish from the premises before the 8th day of July of the year for which the permit is granted, twenty-five dollars ($25) of said bond shall be forfeited to the city. If the permittee fails to remove his stand, equipment and rubbish 511-1 r 17. 56. 180 from the premises before the 12th day of July of the year for which the permit is granted, the full amount of such bond shall be forfeited to the city. 11 (9 ) Public liability and property damage insurance. Prior to the issuance of any permit and the erection of any stand, the permittee shall procure public liability and property damage in- surance covering its operation in and about said stand and prem- ises in a minimum amount of one million dollars ($1 ,000,000) in the aggregate for combined single limit bodily injury and/or property damage, including products liability. Such public liability insurance policy shall name the city as an additional insured, and shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the city, its officers and employees against all claims arising out of or in connection with the activity for which the permit was obtained. 11(10) Vacant or new location sites--Drawing procedure . Ap- plicants for vacated or new sites shall be selected in the fol- lowing manner: " (a) Permit and permit application procedures shall be the same as described in subsections (5) and (6) of this section. " (b) The fire department shall hold a drawing on the 15th day of May,. or the first working day thereafter of each year for the purpose of awarding vacant or new fireworks stand locations to eligible applicants . Applicants shall indicate an order of preference of the sites available rather than a spe- cific site. "( c) The applicant or representative of applicant shall be present at said drawing. The applicant shall provide proof that he is a bona fide member of the applicant organization and shall represent one organization only. " (d) Permits for vacant or new fireworks stand sites shall be awarded to eligible applicants at the time of drawing, and such awards shall be final. A permit issued to the appli- cant for the site awarded shall be the only permit issued on that site for the calendar year, and no other applicant organi- zation may use said site. " (e) Should any dispute or question arise relative to the application, permit , drawing, operation or any other as- pect of the fireworks stands , such matter shall be referred to the fire chief whose decision shall be final." "Sec. 78.109. Regulations for the operation of fireworks stands. All temporary fireworks stands shall be located, operated 511-2 17. 56.180 and maintained according to the conditions as set forth by state and local codes and those requirements imposed by the fire chief. Violation of any state or local regulation, including those listed herein, shall be grounds for the immediate revocation of the operator' s permit by the fire chief or his authorized representa- tive. 11 (1) Temporary stands shall not be erected prior to mid- night of June 14th. No stand shall remain on the property later than midnight , July 7th, without incurring a penalty. 11 (2 ) All temporary stands shall be constructed in accord- ance with existing city building regulations , including the fol- lowing: " (a) Temporary stands shall be constructed of ma- terials equal to 28 gauge sheet metal or 3/8 inch exterior plywood. "(b) Each stand shall have a roof . Up to three - ( 3) sides may be covered with one-half ( 1/2 ) inch wire mesh. "(c) Service openings shall be covered with one- half ( 1/2) inch hardware cloth or its equivalent. "(d) Exit and locking devices . Each stand erected shall have no less than two 2 exits . Each exit shall be so placed as to provide immediate egress from either end of the stand. Exit doors shall only be locked in such manner as to be readily opened from the interior without requiring special know- ledge, effort , or tools, including keys . The exits shall be not less than thirty ( 30) inches in width and an aisle maintained thereto not less than thirty (30) inches wide. " (3) No fireworks display or stand shall be erected within one hundred (100) feet of any gasoline service station or any garage, or within thirty-five (35 ) feet of any other structure. Minimum setback from the street curbing shall be ten (10) feet or more, as required by the fire prevention division, which shall mark the placing of the nearest part of stand to curb. I' M Fireworks shall not be sold from existing businesses or buildings but only from temporary fireworks stands which com- ply with these regulations . " (5) Retail sale of fireworks is permitted from July 1 through July 4 between the hours of 9 a.m. to 10 p .m. daily. No fireworks shall be sold on any other dates or during any 511-3 t ' 17.56.180 hours other than those specified herein. 11 (6) Fireworks shall be stored and kept only in the per- mittee' s sales stand. It shall be unlawful to store any fire- works in any building, residence, garage, home or automobile within the city of Huntington Beach. " (7) The authorization to engage in the particular act or acts conferred by a permit to a person shall extend to sales- men or other employees of such person who is registered with the state fire marshal. The sales personnel and other employees of permittees , however, need not be registered with the state fire marshal. No person under the age of eighteen (18) shall be permitted inside a fireworks stand or be permitted to sell or handle for sale any classification of fireworks . 11 (8) Stands shall not be stocked with fireworks until all conditions of the applicable codes are complied with. The fire department permit is the only permit issued prior to the opening of a stand. To obtain an inspection, the fire department must be called twenty-four hours in advance . 11 (9) No fireworks shall be sold or offered for sale in the city which are classified as 'dangerous fireworks ' as that term is defined by the Health and Safety Code of the state of California, nor shall any person be permitted to sell fireworks in the city without first having obtained a fireworks retail license from the state fire marshal, as required under the laws of the state of California. 11 (10) There shall be at least one (1) person, age eighteen ( 18) or over, in attendance in each stand during the specified sales hours for fireworks . 11 (11) Stands that 'operate at or after dusk shall provide a sufficient number of battery-powered 'safari ' lights, or the equivalent, to light the area adequately for safe visibility. 11 (12) No are or kleig light or any type of open flame de- vice shall be located within seventy-five (75) feet of any fire- works stand. " (13) The permittee shall provide at least one (1) person, age eighteen (18) or over, as night watchman for security pur- poses during the hours of storage. Under no circumstances shall the night watchman sleep in the fireworks stand. Trailers , campers, tents or similar equipment used by night watchmen for sleeping or similar uses shall not be parked within twenty-five (25) feet of the fireworks stand. 511-4 17.56.180 " (14) There shall be placed adjacent to all fireworks stands metal trash containers with metal lids of sufficient size and number to accommodate trash generated by the sale of fireworks . " (15) Phosphorous matches or similar igniting devices shall not. be permitted in fireworks stands and shall not be sold by the permittee or his authorized salespersons. 11 (16) The fireworks stand and an area of fifty (50) feet therefrom shall be maintained free of accumulation of trash and. debris and standing dry vegetation. " (17) No alcoholic beverages shall be allowed on the premises . 11 (18) There shall be maintained in each stand from which fireworks are sold or offered for sale, suitable fire extinguishers of a type and number approved by the fire chief. 11 (19) No person shall light , or cause or permit to be lighted, any fireworks or any other flammable or combustible article or material within any fireworks stand, or within fifty ( 50 ) feet thereof . 11 (20) No smoking shall be allowed in any structure used for the sale and display of fireworks or within fifty (50) feet of said structure. 'No smoking' signs shall be prominently dis- played in a number prescribed by the fire chief. 11 (21) No signs or lights shall be erected or maintained in connection with a fireworks stand which -create a traffic hazard. 11 (22) Gasoline-driven generators used for the purpose of supplying electrical power to trailers , campers or similar quar- ters for night watchmen, shall not be placed within twenty-five ( 25) feet of the fireworks stand. 11 (23) Flammable or combustible liquids shall not be per- mitted within twenty-five (25) feet of any fireworks stand. A maximum of one (1) gallon, in an approved safety container, may be allowed in an approved area. Gasoline-driven generators shall not be refueled while in operation. The storage and handling of flammable and combustible liquids shall be in a safe manner. 11 (24) A copy of these regulations and all required permits shall be posted in a conspicuous location within the fireworks stand." (Ord. 2430 , 16 Jul 80 ; Ord. 2188 , 6/77; Ord. 2121 , 12/76; Ord. 1900, 3/74; Ord. 1884, 12/73; Ord. 1499 , 5/69; Ord. 1414 6/68; Ord . 1131 , 4/65; Ord. 458, 6/42; Ord. 413, 511-5 17.56. 190 5/38; Ord. 105, 5/13) 17.56.190 Safe and sane fireworks . (a) Every person, agent or employee thereof, engaged in the business of the sale or dis- position of safe and sane fireworks, who sells , furnishes , gives or causes to be sold, furnished or given away any safe and sane fireworks to any person under the age of eighteen (18) years whether or not the person engaged in said business has knowledge that the person sold to furnished or given such fireworks is under the age of eighteen (18� years, is guilty of an infraction. (b) Any person under the age of eighteen ( 18) years who purchases any safe and sane fireworks is guilty of an infraction. ( c) Any person under the age of eighteen (18) years who dis- charges any safe and sane fireworks within the city boundaries except under the direct supervision and in the presence of a 'person who is age eighteen (18) years or over, is guilty of an infraction. (d) For the purpose of preventing a violation of subsection (a) hereof, any person, agent or employee thereof, engaged in the business of the sale or disposition of safe and sane fireworks , may refuse to sell, furnish or give away any safe and sane fire- works to any person who fails to produce adequate written evi- dence that he or she is eighteen (18) years of age or older. Such written evidence may include, but is not limited to, a motor vehicle operator' s license . Proof that the person, agent or employee thereof, engaged in the sale or disposition Of safe and sane fireworks , demanded, was shown and acted in re- liance upon adequate written evidence of proof of age eighteen (18) or over, shall be a defense to any criminal prosecution under this section. ( e) The term "safe and sane fireworks" is expressly de- fined in the .California Health and Safety Code . (f) An infraction committed by a violation of this section shall, upon a conviction thereof, be punishable for each con- viction by a fine not to exceed one hundred dollars ( $100) . (g) In the event of a conviction, plea of guilty or nolo contendere of any person, agent or employee thereof, under sub- section (a) of this section, of any sponsoring organization from whose fireworks stand said illegal sale was made shall not re- ceive a permit to sell fireworks the following year. (Ord. 2430, 16 Jul 80; Ord. 2188, 6/77; Ord. 2121, 12/76; Ord. 1900 , 3/74; 511-6 i r i 17.56.200--17.56._230 Ord . 18842 12/73; Ord. 1499 5/69; Ord. 1414, 6/68; Ord . 1131 , 4/65; Ord. 458, 6/42 ; Ord . 413, 5/38; Ord . 105 , 5/13) izl; 56.200 Section .104 amended--Flammable/combustible liqui ontainers . Section 79. 104 is amended by adding the following: "No person or firm shall .give, sell or offer for sale any container for the use, storage or handling of a flammable or combustible liquid unless such container is of an approved type." (Ord. 2430, 1 Jul 80; Ord. 2188, 6/77) 17.56.210 Section 79 .201 amended--Defines districts where aboveground storage of flammable combustible liquids ispro- hibited. Subsection a of section 79.201 is hereby amended by adding the following: "Sec . 79.201 (a) The limits referred to herein in which storage of Class I and II liquids in outside, aboveground tanks is prohibited are hereby established for all commercial land use districts as defined in the Huntington Beach Municipal Code, except for those properties zoned for oil production." (Ord. 2430, 16 Jul 80; Ord. 2188, 6/77; Ord. 1900, 3/74; Ord . 1414, 6/68; Ord . 1131, 4/65) 1 .56.220 Section 79 .216 added--Underground combustible/ .flammable liquid tanks prohibited . Section .79 .216 is added to read as follows: "Sec. 79.216. The installation of underground combustible/ flammable liquid tanks is hereby prohibited in all residential districts . The fire chief may authorize the installation of underground combustible/flammable liquid tanks in agricultural districts ." (Ord. 2430, 16 Jul 80) 17 .56.230 Section 7_9 .221 amended--Abandonment of tanks. The title of section 79 .221 is hereby amended to read "Abandon- ment or Removal of Tanks ." Section 79.221 is further amended by adding subsection (h) to read as follows: "Sec. 79.221(h) Prior to removing any underground tank, all flammable or combustible liquids shall be removed from the tank and from connecting lines . The suction, inlet, gage and vent lines shall be disconnected. Sections of connecting lines which are no longer to be used shall be removed. Inlets , out- lets and leaks, if any, shall be capped or plugged. "After removal, the tank may be freed of gas on the premises 512 17.56.240--17.56 .280 if it can be done safely at that location. If not, the tank shall be transported to An area not accessible to the public and the gas freed at that location. Removal of the gas shall be ac- complished by using ten (10) pounds of solidified carbon dioxide ( dry ice) for each one thousand ( 1000). gallons of tank capacity. Alternative measures may be used with the approval of -the fire chief." (Ord . 2430, 16 Jul 80) 17.56.240 Section 79 .307 added--Tank piping test. Sec- tion 79.307 is added to read as follows: "Sec. 79.307 After completion of the installation, the system shall be tested as provided in section 79 .215. " (Ord. 2430, 16 Jul 80; Ord. 2188, 6/77; Ord. 1900, 3/74) 1 .56.250 Section 79 .601--Location of bulk plants limited. Section 79.601 is amended by adding the following: "Sec . 79.601 . No new bulk plant shall be constructed within the limits established by law as limits of the districts in which such plants are prohibited. The limits of prohibition referred to herein for. new bulk plants for flammable or combustible liquids shall apply to all districts within the city except M2 or heavy industrial districts ." (Ord. 2430, 16 Jul 80) 1 .56.260 Section 9 .1001 (a) amended--Permit required. Sub- section a of section 79.1001 is amended to read as follows: "Sec. 79 .1001 (a) No person shall drill , own, operate or maintain an oil well without a permit from the fire department." (Ord. 2430, 16 Jul 80; Ord. 21883, 6/77) 17.56.270 Subsections (b) and (e) of section 79 .1002 amended--Oil well drills . Subsections b and a of section 7-97-16-02 are amended to read as follows: "Sec. 79.1002(b) No oil well shall be drilled within twenty-five (25) feet of any dedicated public street, highway or nearest rail of a railway being used as such. "Sec. 79.1002(e) The distances set out in subsections (a) , ( b) , (c) and (d) of this section, in the discretion of the chief, may be reduced if a six (6) foot masonry wall is constructed around the perimeter of the drilling site . A single opening not more than twenty (20) feet wide to the enclosed area may be allowed." (Ord. 2430, 16 Jul 80; Ord . 2188, 6/77) 17.56.280 Section 79 .1012 added--Huntington Beach Oil Code, Title 15 . Section 79 .1012 is added to read as follows: 513 17.56.290--17.56.330 "Sec . 79 .1012 . The Huntington- Beach Oil Code, Title 15, is referenced by this code and hereby declared to be a part. of this code as if set forth in full herein." (Ord . 2430, 16 Jul 80) 17.56.290 Section 79 .1101 amended--Permits for tank ve- hicles . Section 79 .1101 is amended to read as follows: "Sec . 79 .1101 . A tank vehicle shall not be operated without a valid certificate of compliance label from the state fire mar- shal.". (Ord. 2430, 16 Jul 80; Ord. 2188, 6/77; Ord. 1900, 3/74) 17.56.300 Section 79 .1102 amended--Tank vehicle con- struction. Section 79.1102 is amended to read as follows: ".Sec. 79 .1102. Tank vehicles shall be designed, constructed, equipped and maintained in accordance with the California Administrative Code, Title 19, Public Safety Chapter 1, Sub- chapter 11 and the Uniform Fire Code Standard No. 79-4." (Ord. 2430, 16 Jul 80; Ord. 2188, 6/77; Ord. 1900, 3/74) 1 .56.310 Section 79 .1201 deleted--Transportation pipelines. Section 79.1201 is hereby deleted from this code. Ord. 2430, 16 Jul 80) 17.56.320 Subsection (a) of section 82.105 defined--Re- stricted districts for bulk storage of liquefied petroleum gases . Subsection a of section 2 .105 is amended by adding the fol- lowing for the purpose of definition: "Sec. 82 .105(a) Bulk storage of liquefied petroleum gases shall not be permitted in the city other than in M2 or heavy industrial districts ." (Ord . 2430, 16 Jul 80; Ord . 2188 , 6/77; Ord . 1900, 3/74; Ord . 1414, 6/68; Ord. 1131 , 4/65) 17.56.330 Appendix F , Marinas , amended. Sections 4 and 5 are hereby amended and section 9 added to read as follows: 114. FIRE-PROTECTION EQUIPMENT. All piers, wharves , floats with facilities for mooring or servicing five (5 ) or more ves- sels, and marine service stations shall be equipped with fire- protection equipment as follows: " (a) A wet standpipe system shall be installed on all docks , piers, wharves , or marine service stations that exceed one hundred (100) feet in length or are otherwise inaccessible from city fire hydrants . The wet standpipe system shall be capable of delivering 250 gallons per minute at a residual pressure of 50 psi at the outlet. The outlet shall be a 2 1/2 inch national 514 17 .56.340--17 .56 .36o standard thread with an approved gate valve . Outlets shall be spaced at two hundred (200) foot intervals , in approved loca- tions , preferably at point of public access . Outlets shall be installed so that they are readily visible, unobstructed and readily discernible as a piece of firefighting equipment. " (b) Piers and wharves shall be provided with fire apparatus access roads and water supply systems with on-site fire hydrants as may be required by the chief . Such roads and water systems shall conform to Article 10 of this code." "5. PORTABLE FIRE-PROTECTION EQUIPMENT. A 4A , 40-BC fire extinguisher shall be located every 150 feet along the dock. The fire extinguisher shall be located in 'a standard fire extinguisher cabinet with a breakable glass front. The cabinet shall have placards on both sides with the words 'FIRE EXTINGUIS HER' - and either have an additional placard on the front or shall be easily recognized from the front as a fire extinguisher cabinet." 119 . PLANS . Two (2) sets of plans must be submitted to the fire department indicating: (a) the dock layout; (b) the loca- tion of wet standpipe outlets , accompanied by pipe schedules and hydraulic calculations; and (c) location of fire extinguisher cabinets ." (Ord. 2430 , 16 Jul 80; Ord. 2188 , 6/77) 17.56.340 Appeals . Whenever the chief of the fire depart- ment shall disapprove an application or refuse to grant a permit applied for, or when it is claimed that the provisions of this code do not apply, or that the true intent and meaning of this code has been misconstrued or wrongly interpreted, the appli- cant or permittee may appeal from the decision of the chief of the fire department to the Huntington Beach appeals board within thirty (30) days from the date of the decision appealed. (Ord. 2430, 16 Jul 80; Ord. 2188, 6/77; Ord. 1900, 3/74: Ord. 1414, 6/68) 17 .56.350 New materials, processes or occupancies--Permits. The c ty administrator, the chief of the fire department, and the chief of the fire prevention division shall act as a committee to determine and specify, after giving affected persons an oppor- tunity to be heard, any new materials, processes or occupancies which shall require permits in .addition to those now enumerated in this code. The chief of the fire prevention division shall post such list in a conspicuous place in his office, and distri- bute copies to interested persons . (Ord. 2430, 16 Jul 80; Ord. 2188, 6/77; Ord. 1900 , 3/74; Ord. 1414, 6/68) 17.56.360 Violation--Penalty. Any person who violates any provisions of this code or who violates or fails to comply with 515 17.60.010 any order made hereunder, or who builds in violation of any de- tailed statement of specifications or plans submitted and approved hereunder or who violates any certificate or permit issued here- under, and from which no appeal has been taken, or .who fails to comply with such order as affirmed or modified by the Huntington Beach board of appeals or by a court of competent Jurisdiction, within the time fixed herein, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. The imposition of one penalty for any violation shall not excuse the violation or permit it to continue; and all such persons shall be required to correct or remedy such violations or de- _ fects within a reasonable time; and when not otherwise specified, each ten (10) days that prohibited conditions are maintained shall constitute a separate offense. (Ord. 2430, 16 Jul 80; Ord . 2188, 6/77 ; Ord. 1900, 3/74; Ord. 1414 , 6/68) Chapter 17.60 SOLAR ENERGY CODE S ec tions: 17.60.010 Adoption. 17.60.020 Title . 17. 60.030 Permit--Issuance. 17.60.040 Permit issuance exceptions. 17.60.010 Adoption. There is hereby adopted by the city council of the city of Huntington Beach that certain code known as the Uniform Solar Energy Code, compiled by the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials , being particu- larly the 1979 edition thereof and the whole thereof, excluding the Appendix, of which code not less than three (3) copies have been and now are on file in the office of the city clerk. Such code, and amendments thereto, is hereby adopted and incorporated pursuant to sections 50022.2 et seq. of the California Government Code, as fully as though set out at length herein, for the pur- pose of protecting public health and safety by prescribing mini- mum standards for the use, design and installation of solar energy systems; by requiring a permit and inspection for instal- lation, alteration and replacement of said equipment; by providing for administration and enforcement of such requirements; and prescribing penalties for violations thereof. From the date on which this chapter takes effect, the provisions thereof shall be controlling within the corporate limits of the city of Huntington Beach. (Ord . 2431, 16 Jul 80; Ord. 2178 , 4/77) 516 17. 60.020--17 .60 .040 17.60 .020 Title . This chapter shall be known as the "Huntington Beach Solar Energy Code," may be cited as such, and will be referred to herein as "this code. " (Ord. 2431, 16 Jul 80; Ord. 2178 , 4/77) 17.60.030 Permit--Issuance. No permit to do or cause to be done any work regulated by this code shall be issued to any person other than a person holding a valid contractor' s license as provided in Chapter 9 of the California Business and Professions Code. (Ord . 2431, 16 Jul 80 ; Ord. 2178 , 4/77) 17.60.040 Permit issuance exceptions. (a) Any permit required by this code may be issued to any person to do work regulated by this code in a single-family dwelling used exclu- sively for living purposes , including the usual accessory buildings and quarters in connection with such buildings , pro- vided such person is the bona fide owner of such dwelling and accessory buildings, that the same is occupied by said owner, and that said owner shall purchase all material and shall not hire anyone in violation of the workers' compensation laws of the state of California . (b) Any permit required by this code may be issued to an owner of property, building or improving structures thereon or appurtenances thereto, who does such work himself or through his regular employees with wages as their sole compensation. (Ord. 2431, 16 Jul 80; Ord. 2178, 4/77) Chapter 17.64 UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITIES Sections : 17 .64.010 Definitions. 17 .64.020 Underground utilities coordinating committee established. 17. 64. 030 Duties. 17.64.040 Planning commission review. 17. 64.050 Underground public utilities facilities. 17.64.060 Overhead installation. 17. 64.070 Conversion of overhead utilities . 17.64.080 Underground trenches. 17. 64.090 Public hearing by council. 17. 64.100 Council may designate underground utility dis- tricts by resolution . 17. 64.110 Unlawful to erect or maintain overhead utilities within district. 517